The other occupants of Apt 5a before and after the McCanns visit.

[Lyall]

True, but that does not mean that the testimony of those well-acquainted with PdL and its regular goings-on should be regarded as confused. Please note comments on 'Dark Glasses Man', for example:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3141.0

Well I think (in fact I know from personal experience) that after an incident like this people do get very confused. They start imagining they have seen all sorts of suspicious things in the previous hours and days.

Doubtless police will have had many witnesses like this saying they saw people - people not doing anything suspicious: just being there around where the incident later took place. It's common to incidents everywhere.

What's common to all the statements used in Madeleine was here is that the people seen (or later said to have been seen) weren't doing anything suspicious: they're just described as looking 'odd'. People are desperate to help after incidents and can create something from nothing - very easily.

[Anna]

Yes Tasmin Silences Gran and Gramp owned 5A for some time.  She and her mother lived there too for a period.

There was talk on another forum that I was on, about 6 years ago, that her Grandpa died in hospital and his clothes were brought back and stored in the wardrobe.  I am not sure what clothes they were or even if it was true.  I am merely repeating what I read.  However, I had no reason to believe that stuff posted there was anything but true.

Maybe someone else will remember it?  Ferryman?

So we need to find out the family name which will be on the census returns or daughter's marriage and look up the death certificates.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well I think (in fact I know from personal experience) that after an incident like this people do get very confused. They start imagining they have seen all sorts of suspicious things in the previous hours and days.

Doubtless police will have had many witnesses like this saying they saw people - people not doing anything suspicious: just being there around where the incident later took place. It's common to incidents everywhere.

It's true.

But as a matter of principle, which I think is important here, just because there are huge numbers of 'suspects' (whatever that is supposed to mean exactly) in this case, and many witnesses of different kinds, most of whom are perhaps significant only in the minds of journalist hacks or people's imaginations, does not mean that there are not reliable witnesses and genuine suspects amongst them.

The process of separating the wood from the trees is surely one of the main reasons that this case is occupying so much of SY's time.

[ferryman]

I'm sure you'll understand that any suggestion of Eddie alerting to sex tissues in the 5A is groundless.

Haven't read the rest of the thread.

But that is as classic an example of a strawman argument as you'll find ....

[ferryman]

From Grime's statements, Eddie could smell airborne scents within his training parameters. However, he stated that Keela only reacts to the physical presence of blood.

The occupants prior to the inspection had left a week before and was presumably locked up since then.

Could shoes, socks, a band-aid, or whatever, with a trace of blood on them have been left around by the previous occupants and a cleaner had removed the item prior to the actual inspection? Were those occupants ever interviewed? When did a cleaner last enter that apartment?

What would be incompatible with the dogs' reactions?

There was Mr John Paul Gordon, who cut himself shaving and bled for 45 minutes.

[ferryman]

 
He wasn't reacting to a cadaver, there was none, as he wasn't reacting to a sex tissue, there was none.
He reacted to VOCs released by a cadaver (whose cadaver ?) before being removed (Smithman ?) and stuck in porous materials of the bedroom.
BTW, what do you have against corpses ?

Yes, in the Island of Jersey there is a very clear reference from the Haut de la Garenne case, by Grime, that indicated Eddie indicated to semen.

[ferryman]

As we are talking about the alerts of the dogs in 5a I think its important to note that Grime...the expert...has not claimed that there was a cadaver in 5a and that the alerts could be as a result of cross contamination from several different scenarios. It's not up to the McCanns or their supporters to prove why the dogs alerted...we will probably never know.

I think it can be safely asserted that the apparent alert to cuddle-cat was an error, either of failure to alert, or (more likely) "alerting" when there was no odour. 

[sadie]

Road sweepers now SH?

There have always been three road sweepers but the rest of us failed to pick it up.  Well done Sherlock !

The " IN " word with present SY thinking is Three !



Oh and whilst I am at it.  Well done Heri.  He noticed a good deal about three men some months ago.  I think it was he that alerted SY .

[Lyall]

There have always been three road sweepers but the rest of us failed to pick it up.  Well done Sherlock !

The " IN " word with present SY thinking is Three !



Oh and whilst I am at it.  Well done Heri.  He noticed a good deal about three men some months ago.  I think it was he that alerted SY .

Why not three ice cream sellers? Or three chefs? Or three basket weavers? Or three tenors?

David Icke will be calling Heriberto too

[sadie]

Deposition of T. M. S., aged 12, a resident in Luz, on the 9th of May 2007, 4 p.m.
Page 800-804, volume III of process 201/07.0GALGS

"Comes to the process as a witness. Understands the Portuguese Language, as she has been living in Portugal since the age of two months (approximately eleven years ago). Still, an interpreter is present [name withheld].

Her parents are separated, she initially resided in Monchique, and now in Praia da Luz, since 2005, at the address that is stated above, with her Mother.

She also mentions that she lived in the apartment where the missing child was staying, that belonged to her Grandmother, who is already deceased. That she didn’t actually reside there, but spent extensive and repeated periods of time there, with her Grandmother and her Mother. The apartment was bought in 1994 and sold in 2002 and therefore she knows it perfectly, both from the inside and from the outside.

She wishes to clarify. On the 30th of April, Monday, at around 8 a.m. and when she was walking to the bus stop for the school bus that leaves at 8.15, a path that she walks every day when there is school, she noticed the presence of a male individual, at the back of Madeleine’s house, on a little pathway to the apartments that exists there, looking in an ostensive manner at the house’s balcony. This happened when she was walking down the street, on the left side, which was right in front of the balcony, and the distance between them was the width of the road. That when she was walking down she decided to look at the pathway, because as she lived there, she likes to watch the house and the neighbouring garden. She walked with her mother, that she is certain she didn’t see the man, and she was walking two dogs on a leash, which forced them to cross the road, a bit further down. At that moment she saw the man more closely, as they crossed the road, and then lost visual angle when they finished crossing.

Says that the man didn’t see the deponent, because he was staring at the balcony.

She presumes that nobody was on Madeleine’s house’s balcony, but she cannot state it beyond doubt.

After crossing, she caught the bus and went to school and her mother went on the beach to walk the dogs.

When she returned from school, at around 5.30/5.40 p.m., after leaving the bus, she walked a different path, because the bus has a stop on the street where she lives, and therefore she doesn’t need to walk down to the ‘Ocean Club’. She didn’t see the man again at that time, nor did she see him again until the 2nd of May, Wednesday, after the bank holiday.

That on that day she didn’t go to school because she was sick with an infection in her right ear. Still, and feeling somewhat better, at around noon she left on her own, as her mother was at work, with the dogs, and went to the ‘Alisuper’ supermarket which is located on a perpendicular to Rua Direita, where she bought chocolates for €3,63. Then she walked to the pharmacy, which is located below the ‘Baptista’ supermarket, on a lateral perspective, where she bought a box of tampons for her ears, to prevent water from getting in, and spent €4,55. Then she went to ‘Baptista’ supermarket to buy cereal bread, because they don’t sell it at ‘Alisuper’. She left the dogs tied at the back entrance of ‘Baptista’ and went in to buy the bread. She paid, left ‘Baptista’, collected the dogs, and walked across the supermarket’s hall to the main entrance, approximately four/five metres, which exits to the street where she had seen the man. She started walking up the street on the left side going up, and saw the man, this time in front of the ‘Ocean Club’s’ reception, once more looking at Madeleine’s house in an ostensive manner, where he stood he could observe, she thinks, the house’s two side windows and part of the balcony. She thinks that he could also be looking at the other residences that are located in the same direction.

That as she was walking up she walked right in front of the man, and observed him directly, an action that he did not retaliate, because he never looked at the deponent. The distance that she observed him from was the width of the road.

After walking by the individual, she walked towards her house, through the road to the right, and never looked back to the man, or turned around to observe him better.

After that day she never saw him again.

As she said before, she left home at 12 p.m. and returned at 12.35 p.m., which means she crossed with the man at around 12.25/12.28 (the rest of the walk takes about seven minutes).

On the next day, Thursday (03.05.2007) she walked the same path as on the 30th, at the same time, but didn’t see the man, and never saw him again, as she said before.


Concerning the individual, she describes him as being: Caucasian race, light skin, so he wasn’t Portuguese, but could be British, according to her criteria. Approximately 180 cm tall, thin complexion, 30/35 years of age. Short hair, like shaved with 1 cm of length and fair, but she isn’t sure if it was blonde because the sun was reflecting, and made perception more difficult. She didn’t see the eyes because he wore dark glasses of black colour, with a structure of mass, a thick frame. He had a large forehead. Nose of normal size, a bit pointy and sharp. Large ears, close against the head. Mouth with thin lips, she didn’t see his teeth. Chin pointing up, which stood out on a face that she describes as sharp. No beard, no moustache, a clean shave. No other special signs, apart from some small pimples on the face as a result of shaving. He looked ugly, even ‘disgusting’.

The first time that she saw him he was wearing a sports style jacket of thin black leather, with a zipper and several pockets also with similar zippers, in silver. She saw no label or inscription. The jacket was open, therefore she saw a white t-shirt, with a dark blue label near the waist, which she cannot identify very well.

Trousers, she thinks, of blue jeans, worn out. Sports shoes (trainers) in black and grey, with a wave, maybe ‘Nike’ in a colour that she can’t remember.

The second time, he wore the same jacket, this time zipped up, because the day was colder than the first one, windy. She didn’t notice the rest of the clothing. She says that on that day he had a pen with a string attached to one of his pockets.

The first time, he was leaning against the wall against his hands, and the second time, he had his hands in his pockets.

She never saw him with any photo camera, or any mobile phone, although the second time, he might have a device in his pocket, which she detected by the shape.

When asked, she says that she saw no vehicle near the man, only a few vehicles, but near the ‘Baptista’.

When asked she says that she saw Madeleine once, on a day that she cannot indicate, on the balcony where the man was staring at, the first time. She even waved at her because it was a small child, in a caring gesture.

A map of the area is added, where A is the spot of the first sighting and B the spot for the second one. The ‘Baptista’ supermarket and Madeleine’s apartment.

She said that she can recognise the man both personally and photographically, and create a photofit.

Therefore I interrupt the present deposition and show the deponent photographs of individuals with similar characteristics.

I resume the deposition where it is consigned that the diligence resulted negatively, according to a report that is annexed.

She didn’t say anything further. The deposition is read and approved, ratified and signed together with the interpreter that assisted.

The present deposition is written and signed."

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post6019.html#p6019

What outstanding observation and recall.  A big pat on the back to Tasmin as well.

[pegasus]

I think it can be safely asserted that the apparent alert to cuddle-cat was an error, either of failure to alert, or (more likely) "alerting" when there was no odour.

I think in your theory both errors happen, one after the other?

[sadie]

>@@(*&) Only of interest to those who wish to confuse I'd suggest. Some people are only too happy to point to hundreds of 'suspects'.

Whereas the people in PdL that week said on the record - more than once - it was quiet and they noticed nothing or nobody unusual.

Now some people would like to suggest there were 'odd people' in every shadow and around every corner.

Everybody and everything, especially if unusual, has to be looked at Lyall, dont you think?

[John]

Yes Tasmin Silences Gran and Gramp owned 5A for some time.  She and her mother lived there too for a period.

There was talk on another forum that I was on, about 6 years ago, that her Grandpa died in hospital and his clothes were brought back and stored in the wardrobe.  I am not sure what clothes they were or even if it was true.  I am merely repeating what I read.  However, I had no reason to believe that stuff posted there was anything but true.

Maybe someone else will remember it?  Ferryman?

An excellent point about the deceased's clothes being brought back and stored in the wardrobe Sadie.  This is exactly the sort of thing which Eddie would have reacted to.

PS   I have changed the title of this thread slightly to reflect the discussion.

[sadie]

Well I think (in fact I know from personal experience) that after an incident like this people do get very confused. They start imagining they have seen all sorts of suspicious things in the previous hours and days.

Doubtless police will have had many witnesses like this saying they saw people - people not doing anything suspicious: just being there around where the incident later took place. It's common to incidents everywhere.

What's common to all the statements used in Madeleine was here is that the people seen (or later said to have been seen) weren't doing anything suspicious: they're just described as looking 'odd'. People are desperate to help after incidents and can create something from nothing - very easily.

Are you real, Lyall?  Tasmin saw a man who she had seen also on at least one other occasion staring at 5A, again standing right by 5A garden wall staring into the apartment  Are you saying that that is not suspicious ?



Of course most people in PdL will Not have seen anything suspicious, and all will have appeared quiet and normal to them.  Criminals do not go around with big black arrows all over them and a bag marked SWAG !

But here there are sufficient observations to have a definite pattern of suspicious behaviour beforehand.

[John]

Tasmin's statement is most compelling, the fact that she only saw this 'ugly' guy  twice and on both occasions he was stood staring at apartment 5a is in my opinion very sinister.

I find it very hard to believe that Tasmin didn't do an e-fit.   Does anyone know if there is one?