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

[Brietta]

You say....’ shame on you, you should be focused on finding Madeleine ‘.... yet think the German police are pulling out all the stops to convict the paedophile who...did what ? Took her to a lovely, childless couple ? How do you square that circle ?

I think that you may be making it up as you go along yet again ~ unless you can cite where you allege I said 'shame on you, you should be focused on finding Madeleine ‘.

I quoted Jane Tanner who as a result of the nastiness and abuse directed at Kate and Gerry said, "I just wish people would concentrate of what is important and that is finding Madeleine."

I await your cite.  Thank you

[Eleanor]

You say....’ shame on you, you should be focused on finding Madeleine ‘.... yet think the German police are pulling out all the stops to convict the paedophile who...did what ? Took her to a lovely, childless couple ? How do you square that circle ?

The could depend on how much money Brueckner might have got for Madeleine.

[Mr Gray]

Ah lol ...just the bits that suit you eh D.


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

But it looks like they haven't got what it takes to go ...proof CB was the so-called abducter or are going to get it .

Thats why i sqaid i know we cant trust the SUn...but..

If its  a portuguese source they may well know that a request has been made to come to portugal and to a certain extent why. what we also know is taht the portuguese dont know what evidence the Germans have....so we can take it with a pinch of salt when they claim they do. All we  are seeeing here is sour grapes from the PJ because they are totally embarrassed at being made to look stupid by the Germans.

Just think how they will feel if the Germas solve it

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

Great, glad that's sorted then, so no conspiracy, no deception, just a pig-headed typical male who always thinks he's right, so why are we even discussing this 13 years later?

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

You didn't write that - who did?

[Brietta]

You didn't write that - who did?

Could it possibly have originated here ?


Pat Brown: The Daily Profiler

Monday, February 20, 2012

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: How Jane Tanner got Lost in a Crowd on an Empty Street

https://themaddiecasefiles.com/pat-brown-topic-of-the-day-how-jane-tanner-got-20--t17695.html

[Vertigo Swirl]

Could it possibly have originated here ?


Pat Brown: The Daily Profiler

Monday, February 20, 2012

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: How Jane Tanner got Lost in a Crowd on an Empty Street

https://themaddiecasefiles.com/pat-brown-topic-of-the-day-how-jane-tanner-got-20--t17695.html

say no more.

[Erngath]

say no more.

It is tempting though.

[Robittybob1]

You have to state IMHO, or AYOMBA, or somesuch.

as in "I think", a variant of the more usual IMO.

[G-Unit]

Great, glad that's sorted then, so no conspiracy, no deception, just a pig-headed typical male who always thinks he's right, so why are we even discussing this 13 years later?

No, Gerry admitted twice that he was wrong. He was wrong when he said he used the front door for his check, and he was wrong when he said David Payne went off from the tennis courts for 30 minutes.

If he had used the front door, then not only could he have bumped into Jes before he drew level with the gate, it might explain why both the other witnesses thought he was returning from his check.

[Mr Gray]

No, Gerry admitted twice that he was wrong. He was wrong when he said he used the front door for his check, and he was wrong when he said David Payne went off from the tennis courts for 30 minutes.

If he had used the front door, then not only could he have bumped into Jes before he drew level with the gate, it might explain why both the other witnesses thought he was returning from his check.

im aware of the first one and from what i read Gerry never admitted he was wrong. He pointed out  a mistake in the statement imo...that may well have been made by the translator

[faithlilly]

I think that you may be making it up as you go along yet again ~ unless you can cite where you allege I said 'shame on you, you should be focused on finding Madeleine ‘.

I quoted Jane Tanner who as a result of the nastiness and abuse directed at Kate and Gerry said, "I just wish people would concentrate of what is important and that is finding Madeleine."

I await your cite.  Thank you

I was paraphrasing of course but it would probably be quicker to list the posts of yours that don’t contain the sentiment detailed in my post.

[faithlilly]

im aware of the first one and from what i reda Gerry never admitte dhe was wrong. He pointed out  amistake in teh staeemnt imo...that may well have been made by tyhe translator

Read his second statement, it is obvious that was admitting a mistake.

[Mr Gray]

Read his second statement, it is obvious that was admitting a mistake.

Second statement made on the tenth...do you have a link to so called mistake

[Vertigo Swirl]

No, Gerry admitted twice that he was wrong. He was wrong when he said he used the front door for his check, and he was wrong when he said David Payne went off from the tennis courts for 30 minutes.

If he had used the front door, then not only could he have bumped into Jes before he drew level with the gate, it might explain why both the other witnesses thought he was returning from his check.

Why have you shifted the discussion to something else?  We were talking about his position in the road, about which you have suggested he was wrong, and stubbornly refused to accept it.