The reports of a man seen walking with a child in his arms

[John]

This thread has been edited and retitled to reflect the discussion.

[stephen25000]

I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.

I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?

Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?

They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.

Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.

Placing socializing over their children's' safety.

Really?
Even if I were to concede that one member of that group was having those thoughts. There is no way that it is even conceivable, that all of them were.
Where has this ever happened before?

Spot on Sika   

Getting an entire group to agree to concoct such a serious lie and then to stick to it would have been a recipe for disaster never mind the tapas staff...were they to be in on it too?   Quite ridiculous.

Sometime I wonder if people actually read what they write? 

It is quite clear to me that some people do not read either what they write or what others write. They have a fixed view and nothing will get in the way of that, not even reality or common sense.

or perhaps you cannot see the blatantly obvious.

Child neglect charges would have resulted in them failing the CRB check.

Perhaps you should do some research.

If you were employed in a profession where you had contact with children, and you were charged and/or convicted with child neglect....

Career over.

[John]

Both careers over in this case?

[stephen25000]

Both careers over in this case?

It would depend on the circumstances, but with the emphasis today with the CRB check, quite possibly.

[gilet]

I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.

I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?

Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?

They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.

Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.

Placing socializing over their children's' safety.

Really?
Even if I were to concede that one member of that group was having those thoughts. There is no way that it is even conceivable, that all of them were.
Where has this ever happened before?

Spot on Sika   

Getting an entire group to agree to concoct such a serious lie and then to stick to it would have been a recipe for disaster never mind the tapas staff...were they to be in on it too?   Quite ridiculous.

Sometime I wonder if people actually read what they write? 

It is quite clear to me that some people do not read either what they write or what others write. They have a fixed view and nothing will get in the way of that, not even reality or common sense.

or perhaps you cannot see the blatantly obvious.

Child neglect charges would have resulted in them failing the CRB check.

Perhaps you should do some research.

If you were employed in a profession where you had contact with children, and you were charged and/or convicted with child neglect....

Career over.

But you have completely missed the entire point.

They immediately admitted to the media and the police precisely what you are pretending they tried to cover up.

They were totally up front about the child care arrangements.

How you can then pretend that they were covering it up to avoid losing their jobs is simply beyond me.

Not one of the entire Tapas group made the slightest effort to cover up the child care arrangements. It is strange that you haven't yet noticed that simple but glaringly obvious fact.

[registrar]

the child care arrangements will always be the rod for the detractors to beat Gerry&Kate with

In the words of the Beatles - 'Let it be'

They cocked up on that front - and admitted to it - end of

Why all that hatred of G&K???

Tall poppy syndrome I guess - 'it should have been me in front of those cameras'

The fact they got proper A-levels and pursued careers in the caring profession - neither of them from priviliged
backgrounds

The detractors should take a long and hard look at their own lives

Instead of lobbing stones at other peep's glass houses

Envy is ugly

[Chinagirl]

Good points, Registrar.  How anyone could envy parents who have suffered the loss of a child completely beats me ....

[faithlilly]

Now back to the subject at hand. Gerry in the Channel 4 documentary Madeleine Was Here states categorically, and to the detriment of his own eyewitness Tanner, that he was standing on the opposite side of the road from the apartment when speaking to Jez Wilkins yet in the 10th of May timeline handed to the PJ and which was  compiled and agreed by the whole tapas group,including Gerry this is claimed :

'2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed. '

This document was in English and therefore the discrepancy can't, this time, be put down to translation errors. It also concurs exactly with Jez Wilkins recollection of the meeting.

So when and why did Gerry's memory of the event change so radically ?

[Carana]

I'm slowly reading many interesting threads.

Some of you may find the following interesting.


It concerns a research experiment on witness memory recall involving the police, the police and Open University... And unsuspecting witnesses to a "crime".

 news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8617945.stm

[sika]

Question for Hidehi, I think that the sightings by the Smiths and Mrs Tanner are compelling.
For the umpteenth time, what are your views on these?

[John]

Mr Smiths sighting of a man whom he took to be Gerry is obviously wrong unless of course he has the ability to be in two places at the same time at precisely 10pm.

[sika]

Mr Smiths sighting of a man whom he took to be Gerry is obviously wrong unless of course he has the ability to be in two places at the same time at precisely 10pm.

Precisely. How likely is it that the man spotted was innocent, yet failed to come forward?

[John]

Mr Smiths sighting of a man whom he took to be Gerry is obviously wrong unless of course he has the ability to be in two places at the same time at precisely 10pm.

Precisely. How likely is it that the man spotted was innocent, yet failed to come forward?

Having a knowledge of these small Iberian villages I fail to see why anyone would fail to come forward in such terrible circumstances if they were an innocent.

[gilet]

Question for Hidehi, I think that the sightings by the Smiths and Mrs Tanner are compelling.
For the umpteenth time, what are your views on these?

On another thread in the video area Hideho has made it clear that she does not believe these sightings and statements constitute evidence of an abduction as she claims there is no evidence of abduction anywhere.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1134.msg31932#msg31932

[sika]

Mr Smiths sighting of a man whom he took to be Gerry is obviously wrong unless of course he has the ability to be in two places at the same time at precisely 10pm.

Precisely. How likely is it that the man spotted was innocent, yet failed to come forward?

Having a knowledge of these small Iberian villages I fail to see why anyone would fail to come forward in such terrible circumstances if they were an innocent.

I mean, he couldn't have failed to hear of the police appeal, surely.