Who was the Irish teenager who saw Gerry and Jez talking?

[faithlilly]

Faithlilly also believe Gerry was the only one telling the truth when he said in one of his statements that Kate raised the alarm at 10.15 - because of course he would do that to allow Faithlilly and her pals to believe he was somewhere else at 10pm.

So you don't think he was telling the truth about Kate returning at 10.13 ?

[Alfred R Jones]

So you don't think he was telling the truth about Kate returning at 10.13 ?

You "sceptics" are so binary.  I think he was probably just mistaken.  I can think of no reason for him to lie, even you would struggle to come up with a good reason for it, given that by stating the alarm was raised later he leaves himself wide open to be "elsewhere" at 10pm.   It's just one reason incidentally why your theory is bonkers IMO. 

[Benice]

So you don't think he was telling the truth about Kate returning at 10.13 ?

IMO all witnesses told the truth.   That doesn't mean their recall was accurate - especially when it came to 'times'.

Fortunately the police are well aware of the fallibility of memory.

[Alfred R Jones]

IMO all witnesses told the truth.   That doesn't mean their recall was accurate - especially when it came to 'times'.

Fortunately the police are well aware of the fallibility of memory.

Which begs the question why are the "sceptics" seemingly unaware of at least completely unprepared to mae allowances for it amongst the Tapas group?

[faithlilly]

You "sceptics" are so binary.  I think he was probably just mistaken.  I can think of no reason for him to lie, even you would struggle to come up with a good reason for it, given that by stating the alarm was raised later he leaves himself wide open to be "elsewhere" at 10pm.   It's just one reason incidentally why your theory is bonkers IMO.

The time seems very precise for him to have been 'mistaken'.  Tell me Alfie why do you think he was 'mistaken' ?

[Alice Purjorick]

Which begs the question why are the "sceptics" seemingly unaware of at least completely unprepared to mae allowances for it amongst the Tapas group?

I have no problem with it at all. A large number of humans are crap at remembering things and even more are crap with time, distance and mass.

[Alfred R Jones]

The time seems very precise for him to have been 'mistaken'.  Tell me Alfie why do you think he was 'mistaken' ?

Because the consensus view is that the alarm was raised earlier.  Why do you think lots of people were mistaken and only one of them correct?

[Miss Taken Identity]

Of course, this is the main issue for many,including the police. Inconsistent times etc.
This blows well out of the water that the parents were vigilant and adhering to a timed schedule for checking the children as they implied at the beginning.

We have read many little instances about this being 'acceptable' as it is done in many ,many resorts. The baby listening thing- they were mimicking (?) Turns out they were NOT mimicking the professional service as they are timed and scheduled. Other wise how would anyone know if the children were being checked.

This is the biggest stumbling block in my opinion. They didn't check as often as they claimed and that is why they can't recall,who,when,where,how long for!

There are no independent witnesses who can time frame any of them from 5pm that day, until Maddie was announced as being abducted.

Now, just in case we need to be reminded, the parents didn't physically check the children whilst in the apartment, they 'listened' and the reason they gave was  THEY DIDN'T WANT TO WAKE THE CHILDREN. hmm Light sleepers they were known to be. This was the one night  they all slept through,well... screaming shouting, shutters banging ,wind bellowing, curtains flapping, being lifted and moved to another apartment.

[pathfinder73]

Further we only have the McCann's word that Madeleine was even wearing the pyjamas publicised when she disappeared.

And they weren't long sleeves as seen by the Smiths. I like how Kate makes a big point that her daughter was wearing short sleeves when she disappeared and not her warmer long sleeved barbie ones. Point out the important things but why were those important efits hidden for 5 years. If they were hidden what else was?

[Miss Taken Identity]

And they weren't long sleeves as seen by the Smiths. I like how Kate makes a big point that her daughter was wearing short sleeves when she disappeared and not her warmer long sleeved barbie ones. Point out the important things but why were those important efits hidden for 5 years. If they were hidden what else was?

hmmmm indeed. she did make a thing of that.  Also, on the Oprah show, she held up the pyjamas she claimed were identified by Jane Tanner. Jane Tanner never mentioned what Pyjamas looked like and from her  very first fresh in mind, description of the view she had of the child and alleged abductor,  would not be able to identify the detail of small PYJAMAS, as she found it very difficult describing the larger male allegedly carrying her(?) 

All the little things. The devil is in the detail!

[ferryman]

And they weren't long sleeves as seen by the Smiths. I like how Kate makes a big point that her daughter was wearing short sleeves when she disappeared and not her warmer long sleeved barbie ones. Point out the important things but why were those important efits hidden for 5 years. If they were hidden what else was?

The efits weren't hidden at all.

I don't believe they were produced until after the first enquiry was closed, and required a fresh enquiry to be revealed publicly.

Andy Redwood chose the moment of the Crime Watch programme to release them.

[pathfinder73]

The efits weren't hidden at all.

I don't believe they were produced until after the first enquiry was closed, and required a fresh enquiry to be revealed publicly.

Andy Redwood chose the moment of the Crime Watch programme to release them.

Show me them in the Leaving No Stone Unturned book. Must have missed them. They were produced in 2008. What year was the Madeleine book?

[Miss Taken Identity]

The efits weren't hidden at all.

I don't believe they were produced until after the first enquiry was closed, and required a fresh enquiry to be revealed publicly.

Andy Redwood chose the moment of the Crime Watch programme to release them.

They could have shown those efits on TV with 'clarrrie dawl' smiling at 'new evidence' or something a lot sooner-perhaps the  Oprah show?

Andy Redwood chose the moment of the Crime Watch programme to release them, I wonder why. Could it be this was a very important piece of information?

[pathfinder73]

They could have shown those efits on TV with 'clarrrie dawl' smiling at 'new evidence' or something a lot sooner-perhaps the  Oprah show?

Andy Redwood chose the moment of the Crime Watch programme to release them, I wonder why. Could it be this was a very important piece of information?

Yeah on the Oprah show to the whole world but no Tannerman is still on their site. That's their abductor. Shame the yard have got rid!

[Carana]

They could have shown those efits on TV with 'clarrrie dawl' smiling at 'new evidence' or something a lot sooner-perhaps the  Oprah show?

Andy Redwood chose the moment of the Crime Watch programme to release them, I wonder why. Could it be this was a very important piece of information?

The police had had those efits since 2009. The PJ chose not to publicise any efits (not even those based on other witnesses of lurkers). LP had them as well, but until the UK launched their own investigation, they couldn't take any initiative.

The Madeleine Fund was in a legal battle with Oakley and even though Oakley had been paid, Halligen hadn't paid numerous people who had been subcontracted.

I find it quite likely that one of the issues was the legal right for the Madeleine Fund to publicise them until the legal wrangles had been settled. As we know, in the middle of all that, Halligen had disappeared, was then found, arrested, tried and ended up in jail for owing rather a lot of money in a different saga.

Once the Met had opened their own investigation, as a police force they probably had - or managed to obtain - the legal authority necessary, which the Madeleine Fund may never have had.

And the book publisher would not use copyrighted material without permission.