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: Jacinta on September 24, 2013, 07:59:16 PM
-
It looks from the Files that the PJ had doubts about the McCanns because other witness testimonies seem to contradict the time of Jane Tanner's sighting.
Link: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P-J-HAVE-DOUBTS.htm (bottom paragraphs)
"Interview of an employee from the swimming pool bar.
In her interview, this employee states that access is restricted to clients and that this is controlled via the client's card at the entrance. She adds that she has not come across any unauthorised person on the site. She explains that on the day of Madeleine's disappearance, at around 8.30pm, her friend was called following a problem with a lock in an apartment situated close to the "Millenium" restaurant. She went there with her friend. At around 9pm, they went back towards the Club's reception. They passed near the "Tapas" and by the McCann family's apartment. They state that they saw nothing suspicious. They saw no one and no vehicles. Her friend left the premises at around 9.10pm with his service vehicle and she left at 9.15pm in her own car.
[The case file contains numerous witness statements like that, so that together, these witness statements contradict the statements from the "tapas9" group. A reconstruction would have made this clear immediately and would have highlighted the contradictions of the informants.]"
Does anyone know who the employee from the swimming pool bar is?
-
It looks from the Files that the PJ had doubts about the McCanns because other witness testimonies seem to contradict the time of Jane Tanner's sighting.
Link: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P-J-HAVE-DOUBTS.htm (bottom paragraphs)
Does anyone know who the employee from the swimming pool bar is?
These statements were taken long, long before the summation by the AG which concludes that there was no evidence of any crime by the McCanns. Are you suggesting that these statements were not investigated by the PJ? Are you suggesting that theseA statements were not taken into account by the AG when he made his conclusion? Or what are you suggesting?
-
It looks from the Files that the PJ had doubts about the McCanns because other witness testimonies seem to contradict the time of Jane Tanner's sighting.
Link: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P-J-HAVE-DOUBTS.htm (bottom paragraphs)
Does anyone know who the employee from the swimming pool bar is?
Hi Jacinta, here you go
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HAYLEY-CRAWFORD.htm
-
These statements were taken long, long before the summation by the AG which concludes that there was no evidence of any crime by the McCanns. Are you suggesting that these statements were not investigated by the PJ? Are you suggesting that theseA statements were not taken into account by the AG when he made his conclusion? Or what are you suggesting?
Awww, that's not nice Gilet 8(8-)) I'm not suggesting anything. I came across this in the files while looking for something else. I asked if anyone knew who the employee from the swimming pool bar is so I can check for myself.
-
Hi Jacinta, here you go
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HAYLEY-CRAWFORD.htm
Thank you Redblossom 8((()*/
Jaci x
-
Here is another statement from the resident/owner of the flat two floors above the Mccanns holiday apartment, she too saw or heard nothing from her balcony around the time
Mind you IF an abduction took place it could have been so quick no one would notice even if they were there staring at the time....if nothing suspicious was seen
Question: This is a story you've followed incredibly closely because you were involved on the night; you helped the police and the family in looking for Madeleine, didn't you?
Susan Moyes: Yes, we did and, yes, very, very concerned... concerned for the family and followed it, every day... every day.
Q: Can you take us back to that night and... and what you were doing and when you first heard there was a problem?
SM: Sure. We went out for a meal about 7 o'clock, down in the town, we walked back about 9 o'clock, round past, errm... the... the church, round past the supermarket, back to the apartment, went out on the balcony about quarter past nine - everywhere was peaceful, everywhere was lovely - we then went to bed.
We were woken up at half past eleven at night by one of the friends of the McCanns to say 'a little girl' had 'been abducted'; those... those were the words used. So, we got dressed and joined in the search, we were out until about four in the morning with, oooh… about, I don't know, thirty people... thirty other people, maybe. The Mark Warner team were out, errm... and other guests at the Ocean Club.
-
So no hearing of a chat in Francisco Gentil Martins and, mainly, no spotting of 2 men and a pushchair on the other side of the street.
-
So no hearing of a chat in Francisco Gentil Martins and, mainly, no spotting of 2 men and a pushchair on the other side of the street.
The times given are approximate not definite. That fact is relevant when talking about timelines of just a few minutes.
Jez Wilkins gave the time spent talking to Gerry as 3 to 5 mins. It is certainly not beyond the realms of possiblity that no-one, except someone actually passing them, saw them in such a short period of time.
-
The times given are approximate not definite. That fact is relevant when talking about timelines of just a few minutes.
Jez Wilkins gave the time spent talking to Gerry as 3 to 5 mins. It is certainly not beyond the realms of possiblity that no-one, except someone actually passing them, saw them in such a short period of time.
Good point Benice, they could easily have escaped attention.
The more I hear about how quite things were, by all accounts, the harder I find it to imagine that Madeleine was taken by a team of people that night, creeping around and hiding on balconies and in bushes as some people (ahem) suggest. Seemingly, nobody but nobody was noticed.
The fact that these witnesses are employees and neighbours gives them a fair amount of credibility in terms of their assessment of the situation that night. Being familiar with a place, one is more sensitive to abnormal activity. Nothing seems to have been picked up on.
-
The times given are approximate not definite. That fact is relevant when talking about timelines of just a few minutes.
Jez Wilkins gave the time spent talking to Gerry as 3 to 5 mins. It is certainly not beyond the realms of possiblity that no-one, except someone actually passing them, saw them in such a short period of time.
What COULD be beyond the realms of possibility, though, is that the person who was actually passing them ( and noticed them ) was not seen ... or noticed by them reciprocally
-
What COULD be beyond the realms of possibility, though, is that the person who was actually passing them ( and noticed them ) was not seen ... or noticed by them reciprocally
You mean within the realms of possibility, Icabod?
-
You mean within the realms of possibility, Icabod?
No Sherlock, I don't
I don't think it is within the realms of possibility that Jane Tanner could have passed by Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins that night without either of them having noticed her ... particulary given that both Tanner and Wilkins claim to have been on the same pavement when the supposed 'passing' happened ( it was Gerry alone who claimed to have been on the other side of the street )
I have pictured the scene over and over ... a quiet still street, at dusk, without a soul in sight, no sound of traffic ... just an empty still street ... and a woman passes the whole length of it without either men noticing her ?
wouldn't happen
-
No Sherlock, I don't
I don't think it is within the realms of possibility that Jane Tanner could have passed by Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins that night without either of them having noticed her ... particulary given that both Tanner and Wilkins claim to have been on the same pavement when the supposed 'passing' happened ( it was Gerry alone who claimed to have been on the other side of the street )
I have pictured the scene over and over ... a quiet still street, at dusk, without a soul in sight, no sound of traffic ... just an empty still street ... and a woman passes the whole length of it without either men noticing her ?
wouldn't happen
Even with the two men engrossed in conversation?
-
Even with the two men engrossed in conversation?
The whole scene is wrong ... just doesn't make sense
Jane Tanner, on seeing Gerry, ( and according to her she passed him and Jez Wilkins within touching distance, remember ) did not offer a word of acknowledgement ? ... did not say, "hey Gerry, Kate is moaning that you've been watching the football" ... or maybe just a "hi" as she passed so close by
No ... she just silently passes her friend on the same pavement with no acknowledgement at all
Her friend ( Gerry ) so 'engrossed' in a conversation with Jez Wilkins failed to notice her at all ... a conversation that Jez Wilkins himself described as a simple 'chat' in passing, with someone he knew remotely from 'tennis'
Jez Wilkins, who, like Tanner, insists they were standing on the pavement outside the McCann's apartment has no recollection of anyone passing by as he and Gerry chatted briefly
None of it makes sense
... and as Judge Judy says : "If it doesn't make sense, it's probably not true"
-
The whole scene is wrong ... just doesn't make sense
Jane Tanner, on seeing Gerry, ( and according to her she passed him and Jez Wilkins within touching distance, remember ) did not offer a word of acknowledgement ? ... did not say, "hey Gerry, Kate is moaning that you've been watching the football" ... or maybe just a "hi" as she passed so close by
No ... she just silently passes her friend on the same pavement with no acknowledgement at all
Her friend ( Gerry ) so 'engrossed' in a conversation with Jez Wilkins failed to notice her at all ... a conversation that Jez Wilkins himself described as a simple 'chat' in passing, with someone he knew remotely from 'tennis'
Jez Wilkins, who, like Tanner, insists they were standing on the pavement outside the McCann's apartment has no recollection of anyone passing by as he and Gerry chatted briefly
None of it makes sense
... and as Judge Judy says : "If it doesn't make sense, it's probably not true"
Perhaps Jane didn't address Gerry because she didn't want to interrupt? She was also walking quite purposefully, one presumes, on the way to check her children, and didn't indicate, either verbally or in body language, that she wanted to stop for a chat - so she went un-noticed.
Nonetheless I agree with you that it is odd that neither Gerry or Jez remember her walking past.
What do you say actually happened, then? Did Jane get her timing wrong? This has been gone through so many times and it is hard to believe that she did...
I appreciate that Judge Judy is one of the most important thinkers of the modern age, but with respect to her, things that don't 'make sense' happen all the time. It is our inability to comprehend things, due to lack of information, that brings us to term something as not making sense. 'Crazy' things happen, behind which there is normally a perfectly good explanation - only that we don't know it.
-
Perhaps Jane didn't address Gerry because she didn't want to interrupt? She was also walking quite purposefully, one presumes, on the way to check her children, and didn't indicate, either verbally or in body language, that she wanted to stop for a chat - so she went un-noticed.
Nonetheless I agree with you that it is odd Gerry or Jez remember her walking past.
What do you say actually happened, then? Did Jane get her timing wrong?
I have no idea what 'actually' happened that night
But it didn't happen like they said it did ... because none of it makes sense
Not just the 'ethereal' passing of Jane Tanner up the street ... ALL of it ... the nonsensical 'checking' times ( sometimes only five minutes having passed between them ) ... the check that wasn't a check by Mathew Odlfield ( who conveniently did his 'non-check' in place of Kate ) .... the sick child that Russell O Brien had to bathe, before putting the washing machine on to do sheets ... the conversation Kate had with Fiona Payne almost as soon as she sat down, about Madeleine crying the night before ... the reheated meals because of prolonged absences from the table
The whole story ... none of it makes sense
-
I have no idea what 'actually' happened that night
But it didn't happen like they said it did ... because none of it makes sense
Not just the 'ethereal' passing of Jane Tanner up the street ... ALL of it ... the nonsensical 'checking' times ( sometimes only five minutes having passed between them ) ... the check that wasn't a check by Mathew Odlfield ( who conveniently did his 'non-check' in place of Kate ) .... the sick child that Russell O Brien had to bathe, before putting the washing machine on to do sheets ... the conversation Kate had with Fiona Payne almost as soon as she sat down, about Madeleine crying the night before ... the reheated meals because of prolonged absences from the table
The whole story ... none of it makes sense
I'm not so sure 'none' of it makes sense..
Jane Tanner not being seen by G and J -
Hard to explain, yes. But even harder to imagine it not having happened. If Gerry had wanted to fabricate an abduction, or spin some tale about what happened that night, surely he would not have denied Jane's claiming to have seen another man with a child. If on the other hand Gerry is innocent, her observation helps him also, by placing him in the street talking to Jez whilst witnessing a possible abductor. And I haven't read the files for a while, but presumably there are witnesses to Jane having left the table at the time she did; that she, G and J were all absent from the restaurant at the same time. So it is very possible that they converged when and where they did. Her description of 'bundleman' is also uncannily similar to that of the Smith family. If she, for her part, was fabricating something, it is an incredible co-incidence that the description she decided to give was so very similar to that of people she didn't know (we assume) and who did not report their sighting til long after they left the country.
The checking times -
Parents were concerned primarily with their own children and their own checking. The fact that the timeline was lumpy, with bigger and smaller gaps here and there, reflects this fact. The group as a whole were not necessarily trying to co-ordinate with each other - at least, that was not their main focus. Their main focus was when to do their own checks on their own kids.
Matthew Oldfield -
I don't see the purpose of this 'check' either.
The sick child -
What's so strange about bathing a child and washing the sheets?
Kate and Fiona Payne -
The McCanns have indicated before, between the lines, that they had reservations about their evening arrangements. Gerry says at one point, for example - will look it up - that dining in the restaurant and checking on the children had been a group decision, with which he did not feel entirely comfortable. Perhaps Kate is looking for reassurance from Fiona that the arrangement is OK? Just a thought.
-
I'm not so sure 'none' of it makes sense..
Jane Tanner not being seen by G and J -
Hard to explain, yes. But even harder to imagine it not having happened. If Gerry had wanted to fabricate an abduction, or spin some tale about what happened that night, surely he would not have denied Jane's claiming to have seen another man with a child. If on the other hand Gerry is innocent, her observation helps him also, by placing him in the street talking to Jez whilst witnessing a possible abductor. And I haven't read the files for a while, but presumably there are witnesses to Jane having left the table at the time she did; that she, G and J were all absent from the restaurant at the same time. So it is very possible that they converged when and where they did. Her description of 'bundleman' is also uncannily similar to that of the Smith family. If she, for her part, was fabricating something, it is an incredible co-incidence that the description she decided to give was so very similar to that of people she didn't know (we assume) and who did not report their sighting til long after they left the country.
The checking times -
Parents were concerned primarily with their own children and their own checking. The fact that the timeline was lumpy, with bigger and smaller gaps here and there, reflects this fact. The group as a whole were not necessarily trying to co-ordinate with each other - at least, that was not their main focus. Their main focus was when to do their own checks on their own kids.
Matthew Oldfield -
I don't see the purpose of this 'check' either.
The sick child -
What's so strange about bathing a child and washing the sheets?
Kate and Fiona Payne -
The McCanns have indicated before, between the lines, that they had reservations about their evening arrangements. Gerry says at one point, for example - will look it up - that dining in the restaurant and checking on the children had been a group decision, with which he did not feel entirely comfortable. Perhaps Kate is looking for reassurance from Fiona that the arrangement is OK? Just a thought.
Thanks for that very considered reply Sherlock
That's the point though .... the story told by the McCanns and their chums about that evening takes SUCH consideration ... it was only two hours afterall !
The point that really jars me though, is the insistance that an abductor struck at exactly 9.15pm
Why ?
Why is the story so 'exact' ? ... even to the point where Gerry has to say that the 'the abductor' was hiding behind the bedroom door when he looked in on his kids ?
It makes no sense I tell you ... it is just too 'precise' in every detail
-
Thanks for that very considered reply Sherlock
That's the point though .... the story told by the McCanns and their chums about that evening takes SUCH consideration ... it was only two hours afterall !
The point that really jars me though, is the insistance that an abductor struck at exactly 9.15pm
Why ?
Why is the story so 'exact' ? ... even to the point where Gerry has to say that the 'the abductor' was hiding behind the bedroom door when he looked in on his kids ?
It makes no sense I tell you ... it is just too 'precise' in every detail
'Consideration' is what it looks like from our perspective, Icabod.
We have spent hours pouring over the timelines. Those timelines, and the rest of the written information we have about that night, though coming initially from the McCanns and those in the Ocean Club, was processed by police officers and other officials; meticulously reproduced, then released for public analysis in all the various arenas we on this forum are familiar with. It has become a 'case'; a 'mystery' for us; a mystery with a lot of detail.
Go back to T9 in direct speech and they come across very differently. Not 'precise' at all:
The abductor struck at 9.15 because Jane Tanner reports that time. But when you see Jane Tanner on camera or look at the files, talking about the scenario as a whole, you see 'um, well, er, kind of, sort of, not sure, sort of sure, a bit this and a bit that....' and on it goes. The pink pyjamas sort of implied a girl. I 'never in a million years would have thought that it was Madeleine'. 'So you think...' this and 'you think...' that (using the grammatical second person as if to distance herself from her own words). Not precise at all! So perhaps the 9.15 itself was yet another approximation.
As for Gerry saying the abductor hid behind the door, I don't think he came to that conclusion for some time. It certainly wasn't part of his initial reporting of the night's events. It was only on reflection that he considered that the abductor hiding in the apartment would explain certain things. Not precise either - just a theory plucked from the air.
If anything, I would say that a lot of what happened that night - or what is understood to have happened - was not 'precise', as you put it, but has come to appear that way, under the external analysis and repetition to which we have subjected it.
-
'Consideration' is what it looks like from our perspective, Icabod.
We have spent hours pouring over the timelines. Those timelines, and the rest of the written information we have about that night, though coming initially from the McCanns and those in the Ocean Club, was processed by police officers and other officials; meticulously reproduced, then released for public analysis in all the various arenas we on this forum are familiar with. It has become a 'case'; a 'mystery' for us; a mystery with a lot of detail.
Go back to T9 in direct speech and they come across very differently. Not 'precise' at all:
The abductor struck at 9.15 because Jane Tanner reports that time. But when you see Jane Tanner on camera or look at the files, talking about the scenario as a whole, you see 'um, well, er, kind of, sort of, not sure, sort of sure, a bit this and a bit that....' and on it goes. The pink pyjamas sort of implied a girl. I 'never in a million years would have thought that it was Madeleine'. 'So you think...' this and 'you think...' that (using the grammatical second person as if to distance herself from her own words). Not precise at all! So perhaps the 9.15 itself was yet another approximation.
As for Gerry saying the abductor hid behind the door, I don't think he came to that conclusion for some time. It certainly wasn't part of his initial reporting of the night's events. It was only on reflection that he considered that the abductor hiding in the apartment would explain certain things. Not precise either - just a theory plucked from the air.
If anything, I would say that a lot of what happened that night - or what is understood to have happened - was not 'precise', as you put it, but has come to appear that way, under the external analysis and repetition to which we have subjected it.
oh I agree that there was nothing 'precise' about all the hemming and hawing from the tapas crew, but that is incidental in relation to the very precise narrative we have been fed from the begining
Jane Tanner saw the abductor at the 'precise' moment Gerry McCann was talking to an independent witness in the street we are relentlessly told
Why ? ... why are we relentlessly told that ?
Gerry McCann, himself, questioned Jane Tanner's powers of recollection when he contradicted her saying he and Jez Wilkins were on the same side of the street as her
If he genuinely doubted her recall ... in something as fundemental as where he and Jez were standing when she saw them ... how could he be so convinced that she was accurate about seeing 'precise' details of something /someone further away ?
Why didn't it occur to Gerry that Jane might have been mistaken ? ... that maybe the man she saw was NOT the abductor, and Madeleine was still safe in her bed at that point
Why did he not consider that Madeleine was still safe in her bed when Matthew Oldfield made his ( half arsed ) check 15 minutes later ( at 9.30pm ) and that 'the abduction' took place sometime after that ... between 9.30pm and 10.00pm when no-one was checking ? ... and that it was the Smith family who actually saw the abductor making off with Madeleine at about 10.00pm heading towards of the beach ?
Why is that possibility 'out of bounds' ... why did the McCanns not even consider it ?
Why must we accept the very PRECISE abduction theory presented by the McCann's ? ... what is the logic for it ?
-
Exaxtly Icab
Why MUST it have been at 9.15 and the man Tanner saw and NOT later and the man the Smiths saw?
-
oh I agree that there was nothing 'precise' about all the hemming and hawing from the tapas crew, but that is incidental in relation to the very precise narrative we have been fed from the begining
Jane Tanner saw the abductor at the 'precise' moment Gerry McCann was talking to an independent witness in the street we are relentlessly told
Why ? ... why are we relentlessly told that ?
Gerry McCann, himself, questioned Jane Tanner's powers of recollection when he contradicted her saying he and Jez Wilkins were on the same side of the street as her
If he genuinely doubted her recall ... in something as fundemental as where he and Jez were standing when she saw them ... how could he be so convinced that she was accurate about seeing 'precise' details of something /someone further away ?
Why didn't it occur to Gerry that Jane might have been mistaken ? ... that maybe the man she saw was NOT the abductor, and Madeleine was still safe in her bed at that point
Why did he not consider that Madeleine was still safe in her bed when Matthew Oldfield made his ( half arsed ) check 15 minutes later ( at 9.30pm ) and that 'the abduction' took place sometime after that ... between 9.30pm and 10.00pm when no-one was checking ? ... and that it was the Smith family who actually saw the abductor making off with Madeleine at about 10.00pm heading towards of the beach ?
Why is that possibility 'out of bounds' ... why did the McCanns not even consider it ?
Why must we accept the very PRECISE abduction theory presented by the McCann's ? ... what is the logic for it ?
I wouldn't expect anyone in those horrendous circumstances to immediately consider EVERY single possibility. All they knew to begin with was that the bedroom window was wide open and their daughter had disappeared - and that JT had seen a man hurrying away carrying a child. It would be over a matter of time that they would begin to consider other possibililties - e.g. that the perpetrator may have actually been in 5A when Gerry made his 9.05 check.
As for their accounts being too 'accurate' - I have to disagree. If JT and GM had got together and concocted the story of JT passing by GM and Jez - then the one thing Gerry would definitely have done IMO would have been to say that he HAD seen someone passing behind them - even if he'd said that he didn't take enough notice to realise who it was at the time. To claim that he didn't see her at all seems to defeat the whole object of this alleged 'cunning plan' and makes no sense at all to me.
As I personally have experienced a very similar situation - except it was in broad daylight, - where I was talking to a neighbour and we had no idea that another neighbour was passing by behind us - until that person drew our attention to his presence by speaking to us - then I have no problem in believing that this can happen.
-
But Jeremy Wilkin's did see Jane Tanner.
In his 3rd statement to British police (8th April 2008) he states:
“Q. Relative to whether I know Jane Tanner;
Jeremy Wilkins: 'Now I know her name, description of the clothes and photos which I have seen in the press. At that time I knew of her as a member of the group but did not know her name. I do not remember having seen her when I spoke with Gerry, but I believe I saw her when I first ventured out. She was stopped on the street in front of one of the group's apartments when I passed her down towards the exit to my apartment. I do not know if it was her apartment or not. I remember that she was wearing the colour purple.' “
Jes Wilkins first ventured out of his apartment between 8.15pm and 8.30pm.
I can only imagine she took it upon herself to lie about seeing the abductor at the time Jes Wilkins and Gerry McCann were talking in the street. But why did she feel it necessary to give Gerry McCann an alibi? Was it just misguided loyalty?
-
But Jeremy Wilkin's did see Jane Tanner.
In his 3rd statement to British police (8th April 2008) he states:
“Q. Relative to whether I know Jane Tanner;
Jeremy Wilkins: 'Now I know her name, description of the clothes and photos which I have seen in the press. At that time I knew of her as a member of the group but did not know her name. I do not remember having seen her when I spoke with Gerry, but I believe I saw her when I first ventured out. She was stopped on the street in front of one of the group's apartments when I passed her down towards the exit to my apartment. I do not know if it was her apartment or not. I remember that she was wearing the colour purple.' “
Jes Wilkins first ventured out of his apartment between 8.15pm and 8.30pm.
I can only imagine she took it upon herself to lie about seeing the abductor at the time Jes Wilkins and Gerry McCann were talking in the street. But why did she feel it necessary to give Gerry McCann an alibi? Was it just misguided loyalty?
Until someone can come up with a credible reason why Jane Tanner of all people in that group - i.e. the person who knew Gerry MCann least of all, would happily agree to perjure herself in the case of a missing child - as if it was nothing more than a casual 'favour' - then I simply don't believe she lied. The dire consequences of being found out were MASSIVE and could have resulted in her ending up in prison charged as an accessory. IMO she would have to be mentally deranged to decide to do something so risky - especially when she had absolutely no need whatsoever to get involved in the first place.
As she is obviously a normal, intelligent person and not suffering from any mental illness then the whole idea of her making such a gigantic and potentially dangerous decision to lie - in order to provide an alibi for someone who was actually just 'a friend of a friend' makes no sense at all IMO.
-
Gerry says at one point, for example - will look it up - that dining in the restaurant and checking on the children had been a group decision, with which he did not feel entirely comfortable.
Where did you find this ?
The only person who said she thought, before arriving, checks would be organised, one different parent staying behind every night, is Ms Tanner.
-
Until someone can come up with a credible reason why Jane Tanner of all people in that group - i.e. the person who knew Gerry MCann least of all, would happily agree to perjure herself in the case of a missing child - as if it was nothing more than a casual 'favour' - then I simply don't believe she lied. The dire consequences of being found out were MASSIVE and could have resulted in her ending up in prison charged as an accessory. IMO she would have to be mentally deranged to decide to do something so risky - especially when she had absolutely no need whatsoever to get involved in the first place.
As she is obviously a normal, intelligent person and not suffering from any mental illness then the whole idea of her making such a gigantic and potentially dangerous decision to lie - in order to provide an alibi for someone who was actually just 'a friend of a friend' makes no sense at all IMO.
Not only JW didn't see her, but mainly he didn't hear any flip flopping..
BTW from the Moyes' balcony two men and a push chair were only visible only if standing on the other side of the street.
-
Not only JW didn't see her, but mainly he didn't hear any flip flopping..
BTW from the Moyes' balcony two men and a push chair were only visible only if standing on the other side of the street.
What has any of that got to do with my post regarding the complete lack of any credible motive for Jane Tanner to lie?
-
oh I agree that there was nothing 'precise' about all the hemming and hawing from the tapas crew, but that is incidental in relation to the very precise narrative we have been fed from the begining
Jane Tanner saw the abductor at the 'precise' moment Gerry McCann was talking to an independent witness in the street we are relentlessly told
Why ? ... why are we relentlessly told that ?
Gerry McCann, himself, questioned Jane Tanner's powers of recollection when he contradicted her saying he and Jez Wilkins were on the same side of the street as her
If he genuinely doubted her recall ... in something as fundemental as where he and Jez were standing when she saw them ... how could he be so convinced that she was accurate about seeing 'precise' details of something /someone further away ?
Why didn't it occur to Gerry that Jane might have been mistaken ? ... that maybe the man she saw was NOT the abductor, and Madeleine was still safe in her bed at that point
Why did he not consider that Madeleine was still safe in her bed when Matthew Oldfield made his ( half arsed ) check 15 minutes later ( at 9.30pm ) and that 'the abduction' took place sometime after that ... between 9.30pm and 10.00pm when no-one was checking ? ... and that it was the Smith family who actually saw the abductor making off with Madeleine at about 10.00pm heading towards of the beach ?
Why is that possibility 'out of bounds' ... why did the McCanns not even consider it ?
Why must we accept the very PRECISE abduction theory presented by the McCann's ? ... what is the logic for it ?
Absolutely. An abduction around 21:45 would
give more time to the abductor to sedate or knock out (the McCanns' version gives him 2/3 minutes), steal silently in the darkness, lift up the shutters, open the window, open the door and close it behind (with Madeleine in arms).
explain why Mr Oldfield didn't feel any draught nor saw flying curtains,
resolve the highly implausible changes of direction of Madeleine carrying Facelessman
and avoid the unlikely figure of a first aider attributed to the abductor.
-
What has any of that got to do with my post regarding the complete lack of any credible motive for Jane Tanner to lie?
It's an answer to an anterior post of yours (sorry, I should have picked it up instead of yours about motive for lie)
Convictions don't allow debate.
-
It's an answer to an anterior post of yours (sorry, I should have picked it up instead of yours about motive for lie)
Convictions don't allow debate.
Then can I take it that you don't have a credible motive for Jane Tanner to decide to put her own life and that of her own children and their father at grievous risk of ruination in a foreign country - in order to give an alibi to someone she was not in any way close to - and had only met half a dozen times in her entire life?
Until someone can come up with a MOTIVE for her to resort to such desperate illegal measures, then all talk of flip-flops, distances, times etc etc are irrelevant IMO. First things first --- establish a motive.
-
Until someone can come up with a credible reason why Jane Tanner of all people in that group - i.e. the person who knew Gerry MCann least of all, would happily agree to perjure herself in the case of a missing child - as if it was nothing more than a casual 'favour' - then I simply don't believe she lied. The dire consequences of being found out were MASSIVE and could have resulted in her ending up in prison charged as an accessory. IMO she would have to be mentally deranged to decide to do something so risky - especially when she had absolutely no need whatsoever to get involved in the first place.
As she is obviously a normal, intelligent person and not suffering from any mental illness then the whole idea of her making such a gigantic and potentially dangerous decision to lie - in order to provide an alibi for someone who was actually just 'a friend of a friend' makes no sense at all IMO.
It's not possible to come up with a reason because we don't know what was running through her mind and we don't know if she had given any thought to the consequences if she had given a false alibi for Gerry McCann.
You're entitled not to believe that Jane Tanner lied. I'm not asking anyone to believe or to agree with me. Those are just my thoughts on account of Jeremy Wilkins saying he saw Jane Tanner when he left his apartment (between 8.15pm and 8.30pm) and that neither he or Gerry McCann saw her at 9.15pm.
-
It's not possible to come up with a reason because we don't know what was running through her mind and we don't know if she had given any thought to the consequences if she had given a false alibi for Gerry McCann.
You're entitled not to believe that Jane Tanner lied. I'm not asking anyone to believe or to agree with me. Those are just my thoughts on account of Jeremy Wilkins saying he saw Jane Tanner when he left his apartment (between 8.15pm and 8.30pm) and that neither he or Gerry McCann saw her at 9.15pm.
Q. Relative to the time I met Gerry McCann on the Thursday night of May 3, 2007;
As stated in my original deposition, I believe that I left the apartment around 20h30. I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15. I am aware of the importance of this hour and am also aware that the media announced our meeting time as 21h05. Even if this were correct, I have no idea from where such information originated. It is not possible to give you a more exact time.
Q. Relative to the exact location you met Gerry'
I left my apartment pushing my son's pram so that he could sleep. I did not have a particular direction to follow nor did I have a specific time to do this. I left the apartment and turned right. I walked via the lower street, looked to the building block where the McCann apartment was situated and saw a woman dressed in purple clothing. I referred to this woman in relation to the questions asked by Jane Tanner.
So Jez first saw Jane on her way to dinner! He left his apartment around 8.30 pm, not between (between 8.15pm and 8.30pm), as you stated!
Jane Tanner
The witness went for dinner at the Tapas restaurant at about 20.30.
-
Then can I take it that you don't have a credible motive for Jane Tanner to decide to put her own life and that of her own children and their father at grievous risk of ruination in a foreign country - in order to give an alibi to someone she was not in any way close to - and had only met half a dozen times in her entire life?
Until someone can come up with a MOTIVE for her to resort to such desperate illegal measures, then all talk of flip-flops, distances, times etc etc are irrelevant IMO. First things first --- establish a motive.
Not all of those involved in conspiracies are willingly. Just a thought. A hypothetical one.
-
It's not possible to come up with a reason because we don't know what was running through her mind and we don't know if she had given any thought to the consequences if she had given a false alibi for Gerry McCann.
You're entitled not to believe that Jane Tanner lied. I'm not asking anyone to believe or to agree with me. Those are just my thoughts on account of Jeremy Wilkins saying he saw Jane Tanner when he left his apartment (between 8.15pm and 8.30pm) and that neither he or Gerry McCann saw her at 9.15pm.
I agree that neither Gerry nor Jez saw JT when she passed. But IIRC Jez did not definitely identify the person he saw earlier as JT? I could be wrong about that and if so am happy to be corrected. None of the times given (except Gerry's time of 9.04) are claimed to be accurate - they are all approximations - which is why (off topic slightly) an accurate reconstruction is not possible to achieve - as there are so many different combinations of times that would have to be taken into account.
Maybe the person Jez saw was JT - and JT didn't see him, or maybe it was later than the time he gave and she was on her way to the restaurant. Who knows? But none of this explains why JT would decide to perjure herself in such a serious case. Also - can you honestly believe that her partner would allow her to take such a dangerous course of action? Not in a million years IMO.
-
You just found one motive right there, Benice. Her partner. Her children, another motive.
You've got to think outside the box. >@@(*&)
-
Her story may have been exaggerated by somebody else without her knowledge on that first night, and she finds herself right in the middle of it.
There are lots of possible explanations. Speaking hypothetically.
-
You just found one motive right there, Benice. Her partner. Her children, another motive.
You've got to think outside the box. >@@(*&)
Please explain the motive.
What could possibly be worse for your family than your being arrested for perjury and for being an accessory in the death/disappearance of a child and then having to face a jail sentence in a foreign country? And all for someone you hardly knew and had no reason whatsoever to even put on a par with - let alone massively ABOVE your own family ! Sorry but it simply isn't even remotely credible IMO.
-
....
So Jez first saw Jane on her way to dinner! He left his apartment around 8.30 pm, not between (between 8.15pm and 8.30pm), as you stated!
Jane Tanner
The witness went for dinner at the Tapas restaurant at about 20.30.
I combined his times because of his statements:
Statement one (07 April 2007): 8.15pm – 8.30
Statement two (31 October 2007): 'about 2015hrs;
Statement three (08 April 2008): 'around 2030hrs'
Hence my writing that he left his apartment between 8.15pm and 8.30pm
-
Please explain the motive.
What could possibly be worse for your family than your being arrested for perjury and for being an accessory in the death/disappearance of a child and then having to face a jail sentence in a foreign country? And all for someone you hardly knew and had no reason whatsoever to even put on a par with - let alone massively ABOVE your own family ! Sorry but it simply isn't even remotely credible IMO.
Will do Benice, l8r. But she didn't positively tell police it was Madeleine did she. Nigh on impossible to prove she didn't see something (as she may have of course).
-
I agree that neither Gerry nor Jez saw JT when she passed. But IIRC Jez did not definitely identify the person he saw earlier as JT? I could be wrong about that and if so am happy to be corrected. None of the times given (except Gerry's time of 9.04) are claimed to be accurate - they are all approximations - which is why (off topic slightly) an accurate reconstruction is not possible to achieve - as there are so many different combinations of times that would have to be taken into account.
Maybe the person Jez saw was JT - and JT didn't see him, or maybe it was later than the time he gave and she was on her way to the restaurant. Who knows? But none of this explains why JT would decide to perjure herself in such a serious case. Also - can you honestly believe that her partner would allow her to take such a dangerous course of action? Not in a million years IMO.
Jeremy Wilkins identified the woman in purple as being Jane Tanner. I will double check later on but I'm sure it's in his second and third statements.
I don't mean to sound as though I'm evading your question Benice, but I have no idea what her partner would or would not allow. I can speculate but that will only lead to further debates based on more speculation.
I will have to leave this now until this evening.
Jaci x
-
Then can I take it that you don't have a credible motive for Jane Tanner to decide to put her own life and that of her own children and their father at grievous risk of ruination in a foreign country - in order to give an alibi to someone she was not in any way close to - and had only met half a dozen times in her entire life?
Until someone can come up with a MOTIVE for her to resort to such desperate illegal measures, then all talk of flip-flops, distances, times etc etc are irrelevant IMO. First things first --- establish a motive.
I understand your point, Benice, and I agree that Ms Tanner for nothing on earth would have jeopardized her family life with no apparent reason but collaborating in a ridiculous staging. But I'm also sure she was very scared, she knew they shouldn't have left the children on their own.On this topic and unlike the McCanns, she was aware her daughter who was in a normal bed could wake up, see nobody and get out, this is why they locked the door, not to prevent an abduction.
As I said before, I believe Ms Tanner saw the carrier and I think she in fact saw his face. But I don't think she saw him at that time and in that place.
No, I don't think she lied because she had been asked to, she wouldn't have accepted that, I agree with you. There are cases in which a person consciously or inconsciously finds it's better not to say the truth. In that matter I don't agree with Kant.
Ms Tanner spontaneously tried to be helpful orienting towards abduction police officers who seemed to believe Madeleine had just wandered off. Once you've spoken of a sighting in such a dramatic case, it's too late to say you might have made a confusion (meanwhile you realized this wasn't a good idea after all). She didn't ponderate, how could she ?, when she first talked to the GNR T&T, what the AG and we observed : not only her improbable passing without being noticed but the unfeasable abduction in 3 minutes, etc.
-
Will do Benice, l8r. But she didn't positively tell police it was Madeleine did she. Nigh on impossible to prove she didn't see something (as she may have of course).
JT had no reason to think it was Madeleine she saw being carried away when she first saw her, but common sense alone dictates that the chances of it not being her - are miniscule IMO. Particularly as no-one has ever come forward to say it was them who JT saw. As soon as JT knew that Madeleine had disappeared the first thing she thought of was the man she saw carrying a child - and that was what she told the GNR when they arrived. To not have linked both occurrences would not have been normal IMO.
-
Not all of those involved in conspiracies are willingly. Just a thought. A hypothetical one.
These situations are very complex. I wonder what the famous HOLMES can make out of so many parameters and what about the emotions ?
Sometimes life places you in terrible double bind situations (paradoxical injunctions).
-
I understand your point, Benice, and I agree that Ms Tanner for nothing on earth would have jeopardized her family life with no apparent reason but collaborating in a ridiculous staging. But I'm also sure she was very scared, she knew they shouldn't have left the children on their own.
I totally disagree. They were mirroring the perfectly acceptable Baby Listening service which some members of the group had signed up to during previous MW holidays where the service operated. They had no reason to believe that what they were doing would be perceived by anyone as 'wrong'.
Surely this is proved by the fact that the first thing they told the GNR was that this was the method of child checking they were using. None of them made any attempt to hide that fact- either then or at any subsequent time - including Jane Tanner, so your suggestion that she lied because she was scared just doesn't stand up to scrutiny IMO.
(Must go out now. )
-
These situations are very complex. I wonder what the famous HOLMES can make out of so many parameters and what about the emotions ?
Sometimes life places you in terrible double bind situations (paradoxical injunctions).
Regarding Lyall's comment, #32 on this thread, we all know that a person can easily become embroiled in the most complex and difficult of situations through no fault or making of his or her own.
That being said, I find it hard to imagine that T9, or a number of T9, would have been able to hold a 'conspiracy' watertight until today. Would whatever it was that would have bound them together in secrecy in May 2007, voluntarily or not, still obtain today?
As for being in a double bind, as you put it Anne, T9 were of course concerned to support their friends the McCanns, but their ultimate loyalties lay with their own families. They had all left their children that night and were all culpable, at some level, for its events, and would have been concerned with shielding themselves against further investigation and terrified of any possible legal consequences to their actions. This, I would have thought, would have been the overriding factor, not any need to 'work' with the McCanns. The idea that they all scrambled together to agree on a cooked-up story, under extreme pressure of time, when instinct would be telling them to protect only themselves, doesn't add up.
-
Where did you find this ?
The only person who said she thought, before arriving, checks would be organised, one different parent staying behind every night, is Ms Tanner.
I am trying to find this, Anne. I have a feeling it is from one of the documentaries. Gerry mentions that the fact they were on vacation as a group put pressure on them to dine out together every night. He says that if they had been there just as a family, he and Kate would probably have dined in the apartment in the evening. It sounds very much like he is implying discomfort with the collective decision to dine out every night.
I also feel that his mantra-like insistence that dining far from their apartment was something that any parent would have done is an attempted masking of a sense of guilt. The idea that eating where they did was 'like dining in your garden' is clearly preposterous. Even with a very large garden or property with substantial grounds, people don't eat a long distance from the house.
-
Jeremy Wilkins identified the woman in purple as being Jane Tanner. I will double check later on but I'm sure it's in his second and third statements.
I don't mean to sound as though I'm evading your question Benice, but I have no idea what her partner would or would not allow. I can speculate but that will only lead to further debates based on more speculation.
I will have to leave this now until this evening.
Jaci x
He saw someone wearing purple... but he didn't know JT. How did he come to assume that it was her that he saw?
-
I am trying to find this, Anne. I have a feeling it is from one of the documentaries. Gerry mentions that the fact they were on vacation as a group put pressure on them to dine out together every night. He says that if they had been there just as a family, he and Kate would probably have dined in the apartment in the evening. It sounds very much like he is implying discomfort with the collective decision to dine out every night.
I also feel that his mantra-like insistence that dining far from their apartment was something that any parent would have done is an attempted masking of a sense of guilt. The idea that eating where they did was 'like dining in your garden' is clearly preposterous. Even with a very large garden or property with substantial grounds, people don't eat a long distance from the house.
This part I heard in some interview or documentary, yes. But no independent statement alluding to Mr McCann's behaviour during those Tapas dinners suggests discomfort.
Usually you don't dine in your garden very far from the kitchen (unless you have a specially equipped pavilion in your park), moreover if by chance your garden is separated in two parts by a street.
-
Regarding Lyall's comment, #32 on this thread, we all know that a person can easily become embroiled in the most complex and difficult of situations through no fault or making of his or her own.
That being said, I find it hard to imagine that T9, or a number of T9, would have been able to hold a 'conspiracy' watertight until today. Would whatever it was that would have bound them together in secrecy in May 2007, voluntarily or not, still obtain today?
As for being in a double bind, as you put it Anne, T9 were of course concerned to support their friends the McCanns, but their ultimate loyalties lay with their own families. They had all left their children that night and were all culpable, at some level, for its events, and would have been concerned with shielding themselves against further investigation and terrified of any possible legal consequences to their actions. This, I would have thought, would have been the overriding factor, not any need to 'work' with the McCanns. The idea that they all scrambled together to agree on a cooked-up story, under extreme pressure of time, when instinct would be telling them to protect only themselves, doesn't add up.
I never thought nor said it does add up...
But I always thought and said they didn't say all the truth and nothing but that.
And I find it legitimate to wonder why.
-
I totally disagree. They were mirroring the perfectly acceptable Baby Listening service which some members of the group had signed up to during previous MW holidays where the service operated. They had no reason to believe that what they were doing would be perceived by anyone as 'wrong'.
Are you kidding ? Mirroring a service that didn't exist in PDL for obvious reasons !
And since when nothing can happen, except for an abduction, to children left alone ?
-
Are you kidding ? Mirroring a service that didn't exist in PDL for obvious reasons !
And since when nothing can happen, except for an abduction, to children left alone ?
What do you say about the Pontins/Butlins method of a nanny cycling up and down the chalets to report children cyring, Anne?
J'attend ton avis <I await your opinion>
-
I never thought nor said it does add up...
But I always thought and said they didn't say all the truth and nothing but that.
And I find it legitimate to wonder why.
Maybe they didn't tell the 'whole' truth, if that is so, because they sought to protect themselves...quite natural.
That's very different from a grand cover-up.
-
None of them made any attempt to hide that fact- either then or at any subsequent time - including Jane Tanner, so your suggestion that she lied because she was scared just doesn't stand up to scrutiny IMO.
You are not these people, Benice, how can you claim Ms Tanner wasn't scared ?
Is somebody lying when he/she reports an hallucination he/she thinks was reality ?
-
You are not these people, Benice, how can you claim Ms Tanner wasn't scared ?
Is somebody lying when he/she reports an hallucination he/she thinks was reality ?
I don't have to be one of those people Anne. Common sense dictates that none of the group had any reason to suppose that adopting the Listening method of checking already offered in many other holiday complexes would be regarded as illegal - which is the only reason why they would have cause to be 'scared'. Common sense also dictates that if it was illegal it wouldn't be offered anywhere at any holiday resort at any time. Therefore they had nothing to fear - which was proved by the fact that they not only immediately told the GNR what they were doing, they also wrote down the timelines of their movements and gave them to the police in order to assist them.
Are you suggesting Jane Tanner was hallucinating? How bizarre.
-
I don't have to be one of those people Anne. Common sense dictates that none of the group had any reason to suppose that adopting the Listening method of checking already offered in many other holiday complexes would be regarded as illegal - which is the only reason why they would have cause to be 'scared'. Common sense also dictates that if it was illegal it wouldn't be offered anywhere at any holiday resort at any time. Therefore they had nothing to fear - which was proved by the fact that they not only immediately told the GNR what they were doing, they also wrote down the timelines of their movements and gave them to the police in order to assist them.
Are you suggesting Jane Tanner was hallucinating? How bizarre.
Regardless of the legalities here, I don't think that apartment 5A can have been considered to have been part of the OC complex, in security terms. It was not a self-contained resort with a clearly-defined perimeter and a professional security system. No security guards, not even operational CCTV. 5A - and a lot of the other apartments - fronted on to a public road, and 5A in particular was situated on an exceptionally vulnerable, corner spot.
That is not to say that the McCanns could have anticipated an abduction - though the fact that so many burglaries occurred on that block suggests keyholders in the locality - only that comparing the checking system carried out by T9 with an hotel listening service is false. A hotel / holiday chalets type arrangement, is a far more secure place, where perhaps a listening service could be considered adequate, and as such is often legal. Not so here.
-
Regardless of the legalities here, I don't think that apartment 5A can have been considered to have been part of the OC complex, in security terms. It was not a self-contained resort with a clearly-defined perimeter and a professional security system. No security guards, not even operational CCTV. 5A - and a lot of the other apartments - fronted on to a public road, and 5A in particular was situated on an exceptionally vulnerable, corner spot.
That is not to say that the McCanns could have anticipated an abduction - though the fact that so many burglaries occurred on that block suggests keyholders in the locality - only that comparing the checking system carried out by T9 with an hotel listening service is false. A hotel / holiday chalets type arrangement, is a far more secure place, where perhaps a listening service could be considered adequate, and as such is often legal. Not so here.
That's a reasonable point, but I think it goes further than that. It's not just the potential for burglary or abduction, it's the sheer incompetence of leaving young children alone in a strange environment where so much could go wrong in a short space of time.
I know, I know... it's all down to personal risk assessment and some think it's fine and others don't. Neither side will change the others' minds so it's almost pointless continuing the debate.
-
He saw someone wearing purple... but he didn't know JT. How did he come to assume that it was her that he saw?
In Jeremy Wilkins' own words from his statement given to the British police on 08 April 2008:
Q. Relative to whether I know Jane Tanner;
Jeremy Wilkins: 'Now I know her name, description of the clothes and photos which I have seen in the press. At that time I knew of her as a member of the group but did not know her name. I do not remember having seen her when I spoke with Gerry, but I believe I saw her when I first ventured out. She was stopped on the street in front of one of the group's apartments when I passed her down towards the exit to my apartment. I do not know if it was her apartment or not. I remember that she was wearing the colour purple.'
It's also in this same statement that Jeremy Wilkins mentioned seeing a tall Caucasian man with blonde hair in “rasta style” tied with a band instead of free flowing. He thinks he was with a woman but isn't sure.
Does anyone know if this man was ever identified?
-
Maybe they didn't tell the 'whole' truth, if that is so, because they sought to protect themselves...quite natural.
That's very different from a grand cover-up.
If they lied to police it is a criminal offence in itself
More importantly , though, it may have jeopardised the investigation ...which would surely be unthinkable, whether they wanted to 'protect themselves' or not
-
He saw someone wearing purple... but he didn't know JT. How did he come to assume that it was her that he saw?
The only other person, that said Jane wore a purple blouse, was Sylvia Batista!
-
The only other person, that said Jane wore a purple blouse, was Sylvia Batista!
Where does she say that please DCI? All I can find is:
"--- Questioned as to the clothing the members of the English group had worn that night she states
that she only recalls that Fiona wore a green blouse, that Gerry wore a dark shirt and that Fiona's
husband wore plain trousers, cream, she thinks."
Or have I got the wrong Sylvia Batista?
Only Jeremy Wilkins so far who said Jane Tanner was wearing the colour purple. I can't find anything that says he mentioned the type of clothing though. Where did you get purple blouse from?
-
If they lied to police it is a criminal offence in itself
More importantly , though, it may have jeopardised the investigation ...which would surely be unthinkable, whether they wanted to 'protect themselves' or not
I'm not saying that withholding information is not serious. But the reality is that 'decent' people break the law all the time, in all sorts of situations, if they convince themselves there is a good reason for it.
Not to make excuses for them, but T9 were under extreme stress, and probably not thinking completely clearly. Their fear for themselves and the trouble they may have got themselves into probably took over.
That's obviously completely irrational, because a big part of their trauma was caused by knowing that it could just as well have been one of their children to have gone missing, in which case they would have wanted the others to be as forthcoming as possible in an investigation. But we're irrational beings.
-
Maybe they didn't tell the 'whole' truth, if that is so, because they sought to protect themselves...quite natural.
That's very different from a grand cover-up.
Quite natural? Equally natural for people to disbelieve their stories as well, because I think we all know there's a reason why they were, are and doubtless always be so silent.
-
I believe that I left the apartment around 20h30. I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15.
Isn't that marvellous !
-
Quite natural? Equally natural for people to disbelieve their stories as well, because I think we all know there's a reason why they were, are and doubtless always be so silent.
And they're doing well to have remained silent all this time..
-
maybe its just ME but the whole bunch knew about tanners sighting even writing it down in the handwritten timelines thing and not going out to search in that direction? And why did any if them thnk we musnt tell gerry and kate incase it upsets them when they were already upset and KNEW their child had bee taken.... Wouldnt kate and gerry have thought why the hell didnt you mention this pdq???
Bizarre
-
Quite natural? Equally natural for people to disbelieve their stories as well, because I think we all know there's a reason why they were, are and doubtless always be so silent.
I don't think any of the Tapas 9 are evil persons, but I think they got caught into an evil situation. Once you start lying you get enthralled and it becomes more and more difficult to tell the truth.
I want to believe that Tapas 7 and the McCann became victims of their own fear and of the first lies they produced. But that doesn't excuse them, in particular the McCann, to destroy other people's lives.
-
And they're doing well to have remained silent all this time..
Don't you get that they were all "in on it" Sherlock? , <rolls eyes>
They did the sensible thing and tried to work out times, pinning them down to aid the Officers. Personally I would have been more suspicious if they had all matched and fitted perfectly.
-
I'm not saying that withholding information is not serious. But the reality is that 'decent' people break the law all the time, in all sorts of situations, if they convince themselves there is a good reason for it.
Not to make excuses for them, but T9 were under extreme stress, and probably not thinking completely clearly. Their fear for themselves and the trouble they may have got themselves into probably took over.
That's obviously completely irrational, because a big part of their trauma was caused by knowing that it could just as well have been one of their children to have gone missing, in which case they would have wanted the others to be as forthcoming as possible in an investigation. But we're irrational beings.
I quite agree with this. But how can it be helped ? Because effectively an investigation was hampered, suspicions on the parents were differed and the result is a complete mess and total frustration.
I don't doubt that then (I wouldn't swear they still do) they believed the little girl was abducted, it could have been one of theirs and they were lucky (a motive to try to be helpful).
-
And they're doing well to have remained silent all this time..
It must have been tough the first year but since 2008 who has asked them any questions other than us few online 'nutcases'?
It's a really bizarre case isn't it >@@(*&)
-
I don't think any of the Tapas 9 are evil persons, but I think they got caught into an evil situation. Once you start lying you get enthralled and it becomes more and more difficult to tell the truth.
I want to believe that Tapas 7 and the McCann became victims of their own fear and of the first lies they produced. But that doesn't excuse them, in particular the McCann, to destroy other people's lives.
It's the sorcerer's apprentice story.
I'm personally convinced that the origin of all this is a deny of reality (that I'm able to understand).
-
It must have been tough the first year but since 2008 who has asked them any questions other than us few online 'nutcases'?
The damages of saying all the truth are, they think, worse than keeping silent.
Up to now. Because they also have kids who will go on Internet.
-
why did any if them thnk we musnt tell gerry and kate incase it upsets them when they were already upset and KNEW their child had bee taken.... Wouldnt kate and gerry have thought why the hell didnt you mention this pdq???
Bizarre
This part I never understood.
-
The damages of saying the truth are, they think, worse than keeping silent.
Up to now. Because they also have kids that will go on Internet.
I do wonder exactly what makes some of you people tick !
Do you honestly think that a group of, not best or even close friends, (even my best friends would not cover up a fatal accident or crime for me) would help cover up a serious crime accident or not? As you point out, risk their children finding out, risk their careers, risk their families turning against them? Come on use your brain. 8-)(--)
-
I do wonder exactly what makes some of you people tick !
Do you honestly think that a group of, not best or even close friends, (even my best friends would not cover up a fatal accident or crime for me) would help cover up a serious crime accident or not? As you point out, risk their children finding out, risk their careers, risk their families turning against them? Come on use your brain. 8-)(--)
So why were they so silent, and why are they still?
They said "we can't talk because of the secrecy laws", but after those no longer applied they still said nothing.
-
So why were they so silent, and why are they still?
They said "we can't talk because of the secrecy laws", but after those no longer applied they still said nothing.
didnt one say we havea pact etc we know what happned that night or something similer??
-
So why were they so silent, and why are they still?
They said "we can't talk because of the secrecy laws", but after those no longer applied they still said nothing.
They don't have anything to "keep quiet" about. They told the truth as they knew it.
And if you recall in the early months Judicial Secrecy was bandied about a lot. Shame the PJ etc didn't always stick to it.
-
They don't have anything to "keep quiet" about. They told the truth as they knew it.
And if you recall in the early months Judicial Secrecy was bandied about a lot. Shame the PJ etc didn't always stick to it.
8)-))) Neither did anybody else when it suited them.
-
didnt one say we havea pact etc we know what happned that night or something similer??
Maybe you should read in here http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main%20Page
-
didnt one say we havea pact etc we know what happned that night or something similer??
Mr Payne said that I think Carly. Very early on in the case.
-
This part I never understood.
Exactly...maybe some supporter of the t9 can explain!
-
8)-))) Neither did anybody else when it suited them.
Like who ?
-
Don't you get that they were all "in on it" Sherlock? , <rolls eyes>
They did the sensible thing and tried to work out times, pinning them down to aid the Officers. Personally I would have been more suspicious if they had all matched and fitted perfectly.
I don't believe personally there was anything to be 'in on', but I do agree with you that it would be more suspicious for their statements to have matched.
Their timeline and personal statements have been analysed by many, including Heriberto Janosch on his website and on this forum, and the prevailing view seems to be that the discrepancies which exist in their accounts of events that night fall well within what would be expected in the circumstances: different people; on vacation not looking at their watches; distracted by their conversations and interactions with others; having consumed a certain amount of alcohol; going through fresh trauma on the night and still undergoing trauma of another kind whilst recounting events at a later date.
If they had decided to cook up a story, it would have been better put together, with as few ifs and buts as possible. Instead we have many 'flaws' - Gerry and Jez claiming not to have seen Jane Tanner when she witnessed 'bundleman' being one of them. If Gerry had asked Jane to collude in an account in order to protect him, he would not have denied her presence in witnessing an 'abductor'.
-
Like who ?
The McCanns spoke in TV and press interviews, and through friendly proxies (journalists, & ITV particularly) and in the Emma Loach film etc. Mitchell and McGuiness spoke for them - Rachel Oldfield spoke on radio, Jane Tanner on TV etc.
This is just off the top of my head.
-
Like who ?
Of course the biggest was their family speaking for them.
-
The McCanns spoke in TV and press interviews, and through friendly proxies (journalists, & ITV particularly) and in the Emma Loach film etc. Mitchell and McGuiness spoke for them - Rachel Oldfield spoke on radio, Jane Tanner on TV etc.
This is just off the top of my head.
From memory I don't think they said anything that could have broken the JS act though.
-
I don't believe personally there was anything to be 'in on', but I do agree with you that it would be more suspicious for their statements to have matched.
Their timeline and personal statements have been analysed by many, including Heriberto Janosch on his website and on this forum, and the prevailing view seems to be that the discrepancies which exist in their accounts of events that night fall well within what would be expected in the circumstances: different people; on vacation not looking at their watches; distracted by their conversations and interactions with others; having consumed a certain amount of alcohol; going through fresh trauma on the night and still undergoing trauma of another kind whilst recounting events at a later date.
If they had decided to cook up a story, it would have been better put together, with as few ifs and buts as possible. Instead we have many 'flaws' - Gerry and Jez claiming not to have seen Jane Tanner when she witnessed 'bundleman' being one of them. If Gerry had asked Jane to collude in an account in order to protect him, he would not have denied her presence in witnessing an 'abductor'.
I agree, smart people could have put together a better story.
-
They don't have anything to "keep quiet" about. They told the truth as they knew it.
And if you recall in the early months Judicial Secrecy was bandied about a lot. Shame the PJ etc didn't always stick to it.
They lied with all the teeth in their mouths. But it was only a 3 year old life that was at stake, so why bother telling the truth?
Blaming the PJ is a very comfortable way to dismiss the responsibility they all had towards their innocent, exposed to danger little children.
Bad luck one of those kids met a fateful ending.
-
They lied with all the teeth in their mouths. But it was only a 3 year old life that was at stake, so why bother telling the truth?
Blaming the PJ is a very comfortable way to dismiss the responsibility they all had towards their innocent, exposed to danger little children.
Bad luck one of those kids met a fateful ending.
A considered response from you Luz - NOT as usual. @)(++(*
-
They lied with all the teeth in their mouths. But it was only a 3 year old life that was at stake, so why bother telling the truth?
Blaming the PJ is a very comfortable way to dismiss the responsibility they all had towards their innocent, exposed to danger little children.
Bad luck one of those kids met a fateful ending.
and none of that would have occured if the mcanns had not tried to be socalites into their friends and they had been being responsible parents
-
and none of that would have occured if the mcanns had not tried to be socalites into their friends and they had been being responsible parents
Does that last paragraph make sense ?
-
From memory I don't think they said anything that could have broken the JS act though.
You would say that though. 8(>((
-
Does that last paragraph make sense ?
it does to me im saying if the mcanns had been responsible parents and been with the kids 24/7 ( after all they were3 kids under 4) none of this would still be being talked about now
-
From memory I don't think they said anything that could have broken the JS act though.
ITV made a programme that attempted to rubbish the police evidence. When had that ever happened before during an ongoing investigation?
-
ITV made a programme that attempted to rubbish the police evidence. When had that ever happened before during an ongoing investigation?
Both bbc and itv documentaries broke the judicial secrecy by the tapas 9 and and in another instance involving rachel oldfield being interviewed on radio......
-
maybe its just ME but the whole bunch knew about tanners sighting even writing it down in the handwritten timelines thing
The 'handwritten timelines thing' was actually TWO timelines which said slightly different things, but BOTH said that Jane Tanner had seen a man carrying a child away from Apartment G5A at about 9.15pm on 3 May 2007. These were written by Russell O'Brien within two hours of Madeleine's reported disappearance. Moreover, these 'handwritten timelines things' were written on the cover of a Sainsbury's Activity Sticker Book of Madeleine's, which one of the 'Tapas 9' (O'Brien or someone else) had ripped off. As this was Madeleine's own book, it is reasonable to infer that Gerry or Kate McCann gave permission or at the very least knew about this timeline being written on their daughter's sticker book.
On pages 328-9 of her book 'Madeleine', Kate McCann makes it plain that she remains 100% sure that Jane Tanner really did see a man carrying off Madeleine from her apartment. This makes it all the stranger that the McCanns' chief private investigator, Dave Edgar from Crewe, at a press conference in August 2009 called to discuss a 'Victoria Beckham-lookalike' who was said to have been asking about 'her new daughter' on a Barcelona quayside at 2am, said that Jane Tanner 'might have seen a woman'.
Kate McCann adds that the 'sighting' of a man allegedly seen by Irishman Martin Smith at about 10.00pm on 3 May 2007 carrying a young child may be another sighting of the abductor, probably making him the first abductor in world history to have wandered around a tourist resort for three quarters of an hour wondering what to do with an abducted child. Although Jane Tanner's description was of a man with 'long, black hair' while Smith said he had 'short, brown hair', Kate spends five pages of her book (pp. 328-9 and 370-2) strenuously arguing that it was the same man. As Kate herself writes (p. 328): "Who knows why there was a forty-five minute gap between the two sightings, or where this man might have been in between?"
In evaluating Jane Tanner's evidence, there are quite a few other factors for us to consider, including:
1) several changes in her story
2) more detail being provided in her second and subsequent statements (contrary to the general principle that memory fades)
3) her excessively rambling Rogatory interviews, full of 'erms', 'you knows', 'ums', 'sort ofs' and so forth
4) her adamant insistence on 13 May 2007 that Robert Muarat was the man she'd seen carrying away a child on 3 May 2007
5) her later denial in January 2008 that it was Murat that she'd seen
6) claiming that 'Cooperman' and 'bundleman' were probably one and the same, even though she admitted she'd never seen 'bundleman's face.
-
What do you say about the Pontins/Butlins method of a nanny cycling up and down the chalets to report children cyring, Anne?
J'attend ton avis <I await your opinion>
Rachel, shall I list all the horrible things that can, hopefully will not, happen when little children are left alone ? Do you want to wake up in the dead of night screaming ?
-
So no hearing of a chat in Francisco Gentil Martins and, mainly, no spotting of 2 men and a pushchair on the other side of the street.
Have you forgotten which side of the street they were on Anne?
-
Have you forgotten which side of the street they were on Anne?
I watched the documentary "Madeleine was here" and even Gerry McCann argued with Jane Tanner about who was standing where. The only person who seems to know for sure is Jeremy Wilkins who sketched a map and marked an 'x' outside the gate that leads to the McCann apartment for clarification.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/9of8-ecf89375.gif)
-
Just a small thing... I invite anyone to try and carry 'a bundle' even half the weight of an almost four year old child with arms outstretched in the manner endorsed by Jane. See how far you get...
-
This thread has gone off topic so to try and bring it back:
Hayley May Crawford, Bar Worker (Ocean Club)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HAYLEY-CRAWFORD.htm
When asked, the witness clarifies that on the day of Madeleine’s disappearance (03 May 2007) she was with her boyfriend at her home, situated in Lagos, saying that he, Nuno Conceicao, is also an Ocean Club employee, carrying out various maintenance functions in the resort But she says that, for this reason, her boyfriend is in permanent service, in other words that even when he has a day off he can be contacted in case it is necessary to carry out any type of maintenance service in any apartment or other installations of the tourist resort in question. In this way she explains that on the day in question (03.05.07) at around 20h30, her boyfriend was called as there was a problem with a lock in an apartment situated in the northern part of the resort, close to the Millennium restaurant and she had accompanied her boyfriend in her car from her home in Lagos to the apartment in question.
After her boyfriend had completed the service, at about 21H00, they went to the resort reception with the aim of her boyfriend collecting a service vehicle.
For this purpose, the witness and her boyfriend travelled in her car, a Peugeot model 106, metallic grey in colour, along various roads of the resort, having taken the road adjacent to the pool and Tapas restaurant area, passing by the apartment where Madeleine and her family were staying, according to what she was subsequently informed about the location.
When questioned, the witness states that when she travelled along the roads in question, which make up the resort, and principally those which she later learnt were adjacent to the apartment where Madeleine was staying and disappeared from, close to the Tapas restaurant, which she did at about 21H00, (03 May, 2007) the witness states that she saw no vehicle, person or other situation that she considered suspicious that could be directly or indirectly related to the facts being investigated.
When asked, the witness states that after her boyfriend had collected a service vehicle, from the Ocean Club reception, which took place at about 21H00, they both went to her home, but in separate vehicles, arriving at about 21H15.
The witness states that she was off work on last Wednesday and Thursday, as was her boyfriend.
At about 22H30, her boyfriend received another telephone call from a colleague, asking for a flashlight, as a female child had disappeared, to which he responded that he did not have one, both remaining at the witness’s home until the next day.
She only became aware of the events on Friday morning when she returned to work.
When asked, she states that has no knowledge of any individual or vehicle in the immediate areas of the resort whom she considered suspicious or who drew her attention.
As regards the disappearance, she states that she felt shocked, as it was the first time that anything like this had occurred at the Ocean Club.
Redblossom posted:
Here is another statement from the resident/owner of the flat two floors above the Mccanns holiday apartment, she too saw or heard nothing from her balcony around the time
Mind you IF an abduction took place it could have been so quick no one would notice even if they were there staring at the time....if nothing suspicious was seen
Question: This is a story you've followed incredibly closely because you were involved on the night; you helped the police and the family in looking for Madeleine, didn't you?
Susan Moyes: Yes, we did and, yes, very, very concerned... concerned for the family and followed it, every day... every day.
Q: Can you take us back to that night and... and what you were doing and when you first heard there was a problem?
SM: Sure. We went out for a meal about 7 o'clock, down in the town, we walked back about 9 o'clock, round past, errm... the... the church, round past the supermarket, back to the apartment, went out on the balcony about quarter past nine - everywhere was peaceful, everywhere was lovely - we then went to bed.
We were woken up at half past eleven at night by one of the friends of the McCanns to say 'a little girl' had 'been abducted'; those... those were the words used. So, we got dressed and joined in the search, we were out until about four in the morning with, oooh… about, I don't know, thirty people... thirty other people, maybe. The Mark Warner team were out, errm... and other guests at the Ocean Club.
And then there's Jeremy Wilkins who states that he saw Jane Tanner when leaving his apartment block between 8.15 and 8.30pm.
In his 3rd statement to British police (8th April 2008) he states:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
“Q. Relative to whether I know Jane Tanner;
Jeremy Wilkins: 'Now I know her name, description of the clothes and photos which I have seen in the press. At that time I knew of her as a member of the group but did not know her name. I do not remember having seen her when I spoke with Gerry, but I believe I saw her when I first ventured out. She was stopped on the street in front of one of the group's apartments when I passed her down towards the exit to my apartment. I do not know if it was her apartment or not. I remember that she was wearing the colour purple.'
Jes Wilkins first ventured out of his apartment between 8.15pm and 8.30pm.
I combined his times because of his statements:
Statement one (07 April 2007): 8.15pm – 8.30
Statement two (31 October 2007): 'about 2015hrs;
Statement three (08 April 2008): 'around 2030hrs'
In the documentary “Madeleine was here” Gerry McCann debates with Jane Tanner who was standing where. He said he was standing on the other side of the street to his apartment.
See the post above with the map sketch and 'x' marked to donate where Jeremy Wilkins said he and Gerry McCann was standing.
-
hi Jacinta, what relevance has Wilkins seeing Tanner at 8.30?
-
And then there's Jeremy Wilkins who states that he saw Jane Tanner when leaving his apartment block between 8.15 and 8.30pm.
In his 3rd statement to British police (8th April 2008) he states:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
Jes Wilkins first ventured out of his apartment between 8.15pm and 8.30pm.
I combined his times because of his statements:
Statement one (07 April 2007): 8.15pm – 8.30
Statement two (31 October 2007): 'about 2015hrs;
Statement three (08 April 2008): 'around 2030hrs'
I think you have the dates wrong, Jacinta?
JEREMY WILKINS HOLIDAY MAKER 07 MAY 07
JEREMY WILKINS MAKE 07 APRIL 08 ROGATORY
LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY
OFFICER'S REPORT
Date: 05/11/07
During the evening of Wednesday 31 October 2007, Jeremy and Bridget were visited at their home address by DC 1756 and DC 4356 from the Leicestershire Op Task team.
-
I think you have the dates wrong, Jacinta?
JEREMY WILKINS HOLIDAY MAKER 07 MAY 07
JEREMY WILKINS MAKE 07 APRIL 08 ROGATORY
LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY
OFFICER'S REPORT
Date: 05/11/07
During the evening of Wednesday 31 October 2007, Jeremy and Bridget were visited at their home address by DC 1756 and DC 4356 from the Leicestershire Op Task team.
You could be right DCI. I will check my notes and links properly on Monday and get back to you. I apologise if I'm wrong.
Redblossom, will also get back to you Monday.
-
You could be right DCI. I will check my notes and links properly on Monday and get back to you. I apologise if I'm wrong.
Redblossom, will also get back to you Monday.
You have 1st statement as 07 April 2007 8((()*/
-
You have 1st statement as 07 April 2007 8((()*/
LOL DCI, you're right about me being wrong regards the dates (insert blushing emoticon here).
I've now had time to check my notes against the link where I originally got the information from.
Correct information as follows:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id327.html
Statement of Jeremy Wilkins
Date 7/5/07
Our son was awake and unable to sleep. I decided to take him for a walk in his pram. I left about 8.15 pm – 8.30 pm.
From: DC 1756 Mike Marshall regarding Jeremy Wilkins and Bridget O'Donnell
Date: 05/11/07
Their son was unable to sleep so about 2015hrs ...
Testimony: Jeremy Wilkins
Date: 8 April 2008
I believe that I left the apartment around 20h30. I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15...
...I walked via the lower street, looked to the building block where the McCann apartment was situated and saw a woman dressed in purple clothing. I referred to this woman in relation to the questions asked by Jane Tanner.
...Now I know her name, description of the clothes and photos which I have seen in the press. At that time I knew of her as a member of the group but did not know her name. I do not remember having seen her when I spoke with Gerry, but I believe I saw her when I first ventured out. She was stopped on the street in front of one of the group's apartments when I passed her down towards the exit to my apartment. I do not know if it was her apartment or not. I remember that she was wearing the colour purple.
-
hi Jacinta, what relevance has Wilkins seeing Tanner at 8.30?
If Jeremy Wilkins saw Jane Tanner at 8.30pm but not when he was talking to Gerry McCann at 9.15pm, then it suggests that she might have combined the two in her statement. In other words, she didn't see them chatting but might have heard Gerry McCann saying at the table he bumped into Jeremy Wilkins. If she wasn't there at 9.15 then she could not have seen the abductor strolling across the street.
I don't think this is something that Gerry McCann asked her to do though.
DCI, I've replied to your post on the previous page ?{)(**
-
If Jeremy Wilkins saw Jane Tanner at 8.30pm but not when he was talking to Gerry McCann at 9.15pm, then it suggests that she might have combined the two in her statement. In other words, she didn't see them chatting but might have heard Gerry McCann saying at the table he bumped into Jeremy Wilkins. If she wasn't there at 9.15 then she could not have seen the abductor strolling across the street.
I don't think this is something that Gerry McCann asked her to do though.
DCI, I've replied to your post on the previous page ?{)(**
I don't think so Jacinta, he would have seen Jane on her way to dinner at 8.30. She went to dinner on her own, and returned to let hubby go at 9.15.
Q. Relative to the time I met Gerry McCann on the Thursday night of May 3, 2007;
As stated in my original deposition, I believe that I left the apartment around 20h30. I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15. I am aware of the importance of this hour and am also aware that the media announced our meeting time as 21h05. Even if this were correct, I have no idea from where such information originated. It is not possible to give you a more exact time.
Q. Relative to the exact location you met Gerry'
I left my apartment pushing my son's pram so that he could sleep. I did not have a particular direction to follow nor did I have a specific time to do this. I left the apartment and turned right. I walked via the lower street, looked to the building block where the McCann apartment was situated and saw a woman dressed in purple clothing. I referred to this woman in relation to the questions asked by Jane Tanner.
So Jez first saw Jane on her way to dinner! He left his apartment around 8.30 pm, not between (between 8.15pm and 8.30pm), as you stated!
Jane Tanner
The witness went for dinner at the Tapas restaurant at about 20.30.
No problem re dates, just that yours was April, not May 8((()*/
-
If Jeremy Wilkins saw Jane Tanner at 8.30pm but not when he was talking to Gerry McCann at 9.15pm, then it suggests that she might have combined the two in her statement. In other words, she didn't see them chatting but might have heard Gerry McCann saying at the table he bumped into Jeremy Wilkins. If she wasn't there at 9.15 then she could not have seen the abductor strolling across the street.
I don't think this is something that Gerry McCann asked her to do though.
DCI, I've replied to your post on the previous page ?{)(**
OK thanks for the reply Jacinta, but I doubt it personally. She specifically mentioned them in conversation at a specific place and at a specific time and walking past both of them, and she told her friends later that night about it, I doubt you get amnesia/clouded memories so quick.
-
I don't think so Jacinta, he would have seen Jane on her way to dinner at 8.30. She went to dinner on her own, and returned to let hubby go at 9.15.
Q. Relative to the time I met Gerry McCann on the Thursday night of May 3, 2007;
As stated in my original deposition, I believe that I left the apartment around 20h30. I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15. I am aware of the importance of this hour and am also aware that the media announced our meeting time as 21h05. Even if this were correct, I have no idea from where such information originated. It is not possible to give you a more exact time.
Q. Relative to the exact location you met Gerry'
I left my apartment pushing my son's pram so that he could sleep. I did not have a particular direction to follow nor did I have a specific time to do this. I left the apartment and turned right. I walked via the lower street, looked to the building block where the McCann apartment was situated and saw a woman dressed in purple clothing. I referred to this woman in relation to the questions asked by Jane Tanner.
So Jez first saw Jane on her way to dinner! He left his apartment around 8.30 pm, not between (between 8.15pm and 8.30pm), as you stated!
Jane Tanner
The witness went for dinner at the Tapas restaurant at about 20.30.
No problem re dates, just that yours was April, not May 8((()*/
I didn't state the times DCI, I copied them from the statements made by Jeremy Wilkins and DC 1756 Mike Marshal although I hadn't realised until checking my notes today that I'd originally mistaken Mike Marshal's statement as being that of Jeremy Wilkins.
So yes I agree, as Jeremy Wilkins twice states 8.30pm then that must be the correct time (ignoring the time stated by Mike Marshal).
Still, no one saw Jane Tanner at 9.15 which is why I'm wondering if she was really there at that time.
-
OK thanks for the reply Jacinta, but I doubt it personally. She specifically mentioned them in conversation at a specific place and at a specific time and walking past both of them, and she told her friends later that night about it, I doubt you get amnesia/clouded memories so quick.
I was suggesting she perhaps lied about seeing the abductor, GM and JW. According to Kate McCann's statement Gerry McCann mentioned bumping into Jeremy Wilkins on his return to the Tapas Bar after checking on the children so it would be quite easy to include that part to add more credence to seeing the abductor?
Kate McCann statement
04/05/07
Thus, at around 9pm, her husband went to the apartment to make sure the twins, as well as Madeleine, were OK, then he went back to the restaurant. Her husband said that the children were doing well and that he had bumped into the person with whom he had played tennis, a person who has two children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
September 6/2007
He'd met a tennis friend by the name of Jez, with whom he had a chat.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
With all that out of the way I'm giving up on this. Super sleuth I am not @)(++(* and will leave it up to the much better informed members of this forum ?{)(**
-
I was suggesting she perhaps lied about seeing the abductor, GM and JW. According to Kate McCann's statement Gerry McCann mentioned bumping into Jeremy Wilkins on his return to the Tapas Bar after checking on the children so it would be quite easy to include that part to add more credence to seeing the abductor?
Kate McCann statement
04/05/07
Thus, at around 9pm, her husband went to the apartment to make sure the twins, as well as Madeleine, were OK, then he went back to the restaurant. Her husband said that the children were doing well and that he had bumped into the person with whom he had played tennis, a person who has two children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
September 6/2007
He'd met a tennis friend by the name of Jez, with whom he had a chat.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
With all that out of the way I'm giving up on this. Super sleuth I am not @)(++(* and will leave it up to the much better informed members of this forum ?{)(**
Jacinta
Have just been reading the statements of Russell, Jane Tanners partner. Statements of 4th May and 11th May
From these, I think there is no doubt that Jane did, in fact, check their apartment at about 9.10 -9.17pm
I also think from Jerry and Jezes statements, there is no doubt that they did chat at that alleyway corner at about the same time.
So seems that your thoughts about Jane NOT seeing Gerry and Jez are ill founded.
I believe her that she also saw bundleman ... and that it was at about 9.15, give or take a few minutes.
-
Jacinta
Have just been reading the statements of Russell, Jane Tanners partner. Statements of 4th May and 11th May
From these, I think there is no doubt that Jane did, in fact, check their apartment at about 9.10 -9.17pm
I also think from Jerry and Jezes statements, there is no doubt that they did chat at that alleyway corner at about the same time.
So seems that your thoughts about Jane NOT seeing Gerry and Jez are ill founded.
I believe her that she also saw bundleman ... and that it was at about 9.15, give or take a few minutes.
It is simply not possible to say "there is no doubt" that Jane checked her apartment at 9.10 - 9.17pm
What is this 'undoubted' fact based on ? ... her word, and that of her mates ?
There are no independant witnesses who confirm it ... not even Jez Wilkins, who she says she passed in the street within touching distance of
There is very much 'a doubt' that the events Jane Tanner claims happened, actually did
-
It is simply not possible to say "there is no doubt" that Jane checked her apartment at 9.10 - 9.17pm
What is this 'undoubted' fact based on ? ... her word, and that of her mates ?
There are no independant witnesses who confirm it ... not even Jez Wilkins, who she says she passed in the street within touching distance of
There is very much 'a doubt' that the events Jane Tanner claims happened, actually did
Well Icabod, from your posts it is obvious that anything said by any of the Tapas party is to be considered untrue. Strange that the AG and SY dont feel the same
With your ultra suspicious mind, how come that Amaral and Co never tell any untruths? Why do you blindly follow what he says. Remember that he and many of his "crew" have criminal records. The Mccanns and CO are all free from any criminal convictions.
I do find it strange that you believe everything that a criminal tells you but refuse to believe the word of people who are free from any indicators of dishosety
I dont think that you can be much of a judge of Character t.b.h
-
Well Icabod, from your posts it is obvious that anything said by any of the Tapas party is to be considered untrue. Strange that the AG and SY dont feel the same
With your ultra suspicious mind, how come that Amaral and Co never tell any untruths? Why do you blindly follow what he says. Remember that he and many of his "crew" have criminal records. The Mccanns and CO are all free from any criminal convictions.
I do find it strange that you believe everything that a criminal tells you but refuse to believe the word of people who are free from any indicators of dishosety
I dont think that you can be much of a judge of Character t.b.h
I don't know why you have made that assumption ... I am no Amaral 'fan'
I have always said that the Portuguese investigation was deeply flawed
Not for the same reasons you do though ... my thinking in more in line with Lee Rainbow and Mark Harrison, whose intervention led to the Portuguese investigation becoming more 'police' driven than 'politically' driven
Too late by then though