Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB

[Vertigo Swirl]

Is that supposed to be relevant? The real evidence shows that a witness changed her story, but not why.

In my opinion, yes, because it explains exactly what is going on here.  To put it simply "making something out of nothing, in order to promulgate a conspiracy theory (in this case that Jane lied to help Gerry mcCann evade justice).

[Robittybob1]

No she didn't, but there's no doubt what she was saying;

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.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm

"Just up the hill"  - anyone should be able to tell whether they are walking uphill or not.

[Mr Gray]

In my opinion, yes, because it explains exactly what is going on here.  To put it simply "making something out of nothing, in order to promulgate a conspiracy theory (in this case that Jane lied to help Gerry mcCann evade justice).

And of course are being helped evade justice by powerful people...another essential part of conspiracy theory

[G-Unit]

In my opinion, yes, because it explains exactly what is going on here.  To put it simply "making something out of nothing, in order to promulgate a conspiracy theory (in this case that Jane lied to help Gerry mcCann evade justice).

It isn't nothing when a witness changes their story. Nor can it be assumed that the witness lied for some reason. A witness could simply change their story because they are convinced that their recall was wrong. Perhaps another witness convinced her of this?

I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm

Not Jes Wilkins then. His statement agrees mostly with Jane's. The odd one out is Gerry McCann;

After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw JEZ coming up the street on the opposite pavement bring with him a baby carriage with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction...
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

Gerry insisted that his version was correct and the other two witnesses were mistaken when making 'his' documentary. In my opinion it was Gerry who was wrong.

No conspiracy, just one man convinced that his version was right and two others were wrong.

[kizzy]

Let’s double check their position with Jane’s Rogatory Statement which she had months to get the “facts” straight.

No, I, phew, again, I would probably guess Gerry’s back was more towards me, because I would have thought if I’d have seen him I would have definitely probably stopped and said ‘Oh you’re in trouble, you’ve been long, we think you’ve been watching the footy’, you know, but. Because I think that’s almost when I went to acknowledge them, that’s almost what went through my head, you know, is to sort of give a bit of abuse about the fact he’d been so long, but. So I would imagine his, maybe his back was to me, but. And, again, in that way, that would make more sense, because I don’t know Jez, so it’s not like I would have gone ‘Oh hi Jez’, you know, that way, so. Yeah, I, I honestly, I can’t remember now which way they were. But I do, I stand by the fact I’m sure they were nearer than right over here.

Let’s see: she is “probably guessing” that Gerry’s back was towards her or she would have made a comment. Hmm...if his back was towards Jane, he would have seen a man right in front of him running off with his own child. Jane THINKS that’s ALMOST when she went to acknowledge them, that’s ALMOST what went through her head….so she would IMAGINE, maybe his back was towards her…yeah, that “WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE,” …yeah, “HONESTLY,” she can’t remember now, BUT, she does, “STAND BY THE FACT, I’m sure they were nearer than right over here.”

All of this lack of clarity in Jane's statement shows major signs of deception, of someone attempting to create a story. If it were simply true, she would not need to imagine any of it or develop the scenario as she is talking. Add to this, an odd comment in her original May 4, 2007 interview:

She (Jane Tanner) passed them KNOWING that Gerald McCann had already been in his apartment to check on his children.

This is a clearly impossible for her to state, yet Jane Tanner KNOWS that this is so. Since Jane claims to have left the Tapas quite soon after Gerry, there is no way she could know he had been in to see his children already or whether he had run into Jeremy Wilkins and simply got caught up in conversation and hadn’t yet gone in. We are talking about a matter of a couple of minutes; therefore, it would be highly unlikely Jane could know if Gerry had popped into the apartment already or not. For Jane to KNOW this, Gerry would have to have told her prior to her interview.

[Mr Gray]

As I recall Wolters was asked by SF...Do you have any evidence that CB was inside 5a..

Wolters response..

I'm not going to answer that....because that would lead to 100 other questions..


A simple ..no...would have resulted in no further questions...so was his answer ..Yes

[The General]

As I recall Wolters was asked by SF...Do you have any evidence that CB was inside 5a..

Wolters response..

I'm not going to answer that....because that would lead to 100 other questions..


A simple ..no...would have resulted in no further questions...so was his answer ..Yes

...or, that would be way more than just routine circumstantial evidence, that's confirmation and I'm sure they would have gone to the prosecutor with that.
Besides, if you apply logic, that simply cannot be the case. It was great when he showed his hand, because what he doesn't say is often more telling than what he does.
Simply put, if he had a video of him in 5a, then he wouldn't need to trace the mystery phone caller, as it would just be icing sugar. IMMHOO

[Brietta]

As I recall Wolters was asked by SF...Do you have any evidence that CB was inside 5a..

Wolters response..

I'm not going to answer that....because that would lead to 100 other questions..


A simple ..no...would have resulted in no further questions...so was his answer ..Yes

I think by declining to answer he spoke volumes.
In my opinion it means there was an answer which he could have given if he had wanted to but which would have led to a supplementary question and answer session which he didn't want,

[Mr Gray]

...or, that would be way more than just routine circumstantial evidence, that's confirmation and I'm sure they would have gone to the prosecutor with that.
Besides, if you apply logic, that simply cannot be the case. It was great when he showed his hand, because what he doesn't say is often more telling than what he does.
Simply put, if he had a video of him in 5a, then he wouldn't need to trace the mystery phone caller, as it would just be icing sugar. IMMHOO

I didnt say video of CB in 5a ...that would be proof. ...so your logic goeas out the window. CB likes to film his exploits. in his chatroom chat he said he would document his crime.


i'm explaining to those who doubt him how Wolters may have very strong evidence...if not proof...of abduction and death...but not enough to link to CB.

As I said months ago they would seek to trace his movements the day and the days after the crime. According to the latest article in the Sun..I know  we cant trust it....this is exactly what the latest trip to prtugal may be for. Looks like Im right on the money

[The General]

I didnt say video of CB in 5a ...that would be proof. ...so your logic goeas out the window. CB likes to film his exploits. in his chatroom chat he said he would document his crime

No, video is just video unless there's something definitively incriminating, doesn't matter where it is.
So the logic stands. IMOOOOHHHWW

[Mr Gray]

No, video is just video unless there's something definitively incriminating, doesn't matter where it is.
So the logic stands. IMOOOOHHHWW

Evidence ...or proof...of an intruder in 5a on the night of 3rd may is a bombshell. Remember where you heard it first

[jassi]

No, video is just video unless there's something definitively incriminating, doesn't matter where it is.
So the logic stands. IMOOOOHHHWW

Added to which, it was reported that all the videos had been downloaded from the internet.

[faithlilly]

The word is "documentary".

And as far as I am concerned your post merely confirms my opinion that you probably didn't grasp the concept that witnesses can be mistaken.

If I remember correctly ~ Jes didn't take part in the filming and if so what his opinion might have been when in situ during a reconstruction as Jane and Gerry were can only be speculation.

I think your comment regarding Gerry is risible and in my opinion is palpable in its antipathy for a person that you don't even know.
I find that most odd and quite mystifying.

We know that Jes and Gerry met and stopped to have a conversation.  Where in the street? does it really matter?

The important witness was Jane and the man she saw carrying a child away from the apartment block.  A scenario which immediately she heard of Madeleine's disappearance she associated with seeing Madeleine being kidnapped and she lived with that for a long, long time

Snip
Jane Tanner became the first of the McCanns' friends among the Tapas Seven to speak out publicly last night.

She told how she saw a man carrying a child at 9.15pm near the family's apartment on May 3, the night Madeleine vanished.

Jane, 38, said: "He had his face turned away from me, sort of sideways, and it was very dark.

"I just didn't see it properly. I wish to God I had.

"I wake up to that image every day. Every day I see him striding away, carrying Madeleine away.

"I try desperately to remember more detail, what his face was like. I think about it over and over.

"It's horrible. I didn't get a clear look at him. I registered his hair and clothes because that's what I could see.

"I have gone over and over that moment to try to remember more about him but I can't."
_________________________________________________________________________

She said: "My attention was drawn to the man because the child in his arms had bare feet.

"It was cold and I thought I would have had something on the child's feet, like a blanket.

"All I could see of the child was its legs and feet dangling. The man was 10 to 15 feet in front of me and was walking quite quickly.

"I never at that time thought it could be Madeleine."

An hour later, Jane was caring for her younger daughter, who had been sick in their apartment, when Kate McCann discovered Madeleine was missing.

Jane said: "I opened the door and saw all the commotion.

"I saw all our friends outside. One shouted at me 'Madeleine's gone.'

"The image of that man carrying the child came into my head and a feeling of complete horror washed over me.

"It seemed everyone thought Madeleine was hiding somewhere because they were all searching and shouting her name. I thought Kate believed that too. I knew if I told her about the man it would make her panic more.

"So I told another friend Fiona Payne. Fi was in such a panic shock I don't know if she took it in properly.
_________________________________________________________________________

 "At around 11.15pm two local policemen arrived and I told them immediately what I had seen.

"I described the man and the direction he was coming from and where he was going to.

Later I went to the police HQ to give a formal statement. It was then that I remembered the child's pyjamas were pink and white.

"I didn't know it then but they were what Madeleine was wearing. When I did find out I was totally stricken by guilt.

"I felt I could have stopped it all happening.

"Kate and Gerry have told me I shouldn't feel like that but the guilt will never go away."
_________________________________________________________________________

Jane explained why she decided to speak out. She said: "There have been so many lies printed about us, that we are 'covering up' for Kate and Gerry or that we keep wanting to change our statements.

"Now I feel it has got to the point that these untruths are jeopardising the hunt for Madeleine

"People might think that it was all made up. That's why I am speaking now, for Madeleine's sake.

"I did see a man that night carrying away Madeleine, she WAS abducted.
_________________________________________________________________________

"Kate and Gerry are doting parents. To make them suspects is horrific.

"They had absolutely nothing to do with Madeleine going.

"We were there. There was no opportunity for them to hide a body, as has been suggested, or any of the other ridiculous accusations.

"I just wish people would concentrate of what is important and that is finding Madeleine.

"All the lies and the slating have been totally unbearable for us. I can't even begin to imagine what it has been like for Kate and Gerry.


"I marvel at how they keep going. What does it, I think, is their total, unshakeable belief that they will get Madeleine back."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccann-pals-guilt-522326



Yet here we are thirteen+ years down the line and still I think there are those who have missed the point Jane made so forcibly all those year ago
"I just wish people would concentrate of what is important and that is finding Madeleine."

And I think it is only adding insult to injury to assert that Jane was distraught for any other reason than reliving the trauma of witnessing a child being carried away.

As long as we have freedom of speech I’ll call the mockumentary what I please.

And while yes it does matter where Gerry said he stood, for all the details I have laid out above, 12 years ago the parent’s own detectives said in their report that they didn’t believe that the Tanner sighting was important, a sentiment mirrored by OG five years later when they identified Tannerman and ruled him out of their investigation. Inexplicably you still find the sighting important. Why ?

Further I’m afraid I cannot take seriously someone who reprimands members for not focusing on finding Madeleine while also trying to convince them that the child has been the victim of a vicious paedophile.

[Mr Gray]

Added to which, it was reported that all the videos had been downloaded from the internet.

I think you are referring to the ones used at his trial...not the ones found under his dead dog. the ones that Wolyers refused to discuss as to what was on them

[The General]

Evidence ...or proof...of an intruder in 5a on the night of 3rd may is a bombshell. Remember where you heard it first

....and last.