The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Page 12 of 12 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by Guest on 06.02.15 19:28

IMO, he is économique avec la vérité

Another poster previously pointed out that if MO admitted he'd observed MBM in her bed, then he would have been the last person to have seen her before her reported disappearance.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by G-Unit on 06.02.15 20:21

@ScarletLaw wrote:
@G-Unit wrote:I have thought that perhaps Gerry McCann was making sure Jeremy Wilkins didn't see something. I thought he may have distracted him so he didn't see 'Tannerman' but then they told the police about Tannerman themselves. Unless Jeremy would have recognised him? Then they told just in case he had seen him, or someone else had? That would have been OK if he was long gone and they knew that, especially if the description given by Jane Tanner was nothing like him. All IMO. 

SY said he was a holiday maker returning from the creche with his child, but surely he was heading towards the creche if, as I understand it, it was where Madeleine's daytime club was?


 Great observations. I'm pretty sure this was some kind of staging going on here because Gerry's recollection, directly conflicts with that of both Jane and Jez. Gerry insists  that it was he who crossed the road that night whilst the other two people present say that did not happen. Also if you look at Jez's statement he isn't even sure what time this was initially because he walking around for a while. This is the real time of the taking away Madeleine for me, not the rubbish of the Yard's Smithman theory. There is a time lapse where Gerry; Tanner and O'Brien are missing. 
 
The 'important' thing about the differing recollections is that by his own recollection Gerry McCann had placed himself in the only position where it would have been impossible for him to have seen either Jane or the abductor. Psychologically on purpose I think.

If you watch the video you see him wanting to shut her up. He does not want to be seen near the gate from his apartment, that's for sure. Why? Maybe this is why-Jeremy said;  I would say that when I spoke with Gerry it was possible to recognize someone I knew who was passing on foot at the crossing at the top of the hill or to describe approximately someone unknown from that distance.



http://youtu.be/atfDV7imHHY
 

I'm not sure of the direction of the crèche but it wouldn't be that hard for the Yard to doctor papers and say a man was there that night. Yes, but he was going towards the creche not away from it, I think.
My comments in blue.

G-Unit

Posts : 312
Reputation : 54
Join date : 2014-12-29
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by ScarletLaw on 07.02.15 9:05

Ladyinred wrote:"So for me he is one of the honest ones"

Could you post a link to the scientific reconstruction, please?  Also, do you believe there are other honest ones?


I won't put up link or video because things are disappearing from the net that supply scientific evidence on this case, also I might need it later to prove my theory because the doors are the key to it all and proof of staging an abduction for me.

So I've copied it over for you here;

The unusual location of the door within an alcove created by the built in wardrobe gives the unusual situation that when door is open at 60 degrees, the view into the room for standing outside the door is already maximised.

The view into the room with door open about 60 degrees equals the view with door open at 90 degrees.

Only difference is that at 90 degrees you get to see the built in wardrobe.

So that is how one person describes a door partly open and another sees it fully open, when describing same angle.

So initial statements does prove that Kate Healy and Matthew Oldfield saw same angle.

Taken into account the optic halo effect of the holes in the shutters that would keep the area of the shutters in the light but "note" the area further near the door where the bed of Madeleine was placed would be very dark. With the shutters open the corner where Madeleine lay would still be out of eye line without entering and therefore I conclude that it is possible for Matthew Oldfield not to see her.  

In my opinion Matthew Oldfield does point out the unusual feature of the room layout clearly and explains without hesitation what he saw "



Analysis from Matthew Oldfield's statement. 

"So I approached the room but I didn't actually go in because you could see the twins in the cots they're in with; sort of the cots were in the middle of the room with sort of gap of about sort of maybe a foot between  the two, the cots had sort of got that fabric end and sort of mesh side, so you could see the size and you could see them, erm, see them breathing and there were two there"  

9.30 "The door was open wide enough to see the twins, he believes now the shutters were open too due to lots of light, but not the window,"




Ladyinred; It only proves it's possible he didn't see her but doesn't explain why all his other checks were done by listening at the window? Did he change his account because the shutters would be noticed by him much to early? I do believe he saw what he saw because in the cutting edge video he did come across as truthful. But it still doesn't explain his change of pattern of behaviour of not listening at window.

ScarletLaw

Posts : 236
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by ScarletLaw on 07.02.15 9:23

Ladyinred wrote:IMO, he is économique avec la vérité

Another poster previously pointed out that if MO admitted he'd observed MBM in her bed, then he would have been the last person to have seen her before her reported disappearance.

 That is the very reason why I think he's an innocent in all this because why would you put yourself at risk?

 There are rumours that Jane Tanner did two checks- one at 9.15 and one at 9.45, so she could've been the one who last went into the apartment. Saying that there's also witnesses saying that she didn't leave the table at all and supplied Gerry and O'Brien with alibi, as this is most obvious explanation for crecheman. For both people to be together in a lie is for one purpose only, for Alibi constructing. That is why I feel this time was when the removal of Madeleine happened. Whether Madeleine was put somewhere for a short time and then picked up later for Gerry to be Smithman? I don't know but I feel this was when she was initially moved.

 Just a theory and IMO it is suspicious that Gerry also was next to patio gate. Here the dog evidence in flowerbed shows her being there. Not strong like other scent in house according to handler, so I think little girl, ( god bless her) was put here temporarily before she was removed. A lookout situation maybe before taken somewhere else?

ScarletLaw

Posts : 236
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by ScarletLaw on 07.02.15 9:43

@G-Unit wrote:
@ScarletLaw wrote:
@G-Unit wrote:I have thought that perhaps Gerry McCann was making sure Jeremy Wilkins didn't see something. I thought he may have distracted him so he didn't see 'Tannerman' but then they told the police about Tannerman themselves. Unless Jeremy would have recognised him? Then they told just in case he had seen him, or someone else had? That would have been OK if he was long gone and they knew that, especially if the description given by Jane Tanner was nothing like him. All IMO. 

SY said he was a holiday maker returning from the creche with his child, but surely he was heading towards the creche if, as I understand it, it was where Madeleine's daytime club was?


 Great observations. I'm pretty sure this was some kind of staging going on here because Gerry's recollection, directly conflicts with that of both Jane and Jez. Gerry insists  that it was he who crossed the road that night whilst the other two people present say that did not happen. Also if you look at Jez's statement he isn't even sure what time this was initially because he walking around for a while. This is the real time of the taking away Madeleine for me, not the rubbish of the Yard's Smithman theory. There is a time lapse where Gerry; Tanner and O'Brien are missing. 
 
The 'important' thing about the differing recollections is that by his own recollection Gerry McCann had placed himself in the only position where it would have been impossible for him to have seen either Jane or the abductor. Psychologically on purpose I think.

If you watch the video you see him wanting to shut her up. He does not want to be seen near the gate from his apartment, that's for sure. Why? Maybe this is why-Jeremy said;  I would say that when I spoke with Gerry it was possible to recognize someone I knew who was passing on foot at the crossing at the top of the hill or to describe approximately someone unknown from that distance.



http://youtu.be/atfDV7imHHY
 

I'm not sure of the direction of the crèche but it wouldn't be that hard for the Yard to doctor papers and say a man was there that night. Yes, but he was going towards the creche not away from it, I think.
My comments in blue.
Maybe this is why-Jeremy said;  I would say that when I spoke with Gerry it was possible to recognize someone I knew who was passing on foot at the crossing at the top of the hill or to describe approximately someone unknown from that distance.


 Have you noticed he always says in statements that he would only recognise someone he knew? This is very strange thing to say. The path is very narrow; it is part of our dna and fight or flight response to be aware of somebody approaching and particularly with parents out with baby, we have more aware sensors at this time. Especially in flip flops too that Jane says were squelchy, I think that is word. Jez is truthful for me and I don't think that Jane did pass him.

ScarletLaw

Posts : 236
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by Guest on 07.02.15 10:34

@ScarletLaw wrote:
 Have you noticed he always says in statements that he would only recognise someone he knew? This is very strange thing to say. The path is very narrow; it is part of our dna and fight or flight response to be aware of somebody approaching and particularly with parents out with baby, we have more aware sensors at this time. Especially in flip flops too that Jane says were squelchy, I think that is word. Jez is truthful for me and I don't think that Jane did pass him.
Because neither were there,or because one or the other wasn't?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by ScarletLaw on 07.02.15 11:32

I feel that important to this discussion in Matthew Oldfield's check.
I have some questions about this.

- Why do an internal check that night at that time, as opposed to external checks outside the children's bedroom window every other time, including earlier that night?

- If deciding or being asked to do an internal check, did he not actually check? If his check was only for sounds, why the need to enter the apartment?

- Why if wondering where Madeleine slept, and why did he wonder this? not look inside the children's bedroom properly, but rather go further out of his way to go and look inside the parents' bedroom to see if Madeleine was sleeping there? Because if you were looking for child, you would not be satisfied to leave until you find her, surely. Not just go, oh she must be in bed tucked in corner.

His not saying he felt any cold or draught from that room does suggest any abduction occurred after his visit though if Kate's slamming of door and whooshing of curtain is true.

Very confusing.

ScarletLaw

Posts : 236
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by ScarletLaw on 07.02.15 11:35

WMD wrote:
@ScarletLaw wrote:
 Have you noticed he always says in statements that he would only recognise someone he knew? This is very strange thing to say. The path is very narrow; it is part of our dna and fight or flight response to be aware of somebody approaching and particularly with parents out with baby, we have more aware sensors at this time. Especially in flip flops too that Jane says were squelchy, I think that is word. Jez is truthful for me and I don't think that Jane did pass him.
Because neither were there,or because one or the other wasn't?

 I think Jane witnessed the men or was told to say this personally.

ScarletLaw

Posts : 236
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by joyce1938 on 07.02.15 12:43

without a body ,I can never see a conclusion to this  what with all that can be spoken about online,nd I fear no one is going to look deeper into this case . been plenty of opportunity with the police. My one bit of hope really is that . I believe that the pj ,have reopened this case , not revealing all yet and we hear little about what they may be doing .Its possible that there is more evidence been found and are not out hereyet .Whilst the british were doing their searches ,pj were keeping mum ,just hope it will come to conclusion .I just wonder what truth there was that pj would not give up all they have to our own force ?  Good to keep some stuff back and then maybe a lot more will come together.joyce1938

joyce1938

Posts : 805
Reputation : 86
Join date : 2010-04-20
Age : 78
Location : england

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by Guest on 07.02.15 12:47

@ScarletLaw wrote: I feel that important to this discussion in Matthew Oldfield's check.
I have some questions about this.

- Why do an internal check that night at that time, as opposed to external checks outside the children's bedroom window every other time, including earlier that night?

- If deciding or being asked to do an internal check, did he not actually check? If his check was only for sounds, why the need to enter the apartment?

- Why if wondering where Madeleine slept, and why did he wonder this? not look inside the children's bedroom properly, but rather go further out of his way to go and look inside the parents' bedroom to see if Madeleine was sleeping there? Because if you were looking for child, you would not be satisfied to leave until you find her, surely. Not just go, oh she must be in bed tucked in corner.

His not saying he felt any cold or draught from that room does suggest any abduction occurred after his visit though if Kate's slamming of door and whooshing of curtain is true.

Very confusing.
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8118-matt-oldfields-check

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8850-dr-matthew-oldfield-s-last-check

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4270-matt-oldfields-check-on-abduction-the-night

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by PeterMac on 07.02.15 12:58

What sound does a dead child make ?

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by ScarletLaw on 08.02.15 7:29

Ladyinred wrote:
@ScarletLaw wrote: I feel that important to this discussion in Matthew Oldfield's check.
I have some questions about this.

- Why do an internal check that night at that time, as opposed to external checks outside the children's bedroom window every other time, including earlier that night?

- If deciding or being asked to do an internal check, did he not actually check? If his check was only for sounds, why the need to enter the apartment?

- Why if wondering where Madeleine slept, and why did he wonder this? not look inside the children's bedroom properly, but rather go further out of his way to go and look inside the parents' bedroom to see if Madeleine was sleeping there? Because if you were looking for child, you would not be satisfied to leave until you find her, surely. Not just go, oh she must be in bed tucked in corner.

His not saying he felt any cold or draught from that room does suggest any abduction occurred after his visit though if Kate's slamming of door and whooshing of curtain is true.

Very confusing.
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8118-matt-oldfields-check

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8850-dr-matthew-oldfield-s-last-check

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4270-matt-oldfields-check-on-abduction-the-night

Thankyou, very helpful.

ScarletLaw

Posts : 236
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by ScarletLaw on 08.02.15 8:30

@joyce1938 wrote:without a body ,I can never see a conclusion to this  what with all that can be spoken about online,nd I fear no one is going to look deeper into this case . been plenty of opportunity with the police. My one bit of hope really is that . I believe that the pj ,have reopened this case , not revealing all yet and we hear little about what they may be doing .Its possible that there is more evidence been found and are not out hereyet .Whilst the british were doing their searches ,pj were keeping mum ,just hope it will come to conclusion .I just wonder what truth there was that pj would not give up all they have to our own force ?  Good to keep some stuff back and then maybe a lot more will come together.joyce1938

We don't necessarily need a body but there now must be a campaign and petition set-up for the new home secretary, after the election and hopefully not corrupt May, to release the files that have the statements of not only Carolyn Carpenter but the other people in the Tapas that have gone missing because this evidence collaborates that Gerry "was not" in the restaurant at 10.03 (the time he told Kate she must do her check) because the real time they left the restaurant was 9.45-9.50.

 When they arrived at the apartment after five minutes he suggested to FP, DP, MO, ROB that they split up and he wasn't seen for at earliest 30-35 minutes. I've asked 6 other analysts to look over my findings too and they prove it's safe. He lied about the time and the governments Teresa May have taken the files that conclude this. Hence a cover up.

I posted Yesterday that I'm sending DC1 Wall Evil Under the Sun by Christie because in the story the killers do the same thing, they change time and made it later in order to not possibly be the killers. IMO this is what Gerry did in order to supply his own alibi for the Smithman sighting. A sighting I didn't believe myself until yesterday because I felt there was something not right about it.  

Diane the mother, says they left her at 9.45 which I believe is the true time and she mentions also that the little girls bed wasn't slept him too with the neat folding, also the drugged twins sleeping. So I feel that she smelt a rat with the entire thing and therefore is the one honest statement. If the YARD, have any good intentions of resolving this they must now interview each member of the Tapas and cross check it with Diane's because there were others who helped Gerry.

If the little girl had been dead along time the scent of her would've been lingering on Gerry because cadaver is unmistakeable strong. So my feeling is, no factual proof in evidence at this time but going by the scent, that she'd only been dead for a short time and not the entire day.

IMO Gerry first removed Madeleine at his 9.05 check and put her somewhere temporarily, either he had help from O'Brien I don't now, but either way somewhere was prepared and checked out for her to be placed later. At 9.50 after he left to do his search he then disappeared and removed the little girl in order to become Smith man. Appearing later at 10.40 ish. Gerry is a fast runner and IMO used this time to race to the place to retrieve her and bumped into the Smiths coming out the restaurant. I feel they're statements might be doctored in some way so I implore the Portugese to interview them themselves.

You're only hope now as a group is to petition the government for the release of the statements and make lots of noise because I still don't feel you can prove the injustice without the rest of these and you will just be fixing the jigsaw without the missing pieces.

If you have investigator friends in Portugal ask them to interview Carolyn Carpenter because she saw something I'm sure or shows Gerry wasn't where he was in his searching statement, proving he was somewhere else.

Either way, this case will never be solved if you don't get these statements.

As some of the statements are missing I know I won't be happy with Scotland Yards report if they conclude it's a burglar because for justice EVERYTHING  has to be open in order for the findings to be taken seriously.

If they don't to this then it proves they were involved in covering up the crime and it's an INJUSTICE to the people.

I now ask them, to do the right thing.

ScarletLaw

Posts : 236
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by Guest on 08.02.15 9:50

@ScarletLaw wrote:
@joyce1938 wrote:without a body ,I can never see a conclusion to this  what with all that can be spoken about online,nd I fear no one is going to look deeper into this case . been plenty of opportunity with the police. My one bit of hope really is that . I believe that the pj ,have reopened this case , not revealing all yet and we hear little about what they may be doing .Its possible that there is more evidence been found and are not out hereyet .Whilst the british were doing their searches ,pj were keeping mum ,just hope it will come to conclusion .I just wonder what truth there was that pj would not give up all they have to our own force ?  Good to keep some stuff back and then maybe a lot more will come together.joyce1938

We don't necessarily need a body but there now must be a campaign and petition set-up for the new home secretary, after the election and hopefully not corrupt May, to release the files that have the statements of not only Carolyn Carpenter but the other people in the Tapas that have gone missing because this evidence collaborates that Gerry "was not" in the restaurant at 10.03 (the time he told Kate she must do her check) because the real time they left the restaurant was 9.45-9.50.

 When they arrived at the apartment after five minutes he suggested to FP, DP, MO, ROB that they split up and he wasn't seen for at earliest 30-35 minutes. I've asked 6 other analysts to look over my findings too and they prove it's safe. He lied about the time and the governments Teresa May have taken the files that conclude this. Hence a cover up.

I posted Yesterday that I'm sending DC1 Wall Evil Under the Sun by Christie because in the story the killers do the same thing, they change time and made it later in order to not possibly be the killers. IMO this is what Gerry did in order to supply his own alibi for the Smithman sighting. A sighting I didn't believe myself until yesterday because I felt there was something not right about it.  

Diane the mother, says they left her at 9.45 which I believe is the true time and she mentions also that the little girls bed wasn't slept him too with the neat folding, also the drugged twins sleeping. So I feel that she smelt a rat with the entire thing and therefore is the one honest statement. If the YARD, have any good intentions of resolving this they must now interview each member of the Tapas and cross check it with Diane's because there were others who helped Gerry.

If the little girl had been dead along time the scent of her would've been lingering on Gerry because cadaver is unmistakeable strong. So my feeling is, no factual proof in evidence at this time but going by the scent, that she'd only been dead for a short time and not the entire day.

IMO Gerry first removed Madeleine at his 9.05 check and put her somewhere temporarily, either he had help from O'Brien I don't now, but either way somewhere was prepared and checked out for her to be placed later. At 9.50 after he left to do his search he then disappeared and removed the little girl in order to become Smith man. Appearing later at 10.40 ish. Gerry is a fast runner and IMO used this time to race to the place to retrieve her and bumped into the Smiths coming out the restaurant. I feel they're statements might be doctored in some way so I implore the Portugese to interview them themselves.

You're only hope now as a group is to petition the government for the release of the statements and make lots of noise because I still don't feel you can prove the injustice without the rest of these and you will just be fixing the jigsaw without the missing pieces.

If you have investigator friends in Portugal ask them to interview Carolyn Carpenter because she saw something I'm sure or shows Gerry wasn't where he was in his searching statement, proving he was somewhere else.

Either way, this case will never be solved if you don't get these statements.

As some of the statements are missing I know I won't be happy with Scotland Yards report if they conclude it's a burglar because for justice EVERYTHING  has to be open in order for the findings to be taken seriously.

If they don't to this then it proves they were involved in covering up the crime and it's an INJUSTICE to the people.

I now ask them, to do the right thing.
Interesting Scarlet,I think at 9-05 ish something went wrong with a plan,the fixer(I'll not name who I think it is) would not allow it,this put a bit of a spanner in the works.Some one else happened along unconnected but engaged in other activities,no way could the shutter be broken now,body placed in the flower bed,conversation engaged,this ended,another plan had to be found,a search was made,returned to pick body up,smithsman sighting.All opinion though.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 12 of 12 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum