General Discussion Thread No. 18

[Texana]

big big call to disregard her statement - she has said nothing since her first statement to the PJ - no interviews nothing

If I was in charge I would give her statement some merit - until proved otherwise

there is also the othet witness who also saw a man with a child - should we disregard his staement as well

Gord, no witness's statement can be given merit simply on the basis of "I said so, therefore it is." Each one has to be examined and either discounted or accepted and then followed up on as the leads allow.

Just because someone saw (or thinks they saw) a man carrying a child, is not in and of itself, proof that Madeleine McCann was abducted--not if the location is a resort with families and a nightime daycare center open til 11, where children were sleeping.

Again, I'm not necessarily discounting Jane Tanner's statement, only that it cannot be regarded as evidence of Madeleine's abduction, in and of itself.

 

[Tuba]

The teenager smoking a cigarette? Trying to prove a negative. There are so many things we don't see and for so many reasons. Gerry McCann didn't see an abductor in 5A but believes he had already entered not only the apartment but the children's room and that he was behind the door. If you are in the public street and I don't see you, I cannot make a credible claim that you weren't there any more than I could say you weren't at the theater or at a party or in church or in a car parked at the curb. You can believe that the McCanns were responsible for harm that occurred to Madeleine and yet still accept that someone may have acted as an agent to take her off the scene. Gerry McCann really had zero time to accomplish that in person because his minutes are accounted for.

 

[gord]

http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1761454&postcount=172

What about her statement Gord?

I have an idea....let's disregard everyone's statements and all go home! I'll meet you back here after the verdict is read.

Somehow I don't think it will happen.

sounds like a good idea

I dont get your point - I think her statement should be listened to - not dismissed as worthless as some people are saying

In this case every bit of information is vital

 

[gord]

& should we disregard this one also?
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.bl...icts-jane.html

One more witness contradicts Jane Tanner statement

I am sorry but this does not contradict Tanner's statement - all she says ( although I have never heard of her before ) is that she did not see Tanner or the man - that is fine that is her statement - it is probably true

she went out for a cigarete - how long - Tanner could have been on teh other side of the building

Tanner has made one statement to the PF . why should we just call it worthless

 

[gord]

Gord, no witness's statement can be given merit simply on the basis of "I said so, therefore it is." Each one has to be examined and either discounted or accepted and then followed up on as the leads allow.

Just because someone saw (or thinks they saw) a man carrying a child, is not in and of itself, proof that Madeleine McCann was abducted--not if the location is a resort with families and a nightime daycare center open til 11, where children were sleeping.

Again, I'm not necessarily discounting Jane Tanner's statement, only that it cannot be regarded as evidence of Madeleine's abduction, in and of itself.

of course it is not evidence of anything - It is one persons statement to the police - it must be used to build a case - not just didmissed . If Tanner is ls lying the this will come out eventualy - but beats me how people can suddenly jump straight away to call it worthless

 

[Barnaby]

I am sorry but this does not contradict Tanner's statement - all she says ( although I have never heard of her before ) is that she did not see Tanner or the man - that is fine that is her statement - it is probably true

she went out for a cigarete - how long - Tanner could have been on teh other side of the building

Tanner has made one statement to the PF . why should we just call it worthless

But Tanner claimed that she was on the same narrow path as Gerry & Wilkins not on the other side of the building.

 

[gord]

But Tanner claimed that she was on the same narrow path as Gerry & Wilkins not on the other side of the building.

no tanner left the front of the villa - and the came round the corner to return to the tapas

Gerry entered the back to check - the time lines are hazy for all of us but it is possible that they didnt cross all at once . Tanner could have cought sight of them as she turned the corner without them seeing her - they might not have crossed atall

 

[Tuba]

No, she was on the public road and passing the opening from the path or alleyway.

 

[colomom]

sounds like a good idea

I dont get your point - I think her statement should be listened to - not dismissed as worthless as some people are saying

In this case every bit of information is vital

I hope my post did not come across as mean...I was trying to be funny.

I agree, all statements should be taken into consideration. Good police work would demand nothing less. After all statements are taken into consideration then compared and evaluated and then the only persons dismissing anything should be the LE in charge of the case.

Of course we will have people jumping up n' down about how incompetent the PJ are....sheeesh.

The problem with forums is that we do not have the benefit of eye contact, facial expression or other vital information that would help us to have a healthy discussion. What I would not give to get ALL of us (WS, Mirror Forum, Proboards, etc.) all together in person, with a moderator....

 

[Tuba]

It was Jeremy Wilkins who assumed that they would all have had to be on the same narrow path. Jane Tanner never said anything like that. She was at the top of the public road. Actually, there is a nice photo of the area in color and a diagram of various people's moves is overlaid in our own media links. If needed, we can look up the #.

 

[Prickle]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/... on Algarve holiday/article.do#readerComments

I am new to the forum ( hi btw) so I really don't know if this link will work because i'm still not too familiar with how things work yet. Anyway, here goes. Does anyone else recall reading this? Of course it could be totally innocent, parents and child returning to their apartment.


Intriguingly, a Briton who runs a company in the Algarve has told police he spotted a couple carrying a young child early yesterday.
George Burke, from Liverpool, was driving home from nearby Lagos around 6am when he caught the two people in his car headlights. "I couldn't see them clearly because it was dark and windy. They scurried down a side road and out of sight.

 

[ThoughtFox]

Welcome, Prickle:

I did a Google search for "George Burke + Algarve + McCann" and came up with this article from quite a few months ago, that said the police were investigating what he supposedly saw.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/tm_method=full&objectid=19057964&siteid=89520-name_page.html

They probably searched the area at some point, and I'm sure they took a statement from him. He's really been quiet since then.

New article about the McCann's threatening to sue over the criticism of their television plea the other day:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=489889&in_page_id=1770

"When the time is right they will be taking action against anyone who they feel has overstepped the mark. It is good that Correio printed the name of the Spanish psychologist whose opinions they published. He is one more person on the list of people to sue."

. . . Mr Cabrera, 50, did not restrict his comments to Mrs McCann. The Madrid-based psychiatrist - who has never met the couple - said Mr McCann's only concern during the interview was to "control" his wife. He said: "All he worried about was controlling her. It's extraordinary. Whenever she opened her mouth to talk he squeezed her hand - and all this because the key to this mystery is definitely with her."

 

[colomom]

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/

Criminal Profilng Topic of the Day: Who Should be the Suspects in the McCann Case?

It is like watching a snowball rolling downhill....

 

[Barnaby]

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/

Criminal Profilng Topic of the Day: Who Should be the Suspects in the McCann Case?

It is like watching a snowball rolling downhill....

That article sums it all up exceptionally well Colomon!

 

[Bandini]

That article sums it all up exceptionally well Colomon!

"Such a picture will only elicit droves of worthless tips and waste police time. This is an unwise choice of strategy unless the purpose is to distract the police from focusing on the McCanns."


The McCanns have been using this strategy all along, IMO. In the latest interview, Gerry's patience appears to be hanging by a thread. And Kate, along with her attempts to act distraught without the tears, does a pretty good job of revealing her annoyance with her husband - rolling her eyes, quick and nearly unnoticeable little frowns. I really think they're coming unglued. Because the harder they try to distract attention from themselves, the more attention they attract.

 

[Barnaby]

"Such a picture will only elicit droves of worthless tips and waste police time. This is an unwise choice of strategy unless the purpose is to distract the police from focusing on the McCanns."


The McCanns have been using this strategy all along, IMO. In the latest interview, Gerry's patience appears to be hanging by a thread. And Kate, along with her attempts to act distraught without the tears, does a pretty good job of revealing her annoyance with her husband - rolling her eyes, quick and nearly unnoticeable little frowns. I really think they're coming unglued. Because the harder they try to distract attention from themselves, the more attention they attract.

Ye it is a case I think of "The Lady doth protest too much"

 

[CaliKid]

it is interesting why they put themselves out there - time after time - only to get shot down in pieces - savaged by press and onlookers

why do they do it - there can only be two posibilities -

1. They genuinely think that there is still a chance that Maddeline is alive and out there somewhere - so they will brave the onslaught to get whatever coverage they can get - keep the name in the news

2. They are still following a calculated lie , orchestrated by " team Mccaan" - ie keep the lie going and it will become accepted .

I just cant see why if they are guilty they still insist on this ongoing media blitz even now - At teh beginning maybe - but now when they are back home - the police seem to be stalled , well I would just sit tight and keep my mouth firmly shut

And there's reason number 3. They're hooked on being celebrities.

For the first 3 months after Madeleine disappeared most of the reaction they received was positive and blaming a kidnapper. Despite the change of direction in the case since then, even with all the negative press, the McCanns could be so narcissistic that they can't stop themselves.

 

[CaliKid]

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...cle3099614.ece

McCann family reverse story over break-in 'evidence

Okay, then why were they so sure Madeleine had been abducted?

The more excuses they make for themselves, the more they seem to forget that the previously-made statements they are now negating were offered up as reasons they did, said or thought something.

It just makes them look more guilty.

 

[CaliKid]

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/

Criminal Profilng Topic of the Day: Who Should be the Suspects in the McCann Case?

It is like watching a snowball rolling downhill....

Wow, that is an excellent article.

Every single person who believes the McCanns had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappareance should read it with an open mind. Pat Brown discusses MANY of the parents' behaviors that had our hinky meters going full tilt from the very beginning.

 

[daffodil]

I have read it and it hasnt changed my mind.