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: pathfinder73 on March 04, 2014, 12:58:34 PM
-
Who was the Irish teenager who saw Gerry and Jez talking when outside having a smoke but never saw Jane Tanner? That makes 3 who never saw Jane - Gerry, Jez and this teenager. Is she in the files? Thanks.
-
Who is the Irish teenager who saw Gerry and Jez talking when outside having a smoke but never saw Jane Tanner? That makes 3 who never saw Jane - Gerry, Jez and this teenager. Is she in the files? Thanks.
A myth.
-
A myth.
Thanks Anne.
-
Who is the Irish teenager who saw Gerry and Jez talking when outside having a smoke but never saw Jane Tanner? That makes 3 who never saw Jane - Gerry, Jez and this teenager. Is she in the files? Thanks.
No. A Levy / Reis special.
Madeleine McCann: Irish Teenger Saw Gerry McCann
by Anorak | 26th, October 2007
PAULO Reis writes on Madeleine McCann:
A teenager, who was with her family at Ocean Club, saw Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins talking, the night Madeleine disappeared – but she didn’t saw Jane Tanner or a man carrying a child. The girl wasn’t in the list of guests, as their presence at Ocean Club wasn’t registered with the management. Father and daughter have been in Portugal, recently, to help Policia Judiciaria in the reconstruction of what happened the night of May 3 and to give a formal statement to Police, according to a source close to the case.
Speaking to SOS Madeleine, the Irish teenager confirmed she saw Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins talking, for a few minutes, near the McCann apartment: “There was only the father of the little girl talking to another man.”
The teenager went out for a cigarette, around the same time Jane Tanner said she saw a man carrying a child. She only mentioned what she saw to her family latter, because she had also to confess the reason why she was there. Since the beginning, Police had some doubts about Jane Tanner [sic] statement, as Jeremy Wilkins, a tennis partner of Madeleine’s father, told them he only saw Gerry McCann near the apartment.
http://www.anorak.co.uk/177197/news/twitterings/madeleine-mccann-irish-teenger-saw-gerry-mcann.html/
-
No. A Levy / Reis special.
Madeleine McCann: Irish Teenger Saw Gerry McCann
by Anorak | 26th, October 2007
PAULO Reis writes on Madeleine McCann:
A teenager, who was with her family at Ocean Club, saw Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins talking, the night Madeleine disappeared – but she didn’t saw Jane Tanner or a man carrying a child. The girl wasn’t in the list of guests, as their presence at Ocean Club wasn’t registered with the management. Father and daughter have been in Portugal, recently, to help Policia Judiciaria in the reconstruction of what happened the night of May 3 and to give a formal statement to Police, according to a source close to the case.
Speaking to SOS Madeleine, the Irish teenager confirmed she saw Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins talking, for a few minutes, near the McCann apartment: “There was only the father of the little girl talking to another man.”
The teenager went out for a cigarette, around the same time Jane Tanner said she saw a man carrying a child. She only mentioned what she saw to her family latter, because she had also to confess the reason why she was there. Since the beginning, Police had some doubts about Jane Tanner [sic] statement, as Jeremy Wilkins, a tennis partner of Madeleine’s father, told them he only saw Gerry McCann near the apartment.
http://www.anorak.co.uk/177197/news/twitterings/madeleine-mccann-irish-teenger-saw-gerry-mcann.html/
Did this young lady ever make a statement?
-
Did this young lady ever make a statement?
Not as far as I've ever found.
[ ...off topic deleted ...]
-
[... off topic quote deleted ...]]
It's probably another of these half-myths. Certain details make it sound as if it's meant to be Aoife.
-
If she exists, I suggest she would have been at the top of the external stairwell of block 6, see JC's theory in the McDocumentary, alsosee statement by witness who reported lots of butts same location.
-
This is a new topic.
What is the point of opening a thread on a mythical person ?
-
What is the point of opening a thread on a mythical person ?
Isn't an abductor in this case a mythical person?
There are plenty threads on him!
-
What is the point of opening a thread on a mythical person ?
I agree Anne
There will not be a single post of any substance or worth on this thread
There can't be ... there is really nothing to say
-
A tourist reported butts on communal balcony overlooking apartment Volume XV Pages 3907 - 3908
-
Sorry to bump this, but it is referred to in another active topic today.
First, the report comes from 2007 and the source is Anorak. Caveat emptor.
Second, there are no windows in the stairwell from which one can observe 5A. The windows all point north.
Third, Aoife was in Estrela da Luz. Block 6 is hundreds of metres away. She was not the teenager smoking.
Fourth, block 6 does not have communal balconies, The stairwells (2) each open onto 2 flats. The ground floor is #4 and #5. The level above is #8 and #9. I am only guessing about the top floor, but my guess would be #12 and #13.
The front (access via stairwells) is not a great place to loiter, unless you are renting the flat in question. If you are in #8 and leaving a pile of butts outside #9, you are likely to attract attention from #9.
So, was a flat in block 6 rented by the Irish family who returned to Portugal to give evidence? The ones who had a flat in Estrela de Luz? As reported by Anorak? This one is going into my red herrings category. It is up to you what you do with it.
-
No. A Levy / Reis special.
Madeleine McCann: Irish Teenger Saw Gerry McCann
by Anorak | 26th, October 2007
PAULO Reis writes on Madeleine McCann:
A teenager, who was with her family at Ocean Club, saw Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins talking, the night Madeleine disappeared – but she didn’t saw Jane Tanner or a man carrying a child. The girl wasn’t in the list of guests, as their presence at Ocean Club wasn’t registered with the management. Father and daughter have been in Portugal, recently, to help Policia Judiciaria in the reconstruction of what happened the night of May 3 and to give a formal statement to Police, according to a source close to the case.
Speaking to SOS Madeleine, the Irish teenager confirmed she saw Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins talking, for a few minutes, near the McCann apartment: “There was only the father of the little girl talking to another man.”
The teenager went out for a cigarette, around the same time Jane Tanner said she saw a man carrying a child. She only mentioned what she saw to her family latter, because she had also to confess the reason why she was there. Since the beginning, Police had some doubts about Jane Tanner [sic] statement, as Jeremy Wilkins, a tennis partner of Madeleine’s father, told them he only saw Gerry McCann near the apartment.
http://www.anorak.co.uk/177197/news/twitterings/madeleine-mccann-irish-teenger-saw-gerry-mcann.html/
I didn't realise this had already been posted and found the same account http://www.mccannfiles.com/id71.html
Madeleine McCann - One more witness contradicts Jane Tanner statement
It seems clear that the teenager referred to is Aoife Smith ... "Father and daughter have been in Portugal, recently, to help Policia Judiciaria in the reconstruction of what happened the night of May 3 and to give a formal statement to Police, according to a source close to the case."
It also looks as if the Tanner sighting was causing consternation somewhere as one way or another the effort was certainly being made to deflect attention from it.
That wasn't done without reason.
-
I didn't realise this had already been posted and found the same account http://www.mccannfiles.com/id71.html
Madeleine McCann - One more witness contradicts Jane Tanner statement
It seems clear that the teenager referred to is Aoife Smith ... "Father and daughter have been in Portugal, recently, to help Policia Judiciaria in the reconstruction of what happened the night of May 3 and to give a formal statement to Police, according to a source close to the case."
It also looks as if the Tanner sighting was causing consternation somewhere as one way or another the effort was certainly being made to deflect attention from it.
That wasn't done without reason.
How could it have been Aoife if the teenager allegedly witnessed JW & GM conversing together? Aoife was in the Dolphin at that time. Secondly, the report said father & daughter had been in Portugal recently to give statements & help with a reconstruction, yet Martin & Aoife went to Portugal way back in late May.
IMO this was an attempt at a 2 fold deflection - firstly away from Tannerman & secondly to provide an explanation for the cigarette butts on the balcony. Whilst Graham MacKenzie may not have made an official statement until Dec 2007, he did contact Crimestoppers with information on 16/9/2007. A careful look at the copy of that report in the files shows that it appears to have had the bottom part chopped off - possibly the piece about the cigarette butts?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15VOLUMEXVa_Page_3903.jpg
-
How could it have been Aoife if the teenager allegedly witnessed JW & GM conversing together? Aoife was in the Dolphin at that time. Secondly, the report said father & daughter had been in Portugal recently to give statements & help with a reconstruction, yet Martin & Aoife went to Portugal way back in late May.
IMO this was an attempt at a 2 fold deflection - firstly away from Tannerman & secondly to provide an explanation for the cigarette butts on the balcony. Whilst Graham MacKenzie may not have made an official statement until Dec 2007, he did contact Crimestoppers with information on 16/9/2007. A careful look at the copy of that report in the files shows that it appears to have had the bottom part chopped off - possibly the piece about the cigarette butts?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15VOLUMEXVa_Page_3903.jpg
As far as the discarded butts are concerned ... was the 'teen smoking' story used to cover in some way for the sheer incompetence of the investigators in failing to bag evidence for forensic testing?
They were getting severe criticism for the botched investigation at the time.
Two stories ... one witness.
I think we may well have elements of both stories here. Both of which are designed to take the spotlight off Jane Tanner's sighting.
It is amazing how deeply Levy seems to be involved in all aspects of the misinformation churned out on an industrial scale.
-
As far as the discarded butts are concerned ... was the 'teen smoking' story used to cover in some way for the sheer incompetence of the investigators in failing to bag evidence for forensic testing?
They were getting severe criticism for the botched investigation at the time.
Two stories ... one witness.
I think we may well have elements of both stories here. Both of which are designed to take the spotlight off Jane Tanner's sighting.
It is amazing how deeply Levy seems to be involved in all aspects of the misinformation churned out on an industrial scale.
All that subdefuge to take the spotlight of Tanner's sighting and Crimewatch do it with just the merest hint of a smile from Redwood. Simply brilliant.
-
As far as the discarded butts are concerned ... was the 'teen smoking' story used to cover in some way for the sheer incompetence of the investigators in failing to bag evidence for forensic testing?
They were getting severe criticism for the botched investigation at the time.
Two stories ... one witness.
I think we may well have elements of both stories here. Both of which are designed to take the spotlight off Jane Tanner's sighting.
It is amazing how deeply Levy seems to be involved in all aspects of the misinformation churned out on an industrial scale.
The investigators failed to bag the evidence....the investigators failed to take Mackenzie's details.....no-one, including LP contacted him until after he had rung Crimestoppers....had he not rung in, would he ever have been contacted? That, in itself, makes me wonder about Crecheman's story.
I feel that the Irish teenager story was to be the explanation for the watcher's cigarette butts, should that ever be questioned. In the same fashion, Smithman was deliberately not investigated in 2007/8 because that oversight could be used as a valid defence in the event of someone being arrested for being Tannerman.
-
The investigators failed to bag the evidence....the investigators failed to take Mackenzie's details.....no-one, including LP contacted him until after he had rung Crimestoppers....had he not rung in, would he ever have been contacted? That, in itself, makes me wonder about Crecheman's story.
I feel that the Irish teenager story was to be the explanation for the watcher's cigarette butts, should that ever be questioned. In the same fashion, Smithman was deliberately not investigated in 2007/8 because that oversight could be used as a valid defence in the event of someone being arrested for being Tannerman.
As they stated, I think SY have established who Tannerman is. It remains to be seen where that may lead.
-
The investigators failed to bag the evidence....the investigators failed to take Mackenzie's details.....no-one, including LP contacted him until after he had rung Crimestoppers....had he not rung in, would he ever have been contacted? That, in itself, makes me wonder about Crecheman's story.
I feel that the Irish teenager story was to be the explanation for the watcher's cigarette butts, should that ever be questioned. In the same fashion, Smithman was deliberately not investigated in 2007/8 because that oversight could be used as a valid defence in the event of someone being arrested for being Tannerman.
My goodness you're trying yourself up in knots misty.
And they call us [ censored word ]s !
-
There is no statement from a smoking teenager in the PJ files.
Graham McKenzie contacted Crimestoppers on 16/09/2007 after seeing an article in the Sunday Express saying that the McCann's phone records were being examined. He was helping with the search at 11pm on 3rd May and was looking in the gardens near G5A when he heard someone talking. Looking up he saw Gerry McCann on the balcony speaking on a mobile phone. He was saying there were paedophile gangs in Portugal and he feared they had taken Madeleine.
The Crimestoppers calls seem to have been sent directly to Portugal, On 08/11/07 Ricardo Paiva asked Stuart Prior in an email if LP could get a statement form McKenzie. The statement was taken on 06/12/07 and emailed to RP on 21/01/08.
At the end of the statement McKenzie mentioned being given another apartment on the last day of his holiday due to having to vacate the one they stayed in all week. It was on a 'public balcony' facing the side of the McCann's apartment that he saw the cigarette butts. This can only be block 6. He says that he could see the front, side and back of G5A from the balcony, and suggested that perhaps someone had been watching from there. ShininginLuz says there are no public balconies there. I looked on Google Maps and thought you would have to lean out from any of the balconies to see the front and the back of G5A. Perhaps Shining can elaborate on the views from the balconies.
-
Not only was Mr McKenzie public spirited enough to eschew anonymity when he contacted Crime Stoppers with information he thought might be of use to the investigation, he was public spirited enough to point out to officers on the ground in Portugal that there might be forensic value in the cigarette butts lying in a vantage point overlooking the McCann apartment.
Really odd that a member of the public could see that there might be significance in something that trained police officers not only overlooked but allowed to be destroyed.
As we know there are forensics from the apartment still to be matched.
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/
The person who left the butts on the balcony probably would not have been a match to anything found in the apartment, on the other hand he possibly could have been, but there was also a chance he could have indicated an accomplice who was.
We'll never know the answer to that one, will we?
**snip
It was across the road from the McCann's apartment and the public balcony overlooked the side of their building and the road.
You could actually see the front and back of the building from that view point.
I noticed on the balcony that there was a pile of cigarette butts as if there had been someone stood there for some time smoking.
I thought that was odd , and it could have been someone watching the McCann's apartment to monitor their comings and goings.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
**snip
“When I noticed the butts on the floor of the little balcony I became suspicious. Clearly someone had been there for some time smoking. I didn’t touch them but I spoke to Portuguese officers and asked them to take them for forensic analysis.
“No attempt was made to seal off the area and then I couldn’t believe it when the police let cleaners sweep them up. I was so angry at the time and I am still angry about it now. It was sheer police incompetence.
“Those butts could have provided the breakthrough in the case but I couldn’t get the police to listen to me. If the same situation happened abroad again I would sweep the butts up into a bag myself and insist they are kept for analysis.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/347692/Maddie-McCann-may-have-been-watched-from-balcony-witness-tells-Yard
-
At no time in his original statement did he mention speaking to the police in Portugal. Strange that the newspaper story made no mention of the reason why he originally phoned Crimestoppers, isn't it?
-
I'll go back and have another squiz just to be sure but here are my thoughts at this moment.
The key part is the layout of block 5 (yup, block 5, not block 6).
Block 5 has a single central stairwell. Every apartment above ground floor has to be accessed from this stairwell.
The four apartments on the ground floor have a pathway in front of them. This pathway is separated from the car park by a wall about 1m high. The way one gets from block 5 into the car park or from the car park into block 5 is via a gap in this wall, and the gap is directly in front of the central stairwell. So everyone in block 5 has to go very close to the central stairwell.
Unless you have a completely unhindered view of the front of block 5, you can tell people are going in and out of the car park, but you can't tell whether someone is using a ground floor entrance, or the central stairwell.
Block 6 is L shaped, with 2 stairwells. The short part of the L is opposite 5A, the long leg heads east away from block 5.
One stairwell is half-way up the long leg of the L, perhaps 40 or 50m from block 5, and there is no view whatsoever of the rear of block 5. So let's move to the other stairwell.
That is where the long leg of the L and the short leg of the L come together, fairly close to the entrance of the car park for block 6.
There are 5 apartments on the ground floor. Apartment 5 occupies the short leg of the L. Apartment 4 is the one heading eastwards from this stairwell. One floor up is apartment 8 (above 4), and apartment 9 (above 5). I presume on the final floor it is 12 (above 8) and 13 (above 9).
So 5, 9, and presumably 13, are directly opposite block 5. The rear patio of these is a great place to monitor the Tapas area and the rear of block 5. The rear patio is near useless for monitoring the front of block 5. You get to see part of the block 5 car park near its entrance if you are lucky.
From the front of this stairwell in block 6, you get a partial view of the rear of apartment 5A, but still not a clear view of the front. That pesky central entrance/exit to block 5 is the problem.
In descending order of probabilities.
Apartments 5, 9 and 13. Ability to clearly see the back from private balcony. Limited ability to see the front from public access.
Apartments 4, 8, and 12, the ones using the same stairwell. No ability to see apartment 5A from private balcony at rear. Public access at front gives a limited view of the front of 5A, and a limited view of the rear.
Anyone not connected with these apartments. Same access as 4, 8, 12 but no legitimate reason to spend hours monitoring there, thus standing out like a sore thumb.
I will pay another visit some time this week, to confirm.
The law on smoking in commercial establishments (pubs, restaurants) changed on 1/1/2008. The establishments had to choose to be non-smoking or smoking (and had to install suitable extractor fans). Of the 3 that I know remained smoking, all are owned/run by Portuguese folk.
If you have read Amaral's book, he recounts late night progress meetings where you could cut the smoke with a knife.
According to the PJ files, the Portuguese police were using one of the apartments in block 6 as a police station.
So, probabilities again, this time in ascending order.
Butts belonged to the police, so no interest.
Police could see that the location of the butts was not a place to monitor.
Butts came from someone who monitored, and is implicated.
Butts came from someone after the event, e.g. someone trying to get a different view.
Butts came from someone unconnected, probably from a country where non-smoking laws had been implemented for some time.
-
I'll go back and have another squiz just to be sure but here are my thoughts at this moment.
The key part is the layout of block 5 (yup, block 5, not block 6).
Block 5 has a single central stairwell. Every apartment above ground floor has to be accessed from this stairwell.
The four apartments on the ground floor have a pathway in front of them. This pathway is separated from the car park by a wall about 1m high. The way one gets from block 5 into the car park or from the car park into block 5 is via a gap in this wall, and the gap is directly in front of the central stairwell. So everyone in block 5 has to go very close to the central stairwell.
Unless you have a completely unhindered view of the front of block 5, you can tell people are going in and out of the car park, but you can't tell whether someone is using a ground floor entrance, or the central stairwell.
Block 6 is L shaped, with 2 stairwells. The short part of the L is opposite 5A, the long leg heads east away from block 5.
One stairwell is half-way up the long leg of the L, perhaps 40 or 50m from block 5, and there is no view whatsoever of the rear of block 5. So let's move to the other stairwell.
That is where the long leg of the L and the short leg of the L come together, fairly close to the entrance of the car park for block 6.
There are 5 apartments on the ground floor. Apartment 5 occupies the short leg of the L. Apartment 4 is the one heading eastwards from this stairwell. One floor up is apartment 8 (above 4), and apartment 9 (above 5). I presume on the final floor it is 12 (above 8) and 13 (above 9).
So 5, 9, and presumably 13, are directly opposite block 5. The rear patio of these is a great place to monitor the Tapas area and the rear of block 5. The rear patio is near useless for monitoring the front of block 5. You get to see part of the block 5 car park near its entrance if you are lucky.
From the front of this stairwell in block 6, you get a partial view of the rear of apartment 5A, but still not a clear view of the front. That pesky central entrance/exit to block 5 is the problem.
In descending order of probabilities.
Apartments 5, 9 and 13. Ability to clearly see the back from private balcony. Limited ability to see the front from public access.
Apartments 4, 8, and 12, the ones using the same stairwell. No ability to see apartment 5A from private balcony at rear. Public access at front gives a limited view of the front of 5A, and a limited view of the rear.
Anyone not connected with these apartments. Same access as 4, 8, 12 but no legitimate reason to spend hours monitoring there, thus standing out like a sore thumb.
I will pay another visit some time this week, to confirm.
The law on smoking in commercial establishments (pubs, restaurants) changed on 1/1/2008. The establishments had to choose to be non-smoking or smoking (and had to install suitable extractor fans). Of the 3 that I know remained smoking, all are owned/run by Portuguese folk.
If you have read Amaral's book, he recounts late night progress meetings where you could cut the smoke with a knife.
According to the PJ files, the Portuguese police were using one of the apartments in block 6 as a police station.
So, probabilities again, this time in ascending order.
Butts belonged to the police, so no interest.
Police could see that the location of the butts was not a place to monitor.
Butts came from someone who monitored, and is implicated.
Butts came from someone after the event, e.g. someone trying to get a different view.
Butts came from someone unconnected, probably from a country where non-smoking laws had been implemented for some time.
Thank you, very interesting. Graham McKenzie said;
On the day of our departure we had to move out of our apartment and Mark Warner gave us another to use during the day until we left.
It was across the road from the McCann's apartment and the public balcony overlooked the side of their building and the road. You could actually see the front and back of the building from that view point. I noticed on the balcony that there was a pile of cigarette butts as if there had been someone stood there for some time smoking. I thought that was odd , and it could have been someone watching the McCann's apartment to monitor their comings and goings.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
So he may have seen the front and back of G5A but not both clearly? I was surprised that he had another apartment on his day of departure. I wonder what time he had to vacate his other one; dawn? His flight time home was the same as everyone else's. As with a hotel, people usually hang around the public areas with their luggage until it's time to leave for the airport.
-
Not only was Mr McKenzie public spirited enough to eschew anonymity when he contacted Crime Stoppers with information he thought might be of use to the investigation, he was public spirited enough to point out to officers on the ground in Portugal that there might be forensic value in the cigarette butts lying in a vantage point overlooking the McCann apartment.
Really odd that a member of the public could see that there might be significance in something that trained police officers not only overlooked but allowed to be destroyed.
As we know there are forensics from the apartment still to be matched.
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/
The person who left the butts on the balcony probably would not have been a match to anything found in the apartment, on the other hand he possibly could have been, but there was also a chance he could have indicated an accomplice who was.
We'll never know the answer to that one, will we?
**snip
It was across the road from the McCann's apartment and the public balcony overlooked the side of their building and the road.
You could actually see the front and back of the building from that view point.
I noticed on the balcony that there was a pile of cigarette butts as if there had been someone stood there for some time smoking.
I thought that was odd , and it could have been someone watching the McCann's apartment to monitor their comings and goings.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
**snip
“When I noticed the butts on the floor of the little balcony I became suspicious. Clearly someone had been there for some time smoking. I didn’t touch them but I spoke to Portuguese officers and asked them to take them for forensic analysis.
“No attempt was made to seal off the area and then I couldn’t believe it when the police let cleaners sweep them up. I was so angry at the time and I am still angry about it now. It was sheer police incompetence.
“Those butts could have provided the breakthrough in the case but I couldn’t get the police to listen to me. If the same situation happened abroad again I would sweep the butts up into a bag myself and insist they are kept for analysis.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/347692/Maddie-McCann-may-have-been-watched-from-balcony-witness-tells-Yard
I say again, Graham McKenzie contacted the UK police because, he says, he heard Gerald McCann on the phone at 11pm on 3rd May telling someone that he thought paedophiles had taken Madeleine. Nowhere in his two statements does he mention approaching the police about the cigarette butts.
According to the newspaper article Operation Grange re-interviewed him in 2012 and that is the first time he mentions telling the Portugese police about the cigarette butts. According to ShininginLuz the view of G5A described by GMcK from Block 6 isn't as clear as he describes it.
-
I say again, Graham McKenzie contacted the UK police because, he says, he heard Gerald McCann on the phone at 11pm on 3rd May telling someone that he thought paedophiles had taken Madeleine. Nowhere in his two statements does he mention approaching the police about the cigarette butts.
According to the newspaper article Operation Grange re-interviewed him in 2012 and that is the first time he mentions telling the Portugese police about the cigarette butts. According to ShininginLuz the view of G5A described by GMcK from Block 6 isn't as clear as he describes it.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm#p15p3907
Graham MacKenzie & his wife stayed in Block 6 - near Raj Balu & Neil Berry.
Graham Mackenzie took part in the searches on the night of the 3rd.
Corrine Mac Kenzie went to collect a takeaway from the Tapas Bar at around 8.30pm on the night of the 3rd.
The MacKenzies used the childcare facilities during the week.
Yet the first official contact the MacKenzies had with anyone in authority was after they themselves contacted Crimestoppers & after the McCanns had been made arguidos. Graham Mackenzie saw the butts, maybe important, maybe not. The Crimestoppers report has the bottom part missing (check position of hole punch marks & measurements against other similar documents)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15VOLUMEXVa_Page_3903.jpg
Either way, the Portuguese CSI's didn't collect ANY discarded butts in the vicinity as there were "too many of them".
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
*snip*
09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2319
Photos 41 to 43: Details of the window of the bedroom from which the child disappeared where the non-existence of traces/clues of break-in/forced entry was verified.
After the examination of the inside of the apartment and despite the immediate surroundings of the referred apartment not having been preserved [protected] there proceeded the detailed observation of the exterior there not having been detected the existence of any objects/traces of forensic value and [nor] of any traces of shoe-prints in the garden area of the apartment.
The recovery of cigarette stubs was not viable due to the existence of a reasonable quantity thereof within the referred perimeter.
I leave you to draw your own conclusions regarding the efficiency of the PJ investigation and to wonder why it was apparently so necessary for someone "close to the investigation" to invent a witness smoking on a balcony where cigarette butts were deposited which the PJ didn't know about - allegedly.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm#p15p3907
Graham MacKenzie & his wife stayed in Block 6 - near Raj Balu & Neil Berry.Berry was in 606, can't find Balu, Mckenzie was in G31 except for a few hours on the day of depature.
Graham Mackenzie took part in the searches on the night of the 3rd.
Corrine Mac Kenzie went to collect a takeaway from the Tapas Bar at around 8.30pm on the night of the 3rd.
The MacKenzies used the childcare facilities during the week.
Yet the first official contact the MacKenzies had with anyone in authority was after they themselves contacted Crimestoppers & after the McCanns had been made arguidos. Graham Mackenzie saw the butts, maybe important, maybe not. The Crimestoppers report has the bottom part missing (check position of hole punch marks & measurements against other similar documents)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15VOLUMEXVa_Page_3903.jpg
Either way, the Portuguese CSI's didn't collect ANY discarded butts in the vicinity as there were "too many of them".
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
*snip*
09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2319
Photos 41 to 43: Details of the window of the bedroom from which the child disappeared where the non-existence of traces/clues of break-in/forced entry was verified.
After the examination of the inside of the apartment and despite the immediate surroundings of the referred apartment not having been preserved [protected] there proceeded the detailed observation of the exterior there not having been detected the existence of any objects/traces of forensic value and [nor] of any traces of shoe-prints in the garden area of the apartment.
The recovery of cigarette stubs was not viable due to the existence of a reasonable quantity thereof within the referred perimeter.
I leave you to draw your own conclusions regarding the efficiency of the PJ investigation and to wonder why it was apparently so necessary for someone "close to the investigation" to invent a witness smoking on a balcony where cigarette butts were deposited which the PJ didn't know about - allegedly.
Just one point in blue Misty.
-
28/04-05/05 G603 Nicole Cox & Raj Balu
05/05-12/05 G603 Parr
02/05-11/05 G604 Gill (donos booking)
28/04-05/05 G606 Neil Berry
28/04-05/05 G607 Curtis Leon Cameron Brain & Dr L Hurne
28/04-05/05 G608 Lisa Marjorie Preston
06/05-11/05 G608 Caroline Baker
28/04-05/05 G610 Anthony Hack
05/05-12/05 G610 Warren03/05-10/05 G13a Toshie Giencke
05/05-19/05 G16 Michael Allan
28/04-05/05 G16 Anthony Eaton
29/04-03/05 G19 Jan Lewardowski
03/05-10/05 G19 Julie Martin
23/04-11/05 G20 Dr Pawer
03/05-10/05 G25 Kevin Morris Wilcox
28/04-05/05 G29 Tushar Patel
05/05-12/05 G29 Michelle Anne Kerrigan
28/04-05/05 G30 Mark Handy
05/05-19/05 G30 Luke Benjamin Savage
30/04-05/05 G31 Mackenzie
05/05-11/05 G31 Brewin
28/04-05/05 G41 Sandra Bowness
28/04-05/05 G46 Antony John Heselton
03/05-10/05 G51 Irene McMillan
28/04-12/05 G52 George Blackbur
Are those apartments not part of Block 6? I thought that it was L-shaped.
-
28/04-05/05 G603 Nicole Cox & Raj Balu
05/05-12/05 G603 Parr
02/05-11/05 G604 Gill (donos booking)
28/04-05/05 G606 Neil Berry
28/04-05/05 G607 Curtis Leon Cameron Brain & Dr L Hurne
28/04-05/05 G608 Lisa Marjorie Preston
06/05-11/05 G608 Caroline Baker
28/04-05/05 G610 Anthony Hack
05/05-12/05 G610 Warren03/05-10/05 G13a Toshie Giencke
05/05-19/05 G16 Michael Allan
28/04-05/05 G16 Anthony Eaton
29/04-03/05 G19 Jan Lewardowski
03/05-10/05 G19 Julie Martin
23/04-11/05 G20 Dr Pawer
03/05-10/05 G25 Kevin Morris Wilcox
28/04-05/05 G29 Tushar Patel
05/05-12/05 G29 Michelle Anne Kerrigan
28/04-05/05 G30 Mark Handy
05/05-19/05 G30 Luke Benjamin Savage
30/04-05/05 G31 Mackenzie
05/05-11/05 G31 Brewin
28/04-05/05 G41 Sandra Bowness
28/04-05/05 G46 Antony John Heselton
03/05-10/05 G51 Irene McMillan
28/04-12/05 G52 George Blackbur
Are those apartments not part of Block 6? I thought that it was L-shaped.
I don't know. The lower ones haven't got a 6 in them? Where is that info please? I couldn't find Balu at all.
-
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Ocean-Club-Guests/Guests-Apartments-1-804793.html
Wherever MacKenzie was staying, he said it was in an apartment near Berry & Balu. That doesn't really invalidate the rest of my previous points.
-
28/04-05/05 G603 Nicole Cox & Raj Balu
05/05-12/05 G603 Parr
02/05-11/05 G604 Gill (donos booking)
28/04-05/05 G606 Neil Berry
28/04-05/05 G607 Curtis Leon Cameron Brain & Dr L Hurne
28/04-05/05 G608 Lisa Marjorie Preston
06/05-11/05 G608 Caroline Baker
28/04-05/05 G610 Anthony Hack
05/05-12/05 G610 Warren03/05-10/05 G13a Toshie Giencke
05/05-19/05 G16 Michael Allan
28/04-05/05 G16 Anthony Eaton
29/04-03/05 G19 Jan Lewardowski
03/05-10/05 G19 Julie Martin
23/04-11/05 G20 Dr Pawer
03/05-10/05 G25 Kevin Morris Wilcox
28/04-05/05 G29 Tushar Patel
05/05-12/05 G29 Michelle Anne Kerrigan
28/04-05/05 G30 Mark Handy
05/05-19/05 G30 Luke Benjamin Savage
30/04-05/05 G31 Mackenzie
05/05-11/05 G31 Brewin
28/04-05/05 G41 Sandra Bowness
28/04-05/05 G46 Antony John Heselton
03/05-10/05 G51 Irene McMillan
28/04-12/05 G52 George Blackbur
Are those apartments not part of Block 6? I thought that it was L-shaped.
Impressive list. Raj Balu was in 603. Neil Berry was in 606. Both of these are part of block 6. Anything that does not start with a 6 is not part of block 6.
I cannot explain numbers that go up to 52 at this point in time.
-
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Ocean-Club-Guests/Guests-Apartments-1-804793.html
Wherever MacKenzie was staying, he said it was in an apartment near Berry & Balu. That doesn't really invalidate the rest of my previous points.
No, it was just that bit. I wondered if G31 meant Block 3, but the only 3 I could find is in Waterside Village, quite a way away towards the beach. Mckenzie does say he was near the others, and he mentioned an indian family. The Patels were in G29, so that could have been them. He says they moved in part way through his stay, but they booked the same dates as he did. I wonder where they went initially then? McKenzie clearly says he was moved on the day of departure to an apartment across the road from G5A, that definitely was block 6. He wasn't in Block 6 before then, unless the palm tree is dead, there's none there now;
I went to search the area around the back of our apartment where there is a little garden with a big palm tree in the middle. I was looking in the shrubbery and the little gardens to the apartments.
I worked my way around the area, eventually coming around the back of the tennis courts and up towards what I now know to be the McCanns apartment a couple of hours later. I was looking in the little gardens on the poolside of that block, I was in the end garden when I heard a male voice, he sounded distraught his voice cracking with emotion. I looked to see who I now know to be Gerry McCann stood above me on the balcony/patio about 3 metres away speaking on a mobile phone. I cannot recall his exact words but I got the impression that he was speaking to perhaps a family member or someone he was very close to due to the nature of his conversation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
a couple of hours later? he said he heard Gerry on the phone at 11pm! I despair of these statements sometimes lol.
-
No, it was just that bit. I wondered if G31 meant Block 3, but the only 3 I could find is in Waterside Village, quite a way away towards the beach. Mckenzie does say he was near the others, and he mentioned an indian family. The Patels were in G29, so that could have been them. He says they moved in part way through his stay, but they booked the same dates as he did. I wonder where they went initially then? McKenzie clearly says he was moved on the day of departure to an apartment across the road from G5A, that definitely was block 6. He wasn't in Block 6 before then, unless the palm tree is dead, there's none there now;
I went to search the area around the back of our apartment where there is a little garden with a big palm tree in the middle. I was looking in the shrubbery and the little gardens to the apartments.
I worked my way around the area, eventually coming around the back of the tennis courts and up towards what I now know to be the McCanns apartment a couple of hours later. I was looking in the little gardens on the poolside of that block, I was in the end garden when I heard a male voice, he sounded distraught his voice cracking with emotion. I looked to see who I now know to be Gerry McCann stood above me on the balcony/patio about 3 metres away speaking on a mobile phone. I cannot recall his exact words but I got the impression that he was speaking to perhaps a family member or someone he was very close to due to the nature of his conversation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
a couple of hours later? he said he heard Gerry on the phone at 11pm! I despair of these statements sometimes lol.
Palm tree in garden behind block 1, very near to block 6.
-
Palm tree in garden behind block 1, very near to block 6.
Well done! I wonder if he was in that block then?
-
I'll go back and have another squiz just to be sure but here are my thoughts at this moment.
The key part is the layout of block 5 (yup, block 5, not block 6).
Block 5 has a single central stairwell. Every apartment above ground floor has to be accessed from this stairwell.
The four apartments on the ground floor have a pathway in front of them. This pathway is separated from the car park by a wall about 1m high. The way one gets from block 5 into the car park or from the car park into block 5 is via a gap in this wall, and the gap is directly in front of the central stairwell. So everyone in block 5 has to go very close to the central stairwell.
Unless you have a completely unhindered view of the front of block 5, you can tell people are going in and out of the car park, but you can't tell whether someone is using a ground floor entrance, or the central stairwell.
Block 6 is L shaped, with 2 stairwells. The short part of the L is opposite 5A, the long leg heads east away from block 5.
One stairwell is half-way up the long leg of the L, perhaps 40 or 50m from block 5, and there is no view whatsoever of the rear of block 5. So let's move to the other stairwell.
That is where the long leg of the L and the short leg of the L come together, fairly close to the entrance of the car park for block 6.
There are 5 apartments on the ground floor. Apartment 5 occupies the short leg of the L. Apartment 4 is the one heading eastwards from this stairwell. One floor up is apartment 8 (above 4), and apartment 9 (above 5). I presume on the final floor it is 12 (above 8) and 13 (above 9).
So 5, 9, and presumably 13, are directly opposite block 5. The rear patio of these is a great place to monitor the Tapas area and the rear of block 5. The rear patio is near useless for monitoring the front of block 5. You get to see part of the block 5 car park near its entrance if you are lucky.
From the front of this stairwell in block 6, you get a partial view of the rear of apartment 5A, but still not a clear view of the front. That pesky central entrance/exit to block 5 is the problem.
In descending order of probabilities.
Apartments 5, 9 and 13. Ability to clearly see the back from private balcony. Limited ability to see the front from public access.
Apartments 4, 8, and 12, the ones using the same stairwell. No ability to see apartment 5A from private balcony at rear. Public access at front gives a limited view of the front of 5A, and a limited view of the rear.
Anyone not connected with these apartments. Same access as 4, 8, 12 but no legitimate reason to spend hours monitoring there, thus standing out like a sore thumb.
I will pay another visit some time this week, to confirm.
The law on smoking in commercial establishments (pubs, restaurants) changed on 1/1/2008. The establishments had to choose to be non-smoking or smoking (and had to install suitable extractor fans). Of the 3 that I know remained smoking, all are owned/run by Portuguese folk.
If you have read Amaral's book, he recounts late night progress meetings where you could cut the smoke with a knife.
According to the PJ files, the Portuguese police were using one of the apartments in block 6 as a police station.
So, probabilities again, this time in ascending order.
Butts belonged to the police, so no interest.
Police could see that the location of the butts was not a place to monitor.
Butts came from someone who monitored, and is implicated.
Butts came from someone after the event, e.g. someone trying to get a different view.
Butts came from someone unconnected, probably from a country where non-smoking laws had been implemented for some time.
There is no vantage point of the front of apartment block 5 from the short leg of block 6, as per your excellent description.
I think a watcher would have gained all the information required from a view of the patio entrance which could not be locked from outside.
The trees had hanging branches which from photographs I find reminiscent of willows, totally obscured the front of block 5. Therefore it could only have been monitored from the building across the road ... we discussed this at length just a short while ago when we discovered that the gardener to be questioned worked there (sorry I don't have the link, if you are interested I will look for it later).
Graham McKenzie noticed the cigarette butts very soon after Madeleine's disappearance and prior to the police using an apartment in 6 as a control centre ... so I think that may knock out a couple of your probabilities.
However the likelihood that they had no connection to Madeleine's disappearance was never tested, and it should have been.
Also Heri has carried out research into the possibility that 5A might have been under surveillance and has taken photographs from the balcony in 6 some of which are at the links following.
He also took photographs of a possible vantage point at ground level from the garden of 6 which can be found in H10A.
He has also given sight lines from the apartment block directly opposite 5.
http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/hg/1/H10A/Apart.%20128%20(Large).jpg
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/H13.htm
I will be interested in your take on it if you get time to revisit this week.
-
IMO the watcher only needed a view of the road, from the entrance to OC & Tapas Bar up to the corner of the road past 5a, purely to see the comings & goings of the parents.
The abductor(s) waiting somewhere close by would have had the car-park & front entrance covered.
-
IMO the watcher only needed a view of the road, from the entrance to OC & Tapas Bar up to the corner of the road past 5a, purely to see the comings & goings of the parents.
The abductor(s) waiting somewhere close by would have had the car-park & front entrance covered.
I agree with that Misty.
There are far too many unresolved witness sightings of men studying the exterior of the corner apartment in the run up to the 3rd May for the probability to be discarded.
If Madeleine McCann's abduction was planned there would be more than one participant and each would have their own task to perform. There are more ways than mobile phone communications to have prearranged signals ... even just as simple as breaking cover.
The most risky time for being discovered would have been the couple of necessary minutes spent in the apartment.
The checks on the children were carried out by individual parents, had Kate McCann or Jane Tanner or any of the men walked into the middle of it they would not have been given the time to realise what was happening before being overcome and rendered unable to raise an alarm.
The injuries sustained by the mother of the kidnapped Serbian child are indicative of that.
I have posted the image before but I think it is worth posting again in this context ... the 15 year old kidnapper, complete with false moustache calls to mind the "impossible" method of escaping the scene carrying a child ... l'actualité certainly mirrors Jane Tanner's description.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995680/Boy-15-wore-fake-mustache-try-abduct-child-linked-kidnap-case-nine-months-ago.html#ixzz3UaWEgkPb
-
I agree with that Misty.
There are far too many unresolved witness sightings of men studying the exterior of the corner apartment in the run up to the 3rd May for the probability to be discarded.
If Madeleine McCann's abduction was planned there would be more than one participant and each would have their own task to perform. There are more ways than mobile phone communications to have prearranged signals ... even just as simple as breaking cover.
The most risky time for being discovered would have been the couple of necessary minutes spent in the apartment.
The checks on the children were carried out by individual parents, had Kate McCann or Jane Tanner or any of the men walked into the middle of it they would not have been given the time to realise what was happening before being overcome and rendered unable to raise an alarm.
The injuries sustained by the mother of the kidnapped Serbian child are indicative of that.
I have posted the image before but I think it is worth posting again in this context ... the 15 year old kidnapper, complete with false moustache calls to mind the "impossible" method of escaping the scene carrying a child ... l'actualité certainly mirrors Jane Tanner's description.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995680/Boy-15-wore-fake-mustache-try-abduct-child-linked-kidnap-case-nine-months-ago.html#ixzz3UaWEgkPb
Has it slipped your memory Brietta that Tannerman has been ruled out by SY ?
Isn't it funny that SY judgement is promoted when ruling out the McCanns but not Tannerman.
-
Has it slipped your memory Brietta that Tannerman has been ruled out by SY ?
Isn't it funny that SY judgement is promoted when ruling out the McCanns but not Tannerman.
More like predictable 8(>((
"Tannerman The Abductor" was fragged by DCI Andy nearly 18 months ago. DCI Andy also said Smithman was a person of interest who needed to be identified so he could be ruled in or out................................
What is difficult to understand?
-
More like predictable 8(>((
"Tannerman The Abductor" was fragged by DCI Andy nearly 18 months ago. DCI Andy also said Smithman was a person of interest who needed to be identified so he could be ruled in or out................................
What is difficult to understand?
That is the $64000 question Alice !
-
More like predictable 8(>((
"Tannerman The Abductor" was fragged by DCI Andy nearly 18 months ago. DCI Andy also said Smithman was a person of interest who needed to be identified so he could be ruled in or out................................
What is difficult to understand?
Totally correct Alice ... it doesn't take a genius to work it out. 8)--))
-
Totally correct Alice ... it doesn't take a genius to work it out. 8)--))
Then why are you still promoting Tannerman ?
-
28/04-05/05 G603 Nicole Cox & Raj Balu
05/05-12/05 G603 Parr
02/05-11/05 G604 Gill (donos booking)
28/04-05/05 G606 Neil Berry
28/04-05/05 G607 Curtis Leon Cameron Brain & Dr L Hurne
28/04-05/05 G608 Lisa Marjorie Preston
06/05-11/05 G608 Caroline Baker
28/04-05/05 G610 Anthony Hack
05/05-12/05 G610 Warren03/05-10/05 G13a Toshie Giencke
05/05-19/05 G16 Michael Allan
28/04-05/05 G16 Anthony Eaton
29/04-03/05 G19 Jan Lewardowski
03/05-10/05 G19 Julie Martin
23/04-11/05 G20 Dr Pawer
03/05-10/05 G25 Kevin Morris Wilcox
28/04-05/05 G29 Tushar Patel
05/05-12/05 G29 Michelle Anne Kerrigan
28/04-05/05 G30 Mark Handy
05/05-19/05 G30 Luke Benjamin Savage
30/04-05/05 G31 Mackenzie
05/05-11/05 G31 Brewin
28/04-05/05 G41 Sandra Bowness
28/04-05/05 G46 Antony John Heselton
03/05-10/05 G51 Irene McMillan
28/04-12/05 G52 George Blackbur
Are those apartments not part of Block 6? I thought that it was L-shaped.
According to the above. Mackenzie was in G31 from 30th April, but according to the Ocean Club booking sheets he arrived on 28th with everyone else. I followed your link Misty, thanks, but couldn't find where the above info comes from. I don't think it's in the PJ Files.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_350.jpg
-
Then why are you still promoting Tannerman ?
Having had wall to wall Richard III yesterday an idle thought passed through my mind which thought may not be original even.
"Had Ms Philippa Langley been intransigent and not graceful in the face of reality she would still be having half of Leicester dug up looking for a straight one" @)(++(*
-
Having had wall to wall Richard III yesterday an idle thought passed through my mind which thought may not be original even.
"Had Ms Philippa Langley been intransigent and not graceful in the face of reality she would still be having half of Leicester dug up looking for a straight one" @)(++(*
Apparently the king's scoliosis would not have been evident to when he was clothed. Shows the effectiveness of propaganda ... who needs the internet?
-
According to the above. Mackenzie was in G31 from 30th April, but according to the Ocean Club booking sheets he arrived on 28th with everyone else. I followed your link Misty, thanks, but couldn't find where the above info comes from. I don't think it's in the PJ Files.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_350.jpg
Here is another link (I am sure you are more familiar with this site)
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1946-apartments-and-guests.
-
Here is another link (I am sure you are more familiar with this site)
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1946-apartments-and-guests.
Found the lists! (originals).
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_616.jpg
-
Found the lists! (originals).
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_616.jpg
.....which says the MacKenzies left on 7/5. Oh dear, who can you trust to get it all right?
-
Having had wall to wall Richard III yesterday an idle thought passed through my mind which thought may not be original even.
"Had Ms Philippa Langley been intransigent and not graceful in the face of reality she would still be having half of Leicester dug up looking for a straight one" @)(++(*
Indeed Alice 8)-)))
-
Apparently the king's scoliosis would not have been evident to when he was clothed. Shows the effectiveness of propaganda ... who needs the internet?
The king was thought to have had scoliosis and after digging up his body it was proven to be true. Where's the propoganda ?
-
Apparently the king's scoliosis would not have been evident to when he was clothed. Shows the effectiveness of propaganda ... who needs the internet?
So? the thing dug up was a "skellington" sans vestments.
-
The king was thought to have had scoliosis and after digging up his body it was proven to be true. Where's the propoganda ?
**snip
Tudor propagandists, especially Shakespeare, ensured Richard has been seen as hunchbacked for centuries.
**
Phil Stone, chairman of the Richard III Society, which helped fund the dig which found the king's remains, said the research confirmed "the Shakespearean description of a 'bunch-backed toad' is a complete fabrication".
But research funded by Leicester University and published in the Lancet medical journal on Friday suggests the king's disfigurement was probably slight because a "well-balanced" sideways curvature in the spine would have meant his head and neck were straight, not tilted to one side.
Although the king's torso would have been short relative to the length of his arms and legs, and his right shoulder a little higher than his left, a good tailor and custom-made armour could have minimised the "visual impact" of his condition, according to the paper.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/30/richard-iii-no-bunch-backed-toad-hunchback-research-lancet
The purpose of the propaganda was to illustrate what an evil man he was. It worked until recently when historians have taken a fresh look at his life and times.
However if you prefer the Tudor version of events ... I don't find that particularly surprising.
**snip
There was no evidence that Richard would have walked with an obvious limp; his leg bones were symmetric and well-formed. Neither would the disease, which probably developed when Richard was an adolescent, have reduced his ability to exercise.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/30/richard-iii-no-bunch-backed-toad-hunchback-research-lancet
-
So? the thing dug up was a "skellington" sans vestments.
We are just going to get scrubbed for being OT (sorry for giving you the work, Mods) ... if you wish to translate that as Over the Top that is fine ... but I don't think we will ever know what size of shoe he wore ... certainly it is recorded that his naked corpse was paraded from where he fell, so definitely "sans vestments".
-
**snip
Tudor propagandists, especially Shakespeare, ensured Richard has been seen as hunchbacked for centuries.
**
Phil Stone, chairman of the Richard III Society, which helped fund the dig which found the king's remains, said the research confirmed "the Shakespearean description of a 'bunch-backed toad' is a complete fabrication".
But research funded by Leicester University and published in the Lancet medical journal on Friday suggests the king's disfigurement was probably slight because a "well-balanced" sideways curvature in the spine would have meant his head and neck were straight, not tilted to one side.
Although the king's torso would have been short relative to the length of his arms and legs, and his right shoulder a little higher than his left, a good tailor and custom-made armour could have minimised the "visual impact" of his condition, according to the paper.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/30/richard-iii-no-bunch-backed-toad-hunchback-research-lancet
The purpose of the propaganda was to illustrate what an evil man he was. It worked until recently when historians have taken a fresh look at his life and times.
However if you prefer the Tudor version of events ... I don't find that particularly surprising.
**snip
There was no evidence that Richard would have walked with an obvious limp; his leg bones were symmetric and well-formed. Neither would the disease, which probably developed when Richard was an adolescent, have reduced his ability to exercise.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/30/richard-iii-no-bunch-backed-toad-hunchback-research-lancet
Interesting that a deformity of the body was seen as the physical manifestation of an evil soul.
Much like disbelieving the McCanns now @)(++(*
-
Please could we get back On Topic? Thank You.
-
Interesting that a deformity of the body was seen as the physical manifestation of an evil soul.
Much like disbelieving the McCanns now @)(++(*
Hmmm??
It appears that Levy may well have been the source of "the Irish teenager smoking" propaganda piece; I couldn't possibly make comment either on the physical appearance of his body or his soul ... but interesting you should bring it up.
-
There is no vantage point of the front of apartment block 5 from the short leg of block 6, as per your excellent description.
I think a watcher would have gained all the information required from a view of the patio entrance which could not be locked from outside.
The trees had hanging branches which from photographs I find reminiscent of willows, totally obscured the front of block 5. Therefore it could only have been monitored from the building across the road ... we discussed this at length just a short while ago when we discovered that the gardener to be questioned worked there (sorry I don't have the link, if you are interested I will look for it later).
Graham McKenzie noticed the cigarette butts very soon after Madeleine's disappearance and prior to the police using an apartment in 6 as a control centre ... so I think that may knock out a couple of your probabilities.
However the likelihood that they had no connection to Madeleine's disappearance was never tested, and it should have been.
Also Heri has carried out research into the possibility that 5A might have been under surveillance and has taken photographs from the balcony in 6 some of which are at the links following.
He also took photographs of a possible vantage point at ground level from the garden of 6 which can be found in H10A.
He has also given sight lines from the apartment block directly opposite 5.
http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/hg/1/H10A/Apart.%20128%20(Large).jpg
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/H13.htm
I will be interested in your take on it if you get time to revisit this week.
Thanks for the photos, which I had not seen before. The balcony looks like it was 609, which should have an excellent view of the rear of 5A (as per photos) but not so great to the front.
It is slightly stormy in Luz at the moment - distant thunder, distant lightning, high winds, and a very short power cut. Fun and games, but I hope to double-check some of the ideas soon. Very interesting.
-
.....which says the MacKenzies left on 7/5. Oh dear, who can you trust to get it all right?
Those are the Ocean Club lists. The Mark Warner lists say 28th April to 5th May. Not very efficient I must say.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_334.jpg
-
Hmmm??
It appears that Levy may well have been the source of "the Irish teenager smoking" propaganda piece; I couldn't possibly make comment either on the physical appearance of his body or his soul ... but interesting you should bring it up.
It would seem it is you that is pushing propoganda Brietta.
-
It would seem it is you that is pushing propoganda Brietta.
Brietta is correct, Levy was the origin of that.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3550.msg134591#msg134591
-
Brietta is correct, Levy was the origin of that.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3550.msg134591#msg134591
I didn't say he wasn't Carana.
-
No. A Levy / Reis special.
Madeleine McCann: Irish Teenger Saw Gerry McCann
by Anorak | 26th, October 2007
PAULO Reis writes on Madeleine McCann:
A teenager, who was with her family at Ocean Club, saw Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins talking, the night Madeleine disappeared – but she didn’t saw Jane Tanner or a man carrying a child. The girl wasn’t in the list of guests, as their presence at Ocean Club wasn’t registered with the management. Father and daughter have been in Portugal, recently, to help Policia Judiciaria in the reconstruction of what happened the night of May 3 and to give a formal statement to Police, according to a source close to the case.
Speaking to SOS Madeleine, the Irish teenager confirmed she saw Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins talking, for a few minutes, near the McCann apartment: “There was only the father of the little girl talking to another man.”
The teenager went out for a cigarette, around the same time Jane Tanner said she saw a man carrying a child. She only mentioned what she saw to her family latter, because she had also to confess the reason why she was there. Since the beginning, Police had some doubts about Jane Tanner [sic] statement, as Jeremy Wilkins, a tennis partner of Madeleine’s father, told them he only saw Gerry McCann near the apartment.
http://www.anorak.co.uk/177197/news/twitterings/madeleine-mccann-irish-teenger-saw-gerry-mcann.html/
My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine", this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment. She does not remember where the sound came from or whether it was in an urgent tone, not paying any more attention to it and only remembered the following day when we heard about Madeleine's disappearance". OK, before going on the next part, do you remember at what time you left'
SC: Humm... vaguely, I think it was what was put in the statement, the same, the leaving the restaurant, the way back to the apartment, looking to my left to check that the way was clear and I didn't see anything....My wife vaguely remembers hearing "Madeleine, Madeleine" and that was all until the following morning when I saw the television.
Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
If that in fact happened then 5 people were outdoors in that time period who knew Madeleine's name (9:15-9:30). Jez Wilkins, Gerry McCann, Jane Tanner, Matt Oldfield and Russell O'Brien.
-
My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine", this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment. She does not remember where the sound came from or whether it was in an urgent tone, not paying any more attention to it and only remembered the following day when we heard about Madeleine's disappearance". OK, before going on the next part, do you remember at what time you left'
SC: Humm... vaguely, I think it was what was put in the statement, the same, the leaving the restaurant, the way back to the apartment, looking to my left to check that the way was clear and I didn't see anything....My wife vaguely remembers hearing "Madeleine, Madeleine" and that was all until the following morning when I saw the television.
Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
If that in fact happened then 5 people were outdoors in that time period who knew Madeleine's name (9:15-9:30). Jez Wilkins, Gerry McCann, Jane Tanner, Matt Oldfield and Russell O'Brien.
Could this have been Gerry looking for Madeleine after realising she wasn't in her bed when he checked on the children ?
-
Could this have been Gerry looking for Madeleine after realising she wasn't in her bed when he checked on the children ?
That is Amaral's theory of Gerry finding her behind the sofa so it could connect to Carpenter hearing her name being called out around that time. You have to be sure on the time that they left to connect it to somebody. Are they guessing on that time? Could they have left the tapas bar later than 9:30. It needs to be properly investigated to discover the time they left.
-
That is Amaral's theory of Gerry finding her behind the sofa so it could connect to Carpenter hearing her name being called out around that time. You have to be sure on the time that they left to connect it to somebody. Are they guessing on that time? Could they have left the tapas bar later than 9:30. It needs to be properly investigated to discover the time they left.
I think it is now far too late to get a definitive answer
-
That is Amaral's theory of Gerry finding her behind the sofa so it could connect to Carpenter hearing her name being called out around that time. You have to be sure on the time that they left to connect it to somebody. Are they guessing on that time? Could they have left the tapas bar later than 9:30. It needs to be properly investigated to discover the time they left.
Mrs Carpenter's statement isn't in the files. It's therefore possible that hubby's recollection of what she'd mentioned concerning when and where she'd vaguely remembered hearing someone calling a name that could have been "Madeleine" could have been from later. The Met may well have reinterviewed them since.
-
I think it is now far too late to get a definitive answer
Carpenters booked their table early at 7pm. The tapas nine weren't all seated at 8:30. Straight away that changes Stephen Carpenter's timeline.
At approximately half past eight, Gerry and Kate and their group of approximately ten people were already seated at their table, which was so close to ours that it was possible to converse with them, we spoke of tennis amongst other things, I vaguely remember that Gerry and Kate and other people from the group would leave the table in intervals (inaudible), I think it was to check on the children , but I do not remember with what frequency or how many times the people left the table to check on the children. We did not talk about the system for checking the children or the fact that they had left them alone in the apartment, it was only later upon hearing the news that I realised that they had left the children alone in the apartment and that they were regularly checking to see if they were all right. Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home. (SC)
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_608.jpg)
-
He's clearly wrong there as Kate didn't leave the table until 10 ish, by which time he was long gone.
-
Carpenters booked their table early at 7pm. The tapas nine weren't all seated at 8:30. Straight away that changes Stephen Carpenter's timeline.
At approximately half past eight, Gerry and Kate and their group of approximately ten people were already seated at their table, which was so close to ours that it was possible to converse with them, we spoke of tennis amongst other things, I vaguely remember that Gerry and Kate and other people from the group would leave the table in intervals (inaudible), I think it was to check on the children , but I do not remember with what frequency or how many times the people left the table to check on the children. We did not talk about the system for checking the children or the fact that they had left them alone in the apartment, it was only later upon hearing the news that I realised that they had left the children alone in the apartment and that they were regularly checking to see if they were all right. Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home. (SC)
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_608.jpg)
Contrary to allegations which continue to be asserted ... Mr Carpenter verifies that the children were regularly checked.
It would be interesting to know if in his initial statement he was asked about parked vehicles in the street or car park or any other pedestrians going about (he wouldn't have noticed anyone suspicious lurking in the balcony of apartment 6 ... as that was where the Irish teen was having her fly smoke, allegedly ...)
-
Contrary to allegations which continue to be asserted ... Mr Carpenter verifies that the children were regularly checked.
I disagree...
i don't remember frequency or times
It was only afterwards that his mind filled in what was expected.
-
"I went to search the area around the back of our apartment where there is a little garden with a big palm tree in the middle. I was looking in the shrubbery and the little gardens to the apartments."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
A brief stroll today revealed the following.
Block 1 is lettered, not numbered. It goes from A on the east end of the ground floor to either U or Z at the west end on the top floor. (The last apartment does not display a label. The one next to it is either T or Y, but my eyesight is not up to telling the difference from the road.) Whatever, block 1 is out re McKenzie.
However, the cluster of apartments to the south of block six have the right numbers. There is certainly a 52, right next to 24 hour reception. Those immediately south of block 6 start around 26, and 29 and 31, the ones G-Unit has flagged, are at the east end. Entry is via the road behind block 6. The rear of these, particularly the end ones, overlook the garden with the palm tree.
Back to the 'Irish sighting'.
My guess about block 6 numbering was wrong. The 3 flats on west side, the little leg of the L, the ones opposite 5A are numbered 5, 9 and 12. (Quite how they manage this I don't know.)
Block 6 is at a slight angle to block 5. From the public balconies around the eastern stairwell (the one further from 5A), you get a surprisingly good view of the front of 5A, enough to monitor people coming and going. You cannot see the front of other ground floor apartments, nor the central stairwell access. You can see most of the car park. You cannot see the side of 5A. You cannot see the rear of 5A. You cannot see the Gerry/Jes meeting point. And you cannot see anything of the Tapas area.
In brief, this does not fit with the 'Irish sighting'.
The public balconies from the western stairwell, those opposite 5A, give a view that extends nearly to the Tapas entrance. It is possible to see this by leaning out a bit. There is an excellent view of the rear. This includes the gate, the steps and the patio. Technically, you can't see the patio doors. You can see through all of the windows on that side (assuming shutters open and curtains open). Although you can see the car park entrance and a fair slice of the car park (run a diagonal from the corner of block 5 at the 5A end to the opposite side of the car park and that is roughly correct), you cannot see the front of block 5 at all. Nothing, not the opening from car park to central stairwell or any of the pedestrian passage along the front of the ground floor apartments.
So, great for monitoring the McCanns at the rear, good for seeing Gerry and Jes, but you would have to know Oldfield and O'Brien to be able to work out what was going on at the front.
As a matter of interest, does anyone have a source for this 'Irish sighting' other than Anorak? This should have run through several newspapers.
-
That is Amaral's theory of Gerry finding her behind the sofa so it could connect to Carpenter hearing her name being called out around that time. You have to be sure on the time that they left to connect it to somebody. Are they guessing on that time? Could they have left the tapas bar later than 9:30. It needs to be properly investigated to discover the time they left.
I don't think she was found behind the sofa but in the small garden in front of the apartment.
-
I don't think she was found behind the sofa but in the small garden in front of the apartment.
Perhaps you would like to expand upon your theory in the thread I started for you?
-
Perhaps you would like to expand upon your theory in the thread I started for you?
Mmmm no !
-
Mmmm no !
Why ever not?
-
I don't think she was found behind the sofa but in the small garden in front of the apartment.
What do you mean by "found"? There was no forensic evidence of her potential demise anywhere.
-
What do you mean by "found"? There was no forensic evidence of her potential demise anywhere.
Eddie alerted in the small flowerbed.
-
A brief stroll today revealed the following.
Block 1 is lettered, not numbered. It goes from A on the east end of the ground floor to either U or Z at the west end on the top floor. (The last apartment does not display a label. The one next to it is either T or Y, but my eyesight is not up to telling the difference from the road.) Whatever, block 1 is out re McKenzie.
However, the cluster of apartments to the south of block six have the right numbers. There is certainly a 52, right next to 24 hour reception. Those immediately south of block 6 start around 26, and 29 and 31, the ones G-Unit has flagged, are at the east end. Entry is via the road behind block 6. The rear of these, particularly the end ones, overlook the garden with the palm tree.
Back to the 'Irish sighting'.
My guess about block 6 numbering was wrong. The 3 flats on west side, the little leg of the L, the ones opposite 5A are numbered 5, 9 and 12. (Quite how they manage this I don't know.)
Block 6 is at a slight angle to block 5. From the public balconies around the eastern stairwell (the one further from 5A), you get a surprisingly good view of the front of 5A, enough to monitor people coming and going. You cannot see the front of other ground floor apartments, nor the central stairwell access. You can see most of the car park. You cannot see the side of 5A. You cannot see the rear of 5A. You cannot see the Gerry/Jes meeting point. And you cannot see anything of the Tapas area.
In brief, this does not fit with the 'Irish sighting'.
The public balconies from the western stairwell, those opposite 5A, give a view that extends nearly to the Tapas entrance. It is possible to see this by leaning out a bit. There is an excellent view of the rear. This includes the gate, the steps and the patio. Technically, you can't see the patio doors. You can see through all of the windows on that side (assuming shutters open and curtains open). Although you can see the car park entrance and a fair slice of the car park (run a diagonal from the corner of block 5 at the 5A end to the opposite side of the car park and that is roughly correct), you cannot see the front of block 5 at all. Nothing, not the opening from car park to central stairwell or any of the pedestrian passage along the front of the ground floor apartments.
So, great for monitoring the McCanns at the rear, good for seeing Gerry and Jes, but you would have to know Oldfield and O'Brien to be able to work out what was going on at the front.
As a matter of interest, does anyone have a source for this 'Irish sighting' other than Anorak? This should have run through several newspapers.
Glad the weather improved enough to enable you to get out for a stroll.
With reference to the balconies around the eastern stairwell which give a good view of the front of block 5 ... what height are the trees?
I saw an image taken from a Sky News report at the time and the presenter was standing with the perimeter wall and the overhanging trees in the background and they looked pretty dense and I think they would have obstructed that view.
Unfortunately, I neither copied it nor marked it but I have attached a photograph showing the height of the trees in 2007.
-
Eddie alerted in the small flowerbed.
I'm aware of that (with a curious half-hearted woof and mumbles of coming back the next day). It was late and poor Eddie may have been hot and tired, but no forensic evidence was found. No synthetic fibres, no blood... no anything.
-
Why ever not?
Is there an obligatiion to answer all questions asked then ?
-
I'm aware of that (with a curious half-hearted woof and mumbles of coming back the next day). It was late and poor Eddie may have been hot and tired, but no forensic evidence was found. No synthetic fibres, no blood... no anything.
Or poor Eddie may have been spot on.
-
Or poor Eddie may have been spot on.
That's possible. But nothing was found. I've always been intrigued at the idea that there could have been a sewage outlet around there, but no in-depth studies appear to have been done that I've found to rule that possibility in or out. So all that leaves is a late-night half-hearted woof.
-
Or poor Eddie may have been spot on.
... maybe even as spot on as whoever may have urinated in a conveniently secluded spot ...
... or perhaps even garden fertiliser ... "What we're all actually smelling is a combination of Ammonia (NH3), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Nitric oxide (NO) and numerous volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Mixed in with those pungent gases are their odorless greenhouse bedfellows, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), Carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4)."
http://www.permaculture.co.uk/articles/how-pigs-can-compost-manure-farm-scale-saving-you-fuel-and-money
I think the significance of the exercise was Martin Grime's mumble as he pocketed something?? ... and we heard no more about the half hearted woof.
-
That's possible. But nothing was found. I've always been intrigued at the idea that there could have been a sewage outlet around there, but no in-depth studies appear to have been done that I've found to rule that possibility in or out. So all that leaves is a late-night half-hearted woof.
The sewage outlet is perhaps an explanation for the confusing 'alerts' ... a smell indiscernible to a human ... might well cause a VRD alert ... not necessarily at the source but where the odour had pooled.
-
Back to the title of the thread... has anyone found anything to corroborate that an Irish teenager having a fag within view of Jane / Gerry / Jez ever existed? Or is this to be filed along with the 24 photos that never materialised?
-
... maybe even as spot on as whoever may have urinated in a conveniently secluded spot ...
... or perhaps even garden fertiliser ... "What we're all actually smelling is a combination of Ammonia (NH3), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Nitric oxide (NO) and numerous volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Mixed in with those pungent gases are their odorless greenhouse bedfellows, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), Carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4)."
http://www.permaculture.co.uk/articles/how-pigs-can-compost-manure-farm-scale-saving-you-fuel-and-money
I think the significance of the exercise was Martin Grime's mumble as he pocketed something?? ... and we heard no more about the half hearted woof.
The alert is in Martin Grime's report I believe.
-
A brief stroll today revealed the following.
Block 1 is lettered, not numbered. It goes from A on the east end of the ground floor to either U or Z at the west end on the top floor. (The last apartment does not display a label. The one next to it is either T or Y, but my eyesight is not up to telling the difference from the road.) Whatever, block 1 is out re McKenzie.
However, the cluster of apartments to the south of block six have the right numbers. There is certainly a 52, right next to 24 hour reception. Those immediately south of block 6 start around 26, and 29 and 31, the ones G-Unit has flagged, are at the east end. Entry is via the road behind block 6. The rear of these, particularly the end ones, overlook the garden with the palm tree.
Great, that definitely looks like the right spot - well done you
Back to the 'Irish sighting'.
My guess about block 6 numbering was wrong. The 3 flats on west side, the little leg of the L, the ones opposite 5A are numbered 5, 9 and 12. (Quite how they manage this I don't know.)
Block 6 is at a slight angle to block 5. From the public balconies around the eastern stairwell (the one further from 5A), you get a surprisingly good view of the front of 5A, enough to monitor people coming and going. You cannot see the front of other ground floor apartments, nor the central stairwell access. You can see most of the car park. You cannot see the side of 5A. You cannot see the rear of 5A. You cannot see the Gerry/Jes meeting point. And you cannot see anything of the Tapas area.
In brief, this does not fit with the 'Irish sighting'.
The public balconies from the western stairwell, those opposite 5A, give a view that extends nearly to the Tapas entrance. It is possible to see this by leaning out a bit. There is an excellent view of the rear. This includes the gate, the steps and the patio. Technically, you can't see the patio doors. You can see through all of the windows on that side (assuming shutters open and curtains open). Although you can see the car park entrance and a fair slice of the car park (run a diagonal from the corner of block 5 at the 5A end to the opposite side of the car park and that is roughly correct), you cannot see the front of block 5 at all. Nothing, not the opening from car park to central stairwell or any of the pedestrian passage along the front of the ground floor apartments.
So, great for monitoring the McCanns at the rear, good for seeing Gerry and Jes, but you would have to know Oldfield and O'Brien to be able to work out what was going on at the front.
As a matter of interest, does anyone have a source for this 'Irish sighting' other than Anorak? This should have run through several newspapers.
Could I ask another question? I have often wondered about a statement relating to block 6. The witness says her boyfriend's sister lives in apartment 5, on the ground floor facing G5A.
On 3rd May she and her boyfriend left his sister's apartment at 10pm.
After leaving Block 6, they turned right and after left, passing in front of the block occupied by the McCanns. She states that she saw no movement of people, and that in the immediate areas of the blocks she saw no vehicle with the exception of a small car, that appeared to her grey in colour, parked close to the window of the McCann apartment;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-M-M-DE-SILVA.htm
There was some discussion about the 'front' and 'back' of Block 5 when the rogatory statements were taken. This witness must be referring to the front of Block 6 as the area to the south, opposite the Tapas entrance. Otherwise they wouldn't have passed the McCanns apartment if they went right then left. Do you agree? Interestingly they saw nothing at 10pm.
-
Is there an obligatiion to answer all questions asked then ?
Not at all, I'm simply curious to know why, when presented with a golden opportunity to present us with your highly logical and plausible theory (and after badgering me incessantly to poke holes in it) that you would now rather not discuss it. It makes me think that maybe you don't really have the courage of your convictions?
-
Back to the title of the thread... has anyone found anything to corroborate that an Irish teenager having a fag within view of Jane / Gerry / Jez ever existed? Or is this to be filed along with the 24 photos that never materialised?
I think it would be safe to consign it to the 24 photos file ... but one wonders why in the very early days it was thought necessary to invent incriminating? photographs ... and to deflect from either the tanner sighting or a watcher by inventing an Irish teenager having a fly smoke.
-
Glad the weather improved enough to enable you to get out for a stroll.
With reference to the balconies around the eastern stairwell which give a good view of the front of block 5 ... what height are the trees?
I saw an image taken from a Sky News report at the time and the presenter was standing with the perimeter wall and the overhanging trees in the background and they looked pretty dense and I think they would have obstructed that view.
Unfortunately, I neither copied it nor marked it but I have attached a photograph showing the height of the trees in 2007.
Excellent point and excellent question.
Particularly as I totally forgot those trees have been chopped down so the current view is not the same as the May 2007 view and that alters things quite a bit.
Most trees here, including deciduous trees, do NOT shed leaves in winter. The weather is too clement. Most rain here is in winter, so by end April/start May most trees have a lot of leaves, grown before a very dry summer.
The trees affect everything I said about the car park and the car park entrance. These would be much more obscure, although the view in the street beside 5A would not.
The eastern public balconies of block 6 have a very odd view. A very slim view of the front of 5A, but not the front of 5B, 5C or 5D. There was a gap between the tree nearest to 5A and 5A itself, and that is the very bit you can see from the public balconies leading from the eastern stairwell.
Or in summary, those eastern balconies are a very poor candidate for monitoring 5A, though it could be done.
They simply do not fit with the thread concept - smoking girl sees Gerry/Jes. That bit is impossible.
-
Not at all, I'm simply curious to know why, when presented with a golden opportunity to present us with your highly logical and plausible theory (and after badgering me incessantly to poke holes in it) that you would now rather not discuss it. It makes me think that maybe you don't really have the courage of your convictions?
Jeez you have me sussed Alfie.
Now shall we move on ?
-
Jeez you have me sussed Alfie.
Now shall we move on ?
Sure, but thanks for confirming what I had already suspected. 8((()*/
-
Could I ask another question? I have often wondered about a statement relating to block 6. The witness says her boyfriend's sister lives in apartment 5, on the ground floor facing G5A.
On 3rd May she and her boyfriend left his sister's apartment at 10pm.
After leaving Block 6, they turned right and after left, passing in front of the block occupied by the McCanns. She states that she saw no movement of people, and that in the immediate areas of the blocks she saw no vehicle with the exception of a small car, that appeared to her grey in colour, parked close to the window of the McCann apartment;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-M-M-DE-SILVA.htm
There was some discussion about the 'front' and 'back' of Block 5 when the rogatory statements were taken. This witness must be referring to the front of Block 6 as the area to the south, opposite the Tapas entrance. Otherwise they wouldn't have passed the McCanns apartment if they went right then left. Do you agree? Interestingly they saw nothing at 10pm.
The flat facing 5A is block 6, apartment 5.
"After leaving block 6" The car park is 'south' of the two roads around block 5. It is north of the Tapas entrance. Out of the car park at block six, turn right and about 5m up, turn left in front of 5A.
The statement makes sense. Out of the car park, north of block 6, turn right to get to the junction, turn left to go across the front of 5A.
And she saw the lights in in Patricia Fenn's apartment.
-
The flat facing 5A is block 6, apartment 5.
"After leaving block 6" The car park is 'south' of the two roads around block 5. It is north of the Tapas entrance. Out of the car park at block six, turn right and about 5m up, turn left in front of 5A.
The statement makes sense. Out of the car park, north of block 6, turn right to get to the junction, turn left to go across the front of 5A.
And she saw the lights in in Patricia Fenn's apartment.
Thank you! It's great having someone on the ground, I get lost on Google maps a lot. Pity they weren't looking out of their window that evening is all I can say. One funny thing. Stephen Carpenter said there were cars parked on his left when he was crossing the road. I'm sure I've read that Jane Tanner said there were none when she saw Gerald McCann talking to Jeremy Wilkins. I must check that later. (Not an easy job). I think two employees said they parked there, I will check that too. I wonder which apartment in Block 6 Stephen C was given on his last day?
That would tell us which balcony he was likely to be on.
-
I'm aware of that (with a curious half-hearted woof and mumbles of coming back the next day). It was late and poor Eddie may have been hot and tired, but no forensic evidence was found. No synthetic fibres, no blood... no anything.
We request the examination of the samples collected from the garden wall with the aim of carrying out the “search and identification of eventual fibres and their comparison with the two parts of the pyjamas similar to those the girl was wearing when she disappeared”.
Processos Vol XIII
Pages 3483 to 3487
-
We request the examination of the samples collected from the garden wall with the aim of carrying out the “search and identification of eventual fibres and their comparison with the two parts of the pyjamas similar to those the girl was wearing when she disappeared”.
Processos Vol XIII
Pages 3483 to 3487
The request for forensic examination is not of as great consequence as the result acquired.
Processos Vol XIII
Pages 3483 to 3487
Forensic report Nº 200711800-FI
Requested by:: Portimao DIC
NUIPC 201-07 Galgs
Correspondence number: 3609 of 31st October 2007
Examination initiated : October 2007
CONCLUSION
The analysis of the samples collected from the garden wall of the apartment of the OC yielded the following results:
- No synthetic fibres compatible with the fibres received for comparison from the pyjamas were found.
- Numerous white cotton fibres were found. However, this result should not be considered to be significant, given that according to studies of distribution and persistence of textile fibres it should always be possible to find fibres of different types and colours on any surface, white cotton fibres being very common and without discriminatory parameters.
- In addition, the interval of time that has passed between the events being investigated and the collection of samples (out in the open air) means the existence of fibres from the date of the events is of very low probability.
Note: The material remains archived at the SPL.
Lisbon, 23rd November 2007
Signed
Superior Specialist Machado Area Chief Monteiro
-
Thank you! It's great having someone on the ground, I get lost on Google maps a lot. Pity they weren't looking out of their window that evening is all I can say. One funny thing. Stephen Carpenter said there were cars parked on his left when he was crossing the road. I'm sure I've read that Jane Tanner said there were none when she saw Gerald McCann talking to Jeremy Wilkins. I must check that later. (Not an easy job). I think two employees said they parked there, I will check that too. I wonder which apartment in Block 6 Stephen C was given on his last day?
That would tell us which balcony he was likely to be on.
If you are correct that they were visiting 605, an excellent place to monitor the Tapas bar up to the rear of 5A, then they have put themselves into the suspect box. Right place, right time, car to whizz Madeleine away.
Parked cars? Standard. I suspect this helps to explain the Tannerman sighting.
Irish girl smoking? I am now of the opinion that this is a mix of - Aoife Smith, Tannerman or rather Jerry/Jes, and the butts. Aoife was in Estrela da Luz, which has nothing to do with the Ocean Club and is several hundred metres from block 6. I am filing this in my red herrings folder.
As to block 6, the ground floor does not have public balconies. So the candidates are 608/609 on the first floor and 612 on the second (sorry, didn't see if 611 shares that balcony).
-
Sure, but thanks for confirming what I had already suspected. 8((()*/
No problem 8(0(*
-
The request for forensic examination is not of as great consequence as the result acquired.
Processos Vol XIII
Pages 3483 to 3487
Forensic report Nº 200711800-FI
Requested by:: Portimao DIC
NUIPC 201-07 Galgs
Correspondence number: 3609 of 31st October 2007
Examination initiated : October 2007
CONCLUSION
The analysis of the samples collected from the garden wall of the apartment of the OC yielded the following results:
- No synthetic fibres compatible with the fibres received for comparison from the pyjamas were found.
- Numerous white cotton fibres were found. However, this result should not be considered to be significant, given that according to studies of distribution and persistence of textile fibres it should always be possible to find fibres of different types and colours on any surface, white cotton fibres being very common and without discriminatory parameters.
- In addition, the interval of time that has passed between the events being investigated and the collection of samples (out in the open air) means the existence of fibres from the date of the events is of very low probability.
Note: The material remains archived at the SPL.
Lisbon, 23rd November 2007
Signed
Superior Specialist Machado Area Chief Monteiro
Further we only have the McCann's word that Madeleine was even wearing the pyjamas publicised when she disappeared.
-
If you are correct that they were visiting 605, an excellent place to monitor the Tapas bar up to the rear of 5A, then they have put themselves into the suspect box. Right place, right time, car to whizz Madeleine away.
Parked cars? Standard. I suspect this helps to explain the Tannerman sighting.
Irish girl smoking? I am now of the opinion that this is a mix of - Aoife Smith, Tannerman or rather Jerry/Jes, and the butts. Aoife was in Estrela da Luz, which has nothing to do with the Ocean Club and is several hundred metres from block 6. I am filing this in my red herrings folder.
As to block 6, the ground floor does not have public balconies. So the candidates are 608/609 on the first floor and 612 on the second (sorry, didn't see if 611 shares that balcony).
I have just read her statement again and I am wondering why she made one. I wonder if she volunteered to give it
because she saw the grey car; she saw nothing else. She has put them there, with a view and a destination for Tannerman if you think about it! She has also put the alarm raising to just after 10pm as there was no-one around when they passed G5A.
As 605 is residential 609 and 612 may be also. None of them were rented out that week as far as I can see.
-
I have just read her statement again and I am wondering why she made one. I wonder if she volunteered to give it
because she saw the grey car; she saw nothing else. She has put them there, with a view and a destination for Tannerman if you think about it! She has also put the alarm raising to just after 10pm as there was no-one around when they passed G5A.
As 605 is residential 609 and 612 may be also. None of them were rented out that week as far as I can see.
Yesterday, the shutters were down on everything I surveyed. Shutters down + mid-day = occupants out or more likely at this time of the year, no occupants. 605, 609 and 612 had shutters down. Take your pick of out or no occupants.
All of these are odd if they were residential. It suggests they have changed hands, and that is unlikely.
Luz is a ghost town. People own holiday properties here that are only occupied for a month or two per year. Without all the records for the Tapas and Millennium I would be guessing at what was going on with people in block 6.
For the moment, we have suspects with a good view of 5A rear, and a car. In the vicinity, at the right time. Surely it must be time to swoop?
PS I've just run Barrington Norton through the abduction grinder at ShiningInLuz, and despite some superficial attractions, I came up with significant barriers. Your 605 chappies may well not face those barriers.
-
Yesterday, the shutters were down on everything I surveyed. Shutters down + mid-day = occupants out or more likely at this time of the year, no occupants. 605, 609 and 612 had shutters down. Take your pick of out or no occupants.
All of these are odd if they were residential. It suggests they have changed hands, and that is unlikely.
Luz is a ghost town. People own holiday properties here that are only occupied for a month or two per year. Without all the records for the Tapas and Millennium I would be guessing at what was going on with people in block 6.
For the moment, we have suspects with a good view of 5A rear, and a car. In the vicinity, at the right time. Surely it must be time to swoop?
PS I've just run Barrington Norton through the abduction grinder at ShiningInLuz, and despite some superficial attractions, I came up with significant barriers. Your 605 chappies may well not face those barriers.
I'll go through all the records to see who exactly was in Block 6 (or not). The blocks were mixed with holiday apartments and residential - block 5 was. Why do you think it strange that block 6 may have been mixed at the time?
I still can't decide why this statement exists. The police may have knocked on nearby doors to see if anyone saw anything and the occupant of 605 mentioned that this couple left at 10pm and gave them their contact details. Alternatively she came forward; but she didn't have any information to give really? Another (faint) possibility is that it's the 'getting close to the action' syndrome - something Robert Murat was accused of, where the guilty party can't resist attracting attention. Another thing is that I remember Kate McCann on the morning of the 4th saying to the social worker; 'Why would a couple take Madeleine'. Meanwhile, you swoop - you're nearer than me lol.
-
Further we only have the McCann's word that Madeleine was even wearing the pyjamas publicised when she disappeared.
Oh absolutely ... I had totally forgotten that every statement in the files is absolute gospel ... apart from those made by one or two persons of your choice ... silly me!
-
Oh absolutely ... I had totally forgotten that every statement in the files is absolute gospel ... apart from those made by one or two persons of your choice ... silly me!
Faithlilly also believe Gerry was the only one telling the truth when he said in one of his statements that Kate raised the alarm at 10.15 - because of course he would do that to allow Faithlilly and her pals to believe he was somewhere else at 10pm.
-
Faithlilly also believe Gerry was the only one telling the truth when he said in one of his statements that Kate raised the alarm at 10.15 - because of course he would do that to allow Faithlilly and her pals to believe he was somewhere else at 10pm.
So you don't think he was telling the truth about Kate returning at 10.13 ?
-
So you don't think he was telling the truth about Kate returning at 10.13 ?
You "sceptics" are so binary. I think he was probably just mistaken. I can think of no reason for him to lie, even you would struggle to come up with a good reason for it, given that by stating the alarm was raised later he leaves himself wide open to be "elsewhere" at 10pm. It's just one reason incidentally why your theory is bonkers IMO.
-
So you don't think he was telling the truth about Kate returning at 10.13 ?
IMO all witnesses told the truth. That doesn't mean their recall was accurate - especially when it came to 'times'.
Fortunately the police are well aware of the fallibility of memory.
-
IMO all witnesses told the truth. That doesn't mean their recall was accurate - especially when it came to 'times'.
Fortunately the police are well aware of the fallibility of memory.
Which begs the question why are the "sceptics" seemingly unaware of at least completely unprepared to mae allowances for it amongst the Tapas group?
-
You "sceptics" are so binary. I think he was probably just mistaken. I can think of no reason for him to lie, even you would struggle to come up with a good reason for it, given that by stating the alarm was raised later he leaves himself wide open to be "elsewhere" at 10pm. It's just one reason incidentally why your theory is bonkers IMO.
The time seems very precise for him to have been 'mistaken'. Tell me Alfie why do you think he was 'mistaken' ?
-
Which begs the question why are the "sceptics" seemingly unaware of at least completely unprepared to mae allowances for it amongst the Tapas group?
I have no problem with it at all. A large number of humans are crap at remembering things and even more are crap with time, distance and mass.
-
The time seems very precise for him to have been 'mistaken'. Tell me Alfie why do you think he was 'mistaken' ?
Because the consensus view is that the alarm was raised earlier. Why do you think lots of people were mistaken and only one of them correct?
-
Of course, this is the main issue for many,including the police. Inconsistent times etc.
This blows well out of the water that the parents were vigilant and adhering to a timed schedule for checking the children as they implied at the beginning.
We have read many little instances about this being 'acceptable' as it is done in many ,many resorts. The baby listening thing- they were mimicking (?) Turns out they were NOT mimicking the professional service as they are timed and scheduled. Other wise how would anyone know if the children were being checked.
This is the biggest stumbling block in my opinion. They didn't check as often as they claimed and that is why they can't recall,who,when,where,how long for!
There are no independent witnesses who can time frame any of them from 5pm that day, until Maddie was announced as being abducted.
Now, just in case we need to be reminded, the parents didn't physically check the children whilst in the apartment, they 'listened' and the reason they gave was THEY DIDN'T WANT TO WAKE THE CHILDREN. hmm Light sleepers they were known to be. This was the one night they all slept through,well... screaming shouting, shutters banging ,wind bellowing, curtains flapping, being lifted and moved to another apartment.
-
Further we only have the McCann's word that Madeleine was even wearing the pyjamas publicised when she disappeared.
And they weren't long sleeves as seen by the Smiths. I like how Kate makes a big point that her daughter was wearing short sleeves when she disappeared and not her warmer long sleeved barbie ones. Point out the important things but why were those important efits hidden for 5 years. If they were hidden what else was?
-
And they weren't long sleeves as seen by the Smiths. I like how Kate makes a big point that her daughter was wearing short sleeves when she disappeared and not her warmer long sleeved barbie ones. Point out the important things but why were those important efits hidden for 5 years. If they were hidden what else was?
hmmmm indeed. she did make a thing of that. Also, on the Oprah show, she held up the pyjamas she claimed were identified by Jane Tanner. Jane Tanner never mentioned what Pyjamas looked like and from her very first fresh in mind, description of the view she had of the child and alleged abductor, would not be able to identify the detail of small PYJAMAS, as she found it very difficult describing the larger male allegedly carrying her(?)
All the little things. The devil is in the detail!
-
And they weren't long sleeves as seen by the Smiths. I like how Kate makes a big point that her daughter was wearing short sleeves when she disappeared and not her warmer long sleeved barbie ones. Point out the important things but why were those important efits hidden for 5 years. If they were hidden what else was?
The efits weren't hidden at all.
I don't believe they were produced until after the first enquiry was closed, and required a fresh enquiry to be revealed publicly.
Andy Redwood chose the moment of the Crime Watch programme to release them.
-
The efits weren't hidden at all.
I don't believe they were produced until after the first enquiry was closed, and required a fresh enquiry to be revealed publicly.
Andy Redwood chose the moment of the Crime Watch programme to release them.
Show me them in the Leaving No Stone Unturned book. Must have missed them. They were produced in 2008. What year was the Madeleine book?
-
The efits weren't hidden at all.
I don't believe they were produced until after the first enquiry was closed, and required a fresh enquiry to be revealed publicly.
Andy Redwood chose the moment of the Crime Watch programme to release them.
They could have shown those efits on TV with 'clarrrie dawl' smiling at 'new evidence' or something a lot sooner-perhaps the Oprah show?
Andy Redwood chose the moment of the Crime Watch programme to release them, I wonder why. Could it be this was a very important piece of information?
-
They could have shown those efits on TV with 'clarrrie dawl' smiling at 'new evidence' or something a lot sooner-perhaps the Oprah show?
Andy Redwood chose the moment of the Crime Watch programme to release them, I wonder why. Could it be this was a very important piece of information?
Yeah on the Oprah show to the whole world but no Tannerman is still on their site. That's their abductor. Shame the yard have got rid!
-
They could have shown those efits on TV with 'clarrrie dawl' smiling at 'new evidence' or something a lot sooner-perhaps the Oprah show?
Andy Redwood chose the moment of the Crime Watch programme to release them, I wonder why. Could it be this was a very important piece of information?
The police had had those efits since 2009. The PJ chose not to publicise any efits (not even those based on other witnesses of lurkers). LP had them as well, but until the UK launched their own investigation, they couldn't take any initiative.
The Madeleine Fund was in a legal battle with Oakley and even though Oakley had been paid, Halligen hadn't paid numerous people who had been subcontracted.
I find it quite likely that one of the issues was the legal right for the Madeleine Fund to publicise them until the legal wrangles had been settled. As we know, in the middle of all that, Halligen had disappeared, was then found, arrested, tried and ended up in jail for owing rather a lot of money in a different saga.
Once the Met had opened their own investigation, as a police force they probably had - or managed to obtain - the legal authority necessary, which the Madeleine Fund may never have had.
And the book publisher would not use copyrighted material without permission.
-
The police had had those efits since 2009. The PJ chose not to publicise any efits (not even those based on other witnesses of lurkers). LP had them as well, but until the UK launched their own investigation, they couldn't take any initiative.
The Madeleine Fund was in a legal battle with Oakley and even though Oakley had been paid, Halligen hadn't paid numerous people who had been subcontracted.
I find it quite likely that one of the issues was the legal right for the Madeleine Fund to publicise them until the legal wrangles had been settled. As we know, in the middle of all that, Halligen had disappeared, was then found, arrested, tried and ended up in jail for owing rather a lot of money in a different saga.
Once the Met had opened their own investigation, as a police force they probably had - or managed to obtain - the legal authority necessary, which the Madeleine Fund may never have had.
And the book publisher would not use copyrighted material without permission.
That is all very plausible Carana, However, if the fund paid for 'work' then they, the fund, would be the owner of the materials purchased/procured would they not?.
For example, I get paid to design a web site, I subcontract a photographer for all the sites graphics- this is handed over to the owner of the completed site. The owner takes ownership of the work.
If an independant photographer offered some pictures I may purchase the sole rights to modify/delete/adjust/reproduce. The fund owned the pictures.
-
That is all very plausible Carana, However, if the fund paid for 'work' then they, the fund, would be the owner of the materials purchased/procured would they not?.
For example, I get paid to design a web site, I subcontract a photographer for all the sites graphics- this is handed over to the owner of the completed site. The owner takes ownership of the work.
If an independant photographer offered some pictures I may purchase the sole rights to modify/delete/adjust/reproduce. The fund owned the pictures.
Agreed. One day we may find out what really happened and why.
-
That is all very plausible Carana, However, if the fund paid for 'work' then they, the fund, would be the owner of the materials purchased/procured would they not?.
For example, I get paid to design a web site, I subcontract a photographer for all the sites graphics- this is handed over to the owner of the completed site. The owner takes ownership of the work.
If an independant photographer offered some pictures I may purchase the sole rights to modify/delete/adjust/reproduce. The fund owned the pictures.
The fund only owns the pictures if the sub-contractor has paid the photographer for producing them.
-
The efits weren't hidden at all.
I don't believe they were produced until after the first enquiry was closed, and required a fresh enquiry to be revealed publicly.
Andy Redwood chose the moment of the Crime Watch programme to release them.
We haven't actually been told where the efits came from. Rumour says that Oakley International included them in a dossier handed to the McCanns in 2008, and the Smith family helped to produce them. The Smith's denied this in a statement 30th Jan 2008. They may have changed their minds later, of course;
He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
In the same statement he said;
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.
The archiving of the case in Portugal occurred around August 2008. Oakley International are supposed to have been threatened with legal action by the McCanns if they made their dossier public because it was critical of the parents. The efits didn't appear in Kate McCann's book published May 2011, and they don't appear on their website now. If the McCanns had the efits in 2008 they could have released them to the media but they choose not to, allegedly because Jane Tanner's sighting was being promoted and releasing more efits would have confused the issue.
-
Looks like we have reached the end of the road with the "Irish teenager" thingy and we are yet again veering to wards the "Bash the McCanns" thingy - as we always seem do.
So what momentous conclusions have we reached?
Did or did she not exist?
If she did ... who was she?
If she did not exist ... who invented her ... and for what purpose?
-
The fund only owns the pictures if the sub-contractor has paid the photographer for producing them.
No, that is not the case. There would have been a consultation, with a remit, this would have included all relevent material which was in the file would belong to the fund. If that wasn't the case then a photographer can remove his bits and so on until there is no file, so what was purchased?
I believe the McCANNS fought to stop Oakley from publishing the file, and support them for that because, McCANNS were the owners of the material.
The material, was requested by NSY as part of their 'investigation'.
-
No, that is not the case. There would have been a consultation, with a remit, this would have included all relevent material which was in the file would belong to the fund. If that wasn't the case then a photographer can remove his bits and so on until there is no file, so what was purchased?
I believe the McCANNS fought to stop Oakley from publishing the file, and support them for that because, McCANNS were the owners of the material.
The material, was requested by NSY as part of their 'investigation'.
If the efits had not been paid for by Oakley, then Oakley did not own them and they could not form part of Oakley's case file.
Scotland Yard, however, would have been able to acquire them once they had opened OG, as was their legal right.
-
Looks like we have reached the end of the road with the "Irish teenager" thingy and we are yet again veering to wards the "Bash the McCanns" thingy - as we always seem do.
So what momentous conclusions have we reached?
Did or did she not exist?
If she did ... who was she?
If she did not exist ... who invented her ... and for what purpose?
I find the fact that she was apparently Irish fascinating.....
-
I find the fact that she was apparently Irish fascinating.....
Well ... there were a lot of Irish out and about who seemed to be in particular places at particular times ... what would have been unusual about one hanging about on a balcony if required?
-
We haven't actually been told where the efits came from. Rumour says that Oakley International included them in a dossier handed to the McCanns in 2008, and the Smith family helped to produce them. The Smith's denied this in a statement 30th Jan 2008. They may have changed their minds later, of course;
He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm)
In the same statement he said;
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.
The archiving of the case in Portugal occurred around August 2008. Oakley International are supposed to have been threatened with legal action by the McCanns if they made their dossier public because it was critical of the parents. The efits didn't appear in Kate McCann's book published May 2011, and they don't appear on their website now. If the McCanns had the efits in 2008 they could have released them to the media but they choose not to, allegedly because Jane Tanner's sighting was being promoted and releasing more efits would have confused the issue.
Why didn't Martin Smith recognise Gerry, when he gave his statement on the 26th May. He had seen Gerry on TV for 3 weeks before he gave it. He could identify his clothing
Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.
States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
Yet 4 months later he suddenly recognises him. Odd these statements have different spellings for Gerry's name,
-
If the efits had not been paid for by Oakley, then Oakley did not own them and they could not form part of Oakley's case file.
Scotland Yard, however, would have been able to acquire them once they had opened OG, as was their legal right.
Oh right, yes , sorry that would be correct. I never thought that was the case. However, they could have been acquired by warrant by police as part of an investigation anyway.
-
Why didn't Martin Smith recognise Gerry, when he gave his statement on the 26th May. He had seen Gerry on TV for 3 weeks before he gave it. He could identify his clothing
Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.
States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
Yet 4 months later he suddenly recognises him. Odd these statements have different spellings for Gerry's name,
Given the media exposure at the time, some photographic and some video quite a few of which portrayed the twins being carried, I find it surprising that Peter Smith had to jog his family's collective memories of their sighting a fortnight after the event.
-
Given the media exposure at the time, some photographic and some video quite a few of which portrayed the twins being carried, I find it surprising that Peter Smith had to jog his family's collective memories of their sighting a fortnight after the event.
If you were surprised by that you must have been shocked beyond belief that the parents and the Tapas forgot a lot of things about that week and day and they were there with Madeleine the whole time...well apart from..
Witness statement> errm um yeah you know like .. you know errr um yeah I um ...I don't remember...
Duh!
-
Looks like we have reached the end of the road with the "Irish teenager" thingy and we are yet again veering to wards the "Bash the McCanns" thingy - as we always seem do.
So what momentous conclusions have we reached?
Did or did she not exist?
If she did ... who was she?
If she did not exist ... who invented her ... and for what purpose?
She is not included in the files, but neither are other witnesses, so we don't know if she exists, and we don't know who she was; although she wasn't a Smith. I can't find any girls of that age in Block 6, but some apartments may have been occupied but not included in the Ocean Club records. The newspaper article suggests this was the case.
We have no evidence that Graham McKenzie mentioned the cigarette butts to the police on 5th May when he saw them. He doesn't mention this in his statement, only in a newspaper interview ages after. He mentioned them first in a statement made in December 2007 when he was interviewed by Leicester Police at the request of the PJ.
The newspaper article was written in October 2007 when no-one knew that McKenzie had seen the cigarette butts, so she was not invented to discount his story, which could suggest a hidden watcher.
Maybe the PJ invented her to dismiss Jane Tanner's story, which supported the abduction thesis. I can't think of another reason; anyone?
If the McCann's invented her. We know Gerry left the Tapas followed by Jane at about 9.15pm. We know that Kate mentioned Gerry was being a long time. We know Gerry came back followed by Jane. Without Jane Tanner's evidence we have only Jeremy Wilkins saying Gerry was there. Jane's evidence is suspect as Gerry and Jeremy didn't see her. Jeremy Wilkins refused to be tied to an exact time. He said he spoke to Gerry between 8.45 and 9.15pm. On the timeline on Madeleine's book cover Jeremy is not mentioned, but Gerry wasn't very involved in doing it I don't think.
-
Well ... there were a lot of Irish out and about who seemed to be in particular places at particular times ... what would have been unusual about one hanging about on a balcony if required?
The 14 year old girl & her father weren't on the OC guest list according to the press report.
It makes me chuckle (sorry) to think that the PJ could have used 2 Irish girls of 12 & 14 yrs as prime witnesses in a case against the McCanns. What were they thinking?
-
The 14 year old girl & her father weren't on the OC guest list according to the press report.
It makes me chuckle (sorry) to think that the PJ could have used 2 Irish girls of 12 & 14 yrs as prime witnesses in a case against the McCanns. What were they thinking?
Why is age a reason for chuckling? children can be great witnesses ask Aprils family! or is it because they are Irish? I get the feeling no one here likes the Smiths or their testimony. I wonder why that is. He could very well be the alleged abductor OR an accomplice OR a innocent person, or a witness in some way.
Let's rubbish him as well because SY are looking for an abductor we are told...they also say Smithman is a person of interest...Hmmmm confused .com they jump into these anomalies feet first them 'believers'
-
Why is age a reason for chuckling? children can be great witnesses ask Aprils family! or is it because they are Irish? I get the feeling no one here likes the Smiths or their testimony. I wonder why that is. He could very well be the alleged abductor OR an accomplice OR a innocent person, or a witness in some way.
Let's rubbish him as well because SY are looking for an abductor we are told...they also say Smithman is a person of interest...Hmmmm confused .com they jump into these anomalies feet first them 'believers'
Probably better witnesses than adults who had perhaps drink taken. Stop with the 'believers', will you? I keep singing that song of the Monkees;
'now I'm a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind.'
or the composer's version;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K22e3AcJe64
-
Why is age a reason for chuckling? children can be great witnesses ask Aprils family! or is it because they are Irish? I get the feeling no one here likes the Smiths or their testimony. I wonder why that is. He could very well be the alleged abductor OR an accomplice OR a innocent person, or a witness in some way.
Let's rubbish him as well because SY are looking for an abductor we are told...they also say Smithman is a person of interest...Hmmmm confused .com they jump into these anomalies feet first them 'believers'
I agree children can be great witnesses. They can also be easily manipulated.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3006894/The-yummy-mummy-satanic-sex-cult-smears-terrorised-swish-suburb-Yoga-teacher-forced-children-make-false-abuse-allegations-against-teachers-priests-father.html
-
I agree children can be great witnesses. They can also be easily manipulated.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3006894/The-yummy-mummy-satanic-sex-cult-smears-terrorised-swish-suburb-Yoga-teacher-forced-children-make-false-abuse-allegations-against-teachers-priests-father.html
Are you suggesting that the PJ might manipulate a child witness? do you think they would interview them without an adult? They didn't interview Kate McCann alone!
-
Are you suggesting that the PJ might manipulate a child witness? do you think they would interview them without an adult? They didn't interview Kate McCann alone!
The PJ as an official body would not attempt to manipulate a child witness imo.
-
Because the consensus view is that the alarm was raised earlier. Why do you think lots of people were mistaken and only one of them correct?
What consensus view ? The witness times vary from 9.30 to 10.13 so Gerry could be as correct as anyone else.
-
What consensus view ? The witness times vary from 9.30 to 10.13 so Gerry could be as correct as anyone else.
Why don't you jot down all the different times mentioned in witness statements and see if there is any consensus view. Also, what time for the alarm being raised is in the PT AG's final report?
-
Looks like we have reached the end of the road with the "Irish teenager" thingy and we are yet again veering to wards the "Bash the McCanns" thingy - as we always seem do.
So what momentous conclusions have we reached?
Did or did she not exist?
If she did ... who was she?
If she did not exist ... who invented her ... and for what purpose?
The girl alluded to is clearly meant to be Aoife, IMO, but it seems unlikely that she'd have walked all the way from the restaurant to near 5A for a secret ciggie in the middle of dinner. I suppose it's vaguely possible that she did see two men talking somewhere else or on a different night. However, she made no mention of any such sighting in her statement, and could have simply said she'd gone for a walk if she had. There was no mention of a man with a baby buggy, either, which would have been a fairly obvious detail to notice. There is no other Irish girl in the files who could fit the bill.
At around that time, there were rumours flying around that a security camera showed that none of the T9 had walked up that road in the relevant time frame. This was originally supposed to be an OC cctv, but it later morphed into a different building's security camera. The half-truth in that is that there was a security camera (which, by the time the police noticed it a week later, had been wiped), but it was around the Smith block. (There was also the Paraiso one, which was nowhere near Block 5 either.)
There was also much mocking during that period of numerous alleged changes in JT's descriptions and general story.
The only purpose of all that that I can see was to discredit JT because the PJ had already decided on their scenario and JT's sighting couldn't be shoe-horned into it.
As I can't find anything to substantiate the Irish ciggie girl even as a half-truth, I'll go with doesn't exist, or at the very least that the two men talking were seen elsewhere and were not Gerry and Jez outside 5A.
-
We haven't actually been told where the efits came from. Rumour says that Oakley International included them in a dossier handed to the McCanns in 2008, and the Smith family helped to produce them. The Smith's denied this in a statement 30th Jan 2008. They may have changed their minds later, of course;
He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
In the same statement he said;
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.
The archiving of the case in Portugal occurred around August 2008. Oakley International are supposed to have been threatened with legal action by the McCanns if they made their dossier public because it was critical of the parents. The efits didn't appear in Kate McCann's book published May 2011, and they don't appear on their website now. If the McCanns had the efits in 2008 they could have released them to the media but they choose not to, allegedly because Jane Tanner's sighting was being promoted and releasing more efits would have confused the issue.
Personally, I prefer to take that Sunday Times article with a pinch of salt. Some of it may be true, other details may be false, inaccurate or misleading. There is no way of knowing, either, whether the apology / correction printed (which is often conveniently forgotten) is complete or the barest minimum. The paper was successfully sued for £55,000, which went to charity.
-
Why don't you jot down all the different times mentioned in witness statements and see if there is any consensus view. Also, what time for the alarm being raised is in the PT AG's final report?
The first reported time is 21.20;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm
-
The first reported time is 21.20;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm
again it shows how unreliable witness recall is ...
-
The first reported time is 21.20;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm
Something I've been meaning to check, but haven't got around to is whether or not the statements mentioning an earlier time were taken by the same police officer or not. It could also be different officers using the same computer in which the earlier time was a mistaken that never got corrected (but there's no way of verifying that).
I don't have time right now, but perhaps someone interested in this issue would be able to find it faster than I could: there was at least one statement referring to someone rushing over to the Millenium restaurant at 22:xx and
a statement from someone at the Millenium stating that someone had rushed in at 21:xx + a few minutes.
Unless there is a time warp running through the middle of PdL... something may well have been incorrectly typeed up in the statements. It could be as simple as a rolling, uncorrected typo.
Another curious detail that would seem to potentially indicate a recurring typo is that quite a few of the statements tally in terms of minutes after the hour, but the hour itself is noted as either 21 or 22 hours.
-
The first reported time is 21.20;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm
yes, and....? How many other witnesses concur with this time?
-
Personally, I prefer to take that Sunday Times article with a pinch of salt. Some of it may be true, other details may be false, inaccurate or misleading. There is no way of knowing, either, whether the apology / correction printed (which is often conveniently forgotten) is complete or the barest minimum. The paper was successfully sued for £55,000, which went to charity.
Did I quote a Sunday Times article?
-
yes, and....? How many other witnesses concur with this time?
We used to say 'what did your last servant die of' when I was young. May I suggest you read the link and then you'll know.
-
again it shows how unreliable witness recall is ...
It's very easy to rectify. You find out the witnesses who actually knew the time and didn't just guess. Then you collect those witnesses and see who is way out with their time keeping. Those persons are possible suspects right away. People who lie about the time and knew it are possibly hiding something or trying to get an alibi.
The waiter (who served the thin steak) and Russ said he returned to the table at 9:45 (only a few bites taken when the alarm was raised). Matt said Kate left to check at 9:50. Gerry said it was exactly 10:03. That's a good starting point.
"It being 22h03, he turned to alert KATE that it was time for her to go to see the children." (GM)
-
We used to say 'what did your last servant die of' when I was young. May I suggest you read the link and then you'll know.
You seem to be missing the point. I don't need to read the link to know. Are you of the view that it is impossible to arrive at a consensus view of the time that Kate raised the alarm because one witness has it at 9.20pm and another at 10.13pm (despite the fact that the majority have it at around 10pm)? Is there perhaps a reluctance amongst 'sceptics' to concur with the "around 10pm" consensus as stated in the Final Report, as refusing to do so provides the necessary flexibility to shoehorn in all sorts of daft theories? Just a thought...
-
You seem to be missing the point. I don't need to read the link to know. Are you of the view that it is impossible to arrive at a consensus view of the time that Kate raised the alarm because one witness has it at 9.20pm and another at 10.13pm (despite the fact that the majority have it at around 10pm)? Is there perhaps a reluctance amongst 'sceptics' to concur with the "around 10pm" consensus as stated in the Final Report, as refusing to do so provides the necessary flexibility to shoehorn in all sorts of daft theories? Just a thought...
I get the point perfectly thank you. I haven't seen that in the Final Report I'm afraid. Please could you provide a quote or link?
-
I get the point perfectly thank you. I haven't seen that in the Final Report I'm afraid. Please could you provide a quote or link?
I think at least fifty angels would be able to dance on the head of a pin at the same time ... wonder if our Irish teenager has a take on that?
-
Did I quote a Sunday Times article?
No. Did you have another source for that?
-
No. Did you have another source for that?
I didn't give a source because I don't like to quote the press. That's why I used words like 'alleged' and 'supposed'. I was using a source to find the rumours which wasn't sued as far as I know, however;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478087/Why-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html
-
I didn't give a source because I don't like to quote the press. That's why I used words like 'alleged' and 'supposed'. I was using a source to find the rumours which wasn't sued as far as I know, however;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478087/Why-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html
Thanks for that. However, it seems to be based on "The investigator told a Sunday newspaper..."
-
You seem to be missing the point. I don't need to read the link to know. Are you of the view that it is impossible to arrive at a consensus view of the time that Kate raised the alarm because one witness has it at 9.20pm and another at 10.13pm (despite the fact that the majority have it at around 10pm)? Is there perhaps a reluctance amongst 'sceptics' to concur with the "around 10pm" consensus as stated in the Final Report, as refusing to do so provides the necessary flexibility to shoehorn in all sorts of daft theories? Just a thought...
Wouldn't 10.13pm be considered 'around 10pm' ?
-
Thanks for that. However, it seems to be based on "The investigator told a Sunday newspaper..."
i know, which is why i didn't link to it. My main point was that we don't know where the efits came from. Then someone asked if they were given to the McCanns before the PJ investigation was archived as they wouldn't have been able to hand them to the PJ if it was after. I therefore tried to give a brief overview of the chain of events; Oakley engaged, case archived, book written etc. My other point was that the UK media would have been happy to publicise the efits even if the investigation had been archived. We still don't know if the McCann's even looked at them or if they ever had them.
-
i know, which is why i didn't link to it. My main point was that we don't know where the efits came from. Then someone asked if they were given to the McCanns before the PJ investigation was archived as they wouldn't have been able to hand them to the PJ if it was after. I therefore tried to give a brief overview of the chain of events; Oakley engaged, case archived, book written etc. My other point was that the UK media would have been happy to publicise the efits even if the investigation had been archived. We still don't know if the McCann's even looked at them or if they ever had them.
After the investigation was closed in Summer 2008 they asked again. Kennedy did it once at the start of 2008 but the case was still open so Martin Smith refused. When it was closed he then agreed IMO.
-
Wouldn't 10.13pm be considered 'around 10pm' ?
No, it would be considered around 10.15pm.
-
No, it would be considered around 10.15pm.
I think you're splitting hairs there Alfie.
-
I think you're splitting hairs there Alfie.
That's you're opinion. There are 4 key sectors on any clock - on the hour, quarter past, half past and quarter to. It is natural when talking about approximates to cite to the nearest quarter, so for example Iam looking at my watch now and I would say "it's around half-past twelve". Now tell me you would say "It's around 12"
-
The little hand is between the 12 and the one, the big hand is just past the seven mummy.
Me? I still say things like it's just gone five and twenty to one. I blame my mother for it.
-
The little hand is between the 12 and the one, the big hand is just past the seven mummy.
Me? I still say things like it's just gone five and twenty to one. I blame my mother for it.
Jolly well done Alice, there's a good boy - you'd better run along now - Mummy is calling you for dinner.
-
I get the point perfectly thank you. I haven't seen that in the Final Report I'm afraid. Please could you provide a quote or link?
What was that about what did your last slave die of?
-
That's you're opinion. There are 4 key sectors on any clock - on the hour, quarter past, half past and quarter to. It is natural when talking about approximates to cite to the nearest quarter, so for example Iam looking at my watch now and I would say "it's around half-past twelve". Now tell me you would say "It's around 12"
No I'd say it's around half past twelve because it's near 12.30pm than 12pm. 10pm is nearer 10pm than 10.30pm
-
No I'd say it's around half past twelve because it's near 12.30pm than 12pm. 10pm is nearer 10pm than 10.30pm
I presume you meant to write 10.13pm. Do you not bother with quarter past and quarter to then? If you looked at your watch at 10.13pm and someone asked you the time, you'd reply it's around 10pm would you? I don't think so. &%&£(+
-
I presume you meant to write 10.13pm. Do you not bother with quarter past and quarter to then? If you looked at your watch at 10.13pm and someone asked you the time, you'd reply it's around 10pm would you? I don't think so. &%&£(+
No I'd say 10.13pm. However if I was guessing sometime later I'd say around 10pm.
-
No I'd say 10.13pm. However if I was guessing sometime later I'd say around 10pm.
Of course you would dear.
-
Of course you would dear.
I'm surprised you wouldn't.
-
What was that about what did your last slave die of?
just a saying Alfred. It means don't ask others to do things you are able to do yourself. You asked a question about the timeline of the alarm being raised. I provided a link for you. You then asked me to itemise the information on the link. I said no. If you want information surely you should find it yourself, not ask others to do the work for you?
-
I'm surprised you wouldn't.
I'm not surprised that you're surprised. I bet you'd look at your watch at 9.47pm and say it was around 10 too. The thing is, in the police report writing "around 10pm" means (IMO) "10pm give or take a minute or two either side", not "somewhere between 9.45pm and 10.15pm, which is way too large a timescale for a timeline which was critical to trying to establish facts.
-
just a saying Alfred. It means don't ask others to do things you are able to do yourself. You asked a question about the timeline of the alarm being raised. I provided a link for you. You then asked me to itemise the information on the link. I said no. If you want information surely you should find it yourself, not ask others to do the work for you?
Which is exactly why you can go and read the PT AG's Final Report for yourself without the need to instruct me to direct you to the bit that says "around 10pm".
-
You seem to be missing the point. I don't need to read the link to know. Are you of the view that it is impossible to arrive at a consensus view of the time that Kate raised the alarm because one witness has it at 9.20pm and another at 10.13pm (despite the fact that the majority have it at around 10pm)? Is there perhaps a reluctance amongst 'sceptics' to concur with the "around 10pm" consensus as stated in the Final Report, as refusing to do so provides the necessary flexibility to shoehorn in all sorts of daft theories? Just a thought...
I have no view as to what time the alarm was raised. I know that statements began with 9.20pm. I haven't researched when they ended. You seem to be saying that there is a consensus, a majority, who put it around 10pm 'as stated in the Final Report'. I asked you to back up your statement of this fact. You are refusing. Perhaps it's not there. Just a thought...
-
I have no view as to what time the alarm was raised. I know that statements began with 9.20pm. I haven't researched when they ended. You seem to be saying that there is a consensus, a majority, who put it around 10pm 'as stated in the Final Report'. I asked you to back up your statement of this fact. You are refusing. Perhaps it's not there. Just a thought...
No, it is there, I can assure you. The report is freely available to read on the net, I'm surprised you've not read it before...?
-
No, it is there, I can assure you. The report is freely available to read on the net, I'm surprised you've not read it before...?
LOL ... Why keep a dog and bark yourself? ... Woof!
-
Jolly well done Alice, there's a good boy - you'd better run along now - Mummy is calling you for dinner.
You are a bit too slow Alf. It is no good trying the crack after someone else was in like Flynn with it 8(>((
-
You are a bit too slow Alf. It is no good trying the crack after someone else was in like Flynn with it 8(>((
Your genius is wasted on us riff-raff you know.
-
The 14 year old girl & her father weren't on the OC guest list according to the press report.
It makes me chuckle (sorry) to think that the PJ could have used 2 Irish girls of 12 & 14 yrs as prime witnesses in a case against the McCanns. What were they thinking?
What keeps bugging me, is the fact that the early reports talked about this girl coming out of her apartment, through the gate into the alleyway.
From her fag smoking position in the alleyway, she could see Gerry and Jez chatting at the end of the alleyway. This inplied that she was staying in the western end of block 5 ... or maybe in the block immediately west of Block 5, and I seem to remember that is Block 4.
I am sorry, I am not well atm and cannot research this. In any case if the true facts are being hidden, this statement / report could have been wiped ... as we have seen happen before
Until this thread, I have never heard mention of this girl being in Block 6. Is it "make believe"?
-
What keeps bugging me, is the fact that the early reports talked about this girl coming out of her apartment, through the gate into the alleyway.
From her fag smoking position in the alleyway, she could see Gerry and Jez chatting at the end of the alleyway. This inplied that she was staying in the western end of block 5 ... or maybe in the block immediately west of Block 5, and I seem to remember that is Block 4.
I am sorry, I am not well atm and cannot research this. In any case if the true facts are being hidden, this statement / report could have been wiped ... as we have seen happen before
Until this thread, I have never heard mention of this girl being in Block 6. Is it "make believe"?
"The teenager went out for a cigarette"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3550.msg134591#msg134591
No mention at all of a balcony.
Have we, in all innocence, just contributed to the birth of another forum myth by combining the failure to collect the discarded cigarette butts from the balcony and the vantage point for the teenager?
-
"The teenager went out for a cigarette"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3550.msg134591#msg134591
No mention at all of a balcony.
Have we, in all innocence, just contributed to the birth of another forum myth by combining the failure to collect the discarded cigarette butts from the balcony and the vantage point for the teenager?
If the phantom cigarette smoker was in the alley way she wouldn't have been able to see the junction at the top of the road where Tannerman crossed.
-
"The teenager went out for a cigarette"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3550.msg134591#msg134591
No mention at all of a balcony.
Have we, in all innocence, just contributed to the birth of another forum myth by combining the failure to collect the discarded cigarette butts from the balcony and the vantage point for the teenager?
I think we have.
I think that we may have been cleverly conned into it.
Think about it
1) If the girl was in the block G5 alleyway then if she could see Gerry and Jez, they had to be talking at the end of that alleyway, as Jane and Jez have stated. This goes against the grain for doubters for some reason
2) If she was in that alleyway, then as Misty points out, the Jane Tanners sighting of Tannerman was completely out of her view, behind the buildings. The doubters are very keen that Jane Tanner should be proved a liar.
I wonder why? Are they trying to make out that she didn't see a man?
If they are, then as far as I am concerned that is good reason to back up Janes sighting. They protesteth too much.
3) If she was in that alleyway, then she would only have chance to sight Jane Tanner for the 2 or 3 seconds it took for Jane to walk the nine feet across the alleyway.
Easy to miss!
ETA:
4) Additionally the doubters are trying to make out that the fag ends were the girls.
A quick sly fag and she leaves a pile of fag ends! Come on, we are not daft, you know.
-
I have always suspected that Gerry and Jez were standing in the entrance to the alleyway. It would make more sense because there is more room for two men and a pushchair. More easy for Jane to pass unnoticed. Also less likely for Gerry or Jez to see anyone pass across the top of the road.
-
I think we have.
I think that we may have been cleverly conned into it.
Think about it
1) If the girl was in the block G5 alleyway then if she could see Gerry and Jez, they had to be talking at the end of that alleyway, as Jane and Jez have stated. This goes against the grain for doubters for some reason Does it?
2) If she was in that alleyway, then as Misty points out, the Jane Tanners sighting of Tannerman was completely out of her view, behind the buildings. The doubters are very keen that Jane Tanner should be proved a liar.
Are they?
I wonder why? Are they trying to make out that she didn't see a man?
If they are, then as far as I am concerned that is good reason to back up Janes sighting. They protesteth too much. Logical! Believe something because you think other people don't.
3) If she was in that alleyway, then she would only have chance to sight Jane Tanner for the 2 or 3 seconds it took for Jane to walk the nine feet across the alleyway.
Easy to miss!
ETA:
4) Additionally the doubters are trying to make out that the fag ends were the girls. Are they? There is no evidence she even exists.
A quick sly fag and she leaves a pile of fag ends! Come on, we are not daft, you know. No, just talking about a girl who wasn't on the guest list and is not in the files and who keeps popping up all over the place smoking and watching people.
My comments in blue. I have been called a doubter and I believe Jane Tanner, so you have made some rather sweeping statements in my opinion.
-
My comments in blue. I have been called a doubter and I believe Jane Tanner, so you have made some rather sweeping statements in my opinion.
Please dont take anything I have said personally Gunit. I am talking generally when I mention doubters. I dont even know you my dear.
The fact still remains that as far as I can remember, there was never any mention of block 6 with regards to this girl.... and we have thirteen pages going on about what her (?)ficticious viewpoint meant to the case. That is the stuff myths are made from.
From descriptions given at the time, I feel sure that she was in block 5 or block 4.
I cannot answer why she was not on record as being there. Maybe they were friends of the owners? Dunno.
-
Please dont take anything I have said personally Gunit. I am talking generally when I mention doubters. I dont even know you my dear.
The fact still remains that as far as I can remember, there was never any mention of block 6 with regards to this girl.... and we have thirteen pages going on about what her (?)ficticious viewpoint meant to the case. That is the stuff myths are made from.
From descriptions given at the time, I feel sure that she was in block 5 or block 4.
I cannot answer why she was not on record as being there. Maybe they were friends of the owners? Dunno.
No offense taken Sadie. It's just that some people seem to think that anyone who has doubts is part of some evil gang and that gets annoying. I can't find any statement from this girl so it's all conjecture if she even exists. I think part of the discussion included Graham McKenzie and his 'pile of butts' which some took to perhaps belong to her, but others (including me) were exploring what the view was if someone was watching from the place where the butts were. The Ocean club was a nightmare of privately owned and holiday accommodation. People were moved (McKenzie allegedly) and others were there but no-one knew. In the event of fire or other disaster I get the impression that no-one really knew who was in each block, so a checklist and headcount would have been hard to produce. It's the same with the creche records - sloppy record keeping, and the Tapas bookings don't always make sense.
-
I have always suspected that Gerry and Jez were standing in the entrance to the alleyway. It would make more sense because there is more room for two men and a pushchair. More easy for Jane to pass unnoticed. Also less likely for Gerry or Jez to see anyone pass across the top of the road.
It would indeed explain the discrepancies however it is not supported by the witness statements.
-
It would indeed explain the discrepancies however it is not supported by the witness statements.
Pah, witnesses - what do they know? Armchair detectives know far better.
-
No offense taken Sadie. It's just that some people seem to think that anyone who has doubts is part of some evil gang and that gets annoying. I can't find any statement from this girl so it's all conjecture if she even exists. I think part of the discussion included Graham McKenzie and his 'pile of butts' which some took to perhaps belong to her, but others (including me) were exploring what the view was if someone was watching from the place where the butts were. The Ocean club was a nightmare of privately owned and holiday accommodation. People were moved (McKenzie allegedly) and others were there but no-one knew. In the event of fire or other disaster I get the impression that no-one really knew who was in each block, so a checklist and headcount would have been hard to produce. It's the same with the creche records - sloppy record keeping, and the Tapas bookings don't always make sense.
I really don't think it would have been too much of a problem for the investigating authorities at the time, and who is to say there is not a complete record in existence which is not in the public domain.
Some of the officers did an excellent job of information gathering ... but if the directive was elsewhere, elementary procedures may have been ignored.
-
I really don't think it would have been too much of a problem for the investigating authorities at the time, and who is to say there is not a complete record in existence which is not in the public domain.
Some of the officers did an excellent job of information gathering ... but if the directive was elsewhere, elementary procedures may have been ignored.
On 10th May at about 20.10, upon the request of the PJ, searches were carried out in all of the apartments belonging to blocks 4 and 5 of the OC, two tracker dogs and two search and rescue dogs being used for this operation, adopting the same methods as those used on 7th May, just that this time the apartments were all open and searched one by one, being accompanied by a representative from the resort, who had the keys to all the apartments (apart from those not under her administration) and also with the objective of helping with the searches. The collaboration of all the guests occupying the apartments at that time was requested for this purpose and those apartments that were found to be empty were opened by the administrator.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
Your opinion may be wrong.
-
The Irish teenager who went back with her dad to do a reconstruction was Aoife. We know where Aoife was staying originally, in her dad's flat in Estrela da Luz. That's where the Smith 9 headed when they left Kelly's on 3 May 2007.
Estrela da Luz is not part of the Ocean Club (at least Anorak got that right). It is several hundred metres from block 5 (or 4 or 6). Not the distance one sneaks, is it?
Besides, we know exactly where Aoife was at the time Jerry and Jes had their chat. She was in the Dolphin, many hundreds of metres away, having dinner with the rest of the Smith 9.
Anorak invented the myth of the Irish teenager involved in the reconstruction who saw the Smith sighting whilst smoking. That part is cobblers, pure and utter cobblers.
The second part is McKenzie saying there was a pile of butts on a public balcony in block 6. Whether said pile of butts existed or not, the end of block 6 happens to be one of the better points from which the comings and goings of the T9 in general, and the McCanns use of the patio doors in particular, could be monitored.
-
The Irish teenager who went back with her dad to do a reconstruction was Aoife. We know where Aoife was staying originally, in her dad's flat in Estrela da Luz. That's where the Smith 9 headed when they left Kelly's on 3 May 2007.
Estrela da Luz is not part of the Ocean Club (at least Anorak got that right). It is several hundred metres from block 5 (or 4 or 6). Not the distance one sneaks, is it?
Besides, we know exactly where Aoife was at the time Jerry and Jes had their chat. She was in the Dolphin, many hundreds of metres away, having dinner with the rest of the Smith 9.
Anorak invented the myth of the Irish teenager involved in the reconstruction who saw the Smith sighting whilst smoking. That part is cobblers, pure and utter cobblers.
The second part is McKenzie saying there was a pile of butts on a public balcony in block 6. Whether said pile of butts existed or not, the end of block 6 happens to be one of the better points from which the comings and goings of the T9 in general, and the McCanns use of the patio doors in particular, could be monitored.
Good overview. 8((()*/
-
The Irish teenager who went back with her dad to do a reconstruction was Aoife. We know where Aoife was staying originally, in her dad's flat in Estrela da Luz. That's where the Smith 9 headed when they left Kelly's on 3 May 2007.
Estrela da Luz is not part of the Ocean Club (at least Anorak got that right). It is several hundred metres from block 5 (or 4 or 6). Not the distance one sneaks, is it?
Besides, we know exactly where Aoife was at the time Jerry and Jes had their chat. She was in the Dolphin, many hundreds of metres away, having dinner with the rest of the Smith 9.
Anorak invented the myth of the Irish teenager involved in the reconstruction who saw the Smith sighting whilst smoking. That part is cobblers, pure and utter cobblers.
The second part is McKenzie saying there was a pile of butts on a public balcony in block 6. Whether said pile of butts existed or not, the end of block 6 happens to be one of the better points from which the comings and goings of the T9 in general, and the McCanns use of the patio doors in particular, could be monitored.
If you look back, Anorak did not invent it. It was originally posted on a blog, SOS Madeleine, which was Levy's blog hosted on the Belgian rag La Dernière Heure and the translation appeared on Paulo Reis's blog, which then got picked up by Anorak.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3550.0
-
If you look back, Anorak did not invent it. It was originally posted on a blog, SOS Madeleine, which was Levy's blog hosted on the Belgian rag La Dernière Heure and the translation appeared on Paulo Reis's blog, which then got picked up by Anorak.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3550.0
And no one believes a word said by Levy. Not even Morais. Although they both appear to have thought that there was something in it for them.
-
And no one believes a word said by Levy. Not even Morais. Although they both appear to have thought that there was something in it for them.
Paulo Reis got picked up by Anorak over other issues as a result of that collaboration and landed himself in a mess.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1442.msg41558#msg41558
-
On 10th May at about 20.10, upon the request of the PJ, searches were carried out in all of the apartments belonging to blocks 4 and 5 of the OC, two tracker dogs and two search and rescue dogs being used for this operation, adopting the same methods as those used on 7th May, just that this time the apartments were all open and searched one by one, being accompanied by a representative from the resort, who had the keys to all the apartments (apart from those not under her administration) and also with the objective of helping with the searches. The collaboration of all the guests occupying the apartments at that time was requested for this purpose and those apartments that were found to be empty were opened by the administrator.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
Your opinion may be wrong.
Indeed it may very well be ... but the diligences applied to apartment blocks four and five might have been considered appropriate for other residential blocks in the immediate area when the transient population is considered.
I am curious about the occupants of 5J for example.
-
Paulo Reis got picked up by Anorak over other issues as a result of that collaboration and landed himself in a mess.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1442.msg41558#msg41558
Thanks for that information, Carana, that is the first I have heard of that little gem.
I think it is an illustration of the loose and inaccurate 'journalism' which has formed opinion and continues to be propagated using internet platforms ... such as the probably fictitious teenager who did not see Jane Tanner.
-
Indeed it may very well be ... but the diligences applied to apartment blocks four and five might have been considered appropriate for other residential blocks in the immediate area when the transient population is considered.
I am curious about the occupants of 5J for example.
My point was that not all apartments could be searched (no keys), and yes, I'd like to have seen an in-depth look at 5J too. (I'm assuming there wasn't one)
-
My point was that not all apartments could be searched (no keys), and yes, I'd like to have seen an in-depth look at 5J too. (I'm assuming there wasn't one)
It is strange that the PJ didn't make a request for Eddie & Keela to examine 5J.
-
It is strange that the PJ didn't make a request for Eddie & Keela to examine 5J.
The sniffer dogs showed interest at the door and when they had 5J opened there was a fridge with the door open and rotting meat and vegetables, so they probably thought that explained it. It would have been interesting to see Grimes' dogs go in there.
-
My point was that not all apartments could be searched (no keys), and yes, I'd like to have seen an in-depth look at 5J too. (I'm assuming there wasn't one)
No reports of one which is not to say it wasn't done but I doubt it as it was said it had been empty for some time; however I don't think I would have been quite so relaxed about gaining entry by leaving it till the 10th despite the GNR dogs showing an interest on the 7th, I would have been particularly interested in why the rotten food in the fridge and why the door had been left open.
-
It is strange that the PJ didn't make a request for Eddie & Keela to examine 5J.
I think the very professional job carried out by the GNR dogs and their handlers has been underestimated as they were pushing what they had been trained to do over and above the limit ... I don't think it was rocket science to realise that VRDs were required to follow through on their responses.
That would perhaps have saved a lot of future distress and misunderstanding.
-
The sniffer dogs showed interest at the door and when they had 5J opened there was a fridge with the door open and rotting meat and vegetables, so they probably thought that explained it. It would have been interesting to see Grimes' dogs go in there.
The GNR dogs were public order dogs and S&R dogs, weren't they? Why would they have been interested in the smell of decomposing food in a fridge?
Yes, I agree that it may have been interesting for Grime's dogs to inspect that apartment and for more thorough forensics on it ... straight after the disappearance, not 3 months later.
Why didn't Grime's dogs inspect that apartment and other potential venues of interest while they were there?
-
If you look back, Anorak did not invent it. It was originally posted on a blog, SOS Madeleine, which was Levy's blog hosted on the Belgian rag La Dernière Heure and the translation appeared on Paulo Reis's blog, which then got picked up by Anorak.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3550.0
Thanks for this. I am now happy that Anorak did not invent this.
It was invented elsewhere and merely reiterated by Anorak.
It is still someone gluing together a number of parts that simply do not fit each other.
-
I think the very professional job carried out by the GNR dogs and their handlers has been underestimated as they were pushing what they had been trained to do over and above the limit ... I don't think it was rocket science to realise that VRDs were required to follow through on their responses.
That would perhaps have saved a lot of future distress and misunderstanding.
The search and rescue dogs. brought in on 4th May; took this route;
At about 23.00 the extra teams that had been requested for reinforcement arrived (Officer Rosa with Oscar and Officer Martins with Fusco, both from the search and rescue unit and Officer Fernandes with Rex and Zarus from the tracking team).
After the officers had been updated about facts relating to the disappearance, they tried to reconstruct the route the girl might have taken with the two tracker dogs. For this purpose the dogs were given a blanket to sniff, provided by the parents, which had been used by Madeleine.
Beginning to follow the track using Rex, from the door of apartment 5 A (the place where the girl had been sleeping) he would always head in the direction of Block 4, leaving block 5 the dog would turn to the left, pass by a metal access door to a path existing between the apartments blocks to the leisure area (restaurant, pool and playground). Immediately another attempt at reconstruction was made using the dog Zarus, who, in general terms, ended up following the same route as Rex and having the same behaviour.
They returned on 7th May;
At about 23.00 accompanied by a PJ inspector, the searches were begun. After Rex was given the girl's clothing to sniff, he began to search on the ground floor of block 5 and when he passed the door of apartment 5 A (the place the girl had disappeared from) according to his handler, officer Fernandes, the dog altered its behaviour, sniffing with greater intensity than he had done before. Apartment 5J of the same block was also checked as the dog had been more agitated than before as if there were a very strong strange odour there. It was stated that this apartment had been unoccupied for some time. Afterwards, the same kind of search was carried out using the dog Zarus which in general terms showed the same behaviour in the same places as Rex had done.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
-
Thanks for this. I am now happy that Anorak did not invent this.
It was invented elsewhere and merely reiterated by Anorak.
It is still someone gluing together a number of parts that simply do not fit each other.
The smoking Teenager who saw Gerry and Jez= story, seems to have come from here and our friend Duarte Levy. http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2007_10_01_archive.html
-
The smoking Teenager who saw Gerry and Jez= story, seems to have come from here and our friend Duarte Levy. http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2007_10_01_archive.html
Say no more. Another "sceptic" propagandist extraordinaire.
-
The smoking Teenager who saw Gerry and Jez= story, seems to have come from here and our friend Duarte Levy. http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2007_10_01_archive.html
Thanks, Anna.
I am now getting to practice my French (as well as my Portuguese, Spanish and English). If bilingual helps you live longer, I reckon I can crack up 140 not out at this rate with no problem.
By the way, over at ShiningInLuz, I am ever so slowly grinding my way through places that were open on the evening of 3 May 2007.
Estrela da Luz CCTV went up tonight.
-
Thanks, Anna.
I am now getting to practice my French (as well as my Portuguese, Spanish and English). If bilingual helps you live longer, I reckon I can crack up 140 not out at this rate with no problem.
By the way, over at ShiningInLuz, I am ever so slowly grinding my way through places that were open on the evening of 3 May 2007.
Estrela da Luz CCTV went up tonight.
You are welcome Shining,
I think the teenager was a myth and as you probably know this chap was a friend of Mr Amaral.
What do you mean (in bold) ? I thought there was a CCTV there already.
-
You are welcome Shining,
I think the teenager was a myth and as you probably know this chap was a friend of Mr Amaral.
What do you mean (in bold) ? I thought there was a CCTV there already.
Was Levy a friend of Amaral's Anna ?
-
You are welcome Shining,
I think the teenager was a myth and as you probably know this chap was a friend of Mr Amaral.
What do you mean (in bold) ? I thought there was a CCTV there already.
Sorry, Anna. I meant I had posted the details of CCTV around Estrela on my blog (true).
However, it is basically non-news.
In brief Estrela has 9 entrances, each with 1 CCTV, apart from 1 which has 2. Basically, 8 of these are looking inside, with 2 that are irrelevant to Smithman seeing a bit of the outside.
Forget the 'missing' CCTV. It would have added nothing.
-
*sigh*
Perhaps he'd have been better explaining why the Smiths' statements were sat on from the end of May until October 2007 and then disregarded again. But, just like any bad workman, he blamed his tools.
The Smiths only came forward after Robert Murat was made arguido and Mr Smith's first statement refers to Murat;
States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
— Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Later, he said he had seen Gerald McCann;
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information.
If the Smith sighting was 10pm as Mr Smith said and it was the abductor can we assume that he left G5A at 9.55pm? I think it was a five minute walk, but I stand to be corrected. If so, then the moving bedroom door and the lightness or otherwise of the children's bedroom is immaterial as surely he was not in the apartment until after Matthew Oldfield's check at around 9.30pm? If he opened the shutters and the window it's strange that a female driving past noticed light in the vicinity of the bedroom window but two people on foot and with an interest in the apartment didn't (Jane Tanner and Russell O'Brien). As the female in the car drove 'the checking route' and saw no-one running and searching or milling around near the gate then it would seem that the alarm wasn't raised until after 10pm. In order to go to where the Smiths saw him he would have gone left from the McCann apartment towards Block 4, gone to the end of the road and then turned left, I think? He could have exited the apartment by either the front door, the window, or the patio door therefore. If he had been watching then he knew that Russell O'Brien had gone into the block and not emerged. He may also have seen Jane Tanner returning to 'relieve' Russell.
It would have been safer therefore IMO to exit using the patio doors and use the alleyway to get to block 4 so as not to bump into either of them coming back out. I think he would have had to emerge onto the street to do this, which was risky again, but he could have peeped out to check the coast was clear (after negotiating the child gate of course). On exiting and closing the gate behind him he was ready to go. The main risk then was bumping into anyone coming out of block 4 as he came out of the alleyway into the car park. Maybe someone with a good geographical knowledge could comment?
-
The Smiths only came forward after Robert Murat was made arguido and Mr Smith's first statement refers to Murat;
States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
— Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Later, he said he had seen Gerald McCann;
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information.
If the Smith sighting was 10pm as Mr Smith said and it was the abductor can we assume that he left G5A at 9.55pm? I think it was a five minute walk, but I stand to be corrected. If so, then the moving bedroom door and the lightness or otherwise of the children's bedroom is immaterial as surely he was not in the apartment until after Matthew Oldfield's check at around 9.30pm? If he opened the shutters and the window it's strange that a female driving past noticed light in the vicinity of the bedroom window but two people on foot and with an interest in the apartment didn't (Jane Tanner and Russell O'Brien). As the female in the car drove 'the checking route' and saw no-one running and searching or milling around near the gate then it would seem that the alarm wasn't raised until after 10pm. In order to go to where the Smiths saw him he would have gone left from the McCann apartment towards Block 4, gone to the end of the road and then turned left, I think? He could have exited the apartment by either the front door, the window, or the patio door therefore. If he had been watching then he knew that Russell O'Brien had gone into the block and not emerged. He may also have seen Jane Tanner returning to 'relieve' Russell.
It would have been safer therefore IMO to exit using the patio doors and use the alleyway to get to block 4 so as not to bump into either of them coming back out. I think he would have had to emerge onto the street to do this, which was risky again, but he could have peeped out to check the coast was clear (after negotiating the child gate of course). On exiting and closing the gate behind him he was ready to go. The main risk then was bumping into anyone coming out of block 4 as he came out of the alleyway into the car park. Maybe someone with a good geographical knowledge could comment?
The route is secondary. The Smiths allegedly saw a man with a child who could have been Madeleine. Why wasn't an appeal put out immediately the PJ found out about this potential suspect? They had a better description of him than Tannerman. Or was it just enough that that the Smiths ruled out the dark-jacketed, beige-trousered man carrying a little girl as being RM?
Jane was in a hurry to relieve ROB so he could go & finish his meal. People in a hurry tend not to be so attentive of their surroundings.
-
The route is secondary. The Smiths allegedly saw a man with a child who could have been Madeleine. Why wasn't an appeal put out immediately the PJ found out about this potential suspect? They had a better description of him than Tannerman. Or was it just enough that that the Smiths ruled out the dark-jacketed, beige-trousered man carrying a little girl as being RM?
Jane was in a hurry to relieve ROB so he could go & finish his meal. People in a hurry tend not to be so attentive of their surroundings.
The Smith's testimony is questionable anyway IMO. In May we could assume it was intended to clear RM, and the later statement could be intended to implicate Gerald McCann. In neither case was an appeal put out. Jane may have been in a hurry but she was moving towards the block on foot, not passing in a moving car. If anyone was going to notice lights she was the more likely one. Hence I would discount the one in the car. The window of opportunity and the route are very important I would have thought.
-
The Smith's testimony is questionable anyway IMO. In May we could assume it was intended to clear RM, and the later statement could be intended to implicate Gerald McCann. In neither case was an appeal put out. Jane may have been in a hurry but she was moving towards the block on foot, not passing in a moving car. If anyone was going to notice lights she was the more likely one. Hence I would discount the one in the car. The window of opportunity and the route are very important I would have thought.
So why would SY be so interested in Smithman? Have they not seen through this 'subterfuge' ?
-
The route is secondary. The Smiths allegedly saw a man with a child who could have been Madeleine. Why wasn't an appeal put out immediately the PJ found out about this potential suspect? They had a better description of him than Tannerman. Or was it just enough that that the Smiths ruled out the dark-jacketed, beige-trousered man carrying a little girl as being RM?
Jane was in a hurry to relieve ROB so he could go & finish his meal. People in a hurry tend not to be so attentive of their surroundings.
They were after Robert Murat after Jane Tanner identified him as the man she saw and other friends said he was there on the night. You would start with the closest sighting to the crime scene i.e. Tannerman. Tannerman was heading towards Murat's house. The bedroom door allegedly moved just before he was seen. That door move connects to him as Maddy was still asleep in the same position according to her father. Things that make you go hmmm &%+((£
-
So why would SY be so interested in Smithman? Have they not seen through this 'subterfuge' ?
You tell me. Why would SY be interested in someone who said he thought he saw Gerald McCann? Why would SY eliminate someone who didn't look like Gerald McCann and who was seen when Gerald McCann had a clear alibi? Why would SY be interested in showing us efits which don't eliminate either Gerald McCann or Jeremy Wilkins?
-
They were after Robert Murat after Jane Tanner identified him as the man she saw and other friends said he was there on the night. You would start with the closest sighting to the crime scene i.e. Tannerman. Tannerman was heading towards Murat's house. The bedroom door allegedly moved just before he was seen. That door move connects to him as Maddy was still asleep in the same position according to her father. Things that make you go hmmm &%+((£
You have been treading these boards long enough and are certainly familiar enough with the contents of the files to KNOW that Jane Tanner DID NOT identify Robert Murat as the man she had seen.
The fact you see fit to post that she did certainly makes me go Hmmmm!!
-
You tell me. Why would SY be interested in someone who said he thought he saw Gerald McCann? Why would SY eliminate someone who didn't look like Gerald McCann and who was seen when Gerald McCann had a clear alibi? Why would SY be interested in showing us efits which don't eliminate either Gerald McCann or Jeremy Wilkins?
So is it your opinion the efits look like Jez Wilkins and Gerry McCann?
-
So is it your opinion the efits look like Jez Wilkins and Gerry McCann?
I said they don't eliminate those two people, unlike the Tanner sighting.
-
You tell me. Why would SY be interested in someone who said he thought he saw Gerald McCann? Why would SY eliminate someone who didn't look like Gerald McCann and who was seen when Gerald McCann had a clear alibi? Why would SY be interested in showing us efits which don't eliminate either Gerald McCann or Jeremy Wilkins?
Perhaps SY want to find a person who saw a family of 9 walking those streets of PDL at the same time the Smiths said they were. That sighting works both ways.
-
You have been treading these boards long enough and are certainly familiar enough with the contents of the files to KNOW that Jane Tanner DID NOT identify Robert Murat as the man she had seen.
The fact you see fit to post that she did certainly makes me go Hmmmm!!
She admits it in her rog. At the time she thought it was him.
I realise they were probably calling Robert MURAT to try and get him to walk across, across the top of the road so that, you know, I could see.
I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
-
She admits it in her rog. At the time she thought it was him.
I realise they were probably calling Robert MURAT to try and get him to walk across, across the top of the road so that, you know, I could see.
I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
Hah, the perfect witness @)(++(*
-
Perhaps SY want to find a person who saw a family of 9 walking those streets of PDL at the same time the Smiths said they were. That sighting works both ways.
Then they've eliminated both of the men wandering around with sleeping children? Interesting. It was probably always a long shot that anyone would take the risk of doing that anyway IMO.
-
Hah, the perfect witness @)(++(*
They think Amaral lied about it and all the officers there that night. Talk about desperation.
JANE TANNER FORMALLY RECOGNISES ROBERT MURAT
Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May 3rd. Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane Tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night. She definitely recognises his way of walking. But does he resemble the description she painted previously? (TOTL)
-
They think Amaral lied about it and all the officers there that night. Talk about desperation.
JANE TANNER FORMALLY RECOGNISES ROBERT MURAT
Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May 3rd. Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane Tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night. She definitely recognises his way of walking. But does he resemble the description she painted previously? (TOTL)
Very odd that no one, including Goncalo Amaral got Jane Tanner to make a statement to that effect, don't you think.
Why would that be?
-
She admits it in her rog. At the time she thought it was him.
I realise they were probably calling Robert MURAT to try and get him to walk across, across the top of the road so that, you know, I could see.
I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
For the nth time, there appears to have been a crossed conversation going on between the police officer and JT.
-
Life would have been so much easier had that nasty Mr Redwood not creamed "Tannerman The Abductor".
-
Life would have been so much easier had that nasty Mr Redwood not creamed "Tannerman The Abductor".
What a pathetic comment.
-
She admits it in her rog. At the time she thought it was him.
I realise they were probably calling Robert MURAT to try and get him to walk across, across the top of the road so that, you know, I could see.
I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
Why pick bits from different parts of her statement, to suit you.
-
What a pathetic comment.
You are entitled to have and post your opinion.
It was in this instance hardly worth the effort.
-
They think Amaral lied about it and all the officers there that night. Talk about desperation.
JANE TANNER FORMALLY RECOGNISES ROBERT MURAT
Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May 3rd. Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane Tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night. She definitely recognises his way of walking. But does he resemble the description she painted previously? (TOTL)
Amarals book doesn't apply to PJ files or the case.
She wasn't sitting in an unmarked car, but in a van made to look like a refridgerated van.
-
For the nth time, there appears to have been a crossed conversation going on between the police officer and JT.
Yes she was interrupted. PF has just picked bits from different parts of statement.
4078 “I’m just double checking the second statement to see if there’s any further description”.
Reply “I think again by then I did actually know what they were, I’d seen a picture of them in the papers, so it’s”.
4078 “Can’t find the specific part in there but I think, obviously it’s covered in the first one anyway, so it’s not particularly relevant to any (inaudible) time, going back to the second one there. Before we move on to then Gerry and Kate’s questions that they want to ask, is there anything else that you want to say in relation to everything we’ve discussed so far”?
Reply “Erm I think the only part which, I mean it’s more relevant to everybody else than to me, it’s probably some of the Robert MURAT bits, in terms of erm Rachel, Fi and Russ and into, erm it was sort of how that came about and how they came to give their statements on that, I don’t know whether it’s a good time to talk about that”?
4078 “Yes, yes go on”.
Reply “Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards. So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”.
4078 “Right”.
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
4078 “Because there had been some dispute as to whether they’ve actually seen him when they’ve said they’ve seen him”.
Reply “Yeah I think, I just want to make it clear that from my own point of view, they gave that information as soon as it came onto Sky and asked and you know they were sort of like, oh let’s ring Bob SMALL to see if it’s relevant at this point and at that point, none of us knew that he wasn’t there on you know, that he didn’t say that he was there on the night and”.
4078 “Yes”.
Reply “And I, I mean I didn’t myself see him on the night at all but somebody did say to me, who translated for you, was it the lady or the man and it, it was the lady, I said, Sylvie and I hadn’t seen a man but again I don’t know whether that has any relevance that there was somebody else there translating, you know during the night so”.
4078 “Okay, that’s certainly a point worth bringing up when we interview the other people that have seen him there on the night”.
Reply “Yeah exactly, I’m not trying to, cos I feel you know, if he’s not involved, the poor chap’s had as much crap as us really, I feel very, you know, he’s not involved but I do think it’s important that”.
4078 “Get to the truth of the matter”?
Reply “Get to the truth of the matter and the truth is you know they, when they asked me to ring Bob SMALL to make these statements, we didn’t even know that he’d erm, hadn’t, hadn’t said he was there on the night and they didn’t know that I’d done the surveillance”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “Because I took it seriously”.
4078 “So there’s no collaboration between you all”?
Reply “No”.
4078 “(Inaudible) completely independent other than that”?
Reply “No, I hadn’t even, I mean when I got back, I didn’t even tell Russell what I’d done cos I took very seriously what the Police said in terms of not you know, not telling anybody”.
4078 “Yes”.
Reply “So I just thought it was important to say that really”.
4078 “Yes”.
Reply “(Inaudible), it’s not trying to build more of a case against him at all, it’s just my involvement in that side”.
4078 “Truth to what happened that night”?
Reply “Yeah”.
-
They met Robert Murat en route to the van from where Jane would attempt her identification ...
-
Right”.
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
Wouldn't surprise me in the least if something was adroitly omitted, there ...
-
Excuses, excuses. Always an excuse for everything @)(++(*
-
Right”.
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
Wouldn't surprise me in the least if something was adroitly omitted, there ...
I read that - in the context of the difficult of noting down each other's interruptions in a conversation - JT thought it was... important to notify Bob Small when the others had noticed him on Sky TV because they believed that they'd seen him there that night and he denied it.
Not that she had thought it was RM on the night of the van episode.
If she HAD positively identified on van-night, why on earth would Amaral have not got her to sign a statement to that effect, even if it had to be retroactively approved by the magistrate?
-
Thank you, DCI, for digging that out again. ;)
-
Why pick bits from different parts of her statement, to suit you.
That is copied straight. I can't copy the full rog.
JT: well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards. So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”.
4078 “Right”.
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
-
Thank you, DCI, for digging that out again. ;)
Seconded ... however it brings to mind the marathon interview Jane Tanner had, she must have been mentally and physically exhausted at the end of it.
It also illustrates the value of a verbatim recording of the interviewee answering and the interviewer asking questions.
-
Seconded ... however it brings to mind the marathon interview Jane Tanner had, she must have been mentally and physically exhausted at the end of it.
It also illustrates the value of a verbatim recording of the interviewee answering and the interviewer asking questions.
Excuses. She said it was Murat because of the way he walked across the road. Later at the time of the rog (April 2008) she is changing her opinion about it but that night she told the Portuguese police Murat was the one.
-
That is copied straight. I can't copy the full rog.
JT: well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards. So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”.
4078 “Right”.
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm)
No what you copied was not in context. You used two seperate bits. She never said blah, blah, blah, either lol. (Joke).
She admits it in her rog. At the time she thought it was him.
I realise they were probably calling Robert MURAT to try and get him to walk across, across the top of the road so that, you know, I could see.
I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
-
Excuses, excuses. Always an excuse for everything @)(++(*
What would be the excuse for this?
So, erm, we, erm, so, yeah, and I did tell Russell where I was going, because I thought ‘I’m not just going and getting in a car with somebody who is taking me to see the Spanish Police’. So Russell, we walked, so I arranged to meet Bob SMALL in a car park at half seven or something at night or whatever it was, so Russell and I walked up to, erm, to meet Bob SMALL and, by chance, erm, we walked up, we’d missed the throng of Press that were at the top of the road, we actually walked up by Robert MURAT’s house and he came down in his car, in his van at that point, stopped, and he knew Russ, he’d met Russell earlier in the week, so he actually jumped out to say ‘Hi’ to Russell and he was showing us, erm, things in the back of his car as to what he was doing with the, erm, because they’d set up a stop where people could come and give their own evidence”.
4078 “Yeah, I can remember that”.
Reply “So he’d actually jumped out and I’d never, I’d never, I hadn’t met him at this point, so I didn’t really know who he was and I wasn’t really taking it in because I was worried sick I was about to be abducted by the people”.
So they chatted to Robert Murat before the identification procedure.
What does that tell us?
-
Thank you, DCI, for digging that out again. ;)
You are welcome, Carana and Brietta!
-
What would be the excuse for this?
So, erm, we, erm, so, yeah, and I did tell Russell where I was going, because I thought ‘I’m not just going and getting in a car with somebody who is taking me to see the Spanish Police’. So Russell, we walked, so I arranged to meet Bob SMALL in a car park at half seven or something at night or whatever it was, so Russell and I walked up to, erm, to meet Bob SMALL and, by chance, erm, we walked up, we’d missed the throng of Press that were at the top of the road, we actually walked up by Robert MURAT’s house and he came down in his car, in his van at that point, stopped, and he knew Russ, he’d met Russell earlier in the week, so he actually jumped out to say ‘Hi’ to Russell and he was showing us, erm, things in the back of his car as to what he was doing with the, erm, because they’d set up a stop where people could come and give their own evidence”.
4078 “Yeah, I can remember that”.
Reply “So he’d actually jumped out and I’d never, I’d never, I hadn’t met him at this point, so I didn’t really know who he was and I wasn’t really taking it in because I was worried sick I was about to be abducted by the people”.
So they chatted to Robert Murat before the identification procedure.
What does that tell us?
She had no idea it was Robert Murat at the time of the surveillance crossing the road. Murat and other officers were walking across the road and Tanner said it's him because of the way he was walking. This happened next.
The investigator, with whom Murat is on friendly terms, is with him in a bar until 2 o'clock in the morning. We are not about to relax surveillance. As soon as he gets home, police officers are stationed around his house in order to monitor all entrances. The crisis unit is buzzing; the teams are preparing for the search. It will be carried out at 7am - the legally designated time -, when the journalists are not yet on the streets. The operation is kept secret. We request reinforcements from the GNR. For the moment, we have no evidence against Murat, only suspicions. If we had been certain that Madeleine was in the house, we wouldn't have had to wait for daylight to intervene. Scenes of crime specialists accompany us in the search for evidence. Outside, two rainwater recovery tanks are explored with the help of divers. We pack up a few items of clothing to send to a laboratory that will carry out the search for fibres, hair, traces of blood that possibly came from Maddie. The cars are also gone over with a fine tooth comb. Laptops are seized and their contents examined by specialists. We find a cutting from a British newspaper, dated 23rd September 2006, that refers to a case of paedophilia. (TOTL)
-
She had no idea it was Robert Murat at the time of the surveillance crossing the road. Murat and other officers were walking across the road and Tanner said it's him because of the way he was walking. This happened next.
The investigator, with whom Murat is on friendly terms, is with him in a bar until 2 o'clock in the morning. We are not about to relax surveillance. As soon as he gets home, police officers are stationed around his house in order to monitor all entrances. The crisis unit is buzzing; the teams are preparing for the search. It will be carried out at 7am - the legally designated time -, when the journalists are not yet on the streets. The operation is kept secret. We request reinforcements from the GNR. For the moment, we have no evidence against Murat, only suspicions. If we had been certain that Madeleine was in the house, we wouldn't have had to wait for daylight to intervene. Scenes of crime specialists accompany us in the search for evidence. Outside, two rainwater recovery tanks are explored with the help of divers. We pack up a few items of clothing to send to a laboratory that will carry out the search for fibres, hair, traces of blood that possibly came from Maddie. The cars are also gone over with a fine tooth comb. Laptops are seized and their contents examined by specialists. We find a cutting from a British newspaper, dated 23rd September 2006, that refers to a case of paedophilia. (TOTL)
The identification procedure was null and void from the point they met Robert Murat beforehand.
And Jane is very plain she didn't recognise him.
-
Seconded ... however it brings to mind the marathon interview Jane Tanner had, she must have been mentally and physically exhausted at the end of it.
It also illustrates the value of a verbatim recording of the interviewee answering and the interviewer asking questions.
That's what is wrong with the PJ interviews statements.
They are all, "When asked" or "The depondent when asked".
-
Seconded ... however it brings to mind the marathon interview Jane Tanner had, she must have been mentally and physically exhausted at the end of it.
It also illustrates the value of a verbatim recording of the interviewee answering and the interviewer asking questions.
To my mind, it illustrates that a verbatim written transcript is better than an interpreted statement written in the 3-person, but still doesn't obviate the need for a full audio version (even better an audiovisual one).
The UK police would have requested further clarification of the point if it had been in doubt, just as the PJ officers in attendance could also have done. And both police forces have had ample time to review the interview in any case.
-
The identification procedure was null and void from the point they met Robert Murat beforehand.
And Jane is very plain she didn't recognise him.
She was looking for the man she saw crossing the road that night not Robert Murat. She just said Murat was him @)(++(*
-
Right”.
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
Wouldn't surprise me in the least if something was adroitly omitted, there ...
I think she simply ended talking in the middle of a sentence - but the typist does not show that by the usual row of dots i.e........... but just puts a full stop. There are loads of examples of the same.
Jayne Tanner
I can’t remember what we did specifically in the time in between. I think we just had something to eat and just I think we were in Dave and Fi’s apartment, but.
JT
I mean, obviously I don’t know, I don’t know Jez, I hadn’t actually, I hadn’t had any contact with Jez through the week, I didn’t, you know, he wasn’t somebody we chatted to, so, you know, in terms of him recognising me or knowing me, he didn’t know me, so”.
JT
Reply “I know, the problem is, it’s just getting the Press and the”.
JT
4078 “Right”.
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
4078 “Because there had been some dispute as to whether they’ve actually seen him when they’ve said they’ve seen him”.
Reply “Yeah I think, I just want to make it clear that from my own point of view, they gave that information as soon as it came onto Sky and asked and you know they were sort of like, oh let’s ring Bob SMALL to see if it’s relevant at this point and at that point, none of us knew that he wasn’t there on you know, that he didn’t say that he was there on the night and”.
4078 “Yes”.
Reply “And I, I mean I didn’t myself see him on the night at all but somebody did say to me, who translated for you, was it the lady or the man and it, it was the lady, I said, Sylvie and I hadn’t seen a man but again I don’t know whether that has any relevance that there was somebody else there translating, you know during the night so”.
4078 “Okay, that’s certainly a point worth bringing up when we interview the other people that have seen him there on the night”.
Reply “Yeah exactly, I’m not trying to, cos I feel you know, if he’s not involved, the poor chap’s had as much crap as us really, I feel very, you know, he’s not involved but I do think it’s important that”.
4078 “Get to the truth of the matter”?
Reply “Get to the truth of the matter and the truth is you know they, when they asked me to ring Bob SMALL to make these statements, we didn’t even know that he’d erm, hadn’t, hadn’t said he was there on the night and they didn’t know that I’d done the surveillance”.
End quotes
If Jane Tanner had identifed Murat it would have been recorded as important evidence in the AG's report as to why Murat was made an arguido. The AG doesn't mention it - because it didn't happen,
If the police officer had thought JT was saying she thought the man she saw was Murat - then surely she would have followed up on that to clarify what was an apparent contradiction?
-
Jane was villified by the media, poor girl. Until I read her rogatory interview I was totally confused about the alleged changes in her story and her descriptions as stated or alluded to in the media.
In reality, there weren't any. Her account makes perfect sense to me.
-
I think she simply ended talking in the middle of a sentence - but the typist does not show that by the usual row of dots i.e........... but just puts a full stop. There are loads of examples of the same.
Jayne Tanner
I can’t remember what we did specifically in the time in between. I think we just had something to eat and just I think we were in Dave and Fi’s apartment, but.
JT
I mean, obviously I don’t know, I don’t know Jez, I hadn’t actually, I hadn’t had any contact with Jez through the week, I didn’t, you know, he wasn’t somebody we chatted to, so, you know, in terms of him recognising me or knowing me, he didn’t know me, so”.
JT
Reply “I know, the problem is, it’s just getting the Press and the”.
JT
4078 “Right”.
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
4078 “Because there had been some dispute as to whether they’ve actually seen him when they’ve said they’ve seen him”.
Reply “Yeah I think, I just want to make it clear that from my own point of view, they gave that information as soon as it came onto Sky and asked and you know they were sort of like, oh let’s ring Bob SMALL to see if it’s relevant at this point and at that point, none of us knew that he wasn’t there on you know, that he didn’t say that he was there on the night and”.
4078 “Yes”.
Reply “And I, I mean I didn’t myself see him on the night at all but somebody did say to me, who translated for you, was it the lady or the man and it, it was the lady, I said, Sylvie and I hadn’t seen a man but again I don’t know whether that has any relevance that there was somebody else there translating, you know during the night so”.
4078 “Okay, that’s certainly a point worth bringing up when we interview the other people that have seen him there on the night”.
Reply “Yeah exactly, I’m not trying to, cos I feel you know, if he’s not involved, the poor chap’s had as much crap as us really, I feel very, you know, he’s not involved but I do think it’s important that”.
4078 “Get to the truth of the matter”?
Reply “Get to the truth of the matter and the truth is you know they, when they asked me to ring Bob SMALL to make these statements, we didn’t even know that he’d erm, hadn’t, hadn’t said he was there on the night and they didn’t know that I’d done the surveillance”.
End quotes
If Jane Tanner had identifed Murat it would have been recorded as important evidence in the AG's report as to why Murat was made an arguido. The AG doesn't mention it - because it didn't happen,
If the police officer had thought JT was saying she thought the man she saw was Murat - then surely she would have followed up on that to clarify what was an apparent contradiction?
Exactly, Benice. It's clear to me that they are both talking at the same time in some instances.
-
"It later transpired that on the evening before Murat was taken in for questioning, the police had summoned Jane to a mysterious rendezvous in the car park next to the Millennium area, refusing to say why they wanted to see her and insisting she told no one. Their behaviour seemed so sinister that she was quite scared." (Madeleine)
What? The PJ were trying to find your missing daughter! Isn't that more important than poor Jane feeling a bit scared.
-
Excuses. She said it was Murat because of the way he walked across the road. Later at the time of the rog (April 2008) she is changing her opinion about it but that night she told the Portuguese police Murat was the one.
That has as much validity as Mr Smith commenting on the way Dr McCann carried his child.
She never claimed the man she saw was Murat.
-
Excuses. She said it was Murat because of the way he walked across the road. Later at the time of the rog (April 2008) she is changing her opinion about it but that night she told the Portuguese police Murat was the one.
And still The PJ didn't take statement from her.
-
That has as much validity as Mr Smith commenting on the way Dr McCann carried his child.
She never claimed the man she saw was Murat.
And Murat doesn't look like this.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/screenshots/drawingJaneTanner.jpg
But Smithman efit looks like..............
-
That has as much validity as Mr Smith commenting on the way Dr McCann carried his child.
She never claimed the man she saw was Murat.
I fear you are beating your head against a brick wall pointing out that truth, Brietta ...
-
That has as much validity as Mr Smith commenting on the way Dr McCann carried his child.
She never claimed the man she saw was Murat.
Not according to Gonc plus she never came out and said it wasn't him either did she? In her rogatory statement which she waffled through when it came to the undercover observation of Murat crossing the same road junction she admits he walked like the carrier. Given that Robert Murat always wears glasses I don't see how she could have had any doubts or was she being influenced from behind doors by those three from the tapas who had claimed to have seen him lurking around block 5 on the morning after Maddie's disappearance?
-
Not according to Gonc plus she never came out and said it wasn't him either did she? In her rogatory statement which she waffled through when it came to the undercover observation of Murat crossing the same road junction she admits he walked like the carrier.
She never ID'ed him. If she had she would have been asked to give a statement confirming this. Anyone pretending that she gave a statement and it's hidden in some secret file somewhere is living in La La Land.
-
She never ID'ed him. If she had she would have been asked to give a statement confirming this. Anyone pretending that she gave a statement and it's hidden in some secret file somewhere is living in La La Land.
Goncalo states the contrary in his book so explain that one Alf? Also explain why Murat was made an arguido that same night after the undercover operation if Tanner had stated categorically that it wasn't him? Could it be that she wasn't sure so didn't want to commit herself either way?
-
Goncalo states the contrary in his book so explain that one Alf?
So where is the statement and why was Robert Murat cleared if he was seen walking away from 5A carrying a child?
Oh, and why was Jane Tanner questioned about this again during her Rogatory Interview?
-
Not according to Gonc plus she never came out and said it wasn't him either did she? In her rogatory statement which she waffled through when it came to the undercover observation of Murat crossing the same road junction she admits he walked like the carrier. Given that Robert Murat always wears glasses I don't see how she could have had any doubts or was she being influenced from behind doors by those three from the tapas who had claimed to have seen him lurking around block 5 on the morning after Maddie's disappearance?
Murat didn't wear glasses when Martin Smith saw him either. Perhaps he also wore contact lenses. Sylvia Baptista said he was there on the 3rd May, then changed her mind.
The PJ seem to have a thing about the way men walk.
Why do you keep using Amarals book as though it's relevant to witness statements?
-
So where is the statement and why was Robert Murat cleared if he was seen walking away from 5A carrying a child?
Oh, and why was Jane Tanner questioned about this again during her Rogatory Interview?
Good question Eleanor. Maybe she refused to make a statement implicating Murat if she wasn't sure. Murat's home and business premises and all his vehices were the subject of exhaustive searches. His was tailed, his phone tapped and his associates all checked out. For that to happen somebody somewhere must have fingered him. Jane was questioned again about it when back home in England because there was doubt about what she had admitted to when with the PJ.
-
Good question Eleanor. Maybe she refused to make a statement implicating Murat if she wasn't sure. Murat's home and business premises and all his vehices were the subject of exhaustive searches. His was tailed, his phone tapped and his associates all checked out. For that to happen somebody somewhere must have fingered him.
May be she wasn't asked because she wasn't sure. And other people fingered him long before Jane Tanner might or might not have done.
And not just The Tapas Group. There were at least two others.
Personally, I think they were all running around like headless chickens in a state of panic, lashing out at all and sundry. And that's just The PJ.
-
Murat didn't wear glasses when Martin Smith saw him either. Perhaps he also wore contact lenses. Sylvia Baptista said he was there on the 3rd May, then changed her mind.
The PJ seem to have a thing about the way men walk.
Why do you keep using Amarals book as though it's relevant to witness statements?
He was the investigation coordinator and as such had access through his officers to everything that went on. I find it very hard to believe that he would publish a claim when other PJ officers could so easily dispute it if he was wrong.
The bottom line is that Tanner for whatever reason did not rule Murat out when she had the chance.
-
He was the investigation coordinator and as such had access through his officers to everything that went on. I find it very hard to believe that he would publish a claim when other PJ officers could so easily dispute it if he was wrong.
The bottom line is that Tanner for whatever reason did not rule Murat out when she had the chance.
Ruling him out is an entirely different thing to identifying him. How many people have been convicted on the possibility that it might have been?
-
Goncalo states the contrary in his book so explain that one Alf? Also explain why Murat was made an arguido that same night after the undercover operation if Tanner had stated categorically that it wasn't him? Could it be that she wasn't sure so didn't want to commit herself either way?
If she wasn't sure and didn't commit either way then why did Amaral claim in her book that she ID'ed him? Personally I would take most of Gonc's book with a large pinch of salt.
-
He was the investigation coordinator and as such had access through his officers to everything that went on. I find it very hard to believe that he would publish a claim when other PJ officers could so easily dispute it if he was wrong.
The bottom line is that Tanner for whatever reason did not rule Murat out when she had the chance.
Yes, breaking the secrecy laws. He was not entitled to use any information from the process. He had been sacked months before he wrote his book.
Why would he bessy mate Paiva dispute his version. He was the one supposed to have been responsible for collecting any info coming in. Most went in his "Irrelevant box".
-
Not according to Gonc plus she never came out and said it wasn't him either did she? In her rogatory statement which she waffled through when it came to the undercover observation of Murat crossing the same road junction she admits he walked like the carrier. Given that Robert Murat always wears glasses I don't see how she could have had any doubts or was she being influenced from behind doors by those three from the tapas who had claimed to have seen him lurking around block 5 on the morning after Maddie's disappearance?
Goncalo Amaral said very firmly in his book that Jane Tanner had identified Robert Murat ... had that been the case ... whys did he run past it and do nothing?
Jane Tanner is very clear in her rogatory statement that she took no part in discussion with others regarding the botched 'ID parade' or Robert Murat ... because she was petrified about the consequences of breaking Portuguese secrecy law.
-
Good question Eleanor. Maybe she refused to make a statement implicating Murat if she wasn't sure. Murat's home and business premises and all his vehices were the subject of exhaustive searches. His was tailed, his phone tapped and his associates all checked out. For that to happen somebody somewhere must have fingered him. Jane was questioned again about it when back home in England because there was doubt about what she had admitted to when with the PJ.
From the account in the files I think Robert Murat's behaviour was found suspicious by the PJ and separately by a journalist; so in effect he 'fingered' himself.
-
From the account in the files I think Robert Murat's behaviour was found suspicious by the PJ and separately by a journalist; so in effect he 'fingered' himself.
Correct Brietta.
Translators note - -
I must make it clear that this officer, while doing his clear professional duty, was, of necessity, couching much of his statement in a very diplomatic manner. Some of his phrasing I have managed to keep word-for-word, whereas other parts I have had to cut directly to the chase because it is simply too tortuous for me to convert word-for-word into English.
As usual my inline explanatory comments are in square brackets.
Processo page 960-961
Service Information document dated 11 May 2007 from Inspector Pedro Varanda relating to an informal conversation with Robert Murat
As you will know, Sir, on this day at 11h30, there appeared before the undersigned and (lady) Inspector Patricia Duarte, a British citizen called Diane Webster, holder of UK passport XXXXXXX, in order to hear her witness statement.
In the course of an informal approach that preceeded that work, it was determined that she was not conversant in Portuguese, written or spoken, and the service of an English-speaking interpreter was therefore called for.
In this function appeared a British citizen, Robert J.Q.E. Murat (duly identified in the files from previous work), official resident of Casa Liliana, Rua Ramalhete, Praia da Luz, Lagos.
The work [the DW interview] being concluded, and during an informal conversation that the undersigned began with that interpreter (as would be characteristic in this type of situation), Robert Murat displayed an unusual curiosity about the investigation that was developing around the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann that occurred on 3 May 2007.
As an example, it will be proper to point out that he has insistently and repeatedly questioned me about the identity of possible suspects, about the strategy outlined by the lead coordinator of the investigation and the work that might possibly have been considered for the coming days.
Before [faced with] such an attitude, that was so unusual and absolutely inappropriate that I immediately became highly suspicious, I always countered [ducked the questions], insistently requesting that person to be aware of the contractual duties pertaining to the role which he has assumed in this investigation, pointing out that it was presently the inquiry phase, and, naturally, covered by judicial secrecy.
It behoves me further to state that that suspicion became even more consolidated, following the fact that I became aware that Robert Murat would covertly attempt to catch glimpses of various procedural pieces [items being prepared for the case file] that make up the present inquiry, to the point that I followed my own consultation [hunch], in order to conduct the Diane Webster interview.
Finally, and in the sense of reiterating the suspicious attitude shown by Robert Murat, I venture still to state that, beyond having manifested an enormous knowledge about the dynamics inherent in the functioning of the "Ocean Club Garden" (in which the events under investigation had taken place) and of the routines followed by the McCann family and their companions during their respective stays in in Praia da Luz, he has tried persistently to influence the conduct of the present investigation, suggesting various analyses the agreement with which [i.e. had they agreed to follow those suggested lines of inquiry] could be intended to impute the consummation of the present illegal act [the missing child] to foreign third parties [i.e. to put the blame on, or to attribute the blame to, outside foreigners].
The above being exposed [laid bare] - and without intending in any way to place in question the competence of the above individual, nor the slightest imputation that that [my suspicions]was what he wanted to be [actually intendedto do] - I have to bring the above incidents to your attention, in order for you to determine what may be appropriate.
11 May 2007
Inspector
Pedro Varanda
-
Correct Brietta.
Translators note - -
I must make it clear that this officer, while doing his clear professional duty, was, of necessity, couching much of his statement in a very diplomatic manner. Some of his phrasing I have managed to keep word-for-word, whereas other parts I have had to cut directly to the chase because it is simply too tortuous for me to convert word-for-word into English.
As usual my inline explanatory comments are in square brackets.
Processo page 960-961
Service Information document dated 11 May 2007 from Inspector Pedro Varanda relating to an informal conversation with Robert Murat
As you will know, Sir, on this day at 11h30, there appeared before the undersigned and (lady) Inspector Patricia Duarte, a British citizen called Diane Webster, holder of UK passport XXXXXXX, in order to hear her witness statement.
In the course of an informal approach that preceeded that work, it was determined that she was not conversant in Portuguese, written or spoken, and the service of an English-speaking interpreter was therefore called for.
In this function appeared a British citizen, Robert J.Q.E. Murat (duly identified in the files from previous work), official resident of Casa Liliana, Rua Ramalhete, Praia da Luz, Lagos.
The work [the DW interview] being concluded, and during an informal conversation that the undersigned began with that interpreter (as would be characteristic in this type of situation), Robert Murat displayed an unusual curiosity about the investigation that was developing around the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann that occurred on 3 May 2007.
As an example, it will be proper to point out that he has insistently and repeatedly questioned me about the identity of possible suspects, about the strategy outlined by the lead coordinator of the investigation and the work that might possibly have been considered for the coming days.
Before [faced with] such an attitude, that was so unusual and absolutely inappropriate that I immediately became highly suspicious, I always countered [ducked the questions], insistently requesting that person to be aware of the contractual duties pertaining to the role which he has assumed in this investigation, pointing out that it was presently the inquiry phase, and, naturally, covered by judicial secrecy.
It behoves me further to state that that suspicion became even more consolidated, following the fact that I became aware that Robert Murat would covertly attempt to catch glimpses of various procedural pieces [items being prepared for the case file] that make up the present inquiry, to the point that I followed my own consultation [hunch], in order to conduct the Diane Webster interview.
Finally, and in the sense of reiterating the suspicious attitude shown by Robert Murat, I venture still to state that, beyond having manifested an enormous knowledge about the dynamics inherent in the functioning of the "Ocean Club Garden" (in which the events under investigation had taken place) and of the routines followed by the McCann family and their companions during their respective stays in in Praia da Luz, he has tried persistently to influence the conduct of the present investigation, suggesting various analyses the agreement with which [i.e. had they agreed to follow those suggested lines of inquiry] could be intended to impute the consummation of the present illegal act [the missing child] to foreign third parties [i.e. to put the blame on, or to attribute the blame to, outside foreigners].
The above being exposed [laid bare] - and without intending in any way to place in question the competence of the above individual, nor the slightest imputation that that [my suspicions]was what he wanted to be [actually intendedto do] - I have to bring the above incidents to your attention, in order for you to determine what may be appropriate.
11 May 2007
Inspector
Pedro Varanda
How interesting DCI.
I have never seen that before
-
Not according to Gonc plus she never came out and said it wasn't him either did she? In her rogatory statement which she waffled through when it came to the undercover observation of Murat crossing the same road junction she admits he walked like the carrier. Given that Robert Murat always wears glasses I don't see how she could have had any doubts or was she being influenced from behind doors by those three from the tapas who had claimed to have seen him lurking around block 5 on the morning after Maddie's disappearance?
Can you give a cite for that claim Angelo?
How could she be influenced by the other members of the group when they had no idea he was being investigated until they saw his face on TV AFTER he was made an Arguido - which was after the ID parade. It was only AFTER they found out he had been made an Arguido that they discussed it with JT and told the police that they had seen him on 3rd May.
The group were not the only people to claim to have seen Murat on the night of the 3rd . - I believe there were 3/4 others - including Silvia Batista who was supposed attend the 'confrontation' meeting with Murat and the 3 group members, but failed to turn up.
Why would Kate state in her book that Amaral's claim that JT had identified RM was completely untrue, if she knew there were witnesses who could prove that to be a lie. i.e. the policemen with JT during the ID parade - and possibly an interpreter? Why didn't Amaral shout it from the rooftops that she had lied in her book and he could prove it?
Why isn't this claimed identification by JT mentioned in the AG report in his comments on why Robert Murat had been made an arguido? Surely a positive identification of him as the man seen walking away with a child would be a major reason for him being made an Arguido - and yet he doesn't mention it.
The only person who has claimed JT formally identified Murat is Amaral in his book and numerous interviews - when IIRC no-one has ever asked him any awkward questions about it - like ''Why would you tell your men to send JT home instead of bringing her in to make a witness statement over something so massively important ?'' or - 'Why is there no mention by the AG of JT's positive identification of Murat as a major reason why he was made an arguido?
IIRC the reason JT gave for it not being possible to identify Murat one way or the other - was because despite several attempts - not once (for various reasons) during the ID parade did she ever get a clear view of him.
Amarals claim that JT made a FORMAL identification of Murat on that day is about as true as his claim that he'd met the McCanns. That didn't happen either.
-
Can you give a cite for that claim Angelo?
How could she be influenced by the other members of the group when they had no idea he was being investigated until they saw his face on TV AFTER he was made an Arguido - which was after the ID parade. It was only AFTER they found out he had been made an Arguido that they discussed it with JT and told the police that they had seen him on 3rd May.
The group were not the only people to claim to have seen Murat on the night of the 3rd . - I believe there were 3/4 others - including Silvia Batista who was supposed attend the 'confrontation' meeting with Murat and the 3 group members, but failed to turn up.
Why would Kate state in her book that Amaral's claim that JT had identified RM was completely untrue, if she knew there were witnesses who could prove that to be a lie. i.e. the policemen with JT during the ID parade - and possibly an interpreter? Why didn't Amaral shout it from the rooftops that she had lied in her book and he could prove it?
Why isn't this claimed identification by JT mentioned in the AG report in his comments on why Robert Murat had been made an arguido? Surely a positive identification of him as the man seen walking away with a child would be a major reason for him being made an Arguido - and yet he doesn't mention it.
The only person who has claimed JT formally identified Murat is Amaral in his book and numerous interviews - when IIRC no-one has ever asked him any awkward questions about it - like ''Why would you tell your men to send JT home instead of bringing her in to make a witness statement over something so massively important ?'' or - 'Why is there no mention by the AG of JT's positive identification of Murat as a major reason why he was made an arguido?
IIRC the reason JT gave for it not being possible to identify Murat one way or the other - was because despite several attempts - not once (for various reasons) during the ID parade did she ever get a clear view of him.
Amarals claim that JT made a FORMAL identification of Murat on that day is about as true as his claim that he'd met the McCanns. That didn't happen either.
Kate's book is not official. Far from it. If they need a defence.............
JT said it was that man. That man crossing the road was Murat and the morning raid on his home immediately happened after.
Murat and Raj Balu walking together and Neil Berry in front.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/neilberry.jpg)
(http://i55.servimg.com/u/f55/18/10/13/64/captur11.jpg)
-
Kate's book is not official. Far from it. If they need a defence.............
JT said it was that man. That man crossing the road was Murat and the morning raid on his home immediately happened after.
Murat and Raj Balu walking together and Neil Berry in front.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/neilberry.jpg)
(http://i55.servimg.com/u/f55/18/10/13/64/captur11.jpg)
Kates book may not be 'official', but she is hardly going to deliberately include lies which can easily be exposed as lies in it is she? Her book would have been dead in the water as soon as it was proved she lied. But not a peep from Amaral.
Your claim that she did say it was Murat she saw is based on a few words in a rogatory statement - which I believe was an unfinished sentence.
If at any time during that interview the Police Officer asking the questions thought she was saying it was Murat she saw - then why didn't she question her further on that? Surely that would need to be clarified as she would be contradicting all of her other comments about Murat? IMO she didn't ask for clarification because she knew JT was not talking about Murat when she said ''I just thought it was'' - which IMO should have been typed as ''I just thought it was..............'' to denote an unfinished sentence. However, the typist never does that and only uses full stops - even when it is patently obvious that a sentence is unfinished.
-
Kates book may not be 'official', but she is hardly going to deliberately include lies which can easily be exposed as lies in it is she? Her book would have been dead in the water as soon as it was proved she lied. But not a peep from Amaral.
Your claim that she did say it was Murat she saw is based on a few words in a rogatory statement - which I believe was an unfinished sentence.
If at any time during that interview the Police Officer asking the questions thought she was saying it was Murat she saw - then why didn't she question her further on that? Surely that would need to be clarified as she would be contradicting all of her other comments about Murat? IMO she didn't ask for clarification because she knew JT was not talking about Murat when she said ''I just thought it was'' - which IMO should have been typed as ''I just thought it was..............'' to denote an unfinished sentence. However, the typist never does that and only uses full stops - even when it is patently obvious that a sentence is unfinished.
Yet you believe Amaral included in his book an identification that could be discredited by the police officers involved in the van surveillance, not least of all Bob Small who seems to have been quite friendly with the McCanns. If Tanner hadn't identified Murat why hasn't Small spoken out ? Summers had a wonderful chance to clear the alleged misunderstanding up while writing his book by asking for an interview with Small so why didn't he ?
-
Yet you believe Amaral included in his book an identification that could be discredited by the police officers involved in the van surveillance, not least of all Bob Small who seems to have been quite friendly with the McCanns. If Tanner hadn't identified Murat why hasn't Small spoken out ? Summers had a wonderful chance to clear the alleged misunderstanding up while writing his book by asking for an interview with Small so why didn't he ?
Erm... because he isn't allowed to discuss the investigation with the media?
-
Yet you believe Amaral included in his book an identification that could be discredited by the police officers involved in the van surveillance, not least of all Bob Small who seems to have been quite friendly with the McCanns. If Tanner hadn't identified Murat why hasn't Small spoken out ? Summers had a wonderful chance to clear the alleged misunderstanding up while writing his book by asking for an interview with Small so why didn't he ?
Out of curiosity, which British officers have spoken out (post the shelved enquiry)?
Indeed, I'm fairly certain British police officers involved in the investigation are legally prohibited from discussing details ...
Prior has never gone on record to deny being contradicted by Amaral about interpretation of the forensic results, for example ...
-
Erm... because he isn't allowed to discuss the investigation with the media?
That's the concise version ...
-
Out of curiosity, which British officers have spoken out (post the shelved enquiry)?
Baggott in the Leveson inquiry, mainly to justify why he felt it inappropriate to correct the media on the PJ's flawed understanding of some aspects to preserve inter-jurisdictional police cooperation.
-
Erm... because he isn't allowed to discuss the investigation with the media?
Isn't he ? Then maybe that's why Kate felt safe to misrepresent Tanner's identification in her book.
-
Isn't he ? Then maybe that's why Kate felt safe to misrepresent Tanner's identification in her book.
Kate didn't.
-
Kates book may not be 'official', but she is hardly going to deliberately include lies which can easily be exposed as lies in it is she? Her book would have been dead in the water as soon as it was proved she lied. But not a peep from Amaral.
Your claim that she did say it was Murat she saw is based on a few words in a rogatory statement - which I believe was an unfinished sentence.
If at any time during that interview the Police Officer asking the questions thought she was saying it was Murat she saw - then why didn't she question her further on that? Surely that would need to be clarified as she would be contradicting all of her other comments about Murat? IMO she didn't ask for clarification because she knew JT was not talking about Murat when she said ''I just thought it was'' - which IMO should have been typed as ''I just thought it was..............'' to denote an unfinished sentence. However, the typist never does that and only uses full stops - even when it is patently obvious that a sentence is unfinished.
"I dashed over to the second bed, on the other side of the travel cots where the twins slept on, oblivious, and looked out through the window."
That covers the finger prints. No mention of doing this in her statement.
"At 9.30pm I stood up to go and make our second check. Almost simultaneously, Matt got to his feet to see to Grace."
Matt left at 9:25 not 9:30
"At 10pm I went back to the apartment myself"
Matt said it was 9:50 when she left
The 30 minute checks add up to 10pm. This is not rocket science!
-
Kate didn't.
Didn't she ? How are we to know ?
-
Didn't she ? How are we to know ?
No one knows. It's easy to say I looked out the window after knowing my finger prints were found. This book was released years after it happened. Police will have to go from their initial statements not their version written years after the fact and covering every possible angle.
-
Isn't he ? Then maybe that's why Kate felt safe to misrepresent Tanner's identification in her book.
That glides over why she wasn't asked to make a statement to that effect, if she had. Amaral would have been preparing the bow on his package for the judge if she had, with a retroactive rubber stamp on it.
According to Amaral's version, Jane was also at the confrontation, which she wasn't.
-
Didn't she ? How are we to know ?
What?
You mean you just assumed she did without evidence?
-
What?
You mean you just assumed she did without evidence?
Tannerman is still on their website so he is very important to the McCanns. The alleged moving door connects to him. Who cares if the yard have found him @)(++(*
-
Tannerman is still on their website so he is very important to the McCanns. The alleged moving door connects to him. Who cares if the yard have found him @)(++(*
Together with an explanation of why ...
-
No one knows. It's easy to say I looked out the window after knowing my finger prints were found. This book was released years after it happened. Police will have to go from their initial statements not their version written years after the fact and covering every possible angle.
How would she have known that her fingerprints had been found on that window back then?
-
How would she have known that her fingerprints had been found on that window back then?
The book was released in 2011.
-
Together with an explanation of why ...
If the abductor is Tannerman then it can't be Gerry as Smithman because he was with Jez Wilkins at the time of that sighting. His alibi is sorted. Tannerman will stay on their website until the bitter end.
-
The book was released in 2011.
I know that, but where does Amaral get this from in one of his interviews (with Moita Flores)?
If he was so sure of catching her out on the window issue, why wasn't it even an arguido question (i.e. during his tenure)?
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id173.html
"The McCanns knew that I was going to catch them"
Moita Flores interviews Gonçalo Amaral TV Guia (no online link, appears in paper edition only)
Interview: 02 October 2008, Published: Saturday 18 October 2008
Thanks to 'astro' for translation
GA – The window made me doubt. And not only that.
MF – But I do insist on the window. The mother said that she never touched it.
GA – That she never even opened it.
MF – Now, when I read the process, I realized that her fingerprints were on it. And positioned in a manner that coincides with an opening movement.
GA – It was with that, with Kate’s fingerprints on the window that I wanted to catch them.
MF – That’s the truth of the lie.
GA – Among other things. It was one of the best games that I ever saw played out, to divert attention from what really happened in the apartment. The manner in which they “worked” for the Smith was brilliant.
-
Amaral thinks that everyone is as delusional and manipulative as he is. This is a common character fault among some.
-
"I dashed over to the second bed, on the other side of the travel cots where the twins slept on, oblivious, and looked out through the window."
That covers the finger prints. No mention of doing this in her statement.
"At 9.30pm I stood up to go and make our second check. Almost simultaneously, Matt got to his feet to see to Grace."
Matt left at 9:25 not 9:30
"At 10pm I went back to the apartment myself"
Matt said it was 9:50 when she left
The 30 minute checks add up to 10pm. This is not rocket science!
What has this got to do with Amarals's lie about JT identifying Murat?
How many times has it got to be pointed out that different people have different perceptions of time and distance and different levels of the power of recall. The differences you quote above- for example 5 minutes - would be regarded as perfectly normal by the police. They don't expect perfect accuracy. Neither do they expect different people describing the same incident - all to give the same account.
Quote from DC Ferguson (JT's rogatory statement)
4078 “You know, we can take a statement from people, if an incident happened outside and there was a group of people watching it, everybody would have a different take on what they had seen”.
Unquote.
Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
-
What has this got to do with Amarals's lie about JT identifying Murat?
How many times has it got to be pointed out that different people have different perceptions of time and distance and different levels of the power of recall. The differences you quote above- for example 5 minutes - would be regarded as perfectly normal by the police. They don't expect perfect accuracy. Neither do they expect different people describing the same incident - all to give the same account.
Quote from DC Ferguson (JT's rogatory statement)
4078 “You know, we can take a statement from people, if an incident happened outside and there was a group of people watching it, everybody would have a different take on what they had seen”.
Unquote.
Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
Their job is to be precise.
"The careful and critical analysis of the timeline has been absolutely key." DCI Redwood
-
Amaral thinks that everyone is as delusional and manipulative as he is. This is a common character fault among some.
Quite aside from the fact that it was Moita Flores (not Amaral) who conveniently said:
MF – Now, when I read the process, I realised that her fingerprints were on it. And positioned in a manner that coincides with an opening movement.
GA – It was with that, with Kate's fingerprints on the window that I wanted to catch them.
MF – That's the truth of the lie.
The PT forensic report makes no such assertion. I've already posted about that on another thread.
-
FINGERPRINTS ON THE WINDOW
One afternoon, we drive to apartment 5A at the Ocean Club. I am accompanied by Guilhermino Encarnação, the indefatigable Polícia Judiciária Director from Faro, who is following every step of the investigation, with daily trips to Portimão. José Freitas of Scotland Yard is accompanied by Stuart Prior, to whom we explain the theory of an accident. According to Encarnação, the child's death must have resulted from a fall behind the sofa, where the dogs marked the odours of cadaver and blood. The theory is simple and based on evidence in our possession. The parents would have pushed the sofa away from the window as a safety precaution because the window opened easily and it was situated, remember, three metres above the outside pavement. When Gerald went to the apartment at around 9pm to check on his children, used the toilet and then left, Madeleine might have woken up. Hearing her father's voice coming from the street outside, she may have tried to reach the window by climbing on the sofa and could have fallen behind it. Stuart indicates that he understands and agrees with the possibility. He takes this opportunity to ask if any fingerprints were found on that window or on any others, particularly on the one in Madeleine's bedroom.
Initially, we don't understand why he is asking this question, since he has seen our report. He should know that fingerprints were discovered with the lophoscopic* analysis carried out on the night of May 3rd and the following day. The results are in the report. Why is he asking about them now? We respond evasively, "Nothing conclusive."
However, on the glass, on the handle and on the right-hand frame of Madeleine's bedroom window, we had lifted five fingerprints - three from a middle finger and two from an index finger - all from a left hand, identified as belonging to Kate McCann.
The technicians who examined the apartment did not place any great importance on the identification of the fingerprints. In fact, in the absence of obvious signs of assault or of a crime - like signs of a struggle, traces of blood or the presence of a corpse -, the technicians proceed to the kind of examination that is carried out in a burglary case. They forget that fingerprints discovered in a particular place, even if they belong to an occupant of the premises, can be of fundamental importance for the progress of the investigation and constitute valuable evidence, even material proof.
The window in question is the one that Kate Healy states she found open to the left, with the curtains fluttering, when she discovered that her daughter was missing. On the window, there were no signs of a break-in or of gloves. It had been cleaned the day before, May 2nd, by an Ocean Club employee, and the only fingerprints found were Kate's. The position of the fingerprints indicate that the window had been opened to the left, as Kate Healy stated: "the window was fully open to the left." There is no doubt that somebody opened that window on the evening of May 3rd and the only fingerprints found on it were those of Kate Healy. The manager of the Ocean Club's crèche, who went to the apartment after the alarm was raised, remarked that, "the window was partially open to the left," confirming Kate's earlier statement.
We prefer not to discuss this with Stuart Prior: we have the impression that he is only here to accompany the McCanns' interrogations and to prevent their detention. His concern on that subject is obvious. (TOTL)
-
Amaral thinks that everyone is as delusional and manipulative as he is. This is a common character fault among some.
And how do you know the McCanns are not ?
Long serving police seem to develop an instinct for knowing a wrong un when the see one.
-
And how do you know the McCanns are not ?
Long serving police seem to develop an instinct for knowing a wrong un when the see one.
They're not always right though are they?
-
And how do you know the McCanns are not ?
Long serving police seem to develop an instinct for knowing a wrong un when the see one.
Possibly, but wouldn't officers be more familiar with the type of cases that they were used to dealing with?
-
FINGERPRINTS ON THE WINDOW
One afternoon, we drive to apartment 5A at the Ocean Club. I am accompanied by Guilhermino Encarnação, the indefatigable Polícia Judiciária Director from Faro, who is following every step of the investigation, with daily trips to Portimão. José Freitas of Scotland Yard is accompanied by Stuart Prior, to whom we explain the theory of an accident. According to Encarnação, the child's death must have resulted from a fall behind the sofa, where the dogs marked the odours of cadaver and blood. The theory is simple and based on evidence in our possession. The parents would have pushed the sofa away from the window as a safety precaution because the window opened easily and it was situated, remember, three metres above the outside pavement. When Gerald went to the apartment at around 9pm to check on his children, used the toilet and then left, Madeleine might have woken up. Hearing her father's voice coming from the street outside, she may have tried to reach the window by climbing on the sofa and could have fallen behind it. Stuart indicates that he understands and agrees with the possibility. He takes this opportunity to ask if any fingerprints were found on that window or on any others, particularly on the one in Madeleine's bedroom.
Initially, we don't understand why he is asking this question, since he has seen our report. He should know that fingerprints were discovered with the lophoscopic* analysis carried out on the night of May 3rd and the following day. The results are in the report. Why is he asking about them now? We respond evasively, "Nothing conclusive."
However, on the glass, on the handle and on the right-hand frame of Madeleine's bedroom window, we had lifted five fingerprints - three from a middle finger and two from an index finger - all from a left hand, identified as belonging to Kate McCann.
The technicians who examined the apartment did not place any great importance on the identification of the fingerprints. In fact, in the absence of obvious signs of assault or of a crime - like signs of a struggle, traces of blood or the presence of a corpse -, the technicians proceed to the kind of examination that is carried out in a burglary case. They forget that fingerprints discovered in a particular place, even if they belong to an occupant of the premises, can be of fundamental importance for the progress of the investigation and constitute valuable evidence, even material proof.
The window in question is the one that Kate Healy states she found open to the left, with the curtains fluttering, when she discovered that her daughter was missing. On the window, there were no signs of a break-in or of gloves. It had been cleaned the day before, May 2nd, by an Ocean Club employee, and the only fingerprints found were Kate's. The position of the fingerprints indicate that the window had been opened to the left, as Kate Healy stated: "the window was fully open to the left." There is no doubt that somebody opened that window on the evening of May 3rd and the only fingerprints found on it were those of Kate Healy. The manager of the Ocean Club's crèche, who went to the apartment after the alarm was raised, remarked that, "the window was partially open to the left," confirming Kate's earlier statement.
We prefer not to discuss this with Stuart Prior: we have the impression that he is only here to accompany the McCanns' interrogations and to prevent their detention. His concern on that subject is obvious. (TOTL)
So where in the files is the evidence that Kate's fingers were in an "opening position"? Or while we're on that subject, where is the evidence that the cleaning lady had cleaned the windows the day before?
-
What has this got to do with Amarals's lie about JT identifying Murat?
How many times has it got to be pointed out that different people have different perceptions of time and distance and different levels of the power of recall. The differences you quote above- for example 5 minutes - would be regarded as perfectly normal by the police. They don't expect perfect accuracy. Neither do they expect different people describing the same incident - all to give the same account.
Quote from DC Ferguson (JT's rogatory statement)
4078 “You know, we can take a statement from people, if an incident happened outside and there was a group of people watching it, everybody would have a different take on what they had seen”.
Unquote.
Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
They write papers about it ...
Recent research on memory, especially in the context of witness statements and interview techniques is highly relevant.
This article examines also the evidence for any effects on memory caused by weight loss/malnutrition, minor traumatic brain injury, raised stress hormone levels, post traumatic stress disorder, sleep deprivation, depression, and pain.
In the light of these studies it is contended that the assumption that discrepancies and omissions undermine credibility cannot be justified; there are alternative explanations for these differences which are at least equally likely and should be ruled out before testimony is disbelieved.
http://www.freedomfromtorture.org/sites/default/files/documents/JulietCohenRecallandCredibility.pdf