Re: Twitter:"Sunday the 12th of October is T-DAY for the McCann´s"

by Okeydokey 24.10.14 0:03

Doug D wrote:Nothing new again and makes a ‘fact’ of how GM entered 5A for his 9.04 check, when nobody really knows, (not even GM, based on his differing statements).

Even S & S in their ‘most definitive account’ make no mention of how GM got there.

Certainly nothing to cause any problems with the ‘men in black’ or ‘C-R’ that I can see.

Looks like there is going to be more than just the original four as the closing statement:

‘The following videos will undermine these testimonies’

suggests a series.

I think these videos are v. good. Lots of little darts hitting targets and undermining the Team McCann version. For instance, the idea that Jane Tanner would walk past Gerry without saying "Hi" is simply not credible. That needs pointing out. It isn't pointed out enough, but this video does point it out.

No one pretends you can make sense of the Tapas 9 testimony - but you can undermine it.

by Brian Griffin 24.10.14 4:13

PeterMac wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:Huh? they're ignoring the more recent statement where Gerry said he'd gone through the patio doors.
Re Gerry and Jez not noticing Jane pass them... what could have happened is that Jane may have also been checking her kids via her patio doors but had to keep the official line at that point that they were all checking via locked front doors(same as Gerry originally said he did). If she was checking via her patio doors sh'ed have turned off down that alley way on the left after allegedly seeing the man at the top of the road, and would not have had to pass Gerry and Jez.
That is what Dr Amaral thought as well.

Why do you think none of the Tapas crowd wants anything else to do with this case, especially something that brings them under scrutiny like a reconstruction? Heaven forbid! A 5-year-old would be able to poke holes through the logic of the testimony. I'm starting to think this is a bit like a Ruth Rendell story 'A Fatal Inversion' in which a group of young individuals who conceal a crime for what they think is the best at the time, find that it ends up destroying their lives at a fundamental level.

In my opinion, of course. I wouldn't want to suggest a crime has been committed here or draw any parallels.

by NickE 24.10.14 8:44

Rose Quartz wrote:Hmmmm, did Jane Tanner actually state that Tannerman was carrying 'a lifeless child'? From memory I just remember bits.

This jumped out of the video at me, because if SHE didn't, why say lifeless?

Apart from the factual results from Eddie and Keela which have been all but ignored by the MSM, we have more recently had Redwood acknowledging the possibility that Madeleine may have been dead before she left 5a, which I'm sure I've seen others here make suggestions along the lines that this may have been backfilling due to the dogs' findings if this is indeed a cover up. I can't reference exact posts I'm sorry, but just generally remember posts remarking on the incredible theory that a burglar stole a dead child that night.

Well, given the cynicism about 2&2 so far, this 'lifeless' thing jumped out at me as possibly a ploy to feed into this (dead when 'abducted' scenario) if it is part of the whitwash? Sewing seeds and all that.....

Apologies if JT did indeed state 'lifeless' child, for my thus rendered pointless post. It has been a long day and I got all excited by this, so just had to ask.

I don't Think JT said "lifeless" but (correct me if I'am wrong) I Think they used the word "lifeless" in "Madeleine was here" "documentery".

by Guest 24.10.14 12:55

NickE wrote:
Rose Quartz wrote:Hmmmm, did Jane Tanner actually state that Tannerman was carrying 'a lifeless child'? From memory I just remember bits.

This jumped out of the video at me, because if SHE didn't, why say lifeless?

Apart from the factual results from Eddie and Keela which have been all but ignored by the MSM, we have more recently had Redwood acknowledging the possibility that Madeleine may have been dead before she left 5a, which I'm sure I've seen others here make suggestions along the lines that this may have been backfilling due to the dogs' findings if this is indeed a cover up. I can't reference exact posts I'm sorry, but just generally remember posts remarking on the incredible theory that a burglar stole a dead child that night.

Well, given the cynicism about 2&2 so far, this 'lifeless' thing jumped out at me as possibly a ploy to feed into this (dead when 'abducted' scenario) if it is part of the whitwash? Sewing seeds and all that.....

Apologies if JT did indeed state 'lifeless' child, for my thus rendered pointless post. It has been a long day and I got all excited by this, so just had to ask.

I don't Think JT said "lifeless" but (correct me if I'am wrong) I Think they used the word "lifeless" in "Madeleine was here" "documentery".

Thankyou for the reply NickE. In the cold light of day, it's probably something and nowt, but this case has me suspicious of everything.

by **PeterMac** 24.10.14 14:02

Stillthinking wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
That is what Dr Amaral thought as well.
How interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I had a few years not really following the case, did he mention it in book or in interviews since?

Book IIRC
I'll look it up again

by Guest 24.10.14 17:28

A new video posted today by 2&2, titled 'McCann, Gerald Patrick. (Part A)'.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tS_3gQKPdUc&feature=youtu.be

This series of videos is slower than Molasses...

by Guest 24.10.14 17:42

Rose Quartz wrote:A new video posted today by 2&2, titled 'McCann, Gerald Patrick. (Part A)'.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tS_3gQKPdUc&feature=youtu.be

This series of videos is slower than Molasses...

Is it inferring that there was no one in there so no need to be quiet? IMO

by nomendelta 24.10.14 17:44

WMD wrote:
Rose Quartz wrote:A new video posted today by 2&2, titled 'McCann, Gerald Patrick. (Part A)'.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tS_3gQKPdUc&feature=youtu.be

This series of videos is slower than Molasses...
Is it inferring that there was no one in there so no need to be quiet? IMO

I don't think so - not specifically. I think it's just picking on the inconsistencies of the story.

Of course if Maddie was no longer alive and the twins had been drugged then he could afford to make as much noise as he wanted.

by NickE 24.10.14 17:58

Gerry didn´t have to be quiet with the frontdoor because the twins was in another apartment and Madeleine was already gone.
it is my opinion.

by Doug D 24.10.14 18:03

Again promoting ‘the fact’ that GM entered by the front door, backed up by Jez Wilkins statement.

These are the May statements, which don’t back up this assertion, although the immediate statement which does go for the front door, is more likely to be the true version i.m.o., that is, if it happened at all.

GM 4^th May 2007

Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition. He then went to the toilet, where he remained for a few instants, left the apartment, and then crossed ways with someone with whom he had played tennis, who had a baby buggy, also a British citizen, with whom he had a brief conversation. He then returned to the restaurant.

GM 10^th May 2007

At 21H05, MATHEW returned, the time at which the deponent left the table to go check on his children.

He walked the normal route up to the back door, which being open he only had to slide, and while he was entering the living room, he noticed that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought was strange, having then thought that possibly MADELEINE had got up to go to sleep in his bedroom, so as to avoid the noise produced by her siblings. Therefore, he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and he is certain of this, that the three were deeply asleep. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, then went to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the shutters, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the living room.

He adds that he did not enter any other part of the residence, where he was for only two or three minutes, leaving yet again through the back door, that he closed but did not lock. He clarifies that he returned without checking any other couple’s children, even because he had not been asked to do so.

After leaving through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw “JEZ” walking up the street on the opposite pavement, bringing with him a baby buggy with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction who was walking up on the right-hand side, in the ascending direction, both having chatted for 3 to 4 minutes, about tennis, holidays and children. While talking with JEZ, he saw no-one from the group, nor detected any suspicious individual or vehicle.

Jeremy Wilkins 7^th May 2007

I left about 8.15 pm – 8.30 pm. I was pushing the pram around the complex and went to the toilet near the bar. I couldn't see inside the restaurant. As I got the baby to sleep, I was on my way back to the apartment. I came out of the top road. I met him near some stairs and a ground floor flat.

There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said 'you're on walking duty'. I said I was staying in and the pro's and con's and what to do with the children. He said that if he was staying two (2) weeks, he may stay in one night. I don't remember anyone else walk past with a child. The conversation lasted for about three (3) to five (5) minutes. He was acting completely normal from what I know of him so far.

I then walked back to the apartment. I had dinner, watched a DVD and went to bed at about 11 pm.

by Mr Peabody 24.10.14 22:28

They've changed the 'scope' of their declaration and are now seemingly promoting that there are more than 4 videos. Although so far their evidence has been relatively interesting it's nothing new. They are still calling for more followers etc. if they really have something explosive (which I doubt) they should just get on with it!

by Stillthinking 24.10.14 23:22

PeterMac wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
That is what Dr Amaral thought as well.
How interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I had a few years not really following the case, did he mention it in book or in interviews since?
Book IIRC
I'll look it up again

Many thanks.

by Stillthinking 24.10.14 23:38

Brian Griffin wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:Huh? they're ignoring the more recent statement where Gerry said he'd gone through the patio doors.
Re Gerry and Jez not noticing Jane pass them... what could have happened is that Jane may have also been checking her kids via her patio doors but had to keep the official line at that point that they were all checking via locked front doors(same as Gerry originally said he did). If she was checking via her patio doors sh'ed have turned off down that alley way on the left after allegedly seeing the man at the top of the road, and would not have had to pass Gerry and Jez.
That is what Dr Amaral thought as well.
Why do you think none of the Tapas crowd wants anything else to do with this case, especially something that brings them under scrutiny like a reconstruction? Heaven forbid! A 5-year-old would be able to poke holes through the logic of the testimony. I'm starting to think this is a bit like a Ruth Rendell story 'A Fatal Inversion' in which a group of young individuals who conceal a crime for what they think is the best at the time, find that it ends up destroying their lives at a fundamental level.

In my opinion, of course. I wouldn't want to suggest a crime has been committed here or draw any parallels.

Yes, it could be that they did just decide to tell a "little white lie" about which door they used, in order to avoid possible negligence charges... unaware of what was to follow.

Rereading DPs rog statement, I knew they were on the first floor and were the one couple who relied on a baby monitor and didn't do any checks at all but what I had missed before was that their patio doors that opened onto their first floor balcony weren't reliable and didn't lock properly? Say whaaa? They left two kids, one a toddler, who like any toddler would have been capable of climbing out of a cot/bed and walking around... in an apartment with patio doors that didn't lock properly that led straight onto a first floor balcony? If thats' the case they are so lucky nothing happened there.

by Bishop Brennan 25.10.14 6:26

Article: Madeleine McCann Was Not Abducted

This is very good article with an excellent introduction from Dr Martin Roberts. Here's just a a taste.

"For seven years past a watching international community has been witness to a growing clamour of borrowed knowledge regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, hearsay tearing repeatedly through the fabric of reason like a succession of tornados in America’s mid-west, and bringing us more recently to the most ludicrous of situations; one in which a UK police force is given a seemingly limitless budget, so as to review and pursue a case over which it has no legal jurisdiction, and in deliberate disavowal of the evidence collated by the original investigators. In an admitted collaboration with the UK government, they are acting ‘as if the abduction happened in the UK’ without first, or indeed ever, establishing whether ‘abduction’ happened at all."

http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2014/10/madeleine-mccann-was-not-abducted.html

Not a lot of new material in it, but a well-written article outlining the key points. Points that bear repeating.

by brixham 25.10.14 8:29

So October 12th came and went and now we are presented with video 4a two weeks later. Nothing new so far, just a promise of more to come - in videos 4b and onwards I take it?
I would like to remind you 2&2 that at the heart of this case there is a missing or dead child. If you have information relevant to the case then put up or shut up. Do not use this case case just to get more facebook shares or likes for yourselves, this is not a game. Have some respect.

by Stillthinking 25.10.14 12:49

Bishop Brennan wrote:Article: Madeleine McCann Was Not Abducted

This is very good article with an excellent introduction from Dr Martin Roberts. Here's just a a taste.

"For seven years past a watching international community has been witness to a growing clamour of borrowed knowledge regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, hearsay tearing repeatedly through the fabric of reason like a succession of tornados in America’s mid-west, and bringing us more recently to the most ludicrous of situations; one in which a UK police force is given a seemingly limitless budget, so as to review and pursue a case over which it has no legal jurisdiction, and in deliberate disavowal of the evidence collated by the original investigators. In an admitted collaboration with the UK government, they are acting ‘as if the abduction happened in the UK’ without first, or indeed ever, establishing whether ‘abduction’ happened at all."

http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2014/10/madeleine-mccann-was-not-abducted.html

Not a lot of new material in it, but a well-written article outlining the key points. Points that bear repeating.

Who is Dr Roberts, is he an actual, publicly known doctor or is it just a pen name/user ID?

by Stillthinking 25.10.14 12:50

brixham wrote:
I would like to remind you 2&2 that at the heart of this case there is a missing or dead child. If you have information relevant to the case then put up or shut up. Do not use this case case just to get more facebook shares or likes for yourselves, this is not a game. Have some respect.

Amen!

by Daryl Dixon 25.10.14 19:31

I may be wrong but didn't the witness statement by Jeremy Wilkins give the impression that Gerry had left via the patio doors and not the front door as claimed by 2and2?

by Doug D 12.11.14 10:09

2&2's twitter postings have all been 'whooshed' for some reason. They won't attract many more followers now!

Their FB page is still there though with their set of 'revelation' videos (last one was 24th October).

https://twitter.com/2and2TV

https://www.facebook.com/2and2TV

by XTC 12.11.14 21:47

Daryl Dixon wrote:I may be wrong but didn't the witness statement by Jeremy Wilkins give the impression that Gerry had left via the patio doors and not the front door as claimed by 2and2?

I think that JW said he met GM near the gate - not at the gate.

There was only JT who said she saw the pair at around 9.10 -9.15pm.

That's all solved now though - supposedly.

The problem for JW is that he didn't know what time it was apparently.

For all he may have known it could have been GM leaving to go to dinner at beyond 8.30pm?

What is interesting is despite JW going into the Tapas bar he doesn't appear to have seen any
members of his tennis co- players at the Tapas Bar. If so then when he went there is it possible that no-one he
knew was there at the time he was there? If you see what I mean? Therefore if the Tapas 9 statements are true
maybe no Tapas 9 persons were there at the time he was there. Could he have arrived at the Tapas Bar at possibly 8.15 or beyond?

All opinion though.

by margaret 12.11.14 21:52

brixham wrote:So October 12th came and went and now we are presented with video 4a two weeks later. Nothing new so far, just a promise of more to come - in videos 4b and onwards I take it?
I would like to remind you 2&2 that at the heart of this case there is a missing or dead child. If you have information relevant to the case then put up or shut up. Do not use this case case just to get more facebook shares or likes for yourselves, this is not a game. Have some respect.

To paraphrase Dr.Gerry after bring interviewed by the PJ and declared arguido.

'They've got NOTHING!'

Log in for more topics