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: Robittybob1 on April 06, 2017, 05:39:02 AM
-
As said in post http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8044.msg395191#msg395191:
".... Maybe Exton was closer to another theory than we realise, that would have been totally unacceptable to the McCanns. Especially if they had put undercover operatives into the staff of Ocean Club as they said. From that perspective they would have pinpointed the discrepancies between the McCanns' and the friend's statements. Discrepancies which seem to be lost on us, for no one has a definite idea what the discrepancies are that Exton was talking about."
So what are these discrepancies that Exton had identified?
15
-
As said in post http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8044.msg395191#msg395191:
".... Maybe Exton was closer to another theory than we realise, that would have been totally unacceptable to the McCanns. Especially if they had put undercover operatives into the staff of Ocean Club as they said. From that perspective they would have pinpointed the discrepancies between the McCanns' and the friend's statements. Discrepancies which seem to be lost on us, for no one has a definite idea what the discrepancies are that Exton was talking about."
So what are these discrepancies that Exton had identified?
The possibility for discrepancies due to poor translation are endless and I have already quoted a newspaper article where the PJ suggested this
It seems the pj did not use any recognised professional translators
-
Yes, I'd also like to know the answer to this, bearing in mind there were 9 people involved and there are also discrepancies galore amongst the statements of the Tapas staff and other OC employees, and other witnesses.
-
Thanks for the encouragement to tackle this issue. I'll have to think how it could be done? Do the discrepancies cover all the days right from the beginning of the planned holiday? Do we need to consider all the pre-planning as well, or just concentrate on the 3rd?
-
Thanks for the encouragement to tackle this issue. I'll have to think how it could be done? Do the discrepancies cover all the days right from the beginning of the planned holiday? Do we need to consider all the pre-planning as well, or just concentrate on the 3rd?
If you have time look from the very start
It would be interesting to see where the discrepancies start
-
I'm just wondering how relevant issues more than a day before would be to the case of MM missing. I'll have to find the time. I was only going to spend 6 months or so on the McCann case and now it is getting around to a year already.
-
I'm just wondering how relevant issues more than a day before would be to the case of MM missing. I'll have to find the time. I was only going to spend 6 months or so on the McCann case and now it is getting around to a year already.
its relevant ...if you find some you will see why
-
There are some blogs and threads on forums discussing inconsistencies available on the internet as it is.
Wikipedia covers some of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann
"McCanns as arguidos
Early suspicion
Further information: § Media coverage
Praia da Luz, July 2009
The first indication that the media was turning against the McCanns was on 6 June 2007, when a German journalist asked them during a Berlin press conference whether they were involved in the disappearance.[117][118] On 30 June a 3,000-word article entitled "The Madeleine Case: A Pact of Silence" appeared in Sol, a Portuguese weekly, stating that the McCanns were suspects, highlighting alleged inconsistencies between their statements, and implying that the Tanner sighting had been invented.[119][120] The reporters had obtained the Tapas Sevens' mobile numbers and that of another witness, so it was apparent that the inquiry had a leak.[45][118][121]
This and later articles in the Portuguese press, invariably followed up in the UK, made several allegations, based on no evidence, that would engulf the McCanns for years on social media. They included that the McCanns and Tapas Seven were "swingers", that the McCanns had been sedating their children, and that the group had formed a "pact of silence" regarding what had happened the night of the disappearance.[100] Much was made of apparent inconsistencies within and between the McCanns' and Tapas Seven's statements. The police had asked the group questions in Portuguese, and an interpreter had translated the replies. The statements were then typed up in Portuguese, and verbally translated back into English for the interviewees to sign. Misunderstandings were inevitable.[62][100]
Among the inconsistencies was whether the McCanns had entered the apartment by the front or back door when checking on the children. According to the Polícia Judiciária case file, Gerry stated during his first interview, on 4 May 2007, that the couple had entered 5A through the locked front door for his 21:05 and her 22:00 checks, and in a second interview, on 10 May, that he had entered through the unlocked patio doors at the back.[122] (The patio doors could only be unlocked from inside, so the parents had left them unlocked to let themselves in.)[43] There was also an inconsistency about whether the front door had been locked.[122] Gerry told the Sunday Times in December 2007 that they had used the front door earlier in the week, but it was next to the children's bedroom, so they had started using the patio doors instead.[46]
The Polícia Judiciária questioned why, when Kate discovered Madeleine was missing, she had run to the tapas restaurant leaving the twins alone in 5A, when she could have used her cell phone or shouted to the group from 5A's rear balcony.[123]
Bedroom shutter
Officer dusts children's bedroom shutter
without protective clothing.[46]
—The Daily Telegraph
Another issue was whether the exterior shutter over Madeleine's bedroom window could be opened from outside. According to journalist Danny Collins, the shutter was made of non-ferrous metal slats on a roller blind that was housed in a box at the top of the inside window, controlled by pulling on a strap. Once rolled down, the slats locked in place outside the window and could only be raised using the strap on the inside.[124] Kate said the shutter and window were closed when Madeleine was put to bed, but open when she discovered Madeleine was missing. Gerry told the Polícia Judiciária that, when he was first alerted to the disappearance, he had lowered the shutter, then had gone outside and discovered that it could be raised from the outside.[125][126] Against this, the police said the shutter could not be raised from the outside without being forced, but there was no sign of forced entry; they also said forcing the shutter open would have caused a lot of noise.[124]
The apparent discrepancies contributed to the view of the Polícia Judiciária that there had been no abduction.[127][128] Even Kate's shout of "they've taken her" was viewed with suspicion, as though she had been paving the way for an abduction story.[46] Particularly from August onwards, these suspicions developed into the theory that Madeleine had died in apartment 5A as a result of an accident—perhaps after being sedated to help her stay asleep—and that her parents had hidden her body for a month, before retrieving her and driving her to an unknown place in a car they had hired over three weeks after the disappearance.[4][129] In 2010 Carlos Anjos, former head of the Police Detectives Union in Portugal, told BBC Panorama that most Portuguese investigators still believed Madeleine died as a result of an accident in the apartment.[130]"
-
I don't really want to consider what some would call discrepancies but rather the discrepancies between the McCann statements and the statements made by their friends.
-
Here is one that relies on Portuguese sources: Madeleine and the missing hour: how often did the McCanns check on their children?
By SUE REID
Last updated at 16:31 11 August 2007
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-474656/Madeleine-missing-hour-did-McCanns-check-children.html#ixzz4dSPoGxpZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
"The reluctance of Gerry and Kate McCann or their friends to speak publicly, or in any detail, about the minutiae of the evening has fuelled the controversy, although they insist it is illegal in Portugal to comment on any police investigation.
In another uncomfortable development the Portuguese press, including the respected
newspaper Dairio de Noticias, has claimed that interviews given by the McCann group to police
contain discrepancies. Their stories and the timings of their movements on the night do not tally.
Furthermore, emails and phone messages sent between the group - and intercepted by the PolÌcia Judiciaria and British detectives helping the inquiry - are reported to contain conversations that contradict earlier statements.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-474656/Madeleine-missing-hour-did-McCanns-check-children.html#ixzz4dSPKUs6B "
-
There are some blogs and threads on forums discussing inconsistencies available on the internet as it is.
Wikipedia covers some of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann
"McCanns as arguidos
Early suspicion
Further information: § Media coverage
Praia da Luz, July 2009
The first indication that the media was turning against the McCanns was on 6 June 2007, when a German journalist asked them during a Berlin press conference whether they were involved in the disappearance.[117][118] On 30 June a 3,000-word article entitled "The Madeleine Case: A Pact of Silence" appeared in Sol, a Portuguese weekly, stating that the McCanns were suspects, highlighting alleged inconsistencies between their statements, and implying that the Tanner sighting had been invented.[119][120] The reporters had obtained the Tapas Sevens' mobile numbers and that of another witness, so it was apparent that the inquiry had a leak.[45][118][121]
This and later articles in the Portuguese press, invariably followed up in the UK, made several allegations, based on no evidence, that would engulf the McCanns for years on social media. They included that the McCanns and Tapas Seven were "swingers", that the McCanns had been sedating their children, and that the group had formed a "pact of silence" regarding what had happened the night of the disappearance.[100] Much was made of apparent inconsistencies within and between the McCanns' and Tapas Seven's statements. The police had asked the group questions in Portuguese, and an interpreter had translated the replies. The statements were then typed up in Portuguese, and verbally translated back into English for the interviewees to sign. Misunderstandings were inevitable.[62][100]
Among the inconsistencies was whether the McCanns had entered the apartment by the front or back door when checking on the children. According to the Polícia Judiciária case file, Gerry stated during his first interview, on 4 May 2007, that the couple had entered 5A through the locked front door for his 21:05 and her 22:00 checks, and in a second interview, on 10 May, that he had entered through the unlocked patio doors at the back.[122] (The patio doors could only be unlocked from inside, so the parents had left them unlocked to let themselves in.)[43] There was also an inconsistency about whether the front door had been locked.[122] Gerry told the Sunday Times in December 2007 that they had used the front door earlier in the week, but it was next to the children's bedroom, so they had started using the patio doors instead.[46]
The Polícia Judiciária questioned why, when Kate discovered Madeleine was missing, she had run to the tapas restaurant leaving the twins alone in 5A, when she could have used her cell phone or shouted to the group from 5A's rear balcony.[123]
Bedroom shutter
Officer dusts children's bedroom shutter
without protective clothing.[46]
—The Daily Telegraph
Another issue was whether the exterior shutter over Madeleine's bedroom window could be opened from outside. According to journalist Danny Collins, the shutter was made of non-ferrous metal slats on a roller blind that was housed in a box at the top of the inside window, controlled by pulling on a strap. Once rolled down, the slats locked in place outside the window and could only be raised using the strap on the inside.[124] Kate said the shutter and window were closed when Madeleine was put to bed, but open when she discovered Madeleine was missing. Gerry told the Polícia Judiciária that, when he was first alerted to the disappearance, he had lowered the shutter, then had gone outside and discovered that it could be raised from the outside.[125][126] Against this, the police said the shutter could not be raised from the outside without being forced, but there was no sign of forced entry; they also said forcing the shutter open would have caused a lot of noise.[124]
The apparent discrepancies contributed to the view of the Polícia Judiciária that there had been no abduction.[127][128] Even Kate's shout of "they've taken her" was viewed with suspicion, as though she had been paving the way for an abduction story.[46] Particularly from August onwards, these suspicions developed into the theory that Madeleine had died in apartment 5A as a result of an accident—perhaps after being sedated to help her stay asleep—and that her parents had hidden her body for a month, before retrieving her and driving her to an unknown place in a car they had hired over three weeks after the disappearance.[4][129] In 2010 Carlos Anjos, former head of the Police Detectives Union in Portugal, told BBC Panorama that most Portuguese investigators still believed Madeleine died as a result of an accident in the apartment.[130]"
misunderstandings were inevitible
the shutter coud be opened from the outside
-
misunderstandings were inevitible
the shutter coud be opened from the outside
I'm not going to discuss whether the shutter can be opened from the outside, unless it is covered in the statements.
They could say it was open, but not claim how it was opened. That is OK.
-
I'm not going to discuss whether the shutter can be opened from the outside, unless it is covered in the statements.
They could say it was open, but not claim how it was opened. That is OK.
its been shown the shutter could be opened from the outside...thats why i mentioned it
-
its been shown the shutter could be opened from the outside...thats why i mentioned it
I don't mind but it just won't be one of the discrepancies to be considered here.
So far most of the discrepancies I've seen on the web fall into the category of ones we will not discuss in this thread.
The front door, back door issue was cleared up by Gerry himself. That was a glaring discrepancy that is hard to accept an excuse for. IMO no matter what Gerry says is the reason he made the error, will not be acceptable.
Were there others like that?
https://youtu.be/fzpniKAWvUI Heriberto Janosch opening the window from the outside.
-
Yes, I'd also like to know the answer to this, bearing in mind there were 9 people involved and there are also discrepancies galore amongst the statements of the Tapas staff and other OC employees, and other witnesses.
Exton, who knows a thing or two about statement taking I assume, reported anomalies in the McCann and their friend's statements.
-
I don't mind but it just won't be one of the discrepancies to be considered here.
So far most of the discrepancies I've seen on the web fall into the category of ones we will not discuss in this thread.
The front door, back door issue was cleared up by Gerry himself. That was a glaring discrepancy that is hard to accept an excuse for. IMO no matter what Gerry says is the reason he made the error, will not be acceptable.
Were there others like that?
There aren't really any significant discrepancies, the mix up over the front and back doors is easily explained since the interviewee didn't want to admit that they had left the patio door unlocked and consequently the apartment unsecure.
-
There aren't really any significant discrepancies, the mix up over the front and back doors is easily explained since the interviewee didn't want to admit that they had left the patio door unlocked and consequently the apartment unsecure.
So are you saying Gerry lied to protect himself John?
-
There aren't really any significant discrepancies, the mix up over the front and back doors is easily explained since the interviewee didn't want to admit that they had left the patio door unlocked and consequently the apartment unsecure.
IIRC - Gerry had already 'admitted' the patio doors were unlocked when he said during the interview that Matthew had entered 5a through them.
IMO Gerry did not 'change' his statement - he corrected the misunderstanding which had occurred between himself, and/or the interpreter/ PJ officer as to which door he was referring to when he said the 'front door'.
There was considerable confusion during interviews because of some people calling the patio door the front door and others calling it the back door.
If there had been anything suspicious in the explanation Gerry gave as why he corrected his statement - then his reason would have been recorded and Amaral would have mentioned it in his book.
IMO it would more a case of the PJ not wanting to admit an error had occurred during interviews with their interpretors/PJ officers - although personally I would have no criticism of that at all. It was the first interview for everyone concerned - and therefore extremely understandable IMO if misunderstandings happened.
-
its been shown the shutter could be opened from the outside...thats why i mentioned it
Raised would be a better description.
Other than that the two topped and tailed videos are not particularly informative.
A detail of the CDA that operates the shutter is a lot more informative provided you know what you are looking at.
-
IIRC - Gerry had already 'admitted' the patio doors were unlocked when he said during the interview that Matthew had entered 5a through them.
IMO Gerry did not 'change' his statement - he corrected the misunderstanding which had occurred between himself, and/or the interpreter/ PJ officer as to which door he was referring to when he said the 'front door'.
There was considerable confusion during interviews because of some people calling the patio door the front door and others calling it the back door.
If there had been anything suspicious in the explanation Gerry gave as why he corrected his statement - then his reason would have been recorded and Amaral would have mentioned it in his book.
IMO it would more a case of the PJ not wanting to admit an error had occurred during interviews with their interpretors/PJ officers - although personally I would have no criticism of that at all. It was the first interview for everyone concerned - and therefore extremely understandable IMO if misunderstandings happened.
So the 'contrary to what he said in his last interview' does suggest to you that Gerry knew exactly what he had said and therefore was not a translation error ?
-
Raised would be a better description.
Other than that the two topped and tailed videos are not particularly informative.
A detail of the CDA that operates the shutter is a lot more informative provided you know what you are looking at.
I used the same word as in the report....the point is that if the police thought the shutters could not be opened fronm the outside they were wrong
-
So the 'contrary to what he said in his last interview' does suggest to you that Gerry knew exactly what he had said and therefore was not a translation error ?
not at all...more assumptions,... the statements are not verbatim and gerry could have been asked the question again to clarify it
-
Exton, who knows a thing or two about statement taking I assume, reported anomalies in the McCann and their friend's statements.
But does he itemise them?
-
SY were well aware of everything in the statements when they said the mccanns were not suspects...end of really
-
I used the same word as in the report....the point is that if the police thought the shutters could not be opened fronm the outside they were wrong
Still the same comment. "Raised from the outside" is the more accurate description.
-
Still the same comment. "Raised from the outside" is the more accurate description.
Are you saying they could be raised from the outside but only opened from the inside?
Even when they are opened from the inside the person could be standing on the outside. It was a matter of whether the window was secured or not.
-
David Payne and Kate McCann statements don't tally up at all about his visit on 3 May.
Gerry said David checked on their children on WED night. David denied checking on anybody's children because they had a baby monitor.
Russell said he checked through the open patio door early into the holiday. Fiona said the McCanns had been using the key to check at that time meaning the patio door would have been locked.
Jane saw Gerry and a man carrying a child. Gerry saw neither. Another witness (Jenny Murat) claims to have seen a woman matching Jane's dressed in purple description hanging outside in the street next to the apartment.
The McCanns said the crying happened on WED according to Madeleine (it was TUE according to witness Pamela Fenn). Rachel heard no crying next door on WED.
Kate said they hadn't been asked to go to the beach with the others on 3 May. Fiona said they had.
Kate said they had bathed the children before Gerry left for tennis at 6pm. Fiona said she was told Kate was bathing them by Gerry when he was at tennis.
Gerry said he sent Matt to call the police. Fiona said it was her and Matt agreed.
-
Exton, who knows a thing or two about statement taking I assume, reported anomalies in the McCann and their friend's statements.
And some people on this forum think it's me who has a thing for you! @)(++(*
What were these anomalies then? Any ideas?
-
Are there anomalies only in the McCanns and friends' statements or are there anomalies and inconsistencies in the statements of others taken at the time? If the answer is 'yes' then that's odd admittedly, but we know the answer is no, so.....?
-
David Payne and Kate McCann statements don't tally up at all about his visit on 3 May.
Gerry said David checked on their children on WED night. David denied checking on anybody's children because they had a baby monitor.
Russell said he checked through the open patio door early into the holiday. Fiona said the McCanns had been using the key to check at that time meaning the patio door would have been locked.
Jane saw Gerry and a man carrying a child. Gerry saw neither. Another witness (Jenny Murat) claims to have seen a woman matching Jane's dressed in purple description hanging outside in the street next to the apartment.
The McCanns said the crying happened on WED according to Madeleine (it was TUE according to witness Pamela Fenn). Rachel heard no crying next door on WED.
Kate said they hadn't been asked to go to the beach with the others on 3 May. Fiona said they had been.
Kate said they had bathed the children before Gerry left for tennis at 6pm. Fiona said she was told Kate was bathing them by Gerry when he was at tennis.
Gerry said he sent Matt to call the police. Fiona said it was her and Matt agreed.
Gerry said Dave arrived at tennis at 6.30 pm, visited Kate, returned to his apartment to get ready and arrived back at the courts at 7 pm. No-one else agrees with that, especially Fiona who says all four men were at the tennis courts when she arrived there well before 7 pm.
-
Gerry said Dave arrived at tennis at 6.30 pm, visited Kate, returned to his apartment to get ready and arrived back at the courts at 7 pm. No-one else agrees with that, especially Fiona who says all four men were at the tennis courts when she arrived there well before 7 pm.
so one says seven and another says well before seven....peoples recollection of events are not always accurate...and again Gerry's statement was not verbatim and twice translated...
-
so one says seven and another says well before seven....peoples recollection of events are not always accurate...and again Gerry's statement was not verbatim and twice translated...
Poor Dave. Half an hour of running around, getting ready, all to play ten minutes of tennis.
Regarding his previous statement where he states that David returned half an hour later around 19:00, he says that he returned to the tennis court after half an hour, as this time frame refers to the second time he returned to the tennis court after getting ready for the game.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
I'd say probably by seven o'clock we were, me and my mum headed back with the kids to start bath time. Erm, and Dave, we left him playing tennis for a bit longer......'I'd say, if we came back about seven, he was about ten minutes after that, so about ten past seven, quarter past seven, something like that'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
-
So are you saying Gerry lied to protect himself John?
These are the sort of discrepancies I want to isolate. Ones where it seems the interviewee lied to protect themselves or protect others.
-
So the 'contrary to what he said in his last interview' does suggest to you that Gerry knew exactly what he had said and therefore was not a translation error ?
That is how I read it too. But if it can be understood differently I'll have a go at doing that too.
-
David Payne and Kate McCann statements don't tally up at all about his visit on 3 May.
Gerry said David checked on their children on WED night. David denied checking on anybody's children because they had a baby monitor.
Russell said he checked through the open patio door early into the holiday. Fiona said the McCanns had been using the key to check at that time meaning the patio door would have been locked.
Jane saw Gerry and a man carrying a child. Gerry saw neither. Another witness (Jenny Murat) claims to have seen a woman matching Jane's dressed in purple description hanging outside in the street next to the apartment.
The McCanns said the crying happened on WED according to Madeleine (it was TUE according to witness Pamela Fenn). Rachel heard no crying next door on WED.
Kate said they hadn't been asked to go to the beach with the others on 3 May. Fiona said they had.
Kate said they had bathed the children before Gerry left for tennis at 6pm. Fiona said she was told Kate was bathing them by Gerry when he was at tennis.
Gerry said he sent Matt to call the police. Fiona said it was her and Matt agreed.
Some real meat there to chew on. I'll want to go back to the actual words said though.
-
Are there anomalies only in the McCanns and friends' statements or are there anomalies and inconsistencies in the statements of others taken at the time? If the answer is 'yes' then that's odd admittedly, but we know the answer is no, so.....?
So why aren't all discrepancies looked at with the same intensity?
-
So why aren't all discrepancies looked at with the same intensity?
Because some people are only interested in highlighting the McCanns and friends supposed discrepancies because they're convinced they dunnit.
-
Poor Dave. Half an hour of running around, getting ready, all to play ten minutes of tennis.
Regarding his previous statement where he states that David returned half an hour later around 19:00, he says that he returned to the tennis court after half an hour, as this time frame refers to the second time he returned to the tennis court after getting ready for the game.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
I'd say probably by seven o'clock we were, me and my mum headed back with the kids to start bath time. Erm, and Dave, we left him playing tennis for a bit longer......'I'd say, if we came back about seven, he was about ten minutes after that, so about ten past seven, quarter past seven, something like that'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Well lets see, if Dave started playing tennis around 7 (say 5 to) and finished around quarter past then that's 20 minutes of tennis. What does it matter anyway - these people are not involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, or do you seriously think otherwise?
-
Poor Dave. Half an hour of running around, getting ready, all to play ten minutes of tennis.
Regarding his previous statement where he states that David returned half an hour later around 19:00, he says that he returned to the tennis court after half an hour, as this time frame refers to the second time he returned to the tennis court after getting ready for the game.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
I'd say probably by seven o'clock we were, me and my mum headed back with the kids to start bath time. Erm, and Dave, we left him playing tennis for a bit longer......'I'd say, if we came back about seven, he was about ten minutes after that, so about ten past seven, quarter past seven, something like that'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Then again, maybe he played for almost an hour.
And I’m not entirely sure what time I got back to, to the room, but, you know, well eventually, me, Matt and Dave all came back. And it was probably the latest that we’d got back and Jane and the kids had been in there for some time. Erm, I’d say it was probably coming up to, you know, not, not far shy of eight o’clock itself.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
we didn't get on court until, phew, sometime closer to seven........But we played then for, I think the best part of an hour,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
-
Well lets see, if Dave started playing tennis around 7 (say 5 to) and finished around quarter past then that's 20 minutes of tennis. What does it matter anyway - these people are not involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, or do you seriously think otherwise?
Of course they are involved, they were friends of her parents and there when she went missing.
-
Of course they are involved, they were friends of her parents and there when she went missing.
so they are involved in maddies disappearance...what evidence do you have for that....LOL
-
Of course they are involved, they were friends of her parents and there when she went missing.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding my post or are you accusing the Paynes of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance?
-
Are you deliberately misunderstanding my post or are you accusing the Paynes of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance?
You seem to be confusing responsible for and involved in.
-
You seem to be confusing responsible for and involved in.
so they arent responsible for the disappearance...just involved in it....no confusion
-
Well lets see, if Dave started playing tennis around 7 (say 5 to) and finished around quarter past then that's 20 minutes of tennis. What does it matter anyway - these people are not involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, or do you seriously think otherwise?
I think we shouldn't eliminate anyone as a possible suspect yet.
-
I think we shouldn't eliminate anyone as a possible suspect yet.
SY rightly have
-
You seem to be confusing responsible for and involved in.
No, I think you are choosing to deliberately misunderstand.
-
Are you deliberately misunderstanding my post or are you accusing the Paynes of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance?
If it was ever found that one or more of the Paynes went into the McCann's apartment after the McCanns left for the Tapas what would you say then?
SY rightly have
OK true but I wouldn't think we are talking about the abduction or the accident/disposal whatever, but we are discussing relatively minor discrepancies in the statements, thinking the discrepancies represent covert reasons to lie.
-
If it was ever found that one or more of the Paynes went into the McCann's apartment after the McCanns left for the Tapas what would you say then? OK true but I wouldn't think we are talking about the abduction or the accident/disposal whatever, but we are discussing relatively minor discrepancies in the statements, thinking the discrepancies represent covert reasons to lie.
No offence Rob but I'm not really interested in daft "what ifs".
-
I think we shouldn't eliminate anyone as a possible suspect yet.
By suspect I'm not using that word in a way implying that they were involved in the abduction or the hiding the body if it was an accident/disposal of the body, but involved in the situation leading up to the event. Anyone hiding the true scenario is "suspect" for generating deliberate discrepancies in the statements.
-
Are you saying they could be raised from the outside but only opened from the inside?
Even when they are opened from the inside the person could be standing on the outside. It was a matter of whether the window was secured or not.
More or less I suppose. But read it as "the shutters when in the lowered position cannot be operated as the design intends, from outside the building".
I have seen the videos and have commented several times. Which part of "the interesting bits are not shown" is difficult to understand?. We rapidly get into conspiracy theories with this one where the perpetrator had to have specific knowledge before the event. I don't do conspiracy theories.
-
More or less I suppose. But read it as "the shutters when in the lowered position cannot be operated as the design intends, from outside the building".
I have seen the videos and have commented several times. Which part of "the interesting bits are not shown" is difficult to understand?. We rapidly get into conspiracy theories with this one where the perpetrator had to have specific knowledge before the event. I don't do conspiracy theories.
it seems you are wrong and the shutters can be opened from the outside
-
More or less I suppose. But read it as "the shutters when in the lowered position cannot be operated as the design intends, from outside the building".
I have seen the videos and have commented several times. Which part of "the interesting bits are not shown" is difficult to understand?. We rapidly get into conspiracy theories with this one where the perpetrator had to have specific knowledge before the event. I don't do conspiracy theories.
It could be as simple as a burglar going around checking for insecure doors and windows, i'e no pre-planning at all.
It also could be that the window was deliberately left insecure by the cleaners or maintenance staff to allow them easy access at a later stage.
There was no sign the window itself was forced.
it seems you are wrong and the shutters can be opened from the outside
Only if the window was insecure, so the perpetrator could reach in a raise the shutters.
-
it seems you are wrong and the shutters can be opened from the outside
It seems you cannot read or comprehend properly or have little knowledge how the shutter CDA operates.
Or all three. If you recall I said earlier raised was a more accurate expression.
-
It seems you cannot read or comprehend properly or have little knowledge how the shutter CDA operates.
Or all three. If you recall I said earlier raised was a more accurate expression.
The shutters can be opened from the outside
-
It could be as simple as a burglar going around checking for insecure doors and windows, i'e no pre-planning at all.
It also could be that the window was deliberately left insecure by the cleaners or maintenance staff to allow them easy access at a later stage.
There was no sign the window itself was forced.
Only if the window was insecure, so the perpetrator could reach in a raise the shutters.
So is the event a planned snatch or a random occurrence?
So the whole shutter/window malarkey has to be engineered to suit the desired outcome.
-
No offence Rob but I'm not really interested in daft "what ifs".
I think there is evidence that something happened in the McCanns apartment between the time the McCanns left and the first check by Gerry. We have Gerry's word for that as the door to the kids room was at the wrong angle.
-
The shutters can be opened from the outside
How?
-
So is the event a planned snatch or a random occurrence?
So the whole shutter/window malarkey has to be engineered to suit the desired outcome.
There may or may not be a connection between the raised blinds and the missing Madeleine.
The first option (a burglar going around checking for insecure doors and windows) the window is left insecure by accident. Was it ever checked for security? (Did the burglar enter the apartment?)
In the second option the situation is engineered. (Did the burglar enter the apartment?)
Additional options:
There is also the deliberate staging of the "crime scene" before Kate's check (prank theory).
Or as GA thought the deliberate staging of the "crime scene" by the McCanns as a deception.
-
How?
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html
-
I took that to mean the window was insecure.
-
I took that to mean the window was insecure.
It seems Kate thought the window was locked but the cleaners may have left it unlocked
-
It seems Kate thought the window was locked but the cleaners may have left it unlocked
That is a possible scenario but one impossible to prove. It would give the cleaners an ideal time to wipe all finger prints off too and if their prints got back on somehow they would have an ideal excuse - "it must have happened while we were cleaning the windows".
-
Time to blame the cleaners - anyone other than McCann will do, I guess
-
Time to blame the cleaners - anyone other than McCann will do, I guess
Not just any cleaners but the window cleaners in particular (in fact anyone who would open and close the windows in the course of their work).
-
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html
You clearly never read my posts.
This video and that of Peter Wotzisface have the interesting bits cut out as I have posted before on at least two occasions.
I would like to see those bits before coming to a conclusion. Maybe you can post them for me.
-
You clearly never read my posts.
This video and that of Peter Wotzisface have the interesting bits cut out as I have posted before on at least two occasions.
I would like to see those bits before coming to a conclusion. Maybe you can post them for me.
You don't expect too much do you!
-
You clearly never read my posts.
This video and that of Peter Wotzisface have the interesting bits cut out as I have posted before on at least two occasions.
I would like to see those bits before coming to a conclusion. Maybe you can post them for me.
Why don't you find what ever it is that you want?
-
Why don't you find what ever it is that you want?
Simply because it is on someone elses cutting room floor. Well long since down the tip probably unless they are very untidy.
-
Simply because it is on someone elses cutting room floor. Well long since down the tip probably unless they are very untidy.
And why do you need to see it to have an opinion?
-
And why do you need to see it to have an opinion?
I don't need to see it to have an opinion. I need to see it to have an informed opinion.
I could make a pretty accurate guess, from what I can see and what I know of such shutters and their CDAs, but it remains a guess without that last little bit of information.
-
I don't need to see it to have an opinion. I need to see it to have an informed opinion.
I could make a pretty accurate guess, from what I can see and what I know of such shutters and their CDAs, but it remains a guess without that last little bit of information.
But the whole exercise is so repeatable. Anyone with a similar type window could test it at home. As long as the window is slid shut rather than locked and the window that opens is near to the pull apparatus that raises the shutter. Then it is possible to raise the shutters from the outside by reaching to the inside.
-
But the whole exercise is so repeatable. Anyone with a similar type window could test it at home. As long as the window is slid shut rather than locked and the window that opens is near to the pull apparatus that raises the shutter. Then it is possible to raise the shutters from the outside by reaching to the inside.
The whole exercise is only repeatable at accurate full scale model level. Or on site.
All that has been proved is that under certain conditions of which we have not been fully appraised the window can be slid back and a pillow passed through it. Without taking into consideration dead weights and positional relationships it has been decreed less or more oh yes that's how it was done. Conclusion reached and cast in stone on half a tale.
I am give or take 1900 tall. I can reach an object with both hands approximately 1000 in front of me provided it is at waist height. I doubt I could dead lift the equivalent of a car battery at that distance from that height.
Hint as I have posted before: have a look at bloody good test book on ergonomics it is relevant If you don't think it is you will come up with the wrong result.
This little "window scenario" rapidly becomes a conspiracy theory because no one seems willing to look at the venture as whole under all the conditions that would have obtained at the time.
Certain assumptions have to be made about the construction, attitude and aspect of the window.
-
The whole exercise is only repeatable at accurate full scale model level. Or on site.
All that has been proved is that under certain conditions of which we have not been fully appraised the window can be slid back and a pillow passed through it. Without taking into consideration dead weights and positional relationships it has been decreed less or more oh yes that's how it was done. Conclusion reached and cast in stone on half a tale.
I am give or take 1900 tall. I can reach an object with both hands approximately 1000 in front of me provided it is at waist height. I doubt I could dead lift the equivalent of a car battery at that distance from that height.
Hint as I have posted before: have a look at bloody good test book on ergonomics it is relevant If you don't think it is you will come up with the wrong result.
This little "window scenario" rapidly becomes a conspiracy theory because no one seems willing to look at the venture as whole under all the conditions that would have obtained at the time.
Certain assumptions have to be made about the construction, attitude and aspect of the window.
so you think an abductor would not lift a child out of the window in case he did his back in.......
you do raise an interesting point....in order to take the dog alerts seriosly a similar study would need to be done with the dogs....and it never has
-
so you think an abductor would not lift a child out of the window in case he did his back in.......
you do raise an interesting point....in order to take the dog alerts seriosly a similar study would need to be done with the dogs....and it never has
No. Nor did I say anything remotely like that.
Next question.
-
No. Nor did I say anything remotely like that.
Next question.
the next one was a statement not a question
-
The whole exercise is only repeatable at accurate full scale model level. Or on site.
All that has been proved is that under certain conditions of which we have not been fully appraised the window can be slid back and a pillow passed through it. Without taking into consideration dead weights and positional relationships it has been decreed less or more oh yes that's how it was done. Conclusion reached and cast in stone on half a tale.
I am give or take 1900 tall. I can reach an object with both hands approximately 1000 in front of me provided it is at waist height. I doubt I could dead lift the equivalent of a car battery at that distance from that height.
Hint as I have posted before: have a look at bloody good test book on ergonomics it is relevant If you don't think it is you will come up with the wrong result.
This little "window scenario" rapidly becomes a conspiracy theory because no one seems willing to look at the venture as whole under all the conditions that would have obtained at the time.
Certain assumptions have to be made about the construction, attitude and aspect of the window.
It seems your main objection is lifting the weight of Madeleine through a window. If it was an abduction through the window it would have to be a two person operation. Your concerns are lessened considerably if there was a person on the inside passing a sleepy child through the window toward you on the outside.
-
It seems your main objection is lifting the weight of Madeleine through a window. If it was an abduction through the window it would have to be a two person operation. Your concerns are lessened considerably if there was a person on the inside passing a sleepy child through the window toward you on the outside.
There is , of course, no evidence of one abductor, let alone two.
-
There is , of course, no evidence of one abductor, let alone two.
It is more likely two rather than one. If it was an inside job using cleaners to leave the window unlocked the team could also have the key to the front door. The team maybe totally unaware the sliding patio door was unlocked (this is because they weren't planning to use the patio door).
A third member could be the driver of the getaway car.
Note this scenario is not part of my theory but it could be useful in part.
-
It is more likely two rather than one. If it was an inside job using cleaners to leave the window unlocked the team could also have the key to the front door. The team maybe totally unaware the sliding patio door was unlocked (this is because they weren't planning to use the patio door).
A third member could be the driver of the getaway car.
Or of course Rob, zero members.
-
Or of course Rob, zero members.
My post was edited "Note this scenario is not part of my theory but it could be useful in part."
-
If we accept that the shutters were raised we then have to decide who raised them.
-
It seems your main objection is lifting the weight of Madeleine through a window. If it was an abduction through the window it would have to be a two person operation. Your concerns are lessened considerably if there was a person on the inside passing a sleepy child through the window toward you on the outside.
Wrong!
But your idea of a person on the inside rather screws up some other details.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of the mods and being awarded points for profanity or whatever:
My old granny used to say "there is more than one way to kill a cat ; you do not have to suck its brains out through its arse using a straw".
-
Wrong!
But your idea of a person on the inside rather screws up some other details.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of the mods and being awarded points for profanity or whatever:
My old granny used to say "there is more than one way to kill a cat ; you do not have to suck its brains out through its arse using a straw".
Indeed @)(++(*
-
Wrong!
But your idea of a person on the inside rather screws up some other details.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of the mods and being awarded points for profanity or whatever:
My old granny used to say "there is more than one way to kill a cat ; you do not have to suck its brains out through its arse using a straw".
In your previously posted post you said " Without taking into consideration dead weights and positional relationships it has been decreed less or more oh yes that's how it was done. Conclusion reached and cast in stone on half a tale.
I am give or take 1900 tall. I can reach an object with both hands approximately 1000 in front of me provided it is at waist height. I doubt I could dead lift the equivalent of a car battery at that distance from that height.
Hint as I have posted before: have a look at bloody good test book on ergonomics it is relevant If you don't think it is you will come up with the wrong result."
That took up more than half the post so I said "It seems your main objection is lifting the weight of Madeleine through a window." Thinking the equivalent weight of Madeleine was why you used the term "car battery".
-
In your previously posted post you said " Without taking into consideration dead weights and positional relationships it has been decreed less or more oh yes that's how it was done. Conclusion reached and cast in stone on half a tale.
I am give or take 1900 tall. I can reach an object with both hands approximately 1000 in front of me provided it is at waist height. I doubt I could dead lift the equivalent of a car battery at that distance from that height.
Hint as I have posted before: have a look at bloody good test book on ergonomics it is relevant If you don't think it is you will come up with the wrong result."
That took up more than half the post so I said "It seems your main objection is lifting the weight of Madeleine through a window." Thinking the equivalent weight of Madeleine was why you used the term "car battery".
Pinning Alice down on anything he's written is akin to trying to nail jelly to a wall. It's pointless, but nice try.
-
Wrong!
But your idea of a person on the inside rather screws up some other details.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of the mods and being awarded points for profanity or whatever:
My old granny used to say "there is more than one way to kill a cat ; you do not have to suck its brains out through its arse using a straw".
I would have loved your granny! lol
Shall I?.. ok so sombody goes into the apartment via???? and another one is out side opening the shutter..
ok.. yeah could be done but the BIG question is. WTF?
I think the shutters/window and whooshing story is a red herring. A fake entry point for a fake abduction in that scenario..IMO.
-
In your previously posted post you said " Without taking into consideration dead weights and positional relationships it has been decreed less or more oh yes that's how it was done. Conclusion reached and cast in stone on half a tale.
I am give or take 1900 tall. I can reach an object with both hands approximately 1000 in front of me provided it is at waist height. I doubt I could dead lift the equivalent of a car battery at that distance from that height.
Hint as I have posted before: have a look at bloody good test book on ergonomics it is relevant If you don't think it is you will come up with the wrong result."
That took up more than half the post so I said "It seems your main objection is lifting the weight of Madeleine through a window." Thinking the equivalent weight of Madeleine was why you used the term "car battery".
So?
Which part of the first and last sentences do you find so difficult to comprehend.
All that has been proved is that under certain conditions of which we have not been fully appraised the window can be slid back and a pillow passed through it. Without taking into consideration dead weights and positional relationships
This little "window scenario" rapidly becomes a conspiracy theory because no one seems willing to look at the venture as whole under all the conditions that would have obtained at the time.
Certain assumptions have to be made about the construction, attitude and aspect of the window.
That seems to me to clear enough to anyone who is not deliberately trying to be obtuse or in the case of Alfie goading.
-
So?
Which part of the first and last sentences do you find so difficult to comprehend.
All that has been proved is that under certain conditions of which we have not been fully appraised the window can be slid back and a pillow passed through it. Without taking into consideration dead weights and positional relationships
This little "window scenario" rapidly becomes a conspiracy theory because no one seems willing to look at the venture as whole under all the conditions that would have obtained at the time.
Certain assumptions have to be made about the construction, attitude and aspect of the window.
That seems to me to clear enough to anyone who is not deliberately trying to be obtuse or in the case of Alfie goading.
We know the actual window, so we don't need make "assumptions .... about the construction, attitude and aspect of the window".
I would be "happy to look at the venture as whole under all the conditions that would have obtained at the time".
-
We know the actual window, so we don't need make "assumptions .... about the construction, attitude and aspect of the window".
I would be "happy to look at the venture as whole under all the conditions that would have obtained at the time".
Well, with all that knowledge we have to consider:
1. what is the build of the said 'abductor'
and how agile was he/she.
2. what did maddie weigh in at? how tall and what angle would the 'abductor' be carryig Maddie out of the said window
3. was Maddie a dead weight?
4. why did Maddie not wake up during this heist?
she woke up many other nights...
-
Well, with all that knowledge we have to consider:
1. what is the build of the said 'abductor'
and how agile was he/she.
2. what did maddie weigh in at? how tall and what angle would the 'abductor' be carryig Maddie out of the said window
3. was Maddie a dead weight?
4. why did Maddie not wake up during this heist?
she woke up many other nights...
I have proposed there could be two persons involved so no adult needs to go through the window, so "the build of the said 'abductor'" doesn't come into it. (Unless they are both dwarfs.)
-
Someone said "It has to be said though that Kate McCann's signature is on the records indicating she collected all three children from their creches that day. Her book, on the other hand, clearly states that she arranged for her husband to collect the kids while she went for a run on the beach. ....
My response:
So have we got Kate, on the Thursday, saying she is running at the same time as Gerry was picking up the kids, but it is Kate's signature signing out the children on the forms.
Has anyone here looked into this claimed contradiction?
-
Someone said "It has to be said though that Kate McCann's signature is on the records indicating she collected all three children from their creches that day. Her book, on the other hand, clearly states that she arranged for her husband to collect the kids while she went for a run on the beach. ....
My response:
So have we got Kate, on the Thursday, saying she is running at the same time as Gerry was picking up the kids, but it is Kate's signature signing out the children on the forms.
Has anyone here looked into this claimed contradiction?
On the 6th page of the chapter "Missing" Kate does write that she arranged for Gerry to pick up the kids, and further down she says they were at the Tapas area having their tea when Kate came in from the run.
Now to see if it is Kate on the creche sheets (proper term in the file is "Creche registration files").
On the Thursday it appears as if it is signed out by K McCann but not in sufficient detail to be certain it wasn't completed by a nanny on Kate's behalf. It is definitely an inconsistency between the book and the file.
-
On the 6th page of the chapter "Missing" Kate does write that she arranged for Gerry to pick up the kids, and further down she says they were at the Tapas area having their tea when Kate came in from the run.
Now to see if it is Kate on the creche sheets (proper term in the file is "Creche registration files").
On the Thursday it appears as if it is signed out by K McCann but not in sufficient detail to be certain it wasn't completed by a nany on Kate's behalf. It is definitely an inconsistency between the book and the file.
I think you might find that the children were signed out after the high tea at The Tapas.
-
I was going to edit the above but I'll put in a new post
"On the 6th page of the chapter "Missing" Kate does write that she arranged for Gerry to pick up the kids, and further down she says they were at the Tapas area having their tea when Kate came in from the run.
Now to see if it is Kate on the creche sheets (proper term in the file is "Creche registration files").
On the Thursday it appears as if she is signed out by K McCann but not in sufficient detail to be certain it wasn't completed by a nanny on Kate's behalf. It is definitely an inconsistency between the book and the file. Maybe Gerry had to get the twins and Kate picked up Madeleine.
No Kate's signature is on the twins creche form too so that is strange!
The sign out time is 5:30 which is the time she says she arrived at the Tapas for tea and that too would be impossible.
"Ten minutes later the five of us went back to our apartment, I was carrying Madeleine. Because she was so exhausted we skipped playtime that evening." So the sign out from Tapas should have been more like 17.45
Gerry goes off to play more tennis at 6:00 PM.
-
The children were taken from the creche to the Tapas for high tea. The parents collected the children from there and signed them out.
It is documented on here somewhere.
-
The children were taken from the creche to the Tapas for high tea. The parents collected the children from there and signed them out.
It is documented on here somewhere.
When they go to the tapas for high tea the kids are in the care of the parents, so I think there would be no reason to have sign out from there. I'll see if I can find more.
-
When they go to the tapas for high tea the kids are in the care of the parents, so I think there would be no reason to have sign out from there. I'll see if I can find more.
No. The children were in the care of the Nannies.
I'm sorry that I didn't make that clear.
-
When they go to the tapas for high tea the kids are in the care of the parents, so I think there would be no reason to have sign out from there. I'll see if I can find more.
Cat Baker remembers like this: "On Thursday the 3rd of May 2007, I remember Gerry having accompanied Madeleine to the club between 9h15 and 9h20 in the morning. I do not remember who came to pick her up for lunch but after she returned in the afternoon for a dive/swim. These activities were realized with the other children. On this day I remember that we sailed and I saw friends of the McCanns on the beach, David and Jane. Around 14h45 Madeleine returned to the Minis Club on top of the reception but I do not remember who accompanied her. This afternoon we went swimming. Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics. It was around 15h25/18h00. I think that Gerry was playing tennis." So that matches the sheets.
-
Exton, who knows a thing or two about statement taking I assume, reported anomalies in the McCann and their friend's statements.
We know there are anomalies
The question is
Is there an innocent explanation
-
We know there are anomalies
The question is
Is there an innocent explanation
The question should be can we find evidence of an innocent explanation and not just find excuses.
-
The question should be can we find evidence of an innocent explanation and not just find excuses.
again a matter of opinion and bias
-
again a matter of opinion and bias
Don't be so hard on yourself....only joking.
-
The question should be can we find evidence of an innocent explanation and not just find excuses.
Nine people witnessing the same event will see things differently and will report it differently. If all nine are word perfect in describing the event exactly the same as each other that would be evidence there may have been collusion.
Discrepancies are indications all nine are relating their own account and describe versions of the event as it appeared independently to them as individuals.
-
The question should be can we find evidence of an innocent explanation and not just find excuses.
I watched a "true crime" programme the other day about a robbery which occurred in broad daylight in which the offender left the crime scene in a car, with multiple witnesses. The police really struggled with the witness statements as they were all at odds with each other, different colour / make of car, different number plates etc, in the end they worked off a consensus of some of the info which eventually led them to the car. The witnesses who got their facts wrong were simply innocent bystanders with not very good recall of the events, that was their excuse and their is no reason to assume it's any different in this case.
-
Nine people witnessing the same event will see things differently and will report it differently. If all nine are word perfect in describing the event exactly the same as each other that would be evidence there may have been collusion.
Discrepancies are indications all nine are relating their own account and describe versions of the event as it appeared independently to them as individuals.
So that would also apply to those parties who believed they 'observed' people watching the apartment.
Easy to get things wrong and misinterpret. 8)-)))
Let's not forget either all those sightings of small blonde girls claiming they were Madeleine.
-
Pact of silence?
How do I insert an image?
-
So that would also apply to those parties who believed they 'observed' people watching the apartment.
Easy to get things wrong and misinterpret. 8)-)))
Let's not forget either all those sightings of small blonde girls claiming they were Madeleine.
Do you really think eye witness testimony is an irrelevance? I don't; please allow me to explain my post to clarify any misunderstanding you may have about that.
I said, "Nine people witnessing the same event will see things differently and will report it differently. If all nine are word perfect in describing the event exactly the same as each other that would be evidence there may have been collusion.
Discrepancies are indications all nine are relating their own account and describe versions of the event as it appeared independently to them as individuals."
In other words, people see things differently; depending on how significant things may seem to them at the time; where they were in relation to what they witnessed and what may have attracted their attention; how good their vision was ~ were they wearing their glasses? was there something obstructing what they could see?; some may have been close enough to overhear conversation, some not; the time may have been noted by one who had just glanced at a watch while others could only guesstimate ... and so on and so on ...
Everyone has different cognitive skills and different communication skills and each will relate an experience differently from each other. Unless as I have said they were coached or rehearsed (collusion).
Among the skills expected of investigators are collating eyewitness accounts and getting the full picture from the sum of the parts and taking it on from there.
Did the Policia Judiciaria do that with the different eye witness accounts in the vicinity of apartment 5 of men who attracted their attention ... were these men traced and interviewed and eliminated? ...or were they considered an irrelevance as you seem to think they are, because the coordinator had a theory in which they didn't feature?
-
Pact of silence?
How do I insert an image?
Pact of silence was David Payne explaining (way back) that they couldn't comment on the (first) investigation because of Portuguese secrecy laws.
-
Pact of silence was David Payne explaining (way back) that they couldn't comment on the (first) investigation because of Portuguese secrecy laws.
You might be right.
-
I found one analysis by a commentator with a discrepancy in one of the Tapas 7 statements and from memory I think it is correct.
"Mat revokes his first statement: when he entered Madeleine’s room, the door was open and there was more light, as if the shutters had been raised. Here starts to develop the theory that there was already someone inside the apartment. Which reinforces Jane Tanner’s version (that she saw a man carrying a child)." https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.nz/2008/03/madeleine-case-pact-of-silence.html
-
We have already handled this discrepancy: "Only Jane saw the man carrying a child
But there is a witness whose deposition contradicts this theory. Jeremy Wilkins – a TV producer who had met Maddie’s father during their holidays and used to play tennis with him – was walking his eight months old son at that time. He met Gerry, who went out through the apartment’s back door after having checked on the children, and the two man exchanged a brief conversation. At that time, if one is to believe the first accounts, Jane would have left Tapas in the direction of the apartment’s main entrance, and would have crossed paths with both of them. “It was a very narrow road and I think it would have been almost impossible to walk by without me taking notice”, Jeremy says, pointing out the fact that he saw no man carrying a child, as Jane states.
But Jane continues to guarantee that, at the top of the street, she saw a man with a child in his arms."
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.nz/2008/03/madeleine-case-pact-of-silence.html
But there is a witness whose deposition contradicts this theory. - True
Jeremy Wilkins – a TV producer who had met Maddie’s father during their holidays and used to play tennis with him - True
– was walking his eight months old son at that time. - Unverified
He met Gerry, who went out through the apartment’s back door after having checked on the children, and the two man exchanged a brief conversation. - Debatable for Jez is reported as saying this conversation lasted 15 minutes.
At that time, if one is to believe the first accounts, Jane would have left Tapas in the direction of the apartment’s main entrance, and would have crossed paths with both of them. “It was a very narrow road and I think it would have been almost impossible to walk by without me taking notice”,.... How come?
"Jeremy says, pointing out the fact that he saw no man carrying a child, as Jane states". - Was it a woman instead?
For Jane just said originally "an individual" without defining the gender.
"But Jane continues to guarantee that, at the top of the street, she saw a man with a child in his arms." - Originally an individual with a child in his/her arms.
-
That word inconsistencies gets used a lot but when I ask what are the inconsistencies they are few and far between.
Inconsistencies or discrepancies all much the same.
-
@Robitty
You linked to this person on a board from elsewhere ...
Update: Edit - Meda M - I am on my 26th account and have been suspended by YA at home and am having to use a proxy server to post questions.
Do you think I care that you report me? If it wasnt you, it would be one of the other rabid Pro McCann supporters.
I have deleted it.
Don't you think it would have been rather crowded if as claimed he had been standing in the exact same spot at the exact same time ... don't you think he might have been noticed?
-
@Robitty
You linked to this person on a board from elsewhere ...
Update: Edit - Meda M - I am on my 26th account and have been suspended by YA at home and am having to use a proxy server to post questions.
Do you think I care that you report me? If it wasnt you, it would be one of the other rabid Pro McCann supporters.
I have deleted it.
Don't you think it would have been rather crowded if as claimed he had been standing in the exact same spot at the exact same time ... don't you think he might have been noticed?
I think they were the words I thought most unusual, "exact same spot".
-
This written description of what happened is rather interesting for me at least. "The Mark Warner nannies brought the children to the Tapas restaurant to have tea at the end of each day." https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
This might explain why on the Thursday Gerry was at the Tapas with the kids when Kate arrived so is the sign out of the children done at the Tapas rather than at the kids club.
Does anyone object to this description of events that: "The Mark Warner nannies brought the children to the Tapas restaurant to have tea at the end of each day"?
-
This written description of what happened is rather interesting for me at least. "The Mark Warner nannies brought the children to the Tapas restaurant to have tea at the end of each day." https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
This might explain why on the Thursday Gerry was at the Tapas with the kids when Kate arrived so is the sign out of the children done at the Tapas rather than at the kids club.
Does anyone object to this description of events that: "The Mark Warner nannies brought the children to the Tapas restaurant to have tea at the end of each day"?
This confirmed in Catriona Baker's rogatory statement "Some of the children return for the afternoon session which includes accompanying them to "high tea" at around 5H in the afternoon."
-
Tennis lessons. Dianne, Kate and Jane played every morning from @ 9.15 to 10.15. Beginning Sunday or Monday, cancelled on Wednesday due to rain. But no-one except Dianne mentions Dianne playing. Jane thought Rachael played every morning, but she didn't, she and her husband had a lesson from 11-12 am. Everyone except Jane remembers being rained off on Wednesday, Jane doesn't mention that at all.
Was Dianne invisible? Why did Jane think she played with Rachael every morning? Why didn't Jane remember being rained off?
I thought it’d be quite a good idea to have some tennis lessons, which err I put my name down for and Kate and Jane.....we’d start at quarter past nine so that was when tennis lesson started and it was for an hour I think, the tennis lesson......So it might have been Sunday to Thursday.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
4078 “Okay, you mentioned when you were talking about your tennis lessons that Kate signed up for it as well.”
Reply “Yeah.”
4078 Did anybody else from the group go with you?”
Reply “Rachael, and Rachael as well.”
4078 “So would it have been the three of you every morning on your own or were there other people around?”
Reply “No there was other people with us, I think there was six of us.”
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
we didn't have any group lessons Matt and I, we had a private lesson I think,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
I think we just had sort of three, sort of two or three, erm, proper tennis lessons'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Monday 30th April 2007.......I recall Jane, Kate and Gerry playing tennis.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
-
Tennis lessons. Dianne, Kate and Jane played every morning from @ 9.15 to 10.15. Beginning Sunday or Monday, cancelled on Wednesday due to rain. But no-one except Dianne mentions Dianne playing. Jane thought Rachael played every morning, but she didn't, she and her husband had a lesson from 11-12 am. Everyone except Jane remembers being rained off on Wednesday, Jane doesn't mention that at all.
Was Dianne invisible? Why did Jane think she played with Rachael every morning? Why didn't Jane remember being rained off?
I thought it’d be quite a good idea to have some tennis lessons, which err I put my name down for and Kate and Jane.....we’d start at quarter past nine so that was when tennis lesson started and it was for an hour I think, the tennis lesson......So it might have been Sunday to Thursday.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
4078 “Okay, you mentioned when you were talking about your tennis lessons that Kate signed up for it as well.”
Reply “Yeah.”
4078 Did anybody else from the group go with you?”
Reply “Rachael, and Rachael as well.”
4078 “So would it have been the three of you every morning on your own or were there other people around?”
Reply “No there was other people with us, I think there was six of us.”
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
we didn't have any group lessons Matt and I, we had a private lesson I think,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
I think we just had sort of three, sort of two or three, erm, proper tennis lessons'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Monday 30th April 2007.......I recall Jane, Kate and Gerry playing tennis.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
Are these supposed to be serious discrepancies ? It's obvious they are all struggling to remember - minute by minute - details of stuff which wasn't remotely important at the time. What one person may remember - another person may have forgotten. Nothing odd about that at all IMO.
Jeez
-
Finally found a study with what look like genuine discrepancies http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?69120-Contradictions
I'll have to go through them and comment.
-
Are these supposed to be serious discrepancies ? It's obvious they are all struggling to remember - minute by minute - details of stuff which wasn't remotely important at the time. What one person may remember - another person may have forgotten. Nothing odd about that at all IMO.
Jeez
There were certain things which were remembered because they stood out, even though the actual day when they happened is unclear.
The quiz night.
The children's tennis lessons.
Tennis being rained off.
Each morning six people meet for an hour long tennis lesson. Jane Tanner thinks the group included Rachael. It didn't, it included Dianne. She also completely forgot about the lessons being cancelled one day due to rain. I find that strange.
-
We have already handled this discrepancy: "Only Jane saw the man carrying a child
But there is a witness whose deposition contradicts this theory. Jeremy Wilkins – a TV producer who had met Maddie’s father during their holidays and used to play tennis with him – was walking his eight months old son at that time. He met Gerry, who went out through the apartment’s back door after having checked on the children, and the two man exchanged a brief conversation. At that time, if one is to believe the first accounts, Jane would have left Tapas in the direction of the apartment’s main entrance, and would have crossed paths with both of them. “It was a very narrow road and I think it would have been almost impossible to walk by without me taking notice”, Jeremy says, pointing out the fact that he saw no man carrying a child, as Jane states.
But Jane continues to guarantee that, at the top of the street, she saw a man with a child in his arms."
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.nz/2008/03/madeleine-case-pact-of-silence.html
But there is a witness whose deposition contradicts this theory. - True
Jeremy Wilkins – a TV producer who had met Maddie’s father during their holidays and used to play tennis with him - True
– was walking his eight months old son at that time. - Unverified
He met Gerry, who went out through the apartment’s back door after having checked on the children, and the two man exchanged a brief conversation. - Debatable for Jez is reported as saying this conversation lasted 15 minutes.
At that time, if one is to believe the first accounts, Jane would have left Tapas in the direction of the apartment’s main entrance, and would have crossed paths with both of them. “It was a very narrow road and I think it would have been almost impossible to walk by without me taking notice”,.... How come?
"Jeremy says, pointing out the fact that he saw no man carrying a child, as Jane states". - Was it a woman instead?
For Jane just said originally "an individual" without defining the gender.
"But Jane continues to guarantee that, at the top of the street, she saw a man with a child in his arms." - Originally an individual with a child in his/her arms.
Jane would have left Tapas in the direction of the apartment’s main entrance, and would have crossed paths with both of them. “It was a very narrow road and I think it would have been almost impossible to walk by without me taking notice”
One only has to look at Amarals video 'Enigma' posted today to see where Jez and Gerry stood. On the edge of the rioad, by the alleyway,, so that argument is proven. Amaral stood almost where Gerry stood and Jez was in the road. The pavement has considerable depth and then more if the alleyway is included.
No problem for Jane to pass unimpeded.
Jeremy says, pointing out the fact that he saw no man carrying a child, as Jane states.
We have gone thru this before several times.
1) Tannerman was about 30 metres away and both Gerry and Jez were standing at right angles to him. Therefore not only was he quiite far away but he was also out of the Field of Vision of both Gerry and Jez.
Of course they didn't see him especially with the additional fact that he was uphill and the lighting was poor.
-
Jane would have left Tapas in the direction of the apartment’s main entrance, and would have crossed paths with both of them. “It was a very narrow road and I think it would have been almost impossible to walk by without me taking notice”
One only has to look at Amarals video 'Enigma' posted today to see where Jez and Gerry stood. On the edge of the rioad, by the alleyway,, so that argument is proven. Amaral stood almost where Gerry stood and Jez was in the road. The pavement has considerable depth and then more if the alleyway is included.
No problem for Jane to pass unimpeded.
Jeremy says, pointing out the fact that he saw no man carrying a child, as Jane states.
We have gone thru this before several times.
1) Tannerman was about 30 metres away and both Gerry and Jez were standing at right angles to him. Therefore not only was he quiite far away but he was also out of the Field of Vision of both Gerry and Jez.
Of course they didn't see him especially with the additional fact that he was uphill and the lighting was poor.
So would Jane not see the open shutters/ window etc as she passed by?
-
So would Jane not see the open shutters/ window etc as she passed by?
Good point but it can't be guaranteed that she would.
-
Jane would have left Tapas in the direction of the apartment’s main entrance, and would have crossed paths with both of them. “It was a very narrow road and I think it would have been almost impossible to walk by without me taking notice”
One only has to look at Amarals video 'Enigma' posted today to see where Jez and Gerry stood. On the edge of the rioad, by the alleyway,, so that argument is proven. Amaral stood almost where Gerry stood and Jez was in the road. The pavement has considerable depth and then more if the alleyway is included.
No problem for Jane to pass unimpeded.
Jeremy says, pointing out the fact that he saw no man carrying a child, as Jane states.
We have gone thru this before several times.
1) Tannerman was about 30 metres away and both Gerry and Jez were standing at right angles to him. Therefore not only was he quiite far away but he was also out of the Field of Vision of both Gerry and Jez.
Of course they didn't see him especially with the additional fact that he was uphill and the lighting was poor.
In the passage I have bolded you seem to be saying that Amaral got something right!!!!! Or is that just because you think he agrees with you? Either way, it 'proves' nothing.
-
In the passage I have bolded you seem to be saying that Amaral got something right!!!!! Or is that just because you think he agrees with you? Either way, it 'proves' nothing.
The one bit I agree that Amaral got right was the date 3rd May 2007.
-
The one bit I agree that Amaral got right was the date 3rd May 2007.
I think his knowledge of the case is greater than yours. 8((()*/
-
I think his knowledge of the case is greater than yours. 8((()*/
You would hope so. But I noticed how he dramatised the date and couldn't wait to comment on it.
-
This seems an apparent contradiction that should be either confirmed or debunked:
"Contradiction 10: Gerry McCann was having high tea with the nanny Charlotte Pennington at 5.30pm to 6.00pm - Gerry McCann was ‘hanging around the tennis courts’ at this time
Gerry McCann has consistently said that he was on the tennis courts at Praia da Luz between about 3.30pm and 7.00pm. Yet the nanny, Charlotte Pennington, maintained in a statement to the ‘Daily Mail’ that: “I was helping give the children high tea. The twins were there and Madeleine and both parents. It was supposed to finish at 5.30pm, but because they were a big group and really social, it didn't finish until about 6pm”. " http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?69120-Contradictions
Kate in her book says Gerry was at high tea that night. It is Kate that signs the kids out, but if the nannies bring the kids to high tea the sign out could be done from the Tapas area.
-
In Gerry's statement this is what he states: "----- The stayed in that place, talking, until 16H45 at which time the twins went to the meal area. At 17h00, as usual, MADELEINE arrived accompanied by the teachers and the other children. After her arrival, MADELEINE ate, [the meal] having ended at 17H30.
------ After 17H30 they went to the apartment, the deponent having entered by the main door, which he did not lock while he was inside the residence. KATE and the children entered by the rear door, after this had been opened from the inside by the deponent.
------ That they bathed the children, the deponent having left at 18H00 for a tennis game only for men, at which were: DAN, tennis instructor; JULIAN, with whom he had played tennis several times; and CURTIS, with whom he had also played."
That on the face of it doesn't contradict Charlotte's statement for she was talking about all the kids and parents at high tea.
-
There were certain things which were remembered because they stood out, even though the actual day when they happened is unclear.
The quiz night.
The children's tennis lessons.
Tennis being rained off.
Each morning six people meet for an hour long tennis lesson. Jane Tanner thinks the group included Rachael. It didn't, it included Dianne. She also completely forgot about the lessons being cancelled one day due to rain. I find that strange.
G - Do you think that if someone later jogged her memory about the rainy day cancellation it is completely out of the question that JT might have said ''Oh yes that's right - I'd forgotten about that'? It's not as if tennis lessons took up the whole day - wasn't it just one hour?
I know you will say you only go by what is in the statements - and that's fair enough - but it doesn't mean they tell you the whole story. Just because she didn't have total recall of everything at the time she gave her statement - doesn't mean that what she said is set in stone for eternity and nothing else can ever be considered.
We are dealing with ordinary human beings here - not 'super humans' with a magical ' instant total recall' of every single move they've ever made. They each gave their recollections of some fairly insignificant events as they remembered them quite a long time after they had happened. The fact that they are not identical is perfectly normal IMO.
You are entitled to your opinion G - but no way would I consider these to be serious discrepancies which should be regarded as 'sinister' in any way.
AIMHO
-
G - Do you think that if someone later jogged her memory about the rainy day cancellation it is completely out of the question that JT might have said ''Oh yes that's right - I'd forgotten about that'? It's not as if tennis lessons took up the whole day - wasn't it just one hour?
I know you will say you only go by what is in the statements - and that's fair enough - but it doesn't mean they tell you the whole story. Just because she didn't have total recall of everything at the time she gave her statement - doesn't mean that what she said is set in stone for eternity and nothing else can ever be considered.
We are dealing with ordinary human beings here - not 'super humans' with a magical ' instant total recall' of every single move they've ever made. They each gave their recollections of some fairly insignificant events as they remembered them quite a long time after they had happened. The fact that they are not identical is perfectly normal IMO.
You are entitled to your opinion G - but no way would I consider these to be serious discrepancies which should be regarded as 'sinister' in any way.
AIMHO
Why do some of us think there are so called discrepancies in police witness statements given in the hours after Madeleine McCann's alleged abduction?
Could it be that is because it was what they were told to think?
Why would it be in anyone's interest to spread lies and confusion in reference to witness statements concerning the case of a missing child to confirm them considered riven with suspicions ?
I have no idea but it certainly seems that someone was determined to get in first and to ensure the 'on message' propaganda seeds were well and truly planted.
Even before there had been any opportunity to coordinate incoming information to lead the direction of the investigation in my opinion the path the direction the investigation was to take was already plotted.
How else to explain ...
"This is a very badly told story" Diário de Notícias
by: José Manuel Oliveira and Paula Martinheira
05 May 2007
Thanks to 'Astro' for translation
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the English three-year-old child that was on holidays in Lagos, "is a very badly told story", a source from the Polícia Judiciária in Portimão has confided to DN. The statement reflects the authorities' doubts concerning the "confused" depositions that were given by the witnesses yesterday, throughout the day.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id119.htm
-
Why do some of us think there are so called discrepancies in police witness statements given in the hours after Madeleine McCann's alleged abduction?
Could it be that is because it was what they were told to think?
Why would it be in anyone's interest to spread lies and confusion in reference to witness statements concerning the case of a missing child to confirm them considered riven with suspicions ?
I have no idea but it certainly seems that someone was determined to get in first and to ensure the 'on message' propaganda seeds were well and truly planted.
Even before there had been any opportunity to coordinate incoming information to lead the direction of the investigation in my opinion the path the direction the investigation was to take was already plotted.
How else to explain ...
"This is a very badly told story" Diário de Notícias
by: José Manuel Oliveira and Paula Martinheira
05 May 2007
Thanks to 'Astro' for translation
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the English three-year-old child that was on holidays in Lagos, "is a very badly told story", a source from the Polícia Judiciária in Portimão has confided to DN. The statement reflects the authorities' doubts concerning the "confused" depositions that were given by the witnesses yesterday, throughout the day.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id119.htm
That is shocking.
-
In Gerry's statement this is what he states: "----- The stayed in that place, talking, until 16H45 at which time the twins went to the meal area. At 17h00, as usual, MADELEINE arrived accompanied by the teachers and the other children. After her arrival, MADELEINE ate, [the meal] having ended at 17H30.
------ After 17H30 they went to the apartment, the deponent having entered by the main door, which he did not lock while he was inside the residence. KATE and the children entered by the rear door, after this had been opened from the inside by the deponent.
------ That they bathed the children, the deponent having left at 18H00 for a tennis game only for men, at which were: DAN, tennis instructor; JULIAN, with whom he had played tennis several times; and CURTIS, with whom he had also played."
That on the face of it doesn't contradict Charlotte's statement for she was talking about all the kids and parents at high tea.
Kate said they all entered via the front key door. Gerry said rear.
"They arrived at the apartment around 5:40PM, earlier than usual, because Madeleine was tired, their other friends were at the beach and Gerry had an all-male tennis game at 6:00PM. At the flat they both bathed the children, and close to 6:00PM Gerry went to the tennis courts, soon after the children had finished their bath. They entered the apartment by the main door, with the key. She does not know if it was locked, and presumes it was Gerry who opened it. At lunch time they also entered by the same door." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
David contradicted Kate on everything about his visit. Many contradictions only hours before Madeleine is reported missing.
-
Kate said they all entered via the front key door. Gerry said rear.
"They arrived at the apartment around 5:40PM, earlier than usual, because Madeleine was tired, their other friends were at the beach and Gerry had an all-male tennis game at 6:00PM. At the flat they both bathed the children, and close to 6:00PM Gerry went to the tennis courts, soon after the children had finished their bath. They entered the apartment by the main door, with the key. She does not know if it was locked, and presumes it was Gerry who opened it. At lunch time they also entered by the same door." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
David contradicted Kate on everything about his visit. Many contradictions only hours before Madeleine is reported missing.
your first claim was "they all entered via the front key door" but Kate is just talking obout how the building was reopened.
Make a point re David with firm times and you may have a good point.
-
your first claim was "they all entered via the front key door" but Kate is just talking obout how the building was reopened.
Make a point re David with firm times and you may have a good point.
They entered the apartment by the main door, with the key.
THEY
-
They entered the apartment by the main door, with the key.
THEY
That could still mean they sent one ahead to open up and the others entered via the patio door.
-
That could still mean they sent one ahead to open up and the others entered via the patio door.
She didn't say that so let's keep what she did say or what's the point of police statements? You can't change your mind whenever you feel like it @)(++(* Statements are signed so that is evidence.
-
She didn't say that so let's keep what she did say or what's the point of police statements? You can't change your mind whenever you feel like it @)(++(* Statements are signed so that is evidence.
I still maintain that as long as the apartment was opened via the front door , that is how they entered the apartment. The finer points are not specified.
-
So you think Kate carries each child up those steps when Gerry goes to open up? They should use the safer path route like they did when they ran off to the end garden. The statement should have that in it if it happened.
-
So you think Kate carries each child up those steps when Gerry goes to open up? They should use the safer path route like they did when they ran off to the end garden. The statement should have that in it if it happened.
They are capable of walking themselves. Or running as you mention. Kate mentions having to carry Madeleine home that evening so she wouldn't be keen to go around the long way.
-
They are capable of walking themselves. Or running as you mention. Kate mentions having to carry Madeleine home that evening so she wouldn't be keen to go around the long way.
So she says but David didn't say it at 6:30 when he said they were standing not panned out on the sofa.
1485 "But could you remember what Kate was wearing for example''
Reply "I can't, no.'
1485 "And did you actually set eyes on each individual child''
Reply "All three children I saw, yeah.'
1485 "And were they standing up' Sitting down''
Reply "Err they were generally standing up, yeah.'
1485 "Did they actually acknowledge you''
Reply "Err oh yeah, you know I'm very sure that if you'd have asked them, you know that evening or the next day they'd all say ah yeah, I popped in. You know I, you know I did know the children very well, we'd all you know, met up many times before err you know I, you know again I'd be playing with Madeleine you know in the, err the play area err you know during that week, you know lifting her up, twizzing her round and everything, I knew her that well, you know, to do that, and as I say err she'd definitely know who I was and certainly, as I say, just to reinforce that she looked very happy.' http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
-
Rogatory interviews.
Brought to us by fraudster Levy.
Who knows how they have been tinkered with, altered and corrupted.
We can only guess.
-
Rogatory interviews.
Brought to us by fraudster Levy.
Who knows how they have been tinkered with, altered and corrupted.
We can only guess.
Given the number of people who have been cross-checking the rogs, what is your opinion? I know what mine is.
-
So she says but David didn't say it at 6:30 when he said they were standing not panned out on the sofa.
1485 "But could you remember what Kate was wearing for example''
Reply "I can't, no.'
1485 "And did you actually set eyes on each individual child''
Reply "All three children I saw, yeah.'
1485 "And were they standing up' Sitting down''
Reply "Err they were generally standing up, yeah.'
1485 "Did they actually acknowledge you''
Reply "Err oh yeah, you know I'm very sure that if you'd have asked them, you know that evening or the next day they'd all say ah yeah, I popped in. You know I, you know I did know the children very well, we'd all you know, met up many times before err you know I, you know again I'd be playing with Madeleine you know in the, err the play area err you know during that week, you know lifting her up, twizzing her round and everything, I knew her that well, you know, to do that, and as I say err she'd definitely know who I was and certainly, as I say, just to reinforce that she looked very happy.' http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
So it is safe to say that the three children ~ Madeleine included ~ were seen alive and well by a third party when he called at the apartment in the early evening.
I think that is all the police wanted to know.
-
So it is safe to say that the three children ~ Madeleine included ~ were seen alive and well by a third party when he called at the apartment in the early evening.
I think that is all the police wanted to know.
Provided you do not subscribe to theory put forward in post 142.
-
Provided you do not subscribe to theory put forward in post 142.
The one thing Morais and I agree is as outlined in that post ... although more difficult to twist time and date stamped audio and time and date stamped video recordings for misrepresentation and profit. Easy peasy! with full editorial control ... I have often wondered where the time and date stamp on the dog videos got to ... I believe the PJ recordings were so marked.
-
The one thing Morais and I agree is as outlined in that post ... although more difficult to twist time and date stamped audio and time and date stamped video recordings for misrepresentation and profit. Easy peasy! with full editorial control ... I have often wondered where the time and date stamp on the dog videos got to ... I believe the PJ recordings were so marked.
Glad to see others are noticing how facts are being altered on the internet.
Sinister IMO
-
So it is safe to say that the three children ~ Madeleine included ~ were seen alive and well by a third party when he called at the apartment in the early evening.
I think that is all the police wanted to know.
Safe to say when two witnesses contradict each other?
-
Safe to say when two witnesses contradict each other?
In my opinion it is an absolute impossibility for an internet pundit to determine anything at all from non verbatim, at least twice translated statements recorded ~ initially by necessity ~ by amateurs.
It suggests to me the blind leading the blind.
I would imagine forum rules would allow an expression of opinion on apparent witness contradictions ... but that is all it would be ... an opinion.
Even an opinion would have to couched in non libellous terms to abide by forum protocols.
-
In my opinion it is an absolute impossibility for an internet pundit to determine anything at all from non verbatim, at least twice translated statements recorded ~ initially by necessity ~ by amateurs.
It suggests to me the blind leading the blind.
I would imagine forum rules would allow an expression of opinion on apparent witness contradictions ... but that is all it would be ... an opinion.
Even an opinion would have to couched in non libellous terms to abide by forum protocols.
I would tend to agree, there being four possible places where a mistake may be made in each Q & A. By logical extension however this leads to the internet pundit being unsure of what the interrogator actually asked.
Couple this with the theory there is a pile of documents on the internet tainted by the hand of Levy and one is well and truly up a gum tree.
We might as well de-rig and all go home 8(0(*
-
I would tend to agree, there being four possible places where a mistake may be made in each Q & A. By logical extension however this leads to the internet pundit being unsure of what the interrogator actually asked.
Couple this with the theory there is a pile of documents on the internet tainted by the hand of Levy and one is well and truly up a gum tree.
We might as well de-rig and all go home 8(0(*
I think you might be right. But not just yet.
-
I would tend to agree, there being four possible places where a mistake may be made in each Q & A. By logical extension however this leads to the internet pundit being unsure of what the interrogator actually asked.
Couple this with the theory there is a pile of documents on the internet tainted by the hand of Levy and one is well and truly up a gum tree.
We might as well de-rig and all go home 8(0(*
It is lovely for us to agree about something ... but isn't it logical that given the circumstances under which the statements were given and taken there would have been mistakes and misunderstandings?
I can't imagine the state those folks giving statements to the police were in given the shock they had all had.
They must have all been horribly aware that it could have been any one of their children who was missing.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with their child care arrangements one has to ponder why seeds of doubt about the content of police statements given under secrecy laws by them and the missing child's parents, were within hours of being given ... published in the public domain under the billing of being a "BADLY TOLD STORY"!
Who determined to impugn witnesses by not insinuating but decreeing that they were in effect, lying?
At that stage in proceedings, who had had time to collate all the statements?
Who had checked the content?
Who among the witnesses had been called back to clarify something unclear in their statement?
What appropriate investigative diligence, if any, had been performed regarding these statements.
Who released them to the press thus instituting what was to become the trial by media of Madeleine McCann's parents?
Not forgetting that Portuguese law was being flouted the proof of which was the newspaper's pejorative headline and detailed story.
The story could only have come from one source. The law enforcers who were supposed to be investigating Madeleine McCann's disappearance. So what exactly was the course of action being followed by law enforcers in the hours after Madeleine's disappearance?
- investigating the disappearance of a missing child?
- putting the first pieces of misinformation in place as part of building their case against her parents and their friends?
I think their priority was manifest and that initial newspaper headline makes it clear it was not Madeleine McCann.
-
It is lovely for us to agree about something ... but isn't it logical that given the circumstances under which the statements were given and taken there would have been mistakes and misunderstandings?
I can't imagine the state those folks giving statements to the police were in given the shock they had all had.
They must have all been horribly aware that it could have been any one of their children who was missing.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with their child care arrangements one has to ponder why seeds of doubt about the content of police statements given under secrecy laws by them and the missing child's parents, were within hours of being given ... published in the public domain under the billing of being a "BADLY TOLD STORY"!
Who determined to impugn witnesses by not insinuating but decreeing that they were in effect, lying?
At that stage in proceedings, who had had time to collate all the statements?
Who had checked the content?
Who among the witnesses had been called back to clarify something unclear in their statement?
What appropriate investigative diligence, if any, had been performed regarding these statements.
Who released them to the press thus instituting what was to become the trial by media of Madeleine McCann's parents?
Not forgetting that Portuguese law was being flouted the proof of which was the newspaper's pejorative headline and detailed story.
The story could only have come from one source. The law enforcers who were supposed to be investigating Madeleine McCann's disappearance. So what exactly was the course of action being followed by law enforcers in the hours after Madeleine's disappearance?
- investigating the disappearance of a missing child?
- putting the first pieces of misinformation in place as part of building their case against her parents and their friends?
I think their priority was manifest and that initial newspaper headline makes it clear it was not Madeleine McCann.
This is where the horrendous bias all began, and where else other than Law Enforcers, who themselves couldn't possibly have known anything.
I remain entirely convinced that there was a concerted effort to implicate The McCanns.
-
This is where the horrendous bias all began, and where else other than Law Enforcers, who themselves couldn't possibly have known anything.
I remain entirely convinced that there was a concerted effort to implicate The McCanns.
I think it was all done against a dire economic background and internecine unrest within the Policia Judiciaria. So I think politicking was involved but not by any means directed at "protecting" the McCanns.
In my opinion the McCanns had a disgraceful smear campaign launched against them by the very folk to whom they should only have been of interest while under investigation to rule them in or rule them out ... and whose duty was not initially to find a perpetrator(that could come later) but to throw every resource they had at finding the missing child.
To be fair, I believe there is evidence some did just that ... what is the saying, though ... lions led by donkeys?
-
It is lovely for us to agree about something ... but isn't it logical that given the circumstances under which the statements were given and taken there would have been mistakes and misunderstandings?
I can't imagine the state those folks giving statements to the police were in given the shock they had all had.
They must have all been horribly aware that it could have been any one of their children who was missing.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with their child care arrangements one has to ponder why seeds of doubt about the content of police statements given under secrecy laws by them and the missing child's parents, were within hours of being given ... published in the public domain under the billing of being a "BADLY TOLD STORY"!
Who determined to impugn witnesses by not insinuating but decreeing that they were in effect, lying?
At that stage in proceedings, who had had time to collate all the statements?
Who had checked the content?
Who among the witnesses had been called back to clarify something unclear in their statement?
What appropriate investigative diligence, if any, had been performed regarding these statements.
Who released them to the press thus instituting what was to become the trial by media of Madeleine McCann's parents?
Not forgetting that Portuguese law was being flouted the proof of which was the newspaper's pejorative headline and detailed story.
The story could only have come from one source. The law enforcers who were supposed to be investigating Madeleine McCann's disappearance. So what exactly was the course of action being followed by law enforcers in the hours after Madeleine's disappearance?
- investigating the disappearance of a missing child?
- putting the first pieces of misinformation in place as part of building their case against her parents and their friends?
I think their priority was manifest and that initial newspaper headline makes it clear it was not Madeleine McCann.
Oh yes of course but that is where the skill of the interrogator comes into play.
Having identified pinch points where error can creep in, a skilled interrogator will take steps to monitor those pinch points in order to mitigate the effect of any potential errors. One way would be to ask the same question in three different ways.
Much has been made of the confusion over back and front with respect to doors. No one as far as I can tell has applied the conventional norm to resolve the problem. Then it becomes self selecting with no room for confusion.
One has to be careful with translation and pronunciation of course otherwise as in the case of John Fitzgerald Kennedy one proudly announces one is a jam and cream doughnut, in the case of James Carter one wishes to be carnal with the Polish people and in my case in an Italian tobacconists ca 1971 I confidently asked for a prostitute instead of asking to have my cigarette lighter filled with gas, luckily for me the signora had a sense of humour.
I guess in your neck of the woods a shifting spanner could easily become "Espanhola destemida"......hey ho
-
Oh yes of course but that is where the skill of the interrogator comes into play.
Having identified pinch points where error can creep in, a skilled interrogator will take steps to monitor those pinch points in order to mitigate the effect of any potential errors. One way would be to ask the same question in three different ways.
Much has been made of the confusion over back and front with respect to doors. No one as far as I can tell has applied the conventional norm to resolve the problem. Then it becomes self selecting with no room for confusion.
One has to be careful with translation and pronunciation of course otherwise as in the case of John Fitzgerald Kennedy one proudly announces one is a jam and cream doughnut, in the case of James Carter one wishes to be carnal with the Polish people and in my case in an Italian tobacconists ca 1971 I confidently asked for a prostitute instead of asking to have my cigarette lighter filled with gas, luckily for me the signora had a sense of humour.
I guess in your neck of the woods a shifting spanner could easily become "Espanhola destemida"......hey ho
In my neck of the woods a shifting spanner would perhaps start off life as a jemmy 8)-)))