Jane & Gerry, Madeleiene was Here:I think Gerry had more reason to remember it than Jane did. Why does Gerry say Jez was 6 foot 3''? Is Jez really that tall?
https://youtu.be/na4aBr5PTYY?t=1m21s
We've had this discussion more than once and the answer is it depends solely on who you choose to believe. Early statements are the best in my opinion because the events are fresher in their minds. So;We are going to analyse why they say what they did and to weigh the veracity of what is said to pin point it. I don't think it will end up treating everyone as equals.
JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm
Yeah, read, evaluate, add a chunk of bias and Bob's you uncle. Way to go.
Yeah, read, evaluate, add a chunk of bias and Bob's you uncle. Way to go.Well I hope to be convincing if it is at all possible. Are there any here who think the three-way meeting never occurred?
I was surprised Silvia and the GNR PJ or whoever was there, didn't go with Jane to understand where she was when she saw the man. If we knew where Jane was when she saw Tannerman we could find out how soon after passing the guys that did this. We could back calculate where Jez and Gerry were further down the hill.
How would you propose to do that?She drew a diagram, and made statements.
She drew a diagram, and made statements.
Jane & Gerry, Madeleiene was Here:
https://youtu.be/na4aBr5PTYY?t=1m21s
"During the evening of Wednesday 31 October 2007, Jeremy and Bridget were visited at their home address by DC 1756 and DC 4356 from the Leicestershire Op Task team."
"As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
Jez's recollections were tainted neither by trauma, the bonds of friendship or fear and therefore are bound to be the most clearly remembered and definitive IMO.
"During the evening of Wednesday 31 October 2007, Jeremy and Bridget were visited at their home address by DC 1756 and DC 4356 from the Leicestershire Op Task team."
"As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
I was surprised Silvia and the GNR PJ or whoever was there, didn't go with Jane to understand where she was when she saw the man. If we knew where Jane was when she saw Tannerman we could find out how soon after passing the guys that did this. We could back calculate where Jez and Gerry were further down the hill.
Jane consistently says she was 5-10 metres away from the man she saw. That puts her either level with the higher end of the block 6 car park entrance or level with the lower end of it. The problem is that changing her opinion of where the men were talking should have changed her distance from the 'abductor', if she saw him just after passing them as she said.
He was on the same side of the road as JT 5-10 metres ahead of her.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
Confronted, she demonstrated the distance at which the man with the child had passed her, and that was gauged to be about 5 metres.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm
In her rog interview she has moved them to the alleyway area;
I thought they were, as you’re going up here, I thought they were more, erm, again I know this is where me and Gerry differ, but I thought they were sort of more near the little alleyway. I think sort of”
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
walking up to the top of the road and then, as I got to the top, this person, somebody walked across the top of the road with, with a child.....
it’s probably sort of five metres, I mean, I’m trying to sort of think in terms of this room, but sort of probably just further than that wall, probably sort of five to ten metres id’ say, if, I don’t know how far it is to there, but”.
4078 “I would say probably about, I am just guessing, but two and a half to three metres?”
Reply “Yeah, I’d probably say sort of five, five to ten metres, well probably five, nearer five”.
4078 “So about as far away again the other side of the wall as you are from this side?”
Reply “Yeah, yeah, probably, yeah, sort of, as when I first, when I first saw them”.
it’s probably sort of five metres, I mean, I’m trying to sort of think in terms of this room, but sort of probably just further than that wall, probably sort of five to ten metres id’ say, if, I don’t know how far it is to there, but”.
4078 “I would say probably about, I am just guessing, but two and a half to three metres?”
Reply “Yeah, I’d probably say sort of five, five to ten metres, well probably five, nearer five”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
It has been challenging on the forum dealing with false memories (thanks to Alice for the inspiration) and the Tapas 9 agreed timeline, with Matt and the others agreeing to one probably open gate and other possibly closed gate.
Then the thread about an intruder inside the apartment when Gerry was doing his check.
All those relate to Jane's observation of a man carrying a child. Jane says she had just passed Jez and Gerry talking but neither of those two saw her.
So what I would like to now is once and for all time determine where were Jez and Gerry standing when they did their talking.
"G-unit defined the problem earlier:
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw JEZ coming up the street on the opposite pavement bring with him a baby carriage with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm"
Where were Jez and Gerry standing when they did their talking? Ideas solutions please?
Yeah it is up there with the moving door and whooshing curtains.Absolutely true then IYO?
Well I hope to be convincing if it is at all possible. Are there any here who think the three-way meeting never occurred?No one is saying "it never occurred, it never happened" . I thought Amaral was of the opinion it never happened Jane in his opinion sees the man on her way back to the Tapas. I think we can discount that shall we?
No one is saying "it never occurred, it never happened" . I thought Amaral was of the opinion it never happened Jane in his opinion sees the man on her way back to the Tapas. I think we can discount that shall we?
I think we can discount Tannerman altogether. 8(0(*That is more the SY view where he was real, but irrelevant. Where as Amaral's POV as in the O Enigma interview it was more like my theory in some way, Tannerman an exercise in disinformation, different place different time. The only evidence of this concept is that Jane's observation was written down by Russell with a question mark after it. He thought it was questionable to begin with? Then later puts it in a bordered text box. That is showing some sort of thought process going on there IMO.
That is more the SY view where he was real, but irrelevant. Where as Amaral's POV as in the O Enigma interview it was more like my theory in some way, Tannerman an exercise in disinformation, different place different time. The only evidence of this concept is that Jane's observation was written down by Russell with a question mark after it. He thought it was questionable to begin with? Then later puts it in a bordered text box. That is showing some sort of thought process going on there IMO.
If the text box is the 2nd one that is "upgraded" in the mind of the author IMO.
Jez's statement is quite telling... He didn't seem too keen to become too involved after Maddie disappeared, and was annoyed at being pursued and in the manner in which he was being pursued.
Jez and Gerry saw no one not even JT.
My understanding was that Jez wasn't too keen to take part in a reconstruction either, apologies if I've got that wrong.He never flatly refused, but made a heap of excuses.
My understanding was that Jez wasn't too keen to take part in a reconstruction either, apologies if I've got that wrong.
Jeremy Wilkins repeats his evidence and gives measurements which make it quite clear he wasn't at the entrance to the pathway;That could be a false memory. What was his first recollection of this?
As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
I remember that I crossed the street to talk to Gerry.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
That could be a false memory. What was his first recollection of this?
Why should it be?It would be a matter of knowing what Jez had been doing and saying over the last months between the event and the statement. I have come to accept all memories could be false. You don't know which of your memories are false for they always feel real.
Why should it be?
Jeremy Wilkins repeats his evidence and gives measurements which make it quite clear he wasn't at the entrance to the pathway;
As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
I remember that I crossed the street to talk to Gerry.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
I cant be bothered to yet again go throught the other statements made by Jez and Jane and AMARAL that show that Gerry misremembered where the chat took place. This, of course, was adjacent to the alleyway at the back of 5A
You obviously have a reason for trying to nullify those statements ... and in AMARALS case the video he did showing where Gerry and Jez stood chatting.
Can you not accept that the False Memory Syndrome probably caused Gerry to misremember? That quite likely he set across the road and met Jez in the middle, but a vehicle came and they backed on to the kerb / pavement by the alleyway.
Can you not accept that as a likelyhood, with all the other statements that generally pointed to 'in the kerb' by the alleyway.
AIMHO
Isn't Amaral a convicted perjurer who tried to convince the world that the McCanns had disposed of their daughter ? Why should we trust what he says ?
And if Gerry 'misremembered' his testimony can't be relied on either, can it ?
So that leaves Jez who, as G-Unit has posted, with cites, was very sure about where he and Gerry were and that was with Rua Dr Agostino about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
And will you please stop making things up. Neither Jez nor Gerry mention a car forcing them back on to the pavement and you would think Jez would remember that even if Gerry has problems with his memory. Making things up in order to construct the narrative you want to be true is neither useful nor honest.
"From what I remember, the conversation happened right there on the pathway but I am not certain who was located exactly where." J Wilkins
There is no ambiguity as far as Jes is concerned about where they met and spoke with each other ... but was the incident considered important enough for the Policia Judicairia to question Gerry about during his arguido interrogation?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm#p10p2567
Jez in his first statement say "I came out at the top road." that is the Rua Augustino da Silva road and he mentions that before he meets Gerry so from there does he turn around and come back downhill?
To me it only makes sense if Jez is looking downhill and therefore doesn't see Tannerman passing behind him.
He must have been relatively close to the top of the hill 10 -15 meters for he says "There were no weather conditions that impacted visibility. Given the lighting and the atmospheric conditions, I believe that it would have been possible to see if an individual was near but evidently, the greater the distance, the harder the difficulty in seeing. I would say that when I spoke with Gerry it was possible to recognize someone I knew who was passing on foot at the crossing at the top of the hill or to describe approximately someone unknown from that distance."
But if he was 5 meters South of the alleyway the total distance to the top would be 37 meters.
To back my thesis this statement from Jez just about confirms that he was originally walking downhill.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
"I do not know if we were face to face or side to side when this conversation occurred. As I had the pram with me I was rocking it so my son could sleep, it seems to me that I was in the downward direction, but it is possible that I was in the opposite direction.
What does "pathway" mean to you? I take it to mean footpath and I think there is a footpath on both sides of the road, so when Jez says "From what I remember, the conversation happened right there on the pathway but I am not certain who was located exactly where." J Wilkins does not define which side of the road that was on, not from those words anyway.
"From what I remember, the conversation happened right there on the pathway but I am not certain who was located exactly where." J WilkinsIt is not in the interests of the PJ to question Gerry on points where his alibi is rock solid. No wonder this incident is not brought up in the arguido questioning.
There is no ambiguity as far as Jes is concerned about where they met and spoke with each other ... but was the incident considered important enough for the Policia Judicairia to question Gerry about during his arguido interrogation?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm#p10p2567
I cant be bothered to yet again go throught the other statements made by Jez and Jane and AMARAL that show that Gerry misremembered where the chat took place. This, of course, was adjacent to the alleyway at the back of 5A
You obviously have a reason for trying to nullify those statements ... and in AMARALS case the video he did showing where Gerry and Jez stood chatting.
Can you not accept that the False Memory Syndrome probably caused Gerry to misremember? That quite likely he set across the road and met Jez in the middle, but a vehicle came and they backed on to the kerb / pavement by the alleyway.
Can you not accept that as a likelyhood, with all the other statements that generally pointed to 'in the kerb' by the alleyway.
AIMHO
The evidence is consistently against the possibility that the men spoke by the entrance to the pathway until the rogatory interviews. Jane then completely contradicts her earlier evidence and Jes becomes very vague. As it's a year after the event that's not surprising. It's clear to me that when their memories were fresh and uncontaminated they both knew exactly where the conversation took place.
That's why I post what I do, because that's what the evidence says. I don't have any agenda or any theory which needs supporting. I'm not interested in anyone's speculations, not even yours or Amaral's.
As to 'false memory syndrome', that's just a guess. No-one knows why Gerry McCann says he was on the other side of the road, but two people say he wasn't and that's a fact.
Jane, group timeline; JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road.
7th May Jes; I met him near the stairs....there was a gate.
5th November Jes; Gerry stood with his back to the building near the gate....pathway 5 meters to his (Jes's) left.
8th April 2008 Jes; Says he has already ' spoken to the location where we met'
To me "pathway" is the lane behind Block 5.The Tapas 7 only use the word Pathway one occasion:
if he is close enough to recognise someone on the upper road in the darkness, he can't have been outside Gerry's gate. IMO He originally said 10 - 15 meters and that will be a position much higher up the hill from the gate.
"From what I remember, the conversation happened right there on the pathway but I am not certain who was located exactly where." J Wilkins
There is no ambiguity as far as Jes is concerned about where they met and spoke with each other ... but was the incident considered important enough for the Policia Judicairia to question Gerry about during his arguido interrogation?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm#p10p2567
The evidence is consistently against the possibility that the men spoke by the entrance to the pathway until the rogatory interviews. Jane then completely contradicts her earlier evidence and Jes becomes very vague. As it's a year after the event that's not surprising. It's clear to me that when their memories were fresh and uncontaminated they both knew exactly where the conversation took place.
That's why I post what I do, because that's what the evidence says. I don't have any agenda or any theory which needs supporting. I'm not interested in anyone's speculations, not even yours or Amaral's.
As to 'false memory syndrome', that's just a guess. No-one knows why Gerry McCann says he was on the other side of the road, but two people say he wasn't and that's a fact.
Jane, group timeline; JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road.
7th May Jes; I met him near the stairs....there was a gate.
5th November Jes; Gerry stood with his back to the building near the gate....pathway 5 meters to his (Jes's) left.
8th April 2008 Jes; Says he has already ' spoken to the location where we met'
I agree Amaral is a convicted perjurer, but your side seems to believe him implicitely. So you are thinking that he lied in this instance, are you ? I think he told the truth about this because both Jane and Jez have backed him up in other statements than the two "out of kilter" statements that you and Gunit choose to cherry pick. 1) Then there are the videos showing Jane very definitely pointing to the kerb area by the alleyway corner at the back of 5A and 2) Amarals video where he personally very definitely points to the place that the chat took place.
Please do not forget 3) Jezes statement describing how he met Gerry as they walked towards each other; he had just come from the little car parking area opposite the Tapas reception, and 4) Jezes deliberate marking with a cross on a map, showing where the chat took place, on the alleyway corner.
Gerry got it wrong, which was likely caused by stress and False Memory syndrome. With the easiest way to go with the push chair, was the way the push chair was pointing, and that was to the western side of the road. They ended up mainly in the road but partly on the kerb, by the alleyway.
IMO, There is so much information pointing to this being the place they chatted.
I accept that it is my opinion that Gerry was suffering from False Memory syndrome, but he very obviously really believed it.
AIMHO
It was important enough for Rebelo to request a reconstruction of the incident. That speaks volumes.
It was important enough for Rebelo to request a reconstruction of the incident. That speaks volumes.I must be a bit of a sceptic for I think if they all had nothing to hide they would have been only too willing to help the McCanns clear their names.
The only truly independent witness in this scenario is Jez Wilkins and he has consistently ( a cross on an out of scale map doesn't count ) stated that his and Gerry's chat took place outside the gate of 5a.
7th of May statement
'I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said you're on walking duty. I said I was staying in and [ censored word ] and cons and what to do with the children.'
5th of November statement
'He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.'
So near the stairs of the apartment not near the alleyway and absolutely no mention of a car.
You really do need to stop making this up Sadie.
"That's why I post what I do, because that's what the evidence says. I don't have any agenda or any theory which needs supporting."
I have never speculated that Gerry disagreed with the other two witnesses about where he was standing ... I have watched him in real time disagreeing with one of them.
What I have expressed about that is not speculation but my opinion that it does not really matter. What matters is that the three were there and Jane Tanner claims to have seen a man carrying a child at the top of the street.
Did he have his eyes closed and when he opened them Gerry had just materialised? He stated specifically he assumed Gerry had exited the gate ... logic dictates he must have been beyond it when Jes saw him ... at least two or three athletic man paces beyond it.
"That's why I post what I do, because that's what the evidence says. I don't have any agenda or any theory which needs supporting."
I have never speculated that Gerry disagreed with the other two witnesses about where he was standing ... I have watched him in real time disagreeing with one of them.
What I have expressed about that is not speculation but my opinion that it does not really matter. What matters is that the three were there and Jane Tanner claims to have seen a man carrying a child at the top of the street.
Totally agree. One outcome of poring over every word and going into the minutiae of every single thing is that you end up not being able to see the wood for the trees. IMO
Different people have different ideas of time and distances. One person's 10ft is another person's 20ft. One person's 5 mins is another person's 10 mins.
Expecting three people to come up with identical descriptions of everything they remembered is totally unrealistic IMO.
Fortunately the people who do matter - i.e. the professional policemen investigating this case are well aware of that.
AIMHO
Unfortunately your opinion differs from Rebelo who thought the point was so important that he requested that the McCanns and their friends fly back to take part in a reconstruction of course the incident. Do you really think he would have done that if where the conversation took place 'didn't really matter' ?
Further it is not speculation that Jez disagreed with Gerry about where they were standing but it is disingenuous for you to suggest that it is. Haven't you read Wilkins's starements ?
Totally agree. One outcome of poring over every word and going into the minutiae of every single thing is that you end up not being able to see the wood for the trees. IMOOn this point you are somewhat wrong . For it is the apparent contradictions in whether Jez and Gerry saw Jane that make people doubt whether Jane really saw Tannerman. I think G-unit has come closest so far to solving the riddle.
Different people have different ideas of time and distances. One person's 10ft is another person's 20ft. One person's 5 mins is another person's 10 mins.
Expecting three people to come up with identical descriptions of everything they remembered is totally unrealistic IMO.
Fortunately the people who do matter - i.e. the professional policemen investigating this case are well aware of that.
AIMHO
Clarify that please. Not with your opinion but with an actual cite.
Rebelo thought it mattered and he was also investigating the case at the time.
Benice do you really believe Wilkins didn't know the difference from 'at the alleyway' and 5 metres from it ?
No I'm saying what is 5 metres to one person may be 3 metres or 10 metres to another person. Jez is not certain of all of the details of that meeting, for example IIRC he surmises he may have been facing downward but only because he remembers rocking the pushchair back and forward.
Everything is from what they could remember of what were an insignificant few moments at the time. IMO they are all telling the truth as they remember it - but that doesn't mean those recollections are perfectly accurate. Therefore holding up specific measurements as 'proof' of anything - is unrealistic IMO. AFAIAC Gerry and Jez stood talking and JT observed them doing that and further up the road she saw a man carrying a child across that road.
It's clear to me that SY detectives also believe that is what happened and that any differences in their recollections are perfectly normal and do not have any 'sinister' implications.
AIMHO
"That's why I post what I do, because that's what the evidence says. I don't have any agenda or any theory which needs supporting."
I have never speculated that Gerry disagreed with the other two witnesses about where he was standing ... I have watched him in real time disagreeing with one of them.
What I have expressed about that is not speculation but my opinion that it does not really matter. What matters is that the three were there and Jane Tanner claims to have seen a man carrying a child at the top of the street.
10m, 5m, 3m but not at the alleyway, agreed ?
Totally agree. One outcome of poring over every word and going into the minutiae of every single thing is that you end up not being able to see the wood for the trees. IMO
Different people have different ideas of time and distances. One person's 10ft is another person's 20ft. One person's 5 mins is another person's 10 mins.
Expecting three people to come up with identical descriptions of everything they remembered is totally unrealistic IMO.
Fortunately the people who do matter - i.e. the professional policemen investigating this case are well aware of that.
AIMHO
Speaking for myself, the only reason I ever examine the evidence closely is when people make claims about what happened. In this example it has been claimed that the men met near the entrance to the alleyway, but a thorough examination of the evidence suggests otherwise.
Jez stated it was dark. "He noticed the bad street lighting and although it was not completely dark there was enough light to see clearly."
G-unit I think I would just about accept one of those or somewhere in between, so it ends up being uphill of the gate.
So can you tell me why they end up uphill of the gate? Which direction was Jez walking toward Gerry? Downhill or uphill? Why did Gerry end up walking up hill?
So what conclusion have you come to?
Totally agree. One outcome of poring over every word and going into the minutiae of every single thing is that you end up not being able to see the wood for the trees. IMO
Different people have different ideas of time and distances. One person's 10ft is another person's 20ft. One person's 5 mins is another person's 10 mins.
Expecting three people to come up with identical descriptions of everything they remembered is totally unrealistic IMO.
Fortunately the people who do matter - i.e. the professional policemen investigating this case are well aware of that.
AIMHO
I don't think I have said they end up uphill of the gate'. Jane Tanner said that, not me. I have said that they did not speak at the entrance to the alleyway. Jes Wilkins made that quite clear.Well have you put those distances you gave into google Earth to see where they are in relation to the gate?
Can you please show me where Gerry says that he was standing uphill from 5A gate?
Cos I think it is a bad translation, and what he said was he was standing uphill from the Tapas Reception door. There is so much in the files and various videos to disprove that
Can someone who speaks portuguese please confirm whether the same word is used in portugal for door as for gate.
Can you please show me where Gerry says that he was standing uphill from 5A gate?So you agree it is in the joint time line statement. I gave the exact wording from that document and there was no translation of it required.
Cos I think it is a bad translation, and what he said was he was standing uphill from the Tapas Reception door. There is so much in the files and various videos to disprove that
Can someone who speaks portuguese please confirm whether the same word is used in portugal for door as for gate.
10th of May Gerry states "----- After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw JEZ coming up the street on the opposite pavement bring with him a baby carriage with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction who would come up on the right-hand side [when viewed] from the ascending direction,"
That statement does make it sound as if Gerry was heading to the secondary reception. But this is one of those twice translated statements. But it still reads very very much like Gerry is walking downhill and Jez is coming uphill.
Maybe Gerry does something in between "going through the side gate", and "while on his way to the secondary reception entrance"? Did Gerry check something out? Did he take several paces up hill before he sees Jez? He is checking the kids and the door had moved inside for no reason, he might have been a little on edge, we don't know how Gerry was really feeling at the time. I think I'd be wondering if there were people hanging around my kids.
I noticed the other day there is a little step in the exterior wall of the apartment. Di Gerry go and check that no one was hiding behind the wall?
For how can he be uphill of the gate, as per the agreed timeline, if he only walked downhill after leaving the gate?
Because he didn't come out of the gate ? ( note that is question, not a statement)Is it because he didn't come out of the gate? Good question.
Is it because he didn't come out of the gate? Good question.
Where else could he have come from considering Jez has a good view of the street? It doesn't say Jez saw Gerry coming from the intersection. Could he have come out of the alleyway but that would be even closer to Jez so he should have been able to see that better.
I'll ask the same question again as I did about 5 hours ago "Could you all think of the initial situation when Jez first saw Gerry, was he uphill or downhill of Gerry? We have some idea where they met and talked but where were they when they first saw each other to walk toward each other. Or do you think one stood still and the other do the walking.
Downhill is towards the Tapas reception entrance.
Uphill is toward the top road."
You all have some idea where they ended up but where did they both start of from. I think we must agree that Gerry started at the side gate, or is that even not accepted by some. Where were they when they first saw each other in relation to the side gate?
I'll ask the same question again as I did about 5 hours ago "Could you all think of the initial situation when Jez first saw Gerry, was he uphill or downhill of Gerry? We have some idea where they met and talked but where were they when they first saw each other to walk toward each other. Or do you think one stood still and the other do the walking.
Downhill is towards the Tapas reception entrance.
Uphill is toward the top road."
You all have some idea where they ended up but where did they both start of from. I think we must agree that Gerry started at the side gate, or is that even not accepted by some. Where were they when they first saw each other in relation to the side gate?
Why don't you plot it all out ? There is sufficient info to be able to do so.Plot it on what? I don't know how to do graphics like that? Good idea though.
Plot it on what? I don't know how to do graphics like that? Good idea though.
I'm convinced now Jez was downhill from Gerry to start with, but they still end up uphill of the gate when Jez bumps into Gerry.
So you agree it is in the joint time line statement. I gave the exact wording from that document and there was no translation of it required.No I do not agree. It is not verbatim
I'll copy iy again "2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed. "
That is clear as mud, they were outside the gate. i.e not in the in the stairwell area but on the public area.
"The two were standing just up the hill from the gate" - uphill means they were North of the actual gate.
I have posted Gerry's descriptions to I believe but I'll do it again just to be sure.
No I do not agree. It is not verbatim
Thanks to Faith: Door-porta, gate- portão.
These are too similar to ignore IMO. A simple mistake could be made
There is too much evidence that Gerry and Jes met on the corner of the alleyway. Janes Cutting Edge Reconstruction, Jezes statement + his diagram showing the alleyway corner ... and Amarals video where he shows the corner of that alleyway too
Suddenly new stuff is appearing that I do not remember seeing before ... and I have gone over all this with a fine toothcomb
Suddenly the Official Channel 4 cutting Edge Video is not available, just the phoney, copy one by DonnyDarko is available *%6^ $65*
I wonder where all the authentic stuff is vanishing to ? And why is it going ?
Jane made it very very clear where they were standing when she passed them and that was at the alleyway corner
Unfortunately your opinion differs from Rebelo who thought the point was so important that he requested that the McCanns and their friends fly back to take part in a reconstruction of course the incident. Do you really think he would have done that if where the conversation took place 'didn't really matter' ?Was a reconstruction ever going to solve this? I don't see how, unless one person is favoured and all the rest have to accept they were wrong. But I do think Jez would be tested to maintain his position that he never saw anyone pass. How was Rebelo going to sort that one out if Jez was to be believed and the walk by Jane has to be done at a later time. Most people here believe Jez over Gerry on position (which side of the road) but he doesn't see Jane pass by which must mean that she didn't see them but she says if I hadn't seen them I wouldn't be able to say I saw them together talking on the street.
Fortunately we don't need logic or speculation as we have Wilkins own words and that was that he was 5m from the alleyway.But he didn't hear or see Jane. So what does that mean?
No I do not agree. It is not verbatim
Thanks to Faith: Door-porta, gate- portão.
These are too similar to ignore IMO. A simple mistake could be made
There is too much evidence that Gerry and Jes met on the corner of the alleyway. Janes Cutting Edge Reconstruction, Jezes statement + his diagram showing the alleyway corner ... and Amarals video where he shows the corner of that alleyway too
Suddenly new stuff is appearing that I do not remember seeing before ... and I have gone over all this with a fine toothcomb
Suddenly the Official Channel 4 cutting Edge Video is not available, just the phoney one by DonnyDarko is available *%6^ $65*
I wonder where all the authentic stuff is vanishing to ? And why is it going ?
Jane made it very veerty clear where they were standing when she passed them and that was at the alleyway corner
As all was well with the children - my first thought would be that unnoticed by me - Kate must have made the last check and that's how she had left the door.
Matt had only checked by listening outside. Gerry not only preferred to check from inside 5A - he also knew he could use his own loo while he was there. Most people prefer their own loos to public WC's imo. IMO a combination of both reasons was enough for him to decide to go himself - in spite of Matt's check.
AIMHO
So are you implying Matt lied? Matt several times tells us he did not go into the apartments at his 9:00 PM listening check.
You appear to have introduced some unknown checker here "In my opinion Gerry being aware that the children had already been checked, the movement of the door would have been put down to that person looking into the room and mean nothing more than that." Who was that?
They had the mystery of Madeleine saying why didn't you come last night ....etc. Surely they should have clicking onto the idea that there were others concerned for the welfare of their children.
Why would he think, unnoticed by him k mccan had done a check.Just who was the last person to check the kids when Kate and Gerry left? This was around 8:30 PM.
Didn't they know what each other was doing, iyo then he went back every time he needed the loo,during that week.
Madeleine's question only became a 'mystery' after she was gone.
As all was well with the children - my first thought would be that unnoticed by me - Kate must have made the last check and that's how she had left the door.
Matt had only checked by listening outside. Gerry not only preferred to check from inside 5A - he also knew he could use his own loo while he was there. Most people prefer their own loos to public WC's imo. IMO a combination of both reasons was enough for him to decide to go himself - in spite of Matt's check.
AIMHO
But who was the individual who had checked before Gerry and opened the door 'a little wider' ?I think Kate would have looked for other clues. If Madeleine had moved it did she move anything else to confirm it?
Then why did he only intend to listen at the door ? Surely Matt had done just as thorough check by listening at the window ?There seems to be a hidden reason that we are not party to. Why was Matt's check not enough. Why was it so important to see that Madeleine in particular was OK? Why did the moved door not set off intruder alarm bells?
So are you implying Matt lied? Matt several times tells us he did not go into the apartments at his 9:00 PM listening check.
You appear to have introduced some unknown checker here "In my opinion Gerry being aware that the children had already been checked, the movement of the door would have been put down to that person looking into the room and mean nothing more than that." Who was that?
They had the mystery of Madeleine saying why didn't you come last night ....etc. Surely they should have clicking onto the idea that there were others concerned for the welfare of their children.
that there were others concerned for the welfare of their children.
Why should he think that, they wasn't bothered about their welfare, that is obvious imo.
I didn't know he had noticed the door moved, why didn't he mention it to kmccann. after all he had checked to make sure everything was ok - it wasn't
So if the abductor was in the room [if] - was he there when matt made his check.
If not then, the window should have been open, shutters up etc etc.
So door moved again, when kmccann goes, convenient gust of wind, window open.
Yet she still runs out, leaving twins, why didn't she scream for help - after all like some say it was like being in a garden.
Then they still put twins in creche next day, regardless of their welfare, the only reason i can think of for that, is they knew they were safe.
All my post imo
that there were others concerned for the welfare of their children.That is a difficult set of questions and diverse opinions. What I am hoping is to understand some of them if it was possible. It certainly isn't the typical hysterical response a lot would expect, so think clues.
Why should he think that, they wasn't bothered about their welfare, that is obvious imo.
I didn't know he had noticed the door moved, why didn't he mention it to kmccann. after all he had checked to make sure everything was ok - it wasn't
So if the abductor was in the room [if] - was he there when matt made his check.
If not then, the window should have been open, shutters up etc etc.
So door moved again, when kmccann goes, convenient gust of wind, window open.
Yet she still runs out, leaving twins, why didn't she scream for help - after all like some say it was like being in a garden.
Then they still put twins in creche next day, regardless of their welfare, the only reason i can think of for that, is they knew they were safe.
All my post imo
I think Kate would have looked for other clues. If Madeleine had moved it did she move anything else to confirm it?
There seems to be a hidden reason that we are not party to. Why was Matt's check not enough. Why was it so important to see that Madeleine in particular was OK? Why did the moved door not set off intruder alarm bells?
Was there some reason he walks uphill when he meets up with Jez even though he was supposedly heading in the other direction?
that there were others concerned for the welfare of their children.
Why should he think that, they wasn't bothered about their welfare, that is obvious imo.
I didn't know he had noticed the door moved, why didn't he mention it to kmccann. after all he had checked to make sure everything was ok - it wasn't
So if the abductor was in the room [if] - was he there when matt made his check.
If not then, the window should have been open, shutters up etc etc.
So door moved again, when kmccann goes, convenient gust of wind, window open.
Yet she still runs out, leaving twins, why didn't she scream for help - after all like some say it was like being in a garden.
Then they still put twins in creche next day, regardless of their welfare, the only reason i can think of for that, is they knew they were safe.
All my post imo
Why did he even bother talking to Jez ?
If in a similar position, I would just have acknowledge him with a 'Ow do ?' and gone on back to my friends in the Tapas.
Whether or not you would just say 'ow do' is immaterial, Gerry stopped to talk to Jez, how do you know that it wasn't Jez who started the conversation?
Quite right. So why did you respond? Automatic attack mode?
How was Matt supposed to know how far the McCann's had left the door open? You say 'why didn't he tell the McCann's' tell them what? It's easy to say these things after the event isn't it, Matt had no reason to tell the McCann's anything and there is nothing in the files to say he moved the door at all, so it would have been in the same place when Kate McCann did her check.
Kate McCann searched the apartment, there was no one in the apartment, she ran calling to the Tapas group that Madeleine was gone.
So, you think one of the Nanny's would steal the twins in the daytime with other children and parents there? Who would be accused of taking them I wonder?
IMO
So why did you post it? Attack mode on Gerry McCann?
Is that all iyo, what are you posting here, you are totally misquoting my post. re read it.
Did i say matt noticed the door moved. no
Did i say, why didn't he tell the mccanns. no
Did i say one of the nannies could steal them. no
They imo were left vulnerable, when anyone could have been the so called abductor - in that complex.
Yes, she searched apartment for ten minutes wasn't it, knew maddie had been took - yet left them in there.
And then, and then , let twenty odd people in there, destroying any forencic finger prints that could of been found. imo
You said - I didn't know he had noticed the door moved, why didn't he mention it to kmccann. after all he had checked to make sure everything was ok - it wasn't
Kmccann yes, not the mccanns, if you had read it properly, instead of dying to criticises it - you would have seen it was in reply to rob about gmccann.. imo
Not everyone believes maddie was abducted, simple as that.
Sorry.
Still why would he say anything? Madeleine could have got up to go to the toilet couldn't she?
Because he went to check all was ok, it wasn't then was it.
Wow, so maddie had mabey got up to go to toilet, don't you think that would have terrified her being in a dark apartment finding she was alone,
But managed to get back in bed in the same position they had left her.
Allegedly she was very bright for her age. Perhaps this brightness illuminated the way.
Because he went to check all was ok, it wasn't then was it.
Wow, so maddie had mabey got up to go to toilet, don't you think that would have terrified her being in a dark apartment finding she was alone,
But managed to get back in bed in the same position they had left her.
Allegedly she was very bright for her age. Perhaps this brightness illuminated the way.
I thought there was a lamp on shedding some light outside the bedroom? A child can get back into bed and sleep on their left side if that is the side they like sleeping on, maybe that is how she was sleeping on top of the cover? Who would think there had been someone in there?
Now are we making things up? That is fiction you are writing, not allowed to say what you think on this forum remember.
Now are we making things up? That is fiction you are writing, not allowed to say what you think on this forum remember.
The toilet was not in the bedroom, and getting out of bed going into a toilet - anything could have happened to her imo
So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd. So—God forgive me—maybe that’s part of the problem. That special quality. Some ******* picked up on that.
http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2008/12/dr-david-payne-jon-corner-and-those.html
Scroll down to JC's picture
Why do some people find the need to ridicule.
Because we can @)(++(*
Sorry.
Still why would he say anything? Madeleine could have got up to go to the toilet couldn't she?
Didn't Matt say in his statement that he found the angle of the door odd ( can't provide the cite now but will later if needed ) ? Not to say that it was 'odd' enough to mention.
NB: All future off topic posts will be deleted irrespective of how interesting or not they may be.
The video sounds like a true copy - don't worry about the comments. -snip-
Why should Matt find the door angle odd? What is he comparing it to?
If this was first mentioned in his rogy interview, then I would view it with suspicion as it could easily be one of these false memories that we're all supposed to be subject to.
That really sums the situation up entirely.It certainly puts light on the situation.
It is not a true copy cos it has at least one part removed. That part showed Jane starting near the gate and then very determindly striding down to the spot that she then indicated as the place where Gerry and Jez chatted. The bit that was removed added emphasis to the action of pointing out the spot where it happened. In other words removing it weakened the point.Does anyone else confirm what Sadie says here? Was there a bit cut out of the video? https://youtu.be/atfDV7imHHY
The exposure time showing Janes pointing out and moving there was minimised. These two things meant that anyone not fully conversant with the geography of the place would not be able to place the position.
IMO the making of this phoney video was purely for two reasons:
1) To cut out bits that the maker wanted removed for his own perverse reasons to weaken the original video
2) To open up the opportunity for the rabble to abuse the Mccanns with foul comments. The original bona fide Cutting Edge Video did not allow comments
IMO NOBODY has the right to alter a bonafide pressentaion by another and present it as the original.
I had previously noticed that the videos ran for a different length of time. I wish that I had fully analysed the situation at that time.
So, do you think it is OK that someone alters a video and presents it as the real McCoy, Rob ?
Does anyone else confirm what Sadie says here? Was there a bit cut out of the video?
If Sadie thinks the video has been altered, then she should be able to link to the original video and demonstrate the changes.Videos can be deleted by the channel owner. If I knew how I'd like to save entire videos as I think they will disappear altogether over the years. What will be available to discuss in 10 years from now?
Videos can be deleted by the channel owner. If I knew how I like to save entire videos as I think they will disappear altogether over the years. What will be available to discuss in 10 years from now?
Does anyone else confirm what Sadie says here? Was there a bit cut out of the video?
Nope, no cut in that video clip.It is not that we are saying Sadie is lying about this but it is a matter of remembering an entire video. I don't know if I ever saw the original video. I know how we can solve this; if there was a video that has gone missing has someone put a link to over the years, if so we will find a broken link. I'll search "cutting edge"
Same way the pyjamas picture I posted the other week wasn't photo shopped, as she claimed.
But I do like the bit in that clip where Jane laughs when Gerry contradicts her, then has a cry about it.
Allegedly she was very bright for her age. Perhaps this brightness illuminated the way.
Obviously, and not afraid of being alone as well.
It is not that we are saying Sadie is lying about this but it is a matter of remembering an entire video. I don't know if I ever saw the original video. I know how we can solve this; if there was a video that has gone missing has someone put a link to over the years, if so we will find a broken link. I'll search "cutting edge"The video on the site here in "Video library" is the same as the one we have been discussing http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1285.msg36453#msg36453
The video on the site here in "Video library" is the same as the one we have been discussing http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1285.msg36453#msg36453
Another silly comment.But on the whole I am very impressed by the quality of the posts on the thread. I reviewed the whole thread yesterday and it is rather classic.
So which version is it and where is the other one for comparison?I was unable to find a broken link so IMO there has only been one version.
It is not a true copy cos it has at least one part removed. That part showed Jane starting near the gate and then very determindly striding down to the spot that she then indicated as the place where Gerry and Jez chatted. The bit that was removed added emphasis to the action of pointing out the spot where it happened. In other words removing it weakened the point.
The exposure time showing Janes pointing out and moving there was minimised. These two things meant that anyone not fully conversant with the geography of the place would not be able to place the position.
IMO the making of this phoney video was purely for two reasons:
1) To cut out bits that the maker wanted removed for his own perverse reasons to weaken the original video
2) To open up the opportunity for the rabble to abuse the Mccanns with foul comments. The original bona fide Cutting Edge Video did not allow comments
IMO NOBODY has the right to alter a bonafide pressentaion by another and present it as the original.
I had previously noticed that the videos ran for a different length of time. I wish that I had fully analysed the situation at that time.
So, do you think it is OK that someone alters a video and presents it as the real McCoy, Rob ?
Another silly comment.
Shouldn't you put IYO.In the context your comment was "silly" as you replied "Obviously" to a silly comment.
Isn't that offtopic as well.
Isn't that goading as well.
Don't you think then if maddie had woke up to find herself alone, she wouldn't have been frightened - Eleanor.
The documentary 'Madeleine was here' was made in 2009. That was a year after Jane's rog. interview when, for reasons best known to herself, she first mentioned Gerry and Jez speaking near the alleyway.The handwritten text on her diagram was not translated either.
On 4th May 2007 Jane drew a diagram placing the men north of the alleyway. Four or five days after that she contributed to a group timeline wherein she repeats the same story; they were not at the entrance to the alleyway, they were near the gate to 5A.
On 10th May her memory fails her; she can't remember where the men were placed.
In her rog interview she says 'sort of' a lot when trying to describe the men's location.
You use sort of when you want to say that your description of something is not very accurate.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sort-of
I know this is where me and Gerry differ, but I thought they were sort of more near the little alleyway. I think sort of......definitely sort of by that, sort of more by this alleyway. I don’t think they were by the apartment gate, I thought they were sort of a bit further down, down the road than that......I don’t think they were right outside the gate for sure.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
She doesn't recall the position/orientation of either Jez or GM while they spoke to each other on the street, only having the perception that one was on the pavement and the other was in the road next to the other.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_50.jpg)
No sign of Crecheman/Tannerman's wife in Jane's diagram. If the family had got lost, they certainly hadn't got lost together.That should be in a separate thread Misty for it is definitely off topic here.
That should be in a separate thread Misty for it is definitely off topic here.
No sign of Crecheman/Tannerman's wife in Jane's diagram. If the family had got lost, they certainly hadn't got lost together.
If Jez & Gerry didn't see Jane passing when they were stood talking, maybe Crecheman & his family also walked by, unnoticed, on the opposite side of the road.Or you could take it further the Tannerman family could have walked right past Gerry and Jez too as Jane did and not be noticed.
Mr Redwood didn't say the whole family was in the area at that time.
Only father & child.
"They themselves believed they could be the Tanner sighting"....
Meaning crecheman. Not his extended family.
Meaning crecheman. Not his extended family.The family could believe many things, but how many people did Jane see or how many people were in the area? Tannerman plus child were the ones I knew about.
Or you could take it further the Tannerman family could have walked right past Gerry and Jez too as Jane did and not be noticed.
I didn't know he had a family with him. Where did you get that bit?
They believed that they.... the child had no belief because she was too young. Why would a missing mother have believed her husband was the sighting without actually being there?
It's almost irrelevant where Jez & Gerry were standing as they had no recollection of movement or surroundings at the time of their chat. From cars parked on the street to gates opening & closing & people passing, they had no strong memories other than what they were talking about.Do they say they talked about the same things?
Next sentence in clip after Redwood says "They themselves believed they could be the Tanner sighting"The Narrator said......DCI Redwood didn't say it.
Narrator: "The British father had collected his 2 year old daughter from the creche, he had been walking near the McCanns apartment."
Note, he says walking near, not walking back from.
P.S & he, not they.
Do they say they talked about the same things?
The Narrator said......DCI Redwood didn't say it.
Does DCI Redwood say that Tannerman & Crecheman are one & the same?
I see you're trying to create confusion where none exists.
"The British father had collected his 2 year old daughter from the creche, he had been walking near the McCanns apartment."
He was there, with his child, & he was walking near the McCanns apartment.
Maybe his wife was indoors making tea or couldn't go with him.
Who cares, either way, she wasn't there. He was.
That should be in a separate thread Misty for it is definitely off topic here.
I'm interpreting DCI Redwood's exact words, not those of the narrator.
You are misinterpreting the meaning.
The following sentence by the narrator clarifies the situation.
"The British father had collected his 2 year old daughter from the creche, he had been walking near the McCanns apartment."
It couldn't be much clearer.
But DCI Redwood said "they". Have you considered that the mother may have been collecting another child from the night creche at the same time?
But ok. Just for the fun of it.
Maybe his wife was there too, carrying another child, & perhaps she saw Gerry & Jez standing where Gerry said they were.
And maybe she saw another man carrying a child.
Perhaps she gave a witness statement to that effect, & Amaral filed it in the bin.
But ok. Just for the fun of it.
Maybe his wife was there too, carrying another child, & perhaps she saw Gerry & Jez standing where Gerry said they were.
And maybe she saw another man carrying a child.
Perhaps she gave a witness statement to that effect, & Amaral filed it in the bin.
No, because it's speculation based on your own misunderstanding.
No sign of Crecheman/Tannerman's wife in Jane's diagram. If the family had got lost, they certainly hadn't got lost together.Once I understood what Misty was on about I didn't mind so much.
At no time did DCI Redwood say Crecheman was Tannerman.
What he did say was "We’re almost certain, now, that this sighting is not the abductor.".
Not THE abductor -but an accomplice, possibly.
....Or an accomplice's accomplice.
Bet you hadn't thought of that.
Maybe there was an entire fleet of child abductors, & watchers, with walkies talkies & getaway vehicles.
....Or an accomplice's accomplice.
Bet you hadn't thought of that.
Maybe there was an entire fleet of child abductors, & watchers, with walkies talkies & getaway vehicles.
....Or an accomplice's accomplice.
Bet you hadn't thought of that.
Maybe there was an entire fleet of child abductors, & watchers, with walkies talkies & getaway vehicles.
....Or an accomplice's accomplice.Anything is possible.
Bet you hadn't thought of that.
Maybe there was an entire fleet of child abductors, & watchers, with walkies talkies & getaway vehicles.
The whole episode is rather unsolvable as we are finding out. SY should do the right thing and release the statements that crecheman made. What is his name where was he staying and what time did he pick up his child. Show us the child.
Yeah...whatever.
Amaral seemed to think Tannerman was walking past Block 5 in the direction of Block4. Why would that be if he didn't give Jane's sighting any merit?
https://youtu.be/tUHp85TyJ0Y?t=1102
....Or an accomplice's accomplice.
Bet you hadn't thought of that.
Maybe there was an entire fleet of child abductors, & watchers, with walkies talkies & getaway vehicles.
Yeah...whatever.
Amaral seemed to think Tannerman was walking past Block 5 in the direction of Block4. Why would that be if he didn't give Jane's sighting any merit?
https://youtu.be/tUHp85TyJ0Y?t=1102
Anything is possible.
The whole episode is rather unsolvable as we are finding out. SY should do the right thing and release the statements that crecheman made. What is his name where was he staying and what time did he pick up his child. Show us the child.
See if you can work it out for yourself. It is easy enough.
Absolutely not, Rob. His family's evidence may be crucial in any eventual court case. The sceptics would merely add the names to those "on the McCann payroll".So you really feel this incident is important, that something happened around 9:15 PM?
So you really feel this incident is important, that something happened around 9:15 PM?
I think I did that a while back on another thread. The Ace he could never play without incriminating himself.
Yes. IMO that is when the abduction occurred.Give me your best reasons for that then please?
I think the answer is a lot simpler than that.
If I trip over a brick it's cos I am a clumsy plonker not looking where I am going.
If a Prince trips over a brick it's an assasination attempt cos someone put the brick there with malice aforethought...................err no.
It's because the Prince was also a clumsy plonker not looking where he was going.
Give me your best reasons for that then please?
The Prince tripped himself up when he mouthed off to a journalist. It was all going so swimmingly.....then the PJ were left with the impossible task of eliminating Smithman. IMO.
Then that nice DCI Redwood said words to the effect "we need to identify this man" [who probably is Peter Brady].
Were this lot an orchestra one would be forgiven for believing they did not know their Brass from their Oboe.
....Or an accomplice's accomplice.
Bet you hadn't thought of that.
Maybe there was an entire fleet of child abductors, & watchers, with walkies talkies & getaway vehicles.
Yes! someone also mentioned a boat... now this is beginning to ring true Sadies abduction theory maybe by Mossad was behind it because Sadie mentioned about the Jewish name connection.... ahh it's all coming together now! $6(&What about the Palestinians going for Jez' daughter, because he was the head of the Jewish Youth Movement and because of a mistaken Identity they get the wrong girl.
If Sadie thinks the video has been altered, then she should be able to link to the original video and demonstrate the changes.If you bothered to read my earlier post you would see that the original has been wiped as far as I can see. I commented about the two videos a few months ago and gave their addies. Bet they have been wiped.
Videos can be deleted by the channel owner. If I knew how I'd like to save entire videos as I think they will disappear altogether over the years. What will be available to discuss in 10 years from now?I am not a techie, but I think that you can save them on a USB stick.
Therein lies the difficulty if Smithman is Peter Brady, which is why, I believe, the investigation is so complex.
In the absence of definitive proof that A N Other was responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, Smithman remains both a defence tool for anyone who may be charged & also potentially leaves an abductor still at large.
If Smithman can be identified as an innocent person carrying his child, that clears Gerry of any suspicion with regards to Martin Smith's identification.
If wishes were 'orses beggars would ride......................
If a sewing machine 'ad bigger wheels it might be a car.
Meantime no one knows just who Smithman is/was nor what he was at and in my opinion he occupies a space in two police forces files labelled "Don't know....yet. Pending. More evidence needed".
It is not that we are saying Sadie is lying about this but it is a matter of remembering an entire video. I don't know if I ever saw the original video. I know how we can solve this; if there was a video that has gone missing has someone put a link to over the years, if so we will find a broken link. I'll search "cutting edge"I have searched using various combinations of the words Cutting Edge, Madeleine, Reconstruction, Channel 4 etc but was unable to find anything. If you can that would be great.
I am not a techie, but I think that you can save them on a USB stick.Does anyone save entire videos?
Please delete if I am incorrect.
I have searched using various combinations of the words Cutting Edge, Madeleine, Reconstruction, Channel 4 etc but was unable to find anything. If you can that would be great.Was this one https://youtu.be/na4aBr5PTYY?list=PLUi_lxCT70vDvcNK7Cq-EyaUgSizyfPJt
I actually posted both videos, on here a few months ago and mentioned various things about them. Haven't the energy to check, but my guess is that they will have been whooshed
Does anyone save entire videos?
I have searched using various combinations of the words Cutting Edge, Madeleine, Reconstruction, Channel 4 etc but was unable to find anything. If you can that would be great.
I actually posted both videos, on here a few months ago and mentioned various things about them. Haven't the energy to check, but my guess is that they will have been whooshed
But DCI Redwood said "they". Have you considered that the mother may have been collecting another child from the night creche at the same time?
The mother could have been with the man, walking some distance ahead or behind as often happens with other children. The bottom line is that Redwood appeared to have been convinced that Tannerman and Crècheman were one and the same. However, his failure to explain the questionable direction of travel or whether he was accompanied by his wife has left a big questionmark over his "revelation moment".
The revelation moment for me was when Redwood agreed with Amaral that the Tanner sighting was irrelevant and a red herring. That effectively shifted the focus to the Smith sighting and a mystery man who has never come forward.
But Redwood did not agree with amaral on who smithman was... Smithman could be the alleged abductor
IMO Smithman was the abductor.
Quite possibly... But cercertainly not Gerry imo
Whoever removed her from that apartment is the abductor.
Agreed... But it wasn't Gerry.. IMO... And it seems the opi ion of SY and the PJ
And it's still unsolved.But the parents are not suspects in either investigation according to the two police forces
A tad off topic but one must remember that removing a corpse is NOT abduction.
A tad off topic but one must remember that removing a corpse is NOT abduction.
Whoever removed her from that apartment is the abductor.I don't think the case will be solved by coming to such hard and fast conclusions as that. You are ignoring that she may have exited herself.
I haven't ignored it. I believe if she got out she would not be barefoot, would have been heard (Madeleine was loud!) or would have been seen by Jez or somebody. I've come to a different conclusion that ends in water.What you think she was capable of putting her own shoes on? Now how did you work that one out.?
I would hope any pending files contained specific phone records from the relevant period.
So there could only be an abductor if Madeleine was alive at the time.
As OG seem uncertain if Madeleine was dead or alive when she left the apartment, they must be equally uncertain about any abductor.
Which shows that the remit does not limit the investigation... Having said that SY may regard being murdered in the apartment and removed as abductionSo how does SY account for all the PJ findings? I just hope my hunch is correct: that all the reasons why the Tapas 9 needed to align their timelines have been explained to SY.
It would seem too many people are watching too much "Person of Interest".
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140908/04435128452/turns-out-cell-phone-location-data-is-not-even-close-to-accurate-everyone-falls-it.shtml
and has no one on here ever heard of "burner phones"?[and understood what they are?]
What was the term used in the McCann case was it "persuasion techniques"? I would say this was a case of persuasion used in the above link, and it got the right result, a confession.
"SOMEONE strangled a prostitute in Portland, Oregon in 2002. The police arrested Lisa Roberts, the victim’s ex-lover, who spent more than two years in custody awaiting trial. Shortly before the trial the prosecutor told Ms Roberts, via her lawyer, that tower data collected by Verizon, her mobile-telephone network, showed precisely where she was at the time of the murder. As her lawyer recalled, the prosecutor said Ms Roberts could be “pinpointed” in a park shortly before the victim’s naked and sexually assaulted corpse was found there. She was told she faced 25 years to life in prison. She accepted a deal to plead guilty and serve 15 years.
But the high-tech evidence against her was bunk. Routinely collected tower data can place a mobile phone in a broad area, but it cannot “pinpoint” it. That would require a special three-tower “triangulation”, which cannot reveal past locations. It took a decade for Ms Roberts’s guilty plea to be thrown out. On May 28th she left prison, her criminal record clean, after nearly 12 years in custody."
Maybe even persuasion techniques can be argued against.
It would seem too many people are watching too much "Person of Interest".
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140908/04435128452/turns-out-cell-phone-location-data-is-not-even-close-to-accurate-everyone-falls-it.shtml
and has no one on here ever heard of "burner phones"?[and understood what they are?]
You mean persuading 300m it is really only 50 m ?I'm not sure what you mean.
When I finally got around to getting a new phone, I had more ID controls than I did when going overseas the next day.
So... no. I've heard of them, are they phones / SIM cards on the black market?
What you think she was capable of putting her own shoes on? Now how did you work that one out.?
Why not?It would depend on many factors. Velcro straps would be easy but buckles and laces were more difficult to master. There is the tennis ball photo and we might be able to see what type of fasteners were on them.
When I finally got around to getting a new phone, I had more ID controls than I did when going overseas the next day.
So... no. I've heard of them, are they phones / SIM cards on the black market?
Why not?
She may have been perfectly capable of doing so ... isn't Velcro wonderful ... but she did not. Her shoes were still in the apartment hence the alarm felt later when Jane described the barefoot child she had witnessed being carried from the direction of Block 5.
Do you have the cite for the shoes in the apartment?Yes it was in Amy Tierney's statement. "The first idea that occurred to her was that the girl could have left by her own means, however after checking that the window was open and the shutter raised she asked the parents whether Madeleine's shoes were there, to which they replied that they were, these facts led her to think that Madeleine could have been taken by someone." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm
Do you have the cite for the shoes in the apartment?
So now knowing they were velcro straps she could have possibly done them up herself but they weren't on her. Could she find them in the dark room? Was she too much in a hurry to do this?
Speed was of the essence, not for her but for whoever lifted her and carried her away, therefore in my opinion shoes would be the least of their thoughts.
That is where you and I diverge in opinions, I think she left the apartment on foot all by herself. If an abduction occurred it was from the outside of the apartment IMO.
That is where you and I diverge in opinions, I think she left the apartment on foot all by herself. If an abduction occurred it was from the outside of the apartment IMO.
Yes.
If she had gone on her own it is my opinion that she would have put her shoes on.If she had planned to walk away I might agree with you. If she had wanted to start a new life then she would have put them on. If she was woke up startled maybe she wouldn't. Opinion only.
Two tracker dogs appear to agree.There doesn't seem to be any real thing stopping her.
If she had planned to walk away I might agree with you. If she had wanted to start a new life then she would have put them on. If she was woke up startled maybe she wouldn't. Opinion only.
10th of May Gerry states "----- After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw JEZ coming up the street on the opposite pavement bring with him a baby carriage with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction who would come up on the right-hand side [when viewed] from the ascending direction,"
That statement does make it sound as if Gerry was heading to the secondary reception. But this is one of those twice translated statements. But it still reads very very much like Gerry is walking downhill and Jez is coming uphill.
Maybe Gerry does something in between "going through the side gate", and "while on his way to the secondary reception entrance"? Did Gerry check something out? Did he take several paces up hill before he sees Jez? He is checking the kids and the door had moved inside for no reason, he might have been a little on edge, we don't know how Gerry was really feeling at the time. I think I'd be wondering if there were people hanging around my kids.
I noticed the other day there is a little step in the exterior wall of the apartment. Did Gerry go and check that no one was hiding behind the wall?
For how can he be uphill of the gate, as per the agreed timeline, if he only walked downhill after leaving the gate?
Most floor plans of the apartment just draw it as a rectangle and don't show the potential hiding place along the foot path. as in this one (http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/mccanngraphicd.jpg.w300h233.jpg)That plan is so wrong in at least three ways
Plot it on what? I don't know how to do graphics like that? Good idea though.Nah %56& Soz Rob
I'm convinced now Jez was downhill from Gerry to start with, but they still end up uphill of the gate when Jez bumps into Gerry.
I think Kate would have looked for other clues. If Madeleine had moved it did she move anything else to confirm it?He did not walk uphill Rob. That is a myth of your own making. His statement is very clear and there is nothing about his going uphill. He was less than 10 metres from the gate going downhill towards the Tapas Reception, when he spotted Jez on the other side of the road going uphill
There seems to be a hidden reason that we are not party to. Why was Matt's check not enough. Why was it so important to see that Madeleine in particular was OK? Why did the moved door not set off intruder alarm bells?
Was there some reason he walks uphill when he meets up with Jez even though he was supposedly heading in the other direction?
He did not walk uphill Rob. That is a myth of your own making. His statement is very clear and there is nothing about his going uphill. He was less than 10 metres from the gate going downhill towards the Tapas Reception, when he spotted Jez on the other side of the road going uphillSo if you measure from where you think they met, how about telling me how far from Rua Dr. Augustino da Silva that was? At that distance would a person be able to be recognised if they were on the top road?
... and he thinks that he crossed the road to speak to him. That is entirely plausible and they probably removed themselves from danger, to the western pavement vy the alleyway, when a vehicle appeared
AIMO
Does anyone else confirm what Sadie says here? Was there a bit cut out of the video? https://youtu.be/atfDV7imHHY
1. IMO, his stratement is very clear "After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw JEZ coming up the street on the opposite pavement" . The alleyway is less than 10 metres from the gate. It all ties up with the chat being by the alleyway.I appreciate what you say but the agreed timeline clearly states uphill of the gate. So it is possible they made a complete blunder and it should of said downhill but is that likely when two of them have to agree?
Let's not forget that the street lighting wasn't very good, so altho he would likely see a man with a pushchair, he probably wouldn't be able to see who it was until quite close.
2. He wasn't uphill of the gate, Rob. He was downhill of it en-route to the Tapas Secondary Reception
3. Gerry doesn't strike me as the paranoid type. I cant see him going uphill to check behind that part of the building that juts out a bit into the pavement, can you?
Nah %56& Soz RobAmaral wasn't there.
Too much in various videos (2), Jezes diagram and statements, Gerrys and Jesez main one, to disprove that. And then there is Amaral who shows where it happened .... on the kerb in the alleyway area.
He did not walk uphill Rob. That is a myth of your own making. His statement is very clear and there is nothing about his going uphill. He was less than 10 metres from the gate going downhill towards the Tapas Reception, when he spotted Jez on the other side of the road going uphillExplain the joint timeline statement then Sadie? Explain how Jez thinks he could recognised someone on the top road from that distance?
... and he thinks that he crossed the road to speak to him. That is entirely plausible and they probably removed themselves from danger, to the western pavement vy the alleyway, when a vehicle appeared
AIMO
He did not walk uphill Rob. That is a myth of your own making. His statement is very clear and there is nothing about his going uphill. He was less than 10 metres from the gate going downhill towards the Tapas Reception, when he spotted Jez on the other side of the road going uphill
... and he thinks that he crossed the road to speak to him. That is entirely plausible and they probably removed themselves from danger, to the western pavement vy the alleyway, when a vehicle appeared
AIMO
We know that Gerry didn't cross the road because it was Jez who crossed the road. Your 'vehicle' is a myth in my opinion.It certainly is quite hard to make sense of it all. With the joint statement saying they talk uphill of the gate and Jez saying it was close enough to recognise someone on the top road. I can't imagine them being more that 20 meters away to be able to do that at night.
If Gerry and Jez stopped to speak north of the gate that makes sense if Gerry used the car park door as he said he did.
snip.Does Gerry say he left by the front door in his first statement?
If Gerry and Jez stopped to speak north of the gate that makes sense if Gerry used the car park door as he said he did.
Does Gerry say he left by the front door in his first statement?
"In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine. "He then went to the WC" where he remained for a few moments, left, and bumped into a person he had played tennis with and who had a child's push chair, he was also British, he had a short conversation with him, "returning after that to the restaurant."
Nope nothing about what door he exits from. But you are right had he exited from the front door and walked down hill there would be no problem with them meeting uphill of the side gate.
Maybe since he doesn't say - can we suggest either of the exits?
I'll have to go through that tomorrow when I'm fresh, but we seem to have additional layers on this too with Silvia Batista disagreeing where Jane was when she saw the man.
We also have Goncalo Amaral in the O Enigma interview wanting Jane and Russell to be using the alleyway so the man was seen in another place and time. Wasn't it that his theory then was Jane saw Tannerman on the way back to the Tapas, crossing the alleyway I presume in the other direction (right to left across her field of vision).
I'm left wondering did it happen at all?
Silvia is repeating what Jane told the GNR and what Gerry told the PJ. According to Silvia, this is what Jane told the GNR;
she indicated having seen him passing in the road that was in front of the bedroom window where Madeleine had been, walking in the direction of the road of the road that then goes to the Baptista supermarket.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
So according to Silvia, Jane saw the man before he reached the junction.
According to the PJ officer he spoke only to Gerry who said;
At about 21.20, their friend Jane passed by the apartment (along the corridor of the main entrance) she saw an individual carrying a child who passed descending the road, however she did not recognise this individual, nor the child, only having noticed that the individual appeared to be aged between 30 or 40, had dark hair and light coloured trousers.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm#p15p3862
Those early statements suggest that Jane wasn't on R. Dr F G Martins when she saw the man, which is a different can of worms imo.
In my opinion it's acceptable to suggest anything so long as there are facts which support our suggestions. The fact that Gerry mentions using the front door makes it acceptable to suggest that he was north of the gate when he met Jez. What we can't do imo is work out the truth because people changed their stories.
Taking all the statements in real time this, roughly, is how and when the stories changed.
On 4th May Gerry says he used the front door to check his kids.
That fits with Jane's recollection on 7-8th May that he and Jez were standing north of the garden gate to 5A.
That, however, doesn't fit with Gerry's recollection on the same dates that he exited via that gate and walked south.
So there is a contradiction in the joint timeline.
On 10th May Gerry says he crossed the road to speak to Jez after leaving 5A by the garden gate and walking towards the Tapas reception.
Jane, on 10th May, has now forgotten where she saw the men speaking, despite knowing two or three days earlier when she contributed to the joint timeline.
So we now have Gerry contradicting the other two witnesses. Jane seems to have had her memory wiped.
In November 2007 Jez is interviewed again. He again says that he crossed the road and spoke to Gerry near the gate.
So the situation now is that Gerry and Jez disagree about where they spoke, and Jane can't remember.
When the rogatory interviews take place Jane has recovered her memory, but it's changed. She is now happy to provide a sketch contradicting her first sketch and her evidence in the group timeline. The men were near the alleyway, not the gate!
Jez has also changed his evidence and agrees with Jane.
Gerry, as we know, is still on the other side of the road; all by himself, apparently.
So now Jane and Jez agree on this new location, but not Gerry.
Had these changes not occurred the site of the meeting wouldn't have been very important as Dave Edgar suggests in 'Madeleine was here'. What he and Jane both seem oblivious to, though, is that the site being defended by Jane in that video wasn't mentioned until April 2008. Before that date Jane and Jez agreed that the men spoke near the gate.
He did not walk uphill Rob. That is a myth of your own making. His statement is very clear and there is nothing about his going uphill. He was less than 10 metres from the gate going downhill towards the Tapas Reception, when he spotted Jez on the other side of the road going uphill
... and he thinks that he crossed the road to speak to him. That is entirely plausible and they probably removed themselves from danger, to the western pavement vy the alleyway, when a vehicle appeared
AIMO
Neither is a statement from Jane Tanner ... who has always been quite steadfast in what she witnessed and exactly the location in which she witnessed it.
Neither is a statement from Jane Tanner ... who has always been quite steadfast in what she witnessed and exactly the location in which she witnessed it.
Quite so. it's hearsay. Jane has, however, changed her story over time.
... in my opinion the only important issue is that Jane had a clear view of the man carry the barefoot child away from the direction of the apartment block from which a barefoot child was later discovered to be missing.
Why is it no-one is the least bit interested in where he was headed?
Jane Tanner has NEVER changed her story.
If you wish to argue that she did ... please support your argument with appropriate cites.
Here they all are again;
4th May 2007
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_50.jpg)
7/8th May 2007
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
10th May 2007
No location given
Rogatory April 2008
But they were talking quite (inaudible), so I just carried on, you know, up, up the road. I mean, I thought they were, as you’re going up here, I thought they were more, erm, again I know this is where me and Gerry differ, but I thought they were sort of more near the little alleyway. I think sort of”
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Quite so. it's hearsay. Jane has, however, changed her story over time.She is aware of the the false memory syndrome therefore kept reminding everyone just to go back to what she said from the beginning. They weren't altered memories then.
She is aware of the the false memory syndrome therefore kept reminding everyone just to go back to what she said from the beginning. They weren't altered memories then.
She is aware of the the false memory syndrome therefore kept reminding everyone just to go back to what she said from the beginning. They weren't altered memories then.
She is aware of the the false memory syndrome therefore kept reminding everyone just to go back to what she said from the beginning. They weren't altered memories then.
Well ... your post is on topic. But that is as much as can be said about it ... in my opinion.
In the long term it doesn't really matter.
That nice DCI Redwood (Retd) greased Tannerman over four years ago.
Who stood where and did what with which and to whom has become coffee house chat and rather an irrelevance.
IMO
In the long term it doesn't really matter.
That nice DCI Redwood (Retd) greased Tannerman over four years ago.
Who stood where and did what with which and to whom has become coffee house chat and rather an irrelevance.
IMO
Sorry, Rob, but I don't understand your point.I read that Jane Tanner is aware her memory of the event is changing.
Even at the time it mattered little where the men were. It was all about Jane and what she had seen at the top of the road. Be it Madeleine's abductor ... or be it innocent dad and his family returning home from the creche ... it makes no never mind. For the very simple reason that neither were traced by the Policia Judiciaria at the time.
In the long term it doesn't really matter.
That nice DCI Redwood (Retd) greased Tannerman over four years ago.
Who stood where and did what with which and to whom has become coffee house chat and rather an irrelevance.
IMO
Totally irrelevant..... And shows all along that JT was an accurate witness...
In one way it's irrelevant, yes. As a demonstration of what is probably quite a rare phenomenon it's fascinating in my opinion. In the beginning two people pretty much agreed with each other about the location of the men's chat. At the end of the process they still agreed, but only because both had changed the location.
Assuming there was no discussion between the two people concerned that must be quite unusual imo. Around 20 feet they moved the encounter and both in the same direction and to the same destination.
Amos 3.3....... 8(0(*There might be some truth in that: "Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so? " What about handcuffed?
There might be some truth in that: "Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so? " What about handcuffed?What about handcuffed?
The family didn't need to be traced. Their names were on the MW booking sheets & in the creche records for the night of the 3rd. The time their daughter was checked out of the creche should have been logged & given what SY discovered in their review it is clear only the most inadequate police force would not have pursued such a basic lead.
I kept asking myself why the family themselves thought they could have been the Tanner sighting, yet apparently failed to come forward before to eliminate Tannerman from the investigation. The main conclusion I came up with was that they were spoken to originally, it was suggested that they could be the sighting but certain elements of their recollections of that night were at odds with Jane's description. (Direction of travel, hair style, height, non-gathered lower hem of fleece/jacket). They were then told to keep quiet in accordance with the judicial secrecy laws.
All MOO.
Even at the time it mattered little where the men were. It was all about Jane and what she had seen at the top of the road. Be it Madeleine's abductor ... or be it innocent dad and his family returning home from the creche ... it makes no never mind. For the very simple reason that neither were traced by the Policia Judiciaria at the time.
I don't think the family were spoken with at the time based on the knowledge that many obvious contacts were ignored ... for example the residents of block five who were in residence the night Madeleine disappeared.
It all appears to have been very haphazard. Bridget O'Donnell who was in Block 4 was interviewed. She said "Through Murat we answered a few questions and gave our details, which the policeman wrote down on the back of a bit of paper. No notebook. Then he pointed to the photocopied picture of Madeleine on the table. "Is this your daughter?" he asked. "Er, no," we said. "That's the girl you are meant to be searching for." My heart sank for the McCanns." https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
The thought occurs was that a systematic routine visit ... or was it as a result of Jes Wilkin's meeting with Gerry?
IMO Crecheman & his family were spoken to by someone from a police force after receipt of the completed questionnaire. To remember the details Crecheman did, in some detail, at least 4 years down the line would take some doing without the benefit of some sort of written statement given shortly after the event. (The initial Tapas statements show that they had some difficulty remembering what they did each day).
Perhaps at home in Britain? They could have been leaving in the days after Madeleine was taken.
LP sent out 599 questionnaires which were presumably to all UK/Eire holidaymakers who were known to be in Luz on 3/5/07.
Every MW guest who arrived on 28/4/07 was booked in to leave on 5/5/07. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARRIVALS.htm Lists 1-7
I don't think the family were spoken with at the time based on the knowledge that many obvious contacts were ignored ... for example the residents of block five who were in residence the night Madeleine disappeared.I'd love to know how they got hold of a copy of Madeleine's photo. Was it one of the posters with the writing on it? It would seem odd the PJ didn't recognise it if it was obviously a poster for Madeleine.
It all appears to have been very haphazard. Bridget O'Donnell who was in Block 4 was interviewed. She said "Through Murat we answered a few questions and gave our details, which the policeman wrote down on the back of a bit of paper. No notebook. Then he pointed to the photocopied picture of Madeleine on the table. "Is this your daughter?" he asked. "Er, no," we said. "That's the girl you are meant to be searching for." My heart sank for the McCanns." https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
The thought occurs was that a systematic routine visit ... or was it as a result of Jes Wilkin's meeting with Gerry?
I'd love to know how they got hold of a copy of Madeleine's photo. Was it one of the posters with the writing on it? It would seem odd the PJ didn't recognise it if it was obviously a poster for Madeleine.
A very good point.When Matt and John Hill called in at 1:00 AM they might have got one hot off the press then. But why them?
If they went to the bother of carrying out that diligence when memories were still fresh, it would be for the purpose of sending any relevant information gathered as a result back to the PJ in Portugal to action as they (LP) could do nothing with it.
Do you have some cite for that or is it just an opinion? If you have a cite please post it.
A cite for what exactly?
- That Leicestershire police sent out questionnaires to all British and Eire holidaymakers known to have been in the resort when Madeleine disappeared?
Bungling police had the details of the “main suspect” in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann for SIX YEARS without realising.
The innocent dad came forward in 2007 to say he was the person seen carrying a child in Portugal at the time the three-year-old vanished. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/editors-picks/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027
Snip: As I understand it the PJ worked on information given to them by the Ocean Club.
They spoke to or, if necessary, interviewed the staff on the lists they were given.
I think Leicestershire Police took on the job of finding UK holidaymakers. Didn't they send out questionnaires? I haven't seen anything about holidaymakers from other countries. Were there any?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7977.msg388009#msg388009- Or that it was carried out as part of liaison with the Portuguese. Bearing in mind LP had no jurisdiction in this case and as we have seen from comment elsewhere from the Chief Constable Matt Baggott they were punctilious in observation of that?
Following Madeleine’s disappearance, Leicestershire police were responsible for collating all UK-based inquiries at the request of the Portuguese authorities. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/editors-picks/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027
So we know LP sent out questionnaires. Did they check the information gathered and sent what they thought was relevant? Did they send it all? Did they send none? Was it only unearthed when OG started? Were LP the bungling Police?
All supposition unless you have cites.
So we know LP sent out questionnaires. Did they check the information gathered and sent what they thought was relevant? Did they send it all? Did they send none? Was it only unearthed when OG started? Were LP the bungling Police?
All supposition unless you have cites.
We also know that LP were able to access the questionnaires, because we have two examples of them doing that. If the PJ had the questionnaires LP would have no need to tell them what they said imo.
From the archiving report "E - About the Interest of the Reconstitution
....
1 - The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;"
Amaral claimed that Jane might have seen the men chatting when she exited the tapas mini reception but turned left into the walkway so never passed them thus explaining why they never saw her. Could it be that it was later that she saw a man carrying a child in his arms but due to all the confusion unintenionally created a false memory of the event?That is a possibility but the only real reason Jane would have done that is if she was too embarrassed to walked up past the men. Everyone had been having Jane on later about having to relieve Russell (sexual connotation, hence possible embarrassment). But I don't think this joke had started at this time.
To be honest, we have looked at this previously and in some detail. The possibility that she would have been able to pass by the two men completely unseen would appear very remote.
That is a possibility but the only real reason Jane would have done that is if she was too embarrassed to walked up past the men. Everyone had been having Jane on later about having to relieve Russell (sexual connotation, hence possible embarrassment). But I don't think this joke had started at this time.
Jane still had to go around to her locked front door so I don't see the advantage of taking the alleyway.
Amaral also claimed that Jane Tanner accessed apartment 5d using the patio door so had no need to walk all the way around the block.But that is typical of him, he'd make up these claims that contradict the witness statements. Did Russell and Jane leave there patio door unlocked like the McCanns did? How could we ever find that out?
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Bal.png)
But that is typical of him, he'd make up these claims that contradict the witness statements. Did Russell and Jane leave there patio door unlocked like the McCanns did? How could we ever find that out?
They all claimed they didn't but the McCanns had to retract their claim after it was established that the front door key had been left on the kitchen worktop. Whether the others did or did not will never be known.
If you were there, would you slip out the patio door straight onto the walkway or go out the front door and have to walk all the way round the block in order to get to the tapas? Human nature would suggest the former imho.
They all claimed they didn't but the McCanns had to retract their claim after it was established that the front door key had been left on the kitchen worktop. Whether the others did or did not will never be known.There is not a hint of that unless someone was already in the apartment.
If you were there, would you slip out the patio door straight onto the walkway or go out the front door and have to walk all the way round the block in order to get to the tapas? Human nature would suggest the former imho.
They all claimed they didn't but the McCanns had to retract their claim after it was established that the front door key had been left on the kitchen worktop. Whether the others did or did not will never be known.
If you were there, would you slip out the patio door straight onto the walkway or go out the front door and have to walk all the way round the block in order to get to the tapas? Human nature would suggest the former imho.
Agreed, though in Matt's case, he must have exited via his front door in order to have listened at the McCanns' bedroom window. He's not likely to have exited via his pario door ,then walked round to Listen at bedroom window before returning to Tapas.
Agreed, though in Matt's case, he must have exited via his front door in order to have listened at the McCanns' bedroom window. He's not likely to have exited via his pario door ,then walked round to Listen at bedroom window before returning to Tapas.I'd say you have this impression that is what Matt did, but I think you have the wrong impression.
If indeed that ever happened?
Indeed, but he says he did and so far nobody has refuted it.
I would be more inclined to disbelieve his 9.30 visit as he would have to enter and exit via the patio door before/after going around the 'front' of the block to gain access to his own apartment.
I wouldn't believe any of them and that's why a reconstruction would have cleared up so many inconsistencies.I can't see how personally. Maybe he needed them one at a time.
Detailed examination of all the statements reveals that Gerry and Jez chatted just yards down from the gate to 5a.
Amaral claimed that Jane might have seen the men chatting when she exited the tapas mini reception but turned left into the walkway so never passed them thus explaining why they never saw her. Could it be that it was later that she saw a man carrying a child in his arms but due to the wine and all the confusion unintenionally created a false memory of the event?
To be honest, we have looked at this previously and in some detail. The possibility that she would have been able to pass so close by the two men completely unseen would appear very remote.
I wouldn't believe any of them and that's why a reconstruction would have cleared up so many inconsistencies.
I can't see how personally. Maybe he needed them one at a time.He should have taken them one at a time to explain where they were at any point of time. Imagine Goncalo walking the route Jez took to see how long that would take.
Agreed that's the only explanation that makes any sense if Jane saw Gerry and Jez by 5A gate - she turned left onto the pathway so they never noticed her. They had to facing sideways i.e. Jez facing gate because if one was facing down they would have seen her.
It's hard to believe that they didn't see her when you look at the location. She would be turning only a short distance away?
(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article9907204.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Madeleine-McCann-investigation.jpg)
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/rr-composite-moyesv3.jpg?strip=all&w=750)
The impression given was that Wilkins was just wandering around, rather than following a set route, so may not have been able to repeat it with total accuracy.So would it back his statement? He says he returned home at 9:30 PM. Would he be able to do enough pathways to fill in the required amount of time? Would he become a suspect if there was a large amount of unaccounted time. Someone estimated the walk he did is only 15 minutes at tops so how did he fill in and hour to an hour and a quarter?
So would it back his statement? He says he returned home at 9:30 PM. Would he be able to do enough pathways to fill in the required amount of time? Would he become a suspect if there was a large amount of unaccounted time. Someone estimated the walk he did is only 15 minutes at tops so how did he fill in and hour to an hour and a quarter?
Jane did not see the man carrying the barefoot child until she had passed the two men and had walked further towards the top pf the road. In the video re-enactment she participated in she had passed the gate and the lounge window before he made his appearance at the top of the road IIRC.
Therefore she is very clear she did not go along the pathway ... and why would she if the patio doors were locked?
Jes Wilkins is a witness only because his son wouldn't settle ... there was never any question of him being a suspect.Not everyone was made arguido but there is a saying "everyone is a suspect".
The McCanns statements on the 4 May 2007 said Jane saw the man from much further away - probably meaning on leaving the secondary reception entrance she saw him crossing.That is Gerry undermining Jane. If he did not see her how would he know?
It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, Jane will be able to clarify this situation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
"A cerca da cinquenta metros."
Detailed examination of all the statements reveals that Gerry and Jez chatted just yards down from the gate to 5a.
Amaral claimed that Jane might have seen the men chatting when she exited the tapas mini reception but turned left into the walkway so never passed them thus explaining why they never saw her. Could it be that it was later that she saw a man carrying a child in his arms but due to the wine and all the confusion unintenionally created a false memory of the event?
To be honest, we have looked at this previously and in some detail. The possibility that she would have been able to pass so close by the two men completely unseen would appear very remote.
The McCanns statements on the 4 May 2007 said Jane saw the man from much further away - probably meaning on leaving the secondary reception entrance she saw him crossing.I've just checked on Google Earth and the distance from the Secondary Reception door to the footpath of the intersection uphill is 47 meters.
It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, Jane will be able to clarify this situation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
"A cerca da cinquenta metros."
Both Jane and Jez put the location of the conversation in a four metre diameter circle just down from the gate.I fully agree this seems the most logical in the sense Jez is going uphill and Gerry downhill, but it was the agreed timeline that said uphill of the gate.
ie north of the alleyway.
Forget google earth and all that haraz, there was a photo posted recently [two days ?] taken from smack dab opposite the gate at near enough ninety degrees with a lovely people carrier in the gap to give a sense check.
The McCanns statements on the 4 May 2007 said Jane saw the man from much further away - probably meaning on leaving the secondary reception entrance she saw him crossing.
It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, Jane will be able to clarify this situation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
"A cerca da cinquenta metros."
I've just checked on Google Earth and the distance from the Secondary Reception door to the footpath of the intersection uphill is 47 meters.
There is no way Jane could see that distance at night. IMO.
I fully agree this seems the most logical in the sense Jez is going uphill and Gerry downhill, but it was the agreed timeline that said uphill of the gate.
Agreed by whom?I thought they all signed off on it. I could be wrong.
I fully agree this seems the most logical in the sense Jez is going uphill and Gerry downhill, but it was the agreed timeline that said uphill of the gate.
If that was true then Gerry came from the direction of the front door and not the patio steps. No wonder the investigators were confused, what a load of bollocks.Possibly but then his statement that he had corrected was incorrect as well.
So would it back his statement? He says he returned home at 9:30 PM. Would he be able to do enough pathways to fill in the required amount of time? Would he become a suspect if there was a large amount of unaccounted time. Someone estimated the walk he did is only 15 minutes at tops so how did he fill in and hour to an hour and a quarter?
That is Gerry undermining Jane. If he did not see her how would he know?
Detailed examination of all the statements reveals that Gerry and Jez chatted just yards down from the gate to 5a.
Amaral claimed that Jane might have seen the men chatting when she exited the tapas mini reception but turned left into the walkway so never passed them thus explaining why they never saw her. Could it be that it was later that she saw a man carrying a child in his arms but due to the wine and all the confusion unintenionally created a false memory of the event?
To be honest, we have looked at this previously and in some detail. The possibility that she would have been able to pass so close by the two men completely unseen would appear very remote.
The McCanns statements on the 4 May 2007 said Jane saw the man from much further away - probably meaning on leaving the secondary reception entrance she saw him crossing.
It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, Jane will be able to clarify this situation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
"A cerca da cinquenta metros."
50 metres?
That is pretty obviously a big mistake (in translation?) or a typo, because it is only about 47 metres all the way from the Tapas Reception exit to where Tannerman was sighted by Jane.
Personally, i think that can be ignored as a mistake.
If you used feet rather than metres as the translation I guess that would have been a more accurate reflection.I think 50 feet is probably stretching the distance too. IIRC, in one of the satements it says 5 metres, so maybe 50 metres was just a typo
I don't think Jes gave a time for arriving home did he?He might not but in Bridget's writings I think 9:30 is implied. From "Madeleine witness breaks her silence: 'I am certain that Kate McCann is innocent'"
50 metres?
That is pretty obviously a big mistake (in translation?) or a typo, because it is only about 47 metres all the way from the Tapas Reception exit to where Tannerman was sighted by Jane.
Personally, i think that can be ignored as a mistake.
He might not but in Bridget's writings I think 9:30 is implied. From "Madeleine witness breaks her silence: 'I am certain that Kate McCann is innocent'"
"Ms O'Donnell told how she and her partner were in their holiday apartment when Madeleine was discovered missing at 10pm on 3 May by Mrs McCann."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
"They discussed the babysitting dilemmas at the resort and Gerry said that he and Kate would have stayed in too, if they had not been on holiday in a group. Jes returned to our apartment just before 9.30pm. We ate, drank wine, watched a DVD and then went to bed.
That was most helpful of his wife, wasn't it? Despite Jes's stubborn refusal to give a time, she enabled us to work it out for ourselves. If her time was correct then Jes did meet Gerry at the time Gerry and Jane said he did. No speculation needed.
His wife, of course, was writing a story for a newspaper, not giving evidence to the police. When Jes was officially interviewed again a few months later he still refused to be pinned down to a time.
As stated in my original deposition, I believe that I left the apartment around 20h30. I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15. I am aware of the importance of this hour and am also aware that the media announced our meeting time as 21h05. Even if this were correct, I have no idea from where such information originated. It is not possible to give you a more exact time.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
The subject has, of course, been discussed previously;
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7844.0
50 metres?
That is pretty obviously a big mistake (in translation?) or a typo, because it is only about 47 metres all the way from the Tapas Reception exit to where Tannerman was sighted by Jane.
Personally, i think that can be ignored as a mistake.
I don't think they had a tape measure with them. Some may think the distance from the secondary reception to the man crossing is about 50 metres when it is in fact 30.
OK I think I might have figured it. Did Gerry really think that Jez and Gerry were talking down near the reception gate not his side entrance gate? I'll tackle it later.
Good idea John. However there are reasons why they might not have seen Jane pass which I have detailed on another thread. I dont intend to go over it all again.
Personally I doubt even Jane, who seems a very brave woman, would have cared to go up that alleyway on her own after/as darkness fell
There would have been light emanating from the adjacent apartments so the pathway wouldn't have been in total darkness.
I don't think Jane would have been too phased by walking up that pathway to enter her apartment. What legislates against that for me is that she stated categorically that she always entered by the front because all the doors were locked.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm
In that same statement she admits, "She thinks that all the other couples entered by the front doors of the building/apartments, except for the McCanns." THINKS but not certain?
I don't think Jane would have been too phased by walking up that pathway to enter her apartment. What legislates against that for me is that she stated categorically that she always entered by the front because all the doors were locked.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm
You can get to the front using the pathway.
p.s. notice the lamppost opposite the tapas entrance where Madeleine used to cross using the short cut route. The tracking dogs found her scent there.
(http://c8.alamy.com/comp/CN0W8J/the-ocean-club-apartments-praia-da-luz-portugal-where-madeleine-mccann-CN0W8J.jpg)
It is my opinion that she turned left to avoid Gerry if she saw them because one thing is certain she never said a word to him.
The man she saw has been cleared but I know for certain that she did not pass Gerry/Jez on that pavement walking up that road.Even the thing that was going through her head was not that complimentary "Kate's moaning about how long you are taking" or whatever thought went through her head. She must have thought twice about stirring in the end, but even when she did finally bring it up she was stopped in her tracks. All in my opinion, but I think they are all based on valid observations.
I mean Gerry, the sort of person Gerry is, I could never see us being best buddies because he’s very, we’re very different. I think he’s very err he’s quite forthright and so I don’t think we’d ever be best friends but there’s no problem there or anything like that you know, I feel bad saying that because it makes it sound like there is a problem but there’s not but you know it’s not, whereas Kate I was really, I was getting to know Kate quite well but yeah I think Gerry is sort of like more of a man’s man maybe. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Yes I think she avoided him.
Why would she have gone out of her way to avoid a person who was quite obviously oblivious to her presence? and there is no doubt she saw Gerry and Jes although they did not see her how else did she know they had met.
Progressing beyond them enabled her to have a clear view of the man carrying the barefoot child ... lol, the presence of whom was almost certainly confirmed many years down the line.
I thought they all signed off on it. I could be wrong.
How else did she know ? Gerry told her ?
Ignoring a bit of evidence just because it doesn’t agree with your narrative is never a good idea.So you are prepared to take on board a distance that is farther than the distance from
That sees to be an interesting proposition... *%87Original written in English.
I don't think they had a tape measure with them. Some may think the distance from the secondary reception to the man crossing is about 50 metres when it is in fact 30.
There would have been light emanating from the adjacent apartments so the pathway wouldn't have been in total darkness.With shutters closed?
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/hg/19313/March19_26_2013%20(28).jpg)
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/hg/1/401_600/PA310530.JPG)
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/hg/1/1_200/PA310021.JPG)
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/hg/19313/March19_26_2013%20(70).jpg)
I don't think they had a tape measure with them. Some may think the distance from the secondary reception to the man crossing is about 50 metres when it is in fact 30.You should check it on Google Earth. I did and it was 50 meters.
Thank you, I do know that, Shining provided the forum with some excellent photographs which proved the existence of that pathway. I would say with certainty that Jane did not take that route as in my opinion it takes nothing off her journey but adds to it.Exactly.
It is my opinion that she took the route she outlined on film and not a lane where in certain circumstances she could have been caught like a rat in a trap.
The man she saw has been cleared but I know for certain that she did not pass Gerry/Jez on that pavement walking up that road.She didn't avoid him, because even if she went up the alleyway, she had to pass Gerry and Jez.
I mean Gerry, the sort of person Gerry is, I could never see us being best buddies because he’s very, we’re very different. I think he’s very err he’s quite forthright and so I don’t think we’d ever be best friends but there’s no problem there or anything like that you know, I feel bad saying that because it makes it sound like there is a problem but there’s not but you know it’s not, whereas Kate I was really, I was getting to know Kate quite well but yeah I think Gerry is sort of like more of a man’s man maybe. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Yes I think she avoided him.
She didn't avoid him, because even if she went up the alleyway, she had to pass Gerry and Jez.
They were chatting at the entrance to the alleyway !
That's opinion, not fact because up until April 2008 both witnesses said the chatting took place near the gate.Which gate?
Which gate?
So you are prepared to take on board a distance that is farther than the distance from
m the tapas reception to Tannerman are you?
50 metres and could see all those details in a poorly lit street?
Come on slarti, let's have the intelligent slarti back rather than the one who is always pitching into certain people ?becos it is fun ? or is it because you want to appear superior?
THE gate of course. 8(>((Is this a misunderstanding? "2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed."
Is this a misunderstanding? "2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed."
Could Gerry have made an error in thinking when he signed off on the joint timeline that by gate he meant the The Secondary Reception gate?
Time line: "2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed. "
Should it have read something like "2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside after Gerry left from the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the reception gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed."
"21.15: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed.""just walked out the, erm, the Ocean Club bit and walked, sort of walked up the road. And then Gerry was there, he was talking to Jez WILKINS in the road, well they were sort of, as I went by. So I think I thought then ‘Oh that’s why Jez’, not Jez, ‘That’s why Gerry has been, you know, that’s why he’s longer than we thought’"
No mistranslations, no out of scale drawings, no vague pointing out of position, no 'misremembering' due to the passage of time, written in English and agreed by both Gerry and Jane. For me this is where the talk took place.
"21.15: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed."That is what I thought too, but there is no way, if Gerry is walking toward the reception, that he can end up being uphill of the patio gate. He can't; therefore it seems most likely a mistake.
No mistranslations, no out of scale drawings, no vague pointing out of position, no 'misremembering' due to the passage of time, written in English and agreed by both Gerry and Jane. For me this is where the talk took place.
That is what I thought too but there is no way if Gerry is walking toward the reception that he can end up being uphill of the patio gate. He can't therefore it seems most likely a mistake.
Why - because he says he left by the patio door?
Mmm 2 other people say the meeting was uphill of the gate.
Maybe they are right and he is wrong
Gerry himself says he was uphill of the gate. Perhaps he saw Wilkins and walked up to meet him, after all he latterly told us that he went to the bother of crossing the road to speak to him.
Why would you do that if someone had their back to you and was walking away from you on the other side of the road.?
You should check it on Google Earth. I did and it was 50 meters.
Please do NOT misinform. You are being disingenuous again. Some call that lying, but I will not as it is against the rules.
It is NOT 30 metres.
Distance from Tapas secondary reception to the man crossing is 47 metres, as near as can be measured on G.Earth.
Let's see your proof. If it's nearly 50 metres then it connects to my theory that Jane saw the man crossing much further away and did not pass Gerry and Jez talking by 5A gate.Famous last words "Jane will be able to clarify this situation"!
It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, Jane will be able to clarify this situation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
Why - because he says he left by the patio door?"- because he says he left by the patio door?" - He does in one of his statements.
Mmm 2 other people say the meeting was uphill of the gate.
Maybe they are right and he is wrong
"- because he says he left by the patio door?" - He does in one of his statements.
"2 other people say the meeting was uphill of the gate." Which two other people?
"Maybe they are right and he is wrong" What with Jane and her False Memory Syndrome, and Jez' imprecision!
No. that was what they (Jane & Jezz) said in their FIRST statements - No false memory.I'm surprised you are quoting statements; very good. But did you get it right?
Even Gerry said he left by front door in FIRST statement.
Statement were only altered when it was realised that it didn't work. IMO
No. that was what they (Jane & Jezz) said in their FIRST statements - No false memory.What does Jane and Jez say in their first statements? Are they really in agreement?
Even Gerry said he left by front door in FIRST statement.
Statement were only altered when it was realised that it didn't work. IMO
"21.15: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed."Yep, and it is not verbatim, just stuff written up by someone who maybe did not have a perfect understanding of English.
No mistranslations, no out of scale drawings, no vague pointing out of position, no 'misremembering' due to the passage of time, written in English and agreed by both Gerry and Jane. For me this is where the talk took place.
Ok the distance from the secondary reception entrance to the man crossing I estimated was 30 metres? Let's see your proof that it's 50 metres. If it's 50 metres then it connects to my theory that Jane saw the man crossing much further away and did not pass Gerry and Jez talking by 5A gate.Suggest you check it yourself. easy on G Earth.
It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, Jane will be able to clarify this situation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
Let's see your proof. If it's nearly 50 metres then it connects to my theory that Jane saw the man crossing much further away and did not pass Gerry and Jez talking by 5A gate.Check it yourself. Easy peasy on G Earth.
It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, Jane will be able to clarify this situation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
Yep, and it is not verbatim, just stuff written up by someone who maybe did not have a perfect understanding of English.
Check it yourself. Easy peasy on G Earth.
You will find that it is about 47 - 50m
Check it yourself. Easy peasy on G Earth.
You will find that it is about 47 - 50m
It has been pointed out that the evidence was typed in English by Russell O'Brien on a laptop borrowed from Georgina the tennis coach. Look!
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_887.jpg)
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_889.jpg)
Yep, and it is not verbatim, just stuff written up by someone who maybe did not have a perfect understanding of English.
I'm not bothered if it's 50 metres or 30. The McCanns statements on 4 May 2007 said Jane saw the man from 50 metres away which would put her coming out of the secondary reception entrance onto the road where she said she saw the man/child crossing at the top of the road. Gerry and Jez didn't see her so she must have turned left onto the pathway.It is really interesting for whatever impression they had was possibly a residual memory or what they recall from what from the conversations earlier that day. But I struggle with your deduction "she must have turned left onto the pathway".
You get two people talking by the gate and try and get somebody to walk past them on that pavement without being seen? It is impossible so the only alternative is to turn left onto the pathway.
Whichever side of the road they were on ... one was on the kerb ... the other was on the road. Have a quick look at the Panorama programme again if you wish to check that out. Not that it really matters. The only person of any importance as far as position in the street is concerned is the witness who confirmed the presence of the two men she passed before seeing the man carrying the barefoot child at the top pf the street.(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K-avsrkIQaQ/T3LlyKhQF2I/AAAAAAAACp8/6L2Y3k5wbjY/s400/discrepancy.JPG)Look behind the female figure. This is a rather good illustration of where Jes and Gerry were standing. It also shows how wide the space was in which Jane had to pass them.
I've seen that pavement in real life Brietta and believe me there was not enough room for Jane to pass the two men on the same pavement. Gerry knew that and that's why he insisted that he was on the other side of the road.
This was one of the main reasons why I started doubting the McCann's story.
There were not two men on the same pavement though, and none of the three who were there ever claimed that.
For example, Jes certainly did not in his statement on 7th May. Nor did he in his rogatory statement.
In his statement of 10th May ... Gerry clearly stated he had crossed the street to speak to Jes.
In her statement of 10th May ... Jane could not remember the positioning of Gerry or Jes only that one was on the pavement and one was on the road while they were holding their conversation.
I have been of the opinion that Gerry got it wrong as to where the conversation with Jes took place but I'm not so sure now.
Jes describes being on the opposite side of the road when he saw Gerry and he crossed over to speak to him.
Gerry describes crossing over to speak with Jes.
There is nothing illogical that the man unencumbered with a child in a pushchair would cross the road to have a conversation with the man so encumbered.
Makes a lot of sense when thinking about an apparently trivial incident which meant nothing at the time and which none of the three participants were capable of detailing retrospectively chapter and verse.
Gerry was heading back to the tapas but crosses the road - the tapas isn't on that side. Jez crosses because he's going back to his apartment which is on the other side of the road. Jez crossing makes sense but the other who seems to change his mind does not. Hardly a surprise to many!Why was Jez on the wrong side in the first place?
It has been pointed out that the evidence was typed in English by Russell O'Brien on a laptop borrowed from Georgina the tennis coach. Look!Where does it say that it was typed up by Russell himself?
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_887.jpg)
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_889.jpg)
"At about 21.20, their friend Jane passed by the apartment (along the corridor of the main entrance) she saw an individual carrying a child."Anything Vitor knows would be 3rd hand at best. In fact how would he know anything? How the hell did he find out anything about this to become as expert on it? I think you have just come up with the best clue yet!
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm
1. Is it the corridor of the secondary reception main entrance?
2. Is it the corridor in front of the apartments main entrance i.e. car park side?
Two of the witnesses did and never changed their stance. I think that tells us all we need to know.
Where does it say that it was typed up by Russell himself?
Why was Jez on the wrong side in the first place?
Shown a typed time line typed on a lap top borrowed from female tennis coach Georgina, seven adults there when time line drawn up, then shown to the MC CANN’S afterwards for them to make any alterations or additions. Was written after the first weekend after Madeleine’s disappearance this was following David PAYNE’S suggestion. It was checked against initial draft, it was a group recollection and with the groups agreement. The document was typed on the laptop USB flash disk which was handed to the PJ when I went to complete my statement.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
Are you responding to the post you have answered? If so ... which two of the three in your opinion, have never changed their stance?
Jes thought he crossed the road to speak with Gerry; Gerry thought he crossed the road to speak with Jes and stood on the road while in conversation; coming upon them when they were stationary Jane could only remember that one stood on the pavement and one stood on the road but was not specific about which pavement or who stood where.
If Jes crossed from his stated starting point to approach Gerry ... he would be the one standing on the road ... with his child and buggy also on the road.
We don't actually need to know anything though, do we. But in my opinion a tad unsafe for "us" to form any firm conclusions about an event which "we" did not witness when those who were there could not.
These are early memories from the three who were there, supposedly more reliable than later ones, but I don't see the formation of any steadfast stance being made by anyone.
Sometimes I think the sheer horror of the situation these people found themselves in ... two less than an hour later ... and the trauma suffered as a result, is generally underrated.
Group Dynamics takes hold, the recollections of the strong personalities override those of the more compliant and you get a timeline based on the strongest and agreed by all.
Agreed. I feel rather sorry for a Jane at times. She does seem rather easily bullied.
Anything Vitor knows would be 3rd hand at best. In fact how would he know anything? How the hell did he find out anything about this to become as expert on it? I think you have just come up with the best clue yet!
"At about 21.20, their friend Jane passed by the apartment (along the corridor of the main entrance) she saw an individual carrying a child who passed descending the road, however she did not recognise this individual, nor the child, only having noticed that the individual appeared to be aged between 30 or 40, had dark hair and light coloured trousers."
He doesn't say he spoke to Jane. directly.
Did Jane speak directly to Gerry or was it Russell who Jane spoke to and Russell speak to Gerry?
Agreed. I feel rather sorry for Jane at times. She does seem rather easily bullied.
At about 21.05 - 21.15 Gerald went to the bedroom to see the children, he saw the bedroom door was half way open which he found strange as he thought he had left it pushed to, however he entered and saw the children and saw that the window as well as the shutter were closed. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htmHow would Gerry have know the shutters were closed? Did he enter via the front door? Then he would have passed the shutters of Madeleine's room but if he made that assessment from within the room, how did he do it? Especially if the widow is closed you aren't going to get whooshing curtains.
Well done Inspector.
How would Gerry have know the shutters were closed? Did he enter via the front door? Then he would have passed the shutters of Madeleine's room but if he made that assessment from within the room, how did he do it? Especially if the widow is closed you aren't going to get whooshing curtains.
You think? In my opinion she has put the internet bullies to shame with her quiet and dignified ignoring of the abuse they have meted out to her over the years.
She never fingered Murat ... despite the opportunity to do so she wasn't bullied into that. In my opinion a very emphatic and empathetic personality indeed.
In my opinion she is a rock.
He couldn't decide. First he said he did, then he said he didn't @)(++(*
There seems to be some debate as to the IDing.
There isn't, unless you discount what Jane Tanner is actually on record as saying ... and give credence to the rather fanciful notions subscribed to on McCann hostile blogs etc with sub sections reserved for Jane Tanner et al.
In Jane's case her unforgiveable fault was to recount what she had witnessed on her brief walk between the tapas bar and the top of the street where she had an uninterrupted view of a male carrying a barefoot female child clad in pyjamas.
There isn't, unless you discount what Jane Tanner is actually on record as saying ... and give credence to the rather fanciful notions subscribed to on McCann hostile blogs etc with sub sections reserved for Jane Tanner et al.
In Jane's case her unforgiveable fault was to recount what she had witnessed on her brief walk between the tapas bar and the top of the street where she had an uninterrupted view of a male carrying a barefoot female child clad in pyjamas.
There seems to be some debate as to the IDing, whether you want to believe it or not.
Unfortunately for Jane, her account wasn't supported by the accounts of Jes and Gerry. As a result her story didn't make sense to the PJ and many others. A lot of people who have never been to the town have spent many hours trying to explain why the men didn't see her, but the ones who were there didn't believe it.
pages 55 and 56
. The physical, real and effective, proximity between JANE TANNER, GERALD McCANN and JEREMY WILKINS, at the moment when the former passed them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, from our understanding, as unusual that neither GERALD McCANN nor JEREMY WILKINS did not see her, nor the alleged abductor, despite the small dimensions of the space;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
Just common sense. Jane did not walk past Gerry and Jez on that pavement as she claimed. It is not possible without either being aware of her presence. The PJ had no choice but to tell it straight and try and get them back to do a reconstruction. Edited In your opinion.There were some reasons previously discussed (previous thread) why even if it happened as Jane said why the two other may not have noticed her, or not remembered her passing. OK I too find it baffling but I accept that because of the reasons given, it isn't impossible.
You think? In my opinion she has put the internet bullies to shame with her quiet and dignified ignoring of the abuse they have meted out to her over the years.
She never fingered Murat ... despite the opportunity to do so she wasn't bullied into that. In my opinion a very emphatic and empathetic personality indeed.
In my opinion she is a rock.
Just common sense. Jane did not walk past Gerry and Jez on that pavement as she claimed. It is not possible without either being aware of her presence. The PJ had no choice but to tell it straight and try and get them back to do a reconstruction. Edited In your opinion.
I've seen that pavement in real life Brietta and believe me there was not enough room for Jane to pass the two men on the same pavement. Gerry knew that and that's why he insisted that he was on the other side of the road.If they were chatting in the kerb, half in the road, at the alleyway entrance, there was wide space behind them for Jane to pass them. Measured on G.Earth the pavement at the alleyway is some 2.4 metres wide (nearly 8 Feet), so a good 6 feet available room for passing.
This was one of the main reasons why I started doubting the McCann's story.
Indeed ... on many occasions in my opinion the PJ did indeed show an amazing lack of insight to the simplest of things this being just one of them.
It wasn't really unfortunate for Jane though was it ... I think the whole debacle was disastrous for Madeleine, calling it 'unfortunate' doesn't really touch that.
It isn't the police who are at fault. It's their job to notice when witness stories don't make sense.The story doesn't make sense? Jane's story made sense but Jez and Gerry's story doesn't make sense IMO. So if the PJ decide it is better to believe Jez and Gerry rather that Jane then it could be their fault for even my granddaughter noticed it could be possible Jez and Gerry were so involved with their conversation they simple missed seeing her.
The story doesn't make sense? Jane's story made sense but Jez and Gerry's story doesn't make sense IMO. So if the PJ decide it is better to believe Jez and Gerry rather that Jane then it could be their fault for even my granddaughter noticed it could be possible Jez and Gerry were so involved with their conversation they simple missed seeing her.
If they were chatting in the kerb, half in the road, at the alleyway entrance, there was wide space behind them for Jane to pass them. Measured on G.Earth the pavement at the alleyway is some 2.4 metres wide (nearly 8 Feet), so a good 6 feet available room for passing.
.............................................................................
I don't buy it. Jane comes flip flopping up the road with nobody else around and passes so close to Gerry that she could have touched him yet neither men saw her. No wonder Amaral didn't believe her.I don't know if a complete lapse of memory has ever occurred to you but it has to me. They had been having a series of late nights with relatively heavy drinking, things weren't easy looking after the kids, and Kate and Gerry were having issues from what I understand. That might have been enough for Gerry to switch off entirely, he went through the motions of talking to Jez but neither really recalled what they said.
Interesting as your anecdotal amnesia might be, somehow it doesn't seem relevant to the situation.It is possible for they both recollect rather a different conversation.
So both men were totally zonked out and just stood there, not listening to one another? I don't think so.
Jane did not walk past Gerry and Jes and baby buggy on that pavement ... she walked past two acquaintances one of whom standing on the kerb and the other standing on the road who were deep in conversation and oblivious to their surroundings.
Whichever side of the road the men were on, all three + baby Wilkins in his buggy were not all on the same pavement at the same time. One man is described as standing on the road by all three witnesses.
JT didn't pass an aware JW with a pram. He saw Jane earlier from a greater distance. He would be aware for any traffic on both sides so to miss Jane passing on a deserted street at the time is not possible.
If they were chatting in the kerb, half in the road, at the alleyway entrance, there was wide space behind them for Jane to pass them. Measured on G.Earth the pavement at the alleyway is some 2.4 metres wide (nearly 8 Feet), so a good 6 feet available room for passing.
.............................................................................
Was he deep in conversation when he saw the woman in purple?
He was when Jane passed him and Gerry.
Did any of the men say they were deep in conversation or was it just a casual chat ?
Casual chat or deep in conversation ... take your pick ... but whichever, they were deep enough into it to be oblivious to what was going on around them.
No need Sadie. I've stood on the actual pavement and know it's impossible for someone to pass by without being seen so let's have no more of this nonsense.Can I ask when your visit occurred?
Can I ask when your visit occurred?And the cars described by Arlindo the Executive Chef. He drove there and he notice a car there before he arrived and the same one had left before he left, but he gets his timing wrong, but there are enough significant events described to be able to say he was about 30 minutes out in his timing.
On 3 May 2007, the only reference to cars parked outside the Tapas reception is by Stephen Carpenter.
However, that is an obvious parking spot for staff working in the Tapas zone. So it takes little to construct a scenario in which Gerry had his back to Jane, while Jes simply didn't notice her. If one puts the parked cars back into the mix, that is.
Can I ask when your visit occurred?
On 3 May 2007, the only reference to cars parked outside the Tapas reception is by Stephen Carpenter.
However, that is an obvious parking spot for staff working in the Tapas zone. So it takes little to construct a scenario in which Gerry had his back to Jane, while Jes simply didn't notice her. If one puts the parked cars back into the mix, that is.
Oblivious? Who said that?
Was he deep in conversation when he saw the woman in purple?Jane doesn't say they glanced her way, a usual signal to start a conversation. They never acknowledged her. It would have been real odd if she said they both looked across to her and they didn't speak to her.
He was when Jane passed him and Gerry.
Did any of the men say they were deep in conversation or was it just a casual chat ?3- 5 minutes is a long conversation between two guys IMO.
I reckon he had more important things in mind.
I reckon he had more important things in mind.Like what?
Can I ask when your visit occurred?
On 3 May 2007, the only reference to cars parked outside the Tapas reception is by Stephen Carpenter.
However, that is an obvious parking spot for staff working in the Tapas zone. So it takes little to construct a scenario in which Gerry had his back to Jane, while Jes simply didn't notice her. If one puts the parked cars back into the mix, that is.
There were no cars where it mattered;
4078 “Were there any cars around there?”
Reply “Erm, umm, no, I don’t know. I don’t remember. I don’t remember walking past any going up here and I think I would have probably, if there had been I would have realised, because that would have obscured my view of the person walking, so I can’t think of, I can’t think of any, no”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Gerry had his back to Jane only when she was behind him. Unless he was wearing blinkers his peripheral vision, which specialises in detecting movement should have noticed either Jane's approach or her retreat. Probably not from across the road, but two witnesses said he was on the same side as she was.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/put-your-peripheral-vision-to-the-test/
I was going to mention this.
I find that when objects, animals, persons etc, propel themselves into my periphery, I tend to look at them.
I can't believe that their conversation was somehow so engrossing that their survival instincts just took a back seat.
Why do survival instincts come into play as an ordinary citizen chats on the street to a friend? If you're on your mobile walking along the path, how much notice do you take of what's going on in your peripheral vision? (unless you're an MI5 officer or a master criminal)
Reaction to movement in our peripheral vision is instinctive.
When you're using a mobile you tend to be focused close up & constantly onto the screen.
Maybe Jez & Gerry, were staring into each others eyes throughout, because Jane was within spitting distance of them, flip flopping along, creche dad was striding purposefully just a few meters away, yet neither sight nor sounds are registered.
Reaction to movement in our peripheral vision is instinctive.
When you're using a mobile you tend to be focused close up & constantly onto the screen.
Maybe Jez & Gerry, were staring into each others eyes throughout, because Jane was within spitting distance of them, flip flopping along, creche dad was striding purposefully just a few meters away, yet neither sight nor sounds are registered.
Why do survival instincts come into play as an ordinary citizen chats on the street to a friend? If you're on your mobile walking along the path, how much notice do you take of what's going on in your peripheral vision? (unless you're an MI5 officer or a master criminal)
It was after dark, Jane was cunningly disguised in Russell's fleece & the sound of Jane's flip-flops was muffled by the Force 4 breeze rustling the nearby trees.
Was that the trees a-rustling? Or the hinges of the gate?
Or Ernie's ghostly gold tops a-rattling in their crate?
It was after dark, Jane was cunningly disguised in Russell's fleece & the sound of Jane's flip-flops was muffled by the Force 4 breeze rustling the nearby trees.
Casual chat or deep in conversation ... take your pick ... but whichever, they were deep enough into it to be oblivious to what was going on around them.
Was that the trees a-rustling? Or the hinges of the gate?
Or Ernie's ghostly gold tops a-rattling in their crate?
Jane remembered many things, from floral patterns to the long,long hairs of creche dad.
“But, I mean, I think, so the things that I’m happy, that are still in my head, that still stick in my head is the hair and it was longer, it was sort of longish and, erm, I don’t know how to (inaudible), but each, each, almost the hair was long, the bits of hair were long, so it was long into the neck, you know, sort of in, when people have a number one or whatever at the back and it’s shaved, not shaved up, but, you know, sort of layered up, this was more long into the neck, so sort of long, each, each individual hair was long"...
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Gerry couldn't even remember which door he used.
They should see a doctor about the dubious quality of their first line defences.
White sticks and deaf aids would seem to be the order of the day.
An ordinary citizen may not feel threatened at all as he stands chatting. Looking when his peripheral vision detects movement isn't a choice, it's an instinctive reaction. If, when looking, he sees someone coming at him with a knife or a gun, he won't decide to flood his body with adrenaline, that happens instinctively too.
Peasant! 8(0(*
I was thinking more in terms of:
The wind was a torrent of darkness among the gusty trees.
The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas.
The road was a ribbon of moonlight over the purple moor,
And the highwayman came riding—
Riding—riding—
The highwayman came riding, up to the old inn-door.
I was never too sure about the bit that says: "he tapped with his whip on the shutters"...................... it may have some relevance. We could do worse than start a thread about it.......@)(++(*
Oh Alice. I love that poem.
Jane may never have been within the range of the peripheral vision of either man which in my opinion is strongly suggested by the fact that neither saw her.All Jez had to do was bend down to the pushchair and speak to his baby or re-arrange the blankets, pick up a thrown out toy etc. Easy to miss Jane if he was standing between parked vehicles, Gerry was partly in the way or she was out of his peripheral vision.
Gerry had no chance standing with his back to her and all Jes had to do to miss her was to briefly turn his head.
Some people are naturally or deliberately observant, others aren't. Personally, I dislike holding a conversation with someone whose eyes are flitting all over the place as we talk.
Using peripheral vision doesn't require any flitting eyes.Can you recognise someone just from peripheral vision?
Can you recognise someone just from peripheral vision?
Like a rocket shot to a ship ashore
The lean red bolt of his body tore
...that's poetry's
The last short burst upon falling feet.....He needs to dive between the wires,
There life lay waiting, so sweet, so sweet,
Rest in a darkness, balm for aches......
The earth was stopped. It was barred with stakes.
*&^^& %56&
The last short burst upon falling feet.....
There life lay waiting, so sweet, so sweet,
Rest in a darkness, balm for aches......
The earth was stopped. It was barred with stakes.
*&^^& %56&
Can you recognise someone just from peripheral vision?Assuming the likely situation that Gerry and Jez were more or less square with each other and at right angles with the road, Jane was definitely beyond Gerrys periferal vision
Looking it up https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/put-your-peripheral-vision-to-the-test/
"Observations and results
You probably quickly observed something appearing in your side view but perhaps you could only later tell the color, and after that identify the shape.
Our peripheral vision is quick at detecting that something enters our field of sight but it is weak at distinguishing color, shape or detail. This is because fewer and different cells in our eyes and brains are activated when seeing an object with our peripheral vision than when “seeing” the object with our central vision."
Assuming the likely situation that Gerry and Jez were more or less square with each other and at right angles with the road, Jane was definitely beyond Gerrys periferal visionI would wonder if that is the true case Sadie. Would someone be so rigid in their stance that they didn't even turn their head or body just a little? If you had your head in a neck brace then you are restricted otherwise a person moves often and would be liable to catch glimpses in their peripheral vision.
At nearest she was more than 90* to the way that Gerrys eyes were focusing and when passing him was at 180* and totally out of sight, right at the back of Gerry.
Heribert Janosch posted a diagram showing periferal vision and that was about 45* either side of the way that the eyes were focussing, from memory.
No way would Gerry have seen Jane at any point of her walk up the road.
It is so far beyond the realms of possibility that we shouldn't even be questioning why Gerry didn't see Jane IMO because through out her walk, she was always beyond his periferal vision.
Imagine the men facing each other and gazing straight ahead like the man in the frame. They each have a 180 degree arc which their vision covers, so imagine a straight line joining each man's eyes and extending beyond to each side. That's their field of vision.http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9105.msg444448#msg444448 You could end up with a contradiction.
Gerry's field of vision, if he's standing on the edge of the path facing the road and looking straight ahead, will not cover the actual path. If he moves his head slightly in either direction his field of vision will then include the path to his right or left. He could indeed miss seeing Jane, but hearing is anther matter.
Jes's field of vision covers the path from the Tapas entrance to the top of the road. It would be highly unlikely that he could miss seeing Jane, as he testified.
I would wonder if that is the true case Sadie. Would someone be so rigid in their stance that they didn't even turn their head or body just a little? If you had your head in a neck brace then you are restricted otherwise a person moves often and would be liable to catch glimpses in their peripheral vision.I think that youi are making excuses Rob. It is quite obvious that Gerry could not see Jane if for all the distance she walked, she was more than 90* from his central line of vision.
I was a bit like this after my car verses train accident! https://youtu.be/eFq_3hoI6wA
Imagine the men facing each other and gazing straight ahead like the man in the frame. They each have a 180 degree arc which their vision covers, so imagine a straight line joining each man's eyes and extending beyond to each side. That's their field of vision.Whichever side of the road this alleged meeting took place, one or t'other or both of the men should have seen her or heard her, no matter how engrossed they both were.
Gerry's field of vision, if he's standing on the edge of the path facing the road and looking straight ahead, will not cover the actual path. If he moves his head slightly in either direction his field of vision will then include the path to his right or left. He could indeed miss seeing Jane, but hearing is anther matter.
Jes's field of vision covers the path from the Tapas entrance to the top of the road. It would be highly unlikely that he could miss seeing Jane, as he testified.
Whichever side of the road this alleged meeting took place, one or t'other or both of the men should have seen her or heard her, no matter how engrossed they both were.
Now it's choices.
Did this alleged event not happen?
Or
Was Jane Tanner walking by simply not important enough to register on one or both men's memories?
Jes himself saw it as highly unlikely that he wouldn't have seen her. He remembered seeing her earlier for no reason, so why would he forget if he saw her again? It's possible, but unlikely imo.
Jes himself saw it as highly unlikely that he wouldn't have seen her. He remembered seeing her earlier for no reason, so why would he forget if he saw her again? It's possible, but unlikely imo.The single fly in my ointment is that it appears Jes and Jane had played tennis together. I believe this is in one of Jane's statements or Jes'.
Were either of them on tankers in The Merch?
The 1000 yard stare..............................
The single fly in my ointment is that it appears Jes and Jane had played tennis together. I believe this is in one of Jane's statements or Jes'.
However, I still don't see it as important.
One's brain is purpose built to dump irrelevant trivia. Please don't ask me for a cite, I did all the research perhaps 10 years ago, and AFAIK, it is still on blogspot.
There are many reasons I was interested in this. Let me pick one example. Memory. (An important part of learning).
To memorise something, step 1 is to focus on it 100% for 6 or more seconds. That gets it from your frontal cortex to the rear of your brain.
Step 2 is to go to sleep, without filling up your brain with alcohol, medicinal compounds, or simply more important or exiting things. The rear of your brain is akin to a cup. Once it is full, when you pour more in, something has to come out. That's why it is tough to learn if you have late-night parties, play interactive X Box games to the small hours, or watch TV dramas after the news.
Step 3. Sleep. Your brain physically rebuilds and alters itself if you sleep properly. A simple cheat is to have a siesta long enough to dream. That is your brain doing the work of moving information from short term storage in the rear of your brain to permanent storage in your bonce.
This is a very long winded way of saying I can't see why this encounter should have been misremembered, in any significant way.
Speculation. Gerry does not see Jane, so he does not remember the details. Jes sees Jane, but it does not occupy his focus for long enough to sink in. Then he goes to sleep, and is woken up on early 4 May and cannot remember a man with child in his arms.
I see nothing odd here.
Recently a companion and I visited a house. On leaving my friend said, "I wonder who that woman is." To which my response was, "What woman?"Similar things have happened to me a number of times
Apparently a woman had entered the room, walked across it, passed me and sat down on the sofa. I did not see her.
My concentration was fixed on a baby in the room to the exclusion of all else. Had I been asked under oath had I seen a female walking into the room, I could only have responded that I had not.
It didn't mean there wasn't one ... and I just hope she didn't think I was too high and mighty to acknowledge her presence.
Jane Tanner states they were stood more or less like the picture, Gerry had his back to the wall and Jez was facing her as she approached. How both men failed to see her is indeed a mystery.It is the difference between seeing things at the time and adding them to your memory isn't it?
(http://i.imgur.com/wpyqzfp.png?1)
You either believe Jane or you don't.
Jane Tanner states they were stood more or less like the picture, Gerry had his back to the wall and Jez was facing her as she approached. How both men failed to see her is indeed a mystery.
(http://i.imgur.com/wpyqzfp.png?1)
You either believe Jane or you don't.
Jes agreed with you Sadie and the police; he thought it was 'highly unlikely' that she could have passed without being seen;
He was adamant that he did not see any one else in the area. When spoken to in reference to Jane Tanner walking by, he again stated that he saw no one. He also stated that he did not see or hear anyone to his right.
I do not remember having seen anyone else at this time besides Gerry
I do not remember having seen her when I spoke with Gerry [Jane]
I can affirm that it was a quiet street and it was very unlikely that someone could have passed by be in this way
I believe that it would have been possible to see if an individual was near
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
Where did you get this from Gunit?
I have always thought the Exact reverse, that it is a distinct possibility that Jane passed and in the depth of conversation .... and possibly looking at Jezes baby ... they did not see Jane.
Also I have pointed out that Jane NEVER IMO came into Gerrys field of vision.
If they were standing between cars / vans.... and there were cars there according to Steven Carpenter, then Jezes field of vision was severely restricted. Jez had the tall Gerry, up on the kerb, standing bang in front of him. If he was bending down to attend to his baby, no way would he have seen Jane in such circumstances IMO
It's obvious where I got my information from because I provided cites. The man who was there said it was unlikely that anyone could have passed by without being seen. Others can speculate all they like, but neither man saw Jane Tanner and they should have. Perhaps Russell's first timeline was correct and Gerry returned before Jane left.Perhaps neither are correct!
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P10/10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2579a.jpg)
What does the 9.55 entry say? - can't read his writing.
9.55 - Kate ...... Madeleine
10pm - Alarm raised
Perhaps neither are correct!
Had another look while hoovering and looks like... 9.55 - Note M and Madeleines
Actually I thought it was Jez that crossed the road.
So, what possible reason would Gerry have for saying No he walked across the road to talk with Jez?
We are already questioning if JANE did leave at the time she claimed on another thread.
Actually I thought it was Jez that crossed the road.
Well, the way I see it, if he was on the far side of the road, he could more easily claim not to have seen Jane as she flip-flopped up the cobbled pavement.Why would he want to claim not to have seen the person who was supposedly his alibi for being there at that time?
Oh Jassie.. maybe...
I thought this from the panorama clip- where Jane says she was walking here () and Gerry immediately disagreed with her. ?
I will try and find it again- it may be on this thread...
we are all getting confused now hahahahaha
Why would he want to claim not to have seen the person who was supposedly his alibi for being there at that time?
From Jez'z Rogy
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
"When I left the street, I remember seeing Gerry on the other side of the same. I believe that there was some speculation in the press regarding the circumstances of this encounter. I remember that I crossed the street to talk to Gerry. According to what I remember, Gerry was walking when I spotted him. As I mentioned previously, I assumed that he had gone to check on the children and was headed back to the Tapas Bar.
From what I remember, the conversation happened right there on the pathway but I am not certain who was located exactly where"
You guess is as good as mine, but it seems that's what he did.Doesn't really make much sense though does it?
Doesn't really make much sense though does it?
Doesn't really make much sense though does it?
Why would he want to claim not to have seen the person who was supposedly his alibi for being there at that time?
Why would he want to claim not to have seen the person who was supposedly his alibi for being there at that time?
But Jez provided the alibi for time and place.not in conjunction with Tannerman though.
What if someone had seen them but not Tanner or vis versa.....someone like Julian ?
What if someone had seen them but not Tanner or vis versa.....someone like Julian ?If any if the group had clocked Totman they would know whether or not he had turned to look down the street and seen them, so what would be the point of lying about it?
If any if the group had clocked Totman they would know whether or not he had turned to look down the street and seen them, so what would be the point of lying about it?
not in conjunction with Tannerman though.
How and why is that relevant?Because the whole point of Gerry being seen st the same time as Tannerman is, according to some, to prove that it couldn’t have been Gerry who removed Madeleine from the apartment.
Desperation.Not a very well thought through plan, yet here we are, 11 years later, Totman has come forward (ages ago), no one has been arrested, nor even questioned. Astounding isn’t it?
Not a very well thought through plan, yet here we are, 11 years later, Totman has come forward (ages ago), no one has been arrested, nor even questioned. Astounding isn’t it?
I agree, not a very well thought through plan however desperate plans seldom are.People rarely get away with desperate ill-thought through plans. In light of the fact that as far as your theory is concerned Jane would have known Totman could not possibly have seen Gerry, it is quite an insane plan to say she saw them both at the same time, especially as even Gerry denied seeing her. Quite ridiculous.
People rarely get away with desperate ill-thought through plans. In light of the fact that as far as your theory is concerned Jane would have known Totman could not possibly have seen Gerry, it is quite an insane plan to say she saw them both at the same time, especially as even Gerry denied seeing her. Quite ridiculous.
Because the whole point of Gerry being seen st the same time as Tannerman is, according to some, to prove that it couldn’t have been Gerry who removed Madeleine from the apartment.
Absolutely nothing to do with giving him an alibi for not being Smithman then?Nope, how could it be? The sighting was at 9.15pm, 45 minutes earlier than the Smithman sighting.
People rarely get away with desperate ill-thought through plans. In light of the fact that as far as your theory is concerned Jane would have known Totman could not possibly have seen Gerry, it is quite an insane plan to say she saw them both at the same time, especially as even Gerry denied seeing her. Quite ridiculous.
True people do rarely get away with desperate ill thought through plans.And yet, if your theory is correct, they have.
Nope, how could it be? The sighting was at 9.15pm, 45 minutes earlier than the Smithman sighting.
I think the logic would be - Gerry is seen at the same time as Tannerman so cannot be abductor so how can he possibly be abductor man 45 mins later.But some of the tapas group have Gerry at the table at the time of the Smith sighting anyway so no need for JT to provide an earlier alibi.
If Jane didn't see Gerry or Tannerman isn't abductor then the argument falls.
I think the logic would be - Gerry is seen at the same time as Tannerman so cannot be abductor so how can he possibly be abductor man 45 mins later.
If Jane didn't see Gerry or Tannerman isn't abductor then the argument falls.
Matt said Kate left to check at 21:50 which was at least 10 minutes before the Smith sighting so none are ruled out.IMO the PJ accepted Gerry had alibi(s) for the time of the Smith sighting.
The waiter who served them at the table had them all gone except Dianne at 21:50. The PJ made a mistake didn't they? Smithman was after the alarm was raised and if they investigated it properly they would have known this to be the truth.So how have you managed to investigate it properly, and the collective brains of the PJ failed so dismally? Are you of superior intellect and logic skills?
Matt said Kate left to check at 21:50 which was at least 10 minutes before the Smith sighting so none are ruled out. The waiter had them all gone except Dianne at 21:50.I think we need to discover why Matt puts Kate's check 10 minutes earlier than the rest.
The waiter who served them at the table had them all gone except Dianne at 21:50. The PJ made a mistake didn't they? Smithman was after the alarm was raised and if they investigated it properly they would have known this to be the truth.Cite please.
The waiter who served them at the table had them all gone except Dianne at 21:50. The PJ made a mistake didn't they? Smithman was after the alarm was raised and if they investigated it properly they would have known this to be the truth.
Cite please.
Matt said Kate left to check at 21:50 which was at least 10 minutes before the Smith sighting so none are ruled out. The waiter had them all gone except Dianne at 21:50.How long was Dianne left on her own?
I agree with your first sentence but not the latter.
The PJ accepted that once Gerry had returned to the table after his meeting with Jes, there is no record of him leaving it thereafter and he was still there when Kate came running back to raise the alarm that Madeleine was gone.
We have no independent witnesses who verify that. The PJ had to accept Gerry's alibi, how could they argue against 9 people with no other witnesses ?Only by deducing that they were all involved in a cover up to protect two of the group, however IMO the PJ looked at the facts and realised that this was not very likely.
Only by deducing that they were all involved in a cover up to protect two of the group, however IMO the PJ looked at the facts and realised that this was not very likely.
How about one of these dreadfully esoteric diseases/conditions that spring up on this case from time to time whereby you cannot see someone next to you?Except none of the Tapas Group claimed they couldn't see Gerry at the time the alarm was raised.
Except none of the Tapas Group claimed they couldn't see Gerry at the time the alarm was raised.Except Jane of course.
Except Jane of course.true, but then she didn't claim to be sat at the table at the time either.
true, but then she didn't claim to be sat at the table at the time either.It is odd how many say they were all there, when in fact according to Jane she wasn't there.
Except none of the Tapas Group claimed they couldn't see Gerry at the time the alarm was raised.
Which means it all comes down to the time of the alert.In his second statement he clarifies that Dianne Webster was still sat at the table at that point, and we know from her statement that she sat there for a few minutes, then went to the apartment where she saw Gerry - if you say dinner ended at 21.45, and a few minutes later the table was vacated (apart from DW) and she sat there for a few minutes and went to the apartment where she saw GMC what time does that take us to?
Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
Cite please.
G-Unit gave you this one.From Martin Smith's first statement
Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
By the way, he clarifies that that news had been communicated to all the friends who were in the Tapas by Kate McCann subsequent to her having personally been to her flat to check that her children were well.
The question asked, he relates that she had gone there alone to do that at 21:50.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
— Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.
— Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left because her father and her brother decided to leave early that night. (Aoife Smith)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
From Martin Smith's first statementEasy mistake to make,G M was excused for using the wrong door because of it.
In 'Kelly's Bar' they consumed some drinks. They left that establishment around 21H55 as his son would be travelling very early the next day
From Martin Smith's first statement
In 'Kelly's Bar' they consumed some drinks. They left that establishment around 21H55 as his son would be travelling very early the next day
Easy mistake to make,G M was excused for using the wrong door because of it.What mistake has been made?
What mistake has been made?
Recalling of events.Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and went to Kelly's Bar, about one minute away on foot. In Kelly's Bar (he does not remember the name of the street it is on) they had a few drinks, having left from there around 21H50/22H00
In his second statement he clarifies that Dianne Webster was still sat at the table at that point, and we know from her statement that she sat there for a few minutes, then went to the apartment where she saw Gerry - if you say dinner ended at 21.45, and a few minutes later the table was vacated (apart from DW) and she sat there for a few minutes and went to the apartment where she saw GMC what time does that take us to?
When Dianne arrived at 5A the only person present was Kate;From her Rogatory
she entered the apartment by the sliding glass door of the patio at the back, which gives access to the lounge. Then she went to the children's bedroom, noting that there she found KATE and the twin siblings of MADELEINE
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm
I always think the first statements to be the more reliableShe doesn't say Gerry isn't in the apartment, she mentions who is in the children's bedroom, that is all.
Only by deducing that they were all involved in a cover up to protect two of the group, however IMO the PJ looked at the facts and realised that this was not very likely.
No I think if they took part in a conspiracy they did it to protect themselves.So do you think they were all up to no good, that somehow involved the children or one specific child? Would be delighted to see even a tiny shred of evidence to support this.
From her Rogatory
I know when I left the table I went, I did go into err Kate and Gerry’s err apartment, which was just absolute err just terrible.”
4078 ”What did you see when you got there?”
Reply ”What did I see? Well Kate and Gerry, Gerry was absolutely, absolutely distraught, absolute, you know, I mean I’ve never heard a man make the noises he made,
So do you think they were all up to no good, that somehow involved the children or one specific child? Would be delighted to see even a tiny shred of evidence to support this.
I think they were all afraid of being charged with neglect, nothing more.And yet none of them attempted to cover up the fact that they had all left their children unattended. That doesn't make any sense.
She's describing her second visit, after she returned to the Tapas to get the stuff left behind. That's why 4078 says 'back to the apartment'That's not how the rogatory reads to me.
She thinks she saw Rachael, too, who denied ever entering 5A?
4078 ”Do you remember who else was around when you back to the apartment?”
Reply ”I think, well Fiona was there I think and err Rachael, I remember seeing Rachael and Gerry,
It would be helpful if you would provide a cite ... it would save me asking.
Same goes for all future posts. Thank you
From Martin Smith's first statement
In 'Kelly's Bar' they consumed some drinks. They left that establishment around 21H55 as his son would be travelling very early the next day
Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and went to Kelly's Bar, about one minute away on foot. In Kelly's Bar (he does not remember the name of the street it is on) they had a few drinks, having left from there around 21H50/22H00
Peter Smith's statement.
And yet none of them attempted to cover up the fact that they had all left their children unattended. That doesn't make any sense.? As they were booked in the Tapas most nights, and they definitely left the children unattended on those, your contention makes no sense.
That's not how the rogatory reads to me.
? As they were booked in the Tapas most nights, and they definitely left the children unattended on those, your contention makes no sense.
His times were incorrect. Aoife's times were spot on so I'm using her statement for times.Of course you are - it's always important to pick and choose which bits of which statements fit your theory.
? As they were booked in the Tapas most nights, and they definitely left the children unattended on those, your contention makes no sense.What you have written above is exactly my contention. They made no attempt to cover their so-called neglect, yet Faithlilly believes they were trying to save their own skins over the neglect issue and that is why theiir statments cannot be trusted.
Try this one, given when the events were fresher in her mind;Dianne remembers "with precision" that the alarm was raised at 10pm so are we to use this statement as a reliable source now or not?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm
As young girls are seldom off their mobile phones, they are likely to know exactly what time it was. IMOIn 2007? What was she doing on it?
Texting probablyWould have been very expensive if she was texting friends in Ireland!
Dianne remembers "with precision" that the alarm was raised at 10pm so are we to use this statement as a reliable source now or not?The term precision relates to the event rather that an exact time. Time requires a type of reference e.g. had she said I looked at my watch and it said 10:00 PM then that would be more precise provided her watch was correctly set.
The term precision relates to the event rather that an exact time. Time requires a type of reference e.g. had she said I looked at my watch and it said 10:00 PM then that would be more precise provided her watch was correctly set.The statement is unequivocal:
Would have been very expensive if she was texting friends in Ireland!
The statement is unequivocal:"unequivocal
"Therefore, she can only say with precision that, at 22.00 Kate McCann returned to the restaurant, seemingly in panic, communicating to others the fact that of Madeleine's disappearance"
Of course you are - it's always important to pick and choose which bits of which statements fit your theory.
"unequivocalThe statement is unequivocal in its meaning. Whether she is accurate in her recall or not is another matter.
leaving no doubt; unambiguous.
"an unequivocal answer"
synonyms: unambiguous, unmistakable, indisputable, incontrovertible, indubitable, undeniable;"
Well it isn't unequivocal as I said as Dianne does not define how she knew it was exactly 22.00. Unless she tells us how she knew it was 22.00 it remains disputable as to precisely what time it was.
Unless you know how she knew it was 22.00 it remains disputable and equivocal.
The fact is her times were correct regardless of any theory. She said it was 10pm when they left Kelly's Bar so do the maths.Can you please provide proof that her time is 100% accurate.
What you have written above is exactly my contention. They made no attempt to cover their so-called neglect, yet Faithlilly believes they were trying to save their own skins over the neglect issue and that is why theiir statments cannot be trusted.That may be your contention. It does not happen to be mine.
That may be your contention. It does not happen to be mine.What exactly do you think I am saying?
What exactly do you think I am saying?According to your post, that what I wrote is exactly your contention.
The statement is unequivocal in its meaning. Whether she is accurate in her recall or not is another matter.Any time could be plus or minus the degree of uncertainty. OK so what is the unequivocal meaning of what Dianne says?
Can you please provide proof that her time is 100% accurate.
Smithman is the proof - his false alibi is the evidence but until his identity is revealed I can say no more 8)--))So as I suspected you have nothing upon which to base your cast iron assertion. I believe an IMO is called for in your earlier post.
Any time could be plus or minus the degree of uncertainty. OK so what is the unequivocal meaning of what Dianne says?I’ve already explained- the statement itself is unequivocal, she seems to be certain that the alarm was raised at 10pm. Of course she may be wrong, but if posters insist on using her statement as proof of one thing, but then choose to disbelieve her statement on another point, then IMO that is simply picking and choosing bits to fit a theory.
So as I suspected you have nothing upon which to base your cast iron assertion. I believe an IMO is called for in your earlier post.
And yet none of them attempted to cover up the fact that they had all left their children unattended. That doesn't make any sense.
According to your post, that what I wrote is exactly your contention.So your contention is my contention but that doesn’t happen to be your contention. You can see why I’m baffled.
I will always be many moves ahead of you. I bet you can't wait for the truth then disappear from here or maybe you will be abducted @)(++(*What a very arrogant and silly reply IMO.
Strength in numbersDid any of the Tapas Group attempt to hide their so-called neglect? Let’s take JT for example. Police established very quickly that her and her partner spent some of the meal away from their kids, this fact was not hidden. Yet, you have her, in your theory, agreeing to go along with some convoluted plot involving pretending that a man she actually did see carrying a child was seen at the same time as Gerry McCann, because he needed an alibi because his child had just died in an accident, this being a man (Gerry) that she didnt even know that well. Does that not ever strike you as being rather ludicrous? What’s in it for her?
So your contention is my contention but that doesn’t happen to be your contention. You can see why I’m baffled.Frankly no, given that I said our contentions were different.
Did any of the Tapas Group attempt to hide their so-called neglect? Let’s take JT for example. Police established very quickly that her and her partner spent some of the meal away from their kids, this fact was not hidden. Yet, you have her, in your theory, agreeing to go along with some convoluted plot involving pretending that a man she actually did see carrying a child was seen at the same time as Gerry McCann, because he needed an alibi because his child had just died in an accident, this being a man (Gerry) that she didnt even know that well. Does that not ever strike you as being rather ludicrous? What’s in it for her?
Frankly no, given that I said our contentions were different.my contention is that the McCanns and their group made no concerted group effort to hide the fact that they regularly left their kids alone in the evenings to go to dinner. How does this differ from your contention?
How could they hide their 'neglect'?exactly, they couldn’t, so suggesting they were protecting each other to avoid being accused of child neglect is nonsense imo.
Jeremy and Bridget became aware that although the McCanns had taken up the use of the creche facility during the day, they had not done so for the evening hours and had left the children in the apartment but were checking on them regularly and that other members of the group appeared to be doing the same.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
She remembers that on Sunday 29th April one of the elements of the group arrived with the child Madeleine McCann, she does not know his name and can only say that he was male and tall and thin and that he approached her to request a booking for the whole group, for the whole week and always at 20.30.......
The man justified his request by saying that the group had many small children whom they would leave alone when they went to dine. She said that at intervals some two parents would go to the apartments to see if everything was OK.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUISA_COUTINHO.htm
exactly, they couldn’t, so suggesting they were protecting each other to avoid being accused of child neglect is nonsense imo.
my contention is that the McCanns and their group made no concerted group effort to hide the fact that they regularly left their kids alone in the evenings to go to dinner. How does this differ from your contention?Forum rules prevent me from posting my contention.
Don’t you think the group would know that it would be hard to prosecute four professional couples if they all just stuck together.You’re sure??! I’d love to see your cast iron proof. Meanwhile no, I think it absurd to suggest that on being told a child had died in an accident that everyone in the group felt that they would all face prosecution for it, so decided to cover up for a man who could then blithely threw his child away in a bin. No way, Jose.
I’m sure Gerry sold it as ‘if we go down we all go down’.
You’re sure??! I’d love to see your cast iron proof. Meanwhile no, I think it absurd to suggest that on being told a child had died in an accident that everyone in the group felt that they would all face prosecution for it, so decided to cover up for a man who could then blithely threw his child away in a bin. No way, Jose.
Forum rules prevent me from posting my contention.OK well in that case perhaps you could tell me which part of my contention:
If you think it plausible that not one, not two but seven individuals, all seemingly loving parents and including a grandma, would all agree to cover for a man who they knew had callously disposed of his own child's body simply to save their own skins, and then not one of them break ranks for 11 years, then that is your prerogative, but I think it is a highly unlikely motivating factor and a highly unlikely scenario, especially when the consequences of being found out in such a plot would be far, far graver than any consequences derived from "guilt by association" in the accidental death of someone else's child (is that an actual prosecutable crime in Portugal?)
Haven't you heard of guilt by association.
The latter part of your post - could be the reason in the delay of calling the police. imo
Why waste all that time looking for maddie - when kmccann knew she had been abducted.
If you think it plausible that not one, not two but seven individuals, all seemingly loving parents and including a grandma, would all agree to cover for a man who they knew had callously disposed of his own child's body simply to save their own skins, and then not one of them break ranks for 11 years, then that is your prerogative, but I think it is a highly unlikely motivating factor and a highly unlikely scenario, especially when the consequences of being found out in such a plot would be far, far graver than any consequences derived from "guilt by association" in the accidental death of someone else's child (is that an actual prosecutable crime in Portugal?)
IMO - doctors are strange people, they don't have the sentiments ordinary people do.
The seemingly loving parents, would be more fearful for there own children, and what they could loose imo
You obviously don't know any doctors IMO... They are not strange and quite normal... Lol
what a very strange assertion - you seem to be suggesting that doctors don't live by the same moral code as other more "normal" people, and that disposing of a beloved child in a dustbin would seem quite reasonable to them. Correct me if I have misunderstood you?
IMO - doctors are strange people, they don't have the sentiments ordinary people do.
The seemingly loving parents, would be more fearful for there own children, and what they could loose imo
If you think it plausible that not one, not two but seven individuals, all seemingly loving parents and including a grandma, would all agree to cover for a man who they knew had callously disposed of his own child's body simply to save their own skins, and then not one of them break ranks for 11 years, then that is your prerogative, but I think it is a highly unlikely motivating factor and a highly unlikely scenario, especially when the consequences of being found out in such a plot would be far, far graver than any consequences derived from "guilt by association" in the accidental death of someone else's child (is that an actual prosecutable crime in Portugal?)
We have no idea who may or may not have broken ranks.Yes we do. The answer is no one. How do we know this? Because no one has been made an arguido and questioned about it.
OK well in that case perhaps you could tell me which part of my contention:It makes sense.
"none of them attempted to cover up the fact that they had all left their children unattended"
makes no sense to you?
It makes sense.That's good to know because when I wrote exactly that in post #598, you responded in post #603 that what I had written "makes no sense". I am glad it now does make sense.
I simply have a different contention.
Two uncles and a good friend are/were doctors.
All very normal and not strange at all.
Any studies to suggest that this emotional detachment extends beyond the professional patient-doctor relationship into close family relationships?
No doubt - i know doctors too, cousin one.
But my point was they are normal, but are less emotional than us, and cope better with distressing situations.
They are emotionally detached from distressing situations imo
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4728886
This inhibition has a negative impact not only on the patients but also on the physicians. The expression of emotions in medical practice is perceived as unprofessional and many doctors learn to supress and ignore their feelings
Doctors are expected to be empathetic towards their patients, but the effect of this requirement on their emotional wellbeing is rarely acknowledged. In order to address this gap, this paper discusses the ways in which the emotional work that is necessary for empathy affects physicians themselves and their ability to cope with distressing situations.
If you think it plausible that not one, not two but seven individuals, all seemingly loving parents and including a grandma, would all agree to cover for a man who they knew had callously disposed of his own child's body simply to save their own skins, and then not one of them break ranks for 11 years, then that is your prerogative, but I think it is a highly unlikely motivating factor and a highly unlikely scenario, especially when the consequences of being found out in such a plot would be far, far graver than any consequences derived from "guilt by association" in the accidental death of someone else's child (is that an actual prosecutable crime in Portugal?)
That's good to know because when I wrote exactly that in post #598, you responded in post #603 that what I had written "makes no sense". I am glad it now does make sense.598 makes no sense. You are positing that the information provided re checking was accurate, without proof thereof.
Any studies to suggest that this emotional detachment extends beyond the professional patient-doctor relationship into close family relationships?
There are a few assumptions there.The assumptions were based on Faithlilly's assertion that she believes they are all involved in self-protection to cover up for the neglect issue. Please read back.
That 7 people all knew what had happened to Madeleine.
That what they knew was that a man had 'callously disposed of his own child's body '
That the child had died in an accident.
The evidence says that the McCann children didn't sleep through the night. Their parents told us that there was waking and crying on two occasions; Tuesday and Wednesday. According to a neighbour there was prolonged crying on the Tuesday.
If the child checking was less frequent than it should have been, it was in everyone's interest to 'beef it up'.
There are a few assumptions there.
That 7 people all knew what had happened to Madeleine.
That what they knew was that a man had 'callously disposed of his own child's body '
That the child had died in an accident.
The evidence says that the McCann children didn't sleep through the night. Their parents told us that there was waking and crying on two occasions; Tuesday and Wednesday. According to a neighbour there was prolonged crying on the Tuesday.
If the child checking was less frequent than it should have been, it was in everyone's interest to 'beef it up'.
Are you suggesting Doctors can’t put aside an emotional response when a business like response is required?Are you suggesting that when a doctor's own child has died suddenly they can set aside an emotional response to assume a business-like response instead?
Are you suggesting that when a doctor's own child has died suddenly they can set aside an emotional response to assume a business-like response instead?
Are you suggesting that when a doctor's own child has died suddenly they can set aside an emotional response to assume a business-like response instead?
Yes we do. The answer is no one. How do we know this? Because no one has been made an arguido and questioned about it.
A logical thesis.
598 makes no sense. You are positing that the information provided re checking was accurate, without proof thereof.Post #598in its entirety (in reply to Faithlilly's post) -
"And yet none of them attempted to cover up the fact that they had all left their children unattended. That doesn't make any sense. "I'll ask again - which bit makes no sense and where do I posit that the information provided re: checking was accurate?
They would only be made an arguido if questioned in Portugal and there would be no need for arrests if the witness was cooperating. Coperation may have been given in return for immunity from prosecution. Perhaps this questioning was agreed when the CPS went to Portugal some time ago.So, it's your belief that if one of the Tapas group brokoe ranks, said "we've been covering up on behalf of one of our friends, we know what actually happened, blah blah blah" - that as a result of this information no one would be questioned as an arguido, even those that the finger was being pointed at? What are they waiting for, exactly?
Post #598inb its entirety (in reply to Faithlilly's post) -Are you bored?
I'll ask again - which bit makes no sense and where do I posit that the information provided re: checking was accurate?
my contention is that the McCanns and their group made no concerted group effort to hide the fact that they regularly left their kids alone in the evenings to go to dinner. How does this differ from your contention?
Are you bored?In your reply #648 you agreed my post made sense. Previously you said it made no sense. Now you are saying it makes no sense again. I have not claimed they reported accurate checking all I have said is that none of them attempted to cover up the fact that they had all left their children unattended. This is becoming Kafka-esque this conversation, it's really, really bizarre.
"And yet none of them attempted to cover up the fact that they had all left their children unattended."
Kindly prove that they reported accurate checking, or for the sake of the forum, kindly let sleeping dogs lie.
What makes this silly in my opinion is - how could they hide the fact they all left there children.Once again I agree entirely - so anyone who proposes that any or all of the Tapaas 7 went along with a conspiracy involving the hiding of a dead child's body to protect each other from charges of neglect is obviously barking up the wrong tree IMO.
Fgs... for a start who would they say was baby sitting - they had no choice but to admit it.
Makes no sense to portray it as they did something good - admitting to leaving there kids.
Only if the person was being questioned in Portugal might they need to be an arguido.Why wouldn't they be questioned in Portugal? I thought this was a Portuguese investigation?
In your reply #648 you agreed my post made sense. Previously you said it made no sense. Now you are saying it makes no sense again. I have not claimed they reported accurate checking all I have said is that none of them attempted to cover up the fact that they had all left their children unattended. This is becoming Kafka-esque this conversation, it's really, really bizarre.Sorry, I can't be bothered with this trivia game. &^&*%
Why wouldn't they be questioned in Portugal? I thought this was a Portuguese investigation?
The person may not be willing to enter Portuguese jurisdiction and it might be easier to question in country of residenceThey would have to be arrested and interviewed under caution in this country wouldn’t you think? As would the person being pointed at. I don’t think such a development would go unreported in this or any other country do you?
They would have to be arrested and interviewed under caution in this country wouldn’t you think? As would the person being pointed at. I don’t think such a development would go unreported in this or any other country do you?
You wouldn't be arrested unless there were sufficient grounds to do so.I would think one or more of the Tapas group breaking ranks and “spilling the beans” would be sufficient grounds for arrest.
I would think one or more of the Tapas group breaking ranks and “spilling the beans” would be sufficient grounds for arrest.
Could well be, but it would depend on whether or not they have been given immunity.Immunity or not, whoever they were accusing would almost certainly be arrested and questioned under caution.
As no one involvedhas uttered a word about it, the point is moot.
UK Statute of Limitations re criminal offences.What is the relevance?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_periods_in_the_United_Kingdom#Magistrates'_courts
Immunity or not, whoever they were accusing would almost certainly be arrested and questioned under caution.
Who would know anyway?I think if a McCann were arrested and questioned under caution we would all know. Any reason why we would not?
I think if a McCann were arrested and questioned under caution we would all know. Any reason why we would not?
I think if a McCann were arrested and questioned under caution we would all know. Any reason why we would not?
What is the relevance?It's in the link.
It's in the link.There is no relevant information in your link IMO.
Any reason why we would ?It would be an explosive news story and why wouldn’t we? We heard about the arguidos in Portugal.
There is no relevant information in your link IMO.Then once again we have a difference of opinion. (&^&
Then once again we have a difference of opinion. (&^&yup. Personally I don’t think the combined forces of the Met and the PJ would be spending in excess of £12m on this investigation if the case could never come to trial owing to some statute of limitations law. No doubt you think the opposite.
yup. Personally I don’t think the combined forces of the Met and the PJ would be spending in excess of £12m on this investigation if the case could never come to trial owing to some statute of limitations law. No doubt you think the opposite.As far as I am aware, unless it was murder, the statute of limitations has run out in Portugal.
As far as I am aware, unless it was murder, the statute of limitations has run out in Portugal.So what’s the point of all that money being spent then? I guess if you’re right then as far as the Taps group are concerned they can now publish their memoirs with full disclosure safe in the knowledge that they are completely safe from the long arm of the law. That’s going to upset a few people on here who believe the net is closing in.
The link I provided suggests much the same in the UK.
If you think someone is going to break ranks and cry murder, then yes we are of differing opinion.
As far as I am aware, unless it was murder, the statute of limitations has run out in Portugal.
The link I provided suggests much the same in the UK.
If you think someone is going to break ranks and cry murder, then yes we are of differing opinion.
Working on the basis that The Met have no authority in Portugal maybe they are investigating whether or not a crime has been committed in England where the rules of limitation may be different?Shining in luz seems to be under the impression that the statute of limitations she or he quoted which refer to the UK not Portugal would be relevant in the case of any wrong doing committed by a British citizen which may include covering up a death, body disposal, fraud, lying to the police, conspiracy etc.
Shining in luz seems to be under the impression that the statute of limitations she or he quoted which refer to the UK not Portugal would be relevant in the case of any wrong doing committed by a British citizen which may include covering up a death, body disposal, fraud, lying to the police, conspiracy etc.The major exceptions are fraud (ongoing) and murder.
The major exceptions are fraud (ongoing) and murder.
I very much doubt there would be anything else thought worth the effort after 11 years.