The facts: Madeleine McCann is alive and well or a long time deceased.

[sadie]

@ Benice

 

[faithlilly]

Faith,  we only know the gist of what Kate and Gerry said to their friends and family.   We do not know their exact words and to attribute other people's words and  interpretations of what they had been told -  to Kate and Gerry is unfair.  Once again you are not making any allowances for the emotional state everybody involved would be in during those conversations.    Everyone said what a dreadful state of fear and distress K&G were in and you are expecting Gerry to be having rational conversations???  You cannot be serious.

Once again I come back to the major sticking point in this case.     Why would Gerry and Kate decide to come up with such a complicated, convoluted cover story, involving disposing of the body early on when people were around, thinking up all kinds of stories, getting someone to give them an alibi - and involving loads of other people, who they would then have to rely on for the rest of their lives - when all they had to do was dispose of Madeleine's body in the dead of the night, get up in the morning, leave the front door ajar -  call the police and say that someone must have come in during the night and abducted their child.    No-one else involved, no stories to think up, and no alibis required.

The McCanns are intelligent well educated people and if they were so calculating and stoney-hearted that they could dispose of their own daughter in cold blood, they would have no difficulty at all in calmly sitting down and working out a cover story a million times simpler, easier and better than the one the sceptics claim they did.

How anyone can keep missing this massive elephant in the room I have no idea.

The story is not convoluted, it's very simple really. The story is Madeleine was abducted, the window was open to prove it was an abduction and not a walk and wandered and Tanner had to see Gerry and the abductor together, at a time when there was an independent witness present, as it gave Gerry an alibi  just in case Martin Smith came forward to identify him.

[faithlilly]

faith

Have you ever played the game where you all arrange yourself in a line, and the first person whispers a message into the ear of the next person?  That person whispers the same message into the ear of the next person and so on.... and so on all along the line?
By the end the message can be quite jumbled.

In this case, a message was given to one of a group of people by Gerry.  Then another similar but possibly slightly different message was given, by Gerry, to another person .... different because Gerry remembered different things as he went along ... and as people talked with him, his perception of what had happened adjusted accordingly.   He was also in shock with his mind either racing or blank.  Either thing can happen in a severe crisis

Additionally, because each person would ask different questions of Gerry, so the answers inevitably would include different facts.


What do you think would happen to these family members when Gerry stopped talking to them?

Each would immediately phone other family members and go over what Gerry had said.  A big family.  It would only take one member to suggest Jemmying .... and very rapidly as they cross conversed, they would all be using the word.


Nothing sinister there... just normal human conversations getting mixed up as in the party game.

Simples

Except Kate spoke to her friends, who had no connection to Gerry's family and they reported also being told about broken/forced shutters. Now how do you think that happened ?  >@@(*&)

[faithlilly]

They did not lie about the shutters.   When they left 5A  the shutters and window were closed as they had been all week and as far as they knew they couldn't be opened from the outside.     Madeleine was asleep in her bed.    When Kate returned the shutters and window were open and Madeleine was gone.   Any normal person on being confronted with that scene would immediately think that someone had broken in through that window and taken their child.   They would have been abnormal if they had NOT thought that is what happened.

Later they realised that the window was only ONE way the abductor could have got in.   But that doesn't mean they lied when they first told people what they thought had happened.   It was their opinion based on the evidence of their own eyes.  An opinion is not a lie.    The fact that Gerry discovered the shutters could be raised from the outside did not change their opinon at the time - and for all we know he may have thought the only reason they could now be raised from the outside was because they had been interfered with in some way by the abductors.     Who knows.

I don't know how many was I can say this Benice. By the time Gerry spoke to any of his relatives he had, according to him, tried the shutters and knew they could be opened without forcing or jemmying anything so why didn't he say that to any of those relatives instead of implying they had been forced ?

[sadie]

Except Kate spoke to her friends, who had no connection to Gerry's family and they reported also being told about broken/forced shutters. Now how do you think that happened ?  >@@(*&)

The two families would have had a hot line going between them in such a dire emergency.  It is just like the party game with the words getting changed as they are passed down the line  See reply #75 above 

You are making too much of it Faith.

[sadie]

BUMPED

Rachel quotation:

I just cannot get my head around people, some of whom didn't really know the McCanns that well, all agreeing to take part in the cover-up of a child's death.  Why? Why expose yourself to possible criminal charges for perverting the course of justice?

I don't think we have a reliable source for Jane Tanner and Rusell O'Brien wanting to change their statements?

[faithlilly]

@sadie

'I don't think we have a reliable source for Jane Tanner and Rusell O'Brien wanting to change their statements?'

Jeez you're right sadie. It wasn't posted by some member of the 3As somewhere back in antiquity therefore it can't be true, right ? 

[Rachel Granada]

@sadie

'I don't think we have a reliable source for Jane Tanner and Rusell O'Brien wanting to change their statements?'

Jeez you're right sadie. It wasn't posted by some member of the 3As somewhere back in antiquity therefore it can't be true, right ? 

So can you provide a reliable cite for this claim about them wanting to change their stories then, Faithlilly?

[sadie]

@sadie

'I don't think we have a reliable source for Jane Tanner and Rusell O'Brien wanting to change their statements?'

Jeez you're right sadie. It wasn't posted by some member of the 3As somewhere back in antiquity therefore it can't be true, right ? 

Well there will have been reliable witnesses to what I saw on 3A's.  Maybe I should ask B**n or B**ny to confirm what I was saying ... or someone else who was there?

Maybe I should involve sn**p, instead?  I tghink he was there.  Would be fun to have him on this forum

Doncha think?

[AnneGuedes]

I don't know how many was I can say this Benice. By the time Gerry spoke to any of his relatives he had, according to him, tried the shutters and knew they could be opened without forcing or jemmying anything so why didn't he say that to any of those relatives instead of implying they had been forced ?

That's a good point, Faithlilly.
One more time I reckon that sceptics are accused to suspect the group of covering up. This wasn't needed and usually "dirty clothes are washed within the family" as we say in France (le linge sale se lave en famille, for Rachel).
Mrs Tanner saw someone, she couldn't invent such a strange sighting, someone whose face she couldn't describe, if not refused to.
The first story telling is vague and amazes Silvia Bastista, the interpret : when she saw this man, the lady (JT) was positioned in a spot that has no viewing angle to the location where she had seen the man.
Mrs Tanner's sighting sounds consciously or not complacent because it implies kind of believing in Santa Claus. The implications of such a sighting are not plausible : the abductor and Mr McCann leaning on each side of an open door without the second suspecting the presence of the first, without hearing him breathing ? The abductor walking with Mr McCann's daughter 20 m far without again Mr McCann seeing him ?  The abductor walking around PDL during 50 minutes, as if the child he stole had no family to check on her? A little girl deeply sleeping against a stranger's body, with a light pyjama on in the 12°C windy night ?
Madeleine, if abducted, couldn't have been abducted then. This was clearly the crucial point to clear up in the reconstruction requested by the AG.

[Chinagirl]

Jane Tanner is not "Mrs Tanner."  She is not married to a Mr Tanner.  Tanner is the name she was born with, so "Ms Tanner" is correct - not "Mrs."

[Redblossom]

Jane Tanner is not "Mrs Tanner."  She is not married to a Mr Tanner.  Tanner is the name she was born with, so "Ms Tanner" is correct - not "Mrs."

Nothing  like a bit of irrelevant pedantry, as if it changes anything of import, just nitpicking for nothing

You should also know that in certain languages the Mrs epithet is directed at unmarried women in any relationship and the Miss epithet to married women, its not a big deal, really it isnt

[sadie]

That's a good point, Faithlilly.
One more time I reckon that sceptics are accused to suspect the group of covering up. This wasn't needed and usually "dirty clothes are washed within the family" as we say in France (le linge sale se lave en famille, for Rachel).
Mrs Tanner saw someone, she couldn't invent such a strange sighting, someone whose face she couldn't describe, if not refused to.

The first story telling is vague and amazes Silvia Bastista, the interpret : when she saw this man, the lady (JT) was positioned in a spot that has no viewing angle to the location where she had seen the man.[/i]

That is absolute rubbish.  She was walking straight up the hill as Bundleman suddenly appeared from the left.  She had a full side view, from about 8-10 metres, but he looked away.   From the image produced, it seems that she only got a proper view of a third of his face.  As he carried on crossing the road in an easterly direction, he got closer and closer to the street lamp until he was virtually under it and then beyond ... but still in her visibility for a while. 

As he moved east, Jane moved north, so assuming they were walking at the same speed they kept a distance of about .8 -10 metres between them.

From the images drawn, it appears that he was hurrying   Maybe Jane was too, but we do not know that for certain.

Please can you give the exact cite for your extract.  Anne, cos it sounds funny that you have only mentioned Silvia Bastista, when presumably it is supposed to be part of one of JT's statements.  Exactly which one please.

It is clearly wrong.  She could see the location and VERY WELL.  It seems very strange that it should have beeen interpreted so badly to the extent that it is totally untrue
.... and what do you mean by

Mrs Tanner saw someone, she couldn't invent such a strange sighting, someone whose face she couldn't describe, if not refused to

Are you intimating that Jane Tanner refused to give evidence?  I am sure that you didn't mean to say that, did you?

Mrs Tanner's sighting sounds consciously or not complacent because it implies kind of believing in Santa Claus.

 The implications of such a sighting are not plausible.

 

They clearly are very plausible and where does Santa Claus come into this?     You are droll Anne, bet your students love you !

: the abductor and Mr McCann leaning on each side of an open door without the second suspecting the presence of the first, without hearing him breathing ?

Just a question mark in Gerry head.  He wondered if the abductor was there when he was there.  He wondered if he could have been in the Mccanns bedroom, I think he mentioned the kitchen too, or possibly behind the door.  Anne, he was just trying to fathom things out and this dreadful, feeling came over him that bundleman might have been there when he was in the apartment.  That's all.  Just a niggling feeling - nothing more. 

I fear you are making too much out of nothing

 The abductor walking with Mr McCann's daughter 20 m far without again Mr McCann seeing him ? 

Lets be accurate Anne.  Bundleman was 31 metres away, NOT 20 metres,  as close as I can measure it and it wasn't daylight.  Check it yourself using GEarth.

The abductor walking around PDL during 50 minutes, as if the child he stole had no family to check on her? A little girl deeply sleeping against a stranger's body, with a light pyjama on in the 12°C windy night ?. 

As has been poiinted out on here several times, the kids were
1)  Checked visually at about 9.05 - 9.15 by Gerry
2)  Checked visually again by Matt at about 9,40 (unhappily Madeleines bed was around the corner so only the twins were visually checked by Matt but no unusual sounds)
3)  And checked visually by Kate at 10.00

How come you haven't seen that before, on here.  Did you read the statements?  It was clear on there too.

Where did you get your 50 minutes Anne? ... and the insinuation that no family checked her is gawd awful.  It is totally untrue.   You have got too many facts wrong on this one Anne

Madeleine, if abducted, couldn't have been abducted then.

Clearly she could have been and almost certainly was.  There were two witnesses , Jane Tanner and Caroline Carpenter

This was clearly the crucial point to clear up in the reconstruction requested by the AG.

Why did the PJ chicken out of it?  The Mccanns were up for it

Up for it, right until after that dreadful day in September in Portimao when Amaral and Co told Gerry lies about finding evidence that proved they did it.  SWINE

After that it was clear they were being fitted up. 

[AnneGuedes]

Jane Tanner is not "Mrs Tanner."  She is not married to a Mr Tanner.  Tanner is the name she was born with, so "Ms Tanner" is correct - not "Mrs."

Thank you, Chinagirl, yes, it's surely better to say Ms, when one doesn't know whether a marital status exists or not and, if there is, how the person wishes to be designated.
I knew it was in use in the US, but thought it had vanished from the UK.
In France, everybody is "Madame", "Mademoiselle", when you're not a teen, has become pejorative (sort of synonym of spinster). Old times, old customs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/29/gender.uk

[faithlilly]

Jane Tanner is not "Mrs Tanner."  She is not married to a Mr Tanner.  Tanner is the name she was born with, so "Ms Tanner" is correct - not "Mrs."

As Russell O'Brien was at pains to point out in his rogatory interview.