Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 26

[brit1981]

about the dogs, basu stated they used the dogs on wednesday, and nothing was found until a further search on the friday. So the dogs failed on wednesday.
Grimes also states that the EVRD alerts to bodily fluids including blood. No remains were uncovered in the jersey search, it has been suggested that the dog may actually have alerted to bodily fluids present.

As for tracking down who was in prison and when...
you could try looking through old court files. Go to the ministry of justice site and have a look, it will often be person z vs regina or something like that. alternatively you could try looking through media, including local newspapers.

 

[redheadedgal]

Hi
I just looked on google earth, that is amazing. I suppose that proves that awareness campaigns work doesn't it? Can I ask, was it an old picture of Madeleine or an age progressed one?
Thanks

the poster had both pictures

 

[fabgod]

the poster had both pictures

Good, I'm glad it wasn't an outdated picture.
It is still amazing that someone has taken the time to do that, thousands of miles away from Madeleines home

Thank you again

 

[fabgod]

I've just been reading about Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida and his claims made to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation in September 2007.
He pulls no punches in his claims about the McCanns and the Tapas friends, this isnt Goncalo Amaral remember this is another Officer involved in the case.

De Almeidas report to the coordinator of the Criminal Investigation, can be found
here
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

De Almeida was of the belief that the Dogs suggested by the British Police were a Cadaver dog and a Blood dog. He apparently was informed that they had a 100% success rate.

He also states the the GNR were only informed at 22.40hrs.
I would have thought that the Police would have been called immediately, especially in view of Kate McCanns insistence that she knew that Madeleine had been taken.

He criticises the actions of the McCanns in publicising the disappearance, the Portuguese police have a judicial secrecy that seemingly dissaproves or should I say prohibits interraction with the media.
Kate and Gerry McCann often referred to it, stating they couldnt respond to certain questions because of it.

The interesting part for me is that he states that it wasnt possible for an abduction to have taken place before 9.30pm
If Jane Tanners statement was taken out of the equation, then the abduction could have happened between 9.30 and 10pm.

That is the same conclusion as I have tried to show on the timeline i made here earlier.
I dont understand why Jane Tanners statement has to be correct, it limits the timeframe and makes it almost impossible for it to have happened.
It isnt me that needs to be believed here, it is a Chief Inspector working on the very case, privy to all the facts, so why?
Why does the Jane Tanner sighting have to be real, it almost makes the tapas friends and the McCanns look guilty, in the fact that suspicion is placed on them that is not necessary.

 

[redheadedgal]

Good, I'm glad it wasn't an outdated picture.
It is still amazing that someone has taken the time to do that, thousands of miles away from Madeleines home

Thank you again

i believe it's a program through walmart and not an individual... but who knows

http://www.walmartstores.com/CommunityGiving/212.aspx

 

[Cappuccino]

I think maybe people believe Jane Tanner because they can't see any reason why she would lie. However, she could be telling the truth but be genuinely mistaken, so I see no reason to be tied to the idea that the child she saw was Madeleine.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I think maybe people believe Jane Tanner because they can't see any reason why she would lie. However, she could be telling the truth but be genuinely mistaken, so I see no reason to be tied to the idea that the child she saw was Madeleine.

She could be genuinely mistaken, however, it is hard for me to accept her changing story.

Also hard to accept that neither Jeremy Wilkins nor Gerry McCann saw this individual.

Especially as this person apparently walked straight past Gerry and Jane with Madeleine in his arms...surely they recognised her, further, realised that a stranger had her?

:moo:

 

[fabgod]

She could be genuinely mistaken, however, it is hard for me to accept her changing story.

Also hard to accept that neither Jeremy Wilkins nor Gerry McCann saw this individual.

Especially as this person apparently walked straight past Gerry and Jane with Madeleine in his arms...surely they recognised her, further, realised that a stranger had her?

:moo:

Its not about lying for me personally, its more about the apparent need to make the Jane Tanner sighting fit, The fact of the matter is that the timeline doesnt support Tanners sighting yet there would be plenty of time after 9.30pm for an abduction, so why narrow it down to an almost impossible window of opportunity.
I can fully understand all the tapas friends jumping to the conclusion that it must have been Madeleine, but they must have known how active they all were during this period.

 

[brit1981]

I think whenever she was taken there was only going to be a narrow window as people were checking at different times. the mccanns checked every half an hour, so taking madeleine as soon a spossible after the first check woudl make the most sense. The tanner sighting cudl easily fit as it would not take much time to go in pick a child up and go out again.

Plus jane has not changed her story. Now it might be that madeleine was taken later, but the tanner sighting does fit with the timings. From the time Gerry left the flat to when Jane saw the person there was a minimum of five minutes, plenty of time to take a child.

I find it worrying that the PJ have claimed that they were led to believe eddie was a cadaver dog with a hundred percent success rate. The UK does not have cadaver dogs they have recovery dogs, which is what eddie was, and in eddies's case he is trained to alert to bodily fluids including blood as well as decomposition. he also does not have a hundred percent success rate, at least not according to a FOI the south yorkshire police completed. But the part about eddie not being a cadaver dog and alerting to bodily fluids was in the report given by grimes to the PJ so they had no excuse for not knowing this once they had the report. But i recall there were claims in the media that the detective in charge of the jersey fiasco tried to shift the blame onto people over selling the dogs abilities, no idea if this is true or just the media bending the truth again, but it would eb rather unfair if that is true as he had the opportunity to contact south yorkshire police etc and get confirmation.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I think whenever she was taken there was only going to be a narrow window as people were checking at different times. the mccanns checked every half an hour, so taking madeleine as soon a spossible after the first check woudl make the most sense. The tanner sighting cudl easily fit as it would not take much time to go in pick a child up and go out again.

Plus jane has not changed her story. Now it might be that madeleine was taken later, but the tanner sighting does fit with the timings. From the time Gerry left the flat to when Jane saw the person there was a minimum of five minutes, plenty of time to take a child.

I find it worrying that the PJ have claimed that they were led to believe eddie was a cadaver dog with a hundred percent success rate. The UK does not have cadaver dogs they have recovery dogs, which is what eddie was, and in eddies's case he is trained to alert to bodily fluids including blood as well as decomposition. he also does not have a hundred percent success rate, at least not according to a FOI the south yorkshire police completed. But the part about eddie not being a cadaver dog and alerting to bodily fluids was in the report given by grimes to the PJ so they had no excuse for not knowing this once they had the report. But i recall there were claims in the media that the detective in charge of the jersey fiasco tried to shift the blame onto people over selling the dogs abilities, no idea if this is true or just the media bending the truth again, but it would eb rather unfair if that is true as he had the opportunity to contact south yorkshire police etc and get confirmation.

All this checking going on, it remains a curious fact that no one apart from her parents actually clapped eyes on her from 5.30pm onwards.

 

[fabgod]

All this checking going on, it remains a curious fact that no one apart from her parents actually clapped eyes on her from 5.30pm onwards.

No, Jane Tanner did, she said so, it was erm 1.5 metres to 50 metres away, she had just walked past Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins on the left or right side of the road, they didnt see her because they were into a deep conversation.
Anyway, she saw Madeleine, she did! she was lying in the mans arms at the top of the street, he was swarthy and tall, walking briskly with long hair and he was turned away from her, he had dark skin and didnt look like a local because he was dressed warmly, he was holding Madeleine out in front of him.
It was dark, but she had pink pyjamas on and they were turned up at the bottom,
Jane Tanner saw Madeleine at 9.15 ish!

 

[SapphireSteel]

No, Jane Tanner did, she said so, it was erm 1.5 metres to 50 metres away, she had just walked past Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins on the left or right side of the road, they didnt see her because they were into a deep conversation.
Anyway, she saw Madeleine, she did! she was lying in the mans arms at the top of the street, he was swarthy and tall, walking briskly with long hair and he was turned away from her, he had dark skin and didnt look like a local because he was dressed warmly, he was holding Madeleine out in front of him.
It was dark, but she had pink pyjamas on and they were turned up at the bottom,
Jane Tanner saw Madeleine at 9.15 ish!

Oh yes, silly me I forgot.

Look! There's Madeleine, being abducted! I wonder if I should mention it? Nah...

:banghead:

 

[fabgod]

Oh yes, silly me I forgot.

Look! There's Madeleine, being abducted! I wonder if I should mention it? Nah...

:banghead:

Sorry, I didnt see you, I was chatting!:blushing:

 

[brit1981]

Tanner never identified madeleine, she said she saw a man carrying a child of about the same age wearing similar pyjamas. She specifically said the only reason she assume dit was a girl was because of the colour of the pyjamas. She had no reason to think it was suspicious at the time. But if people honestly think they have evidence she was lying, they should call operation grange., there is no point just talkign about it online, give it to the people who actually count.

David payne also saw madeleine at six thirty, and as either one or both of her parents were with her until eight thirty there was no need ot have lots of people check on her.

 

[fabgod]

Ok, if we are going down the road of David Payne not seeing Madeleine and Jane Tanners sighting not being Madeleine, that leaves 5.30 to 10pm before anyone from outside the group would have been to the apartment.
This would obviously be plenty of time to clean the apartment and make plans.

I am still of the thinkng that it wasnt a death, I know it is then hard to discount the dog alerts but I still cannot tally in my mind that all the group would be in the know, loose lips and all that!

But if David Payne is taken to have not seen her, then he has lied for a reason and that means he knows at least part of whatever happened.
Is that the consensus 3 know and the rest are all unwittingly involved.

Again, for this to work then, it couldnt be the day before (a stand in Madeleine) because the other friends would then be involved,

Finally, who moves the body then? taking the theory as suggested earlier

 

[brit1981]

nnnnnnn

Ok, if we are going down the road of David Payne not seeing Madeleine and Jane Tanners sighting not being Madeleine, that leaves 5.30 to 10pm before anyone from outside the group would have been to the apartment.
This would obviously be plenty of time to clean the apartment and make plans.

they left the high tea at five thirty at the earliest, so they would have had a few minutes ot gte to the flat. Gerry was at tennis from six to seven thirty according to witnesses. he asked david to speak to kate. David was seen leaving by witnesses. Other guests put Kate and Gerry at the tapas bar at eight thirty. So there was an hour for gerry to shower change dispose of his first born's daughter on foot somewhere on public property where it was never found and clean up the flat.

I am still of the thinkng that it wasnt a death, I know it is then hard to discount the dog alerts but I still cannot tally in my mind that all the group would be in the know, loose lips and all that!


The dog alerts to bodily fluids so there is no reason to decide his alerts mean there was a death there, assuming Grimes was correct in his report that the dog will alert to bodily fluids.

But if David Payne is taken to have not seen her, then he has lied for a reason and that means he knows at least part of whatever happened.
Is that the consensus 3 know and the rest are all unwittingly involved.

We have to look at why he would lie, I do not mean in the "why would someone do something so awful" way, but how did it benefit the situation having him see madeleine at six thirty. Madeleine was alive at five thirty at the earliest, Gerry was at the tennis courts at six, so taking into account travelling time there was a maximum of twenty-five minutes for madeleine to die and her parents hatch a plan to cover it up before geryr went off to play tennis like nothign happened. it also means that david had to be told about this and asked to take part in the time between six and six thirty whilst they wer eon the tennis courts, yet no-one noticed anything amiss i.e secret conversations, david choking with shock etc.
I just cannot see it being feasible that madeleine died in the short time before tennis, and a plan had been hatched to cover it up, and no-one noticed anything unusual on the tennis courts beween gerry and david.

Again, for this to work then, it couldnt be the day before (a stand in Madeleine) because the other friends would then be involved,

Finally, who moves the body then? taking the theory as suggested earlier

 

[fabgod]

Thanks, we already know the McCann version of events!

 

[brit1981]

hate to be the one to break it to you, but the timeline above is actually based on people other than the tapas nine.

people other than the tapas nine saw madeleine at high tea at five thirty.

people other than the tapas nine saw gerry at tennis from six to seven thirty.

people other than the tapas nine saw david leave the tennis courts

people other than the tapas nien saw what was happening on the tennis courts.

people other than the tapas nine saw kate and gerry at the tapas bar at eight thirty.

 

[fabgod]

hate to be the one to break it to you, but the timeline above is actually based on people other than the tapas nine.

people other than the tapas nine saw madeleine at high tea at five thirty.

people other than the taps nine saw gerry at tennis grom six to seven thirty.

people other than the tapas nine saw david leave the tennis courts

people other than the tapas nien saw what was happening on the tennis courts.

people other than the tapas nine saw kate and gerry at the tapas bar at eight thirty.

Thanks again, like I mentioned earlier!

 

[brit1981]

How is a timeline based on what people outside of the tapas nine (i.e other guests and staff) the mccann timeline? I have purposely not put in anything that cannot be backed up by other people.

If we are going to look at a timeline that is what we need to do, start with people outside the tapas nine. then look at what the tapas nine say, and look at the scenario here they are lying. Why would they lie, when was the lie arranged, where was it arranged, who benefits from it etc. For instance if david payne is lying then it indicates that soemthign had happened to madeleine between five thirty and six. That seriously narrows the timeline, and then the statements of those on the court yard need to be gone over again - did they see david and gerry talking together away from the others etc? It is not enough to just discount people, that tells us nothing, but looking at what they tell us narrows windows and helps us to either accept their statement or discount it.