UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: sika on April 03, 2013, 04:44:13 PM
-
I'm even beginning to bore myself to death now, but I must ask this, just one more time!
Can ANYONE tell me, amongst the people that believe the McCanns are involved in Maddies disappearance, is there a commonly held theory, to explain the two seperate sightings of a man carrying a child.
-
I'm even beginning to bore myself to death now, but I must ask this, just one more time!
Can ANYONE tell me, amongst the people that believe the McCanns are involved in Maddies disappearance, is there a commonly held theory, to explain the two seperate sightings of a man carrying a child.
It wuz Gerry wot wuz doing it. Despite evidence to the contrary.
-
Situation normal then. If Anti McCanns are asked to defend their views away from their safe forum and blog citadels and with fair moderation, they run away.
At least we have demonstrated that clearly.
Would you kindly not make assumptions on those of us that have to work and cannot access the forum at your whim.
I most certailnly do not run away, though I have a volume of other stuff to do so am here sporadically and with little time to post any more than comments like this.
HiDeHo, what are your views about the two sightings of man carrying child?
-
Hi Sika
I know it's not me you asked the question of but I will try to answer it, if you don't mind.
The first sighting by Jane Tanner simply could not have happened the way she describes. The pavement on which McCann and Wilkins were standing chatting is simply too narrow for her to have passed by in the way she says. I know this as I have seen it myself. She also claims she had flip flops on that night which make a loud, sthwaking noise when walking which would have been easily heard by anyone standing near. Further she simply could not have been as precise with her descriptions of the colour of clothes of both the alleged abductor and the child under the sodium lights under which he allegedly walked and with such a fleeting glance. Tanner also describes the pattern on the child's pjs but fails to describe the eyeore motif which was much more prominent on the leg of the pjs and would have been seen easily. Further it is impossible to carry a child in the way described by Tanner and for the child's upper body not to be partly visible ( watch the McCann's own reconstruction in Madeleine Was Here to see this demonstrated ) but this is not what Tanner describes.
As to the Smith sighting of course Martin Smith and his wife are 60-80% sure that the man they saw on the 3rd of May carrying a child who fitted Madeleine's description was Gerry McCann and as there are no independent witnesses to his presence in the tapas bar at the relevant time it remains a distinct possibility that the man saw by the Smiths was indeed Gerry McCann.
Hope this helps.
-
Hi Sika
I know it's not me you asked the question of but I will try to answer it, if you don't mind.
The first sighting by Jane Tanner simply could not have happened the way she describes. The pavement on which McCann and Wilkins were standing chatting is simply too narrow for her to have passed by in the way she says. I know this as I have seen it myself. She also claims she had flip flops on that night which make a loud, sthwaking noise when walking which would have been easily heard by anyone standing near. Further she simply could not have been as precise with her descriptions of the colour of clothes of both the alleged abductor and the child under the sodium lights under which he allegedly walked and with such a fleeting glance. Tanner also describes the pattern on the child's pjs but fails to describe the eyeore motif which was much more prominent on the leg of the pjs and would have been seen easily. Further it is impossible to carry a child in the way described by Tanner and for the child's upper body not to be partly
visible ( watch the McCann's own reconstruction in Madeleine Was Here to see this demonstrated ) but this is not what Tanner describes.
As to the Smith sighting of course Martin Smith and his wife are 60-80% sure that the man they saw on the 3rd of May carrying a child who fitted Madeleine's description was Gerry McCann and as there are no independent witnesses to his presence in the tapas bar at the relevant time it remains a distinct possibility that the man saw by the Smiths was indeed Gerry McCann.
Hope this helps.
DOes Mrs Smith still believe it was Gerry. Did she ever identify him.
-
Witnesses identification does not change with the passage of time so why would her opinion have changed ?
-
Hi Sika
I know it's not me you asked the question of but I will try to answer it, if you don't mind.
The first sighting by Jane Tanner simply could not have happened the way she describes. The pavement on which McCann and Wilkins were standing chatting is simply too narrow for her to have passed by in the way she says. I know this as I have seen it myself. She also claims she had flip flops on that night which make a loud, sthwaking noise when walking which would have been easily heard by anyone standing near. Further she simply could not have been as precise with her descriptions of the colour of clothes of both the alleged abductor and the child under the sodium lights under which he allegedly walked and with such a fleeting glance. Tanner also describes the pattern on the child's pjs but fails to describe the eyeore motif which was much more prominent on the leg of the pjs and would have been seen easily. Further it is impossible to carry a child in the way described by Tanner and for the child's upper body not to be partly visible ( watch the McCann's own reconstruction in Madeleine Was Here to see this demonstrated ) but this is not what Tanner describes.
As to the Smith sighting of course Martin Smith and his wife are 60-80% sure that the man they saw on the 3rd of May carrying a child who fitted Madeleine's description was Gerry McCann and as there are no independent witnesses to his presence in the tapas bar at the relevant time it remains a distinct possibility that the man saw by the Smiths was indeed Gerry McCann.
Hope this helps.
Hi Faithlily, many thanks for taking the time to respond.
If the man seen by the Smiths WAS Gerry McCann, how many of the Tapas nine would have to have been covering up for the couple?
-
But why on earth would Gerry do such a thing when there were so many people milling around? Logic dictates that if he had need to get rid of a body he would have waited until the middle of the night and then report her disappearance in the morning.
-
I believe everyone except perhaps Dianne Webster.
-
Witnesses identification does not change with the passage of time so why would her opinion have changed ?
Mrs. Smith refused to give a second statement after her husband said it might have been Gerry. So no one knows what she thinks about that.
-
Witnesses identification does not change with the passage of time so why would her opinion have changed ?
Psychological research clearly shows that facial recognition recall changes with time, alternatives, history and expectations.
-
Do you think if Gerry did find his daughter had died because of some terrible accident, either through sedation or eing left on their own, he would be thinking logically ?
-
Witnesses identification does not change with the passage of time so why would her opinion have changed ?
Mrs. Smith refused to give a second statement after her husband said it might have been Gerry. So no one knows what she thinks about that.
Martin Smith said in his statement that his wife agreed with him and we have no reason to doubt him.
-
I believe everyone except perhaps Dianne Webster.
Why do you believe that Ms Webster was prepared to lie?
-
Witnesses identification does not change with the passage of time so why would her opinion have changed ?
Psychological research clearly shows that facial recognition recall changes with time, alternatives, history and expectations.
Martin Smith's recall was not based on facial recognition.
-
Witnesses identification does not change with the passage of time so why would her opinion have changed ?
Mrs. Smith refused to give a second statement after her husband said it might have been Gerry. So no one knows what she thinks about that.
Martin Smith said in his statement that his wife agreed with him and we have no reason to doubt him.
BEcause hearsay is always valid.
-
Witnesses identification does not change with the passage of time so why would her opinion have changed ?
Psychological research clearly shows that facial recognition recall changes with time, alternatives, history and expectations.
Martin Smith's recall was not based on facial recognition.
SAme goes for all recognition and recall, including gait, kinetics, posture etc.
-
I believe everyone except perhaps Dianne Webster.
Why do you believe that Ms Webster was prepared to lie?
Sorry I meant everyone in the group were lying except perhaps Dianne Webster.
-
Do you think if Gerry did find his daughter had died because of some terrible accident, either through sedation or eing left on their own, he would be thinking logically ?
I hope you don't mind me asking and please don't feel obliged to answer but, are you a parent?
Your quote above leads me to think that you are not.
-
Witnesses identification does not change with the passage of time so why would her opinion have changed ?
Psychological research clearly shows that facial recognition recall changes with time, alternatives, history and expectations.
Martin Smith's recall was not based on facial recognition.
SAme goes for all recognition and recall, including gait, kinetics, posture etc.
I'm afraid if witness recognition was as unreliable as you say the police would not rely so heavily on eyewitness testimony.
-
Witnesses identification does not change with the passage of time so why would her opinion have changed ?
Psychological research clearly shows that facial recognition recall changes with time, alternatives, history and expectations.
Martin Smith's recall was not based on facial recognition.
SAme goes for all recognition and recall, including gait, kinetics, posture etc.
I'm afraid if witness recognition was as unreliable as you say the police would not rely so heavily on eyewitness testimony.
Youneed to read the research and maybe look at Judges rules about what judges have to warn juries about when the prosecution brings forward facia ID evidence.
-
I believe everyone except perhaps Dianne Webster.
Why do you believe that Ms Webster was prepared to lie?
Sorry I meant everyone in the group were lying except perhaps Dianne Webster.
Why do you think that all those people were prepared to conceal the death of a child?
-
Do you think if Gerry did find his daughter had died because of some terrible accident, either through sedation or eing left on their own, he would be thinking logically ?
I hope you don't mind me asking and please don't feel obliged to answer but, are you a parent?
Your quote above leads me to think that you are not.
I'm not a parent Sika.
-
Witnesses identification does not change with the passage of time so why would her opinion have changed ?
Mrs. Smith refused to give a second statement after her husband said it might have been Gerry. So no one knows what she thinks about that.
She couldn't have been too sure then by the looks of it.
-
Witnesses identification does not change with the passage of time so why would her opinion have changed ?
Psychological research clearly shows that facial recognition recall changes with time, alternatives, history and expectations.
...and reading the newspapers and watching tv.
-
So Martin Smith said his wife agreed with him. Love it. But I don't think The Police or a Court would.
"No need to question her, Your Honour. She agrees with me."
-
@ Sika Until we learn the truth about that night I'm afraid we won't know what binds them together in this lie.
@debunker Both Martin Smith and his wife were certain enough of their identification to contact the police. Even in a court of law two individuals identifying the same perpetrator would be compelling evidence.
-
I'm afraid if witness recognition was as unreliable as you say the police would not rely so heavily on eyewitness testimony.
Cannot find UKjudges rules on line, but Irish ones are similar
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/evidence/identification_evidence.html
SEe also
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/identification_of_suspects/
-
Witnesses identification does not change with the passage of time so why would her opinion have changed ?
Psychological research clearly shows that facial recognition recall changes with time, alternatives, history and expectations.
Martin Smith's recall was not based on facial recognition.
Maybe not but he saw this image on TV and thought...ah it was Gerry McCann! Classic mistake. @)(++(*
(http://static.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/migration_catalog/article25609842.ece/ALTERNATES/h342/mccanns)
-
So Martin Smith said his wife agreed with him. Love it. But I don't think The Police or a Court would.
"No need to question her, Your Honour. She agrees with me."
Of course if it had gone to trial a statement would have been sought from Mrs Smith but, as I said, at this juncture we have no reason to doubt Mr Smith's word.
-
Do you think if Gerry did find his daughter had died because of some terrible accident, either through sedation or eing left on their own, he would be thinking logically ?
I hope you don't mind me asking and please don't feel obliged to answer but, are you a parent?
Your quote above leads me to think that you are not.
I'm not a parent Sika.
Thanks Faithlilly, I hope you don't feel that you're being 'ganged up on'. I very much appreciate you hanging around and giving your opinions.
The reason I asked that rather personal question was, as a parent, I cannot imagine a scenario where a father finds his child dead, hurriedly dumps her body and then conspires with other parents to cover up the death. It's a total non starter for me, I'm afraid.
-
@ Sika Until we learn the truth about that night I'm afraid we won't know what binds them together in this lie.
@debunker Both Martin Smith and his wife were certain enough of their identification to contact the police. Even in a court of law two individuals identifying the same perpetrator would be compelling evidence.
You are perpetuating another Myth. Mrs. Smith did not say that she recognised Gerry McCann. And nor did the rest of the family agree.
-
Witnesses identification does not change with the passage of time so why would her opinion have changed ?
Psychological research clearly shows that facial recognition recall changes with time, alternatives, history and expectations.
Martin Smith's recall was not based on facial recognition.
SAme goes for all recognition and recall, including gait, kinetics, posture etc.
I'm afraid if witness recognition was as unreliable as you say the police would not rely so heavily on eyewitness testimony.
Fact is eyewitness testimony has been discredited in so many miscarriage of justice cases. If you give two people the same subject to look at the odds are they will report two different things. Human nature.
-
@ Sika Until we learn the truth about that night I'm afraid we won't know what binds them together in this lie.
@debunker Both Martin Smith and his wife were certain enough of their identification to contact the police. Even in a court of law two individuals identifying the same perpetrator would be compelling evidence.
You are perpetuating another Myth. Mrs. Smith did not say that she recognised Gerry McCann. And nor did the rest of the family agree.
I thought it was wrong but as its not my area of expertise I expressed my doubts in a limited fashion. Perhaps we need to get the actual statements cited here. Damned antimyths- stamp one down and another one appears. Tissue of myth and misunderstanding.
-
Here, posted unread:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
-
Lest we forget that the street lighting at the time in Luz was very poor.
I reckon an experienced investigator would have taken that into account when evaluating the validity of any witness statement pertaining to that night.
-
Lest we forget that the street lighting at the time in Luz was very poor.
I reckon an experienced investigator would have taken that into account when evaluating the validity of any witness statement pertaining to that night.
Perhaps that explains why the PJ gave very little credence to Tanner's sighting.
-
Lest we forget that the street lighting at the time in Luz was very poor.
I reckon an experienced investigator would have taken that into account when evaluating the validity of any witness statement pertaining to that night.
Perhaps that explains why the PJ gave very little credence to Tanner's sighting.
EIther that or it did not fit their prejudices
-
Do you think if Gerry did find his daughter had died because of some terrible accident, either through sedation or eing left on their own, he would be thinking logically ?
I hope you don't mind me asking and please don't feel obliged to answer but, are you a parent?
Your quote above leads me to think that you are not.
I'm not a parent Sika.
Thanks Faithlilly, I hope you don't feel that you're being 'ganged up on'. I very much appreciate you hanging around and giving your opinions.
The reason I asked that rather personal question was, as a parent, I cannot imagine a scenario where a father finds his child dead, hurriedly dumps her body and then conspires with other parents to cover up the death. It's a total non starter for me, I'm afraid.
And as a parent, can you imagine for one minute that you would have left three children in an unlocked ground floor apartment for four nights? Whilst you dined out of EAR SHOT, never mind what you thought you could or couldn't see, or how frequently you or others checked. This wasn't one off, it's wasn't casual it was systematic, perhaps it was what exposed Madeleine to the risk leading to her disappearance.
But whilst you are pondering that thought, when a child mentions they were crying the night before, still go out. I don't intend to get into the debate of what Madeleine meant, or what time she was referring to, since children of her age are not good historians,. Suffice to say, the witness Mrs Fenn heard crying from the apartment on the Tuesday for over an hour.
-
Hi Meadow, I wouldn't even leave mine in the day nursery, never mind leave them alone for the evening.
However, I know a few good, loving, caring parents who may have done the same as the McCanns and their friends.
-
I couldn't and certainly don't with the grand children, even more so than my son.
But, when you look at the risks of all the children between the group, only M and one of JT's children slept in a bed. So potentially the environment wouldn't have posed an hazard to the younger children in cots.
That leaves the two children in beds. JT in her Roggie interview made it clear that she deadlocked the door so her daughter couldn't get out.
So, let's go full circle about your friends. Do they do it with children who are independent enough to go to the toilet, be alarmed if they wonder around the apartment & find themselves alone? And lastly, in a ground floor, public accessible area, leave the door unlocked.
I will be very interested in the trial of Bridger over the disappearance of April Jones, and his rather strange plea of 'probably killing her' ... or something along those lines. Here's a man, friend of the family - talking in riddles and will not confirm where she is. Why?! Surely he is trapped. So you would think, but that's the problem of human behaviour. Expect the unexpected. Then there's the case of Tia Sharp, wrapped in black-poly bags & put in the loft.
Always the case goes full circle. An opportunist abductor, no transport, why take the biggest !
-
I couldn't and certainly don't with the grand children, even more so than my son.
But, when you look at the risks of all the children between the group, only M and one of JT's children slept in a bed. So potentially the environment wouldn't have posed an hazard to the younger children in cots.
That leaves the two children in beds. JT in her Roggie interview made it clear that she deadlocked the door so her daughter couldn't get out.
So, let's go full circle about your friends. Do they do it with children who are independent enough to go to the toilet, be alarmed if they wonder around the apartment & find themselves alone? And lastly, in a ground floor, public accessible area, leave the door unlocked.
I will be very interested in the trial of Bridger over the disappearance of April Jones, and his rather strange plea of 'probably killing her' ... or something along those lines. Here's a man, friend of the family - talking in riddles and will not confirm where she is. Why?! Surely he is trapped. So you would think, but that's the problem of human behaviour. Expect the unexpected. Then there's the case of Tia Sharp, wrapped in black-poly bags & put in the loft.
Always the case goes full circle. An opportunist abductor, no transport, why take the biggest !
The one single, most important piece of evidence, as far as I'm concerned is the sighting of the mystery man carrying the child. I find it impossible to believe that the man carrying her was Gerry, as this would have meant that many others would have been covering for him. So, it wasn't Gerry. That means that despite the enormous, immediate
Public appeal, the mystery man didn't come forward. I find this, also, most improbable, if that man was innocent of any crime.
-
Have you considered the possibility that some of the Mccanns associates did indeed collude to cover up what really happened to Madeleine ?
I remember the meeting they had in a Rothley Hotel after their return to the UK to 'discuss' the case.
Tanner's sighting is unproven and lacks any backing.
It was getting dark with minimum street lighting, and we have seen the 'image' produced from the so called sighting.
It could well be the case that no one has come forward because there was no sighting in the first place.
Mr. Smith believes it was probably G.Mccann. So why would Mr. Smith lie ?
-
I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.
I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?
Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?
-
Have you considered the possibility that some of the Mccanns associates did indeed collude to cover up what really happened to Madeleine ?
I remember the meeting they had in a Rothley Hotel after their return to the UK to 'discuss' the case.
Tanner's sighting is unproven and lacks any backing.
It was getting dark with minimum street lighting, and we have seen the 'image' produced from the so called sighting.
It could well be the case that no one has come forward because there was no sighting in the first place.
Mr. Smith believes it was probably G.Mccann. So why would Mr. Smith lie ?
You suggest that there may have been no sighting in the first place.
Are you also suggesting that all nine of the Smith family, were mistaken?
-
I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.
I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?
Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?
Great post Sika 8@??)( 8((()*/
-
Lest we forget that the street lighting at the time in Luz was very poor.
I reckon an experienced investigator would have taken that into account when evaluating the validity of any witness statement pertaining to that night.
Perhaps that explains why the PJ gave very little credence to Tanner's sighting.
EIther that or it did not fit their prejudices
Prejudices ? These were the first officers on the scene.
-
Lest we forget that the street lighting at the time in Luz was very poor.
I reckon an experienced investigator would have taken that into account when evaluating the validity of any witness statement pertaining to that night.
Perhaps that explains why the PJ gave very little credence to Tanner's sighting.
EIther that or it did not fit their prejudices
Prejudices ? These were the first officers on the scene.
Yes they were - but you are aware these were GNR officers (no disrespect to them) - when mentioning experienced
investigators - I was referring to Mr. Amaral - who could not get his backside out of bed that night.
-
I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.
I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?
Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?
They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.
Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.
Placing socializing over their children's' safety.
-
I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.
I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?
Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?
They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.
Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.
Placing socializing over their children's' safety.
Ah ok - so I must assume this is the motivational factor for your posts - and I applaud you for posting them:
Lambasting the McCanns and their friends for not ensuring the TOTAL and ABSOLUTE safety of their kids 24/7
They have shown total remorse for leaving the kids unattended for periods of time - Kate's mum had a right
go at them for it - and publically.
What do you want blood/a pound of flesh? Would that make you feel better?
I just wish I was as infallible as you
-
I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.
I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?
Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?
They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.
Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.
Placing socializing over their children's' safety.
Really?
Even if I were to concede that one member of that group was having those thoughts. There is no way that it is even conceivable, that all of them were.
Where has this ever happened before?
-
I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.
I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?
Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?
They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.
Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.
Placing socializing over their children's' safety.
Really?
Even if I were to concede that one member of that group was having those thoughts. There is no way that it is even conceivable, that all of them were.
Where has this ever happened before?
quite - and Diane Webster - she is/was a credit controller - no repercussions to fear from the GMC - but risking her freedom for a convoluted 'scheme'?
No, can't see that at all
-
None of them have ever denied their child care arrangements, so hardly cause for a cover up since they didn't cover it up.
-
None of them have ever denied their child care arrangements, so hardly cause for a cover up since they didn't cover it up.
Quite, the idea that the child care is a motive for a cover up is totally mad as they have never even made the slightest effort to cover up those arrangements.
Perhaps Stephen might care to think that through again?
-
Have you considered the possibility that some of the Mccanns associates did indeed collude to cover up what really happened to Madeleine ?
I remember the meeting they had in a Rothley Hotel after their return to the UK to 'discuss' the case.
Tanner's sighting is unproven and lacks any backing.
It was getting dark with minimum street lighting, and we have seen the 'image' produced from the so called sighting.
It could well be the case that no one has come forward because there was no sighting in the first place.
Mr. Smith believes it was probably G.Mccann. So why would Mr. Smith lie ?
He is simply mistaken.
-
I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.
I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?
Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?
They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.
Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.
Placing socializing over their children's' safety.
Suggesting that the tapas group of diners were complicit in an alleged cover-up is one thing but then you would have to include the tapas bar staff and potentially others as well. Most unlikely and highly improbable in my opinion.
-
I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.
I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?
Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?
They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.
Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.
Placing socializing over their children's' safety.
Suggesting that the tapas group of diners were complicit in an alleged cover-up is one thing but then you would have to include the tapas bar staff and potentially others as well. Most unlikely and highly improbable in my opinion.
Exactly. It was not just the Tapas group who confirmed that Gerry McCann was in the bar, it was the staff as well. And the PJ under Amaral were quite clear that Mr Smith could not have seen Gerry McCann.
-
I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.
I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?
Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?
They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.
Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.
Placing socializing over their children's' safety.
Really?
Even if I were to concede that one member of that group was having those thoughts. There is no way that it is even conceivable, that all of them were.
Where has this ever happened before?
Spot on Sika 8((()*/
Getting an entire group to agree to concoct such a serious lie and then to stick to it would have been a recipe for disaster never mind the tapas staff...were they to be in on it too? Quite ridiculous.
Sometime I wonder if people actually read what they write? @)(++(*
-
I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.
I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?
Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?
They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.
Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.
Placing socializing over their children's' safety.
Really?
Even if I were to concede that one member of that group was having those thoughts. There is no way that it is even conceivable, that all of them were.
Where has this ever happened before?
Spot on Sika 8((()*/
Getting an entire group to agree to concoct such a serious lie and then to stick to it would have been a recipe for disaster never mind the tapas staff...were they to be in on it too? Quite ridiculous.
Sometime I wonder if people actually read what they write? @)(++(*
I know John, I have to keep checking that I'm not actually on the Blue Forum! @)(++(*
-
I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.
I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?
Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?
They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.
Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.
Placing socializing over their children's' safety.
Really?
Even if I were to concede that one member of that group was having those thoughts. There is no way that it is even conceivable, that all of them were.
Where has this ever happened before?
Spot on Sika 8((()*/
Getting an entire group to agree to concoct such a serious lie and then to stick to it would have been a recipe for disaster never mind the tapas staff...were they to be in on it too? Quite ridiculous.
Sometime I wonder if people actually read what they write? @)(++(*
It is quite clear to me that some people do not read either what they write or what others write. They have a fixed view and nothing will get in the way of that, not even reality or common sense.
-
This thread has been edited and retitled to reflect the discussion.
-
I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.
I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?
Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?
They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.
Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.
Placing socializing over their children's' safety.
Really?
Even if I were to concede that one member of that group was having those thoughts. There is no way that it is even conceivable, that all of them were.
Where has this ever happened before?
Spot on Sika 8((()*/
Getting an entire group to agree to concoct such a serious lie and then to stick to it would have been a recipe for disaster never mind the tapas staff...were they to be in on it too? Quite ridiculous.
Sometime I wonder if people actually read what they write? @)(++(*
It is quite clear to me that some people do not read either what they write or what others write. They have a fixed view and nothing will get in the way of that, not even reality or common sense.
or perhaps you cannot see the blatantly obvious.
Child neglect charges would have resulted in them failing the CRB check.
Perhaps you should do some research.
If you were employed in a profession where you had contact with children, and you were charged and/or convicted with child neglect....
Career over.
-
Both careers over in this case?
-
Both careers over in this case?
It would depend on the circumstances, but with the emphasis today with the CRB check, quite possibly.
-
I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.
I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?
Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?
They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.
Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.
Placing socializing over their children's' safety.
Really?
Even if I were to concede that one member of that group was having those thoughts. There is no way that it is even conceivable, that all of them were.
Where has this ever happened before?
Spot on Sika 8((()*/
Getting an entire group to agree to concoct such a serious lie and then to stick to it would have been a recipe for disaster never mind the tapas staff...were they to be in on it too? Quite ridiculous.
Sometime I wonder if people actually read what they write? @)(++(*
It is quite clear to me that some people do not read either what they write or what others write. They have a fixed view and nothing will get in the way of that, not even reality or common sense.
or perhaps you cannot see the blatantly obvious.
Child neglect charges would have resulted in them failing the CRB check.
Perhaps you should do some research.
If you were employed in a profession where you had contact with children, and you were charged and/or convicted with child neglect....
Career over.
But you have completely missed the entire point.
They immediately admitted to the media and the police precisely what you are pretending they tried to cover up.
They were totally up front about the child care arrangements.
How you can then pretend that they were covering it up to avoid losing their jobs is simply beyond me.
Not one of the entire Tapas group made the slightest effort to cover up the child care arrangements. It is strange that you haven't yet noticed that simple but glaringly obvious fact.
-
the child care arrangements will always be the rod for the detractors to beat Gerry&Kate with
In the words of the Beatles - 'Let it be'
They cocked up on that front - and admitted to it - end of
Why all that hatred of G&K???
Tall poppy syndrome I guess - 'it should have been me in front of those cameras'
The fact they got proper A-levels and pursued careers in the caring profession - neither of them from priviliged
backgrounds
The detractors should take a long and hard look at their own lives
Instead of lobbing stones at other peep's glass houses
Envy is ugly
-
Good points, Registrar. How anyone could envy parents who have suffered the loss of a child completely beats me ....
-
Now back to the subject at hand. Gerry in the Channel 4 documentary Madeleine Was Here states categorically, and to the detriment of his own eyewitness Tanner, that he was standing on the opposite side of the road from the apartment when speaking to Jez Wilkins yet in the 10th of May timeline handed to the PJ and which was compiled and agreed by the whole tapas group,including Gerry this is claimed :
'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. '
This document was in English and therefore the discrepancy can't, this time, be put down to translation errors. It also concurs exactly with Jez Wilkins recollection of the meeting.
So when and why did Gerry's memory of the event change so radically ?
-
I'm slowly reading many interesting threads.
Some of you may find the following interesting.
It concerns a research experiment on witness memory recall involving the police, the police and Open University... And unsuspecting witnesses to a "crime".
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8617945.stm
-
Question for Hidehi, I think that the sightings by the Smiths and Mrs Tanner are compelling.
For the umpteenth time, what are your views on these?
-
Mr Smiths sighting of a man whom he took to be Gerry is obviously wrong unless of course he has the ability to be in two places at the same time at precisely 10pm.
-
Mr Smiths sighting of a man whom he took to be Gerry is obviously wrong unless of course he has the ability to be in two places at the same time at precisely 10pm.
Precisely. How likely is it that the man spotted was innocent, yet failed to come forward?
-
Mr Smiths sighting of a man whom he took to be Gerry is obviously wrong unless of course he has the ability to be in two places at the same time at precisely 10pm.
Precisely. How likely is it that the man spotted was innocent, yet failed to come forward?
Having a knowledge of these small Iberian villages I fail to see why anyone would fail to come forward in such terrible circumstances if they were an innocent.
-
Question for Hidehi, I think that the sightings by the Smiths and Mrs Tanner are compelling.
For the umpteenth time, what are your views on these?
On another thread in the video area Hideho has made it clear that she does not believe these sightings and statements constitute evidence of an abduction as she claims there is no evidence of abduction anywhere.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1134.msg31932#msg31932
-
Mr Smiths sighting of a man whom he took to be Gerry is obviously wrong unless of course he has the ability to be in two places at the same time at precisely 10pm.
Precisely. How likely is it that the man spotted was innocent, yet failed to come forward?
Having a knowledge of these small Iberian villages I fail to see why anyone would fail to come forward in such terrible circumstances if they were an innocent.
I mean, he couldn't have failed to hear of the police appeal, surely.
-
Question for Hidehi, I think that the sightings by the Smiths and Mrs Tanner are compelling.
For the umpteenth time, what are your views on these?
On another thread in the video area Hideho has made it clear that she does not believe these sightings and statements constitute evidence of an abduction as she claims there is no evidence of abduction anywhere.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1134.msg31932#msg31932
So she is suggesting that the entire Smith family lied? Imagined it? Were mistaken?
It's all too convenient for Hideho to just dismiss their evidence.
-
Question for Hidehi, I think that the sightings by the Smiths and Mrs Tanner are compelling.
For the umpteenth time, what are your views on these?
On another thread in the video area Hideho has made it clear that she does not believe these sightings and statements constitute evidence of an abduction as she claims there is no evidence of abduction anywhere.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1134.msg31932#msg31932
So she is suggesting that the entire Smith family lied? Imagined it? Were mistaken?
It's all too convenient for Hidehi to just dismiss their evidence.
I believe I have seen content which shows that she believes Mr Smith sighted Gerry McCann. It is the other sightings which do not support that contention which are being dismissed.
-
Thanks Gilet. So rather than believe that the Smiths are lying, she believes that the tapas nine and waiters are lying?
@)(++(* @)(++(*
Honestly! You couldn't make it up!
-
Yes, he 'thought' he saw him, ultimately he wasn't 100% sure.
-
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs of the plane earlier that day. We did not discuss this until some days later. This statement has been read over to me and is correct.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
This was after he'd seen the TV footage of the McCanns coming off the plane as arguidos.
A legitimate doubt to report, and I think he was right to do so.
However, the original 60-80% "certainty" level got mangled in mythdom to increase into 100%certaintydom. He was the only one to report it (his wife apparently agreed with his reflection, although there is no independent statement to that effect), but the rest of the family there that night doesn't seem to corroborate that view.
-
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs of the plane earlier that day. We did not discuss this until some days later. This statement has been read over to me and is correct.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
This was after he'd seen the TV footage of the McCanns coming off the plane as arguidos.
A legitimate doubt to report, and I think he was right to do so.
However, the original 60-80% "certainty" level got mangled in mythdom to increase into 100%certaintydom. He was the only one to report it (his wife apparently agreed with his reflection, although there is no independent statement to that effect), but the rest of the family there that night doesn't seem to corroborate that view.
If Mr Smith is right and he did see Gerry McCann carrying a child, then the tapas nine and waiters MUST have been lying. To those who believe this,
FOR F@@KS SAKE!!!! GET A GRIP!!
-
8@??)( EXACTLY!
Should have gone to SpecSavers (http://images.zaazu.com/img/shades-animated-animation-shades-smiley-emoticon-000387-medium.gif)
-
Have you seen the way Gerry carried Sean down the steps fgrom the plane?
He held Sean in exactly the way that any caring parent would a sleeping child.
From memory he held Sean well up on his chest in a near upright position. His left arm and hand was supporting Seans behind and body weight. His right hand was held on, or near his back, ready to give support to Sean, or grab the handrail as necessary
Cant think why Mr Smith saw anything in this. Bet 90% of parents, carrying a sleeping toddler down the steps of a plane, would do it in exactly the same way.
-
I believe that he did the right thing in reporting his sudden doubt to the police.
What he could not have known is that it would be splashed all over the Internet via the released files.
-
Well thank goodness someone else swore about this. I was sorely tempted.
The statement of Mr. Smith is invalid, although I believe that he meant well.
None of these statements should ever have been released. It beggars belief that they were.
And I am none too sure that this is common practice in Portugal.
If it is Common Practice, Please can I see the witness statements pertaining to the disappearance of Joana Cipriano?
-
Yep, I would like to see those too. Would I ever!
Also the statements surrounding the Michael Cook case
Both Cases horrendous examples of misjustice
-
Yep, I would like to see those too. Would I ever!
Also the statements surrounding the Michael Cook case
Both Cases horrendous examples of misjustice
Don't worry, Sadie. I haven't forgotten about Michael Cook.
-
I agree with what has been said, I believe Mr Smith felt he was doing the right thing but ultimately he was mistaken...it was not Gerry McCann for reasons which we have already discussed...Gerry could not have been in two places at the same time at exactly 10pm.