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: Wonderfulspam on December 28, 2013, 09:42:26 AM
-
Bungling police had 'prime suspect' details for 6 years without realising.
The innocent dad came forward in 2007 but mistakenly remained the focus of the hunt
until this year when SY detectives tracked him down.
http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027
-
On reading this article, I cannot see a named source for this 'startling' information. Is there one or is it just another fantasy to sell a few more papers ?
-
The funny part is
Leicestershire Police yesterday refused to comment on the latest revelations.
A spokeswoman said: “The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is being investigated by the Metropolitan Police and it would be inappropriate for us to comment.”
A Scotland Yard spokesman said: “We are not giving a running commentary.”
A spokesman for the McCann’s last night declined to comment saying it is “a matter for Operation Grange.
The LC sent questionnaires to possible UK witnesses, to be answered writing. Those that were requested by the PJ were systematically sent to Portugal. Innocentman's one isn't in the files. It makes sense SY discovered it in the LC files (not released to the public as long as the investigation is on).
What is surprising is that it took so long.
Why were the Gaspar files, for instance, sent to Portugal after 6 months ? It seems the LC had to let the PJ know because they were related somehow to a questionnaire to Mr and Mrs Payne that the PJ had requested (they had been interviewed only once in Portimao). The questionnaire was analysed by the LC before being sent to the PJ.
-
On reading this article, I cannot see a named source for this 'startling' information. Is there one or is it just another fantasy to sell a few more papers ?
Making the first move to gain a position of force ?
-
On reading this article, I cannot see a named source for this 'startling' information. Is there one or is it just another fantasy to sell a few more papers ?
No, there doesn't seem to be a source.
I always suspected that innocentman came forward much earlier. Doesn't make much sense that one of the most sought after suspects in the world would have waited seven years to come forward if he was completely innocent and could prove it.
The pics of him - AND the rotten pyjamas, my dear Anne - were taken in 2007 (IF the story is correct).
-
The funny part is
Leicestershire Police yesterday refused to comment on the latest revelations.
A spokeswoman said: “The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is being investigated by the Metropolitan Police and it would be inappropriate for us to comment.”
A Scotland Yard spokesman said: “We are not giving a running commentary.”
A spokesman for the McCann’s last night declined to comment saying it is “a matter for Operation Grange.
The LC sent questionnaires to possible UK witnesses, to be answered writing. Those that were requested by the PJ were systematically sent to Portugal. Innocentman's one isn't in the files. It makes sense SY discovered it in the LC files (not released to the public as long as the investigation is on).
What is surprising is that it took so long.
Why were the Gaspar files, for instance, sent to Portugal after 6 months ? It seems the LC had to let the PJ know because they were related somehow to a questionnaire to Mr and Mrs Payne that the PJ had requested (they had been interviewed only once in Portimao). The questionnaire was analysed by the LC before being sent to the PJ.
Very interesting. Thanks for the clarification on procedure.
-
No, there doesn't seem to be a source.
I always suspected that innocentman came forward much earlier. Doesn't make much sense that one of the most sought after suspects in the world would have waited seven years to come forward if he was completely innocent and could prove it.
The pics of him - AND the rotten pyjamas, my dear Anne - were taken in 2007 (IF the story is correct).
>@@(*&) The article doesn't actually say that, though it is clearly trying to suggest it.
But the paper doesn't provide any evidence there was any contact between the man and the police in 2007 other than by post.
-
No, there doesn't seem to be a source.
I always suspected that innocentman came forward much earlier. Doesn't make much sense that one of the most sought after suspects in the world would have waited seven years to come forward if he was completely innocent and could prove it.
The pics of him - AND the rotten pyjamas, my dear Anne - were taken in 2007 (IF the story is correct).
According to Crimewatch 2013 the picture of him was taken by the Met Police (presumably the pyjamas too) so could not have been in 2007 as they had no involvement until 2011
Eta
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2653.0
First video at 22 20
-
>@@(*&) The article doesn't actually say that, though it is clearly trying to suggest it.
But the paper doesn't provide any evidence there was any contact between the man and the police in 2007 other than by post.
That's how I read it too. If you were right, my dear SH, that would be far worse. That would mean that Mr Innocent was investigated up to the point of being photographed in Tannerman position and of having photographed his daughter's pyjama , position and pyjama fitting amazingly according to DCI RW, to finally strangely say "sorry you're not the one".
-
That's how I read it too. If you were right, my dear SH, that would be far worse. That would mean that Mr Innocent was investigated up to the point of being photographed in Tannerman position and of having photographed his daughter's pyjama , position and pyjama fitting amazingly according to DCI RW, to finally strangely say "sorry you're not the one".
My mistake, Anne. The article says that the man 'came forward' (whatever that means precisely in terms of police procedure) in 2007, but that he presented the pyjamas to Scotland Yard as proof of his innocence.
Thanks also to Red for that video reference.
-
Why cant anythng ever in this case be clear, only confusing.....
Innocentman looks nothng like Tannerman in the sketch...short wavy dull hair opposed to longer chin length glossy black hair with straighteners used on it!
but I suppose sketches can be embellished!
Innocentman going in wrong direction
Fact remains SY have demolished this sighting as the probable abductor...and must have good reason to do so! And put the focus back as the probable abductor or person of interest squarely on Smithman?whch the the Mccanns have never really promoted, indeed, they are said it would be too expensive to do so, see Tmes article ref suppressed efits for 5 years thread here
is Innocentman Smithman? NO....he would have told police his movements that night, and also his childs pyjamas were nothing like the Smiths description
To answer the OP, yes the Mccanns passed off both sightings as the same man
Oh eta
If all that wasnt confused enough, Jane Tanner is alledged to have said creepy Cooperman mexican moustache man bore an 80 per cent resemblance to the man she saw...how could all three be the same person???
Not to mention the papers touted Hewlett as being the man in these sketches too...and wait for it...the Mail even went as far as suggesting Michaela, Murats now wife as being Tannerman! You couldnt make it up
@)(++(*
@)(++(*
-
According to this and other newspaper reports, the British tourist believed to have identified himself as the 'suspect' seen by Jane Tanner seemingly presented himself to police in 2007.
It is not clear from this report or the others I have read exactly to whom he presented himself, though one would assume that, being British, he would have approached a British force.
The fact that he seems to have come forward long ago does not answer the question of why he does not appear to have responded to the considerable media focus on 'Tannerman' of the past seven years.
Nonetheless, it does perhaps add some weight to Scotland Yard's assertion that he merits being ruled out of the investigation - whilst raising many further questions with regard to why his initial reporting to police appears to have been overlooked.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/editors-picks/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027
-
The LC was in charge to send questionnaires to the British OC guests who left on the 5th of May before any possible interview by the PJ. Innocentman received one and answered it. It was shelved : for some reason he wasn't considered like a possible Tannerman, he had really a child. The questionnaire wasn't even sent to the PJ. It is part of the LC Files that we'll never have access to, at least before the case is solved.
-
The LC was in charge to send questionnaires to the British OC guests who left on the 5th of May before any possible interview by the PJ. Innocentman received one and answered it. It was shelved : for some reason he wasn't considered like a possible Tannerman, he had really a child. The questionnaire wasn't even sent to the PJ. It is part of the LC Files that we'll never have access to, at least before the case is solved.
This is all very interesting, Anne.
Can you tell me exactly where in the files this information appears?
So just to confirm, you are saying that it is not a case of the paperwork somehow being overlooked, but rather that LC considered Tannerman's information and concluded that he had nothing to offer police?
-
I'm assuming this man was a British holiday-maker ? ( do we know that much at least ? )
If he was, then he would have made his identity ( and connection to the McCann case ) known to British police as a first port of call ... wouldn't he ?
-
I'm assuming this man was a British holiday-maker ? ( do we know that much at least ? )
If he was, then he would have made his identity ( and connection to the McCann case ) known to British police as a first port of call ... wouldn't he ?
Yes, well according to newspaper reports he was British.
Where exactly they are getting their information from I don't know.
And according to Anne's information (see above) he must have been British.
-
Yes, well according to newspaper reports he was British.
Where exactly they are getting their information from I don't know.
And according to Anne's information (see above) he must have been British.
Well then, if he presented himself as the man Jane Tanner may have seen, he would almost certainly have done so to British police ... possibly even to the McCanns themselves, via their much publicised private investigation line
-
This is all very interesting, Anne.
Can you tell me exactly where in the files this information appears?
So just to confirm, you are saying that it is not a case of the paperwork somehow being overlooked, but rather that LC considered Tannerman's information and concluded that he had nothing to offer police?
The PJ couldn't possibly interview all the guests of the OC on the Saturday morning before they left. They had to leave and go on with their life in the UK. If you look into the first volumes of the Files and check the list of guests (not only MW but Thomas Cook), you'll observe that most of them weren't interviewed in Portugal.
It was part of the police cooperation that the LC, as it is said in the article, sent questionnaires to possible witnesses. It is common practice and the PJ would have done it, had those people be able to stay in PDL.
The LC sent also questionnaires to JW and BOD and to Mr and Mrs Payne in particular. Don't ask me why the Payne questionnaires aren't in the PJ Files, I might have an idea but I don't know.
Now, no, there's no PJ file saying that when the questionnaire wasn't relevant, it wasn't sent to the PJ. I just deduce this because there's no questionnaire of a father using the night creche in the PJ Files.
Sometimes the LC recorded statements and didn't forward them to the PJ. Don't ask me why they took 6 months to send the Gaspar statements, I've no idea.
-
Well then, if he presented himself as the man Jane Tanner may have seen, he would almost certainly have done so to British police ... possibly even to the McCanns themselves, via their much publicised private investigation line
Well surely he can't have done that?
Unless he was being willfully ignored - which is another type of accusation altogether.
-
Well then, if he presented himself as the man Jane Tanner may have seen, he would almost certainly have done so to British police ... possibly even to the McCanns themselves, via their much publicised private investigation line
DCI Redwood never said afaik that the man stepped forward. I think that SY analysed the questionnaires and found that this man could be Tannerman.
The article above has already be discussed somewhere on the forum.
-
I don't think any other national paper repeated Pettifor's story, so maybe all may not have been quite as he claims >@@(*&)
-
Well surely he can't have done that?
Unless he was being willfully ignored - which is another type of accusation altogether.
I don't know so much
It's not that far beyond the realms of possibility ... afterall, those e fits of the man the Smith family saw were in the McCanns' possession for years, and have only now seen the light of day
-
DCI Redwood never said afaik that the man stepped forward. I think that SY analysed the questionnaires and found that this man could be Tannerman.
The article above has already be discussed somewhere on the forum.
Yes, Lyall has identified the conversation - will probably be pasted on to this thread.
-
I don't think any other national paper repeated Pettifor's story, so maybe all may not have been quite as he claims >@@(*&)
It makes sense that this man, after answering to the LC and seeing that Tannerman was still the anti-heroe of the narrative, thought there were two fathers carrying their child in PDL as first helpers do..
-
The PJ couldn't possibly interview all the guests of the OC on the Saturday morning before they left. They had to leave and go on with their life in the UK. If you look into the first volumes of the Files and check the list of guests (not only MW but Thomas Cook), you'll observe that most of them weren't interviewed in Portugal.
It was part of the police cooperation that the LC, as it is said in the article, sent questionnaires to possible witnesses. It is common practice and the PJ would have done it, had those people be able to stay in PDL.
The LC sent also questionnaires to JW and BOD and to Mr and Mrs Payne in particular. Don't ask me why the Payne questionnaires aren't in the PJ Files, I might have an idea but I don't know.
Now, no, there's no PJ file saying that when the questionnaire wasn't relevant, it wasn't sent to the PJ. I just deduce this because there's no questionnaire of a father using the night creche in the PJ Files.
Sometimes the LC recorded statements and didn't forward them to the PJ. Don't ask me why they took 6 months to send the Gaspar statements, I've no idea.
Thank you very much for this information, Anne. Magnificent.
Bed - time calls but I will give the files due consideration and get back to you tomorrow!
Good night all . S
-
I don't think any other national paper repeated Pettifor's story, so maybe all may not have been quite as he claims >@@(*&)
Maybe Tom Pettifor himself would be willing to explain it....
-
An interesting article which raises my suspicions even further that Innocentman is not Tannerman. I find the following paragraph taken from it particularly revealing on two counts...
The unnamed dad – spotted in the Praia da Luz resort by McCann family friend Jane
Tanner at 9.15pm – was among a number of British witnesses who completed questionnaires for Leicestershire police six years ago.
He is understood to have provided a detailed description of his movements on the night, including the fact he had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished.
First off, can I draw readers attention to the fact that Leicestershire Police (LP) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leicestershire_Police)were known as Leicestershire Constabulary (LC) in 2007 and only changed their name in 2012. You can read more about it here. (http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Police-force-slammed-pointless-change/story-13646831-detail/story.html)
It says clearly that guests were asked to complete a questionnaire for LP which would have been in English. Whether or not these questionnaires were ever studied by LP is unanswered. One assumes that these questionnaires were sent to Portugal and translated by the PJ but why do they not appear in the files?
My main point however is much more significant. It says in the quote above that this guy had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished. But remember, the night crèche is not close to the Ocean Club Garden, the block from where Madeleine disappeared. The night crèche (see plan) (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1696.msg51512#msg51512) is actually some distance away, 275 yds or 250 metres to be precise and not what I would consider close in an urban environment. Close for me would be the day crèche which was only 70 metres away.
If as he claims, that he picked his daughter up at around the time of the sighting ie 9.15pm, why on earth was he walking from west to east ie towards the night crèche and not from south to north as he would have been had he in fact been coming from the night crèche?
There are too many anomalies with this report to be taken seriously. Redwood's failure to clarify these matters is worrying!
-
Maybe the journalists got it wrong.. maybe he was taking his child to the creche.
-
An interesting article which raises my suspicions even further that Innocentman is not Tannerman. I find the following paragraph taken from it particularly revealing on two counts...
First off, can I draw readers attention to the fact that Leicestershire Police (LP) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leicestershire_Police)were known as Leicestershire Constabulary (LC) in 2007 and only changed their name in 2012. You can read more about it here. (http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Police-force-slammed-pointless-change/story-13646831-detail/story.html)
It says clearly that guests were asked to complete a questionnaire for LP which would have been in English. Whether or not these questionnaires were ever studied by LP is unanswered. One assumes that these questionnaires were sent to Portugal and translated by the PJ but why do they not appear in the files?
My main point however is much more significant. It says in the quote above that this guy had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished. But remember, the night crèche is not close to the Ocean Club Garden, the block from where Madeleine disappeared. The night crèche (see plan) (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1696.msg51512#msg51512) is actually some distance away, 275 yds or 250 metres to be precise and not what I would consider close in an urban environment. Close for me would be the day crèche which was only 70 metres away.
If as he claims, that he picked his daughter up at around the time of the sighting ie 9.15pm, why on earth was he walking from west to east ie towards the night crèche and not from south to north as he would have been had he in fact been coming from the night crèche?
There are too many anomalies with this report to be taken seriously. Redwood's failure to clarify these matters is worrying!
Perhaps one (not very good) detective could make these mistakes - but 30??
-
Perhaps one (not very good) detective could make these mistakes - but 30??
Agreed. I'm not claiming the police are infallible, but I find it hard to believe that they don't have very, very good reasons for dismissing Tannerman.
-
If none of these questionnaires is in the PJ Files, it means they weren't sent.
We know that the LC (thanks, John, for informing they are the LP now) used to analyse statements before sending them to the PJ. This is even how and only how we know that the Paynes completed questionnaires that aren't in the files (for some reason both had been interviewed only once by the PJ).
Why would the then LC send questionnaires that they found had no relevance in the case ?
DCI Redwood needed to get rid of Tannerman and found Innocentman to play his part. He was in the proximity of the G5 (he actually went up Francisco GM, but let's be vague), more or less at the right time, coming not from far if not from close by, having a child in pyjamas (good point !) and wrapped in a blanket (bad point, let's forget it), a dark jacket (fine !), beige jeans (marvellous !) and black hair (sh.. curly!) and, yes, eventually he would cradle his child in his arms.
All details that made the LC decide he wasn't the one.
The questionnaires, the LC Files (that the McCanns wanted so much to have), it has been discussed a few months back...
-
Agreed. I'm not claiming the police are infallible, but I find it hard to believe that they don't have very, very good reasons for dismissing Tannerman.
The LC's and PJ's reasons are the very same.
The PJ thought that taking Tannerman out of the picture or identifying him required a previous reconstitution.
DCI Redwood identified him in order to clear up the picture before calling the cameras
-
The PJ couldn't possibly interview all the guests of the OC on the Saturday morning before they left. They had to leave and go on with their life in the UK. If you look into the first volumes of the Files and check the list of guests (not only MW but Thomas Cook), you'll observe that most of them weren't interviewed in Portugal.
It was part of the police cooperation that the LC, as it is said in the article, sent questionnaires to possible witnesses. It is common practice and the PJ would have done it, had those people be able to stay in PDL.
The LC sent also questionnaires to JW and BOD and to Mr and Mrs Payne in particular. Don't ask me why the Payne questionnaires aren't in the PJ Files, I might have an idea but I don't know.
Now, no, there's no PJ file saying that when the questionnaire wasn't relevant, it wasn't sent to the PJ. I just deduce this because there's no questionnaire of a father using the night creche in the PJ Files.
Sometimes the LC recorded statements and didn't forward them to the PJ. Don't ask me why they took 6 months to send the Gaspar statements, I've no idea.
I haven't been able to establish what "questionnaires" were sent from whom to whom aside from the rogs, and a few interviews which may have resulted from people contacting the police themselves, who were subsequently interviewed, before any rogs were actually sent. Could you help to clarify with links to relevant pages?
-
I haven't been able to establish what "questionnaires" were sent from whom to whom aside from the rogs, and a few interviews which may have resulted from people contacting the police themselves, who were subsequently interviewed, before any rogs were actually sent. Could you help to clarify with links to relevant pages?
Sorry, Carana, I've no access to the LC Files. You are free to apply, though, they say that within some conditions they may answer.
Can't you understand that the LC , not the PJ, elaborated the questionnaires ?
It has nothing to do with the rogs, which were questions of the PJ that were then processed and organized by the LC as they liked it.
If the PJ had established the questionnaires for the TC and MW guests, they had to send them as LOR. Too much time.
-
Sorry, Carana, I've no access to the LC Files. You are free to apply, though, they say that within some conditions they may answer.
Can't you understand that the LC , not the PJ, elaborated the questionnaires ?
It has nothing to do with the rogs, which were questions of the PJ that were then processed and organized by the LC as they liked it.
If the PJ had established the questionnaires for the TC and MW guests, they had to send them as LOR. Too much time.
I don't have access, either. What is the basis of your knowledge that the LC established "questionnaires", aside from my questions above?
I'm aware that CEOP invited people to send in any potentially significant photos; that a few people were interviewed back in the UK, but not how this occurred: did this go beyond the occasional interview as a result of people having contacted the UK police?
I'm not sure where this idea of "questionnaire" sent out by the UK police at the time to everyone who might have been there comes from.
-
I don't have access, either. What is the basis of your knowledge that the LC established "questionnaires", aside from my questions above?
I'm aware that CEOP invited people to send in any potentially significant photos; that a few people were interviewed back in the UK, but not how this occurred: did this go beyond the occasional interview as a result of people having contacted the UK police?
I'm not sure where this idea of "questionnaire" sent out by the UK police at the time to everyone who might have been there comes from.
Consider for instance the questionnaires sent to both Paynes, answered by them and analysed by the LC. As they were suppressed from the PJ Files, we can't know whether the whole completed questionnaires were sent to the PJ or just the analysis.
We don't know as well if those questioning was suggested by the PJ. Likely not. It might be an initiative of the LC and be related to the Gaspar statements. This would explain that the LC requested the suppression of the analysis or questionnaires, they didn't really belong to the PJ Files.
They forgot that they exchanged letters and e-mails that are in the Files.. That's how we know the existence of the Payne questionnaires.
The LOR case is totally different. The questions are elaborated by the foreign police on the basis of the questions contained in the LOR. The investigating police is present and regularly asked if they have other questions or remarks, and the whole session, not an analysis of the session, is recorded and transcribed. It belongs to the investigating police.
The interviews that the PJ possibly did on behalf of the recent LOR belong to SY, not to the PJ.
-
Consider for instance the questionnaires sent to both Paynes, answered by them and analysed by the LC. As they were suppressed from the PJ Files, we can't know whether the whole completed questionnaires were sent to the PJ or just the analysis.
We don't know as well if those questioning was suggested by the PJ. Likely not. It might be an initiative of the LC and be related to the Gaspar statements. This would explain that the LC requested the suppression of the analysis or questionnaires, they didn't really belong to the PJ Files.
They forgot that they exchanged letters and e-mails that are in the Files.. That's how we know the existence of the Payne questionnaires.
The LOR case is totally different. The questions are elaborated by the foreign police on the basis of the questions contained in the LOR. The foreign police is present and regularly asked if they have other questions or remarks, and the whole session, not an analysis of the session, is recorded and transcribed. It belongs to the foreign police.
The interviews that the PJ possibly did on behalf of the recent LOR belong to SY, not to the PJ.
I still don't understand, I'm afraid. What is in the files about "questionnaires" sent by the LP to anyone, beyond what I'd posted just above?
If you're referring to Mick Marshall's email... what was he referring to? A PT statement that had been googletranslated for him or something else?
The original has changes of fonts... was this done on a typewriter?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P13/13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3909.jpg (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P13/13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3909.jpg)
-
I still don't understand, I'm afraid. What is in the files about "questionnaires" sent by the LP to anyone, beyond what I'd posted just above?
If you're referring to Mick Marshall's email... what was he referring to? A PT statement that had been googletranslated for him or something else?
The original has changes of fonts... was this done on a typewriter?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P13/13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3909.jpg (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P13/13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3909.jpg)
I don't understand, I'm afraid.
Do you know an article where an ex-po claims that questions must be asked about Innocentman popping up after 6 years ?
I'd like very much that, but I don't believe questions will be asked.
Yes I'm referring to that PO. It is very clear to what he's referring : the Payne questionnaires that Paiva is supposed to have received with the Gaspar statements.
I don't understand the change of fonts issue. Is it really an issue ? Why ?
The Paynes were interviewed only once (Mrs Payne was interviewed a second time but only on the Murat issue).
The questionnaires substitute a second interview. Don't ask me why, in the rogs, the Paynes weren't questioned on their strange answers in the questionnaires.
-
@ Carana
Do you suggest that the PJ suppressed the questionnaires sent by the LC in order to pretend they never received them and not to be accused of incompetence regarding Innocentman, 6 years later ?
-
@ Carana
Do you suggest that the PJ suppressed the questionnaires sent by the LC in order to pretend they never received them and not to be accused of incompetence regarding Innocentman, 6 years later ?
As I haven't a clue which "questionnaires" you're referring to in the files, I find that hard to answer.
-
As I haven't a clue which "questionnaires" you're referring to in the files, I find that hard to answer.
That's an answer !
@)(++(*
-
As I haven't a clue which "questionnaires" you're referring to in the files, I find that hard to answer.
To be honest I don't understand either.
Perhaps Anne can spell out what these 'questionnaires' were.
Were they a uniform set of documents sent out systematically to potential witnesses, or are we simply talking about odd letters in the files documenting information pertaining to certain people?
-
To be honest I don't understand either.
Perhaps Anne can spell out what these 'questionnaires' were.
Were they a uniform set of documents sent out systematically to potential witnesses, or are we simply talking about odd letters in the files documenting information pertaining to certain people?
I wish I could say that the PJ received the written statements in English of all the TC and MW guests who had to leave on the 5th, translated them or not, read them or not and finally put them in the bin (since they aren't in the PJ Files), but there's nothing to support this, sorry.
Why don't you petition for the LC to open its files ?
Then some questions will have an answer.
For instance the Payne contradictory statements.
DCI Redwood didn't reveal how he came upon Innocentman and certainly didn't suggest that Innocentman had finally, miraculously, stepped forward.
Guess how that happened !
-
I wish I could say that the PJ received the written statements in English of all the TC and MW guests who had to leave on the 5th, translated them or not, read them or not and finally put them in the bin (since they aren't in the PJ Files), but there's nothing to support this, sorry.
Why don't you petition for the LC to open its files ?
Then some questions will have an answer.
For instance the Payne contradictory statements.
DCI Redwood didn't reveal how he came upon Innocentman and certainly didn't suggest that Innocentman had finally, miraculously, stepped forward.
Guess how that happened !
No, interestingly, he said ' man has come forward' - but didn't say when. He picks his words carefully.
-
No, interestingly, he said ' man has come forward' - but didn't say when. He picks his words carefully.
I dont think he said that, anyway dont understand all the confusion about the questionnaires, its in the OP, LP did them with people staying at the resort at the time...what they did with those questionnaires is unknown
-
I dont think he said that, anyway dont understand all the confusion about the questionnaires, its in the OP, LP did them with people staying at the resort at the time...what they did with those questionnaires is unknown
Maybe 'Stu' sent them to his friends 8(0(*
-
Maybe 'Stu' sent them to his friends 8(0(*
Then he would be corrupt and perverting the course of justice
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/editors-picks/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-anyone-saying-were-2965383
All a bit of a dogs dinner as usual....Ive lost count of the number of times people have said they sent stuff to the Pj and nothing was done....excuses and lies and spin wear a bit thin at the end of the day, yawn....about tme there was some real straight talking in this case but I just seen a pig fly
deleted irrelevant
-
I am wondering what the source of this information is, namely that bundleman appears to have come forward in 2007. The articles we are dealing with are from December 2012 - 2 months after Crimewatch.
Normally CM gets the blame for this kind of thing but he can hardly be accused of this one.
What other sources of leaks are there and why would this information be being leaked anyway?
-
I am wondering what the source of this information is, namely that bundleman appears to have come forward in 2007. The articles we are dealing with are from December 2012 - 2 months after Crimewatch.
Normally CM gets the blame for this kind of thing but he can hardly be accused of this one.
What other sources of leaks are there and why would this information be being leaked anyway?
I have a feeling that this is possibly a press invention. Amaral wanted to diminish the Tanner sighting and if Tannerman had come forward in 2007 then this would have been perfect. Of course, perhaps those 'questionnaires' did not reach the PJ.
Nonetheless it is important to try to find a source for this information. The question of why innocentman did not react to the fact that the Tanner sighting and sketch were being actively promoted for several years after he came forward remains to be answered.
-
I am simply not convinced, mainly because the direction was wrong. The door could always be explained by a draft, but what was he doing walking up a busy main road some distance from The Creche when there was a much shorter route?. But anything in the direction he was going is even closer to The Creche.
I suppose that knowing where he was going might help.
Something odd is going on about this. It just doesn't make sense.
-
I am simply not convinced, mainly because the direction was wrong. The door could always be explained by a draft, but what was he doing walking up a busy main road some distance from The Creche when there was a much shorter route?. But anything in the direction he was going is even closer to The Creche.
I suppose that knowing where he was going might help.
Something odd is going on about this. It just doesn't make sense.
What has made sense since 2007? Why was there such effort to concentrate on 9.15? You say "the door could always be explained by a draft" but that was never considered a possibility by press or TM previously. 9.15 man may have been an innocent local/tourist, but that was never considered a possibility either.
The entire coverage of the case has been odd since the very beginning, and maybe now you are understanding a little why people asked so many questions?
-
What has made sense since 2007? Why was there such effort to concentrate on 9.15? You say "the door could always be explained by a draft" but that was never considered a possibility by press or TM previously. 9.15 man may have been an innocent local/tourist, but that was never considered a possibility either.
The entire coverage of the case has been odd since the very beginning, and maybe now you are understanding a little why people asked so many questions?
Not really. I have always known that The McCanns could not possibly have done what they have been accused of. Logistically it was impossible.
I would like to know where this man had come from and where he was going because at the moment it doesn't make sense. But this is not my right to be told.
But anyway, I don't think it really matters if either of these men were involved. It isn't going to prove anything about where Madeleine was eventually taken. Or where she is now.
I have never had any need to prove to you that Madeleine was abducted.
-
I am simply not convinced, mainly because the direction was wrong. The door could always be explained by a draft, but what was he doing walking up a busy main road some distance from The Creche when there was a much shorter route?. But anything in the direction he was going is even closer to The Creche.
I suppose that knowing where he was going might help.
Something odd is going on about this. It just doesn't make sense.
That path was the route Gerry would have taken if he was spotted at 10.15 by Robert Murat's house. The short cut path from the crèche leads straight up to Murat's house where he was allegedly spotted by Neil Berry / Raj Balu at 10.15pm on the night. But those first statements are missing from the files.
-
That path was the route Gerry would have taken if he was spotted at 10.15 by Robert Murat's house. The short cut path from the crèche leads straight up to Murat's house where he was allegedly spotted by Neil Berry / Raj Balu at 10.15pm on the night. But those first statements are missing from the files.
Gerry was spotted at 10.15 by Robert Murat's house carrying a child? That's a new one. Was Gerry coming or going to The Night Creche, wherein Madeleine never was?
Oh, I get it. While everyone was running around Praia da Luz looking for a missing child, Gerry was hot footing to the beach long after The Smiths had gotten home.
This is always a possibility, I suppose.
Sorry, I can't help you with missing statements. But how would you know if these statements are missing?
-
Gerry was spotted at 10.15 by Robert Murat's house carrying a child? That's a new one. Was Gerry coming or going to The Night Creche, wherein Madeleine never was?
Oh, I get it. While everyone was running around Praia da Luz looking for a missing child, Gerry was hot footing to the beach long after The Smiths had gotten home.
This is always a possibility, I suppose.
Sorry, I can't help you with missing statements. But how would you know if these statements are missing?
Good question.
-
Gerry was spotted at 10.15 by Robert Murat's house carrying a child? That's a new one. Was Gerry coming or going to The Night Creche, wherein Madeleine never was?
Oh, I get it. While everyone was running around Praia da Luz looking for a missing child, Gerry was hot footing to the beach long after The Smiths had gotten home.
This is always a possibility, I suppose.
Sorry, I can't help you with missing statements. But how would you know if these statements are missing?
Gerry was not with Madeleine when allegedly spotted near to Murat's. It's easy to get there from the church - you follow Rua Direita and turn left on to the path next to the crèche which takes you straight up to Murat's. Gerry mentioned that he went to the crèche in his first searches but nobody remembers seeing him there but he may have been close to it. The files are missing. Their second statements are in the files.
"From 22.00 onwards all the events that took place were already described in my previous statement of 7th May 2007 and i cannot add any further information, other than that which was already added." (Neil Berry)
-
Good question.
Thanks, Jassi. Let's at least have some common sense about this.
-
Gerry was not with Madeleine when allegedly spotted near to Murat's. It's easy to get there from the church - you follow Rua Direita and turn left on to the path next to the crèche which takes you straight up to Murat's. Gerry mentioned that he went to the crèche in his first searches but nobody remembers seeing him there but he may have been close to it. The files are missing. Their second statements are in the files.
"From 22.00 onwards all the events that took place were already described in my previous statement of 7th May 2007 and i cannot add any further information, other than that which was already added." (Neil Berry)
So Gerry was just searching. Like wot they said he never did.
What Files are missing? Jeezuz. How many Files have gone missing? Only The PJ could have done that.
-
So Gerry was just searching. Like wot they said he never did.
What Files are missing? Jeezuz. How many Files have gone missing? Only The PJ could have done that.
I think he did 5 or 10 minutes at the beginning and after that left it to others
-
So Gerry was just searching. Like wot they said he never did.
What Files are missing? Jeezuz. How many Files have gone missing? Only The PJ could have done that.
Their first statements are not missing, they haven't been released for reasons unknown like many others. Gerry was always outside with the rest of the men in the first searches. He was the one that said "Let's all split up and find her" according to Russell. Any of the men could be Smithman because they are out and about when he was spotted.
-
From what I gather Neil & Raj shouted to Gerry from their balcony and he said his daughter had gone missing. They came down and helped with the searches. At around 10.25 Gerry and Russ are seen entering 5A (Emma Knight arrived at 10.20 and Gerry wasn't there - only Kate & Fiona). Pamela Fenn is talking to Gerry from her balcony at 10.30.
-
I am simply not convinced, mainly because the direction was wrong. The door could always be explained by a draft, but what was he doing walking up a busy main road some distance from The Creche when there was a much shorter route?. But anything in the direction he was going is even closer to The Creche.
I suppose that knowing where he was going might help.
Something odd is going on about this. It just doesn't make sense.
But how do we explain that 30 detectives have not considered these things? Questions and problems about the scenario that seem glaring to us; overlooking basic facts about the geography and locations of PdL?
Perhaps one person could get it wrong - but a team of 30?
-
But how do we explain that 30 detectives have not considered these things? Questions and problems about the scenario that seem glaring to us; overlooking basic facts about the geography and locations of PdL?
Perhaps one person could get it wrong - but a team of 30?
I simply do not know. But we could always have a conspiracy theory. Absolutely everyone would believe that.
Me? I think that Scotland Yard don't know as much about it all as we do. But none of this is going to indict The McCanns. Which man was walking were isn't actually going to prove anything.
-
Their first statements are not missing, they haven't been released for reasons unknown like many others.
They are part of the LC Files. The MP had no right to release copies of files that belonged to the LC.
Interview to NEIL BERRY, 42, MeXXXXXXXX ROXX, Surrey, SMX 7XX. He should be subject to a buccal swab and hair sample collection and asked the following questions :
* Do you confirm your previous statements to the British Police ?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RESPONSE-ROGATORY.htm (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RESPONSE-ROGATORY.htm)
-
I simply do not know. But we could always have a conspiracy theory. Absolutely everyone would believe that.
Me? I think that Scotland Yard don't know as much about it all as we do. But none of this is going to indict The McCanns. Which man was walking were isn't actually going to prove anything.
Can a team of 30 detectives with all different types of resources at their disposal really know less than us?
I find that hard to imagine. They are certainly far from a solution to this, I agree.
As far as Madeleine is concerned, I don't believe the McCanns are in any way guilty either. No opportunity and zero evidence on the current understanding of events.
For what it's worth my opinion is that she was put in a car near to 5A and whizzed far away before anyone had the slightest idea that she had gone. So on that analysis the perambulations of bundleman probably don't matter very much either.
The question here, however, is why he wasn't ruled out in 2007, and why, apparently, he did not re-clarify his position to police until his much more recent involvement with Scotland Yard?
-
I think the answer lies in the decision to dedicate more than half of a Crimewatch hour to the new investigation. Who made that decision? With so little to say the Met team must have had kittens. But they had to say something. It was botched PR but almost all of the 7m watching will have no idea of the issues we're talking about here - they will have just accepted what Redwood told them.
-
Can a team of 30 detectives with all different types of resources at their disposal really know less than us?
I find that hard to imagine. They are certainly far from a solution to this, I agree.
As far as Madeleine is concerned, I don't believe the McCanns are in any way guilty either. No opportunity and zero evidence on the current understanding of events.
For what it's worth my opinion is that she was put in a car near to 5A and whizzed far away before anyone had the slightest idea that she had gone. So on that analysis the perambulations of bundleman probably don't matter very much either.
The question here, however, is why he wasn't ruled out in 2007, and why, apparently, he did not re-clarify his position to police until his much more recent involvement with Scotland Yard?
Can you say with 100% certainty Madeleine did not have an accident which led to her demise ?
Meanwhile of course there is zero evidence of ABDUCTION.
The sight, allegedly of course of a man carrying a child does not mean abduction.
Likewise, you cannot say that the Mccanns have expounded the whole truth of the events which transpired.
-
For what it's worth my opinion is that she was put in a car near to 5A and whizzed far away before anyone had the slightest idea that she had gone. So on that analysis the perambulations of bundleman probably don't matter very much either.
Out of curiosity what part do you attribute to Smithman and the little blond one ?
-
Can you say with 100% certainty Madeleine did not have an accident which led to her demise ?
Meanwhile of course there is zero evidence of ABDUCTION.
The sight, allegedly of course of a man carrying a child does not mean abduction of course.
Likewise, you cannot say that the Mccanns have expounded the whole truth of the events which transpired.
I agree with everything you say, Stephen.
I cannot say with 100% certainty that Madeleine did not have an accident. In fact I cannot say with any percentage of 'certainty' (if degrees of certainty make sense..) that she did not have an accident. There is insufficient evidence one way or the other.
There is also no concrete evidence for abduction. There are suggestions, in my opinion; pointers, as Sadie would say, but those suggestions are comparatively shaky. If they were stronger, we (as in everyone, collectively) might at least have a general picture as to what type of abduction it could have been and what the motive was - and we don't even have that.
I also agree that the sightings of bundleman and Smithman do not prove - or even suggest, necessarily - abduction. As we have discussed at length, why would an abductor be walking through the town with a child? I am interested in what Sadie has to say on this because the only scenario in which I believe that either of those men could have been an abductor would be one in which an abduction plan had gone badly wrong. As a plan A - no chance.
As regards the way the McCanns have handled matters since May of 2007, many mistakes have been made. Though these oddities don't incriminate them.
Having said all that, I believe nonetheless that the abduction scenario is the most likely, for the simple reason that there is no evidence for parental involvement, nor any suggestion as to how, on our current understanding of the perameters, the McCanns would have been physically able to carry out any serious crime. That being said, our understanding of events could change in time, according to new information that presents itself.
Until then, despite the lack of evidence for the abduction theory, I think we have to bear in mind that although statistics point to the parents, at the same time extremely high levels of proof are required before accusing a person of the crimes the McCanns would have to have been involved if an abduction did not take place. And at the moment that evidence is nil.
-
Can a team of 30 detectives with all different types of resources at their disposal really know less than us?
I find that hard to imagine. They are certainly far from a solution to this, I agree.
As far as Madeleine is concerned, I don't believe the McCanns are in any way guilty either. No opportunity and zero evidence on the current understanding of events.
For what it's worth my opinion is that she was put in a car near to 5A and whizzed far away before anyone had the slightest idea that she had gone. So on that analysis the perambulations of bundleman probably don't matter very much either.
The question here, however, is why he wasn't ruled out in 2007, and why, apparently, he did not re-clarify his position to police until his much more recent involvement with Scotland Yard?
Let's try not to pass the buck here beyond the basic incompetence. It was always too late by then anyway. So who was seen walking with whom quickly ceased to matter.
The damage was only done to The McCanns, and I make no excuse for that belief. Shit was piled on shit. And it did seriously upset me. They were just trying to find their daughter Against what were always bad odds. And to be accused must nearly have decimated them.
So you see, what their accusers have to say is of no real importance to me.
Why am I still doing this? Because I will not allow this to go by without commenting. There is something very sick afoot which isn't just opinion.
-
I agree with everything you say, Stephen.
I cannot say with 100% certainty that Madeleine did not have an accident. In fact I cannot say with any percentage of 'certainty' (if degrees of certainty make sense..) that she did not have an accident. There is insufficient evidence one way or the other.
There is also no concrete evidence for abduction. There are suggestions, in my opinion; pointers, as Sadie would say, but those suggestions are comparatively shaky. If they were stronger, we (as in everyone, collectively) might at least have a general picture as to what type of abduction it could have been and what the motive was - and we don't even have that.
I also agree that the sightings of bundleman and Smithman do not prove - or even suggest, necessarily - abduction. As we have discussed at length, why would an abductor be walking through the town with a child? I am interested in what Sadie has to say on this because the only scenario in which I believe that either of those men could have been an abductor would be one in which an abduction plan had gone badly wrong. As a plan A - no chance.
As regards the way the McCanns have handled matters since May of 2007, many mistakes have been made. Though these oddities don't incriminate them.
Having said all that, I believe nonetheless that the abduction scenario is the most likely, for the simple reason that there is no evidence for parental involvement, nor any suggestion as to how, on our current understanding of the perameters, the McCanns would have been physically able to carry out any serious crime. That being said, our understanding of events could change in time, according to new information that presents itself.
Until then, despite the lack of evidence for the abduction theory, I think we have to bear in mind that although statistics point to the parents, at the same time extremely high levels of proof are required before accusing a person of the crimes the McCanns would have to have been involved if an abduction did not take place. And at the moment that evidence is nil.
To be more precise, apart from the fact of Madeleine's disappearance, there is no evidence of anything.
Unless there is the proverbial bolt from the blue, such as a confession, nothing is like to change.
-
Out of curiosity what part do you attribute to Smithman and the little blond one ?
Probably none.
As I discussed at length with Sadie a long time ago (the psychological aspects of Bundleman, or some such thread), I cannot imagine an abductor parading through the town with a child.
And I don't believe he was Gerry McCann.
Paradoxically, I think the fact that SY have ruled out bundleman actually casts more doubt on Smithman. If one man can be ruled out - and apparently he ruled himself out near the start - then another person, doing something very similar to the first but in even more unlikely circumstances than the first, could easily be ruled out also.
Perhaps he even came forward, as did Tannerman, and that evidence fell through the net as well. Who knows.
-
Has someone written a handbook on how to deal with anything after your child has been abducted?
-
the only scenario in which I believe that either of those men could have been an abductor would be one in which an abduction plan had gone badly wrong. As a plan A - no chance.
What do you mean ? Death ?
-
Probably none.
As I discussed at length with Sadie a long time ago (the psychological aspects of Bundleman, or some such thread), I cannot imagine an abductor parading through the town with a child.
And I don't believe he was Gerry McCann.
Paradoxically, I think the fact that SY have ruled out bundleman actually casts more doubt on Smithman. If one man can be ruled out - and apparently he ruled himself out near the start - then another person, doing something very similar to the first but in even more unlikely circumstances than the first, could easily be ruled out also.
Perhaps he even came forward, as did Tannerman, and that evidence fell through the net as well. Who knows.
Excellent news for the McCanns ! You disagree also with DCI Redwood !
-
To be more precise, apart from the fact of Madeleine's disappearance, there is no evidence of anything.
Unless there is the proverbial bolt from the blue, such as a confession, nothing is like to change.
There is virtually no evidence of anything, no.
As to your second statement, this is where we all have to keep an open mind. I actually think that there is a very good chance that we could learn more about what happened. That's not to say we'll get to the bottom of things. But between developing technologies in forensics and the persistence with which the McCanns and others are holding on to this case, there is a good chance someone is going to discover something somewhere along the line.
There is also the matter of shifting loyalties. Someone who may have been quiet for whatever reason could decide to come forward in time, as circumstances change.
The smallest piece of information or evidence can change our entire understanding.
-
Well, that thought crossed my mind as well, Sherlock..Who were any of these men? But it still doesn't matter. Unless one of them can be prevailed upon to admit to abduction seven years on. But I certainly wouldn't.
-
Has someone written a handbook on how to deal with anything after your child has been abducted?
No, and I think the McCanns should be given a great deal of leeway in this regard.
Nonetheless there have been oddities. Not the kind of oddities that incriminate them, as some suggest, just mistakes with regard to handling the media that may have been counterproductive to their quest to find their daughter. IMO.
-
What do you mean ? Death ?
No, I mean something going wrong in the way the actual abduction was executed that would explain why someone would have to walk through the town rather than use a car.
-
Excellent news for the McCanns ! You disagree also with DCI Redwood !
I don't disagree with his information - the information he used in order to rule out bundleman - because I don't know what that information is.
I do disagree with his logic: the 'logic' that because bundleman is out, Smithman is more likely to be in.
There may be some cases where A is ruled out and therefore we are left with B.
But that is not the case here, because there are many more than two possibilities.
Simples 8**8:/:
-
No, and I think the McCanns should be given a great deal of leeway in this regard.
Nonetheless there have been oddities. Not the kind of oddities that incriminate them, as some suggest, just mistakes with regard to handling the media that may have been counterproductive to their quest to find their daughter. IMO.
Oh do come on. Just desperation. Great sadness and great guilt. There isn't any known way of how to deal with this.
But damned if they do and damned if they don't.
-
I do disagree with his logic: the 'logic' that because bundleman is out, Smithman is more likely to be in.
What about the little blond one with one abductor and not with the other ?
-
Oh do come on. Just desperation. Great sadness and great guilt. There isn't any known way of how to deal with this.
But damned if they do and damned if they don't.
there isn't any known way to handle the media...the McCanns needed to use the media....and the deal is the media have used them
-
What about the little blond one with one abductor and not with the other ?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, Anne...
-
No, I mean something going wrong in the way the actual abduction was executed that would explain why someone would have to walk through the town rather than use a car.
Facts prove that it went extremely well whatever the reason why it did.
-
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, Anne...
One showed a couple of legs, the other showed a little blond fair girl.
DCI's choice is therefore very understandable.
Besides he couldn't find no father coming from the nightcreche, using that street at that time..
-
Oh do come on. Just desperation. Great sadness and great guilt. There isn't any known way of how to deal with this.
But damned if they do and damned if they don't.
I do agree with this, Eleanor. And Kate McCann herself admits that as they have never been in this position before they are likely to not get everything right.
-
One showed a couple of legs, the other showed a little blond fair girl.
Well, legs normally imply a person attached....
But not blond, however...
-
Can you say with 100% certainty Madeleine did not have an accident which led to her demise ?
Meanwhile of course there is zero evidence of ABDUCTION.
The sight, allegedly of course of a man carrying a child does not mean abduction.
Likewise, you cannot say that the Mccanns have expounded the whole truth of the events which transpired.
As I have said before Stephen this is a "celestial teapot" argument...but you have made it that many times that I think "celestial crackpot" is more apt
-
Well, legs normally imply a person attached....
But not blond, however...
Innocentman's daughter has dark hair whereas the Smithman's daughter was surely blond.
-
Facts prove that it went extremely well whatever the reason why it did.
Yes. It went well. But we don't know whether by design or accident.
-
Yes. It went well. But we don't know whether by design or accident.
Anyhow not "badly wrong".
-
DCI Redwood, we must admit, has an enormous quality : he is focused on Madeleine. Hence Smithman carrying a matching little girl...
-
Innocentman's daughter has dark hair whereas the Smithman's daughter was surely blond.
Isn't that interesting. After all this time assuming bundleman was the abductor, we discover the child has dark hair.
But where does this information come from? Have I missed something? Surely this information is enough to convince us of bundleman's innocence and put paid to questions about direction of walking?
-
DCI Redwood, we must admit, has an enormous quality : he is focused on Madeleine. Hence Smithman carrying a matching little girl...
You have much more faith in our police than we do Anne 8(8-))
-
DCI Redwood, we must admit, has an enormous quality : he is focused on Madeleine. Hence Smithman carrying a matching little girl...
True. That's the last sighing of anyone fitting Madeleine's description in Praia da Luz.
-
As I have said before Stephen this is a "celestial teapot" argument...but you have made it that many times that I think "celestial crackpot" is more apt
That statement merely reflects your ignorance and continuing and unquestioning support of the Mccanns.
Indeed par for your course.
-
You have much more faith in our police than we do Anne 8(8-))
Absolutely. The problem with our police/justice systems is that they've not the independent power they should have.
-
I agree with everything you say, Stephen.
I cannot say with 100% certainty that Madeleine did not have an accident. In fact I cannot say with any percentage of 'certainty' (if degrees of certainty make sense..) that she did not have an accident. There is insufficient evidence one way or the other.
There is also no concrete evidence for abduction. There are suggestions, in my opinion; pointers, as Sadie would say, but those suggestions are comparatively shaky. If they were stronger, we (as in everyone, collectively) might at least have a general picture as to what type of abduction it could have been and what the motive was - and we don't even have that.
I also agree that the sightings of bundleman and Smithman do not prove - or even suggest, necessarily - abduction. As we have discussed at length, why would an abductor be walking through the town with a child? I am interested in what Sadie has to say on this because the only scenario in which I believe that either of those men could have been an abductor would be one in which an abduction plan had gone badly wrong. As a plan A - no chance.
As regards the way the McCanns have handled matters since May of 2007, many mistakes have been made. Though these oddities don't incriminate them.
Having said all that, I believe nonetheless that the abduction scenario is the most likely, for the simple reason that there is no evidence for parental involvement, nor any suggestion as to how, on our current understanding of the perameters, the McCanns would have been physically able to carry out any serious crime. That being said, our understanding of events could change in time, according to new information that presents itself.
Until then, despite the lack of evidence for the abduction theory, I think we have to bear in mind that although statistics point to the parents, at the same time extremely high levels of proof are required before accusing a person of the crimes the McCanns would have to have been involved if an abduction did not take place. And at the moment that evidence is nil.
In exactly the same way,there is no evidence there was no involvement, and no evidence of a stranger, so how can it be the mostly likely scenario that she was abducted, when you have said statistics pont otherwise....it can only be a personal belief/judgement/informed opinion
There is a lot of circumstantial evidence in this case...I would wager a bet most of it is anti abduction rather than the other way around, but then thats just my personal informed judgement too
No authority anywhere has said this was an abduction, inded the FCO office have the case classed as a missing person because there is no evidence of an abduction..see last sentence in second link, both pages linked for completeness
http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/foirequest141209.jpg&target=tlx_pic7gvj
http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/foirequest141209b.jpg&target=tlx_picxuro
-
True. That's the last sighing of anyone fitting Madeleine's description in Praia da Luz.
True. But in spite of that, it was put in the bin. Why ?
-
That statement merely reflects your ignorance and continuing and unquestioning support of the Mccanns.
Indeed par for your course.
What evidence do you have that my support is unquestioning? What evidence do you have that I am ignorant?
-
True. That's the last sighing of anyone fitting Madeleine's description in Praia da Luz.
Err the only one....
-
Innocentman's daughter has dark hair whereas the Smithman's daughter was surely blond.
Did she??? I never read that anywhere....cos that would 1000 per cent rule out tannerman!
-
What evidence do you have that my support is unquestioning? What evidence do you have that I am ignorant?
There is an old saying to the effect, 'if you can't take criticism, don 't dish it' 8)-)))
-
In exactly the same way,there is no evidence there was no involvement, and no evidence of a stranger, so how can it be the mostly likely scenario that she was abducted, when you have said statistics pont otherwise....it can only be a personal belief/judgement/informed opinion
There is a lot of circumstantial evidence in this case...I would wager a bet most of it is anti abduction rather than the other way around, but then thats just my personal informed judgement too
No authority anywhere has said this was an abduction, inded the FCO office have the case classed as a missing person because there is no evidence of an abduction..see last sentence in second link, both pages linked for completeness
http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/foirequest141209.jpg&target=tlx_pic7gvj
http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/foirequest141209b.jpg&target=tlx_picxuro
you are applying statistics without any understanding...as I have stated many times parental involvement in crime is seen in dysfunctional families as has been shown in the recent Scottish case. You cannot use the fact that the bungled PJ operation found no evidence to suspect the McCanns. Perhaps if the pj had done their job properly evidence of an abductor would have been found.
-
There is an old saying to the effect, 'if you can't take criticism, don 't dish it' 8)-)))
I don't mind criticism at all ...I asked you for evidence to support your statement...it would appear that SY are ignorant and also have unquestioning support for the McCanns
-
In exactly the same way,there is no evidence there was no involvement, and no evidence of a stranger, so how can it be the mostly likely scenario that she was abducted, when you have said statistics pont otherwise....it can only be a personal belief/judgement/informed opinion
There is a lot of circumstantial evidence in this case...I would wager a bet most of it is anti abduction rather than the other way around, but then thats just my personal informed judgement too
No authority anywhere has said this was an abduction, inded the FCO office have the case classed as a missing person because there is no evidence of an abduction..see last sentence in second link, both pages linked for completeness
http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/foirequest141209.jpg&target=tlx_pic7gvj
http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/foirequest141209b.jpg&target=tlx_picxuro
As I said further down the quote, we have to remember that very high levels of proof are required before accusing anyone of the types of crimes the McCanns would have to be involved in if they were guilty of anything. And we don't have any such proof.
Abduction obviously requires proof also , but I believe that to accuse the McCanns of killing or concealing their own child, we need more.
-
As I said further down the quote, we have to remember that very high levels of proof are required before accusing anyone of the types of crimes the McCanns would have to be involved in if they were guilty of anything. And we don't have any such proof.
Abduction obviously requires proof also , but I believe that to accuse the McCanns of killing or concealing their own child, we need more.
very well put
-
Did she??? I never read that anywhere....cos that would 1000 per cent rule out tannerman!
It's just a guess... I've a feeling about who is Innocentman (look at the creche reports). Had she been blond, DCI Redwood hadn't hesitated to say so to manage Ms Tanner's reputation.
-
True. But in spite of that, it was put in the bin. Why ?
I don't know, Anne. You would be in a better position to answer that than me.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328#.UuQp8dIo6t8
-
As I said further down the quote, we have to remember that very high levels of proof are required before accusing anyone of the types of crimes the McCanns would have to be involved in if they were guilty of anything. And we don't have any such proof.
Abduction obviously requires proof also , but I believe that to accuse the McCanns of killing or concealing their own child, we need more.
Very few people accuse them of it.....but suspicion is justifiable, my post was about why stranger abduction is more likely than anythng else
-
I don't know, Anne. You would be in a better position to answer that than me.
It's not reasonable to say "I don't know". At least if you try to understand.
-
Very few people accuse them of it.....but suspicion is justifiable, my post was about why stranger abduction is more likely than anythng else
I think..and it appears that SY agree that in this case...taking into account all the facts...stranger abduction IS the most likely scenario in this case
-
you are applying statistics without any understanding...as I have stated many times parental involvement in crime is seen in dysfunctional families as has been shown in the recent Scottish case. You cannot use the fact that the bungled PJ operation found no evidence to suspect the McCanns. Perhaps if the pj had done their job properly evidence of an abductor would have been found.
A good example.
She is clearly a woman with a lot of problems, and the fact appears to have been well documented over the years. This will no doubt be used against her in court.
The same cannot be said of either of the McCanns.
-
Very few people accuse them of it.....but suspicion is justifiable, my post was about why stranger abduction is more likely than anythng else
Let's not forget which parties pointed their accusing fingers at Robert Murat, without any evidence at all, and which person wanted him dead ? >@@(*&)
-
I don't know, Anne. You would be in a better position to answer that than me.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328#.UuQp8dIo6t8
8)-))) Never seen that one before. That's just about the most Orwellian article I've seen. It's a cracker.
-
Very few people accuse them of it.....but suspicion is justifiable, my post was about why stranger abduction is more likely than anythng else
What they are suspected to have done isn't really a crime and they would never have gone to prison for that.
The issue is what happened after that.
-
A good example.
She is clearly a woman with a lot of problem, and the fact appears to have been well documented over the years. This will no doubt be used against her in court.
The same cannot be said of either of the McCanns.
Have you informations about little Mikaeel's mum ?
What about Casey Anthony ?
-
It's just a guess... I've a feeling about who is Innocentman (look at the creche reports). Had she been blond, DCI Redwood hadn't hesitated to say so to manage Ms Tanner's reputation.
I cant tell from the creche reports if a child had dark or blond hair? But you can see who attended (and presumably they also attended the night creche) and you can check from the arrivals list whch children were 2 and who their parents were
As for Redwood saying the child was blond wouldnt have made any difference to Tanners sighting/credibility as she saw a pair of legs...and lots of children have blonde hair
-
Very few people accuse them of it.....but suspicion is justifiable, my post was about why stranger abduction is more likely than anythng else
It isn't
-
Very few people accuse them of it.....but suspicion is justifiable, my post was about why stranger abduction is more likely than anythng else
Stranger abduction, statistically, is much less likely than parental involvement, in general terms. This we know well. But we also know well that statistics are meaningless in an individual case.
My belief in this case is that as the child has disappeared, and no evidence exists to incriminate the parents, then abduction is the most likely alternative. A much higher level of proof is required, as I referred to above, in order to accuse the parents of murder, manslaughter, and / or concealment and fraud.
-
What they are suspected to have done isn't really a crime and they would never have gone to prison for that.
The issue is what happened after that.
Yes....precisely
-
there isn't any known way to handle the media...the McCanns needed to use the media....and the deal is the media have used them
Don't be too sure of that.
-
What they are suspected to have done isn't really a crime and they would never have gone to prison for that.
The issue is what happened after that.
then why would they want to cover anything up
-
Stranger abduction, statistically, is much less likely than parental involvement, in general terms. This we know well.
My belief in this case is that as the child has disappeared, and no evidence exists to incriminate the parents, then abduction is the most likely alternative. A much higher level of proof is required, as I referred to above, in order to accuse the parents of murder, manslaughter, and / or concealment and fraud.
As I also said, no one is accusing them of murder or manslaughter or anythng else......its not illegal immoral or illogical though to be suspicious given a tonne of circumstantial evidence, thats my point!
In the same way you suspect a stranger abducted them
-
It's not reasonable to say "I don't know". At least if you try to understand.
I don't understand yet. Though I'm trying. 8)-)))
-
There's plenty of opportunity to move and conceal a body using the hypothesis of the dog findings. Tracking people's possible movements on the night against the timetable. The men split up - opportunity is there to move and conceal if you're alone i.e. Smithman. There's opportunity at other times - on checks (insider), not on checks (abductor), before tapas, later again in private searches etc. Kate is correct in her book that it becomes one word against the other but if you can id Smithman then his movements may reveal themselves for all to see when you compare it against the timetable of events that night gathered from the statements and evidence collected e.g. Smithman was last scene going in the direction of the church when he past the Smith family. In this hypothesis, knowing where Smithman finally concealed the body is the hard part and most probably only he can answer that unless more evidence presents itself.
-
8)-))) Never seen that one before. That's just about the most Orwellian article I've seen. It's a cracker.
It's quite a good one, isn't it?
Have had it up my sleeve for a few days waiting for the right moment...
-
There's plenty of opportunity to move and conceal a body using the hypothesis of the dog findings. Tracking people's possible movements on the night against the timetable. The men split up - opportunity is there to move and conceal if you're alone i.e. Smithman. There's opportunity at other times - on checks (insider), not on checks (abductor), before tapas, later again in private searches etc. Kate is correct in her book it becomes one word against the other but if you can id Smithman then his movements may reveal themselves for all to see when you compare it against the timetable of events that night gathered from the statements and evidence collected e.g. Smithman was last scene going in the direction of the church when he past the Smith family. In this hypothesis, knowing where Smithman finally concealed the body is the hard part and most probably only he can answer that unless more evidence presents itself.
AG has stated that what they did was not a crime so why would they want to cover something up...that would make them guilty of a crime and a possible prison sentence..it makes no sense
-
Stranger abduction, statistically, is much less likely than parental involvement, in general terms. This we know well.
My belief in this case is that as the child has disappeared, and no evidence exists to incriminate the parents, then abduction is the most likely alternative. A much higher level of proof is required, as I referred to above, in order to accuse the parents of murder, manslaughter, and / or concealment and fraud.
Why ?
Redblossom is right : most circumstantial evidences point towards unintentional killing.
Have you consulted stats about those particular and certainly most awful accidents ?
-
8)-))) Never seen that one before. That's just about the most Orwellian article I've seen. It's a cracker.
The spin is shocking! That one passed me by too
-
Have you informations about little Mikaeel's mum ?
What about Casey Anthony ?
Mikaeel's mother had been known to social services for years and Mikaeel had been in care. Furthermore her lifestyle was pretty outlandish for a mother with several children. She was involved in the drugs world in Edinburgh, a recent boyfriend having been shot and killed in connection with a drugs gang. Not the sort of environment a three year old is best placed in.
I can't comment on the Casey Anthony case as I know very little about it.
-
Why ?
Redblossom is right : most circumstantial evidences point towards unintentional killing.
Have you consulted stats about those particular and certainly most awful accidents ?
No red is wrong...weve looked at the stats before most fatal accidents involve fires...stairs ..you are just plain wrong
-
The spin is shocking! That one passed me by too
Direct quote from mr smith..no spin
-
I don't understand yet. Though I'm trying. 8)-)))
You're not trying to understand what happened to Madeleine, but how the abductor managed to make her vanish.
I'm not sure that your mentor would approve that..
-
It's quite a good one, isn't it?
Have had it up my sleeve for a few days waiting for the right moment...
Like a digital IED 8(0(*
-
No red is wrong...weve looked at the stats before most fatal accidents involve fires...stairs ..you are just plain wrong
@)(++(*
-
Why ?
Redblossom is right : most circumstantial evidences point towards unintentional killing.
Have you consulted stats about those particular and certainly most awful accidents ?
I actually modified this post, Anne, to read that statistics are meaningless in any individual case. This we have to bear in mind also and take in the scenario as a whole.
-
You're not trying to understand what happened to Madeleine, but how the abductor managed to make her vanish.
I'm not sure that your mentor would approve that..
It would be simple to make maddie vanish...a car
-
@)(++(*
do you have any stats re fatal accidents...can you come up with a realistic scenario..you cant...we've been through it all before
-
You're not trying to understand what happened to Madeleine, but how the abductor managed to make her vanish.
I'm not sure that your mentor would approve that..
I think you over-emphasise my connection with my mentor.
Aside from some amateur attempts at violin playing I have nothing in common with the man.
-
Direct quote from mr smith..no spin
You underestimate the ability of our fine journalists to twist.
-
Like a digital IED 8(0(*
Let's see if it turns out to be explosive....
-
You underestimate the ability of our fine journalists to twist.
I don't...strange no one mentioned this ability re the Sunday Times article ... that was taken verbatim
-
I don't...strange no one mentioned this ability re the Sunday Times article ... that was taken verbatim
That was the Times though! 8(0(* Be honest.
-
Mikaeel's mother had been known to social services for years and Mikaeel had been in care. Furthermore her lifestyle was pretty outlandish for a mother with several children. She was involved in the drugs world in Edinburgh, a recent boyfriend having been shot and killed in connection with a drugs gang. Not the sort of environment a three year old is best placed in.
I can't comment on the Casey Anthony case as I know very little about it.
Casey Anthony was acquitted by a jury of her peers.
-
That was the Times though! 8(0(* Be honest.
Yes by two journalist who had already lost a major libel case
-
Casey Anthony was acquitted by a jury of her peers.
Not on all charges ?{)(**
-
As I said further down the quote, we have to remember that very high levels of proof are required before accusing anyone of the types of crimes the McCanns would have to be involved in if they were guilty of anything. And we don't have any such proof.
Abduction obviously requires proof also , but I believe that to accuse the McCanns of killing or concealing their own child, we need more.
Why don't you drop the "accuse", we're no court here !
-
It would be simple to make maddie vanish...a car
Yes, the simplest and best way possible.
Ironic that so much time and effort has gone into discussing scenarios that are altogether much less likely - such as Smithman's evening stroll.
-
Why don't you drop the "accuse", we're no court here !
There is a fine line between suggestion and accusation.
When one says 'J'accuse' it is a figure of speech.
-
You're not trying to understand what happened to Madeleine, but how the abductor managed to make her vanish.
I'm not sure that your mentor would approve that..
So I am not trying to understand because I don't agree with you? Has it ever crossed your mind that you could be wrong?
-
Yes, the simplest and best way possible.
Ironic that so much time and effort has gone into discussing scenarios that are altogether much less likely - such as Smithman's evening stroll.
Or Tannermans
Or a charity collector three weeks earlier being the abductor, because he gave some old woman the creeps,or a man seen in Oct 2006 around the apartment being the abductor, or a near death 67 yr old ex convicted child abductor being the abductor, or a woman in barcelona buying a baby, that the witness took two yrs to come forward with info for, or all the long string of other pathetic and "manufactured" sightings, all so much more likely I suppose
-
You're correct Davel a crime would have been committed for a cover up to happen IMO.
-
I think you over-emphasise my connection with my mentor.
Aside from some amateur attempts at violin playing I have nothing in common with the man.
Then play the violin, forget 221b, and dedicate yourself to the 3rd Partita of Johann Sebastian. That's my wish for you.
-
You're correct Davel a crime would have been committed for a cover up to happen IMO.
Not imo.
-
There is a fine line between suggestion and accusation.
When one says 'J'accuse' it is a figure of speech.
Let's say "suggest" then ! We're no Zola here !
-
Yes, the simplest and best way possible.
Ironic that so much time and effort has gone into discussing scenarios that are altogether much less likely - such as Smithman's evening stroll.
Is is ironic to discard the little blond girl Smithman was carrying so fatherly ?
-
Then play the violin, forget 221b, and dedicate yourself to the 3rd Partita of Johann Sebastian. That's my wish for you.
Actually just working on the Double concerto now!
-
Not imo.
From the time period hypothesis I have there's adult(s) in 5A if it happened so there's more to this than a tragic accidental death. More Incriminating factors are involved if that did happen in order for anyone to go to those lengths using that hypothesis.
-
Actually just working on the Double concerto now!
Then you have a partner, that's marvellous !
-
From the time period hypothesis I have there's adult(s) in 5A if it happened so there's more to this than a tragic accidental death. More Incriminating factors are involved if that did happen in order for anyone to go to those lengths using that hypothesis.
Are you referring to the Payne questionnaires ?
-
Is is ironic to discard the little blond girl Smithman was carrying so fatherly ?
Considering a driver could have been miles away by the time Smithman was spotted...
-
Then you have a partner, that's marvellous !
Que?
-
Considering a driver could have been miles away by the time Smithman was spotted...
A ghost driver, yes certainly !
-
Then you have a partner, that's marvellous !
Yes, it's great fun!
-
Considering a driver could have been miles away by the time Smithman was spotted...
True but remains conjecture, hypothesis speculation and all those legalese terms..guesswork in laymans
-
Que?
Anne and I often stray off topic, Eleanor. Will reroute the conversation when we're all finished.
-
True but remains conjecture, hypothesis speculation and all those legalese terms..guesswork in laymans
Its is indeed pure guesswork.
That's the frustrating thing about this whole case, though, isn't it? There is very little evidence for anything.
-
Its is indeed pure guesswork.
That's the frustrating thing about this whole case, though, isn't it? There is very little evidence for anything.
Theres circumstantial SH..lots of it...and not all of just around the events of one night..depends which way you thnk the tossed coin lands as to probability, thats all
-
Are you referring to the Payne questionnaires ?
I'm taking that into consideration. The time that stands out is the daily routine change is 6.30-7pm. That's the first thing I would do in an investigation. Did the daily routine change on the day she disappeared? It did at that time and first bed sight check of Madeleine of the week at just after 9pm so that stands out.
-
True but remains conjecture, hypothesis speculation and all those legalese terms..guesswork in laymans
So we have
A child bundled quickly into a car and driven away by a stranger ..or
A dead child kept in a fridge the transported in a car under the eyes of the worlds press , leaving no dna trace in the car..and disposed of..
What would the statistics say
-
Theres circumstantial SH..lots of it...and not all of just around the events of one night..depends which way you thnk the tossed coin lands as to probability, thats all
The coin would have to land on its edge for your theory to have any credence
-
Or Tannermans
Or a charity collector three weeks earlier being the abductor, because he gave some old woman the creeps,or a man seen in Oct 2006 around the apartment being the abductor, or a near death 67 yr old ex convicted child abductor being the abductor, or a woman in barcelona buying a baby, that the witness took two yrs to come forward with info for, or all the long string of other pathetic and "manufactured" sightings, all so much more likely I suppose
(http://www.languefrancaise.net/docs/uploads/Argot/BoudardPiedsNickeles/pieds-nickeles-azur-1965-1.jpg)
-
Anne and I often stray off topic, Eleanor. Will reroute the conversation when we're all finished.
I think you missed my point. But never mind. Anne won't have done.
-
(http://www.languefrancaise.net/docs/uploads/Argot/BoudardPiedsNickeles/pieds-nickeles-azur-1965-1.jpg)
LOL how sad but true is that!
Mirror said this man was identical to Tannerman
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-nannys-new-sketch-329189
The one seen 2006
sad pathetic idiots
and of course if this was true he also bore resemblance to hewlett cooperman and a dozen others whilst we are at it
-
So we have
A child bundled quickly into a car and driven away by a stranger ..or
A dead child kept in a fridge the transported in a car under the eyes of the worlds press , leaving no dna trace in the car..and disposed of..
What would the statistics say
Was there any mention of a car in Crimewatch, davel? Aren't you going completely off message? You're jettisoning both sightings now? >@@(*&)
-
Was there any mention of a car in Crimewatch, davel? Aren't you going completely off message? You're jettisoning both sightings now? >@@(*&)
im not off track at all...Redwood has said that the smith sighting may be an innocent holidaymaker...both sightings may be innocent...who knows
-
Was there any mention of a car in Crimewatch, davel? Aren't you going completely off message? You're jettisoning both sightings now? >@@(*&)
No sightings then at all in thatcase
@)(++(*
Scuppers all circumstantial evidence for abduction
-
No sightings then at all in thatcase
@)(++(*
Scuppers all circumstantial evidence for abduction
The night is young. Dave may well be thinking our way by morning 8)-)))
-
No sightings then at all in thatcase
@)(++(*
Scuppers all circumstantial evidence for abduction
You really don't have a clue...do you think that SY are basing the abduction theory purely on the smith sighting?
As Redwood has said...smithman may be innocent..........and probably is imo......makes not a scrap of difference to the abduction theory
-
I'm a bit out of touch(been away) and trying to catch up and I'm sure this has been discussed.....
A man(Dad) carrying a child after having dinner or drinks at OC Where are the Mums ? Seems strange to me there were two separate men alone carrying a child around the same time. Probably just me though!
-
Does it really matter if there was no sighting at all?
-
Does it really matter if there was no sighting at all?
absolutely not...doesn't make abduction more or less likely either way
-
The night is young. Dave may well be thinking our way by morning 8)-)))
I would be more than happy to change my mind if evidence came to light
-
Was there any mention of a car in Crimewatch, davel? Aren't you going completely off message? You're jettisoning both sightings now? >@@(*&)
Why do you bother with the mention of a car, Lyall ? If there's none, create it !
-
I would be more than happy to change my mind if evidence came to light
How much evidence do you need of reputation management? Yet you deny that.
-
I'm a bit out of touch(been away) and trying to catch up and I'm sure this has been discussed.....
A man(Dad) carrying a child after having dinner or drinks at OC Where are the Mums ? Seems strange to me there were two separate men alone carrying a child around the same time. Probably just me though!
And no buggies....what parents of toddlers do not use buggies!
-
Statistics say it is possible. Does a porker on an Airbus count? 8)--))
LOL
Err no not really, well, not at all actually to be precise!
-
I'm a bit out of touch(been away) and trying to catch up and I'm sure this has been discussed.....
A man(Dad) carrying a child after having dinner or drinks at OC Where are the Mums ? Seems strange to me there were two separate men alone carrying a child around the same time. Probably just me though!
The mum might stay with the other kids at home, or feeling tired or... separate parents.
You're right, the probability that one father having carried his child on top of his stretched arms and keeping silent though destroyed parents scream on all possible international media for a clue about a man carrying a child on his stretched arms is almost nul.
Now 2...
-
How much evidence do you need of reputation management? Yet you deny that.
reputation management?...yes evidence of reputation management exists
-
And no buggies....what parents of toddlers do not use buggies!
True RB I think they rented them out, but I don't think the mcCanns had them as they carried Madeiline home when she was overtired on that fateful day
-
The mum might stay with the other kids at home, or feeling tired or... separate parents.
You're right, the probability that one father having carried his child on top of his stretched arms and keeping silent though destroyed parents scream on all possible international media for a clue about a man carrying a child on his stretched arms is almost nul.
Now 2...
could we have that in english
-
True RB I think they rented them out, but I don't think the mcCanns had them as they carried Madeiline home when she was overtired on that fateful day
I was talking about the parents taking their kids home from the creche at night not the mccanns ie innocentman and or smithman
-
I was talking about the parents taking their kids home from the creche at night not the mccanns
Sorry I was also talking about the parents. I was trying to say not all parents used buggies because McCanns didn't
-
Sorry I was also talking about the parents. I was trying to say not all parents used buggies because McCanns didn't
Thats OK but
They didnt need them since they left their kids at home at night, no transportation needed whereas you would think parents bringing children home from the night creche to their ocean club apartments would use one and not carry them in their arms, whch makes both tannerman and smithman...at least from their spotted locations..... not carrying their kids frm the creche IMO...too far away JMO
Edited
-
Thats OK but
They didnt need them since they left their kids at home at night, no transporstion needed whereas yu woud thnk parents bringing children home from the night creche would use one and not carry them in their arms, whch makes both tannerman and smithman likely not carrying their kids frm the creche IMO
That is very true, so I wonder why these two men were carrying children or could they be the same person ?
-
That is very true, so I wonder why these two men were carrying children or could they be the same person ?
Not the same person, trust DCI Redwood, SY !
-
Sorry I was also talking about the parents. I was trying to say not all parents used buggies because McCanns didn't
They said they used buggies (likely borrowed to the OC) to go to the beach with the three kids.
-
True RB I think they rented them out, but I don't think the mcCanns had them as they carried Madeiline home when she was overtired on that fateful day
That's what only one parent said after 4 months.. Nobody corroborated.
-
That is very true, so I wonder why these two men were carrying children or could they be the same person ?
Its not suspicious in itself to be carrying your child.....either of them could have been going or coming back from anywhere...a short or a longer distance....just because Maddie was found "missing" doesnt make all male carriers of children bloody suspects per sé.
-
Not the same person, trust DCI Redwood, SY !
OK I guess they know whats what, but it strikes me as very strange two men carrying children around the same time with no wife and no buggy! Oh well not to worry eh!
-
OK I guess they know whats what, but it strikes me as very strange two men carrying children around the same time with no wife and no buggy! Oh well not to worry eh!
Not the same time, if that might comfort you.
-
OK I guess they know whats what, but it strikes me as very strange two men carrying children around the same time with no wife and no buggy! Oh well not to worry eh!
It was 45 minutes apart so not the same time
and there were several others taking their young children home on that night
LOl sorry cross posted
Nite all!!!
-
True RB I think they rented them out, but I don't think the mcCanns had them as they carried Madeiline home when she was overtired on that fateful day
Overtired when Kate arrived? Maybe. She was fine that day - not overtired according to Cat Baker and DP at 6.30.
"On Thursday the 3rd of May 2007, I remember Gerry having accompanied Madeleine to the club between 9h15 and 9h20 in the morning. I do not remember who came to pick her up for lunch but after she returned in the afternoon for a dive/swim. These activities were realized with the other children. On this day I remember that we sailed and I saw friends of the McCanns on the beach, David and Jane. Around 14h45 Madeleine returned to the Minis Club on top of the reception but I do not remember who accompanied her. This afternoon we went swimming. Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics.
I never noted anything strange in Madeleine's comportment during the time I stayed with her. There was one occasion, on Thursday, 3rd of May 2007, around 10H30 in the morning, where she cried at the launch of the yellow safety boat in the ocean where all the children were sailing. She was scared and fearful and cried on my lap "I am scared, I am scared."
We only used the launches to transport the children to the small yellow boats. When we returned to the other boat she was happy again. She sailed in the small boat and even though some children had the opportunity to return to the port, she stayed for a second time as she appeared to be having a good time. Jane Tanner's daughter also took part in my group and together they would play. Apart from being a happy child in the club, she always seemed very content when she saw her parents. Madeleine did not demonstrate any fear with the return launch to land.
Madeleine never mentioned that she had cried in the absence of her parents nor did she tell me anything of significance relating to feeling sad or something relevant that would cause me to worry." (Cat Baker)
DP: I walked up there, Kate was you know I say looking very relaxed and err I say a comment to her I said well crikey it’s early, early for them to be getting ready you know for bed, as I say she said ah no, I’ve had such a good, you know such a good day and afternoon err so you know, and Gerry’s just obviously finishing off playing tennis and err so you know hopefully try and get them down and as I say we were just, you know I, I know, it does sound bizarre but I just looked at the three of them and I couldn’t, you know they were just so well presented and so clean and immaculate it was, you know I was, and you know they just looked such healthy children, err you know. The children all looked extremely happy, there was no, you know signs of any problem. I’d be playing with Madeleine you know in the, err the play area err you know during that week, you know lifting her up, twizzing her round and everything, I knew her that well, you know, to do that, and as I say err she’d definitely know who I was and certainly, as I say, just to reinforce that she looked very happy.”
1485 ”Yeah. Was that the last time you saw Madeleine?”
Reply ”It was.”
-
Overtired when Kate arrived? Maybe. She was fine that day - not overtired according to Cat Baker and DP at 6.30.
"On Thursday the 3rd of May 2007, I remember Gerry having accompanied Madeleine to the club between 9h15 and 9h20 in the morning. I do not remember who came to pick her up for lunch but after she returned in the afternoon for a dive/swim. These activities were realized with the other children. On this day I remember that we sailed and I saw friends of the McCanns on the beach, David and Jane. Around 14h45 Madeleine returned to the Minis Club on top of the reception but I do not remember who accompanied her. This afternoon we went swimming. Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics.
I never noted anything strange in Madeleine's comportment during the time I stayed with her. There was one occasion, on Thursday, 3rd of May 2007, around 10H30 in the morning, where she cried at the launch of the yellow safety boat in the ocean where all the children were sailing. She was scared and fearful and cried on my lap "I am scared, I am scared."
We only used the launches to transport the children to the small yellow boats. When we returned to the other boat she was happy again. She sailed in the small boat and even though some children had the opportunity to return to the port, she stayed for a second time as she appeared to be having a good time. Jane Tanner's daughter also took part in my group and together they would play. Apart from being a happy child in the club, she always seemed very content when she saw her parents. Madeleine did not demonstrate any fear with the return launch to land.
Madeleine never mentioned that she had cried in the absence of her parents nor did she tell me anything of significance relating to feeling sad or something relevant that would cause me to worry." (Cat Baker)
DP: I walked up there, Kate was you know I say looking very relaxed and err I say a comment to her I said well crikey it’s early, early for them to be getting ready you know for bed, as I say she said ah no, I’ve had such a good, you know such a good day and afternoon err so you know, and Gerry’s just obviously finishing off playing tennis and err so you know hopefully try and get them down and as I say we were just, you know I, I know, it does sound bizarre but I just looked at the three of them and I couldn’t, you know they were just so well presented and so clean and immaculate it was, you know I was, and you know they just looked such healthy children, err you know. The children all looked extremely happy, there was no, you know signs of any problem. I’d be playing with Madeleine you know in the, err the play area err you know during that week, you know lifting her up, twizzing her round and everything, I knew her that well, you know, to do that, and as I say err she’d definitely know who I was and certainly, as I say, just to reinforce that she looked very happy.”
1485 ”Yeah. Was that the last time you saw Madeleine?”
Reply ”It was.”
Sorry about that. I felt sure that I read somewhere that she was tired and had to be carried back to the apartment and in the patio doors while dad went in the main door with the babies... Guess I got it wrong. I will check again
-
Sorry about that. I felt sure that I read somewhere that she was tired and had to be carried back to the apartment and in the patio doors while dad went in the main door with the babies... Guess I got it wrong. I will check again
Please don't apologise as you're correct. That is what Kate said but maybe she was in fact tired after just finishing her run. I think the dogs got Madeleine's walking back from the tapas trail the next day around the path.
-
It is a little worrying that SY on crimewatch make no mention of geography re JT's sighting. Mr Redwood has been to PDL. Has he actually walked the route from night creche to innocentman's apartment?
I worked out apartment number of innocentman, not definite but good chance it correct. Sorry not giving apartment number because it give identity and I do not agree with the predatory nature of part of the UK press, but based on this location, and assuming innocent man was coming from the night creche near 24hrrecepion near Rua Direita........
(A) If he goes direct to apartment, he does NOT pass through the T junction JT saw him, however he DOES possibly pass within view of JT's route, in a different place, a little earlier on JT's route.
(B) If he takes a circuitous route so that he ends up heading eastwards into the T junction as described by JT, his most direct route home from that T junction is to turn RIGHT (South) at that T junction, towards JT and GM and JW.
-
Please don't apologise as you're correct. That is what Kate said but maybe she was in fact tired after just finishing her run. I think the dogs got Madeleine's walking back from the tapas trail the next day around the path.
That's right, they(dogs) ended up at D block
-
That's right, they(dogs) ended up at D block
I know one crossed the road from the lamp post and went to the door/gate entrance that leads into the tapas but it was shut and was sniffing there.
-
It is a little worrying that SY on crimewatch make no mention of geography re JT's sighting. Mr Redwood has been to PDL. Has he actually walked the route from night creche to innocentman's apartment?
I worked out apartment number of innocentman, not definite but good chance it correct. Sorry not giving apartment number because it give identity and I do not agree with the predatory nature of part of the UK press, but based on this location, and assuming innocent man was coming from the night creche near 24hrrecepion near Rua Direita........
(A) If he goes direct to apartment, he does NOT pass through the T junction JT saw him, however he DOES possibly pass within view of JT's route, in a different place, a little earlier on JT's route.
(B) If he takes a circuitous route so that he ends up heading eastwards into the T junction as described by JT, his most direct route home from that T junction is to turn RIGHT (South) at that T junction, towards JT and GM and JW.
So do you think JT saw someone else and not innocentman.?
-
Please don't apologise as you're correct. That is what Kate said but maybe she was in fact tired after just finishing her run. I think the dogs got Madeleine's walking back from the tapas trail the next day around the path.
The next day she had disappeared.
-
It is a little worrying that SY on crimewatch make no mention of geography re JT's sighting. Mr Redwood has been to PDL. Has he actually walked the route from night creche to innocentman's apartment?
I worked out apartment number of innocentman, not definite but good chance it correct. Sorry not giving apartment number because it give identity and I do not agree with the predatory nature of part of the UK press, but based on this location, and assuming innocent man was coming from the night creche near 24hrrecepion near Rua Direita........
(A) If he goes direct to apartment, he does NOT pass through the T junction JT saw him, however he DOES possibly pass within view of JT's route, in a different place, a little earlier on JT's route.
(B) If he takes a circuitous route so that he ends up heading eastwards into the T junction as described by JT, his most direct route home from that T junction is to turn RIGHT (South) at that T junction, towards JT and GM and JW.
Yes it' strange but there's no way I can believe that SY have made the biggest blunder ever! They must have covered all this extensively about the route he took, the reasons why etc. I don't think Jane saw Smithman if she's telling the truth but I still can't believe Gerry or Jez didn't see her flip-flopping past them.
-
That's right, they(dogs) ended up at D block
No. There's no D block.
-
The next day she had disappeared.
I mean next day dog tracking being the 4th. Found her scent at tapas entrance from 5.30 on the 3rd.
-
No. There's no D block.
Well, The other side of the road then
-
Well, The other side of the road then
Yes that's the shortcut path route which they used to take Madeleine to the crèche.
-
I mean next day dog tracking being the 4th. Found her scent at tapas entrance from 5.30 on the 3rd.
It's imperative to launch the dog from the last point where the missing person has been seen. This is the only way to know the direction taken, because the dog will always go from the oldest scent towards the freshest.
The dog was in the dead end at the lamp post because the scent he had picked up and had been following had at least two days. But at the lampost he finally picked up the tea time scent towards the secondary reception.
-
It's imperative to launch the dog from the last point where the missing person has been seen. This is the only way to know the direction taken, because the dog will always go from the oldest scent towards the freshest.
The dog was in the dead end at the lamp post because the scent he had picked up and had been following had at least two days. But at the lampost he finally picked up the tea time scent towards the secondary reception.
Thanks Anne for the information. They should have done one starting from the tapas to find her last known outdoor route back to 5A.
-
Yes it' strange but there's no way I can believe that SY have made the biggest blunder ever! They must have covered all this extensively about the route he took, the reasons why etc. I don't think Jane saw Smithman if she's telling the truth but I still can't believe Gerry or Jez didn't see her flip-flopping past them.
There's no way DCI Redwood can have any doubt about ruling out bundleman as a suspect.
This was his 'Revelation Moment', remember.
They would look like the stupidest people in the world if they got that wrong.
-
I get lost in the minutiae of this case sometimes and feel the need to refocus on the particular point raised
In this instance, it is the claim that the man Jane saw on that fateful night presented himself to someone early on ( six years ago )
So who did he present himself TO
who has known, for all this time, that Jane Tanner did NOT see Madeleine being abducted ?
-
There's no way DCI Redwood can have any doubt about ruling out bundleman as a suspect.
This was his 'Revelation Moment', remember.
They would look like the stupidest people in the world if they got that wrong.
I think the ruling out of the holiday maker was correct, but what if it was someone else JT saw ?
-
I get lost in the minutiae of this case sometimes and feel the need to refocus on the particular point raised
In this instance, it is the claim that the man Jane saw on that fateful night presented himself to someone early on ( six years ago )
So who did he present himself TO
who has known, for all this time, that Jane Tanner did NOT see Madeleine being abducted ?
Good evening, icabod. We were discussing this in the early pages of this thread...Anne alludes to their being questionnaires given out by LC to English tourists at the resort but that Bundleman's answers were not forwarded on to Portugal along with some of the other completed questionnaires as LC judged according to his answers that he was not a suspect. (If I understand correctly).
I certainly don't think we have got anywhere near the bottom of this issue and I'm glad you've directed things back. The whole thing astonishes me.
-
I think the ruling out of the holiday maker was correct, but what if it was someone else JT saw ?
So now we've got Three fathers walking with shoeless children that night...
Was there a shoe crisis in PdL that week?
And where were the mothers?
-
I think the ruling out of the holiday maker was correct, but what if it was someone else JT saw ?
So now we've got Three fathers walking with shoeless children that night...
Was there a shoe crisis in PdL that week?
And where were the mothers?
Tannerman was holding the child differently to Smithman and going in the opposite direction to where he was later spotted. There's no way Smithman is walking around PDL for 45 minutes with Madeleine. We have to take JT's word that she is telling the truth but it wouldn't stand up in court. It's impossible for her to brush past two people on a quiet deserted street without being seen or heard wearing flip flops. I would love to see that reconstruction.
-
Thanks Anne for the information. They should have done one starting from the tapas to find her last known outdoor route back to 5A.
They could have done that, but the significant part is that none of them went up to the GA carpark, neither through the inclined plane nor through the steps. They likely didn't want to follow the scent that was there.
-
Good evening, icabod. We were discussing this in the early pages of this thread...Anne alludes to their being questionnaires given out by LC to English tourists at the resort but that Bundleman's answers were not forwarded on to Portugal along with some of the other completed questionnaires as LC judged according to his answers that he was not a suspect. (If I understand correctly).
Unless exhibiting interest for the investigation they weren't sent to the PJ (proof is they aren't in the files, as well as the statements of Neil B etc. who were questioned by the LC (I posted evidence of that in the LOR).
In fact those statements/questionnaires belong to the LC, not to the PJ.
We have no idea what is in the LC Files, and we'll likely never know.
-
They could have done that, but the significant part is that none of them went up to the GA carpark, neither through the inclined plane nor through the steps. They likely didn't want to follow the scent that was there.
Thanks. I will send you a PM about this for possible images before I call it a night. Night all!
-
Yes it' strange but there's no way I can believe that SY have made the biggest blunder ever! They must have covered all this extensively about the route he took, the reasons why etc. I don't think Jane saw Smithman if she's telling the truth but I still can't believe Gerry or Jez didn't see her flip-flopping past them.
IMO JT is telling the truth and has been wrongly maligned.
The options why innocentman might walk across the stated T junction eastwards (even though it is certainly not on route home from creche) IMO are:
(A) didn't know roads and got lost
(B) child initially awake so took circuitous route to get child to sleep
(C) walked back from creche chatting with another parent and child and walked with them to entrance of block 4 then headed home (pure speculation).
(D) collected child not from creche but maybe from nanny looking after child at work-provided accomodation (pure speculation).
-
IMO JT is telling the truth and has been wrongly maligned.
The options why innocentman might walk across the stated T junction eastwards (even though it is certainly not on route home from creche) IMO are:
(A) didn't know roads and got lost
(B) child initially awake so took circuitous route to get child to sleep
(C) walked back from creche chatting with another parent and child and walked with them to entrance of block 4 then headed home (pure speculation).
(D) collected child not from creche but maybe from nanny looking after child at work-provided accomodation (pure speculation).
It must be something like that, Pegasus. It is impossible to imagine that SY overlooked something so obvious as bundleman having been walking in the 'wrong' direction. If we armchair detectives have noted this anomaly, 30 real detectives must have picked up on it.
-
Unless exhibiting interest for the investigation they weren't sent to the PJ (proof is they aren't in the files, as well as the statements of Neil B etc. who were questioned by the LC (I posted evidence of that in the LOR).
In fact those statements/questionnaires belong to the LC, not to the PJ.
We have no idea what is in the LC Files, and we'll likely never know.
In other words, Leicestershire Police (as they are now called) are responsible for this mistake? Is that what we are saying?
And if LP have bundleman's answers in files from 2007, how come it took Scotland Yard so many months into their inquiry to access and analyse them?
And if what bundleman has been doing all this time, wondering why his sketch was plastered across world media when he had already eliminated himself, is a question needing to be answered, it is also a question what Leicestershire Police, the ones who judged him to be innocent, made of the situation.
Isn't this all very odd?
-
Unless exhibiting interest for the investigation they weren't sent to the PJ (proof is they aren't in the files, as well as the statements of Neil B etc. who were questioned by the LC (I posted evidence of that in the LOR).
In fact those statements/questionnaires belong to the LC, not to the PJ.
We have no idea what is in the LC Files, and we'll likely never know.
The files are certainly closed for the forseeable future:
http://www.leics.police.uk/media/uploads/library/file/op-task-publication-strategy.pdf
-
It must be something like that, Pegasus. It is impossible to imagine that SY overlooked something so obvious as bundleman having been walking in the 'wrong' direction. If we armchair detectives have noted this anomaly, 30 real detectives must have picked up on it.
The first street that a new person knows is Francisco Gentil Martins, it leads to the supermarket (the only one) and to the beaches.
Innocentman had been there for 5 days.. Mr Oldfield, who didn't know the short cut because his child was in the tapas creche, didn't get lost when he went and came back from the main reception.
It is obvious that DCI Redwood, as Lyall says, managed Ms Tanner's reputation. Whoever she saw wasn't Smithman, her sighting has therefore no value for the case, which resolves marvellously the delicate issue of her flip flops and transparency.
-
In other words, Leicestershire Police (as they are now called) are responsible for this mistake? Is that what we are saying?
And if LP have bundleman's answers in files from 2007, how come it took Scotland Yard so many months into their inquiry to access and analyse them?
And if what bundleman has been doing all this time, wondering why his sketch was plastered across world media when he had already eliminated himself, is a question needing to be answered, it is also a question what Leicestershire Police, the ones who judged him to be innocent, made of the situation.
Isn't this all very odd?
Imo the ex LC made no mistake. They were mainly trying to know if guests had seen something weird on that night and if guests had been carrying children near the G5. Had lnnocentman matched perfectly Tannerman or be strange, they would have noted.
DCI Redwood took the problem the other way round : instead of trying to find somebody matching Tannerman, he looked for somebody who had the following characteristics : carrying a child in pyjamas, at night, in PDL, clear pants and dark jacket, dark hair.
-
I worked out apartment number of innocentman, not definite but good chance it correct.
Can I ask how you were able to do this pegasus since SY have never released any background information in relation to this guy?
-
So now we've got Three fathers walking with shoeless children that night...
Was there a shoe crisis in PdL that week?
And where were the mothers?
That's an interesting point. I wonder if parents were in the habit of carrying their offspring back from the night crèche without footwear?
DCI Redwood was pretty specific in that Innocentman had come from the night crèche. He wasn't lost, dilly dallying or coming from some other apartment. Given that Jane's Tannerman was seen walking in the opposite direction to that of Innocentman.
It would be interesting to know the route that this guy Innocentman took because I for one don't believe him. There is far too much secrecy about this individual and his movements for my liking. I think we might have been sold a pup?
-
It would be interesting to know the route that this guy Innocentman took because I for one don't believe him.
You don't believe DCI Redwood ?
Do you know what Innocentman wrote on the questionnaire ?
Why, if for instance he said he walked up FMGentil and saw a lady on the other side of the street who was walking down, wouldn't you believe him ?
-
You don't believe DCI Redwood ?
Do you know what Innocentman wrote on the questionnaire ?
Why, if for instance he said he walked up FMGentil and saw a lady on the other side of the street who was walking down, wouldn't you believe him ?
We don't know what Innocentman wrote, that's the problem. Could it be that his identity is being withheld just in case someone else works these discrepancies out for themself?
-
Is it set in stone that IM was coming BACK from the creche? Seems early at 9.15. What if he was GOING to the creche. They are open until 11pm at night. Still gives 2 hours to go out and eat etc.
Also I still dont get how JT saw much of anything that night. She was walking along minding her own business a few drinks in her system I expect, sort of looks up, sees someone vaguely in front of her and it registers in her head.
LATER that memory is jogged back and it alongside the first memory is added other impressions, child missing, wearing pink pyjamas....etc.
The JT sighting then turns into bundle man carrying away the child who is wearing pink PJs...
No no no I think its impossible to be that accurate.
In PDL at that time it got dark around 6.30 like here in the UK. By 9.15 you would just have dark and the odd glow off street lamps (which change everything).
WHY if you were not expecting to see anything exciting at 9.15 would you be vigilant to a sighting of such importance?
I would think in your brain, you would be thinking mundane things on such a night...just strolling along thinking what a phaff it was to leave your friends and check on your kids tra la la, blah blah....
BUT NO.....the one night the 3rd May the most remembered night in the land (even as famous now as Christmas 25th December), you see the ONE PERSON carrying away a child ...... because you were being so vigilant....
NAH I dont buy it. Never have, never will.
I believe because the PJ were not interested in this sighting they too knew it was of no interest.
I DONT believe they would have been so ARROGANT not to have kept per-suing it if they had thought that it was significant. INSTEAD of which they never pushed it. Only the Smith sighting was of importance.
I still personally feel this sighting was bogus I cant believe an abductor would be so bold as to walk the streets by restaurants and cafes etc with a kidnapped child.
The only way it works for me is if its to confuse.
If someone had the key to the apartment they could have taken a child out in minutes, and gone off into the night towards the old lagos road and into a car....not walk straight into PDL....NAH doesnt work for me.
-
Is it set in stone that IM was coming BACK from the creche? Seems early at 9.15. What if he was GOING to the creche. They are open until 11pm at night. Still gives 2 hours to go out and eat etc.
Also I still dont get how JT saw much of anything that night. She was walking along minding her own business a few drinks in her system I expect, sort of looks up, sees someone vaguely in front of her and it registers in her head.
LATER that memory is jogged back and it alongside the first memory is added other impressions, child missing, wearing pink pyjamas....etc.
The JT sighting then turns into bundle man carrying away the child who is wearing pink PJs...
No no no I think its impossible to be that accurate.
In PDL at that time it got dark around 6.30 like here in the UK. By 9.15 you would just have dark and the odd glow off street lamps (which change everything).
WHY if you were not expecting to see anything exciting at 9.15 would you be vigilant to a sighting of such importance?
I would think in your brain, you would be thinking mundane things on such a night...just strolling along thinking what a phaff it was to leave your friends and check on your kids tra la la, blah blah....
BUT NO.....the one night the 3rd May the most remembered night in the land (even as famous now as Christmas 25th December), you see the ONE PERSON carrying away a child ...... because you were being so vigilant....
NAH I dont buy it. Never have, never will.
I believe because the PJ were not interested in this sighting they too knew it was of no interest.
I DONT believe they would have been so ARROGANT not to have kept per-suing it if they had thought that it was significant. INSTEAD of which they never pushed it. Only the Smith sighting was of importance.
I still personally feel this sighting was bogus I cant believe an abductor would be so bold as to walk the streets by restaurants and cafes etc with a kidnapped child.
The only way it works for me is if its to confuse.
If someone had the key to the apartment they could have taken a child out in minutes, and gone off into the night towards the old lagos road and into a car....not walk straight into PDL....NAH doesnt work for me.
I have some sympathy with that view. A removal straight out into the car park in the darkness by whoever or for whatever purpose.
-
So now we've got Three fathers walking with shoeless children that night...
Was there a shoe crisis in PdL that week?
And where were the mothers?
I believe there was already 2 dads One spotted by JT and one spotted by Smith family Without footwear and If the abduction was by another man(burglar or whatever), It is unlikely he put her shoes on, or parked a car close to the apartment, as it might be recognised
I doubt there was a shoe crisis, but it unlikely a Dad collecting a shoeless child asleep at the creche would wake the child to put on footwear
I have already mentioned that it was strange-no Mum was with them
-
I have some sympathy with that view. A removal straight out into the car park in the darkness by whoever or for whatever purpose.
It is all so simple, Mr M.
He was going to be picked up by a getaway car. That car was parked in the little car park opposite the reception to the tapas / garden area. The pick up was frustrated by two things
1) Gerry and Jez talking on the alleyway corner next to 5A
2) Jane Tanner actually witnessing the abductor.
The latter particularily scared the ***t out of the pick up driver and he scarpered leaving bundleman in the lurch. So bundleman was unexpectedly on his own.
This was all gone over very thoroughly in earlier threads. Sorry I dont have time, atm, to give reference details.
And it is only my opinion, of course. But it fits and is a distinct popssibility, especially as the dogs picked up a track to or from that car park going around the block to 5A front door.
The track stopped at that car park. This indicates that suspects got into, or came from a car/ van on that carpark. Tracks do not just vanish into thin air.
Would be interesting to know what vehicle was parked near where the scent tracks stopped.
-
IMO JT is telling the truth and has been wrongly maligned.
The options why innocentman might walk across the stated T junction eastwards (even though it is certainly not on route home from creche) IMO are:
(A) didn't know roads and got lost
(B) child initially awake so took circuitous route to get child to sleep
(C) walked back from creche chatting with another parent and child and walked with them to entrance of block 4 then headed home (pure speculation).
(D) collected child not from creche but maybe from nanny looking after child at work-provided accomodation (pure speculation).
Good analysis. 8@??)(
-
Can I ask how you were able to do this pegasus since SY have never released any background information in relation to this guy?
It's possible to do via the creche records and the passenger lists for MW and TC. It's long and boring work though. When I tried the age of the child hadn't been relesed, so it was every kid between 1 and 5 that I was looking at.
Where did the age 2 come from? Is it offical? cause it would make it a hell of a lot easier.
-
It is all so simple, Mr M.
He was going to be picked up by a getaway car. That car was parked in the little car park opposite the reception to the tapas / garden area. The pick up was frustrated by two things
1) Gerry and Jez talking on the alleyway corner next to 5A
2) Jane Tanner actually witnessing the abductor.
The latter particularily scared the ***t out of the pick up driver and he scarpered leaving bundleman in the lurch. So bundleman was unexpectedly on his own.
This was all gone over very thoroughly in earlier threads. Sorry I dont have time, atm, to give reference details.
And it is only my opinion, of course. But it fits and is a distinct popssibility, especially as the dogs picked up a track to or from that car park going around the block to 5A front door.
The track stopped at that car park. This indicates that suspects got into, or came from a car/ van on that carpark. Tracks do not just vanish into thin air.
Would be interesting to know what vehicle was parked near where the scent tracks stopped.
Very possible that this is what happened Sadie. I still think it could it have been someone else that JT saw and not the man who came forward an innocent Dad.
-
The first street that a new person knows is Francisco Gentil Martins, it leads to the supermarket (the only one) and to the beaches.
Innocentman had been there for 5 days.. Mr Oldfield, who didn't know the short cut because his child was in the tapas creche, didn't get lost when he went and came back from the main reception.
It is obvious that DCI Redwood, as Lyall says, managed Ms Tanner's reputation. Whoever she saw wasn't Smithman, her sighting has therefore no value for the case, which resolves marvellously the delicate issue of her flip flops and transparency.
Are you sure, Anne, that Matt Oldfields child was at the Tapas creche? I haven't the time to check atm, but I seem to remember checking several months ago and finding the converse; that their child would have been at the main reception creche. Please correct me, if i am remembering incorrectly.
If I am corredct, then he would have known the route absolutely.
Even if his child was not at the Reception creche, there is still a good chance that he knew his way along those alleyways, cos with little kids walking , that route along the alleyways was the obviously safe route [from traffick dangers] when en route to the beach and sea.
Make sense that they would all chose alleyway routes over road routes.
-
It is all so simple, Mr M.
He was going to be picked up by a getaway car. That car was parked in the little car park opposite the reception to the tapas / garden area. The pick up was frustrated by two things
1) Gerry and Jez talking on the alleyway corner next to 5A
2) Jane Tanner actually witnessing the abductor.
The latter particularily scared the ***t out of the pick up driver and he scarpered leaving bundleman in the lurch. So bundleman was unexpectedly on his own.
This was all gone over very thoroughly in earlier threads. Sorry I dont have time, atm, to give reference details.
And it is only my opinion, of course. But it fits and is a distinct popssibility, especially as the dogs picked up a track to or from that car park going around the block to 5A front door.
The track stopped at that car park. This indicates that suspects got into, or came from a car/ van on that carpark. Tracks do not just vanish into thin air.
Would be interesting to know what vehicle was parked near where the scent tracks stopped.
I don't think that's a good place to put a getaway car - straight opposite the tapas bar where they all were. The scent across the road to the car park can be easily explained by the crèche route Madeleine used.
(https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/464x315q90/18/2e73.jpg)
If you follow that path straight up from the crèche you come out towards Murat's house.
-
Snipped / -
It's impossible for her to brush past two people on a quiet deserted street without being seen or heard wearing flip flops. I would love to see that reconstruction.
pathfinder
You weren't here in the early days, so you will not realise that wwe almost 100% proved showed that despite Gerry remembering it differently, Gerry and Jez had their chat on the alleyway corner adjacent to the back garden of 5A. Because of this alleyway coming out there, there was plenty of space for anyone to pass them.
Atm, I dont have time to reference you but suffice to say that we worked it out from
1) Jezes hand drawn map, which clearly shows the corner of the alleyway where it met the roadway and at the bottom of 5A garden.
2) Janes insistence against Gerry that it was in front of that alleyway. This was shown, I think, in the "Cutting Edge " video, which is in several previous threads
3) Jezes statement of where he saw Gerry and where they likely met. Again this confirmed in the alleyway area
I think, after these three points, there was a general consensus amonst forum members that the pavement adjacent to the alleyway was where they were almost certainly chatting ... so easy enough to pass.
We also talked about the flip flops.
I didn't enter into that discussion, but I seem to remember it being stated thta whilst cheap flip flops smacked the ground and made a loud noise, expensive ones were different and did not make that loud noise. Jane was the partner of a Dr, or consultant, so was not poor. Quite a good chance that they were expensive flip flops. But we dont know.
-
pathfinder
You weren't here in the early days, so you will not realise that wwe almost 100% proved showed that despite Gerry remembering it differently, Gerry and Jez had their chat on the alleyway corner adjacent to the back garden of 5A. Because of this alleyway coming out there, there was plenty of space for anyone to pass them.
Atm, I dont have time to reference you but suffice to say that we worked it out from
1) Jezes hand drawn map, which clearly shows the corner of the alleyway where it met the roadway and at the bottom of 5A garden.
2) Janes insistence against Gerry that it was in front of that alleyway. This was shown, I think, in the "Cutting Edge " video, which is in several previous threads
3) Jezes statement of where he saw Gerry and where they likely met. Again this confirmed in the alleyway area
I think, after these three points, there was a general consensus amonst forum members that the pavement adjacent to the alleyway was where they were almost certainly chatting ... so easy enough to pass.
We also talked about the flip flops.
I didn't enter into that discussion, but I seem to remember it being stated thta whilst cheap flip flops smacked the ground and made a loud noise, expensive ones were different and did not make that loud noise. Jane was the partner of a Dr, or consultant, so was not poor. Quite a good chance that they were expensive flip flops. But we dont know.
Thanks Sadie. Please explain to me why Jane never took the quicker safer path route back?
-
I get lost in the minutiae of this case sometimes and feel the need to refocus on the particular point raised
In this instance, it is the claim that the man Jane saw on that fateful night presented himself to someone early on ( six years ago )
So who did he present himself TO
who has known, for all this time, that Jane Tanner did NOT see Madeleine being abducted ?
It's the minutiae, Icabod, that allows the round and round the mulberry bush arguments so beloved by some!
The second highlighted bit: The PJ and the perpetrators. Only one side pushed the abduction theory and of course the more xenophobic press and readers are happy to believe Johnny Foreigner cocked it up because he is a blundering buffoon as briefed. The abduction theory still reigns which ipso fatso (yes I know!) will lead to briefing against The Met; which is happening already........whether that is a smart move or a desperate one remains to seen.
-
Imo the ex LC made no mistake. They were mainly trying to know if guests had seen something weird on that night and if guests had been carrying children near the G5. Had lnnocentman matched perfectly Tannerman or be strange, they would have noted.
DCI Redwood took the problem the other way round : instead of trying to find somebody matching Tannerman, he looked for somebody who had the following characteristics : carrying a child in pyjamas, at night, in PDL, clear pants and dark jacket, dark hair.
He may have taken the problem the other way round, but he still got the description of the man from Jane Tanner. So ultimately it all comes back to her.
-
I believe there was already 2 dads One spotted by JT and one spotted by Smith family Without footwear and If the abduction was by another man(burglar or whatever), It is unlikely he put her shoes on, or parked a car close to the apartment, as it might be recognised
I doubt there was a shoe crisis, but it unlikely a Dad collecting a shoeless child asleep at the creche would wake the child to put on footwear
I have already mentioned that it was strange-no Mum was with them
It is strange about the mums, isn't it?
I often wondered where the mother of the child with Smithman was. Why has she never come forward after all these years - or persuaded Smithman to come forward?
-
It is strange about the mums, isn't it?
I often wondered where the mother of the child with Smithman was. Why has she never come forward after all these years - or persuaded Smithman to come forward?
Well done you've found the one who was carrying Madeleine last seen going in the direction towards the church. Madeleine didn't just vanish she was last seen by the Smith family.
-
Well done you've found the one who was carrying Madeleine last seen going in the direction towards the church. Madeleine didn't just vanish she was last seen by the Smith family.
Not sure I'm following you, pathfinder...
-
He may have taken the problem the other way round, but he still got the description of the man from Jane Tanner. So ultimately it all comes back to her.
For the sake of that poor Ms Tanner, forget about Tannerman. He played no part in taking Madeleine away. Smithman did.
-
The abduction theory still reigns which ipso fatso (yes I know!) will lead to briefing against The Met; which is happening already........whether that is a smart move or a desperate one remains to seen.
No comment.
-
No comment.
Isn't that Gerry's line ? 8)--))
-
Isn't that Gerry's line ? 8)--))
?{)(**
Some learn faster than others..
-
For the sake of that poor Ms Tanner, forget about Tannerman. He played no part in taking Madeleine away. Smithman did.
I'm not getting at Jane Tanner. She was just a reporter.
She reported what she saw to the relevant authorities and it was up to them to deal with the information as they saw fit.
-
so possibly not an English speaker
Or with a characteristic accent.
Or mute.
-
Or with a characteristic accent.
Or mute.
I had thought of the accent, but not deaf , I must confess
-
Location of innocentfamily apartment approximatly near carpark to S of block G6 IMO.
However IMO JT is telling the complete truth re location/direction of sighting, and there will be a simple explanation for innocentman route.
-
Location of innocentfamily apartment approximatly near carpark to S of block G6 IMO.
That sounds pretty DCI...
-
carpark to S of block G6
?
-
S=South
-
S=South
Care to share how you worked out who it was? As from what I have read it could be ANY of three families
-
I agree its not possible to identify from limited information in the published files (and even not everyone using MW facilities may not be in files) so it was an estimate which may be wrong.
-
I agree its not possible to identify from limited information in the published files (and even not everyone using MW facilities may not be in files) so it was an estimate which may be wrong.
But only MW/OC guests would have used the night creche, no?
-
Owners of some apartments not owned and not managed by MW/OC could pay a fee allowing occupants to use MW/OC facilities such as pools and maybe courts, but I find no indication it would include use of creches, so not sure.