Author Topic: Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?  (Read 185951 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Carana

Re: Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?
« Reply #660 on: February 17, 2016, 11:06:30 AM »
Citing those scribbled pages (let alone one) doesn't take context into account.

Russ made those notes late at night to try to reconstruct the sequence of events and approximate times. There is no way of knowing whether he had access to everyone's recollections at that point, or whether these were his own plus those of whomever he was able to speak to who was calm enough to think clearly.

They did get together later to piece it together more calmly.




Processos Volume IV, pgs. 833 to 890
04_VOLUME_IVa_ Page_886
04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_887
04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_888
MISSING PAGE
04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_889
04_VOLUME_IVaPage_890
Page 886
Portimao Criminal Investigation Department
201/07.OGALGS
O INSPECTOR
M.P.
ATTACHED
On this date, I attached to these official papers 3 computer printed pages, relating to the description of the events, that have been collectively prepared by the nine people of the group in question, that was delivered to this Police Officer by the British Liaison Official, before the start of re-questioning of those same people.
Portimao, 10 May 2007
INSPECTOR
M.P.
========================================
[3 page attachment] Pages 887-890
 Original written in English.
Sequence of Events: Thursday 3rd May 2007 - 2030 to 2200
As recalled by:

Gerry McCann - 5A
Kate McCann - 5A
David Payne - 5H (First floor)
Fiona Payne - 5H (First floor)
Dianne Webster - 5H (First floor)
Jane Tanner - 5D
Russell O'Brien - 5D
Matthew Oldfield - 5B
Rachael Oldfield - 5B

Times shown are approximate, but accurate to the best of our knowledge.

Prior to 2030, a11 couples and children were in their apartments preparing for bedtime.
-5A (Madeleine, Amelie and Sean McCann).
-5B (G**** Oldfield),
-5D (E*** and E***O'Brien) and
-5H (L*** and S******* Payne)

2030: Standard booking for meal at Tapas restaurant for group - same all week (Sun-Thur)
2035: Gerry McCann (GM) and Kate McCann (KC) arrive at table at Tapas Restaurant.
2040: Jane Tanner (JT) arrives, followed shortly by Matthew Oldfield (MO) and Rachael Mampilly Oldfield (RMO).
2045: Russell O'Brien (RJO) arrives at table.
2055: MO returns to apartments to check on ground floor flats, passing David Payne (DP), Fiona Payne (FP) and her mother Dianne Webster (DW) on their way down to the table.
2057: MO listens outside all ground floor flats' windows on the car park side of the apartment (5A, 5B and 5D) to make sure they were asleep. At this time, all the shutters were down on each window.
2100: MO return to the table. Starters were ordered.
2105: GM returns to his flat (5A) and enters via the patio gate entrance. This and a child gate at the top of the stairs were closed at the time. He enters the flat via the patio door which is closed but unlocked.
The door is slightly ajar (about 45 degrees) which is unusual. All the 3 children were present and asleep. GM believes the shutter was down. The room in which the children are asleep is completely dark. On leaving the room, GM shuts the door to approximately 5 degrees. He then goes to the toilet to urinate.
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed.
As JT continued up the hill towards the junction with Rua A. da Silva, she sees a man carrying a child in his arms crossing left to right from the apartment side continuing east along Rua A. da Silva in the direction of the "Millennium Restaurant." He was on the same side of the road as JT 5-10 metres ahead of her.

Description of Man:
- Age 35 to 40.
- 1.7m tal1 approximately with a slim build.
- Good head of dark glossy hair, with possible flick of hair to the right. The hair was longer at the back (i.e not clippered or shaven).
- The central and the left side of the face were not seen.
- Full length trousers, casual, the material hanging without creases. The colour was possibly a browny mustard. They were not jeans.
- Long sleeved jacket, fastened at the front, possibly by a zipper. It had a gathered lower hem and was also possibly brownish in colour.
- Shoes may have been a semi-formal brogue.
- Whether he was wearing gloves or not could not be ascertained.
- He was not wearing a rucksack or any other identifiable objects.
- He was only carrying a child, with the head against the left upper chest away from JT and the feet to the right - i.e. cradling the child like a baby.
- He appeared to be walking in a rush to get somewhere.
- He was not someone JT recognised from the week.
- He was not dressed typically for a "tourist," or at least his clothing did not seem to be of UK origin and may well have been purchased in Portugal.

Description of Child:

- The child appeared to be a Caucasian girl about the ages of 3-4.
- She was seen to lie motionless/limp in the man's arms consistent with her sleeping or possibly drugged.
- She did not seem to be wrapped up well for the time of night wearing only pyjamas; the trousers were lightly coloured with a floral element, possibly with turn-ups. The top was not well seen though there was thought to be
another colour involved possibly pink.
- She was not wearing shoes.

JT checked only 5D entering via the deadlocked door on the car park side of the apartment. Both children inside were asleep. She did not check 5A or 5B.

2120: JT then returns to the restaurant, by which time GM had also returned. The entire party then begins eating their starters which have arrived.
2125: After starters, MO and RJO go back to the apartments via the car park entrance to check all flats. They go first to 5D where RJO's daughter Evie is heard crying. RJO enters flat, whilst MO checks inside 5B, and then returns to 5D.
2130: RJO remains in 5D as daughter has vomited. MO goes to check on 5A via the patio gate entrance. The outside gate is probably shut, but the child gate on the stairs up to the patio is possibly open. The patio door is closed but unlocked.
MO enters flat, hears a sound in the children's bedroom that is probably one of the twins rolling over in their cot. He does not enter the bedroom but can see through a now quite open door (greater than 45 degrees) into the room.
He sees the two twins in their cot, but does not check Madeleine formally as no sounds and twins asleep. He recalls the room did seem lighter than expected, perhaps suggesting the shutter had been raised or the curtains opened?
2135: MO returns to restaurant table, by which time main courses are arriving or being eaten. MO tells JT that Evie unwell.
2140: JT returns to 5D to take over care of Evie from RJO.
2145: RJO returns to table to eat main course leaving JT in 5D.
2155: RMO asked time at table. RJO's main course arrives.
2200: (approx): KM leaves table to check children in 5A. The patio gate is closed and the child gate is also probably closed. She enters through the closed patio entrance, with the curtains closed. She crosses the living area, and there is no noise from the children's bedroom. She is about to leave, when she notices the bedroom door was
open (approximately 60 degrees).
She starts to close it and it slams. Considering the patio doors had caused a draft, she checks these doors but they are closed. KM returns to the bedroom and opens the door to check the children were not disturbed by the noise.
At this point, she notices that Madeleine is missing. She checks the other single bed in the room and also Kate and Gerry's beds. Then she double checks that Madeleine was not in her bedroom again. At this point, she notices the curtains blowing forward with a gust of wind. She runs over, pulls open the curtain and notices the shutter was
completely raised, and the window pushed open to the left as far as possible.
She then completes a check of the bathroom, kitchen and wardrobes.
On failing to find Madeleine, she runs to the entrance of the restaurant, shouting from the path leading to the restaurant area raising the alarm that Madeleine was missing.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?
« Reply #661 on: February 17, 2016, 12:27:37 PM »
2057: MO listens outside all ground floor flats' windows on the car park side of the apartment (5A, 5B and 5D) to make sure they were asleep. At this time, all the shutters were down on each window.
2100: MO return to the table. Starters were ordered.
2105: GM returns to his flat (5A)

Matt said as soon he returned Gerry left the table not 5 minutes later.

2115: JT leaves table

Jane said 9:10

Rachel Oldfield is not a good witness.

"Gerry went off erm came back a couple of minutes later, erm and then Jane went off at about ten past nine."

Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline jassi

Re: Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?
« Reply #662 on: February 17, 2016, 12:36:57 PM »
Certainly something wrong there if Jane passed Gerry in street.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline G-Unit

Re: Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?
« Reply #663 on: February 17, 2016, 01:19:10 PM »
2057: MO listens outside all ground floor flats' windows on the car park side of the apartment (5A, 5B and 5D) to make sure they were asleep. At this time, all the shutters were down on each window.
2100: MO return to the table. Starters were ordered.
2105: GM returns to his flat (5A)

Matt said as soon he returned Gerry left the table not 5 minutes later.

2115: JT leaves table

Jane said 9:10

Rachel Oldfield is not a good witness.

"Gerry went off erm came back a couple of minutes later, erm and then Jane went off at about ten past nine."

Jane said on 4th May;

She remembers that at about 21.10 Gerald left the restaurant (3) to go to the apartment to check on the children. Five minutes later, the witness left, to go to her apartment to see whether her daughters were OK. At this moment she saw Gerry talking to an Englishman called Jez whom they had got to know during the holidays. They played tennis with him.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

Bridget O'Donnell said;

Jes returned to our apartment just before 9.30pm.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Benice

Re: Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?
« Reply #664 on: February 17, 2016, 01:54:03 PM »
Trying to read something 'sinister' into the fact that two people are 5 mins adrift in their separate recollections of when one of them left the table is ludicrous IMO. 

None of them could give definite times - only approximations.    Different people have different levels of the power of recall, and different perceptions of time and distance. 

Anyone who thinks SY would see anything suspicious in those differing recollections (especially one of a mere 5 mins fgs! ) - is showing what little knowledge they have compared to trained, professional, experienced SY detectives, when it comes to witnesses recalling events.

All the discrepancies prove is what every experienced policeman knows already - i.e. the fallibility and therefore unreliability of memory.

In order to 'make something' out of such discrepancies - you first have to ignore that very large elephant in the room.

Fortunately that's not how proper policemen work.


The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?
« Reply #665 on: February 17, 2016, 01:58:27 PM »
Trying to read something 'sinister' into the fact that two people are 5 mins adrift in their separate recollections of when one of them left the table is ludicrous IMO. 

None of them could give definite times - only approximations.    Different people have different levels of the power of recall, and different perceptions of time and distance. 

Anyone who thinks SY would see anything suspicious in those differing recollections (especially one of a mere 5 mins fgs! ) - is showing what little knowledge they have compared to trained, professional, experienced SY detectives, when it comes to witnesses recalling events.

All the discrepancies prove is what every experienced policeman knows already - i.e. the fallibility and therefore unreliability of memory.

In order to 'make something' out of such discrepancies - you first have to ignore that very large elephant in the room.

Fortunately that's not how proper policemen work.

You are far too charitable, Benice.

These same people who screech about 'inconsistencies' in minor differences (in memory-recall) about a fast-moving sequence of events would shriek (no doubt even louder) 'collusion', if all statements exactly married up in every last detail.


Offline G-Unit

Re: Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?
« Reply #666 on: February 17, 2016, 02:59:37 PM »
Trying to read something 'sinister' into the fact that two people are 5 mins adrift in their separate recollections of when one of them left the table is ludicrous IMO. 

None of them could give definite times - only approximations.    Different people have different levels of the power of recall, and different perceptions of time and distance. 

Anyone who thinks SY would see anything suspicious in those differing recollections (especially one of a mere 5 mins fgs! ) - is showing what little knowledge they have compared to trained, professional, experienced SY detectives, when it comes to witnesses recalling events.

All the discrepancies prove is what every experienced policeman knows already - i.e. the fallibility and therefore unreliability of memory.

In order to 'make something' out of such discrepancies - you first have to ignore that very large elephant in the room.

Fortunately that's not how proper policemen work.


Thank you for your opinion, which, of course is just that. The thread is about why people don't believe the McCann's story of abduction. One of the reasons is the problem of the timeline. As you point out, memory is not infallible; although the T9, thanks to discussing the timeline before their interviews, were able to largely agree on the times.

The important times in my opinion were the time at which they all arrived and the time at which the alarm was raised. There is reason to believe these times were stated to be later than they actually were, in my opinion.

Operation Grange appealed for 'Smithman' to come forward. There are similarities between him and Gerry McCann. One witness said he was 60-80% sure that he was Gerry McCann.

If Gerry McCann was at the Tapas restaurant at 10.13 (10th May statement) then he wasn't 'Smithman'. If, however, the alarm was raised earlier; even at 9.45pm Gerry has no alibi for the Smith's sighting. Six unconnected people gave statements suggesting the alarm was raised before 10pm.

I have no reason to believe that Smithman was connected to the case at all, except for the witness who thought he was Gerry McCann. The PJ rejected this possibility because they accepted the T9's timeline (although they had wanted to check it). Operation Grange also seem to have accepted the timeline. As there's no evidence that either police force double-checked the timeline with other witnesses, it's acceptable to point out that it wasn't confirmed by all the independent witnesses.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?
« Reply #667 on: February 17, 2016, 03:22:30 PM »
Jane said on 4th May;

She remembers that at about 21.10 Gerald left the restaurant (3) to go to the apartment to check on the children. Five minutes later, the witness left, to go to her apartment to see whether her daughters were OK. At this moment she saw Gerry talking to an Englishman called Jez whom they had got to know during the holidays. They played tennis with him.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

Bridget O'Donnell said;

Jes returned to our apartment just before 9.30pm.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann

Bringing timeline forwards rules them all out of the 10 sighting. You cannot be at the table and be seen by the Smiths. The last waiter to serve them said they left the table before 10. His timeline suggests Matt's time of 9:50 Kate going to check not 10. It also matches the time recently released in the media - 9:51 Kate leaves to check. The press certainly weren't the source of the exact time 9:51.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2016, 03:33:30 PM by pathfinder73 »
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Re: Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?
« Reply #668 on: February 17, 2016, 04:18:36 PM »
A computer system is only as good as the information you put into it. Rubbish in, rubbish out. It can take all the statements and spit out an average, but it can't choose who's telling the truth and who isn't.

Six people unconnected with the case said the alarm was raised before 10pm. Six people connected with the case (who had also collaborated) said it was raised at 10pm.

Unless you check back with all concerned you are choosing to believe one group over the other group. The group you have chosen to believe didn't even stick with the time they gave initially. In later statements the time crept back as far as 9.45pm.

PS There is no proof of an abduction taking place and I see no point in speculation, so please stop repeating your speculative question. Unless, of course, you can produce a signed, witnessed statement from the 'abductor'? LOL
1) the software in question can cope with variables of information and aid police to come up with a workable timeline.  If the police have investigated all nine individuals who "collaborated" on a timeline then they will be able to factor in any other information they have uncovered which may have a bearing on whether or not they had a reason to give false infromation about the timeline, that as I understand it is how Holmes works.  to say that it only works on a rubbish in rubbish out basis is an absurd oversimplification and would mean that as a tool it would have been junked years ago.  All witness statments have an element of "rubbish" in them, HOLMES helps police to sort out what is relevant and what is not.

2) Your refusal to give an example of what you would accept as relevant evidence of an abduction is very telling IMO.  An abduction can take place without there being any evidence left behind so an absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence, so kindly stop banging that particular drum as if it proves anything.  In any case there is plenty of evidence of an abduction, your refusal to accept it does not mean it doesn't exist.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?
« Reply #669 on: February 17, 2016, 04:34:25 PM »
1) the software in question can cope with variables of information and aid police to come up with a workable timeline.  If the police have investigated all nine individuals who "collaborated" on a timeline then they will be able to factor in any other information they have uncovered which may have a bearing on whether or not they had a reason to give false infromation about the timeline, that as I understand it is how Holmes works.  to say that it only works on a rubbish in rubbish out basis is an absurd oversimplification and would mean that as a tool it would have been junked years ago.  All witness statments have an element of "rubbish" in them, HOLMES helps police to sort out what is relevant and what is not.

2) Your refusal to give an example of what you would accept as relevant evidence of an abduction is very telling IMO.  An abduction can take place without there being any evidence left behind so an absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence, so kindly stop banging that particular drum as if it proves anything.  In any case there is plenty of evidence of an abduction, your refusal to accept it does not mean it doesn't exist.

Plenty of evidence. Other than the child has not been seen since May 3rd what would that be ?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?
« Reply #670 on: February 17, 2016, 05:02:27 PM »
1) the software in question can cope with variables of information and aid police to come up with a workable timeline.  If the police have investigated all nine individuals who "collaborated" on a timeline then they will be able to factor in any other information they have uncovered which may have a bearing on whether or not they had a reason to give false infromation about the timeline, that as I understand it is how Holmes works.  to say that it only works on a rubbish in rubbish out basis is an absurd oversimplification and would mean that as a tool it would have been junked years ago.  All witness statments have an element of "rubbish" in them, HOLMES helps police to sort out what is relevant and what is not.

2) Your refusal to give an example of what you would accept as relevant evidence of an abduction is very telling IMO.  An abduction can take place without there being any evidence left behind so an absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence, so kindly stop banging that particular drum as if it proves anything.  In any case there is plenty of evidence of an abduction, your refusal to accept it does not mean it doesn't exist.

There is always the possibility that the system does what the users want it to do which is not necessarily the same as what you think it does.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?
« Reply #671 on: February 17, 2016, 05:07:22 PM »
There is always the possibility that the system does what the users want it to do which is not necessarily the same as what you think it does.


total speculation and therefore of no value...but of course this is how myths are born

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?
« Reply #672 on: February 17, 2016, 05:24:15 PM »

total speculation and therefore of no value...but of course this is how myths are born

OK then ace you tell us exactly what HOLMES does.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?
« Reply #673 on: February 17, 2016, 05:39:26 PM »
OK then ace you tell us exactly what HOLMES does.

I don't speculate as you do...I agree with alfred...if it was a bad as you suspect it would not be used....but of course on this forum'''SY are rubbish..Redwood is rubbish...the UK is rubbish...the UK govt is corrupt and rubbish...but total respect for amaral

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?
« Reply #674 on: February 17, 2016, 05:42:59 PM »
OK then ace you tell us exactly what HOLMES does.
In the main, it does the paperwork associated with a large investigation.  It files, xrefs, and does donkey work required for a legal case.

I happen to use Open Office for the first two.  I don't need to do the donkey work required for a legal case, thankfully.

HOLMES appears to be very dated, circa 2000.  My software is circa 2016.  I doubt very much that any officer is relying on HOLMES to clarify the timeline of 3 May 2007.  If they are, they should try using the supercomputer between their ears.
What's up, old man?