the cadaver dog

[brit1981]

Either you believe Tanner and/or the Smiths saw the abductor, or your don't.

If you do, there is no "half hour window"...we know the EXACT time...coincidentally, right when Gerry was performing his "checks" and wandering the streets of the resort while he was at it, for some as yet unexplained reason.

:banghead:

No you do not. One can belive the smiths and tanner saw someone, but no-one has any idea if it was an abductor or just an innocent father and child. The fact they have not yet come forward suggests it was an abductor, but it cannot be ruled out it was an innocent who has been too scared to come forward for some reason.

So there is a half hour window, but if tanner saw the abductor there was a window of a few minutes which was plenty of time to walk into the flat, pick the child up and walk calmly out the car park door and cross the junction.

Gerry was not wandering the streets whilst doing his checks. He did a check at ninish, and as he walked back down the street to the restuarant he stopped and chatted to someone for a few minutes. In order to get from the restuarant to the flat he had to walk up and down that street, so it is hardly suspicious.

 

[SapphireSteel]

No you do not. One can belive the smiths and tanner saw someone, but no-one has any idea if it was an abductor or just an innocent father and child. The fact they have not yet come forward suggests it was an abductor, but it cannot be ruled out it was an innocent who has been too scared to come forward for some reason.

So there is a half hour window, but if tanner saw the abductor there was a window of a few minutes which was plenty of time to walk into the flat, pick the child up and walk calmly out the car park door and cross the junction.

Gerry was not wandering the streets whilst doing his checks. He did a check at ninish, and as he walked back down the street to the restuarant he stopped and chatted to someone for a few minutes. In order to get from the restuarant to the flat he had to walk up and down that street, so it is hardly suspicious.

Tanner saw an individual which she claimed was carrying Madeleine.

We have the time fixed if you believe Tanner.

Gerry and Jez Wilkins did not see the abductor, and Jez did not see Tanner.

This is IMPOSSIBLE, no matter how you look at it.

 

[brit1981]

Firstly it is also a falsehood to claim Jane said she saw a man carrying Madeleine. She said she saw a man carrying a child, who from what was seen matched madeleine's description. But she was very clear she never saw the child's face, and could not positively identify the child. So it could be the child was madeleine being carried by an abductor, it could be an innocent. The same goes for the smith sighting which matched Tanner's description.

Its was not exactly a narrow street, gerry and jeremy were in conversation with each other, not carrying out a survey of footfall on the street. Why would they happen to notice someone who was walking by especially as one of them had their back to Jane' and the other one was also in conversation. Plus as they were talking about the children it is very possible they were looking down at the pushchair. If Jane was going to lie to help cover up a crime against madeleine, then why not say she saw the man when gerry and jeremy were not there (they had gone by the time Jane made her return journey).

 

[SapphireSteel]

Firstly it is also a falsehood to claim Jane said she saw a man carrying Madeleine. She said she saw a man carrying a child, who from what was seen matched madeleine's description. But she was very clear she never saw the child's face, and could not positively identify the child. So it could be the child was madeleine being carried by an abductor, it could be an innocent. The same goes for the smith sighting which matched Tanner's description.

Its was not exactly a narrow street, gerry and jeremy were in conversation with each other, not carrying out a survey of footfall on the street. Why would they happen to notice someone who was walking by especially as one of them had their back to Jane' and the other one was also in conversation. Plus as they were talking about the children it is very possible they were looking down at the pushchair. If Jane was going to lie to help cover up a crime against madeleine, then why not say she saw the man when gerry and jeremy were not there (they had gone by the time Jane made her return journey).

Your response is actually quite enlightening, as it shows a staggering lack of understanding of the crime scene and the circumstances of the evening.

It is literally impossible for Jez Wilkins not to have seen Tanner.

Search out footage, people have recreated the scene. It is indisputable...yet here you are disputing it.

Jez Wilkins himself *witness, actually there and actually knows* said it was impossible for Tanner to pass him unseen.

"looking down at the pushchair" omg what were they, standing entranced by a pushchair for the minutes it took for Tanner to round the corner, stroll past them (probably say hi, as you do in these circumstances) keep going up the street, see the "abductor" and maybe one of those kids they were ALL supposed to be checking on, which Jez and Gerry (fellow kid checker) also did not see.

Absolutely impossible...and absurd.

It would be hysterically funny if there wasn't a lost little girl in this mess.

ullhair:

 

[brit1981]

Your response is actually quite enlightening, as it shows a staggering lack of understanding of the crime scene and the circumstances of the evening.

It is literally impossible for Jez Wilkins not to have seen Tanner.

Search out footage, people have recreated the scene. It is indisputable...yet here you are disputing it.

Jez Wilkins himself *witness, actually there and actually knows* said it was impossible for Tanner to pass him unseen.

"looking down at the pushchair" omg what were they, standing entranced by a pushchair for the minutes it took for Tanner to round the corner, stroll past them (probably say hi, as you do in these circumstances) keep going up the street, see the "abductor" and maybe one of those kids they were ALL supposed to be checking on, which Jez and Gerry (fellow kid checker) also did not see.

Absolutely impossible...and absurd.

It would be hysterically funny if there wasn't a lost little girl in this mess.

ullhair:

Jeremy wilkins has not once said it wa simpossible for tanner to have walked past gerry and him. He just said he did nto see her.
It was nto a narrow street, not nearly an alley. It was plenty big enoguh for someone to walk past in the dark and not be noticed by two other people who were in conversation and one of whom has their back to the person walking by. Why woudl they have to see them especially as it was dark, and jane said she never said hi.
And there is no reason whatsoever they woudl see the man jane saw. That person was seen at the junction for a very few seconds. Jeremy and gerry were further down the street and not facing the junction. As they were talking to each other they would not have they head turned to look down the street at a right angle.
Not one person has ever been able to demonstrate it would be impossible for this to happen.

 

[gord]

Your response is actually quite enlightening, as it shows a staggering lack of understanding of the crime scene and the circumstances of the evening.

It is literally impossible for Jez Wilkins not to have seen Tanner.

Search out footage, people have recreated the scene. It is indisputable...yet here you are disputing it.

Jez Wilkins himself *witness, actually there and actually knows* said it was impossible for Tanner to pass him unseen.

"looking down at the pushchair" omg what were they, standing entranced by a pushchair for the minutes it took for Tanner to round the corner, stroll past them (probably say hi, as you do in these circumstances) keep going up the street, see the "abductor" and maybe one of those kids they were ALL supposed to be checking on, which Jez and Gerry (fellow kid checker) also did not see.

Absolutely impossible...and absurd.

It would be hysterically funny if there wasn't a lost little girl in this mess.

ullhair:

would be interested to see your source for where Jeremy Wolkins states it was impossible for Jane Tanner to walk past without him seeing her. Impossible is a pretty definitive word and I highly doubt wilkins said that - but willing to be proved wrong.

 

[Donjeta]

If it was so dark that Wilkins and Gerry couldn't see Jane Tanner, how come Jane Tanner could see the man carrying the child?

 

[brit1981]

If it was so dark that Wilkins and Gerry couldn't see Jane Tanner, how come Jane Tanner could see the man carrying the child?

I think, but will have to double check it, there were street lights where the man passed. But she was also looking directly in that direction.
Yes, it was dark where gerry and jeremy were stood, but they were also in conversation focusing on each other and one had their back to Jane. When you are in conversation or engrossed in something others can walk by without you noticing, especially if the light is not good. Why woudl someone with their back to jane have noticed her, and why would the other perosn who wa sin conversation and not looking at the street have had to have noticed them. I have not seen one source where jeremy states it would have been impossible for someone to walk by without him seeing them.

There is also the question that if Jane did not walk past them, then why did she go. Witness state she left the table at this time and walked down to the street, so if she did not turn left to go to the flat, then where did she go and why did she go there and why lie? Because we have two people saying that they did not see jane, but neither of them say it was impossible and one would have had their back to her anyway, plus several witnesses claiming she left the table at this time.

 

[SapphireSteel]

If it was so dark that Wilkins and Gerry couldn't see Jane Tanner, how come Jane Tanner could see the man carrying the child?

Exactly. What a load of carp.

It was impossible that Jez Wilkins did not see Tanner. She almost brushed past. The street was narrow and she walked up the same side that Jez and Gerry were standing on. There was no one else around and Jez Wilkins said there was no way she could walk by without him noticing.

Someone is lying.

:banghead:

 

[brit1981]

Exactly. What a load of carp.

It was impossible that Jez Wilkins did not see Tanner. She almost brushed past. The street was narrow and she walked up the same side that Jez and Gerry were standing on. There was no one else around and Jez Wilkins said there was no way she could walk by without him noticing.

Someone is lying.

:banghead:

Untrue. There are no witness statements from Jeremy wilkins stating it wa simpossible for him to have not noticed Jane. If you have found any please link to them

The street was not very narrow at all, and interestingly she agrees with jeremy about where they were stood not gerry, so people here are picking and chosing when to believe her. It is very easy to walk past someone in the dark, especially someone with their back to you, and in conversation rather than looking out to the street and have them not notice you.
Not one person has come up with a credible theory as to...
1) Why Jeremy agrees with jane about where they were stood

2) about why jane would lie about walking past them, when she had made other checks when they were not there and could have claimed to have seen the man then

3) why if she is lying to protect the mccanns gerry claims not to have seen her, and contradicts her on where they were standing

4) where she went when she left the table as witnesses state she left the table to check on the children at this time. So she went to the road and had to either turn left and go past gerry and jeremy, or go right. Why would she suddenly decide to go for a walk into the village?

5) Even though the statements were given independently, why does Jane's description match that of the smiths (and according to MW staff and other witnesses gerry was at the complex at the time of the smith sighting, all but one of the smiths said they could not identify the man they saw, and one smith said weeks later that there was a chance by the body language it could have been gerry mccann, but he was no sure as he never saw his face, it was dark, and he did not ave his glasses, and it is unlikely the majority of the smiths, the MW staff and guests are "in on it".

so far not one person has come up with a creidble explanation for these.

Their theory seems to simply hang on the implausible idea that whilst it is according to them impossible to walk past someone in the dark when they are in conversation and have their back to you without them noticing, it is perfectly possible to walk around for an carrying a dead body in broad daylight and bury it someone where publicly accessible in broad daylight, then retrieve it in front of tens and tens of people inc. police and reporters, then hide it again in front of all these people, then retrieve it again in front of them, and dispose of it again in front of them possibly via the hiring of a deep sea boat without anyone finding the body or noticing anything at all.

 

[gord]

Exactly. What a load of carp.

It was impossible that Jez Wilkins did not see Tanner. She almost brushed past. The street was narrow and she walked up the same side that Jez and Gerry were standing on. There was no one else around and Jez Wilkins said there was no way she could walk by without him noticing.

Someone is lying.

:banghead:

you keep on stating that it was impossible for JW not to see Jane Tanner - is this just your opinion or this based on anything more concrete such as an attributable quote or a report from the files ?

I would be interested to see ANYTHING where JW states that it was impossible -

 

[fabgod]

you keep on stating that it was impossible for JW not to see Jane Tanner - is this just your opinion or this based on anything more concrete such as an attributable quote or a report from the files ?

I would be interested to see ANYTHING where JW states that it was impossible -

Jeremy Wilkins Rogatory letter 8th April 2008
He doesnt say it was impossible but he says it was very unlikely.

Jeremy Wilkins

Q. Relative to the passerby/transient:
I can affirm that it was a quiet street and it was very unlikely that someone could have passed by be in this way but this as an assumption and I do not remember anything having happened.

snipped from http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm

As a separate point, there are posts stating that J Wilkins and G McCann were standing talking to each other in certain positions and would not have seen Jane Tanner, in the above linked letter Wilkins says the following

I do not know if we were face to face or side to side when this conversation occurred. As I had the pram with me I was rocking it so my son could sleep, it seems to me that I was in the downward direction, but it is possible that I was in the opposite direction.

Its already well known from the Madeleine programme that showed the McCann version of a reconstruction, that Gerry McCann couldnt agree with Jane Tanner where she apparently saw him standing, so Its fair to say, there is no clear answer as to who was where in relation to the McCann/Wilkins conversation

 

[brit1981]

S o if there is no clear answer to where they were standing why does that mean it is impossible for Jeremy and Gerry to see Jane.

To repeat myself, no-one has answered these points

1) Why Jeremy agrees with jane about where they were stood

2) about why jane would lie about walking past them, when she had made other checks when they were not there and could have claimed to have seen the man then

3) why if she is lying to protect the mccanns gerry claims not to have seen her, and contradicts her on where they were standing

4) where she went when she left the table as witnesses state she left the table to check on the children at this time. So she went to the road and had to either turn left and go past gerry and jeremy, or go right. Why would she suddenly decide to go for a walk into the village?

5) Even though the statements were given independently, why does Jane's description match that of the smiths (and according to MW staff and other witnesses gerry was at the complex at the time of the smith sighting, all but one of the smiths said they could not identify the man they saw, and one smith said weeks later that there was a chance by the body language it could have been gerry mccann, but he was no sure as he never saw his face, it was dark, and he did not ave his glasses, and it is unlikely the majority of the smiths, the MW staff and guests are "in on it".

Also the <Mod Snip>seem desperate to convince people it is impossible to walk by someone in the dark whilst they were in conversation without being seen, but perfectly possible to walk around in broad daylight with a body and hide it without anyone seeing, and possible to retrieve the body at least once and dispose of it somewhere (some claiming a deep sea boat was secretly hired) whilst surrounded by tens and tens of people including the police and reporters.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Jeremy Wilkins Rogatory letter 8th April 2008
He doesnt say it was impossible but he says it was very unlikely.

Jeremy Wilkins


snipped from http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm

As a separate point, there are posts stating that J Wilkins and G McCann were standing talking to each other in certain positions and would not have seen Jane Tanner, in the above linked letter Wilkins says the following



Its already well known from the Madeleine programme that showed the McCann version of a reconstruction, that Gerry McCann couldnt agree with Jane Tanner where she apparently saw him standing, so Its fair to say, there is no clear answer as to who was where in relation to the McCann/Wilkins conversation

This is why a reconstruction was vital, and to be avoided at all costs by the McCann.

There are no clear answers from the Tapas 9 and a reconstruction will illustrate the inaccuracies and sheer impossibilities of what they claim.

All witnesses that are non Tapas have given sworn statements that reveal the statements made by the McCann are false.

There are so many contradictory and unsatisfactory answers.

One night, that will be seared on your memory for ever, yet no one can quite remember exactly how it went or what they did when.

This despite the McCann wasting precious search time by tearing off a cover of Madeleine's sticker book to write out a time line before they'd even been asked.

Apparently the action of writing out a timeline on the same day you needed one, did not make anyone's memory any clearer later on.

:banghead:

 

[brit1981]

I notice no <Mod Snip>has any answers as to where jane went when she left the table if she did not turn left. Now has anyone come up with any theory as to how the mccanns got rid of a body

My replies in bold

This is why a reconstruction was vital, and to be avoided at all costs by the McCann.

The McCanns never refused to take part in the reconstruction. However there was never going to be a full reconstruction, the PJ only wanted the McCanns there friends, and Jeremy wilkins there. They wanted no other witnesses, such as MW staff and other guests, to be present for some reason.

There are no clear answers from the Tapas 9 and a reconstruction will illustrate the inaccuracies and sheer impossibilities of what they claim.

They have not claimed anything impossible, and if the only people to take part in a reconstruction would be the tapas nine and jeremy wilkins how does it clarify anything, as in half a decade not one of them has changed their story, and no-one has come up with any inaccuracies in their stories.


All witnesses that are non Tapas have given sworn statements that reveal the statements made by the McCann are false.
Not true at all. Not one witness has contradicted the mccanns, And if it is enough to rely on statements from vital witnesses, why not from the Tapas nine and jeremy wilkins. There was no good reason to single them out.

There are so many contradictory and unsatisfactory answers.

No there are not, unless one considers the fact nothing said implicates the mccanns as unsatisfactory.

One night, that will be seared on your memory for ever, yet no one can quite remember exactly how it went or what they did when.

This despite the McCann wasting precious search time by tearing off a cover of Madeleine's sticker book to write out a time line before they'd even been asked.

The mccanns never did this. Some of their friends did at some point, and as this is the advice given by the police then why is that wrong. The tapas nine statements seem clear to me, especially given no-one had reason to think they would have to remember that night until ten.

Apparently the action of writing out a timeline on the same day you needed one, did not make anyone's memory any clearer later on.

What has been unclear
:banghead:

 

[Clutchbag]

S o if there is no clear answer to where they were standing why does that mean it is impossible for Jeremy and Gerry to see Jane.

To repeat myself, no-one has answered these points

1) Why Jeremy agrees with jane about where they were stood

This is not an issue. It is clear from JWs and JTs statements and drawings that both of them state they (GM and JW) stood and had a conversation at the gate at the bottom of the steps at the back of the apartment.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm


Only GMs account is different, saying it happened across the road. Then again we have a joint group statement on May 10th saying it happened at the apartment side of the road.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm

 

[SapphireSteel]

No matter where they were standing, it is a small quiet street in a small quiet town.

Tanner walked straight by.

It is impossible for anyone with eyes, ears and normal human senses, not to see her pass.

The only explanation is, that she DID NOT pass.

Add that in to her changing description of "the man" and you have clearly got fabrication.

There should be no discrepancies at all in anyone's telling of the evening. None. What happened, happened, and the truth remains consistent with each retelling.

When extra detail starts being introduced, or descriptions change and grow over time, it is a sign of an attempt at deception.

:cow:

 

[fabgod]

This keeps bugging me,
Andy Redwood made comments to the media that he believed Madeleine was a stranger abduction, that she could still be alive, there was an age progression picture released in 2012.
The Leveson Enquiry and subsequent related statements from people such as David Cameron and even Hugh Grant today, mentioning the Dowlers and the McCanns as victims.
My concern is this, how can everybody be discounting the results of the dog alerts in the multiple places all connected to the McCanns?
I know we have the usual "the dogs are so unreliable" script, but in truth the dogs are not unreliable, the results speak volumes for their abilities so how come such high profile people seem to be discounting the signs of cadaver?

Could there be any truth in the talk that the dogs did alert correctly but that there are other reasons for the alerts?
Stephen Birch has gone expremely quiet in recent times after his media blitz on the Madeleine body in Murats garden. Is it possible that the PJ did mess up the investigation so badly that as reported by I think the Daily Star that releasing certain information would cause diplomatic problems between the UK and Portugal.
Could those problems be because of actions on the Portuguese side to force the investigation down a certain path that backfired.
I personally believe the dogs did their job, they found something, but were they meant to find something?
Did what they found then totally destroy the case and let off the real culprits whoever they are?

 

[SapphireSteel]

This keeps bugging me,
Andy Redwood made comments to the media that he believed Madeleine was a stranger abduction, that she could still be alive, there was an age progression picture released in 2012.
The Leveson Enquiry and subsequent related statements from people such as David Cameron and even Hugh Grant today, mentioning the Dowlers and the McCanns as victims.
My concern is this, how can everybody be discounting the results of the dog alerts in the multiple places all connected to the McCanns?
I know we have the usual "the dogs are so unreliable" script, but in truth the dogs are not unreliable, the results speak volumes for their abilities so how come such high profile people seem to be discounting the signs of cadaver?

Could there be any truth in the talk that the dogs did alert correctly but that there are other reasons for the alerts?
Stephen Birch has gone expremely quiet in recent times after his media blitz on the Madeleine body in Murats garden. Is it possible that the PJ did mess up the investigation so badly that as reported by I think the Daily Star that releasing certain information would cause diplomatic problems between the UK and Portugal.
Could those problems be because of actions on the Portuguese side to force the investigation down a certain path that backfired.
I personally believe the dogs did their job, they found something, but were they meant to find something?
Did what they found then totally destroy the case and let off the real culprits whoever they are?

Have you read Amaral's book, the PJ's final report, the Tapas statements, Kate's book and Gerry's original (now heavily redacted) blog?

These are what I personally consider the "source"...and of course also the media and interviews the Tapas did.

The only "source" that accuses the investigation of being inadequate, is the McCann, and they began complaining on 3 May 2007.

:banghead:

If you are familiar with the source documents it is indisputable that

1. the Portugese authorities reacted with incredible speed and mounted a complete and comprehensive operation on all airports, ports, roads, etc.

2. the Portugese authorities had no reason to suspect Madeleine had died in that apartment at the time, the search was for a live little girl.

3. Mistakes were made in the initial hours due to this assumption.

4. It was in fact the British Police who first developed solid evidence implicating the McCanns and began working to the "died in 5a" theory.

:cow:

 

[fabgod]

Have you read Amaral's book, the PJ's final report, the Tapas statements, Kate's book and Gerry's original (now heavily redacted) blog?

These are what I personally consider the "source"...and of course also the media and interviews the Tapas did.

The only "source" that accuses the investigation of being inadequate, is the McCann, and they began complaining on 3 May 2007.

:banghead:

If you are familiar with the source documents it is indisputable that

1. the Portugese authorities reacted with incredible speed and mounted a complete and comprehensive operation on all airports, ports, roads, etc.

2. the Portugese authorities had no reason to suspect Madeleine had died in that apartment at the time, the search was for a live little girl.

3. Mistakes were made in the initial hours due to this assumption.

4. It was in fact the British Police who first developed solid evidence implicating the McCanns and began working to the "died in 5a" theory.

:cow:

I understand all the points, but if you look at my post I am not questioning any of the points, they could all be absolutely correct.
What I am saying is that if certain elements of the PJ were, or were seen to be corrupt, if evidence was planted the dogs would alert, it wouldnt have to be Madeleines.
Then if the UK government found out about this, they would face a diplomatic crisis. We have seen the reports about the witholding of information from the Home Office regards the FOI request from the Daily star that would have resulted in Diplomatic problems if they had been released.
Everything could fit, the parents would be aware and that could possibly lead to the actions that have been discussed in various areas.

I totally believe that the dogs alerted correctly, which obviously leads me to thinking that there is no evidence of an abductor that can be confirmed.
Ive seen the statements and there are so many inconsistencies that imo there is something very wrong about the validity of some of the claims and times etc.
I just struggle to believe that so many people could have kept such a terrible secret under such intense scrutiny, but if somewhere in the first few months they found out that they held the trump card in the fact of their knowledge of the PJ evidence corrupition, they would be in a position of strength and immunity that would possibly give them the confidence or fear, to continue.

I'm not saying that this is what i believe to be the case, I am saying it would answer a lot of questions in my mind as to whys and what fors!