Gerry and Jez chat while Jane walks by. Seconds later she spots Tannerman!

[Alfred R Jones]

If we knew everything that happened that night then we might be able to attempt to answer that question, but we only know a fraction of the night's events. But a child has gone missing; initially they of course assume she'll soon be found, but slowly realise she may not be. A child has gone missing and they have absolutely no way of proving they aren't involved i.e. they know they're all suspects. Who wouldn't panic in such a situation?

So perhaps you could explain a) why Gerry denied seeing her and b) why the Met have verified Tanner's sighting.

[Lyall]

So perhaps you could explain a) why Gerry denied seeing her and b) why the Met have verified Tanner's sighting.

She may well have seen a man with a child, but how can the Met possibly know six years later that she saw him at the precise time and location she said she did? They can't. Redwood never said it categorically.

GM can't say her saw her when he knows there's definitely at least one other witness there at the time can he.

[Brietta]

If we knew everything that happened that night then we might be able to attempt to answer that question, but we only know a fraction of the night's events. But a child has gone missing; initially they of course assume she'll soon be found, but slowly realise she may not be. A child has gone missing and they have absolutely no way of proving they (and their partners) aren't involved i.e. they know they're all suspects. Who wouldn't panic in such a situation?

You seem to have missed the point ... the victims of a crime do not have to "prove" anything; it is the function of the investigators to find evidence which may be used to prove or disprove and which may ultimately lead to the apprehension of a perpetrator.

There may have been an excuse to have fallen for the line being pushed in early 2007 given the nature of the information in circulation at that time.

Since then I would say that all of the calumnies directed at the Drs McCann and their friends have been thoroughly debunked ... pity you and others continue to be deceived by them.



**snip

It would, as Mills confirmed again yesterday, have scrutinised the various allegations that have been floated against the McCanns and concluded they are baseless:

'We had an investigative team looking into the story for weeks.

Our assessment was that the purported DNA evidence was weak and inconclusive, while so far as we could tell the supposedly significant "discrepancies" between the stories told by the McCanns' friends about the night of Madeleine's disappearance amount to very little indeed.'

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/nov/25/bbc


The above was printed on 25 November 2007 when real investigative journalists looked closely at the case which had been built against the Drs McCann and their friends and came to the conclusion that it was very wide of the mark indeed.

The outcome is that at present in the real world Scotland Yard and the Polícia Judiciária are up to speed with that reality ... and that is why they are looking for the person who stole Madeleine McCann nearly eight years ago.

With respect, I think it is time you and people like you caught up.

[Benice]

If we knew everything that happened that night then we might be able to attempt to answer that question, but we only know a fraction of the night's events. But a child has gone missing; initially they of course assume she'll soon be found, but slowly realise she may not be. A child has gone missing and they have absolutely no way of proving they (and their partners) aren't involved i.e. they know they're all suspects. Who wouldn't panic in such a situation?

I can't think of anything that would lead JT to think she might be suspected of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance.   She'd never set foot in the McCann apartment until after the abduction and didn't have even the slightest hint of a motive for anyone to point the finger in her direction - or at anyone else in the group for that matter.   The idea that K&G would become arguidos would simply not enter her head IMO.
 
There would still be some hope that Madeleine could be found imo and she also had no reason to distrust the PJ until much later. 

They were all at dinner - all behaving completely normally - eating, drinking, chatting and exchanging banter.  That fact alone is proof to me that they had no idea that anything unspeakable had happened or was going to happen that night. 

So -  I still have no idea why JT would lie to the police for Gerry - or why her husband would stand back and allow the woman he loved, and the mother of his children to put herself in a position of such extreme danger that would not only wreck her life but his and his family too  - when she didn't have to - but purely as a favour to someone she hardly knew.

That makes no sense whatsoever to me.

[faithlilly]

So perhaps you could explain a) why Gerry denied seeing her and b) why the Met have verified Tanner's sighting.

Gerry's denial has been adequately explained. That you diidn't like the explanation is neither here nor there.

As to the Met verifying Tanner's sighting. does that verification make any sense ? Really ? They've excluded as the abductor a man carrying a child with pink pyjamas and unusually no shoes or covering yet even more strangely think that the abductor may be another man carrying a child with pink pyjamas and unusually no shoes or covering. You can see my probelem, can't you ?

[Lyall]

I can't think of anything that would lead JT to think she might be suspected of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance.   She'd never set foot in the McCann apartment until after the abduction and didn't have even the slightest hint of a motive for anyone to point the finger in her direction - or at anyone else in the group for that matter.   The idea that K&G would become arguidos would simply not enter her head IMO.
 
There would still be some hope that Madeleine could be found imo and she also had no reason to distrust the PJ until much later. 

They were all at dinner - all behaving completely normally - eating, drinking, chatting and exchanging banter.  That fact alone is proof to me that they had no idea that anything unspeakable had happened or was going to happen that night. 

So -  I still have no idea why JT would lie to the police for Gerry - or why her husband would stand back and allow the woman he loved, and the mother of his children to put herself in a position of such extreme danger that would not only wreck her life but his and his family too  - when she didn't have to - but purely as a favour to someone she hardly knew.

That makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Where was JT at the moment the alarm was raised, Benice?
Where were both she and her partner moments before the alarm?
Both were away from the table at the same time minutes earlier.

You wouldn't be stressed yourself in such a situation?

[pathfinder73]

And as Jassi pointed out as soon as Jane returned, Russ was gone at 9:25. That's 10 minutes at the most between their checks. Russ said it's because he wanted to use the toilet.

"After we had eaten the starters I needed to go to the toilet so Matt and I decided we would go and check on the children.  We walked together I recall that the light was fading I went straight to 5D I could hear Evie was murmuring.  I went into the apartment and Matt went into his.  I went to the toilet to urinate and then started to clean up Evie and change her, Matt came into my apartment and asked if I needed any help.  It was getting darker by this time.  I said to go back and tell Jane that Evie was unwell.
I sat in the lounge and read to Evie Jane came back having eaten her meal.  We stayed together in the apartment for around 5 minutes.  I went across to the Tapas restaurant this would have been around 21:45 hours." (ROB)

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm

[misty]

Gerry's denial has been adequately explained. That you diidn't like the explanation is neither here nor there.

As to the Met verifying Tanner's sighting. does that verification make any sense ? Really ? They've excluded as the abductor a man carrying a child with pink pyjamas and unusually no shoes or covering yet even more strangely think that the abductor may be another man carrying a child with pink pyjamas and unusually no shoes or covering. You can see my probelem, can't you ?

Isn't there a world of difference between a man coming forward claiming to be the person Jane saw carrying a child & SY being totally satisfied that he was indeed Tannerman?

[Lyall]

You seem to have missed the point ... the victims of a crime do not have to "prove" anything; it is the function of the investigators to find evidence which may be used to prove or disprove and which may ultimately lead to the apprehension of a perpetrator.

There may have been an excuse to have fallen for the line being pushed in early 2007 given the nature of the information in circulation at that time.

Since then I would say that all of the calumnies directed at the Drs McCann and their friends have been thoroughly debunked ... pity you and others continue to be deceived by them.



**snip

It would, as Mills confirmed again yesterday, have scrutinised the various allegations that have been floated against the McCanns and concluded they are baseless:

'We had an investigative team looking into the story for weeks.

Our assessment was that the purported DNA evidence was weak and inconclusive, while so far as we could tell the supposedly significant "discrepancies" between the stories told by the McCanns' friends about the night of Madeleine's disappearance amount to very little indeed.'

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/nov/25/bbc


The above was printed on 25 November 2007 when real investigative journalists looked closely at the case which had been built against the Drs McCann and their friends and came to the conclusion that it was very wide of the mark indeed.

The outcome is that at present in the real world Scotland Yard and the Polícia Judiciária are up to speed with that reality ... and that is why they are looking for the person who stole Madeleine McCann nearly eight years ago.

With respect, I think it is time you and people like you caught up.

It's two separate issues, Brietta.

What happened after the alarm may or may not have been caused by whatever happened before it. It is quite conceivable (based on what we know) they didn't have any idea what happened to Madeleine, but they embellished their stories.

[Brietta]

It's two separate issues, Brietta.

What happened after the alarm may or may not have been caused by whatever happened before it. It is quite conceivable (based on what we know) they didn't have any idea what happened to Madeleine, but they embellished their stories.

I'm not going to ask you for a cite to prove your statement that "they embellished their stories" based on "what we know" for the simple reason they did no such thing.

I remain bemused that it is still considered that "we" armchair detectives have superior knowledge to the professionals from Britain and Portugal currently ploughing a different furrow from the 2007 investigation.

[Lyall]

I'm not going to ask you for a cite to prove your statement that "they embellished their stories" based on "what we know" for the simple reason they did no such thing.

I remain bemused that it is still considered that "we" armchair detectives have superior knowledge to the professionals from Britain and Portugal currently ploughing a different furrow from the 2007 investigation.

And yet not twenty minutes ago you congratulated ShininginLuz for doing the exact same thing (I agree with you there btw, it's a great blog). People are going to keep discussing a mystery, until it is no longer a mystery (and even then you know some will keep discussing it). I'd accept that and relax a bit.

 

[Alice Purjorick]

I'm not going to ask you for a cite to prove your statement that "they embellished their stories" based on "what we know" for the simple reason they did no such thing.

I remain bemused that it is still considered that "we" armchair detectives have superior knowledge to the professionals from Britain and Portugal currently ploughing a different furrow from the 2007 investigation.

Considering that Nicola Wall remains remarkably silent I would suggest it is not possible to define what sort of furrow her team is ploughing.

[Anna]

It's two separate issues, Brietta.

What happened after the alarm may or may not have been caused by whatever happened before it. It is quite conceivable (based on what we know) they didn't have any idea what happened to Madeleine, but they embellished their stories.

If they embellished their stories, as you think is quite, conceivable, Lyall..……..They did not take into consideration, that Madeleine, may have been found, around the corner, asleep in a bush, or found deceased, during the search.

There is also the fact that they had no idea, whether or not, they had been observed, by people looking from their windows or balconies, making it an even greater risk.

Do you believe that they were so stupid, that they would have taken the a huge risk, of lying about the true events?

[Lyall]

If they embellished their stories, as you think is quite, conceivable, Lyall..……..They did not take into consideration, that Madeleine, may have been found, around the corner, asleep in a bush, or found deceased, during the search.

There is also the fact that they had no idea, whether or not, they had been observed, by people looking from their windows or balconies, making it an even greater risk.

Do you believe that they were so stupid, that they would have taken the a huge risk, of lying about the true events?

Not stupid, desperate. It's conceivable. Desperate people can and do make instant, drastic decisions, which in most cases they likely very soon regret.

Desperation can explain the point you raise about other possible witnesses etc. Desperate people gamble.

As I said in an earlier post of course in this scenario they expected/hoped Madeleine would soon be found, but at some point during the early night they begin to realise she may not. It's the evolution of their stories during that night that is most crucial, and unfortunately we don't have much information about that.

We know the stories changed between the first and second week, so how much did they in the hours between alarm and official statements in Portimao next day?

[Brietta]

Not stupid, desperate. It's conceivable. Desperate people can and do make instant, drastic decisions, which in most cases they likely very soon regret.

Desperation can explain the point you raise about other possible witnesses etc. Desperate people gamble.

As I said in an earlier post of course in this scenario they expected/hoped Madeleine would soon be found, but at some point during the early night they begin to realise she may not. It's the evolution of their stories during that night that is most crucial, and unfortunately we don't have much information about that.

We know the stories changed between the first and second week, so how much did they in the hours between alarm and official statements in Portimao next day?

Actually ... no we do not.

You will kindly give examples of the changes you allege which may have materially altered the substance of their statements.