SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 113
I'm not in a bad mood, I'm thrilled.:seeya:
Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread #27
- Thread starter Kimster
- Start date
- Status
I'm not in a bad mood, I'm thrilled.:seeya:
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 32,887
- Reaction score
- 10,773
I think the theory about them deleting their messages is a myth.
The child was missing, they received lots of text messages from family and friends.
They might have deleted some messages to make enough space for new messages.. as one would think it would be very important at this kind of a moment in life.
Also, they might have sent messages facing suspicion about the quality of the investigation, which I would do too if my own child is missing and not being found..
I think it's human nature.
A person can be highly critical of the way others raise their children, when they are doing just as bad or worse with their own.
Or how people keep their home (clean/dirty, junk, animals) when a close look would reveal problems in their own home.
I have an annoying cousin who stayed with me for a few days, cheerful an friendly, then went and told her sisters that my house stunk. (!) I had put her up in my guest room that was filled with antiques, so it DID have that old antiquey smell. Not what I find unpleasant at all. Couple years later I went to her house and, low and behold--she's a hoarder. Two rooms that were filled almost to the ceiling with piles of stuff. Another bedroom was a shrine to her deceased husband. Not dusted or vacuumed nor sheets changed in the entire 6 years that he had been dead. Science experiments in the fridge. Kitchen filthy. Fine one to talk about me!
Maybe its perception.
Maybe its a way to feel superior to others or to feel better about their own weaknesses and failures.
Just my own opinion and thought.
Lol-you are correct that it's human nature! In your cousin's case, misery wants company, I think
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 113
Well its not, per Goncalo Amaral -
The PJ check Kate and Gerry's phone records. Kate did not make any phone calls between the 27th April and the 4th of May which arouses suspicions. And hasn't received any between 11:22 on the 2nd of May and 23:17 of the 3rd. Gerry's phone has no record of calls before the 4th at 00:15. But there is a record on Kate's phone of a phone call from her husband on the 3rd May at 23:17. The same record doesn't exist on Gerry's phone. So the records were deleted. Why?
This is from "The Truth of the Lie" which has been verified in court as an accurate retelling of the investigation.
CHERIE.T
Former Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2012
- Messages
- 8,281
- Reaction score
- 35
i concur/
CHERIE.T
Former Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2012
- Messages
- 8,281
- Reaction score
- 35
R B B M
True words. I see that every day at work.
Estelle
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2009
- Messages
- 6,727
- Reaction score
- 18,394
BBM1: IMO the McCanns have always wanted full access to the case files so is this a way of getting it?
BBM2: Isn't Maddie still a Ward of the Court so are they really her legal represenatives?
Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years
Basically says the evidence of the Smiths sighting and the e-fits were suppressed by the McCanns for 5 years. Things seem to be changing.
Basically says the evidence of the Smiths sighting and the e-fits were suppressed by the McCanns for 5 years. Things seem to be changing.
goldengirl57
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 299
- Reaction score
- 18
Ah the ex MI5 agents we knew about them. In my gut i actually think there is more to GM then meets the MI5 eye lol...I wondered years ago what is the clout Mr GM has with the government if he wasnt some kind of eye spy with my little eye.....
The followers of the case knew the Smiths sighting had been zapped from the earth more or less at the same time Amaral was zapped from the case.
Why? Well I can only assume because Mr Smith had the gall to say the guy he saw was more then likely GM because of the WTF moment he had when he saw him carrying his son down the plane steps.
Their the McCanns MI5 agents actually did Efits at the time.
Zapped.....gone for ever......
So why now are Scotland Yard reviving it......I note WITHOUT THE STATEMENTS from the Smiths saying he thought it was GM.....
I reckon there is a bucket of white wash handy.....
Something stinks about all this, including all the frenzy with the blonde children being unceremoniously dragged out of their beds...
P.S. Missed you guys yesterday i couldnt get on there seemed to be a problem.
Below is the complete article:
Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years
The new prime suspect was first singled out by detectives in 2008. Their findings were suppressed. Insight reports
The Sunday Times Insight team Published: 27 October 2013
Comment (0) Print
Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007 (Adrian Sheratt)
THE critical new evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard’s search for Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years after it was presented to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators.
The evidence was in fact taken from an intelligence report produced for Gerry and Kate McCann by a firm of former spies in 2008.
It contained crucial E-Fits of a man seen carrying a child on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, which have only this month become public after he was identified as the prime suspect by Scotland Yard.
A team of hand-picked former MI5 agents had been hired by the McCanns to chase a much-needed breakthrough in the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.
Click to enlarge
10 months after the three-year-old had disappeared from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz, and the McCanns were beginning to despair over the handling of the local police investigation. They were relying on the new team to bring fresh hope.
But within months the relationship had soured. A report produced by the investigators was deemed “hypercritical” of the McCanns and their friends, and the authors were threatened with legal action if it was made public. Its contents remained secret until Scotland Yard detectives conducting a fresh review of the case contacted the authors and asked for a copy.
They found that it contained new evidence about a key suspect seen carrying a child away from the McCanns’ holiday apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared.
This sighting is now considered the main lead in the investigation and E-Fits of the suspect, taken from the report, were the centrepiece of a Crimewatch appeal that attracted more than 2,400 calls from the public this month.
One of the investigators whose work was sidelined said last week he was “utterly stunned” when he watched the programme and saw the evidence his team had passed to the McCanns five years ago presented as a breakthrough.
The team of investigators from the security firm Oakley International were hired by the McCanns’ Find Madeleine fund, which bankrolled private investigations into the girl’s disappearance. They were led by Henri Exton, MI5’s former undercover operations chief.
Their report, seen by The Sunday Times, focused on a sighting by an Irish family of a man carrying a child at about 10pm on May 3, 2007, when Madeleine went missing.
An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends.
Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”
He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund.
A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public.
Kate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authoritiesKate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authorities (Adrian Sheratt) Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence.
It was immediately clear that two sightings of vital importance had been reported to the police. Two men were seen carrying children near the apartments between 9pm, when Madeleine was last seen by Gerry, and 10pm, when Kate discovered her missing.
The first man was seen at 9.15pm by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns, who had been dining with them at the tapas bar in the resort. She saw a man carrying a girl just yards from the apartment as she went to check on her children.
The second sighting was by Martin Smith and his family from Ireland, who saw a man carrying a child near the apartment just before 10pm.
The earlier Tanner sighting had always been treated as the most significant, but the Oakley team controversially poured cold water on her account.
Instead, they focused on the Smith sighting, travelling to Ireland to interview the family and produce E-Fits of the man they saw. Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.
The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes.
The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008 (Adrian Sheratt) The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay.
The potential abductor seen by the Smiths is now the prime suspect in Scotland Yard’s investigation, after detectives established that the man seen earlier by Tanner was almost certainly a father carrying his child home from a nearby night creche. The Smith E-Fits were the centrepiece of the Crimewatch appeal.
One of the Oakley investigators said last week: “I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme . . . It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things . . . And those E-Fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours,” he said.
The detailed images of the face of the man seen by the Smith family were never released by the McCanns. But an artist’s impression of the man seen earlier by Tanner was widely promoted, even though the face had to be left blank because she had only seen him fleetingly and from a distance.
Various others images of lone men spotted hanging around the resort at other times were also released.
Nor were the Smith E-Fits included in Kate McCann’s 2011 book, Madeleine, which contained a whole section on eight “key sightings” and identified those of the Smiths and Tanner as most “crucial”. Descriptions of all seven other sightings were accompanied by an E-Fit or artist’s impression. The Smiths’ were the only exception. So why was such a “crucial” piece of evidence kept under lock and key?
The relationship between the fund and Oakley was already souring by the time the report was submitted — and its findings could only have made matters worse.
As well as questioning parts of the McCanns’ evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine’s sleeping patterns and raised the highly sensitive possibility that she could have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself from one of two unsecured doors.
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.
The McCanns were also understandably wary of Oakley after allegations that the chairman, Kevin Halligen, failed to pass on money paid by the fund to Exton’s team. Halligen denies this. He was later convicted of fraud in an unrelated case in the US.
The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators after the contract ended, but that the firm’s work was considered “contaminated” by the financial dispute.
He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors.
“[The report] was hypercritical of the people involved . . . It just wouldn’t be conducive to the investigation to have that report publicly declared because . . . the newspapers would have been all over it. And it would have been completely distracting,” said the source.
A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.
It continued: “Throughout the investigation, the Find Madeleine fund’s sole priority has been, and remains, to find Madeleine and bring her home as swiftly as possible.”
Insight: Heidi Blake and Jonathan Calvert
The followers of the case knew the Smiths sighting had been zapped from the earth more or less at the same time Amaral was zapped from the case.
Why? Well I can only assume because Mr Smith had the gall to say the guy he saw was more then likely GM because of the WTF moment he had when he saw him carrying his son down the plane steps.
Their the McCanns MI5 agents actually did Efits at the time.
Zapped.....gone for ever......
So why now are Scotland Yard reviving it......I note WITHOUT THE STATEMENTS from the Smiths saying he thought it was GM.....
I reckon there is a bucket of white wash handy.....
Something stinks about all this, including all the frenzy with the blonde children being unceremoniously dragged out of their beds...
P.S. Missed you guys yesterday i couldnt get on there seemed to be a problem.
Below is the complete article:
Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years
The new prime suspect was first singled out by detectives in 2008. Their findings were suppressed. Insight reports
The Sunday Times Insight team Published: 27 October 2013
Comment (0) Print
Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007 (Adrian Sheratt)
THE critical new evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard’s search for Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years after it was presented to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators.
The evidence was in fact taken from an intelligence report produced for Gerry and Kate McCann by a firm of former spies in 2008.
It contained crucial E-Fits of a man seen carrying a child on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, which have only this month become public after he was identified as the prime suspect by Scotland Yard.
A team of hand-picked former MI5 agents had been hired by the McCanns to chase a much-needed breakthrough in the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.
Click to enlarge
10 months after the three-year-old had disappeared from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz, and the McCanns were beginning to despair over the handling of the local police investigation. They were relying on the new team to bring fresh hope.
But within months the relationship had soured. A report produced by the investigators was deemed “hypercritical” of the McCanns and their friends, and the authors were threatened with legal action if it was made public. Its contents remained secret until Scotland Yard detectives conducting a fresh review of the case contacted the authors and asked for a copy.
They found that it contained new evidence about a key suspect seen carrying a child away from the McCanns’ holiday apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared.
This sighting is now considered the main lead in the investigation and E-Fits of the suspect, taken from the report, were the centrepiece of a Crimewatch appeal that attracted more than 2,400 calls from the public this month.
One of the investigators whose work was sidelined said last week he was “utterly stunned” when he watched the programme and saw the evidence his team had passed to the McCanns five years ago presented as a breakthrough.
The team of investigators from the security firm Oakley International were hired by the McCanns’ Find Madeleine fund, which bankrolled private investigations into the girl’s disappearance. They were led by Henri Exton, MI5’s former undercover operations chief.
Their report, seen by The Sunday Times, focused on a sighting by an Irish family of a man carrying a child at about 10pm on May 3, 2007, when Madeleine went missing.
An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends.
Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”
He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund.
A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public.
Kate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authoritiesKate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authorities (Adrian Sheratt) Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence.
It was immediately clear that two sightings of vital importance had been reported to the police. Two men were seen carrying children near the apartments between 9pm, when Madeleine was last seen by Gerry, and 10pm, when Kate discovered her missing.
The first man was seen at 9.15pm by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns, who had been dining with them at the tapas bar in the resort. She saw a man carrying a girl just yards from the apartment as she went to check on her children.
The second sighting was by Martin Smith and his family from Ireland, who saw a man carrying a child near the apartment just before 10pm.
The earlier Tanner sighting had always been treated as the most significant, but the Oakley team controversially poured cold water on her account.
Instead, they focused on the Smith sighting, travelling to Ireland to interview the family and produce E-Fits of the man they saw. Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.
The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes.
The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008 (Adrian Sheratt) The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay.
The potential abductor seen by the Smiths is now the prime suspect in Scotland Yard’s investigation, after detectives established that the man seen earlier by Tanner was almost certainly a father carrying his child home from a nearby night creche. The Smith E-Fits were the centrepiece of the Crimewatch appeal.
One of the Oakley investigators said last week: “I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme . . . It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things . . . And those E-Fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours,” he said.
The detailed images of the face of the man seen by the Smith family were never released by the McCanns. But an artist’s impression of the man seen earlier by Tanner was widely promoted, even though the face had to be left blank because she had only seen him fleetingly and from a distance.
Various others images of lone men spotted hanging around the resort at other times were also released.
Nor were the Smith E-Fits included in Kate McCann’s 2011 book, Madeleine, which contained a whole section on eight “key sightings” and identified those of the Smiths and Tanner as most “crucial”. Descriptions of all seven other sightings were accompanied by an E-Fit or artist’s impression. The Smiths’ were the only exception. So why was such a “crucial” piece of evidence kept under lock and key?
The relationship between the fund and Oakley was already souring by the time the report was submitted — and its findings could only have made matters worse.
As well as questioning parts of the McCanns’ evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine’s sleeping patterns and raised the highly sensitive possibility that she could have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself from one of two unsecured doors.
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.
The McCanns were also understandably wary of Oakley after allegations that the chairman, Kevin Halligen, failed to pass on money paid by the fund to Exton’s team. Halligen denies this. He was later convicted of fraud in an unrelated case in the US.
The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators after the contract ended, but that the firm’s work was considered “contaminated” by the financial dispute.
He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors.
“[The report] was hypercritical of the people involved . . . It just wouldn’t be conducive to the investigation to have that report publicly declared because . . . the newspapers would have been all over it. And it would have been completely distracting,” said the source.
A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.
It continued: “Throughout the investigation, the Find Madeleine fund’s sole priority has been, and remains, to find Madeleine and bring her home as swiftly as possible.”
Insight: Heidi Blake and Jonathan Calvert
AGGHHHH!! These people make me sick..............
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 32,887
- Reaction score
- 10,773
Another page from the Ramsey play book. Gain access to all evidence...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 113
~rsbm~
Haha talk of the "crack team of detectives" made me remember this - (bear with it, it's annoying).
Madeleine McCann investigator Dave Edgar - YouTube
goldengirl57
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 299
- Reaction score
- 18
ON ANOTHER POINT.
How can the McCanns have the gall to say the book by Mr Amaral hindered the search for their child, when they themselves have zapped VITAL information that could have been made public.
............
How can the McCanns have the gall to say the book by Mr Amaral hindered the search for their child, when they themselves have zapped VITAL information that could have been made public.
............
Guys, I have a theory and couldn't wait to get on here and tell you all....except WS was down in the morning when I tried!
Ok......so....I believe, MOO, the Jane Tanner sighting was a lie. I believe several members of the Tapas group were involved in covering up death of Madeleine, for various reasons. There are many reasons why I believe her "sighting" was a lie, one of them being of course the timeline written down with Gerry at the table, stating at 9:15 Jane Tanner saw "stranger with a child." (or was it "stranger carrying a child?"). Even though Jane Tanner claims she only told Fiona (or was it Rachel) until the police got there becaues she didn't want to "upset" Kate and Gerry. Also............without any more information, IMO, someone can tell it's a lie just from that sentence on the timeline "Jane sees STRANGER with a child." No, brilliant doctors, actually if it was real, you would've just written down "sees a MAN carrying a child." Ohhhh yeahhhh, but of course you were thinking "stranger" b/c yesssss, a stranger took her, not the 9 of you close to her who knew exactly what happened to her. Oh no, you definately couldn't write, "Dad took her." It had to be the opposite of Dad....oh a "stranger," like you saw in the movies. Oh yes, you're just writing a little movie plot over there.
Anyway, so Jane Tanner sighting = LIE. IMO, MOO. And of course, Pj knew this and SY and any of their detectives investigating the case would have come to that conclusion rather quickly....MOO.
But without confirmation from Jane herself, or any of the other Tapas group, they could not rule it out 100%. They were stuck. No one was talking.
Then, re-openng of investigation, then Crimewatch, where's AR openly and conclusively shoots down Jane Tanner sighting. But he doesn't say it was a lie, he says there was a man coming back from the creche, oh yeahhhhh, that's who Jane saw.
And here is something from Jane Tanner's rogatory:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Tanner4of7_HO4.pdf, pg.15
(she is complaining about the public/press not believing her sighting is a real sighting)
No, but the best thing that could happen to me, apart from Madeleine being found, is
somebody coming up and saying That was me, you know, That was me walking
across there, because, you know, you know, I dont want that to be Madeleine, but,
you know, theres no, but Im convinced that was and, you know, people have got to,
so I dont know what I can do to make them believe that. Im sorry.
4078
and.....
I just, yeah, I do, I wish I hadnt. As I say, I wish Id made Russell go at that point.
I really wish I hadnt seen this. But, you know, they have to, and, as I say, apart from
Madeleine being found, the best thing that could happen to me is somebody coming
and saying No, youre wrong Jane that wasnt them, that was me carrying my child,that is what, you know, I dream of happening, after Madeleine being found, you
know.
She says the best thing for her would be for that man from her sighting to come forward and say, Yes, that was me walking across there.
And did she get what she wanted? Yes. SY invented a man taking his daughter back from the creche to make Jane Tanner happy, so that she could finally be rest assured that people did NOT think she was liar.
So what would make SY able to 100% refute Jane Tanner's sighting, and also make Jane Tanner happy at the same time? Becaues, IMO, Jane Tanner has told SY something about her involvement in the cover-up that night. And about what happened, to what extent she told them, I don't know. SY probably came to her secretly and told her, Jane, we know you lied. Why don't you cooperate with us, and we'll make sure your part of the cover-up isn't revealed? Just help us get Kate and Gerry. We won't tell people you lied or helped them, we'll say there was indeed a man walking by there....no one will know you did anything to help them.
IMO, that is what this new "flurry" is. But of course, Jane's reveal had to be very hush-hush. I believe she is cooperating with Scotland Yard and she has given them information. In return, she gets an "out" from this sordid mess.
The Tapas group dug themselves so deep into a hole, they couldn't get out of it. The McCanns' kept putting them deeper and deeper. THe more the case got publicized, the less chance they had of ever being able to admit what they did. They were on a roller-coaster they couldn't get off of, just kept spinning round and round. THe SY gave Jane (at least) an out. And in return, Jane cooperated.
Now, that's Jane, IMO, I dont kow about the rest of the group.
IMO, MOO, JMO.
Ok......so....I believe, MOO, the Jane Tanner sighting was a lie. I believe several members of the Tapas group were involved in covering up death of Madeleine, for various reasons. There are many reasons why I believe her "sighting" was a lie, one of them being of course the timeline written down with Gerry at the table, stating at 9:15 Jane Tanner saw "stranger with a child." (or was it "stranger carrying a child?"). Even though Jane Tanner claims she only told Fiona (or was it Rachel) until the police got there becaues she didn't want to "upset" Kate and Gerry. Also............without any more information, IMO, someone can tell it's a lie just from that sentence on the timeline "Jane sees STRANGER with a child." No, brilliant doctors, actually if it was real, you would've just written down "sees a MAN carrying a child." Ohhhh yeahhhh, but of course you were thinking "stranger" b/c yesssss, a stranger took her, not the 9 of you close to her who knew exactly what happened to her. Oh no, you definately couldn't write, "Dad took her." It had to be the opposite of Dad....oh a "stranger," like you saw in the movies. Oh yes, you're just writing a little movie plot over there.
Anyway, so Jane Tanner sighting = LIE. IMO, MOO. And of course, Pj knew this and SY and any of their detectives investigating the case would have come to that conclusion rather quickly....MOO.
But without confirmation from Jane herself, or any of the other Tapas group, they could not rule it out 100%. They were stuck. No one was talking.
Then, re-openng of investigation, then Crimewatch, where's AR openly and conclusively shoots down Jane Tanner sighting. But he doesn't say it was a lie, he says there was a man coming back from the creche, oh yeahhhhh, that's who Jane saw.
And here is something from Jane Tanner's rogatory:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Tanner4of7_HO4.pdf, pg.15
(she is complaining about the public/press not believing her sighting is a real sighting)
No, but the best thing that could happen to me, apart from Madeleine being found, is
somebody coming up and saying That was me, you know, That was me walking
across there, because, you know, you know, I dont want that to be Madeleine, but,
you know, theres no, but Im convinced that was and, you know, people have got to,
so I dont know what I can do to make them believe that. Im sorry.
4078
and.....
I just, yeah, I do, I wish I hadnt. As I say, I wish Id made Russell go at that point.
I really wish I hadnt seen this. But, you know, they have to, and, as I say, apart from
Madeleine being found, the best thing that could happen to me is somebody coming
and saying No, youre wrong Jane that wasnt them, that was me carrying my child,that is what, you know, I dream of happening, after Madeleine being found, you
know.
She says the best thing for her would be for that man from her sighting to come forward and say, Yes, that was me walking across there.
And did she get what she wanted? Yes. SY invented a man taking his daughter back from the creche to make Jane Tanner happy, so that she could finally be rest assured that people did NOT think she was liar.
So what would make SY able to 100% refute Jane Tanner's sighting, and also make Jane Tanner happy at the same time? Becaues, IMO, Jane Tanner has told SY something about her involvement in the cover-up that night. And about what happened, to what extent she told them, I don't know. SY probably came to her secretly and told her, Jane, we know you lied. Why don't you cooperate with us, and we'll make sure your part of the cover-up isn't revealed? Just help us get Kate and Gerry. We won't tell people you lied or helped them, we'll say there was indeed a man walking by there....no one will know you did anything to help them.
IMO, that is what this new "flurry" is. But of course, Jane's reveal had to be very hush-hush. I believe she is cooperating with Scotland Yard and she has given them information. In return, she gets an "out" from this sordid mess.
The Tapas group dug themselves so deep into a hole, they couldn't get out of it. The McCanns' kept putting them deeper and deeper. THe more the case got publicized, the less chance they had of ever being able to admit what they did. They were on a roller-coaster they couldn't get off of, just kept spinning round and round. THe SY gave Jane (at least) an out. And in return, Jane cooperated.
Now, that's Jane, IMO, I dont kow about the rest of the group.
IMO, MOO, JMO.
OMG. Hmmm.....wonder why the Smith sighting and report "critical" of the Tapas9 would be rejected by the fund....hmmm....I don't think it takes a genius to figure that one out.
I still for the life of me DO NOT know how these two people (kate and Gerry) have been able to fool the entire Portugal investigative team, the entire Scotland yard team, and dozens if not hundred of "private" top-notch detectives/investigators. Aren't they a little embarrased to not be able to come up with the fact that Kate and Gerry "disappeared" Madeleine? IMO, MOO.
And yes, I'm including Pj because if they haven't the ba*** to admit it was Kate and Gerry, then they too have been fooled.
goldengirl57
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 299
- Reaction score
- 18
Could be feasible.
However one thing that bothers me is the guy is going the WRONG WAY to pick a child up from the creche...
Whats all that about?
I do think her sighting was always OFF for me and i dismissed it very quickly as illogical, as no abductor would walk past anyone at 9.15 with a child....
IF I dismissed it as did lots of others you can bet your dollar the police did too.
The ONLY PEOPLE WHO PUSHED THIS SIGHTING were the McCanns and their friend and their pink wearing PR man Clarence Mitchell who couldnt wait to push the mystery creepy man carrying Maddy every opportunity he got.
It made me puke.
So if the McCanns had this other sighting, why did they not also show that....
No the Tanners sighting was always off. How could she assume it was the abductor....when they had no idea that the child had even been abducted at that time.
.......
Good point thanks anything about this case is odd or off lol.
goldengirl57
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 299
- Reaction score
- 18
Thats actually not true, Amaral did and look what happened to him...zapped off the case and made a patsy............
- Status
Similar threads
Staff online
-
TriciaManager Websleuths.com
Online statistics
- Members online
- 196
- Guests online
- 779
- Total visitors
- 975