Other witnesses cast doubt on Bundleman sighting?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Where did you find this ?
The only person who said she thought, before arriving, checks would be organised, one different parent staying behind every night, is Ms Tanner.

I am trying to find this, Anne. I have a feeling it is from one of the documentaries. Gerry mentions that the fact they were on vacation as a group put pressure on them to dine out together every night. He says that if they had been there just as a family, he and Kate would probably have dined in the apartment in the evening. It sounds very much like he is implying discomfort with the collective decision to dine out every night.

I also feel that his mantra-like insistence that dining far from their apartment was something that any parent would have done is an attempted masking of a sense of guilt. The idea that eating where they did was 'like dining in your garden' is clearly preposterous. Even with a very large garden or property with substantial grounds, people don't eat a long distance from the house.

[Carana]

Jeremy Wilkins identified the woman in purple as being Jane Tanner. I will double check later on but I'm sure it's in his second and third statements.

I don't mean to sound as though I'm evading your question Benice, but I have no idea what her partner would or would not allow. I can speculate but that will only lead to further debates based on more speculation.

I will have to leave this now until this evening.

Jaci x

He saw someone wearing purple... but he didn't know JT. How did he come to assume that it was her that he saw?

[AnneGuedes]

I am trying to find this, Anne. I have a feeling it is from one of the documentaries. Gerry mentions that the fact they were on vacation as a group put pressure on them to dine out together every night. He says that if they had been there just as a family, he and Kate would probably have dined in the apartment in the evening. It sounds very much like he is implying discomfort with the collective decision to dine out every night.

I also feel that his mantra-like insistence that dining far from their apartment was something that any parent would have done is an attempted masking of a sense of guilt. The idea that eating where they did was 'like dining in your garden' is clearly preposterous. Even with a very large garden or property with substantial grounds, people don't eat a long distance from the house.

This part I heard in some interview or documentary, yes. But no independent statement alluding to Mr McCann's behaviour during those Tapas dinners suggests discomfort.
Usually you don't dine in your garden very far from the kitchen (unless you have a specially equipped pavilion in your park), moreover if by chance your garden is separated in two parts by a street.

[AnneGuedes]

Regarding Lyall's comment, #32 on this thread, we all know that a person can easily become embroiled in the most complex and difficult of situations through no fault or making of his or her own.

That being said, I find it hard to imagine that T9, or a number of T9, would have been able to hold a 'conspiracy' watertight until today. Would whatever it was that would have bound them together in secrecy in May 2007, voluntarily or not, still obtain today?

As for being in a double bind, as you put it Anne, T9 were of course concerned to support their friends the McCanns, but their ultimate loyalties lay with their own families. They had all left their children that night and were all culpable, at some level, for its events, and would have been concerned with shielding themselves against further investigation and terrified of any possible legal consequences to their actions. This, I would have thought, would have been the overriding factor, not any need to 'work' with the McCanns. The idea that they all scrambled together to agree on a cooked-up story, under extreme pressure of time, when instinct would be telling them to protect only themselves, doesn't add up.

I never thought nor said it does add up...
But I always thought and said they didn't say all the truth and nothing but that.
And I find it legitimate to wonder why.

[AnneGuedes]

I totally disagree.  They were mirroring the perfectly acceptable Baby Listening service which some members of the group had signed up to during previous MW holidays where the service operated.     They had no reason to believe that what they were doing would be perceived by anyone as 'wrong'.     

Are you kidding ? Mirroring a service that didn't exist in PDL for obvious reasons !
And since when nothing can happen, except for an abduction, to children left alone ?

[Rachel Granada]

Are you kidding ? Mirroring a service that didn't exist in PDL for obvious reasons !
And since when nothing can happen, except for an abduction, to children left alone ?

What do you say about the Pontins/Butlins method of a nanny cycling up and down the chalets to report children cyring, Anne?

J'attend ton avis <I await your opinion>

[Sherlock Holmes]

I never thought nor said it does add up...
But I always thought and said they didn't say all the truth and nothing but that.
And I find it legitimate to wonder why.

Maybe they didn't tell the 'whole' truth, if that is so, because they sought to protect themselves...quite natural.

That's very different from a grand cover-up.

[AnneGuedes]

   None of them made any attempt to hide that fact-  either then or at any subsequent time - including Jane Tanner, so your suggestion that she lied because she was scared just doesn't stand up to scrutiny IMO.

You are not these people, Benice, how can you claim Ms Tanner wasn't scared ?
Is somebody lying when he/she reports an hallucination he/she thinks was reality ?

[Benice]

You are not these people, Benice, how can you claim Ms Tanner wasn't scared ?
Is somebody lying when he/she reports an hallucination he/she thinks was reality ?

I don't have to be one of those people Anne.  Common sense dictates that none of the group had any reason to suppose that adopting the Listening method of checking already offered in many other holiday complexes would be regarded as illegal - which is the only reason why they would have cause to be 'scared'.       Common sense also dictates that if it was illegal it wouldn't be offered anywhere at any holiday resort at any time.        Therefore they had nothing to fear  - which was proved by the fact that they not only immediately told the GNR what they were doing, they also wrote down the timelines of their movements and gave them to the police in order to assist them. 

Are you suggesting Jane Tanner was hallucinating?     How bizarre.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don't have to be one of those people Anne.  Common sense dictates that none of the group had any reason to suppose that adopting the Listening method of checking already offered in many other holiday complexes would be regarded as illegal - which is the only reason why they would have cause to be 'scared'.       Common sense also dictates that if it was illegal it wouldn't be offered anywhere at any holiday resort at any time.        Therefore they had nothing to fear  - which was proved by the fact that they not only immediately told the GNR what they were doing, they also wrote down the timelines of their movements and gave them to the police in order to assist them. 

Are you suggesting Jane Tanner was hallucinating?     How bizarre.

Regardless of the legalities here, I don't think that apartment 5A can have been considered to have been part of the OC complex, in security terms. It was not a self-contained resort with a clearly-defined perimeter and a professional security system. No security guards, not even operational CCTV. 5A  - and a lot of the other apartments - fronted on to a public road, and 5A  in particular was situated on an exceptionally vulnerable, corner spot.

That is not to say that the McCanns could have anticipated an abduction - though the fact that so many burglaries occurred on that block suggests keyholders in the locality - only that comparing the checking system carried out by T9 with an hotel listening service is false. A hotel / holiday chalets type arrangement, is a far more secure place, where perhaps a listening service could be considered adequate, and as such is often legal. Not so here.

[C.Edwards]

Regardless of the legalities here, I don't think that apartment 5A can have been considered to have been part of the OC complex, in security terms. It was not a self-contained resort with a clearly-defined perimeter and a professional security system. No security guards, not even operational CCTV. 5A  - and a lot of the other apartments - fronted on to a public road, and 5A  in particular was situated on an exceptionally vulnerable, corner spot.

That is not to say that the McCanns could have anticipated an abduction - though the fact that so many burglaries occurred on that block suggests keyholders in the locality - only that comparing the checking system carried out by T9 with an hotel listening service is false. A hotel / holiday chalets type arrangement, is a far more secure place, where perhaps a listening service could be considered adequate, and as such is often legal. Not so here.

That's a reasonable point, but I think it goes further than that. It's not just the potential for burglary or abduction, it's the sheer incompetence of leaving young children alone in a strange environment where so much could go wrong in a short space of time. 

I know, I know... it's all down to personal risk assessment and some think it's fine and others don't.  Neither side will change the others' minds so it's almost pointless continuing the debate.

[Jacinta]

He saw someone wearing purple... but he didn't know JT. How did he come to assume that it was her that he saw?

In Jeremy Wilkins' own words from his statement given to the British police on 08 April 2008:

Q. Relative to whether I know Jane Tanner;

Jeremy Wilkins: 'Now I know her name, description of the clothes and photos which I have seen in the press. At that time I knew of her as a member of the group but did not know her name. I do not remember having seen her when I spoke with Gerry, but I believe I saw her when I first ventured out. She was stopped on the street in front of one of the group's apartments when I passed her down towards the exit to my apartment. I do not know if it was her apartment or not. I remember that she was wearing the colour purple.'

It's also in this same statement that Jeremy Wilkins mentioned seeing a tall Caucasian man with blonde hair in “rasta style” tied with a band instead of free flowing. He thinks he was with a woman but isn't sure.

Does anyone know if this man was ever identified?

[icabodcrane]

Maybe they didn't tell the 'whole' truth, if that is so, because they sought to protect themselves...quite natural.

That's very different from a grand cover-up.

If they lied to police it is a criminal offence in itself

More importantly ,  though,   it may have  jeopardised the investigation  ...which would surely be unthinkable,   whether they wanted to  'protect themselves'  or not

[DCI]

He saw someone wearing purple... but he didn't know JT. How did he come to assume that it was her that he saw?

The only other person, that said Jane wore a purple blouse, was Sylvia Batista!

[Jacinta]

The only other person, that said Jane wore a purple blouse, was Sylvia Batista!

Where does she say that please DCI? All I can find is:

"--- Questioned as to the clothing the members of the English group had worn that night she states
that she only recalls that Fiona wore a green blouse, that Gerry wore a dark shirt and that Fiona's
husband wore plain trousers, cream, she thinks."

Or have I got the wrong Sylvia Batista?

Only Jeremy Wilkins so far who said Jane Tanner was wearing the colour purple. I can't find anything that says he mentioned the type of clothing though. Where did you get purple blouse from?