UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Admin on April 03, 2013, 11:46:37 AM
-
Report and Time-line taken from official police files
This report is based on a time line (resulting from the depositions made to the Polícia Judiciária and the “Control Risk” by five elements of the G9, the manager of the clients support Service of Mark Warner’s and by other witnesses, having a text been performed by the British analyst) and several Communications chronograms, both elaborated and sent by the Analysis Sector of the British Police that, within the police cooperation act, was in Portugal.
All the elements were analyzed and checked by this BCAI, where only one or another discrepancy was detected (between the 1st and 2nd statements of some elements of the G9)
HISTORIC
On May, 28th , 2007, coming from the Uk, arrived at the Ocean Club on Praia da Luz – Lagos, four british couples and the mother of one feminine element of those.
The travelling and the staying of the group was organized in the Uk through the Mark Warner’s Agency, the same that on the previous year had organized a travel to Greece.
The returning should occur on May the 5th.
Every couple had children with ages below 4.
COMPOSITION OF THE GROUP:
Gerald McCann + Kate Healy = Madeleine (4 y.o.) and the twins Sean and Amelie (2 y.o.)
Russel O’Brien + Jane Tanner = E**a (3 y.o.) and E**e (1 y.o.)
Mathew Oldfield + Rachael Mampilly = G***e (?)
David Payne + Fiona Payne + (Dianne Webster) = Scarlett (1 y.o.) and Lilly (3 y.o. )
INFORMATION
The Place:
The apartment of the McCann at the Ocean Club is situated on the ground floor, on the East side of the building and can be accessed:
Through the front door, the same where it is situated the window of Madeleine and the twin’s bedroom (photos on pag 12)
Through the two glass doors, in the living room and another in the bedroom of the couple, on the opposite side of the apartment, doors that lead to a veranda, that can be accessed by a step of stairs through a small gate, coming from the lateral street. NOTE: this last access was the one most used for being closer to the restaurant.
The living room door used to remain closed but not locked, in order to be opened from the exterior.
Routines:
In a general manner the days passed at the Ocean Club by this group of friends and their sons obeyed to the following routine:
The children had their breakfast with the parents;
Once the meal was finished, they were taken to the local mini-clubs where they developed the recreational activities according to their ages;
At lunch time they returned to the parents company, at the end of which they returned to the same clubs;
During the morning and on the afternoons after leaving the children at the Kid Clubs, the parents involved into several recreational activities, namely tennis, jogging, reading, etc.;
At around 18:00h the parents went to fetch the children;
Between 19:30/20:00h, after the bath and dinner, they put them to bed/sleep;
Except on the first day, this group of friends dined at the tapas, close to the pool of the Ocean Club, where they reserved a table for nine persons;
The dinner started at around 20:30h/21:00h and prolonged until 24:00h;
By the inexistence or lack of knowledge of the parents about a supervising service for children ove the period of the dinner, they took turns on supervising going to the apartments every half an hour, aproximately;
This supervising was developed either by the parents or by the other, in this last case, just passing by the windows of the rooms and listening if there were cries;
-
THE DEPOSITIONS/DECLARATIONS
On the night of May 3, at 20:30h, the McCann were the first to arrive at the “Tapas” restaurant. The other elements of the group kept arriving until 21:00h.
At 21:00h Mathew went to see his daughter. He listened close to rooms of the rest of the children and everything was calm.
At 21:05H/21:10H Gerald went to check his children. He entered through the sliding door and found it strange that the children’s bedroom door was slightly more opened than when they went out. But he assumed that Madeleine had gotten up and gone back to bed.
He saw that Madeleine and the twins were in their beds, quiet.
He went to the bathroom and got out through the sliding doors. On the street, close to the gate, he met Jez, known from the tennis, with whom he spoke for 3 to 5 minutes.
At that moment (21:15h) coming from the restaurant to check her children, Jane passed by them.
She says that at that moment she saw, up the street, on the perpendicular, at about 10 meters, a man crossing carrying a child (see map and photo pags 50/51).
The child was on pajamas and without shoes, but she only found strange the fact that she wasn’t covered.
Only later, after learning about the colors of the pajamas, Jane concluded that the child she says she saw held by the man could be Madeleine.
She didn’t notice if the shutters of Madeleine’s bedroom window were up or down.
Neither Gerald nor Jez noticed Jane’s passage, nor did they see the man carrying the child.
At 21:30h Mathew got out of the “Tapas” to go check his children. He told Kate that he would control her children also.
He entered 5A by the living room sliding door.
He found that in Madeleine’s room, where the twins were also staying, there was more light than normal, it seemed that the shutters were lifted.
He didn’t take notice and just looked into the room through the semi opened door.
He says that he saw the twins in their cots and that everything was calm.
Because Madeleine’s bed was standing to the closest wall he was unable to see her.
At 22:00 Kate went to the apartment.
She went through the sliding doors and immediately noticed that the door to the children’s bedroom was totally opened, the window was opened, the shutters raised and the curtains opened to the sides.
The twins were sleeping in their cots but Madeleine had disappeared.
-
TIME LINE
Taking into account the depositions of the elements of the group and others, the goal was to determine eventual contradictions and establish the moment of the disappearing of Madeleine.
From that work it was possible to conclude that:
On May the 3rd, 2007, at around 18:00h (time when she left the Kid’s Club) until 22:00 h (when the mother gave the alarm), nobody but the parents – Kate and Gerald – saw Madeleine. From the control realyzed, Mathew, at 21:00h only did it from the exterior close to the shutter and at 21:30h entered the apartment but didn’t check if Madeleine was there. (unless David had seen her between 18:30h and 19:00h, at Gerald’s request).
Discrepancies on the declarations:
-During his first interrogation, Gerald (pag 34) said that at 21:05h, when he went to the apartment to check the children, he entered through the main door; on the second inquisition (pag 891) he rectified and said he entered by the sliding door that leads to the veranda.
-On his first testemony, Gerald said that Kate, at around 22:00h, wento to the apartment and entered through the main door with the key. Immediately after entering noticed that the children’s bedroom door was opened back, the window opened and the shutter lifted (if it had happened that way it wouldn’t be after entering that such a picture would have been noticed. She would have noticed that immediately before entering since she would have pased in front of the window of her children’s bedroom).
-On the second interrogation, Gerald said that Kate had entered through the sliding door.
-On her interrogation (page 58), Kate said that she entered through the sliding door.
-On the second statement, Gerald said that on May the 3rd he ws playing tennis from 18:00 to 19:00h. At about 18:30h David Payne pased the court and then went home. Assuming that Payne was returning to play tennis, Gerald asked him to check on Kate and the children, if everything was alright.
-During his interrogation (pag 66), Payne was not questioned about this request for it is not known if he was with Kate and the chidren at 18:30/19:00h.
-Mathew on his testemony (pags 52 and 905), declared that, at 21:00h, when controlling from the exterior the shutters of Madeleine’s bedroom, it was shut down. But when he entered the apartment at 21:30h he said there was more light than normal in the children’s bedroom; that the curtains were drawn open and that it seemed that the shutter seemed opened. (it is surprising that he hadn’t found strange such a situation that should have been considered abnormal). Gerald, when Mathew returned to the restaurant and said that everything was okay, declared that he assumed that the shutter was closed.
On this way, if the child carried by the man referred by Jane was Madeleine, then, the eventual abductor (considering the limited time gap between Gerald’s exit and the moment when Jane saw him) had to be in the apartment when he went there at 21:05/21:10h; even because Mathew at 21:00 had made a control from the exterior and assured that the shuters from Madeleine’s bedroom were closed.
If it wasn’t Madeleine, and Jane afterwards, although unintentionally, has creatd that convinction, the disappearance could have occurred after that time, that is, betwen Gerald’s exit and the entrance of Mathew (21:30h), or between the exit of this last one and the arrival of Kate (22:00h).
Also because Gerald and Jez were talking at the entrance of the little side gate to the apartment, and t about 25 metres from the crossroads when the mantioned man was passing carrying the child, and they declare they didn’t see neither Jane passing past them or the man.
DIAGRAM OF CONNECTIONS AND CHRONOGRAM
The data – which were grouped into a sample of annexes – correspond to a graphic representation of the date/hour and/or sense of the communications established between May 2nd and 5th, 2007, with origin or destination to the phones associated with the “elements of the group”, identified in the process, constituted by the coupe McCann and their seven friends (to whom we attribute the sigla G9)
Apart from the diagram of the connections that represent the contacts established (21-04-2007 to 06-05-2007) between them or with other elements not belonging to the group, a chronogram was produced for each one, taking as criteria the same period – from 07:30 h 02-05-2007 to 24:00h 04-05-2007 – independently of the communication having been registered only on the 3rd. When within such interval no contacts were established, as happened with Fiona Payne, no graph was realized.
In order to obtain a more ample idea, a general chronogram was developped, contemplating the communications of the whole group but only during the day of the event.
The connections diagram, where it is reflected the volume of contacts for each individual, shows the different magnitudes of the traffic between each other.
However, only crossing the diagram with the chronograms can we obtain a clearer vision in relation to the moments when the contacts were produced. At doing so it’s easily perceptible that the communications under analysis are disproportionate among the members, being notorious the concentration of calls on the subsequent hours after Madeleine’s disappearance. And it is also understandable that the bigger flux is aimed at the McCann.
Taking the commun chronogram, there is a discrepancy between the lack of contacts in the afternoon of 03-05-2007 and the amount of communications arriving after 22:30h. The graph’s configuration corresponds to the “timeline” that sintesyzes the contents of the depositions of the elements of the group: almost all were involved in activities in the open.
-
CONCLUSIONS
The analysis we decided to do was unable, in fact, to reveal great dissonances or really pertinent questions, saving, maybe, the existence of several numbers contacted (some times insistently) by some of the intervenients and whose holder – because the numbers do not correspond to national operators of telecommunications – are still unidentified, an information that could, eventually, be of some utility.
Restraining this information to the Mccann, once that about the others it was not detected communications that could be reputed as suspect, it is to be outlined the following:
1. Gerald (447.......), the numbers:
-447......., from this to that one, 14 SMS on the day before the facts, 02-05-2007, and more 4, on the day after the disappearance, 04-05-20057;
-447........, the only number to contact the child’s father mobile phone (around 12:24h) of the afternoon of the day when she disappeared;
-441........., to which Gerry makes a long call (more than 11 minutes) around 23:40h on 03-05-2007 and to which he calls again at 00:05h, 00:13h, 00:21h, receiving a call back of 2min 28 sec. at 00:27h, the last contact registered between them;
2. Kate (4479........), the numbers:
- 447.........., the only number to contact by SMS, the mobile phone of Madeleine’s mother on the afternoon of 03-05-2007, at 12:31h and 12:34h, being the following communications very short (6 secs and 29 secs) made by Gerry to his wife, after the disappearance, at 23:14h and 23:17h;
-447............., there is a register of 20 messages between this number and Kate’s mobile, and also 5 phone calls during the evening and morning of 04-05-2007, at 03:07h; 03:23h; 03:28h; 08:34h and 08:52h, with the respective duration of 03 secs, 3min 4 secs; 6min and 56 secs, 1 min 1 sec and 1 min an 15 secs, the two last ones made by Kate.
-447........, from which comes, at 04:36h of 04-05-2007 one single long communication (28 min 47 secs).
-441........., 441.......... and 441.........., because they were numbers through which were maintained relatively long conversations on the early morning of 04-05-2007 (6min47sec; 9min 45sec; 11min 42 sec).
It must be remembered that none of the graphs covers the calls operated through the house phones, because they do not use the G.S.M.system of the mobile communications, and so they do not activate the antennas (BTS) whose traffic was used for the composition of these diagrams.
[…]
RECOMENDATIONS/SUGGESTIONS
In relation with the Time Line:
-In order to determine with more exactitude the period when Madeleine was not seen by anyone other but the parents (03-05-2007 – 17h30/18h00 – 20h00), find out if David Payne went to the apartment (at the request of Gerald) at 19h00.
-Clarify if Mathew was in the apartment 5A, at 21h30, how were the curtains, the window and the shutters in the children’s room.
About the chronograms:
-Try to figure out, close to the respective authorities, the identity of the holders of each of the phone numbers mentioned above. Such elements could help clear the facts.
Polícia Judiciária – DCCB
Brigada Central de Análise de Informação
(Inspectores Victor Pereira e Sérgio Cruz)
Lisboa, 10.09.2007
Courtesy "The Maddie Case Files" http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic32.html
Translation thanks to Luz
-
Can I make a basic observation from the time-line and cross-referencing it to the Smiths and Fiona Payne's statements.
According to Martin Smith and family they encountered a man carrying a child at 10pm, he was quite precise about this.
The Portuguese police files contain the following...
At 21:05H/21:10H Gerald went to check his children. He entered through the sliding door and found it strange that the children’s bedroom door was slightly more opened than when they went out. But he assumed that Madeleine had gotten up and gone back to bed.
He saw that Madeleine and the twins were in their beds, quiet.
He went to the bathroom and got out through the sliding doors. On the street, close to the gate, he met Jez, known from the tennis, with whom he spoke for 3 to 5 minutes.
At that moment (21:15h) coming from the restaurant to check her children, Jane passed by them.
She says that at that moment she saw, up the street, on the perpendicular, at about 10 meters, a man crossing carrying a child.
At 22:00 Kate went to the apartment.
She went through the sliding doors and immediately noticed that the door to the children’s bedroom was totally opened, the window was opened, the shutters raised and the curtains opened to the sides.
The twins were sleeping in their cots but Madeleine had disappeared.
From Fiona Payne's statement we have the following...
'Erm, tut, she sort of raced back and she just appeared at the doors of the sort of reception area and just shouted across, erm, 'She's gone. Gerry, Madeleine's gone'. And, you know, well you can just imagine the shock maybe. So everyone was just sort of still for what seemed like, sort of five seconds or so. Gerry jumped up and went 'She can't be gone' and raced off with Kate.
Now, what I would like to know is how the hell can Gerry McCann be sitting eating his main course at 10pm, the same time as Mr Smith swears he saw him hundreds of yards away?
-
Can I make a basic observation from the time-line and cross-referencing it to the Smiths and Fiona Payne's statements.
According to Martin Smith and family they encountered the man carrying the child at 10pm, he was quite precise about this.
The Portuguese police files contain the following...
At 21:05H/21:10H Gerald went to check his children. He entered through the sliding door and found it strange that the children’s bedroom door was slightly more opened than when they went out. But he assumed that Madeleine had gotten up and gone back to bed.
He saw that Madeleine and the twins were in their beds, quiet.
He went to the bathroom and got out through the sliding doors. On the street, close to the gate, he met Jez, known from the tennis, with whom he spoke for 3 to 5 minutes.
At that moment (21:15h) coming from the restaurant to check her children, Jane passed by them.
She says that at that moment she saw, up the street, on the perpendicular, at about 10 meters, a man crossing carrying a child.
At 22:00 Kate went to the apartment.
She went through the sliding doors and immediately noticed that the door to the children’s bedroom was totally opened, the window was opened, the shutters raised and the curtains opened to the sides.
The twins were sleeping in their cots but Madeleine had disappeared.
From Fiona Payne's statement we have the following...
'Erm, tut, she sort of raced back and she just appeared at the doors of the sort of reception area and just shouted across, erm, 'She's gone. Gerry, Madeleine's gone'. And, you know, well you can just imagine the shock maybe. So everyone was just sort of still for what seemed like, sort of five seconds or so. Gerry jumped up and went 'She can't be gone' and raced off with Kate.
Now, what I would like to know is how the hell can Gerry McCann be sitting eating his main course at the same time as Mr Smith swear he saw him hundreds of yards away?
Very simple.
Someone was probably lying.
Hardly unheralded in criminal investigations.
-
That's a rather simplistic get-out response don't you think? So who is lying, the entire Smith family or the entire tapas bar including the waiters?
Gerry was sat down enjoying his main course at 10pm and everybody confirms this so it couldn't have been him that the Smiths saw many streets away.
-
Report and Time-line taken from official police files
This report is based on a time line (resulting from the depositions made to the Polícia Judiciária and the “Control Risk” by five elements of the G9, the manager of the clients support Service of Mark Warner’s and by other witnesses, having a text been performed by the British analyst) and several Communications chronograms, both elaborated and sent by the Analysis Sector of the British Police that, within the police cooperation act, was in Portugal.
All the elements were analyzed and checked by this BCAI, where only one or another discrepancy was detected (between the 1st and 2nd statements of some elements of the G9)
HISTORIC
On May, 28th , 2007, coming from the Uk, arrived at the Ocean Club on Praia da Luz – Lagos, four british couples and the mother of one feminine element of those.
The travelling and the staying of the group was organized in the Uk through the Mark Warner’s Agency, the same that on the previous year had organized a travel to Greece.
The returning should occur on May the 5th.
Every couple had children with ages below 4.
COMPOSITION OF THE GROUP:
Gerald McCann + Kate Healy = Madeleine (4 y.o.) and the twins Sean and Amelie (2 y.o.)
Russel O’Brien + Jane Tanner = E**a (3 y.o.) and E**e (1 y.o.)
Mathew Oldfield + Rachael Mampilly = G***e (?)
David Payne + Fiona Payne + (Dianne Webster) = Scarlett (1 y.o.) and Lilly (3 y.o. )
INFORMATION
The Place:
The apartment of the McCann at the Ocean Club is situated on the ground floor, on the East side of the building and can be accessed:
Through the front door, the same where it is situated the window of Madeleine and the twin’s bedroom (photos on pag 12)
Through the two glass doors, in the living room and another in the bedroom of the couple, on the opposite side of the apartment, doors that lead to a veranda, that can be accessed by a step of stairs through a small gate, coming from the lateral street. NOTE: this last access was the one most used for being closer to the restaurant.
The living room door used to remain closed but not locked, in order to be opened from the exterior.
Routines:
In a general manner the days passed at the Ocean Club by this group of friends and their sons obeyed to the following routine:
The children had their breakfast with the parents;
Once the meal was finished, they were taken to the local mini-clubs where they developed the recreational activities according to their ages;
At lunch time they returned to the parents company, at the end of which they returned to the same clubs;
During the morning and on the afternoons after leaving the children at the Kid Clubs, the parents involved into several recreational activities, namely tennis, jogging, reading, etc.;
At around 18:00h the parents went to fetch the children;
Between 19:30/20:00h, after the bath and dinner, they put them to bed/sleep;
Except on the first day, this group of friends dined at the tapas, close to the pool of the Ocean Club, where they reserved a table for nine persons;
The dinner started at around 20:30h/21:00h and prolonged until 24:00h;
By the inexistence or lack of knowledge of the parents about a supervising service for children ove the period of the dinner, they took turns on supervising going to the apartments every half an hour, aproximately;
This supervising was developed either by the parents or by the other, in this last case, just passing by the windows of the rooms and listening if there were cries;
This has the wrong date on, Admin.
HISTORIC
On May, 28th , 2007, coming from the Uk, arrived at the Ocean Club on Praia da Luz – Lagos, four british couples and the mother of one feminine element of those.
The travelling and the staying of the group was organized in the Uk through the Mark Warner’s Agency, the same that on the previous year had organized a travel to Greece.
The returning should occur on May the 5th.
Every couple had children with ages below 4.[/quote]
-
That's a rather simplistic get-out response don't you think? So who is lying, the entire Smith family or the entire tapas bar including the waiters?
Gerry was sat down enjoying his main course at 10pm and everybody confirms this so it couldn't have been him that the Smiths saw many streets away.
None of the waiters categorically put McCann at the tapas table at 10pm.
-
Also from the same document...
SVETLANA
------- STARIKOVA VITORINO (Russian citizen, with the telephone No "96635 ####) - kitchen assistant:
- Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.
- During the time that she was working yesterday (between 14:30 and 23:00) she did not see any individual with blonde "rastas".
-
also the statement of...
--------- JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA (residing at Rua Ilha Terceira, no. 15, Lagos, Telephone No 91 277 ####) - table employee [waiter].
- Of the group of 8/9 British citizens who dined at the restaurant last night, as usual, of which the parents of missing were part (he didn't know them) he noticed that two individuals left the table, of the male gender.
- The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;
- Of the times in which this group had dined in that bar it is [was] often [for] someone from the group to go to check at the apartments the state of the children (their offspring) who were sleeping there.
The second being Gerry McCann.
-
So lets see, did I remember someone stating that none of the waiters corroborated their story? hmm.. @)(++(*
-
Finally somebody here has started to read the files. 8@??)(
But you have to keep on... that's not enough or the most relevant.
-
''Do I really need a baby monitor?
Baby monitors give you a visible and audible way of keeping a check on your baby, without being in the room. They provide peace of mind where a healthy baby is concerned, rather than actual safety. Baby monitors should be used as an aid and not as a substitute for responsible and proper adult supervision.''
From the Q & A page on this site: http://www.which.co.uk/baby-and-child/child-safety-at-home/reviews/baby-monitors/page/faqs/
You'll find the same sort of thing written about child safety gates.
But alarms and the Time line checking within the bounds of responsible parenting is really all very irrelevant.
Since according to the timeline, Madeleine and the children were actually in the supervision of their father at the time. Since it was WHILST he was checking, either slightly ahead of him & hiding in the apartment, or breaking in via the shutters & unlocked window, or having a duplicate key, whilst he stood outside chatting with a fellow tennis player, this was witnessed at approx 9.20 pm by Jane Tanner as the abductor carry off Madeleine, as it would seem within the area of the road.
One might wonder why in the time frame of the checking why it was Madeleine wasn't noticed missing at the 9.30 ish check by MO who also failed to noticed anything untoward about the apartment. After all this is part of the consideration that responsible checking was checking place.
Much might really point to her disappearance after this check, but where does that leave JT's sighting.
-
And another waiter, Stefan Kotsev Todorov reported...
He said that one week before the incident, there had been a robbery (assault) in a room in the lots next to the restaurant, a fact he knows from his colleagues.
-
That's a rather simplistic get-out response don't you think? So who is lying, the entire Smith family or the entire tapas bar including the waiters?
Gerry was sat down enjoying his main course at 10pm and everybody confirms this so it couldn't have been him that the Smiths saw many streets away.
None of the waiters categorically put McCann at the tapas table at 10pm.
Afraid you are wrong on that one Faith. See other thread.
Basically the waiters were able to give Kate and Gerry's movements relative to the moment that Kate came back to the table. A table at which Gerry was sat. Puts Smiths ID totally in the bin! 8(0(*
-
@ John
Relative to the alarm, however Gerry himself says Kate's alarm may have been as late as 10.13-15 ( I can supply links if necessary) so if the Smith's saw Gerry 'around 10' that's ample time to conceal the body and be back at the tapas for 10.13. There is no waiter who categorically puts Gerry at the tapas table between 9.30 and the alarm.
-
Also from the same document...
SVETLANA
------- STARIKOVA VITORINO (Russian citizen, with the telephone No "96635 ####) - kitchen assistant:
- Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.
- During the time that she was working yesterday (between 14:30 and 23:00) she did not see any individual with blonde "rastas".
So that puts Gerry away from about 9.30 to 10pm whch would fit in with a visit to apartment 5a follwed by a chat with a friend which was observed by Tanner.
No it doesn't. The talk seems to have happened between 21.05-21.15 as does the sighting by Tanner.
-
@ John
Relative to the alarm, however Gerry himself says Kate's alarm may have been as late as 10.13-15 ( I can supply links if necessary) so if the Smith's saw Gerry 'around 10' that's ample time to conceal the body and be back at the tapas for 10.13. There is no waiter who categorically puts Gerry at the tapas table between 9.30 and the alarm.
What about the numerous other witnesses AFTER the alarm was raised who generally give the time that they became aware of the missing child at around 10.15
pm? Bearing in mind that none of them would have been INSTANTLY informed of the disappearance?
Generally being the operative word. They had no reason to be specific, Gerry did.
-
Having gone through the various statements of the staff associated with Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, the following times would appear to be quite accurate.
G.N.R. Officers Roque and Costa were the first police to arrive at the club. Both stated their time of arrival as being 11pm. When they arrived, they saw the girl's father, a friend whom he cannot describe, an OC employee and a translator who was also an OC employee, named Silvia Batista.
Silvia Batista for her part stated that she was made aware of the disappearance at 10.30pm and was told of it in a telephone call from Club admin George Crossland.
Crossland stated that he had been contacted by the Club Manager John Hill at 10.15pm and immediately set out for the premises arriving at the Club some 10 minutes later.
Ocean club manager John Hill stated that he was alerted to the disappearance by Head of Child Care, Lyndsay Johnson. He puts this contact at 10.28pm and the G.N.R. arrival at 10.45pm.
Lindsay Johnson for her part stated that Amy Tierney told her of the drama at 10.20pm and that 5 minutes later the "missing child" procedure was activated.
Finally, crèche worker Amy Tierney recalls that she was on duty and was immediately alerted to the incident. She added that Madeleine's father went to reception to call the police as soon as her disappearance was noticed and that 20 minutes had passed. The G.N.R. took 30 to 35 minutes to arrive.
All in all we can deduce from these independent witnesses that Kate must have alerted the group some time between 10pm and 10.10pm.
The tapas group for their part put the time of the first alarm being raised at 10pm.
-
We know that Gerry McCann was at the table of the tapas bar when Kate alerted to the fact that Madeleine was missing. We now also know the time that alert took place.
Consequently we can establish that Gerry McCann was at the tapas bar at around 10pm rendering the Smiths alleged sighting of him several street away at that particular moment in time a bit of a red herring.
No myth, just plain simple detective work! ?>)()<
-
We know that Gerry McCann was at the table of the tapas bar when Kate alerted to the fact that Madeleine was missing. We now also know the time that alert took place.
Consequently we can establish that Gerry McCann was at the tapas bar at around 10pm rendering the Smiths alleged sighting of him several street away at that particular moment in time a bit of a red herring.
No myth, just plain simple detective work! ?>)()<
How far was the bar from the Smith sighting ?
A quick trot along the roads perhaps ?
After all he is a keen jogger and I'm sure that even on his hands and knees he could manage the distance in a couple of minutes. @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
We know that Gerry McCann was at the table of the tapas bar when Kate alerted to the fact that Madeleine was missing. We now also know the time that alert took place.
Consequently we can establish that Gerry McCann was at the tapas bar at around 10pm rendering the Smiths alleged sighting of him several street away at that particular moment in time a bit of a red herring.
No myth, just plain simple detective work! ?>)()<
How far was the bar from the Smith sighting ?
A quick trot along the roads perhaps ?
After all he is a keen jogger and I'm sure that even on his hands and knees he could manage the distance in a couple of minutes. @)(++(* @)(++(*
Your signs of stupidity increase.
Jogging carrying a small girl?
-
Stephen. Did the Smiths say the man was jogging or sweating profusely?
-
I didn't say the man was jogging with a small girl.
I said if it was Mccann seen by Mr. Smith.
He could have returned by himself 'jogging' to the bar.
8)-))) 8)-)))
-
Also, some people can jog without 'sweating profusely'.
Especially if they regularly 'jog'. >@@(*&) >@@(*&) 8)-)))
-
I didn't say the man was jogging with a small girl.
I said if it was Mccann seen by Mr. Smith.
He could have returned by himself 'jogging' to the bar.
8)-))) 8)-)))
How could he when he was sitting at the table at the tapas bar at 10pm? Is the independent evidence of two police officers, the Ocean Club manager, the Head of child Care at the Club, the Club Administrator, the nanny and several waiters not good enough now?
We have already warned that uncorroborated speculation will not be permitted to cloud this issue.
-
I didn't say the man was jogging with a small girl.
I said if it was Mccann seen by Mr. Smith.
He could have returned by himself 'jogging' to the bar.
8)-))) 8)-)))
But he would have had to carry Madeleine from 5a, after leaving the tapas bar, pass the Smiths, dispose of Madeleine somwhsre and then return to the tapas or 5a.
Old [ censored word ]s used to claim that abduction required ninja abductors. Your story would seem to require Gerry to be such a ninja.
-
I didn't say the man was jogging with a small girl.
I said if it was Mccann seen by Mr. Smith.
He could have returned by himself 'jogging' to the bar.
8)-))) 8)-)))
How could he when he was sitting at the table at the tapas bar at 10pm? Is the independent evidence of two police officers, the Ocean Club manager, the Head of child Care at the Club, the Club Administrator, the nanny and several waiters not good enough now?
We have already warned that uncorroborated speculation will not be permitted to cloud this issue.
Could you also enforce a rule that if anyone claims something as fact rather than idle speculation, the a cite should be offered if requested.
-
I didn't say the man was jogging with a small girl.
I said if it was Mccann seen by Mr. Smith.
He could have returned by himself 'jogging' to the bar.
8)-))) 8)-)))
How could he when he was sitting at the table at the tapas bar at 10pm? Is the independent evidence of two police officers, the Ocean Club manager, the Head of child Care at the Club, the Club Administrator, the nanny and several waiters not good enough now?
We have already warned that uncorroborated speculation will not be permitted to cloud this issue.
So what the precise distance from the Smith sighting to the tapas bar ?
As to uncorroborated, I cite the abduction thesis.
Back later.
-
I did a lot of research on the timings once and came up with this:
I have to say that the whole issue surrounding timing of the calls and who called when is completely confused in the witness statements. The most reliable timing in there appears to be John Hill's, who says he was contacted at 22:28. Assuming he recalls the time from checking his mobile phone, then as long as that phone has an accurate time on it, he's pretty much nailed the time that he was alerted. He goes on to say it was Lindsay who called him.
This indicates that Lindsay knew about the disappearance prior to calling John Hill.
So, on to Lindsay. She says she was told by Amy T at about 22:20 of Madeleine's disappearance. She then put into place the missing child procedure and must have called John Hill. Times sound about right, no problem so far.
Moving on to Amy Tiernan it gets a bit muddier... She says that she was on duty and that "the girl's father went to the reception to call the police as soon as her disappearance was noticed and that twenty minutes had passed" so that (assuming that 10pm was the time of the disappearance being noted) puts Gerry's visit to the reception at about 22:20 and it's reasonable to believe that Amy called Lindsay at that time. She also says the police arrived 30-35 minutes later, putting their arrival at about 22:50 or so.
We then have Emma Knight, who also gives a very accurate time - 22:17 - when she says she was called by Lyndsay. Assuming her mobile records were used and the time was right, this means that it was a further eleven minutes between Lyndsay calling her and calling John Hill. Presumably this was a time when the news was filtering up the chain of command and procedures put in place were being acted on. All feasible so far and assuming Lyndsay called Emma as soon as Amy called her, times match to within a few minutes.
Where it really begins to fall apart a bit is when the other Ocean Club employees get involved...
Firstly I think we have to accept that there were only two calls made to the GNR from the Ocean Club that night. One at 22:41 and another at 22:52. The telephone company provided this information and it's clear to see. If there were calls made from mobile phones to the GNR there doesn't seem to be any mention of it at all.
Moving on to the statement of the receptionist at the time, Helder Luis, he states quite categorically he "was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00" and that "he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos" and "shortly after this the child's father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again." Well hold on there, there's a world of difference between being a few minutes out (as Amy/Emma/Lyndsay appear to be) and being (at least) 41 minutes out. If he was contacted between 9:30 and 10pm and immediately contact the police, where is the record of that call? The first call has to be at 22:41:29 as we know from the records and presumably the second one at 22:52 is when John Hill walks into reception with Gerry?
However, it gets more confused... Vitor Santos in his statement says, "he remembers that at 22.00/22.15 he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet." Well hang on... we know from the phone company records that the call was at 22:41 and not any time between 22:00 and 22:15... He continues that the receptionist says, " that he had phoned the GNR post several times and that he had been told that they would arrive when they could but that they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere. The receptionist asked the witness whether he should contact the PSP, to which the witness replied no as this area belongs to the GNR." So that all seems quite detailed and plausible apart from the timings which are WAY out and not just a few minutes.
Vitor adds more details though... "When he arrived at the scene about 10 to 15 minutes later, he immediately went to the reception where the GNR were present, taking a statement from the girl's father." So when Vitor gets to the OC at sometime between, say, 22:20pm and 22:35pm, John Hill and Gerry are already in the reception with the GNR? And yet the GNR weren't called until some minutes after this time... Vitor's timings are looking suspect, it must be said.
Further confusion - Emma Knight says the police arrived some time around midnight to half past. Amy T says they were there before 11. Vitor says they were there not long after half past 10. Matt Oldfield says that he went to reception to ask them to contact the police at five past or ten past ten. Why doesn't Helder mention this? He says that the Tapas bar contacted him and he called the police immediately. Matt Oldfield says he was having to argue quite hard to persuade the receptionist to call as they assumed Madeleine had wandered off.
More times: George Crosslands says he was called by John Hill at 22:15 (and yet John Hill himself says he wasn't told until 22:28) and that when he got to the OC 10 minutes later, John Hill was already there (some minutes before he was even contacted... good effort) and that the police arrived at 22:50.
If you want even more confusion, refer to Arlindo Pelega and Jeronimo Salcedas's statements! Pelega says the commotion started at 21:20 and by 21:40 the table was empty in the Tapas bar. Salcedas states in his first statement in May that the table was empty at 22:20 - 22:30 and yet by the time of his rogatory this had changed to 21:30 to 22:00 but he's not really sure...
Confused? I am. I haven't been able to establish the chain of who told whom what and when to start the whole chain of events of. I assume that as Amy Tiernan was on duty, she was the first person contacted but I have no idea who by. Maybe by Helder the receptionist after Matt Oldfield had been in? Or was it in response to the call from the Tapas bar he says he had?
Anyhow, all that seems clear is that only two calls were made and the first of those was at 22:41. I don't think it's fair to blame the McCanns for the lateness of the call though. They probably assumed that after Matt had rushed off to reception that the call had been made. Up until 22:41 it looks as though the OC were following through on their procedure for missing children as they wouldn't want to drag the GNR out on a wild goose chase if Madeleine was hiding in the bushes. At some point they obviously took it seriously enough to call the GNR and then when John Hill arrived in reception with Gerry, they were told to do it again to reinforce the urgency. Kate McCann's claims that she knew with certainty that Madeleine had been abducted and not wandered off wasn't really communicated to anyone that could call the police as far as I can tell (none of them spoke Portuguese so they needed an OC employee to do it), so can she be blamed for it taking the OC staff a good half hour more to get around to calling?
I can't believe that there appears to be no clear work on establishing the exact chain of events that night. Who told whom? Starting with Amy T - how did she find out and who did she tell? The timings are all so jumbled and confused that it's hard to see exactly what happened when, but apart from the way out timings of Vitor dos Santos, Salcedas and Pelega, the rest seem to match fairly well. I'm not exactly sure what Blacksmith expected the McCanns to do... stand over the receptionist until he called? If, as seems to be confirmed, they were rushing about and someone told Matt to go and get the police called, they kind of thought they'd done the job by about five past ten as far as I can tell.
Note to debunker: All these timings are from primary sources in the PJ files and are not invented. No, I'm not going to spend hours finding the references as I've already done that.
This all shows how unreliable things are when asking witnesses about timing. It's also clear that some waiters state that the table was empty WELL before 10pm. Selective checking by John, methinks.
-
So what the precise distance from the Smith sighting to the tapas bar ?
As to uncorroborated, I cite the abduction thesis.
Back later.
Precise distance by foot is 350m.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?saddr=Rua+Dr.+Agostinho+da+Silva&daddr=Rua+da+Escola+Prim%C3%A1ria&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sll=37.08748,-8.731191&sspn=0.003693,0.008256&geocode=FXLuNQIdscZ6_w%3BFXzmNQIdD8J6_w&t=k&mra=me&mrsp=1,0&sz=18&z=18
-
on to the statement of the receptionist at the time, Helder Luis, he states quite categorically he "was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00" and that "he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos" and "shortly after this the child's father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again."
Ref: the above - I suspect an error in either recall or taking down the statement. If the time Luis gives is advanced by one hour it fits in perfectly with the log of calls to the GNR.
But not with other witness statements who say they had to practically force the receptionist to call!
-
This all goes to support my position.
The evidence available is too complex and too contradictory to make a coherent picture.
Mindset, bias, assumptions etc then come into play. Information which fits ones model will seem to be valid and contradictory ones will be invalid, and a coherent picture will be constructed that fits the thinker's prejudices.
-
This all goes to support my position.
The evidence available is too complex and too contradictory to make a coherent picture.
Mindset, bias, assumptions etc then come into play. Information which fits ones model will seem to be valid and contradictory ones will be invalid, and a coherent picture will be constructed that fits the thinker's prejudices.
Finally something of debunker's with which I can wholeheartedly agree.
-
This all goes to support my position.
The evidence available is too complex and too contradictory to make a coherent picture.
Mindset, bias, assumptions etc then come into play. Information which fits ones model will seem to be valid and contradictory ones will be invalid, and a coherent picture will be constructed that fits the thinker's prejudices.
Finally something of debunker's with which I can wholeheartedly agree.
BUt that is all I ever say. I never claim to know anything about what happened, merely question the beliefs of people who do.
-
Rogatory witness statement of Jeronimo Salcedas:
On the night Madeleine disappeared, everything appeared normal. I remember that when I took notice of the disappearance, I had been in the restaurant speaking with my two colleagues?Ze and Ricardo who were on break. I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.? I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.
It's true that a different time is recorded in the statement he gave to the PJ, but the rogatories were taken verbatim.
-
Rogatory witness statement of Jeronimo Salcedas:
On the night Madeleine disappeared, everything appeared normal. I remember that when I took notice of the disappearance, I had been in the restaurant speaking with my two colleagues?Ze and Ricardo who were on break. I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.? I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.
It's true that a different time is recorded in the statement he gave to the PJ, but the rogatories were taken verbatim.
Just as a general question: would people give more credibility to the initial statements of people very close to the event or one given many months later...?
I'd choose the original statements every time.
-
Post deleted
-
Why are you nit picking C Edwards?
. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.
"but do not remember with certainty" and he got virtually the right time; that would have been one of the very first places Gerry searched
Thanks for providing proof thgat Gerry DID GO OUT and SEARCH 8((()*/
Nit picking? Yeah, discussing early statement over rogatory some months later is nit-picking. OK Sadie, say no more.
As for proof of Gerry McCann searching... words fail me. You really seem to inhabit a different plane of existence to me.
-
What I do find puzzling is that not one of witnesses at or near the reception that night claim in their statement to have seen or conversed with Matthew Oldfield, even though we are lead to believe he was very strident in his request for assistance.
-
So what the precise distance from the Smith sighting to the tapas bar ?
As to uncorroborated, I cite the abduction thesis.
Back later.
Precise distance by foot is 350m.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?saddr=Rua+Dr.+Agostinho+da+Silva&daddr=Rua+da+Escola+Prim%C3%A1ria&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sll=37.08748,-8.731191&sspn=0.003693,0.008256&geocode=FXLuNQIdscZ6_w%3BFXzmNQIdD8J6_w&t=k&mra=me&mrsp=1,0&sz=18&z=18
Interesting - so by Stephen's previous estimation that it could have taken the "drunken" McCanns anything up to 10 minutes to walk from the Tapas Bar to Apt 5A (a speed of around 8 metres a minute), it would have taken Gerry about 43 minutes to walk to the place where the Smiths allegedly saw him, say another 10 minutes to disposeof the body and 43 minutes to stagger back - that's the best part of 2 hours gone!
You don't appreciate irony do you Martha.
In the world of the mccann supporters, the mccanns are superhuman.
They can leap tall buildings in a single bound.
'Walk' from the tapas bar to the apartment by bouncing up and down on their stomachs, in the blink of an aye.
Split the atom, that's quango time for Gerry 8((()*/
Well let's face it, they're magic.
i.e. If you want to play a numbers game in case of timing walking distances, it works both ways.
-
between 21:30 and 22 would 1) discard the Smith sighting and 2) increase the time before alerting the police without any reason since they were immediately convinced Madeleine had been abducted.
-
between 21:30 and 22 would 1) discard the Smith sighting and 2) increase the time before alerting the police without any reason since they were immediately convinced Madeleine had been abducted.
Tanner 'sighting'.
No back-up.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01457/tanner-carry_1457600i.jpg
-
We have an extremely credible statement by a resident of Praia da Luz called Maria Manuela Martins da Silva who was in the habit of visiting the apartment block adjacent to that occupied by the McCanns. She was extremely well acquainted with the coming and goings and on the very night of the disappearance she had just left the apartment of her boyfriend with him at it turned 10pm. She is adamant about this because she asked her friend to check the time which was 9.58.
Maria relates that there was no movement of people at all at this time. There was a light on at or near the McCann apartment but she did not pay much notice to it.
I would suggest that this was the very instant when Kate discovered that Madeleine had gone. A moment in time just before all hell broke loose with people out with torches searching everywhere.
Maria infers that she was totally unaware of any commotion and only found out about it the next day.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-M-M-DE-SILVA.htm
-
We have an extremely credible statement by a resident of Praia da Luz called Maria Manuela Martins da Silva who was in the habit of visiting the apartment block adjacent to that occupied by the McCanns. She was extremely well acquainted with the coming and goings and on the very night of the disappearance she had just left the apartment of her boyfriend with him at it turned 10pm. She is adamant about this because she asked her friend to check the time which was 9.58.
Maria relates that there was no movement of people at all at this time. There was a light on at or near the McCann apartment but she did not pay much notice to it.
I would suggest that this was the very instant when Kate discovered that Madeleine had gone. A moment in time just before all hell broke loose with people out with torches searching everywhere.
Maria infers that she was totally unaware of any commotion and only found out about it the next day.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-M-M-DE-SILVA.htm
I suggest you read up on the meanings of the words, "infer" and "imply".
And you "suggesting" something doesn't make it a fact. According to (one of) Gerry McCann's statement(s) Kate didn't leave the table until after 10pm. 10:03pm precisely, in fact.
-
I suggest you read up on the meanings of the words, "infer" and "imply".
And you "suggesting" something doesn't make it a fact. According to (one of) Gerry McCann's statement(s) Kate didn't leave the table until after 10pm. 10:03pm precisely, in fact.
All fits together very nicely and I will add yet further corroboration to that effect in my next batch of independent witness reports which really does put the whole incident into context.
You see, your attempts to muddy the waters and create uncertainty doesn't wash with me C. Edwards. I am yet to find any statement which bears out what you posted earlier today. A few rogue statements giving odd timings is always to be expected but the vast majority reveal what actually occurred. We know the exact chain of events, who told who and at what time to the nearest 5 minutes.
-
I suggest you read up on the meanings of the words, "infer" and "imply".
And you "suggesting" something doesn't make it a fact. According to (one of) Gerry McCann's statement(s) Kate didn't leave the table until after 10pm. 10:03pm precisely, in fact.
All fits together very nicely and I will add yet further corroboration to that effect in my next batch of independent witness reports which really does put the whole incident into context.
You see, your attempts to muddy the waters and create uncertainty doesn't wash with me C. Edwards. I am yet to find any statement which bears out what you posted earlier today. A few rogue statements giving odd timings is always to be expected but the vast majority reveal what actually occurred. We know the exact chain of events, who told who and at what time to the nearest 5 minutes.
Yeah, I really muddied the waters by collating all that information on timings from the official files.
Silly me, should do what John does and just make suggestions that fit my pet theory. @)(++(*
-
I suggest you read up on the meanings of the words, "infer" and "imply".
And you "suggesting" something doesn't make it a fact. According to (one of) Gerry McCann's statement(s) Kate didn't leave the table until after 10pm. 10:03pm precisely, in fact.
All fits together very nicely and I will add yet further corroboration to that effect in my next batch of independent witness reports which really does put the whole incident into context.
You see, your attempts to muddy the waters and create uncertainty doesn't wash with me C. Edwards. I am yet to find any statement which bears out what you posted earlier today. A few rogue statements giving odd timings is always to be expected but the vast majority reveal what actually occurred. We know the exact chain of events, who told who and at what time to the nearest 5 minutes.
Yeah, I really muddied the waters by collating all that information on timings from the official files.
Silly me, should do what John does and just make suggestions that fit my pet theory. @)(++(*
No...you attempted to muddy the waters as you normally do without providing any substance to your claims. I thought you didn't believe anything the Tapas 9 say and yet here you are quoting from Gerry McCann when it suits. Now I would say that that is comical.
-
You didn't even get the number of telephone calls made to the police correct. There were many alert calls made to the police by several people that night, not just the two or more made from reception.
There isn't any mess in the statements, there is confusion by certain individuals but the vast majority are concise and to the point. Isn't it strange how all these waiters didn't see too much and yet the British nationals who work at the Club were more than helpful. Do you contemplate a conspiracy with them too?
Maybe the McCann's reach is longer than you think? @)(++(*
-
No...you attempted to muddy the waters as you normally do without providing any substance to your claims. I thought you didn't believe anything the Tapas 9 say and yet here you are quoting from Gerry McCann when it suits. Now I would say that that is comical.
What? @)(++(*
I post a load of information all carefully gleaned from the official PJ files with timings galore, all showing the mess there is and how you can't really take anything other than a few of them as being accurate and you say I post things without substance? Good grief...
I don't think I need to point out how daft your statement looks right now!
By the official files, do you mean the McCann files, translated by Alby? Or the proper files, from original CD's?
-
So what the precise distance from the Smith sighting to the tapas bar ?
As to uncorroborated, I cite the abduction thesis.
Back later.
Precise distance by foot is 350m.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?saddr=Rua+Dr.+Agostinho+da+Silva&daddr=Rua+da+Escola+Prim%C3%A1ria&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sll=37.08748,-8.731191&sspn=0.003693,0.008256&geocode=FXLuNQIdscZ6_w%3BFXzmNQIdD8J6_w&t=k&mra=me&mrsp=1,0&sz=18&z=18
Interesting - so by Stephen's previous estimation that it could have taken the "drunken" McCanns anything up to 10 minutes to walk from the Tapas Bar to Apt 5A (a speed of around 8 metres a minute), it would have taken Gerry about 43 minutes to walk to the place where the Smiths allegedly saw him, say another 10 minutes to disposeof the body and 43 minutes to stagger back - that's the best part of 2 hours gone!
You don't appreciate irony do you Martha.
In the world of the mccann supporters, the mccanns are superhuman.
They can leap tall buildings in a single bound.
'Walk' from the tapas bar to the apartment by bouncing up and down on their stomachs, in the blink of an aye.
Split the atom, that's quango time for Gerry 8((()*/
Well let's face it, they're magic.
i.e. If you want to play a numbers game in case of timing walking distances, it works both ways.
Erm...I think you've got this spectacularly ar.. about face, Stephen old bean. It's the McCann detractors who believe that Gerry McCann has the ability to sprint around PdL between mouthfuls of Tapas, carrying a dead body and finding the perfect spot to hide it (in the dark in an unfamiliar place) where it can't be found by dozens of trained officers and dogs and helpful members of the public, and still be back at the bar well before last orders.
Sorry to disappoint you on that one.
Unless the pages have been removed , a few days ago, it was supporters of the Mccanns who were claiming it was normal to walk from the tapas to the apartment in less than a minute. I merely pointed out by the same logic, and with the phantom jogger in operation, the smith sighting cannot be disregarded merely on the distance grounds.
Jog on. 8((()*/
-
This is interesting, not seen it before.
08 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.
Maple Drive man Martin Smith, his wife and his children had just left the Kelly bar, which is located approximately 400 metres from the McCanns? apartment at the Ocean Club between 9.50-10pm on the night Madeleine disappeared.
They returned to Ireland the next day, and because the reported abduction times didn?t originally match, they never had cause to examine their journey that night.
As it emerged that Madeleine was abducted around the same time, one of the family members had a flashback of the moment some time later and encouraged the others to jog their memory.
They remembered passing a man walking towards the beach with a child in his arms.
Other than his approximate height and the fact that he was wearing beige clothes they cannot be more specific than that.We are annoyed at how vague our description is,? said the family member.
The family contacted the Portuguese police and flew back over to give evidence.
However, contrary to media reports, Mr Smith had not seen chief suspect Robert Murat in a bar the evening that Madeleine was abducted.He definitely didn?t see him on the night in question,? said a family member.
The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat.They met once in a bar about two years ago. My dad would only know Mr Murat by sight,? said the family member.However, from what he knows, he can say that the man who was carrying the child was not Robert Murat.?
http://www.independent.ie/regionals/droghedaindependent/temp/drogheda-family-hit-out-over-madeleine-case-clue-coverage-27126334.html
-
@ Martha
The last independent witness who places Gerry anywhere in particular before the alarm is Wilkins at approx 9.15. Everything else is open to question.
-
Sorry to disappoint you on that one.
Unless the pages have been removed , a few days ago, it was supporters of the Mccanns who were claiming it was normal to walk from the tapas to the apartment in less than a minute. I merely pointed out by the same logic, and with the phantom jogger in operation, the smith sighting cannot be disregarded merely on the distance grounds.
Jog on. 8((()*/
Err...no - your jumped in feet first to support CarlyMichelle's assertion that Apartment 5A was a five to ten minute walk from the Tapas Restaurant. When it was pointed out to you that a normal person walking normally would take less than a minute to walk the actual distance you started going on about people being under the influence of ethanol, it was all most odd. >@@(*&)
What precisely is walking pace Martha ?
Can you tell me ,again precisely how long it took for any member of the party to walk from the tapas bar to the apartment ?
If you claim to know precisely, you were either there, or you are merely following the party line.
-
I'd applaud anyone with severe mobility problems at achieving any goal.
However, in this case, I don't understand where Carlymichelle's estimation of time comes from:
well in the mcann case they were not with the children they were in a tapas bar approx 5 or 10 minutes walk was it not??
-
carrying a dead body and finding the perfect spot to hide it (in the dark in an unfamiliar place) where it can't be found
Only one perfect spot ?
-
Do people seriously imagine that the Smith sighting was Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine's corpse away from the apartment? Come on!
-
Do people seriously imagine that the Smith sighting was Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine's corpse away from the apartment? Come on!
Do people seriously believe that the Tanner "sighting" was an abductor carrying a sleeping Madeleine from the apartment? Come on!
-
Do people seriously imagine that the Smith sighting was Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine's corpse away from the apartment? Come on!
Do people seriously believe that the Tanner "sighting" was an abductor carrying a sleeping Madeleine from the apartment? Come on!
That that is not impossible is possible.
-
Do people seriously imagine that the Smith sighting was Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine's corpse away from the apartment? Come on!
Do people seriously believe that the Tanner "sighting" was an abductor carrying a sleeping Madeleine from the apartment? Come on!
I'm not talking about Tanner, I'm talking about the logistics of Gerry McCann carrying a corpse through the streets of Praia da Luz. What say you, C Edwards?
-
Do people seriously imagine that the Smith sighting was Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine's corpse away from the apartment? Come on!
Do people seriously believe that the Tanner "sighting" was an abductor carrying a sleeping Madeleine from the apartment? Come on!
I'm not talking about Tanner, I'm talking about the logistics of Gerry McCann carrying a corpse through the streets of Praia da Luz. What say you, C Edwards?
Pointless asking me. As Debunker says, it's not impossible so it's possible.
-
Do people seriously imagine that the Smith sighting was Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine's corpse away from the apartment? Come on!
Do people seriously believe that the Tanner "sighting" was an abductor carrying a sleeping Madeleine from the apartment? Come on!
I'm not talking about Tanner, I'm talking about the logistics of Gerry McCann carrying a corpse through the streets of Praia da Luz. What say you, C Edwards?
Pointless asking me. As Debunker says, it's not impossible so it's possible.
Forum readers... draw your own conclusions from C Edwards' failure to address my question.
-
Whoever the carrier, to what perfect spot was he walking with Madeleine ?
-
Do people seriously imagine that the Smith sighting was Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine's corpse away from the apartment? Come on!
Do people seriously believe that the Tanner "sighting" was an abductor carrying a sleeping Madeleine from the apartment? Come on!
I'm not talking about Tanner, I'm talking about the logistics of Gerry McCann carrying a corpse through the streets of Praia da Luz. What say you, C Edwards?
Pointless asking me. As Debunker says, it's not impossible so it's possible.
Forum readers... draw your own conclusions from C Edwards' failure to address my question.
Thanks to your "seriously" the reaction seems appropriate to me.
-
So, Anne Guedes... can you give us your opinion about the Smith sighting?
-
So, Anne Guedes... can you give us your opinion about the Smith sighting?
Yes I can. I'm not sure about the carrier, but I've no doubt the little girl he carried was Madeleine. Was she in a coma or was she dead ? Likely the second. Did he kill her ? I don't think so. Predators use, kill and leave behind, they don't carry corpses.
Just my opinion !
-
So, Anne Guedes... can you give us your opinion about the Smith sighting?
Yes I can. I'm not sure about the carrier, but I've no doubt the little girl he carried was Madeleine. Was she in a coma or was she dead ? Likely the second. Did he kill her ? I don't think so. Predators use, kill and leave behind, they don't carry corpses.
Just my opinion !
Are you saying that it was Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine's corpse, Anne?
-
You must be a seriously sick person to post what you have.
Shame on you.
I'm not sick, seriously or not, don't worry ! And remember opinions never killed little girls.
-
So, Anne Guedes... can you give us your opinion about the Smith sighting?
Yes I can. I'm not sure about the carrier, but I've no doubt the little girl he carried was Madeleine. Was she in a coma or was she dead ? Likely the second. Did he kill her ? I don't think so. Predators use, kill and leave behind, they don't carry corpses.
Just my opinion !
Are you saying that it was Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine's corpse, Anne?
No, Rachel, I'm certainly not saying that.
-
Do people seriously believe that the Tanner "sighting" was an abductor carrying a sleeping Madeleine from the apartment? Come on!
If I may intercede.
Why ever not? Isn't that the only scenario which fits with all the known evidence?
The apartment was one of the easiest to get to, the abductor most probably had a key to it and possibly others. There is evidence from at least two witnesses that the apartments were being watched from across the street, there had been incidents in the past when intruders had entered the apartments. Security seems to have been lax at the complex especially after dark.
-
So, Anne Guedes... can you give us your opinion about the Smith sighting?
Yes I can. I'm not sure about the carrier, but I've no doubt the little girl he carried was Madeleine. Was she in a coma or was she dead ? Likely the second. Did he kill her ? I don't think so. Predators use, kill and leave behind, they don't carry corpses.
Just my opinion !
Carry her for over 400 metres in an area swarming with tourists on a night out? In any event that is not where the tracker dogs ended up.
-
So, Anne Guedes... can you give us your opinion about the Smith sighting?
Yes I can. I'm not sure about the carrier, but I've no doubt the little girl he carried was Madeleine. Was she in a coma or was she dead ? Likely the second. Did he kill her ? I don't think so. Predators use, kill and leave behind, they don't carry corpses.
Just my opinion !
Carry her for over 400 metres in an area swarming with tourists on a night out? In any event that is not where the tracker dogs ended up.
I will be introducing this subject tomorrow with maps showing where the police dogs tracked Madeleine to.
-
So, Anne Guedes... can you give us your opinion about the Smith sighting?
Yes I can. I'm not sure about the carrier, but I've no doubt the little girl he carried was Madeleine. Was she in a coma or was she dead ? Likely the second. Did he kill her ? I don't think so. Predators use, kill and leave behind, they don't carry corpses.
Just my opinion !
Are you saying that it was Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine's corpse, Anne?
No, Rachel, I'm certainly not saying that.
What are you saying then, Anne?
-
Do people seriously believe that the Tanner "sighting" was an abductor carrying a sleeping Madeleine from the apartment? Come on!
If I may intercede.
Why ever not? Isn't that the only scenario which fits with all the known evidence?
The apartment was one of the easiest to get to, the abductor most probably had a key to it and possibly others. There is evidence from at least two witnesses that the apartments were being watched from across the street, there had been incidents in the past when intruders had entered the apartments. Security seems to have been lax at the complex especially after dark.
Do you suggest Mrs Fenn could have been abducted by "her" intruder ?
I don't doubt Jane T saw a man carrying a child, but I suggest the child was in a coma or dead, according to the position of the child (for me the best proof she saw someone, she couldn't have invented that curious way of carrying).
-
I wonder what your family and friends would make of your appalling posts?
Neely, I guess you're shocked because you so much hope that Madeleine is alive. But be reasonable and think of Gerald McCann's words about Madeleine being taken by paedophiles. Would you prefer that ? I wouldn't.
-
So, Anne Guedes... can you give us your opinion about the Smith sighting?
Yes I can. I'm not sure about the carrier, but I've no doubt the little girl he carried was Madeleine. Was she in a coma or was she dead ? Likely the second. Did he kill her ? I don't think so. Predators use, kill and leave behind, they don't carry corpses.
Just my opinion !
Carry her for over 400 metres in an area swarming with tourists on a night out? In any event that is not where the tracker dogs ended up.
The carrier the Smith crossed chose the darker road. I went there at night, many times, never met a soul.
-
So, Anne Guedes... can you give us your opinion about the Smith sighting?
Yes I can. I'm not sure about the carrier, but I've no doubt the little girl he carried was Madeleine. Was she in a coma or was she dead ? Likely the second. Did he kill her ? I don't think so. Predators use, kill and leave behind, they don't carry corpses.
Just my opinion !
Are you saying that it was Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine's corpse, Anne?
No, Rachel, I'm certainly not saying that.
What are you saying then, Anne?
Rachel, you asked my opinion, I answered, I can't say more, how could I ? I don't know, like everybody here !
-
My name is Neeley and your posts are very offensive.
You have no empathy for the parents of a missing child.
Shame on you.
Neeley, I didn't insult you, you do have to admit this. You have no empathy for me, that's your right but why tell it ? Do you hope to make me cry ? How do you know that I'm not a missing child's mother? Do I have to prove it to you ?
-
So, Anne Guedes... can you give us your opinion about the Smith sighting?
Yes I can. I'm not sure about the carrier, but I've no doubt the little girl he carried was Madeleine. Was she in a coma or was she dead ? Likely the second. Did he kill her ? I don't think so. Predators use, kill and leave behind, they don't carry corpses.
Just my opinion !
Carry her for over 400 metres in an area swarming with tourists on a night out? In any event that is not where the tracker dogs ended up.
I will be introducing this subject tomorrow with maps showing where the police dogs tracked Madeleine to.
Caution with that one, John.
There are two types of scent living humans emit and different types of tracker dogs that track them. There is an aerial scent that identifies humans as distinct from other animals, but does not differentiate one human from another; and there is a scent deposited at, or just above ground level that, like a signature or a complete DNA profile, differentiates one human as unique from another.
The overwhelming majority of tracker dogs are of the type trained to track the aerial, generic human scent.
Dogs trained to track the ground-scent are rare and specialised. In Britain, they are called scent article method or SAM dogs. There is only one police force (based in Dyfed, Wales) that has them.
I'm not convinced those GNR officers who were deployed to Praia da Luz had them. Certainly Mark Harrison says that the GNR deployed aerial scenting dogs.
And the handler of the dog that was given the towel to sniff says that it is likely his dog might have been distracted by competing scents, which would not be a problem for a dedicated SAM dog.
None of that should be interpreted or construed as criticism of those officers deployed who, faced with a stark choice between giving up on Madeleine or mixing-and-matching as best they could and trying their hardest on behalf of Madeleine, opted to give it their best shot, ill-equipped for the job asked of them. No one could, or should, criticise them for that.
But certainly in the very earliest stages, a SAM dog is what might have benefited the search for Madeline most ...
-
Two of the dogs coming from the GNR national school in Queluz (Lisbon) were what you call SAM dogs (in France also those dogs are trained in a unique place). They were given the towel, whereas the patrol dog with some training in SAM was given the comfort blanket. Curiously all three took the same route.
When a SAM dog meets a mixture of strong scents, like a bin, it tries to discriminate between them to find the referent scent. This is what the handler explains.
-
So, Anne Guedes... can you give us your opinion about the Smith sighting?
Yes I can. I'm not sure about the carrier, but I've no doubt the little girl he carried was Madeleine. Was she in a coma or was she dead ? Likely the second. Did he kill her ? I don't think so. Predators use, kill and leave behind, they don't carry corpses.
Just my opinion !
Carry her for over 400 metres in an area swarming with tourists on a night out? In any event that is not where the tracker dogs ended up.
The carrier the Smith crossed chose the darker road. I went there at night, many times, never met a soul.
With respect Anne the smiths only saw this person at a locus some 350 metres away from the Ocean Club. There is no proof he took any particular road, only that he was seen by the Smiths at that location. In any event wasn't the guy seen by tanner going in the wrong direction to be the same man the Smiths saw?
-
You must be a seriously sick person to post what you have.
Shame on you.
What is sick about that post. It is realistic.
Unlike half the myths freely discussed by both sides.
-
So, Anne Guedes... can you give us your opinion about the Smith sighting?
Yes I can. I'm not sure about the carrier, but I've no doubt the little girl he carried was Madeleine. Was she in a coma or was she dead ? Likely the second. Did he kill her ? I don't think so. Predators use, kill and leave behind, they don't carry corpses.
Just my opinion !
Carry her for over 400 metres in an area swarming with tourists on a night out? In any event that is not where the tracker dogs ended up.
The carrier the Smith crossed chose the darker road. I went there at night, many times, never met a soul.
With respect Anne the smiths only saw this person at a locus some 350 metres away from the Ocean Club. There is no proof he took any particular road, only that he was seen by the Smiths at that location. In any event wasn't the guy seen by tanner going in the wrong direction to be the same man the Smiths saw?
You're right, John, I was just trying to answer your "Carry her for over 400 metres in an area swarming with tourists on a night out?". Though there are different routes from the G5 to the Smith meeting point, one is the shortest, darkest and more desert one (no souls in May, no cars = no lights).
Though I don't doubt Jane T saw a carrier, I'm not sure she saw him where she said she did (but the guy could have decided to go backwards for some reason). Silvia Batista, who heard the first report and translated it, wondered how Jane could have seen what she said she saw being where she said she was.
-
Gildas, are you aware that SY have forensically examined the timeline and are of the opinion that there was opportunity for an abduction?
No, I am not aware that SY have examined the timeline, Martha. If you could provide me with a link, I shall read it as soon as I get a chance.
-
Gildas, are you aware that SY have forensically examined the timeline and are of the opinion that there was opportunity for an abduction?
No, I am not aware that SY have examined the timeline, Martha. If you could provide me with a link, I shall read it as soon as I get a chance.
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood said he believed she was abducted by a stranger, adding that there were 195 "investigative opportunities".
Redwood said he "genuinely" believed Madeleine could be alive, though the team is following an equal line of inquiry that she might now be dead.
The officer is leading a team of 37 detectives dedicated solely to carrying out an active investigative review of all the evidence in the case.
They are sifting through 40,000 pieces of material, and within them Redwood said officers have identified 195 historic investigative opportunities.
He said the team was developing new information about what happened to Madeleine five years ago, when she disappeared from her parents' holiday villa in Praia de Luz.
"We are currently developing material which we believe represents genuine new information," said Redwood.
He said officers had carried out a forensic analysis of the timeline of events, and had identified opportunities when the child could have been taken in a criminal act.
Dismissing conspiracy theories about Madeleine's parents' involvement, Redwood said he believed the girl's disappearance was the result of "a criminal act by a stranger".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-case-reopen-call
Martha, thanks for the quote. I am sorry I did not express myself well. I meant a timeline between 10.00 and 11.00, when events, according to C Edwards, were very confusing. I have now corrected my post.
-
SY speaks of a time-line forensically examined, which one ?
-
Martha, thanks for the quote. I am sorry I did not express myself well. I meant a timeline between 10.00 and 11.00, when events, according to C Edwards, were very confusing. I have now corrected my post.
There was no confusion, the statements are very clear as to the events which occurred in and around the Ocean Club resort on the evening of Thursday 3rd May 2007. It must be pointed out that it serves the purposes of some posters to invent confusion so as to blur their own agendas.
Undoubtedly, many posters have worked this out for themselves. ?>)()<
-
Martha, thanks for the quote. I am sorry I did not express myself well. I meant a timeline between 10.00 and 11.00, when events, according to C Edwards, were very confusing. I have now corrected my post.
There was no confusion, the statements are very clear as to the events which occurred in and around the Ocean Club resort on the evening of Thursday 3rd May 2007. It must be pointed out that it serves the purposes of some posters to invent confusion so as to blur their own agendas.
Undoubtedly, many posters have worked this out for themselves. ?>)()<
It's funny if that's aimed at me as I was booted off Havern's (very Anti) forum for having an agenda to disrupt and cause confusion apparently. I wasn't anti enough, it would appear. 8)><(
-
Martha, thanks for the quote. I am sorry I did not express myself well. I meant a timeline between 10.00 and 11.00, when events, according to C Edwards, were very confusing. I have now corrected my post.
There was no confusion, the statements are very clear as to the events which occurred in and around the Ocean Club resort on the evening of Thursday 3rd May 2007. It must be pointed out that it serves the purposes of some posters to invent confusion so as to blur their own agendas.
Undoubtedly, many posters have worked this out for themselves. ?>)()<
I believe there was some confusion but from going through the many statements by the tapas 9 and the many independent witnesses a vein of truth can be established. I agree with C Edwards to some extent that some of the timings given in several statements are not possible but we don't know why this is. Can they be a simple error, a wrongful translation or are the witnesses simply confused as many seemed to be.
What isn't in any doubt however is that Gerry McCann was at the dinner table at the tapas bar at around 10pm (give or take a few minutes) when Kate came running towards him shouting that Madeleine was gone. There is no disputing this event and the time it occurred.
Having gone through nearly 100 statements I am concerned that there would appear to be statements missing. I am also very aware that the statements given by the staff who worked in the tapas bar are lacking in substance so the question must be asked as to why did the Portuguese police do such a bad job in interviewing these individuals?
-
Martha, thanks for the quote. I am sorry I did not express myself well. I meant a timeline between 10.00 and 11.00, when events, according to C Edwards, were very confusing. I have now corrected my post.
There was no confusion, the statements are very clear as to the events which occurred in and around the Ocean Club resort on the evening of Thursday 3rd May 2007. It must be pointed out that it serves the purposes of some posters to invent confusion so as to blur their own agendas.
Undoubtedly, many posters have worked this out for themselves. ?>)()<
I believe there was some confusion but from going through the many statements by the tapas 9 and the many independent witnesses a vein of truth can be established. I agree with C Edwards to some extent that some of the timings given in several statements are not possible but we don't know why this is. Can they be a simple error, a wrongful translation or are the witnesses simply confused as many seemed to be.
What isn't in any doubt however is that Gerry McCann was at the dinner table at the tapas bar at around 10pm (give or take a few minutes) when Kate came running towards him shouting that Madeleine was gone. There is no disputing this event an the time it occurred.
Having gone through nearly 100 statements I am concerned that there would appear to statements missing. I am also very aware that the statements given by the staff who worked in the tapas bar are lacking in substance so the question must be asked as to why did the Portuguese police do such a bad job in interviewing these individuals?
Gerry disagrees, he has the alarm closer to 10.15 which gives him time to have returned to the Tapas bar after crossing paths with the Smith family - Half and hour later, without anything to remark, it being 22h03, he again alerted KATE that it was time to check the children. She immediately made her way to the apartment by the usual path, having entered through the back door. About 10 minutes later, he started to worry about her taking so long, and, at the moment the deponent prepared to get up and to check why she was taking so long, KATE appeared running, completely distraught and crying, saying that MADELEINE had disappeared and that she was sure because she had looked throughout the entire house.
Seeing as the alarm was raised because of the Smith sighting, it's hardly rocket science that he was at the table when said alarm was raised!
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap10
-
Martha, thanks for the quote. I am sorry I did not express myself well. I meant a timeline between 10.00 and 11.00, when events, according to C Edwards, were very confusing. I have now corrected my post.
There was no confusion, the statements are very clear as to the events which occurred in and around the Ocean Club resort on the evening of Thursday 3rd May 2007. It must be pointed out that it serves the purposes of some posters to invent confusion so as to blur their own agendas.
Undoubtedly, many posters have worked this out for themselves. ?>)()<
It's funny if that's aimed at me as I was booted off Havern's (very Anti) forum for having an agenda to disrupt and cause confusion apparently. I wasn't anti enough, it would appear. 8)><(
Mr Edwards, I remember your posting on the Jill Havern site, and was sorry to see you banned. I also remember your posting on the Missing Madeleine site, and coming very close to being banned there, as well. Judging from your posts on those sites, and your posts on this site, I believe you are neither "Anti" nor "Pro".
-
Martha, thanks for the quote. I am sorry I did not express myself well. I meant a timeline between 10.00 and 11.00, when events, according to C Edwards, were very confusing. I have now corrected my post.
There was no confusion, the statements are very clear as to the events which occurred in and around the Ocean Club resort on the evening of Thursday 3rd May 2007. It must be pointed out that it serves the purposes of some posters to invent confusion so as to blur their own agendas.
Undoubtedly, many posters have worked this out for themselves. ?>)()<
It's funny if that's aimed at me as I was booted off Havern's (very Anti) forum for having an agenda to disrupt and cause confusion apparently. I wasn't anti enough, it would appear. 8)><(
Mr Edwards, I remember your posting on the Jill Havern site, and was sorry to see you banned. I also remember your posting on the Missing Madeleine site, and coming very close to being banned there, as well. Judging from your posts on those sites, and your posts on this site, I believe you are neither "Anti" nor "Pro".
What a compliment !
-
Gerry disagrees, he has the alarm closer to 10.15 which gives him time to have returned to the Tapas bar after crossing paths with the Smith family - Half and hour later, without anything to remark, it being 22h03, he again alerted KATE that it was time to check the children. She immediately made her way to the apartment by the usual path, having entered through the back door. About 10 minutes later, he started to worry about her taking so long, and, at the moment the deponent prepared to get up and to check why she was taking so long, KATE appeared running, completely distraught and crying, saying that MADELEINE had disappeared and that she was sure because she had looked throughout the entire house.
Seeing as the alarm was raised because of the Smith sighting, it's hardly rocket science that he was at the table when said alarm was raised!
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap10
There's some interesting stuff on timings created by Charlotte Pennington's statements too.
Firstly from her witness statement:
The witness states that she participated in the searches, together with her colleague—Amy, searching various areas of the Ocean Club establishment. She also states that she searched the patio area of the residence where Madeleine stayed with her parents and siblings, and during which, she encountered many individuals inside the apartment but was not able to tell if they were complex employees or friends of the couple. She did not enter the residence in question;
Then (admittedly it's only a press report, but it's a direct quote and doesn't ever appear to have been retracted, so who knows...)
yesterday she told the Daily Mail: "I was in the apartment less than five minutes after they found that Madeleine had gone.
So a bit of an about-turn there...
She goes on:
Just before 10pm the last mother arrived to collect her child from the creche and mentioned that she had just bumped into a man, who had been shouting a name.
"She didn't get the name, but she said it sounded something like 'Abbey, Gabby or Maddie'. We automatically went into lost-child procedure. In these situations, the first thing we do is investigate the scene.
"We knew that one of the other nanny's charges was called Maddie. We told the head of department what had happened and she took us straight to the apartment.
"There were no children in the room. The twins had been taken out already, I think by one of the McCanns' friends.
So "just before 10" is one interesting point and another is "There were no children in the room". Hang on though... when the GNR arrived the twins were in the room, sound asleep and causing the GNR officers to wonder why they weren't waking up in all the commotion... where were the twins when Charlotte Pennington was in there?
If it was "just before 10" then if you take Gerry's timings of "10:03" (you can't, of course, as no timings can be seen as being that accurate unless there's a mobile phone call or text to "pin" a time as with John Hill and Emma Louis Knight) then that's another discrepancy. For Gerry to be searaching, Kate had to have walked the couple of minutes back to the apartment, found a missing madeleine, searched around thoroughly (as she said she did) then rushed back to the bar, collected Gerry, he had to have looked around before rushing out... you can see that this is all still very, very muddled. It's a real shame there was no flipping cctv working in the area.
Some interesting reading re: Ms. Pennington (and hysterical reporting) on the mccannfiles site with reproductions of some press stories. All of which must, of course, be taken with a large pinch of salt: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id70.html (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id70.html) It's things like the huge discrepancies in Charlotte Pennington's statements (nicely taken apart on the McCannfiles link above) that make those of us that doubt, doubt so much. Too many glaring errors. You can't argue that she forgot if she was in the apartment or not!
-
not sgnificant
-
The seemingly giddy Charlotte Pennington might have forgotten to set her watch on GMT on 25th March 2007.
-
Martha, thanks for the quote. I am sorry I did not express myself well. I meant a timeline between 10.00 and 11.00, when events, according to C Edwards, were very confusing. I have now corrected my post.
There was no confusion, the statements are very clear as to the events which occurred in and around the Ocean Club resort on the evening of Thursday 3rd May 2007. It must be pointed out that it serves the purposes of some posters to invent confusion so as to blur their own agendas.
Undoubtedly, many posters have worked this out for themselves. ?>)()<
Excuse me Mr. Administrator, which timeline are you referring to?
The ones scribbled on the children's book covers, just prior to the arrival of the police; the ones they gave on their testimonies to the PJ or the ones they gave (or sent other people to deliver) to the press????
If the statements are clear to you, that's fantastic, because to the police they weren't, and that's why a RECONSTRUCTION WAS/IS NEEDED.
-
Gerry disagrees, he has the alarm closer to 10.15 which gives him time to have returned to the Tapas bar after crossing paths with the Smith family - Half and hour later, without anything to remark, it being 22h03, he again alerted KATE that it was time to check the children. She immediately made her way to the apartment by the usual path, having entered through the back door. About 10 minutes later, he started to worry about her taking so long, and, at the moment the deponent prepared to get up and to check why she was taking so long, KATE appeared running, completely distraught and crying, saying that MADELEINE had disappeared and that she was sure because she had looked throughout the entire house.
Seeing as the alarm was raised because of the Smith sighting, it's hardly rocket science that he was at the table when said alarm was raised!
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap10
In order to remain completely impartial at this time I have purposely not read any of the statements by the Tapas 9, not a single one!
Many of the posters who dispute the Tapas 9 version of events insist that it is the independent witnesses who speak the truth and I would normally agree with that but I have found that many of the Portuguese witnesses have been slow at coming forward and could have assisted the inquiry to a greater extent. Given what I know of these countries however, I am not in the least surprised. The police tend to run the show in Portugal and Spain so anyone wanting to remain there and in employment tends to keep their views and a lot of what they know to them-self.
That said however, I have found the witness statements by the many British nationals who worked at the resort to be very revealing and indeed informative.
Now to claridge's post above.
Gerry's time of 10.15 is impossible by the independent witness evidence. I personally don't know how he came by this time and as I have not read any of his statements I won't comment further at this time.
The independent evidence is very clear, Gerry was at the table when the Smiths saw their man carrying a child 400 metres away.
-
There will always be discrepancies with timings and other factors and especially so if you read what has been written by the Press. Anyone who has ever been the subject of Press reporting will know that they print sensationalism most of the time, the sort of stuff which sells newspapers is always what they are after and not necessarily what they have been told or dare I say it, THE TRUTH!
A very big pinch of salt please when quoting anything from a newspaper.
-
I have found that many of the Portuguese witnesses have been slow at coming forward and could have assisted the inquiry to a greater extent. Given what I know of these countries however, I am not in the least surprised. The police tend to run the show in Portugal and Spain so anyone wanting to remain there and in employment tends to keep their views and a lot of what they know to them-self.
Portugal is quite different from Spain, may be for being an atlantic country. People are generally reluctant to testify, but in this particular case, the disappearance of a little girl, the people felt extremely concerned. Those who kept silent most probably didn't know nothing that could help.
-
Now to claridge's post above.
Gerry's time of 10.15 is impossible by the independent witness evidence. I personally don't know how he came by this time and as I have not read any of his statements I won't comment further at this time.
The independent evidence is very clear, Gerry was at the table when the Smiths saw their man carrying a child 400 metres away.
Russell, "relieved by Jane" was back around 21:40. He had only half eaten his steak when Kate came running.
Everybody wishes Gerry was at the table when the Smiths met the carrier, but there's no evidence. He likely was at the table when Kate came back, though only the Paynes suggest it directly, but when was that for sure ?
-
Now to claridge's post above.
Gerry's time of 10.15 is impossible by the independent witness evidence. I personally don't know how he came by this time and as I have not read any of his statements I won't comment further at this time.
The independent evidence is very clear, Gerry was at the table when the Smiths saw their man carrying a child 400 metres away.
Russell, "relieved by Jane" was back around 21:40. He had only half eaten his steak when Kate came running.
Everybody wishes Gerry was at the table when the Smiths met the carrier, but there's no evidence. He likely was at the table when Kate came back, though only the Paynes suggest it directly, but when was that for sure ?
Were the other diners ever questioned?
-
It seems there was no one else having dinner when Kate came back.
-
It seems there was no one else having dinner when Kate came back.
Can we clarify that please Anna
Are you saying that
1) Everyone else had stopped eating? or
2) That there was nobody at the Mccann table? or
3) that there were no other diners on other tables?
Not sure which you mean.
-
There appears to be a bout of codolgy going about in many of the discussions as far as I can see. Anyone who believes that Gerry McCann got up from his dinner to carry a corpse around Praia Da Luz is frankly missing something in their lives. How absolutely stupid does that whole proposition sound? Would you do it?
Lets bring some reality to this case folks and stop posting bullshit. If Gerry had for some reason wanted to move his daughter following some sort of accidental death don't you think he would have at least waited until everyone was in bed.
Lets have some common sense PLEASE!
-
There appears to be a bout of codolgy going about in many of the discussions as far as I can see. Anyone who believes that Gerry McCann got up from his dinner to carry a corpse around Praia Da Luz is frankly missing something in their lives. How absolutely stupid does that whole proposition sound? Would you do it?
Lets bring some reality to this case folks and stop posting bullshit. If Gerry had for some reason wanted to move his daughter following some sort of accidental death don't you think he would have at least waited until everyone was in bed.
Lets have some common sense PLEASE!
John, you have summed it up perfectly.
-
There appears to be a bout of codolgy going about in many of the discussions as far as I can see. Anyone who believes that Gerry McCann got up from his dinner to carry a corpse around Praia Da Luz is frankly missing something in their lives. How absolutely stupid does that whole proposition sound? Would you do it?
Lets bring some reality to this case folks and stop posting bullshit. If Gerry had for some reason wanted to move his daughter following some sort of accidental death don't you think he would have at least waited until everyone was in bed.
Lets have some common sense PLEASE!
It's obviously way past your bedtime.
-
There appears to be a bout of codolgy going about in many of the discussions as far as I can see. Anyone who believes that Gerry McCann got up from his dinner to carry a corpse around Praia Da Luz is frankly missing something in their lives. How absolutely stupid does that whole proposition sound? Would you do it?
Lets bring some reality to this case folks and stop posting bullshit. If Gerry had for some reason wanted to move his daughter following some sort of accidental death don't you think he would have at least waited until everyone was in bed.
Lets have some common sense PLEASE!
It's obviously way past your bedtime.
No need at all for this sarcastic rebute to John's perfectly reasonable and sensible contribution to the debate.
-
There appears to be a bout of codolgy going about in many of the discussions as far as I can see. Anyone who believes that Gerry McCann got up from his dinner to carry a corpse around Praia Da Luz is frankly missing something in their lives. How absolutely stupid does that whole proposition sound? Would you do it?
Lets bring some reality to this case folks and stop posting bullshit. If Gerry had for some reason wanted to move his daughter following some sort of accidental death don't you think he would have at least waited until everyone was in bed.
Lets have some common sense PLEASE!
It's obviously way past your bedtime.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu7vySQbgXI
?8)@)-)
-
There appears to be a bout of codolgy going about in many of the discussions as far as I can see. Anyone who believes that Gerry McCann got up from his dinner to carry a corpse around Praia Da Luz is frankly missing something in their lives. How absolutely stupid does that whole proposition sound? Would you do it?
Lets bring some reality to this case folks and stop posting bullshit. If Gerry had for some reason wanted to move his daughter following some sort of accidental death don't you think he would have at least waited until everyone was in bed.
Lets have some common sense PLEASE!
It's obviously way past your bedtime.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu7vySQbgXI
?8)@)-)
Good call, shona. John is running a super forum here IMO... there is room for intelligent and respectful debate here about many cases.
-
Getting back to the substance of the thread title
How are the independent witness statements that place Gerry McCann away from the tapas bar at 10pm to be viewed ?
Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira for instance ( the waiter who served the tapas group their meals that night )
Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry
According to this independent witness, then, it was indeed possible for Gerry McCann to have been crossing paths with the Smith family at 22.05
-
Getting back to the substance of the thread title
How are the independent witness statements that place Gerry McCann away from the tapas bar at 10pm to be viewed ?
Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira for instance ( the waiter who served the tapas group their meals that night )
Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry
According to this independent witness, then, it was indeed possible for Gerry McCann to have been crossing paths with the Smith family at 22.05
A few minutes
Perhaps, 15?
Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.
— Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left because her father and her brother decided to leave early that night. There were two reasons for this: one was the fact that her sister-in-law was not feeling very well and the other was because her brother, sister-in-law, nephew and son of her sister-in-law finished their holiday the next day and had to catch the morning flight returning to Ireland.
Aofe Smith
-
Getting back to the substance of the thread title
How are the independent witness statements that place Gerry McCann away from the tapas bar at 10pm to be viewed ?
Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira for instance ( the waiter who served the tapas group their meals that night )
Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry
According to this independent witness, then, it was indeed possible for Gerry McCann to have been crossing paths with the Smith family at 22.05
A few minutes
Perhaps, 15?
Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.
— Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left because her father and her brother decided to leave early that night. There were two reasons for this: one was the fact that her sister-in-law was not feeling very well and the other was because her brother, sister-in-law, nephew and son of her sister-in-law finished their holiday the next day and had to catch the morning flight returning to Ireland.
Aofe Smith
Do I think that this witness would have said 'a few minutes' if he had meant a quarter of an hour ? ... no, I don't
I did not intend to split hairs about the semantics of independent witness statements though ... merely to point out that 'cherry picking' them to suit a particular theory does not make for a sound proposition
-
A few minutes
Perhaps, 15?
Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.
— Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left because her father and her brother decided to leave early that night. There were two reasons for this: one was the fact that her sister-in-law was not feeling very well and the other was because her brother, sister-in-law, nephew and son of her sister-in-law finished their holiday the next day and had to catch the morning flight returning to Ireland.
Aofe Smith
Do I think that this witness would have said 'a few minutes' if he had meant a quarter of an hour ? ... no, I don't
I did not intend to split hairs about the semantics of independent witness statements though ... merely to point out that 'cherry picking' them to suit a particular theory does not make for a sound proposition
Split hairs all you want, icabod. The fact remains that they weren't even arrested.
-
It seems there was no one else having dinner when Kate came back.
Can we clarify that please Anna
Are you saying that
1) Everyone else had stopped eating? or
2) That there was nobody at the Mccann table? or
3) that there were no other diners on other tables?
Not sure which you mean.
Well, Sadie, it seems no guest except for the TP9 was having dinner when Kate came back from her check. The "rasta" couple was scheduled at 9, had they left at 10 ? There's no witness statement of this couple in the PJ files. An Irwing couple, about whom the TP9 were questioned but in vain, scheduled at 8:30. No statement as well.
-
But you are so wrong, the very same waiter Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira saw Madeleines parents both arrive for dinner at 8.45pm and this corroborates Gerry himself when he stated that he and Kate left their apartment at 8.35pm.
Ricardo recalls that only one of the Tapas 9 had his meal held back and this is something that a waiter never gets wrong. That person was Russell O'Brien who was on bedroom duty looking after his ill daughter until relieved by partner Jane tanner at 9.40. Ricardo confirms his return to the table at 9.45pm. Obviously the waiter was wanting away home and was nigh too pleased at being delayed.
Now lets see, 9 meals delivered to a table for 9 people and the only individuals who were absent were absent for a matter of minutes at a time doing regular child checks or chatting with yet more independent witnesses unless of course the conspiracists want to label Jez as another collaborator in some grand plan?
Another independent witness comes up trumps! 8@??)(
John, you can attribute any motives you wish for this indepenedent witness making the statement to the police that he did ... the fact remains that he made it
The time that he saw the McCanns arrive matters not a jot ( I don't know why you mentioned it )
This independent witness looked at the table a few minutes after 9.45pm, and saw it empty ... allowing for the possibilility that Gerry McCann crossed paths with the Smith family at 10.05 pm
You accept that ... don't you ?
-
It seems there was no one else having dinner when Kate came back.
Can we clarify that please Anna
Are you saying that
1) Everyone else had stopped eating? or
2) That there was nobody at the Mccann table? or
3) that there were no other diners on other tables?
Not sure which you mean.
Well, Sadie, it seems no guest except for the TP9 was having dinner when Kate came back from her check. The "rasta" couple was scheduled at 9, had they left at 10 ? There's no witness statement of this couple in the PJ files. An Irwing couple, about whom the TP9 were questioned but in vain, scheduled at 8:30. No statement as well.
It's not clear to me whether they were there or not. From the answers, it would seem that they were asked if the Irwins had joined their group at the table.
----- Questioned, she said that on Thursday, 03/05/2007, there was no body sitting at the table, strange to the group, and she does not know anyone with the name "IRWIN."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-11-MAY07.htm
On these holidays, she never met nor dined (along with the rest of the group) with any family or person having the surname "Irwin".
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm
----- Asked, he relates that on Thursday, 3 May 2007, there was nobody outside the group seated at the table, nor does he know any person with the name IRWIN.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
I haven't checked the waiters' statements on this point yet.
-
It seems there was no one else having dinner when Kate came back.
Can we clarify that please Anna
Are you saying that
1) Everyone else had stopped eating? or
2) That there was nobody at the Mccann table? or
3) that there were no other diners on other tables?
Not sure which you mean.
Well, Sadie, it seems no guest except for the TP9 was having dinner when Kate came back from her check. The "rasta" couple was scheduled at 9, had they left at 10 ? There's no witness statement of this couple in the PJ files. An Irwing couple, about whom the TP9 were questioned but in vain, scheduled at 8:30. No statement as well.
It's not clear to me whether they were there or not. From the answers, it would seem that they were asked if the Irwins had joined their group at the table.
----- Questioned, she said that on Thursday, 03/05/2007, there was no body sitting at the table, strange to the group, and she does not know anyone with the name "IRWIN."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-11-MAY07.htm
On these holidays, she never met nor dined (along with the rest of the group) with any family or person having the surname "Irwin".
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm
----- Asked, he relates that on Thursday, 3 May 2007, there was nobody outside the group seated at the table, nor does he know any person with the name IRWIN.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
I haven't checked the waiters' statements on this point yet.
The PJ insisted with those Irwing because they seem to be part of the TP on the register book for that night (whereas the others are clearly separated).
I checked some statements and it seems everybody else had gone and the TP were alone in the restaurant.
-
Getting back to the substance of the thread title
How are the independent witness statements that place Gerry McCann away from the tapas bar at 10pm to be viewed ?
Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira for instance ( the waiter who served the tapas group their meals that night )
Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry
According to this independent witness, then, it was indeed possible for Gerry McCann to have been crossing paths with the Smith family at 22.05
But you are so wrong, the very same waiter Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira saw Madeleines parents both arrive for dinner at 8.45pm and this corroborates Gerry himself when he stated that he and Kate left their apartment at 8.35pm. He confirmed that the entire group of 9 sat down to dinner.
Ricardo recalls that only one of the Tapas 9 had his meal held back and this is something that a waiter never gets wrong. Ricardo confirmed in a later statement that the person was Russell O'Brien who was away from the table for quite some time. As it happens, Russell was on bedroom duty looking after his ill daughter until relieved by partner Jane tanner at 9.40. Ricardo confirms his return to the table at 9.45pm. Obviously the waiter was wanting to get home and was not too pleased at being delayed.
Now lets see, 9 meals delivered to a table for 9 people and the only individuals who were absent were absent for a matter of minutes at a time doing regular child checks.
Another independent witness comes up trumps. 8@??)(
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
-
It seems there was no one else having dinner when Kate came back.
Can we clarify that please Anna
Are you saying that
1) Everyone else had stopped eating? or
2) That there was nobody at the Mccann table? or
3) that there were no other diners on other tables?
Not sure which you mean.
Well, Sadie, it seems no guest except for the TP9 was having dinner when Kate came back from her check. The "rasta" couple was scheduled at 9, had they left at 10 ? There's no witness statement of this couple in the PJ files. An Irwing couple, about whom the TP9 were questioned but in vain, scheduled at 8:30. No statement as well.
Thank you Ann for coming back 8((()*/
-
The fact remains that they weren't even arrested.
Rachel, you very often conclude your posts with this remark. Are you fearing for them ? I bet my head they'll never be arrested, even if eventually proven to have disposed of Madeleine's body (for whatever obscure reason). Not only because prescription exists, but because they're not dangerous for others, even for their kids (surely never more left alone anywhere). Either they were charged rapidly (mainly to avoid copycats) or they'd never be. Especially in such a delicate case, evidence has to be strong. It wasn't the case and any threat of conviction (imo) is obsolete.
-
Getting back to the substance of the thread title
How are the independent witness statements that place Gerry McCann away from the tapas bar at 10pm to be viewed ?
Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira for instance ( the waiter who served the tapas group their meals that night )
Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry
According to this independent witness, then, it was indeed possible for Gerry McCann to have been crossing paths with the Smith family at 22.05
But you are so wrong, the very same waiter Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira saw Madeleines parents both arrive for dinner at 8.45pm and this corroborates Gerry himself when he stated that he and Kate left their apartment at 8.35pm. He confirmed that the entire group of 9 sat down to dinner.
Ricardo recalls that only one of the Tapas 9 had his meal held back and this is something that a waiter never gets wrong. Ricardo confirmed in a later statement that the person was Russell O'Brien who was away from the table for quite some time. As it happens, Russell was on bedroom duty looking after his ill daughter until relieved by partner Jane tanner at 9.40. Ricardo confirms his return to the table at 9.45pm. Obviously the waiter was wanting away home and was too pleased at being delayed.
Now lets see, 9 meals delivered to a table for 9 people and the only individuals who were absent were absent for a matter of minutes at a time doing regular child checks.
Another independent witness comes up trumps. 8@??)(
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
Thanks for that, John.
Some important detail there I'd missed.
-
John says:
...Russell was on bedroom duty looking after his ill daughter until relieved by partner Jane tanner at 9.40.
Jez Wilkins in his report says that he is certain he saw Jane Tanner, alas, not at the crucial time of his meeting with Gerry but a short time (if memory serves right) later.
That is crucial because, at one time, a rumour circulated that she never left the table at all that evening ...
From Jez Wilkins' statement:
Now I know her name, description of the clothes and photos which I have seen in the press. At that time I knew of her as a member of the group but did not know her name. I do not remember having seen her when I spoke with Gerry, but I believe I saw her when I first ventured out. She was stopped on the street in front of one of the group's apartments when I passed her down towards the exit to my apartment. I do not know if it was her apartment or not. I remember that she was wearing the colour purple.
-
The fact remains that they weren't even arrested.
Rachel, you very often conclude your posts with this remark. Are you fearing for them ? I bet my head they'll never be arrested, even if eventually proven to have disposed of Madeleine's body (for whatever obscure reason). Not only because prescription exists, but because they're not dangerous for others, even for their kids (surely never more left alone anywhere). Either they were charged rapidly (mainly to avoid copycats) or they'd never be. Especially in such a delicate case, evidence has to be strong. It wasn't the case and any threat of conviction (imo) is obsolete.
But the evidence is strong Anne, it's just that for whatever reason some people choose to believe there was a conspiracy by nine people to cover something up when independent witness corroboration says differently.
There isn't a single witness that can put Gerry McCann anywhere that evening other than at or near to the Ocean Club. That I am afraid is the bottom line in all of this. The Smiths sighting had nothing whatsoever to do with Gerry McCann.
-
@ John
This part of the statement you posted is particularly interesting :
'He does not remember having seen Madeleine's parents leave the table for short instances, but it is possible that someone could have left the table without the witness having noticed.'
So Gerry could have been gone from the able for some time without the witness having noticed.
To be honest I can't see how the statement furthers the cause of Gerry being at the tapas table at the time of the Smith sighting.
-
@ John
This part of the statement you posted is particularly interesting :
'He does not remember having seen Madeleine's parents leave the table for short instances, but it is possible that someone could have left the table without the witness having noticed.'
So Gerry could have been gone from the able for some time without the witness having noticed.
To be honest I can't see how the statement furthers the cause of Gerry being at the tapas table at the time of the Smith sighting.
but it is possible that someone could have left the table without the witness having noticed.'
In much the same way as it is possible that Martians live on Mars ...
-
Ferryman, according to your own quote, Mr Wilkins stated he saw Jane Tanner when he first ventured out, which was around 8.30pm.That makes it before his chat with Gerry Mccann and not after.
-
Ferryman, according to your own quote, Mr Wilkins stated he saw Jane Tanner when he first ventured out, which was around 8.30pm.That makes it before his chat with Gerry Mccann and not after.
Indeed. Before rather than after.
-
The fact remains that they weren't even arrested.
Rachel, you very often conclude your posts with this remark. Are you fearing for them ? I bet my head they'll never be arrested, even if eventually proven to have disposed of Madeleine's body (for whatever obscure reason). Not only because prescription exists, but because they're not dangerous for others, even for their kids (surely never more left alone anywhere). Either they were charged rapidly (mainly to avoid copycats) or they'd never be. Especially in such a delicate case, evidence has to be strong. It wasn't the case and any threat of conviction (imo) is obsolete.
But the evidence is strong Anne, it's just that for whatever reason some people choose to believe there was a conspiracy by nine people to cover something up when independent witness corroboration says differently.
There isn't a single witness that can put Gerry McCann anywhere that evening other than at or near to the Ocean Club. That I am afraid is the bottom line in all of this. The Smiths sighting had nothing whatsoever to do with Gerry McCann.
No, John, there's no strong evidence. If there was we wouldn't be here !
I'm not a conspirational fan at all. The McCann case, imo simple, is above this kind of speculation. But one has to admit that untruths, to speak like the AG, discrepancies and moreover refusal to answer questions (possibly a pure lawyer mistake) and to reconstruct (possibly an arrangement) fed conspiracy theories. Not to mention the media.
You know very well that "the Smiths sighting had nothing whatsoever to do with Gerry McCann" is only a possibility and your opinion. Turn it into a fact needs evidence. If it were easy there's a long time any shadow of a doubt against the McCanns would have vanished.
-
Ferryman, according to your own quote, Mr Wilkins stated he saw Jane Tanner when he first ventured out, which was around 8.30pm.That makes it before his chat with Gerry Mccann and not after.
Indeed. Before rather than after.
So that quote bears no relation to the rumour that Jane Tanner never left the table that night. Incidentally, it was not a rumour, but the opinion of a Spanish American detective who travelled out to PDL, interviewed the Tapas Bar staff and appeared in a documentary about the case, as well as on numerous TV news specials. Why he formed that opinion I don't recall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4crZrHLJUw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
-
There appears to be a bout of codolgy going about in many of the discussions as far as I can see. Anyone who believes that Gerry McCann got up from his dinner to carry a corpse around Praia Da Luz is frankly missing something in their lives. How absolutely stupid does that whole proposition sound? Would you do it?
Lets bring some reality to this case folks and stop posting bullshit. If Gerry had for some reason wanted to move his daughter following some sort of accidental death don't you think he would have at least waited until everyone was in bed.
Lets have some common sense PLEASE!
Good comment, but you are being very optimistic, I think. Reality is not around at present.
-
Ferryman, according to your own quote, Mr Wilkins stated he saw Jane Tanner when he first ventured out, which was around 8.30pm.That makes it before his chat with Gerry Mccann and not after.
Indeed. Before rather than after.
So that quote bears no relation to the rumour that Jane Tanner never left the table that night. Incidentally, it was not a rumour, but the opinion of a Spanish American detective who travelled out to PDL, interviewed the Tapas Bar staff and appeared in a documentary about the case, as well as on numerous TV news specials. Why he formed that opinion I don't recall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4crZrHLJUw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Beg your pardon, yes, the timing was too early to verify that Jane left the restaurant during the evening.
But the assumption that she didn't was based, purely, on absence of comment that she had.
Why should anyone comment?
-
@ John
Gerry would have been aware the time of death would have been able to be established relatively accurately. Therefore if the body was found and the time of death established it would be obvious Madeleine was already dead by the time the McCanns returned from the tapas.
-
There appears to be a bout of codolgy going about in many of the discussions as far as I can see. Anyone who believes that Gerry McCann got up from his dinner to carry a corpse around Praia Da Luz is frankly missing something in their lives. How absolutely stupid does that whole proposition sound? Would you do it?
Lets bring some reality to this case folks and stop posting bullshit. If Gerry had for some reason wanted to move his daughter following some sort of accidental death don't you think he would have at least waited until everyone was in bed.
Lets have some common sense PLEASE!
Good comment, but you are being very optimistic, I think. Reality is not around at present.
I hate to repeat it, John, but in the dead of night, when everybody sleeps, the item could have been too cold to deposit in a narrow place. Doctors know it.
-
@ John
This part of the statement you posted is particularly interesting :
'He does not remember having seen Madeleine's parents leave the table for short instances, but it is possible that someone could have left the table without the witness having noticed.'
So Gerry could have been gone from the able for some time without the witness having noticed.
To be honest I can't see how the statement furthers the cause of Gerry being at the tapas table at the time of the Smith sighting.
You cannot justify speculation by posting a negative. Lots of people may have done certain things or could have done certain things but unless it is evidenced and corroborated then it still remains speculation and worst of all GOSSIP.
The waiter clearly recalls delivering 9 meals for 9 people and being asked to take one back for Russell. Had anyone left the table for a greater time than 10 minutes he would have noticed it. The fact that he didn't see anyone leave the table is evidence in itself.
For Gerry to have gone to the apartment, walked down town by the not-so-scenic-route, done whatever you are suggesting he did and returned by the same route whilst remaining clean and undishevelled he would have to had been away for at least 20 minutes. That absence in anyone's book would have been noticed by a waiter who was serving tables and providing drinks for his guests.
-
There appears to be a bout of codolgy going about in many of the discussions as far as I can see. Anyone who believes that Gerry McCann got up from his dinner to carry a corpse around Praia Da Luz is frankly missing something in their lives. How absolutely stupid does that whole proposition sound? Would you do it?
Lets bring some reality to this case folks and stop posting bullshit. If Gerry had for some reason wanted to move his daughter following some sort of accidental death don't you think he would have at least waited until everyone was in bed.
Lets have some common sense PLEASE!
Good comment, but you are being very optimistic, I think. Reality is not around at present.
I hate to repeat it, John, but in the dead of night, when everybody sleeps, the item could have been too cold to deposit in a narrow place. Doctors know it.
@ AnneGuedes Item? Since when has a child, alive or dead, become an item?
-
Ferryman, according to your own quote, Mr Wilkins stated he saw Jane Tanner when he first ventured out, which was around 8.30pm.That makes it before his chat with Gerry Mccann and not after.
Indeed. Before rather than after.
So that quote bears no relation to the rumour that Jane Tanner never left the table that night. Incidentally, it was not a rumour, but the opinion of a Spanish American detective who travelled out to PDL, interviewed the Tapas Bar staff and appeared in a documentary about the case, as well as on numerous TV news specials. Why he formed that opinion I don't recall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4crZrHLJUw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
An excellent video find Redblossom. His ultimate comment is rather interesting considering Jez Wilkins later stated he had seen Jane on two occasions that night. The truth as always lies somewhere in the middle of all this. >@@(*&)
Another point everyone might consider is that it is not possible to tell the time of death to any great accuracy after several hours have passed. We have seen this in many other cases.
-
@ John
This part of the statement you posted is particularly interesting :
'He does not remember having seen Madeleine's parents leave the table for short instances, but it is possible that someone could have left the table without the witness having noticed.'
So Gerry could have been gone from the able for some time without the witness having noticed.
To be honest I can't see how the statement furthers the cause of Gerry being at the tapas table at the time of the Smith sighting.
You cannot justify speculation by posting a negative. Lots of people may have done certain things or could have done certain things but unless it is evidenced and corroborated then it still remains speculation and worst of all GOSSIP.
The waiter clearly recalls delivering 9 meals for 9 people and being asked to take one back for Russell. Had anyone left the table for a greater time than 10 minutes he would have noticed it. The fact that he didn't see anyone leave the table is evidence in itself.
For Gerry to have gone to the apartment, walked down town by the not-so-scenic-route, done whatever you are suggesting he did and returned by the same route whilst remaining clean and undishevelled he would have to had been away for at least 20 minutes. That absence in anyone's book would have been noticed by a waiter who was serving tables and providing drinks for his guests.
Sooooo.
Where are we. Perhaps we could consider this from a different perspective:
- No one can state that he was absent during that time, aside from the post-arguido doubt of Martin Smith and his wife (but not the kids).
- Did anyone notice him being particularly quiet, nervous, anxious that evening?
- How many people would have been required to consipire in any such cover-up?
- When would such a mega cover-up plan have been hatched and agreed upon by those concerned?
- No body has been found.
-
There appears to be a bout of codolgy going about in many of the discussions as far as I can see. Anyone who believes that Gerry McCann got up from his dinner to carry a corpse around Praia Da Luz is frankly missing something in their lives. How absolutely stupid does that whole proposition sound? Would you do it?
Lets bring some reality to this case folks and stop posting bullshit. If Gerry had for some reason wanted to move his daughter following some sort of accidental death don't you think he would have at least waited until everyone was in bed.
Lets have some common sense PLEASE!
Good comment, but you are being very optimistic, I think. Reality is not around at present.
I hate to repeat it, John, but in the dead of night, when everybody sleeps, the item could have been too cold to deposit in a narrow place. Doctors know it.
@ AnneGuedes Item? Since when has a child, alive or dead, become an item?
'Anne
Item? ... for a child? That sounds like the word a member of the gang might use, hiding that it is a child ... when communicating with another via email
That makes me wonder....?
Only joking. I feel sure you wouldn't be
-
@ John
This part of the statement you posted is particularly interesting :
'He does not remember having seen Madeleine's parents leave the table for short instances, but it is possible that someone could have left the table without the witness having noticed.'
So Gerry could have been gone from the able for some time without the witness having noticed.
To be honest I can't see how the statement furthers the cause of Gerry being at the tapas table at the time of the Smith sighting.
You cannot justify speculation by posting a negative. Lots of people may have done certain things or could have done certain things but unless it is evidenced and corroborated then it still remains speculation and worst of all GOSSIP.
The waiter clearly recalls delivering 9 meals for 9 people and being asked to take one back for Russell. Had anyone left the table for a greater time than 10 minutes he would have noticed it. The fact that he didn't see anyone leave the table is evidence in itself.
For Gerry to have gone to the apartment, walked down town by the not-so-scenic-route, done whatever you are suggesting he did and returned by the same route whilst remaining clean and undishevelled he would have to had been away for at least 20 minutes. That absence in anyone's book would have been noticed by a waiter who was serving tables and providing drinks for his guests.
Sooooo.
Where are we. Perhaps we could consider this from a different perspective:
- No one can state that he was absent during that time, aside from the post-arguido doubt of Martin Smith and his wife (but not the kids).
- Did anyone notice him being particularly quiet, nervous, anxious that evening?
- How many people would have been required to consipire in any such cover-up?
- When would such a mega cover-up plan have been hatched and agreed upon by those concerned?
- No body has been found.
Good post. One point to add.
For Kate and Gerry to have collaborated in something nefarious as Amaral suggests, Kate and Gerry would have had to have been jointly absent from the restaurant at some point between their joint arrival and Kate's alert.
That would certainly have been noticed and commented on.
What's the alternative?
Kate finds Madeleine's body (Amaral insists that because Eddie picked up certain items of her clothing, an untrained and deleterious response from any dog attending a crime scene, I digress ...) recovers from the shock of such a dreadful discovery, and somehow finds a way of communicating to Gerry, oblivious and unaware in the restaurant, that their/his daughter is dead without anyone else noticing.
That stretches credulity far beyond breaking-point surely? ...
On the point of Carana's I underline, Amaral himself has always accepted that Kate and Gerry could not have spent the majority of the evening in an, apparently, relaxed and carefree way despite knowing something dreadful had happened to Madeleine.
-
John, did Mr Wilkins say he saw Jane Tanner on two occasions that night? i thought it was just the once, around 8.30pm.
-
There appears to be a bout of codolgy going about in many of the discussions as far as I can see. Anyone who believes that Gerry McCann got up from his dinner to carry a corpse around Praia Da Luz is frankly missing something in their lives. How absolutely stupid does that whole proposition sound? Would you do it?
Lets bring some reality to this case folks and stop posting bullshit. If Gerry had for some reason wanted to move his daughter following some sort of accidental death don't you think he would have at least waited until everyone was in bed.
Lets have some common sense PLEASE!
Good comment, but you are being very optimistic, I think. Reality is not around at present.
I hate to repeat it, John, but in the dead of night, when everybody sleeps, the item could have been too cold to deposit in a narrow place. Doctors know it.
@ AnneGuedes Item? Since when has a child, alive or dead, become an item?
I've never called an alive child an item, don't worry !
A poster on another forum used the word "item" for human remains, out of delicacy I suppose. Some people here are obviously horrified by the idea Madeleine could be dead, I respect them, at least try to.
-
There appears to be a bout of codolgy going about in many of the discussions as far as I can see. Anyone who believes that Gerry McCann got up from his dinner to carry a corpse around Praia Da Luz is frankly missing something in their lives. How absolutely stupid does that whole proposition sound? Would you do it?
Lets bring some reality to this case folks and stop posting bullshit. If Gerry had for some reason wanted to move his daughter following some sort of accidental death don't you think he would have at least waited until everyone was in bed.
Lets have some common sense PLEASE!
Good comment, but you are being very optimistic, I think. Reality is not around at present.
I hate to repeat it, John, but in the dead of night, when everybody sleeps, the item could have been too cold to deposit in a narrow place. Doctors know it.
@ AnneGuedes Item? Since when has a child, alive or dead, become an item?
'Anne
Item? ... for a child? That sounds like the word a member of the gang might use, hiding that it is a child ... when communicating with another via email
That makes me wonder....?
Only joking. I feel sure you wouldn't be
All the same I'll never use this word again, at least here !
Note that I (missing the objective to not hurt) used "cold" instead of "stiff".
-
Soooo. Where are we on this?
Has it been established that no one else other than the T9 was in the restaurant at the time of the alert or is it not clear who else may have been still dining there at the time of the alert?
How many of those who had reserved tables that night (aside from the T9) have been interviewed?
-
Soooo. Where are we on this?
Has it been established that no one else other than the T9 was in the restaurant at the time of the alert or is it not clear who else may have been still dining there at the time of the alert?
How many of those who had reserved tables that night (aside from the T9) have been interviewed?
Around 10:00 likely nobody was dining other than the TP9.
The Sperrey couple talked of by JW showed their passport (in the PJFiles) but there's no statement. About the Irwin couple (on the register same table as the TP9) there's nothing in the PJFiles.
-
so we dont know for sure.
-
Soooo. Where are we on this?
Has it been established that no one else other than the T9 was in the restaurant at the time of the alert or is it not clear who else may have been still dining there at the time of the alert?
How many of those who had reserved tables that night (aside from the T9) have been interviewed?
Around 10:00 likely nobody was dining other than the TP9.
The Sperrey couple talked of by JW showed their passport (in the PJFiles) but there's no statement. About the Irwin couple (on the register same table as the TP9) there's nothing in the PJFiles.
I'd agree that the people who'd booked earlier would probably have left by 22:00.
I understand the bracket for the same table as the T9, with the Irwins also booked for 20:30. And the Spenneys booked for 21:00. If the tick by the names means they turned up, then I find it fairly likely that at least the Spenneys would have still been there.
ww.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS_BOOKING.htm
-
The PJ asked for the "rasta" passports, because JW had some suspicion. About the Irwing they questioned the TP9, none of them knew what they looked like nor that they ever existed. Some people would come to fetch their meals and eat them at home. Those 2 couples could have done this.
-
And an extract from the Final Report from the Judiciary Police Investigative Criminal Department of Portimão dated 20th June 2008.
http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t8291-the-pj-final-report
Further on this issue, the testimony of MARTIN SMITH was considered, pages 1606 and following, reporting the sighting of an individual carrying a child, in one of the streets that lead to the beach. It was said that the child could be MADELEINE McCANN, although it was never peremptorily stated. Some time later, the witness alleged that, by its stance, the individual who carried the child could be GERALD McCANN, which was concluded when he saw him descending the stairs from an airplane, pages 2871, 3991 and following and 4135 and following. It was established that at the time that was being mentioned, GERALD McCANN was sitting at the table, in the Tapas Restaurant.
-
In respect of Mr McCanns alibi it is worth reproducing an extract from the letter from the Republic's Prosecutor to the Attorney General dated 21st July 2008.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Martin Smith was questioned, who said that at the beginning of the Travessa da Escola Primária he saw an individual carrying a child, walking in the opposite direction, at a normal pace, when he passed this individual it must have been about 22.00, being totally unaware that a child had disappeared. Later he states that when he saw Gerald McCann on the news, leaving by plane, he appeared to him to be the individual whom he had seen on the night of 3rd May in Praia da Luz.
This witness was heard again by the Drogheda Irish police on 23-01-08, having been shown a video clip of Gerald McCann’s departure by plane carrying one of the twins. This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.
-
That was in the Summary Insider.
But the Final report say's different, Insider.
Further on this issue, the testimony of MARTIN SMITH was considered, pages 1606 and following, reporting the sighting of an individual carrying a child, in one of the streets that lead to the beach. It was said that the child could be MADELEINE McCANN, although it was never peremptorily stated. Some time later, the witness alleged that, by its stance, the individual who carried the child could be GERALD McCANN, which was concluded when he saw him descending the stairs from an airplane, pages 2871, 3991 and following and 4135 and following. It was established that at the time that was being mentioned, GERALD McCANN was sitting at the table, in the Tapas Restaurant.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
-
I already posted that at the end of the previous page. The summary was dated the month after the final report by the looks of it.
-
In respect of Mr McCanns alibi it is worth reproducing an extract from the letter from the Republic's Prosecutor to the Attorney General dated 21st July 2008.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Martin Smith was questioned, who said that at the beginning of the Travessa da Escola Primária he saw an individual carrying a child, walking in the opposite direction, at a normal pace, when he passed this individual it must have been about 22.00, being totally unaware that a child had disappeared. Later he states that when he saw Gerald McCann on the news, leaving by plane, he appeared to him to be the individual whom he had seen on the night of 3rd May in Praia da Luz.
This witness was heard again by the Drogheda Irish police on 23-01-08, having been shown a video clip of Gerald McCann’s departure by plane carrying one of the twins. This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.
That's interesting insider, thanks for bringing it
So the Prosecutor, having reviewed all evidence and witness statements, confirms that it was only the tapas group of friends who gave Gerry his alibi for the Smith sighting ... the only reference to 'independent' witnesses is to say that restaurant employees hadn't 'denied' it ( in other words, they weren't sure whether he was there or not )
-
In respect of Mr McCanns alibi it is worth reproducing an extract from the letter from the Republic's Prosecutor to the Attorney General dated 21st July 2008.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Martin Smith was questioned, who said that at the beginning of the Travessa da Escola Primária he saw an individual carrying a child, walking in the opposite direction, at a normal pace, when he passed this individual it must have been about 22.00, being totally unaware that a child had disappeared. Later he states that when he saw Gerald McCann on the news, leaving by plane, he appeared to him to be the individual whom he had seen on the night of 3rd May in Praia da Luz.
This witness was heard again by the Drogheda Irish police on 23-01-08, having been shown a video clip of Gerald McCann’s departure by plane carrying one of the twins. This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.
That's interesting insider, thanks for bringing it
So the Prosecutor, having reviewed all evidence and witness statements, confirms that it was only the tapas group of friends who gave Gerry his alibi for the Smith sighting ... the only reference to 'independent' witnesses is to say that restaurant employees hadn't 'denied' it ( in other words, they weren't sure whether he was there or not )
What's more interesting (and more relevant) is a negative: not one person remarked on the absence of the man who is Madeleine's father, a remarkable fact if, in fact, he was absent; mundane, humdrum routine, unworthy of comment if he was present in the restaurant.
It really is that simple ...
-
In respect of Mr McCanns alibi it is worth reproducing an extract from the letter from the Republic's Prosecutor to the Attorney General dated 21st July 2008.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Martin Smith was questioned, who said that at the beginning of the Travessa da Escola Primária he saw an individual carrying a child, walking in the opposite direction, at a normal pace, when he passed this individual it must have been about 22.00, being totally unaware that a child had disappeared. Later he states that when he saw Gerald McCann on the news, leaving by plane, he appeared to him to be the individual whom he had seen on the night of 3rd May in Praia da Luz.
This witness was heard again by the Drogheda Irish police on 23-01-08, having been shown a video clip of Gerald McCann’s departure by plane carrying one of the twins. This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.
That's interesting insider, thanks for bringing it
So the Prosecutor, having reviewed all evidence and witness statements, confirms that it was only the tapas group of friends who gave Gerry his alibi for the Smith sighting ... the only reference to 'independent' witnesses is to say that restaurant employees hadn't 'denied' it ( in other words, they weren't sure whether he was there or not )
What's more interesting (and more relevant) is a negative: not one person remarked on the absence of the man who is Madeleine's father, a remarkable fact if, in fact, he was absent; mundane, humdrum routine, unworthy of comment if he was present in the restaurant.
It really is that simple ...
Alibis don't work like that
The independent witnesses who do not know whether he was there or not, do not provide an alibi
-
In respect of Mr McCanns alibi it is worth reproducing an extract from the letter from the Republic's Prosecutor to the Attorney General dated 21st July 2008.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Martin Smith was questioned, who said that at the beginning of the Travessa da Escola Primária he saw an individual carrying a child, walking in the opposite direction, at a normal pace, when he passed this individual it must have been about 22.00, being totally unaware that a child had disappeared. Later he states that when he saw Gerald McCann on the news, leaving by plane, he appeared to him to be the individual whom he had seen on the night of 3rd May in Praia da Luz.
This witness was heard again by the Drogheda Irish police on 23-01-08, having been shown a video clip of Gerald McCann’s departure by plane carrying one of the twins. This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.
That's interesting insider, thanks for bringing it
So the Prosecutor, having reviewed all evidence and witness statements, confirms that it was only the tapas group of friends who gave Gerry his alibi for the Smith sighting ... the only reference to 'independent' witnesses is to say that restaurant employees hadn't 'denied' it ( in other words, they weren't sure whether he was there or not )
What's more interesting (and more relevant) is a negative: not one person remarked on the absence of the man who is Madeleine's father, a remarkable fact if, in fact, he was absent; mundane, humdrum routine, unworthy of comment if he was present in the restaurant.
It really is that simple ...
Alibis don't work like that
The independent witnesses who do not know whether he was there or not, do not provide an alibi
What?
Why would no one comment on Gerry's absence if he wasn't there?
-
EXACTLY!! noone said 'where's Gerry?'
Diane Webster says in her statement that Kate McCann said 'she's gone Gerry'.
This must be the truth from Diane Webster, OR, Gerry managed to pop into the Tapas bar after he found Madeleine dead and after he was talking to Jez. To tell the friends what had happened, to get them to agree with him hiding Madeleine's body and for them to say he was at the Tapas Bar when Kate arrived to give the alert.
Which in my opinion is absolutely ridiculous.
-
In respect of Mr McCanns alibi it is worth reproducing an extract from the letter from the Republic's Prosecutor to the Attorney General dated 21st July 2008.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Martin Smith was questioned, who said that at the beginning of the Travessa da Escola Primária he saw an individual carrying a child, walking in the opposite direction, at a normal pace, when he passed this individual it must have been about 22.00, being totally unaware that a child had disappeared. Later he states that when he saw Gerald McCann on the news, leaving by plane, he appeared to him to be the individual whom he had seen on the night of 3rd May in Praia da Luz.
This witness was heard again by the Drogheda Irish police on 23-01-08, having been shown a video clip of Gerald McCann’s departure by plane carrying one of the twins. This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.
That's interesting insider, thanks for bringing it
So the Prosecutor, having reviewed all evidence and witness statements, confirms that it was only the tapas group of friends who gave Gerry his alibi for the Smith sighting ... the only reference to 'independent' witnesses is to say that restaurant employees hadn't 'denied' it ( in other words, they weren't sure whether he was there or not )
What's more interesting (and more relevant) is a negative: not one person remarked on the absence of the man who is Madeleine's father, a remarkable fact if, in fact, he was absent; mundane, humdrum routine, unworthy of comment if he was present in the restaurant.
It really is that simple ...
Alibis don't work like that
The independent witnesses who do not know whether he was there or not, do not provide an alibi
It may not provide an alibi, but it is evidence.
-
Alibis don't work like that
The independent witnesses who do not know whether he was there or not, do not provide an alibi
Sure.
Icabodcrane, have a look at the "concrete analysis" where this note comes from and try to find criteria for the listing of the "concrete facts".
-
In respect of Mr McCanns alibi it is worth reproducing an extract from the letter from the Republic's Prosecutor to the Attorney General dated 21st July 2008.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Martin Smith was questioned, who said that at the beginning of the Travessa da Escola Primária he saw an individual carrying a child, walking in the opposite direction, at a normal pace, when he passed this individual it must have been about 22.00, being totally unaware that a child had disappeared. Later he states that when he saw Gerald McCann on the news, leaving by plane, he appeared to him to be the individual whom he had seen on the night of 3rd May in Praia da Luz.
This witness was heard again by the Drogheda Irish police on 23-01-08, having been shown a video clip of Gerald McCann’s departure by plane carrying one of the twins. This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.
That's interesting insider, thanks for bringing it
So the Prosecutor, having reviewed all evidence and witness statements, confirms that it was only the tapas group of friends who gave Gerry his alibi for the Smith sighting ... the only reference to 'independent' witnesses is to say that restaurant employees hadn't 'denied' it ( in other words, they weren't sure whether he was there or not )
What's more interesting (and more relevant) is a negative: not one person remarked on the absence of the man who is Madeleine's father, a remarkable fact if, in fact, he was absent; mundane, humdrum routine, unworthy of comment if he was present in the restaurant.
It really is that simple ...
Alibis don't work like that
The independent witnesses who do not know whether he was there or not, do not provide an alibi
It may not provide an alibi, but it is evidence.
Someone not knowing whether something occured or not, is evidence of nothing more than their inability to provide meaningful evidence
-
In respect of Mr McCanns alibi it is worth reproducing an extract from the letter from the Republic's Prosecutor to the Attorney General dated 21st July 2008.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Martin Smith was questioned, who said that at the beginning of the Travessa da Escola Primária he saw an individual carrying a child, walking in the opposite direction, at a normal pace, when he passed this individual it must have been about 22.00, being totally unaware that a child had disappeared. Later he states that when he saw Gerald McCann on the news, leaving by plane, he appeared to him to be the individual whom he had seen on the night of 3rd May in Praia da Luz.
This witness was heard again by the Drogheda Irish police on 23-01-08, having been shown a video clip of Gerald McCann’s departure by plane carrying one of the twins. This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.
That's interesting insider, thanks for bringing it
So the Prosecutor, having reviewed all evidence and witness statements, confirms that it was only the tapas group of friends who gave Gerry his alibi for the Smith sighting ... the only reference to 'independent' witnesses is to say that restaurant employees hadn't 'denied' it ( in other words, they weren't sure whether he was there or not )
What's more interesting (and more relevant) is a negative: not one person remarked on the absence of the man who is Madeleine's father, a remarkable fact if, in fact, he was absent; mundane, humdrum routine, unworthy of comment if he was present in the restaurant.
It really is that simple ...
Alibis don't work like that
The independent witnesses who do not know whether he was there or not, do not provide an alibi
It may not provide an alibi, but it is evidence.
Someone not knowing whether something occured or not, is evidence of nothing more than their inability to provide meaningful evidence
But it is evidence!
-
In respect of Mr McCanns alibi it is worth reproducing an extract from the letter from the Republic's Prosecutor to the Attorney General dated 21st July 2008.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Martin Smith was questioned, who said that at the beginning of the Travessa da Escola Primária he saw an individual carrying a child, walking in the opposite direction, at a normal pace, when he passed this individual it must have been about 22.00, being totally unaware that a child had disappeared. Later he states that when he saw Gerald McCann on the news, leaving by plane, he appeared to him to be the individual whom he had seen on the night of 3rd May in Praia da Luz.
This witness was heard again by the Drogheda Irish police on 23-01-08, having been shown a video clip of Gerald McCann’s departure by plane carrying one of the twins. This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.
That's interesting insider, thanks for bringing it
So the Prosecutor, having reviewed all evidence and witness statements, confirms that it was only the tapas group of friends who gave Gerry his alibi for the Smith sighting ... the only reference to 'independent' witnesses is to say that restaurant employees hadn't 'denied' it ( in other words, they weren't sure whether he was there or not )
What's more interesting (and more relevant) is a negative: not one person remarked on the absence of the man who is Madeleine's father, a remarkable fact if, in fact, he was absent; mundane, humdrum routine, unworthy of comment if he was present in the restaurant.
It really is that simple ...
Alibis don't work like that
The independent witnesses who do not know whether he was there or not, do not provide an alibi
It may not provide an alibi, but it is evidence.
Someone not knowing whether something occured or not, is evidence of nothing more than their inability to provide meaningful evidence
But it is evidence!
Who said it wasn't ?
The discussion you joined was one of whether independent witnesses who didn't know whether Gerry was at the table, when the Smiths made their sighting, provided him with an 'alibi', or not
-
Someone not knowing whether something occured or not, ...
An unfounded and uncorroborated assumption: a much more highly probable assumption that, in fact, Gerry was there but no one remarked on his presence (no earthly reason why anyone should).
More, if he was absent, you'd expect detailed commentary from the file of attempts to find him, including where he was when found and who found him.
There is no trace of any such commentary in the file ...
There is evidence (the testimonies of all Martin Smith's children) that the Smiths did not see Gerry ...
@ icabodcrane
Who, aside from you, used the word 'alibi'?
-
Someone not knowing whether something occured or not, ...
An unfounded and uncorroborated assumption: a much more highly probable assumption that, in fact, Gerry was there but no one remarked on his presence (no earthly reason why anyone should).
More, if he was absent, you'd expect detailed commentary from the file of attempts to find him, including where he was when found and who found him.
There is no trace of any such commentary in the file ...
There is evidence (the testimonies of all Martin Smith's children) that the Smiths did not see Gerry ...
@ icabodcrane
Who, aside from you, used the word 'alibi'?
Well that is what we are talking about isn't it ? ... whether or not Gerry can definitively be placed 'somewhere else' at the moment Martin Smith says he is fairly sure he saw him carrying a child
An alibi in other words
As far as I can tell,the only people to have done that are Gerry's friends
Independent witnesses saying they don't know whether he was there or not, do not provide him with an alibi
I should add, that I don't think Mr Smith saw Gerry that night ... but it still remains the case that no independent witnesses definitively prove it to be so
-
Someone not knowing whether something occured or not, ...
An unfounded and uncorroborated assumption: a much more highly probable assumption that, in fact, Gerry was there but no one remarked on his presence (no earthly reason why anyone should).
More, if he was absent, you'd expect detailed commentary from the file of attempts to find him, including where he was when found and who found him.
There is no trace of any such commentary in the file ...
There is evidence (the testimonies of all Martin Smith's children) that the Smiths did not see Gerry ...
@ icabodcrane
Who, aside from you, used the word 'alibi'?
Well that is what we are talking about isn't it ? ... whether or not Gerry can definitively be placed 'somewhere else' at the moment Martin Smith says he is fairly sure he saw him carrying a child
An alibi in other words
As far as I can tell,the only people to have done that are Gerry's friends
Independent witnesses saying they don't know whether he was there or not, do not provide him with an alibi
I should add, that I don't think Mr Smith saw Gerry that night ... but it still remains the case that no independent witnesses definitively prove it to be so
Well that is what we are talking about isn't it ?
No. It's what you are talking about in a shameless attempt to derail the discussion.
The PJ concluded that at the time of the Smith sighting Gerry was at the table. They were patently right to do so.
-
Someone not knowing whether something occured or not, ...
An unfounded and uncorroborated assumption: a much more highly probable assumption that, in fact, Gerry was there but no one remarked on his presence (no earthly reason why anyone should).
More, if he was absent, you'd expect detailed commentary from the file of attempts to find him, including where he was when found and who found him.
There is no trace of any such commentary in the file ...
There is evidence (the testimonies of all Martin Smith's children) that the Smiths did not see Gerry ...
@ icabodcrane
Who, aside from you, used the word 'alibi'?
Well that is what we are talking about isn't it ? ... whether or not Gerry can definitively be placed 'somewhere else' at the moment Martin Smith says he is fairly sure he saw him carrying a child
An alibi in other words
As far as I can tell,the only people to have done that are Gerry's friends
Independent witnesses saying they don't know whether he was there or not, do not provide him with an alibi
I should add, that I don't think Mr Smith saw Gerry that night ... but it still remains the case that no independent witnesses definitively prove it to be so
Well that is what we are talking about isn't it ?
No. It's what you are talking about in a shameless attempt to derail the discussion.
The PJ concluded that at the time of the Smith sighting Gerry was at the table. They were patently right to do so.
The PJ concluded Gerry was at the table on the strength of his friends' witness statements ( as they had to )
The topic under discussion is whether or not 'independent' witnesses placed Gerry at the table at that time
They did not ... the Prosecutor, having reviewed all statements, came to the conclusion that independent witnesses, whilst not being able to confirm that he was there, could not 'deny' it either ( in other words, they didn't know whether he was there or not )
-
The PJ concluded Gerry was at the table on the strength of his friends' witness statements ( as they had to )
I'll be kind and ignore the erroneous assertion that the McCanns' friends were anything other than independent.
All Martin Smith's children disagreed with their father that the man they saw was Gerry and there is the remarkable fact (if he wasn't there!) but the mundane, humdrum and expected fact (if he was) that not one person remarked on his absence.
And good point Martha.
ETA: Two other points would be interesting:
Does Mr Smith think now as he did then?
And why (aside from an administrative error that could easily be rectified) was Mr Smith never interviewed by rogatory?
-
If the PJ weren't satisfied that Gerry was at the Tapas restaurant why didn't they question him as to his whereabouts at the time the alarm was raised?
Because it was after he returned to the UK that Mr Smith came forward.
Besides, Gerry Mccann already told police he was at the table at the time
Edited
That doesn't answer the question.
The PJ final report was written after Martin Smith's second statement to the Irish Gardia police.
-
Diane Webster said in her statement that Kate McCann came running to the table saying 'she's gone Gerry'.
The Smiths sighting was just after 10 o'clock, so how would Gerry McCann be back at the Tapas Bar to be addressed by Kate when she give the alert that Madeleine was missing?
As I have said before, if Gerry wasn't there, why would Diane Webster say that Kate addressed him with those words?
If Gerry had asked Diane to give him an alibi, then he would have to have filled all the Tapas friends in with what had happened to Madeleine got them all to agree with hiding her body, when he had finished talking to Jez.
Then he would have had to go back to the apartment get Madeleine and make his way to the beach for the Smiths to see him.
Link to Dianne Webster's statement - www.mccannfiles.com/id254.html
-
--------- JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA - table employee [waiter].
- Of the group of 8/9 British citizens who dined at the restaurant last night, as usual, of which the parents of missing were part (he didn't know them) he noticed that two individuals left the table, of the male gender.
- The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;
Anyknow who this second person is supposed to be?
The first sounds like O Brian ( he said that his food had to be kept warm )
The second man to leave the table for half an hour between 9.30 and 10pm ? ... no idea
-
Redblossom
But I suppose even 6 non independent witnesses
6?
-
Redblossom
But I suppose even 6 non independent witnesses
6?
Jane Tanner was at home at the time
accepted and excluding Gerry himself - that takes it down to 7?
-
Redblossom
But I suppose even 6 non independent witnesses
6?
Jane Tanner was at home at the time
accepted and excluding Gerry himself - that takes it down to 7?
What?
nevermind - I just wondered where you got 6 from.
-
doesn't it start at 9 and count down from there?
-
OK
what time did Carpenter leave?
-
OK
what time did Carpenter leave?
9.15-9.30
so?
I believe they were sat at adjacent tables - close enough to talk and wondered if the waiter had got mixed up with Carpenter leaving.
-
OK
what time did Carpenter leave?
9.15-9.30
so?
I believe they were sat at adjacent tables - close enough to talk and wondered if the waiter had got mixed up with Carpenter leaving.
Oh but Carpenter didnt comeback did he
so many men moving about I meant.
-
OK
what time did Carpenter leave?
9.15-9.30
so?
I believe they were sat at adjacent tables - close enough to talk and wondered if the waiter had got mixed up with Carpenter leaving.
Oh but Carpenter didnt comeback did he
so many men moving about I meant.
So Steve Carpenter was moving around alot? Leaving? Dont think so, he had his kid with him
I think you are confusing what I am saying.
I am just saying that there was at least one other man, sat close in the restaurant, that got up and left in the period.
That's ignoring whoever got up for a pee etc.
-
BUT HE NEVER CAME BACK, the waiter said the person who left around 9.30 came back just before alarm was raised
but who was it then and was it the same person that got up and left and the same person who came back - or was it just a confusion of men?
Are waiters really so observant or bothered to watch and time so carefully?
-
BUT HE NEVER CAME BACK, the waiter said the person who left around 9.30 came back just before alarm was raised
but who was it then and was it the same person that got up and left and the same person who came back - or was it just a confusion of men?
Are waiters really so observant or bothered to watch and time so carefully?
Its your prerogative to make what you want out of witness statements, and yes waiters are generally very very observant its part of their job to watch tables
At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.
it's good you have confirmed that then - because these very observant waiters would have said - hold on - that's bollocks - he wasn't there.
-
No - we are discussing:
Independent witnesses place Gerry McCann at the tapas bar at 10pm
-
well I just wanted to keep on topic.
-
well I just wanted to keep on topic.
Topics change and new data gets introduced,surrounding and relevant to the OP, if you dont like the new data, youcan say lets getback on topoc, tara now
well - you have a missing man - I don't. I offered an alternative explanation - you dismissed it.
I think it is up to you to come up with an explanation.
I will stay on topic.
-
It doesn't really matter who it was. The waiter noticed that two men had left the table during the meal and that both had returned just prior to everyone leaving when the alarm was raised.
Killjoy ...
-
It doesn't really matter who it was. The waiter noticed that two men had left the table during the meal and that both had returned just prior to everyone leaving when the alarm was raised.
Killjoy ...
Then he gives another version.
Joaquim Jose Moreira Baptista
Occupation: Waiter
Place of Work: Tapas Bar, OC
Time/Date: 18H50 2007/05/06
Portuguese National
Comes to the process as a witness. He has worked as a waiter at the Tapas restaurant since 12th Feb 2007. His shift is from 16.00 - 24.00 except for Saturdays when he works from 11.30 to 19.00. The clients who frequent the restaurant are mainly English tourists staying at the OC resort.
When asked he says that he clearly recalls the appearance of the girl's parents, he does not know their names, together with a group of English tourists who generally accompanied them, as for almost a week prior to the disappearance they would dine practically every day in the Tapas restaurant. On the occasions he saw the group dining at the restaurant he never saw the children.
When asked, he says he does not remember ever having seen Madeleine's face, which only happened when he saw her photograph after the disappearance.
When asked, he said that during dinner the men from the group would leave the table, returning to the table a few minutes later. The witness says that he does not know where they went. These absences would last for about 15 minutes. He cannot say with what regularity these absences occurred.
The witness remembers these occurrences well as would often have to take a plate of food requested by one of them back, due to the guest's absence, when he would find that the guest was not at the table when he came to serve the food.
When questioned, the witness says that he remembers on Thursday 3rd May, on the day of the disappearance, that the parents went to dine at the restaurant with the usual people. He cannot be precise, but the witness says that the group arrived between 20.00 and 21.00. He remembers there being about 9 people in total. He states that he received the food orders from the group.
Later, between 22.00 and 22.30, when the witness was in the kitchen, he was informed by a colleague that in the meantime a client had entered the restaurant shouting and that afterwards the whole English had left in a panic. The witness' colleague told him that this individual had said that a child had disappeared. A few minutes later the witness noticed great agitation, with many people everywhere searching for the child.
From information that was coming out, the witness learned that the child was a girl, the daughter of one of the English couple and that she had been in a room nearby.
When asked, the witness says that at the time he was working in the restaurant and referring to the days before the disappearance, he never noticed anything unusual. He said that he was never asked about the habits of the English group nor any questions concerning children. He says that on the day of the disappearance from the time he arrived at work, he did not notice anything unusual.
When asked, he says that at the end of the evening the area surrounding the Tapas is quiet with little circulation of people.
He has no comments as to the motive for the disappearance.
No more is said. Read, ratifies, signs.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAQUIM-J-M-BAPTISTA.htm
-
waiters are generally very very observant its part of their job to watch tables
-
--------- JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA - table employee [waiter].
- Of the group of 8/9 British citizens who dined at the restaurant last night, as usual, of which the parents of missing were part (he didn't know them) he noticed that two individuals left the table, of the male gender.
- The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;
Anyknow who this second person is supposed to be?
Eta for link
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm
I suggest you read the tapas staff witness statements at least twice. The second person was Jane's partner Russell who had to remain in their apartment for about 30 minutes with their daughter. When Jane relieved him he returned to the tapas but was unable to finish his meal due the alert by Kate shortly after 10pm.
If you read Ricardo's statement he confirms that all 9 diners were seated when he took their orders at 8.45pm. Only one person was missing from the table for any length of time and that was Russell. He confirms Russell's return at 9.45pm. Gerry was there all evening except for the trip to check on the children at 9.10pm.
-
--------- JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA - table employee [waiter].
- Of the group of 8/9 British citizens who dined at the restaurant last night, as usual, of which the parents of missing were part (he didn't know them) he noticed that two individuals left the table, of the male gender.
- The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;
Anyknow who this second person is supposed to be?
Eta for link
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm
I suggest you read the tapas staff witness statements at least twice. The second person was Jane's partner Russell who had to remain in their apartment for about 30 minutes with their daughter. When Jane relieved him he returned to the tapas but was unable to finish his meal due the alert by Kate shortly after 10pm.
If you read Ricardo's statement he confirms that all 9 diners were seated when he took their orders at 8.45pm. Only one person was missing from the table for any length of time and that was Russell. He confirms Russell's return at 9.45pm. Gerry was there all evening except for the trip to check on the children at 9.10pm.
Your conclusion is baffling
The description of the first man matches O Brian exactly ! ... the waiter even mentions having to re-heat his meal ( as O Brian, himself confirmed happened )
Why are you suggesting that the second man was O'Brian instead ?
-
The man's name is O'BRIEN.
-
The clue is in the "...and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person..." bit.
-
The clue is in the "...and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person..." bit.
So you are ignoring the substance of this witness's evidence, which clearly describes O Brien as the first man to leave the table for 15 minutes , in order to make it 'fit' with the statements of the tapas group ?
Why ? ... why would we need to do that ? ( the tapas group might not be telling the truth, afterall )
If we take this witness's statement at face value, then the first man he saw leave the table ( for 15 minutes ) was Russell O Brien ... and, descriptively, the second man to leave the table ( for half an hour , between 9.30 and 10pm ) was Matthew Oldfield
That is what this witness seems to be saying happened that night, isn't it ?
-
The clue is in the "...and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person..." bit.
So you are ignoring the substance of this witness's evidence, which clearly describes O Brien as the first man to leave the table for 15 minutes , in order to make it 'fit' with the statements of the tapas group ?
Why ? ... why would we need to do that ? ( the tapas group might not be telling the truth, afterall )
If we take this witness's statement at face value, then the first man he saw leave the table ( for 15 minutes ) was Russell O Brien ... and, descriptively, the second man to leave the table ( for half an hour , between 9.30 and 10pm ) was Matthew Oldfield
That is what this witness seems to be saying happened that night, isn't it ?
So lets see, your evaluation is based on the amount of hair Matthew and Russell had? I think we will be guided by the full statements of the other 10 people who evidenced what occurred.
Clearly only one person was absent from the table for any length of time and that was Russell who was minding a sick child in his apartment.
Or would you have us believe Gerry ordered his meal, waited for it to arrive, gulped it down, had a walk around the block and a chat with Jez, a sojourn down town and an encounter with an Irish family, a visit to the beach or an abandoned garden maybe only to return 15 minutes later as if nothing had happened while in the meantime 8 others including his wife Kate dined at the table with three waiters attending them hand and foot all evening.
And nobody noticed him gone for any more than about 10 minutes on one occasion?
-
The clue is in the "...and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person..." bit.
So you are ignoring the substance of this witness's evidence, which clearly describes O Brien as the first man to leave the table for 15 minutes , in order to make it 'fit' with the statements of the tapas group ?
Why ? ... why would we need to do that ? ( the tapas group might not be telling the truth, afterall )
If we take this witness's statement at face value, then the first man he saw leave the table ( for 15 minutes ) was Russell O Brien ... and, descriptively, the second man to leave the table ( for half an hour , between 9.30 and 10pm ) was Matthew Oldfield
That is what this witness seems to be saying happened that night, isn't it ?
So lets see, your evaluation is based on the amount of hair Matthew and Russell had? I think we will be guided by the full statements of the other 10 people who evidenced what occurred.
Clearly only one person was absent from the table for any length of time and that was Russell who was minding a sick child in his apartment.
Or would you have us believe Gerry ordered his meal, waited for it to arrive, gulped it down, had a walk around the block and a chat with Jez, a sojourn down town and an encounter with an Irish family, a visit to the beach or an abandoned garden maybe only to return 15 minutes later as if nothing had happened while in the meantime 8 others including his wife Kate dined at the table with three waiters attending them hand and foot all evening.
And nobody noticed him gone for any more than about 10 minutes on one occasion?
This witness's statement does not have to correspond with the statements given by the tapas group ... it is valid in it's own right
I am asking that we look at it and analysise it at face value ... even if that means, assuming, for the moment, that the tapas group may not have been telling the truth in their account of the evening's events
So let's look at this statemnent then, logically
The waiter says that one man ( the first man ) left the table for 15 minutes. his description of the man is about as detailed and accurate a description of Russell O Brien as you could get . He says the man returned after 15 minutes and his meal needed to be re-heated because it had gone cold
Russell O'Brien, in his own statement, says that he left the table at about 9.25pm and that he had been in the apartment ( tending to his child ) for about 10 minutes before Jane came to relieve him. he stayed a few minutes more and then left to go back to the tapas bar to have his main course. So he was away from the table for about 15 minutes. He confirms that when he got back to the table he was about to eat his meal when the waiter came over and said, "no" ... that the meal had cooled and he would bring another
The first man mentioned by the witness is clearly Russell O'Brien ... there can be no question about it
So, to the second man, who left the table for half an hour
The description given by the waiter points to it having been Matthew Oldfield.
The waiter is correct when he says two men were away from the table at the same time. Both Russell O'Brien and Matthew Oldfield left the table at around 9.30pm. The witness notes that one of them came back 15 minutes later ( undoubtedly O Brien ) but that the other didn't return until just before the alarm was raised ... around 10pm )
It appears to me that if the the witness is correct, then the second man is Matthew Oldfield, and he did not return from his check ( the one where he went into the Mccann apartment ) until half an hour later, just before the alarm was raised by Kate
-
This witness's statement does not have to correspond with the statements given by the tapas group ... it is valid in it's own right
As is his other one.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAQUIM-J-M-BAPTISTA.htm
-
If the waiter noticed two men missing and we can work out which two, surely if Gerry had been missing too he would have noted that absence as well...?
Well Idon't know Martha ... he didn't mention having noticed Gerry away from the table when he did his longer than usual check at 9.05pm, although we know that he did leave the table at that point because Jez Wilkins met him in the road
Similarly, the witness did not notice a woman's absence from the table, despite Jane Tanner having left to relieve her partner Russell O Brien at about 9.40pm and not returning to the table at all after that
So the witness was clearly not aware of everyone's movements that night ( there would have periods when he was in the kitchen, of course, and out of sight of the table )
He was aware, however of the quarter of an hour and half hour absences of two men, who, descriptively, appear to be O Brien and Oldfield
-
This is not Batista's actual statement, though.
It is from,
REPORT OF EXTERNAL WORK [Investigation Activity]
Date: 2007/05/04 Location: Praia da Luz
Entity that determined the activity: superiorly determined
Funcionario [employee] that executed it: Miguel P*** and Duarte F****, Inspector
Seems he was very unprofessional in his reporting, of the events.
These two statements start off almost identical.
--------- JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA - table employee [waiter].
- Of the group of 8/9 British citizens who dined at the restaurant last night, as usual, of which the parents of missing were part (he didn't know them) he noticed that two individuals left the table, of the male gender.- The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm
RICARDO ALEXANDRE DA LUZ OLIVEIRA (as he was on his day off, he was contacted by telephone No 91 397####) - table employee.
- Of the group of 8/9 British citizens who dined at that restaurant yesterday, like they usually did, which was partly made up of the parents of the missing (he did not know them) he noticed that absent from the table, for about 15 minutes, [was] a man (tall, little more than thirty years of age, normal physical stature, white complexion and hair color light brown);
- It was usual [for] someone of that group, to leave to go to the apartments to check the children (children of the group members) who slept there;
That last remark, should have rung alarm bells, with someone, IMO. But again, more likely an error. >@@(*&)
-
Admin, the second man was not Russell O'Brien, tue first one was as already explained.
DCI Joacquim Baptistats formal statement can be seen in its own right as well. He and others were spoken to informally on 4th May before formal statements were made. They dont cancel each other out. Another one who talks about a man being missing for half an hour.
SVETLANA
------- STARIKOVA VITORINO (Russian citizen, with the telephone No "96635 ####) - kitchen assistant:
- Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.
- During the time that she was working yesterday (between 14:30 and 23:00) she did not see any individual with blonde "rastas".
None of this shows there was doubt that Gerry was there at 10pm which is the subject of this thread although a couple of them think it may have been the father who had gone for half an hour, but he had neither grey not light brown hair and was not tall or thin. But it does leave the question why, if corrext, Matthew was gone for half an hour why it contradicts the Tapas groups accounts of the comings and goings
I agree
None of the independent witness statements cited provide definitive evidence that Gerry McCann was at the table during the Smith sighting
What they do provide, however, is evidence which directly conflicts with the tapas group's version of events that night
Someone was away from that table for half an hour it appears, ( confirmed by two independent witnesses ) and it was not Russell O Brien because his 15 minute absense is already accounted for
-
This witness's statement does not have to correspond with the statements given by the tapas group ... it is valid in it's own right
I am asking that we look at it and analysis it at face value ... even if that means, assuming, for the moment, that the tapas group may not have been telling the truth in their account of the evening's events
So let's look at this statement then, logically
The waiter says that one man ( the first man ) left the table for 15 minutes. his description of the man is about as detailed and accurate a description of Russell O Brien as you could get . He says the man returned after 15 minutes and his meal needed to be re-heated because it had gone cold
Russell O'Brien, in his own statement, says that he left the table at about 9.25pm and that he had been in the apartment ( tending to his child ) for about 10 minutes before Jane came to relieve him. he stayed a few minutes more and then left to go back to the tapas bar to have his main course. So he was away from the table for about 15 minutes. He confirms that when he got back to the table he was about to eat his meal when the waiter came over and said, "no" ... that the meal had cooled and he would bring another
The first man mentioned by the witness is clearly Russell O'Brien ... there can be no question about it
So, to the second man, who left the table for half an hour
The description given by the waiter points to it having been Matthew Oldfield.
The waiter is correct when he says two men were away from the table at the same time. Both Russell O'Brien and Matthew Oldfield left the table at around 9.30pm. The witness notes that one of them came back 15 minutes later ( undoubtedly O Brien ) but that the other didn't return until just before the alarm was raised ... around 10pm )
It appears to me that if the the witness is correct, then the second man is Matthew Oldfield, and he did not return from his check ( the one where he went into the Mccann apartment ) until half an hour later, just before the alarm was raised by Kate
A witness statement means very little in its own right Icabodcrane. It is only thorough corroboration by at least one other piece of evidence that such statements become credible. It is very obvious that the statements by certain waiters are less than helpful to anyone but one thing they do remember is when the meal ended.
To say that Russell was only away from the table for 15 minutes is nonsense. By his own admission he left the table around 9.25pm and according to other witnesses including the waiters he returned just as dinner was ending at about 9.45pm. By my reckoning that is at least 20+ minutes.
All the witnesses are consistent that nobody else was away from the table for any more than anything from about a few minutes to 10 minutes maximum so clearly the reference to someone being away for as long as 30 minutes was a reference to Russell.
In addition, waiter Ricardo who attended Russell state very clearly in his statement that Russell had his meal held back, it was not taken away and reheated as Joaquim claimed in his statement. If anyone had to have their meal reheated it would have been Gerry or Matthew who were both away for a matter of 5 to 10 minutes.
Joaquim also states that, "The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table..." which was clearly a reference to Russell.
-
Mr OB's hair is bulkier than Mr O's one, but the waiter might have made a confusion. Both have some physical similarities, but have none with GMC.
The meals were served around 21:30. ROB and MO left then likely : within a few minutes they would be back and could eat the main dish quietly.
A new beefsteak was grilled for ROB when he came back. He only ate half of it.
-
Mr OB's hair is bulkier than Mr O's one, but the waiter might have made a confusion. Both have some physical similarities, but have none with GMC.
The meals were served around 21:30. ROB and MO left then likely : within a few minutes they would be back and could eat the main dish quietly.
A new beefsteak was grilled for ROB when he came back. He only ate half of it.
did he leave his veg too - tut tut
-
This witness's statement does not have to correspond with the statements given by the tapas group ... it is valid in it's own right
I am asking that we look at it and analysis it at face value ... even if that means, assuming, for the moment, that the tapas group may not have been telling the truth in their account of the evening's events
So let's look at this statement then, logically
The waiter says that one man ( the first man ) left the table for 15 minutes. his description of the man is about as detailed and accurate a description of Russell O Brien as you could get . He says the man returned after 15 minutes and his meal needed to be re-heated because it had gone cold
Russell O'Brien, in his own statement, says that he left the table at about 9.25pm and that he had been in the apartment ( tending to his child ) for about 10 minutes before Jane came to relieve him. he stayed a few minutes more and then left to go back to the tapas bar to have his main course. So he was away from the table for about 15 minutes. He confirms that when he got back to the table he was about to eat his meal when the waiter came over and said, "no" ... that the meal had cooled and he would bring another
The first man mentioned by the witness is clearly Russell O'Brien ... there can be no question about it
So, to the second man, who left the table for half an hour
The description given by the waiter points to it having been Matthew Oldfield.
The waiter is correct when he says two men were away from the table at the same time. Both Russell O'Brien and Matthew Oldfield left the table at around 9.30pm. The witness notes that one of them came back 15 minutes later ( undoubtedly O Brien ) but that the other didn't return until just before the alarm was raised ... around 10pm )
It appears to me that if the the witness is correct, then the second man is Matthew Oldfield, and he did not return from his check ( the one where he went into the Mccann apartment ) until half an hour later, just before the alarm was raised by Kate
A witness statement means very little in its own right Icabodcrane. It is only thorough corroboration by at least one other piece of evidence that such statements become credible. It is very obvious that the statements by certain waiters are less than helpful to anyone but one thing they do remember is when the meal ended.
To say that Russell was only away from the table for 15 minutes is nonsense. By his own admission he left the table around 9.25pm and according to other witnesses including the waiters he returned just as dinner was ending at about 9.45pm. By my reckoning that is at least 20+ minutes.
All the witnesses are consistent that nobody else was away from the table for any more than anything from about a few minutes to 10 minutes maximum so clearly the reference to someone being away for as long as 30 minutes was a reference to Russell.
In addition, waiter Ricardo who attended Russell state very clearly in his statement that Russell had his meal held back, it was not taken away and reheated as Joaquim claimed in his statement. If anyone had to have their meal reheated it would have been Gerry or Matthew who were both away for a matter of 5 to 10 minutes.
Joaquim also states that, "The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table..." which was clearly a reference to Russell.
How long you 'reckon' Russell O'Brien was away from the table is of no value ... O'Brien himself says it was for 15 minutes ( he says he was in the apartment for 10 minutes before Jane relieved him, and he stayed a few minutes more before going back for his meal ) ... and that 15 minute absence is confirmed by the waiter's statement
The waiter says that there were two absences from the table that he noticed ... a 15 minute absence by a man perfectly fitting O'Brien's description ... and a half hour absence by someone else
The half hour absence he noted was confirmed by the other staff member who's statement has been cited here
-
Mr OB's hair is bulkier than Mr O's one, but the waiter might have made a confusion. Both have some physical similarities, but have none with GMC.
The meals were served around 21:30. ROB and MO left then likely : within a few minutes they would be back and could eat the main dish quietly.
A new beefsteak was grilled for ROB when he came back. He only ate half of it.
I would say you haven't said a truer word Anne. Confusion is something which any investigator has to take into account in any situation. Ask two people standing by the side of the road what colour the last vehicle was which passed them and for sure someone will ask "does that include lorries". Another test which is interesting and one which is routinely used in police training colleges is to take a group of students, probably about 30 sat round in a circle. The instructor gives a short sentence to the first and asks him to pass it on. Thirty students later the final student is asked to write the comment on a blackboard. The instructor then writes up the original comment and as sure as the sky is blue they will never be the same and more than often completely different.
The moral of this story is. Even though the witness may be credible, not everything they repeat may necessarily be the truth.
-
Yes, Chinese whispers - reminds me of a story I was told once. During the Falklands conflict a message was given to soldiers at one end of a line to be passed on. The message was "enemy over head" After a while, the soldiers at the beginning of the line noticed to their amazement & horror that their comrades at the other end were jumping up & down with joy taking no precautions whatsoever. It turned out that the original message "enemy over head" had been transformed into "Galtieri is dead". (As in General Galtieri, the former Argentine Dictator)
-
I am drawing up a graphical time-line of the absences from the tapas bar so can we agree the timings please guys?
First of all what were the times of Janes two absences...
I have the first one at about 9.12pm, seeing Gerry/Jez and then mystery man at 9.15pm, return by 9.22pm.
The second one leaving to relieve Russell at about 9.37pm and non return to tapas bar.
-
Ask two people standing by the side of the road what colour the last vehicle was which passed them and for sure someone will ask "does that include lorries". Another test which is interesting and one which is routinely used in police training colleges is to take a group of students, probably about 30 sat round in a circle. The instructor gives a short sentence to the first and asks him to pass it on. Thirty students later the final student is asked to write the comment on a blackboard. The instructor then writes up the original comment and as sure as the sky is blue they will never be the same and more than often completely different.
The moral of this story is. Even though the witness may be credible, not everything they repeat may necessarily be the truth.
Oh yes, sure, this is why a reconstruction was useful. Not to jog the memory of persons in the public, but to jog the protagonists' memories.
-
Here is a first draft guys. Observations most welcome...
Is there anything which sticks out??
(http://i.imgur.com/CzCwXBc.png)
-
Observation:
Surely if Gerry, Matthew and Russell had all been away after 9.25pm it would have been very noticeable to the waiters?
I await your views?
-
In both statements Jane Tanner says her partner went to check 15-20 minutes later after her return to the tapas bar, but that chart makes it seem he went five minutes or less later, which would be odd.
If Russell went at 9.25/9.30 that puts Jane Tanners check time alot earlier than 9.10/9.15 factoring in a minimum of five minutes to walk around, do a check, and walk back.
pls delete if irrelevant, but it did stick out for me
-
Out of interest Redblossom, I may have missed this point but did Matthew and Russell head off to do the checks together because according to the timings it certainly looks like it?
-
Observation:
Surely if Gerry, Matthew and Russell had all been away after 9.25pm it would have been very noticeable to the waiters?
I await your views?
This thread asks whether 'independent' witnesses placed Gerry at the tapas bar at 10pm
Your graph exclusively depicts the evidence given by non 'independent' witnesses ( it is the tapas group version )
There is no allowance there, for instance, of the half hour absence from the table by someone other than O Brien between 9.30pm and 10pm ( as described by the waiter who served them that night )
If it is independent witnesses we are interested in here, then their evidence must be paramount
-
Out of interest Redblossom, I may have missed this point but did Matthew and Russell head off to do the checks together because according to the timings it certainly looks like it?
I'm pretty sure they did.
-
Just read Russell's statement again. He says Matthew left to check before him and at just after 9pm. And that Gerry closely followed by Jane left some 5 minutes later.
This now equates to the following...
(http://i.imgur.com/mMJueD9.png)
-
Yes, they left together on the 2nd check but Russell puts the time after 9.30pm
-
Different statements give different times, so its a bit of a nightmare trying to get an accurate timeline, e.g.
Matthew say they both left together at 9.25. Russell puts his check in one statement at 9.35/9.40 and 9.25 in another.
I did have the quotes and links, but on switching between windows I lost them.
Edited
-
Yes, I have got that now. As I said a few days ago we can only interpolate to the nearest 5 mins.
Here is draft #4
(http://i.imgur.com/Iq95yOt.png)
-
I can see immediately that if Gerry had been missing there is a period of about 15 minutes where all three men would have been away from the table and that certainly isn't the evidence of the waiters.
You have to always remember that "...went to check the children at 9.40pm..." doesn't necessarily mean setting off at 9.40pm.
-
A nightmare...
The more you try the more nightmary it turns !
It could be interesting, if you have the patience, John, to do as Icabodcrane suggested : try to join the independent statements (in particular the calling "Madeleine" heard by Mrs Carpenter and the terrible scream heard by Mr Salcedas).
-
Yes, they left together on the 2nd check but Russell puts the time after 9.30pm
Kate says in her book that she and Gerry were able to be very specific about the time they made their checks that night because they were being particularly accurate out of concern for Madeleine saying she had woken an cried the night before
She says she stood up at 9.30 to do her check but that Matthew, who was still at the table at that point, offered to do it for her whilst he did his own check
-
Excellent Icabodcrane, I will adjust for that.
-
Draft #IV
(http://i.imgur.com/mvz9LJe.png)
-
You have Gerry away from the table for too long John
His conversation with jez lasted only a few moments and when Jne saw them at 9.15pm they were already in conversation ( your graph has him there for a further 10 minutes )
Also, Jane Tanner says that when she returned to the restaurant at 9.20pm, Gerry was already there
( as he would have to be or she would have passed him in the street on her way back as well )
-
For clarity
Jane Tanner says in her statement that Matthew Oldfield came back to the table at 9.35pm and told her Russell had stayed in the apartment with their sick child
At 9.40pm she returned to relieve him, and Russell returned to the restaurant 9.45pm
-
For clarity how many of the waiters say that Gerry was away from the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting?
-
For clarity how many of the waiters say that Gerry was away from the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting?
The same number who place him there at the time ... none
-
For clarity how many of the waiters say that Gerry was away from the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting?
The same number who place him there at the time ... none
just clarify that again
-
For clarity how many of the waiters say that Gerry was away from the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting?
The same number who place him there at the time ... none
just clarify that again
No waiter ... no independent witness at all in fact ... definitively places Gerry in the tapas restaurant when the Smith's made their sighting
-
For clarity how many of the waiters say that Gerry was away from the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting?
The same number who place him there at the time ... none
just clarify that again
No waiter ... no independent witness at all in fact ... definitively places Gerry in the tapas restaurant when the Smith's made their sighting
and exactly how many waiters say definitely that he was not at the table when the one of hte Smiths made a 60- - 80% sighting?
-
For clarity how many of the waiters say that Gerry was away from the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting?
The same number who place him there at the time ... none
just clarify that again
No waiter ... no independent witness at all in fact ... definitively places Gerry in the tapas restaurant when the Smith's made their sighting
and exactly how many waiters say definitely that he was not at the table when the one of hte Smiths made a 60- - 80% sighting?
As many who say he definately was at the table ... none
Gerry has no independent verification of his whereabouts at the moment the Smiths made their sighting
It is only his mates who place him at the table
-
Mrs. Webster would probably object most strongly to being referred to as one of Gerry McCann's "mates" ?{)(**
-
For clarity how many of the waiters say that Gerry was away from the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting?
The same number who place him there at the time ... none
just clarify that again
No waiter ... no independent witness at all in fact ... definitively places Gerry in the tapas restaurant when the Smith's made their sighting
and exactly how many waiters say definitely that he was not at the table when the one of hte Smiths made a 60- - 80% sighting?
As many who say he definately was at the table ... none
Gerry has no independent verification of his whereabouts at the moment the Smiths made their sighting
It is only his mates who place him at the table
which statement says he was not at the table?
-
For clarity how many of the waiters say that Gerry was away from the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting?
The same number who place him there at the time ... none
just clarify that again
No waiter ... no independent witness at all in fact ... definitively places Gerry in the tapas restaurant when the Smith's made their sighting
and exactly how many waiters say definitely that he was not at the table when the one of hte Smiths made a 60- - 80% sighting?
As many who say he definately was at the table ... none
Gerry has no independent verification of his whereabouts at the moment the Smiths made their sighting
It is only his mates who place him at the table
which statement says he was not at the table?
It really does not matter how many people can't say that he was definately NOT there ... the point is that no independent witnesses can say that he definately WAS there
No independent witnesses say Gerry McCann was definately in the tapas restaurant when the Smiths made their sighting
That is a fact
-
Not really, it would depend on what you chose be class as an independent witness. Mrs. Webster for example, though sitting at the same table, did not have any previous relations with the McCann as far as I know. I class her as an independent witness.
-
Not really, it would depend on what you chose be class as an independent witness. Mrs. Webster for example, though sitting at the same table, did not have any previous relations with the McCann as far as I know. I class her as an independent witness.
The police wouldn't, she's the mother of the only friend (in the group) of Mrs McCann and they certainly knew each other before PDL.
Anyhow, none of the TPs was asked whether Mr McCann was sitting at the table when his wife launched the alarm. Some, not all, quote Mrs McCann saying "Gerry, Madeleine's gone" of whatever.
-
I'm not sure about that, but then, I'm not the police so I wouldn't know exactly what degrees of "independence" they apply to witnesses.
-
I'm not sure about that, but then, I'm not the police so I wouldn't know exactly what degrees of "independence" they apply to witnesses.
Somebody you met recently by chance, like Jeremy W is reasonably an independent witness.
-
No, sorry, I don't agree, immediate family & very close friends I would regard as less independent but acquaintances & family of friends I would class as fairly independent.
-
Why would Mrs W be more independent than Rachael M or Jane T ? None of these women had holidays with the McCann before.
-
So they were not "very close friends" i.e. fairly independent too.
-
Mrs B
I think the purpose of this thread is to determine whether anyone other than the McCann's friends, place Gerry at the table when the Smiths made their sighting
-
Mrs B
I think the purpose of this thread is to determine whether anyone other than the McCann's friends, place Gerry at the table when the Smiths made their sighting
Why do you ignore the much more relevant questions?
If Gerry was absent from the table, who noticed his absence?
Who looked for him?
Where was he when found?
Who found him?
Under what circumstances?
-
Mrs B
I think the purpose of this thread is to determine whether anyone other than the McCann's friends, place Gerry at the table when the Smiths made their sighting
Why do you ignore the much more relevant questions?
If Gerry was absent from the table, who noticed his absence?
Who looked for him?
Where was he when found?
Who found him?
Under what circumstances?
No independent witness places Gerry at the table when the Smiths made their sighting
That is what this thread is about ... whether anyone unequivically places him there, at the table
No-one does
-
Mrs B
I think the purpose of this thread is to determine whether anyone other than the McCann's friends, place Gerry at the table when the Smiths made their sighting
Why do you ignore the much more relevant questions?
If Gerry was absent from the table, who noticed his absence?
Who looked for him?
Where was he when found?
Who found him?
Under what circumstances?
No independent witness places Gerry at the table when the Smiths made their sighting
That is what this thread is about ... whether anyone unequivically places him there, at the table
No-one does
Leaving aside that I dispute your definition of "independent", what is your objection to my questions, lack of comment on in the files lending force to the suggestion that at the time of Kate's alert, Gerry was in the restaurant (just as Joao Carlos concluded in the final PJ report).
-
In my very humble opinion, many of the so-called discrepancies (many of which are apparent in the staff statements) should have been the subject of more thorough interviews very early on. Typing up standard statements to file was simply not enough. Opportunities were lost.
-
Mrs B
I think the purpose of this thread is to determine whether anyone other than the McCann's friends, place Gerry at the table when the Smiths made their sighting
Why do you ignore the much more relevant questions?
If Gerry was absent from the table, who noticed his absence?
Who looked for him?
Where was he when found?
Who found him?
Under what circumstances?
No independent witness places Gerry at the table when the Smiths made their sighting
That is what this thread is about ... whether anyone unequivically places him there, at the table
No-one does
Leaving aside that I dispute your definition of "independent", what is your objection to my questions, lack of comment on in the files lending force to the suggestion that at the time of Kate's alert, Gerry was in the restaurant (just as Joao Carlos concluded in the final PJ report).
OK, you want to know if there is a witness who said Gerry McCann was NOT at the table when the Smiths made their sighting ?
Well yes, there was
Martin Smith, himself, places Gerry away from the table at that point ( with 60%/80% certainty )
-
Draft #6
(http://i.imgur.com/PY0Gb6E.png)
-
As part of the group of nine Gerry's absence would most certainly have been noticed by everyone had he not been there. Three men missing from the table at the same time was a non starter.
The independent witnesses (waiters) don't need to actually say that he was there for them to infer it.
-
Martin Smith, himself, places Gerry away from the table at that point ( with 60%/80% certainty )
I've raised the point before and I raise it again.
Would Smith say the same now?
-
Ok, John, but Icabodcrane is very right.
Unfortunately we don't know at what time the alert was made. And we know that none of the TP7 saw the shutters lifted, i.e none of them entered in the flat behind the McCanns, which sounds perfectly normal.
-
Martin Smith, himself, places Gerry away from the table at that point ( with 60%/80% certainty )
I've raised the point before and I raise it again.
Would Smith say the same now?
Poor Martin Smith, I hope he has no nightmare. I don't think I would have had the courage he had (whether he was right or not).
-
Mrs B
I think the purpose of this thread is to determine whether anyone other than the McCann's friends, place Gerry at the table when the Smiths made their sighting
Why do you ignore the much more relevant questions?
If Gerry was absent from the table, who noticed his absence?
Who looked for him?
Where was he when found?
Who found him?
Under what circumstances?
No independent witness places Gerry at the table when the Smiths made their sighting
That is what this thread is about ... whether anyone unequivically places him there, at the table
No-one does
I fail to see the relevance here. WHY are we supposed to dismiss every single person who were sitting at the same table as Gerry McCann? All of them were NOT close friends or family. There is absolutely no fathomable reason as to why anyone of them would be giving false statements to police as to WHO were at their table at given times and nobody has any reason to suspect they did. (Or if you do, please feel free to elaborate as to what evidence you can provide that points to that)
Who on earth would expect waiters or other diners to pay so much attention to a group of people that they would be able to pin point exactly who was sitting down, leaving or returning at every moment of the evening? I'm sure no investigative police force would, so why should we?
Apart from that, we're dealing with physical possibilities here, you can't be at one place at a particular time & then magically appear in another place a few minutes afterwards and there are several people who reported seeing Gerry McCann in or around the the OC shortly after it was discovered that Madeleine had gone missing.
Just my opinion, of course.
-
I fail to see the relevance here. WHY are we supposed to dismiss every single person who were sitting at the same table as Gerry McCann? All of them were NOT close friends or family. There is absolutely no fathomable reason as to why anyone of them would be giving false statements to police as to WHO were at their table at given times and nobody has any reason to suspect they did. (Or if you do, please feel free to elaborate as to what evidence you can provide that points to that)
Who on earth would expect waiters or other diners to pay so much attention to a group of people that they would be able to pin point exactly who was sitting down, leaving or returning at every moment of the evening? I'm sure no investigative police force would, so why should we?
Apart from that, we're dealing with physical possibilities here, you can't be at one place at a particular time & then magically appear in another place a few minutes afterwards and there are several people who reported seeing Gerry McCann in or around the the OC shortly after it was discovered that Madeleine had gone missing.
Just my opinion, of course.
Mrs B., isn't the challenge to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann ?
So what are you talking about ?
We don't know at what time the alert was launched, we don't or rather I don't understand why the police wasn't immediately alerted, since they said the shutters and the window were open.
A decent man, who has his peace of mind to lose, resolves telling the gardai that the man he crossed could be Gerald McCann. Is there malice in this ?
And you insist on saying that "we can't expect of waiters to keep an eye" on the (btw) only group of people having diner !
Yes of course, they didn't know kids were left on their own, why would they snoop on these people ?
-
No, it's not actually up to you, me or anyone else to "find out" what happened to Madeleine McCann. Unless of course you are the police, I know for certain that I'm not.
We don't know for certain that police was NOT called just after the alert was raised. We have conflicting statements & telephone records. None of which can be discarded.
Nobody has maligned Mr. Smith for coming forward, but at the same time, as Mr. Smith himself states, his recognition of who he saw is neither backed up by the majority of the party in his company nor is it based on facial recognition. I wasn't aware that Mr. Smith was in danger of losing his "peace of mind" - I'm not a personal friend of Mr. Smith and not privy to information relating to his state of mind. I take it you must be.
-
No, it's not actually up to you, me or anyone else to "find out" what happened to Madeleine McCann. Unless of course you are the police, I know for certain that I'm not.
We don't know for certain that police was NOT called just after the alert was raised. We have conflicting statements & telephone records. None of which can be discarded.
Nobody has maligned Mr. Smith for coming forward, but at the same time, as Mr. Smith himself states, his recognition of who he saw is neither backed up by the majority of the party in his company nor is it based on facial recognition. I wasn't aware that Mr. Smith was in danger of losing his "peace of mind" - I'm not a personal friend of Mr. Smith and not privy to information relating to his state of mind. I take it you must be.
We know for certain the GNR wasn't called before 22h41. There's no register before that. Or do you doubt the PJ files ? If you do, it would be honest to say it.
We also know that a UK citizen offered her phone to call the police around 22h30 and was rejected as useless.
I don't need to know Mr Smith, I have enough imagination, Mrs B., to imagine it wasn't easy for him to share his doubt with the gardai. I think that it's not extraordinary to imagine that.
-
Helder Jorge Samaio Luis, receptionist;
"He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared. That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child’s father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again."
I said there are statement contradicting the OC phone records, there were mobile phones in 2007 too, where are those records? E.g. were they ever checked?
Please point to the exact location in the files where the UK citizen's offer to user her phone was rejected as "useless", I can't see it.
With respect, IMO people's "imagination" vs actual facts is a major reason why there's so much mis-information being peddled online with regard to this case.
-
Helder Jorge Samaio Luis, receptionist;
"He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared. That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child’s father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again."
I said there are statement contradicting the OC phone records, there were mobile phones in 2007 too, where are those records? E.g. were they ever checked?
Please point to the exact location in the files where the UK citizen's offer to user her phone was rejected as "useless", I can't see it.
With respect, IMO people's "imagination" vs actual facts is a major reason why there's so much mis-information being peddled online with regard to this case.
Please point to the exact location in the files where the UK citizen's offer to user her phone was rejected as "useless", I can't see it.
That was Mrs Fenn, Mrs B. It wasn't rejected at all, Gerry told her the police had already been called. More lies 8()(((@#
-
We don't know for certain that police was NOT called just after the alert was raised. We have conflicting statements & telephone records. None of which can be discarded.
there are no conflicting telephone records at all, the police were called at 22 41, unless you want to purport the theory that police doctored their records or doctored the records from the ocean club
-
Helder Jorge Samaio Luis, receptionist;
"He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared. That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child’s father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again."
I said there are statement contradicting the OC phone records, there were mobile phones in 2007 too, where are those records? E.g. were they ever checked?
Please point to the exact location in the files where the UK citizen's offer to user her phone was rejected as "useless", I can't see it.
With respect, IMO people's "imagination" vs actual facts is a major reason why there's so much mis-information being peddled online with regard to this case.
It is you who is being 'imaginative' Mrs B, if I may say so
Not a single witness even claims to have contacted the police that night either by landline or mobile, other than the Ocean Club receptionist
Records prove that he did not make that first call until 22.41pm, regardless of his statement
-
And there's more http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR-SANTOS.htm
With regard to the date of the disappearance on 3rd May 2007, he remembers that at 22.00/22.15 he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet. He added (the receptionist) that he had phoned the GNR post several times and that he had been told that they would arrive when they could but that they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere. The receptionist asked the witness whether he should contact the PSP, to which the witness replied no as this area belongs to the GNR.
Given the circumstances, the witness thought it best to go to the resort to find out more about the situation.
When he arrived at the scene about 10 to 15 minutes later, he immediately went to the reception where the GNR were present, taking a statement from the girl's father.
-
No records for it so hearsay or jumbled memories
-
Helder Jorge Samaio Luis, receptionist;
"He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared. That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child’s father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again."
I said there are statement contradicting the OC phone records, there were mobile phones in 2007 too, where are those records? E.g. were they ever checked?
Please point to the exact location in the files where the UK citizen's offer to user her phone was rejected as "useless", I can't see it.
With respect, IMO people's "imagination" vs actual facts is a major reason why there's so much mis-information being peddled online with regard to this case.
It is you who is being 'imaginative' Mrs B, if I may say so
Not a single witness even claims to have contacted the police that night either by landline or mobile, other than the Ocean Club receptionist
Records prove that he did not make that first call until 22.41pm, regardless of his statement
Ah, so we are to "disregard" the statement from the receptionist , are we? Why is that, are there any proof he's lying too?
-
Helder Jorge Samaio Luis, receptionist;
"He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared. That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child’s father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again."
I said there are statement contradicting the OC phone records, there were mobile phones in 2007 too, where are those records? E.g. were they ever checked?
Please point to the exact location in the files where the UK citizen's offer to user her phone was rejected as "useless", I can't see it.
With respect, IMO people's "imagination" vs actual facts is a major reason why there's so much mis-information being peddled online with regard to this case.
It is you who is being 'imaginative' Mrs B, if I may say so
Not a single witness even claims to have contacted the police that night either by landline or mobile, other than the Ocean Club receptionist
Records prove that he did not make that first call until 22.41pm, regardless of his statement
Ah, so we are to "disregard" the statement from the receptionist , are we? Why is that, are there any proof he's lying too?
8((()*/
-
Helder Jorge Samaio Luis, receptionist;
"He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared. That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child’s father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again."
Are you kidding, Mrs B. ?
If the receptionist was right, between 21h30 and 22h, how was John Hill informed at 22h28 on his cell phone that keeps times ? How could the child's father arrive "shortly after" if he was on his balcony at 22H30 according to an independent witness, Mrs Fenn ? The child's father was at the main reception at 23H, according to the GNR officers and Silvia Batista. Do you think he waited there for an hour, calmly, though his child has disappeared ?
-
Helder Jorge Samaio Luis, receptionist;
"He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared. That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child’s father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again."
I said there are statement contradicting the OC phone records, there were mobile phones in 2007 too, where are those records? E.g. were they ever checked?
Please point to the exact location in the files where the UK citizen's offer to user her phone was rejected as "useless", I can't see it.
With respect, IMO people's "imagination" vs actual facts is a major reason why there's so much mis-information being peddled online with regard to this case.
It is you who is being 'imaginative' Mrs B, if I may say so
Not a single witness even claims to have contacted the police that night either by landline or mobile, other than the Ocean Club receptionist
Records prove that he did not make that first call until 22.41pm, regardless of his statement
Ah, so we are to "disregard" the statement from the receptionist , are we? Why is that, are there any proof he's lying too?
It does not matter what time he said he phoned the police from reception ... the 'hard' evidence of the phone records prove, beyond question, that he did not make a call to the police until 22.41pm
-
Helder Jorge Samaio Luis, receptionist;
"He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared. That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child’s father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again."
I said there are statement contradicting the OC phone records, there were mobile phones in 2007 too, where are those records? E.g. were they ever checked?
Please point to the exact location in the files where the UK citizen's offer to user her phone was rejected as "useless", I can't see it.
With respect, IMO people's "imagination" vs actual facts is a major reason why there's so much mis-information being peddled online with regard to this case.
It is you who is being 'imaginative' Mrs B, if I may say so
Not a single witness even claims to have contacted the police that night either by landline or mobile, other than the Ocean Club receptionist
Records prove that he did not make that first call until 22.41pm, regardless of his statement
Ah, so we are to "disregard" the statement from the receptionist , are we? Why is that, are there any proof he's lying too?
It does not matter what time he said he phoned the police from reception ... the 'hard' evidence of the phone records prove, beyond question, that he did not make a call to the police until 22.41pm
This was all masterfully untangled by (I think) John on another thread. There was quite a long delay between the alarm being raised and the GNR being called ...
-
With regard to the facts of the investigation. Statements show that he knew of these facts by means of a phone call from Lindsay, head of the child care service, who told him about a female child staying at the resort who had disappeared. This phone call was made to the deponent's mobile phone at about 22.28 on 03-05-2007. About 5 minutes later the deponent presented himself at the resort, because Lindsay had told him that she had initiated the procedure for missing children used by the company and the child had not been found. Upon arriving at the scene he saw about 100 people, employees, guests and residents searching the grounds, the beach and adjoining areas calling out the child's name.
Initially the deponent thought that the child had got lost or disorientated, but as the searches did not produce any results he became increasingly worried.
-
The deponent went to the main reception to see if the authorities had been alerted, and fifteen minutes later went to the apartment being used by the McCanns, where he saw that both members of the couple were in a panic and were shouting that the child had been taken. The deponent thinks that the GNR arrived at the scene at about 22.45, however in a conversation several weeks later, he heard someone say, he doesn't remember whom, that they had arrived at about 23.30, but as he was so busy he declared that he had no notion of the passage of time.
Yes, there is the issue of the "procedure for missing children used by the company" which may account for delays. I'm just curious as to the willingness by some to entirely disregard several statements but highlight others & the possible motives behind that...
-
That was Mrs Fenn, Mrs B. It wasn't rejected at all, Gerry told her the police had already been called. More lies 8()(((@#
When you refuse something, as not useful, how do you call that in English, DCI ?
-
Anne, why do you post unhelpful and erroneous information stating that we don't know when the alert was made by Kate when we know exactly when it was made?
From several different sources both inside and outside the Ocean Club we know that Kate came running back to the tapas bar a few minutes after 10pm, the exact time when the Smiths encountered a man carrying a child on the other side of town.
As far as the shutters are concerned we also have Matthews rogatory statement to the effect that the shutters were up when he entered the bedroom.
-
With regard to the facts of the investigation. Statements show that he knew of these facts by means of a phone call from Lindsay, head of the child care service, who told him about a female child staying at the resort who had disappeared. This phone call was made to the deponent's mobile phone at about 22.28 on 03-05-2007. About 5 minutes later the deponent presented himself at the resort, because Lindsay had told him that she had initiated the procedure for missing children used by the company and the child had not been found. Upon arriving at the scene he saw about 100 people, employees, guests and residents searching the grounds, the beach and adjoining areas calling out the child's name.
Initially the deponent thought that the child had got lost or disorientated, but as the searches did not produce any results he became increasingly worried.
-
The deponent went to the main reception to see if the authorities had been alerted, and fifteen minutes later went to the apartment being used by the McCanns, where he saw that both members of the couple were in a panic and were shouting that the child had been taken. The deponent thinks that the GNR arrived at the scene at about 22.45, however in a conversation several weeks later, he heard someone say, he doesn't remember whom, that they had arrived at about 23.30, but as he was so busy he declared that he had no notion of the passage of time.
Yes, there is the issue of the "procedure for missing children used by the company" which may account for delays. I'm just curious as to the willingness by some to entirely disregard several statements but highlight others & the possible motives behind that...
22h28 ! You're speaking of John Hill, Mrs B. Why don't you name him ?
-
With regard to the facts of the investigation. Statements show that he knew of these facts by means of a phone call from Lindsay, head of the child care service, who told him about a female child staying at the resort who had disappeared. This phone call was made to the deponent's mobile phone at about 22.28 on 03-05-2007. About 5 minutes later the deponent presented himself at the resort, because Lindsay had told him that she had initiated the procedure for missing children used by the company and the child had not been found. Upon arriving at the scene he saw about 100 people, employees, guests and residents searching the grounds, the beach and adjoining areas calling out the child's name.
Initially the deponent thought that the child had got lost or disorientated, but as the searches did not produce any results he became increasingly worried.
-
The deponent went to the main reception to see if the authorities had been alerted, and fifteen minutes later went to the apartment being used by the McCanns, where he saw that both members of the couple were in a panic and were shouting that the child had been taken. The deponent thinks that the GNR arrived at the scene at about 22.45, however in a conversation several weeks later, he heard someone say, he doesn't remember whom, that they had arrived at about 23.30, but as he was so busy he declared that he had no notion of the passage of time.
Yes, there is the issue of the "procedure for missing children used by the company" which may account for delays. I'm just curious as to the willingness by some to entirely disregard several statements but highlight others & the possible motives behind that...
Which proves Mrs B John Hill could NOT have been at reception between 10 and 10 15 getting agitated because police werent called as mentioned in another statement, see below, eg its all a dogs dinner and I doubt anyone is ever going to unravel it
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR-SANTOS.htm
-
Anne, why do you post unhelpful and erroneous information stating that we don't know when the alert was made by Kate when we know exactly when it was made?
Unhelpful ? Erroneous ? Do I ? Are you sure, John ? Then prove it, starting with Mr Salcedas !
-
Yes, that's exactly what it is. There are CONFLICTING statements & records within the files, just as I pointed out!
-
Yes, that's exactly what it is. There are CONFLICTING statements & records within the files, just as I pointed out!
There is no conflicting records about recorded phone calls though to the police whatver any witnesses say
-
Anne, why do you post unhelpful and erroneous information stating that we don't know when the alert was made by Kate when we know exactly when it was made?
From several different sources both inside and outside the Ocean Club we know that Kate came running back to the tapas bar a few minutes after 10pm, the exact time when the Smiths encountered a man carrying a child on the other side of town.
As far as the shutters are concerned we also have Matthews rogatory statement to the effect that the shutters were up when he entered the bedroom.
If it's good enough for the AG, it's good enough for me!
According to the GNR, the disappearance would have occurred at about 22.40 (it was later checked that the detection and subsequent alarm effectively happened between 22.00 and 22.10) on 3rd May 2007, in one of the apartments of the Ocean Club resort, situated in Praia da Luz – Lagos, where the British family, composed of a couple and three young children were staying.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
Yes, that's exactly what it is. There are CONFLICTING statements & records within the files, just as I pointed out!
There is no conflicting records about recorded phone calls though to the police whatver any witnesses say
Yes, and that's a precious fact.
Now doubting it is like saying the PJ tricked the public opinion about the phone calls.
If you suspect it, Mrs B.,which is your right, please say it. I would have nothing else to say.
-
yes, exactly, the detection was said to be 22 00 alot earlier than police were called, the police assumed they were called immediately they werent
-
I said there are conflicting STATEMENTS & records in the files & it's a fact that there ARE!
-
I said there are conflicting STATEMENTS & records in the files & it's a fact that there ARE!
yes there are, thats why its a dogs dinner and always will be, but you alsosaid there are conflicting telephone records there were none, its a fact police were not called for over half an hour after the alledged known abduction
-
No I did not, I said there were MISSING telephone records, it would have been good to know, just as an example, that the police had checked the mobile records of the staff on duty that evening, even if those are not included in the files. But as far as I know, there is no evidence that they did. But I'm happy to be corrected on that point, if anyone has information that suggests that they did.
-
No I did not, I said there were MISSING telephone records, it would have been good to know, just as an example, that the police had checked the mobile records of the staff on duty that evening, even if those are not included in the files. But as far as I know, there is no evidence that they did. But I'm happy to be corrected on that point, if anyone has information that suggests that they did.
you said
We don't know for certain that police was NOT called just after the alert was raised. We have conflicting statements & telephone records. None of which can be discarded.
Unquote
There are no conflicting telephone records. the local GNR police and 112 the equivalent of 999 would have all records, you dont NEED everyones mobile phone records, the 999 phone calls if any were made would have been put through to the local GNR, if there was a record it would be in the files. So you have a choixe, believe police were NOT called until 40 minutes later or believe police doctored the time which seems peurile to even imagine
-
No, I disagree, I can chose to ponder the possibility that the GNR were indeed phoned earlier as the receptionist said in his statement to police (as I have no reason to suspect him of lying). I can also chose to ponder whether this could have happened by the use of a mobile phone or not. There is nothing in the files that contradict that supposition, so I'm utterly free to consider it, thank you!
-
Anne, why do you post unhelpful and erroneous information stating that we don't know when the alert was made by Kate when we know exactly when it was made?
Unhelpful ? Erroneous ? Do I ? Are you sure, John ? Then prove it, starting with Mr Salcedas !
Yes, erroneous. Jeronimo or Joe as he was called by Ricardo and Ze, has nothing to offer. Seemingly he didn't notice anything at all until only one woman remained at the table. So helpful wasn't he?
Makes one wonder how he managed to serve people their meals without noticing them?
-
The GNR has no public cellphone number. Every call arrives on the 282 770 010. You can also send a fax ( 282 770 018).
If someone calls the 112 and if this is not abduction but disappearance, the 112 calls the 282 770 010 and the call is registered. If abduction is suspected, the 112 calls the 282 405 400, the PJ in Portimão.
Now you call the 116000 when a child is missing, all over the EU.
Nothing of this does need very sophisticated devices.
-
No, I disagree, I can chose to ponder the possibility that the GNR were indeed phoned earlier as the receptionist said in his statement to police (as I have no reason to suspect him of lying). I can also chose to ponder whether this could have happened by the use of a mobile phone or not. There is nothing in the files that contradict that supposition, so I'm utterly free to consider it, thank you!
Who has ? But you apparently have reasons to suspect the GNR of lying !
-
No, I disagree, I can chose to ponder the possibility that the GNR were indeed phoned earlier as the receptionist said in his statement to police (as I have no reason to suspect him of lying). I can also chose to ponder whether this could have happened by the use of a mobile phone or not. There is nothing in the files that contradict that supposition, so I'm utterly free to consider it, thank you!
Remind me please when this receptionist called police and who he was as its getting numbskull here with all these statements and if he did call police why its not recorded
-
The GNR has no public cellphone number. Every call arrives on the 282 770 010. You can also send a fax ( 282 770 018).
If someone calls the 112 and if this is not abduction but disappearance, the 112 calls the 282 770 010 and the call is registered. If abduction is suspected, the 112 calls the 282 405 400, the PJ in Portimão.
Now you call the 116000 when a child is missing, all over the EU.
Nothing of this does need very sophisticated devices.
Well, I wouldn't have expect the GNR to phone the receptionist on a cell phone, but certainly nothing would have prevented the receptionist to call the GNR LANDLINE from HIS cell phone.
-
To be honest, as would say somebody we know, the Pj is being defamed when pretending to have been called only at 22:21 whenever it was called ealier.
If such suspicions exist, then posting here means indirect but true adhesion to this libel.
I ask the administrators to take a position.
-
and why would management at reception use their cell phone or anyone else use their cellphone, it was managements responsibility not any tom dick or harry to call police
-
LOL It's libelous to the PJ to question whether the GNR was phoned earlier than 22.40 as a witness stated clearly that a phone call WAS made earlier than the official records show? ?? Don't make me laugh.....
-
and why would management at reception use their cell phone or anyone else use their cellphone, it was managements responsibility not any tom dick or harry to call police
And when the GNR was called at 22:41 from the OC landline, was it to contradict Mrs B. ?
-
and why would management at reception use their cell phone or anyone else use their cellphone, it was managements responsibility not any tom dick or harry to call police
Is it against the law though, is it? At least it wasn't when I worked in the tourist industry. I'm not saying it DID happen I'm just pondering whether that could have been what the receptionist meant when he stated that he had phone the police EARLIER than official records show.
-
LOL It's libelous to the PJ to question whether the GNR was phoned earlier than 22.40 as a witness stated clearly that a phone call WAS made earlier than the official records show? ?? Don't make me laugh.....
WHEN was that call made and by who, I ask a SECOND time
-
If you would have bothered to read back, you wouldn't have had to ask a second time, would you? The link has been posted in an earlier post.
With regard to the date of the disappearance on 3rd May 2007, he remembers that at 22.00/22.15 he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet. He added (the receptionist) that he had phoned the GNR post several times and that he had been told that they would arrive when they could but that they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere. The receptionist asked the witness whether he should contact the PSP, to which the witness replied no as this area belongs to the GNR.
-
and why would management at reception use their cell phone or anyone else use their cellphone, it was managements responsibility not any tom dick or harry to call police
Is it against the law though, is it? At least it wasn't when I worked in the tourist industry. I'm not saying it DID happen I'm just pondering whether that could have been what the receptionist meant when he stated that he had phone the police EARLIER than official records show.
So who made the call and when
-
Try READING the posts & you'll soon find out 8((()*/
-
We have an extremely credible statement by a resident of Praia da Luz called Maria Manuela Martins da Silva who was in the habit of visiting the apartment block adjacent to that occupied by the McCanns. She was extremely well acquainted with the coming and goings and on the very night of the disappearance she had just left the apartment of her boyfriend with him at it turned 10pm. She is adamant about this because she asked her friend to check the time which was 9.58.
Maria relates that there was no movement of people at all at this time. There was a light on at or near the McCann apartment but she did not pay much notice to it.
I would suggest that this was the very instant when Kate discovered that Madeleine had gone. A moment in time just before all hell broke loose with people out with torches searching everywhere.
Maria infers that she was totally unaware of any commotion and only found out about it the next day.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-M-M-DE-SILVA.htm
-
Try READING the posts & you'll soon find out 8((()*/
Nope, up to you to prove it as you asserted it
-
We have an extremely credible statement by a resident of Praia da Luz called Maria Manuela Martins da Silva who was in the habit of visiting the apartment block adjacent to that occupied by the McCanns. She was extremely well acquainted with the coming and goings and on the very night of the disappearance she had just left the apartment of her boyfriend with him at it turned 10pm. She is adamant about this because she asked her friend to check the time which was 9.58.
Maria relates that there was no movement of people at all at this time. There was a light on at or near the McCann apartment but she did not pay much notice to it.
I would suggest that this was the very instant when Kate discovered that Madeleine had goneI . A moment in time just before all hell broke loose with people out with torches searching everywhere.
Maria infers that she was totally unaware of any commotion and only found out about it the next day.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-M-M-DE-SILVA.htm
BIB ... based on what ? ... your intuition ?
There is nothing in this statement that leads to that conclusion
All this statement verifies is that at 10pm the resort was quiet ... nothing more
-
No actually, it's not up to me to pander to your laziness, you purport to have read the files. Have you or haven't you?
With regard to the date of the disappearance on 3rd May 2007, he remembers that at 22.00/22.15 he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet. He added (the receptionist) that he had phoned the GNR post several times and that he had been told that they would arrive when they could but that they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere. The receptionist asked the witness whether he should contact the PSP, to which the witness replied no as this area belongs to the GNR.
-
According to the Ocean Club telephone records the first call was made from their main switchboard at reception at 10.41pm with a second call made at 10.52pm with the caller being on the phone for about a minute each time.
The Club Manager, John Hill, was contacted on his mobile phone by Lindsay at about 10.30pm and he immediately set out for the resort arriving 5 minutes later.
Reception did not call the police until John Hill arrived on site and this contributed to the unacceptable delay. Had the receptionist done what Matthew wanted them to do shortly after 10pm then the police would have been there much sooner and we might just not have spent the last 6 years wondering where Madeleine McCann is now.
-
If you would have bothered to read back, you wouldn't have had to ask a second time, would you? The link has been posted in an earlier post.
With regard to the date of the disappearance on 3rd May 2007, he remembers that at 22.00/22.15 he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet. He added (the receptionist) that he had phoned the GNR post several times and that he had been told that they would arrive when they could but that they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere. The receptionist asked the witness whether he should contact the PSP, to which the witness replied no as this area belongs to the GNR.
Mr John H was informed at 22:28, on his cell phone which registered the call. How could he be "extremely agitated" before 22:15 ? Premonition ?
-
Or maybe John Hill got the time wrong, or maybe the receptionist, or maybe dos Santos did....that's what is generally referred to as CONFLICTING STATEMENTS.
-
Or maybe John Hill got the time wrong, or maybe the receptionist, or maybe dos Santos did....that's what is generally referred to as CONFLICTING STATEMENTS.
Just as well we have the phone records isn't it ? ... no conflict there ... just straight-forward fact
-
No, not really. That's only ONE piece of information, just as witness statements are pieces of information.
-
The hotel manager Emma Knight was quite specific about times and said she was telephoned at 10.17pm by Lyndsay and immediately initiated the missing child procedure.
-
No actually, it's not up to me to pander to your laziness, you purport to have read the files. Have you or haven't you?
With regard to the date of the disappearance on 3rd May 2007, he remembers that at 22.00/22.15 he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet. He added (the receptionist) that he had phoned the GNR post several times and that he had been told that they would arrive when they could but that they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere. The receptionist asked the witness whether he should contact the PSP, to which the witness replied no as this area belongs to the GNR.
Im not lazy Ive read it all there is NO PROOF ANYONE rang police, before 10 41 its a fact
-
I honestly believe the staff thought that they would find her lurking around the grounds somewhere so delayed telephoning the GNR whom they knew would not be terribly pleased if they were called out on a wild goose chase.
This delay taken with the fact that there was only one police patrol out and they were responding to a theft report many kilometres away added to the whole situation. By the time the police even arrived on site at 11pm any abductor worth his salt would have been many miles away.
To further add to the delays it was after midnight before the PJ got involved and later still before the order went out to set up road blocks and check the border crossings.
-
It's a witness statement, there are several, and some of them are CONFLICTING.
-
I honestly believe the staff thought that they would find her lurking around the grounds somewhere so delayed telephoning the GNR whom they knew would not be terribly pleased if they were called out on a wild goose chase.
This delay taken with the delay by police in responding due to the simple fact that they were already dealing with a theft many kilometres away added to the whole situation. By the time the police even arrived on site at 11pm any abductor worth his salt would have been many miles away.
Bit like madeleine could have been miles away between 9.15 and 10 pm 45 mins or 75 mins becore police were called, hardly logical to blame police dor losing the golden hour which didnt exist ever
-
No actually, it's not up to me to pander to your laziness, you purport to have read the files. Have you or haven't you?
With regard to the date of the disappearance on 3rd May 2007, he remembers that at 22.00/22.15 he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet. He added (the receptionist) that he had phoned the GNR post several times and that he had been told that they would arrive when they could but that they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere. The receptionist asked the witness whether he should contact the PSP, to which the witness replied no as this area belongs to the GNR.
Im not lazy Ive read it all there is NO PROOF ANYONE rang police, before 10 41 its a fact
Without all the mobile telephone records we have no way of knowing if anyone called the police on a mobile prior to 10.41pm.
-
No, not really. That's only ONE piece of information, just as witness statements are pieces of information.
Nonsense
The telephone records are 'hard evidence'
In a court of law they would be used as a factual point of reference
-
I honestly believe the staff thought that they would find her lurking around the grounds somewhere so delayed telephoning the GNR whom they knew would not be terribly pleased if they were called out on a wild goose chase.
This delay taken with the delay by police in responding due to the simple fact that they were already dealing with a theft many kilometres away added to the whole situation. By the time the police even arrived on site at 11pm any abductor worth his salt would have been many miles away.
Bit like madeleine could have been miles away between 9.15 and 10 pm 45 mins or 75 mins becore police were called, hardly logical to blame police dor losing the golden hour which didnt exist ever
The bottom line is that the resort was ill prepared for such a scenario should it occur in the dark. There is evidence of people scurrying around looking for torches. They delayed in calling the police which was the first mistake.
The police patrol was unfortunately quite a distance away and got there in 20 minutes which means that they must have responded almost immediately. Then the delays seem to have got out of control with another hour lost before the PJ got involved.
-
No actually, it's not up to me to pander to your laziness, you purport to have read the files. Have you or haven't you?
With regard to the date of the disappearance on 3rd May 2007, he remembers that at 22.00/22.15 he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet. He added (the receptionist) that he had phoned the GNR post several times and that he had been told that they would arrive when they could but that they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere. The receptionist asked the witness whether he should contact the PSP, to which the witness replied no as this area belongs to the GNR.
Im not lazy Ive read it all there is NO PROOF ANYONE rang police, before 10 41 its a fact
Without all the mobile telephone records we have no way of knowing if anyone called the police on a mobile prior to 10.41pm.
8((()*/ Exactly what I've been saying all along. You have witness statements that are clearly quite adamant they DID call the police earlier & the only records on file are the OC land lines. We simply don't have ENOUGH information to discard those witness statements as irrelevant.
-
Before we get completely off topic here is draft #7
(http://i.imgur.com/ob5SA2B.png)
-
No, not really. That's only ONE piece of information, just as witness statements are pieces of information.
Nonsense
The telephone records are 'hard evidence'
In a court of law they would be used as a factual point of reference
Only of the time the call was made.
Not of anything that happened (or didn't happen!) before ...
-
The only dissimilarity between statements and the latest graph is that you have Russel O brien in the apartment with his partner Jane for almost 10 minutes
Both their statements say that Russell returned to the restaurant almost immediately after Jane had come to relieve him
Apart from that, cracking job john 8@??)(
-
Nobody is denying that a phone call was placed to the police at the time the official records show from the OC reception land line. That in itself does not DISPROVE that previous calls had been made from OTHER phones.
-
Nobody is denying that a phone call was placed to the police at the time the official records show from the OC reception land line. That in itself does not DISPROVE that previous calls had been made from OTHER phones.
Yeah but were waiting for the proof lol lol
-
You have statements, up to YOU to prove them false if you are accusing those people of lying.
-
You have statements, up to YOU to prove them false if you are accusing those people of lying.
Speaking of taking witness statements at face value, and getting back on topic at the same time, what do you make of the two independent witnesses who say a male was away from the tapas group table for a half hour period , only returning just before the alarm was raised by Kate ?
Neither statement fits with John's evolving graph, afterall
-
Before we get completely off topic here is draft #7
(http://i.imgur.com/ob5SA2B.png)
That's very informative, great job. It would be interesting to see it extended, or a similar illustration extended beyond 10 pm & see where all the witness statements fit in.
-
We have an extremely credible statement by a resident of Praia da Luz called Maria Manuela Martins da Silva who was in the habit of visiting the apartment block adjacent to that occupied by the McCanns. She was extremely well acquainted with the coming and goings and on the very night of the disappearance she had just left the apartment of her boyfriend with him at it turned 10pm. She is adamant about this because she asked her friend to check the time which was 9.58.
Maria relates that there was no movement of people at all at this time. There was a light on at or near the McCann apartment but she did not pay much notice to it.
I would suggest that this was the very instant when Kate discovered that Madeleine had gone. A moment in time just before all hell broke loose with people out with torches searching everywhere.
Maria infers that she was totally unaware of any commotion and only found out about it the next day.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-M-M-DE-SILVA.htm
Who was driving the car that night?
-
You have statements, up to YOU to prove them false if you are accusing those people of lying.
Speaking of taking witness statements at face value, and getting back on topic at the same time, what do you make of the two independent witnesses who say a male was away from the tapas group table for a half hour period , only returning just before the alarm was raised by Kate ?
Neither statement fits with John's evolving graph, afterall
If you do me the courtesy of providing extracts with links to the police files showing which statements you are referring to I'd be able to answer you.
-
You have statements, up to YOU to prove them false if you are accusing those people of lying.
Speaking of taking witness statements at face value, and getting back on topic at the same time, what do you make of the two independent witnesses who say a male was away from the tapas group table for a half hour period , only returning just before the alarm was raised by Kate ?
Neither statement fits with John's evolving graph, afterall
If you do me the courtesy of providing extracts with links to the police files showing which statements you are referring to I'd be able to answer you.
They are both posted by John on the first page of this thread ( replies 9 and 10 )
-
It can only be that kitchen assistant STARIKOVA is mixing up Gerry with Russell. The latter was the only person who was away from the table for any length of time and this is acknowledged by Ricardo the waiter who attended him.
-
It can only be that kitchen assistant STARIKOVA is mixing up Gerry with Russell. The latter was the only person who was away from the table for any length of time and this is acknowledged by Ricardo the waiter who attended him.
Of course LOL
-
Maybe we can start another thread tomorrow to look at the time line relating to the hour from 10pm until the arrival of police at 11pm. I am sure John will help with the graphics.
-
Maybe we can start another thread tomorrow to look at the time line relating to the hour from 10pm until the arrival of police at 11pm. I am sure John will help with the graphics.
Ah admin, about those tweets ?
-
It can only be that kitchen assistant STARIKOVA is mixing up Gerry with Russell. The latter was the only person who was away from the table for any length of time and this is acknowledged by Ricardo the waiter who attended him.
It most certainly is NOT 'confirmed' by the waiter who served them that night
He states that a man fitting Russell O'Brien's description was away from the table for 15 minutes ... and that someone else was away from the table for half an hour, returning just before Kate raised the alarm
-
It can only be that kitchen assistant STARIKOVA is mixing up Gerry with Russell. The latter was the only person who was away from the table for any length of time and this is acknowledged by Ricardo the waiter who attended him.
Not this one
------- STARIKOVA VITORINO (Russian citizen, with the telephone No "96635 ####) - kitchen assistant:
- Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.
- During the time that she was working yesterday (between 14:30 and 23:00) she did not see any individual with blonde "rastas".
-
In fact, when ROB came back, there was time to grill another beefsteak for him and time for him to eat half of it before the alarm was launched. At least 12/15 minutes.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SVETLANA_VITORINO.htm
Individual Statement given 8th May 2007
No mention of Gerry McCann being gone for 30 minutes. Short term memory problems, perhaps?
ETA When questioned she says that she did not see anyone strange or any unusual behaviour, but that as she only goes outside to look at the grills, she did not pay much attention.
>@@(*&)
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SVETLANA_VITORINO.htm
Individual Statement given 8th May 2007
No mention of Gerry McCann being gone for 30 minutes. Short term memory problems, perhaps?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm) 4th May 2007
Yes or amnesia or alzheimera disease, i suppose the staff were informally interviewed then formally, as i said its a total DOGS DINNER and you and no one else can get to the bottom of it but two independent witnesses put matt oldfield away for half an hour hmm whatever
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SVETLANA_VITORINO.htm
Individual Statement given 8th May 2007
No mention of Gerry McCann being gone for 30 minutes. Short term memory problems, perhaps?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm) 4th May 2007
So whilst you feel it is an affront to question the Ocean Club's receptionist's statement ... you think it's perfectly acceptable to doubt and question the statement of this witness ?
What criteria are you applying to this cherry- picking approach of yours ?
-
No, I'm just pointing out the difference in the statements of THIS particular witness, because there IS a difference. But if you have a second statement from receptionist where he states something totally different from what he said in his first one, please feel free to post it.
-
Oh dear oh dear had enough rubbish for one day mrs b
-
No, I'm just pointing out the difference in the statements of THIS particular witness, because there IS a difference. But if you have a second statement from receptionist where he states something totally different from what he said in his first one, please feel free to post it.
The receptionist's statement is 'proven' to be wrong by the factual content of the Ocean Club telephone records ... yet you choose to accept his statement regardless
The witness statement of the kitchen staff member, however, you choose to question on the most tenuos of reasons
You have an agenda Mrs B
I didn't see it at first ... but it becomes ever more apparent
-
Aww... you sound a bit upset? Not going your way, is it? Ah well, never mind.... 8(0(*
-
No, I'm just pointing out the difference in the statements of THIS particular witness, because there IS a difference. But if you have a second statement from receptionist where he states something totally different from what he said in his first one, please feel free to post it.
The receptionist's statement is 'proven' to be wrong by the factual content of the Ocean Club telephone records ... yet you choose to accept his statement regardless
The witness of the kitchen staff member, however, you choose to question on the most tenuos of reasons
You have an agenda Mrs B
I didn't see it at first ... but it becomes ever more apparent
No it's not, the telephone records show that A phone call was made at a specific time, it does not exclude that OTHER phone calls could have been made from either other lines OR mobile phones.
YOUR agenda is fairly obvious by the way, there's no need to beat around the bush.
-
This thread arouse a lot of passion. Is now everybody convinced that nobody called the GNR or the 112 before, finally, the receptionist admitted to call the landline and only nb of the GNR ?
One observer would likely remark that when a child is missing the first thing that crosses one's mind is to look around and quickly.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SVETLANA_VITORINO.htm
Individual Statement given 8th May 2007
No mention of Gerry McCann being gone for 30 minutes. Short term memory problems, perhaps?
ETA When questioned she says that she did not see anyone strange or any unusual behaviour, but that as she only goes outside to look at the grills, she did not pay much attention.
>@@(*&)
I think this speaks oceans:
... as she only goes outside to to look at the grills, she does not pay much attention
-
Is now everybody convinced that nobody called the GNR or the 112 before, finally, the receptionist admitted to call the landline and only nb of the GNR ?
No, whatever gave you that idea?
I've not seen any statement where the receptionist admits that he did NOT call the police at the time he originally states. Until I have, I have no reason to doubt the witness' original statement.
-
Is now everybody convinced that nobody called the GNR or the 112 before, finally, the receptionist admitted to call the landline and only nb of the GNR ?
No, whatever gave you that idea?
I've not seen any statement where the receptionist admits that he did NOT call the police at the time he originally states. Until I have, I have no reason to doubt the witness' original statement.
Despite the phone records proving the contrary, you remain convinced that there is no reason to doubt the receptionist's statement
OK, let's look, in detail, at this statement which you do not doubt
He was contacted by a member of staff from the tapas restaurant between 9.30pm and 10.00pm, who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared.
Then he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child's father and John Hill arrived at reception and he phoned the GNR again
According to this undoubtable witness, Kate had left the table, found Madeleine missing, and come back to raise the alarm before 10pm, despite the McCanns and their friends saying they were still at the table at that point ... does that lead you to doubt the witness's statement ?
The witness adds that he immediately phoned the police, and shortly after Gerry and John Hill arrived at reception, yet John Hill says he was first contacted on his mobile at 22.28pm and presented himself at the resort five minutes later ( some time after 10.30pm ) ... does that lead you to doubt the witness's statement ?
-
No. It leads me to doubt the accuracy of the available evidence.
-
No. It leads me to doubt the accuracy of the available evidence.
ALL evidence ? including that given by the McCanns and their friends ?
-
No. It leads me to doubt the accuracy of the available evidence.
It confirms to me what hugely varying powers of recall different people have.
IMO All the witnesses involved in this case did their best to remember what they had done/seen etc etc. and the fact that some statements contradict others does not mean that ANYONE deliberately lied.
-
No. It leads me to doubt the accuracy of the available evidence.
It confirms to me what hugely varying powers of recall different people have.
IMO All the witnesses involved in this case did their best to remember what they had done/seen etc etc. and the fact that some statements contradict others does not mean that ANYONE deliberately lied.
It does mean that some must be inaccurate though
Mrs B maintains that there is no basis on which to doubt the accuracy of the receptionist's statement ... do you agree with her ?
-
I maintain that there are CONFLICTING witness statements contained within the files & I also maintain that the telephone records ONLY show that a phone call was made at a certain time from that particular line. That, in itself, does not EXCLUDE that a phone call could have been made EARLIER from another line or a mobile phone.
It's not difficult!
-
I maintain that there are CONFLICTING witness statements contained within the files & I also maintain that the telephone records ONLY show that a phone call was made at a certain time from that particular line. That, in itself, does not EXCLUDE that a phone call could have been made EARLIER from another line or a mobile phone.
It's not difficult!
it's interesting that you do not doubt the receptionist's statement, given that it is very relevent to the topic under discussion in this thread 'Independent witnesses place Gerry McCann at the tapas bar at 10pm
Here we have an independent witness who definately places Gerry McCann away from the tapas bar at 10pm
... and in your opinion he is a credible witness to be taken at his word
-
As you well know, I don't share your view on what constitute an "independent witness", I think it's a way of twisting facts to suit your purpose.
-
As you well know, I don't share your view on what constitute an "independent witness", I think it's a way of twisting facts to suit your purpose.
The purpose of this thread is to determine whether or not independent witnesses ( anyone other than the McCann's friends ) place Gerry in the tapas bar at 10pm
You have highlighted an independent witness who definately places Gerry away from the tapas bar at 10pm ... and you have defended his credibility
That is a useful contribution to the subject under discussion
-
Yes, according to the witness he was in reception at that time. Contradicting statements again, such a novelty in this case.
-
No. It leads me to doubt the accuracy of the available evidence.
It confirms to me what hugely varying powers of recall different people have.
IMO All the witnesses involved in this case did their best to remember what they had done/seen etc etc. and the fact that some statements contradict others does not mean that ANYONE deliberately lied.
It does mean that some must be inaccurate though
Mrs B maintains that there is no basis on which to doubt the accuracy of the receptionist's statement ... do you agree with her ?
Amaral has his own share of inaccuracies, in his book, though doesn't he?
1. Jane Tanner, said it was Murat she saw on the night. She didn't.
2. Jane tanner was in a police car, when she said it was Murat. She was with Bob Small in a van.
-
No. It leads me to doubt the accuracy of the available evidence.
It confirms to me what hugely varying powers of recall different people have.
IMO All the witnesses involved in this case did their best to remember what they had done/seen etc etc. and the fact that some statements contradict others does not mean that ANYONE deliberately lied.
It does mean that some must be inaccurate though
Mrs B maintains that there is no basis on which to doubt the accuracy of the receptionist's statement ... do you agree with her ?
Amaral has his own share of inaccuracies, in his book, though doesn't he?
1. Jane Tanner, said it was Murat she saw on the night. She didn't.
2. Jane tanner was in a police car, when she said it was Murat. She was with Bob Small in a van.
That might be worth a thread of it's own
It certainly has nothing to do with this one
-
No. It leads me to doubt the accuracy of the available evidence.
It confirms to me what hugely varying powers of recall different people have.
IMO All the witnesses involved in this case did their best to remember what they had done/seen etc etc. and the fact that some statements contradict others does not mean that ANYONE deliberately lied.
It does mean that some must be inaccurate though
Mrs B maintains that there is no basis on which to doubt the accuracy of the receptionist's statement ... do you agree with her ?
Amaral has his own share of inaccuracies, in his book, though doesn't he?
1. Jane Tanner, said it was Murat she saw on the night. She didn't.
2. Jane tanner was in a police car, when she said it was Murat. She was with Bob Small in a van.
You seem to have some obsession along with others over the *evil* Mr Amaral, perhaps admin should start a new board for you and yours so you can stop derailing every thread, just a thought, nite nite
-
It is an anti construct that the seven tapas friends are not independent witnesses, that they helped to cover up the disappearance of Madeleine. There is no evidence to suggest that they are any less independent than any other witnesses.
-
It is an anti construct that the seven tapas friends are not independent witnesses, that they helped to cover up the disappearance of Madeleine. There is no evidence to suggest that they are any less independent than any other witnesses.
Yes, I agree, and I mean no disrespect to Admin, but may I ask why that is? Why are we to assume that everybody who happened to sit at the same table as the McCann, despite the fact that some of them were mere acquaintances of the couple, are somehow dishonest or untrustworthy, i.e. their statements not to be treated the same as everybody else's?
-
The very nature of the term "independent witnesses" precludes the tapas 7. The allegation is that these seven individuals somehow colluded in a conspiracy to cover up a crime. These were not casual acquaintances whom the McCanns met on holiday but friends and associates who chose to go on holiday abroad together. They are therefore not independent of each other nor can they be designated as independent witnesses.
-
The very nature of the term "independent witnesses" precludes the tapas 7. The allegation is that these seven individuals somehow colluded in a conspiracy to cover up a crime. These were not casual acquaintances whom the McCanns met on holiday but friends and associates who chose to go on holiday abroad together. They are therefore not independent of each other nor can they be designated as independent witnesses.
Hmmm would you class someone like Jayne Tanner as a friend or associate? Until this holday she had only met the McCanns half a dozen times over a period of 4 years and never on a one to one basis - but just as guests at the same birthday parties and weddings etc. She was Fiona Paynes friend.
I believe she did say she was getting to know Kate on this holiday because they took their tennis lessons together - but she also said words to the effect that although Gerry was fine - he was not quite her cup of tea.
I don't think I would describe a 'friend of a friend' as a 'friend of mine'.
Also wasn't there another couple (can't remember who at the moment) - who had not seen the McCanns for 3 years before this holiday?
-
Yes, and the mother of another friend. Most bizarre outlook....IMO
-
Hmmm would you class someone like Jayne Tanner as a friend or associate? Until this holday she had only met the McCanns half a dozen times over a period of 4 years and never on a one to one basis - but just as guests at the same birthday parties and weddings etc. She was Fiona Paynes friend.
I believe she did say she was getting to know Kate on this holiday because they took their tennis lessons together - but she also said words to the effect that although Gerry was fine - he was not quite her cup of tea.
I don't think I would describe a 'friend of a friend' as a 'friend of mine'.
Also wasn't there another couple (can't remember who at the moment) - who had not seen the McCanns for 3 years before this holiday?
Benice, there are obviously degrees of "independence".
The alibi given by a wife to her husband has no value, even if the husband was with her when the crime occurred. But also a wife can't testify against her husband, even if she saw him murder someone. Hence the staging in "Witness for the Prosecution".
-
You may be a touch out of date there Anne. Under UK law the relevant legislation is PACE S80
Commentary: A spouse or civil partner of a defendant is almost always considered a competent witness for either side, and may choose to testify for or against their spouse. A defendant may, when relevant, compel their spouse or civil partner to testify on their behalf. The prosecution however, may only compel the testimony of the defendant's spouse or civil partner in cases of domestic abuse or violence or sexual offences towards persons under 16. When the spouse or civil partner is a co-defendant to the charges, they may not be compelled to testify.
Note that while this gives special recognition to spousal relationships and civil partnerships, the law does not provide for a privilege and it is never possible to exclude evidence solely on the basis that it was a private conversation between a married couple.
-
Thanks Jean Pierre, where does the law stand on "friends & acquaintances" in their capacity as witnesses, any thoughts?
-
friends, acquaintances, relatives of course all have capacity to act as witnesses, and can be completted to testify if required.
They would be subject to the usual rules of cross examination, and so it would be up to the prosection or defence to convince the court as to their reliability.
-
Sequence of events as I can piece them together from the file:
John Elliot Manager
With regard to the facts of the investigation. Statements show that he knew of these facts by means of a phone call from Lindsay, head of the child care service, who told him about a female child staying at the resort who had disappeared. This phone call was made to the deponent's mobile phone at about 22.28
Lindsay Johnson
She indicates that on May 3rd 2007, at around 10.20pm, she was informed by her colleague Amy T. that Madeleine McCann had disappeared.
Amy T.
The witness confirms that the girl's father went to the reception to call the police as soon as her disappearance was noticed and that twenty minutes had passed. The GNR took 30 – 35 minutes to arrive.
Helger receptionist
He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared.
-
friends, acquaintances, relatives of course all have capacity to act as witnesses, and can be completted to testify if required.
They would be subject to the usual rules of cross examination, and so it would be up to the prosection or defence to convince the court as to their reliability.
Thanks 8((()*/
-
You may be a touch out of date there Anne. Under UK law the relevant legislation is PACE S80
Commentary: A spouse or civil partner of a defendant is almost always considered a competent witness for either side, and may choose to testify for or against their spouse. A defendant may, when relevant, compel their spouse or civil partner to testify on their behalf. The prosecution however, may only compel the testimony of the defendant's spouse or civil partner in cases of domestic abuse or violence or sexual offences towards persons under 16. When the spouse or civil partner is a co-defendant to the charges, they may not be compelled to testify.
Note that while this gives special recognition to spousal relationships and civil partnerships, the law does not provide for a privilege and it is never possible to exclude evidence solely on the basis that it was a private conversation between a married couple.
With women acquiring an independent juridical statute Common Law had to evolve. But the institution of marriage ("for the best and the worse") had also to be protected and the dialectic isn't so easy, since the qualities of spouse and part in the process aren't compatible.
-
Sequence of events as I can piece them together from the file:
John Elliot Manager
With regard to the facts of the investigation. Statements show that he knew of these facts by means of a phone call from Lindsay, head of the child care service, who told him about a female child staying at the resort who had disappeared. This phone call was made to the deponent's mobile phone at about 22.28
Lindsay Johnson
She indicates that on May 3rd 2007, at around 10.20pm, she was informed by her colleague Amy T. that Madeleine McCann had disappeared.
Amy T.
The witness confirms that the girl's father went to the reception to call the police as soon as her disappearance was noticed and that twenty minutes had passed. The GNR took 30 – 35 minutes to arrive.
Helger receptionist
He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared.
And Added to that -
Jeronimo Tomas Rodigues Salcedo, Tapas bar waiter
"On the night Madeleine disappeared, everything appeared normal. I remember that when I took notice of the disappearance, I had been in the restaurant speaking with my two colleagues?Ze and Ricardo who were on break. I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.? I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty."
-
Sequence of events as I can piece them together from the file:
John Elliot Manager
With regard to the facts of the investigation. Statements show that he knew of these facts by means of a phone call from Lindsay, head of the child care service, who told him about a female child staying at the resort who had disappeared. This phone call was made to the deponent's mobile phone at about 22.28
Lindsay Johnson
She indicates that on May 3rd 2007, at around 10.20pm, she was informed by her colleague Amy T. that Madeleine McCann had disappeared.
Amy T.
The witness confirms that the girl's father went to the reception to call the police as soon as her disappearance was noticed and that twenty minutes had passed. The GNR took 30 – 35 minutes to arrive.
Helger receptionist
He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared.
I'm afraid that's rather cherry picking from the statements. I think there is enough disparity in timings between witnesses to make almost anything possible between 8.30 and 10.30 on the night of Madeleine's disappearance..
-
Especially if we are to assume that they're all lying, yes, I suppose so....
-
Sequence of events as I can piece them together from the file:
John Elliot Manager
With regard to the facts of the investigation. Statements show that he knew of these facts by means of a phone call from Lindsay, head of the child care service, who told him about a female child staying at the resort who had disappeared. This phone call was made to the deponent's mobile phone at about 22.28
Lindsay Johnson
She indicates that on May 3rd 2007, at around 10.20pm, she was informed by her colleague Amy T. that Madeleine McCann had disappeared.
Amy T.
The witness confirms that the girl's father went to the reception to call the police as soon as her disappearance was noticed and that twenty minutes had passed. The GNR took 30 – 35 minutes to arrive.
Helger receptionist
He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared.
I'm afraid that's rather cherry picking from the statements. I think there is enough disparity in timings between witnesses to make almost anything possible between 8.30 and 10.30 on the night of Madeleine's disappearance..
Cherry-picking?
I'm picking up literally every statement I can find. Here's another from the manager of the Tapas restaurant:
That he became aware of the situation that occurred at the OC with respect to the disappearance of a child when he arrived at the Tapas around 22H00/22H30. He was immediately informed at arriving by work colleagues.
-
What I'm having trouble picking up is the statement from the employee at the tapas restaurant who contacted Helger the receptionist.
Anyone better clued up than me?
-
An off-topic aside, I know, but one fact I find utterly remarkable is that off-duty employees of both the Tapas and Millennium Restaurants were interviewed weeks or months before Mrs Fenn.
What was that all about?
-
An off-topic aside, I know, but one fact I find utterly remarkable is that off-duty employees of both the Tapas and Millennium Restaurants were interviewed weeks or months before Mrs Fenn.
What was that all about?
Yes I've always found that to be incredible too. Being the 'next door neighbour' who was at home at the time, Mrs Fenn should have been interviewed as a matter of urgency.
-
An off-topic aside, I know, but one fact I find utterly remarkable is that off-duty employees of both the Tapas and Millennium Restaurants were interviewed weeks or months before Mrs Fenn.
What was that all about?
Yes I've always found that to be incredible too. Being the 'next door neighbour' who was at home at the time, Mrs Fenn should have been interviewed as a matter of urgency.
Exactly!
I'm afraid there is one way I can square that particular circle ...
-
What I'm having trouble picking up is the statement from the employee at the tapas restaurant who contacted Helger the receptionist.
Anyone better clued up than me?
Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira
Questioned if he was the person who called the reception to tell them that a child had gone missing, he states that he cannot definitively remember if he did or not. He admits that he could have been the one to call.
Mmmm
ETA Continued
At that moment his colleague, Joe, met up with him and asked the witness to call the police, and that a child has gone missing and could not be found. Immediately afterwards, Joe left toward the street. He does not know who gave this information to Joe but the witness (or his colleague who believes the witness did so) called the reception asking them to inform the police.
-
The very nature of the term "independent witnesses" precludes the tapas 7. The allegation is that these seven individuals somehow colluded in a conspiracy to cover up a crime. These were not casual acquaintances whom the McCanns met on holiday but friends and associates who chose to go on holiday abroad together. They are therefore not independent of each other nor can they be designated as independent witnesses.
Cite for their previous relationships please- it might surprise you how unconnected some of them were!
-
Hmmm would you class someone like Jayne Tanner as a friend or associate? Until this holday she had only met the McCanns half a dozen times over a period of 4 years and never on a one to one basis - but just as guests at the same birthday parties and weddings etc. She was Fiona Paynes friend.
I believe she did say she was getting to know Kate on this holiday because they took their tennis lessons together - but she also said words to the effect that although Gerry was fine - he was not quite her cup of tea.
I don't think I would describe a 'friend of a friend' as a 'friend of mine'.
Also wasn't there another couple (can't remember who at the moment) - who had not seen the McCanns for 3 years before this holiday?
Benice, there are obviously degrees of "independence".
The alibi given by a wife to her husband has no value, even if the husband was with her when the crime occurred. But also a wife can't testify against her husband, even if she saw him murder someone. Hence the staging in "Witness for the Prosecution".
Alibi evidence from a spouse does have evidential value.
-
You may be a touch out of date there Anne. Under UK law the relevant legislation is PACE S80
Commentary: A spouse or civil partner of a defendant is almost always considered a competent witness for either side, and may choose to testify for or against their spouse. A defendant may, when relevant, compel their spouse or civil partner to testify on their behalf. The prosecution however, may only compel the testimony of the defendant's spouse or civil partner in cases of domestic abuse or violence or sexual offences towards persons under 16. When the spouse or civil partner is a co-defendant to the charges, they may not be compelled to testify.
Note that while this gives special recognition to spousal relationships and civil partnerships, the law does not provide for a privilege and it is never possible to exclude evidence solely on the basis that it was a private conversation between a married couple.
With women acquiring an independent juridical statute Common Law had to evolve. But the institution of marriage ("for the best and the worse") had also to be protected and the dialectic isn't so easy, since the qualities of spouse and part in the process aren't compatible.
Does that 'translate to' "I am sorry, I was wrong to suggest that a wife's alibi is not good evidence and I am sorry to have misled the board"?
-
I'm afraid there is one way I can square that particular circle ...
There was a permanent post installed around the corner, but Mrs Fenn had seen nothing before 22h30, in particular no abductor. She certainly thought it was better not to disturb the investigation with a story showing the checkings weren't every half an hour.
-
Sequence of events as I can piece them together from the file:
John Elliot Manager
With regard to the facts of the investigation. Statements show that he knew of these facts by means of a phone call from Lindsay, head of the child care service, who told him about a female child staying at the resort who had disappeared. This phone call was made to the deponent's mobile phone at about 22.28
Lindsay Johnson
She indicates that on May 3rd 2007, at around 10.20pm, she was informed by her colleague Amy T. that Madeleine McCann had disappeared.
Amy T.
The witness confirms that the girl's father went to the reception to call the police as soon as her disappearance was noticed and that twenty minutes had passed. The GNR took 30 – 35 minutes to arrive.
Helger receptionist
He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared.
I'm afraid that's rather cherry picking from the statements. I think there is enough disparity in timings between witnesses to make almost anything possible between 8.30 and 10.30 on the night of Madeleine's disappearance..
Which is why trying to decipher it is a complete waste of time by pretendy policemen (and women).
-
I'm afraid there is one way I can square that particular circle ...
There was a permanent post installed around the corner, but Mrs Fenn had seen nothing before 22h30, in particular no abductor. She certainly thought it was better not to disturb the investigation with a story showing the checkings weren't every half an hour.
Marvelous, you know what Mrs. Fenn was thinking? Must be great having these psychic abilities. 8(0(*
-
Does that 'translate to' "I am sorry, I was wrong to suggest that a wife's alibi is not good evidence and I am sorry to have misled the board"?
Is it as valuable as an independent testimony in Common Law ?
Please don't do as if Common Law ruled Portugal.
-
Does that 'translate to' "I am sorry, I was wrong to suggest that a wife's alibi is not good evidence and I am sorry to have misled the board"?
Is it as valuable as an independent testimony in Common Law ?
Please don't do as if Common Law ruled Portugal.
Does alibi evidence from a spouse have no value in Portugal?
If you suggest that, please provide a cite!
-
Mrs Fenn was a very discreet and decent person. She had nothing to say about the events of the 3rd of May before 22h30 when the BBC news finished and she first noticed something was happening, as revealed in her late statement. She refused to speak to journalists, she obviously abhorred gossip, as documented in some TV film.
I find her a model and I didn't like the mocking her in "Madeleine" when she offered her phone. I don't think I'm alone.
-
There are so many discrepancies between the OC staff statements. It may actually be worth a thread of its own.
It's not their fault, but the statements have times jumping around equating to an hour's gap, for example.
There was a statement by a lady at the Millenium who believed that the McCanns went there every morning for breakfast. Apparently, this wasn't the case.
Descriptions of people who left the table are rather vague - and their precise function (and thus their attention span) isn't always clear from their statements.
All this should have been cleared up in early May 2007.
-
Mrs Fenn was a very discreet and decent person.
Strongly agree.
Every reason to suppose she was telling the truth when she said she had no idea the holiday apartment was occupied ...
-
There are so many discrepancies between the OC staff statements. It may actually be worth a thread of its own.
It's not their fault, but the statements have times jumping around equating to an hour's gap, for example.
There was a statement by a lady at the Millenium who believed that the McCanns went there every morning for breakfast. Apparently, this wasn't the case.
Descriptions of people who left the table are rather vague - and their precise function (and thus their attention span) isn't always clear from their statements.
All this should have been cleared up in early May 2007.
There was a statement by a lady at the Millenium who believed that the McCanns went there every morning for breakfast. Apparently, this wasn't the case.
Yes, I remember that reference by Kate in her book.
-
Mrs Fenn was a very discreet and decent person.
Strongly agree.
Every reason to suppose she was telling the truth when she said she had no idea the holiday apartment was occupied ...
She makes several references in her statement to the family living below her, so that statement is utter nonsense, obviously something she said misconstrued by the raggly taggly papers.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
-
Mrs Fenn was a very discreet and decent person.
Strongly agree.
Every reason to suppose she was telling the truth when she said she had no idea the holiday apartment was occupied ...
She makes several references in her statement to the family living below her, so that statement is utter nonsense.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
Which statement, though?
The verbatim quote she gave to the press?
Or the one in reported speech we, apparently, read from the rendering of her statement that appears on line?
-
Mrs Fenn was a very discreet and decent person. She had nothing to say about the events of the 3rd of May before 22h30 when the BBC news finished and she first noticed something was happening, as revealed in her late statement. She refused to speak to journalists, she obviously abhorred gossip, as documented in some TV film.
I find her a model and I didn't like the mocking her in "Madeleine" when she offered her phone. I don't think I'm alone.
To say that someone speaks with a "plummy voice" isn't mocking them IMO. All the friends I have that have benefited from a solid public school education do exactly that.
-
Mrs Fenn was a very discreet and decent person. She had nothing to say about the events of the 3rd of May before 22h30 when the BBC news finished and she first noticed something was happening, as revealed in her late statement. She refused to speak to journalists, she obviously abhorred gossip, as documented in some TV film.
I find her a model and I didn't like the mocking her in "Madeleine" when she offered her phone. I don't think I'm alone.
I'm sure she was a kind, elderly lady, Anne. And I certainly don't think that she gave interviews to the press.
At the same time:
- She'd been burgled (scary for anyone, let alone an elderly person).
- She denied having spoken to any journalists - but she must have spoken to friends. And quite possibly - and innocently - spoken about it in her hairdresser's salon, for example, or where she may have gone for afternoon tea. It wouldn't take much for a female tabloid hack to arrange an appointment when she was booked.
- The press were camped outside 5A. She could have been overheard discussing the case with family/friends.
Whatever... but the fact still remains that she was apparently not even questioned until mid-August.
-
Well FM you can supply us with the verbatim quote which shows she thought the flat was unoccupied, and explain how she mentions several times the Mccann family in her statement, or are all her words fabricated, mistaken, blah blah And TBH I have no idea why you want to trash her statement, wouldnt be to discredit the crying episode would it?
Edited
-
Mrs Fenn was a very discreet and decent person.
Strongly agree.
Every reason to suppose she was telling the truth when she said she had no idea the holiday apartment was occupied ...
It's not clear to me whether she meant that she had no idea that that particular flat was occupied, or hadn't realised that it was occupied by that particular family.
There's a Fenn thread on here somewhere and I had quite a few unanswered questions.
-
Mrs Fenn was a very discreet and decent person.
Strongly agree.
Every reason to suppose she was telling the truth when she said she had no idea the holiday apartment was occupied ...
It's not clear to me whether she meant that she had no idea that that particular flat was occupied, or hadn't realised that it was occupied by that particular family.
There's a Fenn thread on here somewhere and I had quite a few unanswered questions.
The latter obviously. the former is a nonsense as proven by her statement.
-
Mrs Fenn was a very discreet and decent person.
Strongly agree.
Every reason to suppose she was telling the truth when she said she had no idea the holiday apartment was occupied ...
It's not clear to me whether she meant that she had no idea that that particular flat was occupied, or hadn't realised that it was occupied by that particular family.
There's a Fenn thread on here somewhere and I had quite a few unanswered questions.
The latter obviously. the former is a nonsense as proven by her statement.
Let's not take this thread any further off-topic ...
-
Mrs Fenn was a very discreet and decent person.
Strongly agree.
Every reason to suppose she was telling the truth when she said she had no idea the holiday apartment was occupied ...
It's not clear to me whether she meant that she had no idea that that particular flat was occupied, or hadn't realised that it was occupied by that particular family.
There's a Fenn thread on here somewhere and I had quite a few unanswered questions.
The latter obviously. the former is a nonsense as proven by her statement.
Let's not take this thread any further off-topic ...
Yes, lets not, I so totally understand
8**8:/:
-
Let me quote this without any "public school" comment :
"...in a plummy voice, inquired, ‘Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?’ I explained as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in, that my little girl had been stolen from her bed, to which she casually responded, ‘Oh, I see,’ almost as if she’d just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf. I remember feeling both shocked and angry at this woefully inadequate and apparently unconcerned reaction. I recollect that in our outrage, Fiona and I shouted back something rather short and to the point."
-
Let me quote this without any "public school" comment :
"...in a plummy voice, inquired, ‘Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?’ I explained as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in, that my little girl had been stolen from her bed, to which she casually responded, ‘Oh, I see,’ almost as if she’d just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf. I remember feeling both shocked and angry at this woefully inadequate and apparently unconcerned reaction. I recollect that in our outrage, Fiona and I shouted back something rather short and to the point."
Not wishing to be rude, Anne, but can I suggest we start a new thread to discuss Mrs Fenn?
Perhaps the latter posts of this thread could be transferred to that thread?
-
Yes, that was a bit insensitive of Mrs. Fenn, I must agree, I'm sure she never meant to sound uncaring.
-
No rudeness, of course, Ferryman !
-
Let me quote this without any "public school" comment :
"...in a plummy voice, inquired, ‘Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?’ I explained as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in, that my little girl had been stolen from her bed, to which she casually responded, ‘Oh, I see,’ almost as if she’d just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf. I remember feeling both shocked and angry at this woefully inadequate and apparently unconcerned reaction. I recollect that in our outrage, Fiona and I shouted back something rather short and to the point."
Not wishing to be rude, Anne, but can I suggest we start a new thread to discuss Mrs Fenn?
Perhaps the latter posts of this thread could be transferred to that thread?
Good idea. Didn't Carana mention there used to be one? Maybe it can be revived?
-
Let me quote this without any "public school" comment :
"...in a plummy voice, inquired, ‘Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?’ I explained as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in, that my little girl had been stolen from her bed, to which she casually responded, ‘Oh, I see,’ almost as if she’d just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf. I remember feeling both shocked and angry at this woefully inadequate and apparently unconcerned reaction. I recollect that in our outrage, Fiona and I shouted back something rather short and to the point."
Not wishing to be rude, Anne, but can I suggest we start a new thread to discuss Mrs Fenn?
Perhaps the latter posts of this thread could be transferred to that thread?
Good idea. Didn't Carana mention there used to be one? Maybe it can be revived?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1237.0
-
Thanks Carana
-
It's my understanding that Gerry was at the Tapas bar at the time of the Smith sighting?
Why on earth would Jane Tanner agree to be roped into lying to cover up the death of a child? Come on!
-
It's my understanding that Gerry was at the Tapas bar at the time of the Smith sighting?
Why on earth would Jane Tanner agree to be roped into lying to cover up the death of a child? Come on!
I'm afraid there are no independent witnesses that are able to place Gerry in the tapas bar at the time of the sighting so whether Gerry was there is open to debate.
As to the reason why Tanner would lie we will not know that until the full details of that night are revealed. There was talk though that she and O'Brien wished to change their statements at one point, a wish they were quickly talked out of at the Rothley meeting no doubt.
-
I'm afraid there are no independent witnesses that are able to place Gerry in the tapas bar at the time of the sighting so whether Gerry was there is open to debate.
As to the reason why Tanner would lie we will not know that until the full details of that night are revealed. There was talk though that she and O'Brien wished to change their statements at one point, a wish they were quickly talked out of at the Rothley meeting no doubt.
I just cannot get my head around people, some of whom didn't really know the McCanns that well, all agreeing to take part in the cover-up of a child's death. Why? Why expose yourself to possible criminal charges for perverting the course of justice?
I don't think we have a reliable source for Jane Tanner and Rusell O'Brien wanting to change their statements?
-
I'm afraid there are no independent witnesses that are able to place Gerry in the tapas bar at the time of the sighting so whether Gerry was there is open to debate.
As to the reason why Tanner would lie we will not know that until the full details of that night are revealed. There was talk though that she and O'Brien wished to change their statements at one point, a wish they were quickly talked out of at the Rothley meeting no doubt.
Oh, really! Where did you find that Faith?
-
I'm afraid there are no independent witnesses that are able to place Gerry in the tapas bar at the time of the sighting so whether Gerry was there is open to debate.
As to the reason why Tanner would lie we will not know that until the full details of that night are revealed. There was talk though that she and O'Brien wished to change their statements at one point, a wish they were quickly talked out of at the Rothley meeting no doubt.
So wrong Faith. The evidence of the staff taken at its highest reveals a situation whereby only one male diner was absent from the table for any length of time and had his meal held back for him. Gerry and Matthew both ordered and ate their meals at the table.
-
So wrong Faith. The evidence of the staff taken at its highest reveals a situation whereby only one male diner was absent from the table for any length of time and had his meal held back for him. Gerry and Matthew both ordered and ate their meals at the table.
Only one diner asked to have his meal reheated, and re-reading the statements of the waiters it is not absolutely clear who, whether the rest of the group ate theirs we simply do not know. None of the waiters categorically place Gerry at the tapas bar at the time of the Smith sighting. In fact Svetlana says this :
'SVETLANA
------- STARIKOVA VITORINO (Russian citizen, with the telephone No "96635 ####) - kitchen assistant:
- Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.
- During the time that she was working yesterday (between 14:30 and 23:00) she did not see any individual with blonde "rastas".'
-
Only one diner asked to have his meal reheated, and re-reading the statements of the waiters it is not absolutely clear who, whether the rest of the group ate theirs we simply do not know. None of the waiters categorically place Gerry at the tapas bar at the time of the Smith sighting. In fact Svetlana says this :
'SVETLANA
------- STARIKOVA VITORINO (Russian citizen, with the telephone No "96635 ####) - kitchen assistant:
- Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.
- During the time that she was working yesterday (between 14:30 and 23:00) she did not see any individual with blonde "rastas".'
Then her next statement changes 8-)(--)
The group's children did not dine with them. She remembers that on the day the child disappeared there was some confusion, with some people who left the table after ordering, one of the meals even being sent back, as someone had asked them to delay the meal for a little while.
She doe not know very well for what reason the adults rose from the table, she thinks it concerns the girl's disappearance. She did see that one of the plates was returned almost intact and they were asked to "delay" its cooking for a while, it was a grilled beef steak ordered by a man, whom she cannot identify.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SVETLANA_VITORINO.htm
-
Only one diner asked to have his meal reheated, and re-reading the statements of the waiters it is not absolutely clear who, whether the rest of the group ate theirs we simply do not know. None of the waiters categorically place Gerry at the tapas bar at the time of the Smith sighting. In fact Svetlana says this :
'SVETLANA
------- STARIKOVA VITORINO (Russian citizen, with the telephone No "96635 ####) - kitchen assistant:
- Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.
- During the time that she was working yesterday (between 14:30 and 23:00) she did not see any individual with blonde "rastas".'
How interesting; another Russian. That makes at least three doesn't it? I am right, am I not, that Sergey Malinka (who wiped his computer etc) was Russian too. As was his mother, a part time cleaner in block 5 Ocean club. >@@(*&)
Am I remembering it correctly that there were also a couple who left the morning after and they were Russian too?
Probably no connrction at all but the PJ seemed intertested in Malinka for some reason/s
And, actually faith, the statement of STARIKOVA VITORINO is so vague and woolly ... that I am surprised that you even bothered to post it. But she was just the kitchen assisatnt, wasn't she ... and the kitchen was indoors IIRC. The Tapas 9 group were outside.
-
Then her next statement changes 8-)(--)
The group's children did not dine with them. She remembers that on the day the child disappeared there was some confusion, with some people who left the table after ordering, one of the meals even being sent back, as someone had asked them to delay the meal for a little while.
She doe not know very well for what reason the adults rose from the table, she thinks it concerns the girl's disappearance. She did see that one of the plates was returned almost intact and they were asked to "delay" its cooking for a while, it was a grilled beef steak ordered by a man, whom she cannot identify.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SVETLANA_VITORINO.htm
Did it change or was there simply more added to it ?
-
None of the waiters categorically place Gerry at the tapas bar at the time of the Smith sighting.
We have already covered this point in great detail so I don't understand why you wish to introduce a red herring at this point.
To remind you, the evidence of all the waiters taken together reveals a situation whereby only one of the diners was absent for any length of time and that was Jane Tanners partner Russell O'Brien. He was away for so long looking after his sick daughter that his meal was held back. Certainly the other two men, Gerry and Matthew were away from the table for a few minutes at time so let's stop this silliness now!!
-
@Benice
You said 'I have no idea what use JT would be to Gerry re the Smith sighting, as JT was in her own apartment at 10.00 o'clock - so how could she give Gerry an alibi if M. Smith came forward and identified him?'
If Tanner saw Gerry at the same time as the alleged abductor and if that sighting and the Smith one were considered to be the same person then it couldn't be Gerry, could it even if any of the Smiths identified him.
-
We have already covered this point in great detail so I don't understand why you wish to introduce a red herring at this point.
To remind you, the evidence of all the waiters taken together reveals a situation whereby only one of the diners was absent for any length of time and that was Jane Tanners partner Russell O'Brien. He was away for so long looking after his sick daughter that his meal was held back. Certainly the other two men, Gerry and Matthew were away from the table for a few minutes at time so let's stop this silliness now!!
Not a red herring, simple facts. No waiter puts Gerry in the tapas bar at the time of the Smith sighting. However if you have a statement from any waiter that does I'll be happy to change my position.
-
How interesting; another Russian. That makes at least three doesn't it? I am right, am I not, that Sergey Malinka (who wiped his computer etc) was Russian too. As was his mother, a part time cleaner in block 5 Ocean club. >@@(*&)
Am I remembering it correctly that there were also a couple who left the morning after and they were Russian too?
Probably no connrction at all but the PJ seemed intertested in Malinka for some reason/s
And, actually faith, the statement of STARIKOVA VITORINO is so vague and woolly ... that I am surprised that you even bothered to post it. But she was just the kitchen assisatnt, wasn't she ... and the kitchen was indoors IIRC. The Tapas 9 group were outside.
You might be onto something there with the Russian connection Sadie. They are very active in Portugal and Spain in all types of criminal activities. The prisons are full of them.
As far as Faithlillys post is concerned the words 'grasping at straws' and 'selective quoting' come to mind.
We have already proven this point Faithlilly so stop wasting my time!
-
You might be onto something there with the Russian connection Sadie. They are very active in Portugal and Spain in all types of criminal activities. The prisons are full of them.
As far as Faithlillys post is concerned the words 'grasping at straws' and 'selective quoting' come to mind.
We have already proven this point Faithlilly so stop wasting my time!
'We' have 'proven' nothing Angelo. We have speculated and from those speculative musings we have constructed theories, that is all.
-
Not a red herring, simple facts. No waiter puts Gerry in the tapas bar at the time of the Smith sighting. However if you have a statement from any waiter that does I'll be happy to change my position.
Nothing to do with the absences due to checking or staying with child.
The time elapsed between the first and the third Smiths' sighting was likely not even a minute.
Statements differ about the time of the alarm.
-
You might be onto something there with the Russian connection Sadie. They are very active in Portugal and Spain in all types of criminal activities. The prisons are full of them.
As far as Faithlillys post is concerned the words 'grasping at straws' and 'selective quoting' come to mind.
We have already proven this point Faithlilly so stop wasting my time!
Cheers Angelo 8((()*/ 8**8:/:
-
'We' have 'proven' nothing Angelo. We have speculated and from those speculative musings we have constructed theories, that is all.
Maybe you haven't looked at the evidence which was provided by several members some time ago where it has been shown from the evidence that Gerry could not have been down the town at 10pm. Do try and keep up Faithlilly!
-
Maybe you haven't looked at the evidence which was provided by several members some time ago where it has been shown from the evidence that Gerry could not have been down the town at 10pm. Do try and keep up Faithlilly!
I am 'keeping up' Angelo and I will repeat, there is not one independent witness ( the McCanns friends would not be deemed independent for this purpose ) who categorically puts Gerry at the tapas table at the time of the Smith sighting. That is a fact. Whether he was the carrier or not is another matter entirely, I am simply stating that it remains a possibility.
-
I am 'keeping up' Angelo and I will repeat, there is not one independent witness ( the McCanns friends would not be deemed independent for this purpose ) who categorically puts Gerry at the tapas table at the time of the Smith sighting. That is a fact. Whether he was the carrier or not is another matter entirely, I am simply stating that it remains a possibility.
(http://www.katzy.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/readbeforeyoupost.gif)
Well you are totally wrong and if you bothered to look at the other thread you would see your error. I repeat, the statements of the waiters who attended the table evidences the fact that Gerry McCann never strayed far from the Club. In fact, even Mr Amaral stated that Gerry McCann could not have been the man the Smiths saw.
I will also point out that intentionally promoting factually incorrect information is contrary to the forum rules so I will afford you an opportunity to withdraw the erroneous claim you are making or prove it by other means.
-
I will also point out that intentionally promoting factually incorrect information is contrary to the forum rules so I will you an opportunity to withdraw the erroneous claim you are making.
This is an unjustified and then unacceptable accusation, Angelo. I'm not sure why you're making it. There's no fact here and Mr Amaral made the mistake not to ask the TP7 whether Mr McCann was at the table or not. None of them said it directly. No waiter testified that Mr McCann was sitting at the table at 10.
The AG, who examined all statements et documents confirms that Mr McCann's presence at the table at the time of the Smith's sighting, notes that the Tapas employees neither confirmed nor denied Mr McCann was there, which means they're not sure.
The only fact is this : they don't know.
-
AG Report.
This witness was heard again by the Drogheda Irish police on 23-01-08, having been shown a video clip of Gerald McCann’s departure by plane carrying one of the twins. This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father.
At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.
Another error in translations
She'd barely entered the apartment when she noticed that her daughter Kate had disappeared, not being in her bed nor in any other location inside the residence and that the bedroom's window and shutters were open;
-
(http://www.katzy.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/readbeforeyoupost.gif)
Well you are totally wrong and if you bothered to look at the other thread you would see your error. I repeat, the statements of the waiters who attended the table evidences the fact that Gerry McCann never strayed far from the Club. In fact, even Mr Amaral stated that Gerry McCann could not have been the man the Smiths saw.
I will also point out that intentionally promoting factually incorrect information is contrary to the forum rules so I will afford you an opportunity to withdraw the erroneous claim you are making or prove it by other means.
I am certainly not withdrawing my claim and the extract blow rebut your claim that Amaral believed the man seen by Smith wasn't Gerry McCann.
From 'The Truth of the Lie :
'When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of May 3rd in Vila da Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner, "sent," the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who - if he was the guilty party - would have taken this route: leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murat's house, but west in the direction of the beach. '
Sounds to me very much like Amaral believed the man seen by the Smiths was Gerry. How about you ?
As to the waiters, if they did categorically state that Gerry was at the tapas table between 9.45 and 10.15 you will be able to provide evidence of it, it's as simple as that.
-
I am 'keeping up' Angelo and I will repeat, there is not one independent witness ( the McCanns friends would not be deemed independent for this purpose ) who categorically puts Gerry at the tapas table at the time of the Smith sighting. That is a fact. Whether he was the carrier or not is another matter entirely, I am simply stating that it remains a possibility.
Nine meals ordered - nine meals served is a bit of a clue. When someone was missing from the table when his meal was served (Russell) - it was taken back to the kitchen until he came back. So Gerry was obviously there or the waiters would have noticed his empty chair when they brought out the different courses.
Do you really think people would be able to sit and enjoy a meal only minutes after being told by Gerry that Madeleine was dead and that when he'd finished his meal his plan was to go off into PdL and dispose of her body? And no-one turned a hair? They just carried on eating and chatting as if nothing had happened?
Really Faith - the whole idea is just too preposterous.
-
By way of clarification, the issue of Gerry McCanns presence at the tapas bar at10pm was indeed previously covered in great depth some weeks ago. It was proven beyond any doubt that Gerry was at the table at 10pm. Unless Mr McCann has a doppelgänger there is no other explanation.
When Kate came running back from the apartment a few minutes after 10pm, it was to Gerry that she addressed her comments. It was Gerry who took the initiative and organised a search so let's do stop this nonsense. The man the Smiths saw could not have been Gerry McCann!
-
Have you got a quote for this theory, Benice ? I must have missed it, because I have no idea Faithlilly wondered whether Mr McCann had plotted with Ms Tanner when they all were having dinner.
I personally can't figure out that Ms Tanner "agreed to lie", but, after having watched the McCann "reconstruction" and the pressure upon Ms Tanner about the side of the street, I can imagine her being manipulated about the time and place of her sighting.
Anne, Faith has said quite a few times that in her opinion Gerry could have been the man the Smith's saw - and that there is no proof that he was at the Tapas at 10.00 o.clock. Faith has also given reasons why IHO Gerry needed Jane Tanner to lie. Both on this thread and on another recent thread.
If I'm wrong I'm sure Faithlilly will let me know.
-
I will also add this sentence from the PJ final Report to the AG.
"It was established that at the time that was being mentioned, GERALD McCANN was sitting at the table, in the Tapas Restaurant."
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
-
Anne, Faith has said quite a few times that in her opinion Gerry could have been the man the Smith's saw - and that there is no proof that he was at the Tapas at 10.00 o.clock. Faith has also given reasons why IHO Gerry needed Jane Tanner to lie. Both on this thread and on another recent thread.
If I'm wrong I'm sure Faithlilly will let me know.
Faith and Anne obviously think they know more than the Portuguese Police do. Says it all really!
-
By way of clarification, the issue of Gerry McCanns presence at the tapas bar at10pm was indeed previously covered in great depth some weeks ago. It was proven beyond any doubt that Gerry was at the table at 10pm. Unless Mr McCann has a doppelgänger there is no other explanation.
When Kate came running back from the apartment a few minutes after 10pm, it was to Gerry that she addressed her comments. It was Gerry who took the initiative and organised a search so let's do stop this nonsense. The man the Smiths saw could not have been Gerry McCann!
You can express your opinion a million times John but that doesn't make it a fact.
-
It was proven beyond any doubt that Gerry was at the table at 10pm. It was Gerry who took the initiative and organised a search so let's do stop this nonsense. The man the Smiths saw could not have been Gerry McCann!
No, John, no independent witness confirms Mr McCann was at the table at 10 pm.
Two, for instance, say they all had left by 21h45.
Arlindo (head of the 5 kitchens of the OC)
at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing.
Ricardo (who served the main dishes)
Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry.
And the chef, Miguel, did not notice when the guests left. His cousin, Jeronimo, told him at about 22.00 what had happened, when he was in the cold store.
They don't notice who was there, who wasn't :
Ricardo
he was asked to serve Russell, who had returned to the table. He remembers that the rest of the group had practically finished their main courses. Asked if he remembers having seen all the elements of the group at this time, he cannot remember exactly.
He does not remember having seen Madeleine's parents leave the table for short instances, but it is possible that someone could have left the table without the witness having noticed.
Jeronimo (bartender)
He did not notice if from the group of British citizens (in number 8 or 9) that yesterday dined in restaurant (which was partly made up of the parents of the missing [child]), someone left during such dinner
No, John, Mr McCann organized no search at all. He sent Mr Oldfield to the main reception to ask to call the police. He went himself to the creche, on top of the main reception, but didn't ask if the police had been called ("Madeleine")
-
Faith and Anne obviously think they know more than the Portuguese Police do. Says it all really!
John, it's not a question of knowing, everybody is equal on the topic of knowledge in this case, let aside the famous secret documents that aren't in the files and the mysterious documents owned by the LC (I really don't think there's any resolution hidden within those files).
And see, unlike you who without evidence stated it was established so let's do stop this nonsense that Mr McCann was at the table at 22pm and that he couldn't be his lookalike seen by the Smith family at 22h05, I limit myself questioning, restlessly questioning and I'll never stop, for the sake not of justice but of information against disinformation.
-
No, John, no independent witness confirms Mr McCann was at the table at 10 pm.
Two, for instance, say they all had left by 21h45.
Arlindo (head of the 5 kitchens of the OC)
at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing.
Ricardo (who served the main dishes)
Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table a @)(++(*nd saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry.
And the chef, Miguel, did not notice when the guests left. His cousin, Jeronimo, told him at about 22.00 what had happened, when he was in the cold store.
They don't notice who was there, who wasn't :
Ricardo
he was asked to serve Russell, who had returned to the table. He remembers that the rest of the group had practically finished their main courses. Asked if he remembers having seen all the elements of the group at this time, he cannot remember exactly.
He does not remember having seen Madeleine's parents leave the table for short instances, but it is possible that someone could have left the table without the witness having noticed.
Jeronimo (bartender)
He did not notice if from the group of British citizens (in number 8 or 9) that yesterday dined in restaurant (which was partly made up of the parents of the missing [child]), someone left during such dinner
No, John, Mr McCann organized no search at all. He sent Mr Oldfield to the main reception to ask to call the police. He went himself to the creche, on top of the main reception, but didn't ask if the police had been called ("Madeleine")
You can spin out the comments as much as you want Anne, truth is it is beyond any doubt and the Portuguese police confirmed this in their final Report to the Attorney General. Obviously though you believe you know better.
The evidence is what counts at the end of the day Anne and the evidence of all the independent witnesses taken together reveals only one delayed meal, that intended for Russell O'Brien. The evidence by the other members of the group corroborates everything which transpired. No mystery, no conspiracy!
-
I will also add this sentence from the PJ final Report to the AG.
"It was established that at the time that was being mentioned, GERALD McCANN was sitting at the table, in the Tapas Restaurant."
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
A PJ mistake. Aren't you always criticizing their incompetence, corruption etc. ?
But the AG added a nuance.
-
You can spin out the comments as much as you want Anne, truth is it is beyond any doubt and the Portuguese police confirmed this in their final Report to the Attorney General. Obvious you know better.
What spinning ? None of them says Mr McCann was at the table at 10pm. None of them even was near the table when they left it.
If it was "beyond any doubt", why did the AG request a reconstruction ? Why did he say the nature of the crime couldn't be determined ?
-
I see Anne's doing her usual, Missing little bits off, that matter. 8()(((@#
Its obvious the times are wrong, but it just suits her agenda!
He's either drunk, stupid, or Almeida got it wrong. Seems he has a funny clock, too.
Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja
Date/Time: 2007/05/08 21H10
Executive Chef
Portuguese
Concerning the issue of the process said;
. Is a functionary of the Ocean Club establishment since the 13th of January of the current year (2007), and is employed as executive chef of the kitchen. He clarifies that along with being responsible for the five (5) kitchens (one of whom is the Tapas) of the Ocean Club, his post essentially centres on the principal kitchen next to a reception, close to the restaurant MIRAGE. His work takes him occasionally to the other kitchens;
. He records that the past Thursday, 3rd of May, he left the central kitchen with the objective of going to the Tapas restaurant in order to determine that everything was functioning smoothly;
. When he arrived there, by vehicle, at around 21:10, he remembers that next to the Tapas reception, he saw a vehicle, dark blue in colour, with Portuguese license plates. Although he cannot be definite, he believes it was a Fiesta or Focus. The deponent furthers that is was not a small car, and for this reason it could very well have been a Focus and not a Fiesta. He tells that he does not remember any sticker indicating that it was a rental car. Inside the vehicle he saw no one.
. After parking his vehicle, he entered through the reception of that restaurant, in the left hand direction, toward the side opposite the pool, and passed by the esplanade. He remembers having seen in that esplanade, one table, occupied by three couples, without children, and all of them adults. On the esplanade, he encountered no one else.
. A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared. Given the importance of this, believed that he should be in the surroundings. At that moment, he did not leave the area of the restaurant, and did not have the opportunity to check if the vehicle mentioned before was situated in the same location; .
Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples;
. When he left, he noticed that the dark blue vehicle was no longer in its location (previously noted) and does not know of the existence or any connection between the presence of that vehicle and the disappearance of the child;
. Ending, states that during the days that preceded the facts, he did not notice any element/individual/fact that would have merited his attention;
. And nothing more said, having read the statement, finds it in conformity and signs it;
. The document is duly signed by me ?
Tony Almeida, Inspector with this Policia Judiciaria.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
-
You can spin out the comments as much as you want Anne, truth is it is beyond any doubt and the Portuguese police confirmed this in their final Report to the Attorney General. Obviously though you believe you know better.
The evidence is what counts at the end of the day Anne and the evidence of all the independent witnesses taken together reveals only one delayed meal, that intended for Russell O'Brien. The evidence by the other members of the group corroborates everything which transpired. No mystery, no conspiracy!
No independent witness put Gerry McCann at the table at 10pm
The prosecutor accepted the word of the McCann friends that he was with them at the tapas bar because he HAD to ... he could not 'presume' that they were being untruthful
We really must dispel the myth, though, that anyone OTHER than his friends said Gerry was at the table at 10pm .... because they have not
-
No independent witness put Gerry McCann at the table at 10pm
The prosecutor accepted the word of the McCann friends that he was with them at the tapas bar because he HAD to ... he could not 'presume' that they were being untruthful
We really must dispel the myth, though, that anyone OTHER than his friends said Gerry was at the table at 10pm .... because they have not
Fair appraisal. I still do not know who this second man is who was missing for thirty minutes. The witness says it may have been Gerry, but even if it wasnt and it was Matthew, what was he gone for so long for? Histiming for OBriens absence is more or less correct, so presumably the timing for the second man was too.
--------- JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA (residing at Rua Ilha Terceira, no. 15, Lagos, Telephone No 91 277 ####) - table employee [waiter].
- Of the group of 8/9 British citizens who dined at the restaurant last night, as usual, of which the parents of missing were part (he didn't know them) he noticed that two individuals left the table, of the male gender.
- The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;
-
No independent witness put Gerry McCann at the table at 10pm
The prosecutor accepted the word of the McCann friends that he was with them at the tapas bar because he HAD to ... he could not 'presume' that they were being untruthful
We really must dispel the myth, though, that anyone OTHER than his friends said Gerry was at the table at 10pm .... because they have not
Total rubbish Ica. Do you really believe for a minute that the waiter who served him his meal didn't know if he was at the table to eat it. Get a grip!!
Tapas waiter Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira saw Madeleines parents both arrive for dinner at 8.45pm and this corroborates Gerry himself when he stated that he and Kate left their apartment at 8.35pm. He confirmed that the entire group of 9 members sat down to dinner.
Ricardo recalls that only one of the Tapas 9 had his meal held back and this is something that a waiter never gets wrong. Ricardo confirmed in a later statement that the person was Russell O'Brien who was away from the table for quite some time. As it happens, Russell was on bedroom duty looking after his ill daughter until relieved by partner Jane tanner at 9.40. Ricardo confirms his return to the table at 9.45pm. Obviously the waiter was wanting to get home and was not too pleased at being delayed.
Now lets see, 9 meals delivered to a table for 9 people and the only individuals who were absent were absent for a matter of minutes at a time doing regular child checks.
Another independent witness comes up trumps. 8@??)(
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
-
Total rubbish Ica. Do you really believe for a minute that the waiter who served him his meal didn't know if he was at the table to eat it. Get a grip!!
You show me the witness statement from the waiter ... or anyone else for that matter, that says Gerry McCann was at the table at 10pm and you can sit on your laurels Angelo
You won't be able to though ( because no such witness statements exist )
-
Angelo, No one is saying GM was not there when he was served his dinner or that he didnt eat it! Getting dinner served around 9.30 is miles away from 10 pm.
@)(++(*
eta Im not saying GM was Smithman BTW! I have no idea, probably wasnt. But thats not the same as insisting he was there at 10pm (at the table I mean) without independent evidence.
-
You show me the witness statement from the waiter ... or anyone else for that matter, that says Gerry McCann was at the table at 10pm and you can sit on your laurels Angelo
You won't be able to though ( because no such witness statements exist )
It's called interpolation Ica, the police do it all the time.
-
Angelo, No one is saying GM was not there when he was served his dinner or that he didnt eat it! Getting dinner served around 9.30 is miles away from 10 pm.
@)(++(*
eta Im not saying GM was Smithman BTW! I have no idea, probably wasnt. But thats not the same as insisting he was there at 10pm (at the table I mean) without independent evidence.
I'm glad you accept that Red. At the other end of the spectrum there are a multitude of witnesses who saw Kate come back from the apartment just after 10pm shrieking to Gerry that they had taken her. Was she shrieking to a ghost, a doppelganger or just imagining that Gerry was sat there at the table?
There is also an independent witness Maria da Silva who was outside the Ocean Club premises at precisely 10pm who saw or heard no commotion thus proving that the alert never took place before that time.
And if you expect anyone to believe that Gerry gulped down his dinner, jogged off down town with Madeleine under his arm as Stephen seems to believe just in time to be seen by the Smiths at 10pm but also to be back at the tapas in time for the alert also at 10pm then you are sadly deluded. In fact POSITIVELY CRACKERS!! @)(++(*
-
It's called interpolation Ica, the police do it all the time.
You can call it what you like Angelo ... doesn't change the fact that not a single independent witness has said Gerry was at the table at 10pm
You can say it could be 'assumed' that Gerry was at the table, but you can't say he definately was ( other than by taking the word of his friends, which is what the prosecutor was compelled to do )
-
I'm glad you accept that Red. At the other end of the spectrum there are a multitude of witnesses who saw Kate come back from the apartment just after 10pm shrieking to Gerry that they had taken her. Was she shrieking to a ghost, a doppelganger or just imagining that Gerry was sat there at the table?
There is also an independent witness Maria da Silva who was outside the Ocean Club premises at precisely 10pm who saw or heard no commotion thus proving that the alert never took place before that time.
And if you expect anyone to believe that Gerry gulped down his dinner, jogged off down town with Madeleine under his arm as Stephen seems to believe just in time to be seen by the Smiths at 10pm but also to be back at the tapas in time for the alert also at 10pm then you are sadly deluded. In fact POSITIVELY CRACKERS!! @)(++(*
Keep your hair on, did I say I expected anyone to believe it? No I didnt. Did I say I believed it? No I didnt. It is not though anymore without the realms of possibility than some other really dubious theories on here.
As for the alert there IS no DEFINITIVE time for the alert. 10pm is far too early for it. Even Gerry himself says Kate did not return to the table until 10.13-10.15 pm! And he had his little watch on which he checked times with such precision.
8)--))
-
I'm glad you accept that Red. At the other end of the spectrum there are a multitude of witnesses who saw Kate come back from the apartment just after 10pm shrieking to Gerry that they had taken her. Was she shrieking to a ghost, a doppelganger or just imagining that Gerry was sat there at the table?
There is also an independent witness Maria da Silva who was outside the Ocean Club premises at precisely 10pm who saw or heard no commotion thus proving that the alert never took place before that time.
And if you expect anyone to believe that Gerry gulped down his dinner, jogged off down town with Madeleine under his arm as Stephen seems to believe just in time to be seen by the Smiths at 10pm but also to be back at the tapas in time for the alert also at 10pm then you are sadly deluded. In fact POSITIVELY CRACKERS!! @)(++(*
Why are none of these "Snippets" included or mentioned in their statements?
JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAQUIM-J-M-BAPTISTA.htm
-
Why are none of these "Snippets" included or mentioned in their statements?
JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAQUIM-J-M-BAPTISTA.htm
Why are you asking Angelo? Did HE post any SNIPPET? No, I did. Your answer is DUNNO. Why do YOU think? That informal statements must be wrong? OR DELIBERATELY excluded? Why dont you just spit it out what you mean for a change.
?
-
You can call it what you like Angelo ... doesn't change the fact that not a single independent witness has said Gerry was at the table at 10pm
You can say it could be 'assumed' that Gerry was at the table, but you can't say he definately was ( other than by taking the word of his friends, which is what the prosecutor was compelled to do )
[/b]
Of course he wasn't COMPELLED to. Like any other sensible person he recognised that there was no sane reason to believe that 7 perfectly normal intelligent people, some of whom hardly knew the McCanns, would put their own families lives in jeopardy and agree to pervert the course of justice by aiding and abetting the disposal of a dead child's body.
That would make them all simple-minded nutters - and they clearly were not.
And thankfully neither was the AG.
-
You can call it what you like Angelo ... doesn't change the fact that not a single independent witness has said Gerry was at the table at 10pm
You can say it could be 'assumed' that Gerry was at the table, but you can't say he definately was ( other than by taking the word of his friends, which is what the prosecutor was compelled to do )
Did you look up the word interpolation?
And according to Jo the waiter>
On the night Madeleine disappeared, everything appeared normal. I remember that when I took notice of the disappearance, I had been in the restaurant speaking with my two colleagues Ze and Ricardo who were on break.
I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her, "They've left you alone?" She responded more of less with these words, "No, they went to see if the little girl was there." I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment.
At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleine's father, running to the pool and to the children's play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Millennium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.
So there goes another myth which one of the [ censored word] attempted to propagate earlier that Gerry didn't do any searching.... or does Jeronimo not count too??
-
Did you look up the word interpolation?
And according to Jo the waiter>
On the night Madeleine disappeared, everything appeared normal. I remember that when I took notice of the disappearance, I had been in the restaurant speaking with my two colleagues Ze and Ricardo who were on break.
I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her, "They've left you alone?" She responded more of less with these words, "No, they went to see if the little girl was there." I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment.
At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleine's father, running to the pool and to the children's play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Millennium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.
So there goes another myth which one of the [ censored word] attempted to propagate earlier that Gerry didn't do any searching.... or does Jeronimo not count too??
I assume you are convinced by this witness statement, since you have brought it here
You do realise, that according to this witness Gerry McCann was NOT at the table when he approached Diane Wesbster before 10pm ?
Far from supporting your claim that independent witnesses placed Gerry at the table at 10pm, this particular witness positevely suggests he was not
-
Waiter Ricardo gave several statements the gist of which is as follows >
8.45pm - States that on the day in question that all tapas-9 were seated at the table between 20H35 and 20H45. He remembered them arriving as usual, had they arrived late, this would have been noted by the staff. When they were all together, the group sat at the table, he took their orders, including the starters. States that after having received the orders, he went into the bar and came back with the wine. The starters were served by one of his colleagues.
9.25pm - After 25 to 30 minutes he served the main dishes. He remembers that at this moment, the taller male, whom he identified as Russell had left the table. He did not know where he had gone but he was asked to keep Russell's meal warm. Notice only Russell was absent at this point. States that the group would normally spend about 15 minutes finishing the main course.
9.55pm - After a certain amount of time (he is not able to be exact), he was asked to serve Russell, who had returned to the table. He remembers that the rest of the group had practically finished their main courses. Note that this includes everyone ie Gerry McCann. He served Russell and shortly thereafter, he was alerted to strange movements in the restaurant perimeters. He refers to the movements of two men from said group? David Payne and Matthew, who appeared to be searching the gardens the areas near the bar.
The witness went to the esplanade zone and saw that the table that had previously been occupied by nine adults was now occupied only by the older woman, called Dianne Webster. It was also at this time that he saw that Russell's food was only half eaten and that the others had all finished their dinner.
Point of this Ica...places Gerry at the table at 10pm by default whether he said it in words or not. Cheers!
-
Waiter Ricardo gave several statements the gist of which is as follows >
8.45pm - States that on the day in question that all tapas-9 were seated at the table between 20H35 and 20H45. He remembered them arriving as usual, had they arrived late, this would have been noted by the staff. When they were all together, the group sat at the table, he took their orders, including the starters. States that after having received the orders, he went into the bar and came back with the wine. The starters were served by one of his colleagues.
9.25pm - After 25 to 30 minutes he served the main dishes. He remembers that at this moment, the taller male, whom he identified as Russell had left the table. He did not know where he had gone but he was asked to keep Russell's meal warm. Notice only Russell was absent at this point. States that the group would normally spend about 15 minutes finishing the main course.
9.55pm - After a certain amount of time (he is not able to be exact), he was asked to serve Russell, who had returned to the table. He remembers that the rest of the group had practically finished their main courses. Note that this includes everyone ie Gerry McCann. He served Russell and shortly thereafter, he was alerted to strange movements in the restaurant perimeters. He refers to the movements of two men from said group? David Payne and Matthew, who appeared to be searching the gardens the areas near the bar.
The witness went to the esplanade zone and saw that the table that had previously been occupied by nine adults was now occupied only by the older woman, called Dianne Webster. It was also at this time that he saw that Russell's food was only half eaten and that the others had all finished their dinner.
Point of this Ica...places Gerry at the table at 10pm by default whether he said it in words or not. Cheers!
I really don't know why you are producing ing a witness who says Gerry ( and everyone else except Webster ) left the table at 9.45pm as evidence that Gerry was AT the table at 10pm
I don't care what he said had transpired up until that point because it is not relevent to the question we are addressing .... this witness says Gerry McCann was NOT at the table at 10pm
No default about it
-
I don't recall Ricardo saying that the table had been vacated at 9.45pm? He did say that dinner would end at 9.45pm though but I have yet to see a group of diners on holiday disappear immediately after eating especially when the norm was for this particular group to have drinks until the bar closed at midnight.
Maybe you want to rethink your last response Ica? @)(++(*
As for him saying Gerry wasn't at the table at 10pm...a load of bollocks!
-
Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry.
Vol. II, pp. 266-68 -- 06.05.2007
-
Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry.
Vol. II, pp. 266-68 -- 06.05.2007
Yes, considering Russell only arrived back at 9.55pm, those few minutes were actually 15 minutes. You see it matters little how you attempt to construe the facts because they always come right in the end. Only one member of the tapas 9 failed to finish his meal and that was Russell...waiters notice these things. 8(0(*
-
Keep your hair on, did I say I expected anyone to believe it? No I didnt. Did I say I believed it? No I didnt. It is not though anymore without the realms of possibility than some other really dubious theories on here.
As for the alert there IS no DEFINITIVE time for the alert. 10pm is far too early for it. Even Gerry himself says Kate did not return to the table until 10.13-10.15 pm! And he had his little watch on which he checked times with such precision.
8)--))
Well considering Gerry and the others were the first to be alerted maybe you can explain how childcare worker Jacqueline Williams together with colleagues Amy and Emma knew by 10.05pm as did waitress Maria Fernandes, bar chef Maria Jose and chef Miguel Coelho while maintenance technician Nuno Filipe Guerreiro da Conceicao recalls being telephoned at home by OC staff at 10.15pm asking for torches. Seems they can't all be wrong eh?? 8(0(*
Appears Gerry was mistaken or his watch was wrong, the alert was shortly after 10pm.
-
Walter Ricardo statement
9.55pm - After a certain amount of time (he is not able to be exact), he was asked to serve Russell, who had returned to the table. He remembers that the rest of the group had practically finished their main courses. Note that this includes everyone ie Gerry McCann. He served Russell and shortly thereafter, he was alerted to strange movements in the restaurant perimeters. He refers to the movements of two men from said group? David Payne and Matthew, who appeared to be searching the gardens the areas near the bar.
Why are Icabod, Anne and Red and all saying that dinner finished at 9.45pm?
No mention of that time shows in Ricardos statement. It clearly says 9.55pm
Why all these inaccuracies?
Are they deliberate or accidental?
-
Walter Ricardo statement
Why are Icabod, Anne and Red and all saying that dinner finished at 9.45pm?
No mention of that time shows in Ricardos statement. It clearly says 9.55pm
Why all these inaccuracies?
Are they deliberate or accidental?
They are misinterpreting the statements. The dinner finished at 9.45pm certainly (except for Russell of course) but nobody left the table until after the alert...simple.
Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this revisit of the facts. It is very clear that the weight of evidence sits firmly with Gerry being in the tapas bar when Kate alerted to the abduction shortly after 10pm. Not a scintilla of evidence of any sort has been produced to the contrary.
It is very obvious therefore that the man the Smiths saw down the town at 10pm was not Mr Gerald McCann.
-
There are three telling points, here.
First is that if, for any reason, Gerry had been absent from the table at the point of Kate's alert, it is surely unthinkable that his absence, as the father of the missing child, would have gone unremarked.
Second, (assuming, as I do not, that the Smiths saw Gerry), if (as Amaral suggests) Kate and Gerry were in cahoots to cover something nefarious, Gerry must have kicked Kate hard for raising the alarm before Gerry had even got down to the beach
And third, there is not one single hint of a suggestion that Kate and Gerry were simultaneously absent from the table at any point between their joint arrival and Kate's alert.
Oh, and a fourth; where is the commentary in the files about efforts to find Gerry and tell him what had happened, including where he was when found and who found him?
Erm, non-existent ...
I'm sure there's an excellent reason for that ...
-
I think we tend to be far too forgiving of the sceptics. The evidence of the tapas 7 would be more than enough in any court proceedings to establish Kate and Gerry's whereabouts let alone the need for further corroboration by independent witnesses.
The claim that these professional people were involved in some sort of conspiracy is simply too crazy for words.
-
They are misinterpreting the statements. The dinner finished at 9.45pm certainly (except for Russell of course) but nobody left the table until after the alert...simple.
Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this revisit of the facts. It is very clear that the weight of evidence sits firmly with Gerry being in the tapas bar when Kate alerted to the abduction shortly after 10pm. Not a scintilla of evidence of any sort has been produced to the contrary.
It is very obvious therefore that the man the Smiths saw down the town at 10pm was not Mr Gerald McCann.
I think you have a typo there John, unless there is some other evidence.
Seems they had practically finished their main courses at about 9.55pm, rather than about 9.45pm.
Walter Ricardo statement
9.55pm - After a certain amount of time (he is not able to be exact), he was asked to serve Russell, who had returned to the table. He remembers that [the rest of the group had practically finished their main courses. Note that this includes everyone ie Gerry McCann. He served Russell and shortly thereafter, he was alerted to strange movements in the restaurant perimeters. He refers to the movements of two men from said group? David Payne and Matthew, who appeared to be searching the gardens the areas near the bar.
Sorry, but I am a stickler for the detail being correct, where ever possible. And this is a rather important detail in the circumstancees, do you agree?
-
Why are you asking Angelo? Did HE post any SNIPPET? No, I did. Your answer is DUNNO. Why do YOU think? That informal statements must be wrong? OR DELIBERATELY excluded? Why dont you just spit it out what you mean for a change.
?
Summary of informal interview:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm
Formal interview:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAQUIM-J-M-BAPTISTA.htm
Why didn't the officer conducting the formal interview pick up on the initial informal notes to check with the witness?
-
Summary of informal interview:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm
Formal interview:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAQUIM-J-M-BAPTISTA.htm
Why didn't the officer conducting the formal interview pick up on the initial informal notes to check with the witness?
IMO, Carana, those "snippets" would have been the statements, if this had gone quiet.
All of them are contradicted in the statements, and why wait 2 more days before taking the fuller statements. Hope none of them were "got at" .
I also see that JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA, knew the children were sleeping in the apartment. >@@(*&)
"the times in which this group had dined in that bar it is [was] often [for] someone from the group to go to check at the apartments the state of the children (their offspring) who were sleeping there".
-
IMO, Carana, those "snippets" would have been the statements, if this had gone quiet.
All of them are contradicted in the statements, and why wait 2 more days before taking the fuller statements. Hope none of them were "got at" .
I also see that JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA, knew the children were sleeping in the apartment. >@@(*&)
"the times in which this group had dined in that bar it is [was] often [for] someone from the group to go to check at the apartments the state of the children (their offspring) who were sleeping there".
To me, several of the initial statements come across as if the PJ officers were taking notes about burglaries.
I do sympathise with the fact that they were faced with an unusual situation and that they had a huge quantity of people to interview within a very short space of time - particularly for tourists likely to return home on the Saturday.
What I understand less is why more in-depth interviews were not conducted as soon as possible
Nor do I understand why a reconstruction - if it was considered to be important - wasn't organised when the majority of people around that evening were still there and when their minds would have been fresh.
-
I think we tend to be far too forgiving of the sceptics. The evidence of the tapas 7 would be more than enough in any court proceedings to establish Kate and Gerry's whereabouts let alone the need for further corroboration by independent witnesses.
The claim that these professional people were involved in some sort of conspiracy is simply too crazy for words.
John, I think this term "independent witnesses" is misleading. The Tapas 7 ARE independent witnesses - as independent as anyone else.
-
Anne, why do you post unhelpful and erroneous information stating that we don't know when the alert was made by Kate when we know exactly when it was made?
From several different sources both inside and outside the Ocean Club we know that Kate came running back to the tapas bar a few minutes after 10pm, the exact time when the Smiths encountered a man carrying a child on the other side of town.
As far as the shutters are concerned we also have Matthews rogatory statement to the effect that the shutters were up when he entered the bedroom.
Unfortunately, merely because something is given in a statement does not make it true.
The use of the shutters/window by the Mccanns falls well within the 'made up abduction' scenario.
-
They are misinterpreting the statements. The dinner finished at 9.45pm certainly (except for Russell of course) but nobody left the table until after the alert...simple.
Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this revisit of the facts. It is very clear that the weight of evidence sits firmly with Gerry being in the tapas bar when Kate alerted to the abduction shortly after 10pm. Not a scintilla of evidence of any sort has been produced to the contrary.
It is very obvious therefore that the man the Smiths saw down the town at 10pm was not Mr Gerald McCann.
That is simply not true
No independent witnesses place Gerry McCann at the table at 10pm ... that has been established
As to there being 'not a scintilla' of evidence to the contrary ... that is also not true
Mr Smith and his wife say that they almost certainly saw Gerry McCann making his way towards the beach at around 10pm, with a child exactly matching Madeleine's description, in his arms
You may choose to disbelieve Mr and Mrs Smith ... but you certainly cannot say that the evidence they provided does not exist
-
That is simply not true
No independent witnesses place Gerry McCann at the table at 10pm ... that has been established
As to there being 'not a scintilla' of evidence to the contrary ... that is also not true
Mr Smith and his wife say that they almost certainly saw Gerry McCann making his way towards the beach at around 10pm, with a child exactly matching Madeleine's description, in his arms
You may choose to disbelieve Mr and Mrs Smith ... but you certainly cannot say that the evidence they provided does not exist
Disbelieve Mr Smith?
We know what he said back then.
What does he say now?
And of course I'm sure we all believe Mr Smith when he says that none of his children agreed with him that the man they saw was Gerry ...
-
Disbelieve Mr Smith?
We know what he said back then.
What does he say now?
We already know what he thought. 8)-)))
-
Disbelieve Mr Smith?
We know what he said back then.
What does he say now?
'Imagining' that Mr Smith and his wife may have 'changed their minds' is neither here nor there
My point was, that whilst NO independent witnesses say Gerry McCann was at the table at 10pm ... two independent witnesses ( Mr and Mrs Smith ) say he was NOT, ( they say he passed them at around 10pm, as he made his way in the direction of the beach with a child matching Madeleine's description in his arms )
-
We have Martin Smith's subsequent statement identifying Gerry McCann with 60-80% certainty and we have Aoife Smith's statement which says (about the man carrying the child):
His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration.
And we have this picture of Gerry McCann:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wYXEND19VTQ/T0jl7a3A7PI/AAAAAAAACeg/MhrOqK-4EB8/s320/gerry-mccann-parents-of-missing-child-madeleine-mccann-gerry-and-kate-mccann-june-16-2007-10pG8i4.jpg)
How many men could have been walking around PDL with a 60-80% resemblence to Gerry McCann and wearing (unusual) trousers for which there is a photo on file of Gerry McCann wearing the exact same trousers carrying a child?
-
'Imagining' that Mr Smith and his wife may have 'changed their minds' is neither here nor there
My point was, that whilst NO independent witnesses say Gerry McCann was at the table at 10pm ... two independent witnesses ( Mr and Mrs Smith ) say he was NOT, ( they say he passed them at around 10pm, as he made his way in the direction of the beach with a child matching Madeleine's description in his arms )
It seems part of this cunning plan was for Gerry to be back at the table after he had disposed of the body and before the alarm was raised - to give himself an alibi via the restaurant staff - and yet according to you Icab Kate raised the alarm before he had returned. Why on earth would she ruin everything by doing that? That absolutely makes no sense.
If you think about all the stuff he would have to do after leaving Jez - and before being seen by the Smiths - then after that having to carry on to the beach(?) dispose of the body and get back - there simply isn't enough time to fit it all in. Remember before he left he would have had to arrange with JT to lie about seeing him with Jez, and that would involve him having to describe the scene to her - so that she could remember when she told the police. All the others would have to agree to be on it - to back JT's story up. Apparently he also ate a 3 course meal after he left Jez - and changed his clothes before he left to dispose of the body.
If you think it was possible then feel free to convince me Icab - but with a few believable timelines.
-
It seems part of this cunning plan was for Gerry to be back at the table after he had disposed of the body and before the alarm was raised - to give himself an alibi via the restaurant staff - and yet according to you Icab Kate raised the alarm before he had returned. Why on earth would she ruin everything by doing that? That absolutely makes no sense.
If you think about all the stuff he would have to do after leaving Jez - and before being seen by the Smiths - then after that having to carry on to the beach(?) dispose of the body and get back - there simply isn't enough time to fit it all in. Remember before he left he would have had to arrange with JT to lie about seeing him with Jez, and that would involve him having to describe the scene to her - so that she could remember when she told the police. All the others would have to agree to be on it - to back JT's story up. Apparently he also ate a 3 course meal after he left Jez - and changed his clothes before he left to dispose of the body.
If you think it was possible then feel free to convince me Icab - but with a few believable timelines.
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything Benice, I am merely stating the facts
The only independent witnesses who recall seeing Gerry McCann before Madeleine was reported missing are Jeremy Wilkins, who saw him at about 9.15pm outside the McCann apartment ... and Mr and Mrs Smith who saw him making his way in the direction of the beach at about 10pm
Those are the facts
-
Pointless discussing with those who wilfully close their minds ...
-
My point was, that whilst NO independent witnesses say Gerry McCann was at the table at 10pm ... two independent witnesses ( Mr and Mrs Smith ) say he was NOT, ( they say he passed them at around 10pm, as he made his way in the direction of the beach with a child matching Madeleine's description in his arms )
Mr Smith and his wife say that they almost certainly saw Gerry McCann making his way towards the beach at around 10pm, with a child exactly matching Madeleine's description, in his arms
You may choose to disbelieve Mr and Mrs Smith ... but you certainly cannot say that the evidence they provided does not exist
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything Benice, I am merely stating the facts
The only independent witnesses who recall seeing Gerry McCann before Madeleine was reported missing are Jeremy Wilkins, who saw him at about 9.15pm outside the McCann apartment ... and Mr and Mrs Smith who saw him making his way in the direction of the beach at about 10pm
Those are the facts
How do you infer that from what Martin Smith actually said?
In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs of the plane earlier that day. We did not discuss this until some days later.
[/color][/b]
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
-
We have Martin Smith's subsequent statement identifying Gerry McCann with 60-80% certainty and we have Aoife Smith's statement which says (about the man carrying the child):
And we have this picture of Gerry McCann:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wYXEND19VTQ/T0jl7a3A7PI/AAAAAAAACeg/MhrOqK-4EB8/s320/gerry-mccann-parents-of-missing-child-madeleine-mccann-gerry-and-kate-mccann-june-16-2007-10pG8i4.jpg)
How many men could have been walking around PDL with a 60-80% resemblence to Gerry McCann and wearing (unusual) trousers for which there is a photo on file of Gerry McCann wearing the exact same trousers carrying a child?
Is there anything in particular that you find unusual about those trousers?
-
Pointless discussing with those who wilfully close their minds ...
Closed minds ?
You only believe in abduction !
-
From the statement of Martin Smith's revelatory moment ...
During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.
As I've pointed out before, and make no apology for repeating, among those to disagree with Mr Smith was his daughter Aofe, an astute and assured observer of what the Smiths all saw that night.
-
From the statement of Martin Smith's revelatory moment ...
During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.
As I've pointed out before, and make no apology for repeating, among those to disagree with Mr Smith was his daughter Aofe, an astute and assured observer of what the Smiths all saw that night.
Heard that old potato before.
So what makes Mr. Smith wrong and his daughter right ?
-
Well in my opinion (and i'm no Gok Wan) they are an unusal style of trouser with buttons down the side.
What is important is that we have Martin Smith identifying Gerry McCann and Aoife Smith highlighting the person's trousers that we have photographic evidence match a pair Gerry owns.
The point is what are the chances that the abductor would be 60-80% Gerry and own the same trousers Gerry owns and be carrying a child at that time?
-
Well in my opinion (and i'm no Gok Wan) they are an unusal style of trouser with buttons down the side.
What is important is that we have Martin Smith identifying Gerry McCann and Aoife Smith highlighting the person's trousers that we have photographic evidence match a pair Gerry owns.
The point is what are the chances that the abductor would be 60-80% Gerry and own the same trousers Gerry owns and be carrying a child at that time?
Aoife's statement:
— His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration.
Where do you read "buttons down the side"?
-
Heard that old potato before.
So what makes Mr. Smith wrong and his daughter right ?
NONE of the others agreed with him - aside from his wife and there is no way of knowing to what extent she agreed with him, or simply supported him in conveying his doubt.
-
Aoife's statement:
— His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration.
Where do you read "buttons down the side"?
Oh come off it! Are you being deliberately pedantic?
Look at the picture of Gerry's trousers.
Beige in colour - Yes
Cotton fabric - Yes
Thicker than line - Yes
Possibly with buttons - Yes
Without any other decoration - Yes
Do you expect Aofie to give the make and size as well?
Do you not agree it is significant that Martin & Aofie Smith identify Gerry (to 60-80%) and describe trousers that we have a picture of him wearing?
-
Oh come off it! Are you being deliberately pedantic?
Look at the picture of Gerry's trousers.
Beige in colour - Yes
Cotton fabric - Yes
Thicker tahn line - Yes
Possibly with buttons - Yes
Without any other decoration - Yes
Do you expect Aofie to give the make and size as well?
Do you not agree it is significant that Martin & Aofie Smith identify Gerry (to 60-80%) and describe trousers that we have a picture of him wearing?
Where does Aofie identify Gerry? She is one of the ones who didn't agree with her dad.
She only said possibly with buttons. Buttons... where? Wouldn't buttons down the side count as "decoration"?
-
Where does Aofie identify Gerry? She is one of the ones who didn't agree with her dad.
She only said possibly with buttons. Buttons... where? Wouldn't buttons down the side count as "decoration"?
I meant Martin identified Gerry and Aofie identifed trousers with buttons.
Buttons, I would suspect, counts as "buttons".
Decoration i would presume would mean things like prints or designs.
The point is of course that this is certainly worth further investigation irrespective of the pedantry you try to apply in order to extricate any link to Gerry from this family's sightings.
-
During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.
The witness doesn't say they felt another way, just that they didn't feel the same way, i.e they had no opinion.
-
Stephen. No need for abuse. the quote did not copy correctly.
Am having another attempt but have an extremely weak broad band strength here and the preview will not work. Difficulty posting too.
No connection sign keeps coming up and no emails in or out.
Jeez! Will have to try again later.
-
As an aside, the photo depicted of Gerry in the beige trousers was taken some time after the abduction of Madeleine.
It matters little though in the final analysis as the person the Smith family saw could not have been Gerry McCann for all the reasons previously stated.
-
As an aside, the photo depicted of Gerry in the beige trousers was taken some time after the abduction of Madeleine.
It matters little though in the final analysis as the person the Smith family saw could not have been Gerry McCann for all the reasons previously stated.
Hi John.
I accept that the photo may have been taken after the abduction but the fact remains that Gerry owned a pair of trousers that matched the description provided by Aoife Smith.
I have read the thread regarding the timelines at the Tapas and also the statements given by the Smiths regarding timings (anything from 9:50 onwards) and what i can see is no definitive alibi for Gerry, and a lot of confusion in the statements regarding the timings given by witnesses, as others in that thread have pointed out.
It certainly warrants further investigation in my opinion when the trousers are taken in conjunction with Martin Smith's ID.
-
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything Benice, I am merely stating the facts
The only independent witnesses who recall seeing Gerry McCann before Madeleine was reported missing are Jeremy Wilkins, who saw him at about 9.15pm outside the McCann apartment ... and Mr and Mrs Smith who saw him making his way in the direction of the beach at about 10pm
Those are the facts
Actually they are not the facts as no member of the Smith family have said it was definitely Gerry - only a 60/80 percent chance that it might have been - by one of them, (maybe two) . The rest of the family who were also there were 100 percent sure it wasn't Gerry. Why do you keep ignoring that part?
So tell us what you think Gerry did between 9.15 and just after the alarm was raised when he was seen searching by staff.
And in your opionion when did he break the news of Madeleine's death to the Tapas 7.
-
Actually they are not the facts as no member of the Smith family have said it was definitely Gerry - only a 60/80 percent chance that it might have been - by one of them, (maybe two) . The rest of the family who were also there were 100 percent sure it wasn't Gerry. Why do you keep ignoring that part?
So tell us what you think Gerry did between 9.15 and just after the alarm was raised when he was seen searching by staff.
And in your opionion when did he break the news of Madeleine's death to the Tapas 7.
Is that true ? ... that the Smith children said they were 100% sure it wasn't Gerry McCann that they saw ?
I thought that they were simply unable to say that it WAS him ... which a very different thing
-
Is that true ? ... that the Smith children said they were 100% sure it wasn't Gerry McCann that they saw ?
I thought that they were simply unable to say that it WAS him ... which a very different thing
The rest of the Smith family - unlike Mr Smith - did not offer any percentage likelihoods - they said that in their opinion the man they saw was not Gerry. They did not say they were 99.9% sure it was not Gerry. So if that's not 100% then what is?
-
The rest of the Smith family - unlike Mr Smith - did not offer any percentage likelihoods - they said that in their opinion the man they saw was not Gerry. They did not say they were 99.9% sure it was not Gerry. So if that's not 100% then what is?
I didn't know that they said the man they saw 'was not' Gerry McCann, I thought they were just unable to say whether it was him or not
Is this in the police files Benice ?
-
Well in my opinion (and i'm no Gok Wan) they are an unusal style of trouser with buttons down the side.
What is important is that we have Martin Smith identifying Gerry McCann and Aoife Smith highlighting the person's trousers that we have photographic evidence match a pair Gerry owns.
The point is what are the chances that the abductor would be 60-80% Gerry and own the same trousers Gerry owns and be carrying a child at that time?
Do you have a definite photo of Gerrys trousers that have the buttons down
They dont sound like Gerrys plain style, but maybe I am wrong?
-
Do you have a definite photo of Gerry trousers that have the buttons down
They dont sound like Gerry plain style, but maybe I am wrong?
You can see the two buttons in the photo posted
They are the kind of trousers that have a tag on the inside ... they can be rolled up and by fastening the buttons, be worn as shorts
-
You can see the two buttons in the photo posted
They are the kind of trousers that have a tag on the inside ... they can be rolled up and by fastening the buttons, be worn as shorts
Ok that could be Gerrys style. Agreed ... but then it is lots of peoples style too, especially on holiday.
-
I didn't know that they said the man they saw 'was not' Gerry McCann, I thought they were just unable to say whether it was him or not
Is this in the police files Benice ?
I believe Mr Smith said that he contacted the rest of the family (apart from his wife) and told them what he thought - and none of them agreed with him. IMO It's not correct to claim that they could not say one way or another whether it was Gerry.
-
I believe Mr Smith said that he contacted the rest of the family (apart from his wife) and told them what he thought - and none of them agreed with him. IMO It's not correct to claim that they could not say one way or another whether it was Gerry.
And why would Martin Smith say, "I don't know if this information will help the McCanns, but anything we can do to help try to solve it, we will", when he had just dropped Gerry in the doo doo?
-
Ok that could be Gerrys style. Agreed ... but then it is lots of peoples style too, especially on holiday.
But then you come have to work out the probability of that given all the other surrounding factors.
You have Martin Smith's later ID of it being Gerry (to 60%-80%) and you have this man wearing distinctive trousers that we know Gerry owned, walking with a child matching Madeleine's description on or around the time Madeleine was reported missing.
When you combine all the factors what is the possibility there would be someone else matching all those things walking past the Smiths in a small quiet resort like PDL on that night?
I'd say slim at best.
-
you have this man wearing distinctive trousers
You have apartment 5a rented from someone (unrelated to the McCanns) called Ruth McCann ...
-
If one of his family had said no way the carrier was Mr McCann, I guess Martin Smith would have felt relieved. Who isn't aware it has been terribly difficult for him to tell the gardaí ? It was a case of conscience, a heavy one.
-
you have this man wearing distinctive trousers
You have apartment 5a rented from someone (unrelated to the McCanns) called Ruth McCann ...
Did she have some of these trousers as well? You've lost me.
-
Did she have some of these trousers as well? You've lost me.
You made me laugh ! Thank you !
-
you have this man wearing distinctive trousers
You have apartment 5a rented from someone (unrelated to the McCanns) called Ruth McCann ...
Yes! Gerry McCann was club doctor at Celtic FC and I recently saw a green and white hooped T-shirt at Primark!
So he must be guilty!
Sorry ferryman, I just had to post this as I am so frustrated about the so called "connections" that the forkers are so fond of.
-
Yes! Gerry McCann was club doctor at Celtic FC and I recently saw a green and white hooped T-shirt at Primark!
So he must be guilty!
Sorry ferryman, I just had to post this as I am so frustrated about the so called "connections" that the forkers are so fond of.
And let's not forget that one of the McCanns principal backers, Brian Kennedy, is unrelated to Kate's uncle, Brian Kennedy ...
-
During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.
The witness doesn't say they felt another way, just that they didn't feel the same way, i.e they had no opinion.
Your conclusion being?
-
And let's not forget that one of the McCanns principal backers, Brian Kennedy, is unrelated to Kate's uncle, Brian Kennedy ...
The forkers seem to get this fact wrong time and time again... like the 15/19 markers (sorry to go off topic)!!
-
I was in a pub, once, that has a vast menu (probably about 40 selections). I ordered a prawn curry that, itself, came in two forms: standard or deluxe. I ordered deluxe.
Imagine my surprise when, after about the time they might take to prepare food, a barman came along with a deluxe prawn curry and delivered it -- to the woman sat at the table adjacent to mine.
She gratefully received it and tucked in.
She was entitled to. It was hers. She had paid for it.
A very short while later, along came my curry ...
-
But then you come have to work out the probability of that given all the other surrounding factors.
You have Martin Smith's later ID of it being Gerry (to 60%-80%) and you have this man wearing distinctive trousers that we know Gerry owned, walking with a child matching Madeleine's description on or around the time Madeleine was reported missing.
When you combine all the factors what is the possibility there would be someone else matching all those things walking past the Smiths in a small quiet resort like PDL on that night?
I'd say slim at best.
It all depends on when Gerry bought those trousers and when the photograph was taken. Unless you know that you can't make any assumptions.
And what happened to the dark long-sleeved jacket.
He was wearing neither of those articles of clothing when he went to dinner on the 3rd.
-
Mr McCann was wearing a dark shirt
Silvia Batista
-
Yep
... and Gerry Mccann is 6'1"- 6'2" tall. I have met him, and stood right by him. I was impressed by his physique, and surprised by his height. Aoife, the most observant Smith was on flat land and she thought that ?bundleman was 5'7" - 5'9" tall IIRC. The other two Smiths, who met him coming down a hill towards them thouught that he was 5'9"-5'11" tall.
Bit of a difference between 5'7" and 6'1"
One is small and the other is big!
Nah, it wasn't Gerry.
-
Sadie must be 5.1. I'm 5.4, but I wasn't impressed by Mr McCann's height when I was with him in a lift. 2 floors : he was near the board and laughed saying he had learnt that "saída" means exit. I smiled. It took me more than 1 floor to reflect "do you really believe there's a saída for the mess you've made up?". So I didn't tell it and I really regret it.
-
Sadie must be 5.1. I'm 5.4, but I wasn't impressed by Mr McCann's height when I was with him in a lift. 2 floors : he was near the board and laughed saying he had learnt that "saída" means exit. I smiled. It took me more than 1 floor to reflect "do you really believe there's a saída for the mess you've made up?". So I didn't tell it and I really regret it.
Hope you didn't fart in the lift, Anne.
-
I weight 100 lbs and the lift I think could afford 600 lbs, so I don't think I put Mr McCann's life at risk.
-
Sadie must be 5.1. I'm 5.4, but I wasn't impressed by Mr McCann's height when I was with him in a lift. 2 floors : he was near the board and laughed saying he had learnt that "saída" means exit. I smiled. It took me more than 1 floor to reflect "do you really believe there's a saída for the mess you've made up?". So I didn't tell it and I really regret it.
I was 5'8" Anne. With old age, I have shrivelled to about 5'6" - and i found him very imposing. Tall and very well built... not fat. He has a presence, no doubt about that.
-
Yep
... and Gerry Mccann is 6'1"- 6'2" tall. I have met him, and stood right by him. I was impressed by his physique, and surprised by his height. Aoife, the most observant Smith was on flat land and she thought that ?bundleman was 5'7" - 5'9" tall IIRC. The other two Smiths, who met him coming down a hill towards them thouught that he was 5'9"-5'11" tall.
Bit of a difference between 5'7" and 6'1"
One is small and the other is big!
Nah, it wasn't Gerry.
'Impressed by his physique' @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
What about his shortcomings 8)-)))
-
Sadie must be 5.1. I'm 5.4, but I wasn't impressed by Mr McCann's height when I was with him in a lift. 2 floors : he was near the board and laughed saying he had learnt that "saída" means exit. I smiled. It took me more than 1 floor to reflect "do you really believe there's a saída for the mess you've made up?". So I didn't tell it and I really regret it.
i understand what you are saying here Anne. Quite clever. @)(++(*, but I am not about to pop off just yet. 8(0(* Sorry
If you dont like my thoughts and theories then say so .... and If I have time .... very busy atm with more friends arriving to stay tomorrow .... then I wiill be happy to discuss.
I am sure Stephen will be only too happy to help you @)(++(*
-
'Impressed by his physique' @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Yep, Stephen. After a lifetime of life drawing classes, I notice physique
My problem is that sometimes, I also visualise the physique of some of the posters on here - just from what they say - and sometimes it aint a pretty picture, Fortunately I dont visualise features, tho I do expressions - and there is one guy who has a constant sneer on his face
Cant think who that would be.
Can you help me? 8(0(*
-
Do you have a definite photo of Gerrys trousers that have the buttons down
They dont sound like Gerrys plain style, but maybe I am wrong?
No the trousers appear to have a whole series of buttons running down the outseam:
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSe5ja2gzsens8CL3S1X4A3XWL92dlKrxHPV_uzunwN9p3SWi_J)
Ok that could be Gerrys style. Agreed ... but then it is lots of peoples style too, especially on holiday.
Yes but the point i have been trying to make is what's the likelihood of a man wearing these type of trousers (and now the jacket - see below) carrying a child matching Madeleine's description, on the 3rd May on or around the time Madeleine went missing, with according to one witness a 60-80% likeliness to Gerry.
How many men would there have been in PDL mathcing all those things at that time?
How feasible is it to simply accept without challenge or further investigation that all those things could be one big coincidence?
Yes! Gerry McCann was club doctor at Celtic FC and I recently saw a green and white hooped T-shirt at Primark!
So he must be guilty!
Sorry ferryman, I just had to post this as I am so frustrated about the so called "connections" that the forkers are so fond of.
No you are confusing "connections" with "coincidences" generated from information in the files. Big difference.
The forkers seem to get this fact wrong time and time again... like the 15/19 markers (sorry to go off topic)!!
"Forkers"?? Really? Can't you indulge in civil and constructive debate without feeling the need to resort to the language of the playground which so dominates the two sides in any discussion about Madeleine McCann?
It all depends on when Gerry bought those trousers and when the photograph was taken. Unless you know that you can't make any assumptions.
And what happened to the dark long-sleeved jacket.
He was wearing neither of those articles of clothing when he went to dinner on the 3rd.
So you are happy to accept that the trousers Aoife Smith described to a tee that we have a photo of Gerry wearing could have been bought afterwards. What would have been the chances of Gerry going out after the abduction and buying the exact same trousers described in the statement, really?
That photo was taken in 2007 i believe.
In relation to a dark long sleeved jacket well of course it depends how dark "dark" is, but how about this one:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_a9wriOtQCu8/TUVGgIMOcPI/AAAAAAAAAdw/DJgR3y359q8/s1600/gerry-mccann-parents-of-missing-child-madeleine-mccann-gerry-and-kate-mccann-may-5-2007-8roT8U_small.jpg)
Here it is from the front:
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ7Fjlijdidvwp2Frq3QbYW-Ivlyy3xDVQQIbCLLwcA9-nhW2pI)
Which does look very similar to the one used in one of the McCann's abduction docs, does it not?:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_a9wriOtQCu8/TUVG5jW73oI/AAAAAAAAAd0/rVgQSYbwlKs/s1600/witness_accounts1.png)
He didn't need to wear it at dinner, he could have popped it on at any point.
The issue is that all these things do warrant further investigation. Irrespective of whether you believe the abduction theory what has always struck me as odd when discussing the McCann case is that people's views are either all or nothing on either side.
So if someone believes the abduction scenario then not one single piece of evidence which may be contrary to that opinion is ever accepted as being possible.
I don't see that this case nor indeed most complex investigative cases are that black and white and it does the debating of the case in general a disservice.
-
Yep, Stephen. After a lifetime of life drawing classes, I notice physique
My problem is that sometimes, I also visualise the physique of some of the posters on here - just from what they say - and sometimes it aint a pretty picture, Fortunately I dont visualise features, tho I do expressions - and there is one guy who has a constant sneer on his face
Cant think who that would be.
Can you help me? 8(0(*
I'm not the one having fantasies about gm.
However, it does reveal your clear bias towards the mccanns, but I expected no less from someone such as you. @)(++(*
-
I'm not the one having fantasies about gm.
However, it does reveal your clear bias towards the mccanns, but I expected no less from someone such as you. @)(++(*
Erm?
Here you go again Stephen. At least 10 sneers at me - in an ?uninterrupted row
-
Erm?
Here you go again Stephen. At least 10 sneers at me - in an ?uninterrupted row
Well there's a moral for you to learn, if you can.
Don't insult and sneer at others, unless you can take it as well.
-
No the trousers appear to have a whole series of buttons running down the outseam:
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSe5ja2gzsens8CL3S1X4A3XWL92dlKrxHPV_uzunwN9p3SWi_J)
Yes but the point i have been trying to make is what's the likelihood of a man wearing these type of trousers (and now the jacket - see below) carrying a child matching Madeleine's description, on the 3rd May on or around the time Madeleine went missing, with according to one witness a 60-80% likeliness to Gerry.
How many men would there have been in PDL mathcing all those things at that time?
How feasible is it to simply accept without challenge or further investigation that all those things could be one big coincidence?
No you are confusing "connections" with "coincidences" generated from information in the files. Big difference.
"Forkers"?? Really? Can't you indulge in civil and constructive debate without feeling the need to resort to the language of the playground which so dominates the two sides in any discussion about Madeleine McCann?
So you are happy to accept that the trousers Aoife Smith described to a tee that we have a photo of Gerry wearing could have been bought afterwards. What would have been the chances of Gerry going out after the abduction and buying the exact same trousers described in the statement, really?
That photo was taken in 2007 i believe.
In relation to a dark long sleeved jacket well of course it depends how dark "dark" is, but how about this one:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_a9wriOtQCu8/TUVGgIMOcPI/AAAAAAAAAdw/DJgR3y359q8/s1600/gerry-mccann-parents-of-missing-child-madeleine-mccann-gerry-and-kate-mccann-may-5-2007-8roT8U_small.jpg)
Here it is from the front:
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ7Fjlijdidvwp2Frq3QbYW-Ivlyy3xDVQQIbCLLwcA9-nhW2pI)
Which does look very similar to the one used in one of the McCann's abduction docs, does it not?:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_a9wriOtQCu8/TUVG5jW73oI/AAAAAAAAAd0/rVgQSYbwlKs/s1600/witness_accounts1.png)
He didn't need to wear it at dinner, he could have popped it on at any point.
The issue is that all these things do warrant further investigation. Irrespective of whether you believe the abduction theory what has always struck me as odd when discussing the McCann case is that people's views are either all or nothing on either side.
So if someone believes the abduction scenario then not one single piece of evidence which may be contrary to that opinion is ever accepted as being possible.
I don't see that this case nor indeed most complex investigative cases are that black and white and it does the debating of the case in general a disservice.
If those were the clothes Gerry wore when alledgedly he was seen by the Smiths carrying his dead daughter, then why didn't Eddie alert to them?
Knowing that he had been seen by a number of people who could describe him, would he have kept any of the clothing - let alone be photographed wearing them?
Sorry doesn't work for me.
-
If those were the clothes Gerry wore when alledgedly he was seen by the Smiths carrying his dead daughter, then why didn't Eddie alert to them?
Knowing that he had been seen by a number of people who could describe him, would he have kept any of the clothing - let alone be photographed wearing them?
Sorry doesn't work for me.
Nor for me.
-
If those were the clothes Gerry wore when alledgedly he was seen by the Smiths carrying his dead daughter, then why didn't Eddie alert to them?
Knowing that he had been seen by a number of people who could describe him, would he have kept any of the clothing - let alone be photographed wearing them?
Sorry doesn't work for me.
But i though you didn't believe in the reliability of the dogs? Or are you saying you believe in their reliability for not identifying Gerry's clothes but don't believe in them for alerting on Kate's, because that is then cherry picking evidence to support a pre conceived theory.
Do we know if these clothes were in the gym when the dogs were brought in? Do you accept it's possible they weren't?
Please don't get the false impression that i have all the answers to solve this case, i don't and at this stage no one has.
The investigation done by the PJ was incomplete so we can only speculate based on evidence of an incomplete investigation and there are many loose ends which don't add up.
The point that i am making is that all the clothes that were identified Gerry owned, and that one witness who saw this person said the man he saw he was certain with 60-80% certainty was Gerry.
My personal belief is that it is beyond the relams of coincidence and requires further investigation.
What i am not saying is that on the basis of the incomplete investigation it should be automatically and categorically ruled out without further investigation, which appears to be your position.
That's dangerous and in the real world would be described as bad policing.
I am open to all possibilities, i have no pre conceived bias as to the Mccanns guilt or innocence and simply want to understand the evidence gathered so far fully in order to develop as clear a picture as possible of what happened.
-
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/gerry-mccann-parents-of-missing-child-madeleine-mccann-gerry-and-kate-mccann-june-16-2007-8D8nvt_small.jpg)
You see better the buttons here. The picture seems to have been taken on the 14th or 15th of June.
-
But i though you didn't believe in the reliability of the dogs? Or are you saying you believe in their reliability for not identifying Gerry's clothes but don't believe in them for alerting on Kate's, because that is then cherry picking evidence to support a pre conceived theory.
Do we know if these clothes were in the gym when the dogs were brought in? Do you accept it's possible they weren't?
No you are mistaken Albertini - I do not doubt the dogs skills. What I do not accept is that when Eddie alerted it meant only one thing - and that is whatever he alerted to must have been in contact with Madeleine's dead body. That is simply not true.
However, if Eddie had alerted to a pair of Gerry's trousers which he owned on the 3d and which had been positively identified by the Smiths as being identical to those worn by the man they saw - then that would be pertinent. But that didn't happen. Why not? Gerry had made no attempt to get rid of them as the photograph shows. The McCann family's whole wardrobe was removed from the Villa and tested - so why would anyone think those trousers were not amongst them.
And surely those trousers would have carried the strongest scent of all - if he had spent all that time carrying her dead body through PdL to 'wherever' and then disposed of her body. And yet no alert was made.
-
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/gerry-mccann-parents-of-missing-child-madeleine-mccann-gerry-and-kate-mccann-june-16-2007-8D8nvt_small.jpg)
You see better the buttons here. The picture seems to have been taken on the 14th or 15th of June.
Where? According to whom?
ETA: After a search, that photo does seem to have been taken on June 16 2007.
-
I still don't see what is supposed to be unusual about these trousers.
I have several of these of a similar type.
-
Its amazing how one lttile word, can make such a big difference.
His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration.
And what are "rights"? Creases, stitching detail or what? From that photo, Gerrry's trousers have neither!
-
Its amazing how one lttile word, can make such a big difference.
And what are "rights"? Creases, stitching detail or what? From that photo, Gerrry's trousers have neither!
Absolutely! Had she said:
His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, with no buttons, and without any other decoration.
Then you would have a valid point.
I fear there are semantics and pedantry going on here in attmept to downplay this element of the Smith statement.
Why not simply accept that it is an interesting development and requires further investigation?
-
Its amazing how one lttile word, can make such a big difference.
And what are "rights"? Creases, stitching detail or what? From that photo, Gerrry's trousers have neither!
line 57 "direitas". Wouldn't that mean straights (as opposed to baggy)?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P6/06_VOLUME_VIa_Page_1613.jpg
-
line 57 "direitas". Wouldn't that mean straights (as opposed to baggy)?
[youtube]http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P6/06_VOLUME_VIa_Page_1613.jpg[/youtube]
More like this:
The trousers he was wearing were smooth straight-legged trousers, light beige in colour, of a cotton type material, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons and without any patterns.
-
More like this:
The trousers he was wearing were smooth straight-legged trousers, light beige in colour, of a cotton type material, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons and without any patterns.
Well... quite.
-
Absolutely! Had she said:
Then you would have a valid point.
I fear there are semantics and pedantry going on here in attmept to downplay this element of the Smith statement.
Why not simply accept that it is an interesting development and requires further investigation?
On who's part?
Aofie, would have been the one furthest away from the carrier, she was the only one he didn't pass.
Now, Martin and Peter he passed, say:
MARTIN SMITH
He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut.
PETER DANIEL SMITH
He also does not remember the clothing the individual wore or his shoes.
-
Absolutely! Had she said:
Then you would have a valid point.
I fear there are semantics and pedantry going on here in attmept to downplay this element of the Smith statement.
Why not simply accept that it is an interesting development and requires further investigation?
What do you find to be an "interesting development"? The police have had six years to go over all this.
-
Aoife and her sister in law's son, coming up, saw the carrier in low-angle shot, this could explain she saw buttons and he saw bare feet.
-
What do you find to be an "interesting development"? The police have had six years to go over all this.
Seems it was this bit, Carana.
His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, with no buttons, and without any other decoration.
-
Aoife and her sister in law's son, coming up, saw the carrier in low-angle shot, this could explain she saw buttons and he saw bare feet.
So where is his statement? The video shows Aofie on her own.
"She does not remember how they were divided [who was where]".
-
Seems it was this bit, Carana.
??
That's not what I gather from lines 57-58 from here:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P6/06_VOLUME_VIa_Page_1613.jpg
My understanding is that the trousers may have had buttons.
-
??
That's not what I gather from lines 57-58 from here:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P6/06_VOLUME_VIa_Page_1613.jpg
My understanding is that the trousers may have had buttons.
I cannot do the translations cos I dont speak PT.
But from the British translation we see, it does seem as tho there might have been buttons, but where on the trousers? On the pockets? Fancy trimmed down the sides, ,button up turnups, buttoned waist band /fly ... or as in this photograph of Gerry? Even if they are buttoned like Gerrys in the photograph, they are very common holiday style trousers. Most holidaying men of that age would have a pair for holiday wear.
Where does the photograph come from? Have we confirmation of when it was taken?
It is genuine Gerry, is it?
Even if all these thiings go along with the photograph, I still do not think that Gerry could be mistaken for a man of let's say 5'9" (they all mentioned this height.)
Aoife actually thought 5'7" -5'9". That is small. She is also very observant.
Gerry is imposing and tall ... not small in any way
-
I cannot do the translations cos I dont speak PT.
But from the British translation we see, it does seem as tho there might have been buttons, but where on the trousers? On the pockets? Fancy trimmed down the sides, ,button up turnups, buttoned waist band /fly ... or as in this photograph of Gerry? Even if they are buttoned like Gerrys in the photograph, they are very common holiday style trousers. Most holidaying men of that age would have a pair for holiday wear.
Where does the photograph come from? Have we confirmation of when it was taken?
It is genuine Gerry, is it?
Even if all these thiings go along with the photograph, I still do not think that Gerry could be mistaken for a man of let's say 5'9" (they all mentioned this height.)
Aoife actually thought 5'7" -5'9". That is small. She is also very observant.
Gerry is imposing and tall ... not small in any way
A better pic:
http://solarpix.photoshelter.com/image/I0000CKDtMsGhb5Q
They seem more decorative than practical.
-
A better pic:
http://solarpix.photoshelter.com/image/I0000CKDtMsGhb5Q
They seem more decorative than practical.
Those look like, the trousers that you fold up, and can worn as shorts or trousers?.
How would Aofie, see the buttons on these trousers,
(http://www.portugalimages.net/media/070907_mr_gerry_mccann_arrives_at_pj_(23)-[12958].jpg)
when it was getting dark, and he was over two metres, away?.
-
Those look like, the trousers that you fold up, and can worn as shorts or trousers?.
How would Aofie, see the buttons on these trousers,
(http://www.portugalimages.net/media/070907_mr_gerry_mccann_arrives_at_pj_(23)-[12958].jpg)
when it was getting dark, and he was over two metres, away?.
So gerry mccann, all shorts but no trousers ? 8)-)))
-
Those look like, the trousers that you fold up, and can worn as shorts or trousers?.
How would Aofie, see the buttons on these trousers,
(http://www.portugalimages.net/media/070907_mr_gerry_mccann_arrives_at_pj_(23)-[12958].jpg)
when it was getting dark, and he was over two metres, away?.
First we have the 'no buttons' quote, which even your fellow supporters had to correct you on, now a picture of a pair of trousers which, obviously, are not the same ones as in the photograph previously posted.
Why are you posting so much misinformation DCI ? Exactly what is your agenda ?
-
First we have the 'no buttons' quote, which even your fellow supporters had to correct you on, now a picture of a pair of trousers which, obviously, are not the same ones as in the photograph previously posted.
Why are you posting so much misinformation DCI ? Exactly what is your agenda ?
Really, would you like to find the "no buttons quote", and see who posted it. So which fellow supporters had to correct me. They are the same trousers
No misinformation. Exactly what is your agenda ?
-
Those look like, the trousers that you fold up, and can worn as shorts or trousers?.
How would Aofie, see the buttons on these trousers,
(http://www.portugalimages.net/media/070907_mr_gerry_mccann_arrives_at_pj_(23)-[12958].jpg)
when it was getting dark, and he was over two metres, away?.
At 10pm in May it was completely dark, but it had been a full moon the night before.
-
At 10pm in May it was completely dark, but it had been a full moon the night before.
You doubt this witness's statement ? ... then you must doubt it in every way
... this cherry picking of witness statements, in order to accommodate one theory or another is really rather tiresome
If you are convinced that this witness was unable to recognise, accurately, the type of trousers worn by the man she saw pass her that night ... then you must acknowledge that she was just as likely to have inaccurately failed to recognise that the man she saw was Gerry McCann ( as her mother and father determined )
you really cannot claim that a witness ( ANY witness ) is entirely reliable in one thing they say ... whilst, simoultaneously claiming they are unreliable in something else they say
It's just silly to do that
-
You doubt this witness's statement ? ... then you must doubt it in every way
... this cherry picking of witness statements, in order to accommodate one theory or another is really rather tiresome
If you are convinced that this witness was unable to recognise, accurately, the type of trousers worn by the man she saw pass her that night ... then you must acknowledge that she was just as likely to have inaccurately failed to recognise that the man she saw was Gerry McCann ( as her mother and father determined )
you really cannot claim that a witness ( ANY witness ) is entirely reliable in one thing they say ... whilst, simoultaneously claiming they are unreliable in something else they say
It's just silly to do that
Perhaps you should take it up with the person, who you think it was that cherry picked this witness statement, to post, in order to accommodate one theory or another?.
-
Perhaps you should take it up with the person, who you think it was that cherry picked this witness statement, to post, in order to accommodate one theory or another?.
Why is there such an undercurrent of anger in every post you make in response to those posters who do not believe the abduction theory?
I don't get it.
-
Why is there such an undercurrent of anger in every post you make in response to those posters who do not believe the abduction theory?
I don't get it.
Well if you think thats anger, jeez! 8)><(
icabodcrane, said "It's just silly to do that". I was replying to him. You posted up, what he's complaning about, not me.
-
Well if you think thats anger, jeez! 8)><(
icabodcrane, said "It's just silly to do that". I was replying to him. You posted up, what he's complaning about, not me.
No i'm not talking about the wheres and whyfores of the post exchange with icabodcrane, it was a genuine question to the tone and undercurrent i detect in your postings in reply to people sceptical about abduction.
Just an observation, made difficult to read accurately through the written word on a computer, but an observation i felt nonetheless.
-
I am bumping this thread since it make take on a new relevance following Scotland Yard's recent revelations
-
Can I make a basic observation from the time-line and cross-referencing it to the Smiths and Fiona Payne's statements.
According to Martin Smith and family they encountered a man carrying a child at 10pm, he was quite precise about this.
The Portuguese police files contain the following...
At 21:05H/21:10H Gerald went to check his children. He entered through the sliding door and found it strange that the children’s bedroom door was slightly more opened than when they went out. But he assumed that Madeleine had gotten up and gone back to bed.
He saw that Madeleine and the twins were in their beds, quiet.
He went to the bathroom and got out through the sliding doors. On the street, close to the gate, he met Jez, known from the tennis, with whom he spoke for 3 to 5 minutes.
At that moment (21:15h) coming from the restaurant to check her children, Jane passed by them.
She says that at that moment she saw, up the street, on the perpendicular, at about 10 meters, a man crossing carrying a child.
At 22:00 Kate went to the apartment.
She went through the sliding doors and immediately noticed that the door to the children’s bedroom was totally opened, the window was opened, the shutters raised and the curtains opened to the sides.
The twins were sleeping in their cots but Madeleine had disappeared.
From Fiona Payne's statement we have the following...
'Erm, tut, she sort of raced back and she just appeared at the doors of the sort of reception area and just shouted across, erm, 'She's gone. Gerry, Madeleine's gone'. And, you know, well you can just imagine the shock maybe. So everyone was just sort of still for what seemed like, sort of five seconds or so. Gerry jumped up and went 'She can't be gone' and raced off with Kate.
Now, what I would like to know is how the hell can Gerry McCann be sitting eating his main course at 10pm, the same time as Mr Smith swears he saw him hundreds of yards away?
For me John ...the e fit looks like Gerry...Amaral assumed it was......that's why he discounted the smith sighting as being the abductor...fact was Gerry was at the Tapas...so is this Gerry look a like, totally innocent or ...is he the abductor
-
MY God, has Gerry got a doppelganger ?- and in PDL at just the right time, too.
-
MY God, has Gerry got a doppelganger ?- and in PDL at just the right time, too.
hi Jessi..according to some posters it looks like hes got two
-
And we "KNOW" Gerry was at the Tapas bar at the exact time of the Smith sighting because...?
Their time was approximate, we've already seen (and had numerous Pros point out) that eyewitness times can't be taken literally therefore there is nothing that pins Gerry elsewhere at the time of the Smith sighting. It's a few minutes jog from 5a to the Smith sighting location, could be done... 8(0(*
-
And we "KNOW" Gerry was at the Tapas bar at the exact time of the Smith sighting because...?
Their time was approximate, we've already seen (and had numerous Pros point out) that eyewitness times can't be taken literally therefore there is nothing that pins Gerry elsewhere at the time of the Smith sighting. It's a few minutes jog from 5a to the Smith sighting location, could be done... 8(0(*
lets see what SY think...they're the experts
-
lets see what SY think...they're the experts
As Barry George said to the Vicar, eh?
-
And we "KNOW" Gerry was at the Tapas bar at the exact time of the Smith sighting because...?
Their time was approximate, we've already seen (and had numerous Pros point out) that eyewitness times can't be taken literally therefore there is nothing that pins Gerry elsewhere at the time of the Smith sighting. It's a few minutes jog from 5a to the Smith sighting location, could be done... 8(0(*
If they really checked every half an hour, Mrs McCann should have checked at 21:45, half an hour after Mr McCann came back.
Mr Oldfield was only due at 22h, since he checked on his child at 21h30, that's why he didn't accompany Mrs McCann at around 21:45.
For many, many reasons, starting with the first time-line, it's obvious Mr Oldfield never put his feet in the 5A.
-
lets see what SY think...they're the experts
Allegedly.
-
Well yes he could
Indeed, he could have been crossing paths with the Smith family at that time ... it IS possible
Gerry himself says the alarm was raised by Kate at around 10.13-15. The Smith gentleman ( was it Peter ) on Sky last night said the family saw the man with the child at 9.55, that gives Gerry a whole twenty minutes to conceal the body and be back at the tapas bar before the alarm is raised.
-
Gerry himself says the alarm was raised by Kate at around 10.13-15. The Smith gentleman ( was it Peter ) on Sky last night said the family saw the man with the child at 9.55, that gives Gerry a whole twenty minutes to conceal the body and be back at the tapas bar before the alarm is raised.
Thats right... GMs 10 May statement
Half and hour later, without anything to signal [with no way to tell the time], it being 22h03, he turned to alert KATE that it was time for her to go to see the children. She immediately made her way to the apartment by the usual path, she having entered by the rear door. About 10 minutes later, he started to worry about her lateness and, at the moment he prepared to stand and to go to see the reason for her lateness, KATE appeared running, completely distraught and crying, saying that MADELEINE had disappeared and that she was sure because she had looked throughout the house.
-
The Public Prosecutor, in his final report, notes that when the Smiths made their sighting Gerry was at the Tapas bar, as witnessed by the group of friends
He adds that staff members cannot 'deny' he was there
In other words, only Gerry's mates say he was definately there ... independent witnesses couldn't say whether he was there or not
were any of the staff asked ?
what did they answer?
Is it recorded anywhere
So if they weren't asked another mistake by the PJ
-
More importantly a totally independent witness in the Tapas places Gerry McCann there at almost exactly the same time as the Smith sighting.
Not true and posting it again and again as you are doing gilet does not make it any truer.
-
Not true and posting it again and again as you are doing gilet does not make it any truer.
All it actually does is highlight the fact that no-one but Gerry's mates give him an alibi for the Smith sighting
-
... and just as well too ... otherwise all those members of staff who were not 100% sure if Gerry was in the Tapas bar that night, could be said to be 100% sure that he wasn't
@)(++(*
Nice one
-
All it actually does is highlight the fact that no-one but Gerry's mates give him an alibi for the Smith sighting
The waiter who took their order for dinner said all nine were seated at the table.
Later when the alert was raised by Kate, all the meals had been eaten apart from one which had a half eaten steak.
So if Gerry wasn't there, who ate his meal?
-
Still,
It's nice to see I have a warning now for challenging dishonesty.
It makes me feel like part of the team.
-
The waiter who took their order for dinner said all nine were seated at the table.
Later when the alert was raised by Kate, all the meals had been eaten apart from one which had a half eaten steak.
So if Gerry wasn't there, who ate his meal?
I doubt any waiter could pinpoint when exactly any person had finished their meal
@)(++(*
-
The waiter who took their order for dinner said all nine were seated at the table.
Later when the alert was raised by Kate, all the meals had been eaten apart from one which had a half eaten steak.
So if Gerry wasn't there, who ate his meal?
Somebody being a bit piggy, but then finding they couldn't manage 2 steaks ?
-
I doubt any waiter could pinpoint when exactly any person had finished their meal
@)(++(*
but you are so certain about other things.
nite
(oh is it too early to start saying that)
-
Somebody being a bit piggy, but then finding they couldn't manage 2 steaks ?
Lol stop it before youre accused at laughing at the fact a child went missing, sigh
-
but you are so certain about other things.
nite
(oh is it too early to start saying that)
Do keep on topic dear and reply to posts contents instead of making scurrilous comments...or it will be room 101 for you too
-
I doubt any waiter could pinpoint when exactly any person had finished their meal
@)(++(*
He could pinpoint when he delivered the meal, then when he collected the plates.
Add this to Dianne Webster saying that Kate McCann said 'she's gone Gerry' when she came to the table and another waiter saying he saw Gerry searching for Madeleine by the pool and anyone would put two and two together and say Gerry McCann could not have been the man the Smith's saw at 10o'clock.
-
He could pinpoint when he delivered the meal, then when he collected the plates.
Add this to Dianne Webster saying that Kate McCann said 'she's gone Gerry' when she came to the table and another waiter saying he saw Gerry searching for Madeleine by the pool and anyone would put two and two together and say Gerry McCann could not have been the man the Smith's saw at 10o'clock.
Interesting wording. Did Kate mention her name as well, as she has two daughters and 'she' could refer to either.
-
Do keep on topic dear and reply to posts contents instead of making scurrilous comments...or it will be room 101 for you too
can you prove that waiters do not know when the people they are serving come and go?
I believe that is on topic and relevant to the post that you made.
-
... and just as well too ... otherwise all those members of staff who were not 100% sure if Gerry was in the Tapas bar that night, could be said to be 100% sure that he wasn't
?{)(**
-
We have already shown that Gerry was there at 10pm. If he wasn't then which Gerry was it that Kate cried out to that Madeleine was gone?
Or was it his doppelgänger?
-
can you prove that waiters do not know when the people they are serving come and go?
I believe that is on topic and relevant to the post that you made.
No i cant but thats not my problem its the problem of people who assert several or dozens of indepenedent witnesses put gerry at the table at 10 pm...that wohld be clarence mitchell, some papers and lots of posters of your ilk over to you to provide ONE let alone dozens
8((()*/
-
?{)(**
you are aware that only people who do not understand English are agreeing with the statement?
-
We have already shown that Gerry was there at 10pm. If he wasn't then which Gerry was it that Kate cried out to that Madeleine was gone?
Or was it his doppelgänger?
The Tapas group say 10 ish, staff suggested it was earlier.
-
We have already shown that Gerry was there at 10pm. If he wasn't then which Gerry was it that Kate cried out to that Madeleine was gone?
Or was it his doppelgänger?
at last - the 1000s of posts on this matter previously were not wasted
-
No i cant but thats not my problem its the problem of people who assert several or dozens of indepenedent witnesses put gerry at the table at 10 pm...that wohld be clarence mitchell, some papers and lots of posters of your ilk over to you to provide ONE let alone dozens
8((()*/
can you provide a link to where people said that dozens (in bold) put gerry at the table?
-
The Tapas group say 10 ish, staff suggested it was earlier.
Most in dependent witness statements suggested an earlier time, strange that...mass memory loss?
-
Most in dependent witness statements suggested an earlier time, strange that...mass memory loss?
most or all?
what % would you apply?
-
There is some variation, but I think only the Tapas friends state 10 pm.
-
can you provide a link to where people said that dozens (in bold) put gerry at the table?
Yea no problem
Although Mr Smith admitted he was not wearing his glasses at the time he later said he thought the man could have been Gerry McCann.
This is an impossibility as dozens of witnesses confirmed he was at the holiday complex at 10pm. British police have also said they are certain that Mr McCann has nothing to do with his daughter’s appearance.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2462105/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-delight-Crimewatch-response.html
-
I think you expect a little difference in the dozens (in bold)
-
There were 2 timelines put forward on the evening of the 3rd May.
The first compiled by the Tapas group - scribbled on the back of M's book. If this is taken as gospel, there is no way GM could have been Smithman.
The second (taken from “the files”) is a compilation of statements given by witnesses other than the Tapas group. This suggests that the Tapas table was cleared (but for DW) by between 9:20 and 9:30, in which case the 5/6 minute walk to where the Smiths saw their man at 9:50 was most certainly “reachable” by any of the group! In the second timeline, GM is not referred to between the JW chat at 9:10 and the call to the GNR (at I think around 10:45). If anyone can see from the files this is not the case, I would love to be shown why.
-
Read this and you work it out
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic111.html
there are links that I do not click on.
Provide a summary
-
oh dear red - when I quoted a red top earlier you were not at all happy.
Did I say it was true? No, did I say I believed it? No, I posted a fact....what is being reported...and it is also a fact that clarence mitchell stated on tv that SEVERAL independent witnesses saw Gerry at the table ..now, where is the link for just ONE let alone several independent ones, over to YOU
>@@(*&)
Catch u later
8((()*/
-
there are links that I do not click on.
Provide a summary
You need to click on it to have the links to the original statements, dont worry it wont bite you but just in case youre very scared heres the text.....
-
Please remember that this thread only relates to the proof of Gerry's presence at the Ocean Club at 10pm.
References to the Smiths sighting is a different topic.
-
Please remember that this thread only relates to the proof of Gerry's presence at the Ocean Club at 10pm.
References to the Smiths sighting is a different topic.
Apart from the tapas group claiming it, there is no 'proof' that Gerry was in the tapas bar at 10pm
-
Apart from the tapas group claiming it, there is no 'proof' that Gerry was in the tapas bar at 10pm
Give me one good reason why Dianne Webster would lie in her statement to the police.
-
Give me one good reason why Dianne Webster would lie in her statement to the police.
I havn't said that I think the tapas group were 'lying' when they said Gerry was at the Tapas bar at 10pm ... I am merely pointing out that it is only the tapas group who have said it
No independent witness places him there at that time
-
I havn't said that I think the tapas group were 'lying' when they said Gerry was at the Tapas bar at 10pm ... I am merely pointing out that it is only the tapas group who have said it
No independent witness places him there at that time
Dianne Webster's statement is good enough for me, she had no reason what so ever to lie to the police.
A waiter saw Gerry looking for Madeleine not long after 10 ' clock too, he would have to have hidden Madeleine pretty quickly to have got back to the Tapas Bar to be seen by the waiter. How on earth could he have hidden Madeleine where no one could find her in that short time and get back to be seen looking for Madeleine?
-
Dianne Webster's statement is good enough for me, she had no reason what so ever to lie to the police.
A waiter saw Gerry looking for Madeleine not long after 10 ' clock too, he would have to have hidden Madeleine pretty quickly to have got back to the Tapas Bar to be seen by the waiter. How on earth could he have hidden Madeleine where no one could find her in that short time and get back to be seen looking for Madeleine?
How do you know Dianne Webster's timing is accurate?
When, exactly was "Smith Man" seen? 9:50pm? 9:55pm? It's 5 minutes walking from the tapas bar to the smith sighting point and and significantly less jogging/running. Maybe another minute or so to the area at the top of the rocks where the local small boats are kept. More than enough time for a fit man who liked jogging to get back from that area to the Tapas bar and be seen "shortly after 10" if the waiter's timing is accurate even.
This is the problem - none of the timings are accurate, they're all estimates, aren't they? If there was only a tapas bar cctv or something then the timings would have been verifiable. There wasn't, so the timings all have to be treated as potentially inaccurate.
I'd therefore venture that it'd perhaps be misleading/disingenuous to treat only those that suit a particular version of events (from either side) as being accurate timings, wouldn't you?
Therefore, it's impossible to say Gerry McCann was - or wasn't - at the tapas bar at 10pm?
-
How do you know Dianne Webster's timing is accurate?
When, exactly was "Smith Man" seen? 9:50pm? 9:55pm? It's 5 minutes walking from the tapas bar to the smith sighting point and and significantly less jogging/running. Maybe another minute or so to the area at the top of the rocks where the local small boats are kept. More than enough time for a fit man who liked jogging to get back from that area to the Tapas bar and be seen "shortly after 10" if the waiter's timing is accurate even.
This is the problem - none of the timings are accurate, they're all estimates, aren't they? If there was only a tapas bar cctv or something then the timings would have been verifiable. There wasn't, so the timings all have to be treated as potentially inaccurate.
I'd therefore venture that it'd perhaps be misleading/disingenuous to treat only those that suit a particular version of events (from either side) as being accurate timings, wouldn't you?
Therefore, it's impossible to say Gerry McCann was - or wasn't - at the tapas bar at 10pm?
I believe the Smith's sighting was at 10/5 past 10. That is why Andy Redwood is saying that Kate probably missed the abductor by minutes. Or are they wrong?
-
The only given is that the Smith's bar bill was timed at 09.55. One can only surmise the rest.
-
The only given is that the Smith's bar bill was timed at 09.55. One can only surmise the rest.
Have you got a link to that please jassi?
-
Have you got a link to that please jassi?
Can't locate a specific one, sorry, though I've seen it on line today. Perhaps one of these myths, rather than established fact.
-
Can't locate a specific one, sorry, though I've seen it on line today. Perhaps one of these myths, rather than established fact.
I thought there was a receipt from Kelly's bar (or similar?) where they'd eaten and that was a 9:45 or thereabouts, but I've not looked it up and I might be wrong there. I don't know offhand how far apart Kelly's bar and the sighting point are either.
-
We have already shown that Gerry was there at 10pm. If he wasn't then which Gerry was it that Kate cried out to that Madeleine was gone?
Or was it his doppelgänger?
Dr Jerry and Mr ?
Imo he was at the table, but the first time lines say Mrs McCann "realised" at 9:55.
-
I thought there was a receipt from Kelly's bar (or similar?) where they'd eaten and that was a 9:45 or thereabouts, but I've not looked it up and I might be wrong there. I don't know offhand how far apart Kelly's bar and the sighting point are either.
We don't know if one paid for all or even if the same paid twice, 3 bills, 21:46 (8€), 21:49 (8€) and 21:50 (5€).
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P12/12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3278.jpg
-
The only given is that the Smith's bar bill was timed at 09.55. One can only surmise the rest.
I think it's the time they said they started to leave the Kelly's bar.
-
Please remember that this thread only relates to the proof of Gerry's presence at the Ocean Club at 10pm.
References to the Smiths sighting is a different topic.
Clarence Mitchell speaks of many witnesses testifying to Gerry McCann being around the Ocean Club during the 9.30pm to 10.30pm period. Not everything that Clarence Mitchell says is false.
I for one accept that Gerry McCann was in or around the Ocean Club from 8.30pm onwards - and probably all the time up to midnight and beyond.
I am not sure we can rely on any of Martin Smith's statements.
Or those of his wife and son.
One thing we need to bear in mind is that Martin Smith was a regular visitor to Praia da Luz and a friend of Robert Murat.
That is no doubt why, when making his first witness statement, he made absolutely sure to emphasise that the person he claimed to have seen was NOT ROBERT MURAT
-
Clarence Mitchell speaks of many witnesses testifying to Gerry Mcann being around the Ocean Club during the 9.30pm to 10.30pm period. Not everything that Clarence Mitchell says is false.
I for one accept that Gerry McCann was in or around the Ocean Club from 8.30pm onwards - and probably all the time up to midnight and beyond.
I am not sure we can rely on any of Martin Smith's statements.
Or those of his wife and son.
One thing we need to bear in mind is that Martin Smith was a regular visitor to Praia da Luz and a friend of Robert Murat.
That is no doubt why, when making his first witness statement, he made absolutely sure to emphasise that the person he claimed to have seen was NOT ROBERT MURAT
Smith was a first-hand witness, so has to be taken seriously, while Michell was not.
Congratulations, by the way, for the nice little smear attempt in the last few lines.
-
If the carrier left 5A at 9:57 (getting down the hill) and Peter Smith left the Kelly's Bar with his wife and possibly their son (6) at 9:58 (getting up the hill), I would say they crossed at the point indicated by Peter Smith at 10.
-
Clarence Mitchell speaks of many witnesses testifying to Gerry Mcann being around the Ocean Club during the 9.30pm to 10.30pm period. Not everything that Clarence Mitchell says is false.
I for one accept that Gerry McCann was in or around the Ocean Club from 8.30pm onwards - and probably all the time up to midnight and beyond.
I am not sure we can rely on any of Martin Smith's statements.
Or those of his wife and son.
One thing we need to bear in mind is that Martin Smith was a regular visitor to Praia da Luz and a friend of Robert Murat.
That is no doubt why, when making his first witness statement, he made absolutely sure to emphasise that the person he claimed to have seen was NOT ROBERT MURAT
This is not true at all. Mr Smith had seen Mr Murat once or twice in a bar. You're spreading a myth.
-
I thought there was a receipt from Kelly's bar (or similar?) where they'd eaten and that was a 9:45 or thereabouts, but I've not looked it up and I might be wrong there. I don't know offhand how far apart Kelly's bar and the sighting point are either.
Kellys bar bills!
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EXTERNAL.htm#p10p3276
They didn't eat there.
-
This is not true at all. Mr Smith had seen Mr Murat once or twice in a bar. You're spreading a myth.
OK, for the record, this is what Martin Smith admitted to in his first statement, 23 days after Madeleine was reported missing, and 12 days after Robrt Murat was publicly named as a suspect:
Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.
-
OK, for the record, this is what Martin Smith admitted to in his first statement, 23 days after Madeleine was reported missing, and 12 days after Robrt Murat was publicly named as a suspect:
Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.
So not what you initially said then. Jolly good.
-
So still not a single reference or link to any independent witness statement...hmm
-
So still not a single reference or link to any independent witness statement...hmm
No independent witness would make such a voluntaqry statement....so ...it appears none of the staff were asked...have you checked their statements
-
So still not a single reference or link to any independent witness statement...hmm
There isn't one Red ... not a single one
It would be good if we could finally put this one to bed
No -one ... no-one ... apart from the McCanns chums, has ever said they were sure Gerry was in Tapas bar at 10pm
This claim really should have been relegated to the 'myth' forum by now
-
No independent witness would make such a voluntaqry statement....so ...it appears none of the staff were asked...have you checked their statements
According to the archiving report the prosecutor stated that the friends confirmed Gerry's presence at the Tapas bar but the other witnesses were unable to deny that he was there. Meaning that the other witnesses could not say one way or another. I believe that we can assume then that they had been interviewed
-
There isn't one Red ... not a single one
It would be good if we could finally put this one to bed
No -one ... no-one ... apart from the McCanns chums, has ever said they were sure Gerry was in Tapas bar at 10pm
This claim really should have been relegated to the 'myth' forum by now
It's absolutely infuriating that there's just no way to pin down any times on this. Even if miraculously some way of pinning Gerry to the Tapas bar at 10pm came about, then this still doesn't necessarily prove anything conclusively as the other timings are still fluid/subject to user inaccuracy! If the Smith sighting was actually 9:45 for example, or 10:15 or, as may well be the case, wasn't even Gerry anyway, it's all kind of worthless speculation.
The few independent witness statements at the time just don't seem to add up anyway and some (the receptionists for one) flat out contradict known facts (i.e. the time of the first call to the police).
Just one or two cctv cameras on hotel front doors that just happened to catch someone walking by would have settled this all once and for all with any luck.
Ah. Looks like a couple of people have been muted. It may be a bit quieter around here for a bit!
-
It's absolutely infuriating that there's just no way to pin down any times on this. Even if miraculously some way of pinning Gerry to the Tapas bar at 10pm came about, then this still doesn't necessarily prove anything conclusively as the other timings are still fluid/subject to user inaccuracy! If the Smith sighting was actually 9:45 for example, or 10:15 or, as may well be the case, wasn't even Gerry anyway, it's all kind of worthless speculation.
After 5 minutes or so, Mrs Webster who wondered what was happening, left the table and went to the 5A. She says Mr McCann wasn't there, where was he ?
-
After 5 minutes or so, Mrs Webster who wondered what was happening, left the table and went to the 5A. She says Mr McCann wasn't there, where was he ?
a) Out searching for Madeleine (around the pool area where a waiter said he saw him?)
b) In the toilet
c) At reception (I still think there is some confusion about who went when)
d) Doing something else (unspecified)
-
Dianne Webster's statement is good enough for me, she had no reason what so ever to lie to the police.
A waiter saw Gerry looking for Madeleine not long after 10 ' clock too, he would have to have hidden Madeleine pretty quickly to have got back to the Tapas Bar to be seen by the waiter. How on earth could he have hidden Madeleine where no one could find her in that short time and get back to be seen looking for Madeleine?
Salcedas thought it was Mr McCann, but Ricardo said Mr Payne and Mr Oldfield were searching by the pool. Mrs Webster, who was yet at the table, didn't say she saw Mr McCann.
-
a) Out searching for Madeleine (around the pool area where a waiter said he saw him?)
b) In the toilet
c) At reception (I still think there is some confusion about who went when)
d) Doing something else (unspecified)
After waiting 5 minutes at the Tapas table, not seing Mr McCann by the pool, she went to the flat where Mrs McCann was with the twins. She tried to lift the shutters from the outside (apparently a mania), which didn't prevent her to criticize the preservation of the crime scene by the police.. and stayed there 10 minutes. Then she went back to the Tapas, picked up items and went again to the flat where she saw, this time, Mr McCann.
-
IMO If Gerry was off disposing of his daughter's body during dinner, then surely a vital part of ''the cover plan'' to give him an alibi, would be to make sure he was back at the table - and to ensure that he was noticed by independent witnesses BEFORE Kate raised the alarm?
Also until he actually returned they could have no way of knowing that all had gone to plan - and so would not know whether it was safe for Kate to raise the alarm or not in his absence. Anything could have gone wrong.
-
IMO If Gerry was off disposing of his daughter's body during dinner, then surely a vital part of ''the cover plan'' to give him an alibi, would be to make sure he was back at the table - and to ensure that he was noticed by independent witnesses BEFORE Kate raised the alarm?
Also until he actually returned they could have no way of knowing that all had gone to plan - and so would not know whether it was safe for Kate to raise the alarm or not in his absence. Anything could have gone wrong.
Well, exactly. The idea that Gerry was carrying his daughter's body down to the beach at the same time that Kate was raising the alarm is ridiculous. If that was the way things happened then the first thing everyone at the table would have said when Kate said her daughter was missing would be - sure she's not with Gerry?
-
Well, exactly. The idea that Gerry was carrying his daughter's body down to the beach at the same time that Kate was raising the alarm is ridiculous. If that was the way things happened then the first thing everyone at the table would have said when Kate said her daughter was missing would be - sure she's not with Gerry?
Honestly sometimes I wonder if it's worth typing anything... how do you know that the timings given are accurate? There's nothing. Nothing at all, that says this didn't happen at 9:40pm or 10:10pm or 9:55pm. All of the sightings, all of the witness statements and all of the timings are open to question. Just look at the "compiled timeline" at this link: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm) and see the huge number of discrepancies between all the witnesses. It's chaos. How can you even begin to be certain about any of the timings given?
The one(s) that stand out for me below are MARIA MANUELA MARTINS DA SILVA (M.M.M.d.S.) who gave the time as 21:58 after checking her mobile phone (which may or may not have been accurate, who knows!?) and saw nothing going on around 5A so presumably the alarm had yet to be raised? And Emma Louise Knight (ELK) who refers to "22:17" and probably got that from her mobile phone log - again, who knows if her phone time was accurate though. The rest all seem to be more "approximate".
-
IMO If Gerry was off disposing of his daughter's body during dinner, then surely a vital part of ''the cover plan'' to give him an alibi, would be to make sure he was back at the table - and to ensure that he was noticed by independent witnesses BEFORE Kate raised the alarm?
Also until he actually returned they could have no way of knowing that all had gone to plan - and so would not know whether it was safe for Kate to raise the alarm or not in his absence. Anything could have gone wrong.
While I agree with what you are saying, what if the plans were running late because of the inopportune appearance of Wilkins and the raising of the alarm couldn't be put off any longer?
It has been suggested that the alarm was raised earlier ( 9.30 ish), so that by 10, Gerry could be out 'searching', rather than sitting at the table.
Another possibility is that a false sighting was being staged to support the abduction senario.
All of the above is purely hypothetical and in no way implies that it is what happened.
-
While I agree with what you are saying, what if the plans were running late because of the inopportune appearance of Wilkins and the raising of the alarm couldn't be put off any longer?
It has been suggested that the alarm was raised earlier ( 9.30 ish), so that by 10, Gerry could be out 'searching', rather than sitting at the table.
Another possibility is that a false sighting was being staged to support the abduction senario.
All of the above is purely hypothetical and in no way implies that it is what happened.
I'm not sure what you mean by ''plans running late' Jassi - what drastic difference could a 5 min conversation with JW make to anything.
I think it's highly unlikely that the alarm was raised at 9.30 - as that means there would not have been time for all the courses of the meal to be served and eaten as they were. They didn't order until 9ish.
IMO the most important part of a plan to dispose of a childs body that night would be to make sure the person who did it had a rock solid alibi. And yet apparently according to some - there is no independent evidence that he was even with the others when the alarm was raised.
I simply do not believe that the alarm would be raised while Gerry was still out in PdL - with no-one knowing where he was - or if something had gone horribly wrong. That makes no sense at all to me.
Must dash now.
-
5 minutes could make all the difference between being present or absent by a particular time.
I'm not over-supportive of a 9 pm alarm, merely that time has been mentioned.
None of it makes sense, either to me or to countless millions.
-
After waiting 5 minutes at the Tapas table, not seing Mr McCann by the pool, she went to the flat where Mrs McCann was with the twins. She tried to lift the shutters from the outside (apparently a mania), which didn't prevent her to criticize the preservation of the crime scene by the police.. and stayed there 10 minutes. Then she went back to the Tapas, picked up items and went again to the flat where she saw, this time, Mr McCann.
Where does she say "not seing Mr McCann by the pool, she went to the flat where Mrs McCann was with the twins"?.
You really should stop doing this Anne, and altering to your own words!
- Therefore, she can only say with precision that, at 22.00 Kate McCann returned to the restaurant, seemingly in panic, communicating to others the fact that of Madeleine's disappearance. Asked about the reaction of other members of the group when they heard the above from KATE, the witness says that everyone, except the witness, left the restaurant and went to the apartment of the couple McCANN in order to find out what was going on.
In turn, as relates to her, the witness says she stayed at the restaurant for about five minutes, then, noting that the remaining members of the group had not returned, she followed in the direction of the apartment McCANN.
-She adds that that night, and after the occurrence of the facts under investigation, have been in the the apartment on two separate occasions. At the time described above she remained about 10 minutes in the apartment. After this time she returned to the restaurant to get her handbag as well as the camera of the couple McCANN and "baby monitor" of her daughter, and was soon back again in the apartment.
- The question being asked about the people that were inside the apartment of McCANN at that time, the witness said that the McCANN couple were present (although on the first occasion she had no recollection of having seen GERRY), and FIONA, not remembering any other people that were there. However, she admits the possibility of their being [others] inside the apartment, including David, in that, as mentioned above, all of them had gone to the apartment following the news that KATE had given.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm
-
Where does she say "not seing Mr McCann by the pool, she went to the flat where Mrs McCann was with the twins"?.
You really should stop doing this Anne, and altering to your own words!
- Therefore, she can only say with precision that, at 22.00 Kate McCann returned to the restaurant, seemingly in panic, communicating to others the fact that of Madeleine's disappearance. Asked about the reaction of other members of the group when they heard the above from KATE, the witness says that everyone, except the witness, left the restaurant and went to the apartment of the couple McCANN in order to find out what was going on.
In turn, as relates to her, the witness says she stayed at the restaurant for about five minutes, then, noting that the remaining members of the group had not returned, she followed in the direction of the apartment McCANN.
-She adds that that night, and after the occurrence of the facts under investigation, have been in the the apartment on two separate occasions. At the time described above she remained about 10 minutes in the apartment. After this time she returned to the restaurant to get her handbag as well as the camera of the couple McCANN and "baby monitor" of her daughter, and was soon back again in the apartment.
- The question being asked about the people that were inside the apartment of McCANN at that time, the witness said that the McCANN couple were present (although on the first occasion she had no recollection of having seen GERRY), and FIONA, not remembering any other people that were there. However, she admits the possibility of their being [others] inside the apartment, including David, in that, as mentioned above, all of them had gone to the apartment following the news that KATE had given.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm
Er... am I missing something? You've just exactly confirmed what Anne said and yet you're saying she was making things up. If she'd seen Gerry by the pool, she'd have mentioned it. She didn't.
-
Er... am I missing something? You've just exactly confirmed what Anne said and yet you're saying she was making things up. If she'd seen Gerry by the pool, she'd have mentioned it. She didn't.
And she didn't say, "not seing Mr McCann by the pool". Who is it complains about context?
What was wrong with quoting Diane's statement, in context?
-
This is probably a stupid question, but I can't find the answer, so I'll ask you guys.
Were Clare and Michael Sperrey ever interviewed? According to the Tapas booking forms they had a table for 9:00 pm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_608.jpg
-
And she didn't say, "not seing Mr McCann by the pool". Who is it complains about context?
What was wrong with quoting Diane's statement, in context?
Anne doesn't say she does say that! It's not a direct quote, she's just reporting on the movements of Dianne Webster and they exactly match what you've posted in statement form! One is first person, one is 3rd person.
-
I no longer have the energy to read the whole thread. If I am repeating, then I apologise.
Somewhere , I think in the tapas group statements, there is mention of the men and women getting straight up and running to apartment 5A after Kates alert at 10pm. I think it said that Gerry was in front of the group, then it gives the order of the others as they ran.
Sorry my eyes will not allow me to wade thru the statements again, to post an extract.
-
I no longer have the energy to read the whole thread. If I am repeating, then I apologise.
Somewhere , I think in the tapas group statements, there is mention of the men and women getting straight up and running to apartment 5A after Kates alert at 10pm. I think it said that Gerry was in front of the group, then it gives the order of the others as they ran.
Sorry my eyes will not allow me to wade thru the statements again, to post an extract.
I've not come across that.
What an odd thing for them to say. Almost like to much detail. Why should anybody be concerned over what order they left the table ?
-
If the Smith family did in fact see Gerry and Madeleine this had to be when Gerry told them to split up and go look for her i.e. during those first searches.
Fiona Payne:
1485 “So having got back from your search around the corner, did you go then straight into the McCANN’s?”
Reply “Yeah”.
1485 “What did you see when you walked in, describe it?”
Reply “At that point, Gerry, I don’t think was in the apartment, it was mainly Kate.
-
This is probably a stupid question, but I can't find the answer, so I'll ask you guys.
Were Clare and Michael Sperrey ever interviewed? According to the Tapas booking forms they had a table for 9:00 pm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_608.jpg
Sort of.
MICHAEL SPERREY
CLARE SPERREY
------ In the main reception (open 24h) of the Ocean Club, the signatory [undersigned] was able to observe a person with long hair, curly, blonde in colour, with camouflage shorts and green sweat-shirt, which fit the description of the suspect of the "Rastas", it being that I questioned the receptionist about him, who said that this individual and his wife are guests in the hotel and he has been tireless, since yesterday, in search of the missing girl. Attached are photocopies of their passports as well as the hotel registration form. ----------
[The very last paragraph of my translation of pages 121-125 in /PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm states that they are passport copies of the person identified as the man with 'Rasta' hairstyle, camouflage shorts and green sweat-shirt (taken to be the person seen by Jez Wilkins per his witness statement), and his wife. They were resort guests. I have no reference to a formal witness statement from them on file, merely the above identification to eliminate them from the inquiry.]
Signature of official: Duarte F**** - Inspector
And thats ya lot! I wonder why it was in this list?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm#sperrey
-
While I agree with what you are saying, what if the plans were running late because of the inopportune appearance of Wilkins and the raising of the alarm couldn't be put off any longer?
It has been suggested that the alarm was raised earlier ( 9.30 ish), so that by 10, Gerry could be out 'searching', rather than sitting at the table.
Another possibility is that a false sighting was being staged to support the abduction senario.
All of the above is purely hypothetical and in no way implies that it is what happened.
How could they eaten their main meals by 9.30?
The waiter said they were all seated by about quarter to nine. He brought the wine and then they would have ordered a starter they give them about 30 minutes for the starter then they bring the meal.
-
How could they eaten their main meals by 9.30?
The waiter said they were all seated by about quarter to nine. He brought the wine and then they would have ordered a starter they give them about 30 minutes for the starter then they bring the meal.
How do you KNOW this Lace? Have you evidence for how long they leave it or are you just guessing?
-
At the end of the day nobody knows except for the parents if Madeleine was still in the apartment before the McCann's left for the tapas bar at 8.35pm. Did they leave that back sliding patio door unlocked all week or only on the night Madeleine went missing? Kate talked about it being left unlocked with Fiona at the meal.
-
How do you KNOW this Lace? Have you evidence for how long they leave it or are you just guessing?
No not guessing it's from the waiters statement -
Questioned, he affirms that the group would normally consist of nine people (including Madeleine's parents), and would normally dine around 20H30 and 20H40. They would not all arrive at once and before they all arrived, some would have cocktails. On the day of the disappearance, all were seated at the table between 20H35 and 20H45. He remembers them arriving as usual. Had they arrived late, this would have been noted by the staff. He does not remember if they were served cocktails. When they were all together, the group sat at the table, he took their orders, including the starters. As already mentioned, on this occasion, he would immediately take two white and two red bottles of wine and one bottle of water to the table. Their main courses would normally be ready 25 to 30 minutes after their order—a time they used to consume the starters. After starters, the group would normally spend about 15 minutes finishing the main course. Generally, during dinner, he would serve four bottles of wine (two white and two red), which the group completely consumed. On that day, he did not serve any more wine. It was also normal for certain members of the group to order dessert. After this, they would normally stay at the table until after 23H00 but would always leave before 00H00, the time when the bar closed. One or more of them, on another night, asked for an after-dinner drink. He remembers this clearly because they asked for Amareto and the bar did not stock it.
-
On that basis they could have finished their mains by 9:30.
All seated at 8:35 (or 8:45), order food, mains ready 25 (or 30) mins later. Mains finished 15 mins later.
So if the order was simple then the whole meal could have been finished by 9:15 or 9:25
In the statements various people tell you when the meals arrived and were eaten.
No doubt there will be some variability in memories. Some of the checks are arranged around the meal about to arrive ... sort of thing ... but it is there, in the statements, if you are wanting it. Might be Matts statement, not sure
IIRC, for intance, Jane gobbled her meal and went to relieve Russell so that he could have a meal ... and was that at 9.45? Needs checking.
Sorry but I have been bashed up and my eyesight will no longer allow me to wade thru all the statements.
-
On that basis they could have finished their mains by 9:30.
All seated at 8:35 (or 8:45), order food, mains ready 25 (or 30) mins later. Mains finished 15 mins later.
So if the order was simple then the whole meal could have been finished by 9:15 or 9:25
IIRC correctly the Paynes were even later than usual - and Russell(?) passed them making their way down to the restaurant on his way back to the apartment not long before 9.00. In fact didn't he set off with the aim of hurrying them up - but after they passed him - he decided that as he was half way there, to carry on and make a check. It was on the way back that he listened outside 5A window He was a bit put out when Gerry decided to do a check so quickly afterwards - as it seemed as if he didn't trust him - but then he realised that Gerry wanted to do an inside check.
IMO That would seem to indicate dinner didn't begin until at least 9.00p.m.
All from memory - so I'm happy to be corrected if necessary.
-
On that basis they could have finished their mains by 9:30.
All seated at 8:35 (or 8:45), order food, mains ready 25 (or 30) mins later. Mains finished 15 mins later.
So if the order was simple then the whole meal could have been finished by 9:15 or 9:25
You need to add on the time it took for the waiter to get the wine. Then take their orders.
Then they would wait for the starter to come.
Then it would take half an hour to eat the starter.
Then they would come and clear the table.
Then they would wait for the main meal.
Then the main meal would take roughly fifteen minutes.
-
Dianne Webster says they were late sitting down for the meal -
Reply ”Well we arrived about, I don’t know, ten to nine, five to nine, which was very late. Err and the thing that I didn’t mention at the original err interview in Portugal was that I do vaguely remember seeing Matt, he was coming up because I think he made some joke about coming up to see where we were because we were so late, but he was actually on his way to check err check the children.”
-
Dianne Webster says they were late sitting down for the meal -
Reply ”Well we arrived about, I don’t know, ten to nine, five to nine, which was very late. Err and the thing that I didn’t mention at the original err interview in Portugal was that I do vaguely remember seeing Matt, he was coming up because I think he made some joke about coming up to see where we were because we were so late, but he was actually on his way to check err check the children.”
Maybe doing her an injustice, but her statement sounds as if it is being adjusted to fit more closely with that of others.
-
Maybe doing her an injustice, but her statement sounds as if it is being adjusted to fit more closely with that of others.
Dianne Webster police statement 4.5.2007 -
They left the apartment at around 8.45 and accompanied by her son-in-law and her daughter, they went to join the rest of the group at the "TAPAS" restaurant. The McCann couple were amongst the other friends at dinner. To our question, the informant told us that given that her daughter had an intercom allowing them to hear if the children were shouting or crying, no one went to check on the spot. However, she reported that Kate and Gerald as well as other couples went a few times, on a regular basis, to make sure their children were OK.
-
Do you think she means that Kate & Gerry went a few times, as that is untrue -they only went once each, by their own admission. Or is she meaning that in total people, went a few times ? The latter may be what she means, but isn't what she says.
-
Sort of.
MICHAEL SPERREY
CLARE SPERREY
------ In the main reception (open 24h) of the Ocean Club, the signatory [undersigned] was able to observe a person with long hair, curly, blonde in colour, with camouflage shorts and green sweat-shirt, which fit the description of the suspect of the "Rastas", it being that I questioned the receptionist about him, who said that this individual and his wife are guests in the hotel and he has been tireless, since yesterday, in search of the missing girl. Attached are photocopies of their passports as well as the hotel registration form. ----------
[The very last paragraph of my translation of pages 121-125 in /PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm states that they are passport copies of the person identified as the man with 'Rasta' hairstyle, camouflage shorts and green sweat-shirt (taken to be the person seen by Jez Wilkins per his witness statement), and his wife. They were resort guests. I have no reference to a formal witness statement from them on file, merely the above identification to eliminate them from the inquiry.]
Signature of official: Duarte F**** - Inspector
And thats ya lot! I wonder why it was in this list?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm#sperrey
Thank you DCI. I wonder why they weren't questioned about who was in the tapas bar?
-
Dianne Webster says they were late sitting down for the meal -
Reply ”Well we arrived about, I don’t know, ten to nine, five to nine, which was very late. Err and the thing that I didn’t mention at the original err interview in Portugal was that I do vaguely remember seeing Matt, he was coming up because I think he made some joke about coming up to see where we were because we were so late, but he was actually on his way to check err check the children.”
she also said this:
Asked, she adds that she went to the restaurant in the company of her daughter and son-in-law.
- Asked directly if someone had gone to her apartment to call them (herself and the PAYNE couple) for dinner the witness said no.
- Asked if there was the possibility of having crossed paths with someone during the journey between her apartment and restaurant, the witness said no.
- That night she judges to have arrived at the restaurant close to 21:00, in the company of the PAYNE couple.
-
Could it simply be that they left much earlier and so didn't have any information to offer.
I imagine that statements were only taken from those with relevant information, though the police would have spoken to many others.
-
she also said this:
Asked, she adds that she went to the restaurant in the company of her daughter and son-in-law.
- Asked directly if someone had gone to her apartment to call them (herself and the PAYNE couple) for dinner the witness said no.
- Asked if there was the possibility of having crossed paths with someone during the journey between her apartment and restaurant, the witness said no.
- That night she judges to have arrived at the restaurant close to 21:00, in the company of the PAYNE couple.
Yes, Mrs Webster's memory changed between her 2 statements to the PJ and the rogatory interview almost one year after.
-
Do you think she means that Kate & Gerry went a few times, as that is untrue -they only went once each, by their own admission. Or is she meaning that in total people, went a few times ? The latter may be what she means, but isn't what she says.
They were only away for a total of one and half hours - some of them even less than that - so there wasn't time to go that often. The McCann children were checked every half an hour, and I believe JT's children's checks were nearer to l5 mins apart.
-
They were only away for a total of one and half hours - some of them even less than that - so there wasn't time to go that often. The McCann children were checked every half an hour, and I believe JT's children's checks were nearer to l5 mins apart.
I know when the checks were. I was querying what Webster actually meant in her statement - who went several times ? She seems to imply McCanns, but we know they only went twice, not several times.
-
I know when the checks were. I was querying what Webster actually meant in her statement - who went several times ? She seems to imply McCanns, but we know they only went twice, not several times.
IIRC Diane Webster says a couple of times in her statements that she wasn't there to keep note of what others were doing - so she wasn't taking that much notice. IMO I presume she was aware people were checking, and it was simply her impression that people came and went several times. Why do you ask Jassi? (Just curious)
-
I know when the checks were. I was querying what Webster actually meant in her statement - who went several times ? She seems to imply McCanns, but we know they only went twice, not several times.
Kate's would have been the third. They were still checked in between Gerry and Kate, by Mathew!
-
IIRC Diane Webster says a couple of times in her statements that she wasn't there to keep note of what others were doing - so she wasn't taking that much notice. IMO I presume she was aware people were checking, and it was simply her impression that people came and went several times. Why do you ask Jassi? (Just curious)
I just found that sentence in her statement (reproduced higher up this page) ambiguous and wondered what others thought she meant.
I recognise it might just be a translation thing as this was her statement to the PJ.
-
quote Lace That is why Andy Redwood is saying that Kate probably missed the abductor by minutes. Or are they wrong?
I read this in the media..I never once heard Redwood say this.
Apologies, yes your right Andy Redwood didn't say it, I read it in the news.
It was in reply to C. Edwards who was questioning the time of the Smith's sighting, Andy Redwood does say the Smith's sighting was at 10 o'clock, meaning that Kate would have just missed the abductor by minutes when she did her check -
But this has been found not to involve Madeleine.
The revelation has shifted detectives' focus on to a later sighting at 10pm when an Irish family reported seeing a man walking towards the beach carrying a blonde girl in pyjamas.
She appeared to be in an uncomfortable position with her head slumped against him.
DCI Redwood said: 'Our focus in terms of understanding what happened on the night of May 3 has now given us a shift of emphasis. We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor.
'It takes us through to a position at 10pm when we see another man who is walking towards the ocean, close by to the apartment, with a young child in his arms.'
Today it was revealed the police may have made a major breakthrough in the hunt for Madeleine after more than 1,000 people came forward with fresh information and several named the same man as the prime suspect.
The three-year-old's disappearance was reconstructed in a dramatic BBC Crimewatch appeal last night and Scotland Yard has today hailed a 'truly unprecedented' response.
Detectives believe a suspect seen carrying a child 500 yards from the McCanns' holiday apartment was the kidnapper who struck just before her mother went to check on her children.
-
According to statements Gerry claimed he left the table at 9.05 approx. and there was no claim he was away for 30 minutes. This man who left for 30 mins at 9.30 was ROB, wasn't it the time he and JT were swapping childcare duties?
only catching up today, sorry if I have misunderstood posts. I think I have read that the statement of Svetlana is leading you to conclude this was G? if so I think she was mistaken and saw ROB leave.
Yes, you are correct jeanne darc, I have edited both posts to reflect this.
-
I just found that sentence in her statement (reproduced higher up this page) ambiguous and wondered what others thought she meant.
I recognise it might just be a translation thing as this was her statement to the PJ.
Oh right. Thanks for that.
-
They were only away for a total of one and half hours - some of them even less than that
Generally, they left the Tapas at 23h30/midnight, at times together and at other times in small groups. On the night in which they drank more than usual, they left a bit later, perhaps towards 00h30-01h00.
05 Page 22 to 24
-
Apologies, yes your right Andy Redwood didn't say it, I read it in the news.
It was in reply to C. Edwards who was questioning the time of the Smith's sighting, Andy Redwood does say the Smith's sighting was at 10 o'clock, meaning that Kate would have just missed the abductor by minutes when she did her check -
But this has been found not to involve Madeleine.
The revelation has shifted detectives' focus on to a later sighting at 10pm when an Irish family reported seeing a man walking towards the beach carrying a blonde girl in pyjamas.
She appeared to be in an uncomfortable position with her head slumped against him.
DCI Redwood said: 'Our focus in terms of understanding what happened on the night of May 3 has now given us a shift of emphasis. We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor. Amazing how quickly you/they shift positions. Until this show, Tanner's man was the abductor.
'It takes us through to a position at 10pm when we see another man who is walking towards the ocean, close by to the apartment, with a young child in his arms.'
Today it was revealed the police may have made a major breakthrough in the hunt for Madeleine after more than 1,000 people came forward with fresh information and several named the same man as the prime suspect. But the witness that unraveled that new target was peremptory at stating that it was when seeing Gerry McCann descending the plane, after escaping from Portugal as arguidos, that clicked in his memory that the man he saw was none other than Mr. McCann himself
The three-year-old's disappearance was reconstructed in a dramatic BBC Crimewatch appeal last night and Scotland Yard has today hailed a 'truly unprecedented' response.
Detectives believe a suspect seen carrying a child 500 yards from the McCanns' holiday apartment was the kidnapper who struck just before her mother went to check on her children.
I bet that 80 or 90%, minimum, of the calls named one person they wished had never been named.
-
Generally, they left the Tapas at 23h30/midnight, at times together and at other times in small groups. On the night in which they drank more than usual, they left a bit later, perhaps towards 00h30-01h00.
05 Page 22 to 24
That quote Anne doesn't mention it was the McCann's who left a bit later, I think the waiter was talking about the group in general, some stayed some didn't.
-
That quote Anne doesn't mention it was the McCann's who left a bit later, I think the waiter was talking about the group in general, some stayed some didn't.
Yes, Lace. They didn't behave like a tourist group.
-
I bet that 80 or 90%, minimum, of the calls named one person they wished had never been named.
I wonder if that appeal will not produce more damage than profit. One e-fit is supposed to correct the other. Is it possible to combine both and have a reasonable idea of the person behind ?
-
Yes, Lace. They didn't behave like a tourist group.
How does a tourist group behave Anne? In your experience.
-
Those first searches for Madeleine at 10pm are important. Where did everyone go searching? They all split up. How long did they search for on the streets? What time were people getting back to the apartment? The police received first phone call at 10.40pm?
-
They certainly didn't all search. The women were concerned with looking after the remaining children and at least one man was detailed to deal with the police when they arrived, so possibly 3 or 4 did any physical searching.
-
Did all the men go searching the streets?
-
Did all the men go searching the streets?
In her book Kate says that Gerry, David, Russell and Mathew split into pairs and dashed around the adjacent apartment blocks, meeting back at their flat within a couple of minutes
I don't think much searching of the streets could have been done in less than two minutes
Whether or not they searched the streets at some point after that, Kate does not mention ( it might be in the rogatory interviews ) but going by Kate's book it appears that Gerry stayed in the apartment until some time after 10.35pm when she says he was 'running from pillar to post'
She adds that sometime after they had moved the children into Fiona's apartment ( some time after 3.00am ) she 'insisted' that Gerry and Dave go out again to look for some sign of Madeleine and that they went up and down the beach in the dark, running, shouting, desperate to find something
-
David Payne: "I did a sweep of the err the pool err and the area you know immediately around err the Ocean Club, then met up with Matt and err Russell and you know I remember saying right what, you know, what we gonna do and Matt was saying right we’ve gotta try and be you know systematic here err you know, right if you, you want to go off in that area and I’ll go down to the Ocean Club reception and you know ask them to call the Police and so you know I, I started venturing up towards the err Millennium where we’d eaten and it was just so quiet and there was nothing going on that way and I just thought oh you know, and I again I was just building up hope that she’d ran off err you know I actually went on a search and I went down past the Supermarket, I went down towards the err seafront, you know went along the whole length of the err beach looking under you know err beach huts and etcetera, just you know and shouting Madeleine, any people that we saw we explained,"
Mathew Oldfield: "I went, because I was on my own, I went back up to the, erm, to the apartment and it was just obvious that she wasn't in the apartment, but we were still sort of just milling about on the street, everybody was just running around just sort of trying to, you know, sort of search nearby roads. And so we, erm, I volunteered to go up to the, erm, I went up to the Millennium Restaurant because it was just one of the routes that I thought she might have taken, although I couldn't say why I thought she would because we'd only been there once on that night before and maybe she'd been for the restaurant, so we'd only been at the initial welcoming, that was the only time that we went for that meal in the evening because the food wasn't great there, it wasn't quite up to the MARK WARNER resorts of, but anyway, so we did other things and that's why we liked the Tapas, so there was no reason really why she'd have gone up there, but it was a, just a different route. So a lot of it in terms of timing is blurred, but up and onto the top road to the Millennium Restaurant, which is pretty much you come up and along this road for about sort of five or ten minutes and sort of this end of town, let them know that a little girl was missing and then gone back through the back streets, down on the beach and then back to the apartment. "
Russell O'Brien: " I then conducted a quick search of the immediate area with Matt, Dave and possibly Gerry. We searched a cul-de-sac area which I would describe as being a passage way at the front of the block on the car park side. We went on to search the gardens and patios. Then we went downhill towards the centre. On the second search we went to the shopping centre and then towards the tennis courts. We searched around the back of the tennis courts.
On my way back I bumped into Dave he said to me this is bad this is really bad they’ve not found her. We searched down to the beach I searched the East side, and Matt and Dave the West side. We went back to 5A it was clear that panic was setting in Gerry was on the phone to a family member back home."
No mention of Gerry searching with the others except for Russell which is possibly with Gerry? What time on the phone records was Gerry phoning a family member?
-
Mrs Payne says they left the McCanns at the bottom of the stairs and the men and herself split in a quick search around.
But Mrs McCann, according to Mrs Webster, was alone in the flat when she went there, five minutes after the alarm.
-
Just caught up with 46 pages - which seems to have went nowhere
The only point I would make - is that in any investigation of this type - I would have thought that placing the three suspects at the time exact movements - and I mean exact would have been one of the most important lines of the investigation - I mean critical - along side forensics .
Are we really to believe that the PJ really didn't nail this point down . They might not have a lot to go on without a body or forensics - but at least they can without doubt have the time line and where the chief suspects are down to minutes
I know that witnesses do not always give the same answer to the same question - ie show two people a scene and you will get different answers the next day BUT
I just cannot believe that the PJ would not have exhausted all the fac ts about where Gerry was at the critical time of 9.15 - 10.15
If his whereabouts was so vague - why on earth would the final report state they knew where he was at the critical time - IF the PJ can get such a critical fact wrong it just beggars belief
I appreciate the timeline was fluid at the time - but come on - whatever Amaral and his team might be - they were not completely incompetent to this extent
They would have spoken face to face with all the staff directly . If a hole that big in a time line such as Gerry being missing long enough to disappear and hide a body that never ever was found - I I just don't get it
-
Just caught up with 46 pages - which seems to have went nowhere
The only point I would make - is that in any investigation of this type - I would have thought that placing the three suspects at the time exact movements - and I mean exact would have been one of the most important lines of the investigation - I mean critical - along side forensics .
Are we really to believe that the PJ really didn't nail this point down . They might not have a lot to go on without a body or forensics - but at least they can without doubt have the time line and where the chief suspects are down to minutes
I know that witnesses do not always give the same answer to the same question - ie show two people a scene and you will get different answers the next day BUT
I just cannot believe that the PJ would not have exhausted all the fac ts about where Gerry was at the critical time of 9.15 - 10.15
If his whereabouts was so vague - why on earth would the final report state they knew where he was at the critical time - IF the PJ can get such a critical fact wrong it just beggars belief
I appreciate the timeline was fluid at the time - but come on - whatever Amaral and his team might be - they were not completely incompetent to this extent
They would have spoken face to face with all the staff directly . If a hole that big in a time line such as Gerry being missing long enough to disappear and hide a body that never ever was found - I I just don't get it
"I know that witnesses do not always give the same answer to the same question - ie show two people a scene and you will get different answers the next day BUT
I just cannot believe that the PJ would not have exhausted all the fac ts about where Gerry was at the critical time of 9.15 - 10.15"
Thats part of the reason why they were asked to take part in a reconstitution
-
"I know that witnesses do not always give the same answer to the same question - ie show two people a scene and you will get different answers the next day BUT
I just cannot believe that the PJ would not have exhausted all the fac ts about where Gerry was at the critical time of 9.15 - 10.15"
Thats part of the reason why they were asked to take part in a reconstitution
sure I get that - but come on the PJ cant say oh the suspects didn't do a reconstruction so really are at a bit of a loss
They must have gone through all statements and timelines in intimate detail in the incident room - I mean thats what police do - don't they - they are the closest to everything - surely they didn't have to wait for a reconstruction to help them
It seems to me that sometime this reconstruction is held up as the reason / blame for everything to do with this case
-
sure I get that - but come on the PJ cant say oh the suspects didn't do a reconstruction so really are at a bit of a loss
They must have gone through all statements and timelines in intimate detail in the incident room - I mean that's what police do - don't they - they are the closest to everything - surely they didn't have to wait for a reconstruction to help them
It seems to me that sometime this reconstruction is held up as the reason / blame for everything to do with this case
Kate & Gerry couldn't even specify what door was locked,which door they walked in or out of, which shutters were open or closed or indeed wether Madeleine was in her bed or on it.
Their statements contradict each other in various places, the McCanns & their group misled the PJ, trying to untangle the truth from their lies is a difficult task. No one has managed it yet.
-
If the PJ had done a reconstruction using substitutes, they would have always been open to the charge that they had done it wrong and misunderstood what had been said in statements.
Look at how details were fleshed out and altered in the rogatory statements compared with the original statements.
Only by having the Tapas people on the spot could they have demonstrated what was and was not possible in the events of that evening.
-
If the PJ had done a reconstruction using substitutes, they would have always been open to the charge that they had done it wrong and misunderstood what had been said in statements.
Look at how details were fleshed out and altered in the rogatory statements compared with the original statements.
Only by having the Tapas people on the spot could they have demonstrated what was and was not possible in the events of that evening.
How could anyone, actors or the group and Jez Wilkins carry out an accurate reconstruction when apart from Gerry, they could only give approximate times of their movements. JW said he spoke to Gerry for between 3 to 5 mins. So which time would he 'reconstruct' - 3 minutes? 4 minutes? or 5 minutes?
All the others have the same problem except for Gerry who knew that it was 9.04 when he left to make a check. IMO it simply isn't possible for 10 people to guarantee an accurate physical reproduction of their movements that night by way of a reconstruction. The only one who could be certain he was leaving the table at the same time as he did on the 3rd May was Gerry at 9.04.
However, SY have conducted a forensic analysis of the timelines and are satisfied that there was clearly opportunity there for Madeleine to have been removed from 5A. So the absence of a physical recon is not a problem as far as SY are concerned.
-
Where are the police interviews with Gerry McCann? I can't find them at the mccannfiles.com
-
Where are the police interviews with Gerry McCann? I can't find them at the mccannfiles.com
Go to the top of this forum, click on reports and documents, click on official police files, click on the link which gives all statements alphabetically with clickable links
Ps you were asking where Jez stayed, he was in block G4, the one to the left here, G5 on the right is where the Mccanns stayed
Second picture of post at 6.49 pm
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic179-10.html
He says in his statement his flat was about 50 metres away from theirs
-
Thanks. I will start here on the Gerry McCann statement:
Immediately the group rapidly went to the club, "searched all the accommodations/lodgings, swimming pool, tennis courts, etc. and the apartment, with the help of staff "at the same time that they contacted the authorities who would come to put in an appearance."
At the same time they contacted the authorities? Does he mean the police who were contacted at 10.40pm? Quite a bit later than 10pm when the searching began.
-
that's why you interview again and again until the most realistic facts emerge - If someone is mistaken you check .It is how you pick up discrepancies and then lies - it is how cases are broken
So we are left to believe that the PJ got a whole load of discrepancies from the major players and some weak statements from the staff that would allow at least a half hour window where no one knew where Gerry was and it was just either left hanging and then they decided to just tidy up the final report anyway
doesn't seem right to me - they must have been a lot clearer on the movements than that
-
Kate & Gerry couldn't even specify what door was locked,which door they walked in or out of, which shutters were open or closed or indeed wether Madeleine was in her bed or on it.
Their statements contradict each other in various places, the McCanns & their group misled the PJ, trying to untangle the truth from their lies is a difficult task. No one has managed it yet.
Exactly. So why would anyone rely on Gerry and Kates' accounts of the degrees to which an internal door was ajar at various stages of the evening on which to construct a theory about the timeline? There's nothing to go on.
-
Fiona Payne said Gerry wasn't there when she arrived to see Kate in the apartment at around 10.05pm. Gerry was outside. So who else had seen him at this time? Going from the other 3 Dave, Matt and Russell - only Russell who said possibly he was which is I don't know. Those 3 got together and went searching.
-
Aoife Smith:
Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.
— Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left because her father and her brother decided to leave early that night. There were two reasons for this: one was the fact that her sister-in-law was not feeling very well and the other was because her brother, sister-in-law, nephew and son of her sister-in-law finished their holiday the next day and had to catch the morning flight returning to Ireland.
— Upon leaving the bar, they turned right and headed along the road for 40/50 metres. At this point, they again turned to the right and ascended a small street with stairs that give access to Rua 25 de Abril. As they were a large group (four adults and five children) they travelled apart from each other along the street with some more to the front and the others more behind. She does not remember how they were divided [who was where].
— The deponent remembers that upon reaching the top of the stairs, she looked to her left and saw a man (1) with a female child (2) in his arms, walking along the pavement of Rua 25 de Abril. He was walking in her direction at a distance of, give or take, two metres.
— The deponent crossed to the other side of Rua 25 de Abril and began walking up Rua da Escola Primária in the direction of the Estrela da Luz apartment complex.
— She did not see if the referenced individual with the child descended Rua das Escadinhas or if he continued along Rua 25 de Abril.
— It was the first time she saw that man. She does not remember seeing him at any time in any location.
— She has seen photographs of Madeleine McCann and thinks that it could have been her. Asked, she said she was 60% certain.
— The individual's gait was normal, between a fast walk and a run. He did not look tired, moving in a manner usual when one carries a child.
— (2) the child was female because she had straight long hair to the neck. The colour was fair/light brown.
— She is certain that the child was about four years old because her niece (who was in the group) is of the same age and they were the same size.
— She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the individual's neck. She did not look at the child's hands and cannot state the colour of her skin. She believes she was white.
— There was nothing covering the child, a comforter/blanket or any other piece of clothing but she only saw her back.
— She was wearing light trousers, white or light pink, that may have been pyjamas. She does not remember if they were patterned as it was dark. The material was lightweight/thin and could have been cotton.
— She also had a light top, with long sleeves. She did not see it well because the individual had his arms around the child. She is not sure if the child's top was the same colour as her trousers, saying only that it was very light. The fabric was the same as the trousers.
— Questioned regarding the shoes, she responded that she did not remember seeing any shoes, not remembering if the child had any or not.
-
Statement from: Emma Louise KNIGHT
Occupation: Hotel Manager
Date: 30th April 2008
At about 22.17 I received a call from Lyndsey Johnson, the creche Manager, informing me that the girl had gone missing. I met Lyndsey and the Service Manager, Amy Tierney, near to the Tapas Bar and we initiated the 'Mark Warner procedures for the search of a missing child'.
I was told who the missing girl was and at the beginning of the procedure went to the McCann's apartment to obtain the girl's description and of the clothes she was wearing when she disappeared. When I arrived at the apartment, there was a lady on the terrace, whom I now know to be Kate McCann, accompanied by the wife of one of her friends, David Payne. Kate could not say a word, looked very upset and about to cry. It was Mrs Payne who provided me with the details that I needed.
I returned to the location where the leaflets were being distributed and passed on the information that I had gathered about the missing girl. Lyndsey was busy with the distribution of the leaflets and I went to search in the beach area. On my return I passed by the Duke Pub where I met other members of staff who also joined in the searches.
The hotel manager, John Hill arrived at the location from which the searches were being organised and I can confirm that he called the police. John stayed at the location and I several times went to search the grounds. I went with Amy and we searched the highest part of the complex behind the apartments. The search lasted for about 10 minutes and then we returned. At that moment John asked me to go to the apartment the girl had disappeared from and, on behalf of Mark Warner, provide all the help the family might need.
I went to the McCann's apartment, entered by the patio doors and introduced myself to Kate and Mrs Payne. I entered the apartment living room and Kate and Mrs Payne stayed in the main bedroom, from where I could hear them both crying.
The twins were still asleep in the children's bedroom and the door was half open.
A short while later, Gerry returned to the apartment accompanied by Russell. They also entered by the patio doors.
-
If Gerry was outside searching from 10pm then it would be foolish to rule him out of the Smith family sighting? Aoife Smith said they left Kelly's bar at 10pm and was sure on the time so that would conclude that they passed the suspect after 10pm. Those 5 mins here and there at around 10pm could be crucial to the investigation.
-
If Gerry was outside searching from 10pm then it would be foolish to rule him out of the Smith family sighting? Aoife Smith said they left Kelly's bar at 10pm and was sure on the time so that would conclude that they passed the suspect after 10pm. Those 5 mins here and there at around 10pm could be crucial to the investigation.
It would surely only take 5 minutes to walk from the apartment to the location of Smithman.
-
Statement from: Emma Louise KNIGHT
Occupation: Hotel Manager
Date: 30th April 2008
At about 22.17 I received a call from Lyndsey Johnson, the creche Manager, informing me that the girl had gone missing. I met Lyndsey and the Service Manager, Amy Tierney, near to the Tapas Bar and we initiated the 'Mark Warner procedures for the search of a missing child'.
I was told who the missing girl was and at the beginning of the procedure went to the McCann's apartment to obtain the girl's description and of the clothes she was wearing when she disappeared. When I arrived at the apartment, there was a lady on the terrace, whom I now know to be Kate McCann, accompanied by the wife of one of her friends, David Payne. Kate could not say a word, looked very upset and about to cry. It was Mrs Payne who provided me with the details that I needed.
I returned to the location where the leaflets were being distributed and passed on the information that I had gathered about the missing girl. Lyndsey was busy with the distribution of the leaflets and I went to search in the beach area. On my return I passed by the Duke Pub where I met other members of staff who also joined in the searches.
The hotel manager, John Hill arrived at the location from which the searches were being organised and I can confirm that he called the police. John stayed at the location and I several times went to search the grounds. I went with Amy and we searched the highest part of the complex behind the apartments. The search lasted for about 10 minutes and then we returned. At that moment John asked me to go to the apartment the girl had disappeared from and, on behalf of Mark Warner, provide all the help the family might need.
I went to the McCann's apartment, entered by the patio doors and introduced myself to Kate and Mrs Payne. I entered the apartment living room and Kate and Mrs Payne stayed in the main bedroom, from where I could hear them both crying.
The twins were still asleep in the children's bedroom and the door was half open.
A short while later, Gerry returned to the apartment accompanied by Russell. They also entered by the patio doors.
Thank you for this pathfinder. So Fiona Payne knew what Madeleine was wearing around ten o'clock, Tanner told Payne she had seen a man carrying a child around this time yet the two did not compare what they knew to at least eliminate Tanner's sighting as being Madeleine. Does that sound believable to you ?
-
It would surely only take 5 minutes to walk from the apartment to the location of Smithman.
Less, I did it and it took me 3 minutes.
-
Thank you for this pathfinder. So Fiona Payne knew what Madeleine was wearing around ten o'clock, Tanner told Payne she had seen a man carrying a child around this time yet the two did not compare what they knew to at least eliminate Tanner's sighting as being Madeleine. Does that sound believable to you ?
I presume Fiona would have got the details from Kate. As Fiona wasn't there when Jane told Rachel.
I believe, gerry was present when Jane told the GNR?
Rachael Mampilly interview at Leicestershire Police Headquarters – part I/III
01.19.48 1578 'So what time did Jane tell you this''
Reply 'It must have been about, erm ten past ten or something, quarter past ten I guess'.
1578 'And whereabouts did she tell you''
Reply 'We were just outside her apartment but there was like a space between the apartments, erm sort of courtyard-y bit'.
1578 'From the car park entrance or the pool side''
Reply 'Yeah, no the car park entrance'.
1578 'And who was present when she was telling you this''
Reply 'No just me, just me, cos erm Fi was with Kate and, and Gerry and, well with Kate and Gerry I think and all the boys were sort of, had started to look around and started to, Matt had gone to the Police Station to, no gone to the Ocean Club to phone the Police'.
1578 'What was Janes demeanour when she was telling you this''
Reply 'Erm she was quite shocked, well we were kind of bit puzzled, cos we thought well you know, could it really have been cos Gerry had just been in, erm but it was a bit of a sort of Jane was like, everybody gob smacked really that you know, she could well have seen Madeleine, erm but we did, you know we, we didn't have this discussion about whether it could have been just because of the sort of time of Gerry going in and him standing outside talking to Jez and you know, it would have been, somebody would have had to you know, sort of be very quick, or have been in the room when Gerry had gone in, we didn't talk about that at that time but, you know afterwards, erm obviously that was, I think we kept, yeah I mean we basically came to the conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room when Gerry had gone in to check'.
01.21.46 1578 'Okay'.
Reply 'So anyway Jane and I you know talked about that and, and then I can't remember whether she told, I think she told Fiona then, erm I mean basically you know as soon as the Police arrived, she told, she told the Police'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
-
Less, I did it and it took me 3 minutes.
Wow Anne you did it 2 minutes quicker than Pat Brown. Didn't you have your picture taken, doing that walk?
-
(well with Kate and Gerry I think and all the boys were sort of, had started to look around.)
That vague statement doesn't mean Gerry was there. He wasn't at 10.05pm according to Fiona Payne when she went to the apartment to see Kate. And he wasn't there when Emma Knight arrived at the apartment at around 10.20pm. Emma spoke to Fiona with Kate being with her, no mention of Gerry. All the men were out searching for Madeleine.
-
I presume Fiona would have got the details from Kate. As Fiona wasn't there when Jane told Rachel.
I believe, gerry was present when Jane told the GNR?
Rachael Mampilly interview at Leicestershire Police Headquarters – part I/III
01.19.48 1578 'So what time did Jane tell you this''
Reply 'It must have been about, erm ten past ten or something, quarter past ten I guess'.
1578 'And whereabouts did she tell you''
Reply 'We were just outside her apartment but there was like a space between the apartments, erm sort of courtyard-y bit'.
1578 'From the car park entrance or the pool side''
Reply 'Yeah, no the car park entrance'.
1578 'And who was present when she was telling you this''
Reply 'No just me, just me, cos erm Fi was with Kate and, and Gerry and, well with Kate and Gerry I think and all the boys were sort of, had started to look around and started to, Matt had gone to the Police Station to, no gone to the Ocean Club to phone the Police'.
1578 'What was Janes demeanour when she was telling you this''
Reply 'Erm she was quite shocked, well we were kind of bit puzzled, cos we thought well you know, could it really have been cos Gerry had just been in, erm but it was a bit of a sort of Jane was like, everybody gob smacked really that you know, she could well have seen Madeleine, erm but we did, you know we, we didn't have this discussion about whether it could have been just because of the sort of time of Gerry going in and him standing outside talking to Jez and you know, it would have been, somebody would have had to you know, sort of be very quick, or have been in the room when Gerry had gone in, we didn't talk about that at that time but, you know afterwards, erm obviously that was, I think we kept, yeah I mean we basically came to the conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room when Gerry had gone in to check'.
01.21.46 1578 'Okay'.
Reply 'So anyway Jane and I you know talked about that and, and then I can't remember whether she told, I think she told Fiona then, erm I mean basically you know as soon as the Police arrived, she told, she told the Police'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Even if Tanner hadn't said this in her May 4th statement :
"As regards these details, she does not know what Madeleine was wearing at the moment of her disappearance, because she did not talk to anyone about this. As she concerns the man she saw, she only spoke to Gerald about this, not entering into details, and to the police."
There was still time for Tanner to speak to Payne of the disappearance before the crèche staff arrived.
-
Less, I did it and it took me 3 minutes.
Were you carrying a 30lb weight in your arms Anne?
-
Were you carrying a 30lb weight in your arms Anne?
Nah! Just a back pack @)(++(*
-
Muscle's strength is the privilege of men. Women are left with subtlety.
-
Muscle's strength is the privilege of men. Women are left with subtlety.
And a lot more besides.
In the famous words of Ginger Rogers regarding dancing with Fred Astaire: 'I do everything he does, except backwards and in high heels.'
-
And a lot more besides.
In the famous words of Ginger Rogers regarding dancing with Fred Astaire: 'I do everything he does, except backwards and in high heels.'
?{)(**
-
Just to put this thread back where it belongs and to make it easy for gilet to find and post this (probably non-existent) evidence on the right thread.
The floor's yours gilet. I've posted the statement of an independent witness saying the alarm was raised at 21:20 and no-one was at the pool at 22:00.
-
I just heard a story about a todays article in foreign papers, not connected with this case, in which a foreign teenage girl was missing in her country, she had 2 mobile phones with her and was actually locked up in an apartment in London, miles away from her home country. She makes a call to her mum, the abductor took her mobile phone but she had another mobile in her bag.. the Scotland Yard instantly in times of minutesl found her location using the location of her other mobile phone signal.. they found her!
I am mentioning this just to explain what they are able to do!
So they are able to know everyones location in PDL at that time and also Gerrys.. they can know whether he was at the location of Smiths sighting at any time that night !
-
I just heard a story about a todays article in foreign papers, not connected with this case, in which a foreign teenage girl was missing in her country, she had 2 mobile phones with her and was actually locked up in an apartment in London, miles away from her home country. She makes a call to her mum, the abductor took her mobile phone but she had another mobile in her bag.. the Scotland Yard instantly in times of minutesl found her location using the location of her other mobile phone signal.. they found her!
I am mentioning this just to explain what they are able to do!
So they are able to know everyones location in PDL at that time and also Gerrys.. they can know whether he was at the location of Smiths sighting at any time that night !
Can they do it retrospectively though?
-
So they are able to know everyones location in PDL at that time and also Gerrys.. they can know whether he was at the location of Smiths sighting at any time that night !
And does this not depend on whether the mobile phone was switched off or not ?
-
Can they do it retrospectively though?
That depends on what data has been collected.
A lot can be done with mobile phones. And this is not a myth! If you read the info from Snowden from the Guardian newspaper, the US collects the data on everyone on this earth, all phone calls, all internet searches etc.. and the UK is one of I think 4 countries that has access to this..
For example this is from the Guardian report: When Snowden met the solicitors while in Hong Kong, although their phones were all switched off, he said they can easily be turned into a microphones even if switched off.. so he said the only way to be sure is to put the mobile phones in the fridge, so he put all of their phones in the fridge and then they started talking.
One would think the Snowden is being paranoid, but IMO the guy knows what he is doing and also the Guardian did not lie about his report.
Only what I am not sure is when this level of surveillance upon everyone has started.. I think it is mentioned it was done under George W Bush and I have no clue when G W Bush came into office.
At least, the surveillance data can be used for a good cause.
I remember back in the 2007 there was also a talk about the US satellite surveillance of the area.. i.e there was a possibility that US has recorded the movements in PDL at that night from their satellite pointing there but the answer from the US was that the satellite was turned to another angle and was not filming the area.. so maybe not, but now after all of the info from Snowden I am thinking there must be something in their data they collected which can help this case.
-
That depends on what data has been collected.
A lot can be done with mobile phones. And this is not a myth! If you read the info from Snowden from the Guardian newspaper, the US collects the data on everyone on this earth, all phone calls, all internet searches etc.. and the UK is one of I think 4 countries that has access to this..
For example this is from the Guardian report: When Snowden met the solicitors while in Hong Kong, although their phones were all switched off, he said they can easily be turned into a microphones even if switched off.. so he said the only way to be sure is to put the mobile phones in the fridge, so he put all of their phones in the fridge and then they started talking.
One would think the Snowden is being paranoid, but IMO the guy knows what he is doing and also the Guardian did not lie about his report.
You're getting too carried away. It is not possible to do what you are claiming with mobile phones! Google cellphone triangulation and have a quick read.
-
You're getting too carried away. It is not possible to do what you are claiming with mobile phones! Google cellphone triangulation and have a quick read.
I am not a conspirator, all this is still available in the Guardian.. read the paragraph 'Access all areas'
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/03/edward-snowden-files-john-lanchester
and here about the phones in the fridges
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/why-snowdens-visitors-put-their-phones-in-the-fridge/?_r=0
-
I am not a conspirator, all this is still available in the Guardian.. read the paragraph 'Access all areas'
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/03/edward-snowden-files-john-lanchester
and here about the phones in the fridges
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/why-snowdens-visitors-put-their-phones-in-the-fridge/?_r=0
6 years is a long time in mobile technology. All I'm telling you is technically what was possible to do back in 2007. Don't mention fridges around here! ;-)
-
6 years is a long time in mobile technology. All I'm telling you is technically what was possible to do back in 2007. Don't mention fridges around here! ;-)
You are absolutely right re 6 years.. but if they had all of the data from 6 years back.. they are still able to work it out and in the worst case scenario they can at least know which mobile numbers have left the area that night and were 'connecting' elsewhere the next morning.