The Case, so far...

[AfterMidnight]

I agree with you. When Kate said: "At worst we were naive." (see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/26/wmaddy26.xml) it was a real turning point for me. Their refusal to take responsibility for the part they played in Maddie's dissapearance has always been very telling to me. It has tainted my view of them in everything else they do or say.

Yes, I'm sure that happened to many people here. While I don't agree with leaving the children alone, I don't believe it means they are murderers. Maybe my view hasn't become tainted enough.

The bolding on the quote is mine.

 

[ThoughtFox]

Many of us have learned through reading alot of these crimes that you don't need twenty things to make you suspicious. All it takes is one or two that raise your eyebrows.

If you get beyond one or two things that surprise you, then something is going on that shouldn't be, and I don't see that as being cynical or tainted, but realistic.

 

[AfterMidnight]

Many of us have learned through reading alot of these crimes that you don't need twenty things to make you suspicious. All it takes is one or two that raise your eyebrows.

If you get beyond one or two things that surprise you, then something is going on that shouldn't be, and I don't see that as being cynical or tainted, but realistic.

I've spent the last 50 years reading, researching, and living with this stuff. I agree you don't need a lot to make you suspicious, but suspicion isn't proof of guilt.

One thing I did learn is things usually aren't what they seem unless the perp is a total idiot, ala Petersen and a myriad of other killer hubbies. All that glitters is not gold and all that stinks isn't a swamp. Some of this stuff is so convoluted that no one in their right mind could even imagine it. I'm beginning to wonder if this case isn't one of them.

Bolding is mine.

 

[ThoughtFox]

Peterson fooled a heck of alot of people - trust me on that one. He was not a total idiot, or he didn't appear that way. From the outside he and Laci seemed a perfect couple working on the American Dream. People were convinced he was innocent, and that he never would have hurt his wife and baby. The truth in that case was stranger than fiction and it kept getting weirder as time went on.

People can say that the McCann's are typical, normal, moral people, and far too "rational" to do anything with the body of their own child.

The trouble is, people are not always rational. To me that's the basis of crime in general. The McCanns are intelligent, educated, attractive, and mostly logical people. But that does not mean they can't have irrational moments. They are human and have weaknesses so you can't just go by appearances.

 

[CaliKid]

Peterson fooled a heck of alot of people - trust me on that one. He was not a total idiot, or he didn't appear that way. From the outside he and Laci seemed a perfect couple working on the American Dream. People were convinced he was innocent, and that he never would have hurt his wife and baby. The truth in that case was stranger than fiction and it kept getting weirder as time went on.

People can say that the McCann's are typical, normal, moral people, and far too "rational" to do anything with the body of their own child.

The trouble is, people are not always rational. To me that's the basis of crime in general. The McCanns are intelligent, educated, attractive, and mostly logical people. But that does not mean they can't have irrational moments. They are human and have weaknesses so you can't just go by appearances.

Agreed. All it takes is one very small mistake that you didn't intend to make that will have enormous consequences if it's found out, and your panicked gut reaction is to cover it up. One lie has to follow another to keep the truth from being known, and soon you've created a house of cards that threatens to topple to the ground. That's what I think the McCanns did.

 

[gord]

In the interest of justice and fairness, innocent until proven guilty and all that, I will consider for a moment that Madeleine was snatched to order by an elite paedophile ring, (an accident waiting to happen) and the parents are not guilty of anything other than gross stupidity. If this was the case there would be no evidence of abduction because it would be covered-up at the highest levels, to protect politicians and police. Potential witnesses can be intimidated, or worse. The McCann’s would be an easy target to implicate due to their hedonistic lifestyle. They were then manipulated by rich and powerful people. If spooks had access to the body they could plant forensic materials.

The trouble with this theory is it would require everyone from the PJ in Portugal to the FSS in Birmingham to collaborate. It would then be imperative for the British establishment and media to put the McCann’s firmly in the frame and make them hate figures. That would have been easy enough to do, the public already treat them with contempt (see Mirror Forums) when they have been painted as pure as the driven snow, imagine the vilification if their names had been dragged through the mud! But the reverse is true... the press publish ‘fairy stories’ to exonerate them. If they were to be stitched up, why did it take the CID so long to make them formal suspects?

Of course, none of this explains the McCann’s bizarre behaviour in the absence of their daughter. If you want one specific irregularity, consider the fact that neither of them has ever addressed their missing child directly through the media. Apparently the FBI treats this as an indication of the parent’s guilt. On one occasion, when prompted by a reporter, who asked what would you say to Madeleine if she was listening? Kate said, “Only that we love you, but she already knows that.” She didn’t look into the camera, choke-up, or break-down, in what should have been a gut-wrenching moment. As much as I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, their actions betray them.

I dont think anyone has suggested such a complex scenario where politicians and such a high level over up

what is wrong with two lone paedophiles who snatched Madelnine themselves ?

 

[Dr. Creepin]

It has been suggested by Gerry that she was snatched to order by a paedophile ring, which often involves influential people, as in the Dutroux case in Belgium.

quote: what is wrong with two lone paedophiles who snatched Madelnine themselves ?

There is not a shred of evidence to substantiate this. However, there is circumstantial evidence implicating the parents.

 

[gord]

It has been suggested by Gerry that she was snatched to order by a paedophile ring, which often involves influential people, as in the Dutroux case in Belgium.

quote: what is wrong with two lone paedophiles who snatched Madelnine themselves ?

There is not a shred of evidence to substantiate this. However, there is circumstantial evidence implicating the parents.

yes I have thought about the Dutroux - I can buy that it might be a paedophile ring - but high level conspiracies with infleuntial people in this case I think is to far IMO .

Isnt that the thing though with missing children suspected to be taken by strangers - there usualy just no evidence - the child just dissapears - I wonder how many cold case are out there .

 

[gord]

Itthemselves ?

There is not a shred of evidence to substantiate this. However, there is circumstantial evidence implicating the parents.

I have asked this before in other threads ( not to you directly but in general ) - I will go with it again

The Tanner statement that she saw something that night - somewhere after 9.05 - do you completely diregard this as a lie ?

I know some people think that Tanner and O Brien are implicated .

BUT - if they are not - why would she lie - make things up . It is the ONLY eyewitness we have from that night - that includes Tapas / staff / anyone - about anything that happened . I mean a little girl possibly got murdered and hidden /disposed of - an noone saw anything . not a bean - except Tanner .

 

[Maryam]

I have asked this before in other threads ( not to you directly but in general ) - I will go with it again

The Tanner statement that she saw something that night - somewhere after 9.05 - do you completely diregard this as a lie ?

I know some people think that Tanner and O Brien are implicated .

BUT - if they are not - why would she lie - make things up . It is the ONLY eyewitness we have from that night - that includes Tapas / staff / anyone - about anything that happened . I mean a little girl possibly got murdered and hidden /disposed of - an noone saw anything . not a bean - except Tanner .

Tanners word doesn't count more than Jeremy Wilkins' word. He was walking his baby son at the same time and the same place Tanner said she saw the "Bundle-man". He did not see anything at all. Neither did Gerry, who was standing there talking to Wilkins some minutes earlier. None of them saw Tanner either, btw.

 

[docwho3]

Tanners word doesn't count more than Jeremy Wilkins' word. He was walking his baby son at the same time and the same place Tanner said she saw the "Bundle-man". He did not see anything at all. Neither did Gerry, who was standing there talking to Wilkins some minutes earlier. None of them saw Tanner either, btw.

To readers:
Does that suggest anything about tanner and/or tanners whereabouts if tanner was not seen? Or does it simply mean that only one out of three people there was actually paying attention to certain things? Or does it imply that one person lied and two told the truth? Or does it imply that 2 people lied and one told the truth?

Which of those multiple possibilities is true and what changes could each of those possibilities make to the case and its outcome?

 

[SleuthMom]

Tanners word doesn't count more than Jeremy Wilkins' word. He was walking his baby son at the same time and the same place Tanner said she saw the "Bundle-man". He did not see anything at all. Neither did Gerry, who was standing there talking to Wilkins some minutes earlier. None of them saw Tanner either, btw.

Thanks for posting this!

 

[SleuthMom]

To readers:
Does that suggest anything about tanner and/or tanners whereabouts if tanner was not seen? Or does it simply mean that only one out of three people there was actually paying attention to certain things? Or does it imply that one person lied and two told the truth? Or does it imply that 2 people lied and one told the truth?

Which of those multiple possibilities is true and what changes could each of those possibilities make to the case and its outcome?

It suggests Tanner has an interesting "imagination" taking in consideration the amount of times she changed the version of what she saw.

 

[gord]

It suggests Tanner has an interesting "imagination" taking in consideration the amount of times she changed the version of what she saw.

we dont know what Tanner actually said in her signed statement to the police - all we know that she made a statement that she saw a person carrying somemthing that llooked like a child - everything else is pretty well, based on speculation .

she might be flakey , she might be a liar , she could even be an acomplise to murder - but at the moment she is the ONLY person who said at the get go ie that night that she saw something in hindsight that now looks suspicous

There is no other statements from anybody - nothing - I just think we cannot competely dismiss her as someone with a fertile imagination ??

 

[Maryam]

To readers:
Does that suggest anything about tanner and/or tanners whereabouts if tanner was not seen? Or does it simply mean that only one out of three people there was actually paying attention to certain things? Or does it imply that one person lied and two told the truth? Or does it imply that 2 people lied and one told the truth?

Which of those multiple possibilities is true and what changes could each of those possibilities make to the case and its outcome?

Well, that's a tricky question. Why would Tanner lie about a Bundle-Man if she didn't see one? IF she lied, that could mean several things:

1. She needs an alibi for herself, saying she was in the alley at that time, when in fact she was somewhere else.(That could be somehting "innocent", like being with another man she shouldn't be with f.ex)
2. Putting the blame on an alleged bundleman, when in fact she has something to do with Madeleines disappearance.
3. She knows the M's have something to do with Madeleines disappearance, and is protecting them by inventing a bundleman.
4. She could have seen a bundleman she actually recognized (Gerry, or O'Brien or someone else) who she now protects.

I can't see any reason for Mr Wilkins to lie. I can't see any reason for an innocent Gerry to say he didn't see bundleman if in fact he saw one.

 

[gord]

Well, that's a tricky question. Why would Tanner lie about a Bundle-Man if she didn't see one? IF she lied, that could mean several things:

1. She needs an alibi for herself, saying she was in the alley at that time, when in fact she was somewhere else.(That could be somehting "innocent", like being with another man she shouldn't be with f.ex)
2. Putting the blame on an alleged bundleman, when in fact she has something to do with Madeleines disappearance.
3. She knows the M's have something to do with Madeleines disappearance, and is protecting them by inventing a bundleman.
4. She could have seen a bundleman she actually recognized (Gerry, or O'Brien or someone else) who she now protects.

I can't see any reason for Mr Wilkins to lie. I can't see any reason for an innocent Gerry to say he didn't see bundleman if in fact he saw one.

If Gerry and Tanner had by this stage got a story together - surely they would have one backed each other up .

Maybe the fact that Gerry and Wilkins didnt see bundle man was that they might have missed him by minutes - ie they simply didnt see him . gerry apparently chatted with Wilkins for a few minutes - Tanner met them on the way back from her appt - maybe all 4 didnt cross exactly ?

 

[docwho3]

It suggests Tanner has an interesting "imagination" taking in consideration the amount of times she changed the version of what she saw.

Could be. Or does it simply mean what was remembered changed as time went on. When a stressful event happens like a little girl goes missing and people wish very much to help then even if they do remember something, what is remembered and its details can easily become skewed and change over time. And yes people can also remember things that were not there in some cases. But it is not a certainty that is what happened in this case. It is only one possibility out of many.

Even without stress memory can be tricky. Try this: Go to a restaurant with a room full of people and, if they let you, take a picture of the room full of people. Now eat your meal and then go out to your car and write down a description of everyone you saw at the moment the pic was snapped and what they wore and what they were eating and if they were carrying anything what it was.

Don't read it back when you are finished just seal it in a dated envelope.
Keep the picture you took sealed up in its own place and do not look at it at all until the end of this whole experimment.

Now repeat the writng and description part, trying to remember every possible new detail you can, in two weeks and again just seal it up in a dated envelope.

Now repeat the writng and description part again in a month from that last description, trying to remember every possible new detail you can, and again just seal it up in a dated envelope.

Now repeat the writng and description part again in two weeks past the last description, trying to remember every possible new detail you can, and again just seal it up in a dated envelope.

Finally sit down and open each envelope in order and see what happened to your memory and description of the events. You may be surprised at the results.

This is the end of the experiment so compare your writings with the picture. How did it go? Did you miss things that showed up in the picture? Were people there you had forgotten? Were people in different places or positions or dressed differently than you had written? Had your descriptions changed over time? Was any discrepency a result of you imagining things?

Let me know how it goes.

 

[Maryam]

If Gerry and Tanner had by this stage got a story together - surely they would have one backed each other up .

Maybe the fact that Gerry and Wilkins didnt see bundle man was that they might have missed him by minutes - ie they simply didnt see him . gerry apparently chatted with Wilkins for a few minutes - Tanner met them on the way back from her appt - maybe all 4 didnt cross exactly ?

I could be wrong about this, but I think Wilkins said he was walking up and down the alley for a while, to get his baby sleeping in his pram. He was not on the way to or from something.

 

[Maryam]

Even without stress memory can be tricky. Try this: Go to a restaurant with a room full of people and, if they let you, take a picture of the room full of people. Now eat your meal and then go out to your car and write down a description of everyone you saw at the moment the pic was snapped and what they wore and what they were eating and if they were carrying anything what it was.

Don't read it back when you are finished just seal it in a dated envelope.
Keep the picture you took sealed up in its own place and do not look at it at all until the end of this whole experimment.

Now repeat the writng and description part, trying to remember every possible new detail you can, in two weeks and again just seal it up in a dated envelope.

Now repeat the writng and description part again in a month from that last description, trying to remember every possible new detail you can, and again just seal it up in a dated envelope.

Now repeat the writng and description part again in two weeks past the last description, trying to remember every possible new detail you can, and again just seal it up in a dated envelope.

Finally sit down and open each envelope in order and see what happened to your memory and description of the events. You may be surprised at the results.

I think there is a difference in an innocent experience like this, and in a abduction case. It's not that she just changed her statement of what she saw, it's that it got more and more details as time went by.

First, she didn't see a child at all, just a bundle that could be a child, and in the end she saw piyama bottoms with flowers on them.

That is NOT the same as not remembering the exact pattern on the pyjama bottoms or the exact location you met a stranger.

JMO

 

[gord]

I could be wrong about this, but I think Wilkins said he was walking up and down the alley for a while, to get his baby sleeping in his pram. He was not on the way to or from something.

I suppose this is the detail that the Police would / should have got - I also read somewhere - but could be wrong that Wilkins was not even interviewed initially and didnt realise what was what until he was back in the UK - will look for the link