As the Paynes were on the first floor they did not have the option of leaving the apartment via the patio doors save jumping from the balcony.Interesting. Not quite as interesting as bra talk, but interesting nonetheless.
RO states in her police rog that during the day when hanging out around the pool/tennis courts they would exit via the patio doors hence the apartment was unsecured.
KM states in her book after the first couple of days they barely used the front door. The McCanns, unlike the others who were taking breakfast at Millenium, had their breakfast in 5A. This is relevant because the Millenium was in the opposite direction of all other amenities and exiting out the patio door wouldn't be a shortcut. Maybe the only reason the McCanns used the front door after the first couple of days was when they popped round the Paynes.
If JT used the back passage, to enter via the patio doors, when she observed GM/JW chatting this would explain how she saw them but they didn't see her.
My view is that T6: GM/KM/MO/RO/ROB and JT were all exiting their respective apartments via the patio doors day and night other than maybe when MO/RO/ROB and JT went for breakfast at Millenium when it would have been quicker to exit via the front door.
Interesting. Not quite as interesting as bra talk, but interesting nonetheless.Serious question: why do you find it interesting?
So does anyone know if all of the patio doors were the same i.e not able to be locked from the outside?
Serious question: why do you find it interesting?Well as a straight man, women's undies have always had a certain attraction.
Well as a straight man, women's undies have always had a certain attraction.Not the bra, silly.
Well as a straight man, women's undies have always had a certain attraction.I would think everyone has an interest, either in putting them on or taking them off ?{)(**
Not the bra, silly.Just teasing.
Just teasing.Great but I just wondered about this particular subject and what was in any way interesting about it to you or if you could see any relevance to the disappearance? Never mind. I’m sure all will be revealed in the fullness of time.
I'm just curious. Do I think I'll crack the case? Of course. Not.
But hey, I'm always being told, despite my superior intellect, 'The General, you add nothing to the debate.'
So here I am reprezzentinn.
Great but I just wondered about this particular subject and what was in any way interesting about it to you or if you could see any relevance to the disappearance? Never mind. I’m sure all will be revealed in the fullness of time.Well, the decision to use the patio door for each individual may have been influenced by the fact that they lock from the outside. Or not.
The use of the patio doors would not easily fit the accepted narrative for the evening
It also offers a watching 'abductor' a choice if all three ground floor apartments had unlocked patio doors. Someone entering 5B or 5D was less likely to be seen than someone entering 5A too.So in your opinion Apt 5a on the corner (and above which there’d been an attempted break in days earlier) was less vulnerable than the other apartments?
So in your opinion Apt 5a on the corner (and above which there’d been an attempted break in days earlier) was less vulnerable than the other apartments?
How many days earlier? Do you know?three weeks. And your point is?
As the Paynes were on the first floor they did not have the option of leaving the apartment via the patio doors save jumping from the balcony.
RO states in her police rog that during the day when hanging out around the pool/tennis courts they would exit via the patio doors hence the apartment was unsecured.
KM states in her book after the first couple of days they barely used the front door. The McCanns, unlike the others who were taking breakfast at Millenium, had their breakfast in 5A. This is relevant because the Millenium was in the opposite direction of all other amenities and exiting out the patio door wouldn't be a shortcut. Maybe the only reason the McCanns used the front door after the first couple of days was when they popped round the Paynes.
If JT used the back passage, to enter via the patio doors, when she observed GM/JW chatting this would explain how she saw them but they didn't see her.
My view is that T6: GM/KM/MO/RO/ROB and JT were all exiting their respective apartments via the patio doors day and night other than maybe when MO/RO/ROB and JT went for breakfast at Millenium when it would have been quicker to exit via the front door.
So in your opinion Apt 5a on the corner (and above which there’d been an attempted break in days earlier) was less vulnerable than the other apartments?Technically, yes. You're better breaking and entering a gable end. Fewer neighbours.
Technically, yes. You're better breaking and entering a gable end. Fewer neighbours.So Apt 5a was more vulnerable then?
So Apt 5a was more vulnerable then?Yes as it can be accessed directly from the public streets.
So Apt 5a was more vulnerable then?Yes, I knew where you were driving this before I wrote my initial response. From that specific aspect, yes. For other reasons, not so. Backing on to the road, for example - too much chance of footfall / vehicular movements.
Yes, I knew where you were driving this before I wrote my initial response. From that specific aspect, yes. For other reasons, not so. Backing on to the road, for example - too much chance of footfall / vehicular movements.But that would go for all the apartments in question would it not?
So in your opinion Apt 5a on the corner (and above which there’d been an attempted break in days earlier) was less vulnerable than the other apartments?
It's patio doors could be seen from the street, the other's couldn't.So in your opinion and despite the fact that there had been an attempted break in above weeks earlier, this corner apartment was the least vulnerable? What’s a passerby to make of a patio door opening? That it must be a burglar?
But that would go for all the apartments in question would it not?5a is adjacent to two roads, the others one.
three weeks. And your point is?
5a is adjacent to two roads, the others one.What a ridiculous post.
But 5a's patio door is very secluded and can't be seen from the Tapas Bar.
It's a risk assessment.
With the supposed frequency of footfall I'd abandon it and think about nicking one from the night creche. Piece of piss.
Merely seeking to clarify a vague time period ?{)(**Thanks for taking the time - your input was really valuable to the discussion. Not.
Thanks for taking the time - your input was really valuable to the discussion. Not.
It made you correct your 'few days' to a 'few weeks', so I think it was.What difference does it make to the point regarding the security or otherwise of the apartments, whether it was a few days or 21 days?
What a ridiculous post.Because it doesn't jive with your narrative?
Because it doesn't jive with your narrative?One sleeping nanny? Where did you get that from? What you’re essentially saying is that leaving the kids unattended did not contribute to one of them being nicked as it could have happened whilst they were being looked after. Thanks for that own goal.
I've conceded that 5a is pretty vulnerable (notwithstanding leaving the frickin door unlocked), but there's easier ways of nicking a kid.
If this sophisticated abductor had any wherewithal he'd quickly spot that a sleeping nanny in the charge of a creche full of sleeping wee ans is essentially open season.
What difference does it make to the point regarding the security or otherwise of the apartments, whether it was a few days or 21 days?
Accuracy, dear boy, accuracy.If you really cared for accuracy you would at least refer to me by my correct gender.
One sleeping nanny? Where did you get that from? What you’re essentially saying is that leaving the kids unattended did not contribute to one of them being nicked as it could have happened whilst they were being looked after. Thanks for that own goal.Yes, of course, that's exactly what I'm saying - if you're on the spectrum.
Yes, of course, that's exactly what I'm saying - if you're on the spectrum.I think you’ve completely lost the plot again. First it was a sleeping nanny, now you have the abductor actually using subterfuge and engaging in face to face conversation with a nanny, knowing in advance the name of the child they have come to nick or some other convoluted plot and you reckon this is easier than entering an unlocked apartment on a street corner while the parents are out and nicking a kid? Cray-cray.
Do I need to clarify? Really? OK.......
........it's waaaaaaaay easier to nick a kid from a night creche. No sophisticated plan required. Just engage the girl in conversation, as a prospective parent, or as per some theories here, disguised as Jose or Hose B the new janitor and your slimy mate can peruse the cots at his leisure.
If you nick a sleeping baby it could be an hour or more before anyone notices.
Back of the net! [wheels away with an arm in the air like Alan Shearer......]
I think you’ve completely lost the plot again. First it was a sleeping nanny, now you have the abductor actually using subterfuge and engaging in face to face conversation with a nanny, knowing in advance the name of the child they have come to nick or some other convoluted plot and you reckon this is easier than entering an unlocked apartment on a street corner while the parents are out and nicking a kid? Cray-cray.I respect your opinion and will defend your right to express it.
There's 2 ways of executing - overt or covert. Covert over overt every time. Security I assume would have been nil back then. So you're dealing with one, maybe two staff.Dealing with one, maybe two staff easier than dealing with no parents? OK, if you say so. *%87
But occasionally subterfuge is required.
It's an operational decision.
If stealing a kid from the night creche is easier than stealing one from an unlocked apartment I would suggest a new Children’s Act banning night creches.
So there we have it - The General has spoken. The McCann children were actually safer alone in an unlocked apartment from the threat of kidnap than they would have been looked after by one or two staff in the night creche. Who knew?!The best way to read your posts to discern what the original poster meant, is to pass it through a sarcasm filter and swap all operative words with the exact opposite:
The best way to read your posts to discern what the original poster meant, is to pass it through a sarcasm filter and swap all operative words with the exact opposite:Now you claim to be saying the opposite of what you did say. According to you previously a kidnapper would have far easier pickings at the night creche than from an unlocked unattended apartment. Now you appear to be trying to say the opposite. Which is it?
So there we have it - The General has not spoken. The McCann children were actually not safer alone in an unlocked apartment from the threat of kidnap than they would have been looked after by one or two staff in the night creche. Who didn't know?!
Dealing with one, maybe two staff easier than dealing with no parents? OK, if you say so. *%87Dealing with several, vigilant and fastidious, punctual parents actually, according to one or both of the two timelines.
Dealing with several, vigilant and fastidious, punctual parents actually, according to one or both of the two timelines.Yes, it is me, - I am all of those things but still laughing at the ridiculousness of your posts.
But I get your point. Nice emoji, btw, does that represent you? Looks jaundiced, bitter and semi-intelligible?
Now you claim to be saying the opposite of what you did say. According to you previously a kidnapper would have far easier pickings at the night creche than from an unlocked unattended apartment. Now you appear to be trying to say the opposite. Which is it?That's what you said. You decided to, for reasons only known to yourself, turn it inside out like a pillow case. So which did you mean?
Yes, it is me, - I am all of those things but still laughing at the ridiculousness of your posts.You can get treatment for the jaundice. The other stuff, not so much.
No, that is your very fertile imagination playing tricks again.
From Janes statement it is clear that she passed Gerry and Jez talking, and carried on up Rua Dr FGM. She did NOT go down that alleyway. No woman would have done IMO because no lighting.
Also see The Cutting Edge Video at about 9.20 onwards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkc3C6csaHI
@ about 10.00, You will see exactly where Gerry and Jez stood talking = in the road and on the pavement edge adjacent to the alleyway .. and also that Jane carried on up Rua D FGM and DID NOT go into the alleyway.
Watch a little more and you will see Janes deep distress that she didn't realise that the man carry the little girl could likely have been the abductor ... and the little girl could likely have been Madeleine being carried away.
Jane did NOT go into the alleyway, as every one can see and as you must surely know. Why are you doing a Gunit and spreading disinformation ?
Why ? There has to be a reason
JT saying this, that or the other does not make it factually correct. There's no way JT could have passed GM/JW chatting on FGM 5A side without them noticing her which they didn't. JT/JW version of events in this regard contradict GM's about which side of the road they were on. If JT slipped up the back passage this would account for how she was able to observe GM/JW chatting but went unnoticed herself. It would also align with JW's version of events about which side of the road he was on. JW was staying in block 4 and pushing his young son around in an attempt to get him off to sleep. Prior to chatting with GM he went to the loo at tapas, why would he then cross the road with a buggy/pram when he was simply walking round the perimeter of OC?
No one mentions anything about the back passage being dimly lit or a scary place. Conversely RO said she did not like the car park side at night as it was dark and FP said similar including a whistling sound from winds.
And we can be 99.9% certain the man seen leaving the vicinity carrying a child was Dr T carrying his own daughter not MM's abductor.
Please desist from personal comments eg claiming I have a fertile imagination which plays tricks and that G-Unit spreads disinformation. If the contents of your posts stood up to scrutiny you would not need to add all of this but they don't hence you feel the need to make it personal.
JT saying this, that or the other does not make it factually correct. There's no way JT could have passed GM/JW chatting on FGM 5A side without them noticing her which they didn't. JT/JW version of events in this regard contradict GM's about which side of the road they were on. If JT slipped up the back passage this would account for how she was able to observe GM/JW chatting but went unnoticed herself. It would also align with JW's version of events about which side of the road he was on. JW was staying in block 4 and pushing his young son around in an attempt to get him off to sleep. Prior to chatting with GM he went to the loo at tapas, why would he then cross the road with a buggy/pram when he was simply walking round the perimeter of OC?Isn't everyone's back passage dimly lit and scary?
No one mentions anything about the back passage being dimly lit or a scary place. Conversely RO said she did not like the car park side at night as it was dark and FP said similar including a whistling sound from winds.
And we can be 99.9% certain the man seen leaving the vicinity carrying a child was Dr T carrying his own daughter not MM's abductor.
Please desist from personal comments eg claiming I have a fertile imagination which plays tricks and that G-Unit spreads disinformation. If the contents of your posts stood up to scrutiny you would not need to add all of this but they don't hence you feel the need to make it personal.
JT saying this, that or the other does not make it factually correct. There's no way JT could have passed GM/JW chatting on FGM 5A side without them noticing her which they didn't. JT/JW version of events in this regard contradict GM's about which side of the road they were on. If JT slipped up the back passage this would account for how she was able to observe GM/JW chatting but went unnoticed herself. It would also align with JW's version of events about which side of the road he was on. JW was staying in block 4 and pushing his young son around in an attempt to get him off to sleep. Prior to chatting with GM he went to the loo at tapas, why would he then cross the road with a buggy/pram when he was simply walking round the perimeter of OC?
No one mentions anything about the back passage being dimly lit or a scary place. Conversely RO said she did not like the car park side at night as it was dark and FP said similar including a whistling sound from winds.
And we can be 99.9% certain the man seen leaving the vicinity carrying a child was Dr T carrying his own daughter not MM's abductor.
Please desist from personal comments eg claiming I have a fertile imagination which plays tricks and that G-Unit spreads disinformation. If the contents of your posts stood up to scrutiny you would not need to add all of this but they don't hence you feel the need to make it personal.
Isn't everyone's back passage dimly lit and scary?
Why was Tannerman walking in the direction opposite to where he should have been going, having just come from the night creche, south-east of 5A?
If you really cared for accuracy you would at least refer to me by my correct gender.
You seem to be somewhat gender fluid;Alison Moyet was called Alf too though remember.
Vertigo Swirl
Executive Member
Posts:11360 (17.504 per day)
Personal Text:A Lovely Fellow In Everyway.
Age:N/A
Alison Moyet was called Alf too though remember.
I don't wish to get involved in the personal spat going on, so please just take this as some factual information.
I have walked along that passageway at night, more than once, to check out a few points.
It is very definitely dark. There is one street light near the W end, and one near the E end. Apart from that, I can only remember a single bulkhead light half way along. I would definitely describe it as dark.
I would not describe it as scary. I never once saw a person, a dog, a cat or even a mouse. I have always felt comfortable in the dark, so maybe that is just a me thing.
That's what you said. You decided to, for reasons only known to yourself, turn it inside out like a pillow case. So which did you mean?You’re talking gobbledegook. You claimed an abductor would target the night crèche because it would be easier to steal a child than from an unlocked unsupervised apartment , did you not?
You seem to be somewhat gender fluid;Off topic and a personal dig.
Vertigo Swirl
Executive Member
Posts:11360 (17.504 per day)
Personal Text:A Lovely Fellow In Everyway.
Age:N/A
Alison Moyet was called Alf too though remember.Damn. Rumbled.
Damn. Rumbled.Loving the biog. Fair play.
Loving the biog. Fair play.Ba dum, ba dum, ba da da dum.
JT saying this, that or the other does not make it factually correct. There's no way JT could have passed GM/JW chatting on FGM 5A side without them noticing her which they didn't. JT/JW version of events in this regard contradict GM's about which side of the road they were on. If JT slipped up the back passage this would account for how she was able to observe GM/JW chatting but went unnoticed herself. It would also align with JW's version of events about which side of the road he was on. JW was staying in block 4 and pushing his young son around in an attempt to get him off to sleep. Prior to chatting with GM he went to the loo at tapas, why would he then cross the road with a buggy/pram when he was simply walking round the perimeter of OC?You said ... "Prior to chatting with GM he went to the loo at tapas, why would he then cross the road with a buggy/pram ..."
No one mentions anything about the back passage being dimly lit or a scary place. Conversely RO said she did not like the car park side at night as it was dark and FP said similar including a whistling sound from winds.
And we can be 99.9% certain the man seen leaving the vicinity carrying a child was Dr T carrying his own daughter not MM's abductor.
Please desist from personal comments eg claiming I have a fertile imagination which plays tricks and that G-Unit spreads disinformation. If the contents of your posts stood up to scrutiny you would not need to add all of this but they don't hence you feel the need to make it personal.
So Apt 5a was more vulnerable then?
Yes as it can be accessed directly from the public streets.
5a is adjacent to two roads, the others one.
But 5a's patio door is very secluded and can't be seen from the Tapas Bar.
It's a risk assessment.
With the supposed frequency of footfall I'd abandon it and think about nicking one from the night creche. Piece of piss.
JT saying this, that or the other does not make it factually correct. There's no way JT could have passed GM/JW chatting on FGM 5A side without them noticing her which they didn't. JT/JW version of events in this regard contradict GM's about which side of the road they were on. If JT slipped up the back passage this would account for how she was able to observe GM/JW chatting but went unnoticed herself. It would also align with JW's version of events about which side of the road he was on. JW was staying in block 4 and pushing his young son around in an attempt to get him off to sleep. Prior to chatting with GM he went to the loo at tapas, why would he then cross the road with a buggy/pram when he was simply walking round the perimeter of OC?
No one mentions anything about the back passage being dimly lit or a scary place. Conversely RO said she did not like the car park side at night as it was dark and FP said similar including a whistling sound from winds.
And we can be 99.9% certain the man seen leaving the vicinity carrying a child was Dr T carrying his own daughter not MM's abductor.
Please desist from personal comments eg claiming I have a fertile imagination which plays tricks and that G-Unit spreads disinformation. If the contents of your posts stood up to scrutiny you would not need to add all of this but they don't hence you feel the need to make it personal.
I don't wish to get involved in the personal spat going on, so please just take this as some factual information.
I have walked along that passageway at night, more than once, to check out a few points.
It is very definitely dark. There is one street light near the W end, and one near the E end. Apart from that, I can only remember a single bulkhead light half way along. I would definitely describe it as dark.
I would not describe it as scary. I never once saw a person, a dog, a cat or even a mouse. I have always felt comfortable in the dark, so maybe that is just a me thing.
Well in this case the back passage has low walls to either side.
Where should he have been going? It was only circa 9 pm he may well have been going to night crèche to drop off his child as opposed to collecting her. Or he may have collected child and when arriving back at apartment realised he didn't have his key so returned to Millennium to collect from his wife. The night crèche was only available to MW guests dining at Millennium or Tapas and we know he wasn't dining at tapas so unless he was flouting the rules he must have been dining at Millennium. I think I'm right in saying the package included dinner at Millennium or Tapas?
Well in this case the back passage has low walls to either side.
Where should he have been going? It was only circa 9 pm he may well have been going to night crèche to drop off his child as opposed to collecting her. Or he may have collected child and when arriving back at apartment realised he didn't have his key so returned to Millennium to collect from his wife. The night crèche was only available to MW guests dining at Millennium or Tapas and we know he wasn't dining at tapas so unless he was flouting the rules he must have been dining at Millennium. I think I'm right in saying the package included dinner at Millennium or Tapas?
Off topic and a personal dig.
The Alleyway (back passage lol) doesn't have high walls BUT they were not low either. The ground was not flat, but I would think thay were mainly about chest high on most people ... and with shrubs above. you only have to look at some of the images to realise the height. They were NOT low walls.
I'm just wondering why someone would claim to be male in their profile and then claim to be female in their posts. If your gender is a personal secret then perhaps you should stop talking publicly about it.Why don't you keep your wonderings to yourself? I've stated my gender and that should be an end to it.
Why don't you keep your wonderings to yourself? I've stated my gender and that should be an end to it.
Fine though I don't see why you're uptight about it in the first place.I'm not uptight about it, I'm just calling out the sneery comments from one who is supposedly above such things, taking as she does the moral high ground on everything.
We're all anonymous on here and sex/gender is irrelevant.
Its not as if anyone is going to ask you out on a date
Sadie knows more about this than any of us. Such a pity that so many of her comments are discarded or mocked.
No it wasn't 9 pm; it was later, about 9.20pm(ish) IIRC.
The Millenium restaurant is in the wrong direction, so that cant be the case.
Soz.
Unlike some Sadie is punctilious in analysing other posts and discussing what is said in a sensible and moderate manner. She is one of the posters who attracted me to the forum; believe it or not another is Angelo who sometimes also talks a lot of sense.
If she has got a point wrong she is the first to admit it without rancour and take account of it but she is very seldom wrong in anything of real substance when expressing her well researched conclusions.
I think her enquiring mind and her dignity in sharing what she has learned about Madeleine's case is a credit to the ethos of the forum.
I believe her comments are attacked or mocked for the simple reason that she is a truthful and very effective poster.
Sorry Rob, I have to disagree.
At the front, north side, of the building an intruder had to cross a fairly large parking area. All the flats had to cross this. Then an abductor had to either climb a wall, or walk a semi open passage way where he was on view. Flat 5A had the longest walk, so longer exposure to any one watching
To the south side (the back) the rear way into 5A was visible to anyone walking up Rua Dr FGM and from a number of apartments and villas. The patio area was illuminated by the street lamp opposite. The other flats involved a walk along a really dark totally unlit alleyway, which few used at night ... after walking this alleyway, a prospective abductor would have had to cross a small garden and climb steps up. Also there was the added advantage to intruders that there was no street lamp opposite illuminating them as they walked, climbed and entered.
It would have been much easier, security wise to enter any of the flats than to enter 5A.
UNLESS, there was a watcher signalling the all clear on the balcony opposite 5A ... where the fag ends were found. With a watcher opopsite, 5A was the easiest to enter security wise
I really think those fag ends were like very significant
AIMO, but based on facts and logic.
She talks a load of nonsense about Maddie's blood line & Joana's ankles. I think you'll find that's why she is mocked & ridiculed.
While no one much bothers to mock and ridicule you because your comments aren't worth the time. I never delete your comments because I can't be bothered to engage in the 10 seconds it takes.
I think you'll find no one mocks or ridicules me because I don't tend to talk a load of old bollocks. .That's a matter of opinion, also perhaps you're too insensitive to notice when you're being mocked or ridiculed. You are the troll that bigs up the Nazis aren't you?
I think you'll find no one mocks or ridicules me because I don't tend to talk a load of old bollocks. .
I think you'll find no one mocks or ridicules me because I don't tend to talk a load of old bollocks. .
What a very odd conception you have of your own abilities. But every Form needs a pet troll.Mods on the train to Personal Insultsville........this train ain't stoppin'. Ain't nobody gonna mod a mod!
I think it's more like your posts do a very good job of ridiculing you and you don't need any helpYou should print that out and put it above your mirror.
Mods on the train to Person Insultsville........this train ain't stoppin'. Ain't nobody gonna mod a mod!
I thought you guys were the arbiters?
You should print that out and put it above your mirror.
All this has been gone over time and again, and you are wrong. Read back.
That alletyway is dark, IMO no woman would want to walk an alleyway such as that with no lighting. Please do not keep saying things that are incorrect. Please remember that I have been there. Ask SIL if you dont believe me.
You do have a fertile imagination, changing accepted (by police as well) happenings to suit that imagination. If it is not imagination then your posts take on a more sinister side IMO cos all you seem to want to do is change facts. Why?
Wrong about what exactly?
I don't care where you've been or haven't been it doesn't make you an authority on the case no more than it does GA who spent much time there including inside 5A!
The back passage may well have been dark but it doesn't mean to say JT and others didn't use it at night.
Here's what FP said about the car park side:
Reply
'Erm, it had a sort of double lock, erm, mechanism, erm, so it seemed, you know, it seemed very secure. Erm, and there was a security light, they were all on a timer switch, I think if you turned it on there was a light switch, you turned it on and it would stay on for, I don't know, a minute or so, and then go off automatically. And it seemed, when those lights were off, it was very dark at night-time and it was, it wasn't very, I mean, again, looking back, you sort of think, well it didn't feel very nice at night-time, that side of the apartment, because it did feel quite dark and, I think, the wind whistled through the stairwell as well'.
And what "facts" do I want to change that have been accepted by the police? And which police force are you referring to? PJ, MET, Leic or some other police force?
You said ... "Prior to chatting with GM he went to the loo at tapas, why would he then cross the road with a buggy/pram ..."
You are wrong.
Sorry Rob, I have to disagree.
At the front, north side, of the building an intruder had to cross a fairly large parking area. All the flats had to cross this. Then an abductor had to either climb a wall, or walk a semi open passage way where he was on view. Flat 5A had the longest walk, so longer exposure to any one watching
To the south side (the back) the rear way into 5A was visible to anyone walking up Rua Dr FGM and from a number of apartments and villas. The patio area was illuminated by the street lamp opposite. The other flats involved a walk along a really dark totally unlit alleyway, which few used at night ... after walking this alleyway, a prospective abductor would have had to cross a small garden and climb steps up. Also there was the added advantage to intruders that there was no street lamp opposite illuminating them as they walked, climbed and entered.
It would have been much easier, security wise to enter any of the flats than to enter 5A.
UNLESS, there was a watcher signalling the all clear on the balcony opposite 5A ... where the fag ends were found. With a watcher opopsite, 5A was the easiest to enter security wise
I really think those fag ends were like very significant
AIMO, but based on facts and logic.
(ty6e[
And here's what RO said about car park side:
'Mmm yeah, I mean the patio doors were locked, erm yeah I didn't really like going up there by myself, it was, like going through that car park was quite dark and there was never anyone around, it was a bit, you know made me feel a bit uneasy'.
So FP and RO found the car park side a bit scary at night in which case there's no reason to suggest anyone wasn't using the back passage because it was dark/scary.
It seems like some of the group didn't think Luz felt completely safe after dark.
She talks a load of nonsense about Maddie's blood line & Joana's ankles. I think you'll find that's why she is mocked & ridiculed.
Wrong about what?
Just about everything. Please read Jeremy Wilkins rogatory statement for confirmation that you are in error.
You said ... "Prior to chatting with GM he went to the loo at tapas, why would he then cross the road with a buggy/pram ..."
Jeremy Wilkins said ...
"I left the apartment and turned right.
I walked via the lower street, looked to the building block where the McCann apartment was situated ...
I turned right and continued on down the hill.
At this point, I saw a man that was coming from the road and was headed to the reception.
When I arrived, I headed to the WC near the pool area.
He also was in the WC ...
I do not remember if he was still in that place when I left.
After leaving the WC, I continued to walk around the back of the tennis court, and returned via the pathway opposite the pool in the Tapas complex.
... I walked practically in circles.
Eventually, I left one road to the other side of the street to the pool complex, between the McCann apartment and the Tapas Bar.
When I left the street, I remember seeing Gerry on the other side of the same.
I remember that I crossed the street to talk to Gerry. According to what I remember, Gerry was walking when I spotted him.
As I mentioned previously, I assumed that he had gone to check on the children and was headed back to the Tapas Bar.
From what I remember, the conversation happened right there on the pathway but I am not certain who was located exactly where."
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/jeremy-wilkins-statement-7-5-07-8-4-08-and-5-11-0-t36.html
Just about everything. Please read Jeremy Wilkins rogatory statement for confirmation that you are in error.
You said ... "Prior to chatting with GM he went to the loo at tapas, why would he then cross the road with a buggy/pram ..."
Jeremy Wilkins said ...
"I left the apartment and turned right.
I walked via the lower street, looked to the building block where the McCann apartment was situated ...
I turned right and continued on down the hill.
At this point, I saw a man that was coming from the road and was headed to the reception.
When I arrived, I headed to the WC near the pool area.
He also was in the WC ...
I do not remember if he was still in that place when I left.
After leaving the WC, I continued to walk around the back of the tennis court, and returned via the pathway opposite the pool in the Tapas complex.
... I walked practically in circles.
Eventually, I left one road to the other side of the street to the pool complex, between the McCann apartment and the Tapas Bar.
When I left the street, I remember seeing Gerry on the other side of the same.
I remember that I crossed the street to talk to Gerry. According to what I remember, Gerry was walking when I spotted him.
As I mentioned previously, I assumed that he had gone to check on the children and was headed back to the Tapas Bar.
From what I remember, the conversation happened right there on the pathway but I am not certain who was located exactly where."
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/jeremy-wilkins-statement-7-5-07-8-4-08-and-5-11-0-t36.html
Are you suggesting JW was on FGM and crossed to speak with GM from block 6 side to 5A side?
In JW's police rog he refers to
..street most used by the news agencies and journalists as all the parked cars indicated during the coverage period.
I believe the above was ADS not FGM?
Are you suggesting JW was on FGM and crossed to speak with GM from block 6 side to 5A side?
In JW's police rog he refers to
..street most used by the news agencies and journalists as all the parked cars indicated during the coverage period.
I believe the above was ADS not FGM?
JT saying this, that or the other does not make it factually correct. There's no way JT could have passed GM/JW chatting on FGM 5A side without them noticing her which they didn't. JT/JW version of events in this regard contradict GM's about which side of the road they were on. If JT slipped up the back passage this would account for how she was able to observe GM/JW chatting but went unnoticed herself.
It would also align with JW's version of events about which side of the road he was on. JW was staying in block 4 and pushing his young son around in an attempt to get him off to sleep. Prior to chatting with GM he went to the loo at tapas, why would he then cross the road with a buggy/pram when he was simply walking round the perimeter of OC?
No one mentions anything about the back passage being dimly lit or a scary place. Conversely RO said she did not like the car park side at night as it was dark and FP said similar including a whistling sound from winds.
And we can be 99.9% certain the man seen leaving the vicinity carrying a child was Dr T carrying his own daughter not MM's abductor.
Are you suggesting JW was on FGM and crossed to speak with GM from block 6 side to 5A side?With the aid of Google earth, I have interpreted Jezes statement as meaning exactly that.
In JW's police rog he refers to
..street most used by the news agencies and journalists as all the parked cars indicated during the coverage period.
I believe the above was ADS not FGM?
Pavement of Rua FGM is at least 2 metres wide at that point where the alley way (aka back passage 8(>(( ) led off. Gerry was astride the kerb, I believe, so little of him was on the pavement. Jez was standing in the road. For him to be standing, with baby in pram, in the road, he had to be protected by parked cars on either side, so a very limited view south or north in which to see Jane. Gerry had his back to Jane; he wouldn't see her. He is a big man and was patly on the kerb so blocking much of Jezes view.
Are you suggesting that someone 6 feet away can't be seen? The rest of this paragraph isn't factual, it's your opinion.
Some minor happening, such as :
- Concentrating on admiring the baby in the pram, or,
- A vehicle from the little car park (opposite the Tapas Reception) suddenly stopping and rapidly turning round to drive off in a rush in the opposite direction
Either happening could have caused them both to lose their normal atention, to waiver. In circumstances like these Jane could have walked past really easily without being noticed.
To be quite frank, if at that stage Jez didn't even know Jane (which I think is so, but please correct me, with cites, if wrong) why would he notice a woman passing by who was shapeless as she was drowned in her partners huge jacket ?
Not noticing is especially viable if the conversation was interesting and they were deeply involved in it imo
And the street lights were rather poor.
Jes did know Jane, he saw her on his way out earlier. Are those poor street lights the ones which bathed the McCanns balcony in light?
And of course the possibility of being distracted by a car suddenly turning round fits rather neatly into my mini theory 8(0(*. Also the headlights could have caused the mono chromatic street lighting to be added to, enabling Jane to see colour.
There is no evidence of a car, that's speculation on your part.
It is my understanding that Jez went to the loo at the Tapas are and then carried on in the Tapas area in a westerly direction along the little pathway that runs immediately to the south of the tennis courts (zoom in on Google Earth to see this, (but it is now covered by the heads of trees so you may have to do Google street view up Rua Maio to see the pathway entrance.). He came out onto Rua P. de Maio, before circling around OC.
I can see no exit from the Tapas complex onto R. 1º de Maio.
OC is extensive and we dont know how wide a circle he took but he found himself on the eastern side of Rua Dr, FGM and crossed over to, afaik, chat with Gerry. This happened immediately across the entranceHollys back passageto the rear alleyway, but mainly in the road.
No one used it, that is why it wasn't mentioned. That is with the exception of Matt when he left Rob and Janes place, but he would have been walking towards the light rather than walking into blackness. Both SIL and I have seen it and told you how dark this alleyway was. I wonder why you persist in pushing it ?
There is no evidence that Matt used the passageway.
- snip-
Very unlikely cos he would have been going the wrong way, whether from The Millenium Restaurant or from the creche. From neither place would Dr Totman have needed to cross the road Rua FGM either. His flat was immediately before that road, so it seems that Jane did not see Dr Totman (Crechman), but another man who we call Tannerman
May I politely suggest that if possible you go and visit the area, and see for yourself. Rather than spreading misinformation and causing confusion
Pavement of Rua FGM is at least 2 metres wide at that point where the alley way (aka back passage 8(>(( ) led off. Gerry was astride the kerb, I believe, so little of him was on the pavement. Jez was standing in the road. For him to be standing, with baby in pram, in the road, he had to be protected by parked cars on either side, so a very limited view south or north in which to see Jane. Gerry had his back to Jane; he wouldn't see her. He is a big man and was patly on the kerb so blocking much of Jezes view.
Some minor happening, such as :
- Concentrating on admiring the baby in the pram, or,
- A vehicle from the little car park (opposite the Tapas Reception) suddenly stopping and rapidly turning round to drive off in a rush in the opposite direction
Either happening could have caused them both to lose their normal atention, to waiver. In circumstances like these Jane could have walked past really easily without being noticed.
To be quite frank, if at that stage Jez didn't even know Jane (which I think is so, but please correct me, with cites, if wrong) why would he notice a woman passing by who was shapeless as she was drowned in her partners huge jacket ?
Not noticing is especially viable if the conversation was interesting and they were deeply involved in it imo
And the street lights were rather poor.
And of course the possibility of being distracted by a car suddenly turning round fits rather neatly into my mini theory 8(0(*. Also the headlights could have caused the mono chromatic street lighting to be added to, enabling Jane to see colour.
It is my understanding that Jez went to the loo at the Tapas are and then carried on in the Tapas area in a westerly direction along the little pathway that runs immediately to the south of the tennis courts (zoom in on Google Earth to see this, (but it is now covered by the heads of trees so you may have to do Google street view up Rua Maio to see the pathway entrance.). He came out onto Rua P. de Maio, before circling around OC.
OC is extensive and we dont know how wide a circle he took but he found himself on the eastern side of Rua Dr, FGM and crossed over to, afaik, chat with Gerry. This happened immediately across the entranceHollys back passageto the rear alleyway, but mainly in the road.
No one used it, that is why it wasn't mentioned. That is with the exception of Matt when he left Rob and Janes place, but he would have been walking towards the light rather than walking into blackness. Both SIL and I have seen it and told you how dark this alleyway was. I wonder why you persist in pushing it ?
- snip-
Very unlikely cos he would have been going the wrong way, whether from The Millenium Restaurant or from the creche. From neither place would Dr Totman have needed to cross the road Rua FGM either. His flat was immediately before that road, so it seems that Jane did not see Dr Totman (Crechman), but another man who we call Tannerman
May I politely suggest that if possible you go and visit the area, and see for yourself. Rather than spreading misinformation and causing confusion
I don't need to visit the area. Firstly FP and RO described the car park side at night as dark/scary in which case there was no need to avoid the back passage. Secondly I can see everything with my own eyes via Google Earth. Thirdly even if I visited I would be basing it on my perception of whether or not it was dark/scary and not those who had decide whether to use car park side or back passage.
You and others keep insisting Dr T was walking the "wrong way" when you have no idea whether or not he was going or returning from crèche or on some other journey.
This is a discussion board where all views are welcome providing they do not break the high level rules set out on the homepage. If you disagree with a post it is sufficient to set out your reasons why. Therefore please desist from accusing others of spreading misinformation and causing confusion.
I think a lot of the above comes under the heading of spreading misinformation.
Maybe it has been done previously but if not I think we need to put JW's testimony under the microscope in an attempt to determine the precise route taken.
Maybe it has been done previously but if not I think we need to put JW's testimony under the microscope in an attempt to determine the precise route taken.
I do not think "we" need to do anything with Jes Wilkin's testimony. In my opinion the salient part of Jes's testimony is his account of the meeting with Gerry.
I find it extraordinary that there are those who accept without a thought as gospel any utterance by whoever if they think it may reflect badly on the McCanns and any associated with them ... but wish to put the testimony of a bona fide witness "under the microscope".
What utter arrogance!
Since when does examining testimony in microscopic detail amount to questioning the veracity of the witness?
I do not think "we" need to do anything with Jes Wilkin's testimony. In my opinion the salient part of Jes's testimony is his account of the meeting with Gerry.You can reverse that and the same is true. Utter arrogance.
I find it extraordinary that there are those who accept without a thought as gospel any utterance by whoever if they think it may reflect badly on the McCanns and any associated with them ... but wish to put the testimony of a bona fide witness "under the microscope".
What utter arrogance!
I don't need to visit the area. Firstly FP and RO described the car park side at night as dark/scary in which case there was no need to avoid the back passage. Secondly I can see everything with my own eyes via Google Earth. Thirdly even if I visited I would be basing it on my perception of whether or not it was dark/scary and not those who had decide whether to use car park side or back passage.
You and others keep insisting Dr T was walking the "wrong way" when you have no idea whether or not he was going or returning from crèche or on some other journey.
This is a discussion board where all views are welcome providing they do not break the high level rules set out on the homepage. If you disagree with a post it is sufficient to set out your reasons why. Therefore please desist from accusing others of spreading misinformation and causing confusion.
And Sadie I thought you and others here endorsed the McCanns view that dining out at tapas was akin to eating in the back garden. In which case how come there was some foreboding dark and scary back passage separating tapas and 5A that was to be avoided at all costs?
He walked around the main area of the resort and eventually ended up in the Tapas bar where he used the toilet facility. He was unable to state what time this was. His son was still awake so he walked in the area of the ocean club gardens and walked along the alleyways in that general area. He eventually made his way along Rua Dr Francisco toward the direction of Rua Dr Agostinho. At this time he was walking on the right side of the road passing the Tapas bar area to his left. He noticed the bad street lighting and although it was not completely dark there was enough light to see clearly. As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
If you start a new thread Holly those with no interest can ignore it.
If you start a new thread Holly those with no interest can ignore it.
They didn't need, or want, to use your dark and scary back passage 8(0(* ... and with the exception of Matt when leaving Robs flat, they didn't use it, preferring the front car park route.
You are wrong.
Both the creche and the Millenium restaurant lie in an easterly direction from Dr Totmans flat
Rua FGM, which Jane saw the man crossing is in a westerly direction from Totmans flat.
Totmans flat was east of Rua FGM.
He simply would NOT have crossed Rua FGM, whether coming or going; it was beyond his route.
You are wrong IMO. Pls check this on G.Earth using your logic.
You are wrong.
Both the creche and the Millenium restaurant lie in an easterly direction from Dr Totmans flat
Rua FGM, which Jane saw the man crossing is in a westerly direction from Totmans flat.
Totmans flat was east of Rua FGM.
He simply would NOT have crossed Rua FGM, whether coming or going; it was beyond his route.
You are wrong IMO. Pls check this on G.Earth using your logic.
Dr Totman was in Block 4. He did indeed need to head east to reach the Creche and the Millenium. To reach or return from the Millenium he would have crossed the top of R Dr FGM, which is actually east of both Blocks 4 & 5.
I have seen nothing to suggest that the security of the apartments was inadequate, because I have seen no reports of the apartments being broken into. What I have seen suggests that those occupying the apartments were careless about security.Spate of burglaries may be key to Madeleine abduction
on 16th April 2007 there was a theft from an apartment in Block 5 L, from where a plasma display screen, credit cards and a mobile phone belonging to the respective guests were taken.
As far as she knows, as she prepared the papers for the insurance company, the theft took place at the end of the day and according to the guests the event happened when they had left for dinner after completing check in and having left their suitcases in the apartment.
She says that she does not remember having been told that doors or windows had been forced, the guests having said that they had just left the door on the latch
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-GONCALVES.htm
Spate of burglaries may be key to Madeleine abduction
A rise in local burglaries that peaked in the month Madeleine McCann disappeared are also being studied by Scotland Yard detectives who are investigating whether the three-year-old may have disturbed a break-in before being snatched.
"Whilst the numbers are low, we can see that there was an increase in burglary in Praia de Luz between January and April 2007 that spiked in April 2007," Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood said.
"Windows were a feature, as well as burglaries taking place in the evening."
Police are also interested in an incident that occurred in Praia da Luz in 2006 when a man, described as white with dark hair, rummaged through an apartment in which two children were inside before leaving empty handed.
Last updated Sun 15 Dec 2013
https://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-10-14/spate-of-burglaries-may-be-key-to-madeleine-abduction/
Since Jane Tanner watched Gerry McCann and Julian Totman play tennis on the 3rd of May, isn’t it odd that she did not recognise him as the person carrying a girl?
So Redwood confirms a spate of burglaries and conforms windows beding a feature...interesting
So Redwood confirms a spate of burglaries and conforms windows beding a feature...interestingMildly interesting 6 years ago, but obviously barking up the wrong tree.
Since Jane Tanner watched Gerry McCann and Julian Totman play tennis on the 3rd of May, isn’t it odd that she did not recognise him as the person carrying a girl?
Mildly interesting 6 years ago, but obviously barking up the wrong tree.
not necessarily...if an apartment had been broken into via raised shutters that would be highly significantYou'd think so, right. But yet here we are, 6 years later and whatever leads Redwood and his band of coppers investigated led to sweet Fanny Adams.
You'd think so, right. But yet here we are, 6 years later and whatever leads Redwood and his band of coppers investigated led to sweet Fanny Adams.
So mildly interesting 6 years ago, not now. It's as interesting as Malinka's hard drive contents, or Murat's mother's poster stall.
I agree, Brietta. Jane spent half an hour watching them play tennis. To me, enough time to get a sense of what he looked like.That means......wait, what? Two fellas walking off with kids in their arms?
we dont know what SY are looking at now. If the raised shutter were a common thread then I think its common sense to see their significance. There are no doubt other burglars in portugal apart from the ones we know SY interviewedYou're right, maybe they've waited 6 years to investigate this angle for reasons only known to them.
You're right, maybe they've waited 6 years to investigate this angle for reasons only known to them.
what they are investigating is only known to themThat's what I've just said.
That's what I've just said.
They must be sitting on this key facet for a reason. For 6 years.
not necessarilySo they've investigated it and it's come to nothing.
So they've investigated it and it's come to nothing.
Or they're still investigating it. For 6 years.
Maybe they're waiting for someone to die.
Nope...they investigated the three burglars...now they are invstigating a n other....I dont believe they re sitting on anythingWhich burglar are they investigating?
Which burglar are they investigating?
there may well be other burglars...we dont knowJesus Jones, this must be the most crime ridden cesspit going. Burglars literally everywhere, so much so, they're finding new ones and investigating those.
Jesus Jones, this must be the most crime ridden cesspit going. Burglars literally everywhere, so much so, they're finding new ones and investigating those.
Could be they're waiting for this prolific shutter lifter to make a mistake. For 6 years. The Portuguese Raffles. Louvres. Louvres the Gentleman Senhor.
once again...we dont know what they are investigatingBut you've just said they're investigating burglars.
Nope...they investigated the three burglars...now they are invstigating a n other....I dont believe they re sitting on anything
But you've just said they're investigating burglars.
they may be....You said they are. Now they 'may be'?
You said they are. Now they 'may be'?
I think the time for the denial tactic is well played out now.
It is in the public domain that the security of holiday lets pre 2007 was somewhat lax. There were many burglaries; children of holidaymakers were abused in their beds by an intruder.
The genie is out of the bottle and just cannot be put back.
Actually the Ocean Club did pay lip service to security by giving one individual a title ... and that was it ... I don't think she performed any duties which could be classed as security work in the real world.
Members are again reminded to comply with the forum rules.
Mildly interesting 6 years ago, but obviously barking up the wrong tree.Why “obviously “?
Jesus Jones, this must be the most crime ridden cesspit going. Burglars literally everywhere, so much so, they're finding new ones and investigating those.You’re in serious danger of facetiousnessing yourself to death. Of course a series of break-ins may still be significant if the perpetrator(s) were never identified and ruled out. Have they been, do you know?
Could be they're waiting for this prolific shutter lifter to make a mistake. For 6 years. The Portuguese Raffles. Louvres. Louvres the Gentleman Senhor.
Why “obviously “?Yeh you missed it. Cast to the four winds.
You’re in serious danger of facetiousnessing yourself to death. Of course a series of break-ins may still be significant if the perpetrator(s) were never identified and ruled out. Have they been, do you know?Ditto. Reams of posts......WHUMPH......
You’re in serious danger of facetiousnessing yourself to death. Of course a series of break-ins may still be significant if the perpetrator(s) were never identified and ruled out. Have they been, do you know?Where would we draw the line? A raised shutter somewhere in Luz last Saturday - dispatch two OG donut munchers to investigate? Theft of a tennis bag in an adjoining resort - send a couple of rozzers to forensically examine?
Ditto. Reams of posts......WHUMPH......All you need say is whether or not the perpetrators of the spate of break ins were apprehended and ruled out. Yes or no?
CBA typing it again lid.
All you need say is whether or not the perpetrators of the spate of break ins were apprehended and ruled out. Yes or no?We never got that far before 'The Purge', as it's now being called on Reddit.
You are wrong.
Both the creche and the Millenium restaurant lie in an easterly direction from Dr Totmans flat
Rua FGM, which Jane saw the man crossing is in a westerly direction from Totmans flat.
Totmans flat was east of Rua FGM.
He simply would NOT have crossed Rua FGM, whether coming or going; it was beyond his route.
You are wrong IMO. Pls check this on G.Earth using your logic.
We never got that far before 'The Purge', as it's now being called on Reddit.So you can’t answer my question now then? OK.
So you can’t answer my question now then? OK.Repeat the question please.
So you can’t answer my question now then? OK.I struggle to see how OG could gain access to these alleged burglars.
I struggle to see how OG could gain access to these alleged burglars.
That's a very good question. There was a list of break-ins in Apenso VI 2, which was withheld;
it holds work and exploitation of information regarding any possibly relevant crime as well as a survey of localised crime and crime of a sexual character. The intelligence obtained, coming to the PJ from their own knowledge base, through the British authorities and by other sources, consisting of five volumes, also contains information that can contend with the right to a private life of persons, such that its remaining in the case file would be a violation of the rights of those same people, it being certain that nothing was found relating to the purpose of this case file.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
The important bit is bolded.
that may be the opinion of the PJ but not SY. I would think although these were witheld from public release SY would have seen them
I struggle to see how OG could gain access to these alleged burglars.
It was the phone records what OG fingered the 4 arguido's back in 2014.
I may be wrong, but didn't Heriberto identify them first? He claimed to have tipped the police off about them in 2013.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-star/20160428/281505045410203
Got nowhere, save to eliminate them though,and of course they were waiting just waiting for some one to catch up with them.
‘Julian Totman walked near the McCanns’ apartment holding his two-year-old girl after getting her from a creche at the resort in Praia da Luz’.
He was walking towards the night creche, not away from it. Also, isn’t there a shortcut through block 6’s car park to Palm Bay where the night creche is more or less situated?
The PJ had the advantage of local knowledge, which OG lacked, of course.
The PJ had the advantage of local knowledge, which OG lacked, of course.
‘Julian Totman walked near the McCanns’ apartment holding his two-year-old girl after getting her from a creche at the resort in Praia da Luz’.
He was walking towards the night creche, not away from it. Also, isn’t there a shortcut through block 6’s car park to Palm Bay where the night creche is more or less situated?
And still have. OG will never solve this case sitting on their backsides in a London office.
Thanks Barrier. I know he didn’t. Who do you think that holidaymaker was? Has Dr Totman ever disputed his name being published by news agencies?
I think they are the only ones who will solve it and the PJ are now doing nothing and playing second fiddle to SY
I am pointing to the fact that if the person was not Julian Totman, he probably would have defended and explained why it was not him on 3 May at 21h15.
Also, why would the findmadeleine website say that they cannot be certain of the identity of the man?
OG have to keep going until it reaches the statute of limitations,bit embarrassing if they gave in and the PJ solved it with out the embarrassment of riches enjoyed by the met.IMO
OG dont have to keep investigating... They simply keep the case open
For a crime committed in another country where they have no jurisdiction?,even more uncertain what their role will be come brexit proper.
Brexit won't make a scrap of difference... Why should it
I am pointing to the fact that if the person was not Julian Totman, he probably would have defended and explained why it was not him on 3 May at 21h15.
Also, why would the findmadeleine website say that they cannot be certain of the identity of the man?
I am pointing to the fact that if the person was not Julian Totman, he probably would have defended and explained why it was not him on 3 May at 21h15.
Also, why would the findmadeleine website say that they cannot be certain of the identity of the man?
Of course I grasp that findmadeleine is not an authoritative entity. They might be sincere, though. If Tannerman is not Totman, who do you suggest it is?
One other thing Totman never mentioned being interviewed by OG.
I don't have a clue who the man OG referred to is. Strangely his name never came up, despite him being photographed. Perhaps he's got no media friendly friends and aquaintances.
If the person seen by Jane Tanner is not Julian Totman, surely he would have come forward and challenge that supposition.
Did Dr T stay in block 4?
Dr Totman was in Block 4. He did indeed need to head east to reach the Creche and the Millenium. To reach or return from the Millenium he would have crossed the top of R Dr FGM, which is actually east of both Blocks 4 & 5.
The idea it isn't Dr T is bonkers imo. It was low season and by all accounts few people about. The description of Dr T and child (his daughter) are uncannily similar to the description given by JT.What's that got to do with anything?!!!
What's that got to do with anything?!!!
Tannerman's hair is longer, unkempt, parted on the left side and he was walking in the wrong direction had he been collecting his child from the creche...
Am I understanding this correctly? Some people are suggesting that Totman’s wife falsely claimed it was her husband that the police id’ed as Tannerman?
It has never been explained why Totman never came forward voluntarily to clear this sighting up when Tannerman was all over the papers but instead waited until DCI Redman sought him out.
What's that got to do with anything?!!!
Tannerman's hair is longer, unkempt, parted on the left side and he was walking in the wrong direction had he been collecting his child from the creche...
I believe the Totmans did come forward in the immediate aftermath saying they thought sighting could be Dr T.https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/
Mrs Totman never confirmed that OG identified her husband as tannerman,imo the reason is because it wasn't him.
IMO tannerman who ever he was confirmed something to OG that was only known to them and the PJ,ie not in the public domain,this was the revelation moment,once again imo.
Smithy is the key,always as been.
Who looked like Cristovao.
Amongst at least one other.
Do you have a cite for Dr Totman staying in block 4, cos I have always thought that he stayed in block 6.
Cite please.
Mrs Totman never confirmed that OG identified her husband as tannerman,imo the reason is because it wasn't him.
IMO tannerman who ever he was confirmed something to OG that was only known to them and the PJ,ie not in the public domain,this was the revelation moment,once again imo.
Smithy is the key,always as been.
Do you really think I would lie or make things up when anyone can check whether what I post is correct? Dr Totman stayed in G4M.
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME%20_IIa_Page_618.jpg)
The idea it isn't Dr T is bonkers imo. It was low season and by all accounts few people about. The description of Dr T and child (his daughter) are uncannily similar to the description given by JT.
Cristovao was the closest match that I have seen.
If DCI Redwood wasn't sure that Jane Tanner's sighting was no use he sure went to a lot of effort to persuade people. Dressing someone up in similar clothes and photographing them, not to mention photographing, apparently, the pyjamas the child was wearing plus a blanket (???).
Tanner sighting was not of any use once SY looked into it,Redwood said it was widely to have been assumed to be the abductor but careful analysis allows them to move it on.
Do you really think I would lie or make things up when anyone can check whether what I post is correct? Dr Totman stayed in G4M.There is more to it though. Somewhere it said he had booked that apartment but wasn't staying there for the first week.
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME%20_IIa_Page_618.jpg)
Both are uncannily similar to the description given by the Smiths too. The clever bit is deciding whether there were three men dressed alike carrying a similar child or just one.
There is more to it though. Somewhere it said he had booked that apartment but wasn't staying there for the first week.
Somewhere it said? Where? Who said?
The Totmans were holidaying with their friends the Weinbergers (spelling?) who also stayed in cell block 4?
I think the Totmans stayed for 2 weeks?
KM's PB (and others elsewhere I think) refer to someone wanting to book a table at tapas 3rd May but unable to do so because of T9 block booking. KM said she felt bad about this but when found out those who wanted to book were staying on for another week she was able to justify on this basis. Wonder if it was Totmans/Weinbergers?
This is typical of the fixation with trivia that some people think is so important ....why does it matter how long Totman stayedIMO it is important to know that the Totmans stayed for 2 weeks. They were there in the aftermath of Madeleine' disappearance and heard about the time, location & description of the man + child seen by Jane Tanner. This description prompted them to tell GNR or PJ that they thought Tannerman was Dr Totman himself. We can only speculate as to why PJ failed to investigate & eliminate Tannerman during the early days but imo there was an ulterior motive for not doing so.
IMO it is important to know that the Totmans stayed for 2 weeks. They were there in the aftermath of Madeleine' disappearance and heard about the time, location & description of the man + child seen by Jane Tanner. This description prompted them to tell GNR or PJ that they thought Tannerman was Dr Totman himself. We can only speculate as to why PJ failed to investigate & eliminate Tannerman during the early days but imo there was an ulterior motive for not doing so.
IMO it is important to know that the Totmans stayed for 2 weeks. They were there in the aftermath of Madeleine' disappearance and heard about the time, location & description of the man + child seen by Jane Tanner. This description prompted them to tell GNR or PJ that they thought Tannerman was Dr Totman himself. We can only speculate as to why PJ failed to investigate & eliminate Tannerman during the early days but imo there was an ulterior motive for not doing so.
But efforts by the Totmans, who live in the South West, to point out the importance of Julian’s movements fell on deaf ears.It would have been up to PJ to ask for LP to speak to the Totmans as a matter of urgency in the same fashion they did with Jez Wilkins. Only PJ can explain why they didn't follow up Totmans' information.
They were never contacted by Leicestershire police, whose officers were responsible at the time for collating all UK inquiries.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/
he could have done just the same from the UK
You think the individual described by Tanner/Smiths are similar? I will reread the Smiths' testimony.
Wld Dr T have any obvious reason to be in the vicinity of the Smith sighting? And what about the times?
Little girls' pj's tend to be similar in appearance.
To my mind these sightings are in all probability red herrings. If a man was seen carrying a child around central London during hours of dusk/darkness it might arouse suspicion but in a sleepy resort on the Algarve coast where a night crèche operated I think not.
IMO it is important to know that the Totmans stayed for 2 weeks. They were there in the aftermath of Madeleine' disappearance and heard about the time, location & description of the man + child seen by Jane Tanner. This description prompted them to tell GNR or PJ that they thought Tannerman was Dr Totman himself. We can only speculate as to why PJ failed to investigate & eliminate Tannerman during the early days but imo there was an ulterior motive for not doing so.
Who informed the Totmans about the time, location and description of the man + child seen by Jane Tanner?
That would have been anyone from the group of people who knew about Jane's sighting.
How did local Mark McCarrick know on morning 4th May that 5A patio doors were unlocked?
Are you suggesting that the T9 were going around spreading the news? That makes me wonder why Dr Totman didn't respond with 'That might have been me'.
Did Mark McCarrick know on 4th that 5A patio doors were unlocked?
It has never been explained why Totman never came forward voluntarily to clear this sighting up when Tannerman was all over the papers but instead waited until DCI Redman sought him out.
I'm pretty sure there was a translator present when Jane told the Portuguese police about the man she'd seen so that's one potential source of news outside the Tapas 9. PJ were doing door-to-door with a description of their main suspect, which must have entailed a little more than "we're looking for a man".
Mark McCarrick comments in this article (which seems to relate to events related to 4th May.)
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/Express_05_05_2007.htm
*snipped*
Praia da Luz resident Mark McCarrick said the girl might have simply walked out of her room.
“The parents left the door ajar so they could keep going over and looking at her,” he said. “We are hoping that because the door was open, she just walked out.”
The McCarricks knew Bridget O'Donnell through their joint estate agency business.
Somewhere it said? Where? Who said?From memory:
This is typical of the fixation with trivia that some people think is so important ....why does it matter how long Totman stayedIt is part of Jez Wilkins' statement. He brought up how if the McCanns were going to stay longer they would have had other ways of looking after the kids.
This morning I watched ‘The Mystery of Madeleine McCann’ (2019) on the ID channel. Colin Sutton actually named Julian Totman as being ‘Tannerman’. Has anyone else seen this?Where is that found? I see a short trailer for the documentary.
From memory:
It was on the MW "booking sheet", (but not on the one that was cited). I remember commenting on this about year ago. Totman (from memory it said) booked the room in block 4 for two weeks so he could use the creche and other facilities but he wasn't staying there for the first week. Which gave the possibility him carrying his daughter in the other direction after 9:00 PM. Hence he may have been going from Block 4 toward his other accommodation. It was still the first week of his holiday.
I also wish Totman would comment directly on the subject.
From memory:
It was on the MW "booking sheet", (but not on the one that was cited). I remember commenting on this about year ago. Totman (from memory it said) booked the room in block 4 for two weeks so he could use the creche and other facilities but he wasn't staying there for the first week. Which gave the possibility him carrying his daughter in the other direction after 9:00 PM. Hence he may have been going from Block 4 toward his other accommodation. It was still the first week of his holiday.
I also wish Totman would comment directly on the subject.
From memory:
It was on the MW "booking sheet", (but not on the one that was cited). I remember commenting on this about year ago. Totman (from memory it said) booked the room in block 4 for two weeks so he could use the creche and other facilities but he wasn't staying there for the first week. Which gave the possibility him carrying his daughter in the other direction after 9:00 PM. Hence he may have been going from Block 4 toward his other accommodation. It was still the first week of his holiday.
I also wish Totman would comment directly on the subject.
Are you suggesting that the T9 were going around spreading the news? That makes me wonder why Dr Totman didn't respond with 'That might have been me'.
Did Mark McCarrick know on 4th that 5A patio doors were unlocked?
G unit. when was the unlocked patio doors mentioned. was it mentioned to Fiona during the meal ( It has been claimed Kate wasn't happy about leaving the children alone that night- Gerry intervened, hence leaving a door unlocked for MBM to go and get them.
Is there any mention of this anywhere?
Fiona only mentioned that conversation in her rogatory interview, a long time after the event. She did say Kate was unsure about leaving the door unlocked so Madeleine could get out and find them (I think).Before or after the summit meeting?
Fiona only mentioned that conversation in her rogatory interview, a long time after the event. She did say Kate was unsure about leaving the door unlocked so Madeleine could get out and find them (I think).
So it has been established that the door was indeed left unlocked?. and all the while this was not mentioned to the press in the begining to offer and alternative for an 'abductor' to enter and exit the building?
Before or after the summit meeting?
Fiona only mentioned that conversation in her rogatory interview, a long time after the event. She did say Kate was unsure about leaving the door unlocked so Madeleine could get out and find them (I think).
Would Madeleine really have been capable of operating the child lock on the child gate?
Not much of a child lock if she could.
I don't know what ages those small gates go up to, but most almost 4 year olds can cope with ungated stairs. No-one knows if the gate was closed/locked either. If it was and her parents knew she couldn't open it then there was no way they left the patio doors unlocked so she could get out and find them, is there?
So it has been established that the door was indeed left unlocked?. and all the while this was not mentioned to the press in the begining to offer and alternative for an 'abductor' to enter and exit the building?
Madeleine's parents 'left patio doors unlocked'Last updated at 16:53 13 May 2007
Police in Portugal are working on the theory that Madeleine was snatched through patio doors left unlocked by her parents as they dined just 40 yards away.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-454466/Madeleines-parents-left-patio-doors-unlocked.html
You are really going to have to check out your statements prior to posting and provide cites for them to avoid inaccuracies.
If the patio door being left unlocked hadn't been mentioned to the press according to you ... how do you think it was possible for the press to print exactly that information ???
There are no May 3rd statements.
Did you see this Davel?
"You are really going to have to check out your statements prior to posting and provide cites for them to avoid inaccuracies. "
Well if supporters are making claims without cites why can't I?
And how accurate is this:
Gerry and Kate McCann would have used the patio doors as they checked on their daughter and her twin siblings during their meal near the Mark Warner holiday complex swimming pool and it is these doors that were left unsecured.
The McCanns and all their friends on the holiday left their patio doors open throughout the evenings for fear of fire.
Mr Kirby told The Mail on Sunday: "I had a very interesting chat with the officer in charge. The window shutters are not an issue.
"Their mechanism makes them almost impossible to open. The door was left unlocked. They did that every night.
"I think the police have a very specific understanding of what they are looking for."
Is al this in the May 3rd statements as well?
Hmm
There are no May 3rd statements.
Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007.There are no May 3rd statements.
Family were phoned by the parents and it was on the news early morning UK time.
And the police did ask what happened. =statements
Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007.Please provide cites for the May 3rd statements then.
And the parents never said a word about it! wow it is worse than I first thought.
but then again...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jza8UkHS4fA
they must have told people = made statements=discussed=gave account of...
Please provide cites for the May 3rd statements then.
No because Holly said...There are no May 3rd statements.
The Totmans dined at the Tapas Bar on Tues 1st May & their room number was recorded as G4M.That is still fitting with what I've said. Services were booked up against his room G4M but if the information is correct he wasn't actually living in the room during the first week.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_606.jpg
From memory again it was on a form where they listed all the families' requirements. My main effort is on the JonBenet case lately. Memory is not always accurate but in this case once I read that I dropped saying "Totman was going the wrong way" for we don't actually know where he was staying from the information given.
G unit. when was the unlocked patio doors mentioned. was it mentioned to Fiona during the meal ( It has been claimed Kate wasn't happy about leaving the children alone that night- Gerry intervened, hence leaving a door unlocked for MBM to go and get them.
Is there any mention of this anywhere?
Please provide cites for the May 3rd statements then.Quotes about what Kate said e.g. "they've taken her" maybe.
Quotes about what Kate said e.g. "they've taken her" maybe.Which were made in the May 4th statements.