THE FRONT DOOR - WAY IN AND WAY OUT for abductor

[insider]

It tells me that this Police Officer inteviewing Jane Tanner, knew what she was talking about:-

Quote
4078    “It’s alright.  I can fully understand why you have so much frustration.  And, in as much as the part where Gerry thinks he was standing somewhere slightly different to where you saw him, well that, you know, people do see things from different perspectives”.
Reply    “Umm”.

4078    “You know, we can take a statement from people, if an incident happened outside and there was a group of people watching it, everybody would have a different take on what they had seen”.
Reply    “Umm”.

4078    And that, you know, it doesn’t matter  You can only say what you can remember and as far as you can remember it.   And if it is different from how it was then things can be explained”.

Had Tanner been on her own then that argument might have held water but she wasn't on her own.  Her sighting was corroborated by Wilkins exactly.   Maybe you will now tell me that Wilkins got it wrong too??   

[insider]

Madeleine was taken out of the front door but the carrier didn't need a key.

[Benice]

Had Tanner been on her own then that argument might have held water but she wasn't on her own.  Her sighting was corroborated by Wilkins exactly.   Maybe you will now tell me that Wilkins got it wrong too??   

The points made by the Police officer to JT re different people having different memories is applicable to everyone.

Jez Wilkins JT and GM all gave their own recollections - and as the Police Officer explained, the fact that they did not all give identical descriptions would be considered normal by the Police.   

Had JT said she saw them standing at the top of the road and Gerry had said he was talking to Jez outside the OC entrance - then that would have been suspicious, but a difference of 2/3 metres would not have been considered to be suspect.      Even though Jez and Gerry didnt see JT - she could not have known Gerry was talking to Jez and go on to correctly describe the approximate place where they were standing unless she had seen them there.

The same goes for discrepancies in statements.  The police would not expect statements from 9 people to all be exactly the same.   In fact that would be more likely to arouse suspicion, as it would suggest collusion.
IMO




 

[faithlilly]

The points made by the Police officer to JT re different people having different memories is applicable to everyone.

Jez Wilkins JT and GM all gave their own recollections - and as the Police Officer explained, the fact that they did not all give identical descriptions would be considered normal by the Police.   

Had JT said she saw them standing at the top of the road and Gerry had said he was talking to Jez outside the OC entrance - then that would have been suspicious, but a difference of 2/3 metres would not have been considered to be suspect.      Even though Jez and Gerry didnt see JT - she could not have known Gerry was talking to Jez and go on to correctly describe the approximate place where they were standing unless she had seen them there.

The same goes for discrepancies in statements.  The police would not expect statements from 9 people to all be exactly the same.   In fact that would be more likely to arouse suspicion, as it would suggest collusion.
IMO

Nonsense again Benice.

If three witness give statements and two of those witnesses say the same thing then the police will, quite rightly, presume those two witnesses to be correct.  The curious thing about Loach's 'documentary' was firstly that Jez's testimony with regard to the which side of the road issue was never introduced, which made it look as if it was merely Gerry's word against Tanners, thus obscuring the reality and secondly that Gerry's recollection was used over Tanner/Wilkins.

Gerry knew that it wasn't credible that Tanner could have passed by himself and Wilkins without either of them seeing her so he invited a scenario which was credible.

And to your other point, Tanner had the whole of the night before giving her statement on the 4th to be briefed with regard to the Gerry/Wilkins conversation. It is obvious from the timeline given to the police on the 10th, and which the whole group contributed to, that Gerry, at first, was going to go with he/Tanner/Wilkins all being on the same side of the road. I can only assume that the disbelief expressed by the detectives with regard to this scenario in his 10th May interview made him change his 'recollection'.

[DCI]

Madeleine was taken out of the front door but the carrier didn't need a key.

Can you show any proof, of this?

[Benice]

Nonsense again Benice.

If three witness give statements and two of those witnesses say the same thing then the police will, quite rightly, presume those two witnesses to be correct.  The curious thing about Loach's 'documentary' was firstly that Jez's testimony with regard to the which side of the road issue was never introduced, which made it look as if it was merely Gerry's word against Tanners, thus obscuring the reality and secondly that Gerry's recollection was used over Tanner/Wilkins.

Gerry knew that it wasn't credible that Tanner could have passed by himself and Wilkins without either of them seeing her so he invited a scenario which was credible.

And to your other point, Tanner had the whole of the night before giving her statement on the 4th to be briefed with regard to the Gerry/Wilkins conversation. It is obvious from the timeline given to the police on the 10th, and which the whole group contributed to, that Gerry, at first, was going to go with he/Tanner/Wilkins all being on the same side of the road. I can only assume that the disbelief expressed by the detectives with regard to this scenario in his 10th May interview made him change his 'recollection'.

If Gerry wanted to tell a lie he would simply have said he HAD seen JT. Job done.

As for JT having the whole night to be briefed - by whom and when?   She didn't get back to the table until after Gerry had returned after his chat with Jez at about  9.20ish - and as soon as she'd finished her main course she rushed off to take over from Russell so that he could have his meal.   She didn't return to the table at all after that and she didn't see Gerry again until after she had told the GNR what she had seen and was then taken to see the PJ in 5a.

Don't forget it wasn't just Jane who would need to be briefed - so would everyone else so that they could lie about her leaving the table and when she returned etc etc. and anyway wasn't Gerry busy wandering round PdL at the time looking for somewhere to dispose of his dead daughter?    Russell wasn't at the table from 9.30 until around 10 to 10 - so who briefed him - and when?

It doesn't matter how you look at it - even if JT and the others did lose their minds and agree to cover for Gerry and Kate, there simply wasn't time to carry out the kind of massive briefing that would be required    Unless you think they took it all in during a quick chat while they were enjoying their meal  - as apparently the bombshell that Madeleine had died and Gerry was going off to get rid of her body, didn't even affect their appetites.

Sorry but the whole idea is ridiculous IMO.   

The differing memories of the place recalled by Jez and JT, and GM about where they stood - are not different enough for the police to be concerned about.  They know this happens when several witnesses are involved  - it was the Police Officer who explained that to JT.     The police believed JT's sighting  - probably because there was no possible reason for her to lie.
IMO

 


 

   








   

[AnneGuedes]

Benice, you built up ludicrous scenarios, you attribute them to sceptics and then you ridicule them. This is unfair.
I don't think any of the TP7 intentionally covered anything. You can say untruths without intending to cover something that has nothing to do with you.
Don't you see they believed the shutters/window story ? They believed it as those in the UK believed it.
In their place I would have likely believed it as well. During a certain time. I guess Ms Tanner discovered she had been used, when doing the pseudo reconstruction. She possibly started to wonder why or rather preferred the ostrich-like approach.

[Benice]

Benice, you built up ludicrous scenarios, you attribute them to sceptics and they you ridicule them. This is unfair.
I don't think any of the TP7 intentionally covered anything. You can say untruths without intending to cover something that has nothing to do with you.
Don't you see they believed the shutters/window story ? They believed it as those in the UK believed it.
In their place I would have likely believed it as well. During a certain time. I guess Ms Tanner discovered she had been used, when doing the pseudo reconstruction. She possibly started to wonder why or rather preferred the ostrich-like approach.

No it's not unfair Anne.   These are the theories of some sceptics who desperately want people to believe them because they hate the McCanns. That's what isn't fair - and if these scenarios are clearly and obviously impossible - then they need to be rebutted. imo. 

If you or anyone else can give me credible reasons why JT would lie about anything that happened that night - and how you think she really spent her evening -   then I would be more than happy to consider them with an open mind.

[AnneGuedes]

No it's not unfair Anne.   These are the theories of some sceptics who desperately want people to believe them because they hate the McCanns. That's what isn't fair - and if these scenarios are clearly and obviously impossible - then they need to be rebutted. imo. 

If you or anyone else can give me credible reasons why JT would lie about anything that happened that night - and how you think she really spent her evening -   then I would be more than happy to consider them with an open mind.

Please, Benice, cite names and quote individual theories instead of globalizing.
I'm a sceptic and I don't recognize my thoughts in the supposed to be sceptic theories you're making up.
I've nothing against being personally contradicted and criticized, but in general and in the name of impalpable ones I find it unacceptable.

[sadie]

Please, Benice, cite names and quote individual theories instead of globalizing.
I'm a sceptic and I don't recognize my thoughts in the supposed to be sceptic theories you're making up.
I've nothing against being personally contradicted and criticized, but in general and in the name of impalpable ones I find it unacceptable.

Claptrap Anne.

come on give your theories.  But they must be based on provable facts

We are all waiting

Come on, Anne.  Your turn to show your stuff.  Tell us your theories.  Tell us your reasons. 

[Benice]

Please, Benice, cite names and quote individual theories instead of globalizing.
I'm a sceptic and I don't recognize my thoughts in the supposed to be sceptic theories you're making up.
I've nothing against being personally contradicted and criticized, but in general and in the name of impalpable ones I find it unacceptable.

Good grief Anne it's not that long ago that we discussed the sceptics theory that Gerry was the man the Smith's saw - which involved the claim that Gerry was not at the table at 10.00p.m.       IIRC You posted on that thread and so did Faithlilly defending the theory.

[insider]

Can you show any proof, of this?

Yes the same proof you have that she was abducted.

[sadie]

Yes the same proof you have that she was abducted.

Some indications of an abduction, to remind you:

1)  History: Three abductions of little blond haired girls in just over two and a half years.  All within about 18 miles from PdL.  Same period of time, same locality
2)  A golden witness, Jane Tanner
3)  Mrs Caroline Carpenters audio witnessing
4)  Lies by Amaral, or his crew, to try and get Gerry to confess
5)  The ?deliberate promotion of Eddie and Keela as having proven the case.  Totally untrue
6)  Previous Fitting up of Leonor and Joao with NO EVIDENCE.  Just a story invented by Amaral and Cristovao.
7)  History and Character of Gerry and Kate.  No lies, very reserved approach.  Not like Karen Matthews who was so widely acclaimed by the [ censored word].  Yeah ... RIGHT !
8)  5A = Perfect spot.  Totally hidden front door, in darkness with no one passing.
9)  watchers in the days before hand
10) Previous very recent burglaries in same block using a key
11) No motive for the Mccanns to do it
12) Very obvious disinformation re Kate and Gerry, put about.  Similar to disinformation and lies put about about Leonor Cipriano
13)  Means to do it.  None.  No car.
14)  Opportunity to do it .  None.  Watched all the time  ... or presence at relevant time witnessed by others
15) Indications they have done it.  None.  loving parents
16)  A very plausible trail to a certain place and a certain person.  Now there is room for errors here, but I dont think so, cos other things which I cannot repeat atm, ex judicy possibly, fit totally. 

yep, it was an adbduction, alright ... cos i have a further two reasons that I cannot give (ex judicy) + a most unusual outlining verification via an unexpected source

[faithlilly]

Some indications of an abduction, to remind you:

1)  History: Three abductions of little blond haired girls in just over two and a half years.  All within about 18 miles from PdL.  Same period of time, same locality
2)  A golden witness, Jane Tanner
3)  Mrs Caroline Carpenters audio witnessing
4)  Lies by Amaral, or his crew, to try and get Gerry to confess
5)  The ?deliberate promotion of Eddie and Keela as having proven the case.  Totally untrue
6)  Previous Fitting up of Leonor and Joao with NO EVIDENCE.  Just a story invented by Amaral and Cristovao.
7)  History and Character of Gerry and Kate.  No lies, very reserved approach.  Not like Karen Matthews who was so widely acclaimed by the [ censored word].  Yeah ... RIGHT !
8)  5A = Perfect spot.  Totally hidden front door, in darkness with no one passing.
9)  watchers in the days before hand
10) Previous very recent burglaries in same block using a key
11) No motive for the Mccanns to do it
12) Very obvious disinformation re Kate and Gerry, put about.  Similar to disinformation and lies put about about Leonor Cipriano
13)  Means to do it.  None.  No car.
14)  Opportunity to do it .  None.  Watched all the time  ... or presence at relevant time witnessed by others
15) Indications they have done it.  None.  loving parents
16)  A very plausible trail to a certain place and a certain person.  Now there is room for errors here, but I dont think so, cos other things which I cannot repeat atm, ex judicy possibly, fit totally. 

yep, it was an adbduction, alright ... cos i have a further two reasons that I cannot give (ex judicy) + a most unusual outlining verification via an unexpected source

I understand sadie that you have a desperate need to make yourself seem more important in this case than you actually
are but it's all getting rather tedious now so with the greatest respect will you either give up or shut up.

[sadie]

I understand sadie that you have a desperate need to make yourself seem more important in this case than you actually
are but it's all getting rather tedious now so with the greatest respect will you either give up or shut up.

No