Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 25

[Salem]

Respectfully snipped ~

Ok Barnaby

New day and all that - I will try and deal with your points - though I fear that our poitions on this are so opposite that there might not be common ground

I will say at the outset that it just doesnt seem feasable for everyone to have lied - the whole conspiracy theory that everyone is involved just doesnt seem credible - from the nannies to the cook to the Tapas group - all to easy to just label them liars

The key point you seem to have is that

1. there is a discrepancy between Panorama and her statement about what side of the road Gerry and Wilkins were on .

The map that was drawn - when was it drawn - who wrote it- there was portogese writing on ot , was it from the night when there was confusion etc . I just cant see how this must mean 100% Tanner is a liar

I agree Tanner is a key witness - every witness is key - in that after the event she thought the person she saw carrying the child could have been the abductor -

Tanners statment was quite clear =- she saw Gerry and wilkins and she saw a man in the distance carrying a child - she didnt say it was Madeleine .

panorama and her PJ statement are fairly consistent apart from the issue of the side of the road .

Gord - I agree 100% that it does not seem feasible that everyone is lieing. But as to Jane Tanner - she lied, more than once. I have snipped your statement and bolded in places to save space and address a couple of specific points.

Jane Tanner did not say "carrying a child" in the beginning. She said "carrying a bundle" - hence the name Bundleman. It was later that the bundle became a child, and later still that the child had on Maddie's pajamas.

Jane Tanner drew a map dated during the time of the initial interviews by the PJ. JT puts herself on the same side of the street and GM & JW, but yet neither of these men see her. I don't think that is possible. She had to walk right by them, maybe even step off the sidewalk to get around them. Neither of the men saw her? Doesn't make sense. Someone is lying.

JT said she only saw the back of his head to begin with which resulted in the "egg head" drawing. Now she can recognize his whole face, and the item that he was carrying. Either she saw the man's face or she didn't. Her initial report was that she did not.

Then we can move to the question of where she was when Kate sounded the alarm. In some reports she was in her room with a sick child, in reports of others she was still at the Tapas bar.

JT's description of events is highly suspect. There are times when she outright lies and then times when it is difficult to know exactly what she is saying. There is no consistency in the story.

When you lack consistency, it is generally because you lack the truth. The story has been told over and over again and each time, the events seem to change. When people are telling the truth, there is generally a common thread to all the repetitions. Some events may change a little as some things become more clear, or a memory emerges, or a memory is impaired by later information received, but overall the essence says the same. NOT THE CASE HERE.

Salem

 

[colomom]

Does anyone remember what date the McCanns moved to the Vista Mar Villa? Was it before or after the Pope visit & the rental of the hire car?

From the GM blog:

Day 60 - 02/07/2007 (July 2nd)

We completed our move to the new accommodation today. It took longer than expected as we moved the thousands of letters of suuport we have recieved and all the new toys. These letters and messages of support have given us tremendous encouragement and we would like to thank everyone who has taken the time to write to us and to those who have donated to Madeleines Fund, helping us continue the campaign to find Madeleine.

Most of this evening was spent on the phone and answering e-mails finalising forthcoming campaign events. There should be some stuff in the press in the next few days although we are very aware that the recent terrorist activity will, quite rightly, continue to dominate the news.

Pope visit: May 30th 2007

Renault Scenic Rental: everything says 25 days (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/maddie/article595007.ece) after Maddie vanished which would be May 28th. GM's blog does not mention:

Day 25 - 28/05/2007
Confirmation arrived this evening that we are to attend the Vatican and a service with The Pope. It is likely we will be seated in the front row and may have an opportunity to speak with the Holy Father and ask for prayers for Madeleine. This is a hugely important visit both personally, for Kate and I, but also for the wider campaign to publicise Madeleine’s disappearance. The trip has been facilitated through Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and we will be receiving assistance from the British Embassy whilst in Rome. On this occasion because of the short notice and the relatively early time of the service we have accepted the kind offer of the use of Sir Philip Green’s personal jet, which will help get us home quickly after our Papal visit to see the twins before their bedtime. We will be accompanied by a small group of media who are still with us in Praia da Luz and, as usual all the material will be available to all the British press and broadcasters equally. For all trips we are assessing whether commercial flights can get us to our destination and back to Portugal quickly. This will NOT be a Tour- it is a series of very brief visits with the specific aim of raising awareness and we aim to get back here as quickly as possible.

We have decided that for the majority of trips it will not be practicable, or fair, to take Sean and Amelie with us. They have an established routine which we do not want to disrupt and will be looked after by very close family. Tonight for the first time they have gone to sleep in their own single beds, rather than cots, now that another two of our family have gone home. We were planning to turn their cots at home into beds after our 1 week holiday but obviously this has been delayed with Madeleine’s abduction. We have been in Praia da Luz for over 4 weeks and Sean and Amelie’s development from toddlers to little boy and girl continues. Madeleine will really notice the difference when she sees them!

Some of you may have seen on the news the huge inflatable billboard which has travelled all the way from the West of Scotland to Portugal which will be used near busy roads/motorways to keep Madeleine’s disappearance high profile. We had a brief chat with Chris and Les, who drove almost non-stop from Glasgow to get here. The extraordinary length ordinary people are going to help us is truly overwhelming. We thank everyone for their efforts, no matter how small, and we know this will make a difference in our search for Madeleine.

 

[gord]

Respectfully snipped ~

Gord - I agree 100% that it does not seem feasible that everyone is lieing. But as to Jane Tanner - she lied, more than once. I have snipped your statement and bolded in places to save space and address a couple of specific points.

Jane Tanner did not say "carrying a child" in the beginning. She said "carrying a bundle" - hence the name Bundleman. It was later that the bundle became a child, and later still that the child had on Maddie's pajamas.

Jane Tanner drew a map dated during the time of the initial interviews by the PJ. JT puts herself on the same side of the street and GM & JW, but yet neither of these men see her. I don't think that is possible. She had to walk right by them, maybe even step off the sidewalk to get around them. Neither of the men saw her? Doesn't make sense. Someone is lying.

JT said she only saw the back of his head to begin with which resulted in the "egg head" drawing. Now she can recognize his whole face, and the item that he was carrying. Either she saw the man's face or she didn't. Her initial report was that she did not.

Then we can move to the question of where she was when Kate sounded the alarm. In some reports she was in her room with a sick child, in reports of others she was still at the Tapas bar.

JT's description of events is highly suspect. There are times when she outright lies and then times when it is difficult to know exactly what she is saying. There is no consistency in the story.

When you lack consistency, it is generally because you lack the truth. The story has been told over and over again and each time, the events seem to change. When people are telling the truth, there is generally a common thread to all the repetitions. Some events may change a little as some things become more clear, or a memory emerges, or a memory is impaired by later information received, but overall the essence says the same. NOT THE CASE HERE.

Salem

Salem

I dont KNOW the truth here /i wasnt there - I didnt interview anyone . The main reason that I consider that Tanner didnt lie but it is just the fog of various reports / web blogs etc etc is because that to believe she delberately has lied is to believe she was involved before hand which is to believe in the whole pre meditated planned death / disposal involving all teh Tapas - which I cant get my head round

any way we are now beginning to see statements - actual statements - which although are translated from portugese and french - they do help ,below is a resume of wilkins statement as Paulo Reis doesnt do cut and paste but transcribes in as close to his own words - he doesnt 100% deny seeing Tanner - which is new -

quote

The casual tennis partner of Gerry McCann believes he left home between 8:15/8:30 pm, on May 3, to walk his son, in a buggy, according to his statements to police. He turned right and, as he looked to the building next to the one where the McCann were staying, he saw a woman in a purple dress.

Jeremy Wilkins went down the street and went to the toilet near the swimming pool, close to the Tapas Bar, through the Ocean Club reception. He met a couple, the man with “rasta” hair and, after going out from the toilet, kept walking down the streets, around the backside of the tennis court.

He walked through several streets, as his soon was having difficulty in sleeping. He met another couple, a tourist named Curtis with his girlfriend. After walking around a lot, he found himself going out from a street to the road that goes to Batista Supermarket, between the McCann apartment and the Tapas Bar.

He saw Gerry McCann on the other side of the road (between 8:45 and 9:15 pm), not far from the gate that gave access to the stairs of the ground floor apartment and crossed the street to talk with him, in the sidewalk. As far as he can remember, they talked for 3 to 5 minutes. His soon was already asleep and, when the talk finished, Gerry went down, in the direction of Tapas Bar, and Jeremy Wilkins went up the street, turned to the left and returned to his apartment.

While talking to Gerry, he said that he couldn't guarantee that he didn't saw somebody, on the top of the street, because he was either looking to Gerry or to his baby, in the buggy, and probably was in a position with his back to the top of the street.

Questioned about Jane Tanner, who said, in her statements to police, that she saw both of them, talking, while she walked the same street to check her daughter, around 9:15 pm, Jeremy Wilkins said that he doesn't remember to see her, during his conversation with Gerry McCann.

But he believes he saw her, when he left home between 8:15/8:30 pm, May3, 2007 – she was standing in the street, just in front of the apartment of one of the McCann friends, doesn't know if it was her own apartment. He remembers that she was using a purple colour dress. At the time, he knew that she was one of McCann friends, but didn't knew her name.

Gerry's behaviour was perfectly normal and Jeremy admits that the light, on that area, could be enough, to somebody that would be in the same place he and Gerry were, to recognize a person already known or to give a general description of an unknown person that was walking on the top of the street.

Duarte Levy and Paulo Reis

Version Française


PS: Police officers from Leicestershire asked Jeremy Wilkins to read his original statement, made in Algarve, to PJ, to refresh his memory, before questioning him a second time, in UK, in April 2008, following the letter rogatory sent from Portugal.

 

[Texana]

thats the thing Tony no scenario seems credible


It is all too easy to use a mocking tone as you do on alternative theories - fine . But remember this case has been shelved - the combined strength of portugese and UK LE have not solved it - not found a body positive forensics anything . In fact as far as I can see the whole case seems to revolve around the two dogs alerting - there doesnt seem much more

You left out the lack of details provided by the parents and the other diners, their refusal to solidify the time line or even answer further questions, so that there are huge inconsistencies and gaps in their accounts.

You left out also Jane Tanner changing her account significantly, as well as the fact that her account is not verified by one other living witness.

You left out that the window of unaccounted time for Madeleine McCann is much bigger than a half hour because there are no credible sightings of her from mid afternoon on (if she was ever in the creche that day, which has not been confirmed irrefutably as well.) Accounts of her being with or seen by any of the McCanns or their friends cannot be logically relied upon.


The case for abduction is based on: Kate's assertion, based on the position of Cuddle Cat (contradicted by the crime scene photos) and the condition of the window shutters (also contradicted by crime scene photos and witnesses); Jane Tanner's account, which changed significantly (eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, but the first and immediate response is considered most critical and overall, reliable--the witness doesn't have time to meditate on or unconsciously alter their story) and was again, not verified by a single other living witness.

So the only three "proofs" of abduction are contradicted by facts and unverified by anyone else.

You may not consider parental involvement a likely scenario, but abduction as based on the evidence, is even more unlikely.

 

[Refugee]

You left out the lack of details provided by the parents and the other diners, their refusal to solidify the time line or even answer further questions, so that there are huge inconsistencies and gaps in their accounts.

You left out also Jane Tanner changing her account significantly, as well as the fact that her account is not verified by one other living witness.

You left out that the window of unaccounted time for Madeleine McCann is much bigger than a half hour because there are no credible sightings of her from mid afternoon on (if she was ever in the creche that day, which has not been confirmed irrefutably as well.) Accounts of her being with or seen by any of the McCanns or their friends cannot be logically relied upon.


The case for abduction is based on: Kate's assertion, based on the position of Cuddle Cat (contradicted by the crime scene photos) and the condition of the window shutters (also contradicted by crime scene photos and witnesses); Jane Tanner's account, which changed significantly (eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, but the first and immediate response is considered most critical and overall, reliable--the witness doesn't have time to meditate on or unconsciously alter their story) and was again, not verified by a single other living witness.

So the only three "proofs" of abduction are contradicted by facts and unverified by anyone else.

You may not consider parental involvement a likely scenario, but abduction as based on the evidence, is even more unlikely.

Add to that the bible entry and the wierd 'alter' she created in the second apartment and the books .....looks pretty damning.

 

[Texana]

Add to that the bible entry and the wierd 'alter' she created in the second apartment and the books .....looks pretty damning.

The thing is, even if you leave out every bit of "odd" behavior, and write it off to whatever, the facts are there are no facts to support abduction whatsoever.

The facts point more to some kind of cover up or obscuring of events and truth by the McCanns.

The only two explanations left: Madeleine wandered off, or the McCanns were involved in covering up an accidental death.

 

[Salem]

The thing is, even if you leave out every bit of "odd" behavior, and write it off to whatever, the facts are there are no facts to support abduction whatsoever.

The facts point more to some kind of cover up or obscuring of events and truth by the McCanns.

The only two explanations left: Madeleine wandered off, or the McCanns were involved in covering up an accidental death.

I agree 100% No matter what the parents did after the first call to the PJ, the fact remains that all the "facts" the parents gave to support the abduction, were contradicted by the physical evidence, so first rattle out of the box, the investigation starts off on a lie. Nothing they said was true. Which, in my mind, takes another step towards the "no abductor" theory. Why, if you honestly believed someone abducted your child would you lie about the state of the apartment the child was taken from?

Gord - thanks for the JW post. I had not read it before. For me, believing that Jane Tanner lied, does not necessarily implicate all of the Tapas 9. There could be more than 1 reason why Jane lied. She may not know what happened to Maddie, but she may have said what she did to support everyone's contention that they were checking the kids every 1/2 hour or so. She may have wanted to be helpful. Maybe she did see someone carrying a box or a suitcase and twisted it in her mind so that the "bundle" became a child. So, she may not necessarily be involved or know the whole truth, but in my opinion, she is involved in the cover up.

Salem

 

[seagull65]

I'm sorry, can someone put the link for the dog video on again? I haven't seen it. Such good posts here, including Bennett's theories 1 and 2. Some people's deductive ability amazes me. You could very well be right.

 

[seagull65]

Add to that the bible entry and the wierd 'alter' she created in the second apartment and the books .....looks pretty damning.

can you refresh my memory about the bible entry and the altar? Sorry, I'm just looking again at this case after a year. I'm really glad there are people still trying to figure out what happened.

Oh sorry, I see it above now.

 

[seagull65]

if the bible verse was marked, then I wonder if Kate marked it herself or if someone left it like that for her to find, marked and with photo stuck in the bible. my opinion only

 

[gord]

You left out the lack of details provided by the parents and the other diners, their refusal to solidify the time line or even answer further questions, so that there are huge inconsistencies and gaps in their accounts.

You left out also Jane Tanner changing her account significantly, as well as the fact that her account is not verified by one other living witness.

You left out that the window of unaccounted time for Madeleine McCann is much bigger than a half hour because there are no credible sightings of her from mid afternoon on (if she was ever in the creche that day, which has not been confirmed irrefutably as well.) Accounts of her being with or seen by any of the McCanns or their friends cannot be logically relied upon.


The case for abduction is based on: Kate's assertion, based on the position of Cuddle Cat (contradicted by the crime scene photos) and the condition of the window shutters (also contradicted by crime scene photos and witnesses); Jane Tanner's account, which changed significantly (eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, but the first and immediate response is considered most critical and overall, reliable--the witness doesn't have time to meditate on or unconsciously alter their story) and was again, not verified by a single other living witness.

So the only three "proofs" of abduction are contradicted by facts and unverified by anyone else.

You may not consider parental involvement a likely scenario, but abduction as based on the evidence, is even more unlikely.

firstly - the other diners didnt refuse to answer questions - they have all given detailed statements that we are seeing now - some more than once. Not only did they all give statements to the PJ but also later under the watch of the LP . OK sure they could all be lying - but they didnt refuse to answer further questions .

Tanner - well was she or wasnt she lying - well lets just leave that as an agreement to disagree

Your third point - I dont see how you can possibly dismiss the witness statements of Cat B , Stacey B, Charlotte P and the creche cook . All give statements that put Maddie alive on the 3rd - Maddy was signed out by Kate around 5.30pm - There will be other statements as well to come out - as there were other nannies in the creche that day . again to say one is lying is possible - but to say all are involved unlikley .

Texana - I have never said there is proof of an abduction - there isnt . I have said that to me - with the evidence in front of me it is the more likely scenarion than murder / disposal IMO . I have always said that both scenarios seem unlilkely . I suppose there is the third option that Maddy wandered off - to then be taken/snatched .

we do seem to go round and round on this - I suppose that is to be expected .

 

[gord]

There are many theories....

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2662795&postcount=428

There was time....

OK I agree - there is time - I didnt mean to give the impression that there wasnt . But there sure as hell wasnt a lot . We are talking about getting rid of a body - and the body of your own child - in a strange country - at night .

Sure Gerry could have wandered down to the beach at about 10ish and somehow hidden Maddy - then called the police .

it just doesnt seem possible . But I will concede that it could have happened - not impossible .

to me getting rid of the body on the 2nd seems more likely as it would give more time - but then we have the issue of all the witnesess from the creche .

also I dont care who you are how cold and scheming you are . to know your daughter had died and to carry out a charade that they would have to do that night talking to wilkins - etc well as someone said Dante will have to find a new type of hell if they really carried it out that night

 

[Tony Bennett]

Tanner - well was she or wasn't she lying? - well let's just leave that as an agreement to disagree

REPLY: gord, we are entitled to ask you, so we can evaluate where you are coming from, on this and other issues: do you therefore accept that Jane Tanner is a witness of truth?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[gord]

REPLY: gord, we are entitled to ask you, so we can evaluate where you are coming from, on this and other issues: do you therefore accept that Jane Tanner is a witness of truth?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jeez Tony - this is a web forum not a frickin court of law

as I said to Salem earlier - I dont KNOW 100% if Tanner is lying or not

My OPINION is that she isnt - she did see Gerry and Wilkins and she did see a man with what might have looked like a child

I saw her being interviewed and unlike others I thought she seemed credible - if her story was a pack of lies then why on earth would she go on panorama - liars in a murder case dont tend to invite documentary teams to examine their whole story

I will repeat it again - to believe that Tanner is a liar is to believe that she was involved in some sort of cover up - which is to believe in a pre planned story -

so to sum up m'laud My impression on the evidence recieved so far is that I dont think Tanner is a liar or involved in the death / disposal of Maddy .

I beleive she saw what she saw - until someone proves the alternative - that is what I think


is that good enough ????

 

[colomom]

Gord,

If there is anyone on this board who could help on the Proving Innocence thread, it's you. Please come over, check it out and contribute if you would like.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70911

I am very serious when I say that I think you could offer some great food for thought!!

Thanks, in advance.

 

[Tony Bennett]

gord, thank you as always for your prompt and full answer. If I may summarise and paraphrase your answer: "I am not really sure if Jane Tanner is telling the truth".

Which is different from my answer, which would be "I am sure she is not telloing the truth".

To pick up on one or two of your other replies:

gord: "[Jane Tanner] did see Gerry and Wilkins..."

TB: On her drawing she said she walked right past them; on Panorama sh said they were on the other side of the road. C'mon, gord, which version do you accept as the truth? My answer: neither.

gord: "...and she did see a man with what might have looked like a child"

TB: 'might have', eh? Yet 6 months on, after intensive work with a 'cognitive therapist' and an FBI-trained forensic artist, it was Madeleine, complete with the same pyjamas she was supposed to be wearing that night

gord: "...if her story was a pack of lies then why on earth would she go on Panorama?"

TB: Because she was a fully paid-up member of the sinister 'Tapas 9' 'Pact of Silence'

gord: "...liars in a murder case don't tend to invite documentary teams to examine their whole story"

TB: gord, there are dozens of murderers and major criminals who have lied their way through TV documentaries. They are mostly practised and quite successful liars. And often enjoy the attention

gord: "I will repeat it again - to believe that Tanner is a liar is to believe that she was involved in some sort of cover up..."

TB: Yes. I believe Tanner is a liar and I also believe she is part of the cover-up in this case

gord: "...to believe that Tanner is a liar is to believe in a pre-planned story"

TB: I only say it was a pre-planned story to the extent that the 'Tapas 9' agreed to plan, perform and sustain the abduction claim following their discovery of Madeleine's death which I believe occurred some time after midnight on 2nd/3rd May

gord: "...my impression on the evidence recieved so far is that I don't think Tanner is a liar or involved in the death/disposal of Maddy"

TB: Put that way, neither do I beleive that Jane tanner was 'involved in the death/disposal' of Madeleine. I just believe she is a fully paid-up subscriber, for whatever reason, to their Pact of Silence.

gord: I believe she saw what she saw - until someone proves the alternative..."

TB: Hard to prove a negative, as you well know, gord. There are so many signs that Jane Tanner is not a witness of truth that I wonder if you have some preconceptions about the case which mean that you cannot see what many of us believe are the considerable number of clear signals that she is not a straight and honest witness

gord: "is that good enough????"

TB: My reply to you is robust but I hope not offensive - in keeping I trust with the spirit of this excellent forum. One thing I do credit you with, and appreciate, is that you do not duck difficult questions; you answer as fully as you can and also promptly - that makes our exchanges worthwhile IMO

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[colomom]

I'm sorry, can someone put the link for the dog video on again? I haven't seen it. Such good posts here, including Bennett's theories 1 and 2. Some people's deductive ability amazes me. You could very well be right.

Hi seagull....

In case you were still looking:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70352

There are links on post #1 and #16.

 

[Refugee]

thats the thing Tony no scenario seems credible

Certainly the scenario of a group of doctors being able to successfully hide and dispose of a body - trick search dogs - leave no forensic evidence all inside a matter of 1/2 an hour

You think the abduction seems doubtfull - well since this case started I have seen not one credible scenario on either how Madeleine was killed / died and then the body hidden and then disposed off . I have seen plenty of far out theories . but nothing credible that fits the evidence found .

The PJ have found the same thing - they have no body and nothing to tell them what happened . Granted there is nothing to show exactly how the abduction happened either .

But I still err on the abduction theory as it seems the most likely to me . I have never ruled out completely the parental involvment , but until I see positive and firm evidence to show this and what happened then I remaiin firm in my views .

It is all too easy to use a mocking tone as you do on alternative theories - fine . But remember this case has been shelved - the combined strength of portugese and UK LE have not solved it - not found a body positive forensics anything . In fact as far as I can see the whole case seems to revolve around the two dogs alerting - there doesnt seem much more

You err all right! You think that no evidence whatsoever as opposed to the mass of evidence and political support is an equal balance?

Your grasp of the evidence is weak, Tanner claimed pink pyjamas in sodium light. The abduction took place in 5 minutes - ulitmately this became no minutes when Gerry cancelled out tanners sighting with his time quote on his blog.

How about parking your attempt to negate the completely irrational behaviours (a Mother cries abduction before she checks with her friend in the flat nearby - when she knew her daughter awoke crying the night before, a doctor suspects his children were sedated - but doesnt bother getting them checked, a Mother washes the last toy her 'abdcuted' child held) and address the abduction - how the heck is it possible? and think on this, would the child have been 'abducted' if her 'loving' parents had loooked after her properly?

I suspect you have a motive for your blind support of the abusers in this case, I have no motive for not beleiving them, but the evidence screams at me, they know what happened to their child.

 

[daffodil]

I wonder what "motive" those who do not condemn the McCanns could possibly have gord? We are accused of having one but no explanation of what it could be-bizarre!

 

[colomom]

I wonder what "motive" those who do not condemn the McCanns could possibly have gord? We are accused of having one but no explanation of what it could be-bizarre!

I have always thought that perhaps it might be related to a parents denial of that evil that might actually manifest itself in the killing of one's own offspring or the hiding of an accidental death to cover one's a$$..

Denial is a powerful thing....

I AM NOT SAYING THAT THIS APPLIES TO YOU OR ANYONE ON THIS BOARD!

Just to make sure that is clear.