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: stephen25000 on July 01, 2013, 07:52:19 AM
Title: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: stephen25000 on July 01, 2013, 07:52:19 AM
''Jeremy explained that he used the crèche facility provided by the resort. This was a child care facility which allowed parents to leave their children, aged between 3 - 5 yrs old, with trained staff at various times of the day. He recalled walking to the crèche with Gerry who had left Madeleine with the staff. This was about 1230 hrs on Tues 1 May. He then went on to explain that the children could be left with the staff during the evening and that most would be picked up before 10pm. It was not an unusual sight to see people walking through the site at night with a child in their arms asleep. The crèche would also provide a blanket to cover the child if required. He had taken up this facility hence his knowledge of the procedure.''
From Jeremy Wilkins' statement.
''It was not an unusual sight to see people walking through the site at night with a child in their arms asleep.''
''Jeremy explained that he used the crèche facility provided by the resort. This was a child care facility which allowed parents to leave their children, aged between 3 - 5 yrs old, with trained staff at various times of the day. He recalled walking to the crèche with Gerry who had left Madeleine with the staff. This was about 1230 hrs on Tues 1 May. He then went on to explain that the children could be left with the staff during the evening and that most would be picked up before 10pm. It was not an unusual sight to see people walking through the site at night with a child in their arms asleep. The crèche would also provide a blanket to cover the child if required. He had taken up this facility hence his knowledge of the procedure.''
From Jeremy Wilkins' statement.
''It was not an unusual sight to see people walking through the site at night with a child in their arms asleep.''
A simple check of the Creche records would show who used it that night and at what time they collected their child. Obviously nothing tallied with the sightings.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: stephen25000 on July 01, 2013, 08:29:46 AM
A simple check of the Creche records would show who used it that night and at what time they collected their child. Obviously nothing tallied with the sightings.
How many other people were in PDL at the time and were not using the creche. Any ideas ?
Also, as stated today and before, seeing a child being carried does not mean abdcution.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Benice on July 01, 2013, 09:10:10 AM
How many other people were in PDL at the time and were not using the creche. Any ideas ?
Also, as stated today and before, seeing a child being carried does not mean abdcution.
From the quote you provided from Jeremy Wilkins:-
It was not an unusual sight to see people walking through the site at night with a child in their arms asleep. Unquote
He was not referring to the whole of PdL.
I see you don't want to acknowledge that creche records would reveal all the people who collected their children from there that night.
You also seem to think that it is impossible for an abducted child to be carried off by her abductor. Care to explain the reasoning behind that Stephen?
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: icabodcrane on July 01, 2013, 09:13:44 AM
It was not an unusual sight to see people walking through the site at night with a child in their arms asleep. Unquote
He was not referring to the whole of PdL.
I see you don't want to acknowledge that creche records would reveal all the people who collected their children from there that night.
You also seem to think that it is impossible for an abducted child to be carried off by her abductor. Care to explain the reasoning behind that Stephen?
Do you really think only people will carry a child in their arms, only if they come back from a creche ?
I am thoroughly aware what part he was referring to.
I merely pointed out, well other people might carry a child in their arms as well, WOW.
Why would an abductor advertise they are carrying a child, and John calls them 'professional abductors' ?
The bottom line which you won't face is simple.
No proof of abductor, who is then responsible for Madeleine's disappearance ?
Tough choice.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Lace on July 01, 2013, 09:36:14 AM
Do you really think only people will carry a child in their arms, only if they come back from a creche ?
I am thoroughly aware what part he was referring to.
I merely pointed out, well other people might carry a child in their arms as well, WOW.
Why would an abductor advertise they are carrying a child, and John calls them 'professional abductors' ?
The bottom line which you won't face is simple.
No proof of abductor, who is then responsible for Madeleine's disappearance ?
Tough choice.
Why would an abductor advertise they are carrying a child? Because as you say, people would think the child would have been collected from the crèche and not think it was unusual
The crèche records can be checked..
Fact is, this person was seen again by the Smith family.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Benice on July 01, 2013, 09:37:10 AM
Do you really think only people will carry a child in their arms, only if they come back from a creche ?
I am thoroughly aware what part he was referring to.
I merely pointed out, well other people might carry a child in their arms as well, WOW.
Why would an abductor advertise they are carrying a child, and John calls them 'professional abductors' ?
The bottom line which you won't face is simple.
No proof of abductor, who is then responsible for Madeleine's disappearance ?
Tough choice.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that there could be people around that night carrying their child for any amount of reasons.
The point is that none of them came forward to be eliminated.
No mother phoning the police to say it was her husband collecting their daughter from a relatives. No relative phoning to say it was her son who had picked up her granddaughter who she'd been babysitting. etc etc Nothing - Zilch - from a single person. That should tell you something Stephen.
If you don't believe an abduction happened - then give us your/evidence proof of what DID happen. That's all you have to do Stephen. Simples.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: stephen25000 on July 01, 2013, 10:35:49 AM
Why would an abductor advertise they are carrying a child? Because as you say, people would think the child would have been collected from the crèche and not think it was unusual
The crèche records can be checked..
Fact is, this person was seen again by the Smith family.
As has been said REPEATEDLY, the 2 sightings do not tally and you know that.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: icabodcrane on July 01, 2013, 10:51:52 AM
Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that there could be people around that night carrying their child for any amount of reasons.
The point is that none of them came forward to be eliminated.
No mother phoning the police to say it was her husband collecting their daughter from a relatives. No relative phoning to say it was her son who had picked up her granddaughter who she'd been babysitting. etc etc Nothing - Zilch - from a single person. That should tell you something Stephen.
If you don't believe an abduction happened - then give us your/evidence proof of what DID happen. That's all you have to do Stephen. Simples.
There are very rational reasons for an innocent man carrying his own child not presenting himself to the police to be 'eliminated' from an enquiry he could simply choose not to be involved in at all
To address the other point you make ( although I understand you were making it to Stephen ) there is no 'need' to present an alternative theory in order to dismiss one that has already been presented inadequately
It will not do to say that unless some other suggestion is made, then 'abduction' MUST be accepted as fact ... the case for abduction must be made, and evidenced, in it's own right ... it has not been
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: stephen25000 on July 01, 2013, 11:27:57 AM
There are very rational reasons for an innocent man carrying his own child not presenting himself to the police to be 'eliminated' from an enquiry he could simply choose not to be involved in at all
To address the other point you make ( although I understand you were making it to Stephen ) there is no 'need' to present an alternative theory in order to dismiss one that has already been presented inadequately
It will not do to say that unless some other suggestion is made, then 'abduction' MUST be accepted as fact ... the case for abduction must be made, and evidenced, in it's own right ... it has not been
Well said. 8@??)(
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Angelo222 on July 01, 2013, 03:25:34 PM
Grasping at straws yet again is what comes to mind here. Is Stephen so naive as to think that that wasn't the first port of call for the GNR that night ie. to check with the crèche staff? Whoever Tanner saw passing in front of her definitely had something to hide, had it been an innocent encounter then that person would have come forward years ago.
I for one am getting tired of your constant nauseous rantings Stephen and your attempts to sidetrack discussions.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: DCI on July 01, 2013, 03:34:40 PM
Grasping at straws yet again is what comes to mind here. Is Stephen so naive as to think that that wasn't the first port of call for the GNR that night ie. to check with the crèche staff? Whoever Tanner saw passing in front of her definitely had something to hide, had it been an innocent encounter then that person would have come forward years ago.
I for one am getting tired of your constant nauseous rantings Stephen and your attempts to sidetrack discussions.
And so say all of us 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Dog The Bounty Hunter on July 01, 2013, 03:46:16 PM
Grasping at straws yet again is what comes to mind here. Is Stephen so naive as to think that that wasn't the first port of call for the GNR that night ie. to check with the crèche staff? Whoever Tanner saw passing in front of her definitely had something to hide, had it been an innocent encounter then that person would have come forward years ago.
I for one am getting tired of your constant nauseous rantings Stephen and your attempts to sidetrack discussions.
YEAH 8@??)( 8@??)( way to go man!! I saw that coming ages ago with the no evidence jibes and there is no proof of a abduction being brought into every post. @)(++(*
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Angelo222 on July 01, 2013, 04:03:21 PM
The point made by Stephen about it being quite normal to see parents carrying their children about is valid but requires clarification. This was not a normal sighting by any means. The child was being carried in a very strange manner given the cold and slightly windy night. She had little protection against the cold yet the carrier (notice how I avoid the word abductor) was very well clad. That for me suggests a situation which was not all as it first suggests. To be fair, even Jane Tanner passed it off as normal but slightly strange and it was only when the alarm was raised that the penny dropped with her.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: stephen25000 on July 01, 2013, 04:08:20 PM
Grasping at straws yet again is what comes to mind here. Is Stephen so naive as to think that that wasn't the first port of call for the GNR that night ie. to check with the crèche staff? Whoever Tanner saw passing in front of her definitely had something to hide, had it been an innocent encounter then that person would have come forward years ago.
I for one am getting tired of your constant nauseous rantings Stephen and your attempts to sidetrack discussions.
No what it really means is that the questions I asked aren't being answered.
As to nauseous, I find the defense of 2 parents who clearly neglected their children, clearly nauseous.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: stephen25000 on July 01, 2013, 04:09:14 PM
YEAH 8@??)( 8@??)( way to go man!! I saw that coming ages ago with the no evidence jibes and there is no proof of a abduction being brought into every post. @)(++(*
See previous reply.
If I am banned so be it.
Again it simply reinforces the impression elsewhere the 'debate' here was always going to be geared to one side.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Angelo222 on July 01, 2013, 04:13:24 PM
As to nauseous, I find the defense of 2 parents who clearly neglected their children, clearly nauseous.
The problem, Stephen, is that the neglect issue has been polluted or turned simplistic in order to be considered as anti tool against the McCanns who were the first to say that they lamented they weren't there where their daughter was taken, or something of the kind. The concept of neglect can't be isolated from intention nor from capacity to anticipate. Had the McCanns been aware there was a risk of abduction and had they left theirs kids alone all the same, the suggestion of neglect could be justified. But it wasn't the case. This is why, and though the reason of the disappearance of Madeleine MC couldn't be established, the AG didn't charge her parents with neglect. Now, as Icabodcrane observed very subtly once, the McCann couldn't but be aware of the risk of accident when kids are left alone, even if they're supposed to sleep, because they can wake up in a nutshell, get out of bed (Madeleine only could) and eventually do dangerous things. If, checking on their kids, they had found Madeleine had a serious or fatal accident, would they have been able to argue they found it very secure there and were within the limits of responsible parenting ?
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: faithlilly on July 01, 2013, 04:34:10 PM
Grasping at straws yet again is what comes to mind here. Is Stephen so naive as to think that that wasn't the first port of call for the GNR that night ie. to check with the crèche staff? Whoever Tanner saw passing in front of her definitely had something to hide, had it been an innocent encounter then that person would have come forward years ago.
I for one am getting tired of your constant nauseous rantings Stephen and your attempts to sidetrack discussions.
I have asked this before but it's worth asking again. What if Tanner, for reasons we are not yet aware of, made up the sighting ? Jez, an independent witness didn't see or hear her flip flopping down the street and he claimed he almost certainly would have if she had passed him ?
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: DCI on July 01, 2013, 04:38:20 PM
The point made by Stephen about it being quite normal to see parents carrying their children about is valid but requires clarification. This was not a normal sighting by any means. The child was being carried in a very strange manner given the cold and slightly windy night. She had little protection against the cold yet the carrier (notice how I avoid the word abductor) was very well clad. That for me suggests a situation which was not all as it first suggests. To be fair, even Jane Tanner passed it off as normal but slightly strange and it was only when the alarm was raised that the penny dropped with her.
Seems a bit odd, a man on his own, without other family and carrying a child, in the direction he was going. Where would he have been or come from? Was there a man on his own, with a child, in one of the apartments? That should have been checked, surely!
The night creche, was in the same building where Madeleine went during the day.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: faithlilly on July 01, 2013, 04:41:32 PM
Seems a bit odd, a man on his own, without other family and carrying a child, in the direction he was going. Where would he have been or come from? Was there a man on his own, with a child, in one of the apartments? That should have been checked, surely!
The night creche, was in the same building where Madeleine went during the day.
Waste police time chasing shadows you mean ?
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: DCI on July 01, 2013, 04:47:54 PM
I have asked this before but it's worth asking again. What if Tanner, for reasons we are not yet aware of, made up the sighting ? Jez, an independent witness didn't see or hear her flip flopping down the street and he claimed he almost certainly would have if she had passed him ?
Getting back to human nature Faith - why would JT agree to lie - she hardly knew the McCanns.
If I was on holiday with a group of people some of whom I'd only ever met about 6/7 times in my life, and they approached me to say that their daughter had died, and that they wanted to cover the death up by disposing of her body and asked me to help them by telling lies to the police for them - my answer - (when I'd got my breath back) - would be a resounding NO WAY!!
Apart from anything else - Human nature in the form of the need to protect MY familyand MY children would kick-in and there is no chance that I would put MY babies in even the slightest danger to assist a couple who I hardly knew, to commit a massive crime. Or in fact ANY couple or anyone, regardless of my relationship with them
I don't believe you would either.
Unless you can come up with a reason why JT would agree to take such a terrible risk with her own and her childrens future then the whole idea is pure nonsense imo.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: faithlilly on July 01, 2013, 06:56:15 PM
Getting back to human nature Faith - why would JT agree to lie - she hardly knew the McCanns.
If I was on holiday with a group of people some of whom I'd only ever met about 6/7 times in my life, and they approached me to say that their daughter had died, and that they wanted to cover the death up by disposing of her body and asked me to help them by telling lies to the police for them - my answer - (when I'd got my breath back) - would be a resounding NO WAY!!
Apart from anything else - Human nature in the form of the need to protect MY familyand MY children would kick-in and there is no chance that I would put MY babies in even the slightest danger to assist a couple who I hardly knew, to commit a massive crime. Or in fact ANY couple or anyone, regardless of my relationship with them
I don't believe you would either.
Unless you can come up with a reason why JT would agree to take such a terrible risk with her own and her childrens future then the whole idea is pure nonsense imo.
As I have said until we know exactly what happened that night we can have no idea why, or indeed if, Tanner lied for the McCanns. Like most things in this case it cannot be ruled out at this point.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Redblossom on July 01, 2013, 07:04:41 PM
The carrier and child that Tanner says she saw could have been anyone coming from a variety of places,going to a variety of places for a variety of reasons.The only odd thing is the method of carrying for what is said to be a young child and not a baby. That way of carrying makes a child heavier and harder to carry. As for a jacket or cardigan or blanket, seeing as Tanner only saw the legs, and it wasnt a swaddled baby, she would have no idea if there was any covering. I dont find bare feet odd either.
Eta, the location of the sightng and direction of walking,and location of the night creche though do not tally.
I also don't see what Gerry Mccann meant, when he said, the abductor was nearly caught by Jane. >@@(*&)
caught how??? 4.40 on
!!
LOL she had no idea what clothes madeleine was wearing and no inkling or idea it could be her, why would she? total and utter bloody nonsense
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 01, 2013, 09:07:01 PM
May be he was courteously letting Jane have the leading role, because in fact the abductor was twice nearly caught by him !
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Benice on July 01, 2013, 09:25:35 PM
The carrier and child that Tanner says she saw could have been anyone coming from a variety of places,going to a variety of places for a variety of reasons.The only odd thing is the method of carrying for what is said to be a young child and not a baby. That way of carrying makes a child heavier and harder to carry. As for a jacket or cardigan or blanket, seeing as Tanner only saw the legs, and it wasnt a swaddled baby, she would have no idea if there was any covering. I dont find bare feet odd either.
Eta, the location of the sightng and direction of walking,and location of the night creche though do not tally.
I also don't see what Gerry Mccann meant, when he said, the abductor was nearly caught by Jane. >@@(*&)
The man was carrying the child in the same way as you would when a sleeping child has been picked up from a bed and handed across to you. That also explains why her head was on the left side of the man seen with her.
Her head would have been on the right arm of the person who picked her up from the bed, but if he handed her to someone positioned in front of him - then her head would end up on that person's left side.
She could have been handed down to someone standing over the other side of the wall outside the front door.
IMO Gerry McCann was referring to the fact that if Jane had been just a few seconds earlier - she would have bumped into the man.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: DCI on July 01, 2013, 09:43:50 PM
The man was carrying the child in the same way as you would when a sleeping child has been picked up from a bed and handed across to you. That also explains why her head was on the left side of the man seen with her.
Her head would have been on the right arm of the person who picked her up from the bed, but if he handed her to someone positioned in front of him - then her head would end up on that person's left side.
She could have been handed down to someone standing over the other side of the wall outside the front door.
IMO Gerry McCann was referring to the fact that if Jane had been just a few seconds earlier - she would have bumped into the man.
Spot on Benice 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: John on July 02, 2013, 01:05:33 AM
Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that there could be people around that night carrying their child for any amount of reasons.
The point is that none of them came forward to be eliminated.
No mother phoning the police to say it was her husband collecting their daughter from a relatives. No relative phoning to say it was her son who had picked up her granddaughter who she'd been babysitting. etc etc Nothing - Zilch - from a single person. That should tell you something Stephen.
If you don't believe an abduction happened - then give us your/evidence proof of what DID happen. That's all you have to do Stephen. Simples.
We should have a post of the day thread here Benice because your post was excellent.
I didn't get a chance to read the posts earlier but now that I have done so it is plain that many excuses are being put forward as to why neither child carrier came forward. I could accept that maybe one guy might not come forward for some obscure reason but two guys carrying two almost identical children within a few hundred yards of each other and 40 minutes apart?
I call that quite a coincidence, what you?
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Chinagirl on July 02, 2013, 07:50:19 AM
John - I think it would be a good idea to have a Post of the Day thread!
I would nominate both your post above and Benice's for that thread. 8@??)(
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: stephen25000 on July 02, 2013, 08:16:14 AM
From a poster on Amazon on this issue.............................
' wat.... says:
As I posted last night, Jeremy Wilkins in his statement said
''It was not an unusual sight to see people walking through the site at night with a child in their arms asleep.''
The response to this seems to have been that ''A simple check of the Creche records would show who used it that night and at what time they collected their child. Obviously nothing tallied with the sightings.''
Oh yes?
And where is the evidence for this? There is nothing relating to the register of the evening creche in the files, as far as I can see, presumably because none of the group's children attended it. If anyone else has come across any documents relating to the evening creche, I would appreciate the link.
However - we can determine from the nanny statements that there were three nannies on duty at the creche that evening at the time when Madeleine was found to be missing. I find it difficult to believe that so many staff would be required if the number of people availing themselves of the facility was very small. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that Jez Wilkins' observation is anything other than accurate.
Had checks been made against the evening creche register to see who had collected their children at times approximate to the sightings, I would have expected some indication of this, together perhaps with depositions from those concerned. Certainly we do know that Jane Tanner was never asked to look at photos of any of those using the creche, or participate in any ID parade procedures, so there is no indication that this was ever done.
Of course, there are two other elements to be considered here. The first is that the weekend represented changeover day - many people were leaving to return home, and it's most unlikely there had been time to conduct such investigations. Secondly, the Portuguese police set very little store by Jane Tanner's ''sighting'', nor did they release details for some weeks, in no small part to the fact that she kept amending her version, and I do not believe they regarded her as a credible witness.
Considering that weeks had gone by before details found their way into the public domain which might have led someone to realise they could have been the person she saw , I don't think it's any surprise that people didn't come forward to say ''It might have been me'', especially if they were back home in their own country by then.
One thing we can say with certainty - a number of families used the creche that night. Yet no-one appears to have been asked to come forward to be eliminated, and no-one seems to have volunteered that information. There could be any number of reasons for this, all perfectly innocent.
One other point.
Jane Tanner and her family remained in PdL for several weeks after Madeleine disappeared. To the best of our knowledge, she never saw this person again. She certainly never reported seeing him again, or thinking she had (her non-sighting of Robert Murat apart). It's perfectly possible that she would have had occasion to see a completely innocent local again, and recognise him as the man she saw, yet she didn't. Whilst that does not rule out that it could have been a local person, in a place as small at PdL I personally think it makes it less likely. '
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Chinagirl on July 02, 2013, 08:49:22 AM
If the police didn't check the crèche records for that evening, this would seem an extraordinary oversight.
Was it Jane Tanner who stayed behind? I thought it was Fiona Payne.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Benice on July 02, 2013, 08:57:33 AM
From a poster on Amazon on this issue.............................
' wat.... says:
As I posted last night, Jeremy Wilkins in his statement said
''It was not an unusual sight to see people walking through the site at night with a child in their arms asleep.''
The response to this seems to have been that ''A simple check of the Creche records would show who used it that night and at what time they collected their child. Obviously nothing tallied with the sightings.''
Oh yes?
And where is the evidence for this? There is nothing relating to the register of the evening creche in the files, as far as I can see, presumably because none of the group's children attended it. If anyone else has come across any documents relating to the evening creche, I would appreciate the link.
However - we can determine from the nanny statements that there were three nannies on duty at the creche that evening at the time when Madeleine was found to be missing. I find it difficult to believe that so many staff would be required if the number of people availing themselves of the facility was very small. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that Jez Wilkins' observation is anything other than accurate.
Had checks been made against the evening creche register to see who had collected their children at times approximate to the sightings, I would have expected some indication of this, together perhaps with depositions from those concerned. Certainly we do know that Jane Tanner was never asked to look at photos of any of those using the creche, or participate in any ID parade procedures, so there is no indication that this was ever done.
Of course, there are two other elements to be considered here. The first is that the weekend represented changeover day - many people were leaving to return home, and it's most unlikely there had been time to conduct such investigations. Secondly, the Portuguese police set very little store by Jane Tanner's ''sighting'', nor did they release details for some weeks, in no small part to the fact that she kept amending her version, and I do not believe they regarded her as a credible witness.Considering that weeks had gone by before details found their way into the public domain which might have led someone to realise they could have been the person she saw , I don't think it's any surprise that people didn't come forward to say ''It might have been me'', especially if they were back home in their own country by then.
One thing we can say with certainty - a number of families used the creche that night. Yet no-one appears to have been asked to come forward to be eliminated, and no-one seems to have volunteered that information. There could be any number of reasons for this, all perfectly innocent.
One other point.
Jane Tanner and her family remained in PdL for several weeks after Madeleine disappeared. To the best of our knowledge, she never saw this person again. She certainly never reported seeing him again, or thinking she had (her non-sighting of Robert Murat apart). It's perfectly possible that she would have had occasion to see a completely innocent local again, and recognise him as the man she saw, yet she didn't. Whilst that does not rule out that it could have been a local person, in a place as small at PdL I personally think it makes it less likely. '
Amaral set plenty of store on Jayne Tanners sighting until she failed to identify Robert Murat as the abductor.
After that major disappointment, and having now decided it was the parents who were guilty, JT's sighting became an inconvenient 'spanner in his works', and so he set out to discredit her as a credible witness. A blind man on a galloping horse can see that.
(Edited because I think I may have misunderstood the posters comment about the number of nannies on duty - so I have removed my comment)
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Benice on July 02, 2013, 09:14:47 AM
We should have a post of the day thread here Benice because your post was excellent.
I didn't get a chance to read the posts earlier but now that I have done so it is plain that many excuses are being put forward as to why neither child carrier came forward. I could accept that maybe one guy might not come forward for some obscure reason but two guys carrying two almost identical children within a few hundred yards of each other and 40 minutes apart?
I call that quite a coincidence, what you?
Thanks John (and Chinagirl).
Stephen seems to think that unless every aspect of the descriptions given by the Smith family and JT are identical in every detail - then it couldn't have been the same man. To suggest that even TWO people would have identical recall is nonsense - let alone a far greater number as in this case. Fortunately the police are well aware of that.
The striking similarities of both the man and child both seen in such close proximity to the place of abduction and both within the same hour following it - are simply far too many for it to be two different people IMO.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: stephen25000 on July 02, 2013, 09:31:44 AM
Stephen seems to think that unless every aspect of the descriptions given by the Smith family and JT are identical in every detail - then it couldn't have been the same man. To suggest that even TWO people would have identical recall is nonsense - let alone a far greater number as in this case. Fortunately the police are well aware of that.
The striking similarities of both the man and child both seen in such close proximity to the place of abduction and both within the same hour following it - are simply far too many for it to be two different people IMO.
What are the striking similarities ?
The sightings were in different areas.
Why would someone advertise their presence, when in the words of John they were 'professional abductors' ?
Why not have a car nearby, minimizing the chances of being observed ?
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 02, 2013, 09:55:15 AM
having now decided it was the parents who were guilty, JT's sighting became an inconvenient 'spanner in his works', and so he set out to discredit her as a credible witness.
PJ investigations are under the control of the Ministério Publico. No inspector "decides" someone is guilty or not. This is the first point on which the AG required a reconstruction. With some reason. Even Mr McCann discredited Mrs Tanner's sighting saying he was on the other side of the street..
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 02, 2013, 10:02:30 AM
PJ investigations are under the control of the Ministério Publico. No inspector "decides" someone is guilty or not. This is the first point on which the AG required a reconstruction. With some reason. Even Mr McCann discredited Mrs Tanner's sighting saying he was on the other side of the street..
Amaral was the Lead investigator. To suggest - in view of so much evidence - much of it from his own lips, that he did NOT decide that the McCanns were the guilty parties and then go on to try to fit the evidence to suit that theory, is unrealistic. Initially his superiors would be guided by what he reported to them - not the other way round.
The McCanns and the rest of the group were not only quite willing, but fully expected to take part in a reconstruction in the days following the abduction. They had no objections. The fact that it did not take place at that time was the decision of the PJ.
The recollections of the actual place Gerry and Jez were standing when JT passed them are different. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means they had slightly different memories of the place where it did happen. As previously mentioned, people are not nailed to the spot when they are standing chatting over a period of several minutes, - they can move. If that happened it could be that GM remembers the place where they first stopped to chat - but that JT passed them at the place where they ended up 4/5 mins. later and that is the spot she recalls. We are only talking a few feet in difference here - not 10 or 20 metres.
AIMHO
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 02, 2013, 11:59:27 AM
Amaral was the Lead investigator. To suggest - in view of so much evidence - much of it from his own lips, that he did NOT decide that the McCanns were the guilty parties and then go on to try to fit the evidence to suit that theory, is unrealistic. Initially his superiors would be guided by what he reported to them - not the other way round.
The PJ certainly suggests and argues and justifies, but the MP decides, as in the case of the arguido status.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 02, 2013, 12:02:39 PM
The McCanns and the rest of the group were not only quite willing, but fully expected to take part in a reconstruction in the days following the abduction. They had no objections. The fact that it did not take place at that time was the decision of the PJ.
How do you know, Benice ? Have you got a link ? We're speaking of course of reconstruction the police way (in order to clarify when crossing statements show discrepancies), and not the Crimewatch way (in order to jog people's memories)
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 02, 2013, 12:13:21 PM
it just means they had slightly different memories of the place where it did happen. As previously mentioned, people are not nailed to the spot when they are standing chatting over a period of several minutes, - they can move. If that happened it could be that GM remembers the place where they first stopped to chat - but that JT passed them at the place where they ended up 4/5 mins. later and that is the spot she recalls. We are only talking a few feet in difference here - not 10 or 20 metres.
The difference between one or the other side of the street is very significant, and you know that. If Mr McCann had crossed the street, the fact JW and him missed JT and the abductor wouldn't be unbelievable. Pretending he crossed the street when he had no reason for that (JW had to cross since he was going back home and he stated he did), Mr McCann was given himself a double alibi (at the cost of JT's credit) : he wasn't the adductor and he had an excuse for missing him.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Benice on July 02, 2013, 12:36:55 PM
The difference between one or the other side of the street is very significant, and you know that. If Mr McCann had crossed the street, the fact JW and him missed JT and the abductor wouldn't be unbelievable. Pretending he crossed the street when he had no reason for that (JW had to cross since he was going back home and he stated he did), Mr McCann was given himself a double alibi (at the cost of JT's credit) : he wasn't the adductor and he had an excuse for missing him.
It is not at the cost of anyone's credibility - the police know from experience that people have vastly differing powers of recall - especially over stuff that doesn't seem important at the time. It does not automatically denote anything sinister.
If Gerry was creating an alibi then surely the one thing he would have claimed was that he did SEE Jane Tanner.
The most important part of that meeting he had with JW is that Jez was able to confirm that Gerry behaved and chatted perfectly normally. Anyone who thinks he could have done that just minutes after finding his daugher dead in the apartment is venturing into fantasy land IMO.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 02, 2013, 12:52:16 PM
It is not at the cost of anyone's credibility - the police know from experience that people have vastly differing powers of recall - especially over stuff that doesn't seem important at the time. It does not automatically denote anything sinister.
If Gerry was creating an alibi then surely the one thing he would have claimed was that he did SEE Jane Tanner.
The most important part of that meeting he had with JW is that Jez was able to confirm that Gerry behaved and chatted perfectly normally. Anyone who thinks he could have done that just minutes after finding his daugher dead in the apartment is venturing into fantasy land IMO.
Don't you see it would have been suspicious if Mr McCann had seen Mrs Tanner whereas the independent witness JW didn't ? It is clear, watching the "McCann reconstruction", Mrs Tanner's sighting's accuracy is discredited by Mr McCann's categoric opinion. Who said Mr McCann had just found his daughter dead ?
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Benice on July 02, 2013, 01:03:14 PM
Why would someone advertise their presence, when in the words of John they were 'professional abductors' ?
Why not have a car nearby, minimizing the chances of being observed ?
The similarities have been in the public domain for years. I suggest if you don't know them by now - you acquaint yourself with them via the files.
The sightings were both in the little village of PdL - a few streets away from oneanother and both made shortly after an abduction. Not hours, or days after - but a mere 45 mins.
As you yourself have stated, a man walking along carrying a child would not be a reason for anyone to suspect he was anything other than a father carrying his sleeping daughter home. It would only be after news of the abduction was known that people would begin to think differently.
She may have been taken to a car, or a boat or a building. Who knows.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Benice on July 02, 2013, 01:19:42 PM
Don't you see it would have been suspicious if Mr McCann had seen Mrs Tanner whereas the independent witness JW didn't ? It is clear, watching the "McCann reconstruction", Mrs Tanner's sighting's accuracy is discredited by Mr McCann's categoric opinion. Who said Mr McCann had just found his daughter dead ?
I think if Gerry had talked Jane Tanner into lying to concoct an alibi for him, they would have got their stories straight beforehand. (As you know I don't believe either he or JT lied about anything.)
I did hesitate before typing about Gerry finding his daughter dead, as I do lose track of who believes what conspiracy theory. My apols if that is not one which you subscribe to. Actually you have never said what you think happened - or if you have then I've missed it. What do you think happened Anne?
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 02, 2013, 01:36:20 PM
I think if Gerry had talked Jane Tanner into lying to concoct an alibi for him, they would have got their stories straight beforehand. (As you know I don't believe either he or JT lied about anything.)
I did hesitate before typing about Gerry finding his daughter dead, as I do lose track of who believes what conspiracy theory. My apols if that is not one which you subscribe to. Actually you have never said what you think happened - or if you have then I've missed it. What do you think happened Anne?
Benice, I never suggested JT made a sighting to please Mr McCann : no conspiration for sure ! But I think Mr McCann lied about the side of the street when he had the chat with JW (I believe JW, not only because he's an independent witness, but mainly because he had a motive to cross the street). And I've a feeling Mrs Tanner saw a man with a child on his arms, but not where and when she says she did. I've said many times what I thought didn't happen and could have happened. It would be presumptuous to go further than that.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Benice on July 02, 2013, 02:11:02 PM
Benice, I never suggested JT made a sighting to please Mr McCann : no conspiration for sure ! But I think Mr McCann lied about the side of the street when he had the chat with JW (I believe JW, not only because he's an independent witness, but mainly because he had a motive to cross the street). And I've a feeling Mrs Tanner saw a man with a child on his arms, but not where and when she says she did. I've said many times what I thought didn't happen and could have happened. It would be presumptuous to go further than that.
I don't see what difference it would make what side of the street Gerry was standing. If he wanted to lie then all he had to say was that he must have had his back to the road when the man crossed - or even be looking in a different direction when that happened - i.e. looking at Jez while he was talking to him - or at his baby in the buggy. (IMO one of those scenarios IS actually what happened)
Both perfectly acceptable reasons considering there was only a very few seconds during which the man was in sight anyway.
Why would Jane Tanner lie about where she saw the man with a child? In fact why would she lie about anything?
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 02, 2013, 02:23:02 PM
If you are talking about the video then IMO that had nothing to do with anything Gerry said. Jayne was re-living probably the most terrible time of her life to date - when she watched Madeleine being abducted by a stranger - and because she didn't realise what was happening, she walked on by. No wonder she was sobbing. That horrible memory will stay with her forever. I have nothing but intense sympathy for the poor girl.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 02, 2013, 02:46:45 PM
Page 886 Portimao Criminal Investigation Department 201/07.OGALGS O INSPECTOR M.P. ATTACHED On this date, I attached to these official papers 3 computer printed pages, relating to the description of the events, that have been collectively prepared by the nine people of the group in question, that was delivered to this Police Officer by the British Liaison Official, before the start of re-questioning of those same people. Portimao, 10 May 2007 INSPECTOR M.P. ======================================== [3 page attachment] Pages 887-890 Original written in English. Sequence of Events: Thursday 3rd May 2007 - 2030 to 2200 As recalled by:
Gerry McCann - 5A Kate McCann - 5A David Payne - 5H (First floor) Fiona Payne - 5H (First floor) Dianne Webster - 5H (First floor) Jane Tanner - 5D Russell O'Brien - 5D Matthew Oldfield - 5B Rachael Oldfield - 5B
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.
If you are talking about the video then IMO that had nothing to do with anything Gerry said. Jayne was re-living probably the most terrible time of her life to date - when she watched Madeleine being abducted by a stranger - and because she didn't realise what was happening, she walked on by. No wonder she was sobbing. That horrible memory will stay with her forever. I have nothing but intense sympathy for the poor girl.
I hope you have the same intense sympathy for Mr McCann who didn't realise what was happening when he found the door "more opened than he had left it". Mrs Tanner's sobbing didn't surprise me at all when I watched that "reconstruction", though my interpretation is different from yours.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: John on July 02, 2013, 05:27:05 PM
John - I think it would be a good idea to have a Post of the Day thread!
I would nominate both your post above and Benice's for that thread. 8@??)(
It is wonderful what comes out of the ether at times. It truely is a remarkable coincidence that two guys on their own carrying near identical looking children of the same sex and clothed the same and in such close proximity within 40 minutes of each other should both choose to remain anonymous.
Does anyone else find this compelling evidence?
I will put it to the members to see if we want a post of the day.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: John on July 02, 2013, 05:41:29 PM
It has been pointed out that the childrens crèche was operational on the night that Madeleine disappeared and suggested that it might have been one of the parents from that crèche that Jane Tanner saw.
Highly unlikely since the crèche is located in the same building as the Main Reception and several hundred yards away in the opposite direction from whence the man carrying a child was seen by Tanner.
In addition, as it was such a cold blustery night, no parent was going to carry their child around town dressed merely in PJ's and with bare feet.
In addition, OC staff knew who if anyone had collected children after 9pm and they were readily identifiable. The fact that no such individuals were identified by police speaks volumes.
I'm afraid the suggestion that Tannerman came from the OC crèche is therefore a most definite non starter.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: John on July 02, 2013, 06:17:40 PM
If you are talking about the video then IMO that had nothing to do with anything Gerry said. Jayne was re-living probably the most terrible time of her life to date - when she watched Madeleine being abducted by a stranger - and because she didn't realise what was happening, she walked on by. No wonder she was sobbing. That horrible memory will stay with her forever. I have nothing but intense sympathy for the poor girl.
I agree. 8((()*/
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Rachel Granada on July 02, 2013, 06:39:50 PM
It is wonderful what comes out of the ether at times. It truely is a remarkable coincidence that two guys on their own carrying near identical looking children of the same sex and clothed the same and in such close proximity within 40 minutes of each other should both choose to remain anonymous.
Does anyone else find this compelling evidence?
I will put it to the members to see if we want a post of the day.
It is indeed compelling evidence, John. A post of the day would be ace!
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Benice on July 03, 2013, 12:11:38 AM
I hope you have the same intense sympathy for Mr McCann who didn't realise what was happening when he found the door "more opened than he had left it". Mrs Tanner's sobbing didn't surprise me at all when I watched that "reconstruction", though my interpretation is different from yours.
Of course I have intense sympathy for the father of an abducted child. As with Jane Tanner the idea of an abductor being around did not occur to him. And why should it?
I would be interested to hear your interpretation of Jane Tanner's distress.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: faithlilly on July 03, 2013, 01:16:07 AM
Of course I have intense sympathy for the father of an abducted child. As with Jane Tanner the idea of an abductor being around did not occur to him. And why should it?
I would be interested to hear your interpretation of Jane Tanner's distress.
I know you asked Anne but for what it's worth I think Tanner was upset that Gerry had asked her the way over to Portugal just to make an absolute fool of her in front of the camera.
By the way, if Gerry and Wilkins were standing just outside the gate of 5a as Tanner and Wilkins claim, why did Madeleine Was Here show Gerry's recollection instead ? Does Gerry's recollection really have more credibility that two witnesses, one of them independent, saying the same thing ?
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Benice on July 03, 2013, 09:53:52 AM
I know you asked Anne but for what it's worth I think Tanner was upset that Gerry had asked her the way over to Portugal just to make an absolute fool of her in front of the camera.
By the way, if Gerry and Wilkins were standing just outside the gate of 5a as Tanner and Wilkins claim, why did Madeleine Was Here show Gerry's recollection instead ? Does Gerry's recollection really have more credibility that two witnesses, one of them independent, saying the same thing ?
But he didn't make a fool of her Faith - they disagreed over where he was standing when JT passed him. This didn't come as a huge shock to JT - she already knew that their memories differed on that. I'm sure they must have talked about it together previously - but still couldn't agree - and as you say Jez's memory of where they stood was nearer to her recollection than Gerry's - so why would she get upset? That makes no sense to me.
It does make sense to me however that she would get terribly upset having to re-live the journey she made up that road and what she saw on that horrendous night - and all the ..'if onlys' ..which must come back into her mind afterwards. Anyone who can't understand how horrendous that was for her - must have no conception of empathy IMO.
I have no idea why Gerry's 'recollection' was chosen, - maybe if was because his memory appeared to be more detailed and clearer than the other two - but as far as I'm concerned it doesn't make any difference to anything. He was in that road talking to Jez, and JT passed by and saw them there. If she didn't pass them - how did she know they were there?
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 03, 2013, 11:09:47 AM
But he didn't make a fool of her Faith - they disagreed over where he was standing when JT passed him. This didn't come as a huge shock to JT - she already knew that their memories differed on that. I'm sure they must have talked about it together previously - but still couldn't agree - and as you say Jez's memory of where they stood was nearer to her recollection than Gerry's - so why would she get upset? That makes no sense to me.
It does make sense to me however that she would get terribly upset having to re-live the journey she made up that road and what she saw on that horrendous night - and all the ..'if onlys' ..which must come back into her mind afterwards. Anyone who can't understand how horrendous that was for her - must have no conception of empathy IMO.
I have no idea why Gerry's 'recollection' was chosen, - maybe if was because his memory appeared to be more detailed and clearer than the other two - but as far as I'm concerned it doesn't make any difference to anything. He was in that road talking to Jez, and JT passed by and saw them there. If she didn't pass them - how did she know they were there?
Mr McCann's recollection (though not matching his first statement and the TPs' "official" timeline he agreed to) was chosen because it suited him better and he was the boss, as simple as that. Mrs Tanner, without JW to support her, was shocked to be publicly discredited. One thing is to be questioned by the media (and Mrs Tanner was more than any one else of the group), another by a acquaintance you're there to help. Mr McCann could have cut that scene, but didn't. Attempt to "resolve" the first point needing clarification according to the AG ?
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Benice on July 03, 2013, 11:51:17 AM
Mr McCann's recollection (though not matching his first statement and the TPs' "official" timeline he agreed to) was chosen because it suited him better and he was the boss, as simple as that. Mrs Tanner, without JW to support her, was shocked to be publicly discredited. One thing is to be questioned by the media (and Mrs Tanner was more than any one else of the group), another by a acquaintance you're there to help. Mr McCann could have cut that scene, but didn't. Attempt to "resolve" the first point needing clarification according to the AG ?
And if Jane Tanner was so upset because of what Gerry said to her 'in public' - then Gerry would have asked for that convo to be cut out altogether. It would have been no big deal from the 'video' point of view - he could still have been filmed on the part of the road that he remembered he and Jez stood.
This lady had bravely agreed to put herself through an enormous ordeal on his behalf - she was on his side FGS, do you think he didn't know that? No way would he insist that a scene which he knew had upset her so much would remain in to be shown to millions. The very fact that the scene was not cut is proof in itself that it was not a problem to her.
She wasn't upset about it - because it didn't come as a shock to her when Gerry publically said his recollection was different to hers - she already knew that and so would not expect him to say anything different. You talk as if this was some huge revelation that came 'out of the blue'. That's nonsense imo.
Your reluctance to accept that the whole experience of re-living her part in what happened that night would be the cause of considerable distress to her is incomprehensible to me Anne.
You still haven't said where you think JT saw the man carrying a child.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 03, 2013, 12:39:54 PM
Your reluctance to accept that the whole experience of re-living her part in what happened that night would be the cause of considerable distress to her is incomprehensible to me Anne.
You still haven't said where you think JT saw the man carrying a child.
"My reluctance" is your invention, it doesn't exist, Benice, and you know it perfectly. I think Mrs Tanner didn't see the child carrier when and where she said she did, because I'm like the AG and many people, I don't believe in the invisible and noiseless woman. But I also think she saw someone. Where, when ? Who knows ? Possible clue to "where" : the oral statement of Mr McCann to the PJ and Silvia Batista's testimony.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Benice on July 03, 2013, 02:16:54 PM
"My reluctance" is your invention, it doesn't exist, Benice, and you know it perfectly. I think Mrs Tanner didn't see the child carrier when and where she said she did, because I'm like the AG and many people, I don't believe in the invisible and noiseless woman. But I also think she saw someone. Where, when ? Who knows ? Possible clue to "where" : the oral statement of Mr McCann to the PJ and Silvia Batista's testimony.
It was not an 'invention' Anne - it was an 'observation' from your posts. IMO it is certainly not impossible for Jez and Gerry to have missed her during the couple of seconds it took for her to pass. You can categorically rule out one of them straightaway if that person had their back to her. The other may have been looking down at the baby in the buggy, or simply not looking in her direction. I've done that myself when I was talking to a neighbour and another neighbour passed by on the other side of the road. If that neighbour had not shouted a greeting to us, neither of us would have known he was there - and that was in broad daylight.
I can't be bothered to play games Anne. Instead of giving 'possible' clues, why don't you just state your own opinion.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: faithlilly on July 03, 2013, 02:52:50 PM
It was not an 'invention' Anne - it was an 'observation' from your posts. IMO it is certainly not impossible for Jez and Gerry to have missed her during the couple of seconds it took for her to pass. You can categorically rule out one of them straightaway if that person had their back to her. The other may have been looking down at the baby in the buggy, or simply not looking in her direction. I've done that myself when I was talking to a neighbour and another neighbour passed by on the other side of the road. If that neighbour had not shouted a greeting to us, neither of us would have known he was there - and that was in broad daylight.
I can't be bothered to play games Anne. Instead of giving 'possible' clues, why don't you just state your own opinion.
This is from Wilkins rogatory statement :
'I can affirm that it was a quiet street and it was very unlikely that someone could have passed by me in this way '
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Angelo222 on July 03, 2013, 03:11:30 PM
Anything is possible, the question is is it probable ?
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Carana on July 03, 2013, 03:54:36 PM
What does "quiet" mean? Not busy? Totally silent? I doubt that it was a totally silent street in a village. He was trying calm down a screaming baby and it was only just pas 9pm in a culture that seems fairly active at this time of the evening. Even if the street itself was quiet in terms of absence of traffic, there would still be people with TVs or music on, or people dining.
Two men engaged in conversation about their shared interest in tennis (one of whom seems to have been known as fairly boisterous), plus the baby - who may, or may not have fallen asleep by this point - and Jane who just wanted to nip up the road to do her check.
It's not as if they hadn't heard a helicopter overhead or noticed a San Fran car chase...
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 03, 2013, 04:39:24 PM
It was not an 'invention' Anne - it was an 'observation' from your posts. I can't be bothered to play games Anne. Instead of giving 'possible' clues, why don't you just state your own opinion.
Benice, 1) Empathy isn't your privilege. 2) I'm not playing games. I do have the right to think Mrs Tanner wasn't where she said she was (this isn't a very original opinion !). This doesn't force me ipso facto to have an opinion on where she was when she saw a man carrying a child as victims are carried. You have an explanation for everything, even the most implausible, I don't.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Benice on July 03, 2013, 05:11:14 PM
What does "quiet" mean? Not busy? Totally silent? I doubt that it was a totally silent street in a village. He was trying calm down a screaming baby and it was only just pas 9pm in a culture that seems fairly active at this time of the evening. Even if the street itself was quiet in terms of absence of traffic, there would still be people with TVs or music on, or people dining.
Two men engaged in conversation about their shared interest in tennis (one of whom seems to have been known as fairly boisterous), plus the baby - who may, or may not have fallen asleep by this point - and Jane who just wanted to nip up the road to do her check.
It's not as if they hadn't heard a helicopter overhead or noticed a San Fran car chase...
Quite so Carana, and JT was wearing flip-flops - not hobnailed boots.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: faithlilly on July 03, 2013, 05:33:45 PM
Quite so Carana, and JT was wearing flip-flops - not hobnailed boots.
I was walking up the same street in PDL about 9pm one night. Myself, my partner and a couple of friends had just been for a meal and were walking back past 5a to our friend's house. Although my partner and our friend were talking the thwack, thwack noise that my woman friend's flip flops made as she walked was quite audible. In fact the noise made me comment to my friend how unbelievable it was that Tanner could have passed Gerry and Wilkins without them hearing the sound her flip flops made.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: stephen25000 on July 03, 2013, 05:57:24 PM
I was walking up the same street in PDL about 9pm one night. Myself, my partner and a couple of friends had just been for a meal and were walking back past 5a to our friend's house. Although my partner and our friend were talking the thwack, thwack noise that my woman friend's flip flops made as she walked was quite audible. In fact the noise made me comment to my friend how unbelievable it was that Tanner could have passed Gerry and Wilkins without them hearing the sound her flip flops made.
Thanks for that Faithlilly. Quite pertinent.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 03, 2013, 06:25:15 PM
The AG was right to require a reconstruction and some had reasons to refuse it. This is what history will retain, whether one likes it or not.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Carana on July 03, 2013, 06:30:40 PM
I was walking up the same street in PDL about 9pm one night. Myself, my partner and a couple of friends had just been for a meal and were walking back past 5a to our friend's house. Although my partner and our friend were talking the thwack, thwack noise that my woman friend's flip flops made as she walked was quite audible. In fact the noise made me comment to my friend how unbelievable it was that Tanner could have passed Gerry and Wilkins without them hearing the sound her flip flops made.
I can understand that, but your experience was after she had disappeared. Lots of people may have become more sensitive to any sound in that village after the event.
What time of year was it?
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Carana on July 03, 2013, 06:35:03 PM
The AG was right to require a reconstruction and some had reasons to refuse it. This is what history will retain, whether one likes it or not.
So why didn't one take place right at the beginning, when most people of interest (in the sense of possibly being able to contribute something useful) were still there?
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: DCI on July 03, 2013, 07:41:20 PM
So why didn't one take place right at the beginning, when most people of interest (in the sense of possibly being able to contribute something useful) were still there?
Because they were worried about the tourist trade, they might lose, Carana. Incompetent investigators, didn't help, either.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: stephen25000 on July 03, 2013, 07:44:39 PM
Because they were worried about the tourist trade, they might lose, Carana. Incompetent investigators, didn't help, either.
Agreed, DCI. It was the PJ who but the kybosh on a reconstruction in the early days, when Dr Healy and Mr McCann and the holiday party were more than willing to participate.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: stephen25000 on July 03, 2013, 08:19:49 PM
Agreed, DCI. It was the PJ who but the kybosh on a reconstruction in the early days, when Dr Healy and Mr McCann and the holiday party were more than willing to participate.
Now is that your opinion, or can you prove that ?
Also, if the reconstruction was so important, why haven't all parties agreed to one in the intervening years ?
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Rachel Granada on July 03, 2013, 08:30:17 PM
What does "quiet" mean? Not busy? Totally silent? I doubt that it was a totally silent street in a village. He was trying calm down a screaming baby and it was only just pas 9pm in a culture that seems fairly active at this time of the evening. Even if the street itself was quiet in terms of absence of traffic, there would still be people with TVs or music on, or people dining.
Two men engaged in conversation about their shared interest in tennis (one of whom seems to have been known as fairly boisterous), plus the baby - who may, or may not have fallen asleep by this point - and Jane who just wanted to nip up the road to do her check.
It's not as if they hadn't heard a helicopter overhead or noticed a San Fran car chase...
LOL, here we go again. What does *quiet*mean, err it means *quiet*
Gerry said in the Panorama docu it was *incredibly* quiet
That means *very very*
Now please dont ask what *incredibly* or *very* means, because if you do, I suggest you apply to the Open University in the Uk to do a linguistic or origins of language course or something
catch you later
p.s. That doesnt mean I will come and catch you
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 03, 2013, 09:13:04 PM
Thanks for making me laugh, Redblossom !
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Rachel Granada on July 03, 2013, 10:07:34 PM
I know you asked Anne but for what it's worth I think Tanner was upset that Gerry had asked her the way over to Portugal just to make an absolute fool of her in front of the camera.
By the way, if Gerry and Wilkins were standing just outside the gate of 5a as Tanner and Wilkins claim, why did Madeleine Was Here show Gerry's recollection instead ? Does Gerry's recollection really have more credibility that two witnesses, one of them independent, saying the same thing ?
if Gerry and Wilkins were standing just outside the gate of 5a as Tanner and Wilkins claim, That is untrue as you know from the previous thread, where we showed a video of Jane Tanner insisting that Gerry and Jez were standing on the corner of the alleyway NOT by the gate. Also Jez Wilkins drawing and his statement very clearly prove that Gerry and Jez were on that corner and NOT by the gate to 5A.
Please DO NOT obfusticate and put out disinformation
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Redblossom on July 04, 2013, 10:26:23 PM
well, theres the option of different types of flip flops, were they *spongey and quiet*? Your 2.99 job in primark tescos or the local market or were they 10.99 jobs from monsoon with a harder sole and heel? Which one would make most noise? Shame on the pj for not investigating this, shambolic police force, tut
jez wilkins and gerry mccanns hearing aids and eyesight should also have been checked
Fact is jez said it was really unlikely someone went past himand he wouldnt have noticed Gerry mccann lied about where he was, why?
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 04, 2013, 10:50:10 PM
well, theres the option of different types of flip flops, were they *spongey and quiet*? Your 2.99 job in primark tescos or the local market or were they 10.99 jobs from monsoon with a harder sole and heel? Which one would make most noise? Shame on the pj for not investigating this, shambolic police force, tut
jez wilkins and gerry mccanns hearing aids and eyesight should also have been checked
Fact is jez said it was really unlikely someone went past himand he wouldnt have noticed Gerry mccann lied about where he was, why?
Once more I laughed thanks to you, Redblossom ! Soyez bénie !
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 04, 2013, 11:00:20 PM
There's a difference between not saying the truth and telling lies. I've a feeling Mr McCann likes to lie, it makes him feel smart (his late but fortunately saved by Pamalam blog shows it amazingly). Why should he say the truth if he can lie ? Some people lie systematically, it's in their nature, like in the scorpion story. Perhaps they don't intend as much to cheat than to signify things are never what they seem to be.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Benice on July 05, 2013, 12:56:04 AM
There's a difference between not saying the truth and telling lies. I've a feeling Mr McCann likes to lie, it makes him feel smart (his late but fortunately saved by Pamalam blog shows it amazingly). Why should he say the truth if he can lie ? Some people lie systematically, it's in their nature, like in the scorpion story. Perhaps they don't intend as much to cheat than to signify things are never what they seem to be.
In my experience people who feel the need to habitually lie are inadequate souls with zero self confidence or self esteem. I would say that Gerry McCann is the complete opposite of that - and his career as a successful heart consultant would seem to confirm that - as would his successful marriagex - not to mention the fact that he appears to have no enemies. Habitual liars inevitably collect many enemies along the way as they lie their way through life.
Title: Re: A CHILD BEING CARRIED.
Post by: Chinagirl on July 05, 2013, 01:45:54 AM
In my experience people who feel the need to habitually lie are inadequate souls with zero self confidence or self esteem. I would say that Gerry McCann is the complete opposite of that - and his career as a successful heart consultant would seem to confirm that - as would his successful marriagex - not to mention the fact that he appears to have no enemies. Habitual liars inevitably collect many enemies along the way as they lie their way through life.
Indeed. Well said, Benice.
There is no indication that Gerry McCann has lied in any respect about this case. There are, however, those who choose not to believe what he has said.