Author Topic: Did this finding get followed up by the PJ?  (Read 69553 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Did this finding get followed up by the PJ?
« Reply #330 on: August 28, 2018, 02:00:30 AM »
This statement from Rachael Totman backs my assertion that there was an attempt to keep some facts secretive:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5698933/Madeleine-McCann-police-spent-four-years-trying-ID-man-GP-said-him.html
"Julian Totman's wife Rachel, who lives with her husband in the West Country, has revealed that police had never contacted them.

She told The Sun: 'My husband had told the local police it could be him but we didn't hear anything for years.

'We always thought it was Julian who was seen by Jane Tanner. But the national police who investigated didn't get back to us and we don't know if our information was ever passed on.'
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Did this finding get followed up by the PJ?
« Reply #331 on: August 28, 2018, 02:44:42 AM »
There was a lot of great debate in that thread but this post by Brietta questions aspects of the theory proposed in this thread.  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9601.msg465444#msg465444

"Please note ... I have provided a link in which a witness states she and her husband reported their circumstances on the evening of 3rd of May 2007 to the police.

I am of the opinion that your posts are designed to refute what the Totmans have said about reporting the information they held about the night Madeleine disappeared to the police.

Either that is the thrust behind your insistence that the PJ were never given said evidence.  Or that the police who were given the information failed to follow protocol and pass it up the line to the ultimate destination of the PJ and the case coordinator.

So what is it you are questioning?

The veracity of the witnesses or the competence of the police?"  End of quote.

The only thing I'm questioning about that post by Brietta is the claim "I have provided a link in which a witness states she and her husband reported their circumstances on the evening of 3rd of May 2007 to the police."

Did the Totmans report something to the Police on the 3rd or the 4th May 2007?  Was this actual evidence of the first incident I refer to?  Were the Totmans talking to the Police about a separate but earlier incident?

Did they really say "she and her husband reported their circumstances on the evening of 3rd of May 2007 to the police"?  Where do the Totmans say that?
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Did this finding get followed up by the PJ?
« Reply #332 on: August 28, 2018, 02:53:05 AM »
IN this article it says May but not the 3rd of May as yet.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5698933/Madeleine-McCann-police-spent-four-years-trying-ID-man-GP-said-him.html

"In October 2007 the McCanns put out a sketch of the Tannerman but Mr Totman had already told the Guarda Nacional Republicana in May that it was probably him but they kept looking for the suspect."

So was there some reason you said the "3rd of May" Brietta?
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Brietta

Re: Did this finding get followed up by the PJ?
« Reply #333 on: August 28, 2018, 11:56:09 AM »
There was a lot of great debate in that thread but this post by Brietta questions aspects of the theory proposed in this thread.  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9601.msg465444#msg465444

"Please note ... I have provided a link in which a witness states she and her husband reported their circumstances on the evening of 3rd of May 2007 to the police.

I am of the opinion that your posts are designed to refute what the Totmans have said about reporting the information they held about the night Madeleine disappeared to the police.

Either that is the thrust behind your insistence that the PJ were never given said evidence.  Or that the police who were given the information failed to follow protocol and pass it up the line to the ultimate destination of the PJ and the case coordinator.

So what is it you are questioning?

The veracity of the witnesses or the competence of the police?"  End of quote.

The only thing I'm questioning about that post by Brietta is the claim "I have provided a link in which a witness states she and her husband reported their circumstances on the evening of 3rd of May 2007 to the police."

Did the Totmans report something to the Police on the 3rd or the 4th May 2007?  Was this actual evidence of the first incident I refer to?  Were the Totmans talking to the Police about a separate but earlier incident?

Did they really say "she and her husband reported their circumstances on the evening of 3rd of May 2007 to the police"?  Where do the Totmans say that?

Bad syntax on my behalf I think, Robitty: it should have read that it was their account of their circumstances on the third of May which was relayed to the police. Perhaps even in the 'door to door' inquiry spoken about by Bridget O'Donnell which had taken place in block four.

There is absolutely no inference that they were referring to anything other than the trip back from the creche carrying their child, they just informed the police of their whereabouts.  I question if at that stage they were even aware of the Jane Tanner sighting.

However the purpose of such enquiries is to gather information to piece things together.  The information given by the Totmans is never referred to in the files we have seen as far as I know ... so what exactly happened to it?
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Sunny

Re: Did this finding get followed up by the PJ?
« Reply #334 on: August 28, 2018, 04:43:39 PM »
Fair question Brietta but as Julian Totman was travelling in the opposite direction from Jane Tanner's man in her sighting, perhaps the GNR didn't pass it onto the PJ as it may be deemed irrelevant to them,  although I believe they should have done so.

Was his wife also walking with him too?
Members are reminded that cites must be provided in accordance with the forum rules. On several occasions recently cites have been requested but never provided. Asking for a cite is not goading but compliance.

From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.

Moderators and Editors take note!

Offline Brietta

Re: Did this finding get followed up by the PJ?
« Reply #335 on: August 28, 2018, 07:50:39 PM »
Fair question Brietta but as Julian Totman was travelling in the opposite direction from Jane Tanner's man in her sighting, perhaps the GNR didn't pass it onto the PJ as it may be deemed irrelevant to them,  although I believe they should have done so.

Was his wife also walking with him too?
In my opinion the GNR wouldn't have made that call.  All information would have been passed on ... as long as all of the scraps of paper it was noted on didn't get lost.

Snip
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
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Did this finding get followed up by the PJ?
« Reply #336 on: September 03, 2018, 12:19:53 AM »
In my opinion the GNR wouldn't have made that call.  All information would have been passed on ... as long as all of the scraps of paper it was noted on didn't get lost.

Snip
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
Was that because Bridget's daughter looked like Madeleine?  If they did look like each other it is not such a bad mistake.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline misty

Re: Did this finding get followed up by the PJ?
« Reply #337 on: September 03, 2018, 01:09:11 AM »
Was that because Bridget's daughter looked like Madeleine?  If they did look like each other it is not such a bad mistake.

Judging by the newspaper article, Bridget's daughter was at the creche when the GNR/Murat called at the Wilkins' apartment that morning. The police would not have known if she resembled Madeleine.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Did this finding get followed up by the PJ?
« Reply #338 on: September 03, 2018, 03:20:56 AM »
Judging by the newspaper article, Bridget's daughter was at the creche when the GNR/Murat called at the Wilkins' apartment that morning. The police would not have known if she resembled Madeleine.
Morning? In my previous work every statement had to have a date time and initial.  It frustrates me no end the lack of date and time on the PJ files.  Does that meeting with Jez and Bridget  with the GNR and Murat have any indication it was the morning?
"Entity determining the diligence:
Employee who performed it: Manuel P., Inspector

Following various informal conversations related to the area of research, we were contacted by a British citizen named Jeremy Michael Wilkins, holder of passport no. 205...., owner of mobile phone no. +44788...., living in ....London...He spends his holidays at, "WATERSIDE GARDENS," block G4, about 50 metres from the apartment where the small child was. He told us that yesterday, between 8.30 and 9pm, while he was in the "TAPAS" restaurant, he noted that a person of around 1.70m, with long blond hair, apparently of the "Rasta," style and dressed in green military-style clothes, entered the restaurant. This person did not stay very long. Their behaviour was somewhat strange and they seemed to be rather nervous. He was alone, he did not speak to anyone and left soon afterwards. The informant maintains that he has never seen this person in the village."
« Last Edit: September 03, 2018, 05:20:44 AM by Robittybob1 »
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Did this finding get followed up by the PJ?
« Reply #339 on: September 03, 2018, 06:08:33 AM »
Over the last week I  have been reading  posts written by Alice and besides that I came up with 2 insights that extend from the work in this thread all involving cleaners and laundrymen.  There was a third that would need to be discussed in another thread.

"Insights:
1.   Was there a washing machine in Russell’s apartment?  If the Laundryman was there could he have supplied new sheets and taken the dirty ones away?

2.   Were the sheets in 5A taken to the laundry first thing next morning?  There is all this talk about them being removed but when did this happen?   Who was behind that if it happened?

1.  From the cadaver dog examination of the apartment G5D we might be able to tell if there was a washing machine large enough to handle sheets.

From Russell's statements we might be able to sense what actually happened to the dirty laundry.
Russell O'Brien's interview 11th May 2007, http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN.htm
Not exactly in his own words, and very odd that the PJ record it as "the truth is...." 
"- The truth is that after the crying, the deponent had to change all the sheets and his daughter's clothing as she had vomited."
Well that doesn't mention where the dirty sheets were put.  What about the rogatory interview?

Well it seems to be some sort of sore point: "That, you know, given the amount of stick that, that I’ve had with the Portuguese Press for not requesting any fresh sheets for Evie, erm, I think I’d actually like to point out that the, that this wasn’t some third world, erm, apartment and it did actually have a washing machine.  And, erm, you know, we’ve been, you know, they don’t know where it’s come from, but, erm, I don’t know whether it is a question that the PJ have particularly done, but, you know, every time I translated to the PJ, erm, the Portuguese Press article, it says that we never requested any, erm, we never requested any further sheets and if they were sick all over them then how could this be true.  But it’s quite sort of staggering that eight months later then the fact that there was a washing machine in the building isn’t in there, so I would be very keen for that to be put in please”."

So what is he implying he washed and dried the sheets immediately?  That's rather a difficult task to complete rapidly!  Is there anything more?

"Reply    “So ‘I told him to go back and tell Jane that Evie was unwell’, erm, I’d obviously cleaned her up and changed her.  Erm, I think maybe what I would do is I’d say ‘Matt came into my apartment and asked if I needed any help, I said ‘No, go back and tell Jane that Evie was unwell’’ and then, because I don’t think that I would have had time then, it was then I started, ‘I got her out, I gave her a quick wash in the bath, changed her, got the sheet off the cot’, erm, and at least, whether I started the washing machine then, but at least ‘I put them in the washing machine and then sat down with Evie’.  But I want it in there that there was a bloody washing machine in the apartment”.

1578    “’Gave Evie a quick bath’'”
 Reply    “Yeah”.

1578    “’Changed her’'”
 Reply    “’Changed her’ and, erm, and MARK WARNER do stretch to cleaning facilities on their holidays, so”.

1578    “’And placed bed linen’'”
 Reply    “Excuse to sound so cynical, but.  ‘And placed’, well I don’t think, I don’t think I necessarily put the, I got the dirty linen and her clothes off and at least I think, you know, there was a few bits of sick and I probably gave them a rinse off in the bath and then just shoved them in the washing machine, whether I started it then or did it later I’ve no idea.  But, you know, since we’ve been”.

1578    “’And placed clothing’”.
 Reply    “Suspicion has been put on us because, erm, we didn’t request any further sheets.  I think I’d rather have it in there that, erm”.

1578    “’Into the washing machine’”."

Does Russell actually address the issue at hand - where did the replacement sheets come from?

"Personally I don’t feel as anti the re-enactment of some of, as some of the rest of the group and that is despite having perhaps some of the most, you know, some of the worst Press out of the, out of the lot of us, you know, I’ve, you know, I’m the male who was away from the room for the longest, you know, I didn’t ask for bed sheets and a whole range of other sort of associations with Exeter and Robert MURAT, you know, there’s, you know, I’ve got a lot more in many respects to, to be worried about travelling to Portugal."

If he had spare bed sheets in the cupboard why wouldn't he just say he didn't need any replacements for they were there?

You would think Jane would have to complete the process of washing and drying the sheets, so what does she say?
Jane's rogatory says something similar:
" then I went back, erm, to find Russell sort of, you know, with, Evie was awake and I think he’d put her in the bath, because I think she had been, I think when he’d been in she had actually been sick, so he put her in the bath and he put the sheets all in the washing machine that was in the apartment. Because that’s another thing about the sheets, but we’d been doing washing all week, because you know what it’s like with kids, you end up with, so they were in the washing machine.  Erm, yeah, and then he, so I then, we were probably in there together for, I don’t know how long, five minutes of whatever, and then he went back to finish off the rest of, erm, well finish the rest of the meal”."
OK when I find the link to the dog video we can look and see where this often spoken about washing machine was.



Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Sunny

Re: Did this finding get followed up by the PJ?
« Reply #340 on: September 03, 2018, 06:58:47 AM »
I don't think they had spare sheets from the statement you quoted Rob and that is why there appear to have been questions asked.

If they had a washing machine but no tumble drier then IMO the sheets wouldn't be dry until the morning so what did her child sleep on, the mattress only?
Members are reminded that cites must be provided in accordance with the forum rules. On several occasions recently cites have been requested but never provided. Asking for a cite is not goading but compliance.

From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.

Moderators and Editors take note!

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Did this finding get followed up by the PJ?
« Reply #341 on: September 03, 2018, 07:56:22 AM »
I realise now these sheets are just cot sheets so not quite so difficult to wash.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Did this finding get followed up by the PJ?
« Reply #342 on: September 03, 2018, 09:22:11 AM »
I realise now these sheets are just cot sheets so not quite so difficult to wash.

And the child perhaps wasn't left in the cot;

 I think I went in one room with Ella and I think Evie had already been moved into our room and Jane slept with her in there and just lay there for an hour or so, certainly didn’t get any sleep.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Did this finding get followed up by the PJ?
« Reply #343 on: September 03, 2018, 11:35:43 AM »
This is the long version of the cadaver dog and CSI dog searches .https://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8....... now it is a matter of defining where the search on G5D starts and ends. 

Personally I find looking at the video difficult but I suppose I'll just have to do it! 
Had a bit of luck 5D starts here https://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=2501

At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4NMYPsFKb8&feature=youtu.be&t=2717 or soon after you get a glimpse of a front loading washing machine.

« Last Edit: September 03, 2018, 12:38:17 PM by Robittybob1 »
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Did this finding get followed up by the PJ?
« Reply #344 on: September 03, 2018, 11:46:47 PM »
The second insight:
"2.   Were the sheets in 5A taken to the laundry first thing next morning?  There is all this talk about them being removed but when did this happen?   Who was behind that if it happened?"

What is the story there?

Is this all rumour or is there actual fact behind it.   There was the statement from one of the cleaning staff saying she she washed Kate's personal clothing.  I was surprised by that too that the laundry did involve itself with personal items as well as bedding etc but it appears it was part of the service provided if the clients requested it.

Silvia Isabel Cunha Azevedo Cravinho http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_CRAVINHO.htm

States: "After the girl's disappearance, she is not sure but believes it was last Saturday, 5th May she received a bag of clothes from MW employees and was told expressly that these were clothes from Madeleine's family. It included adult clothes (men's and women's clothing as well as children's clothing of different sizes, making it logical to presume that it included the girl's clothes given that her younger siblings are twins.

When asked whether she remembers which items of clothing she received that could belong to Madeleine, she says a pink coloured skirt with two layers, one of them having a checked pattern. She remembers that there was nothing abnormal about this piece of clothing or the others, such as blood stains, tears or any other kind of damage."

I was a bit surprised when I read that the laundry staff were checking the laundry for potential forensic evidence!
"She remembers that there was nothing abnormal about this piece of clothing or the others, such as blood stains, tears or any other kind of damage.
Shouldn't that have been best done by a PJ forensic expert?  If they were suspecting parental involvement by that stage shouldn't the emphasis be on the parents clothing? 

Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.