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

'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

View previous topic View next topic Go down

'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by Tony Bennett on 29.03.11 20:20

This article has been removed following letters sent by Brian Kennedy's Solicitors, Carter-Ruck, to Tony Bennett, on 2 September and 3 October 2011.

Tony Bennett wishes to add that no article of his on this forum which mentions Brian Kennedy's role since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann should be taken as in any way implying that he was involved in any cover-up of the true circumstances of Madeleine McCann's disappearance - and Tony wishes to apologise publicly to Brian Kennedy if anyone thought that any of his articles did give that impression.

ADMIN 6 October 2011


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by Angelique on 09.04.11 20:40

Alternatively, she could be lying throughout.


I think it's this one - seriously the only photo-fit worth any consideration has to be one sought and provided by the Police.

But having said that - it's the sighting that is really quite interesting. Suppose she did see someone - not at the time and going in the direction she (Tanner) finally plumps for but the "real" sighting. The one where she sees Gerry disappearing with Madeleine and was also seen by the Smiths. Is this a possibility?

She is adamant she saw someone, why not she saw someone - but earlier or even later, maybe even on a different road. Elaboration of an existing event. Maybe she saw the person who was really taking Madeleine away and was asked to move it to a different location and time.

In Russell O'Brien's statement regarding Tanners sighting he says this:

I don’t think there’s any doubt in Jane’s mind, erm, that this is, this is, this is what, this is the moment where Madeleine was being taken away and, you know, as a, as a statement, you know, a personal witness for her, she is not going to make this up and it’s not going to be, erm, huh, it’s not going to be some hysterical reaction to the circumstances, that is just not Jane’s personality and I think she’s demonstrated that during the year by, by, you know, when not reacting in a hysterical way to, you know, phew, national TV interviews and everything else.

It's almost as if he's let his tongue get away and is almost under a compulsion to continue and the words "taken away" - why not "abduction" - isn't this easier to say?

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 35
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Unbelievable

Post by Tony Bennett on 09.04.11 20:54

@Angelique wrote:Alternatively, she could be lying throughout.


I think it's this one - seriously the only photo-fit worth any consideration has to be one sought and provided by the Police.

But having said that - it's the sighting that is really quite interesting. Suppose she did see someone - not at the time and going in the direction she (Tanner) finally plumps for but the "real" sighting. The one where she sees Gerry disappearing with Madeleine and was also seen by the Smiths. Is this a possibility?

She is adamant she saw someone, why not she saw someone - but earlier or even later, maybe even on a different road. Elaboration of an existing event. Maybe she saw the person who was really taking Madeleine away and was asked to move it to a different location and time.

In Russell O'Brien's statement regarding Tanners sighting he says this:

I don’t think there’s any doubt in Jane’s mind, erm, that this is, this is, this is what, this is the moment where Madeleine was being taken away and, you know, as a, as a statement, you know, a personal witness for her, she is not going to make this up and it’s not going to be, erm, huh, it’s not going to be some hysterical reaction to the circumstances, that is just not Jane’s personality and I think she’s demonstrated that during the year by, by, you know, when not reacting in a hysterical way to, you know, phew, national TV interviews and everything else.

It's almost as if he's let his tongue get away and is almost under a compulsion to continue and the words "taken away" - why not "abduction" - isn't this easier to say?
Angelique,

There is I think one fact above all else that demonstrates that Jane Tanner was lying (and Carter-Ruck can do what they like about this, I shall still say the same).

And that is the two timelines of the evening's events written out by I think Russell O'Brien - you know, on the ripped-off cover of Madeleine's Activity Sticker Book (as they knew she wasn't coming back).

I don't have the exact wording, perhaps someone else can help? - but I think it was:

9.15 Jane sees abductor.

They had carefully worked out their timetable of events in advance, and have had to stick to it.

Yet despite that, Jane says she didn't tell Gerry and Kate what she saw for 24 hours.

On top of all that, Gerry and Jez Wilkins were talking in the lane and didn't see her - the three of them couldn't get their stories right, perhaps because Jez Wilkins wasn't in on the rehearsals for that evening.

The whole account of Tanner's was incredible...and wholly unbelievable.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by Angelique on 09.04.11 21:51

Timeline - 9.20/5 Jane sees abductor

You are probably correct - I am new on the scene. But this was written down by mistake - it shouldn't have been there. Is this possible - that they then realise they included information that was not supposed to be there. So Jane Tanner has to say she mentions it later to Kate and Gerry.


____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 35
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by Tony Bennett on 09.04.11 22:03

@Angelique wrote:Timeline - 9.20/5 Jane sees abductor

You are probably correct - I am new on the scene. But this was written down by mistake - it shouldn't have been there. Is this possible - that they then realise they included information that was not supposed to be there. So Jane Tanner has to say she mentions it later to Kate and Gerry.

A relevant question is: WHEN did Jane Tanner tell the writer of this scribbled note that she had seen 'a stranger and child'?

One presumes it was soon after Drs Gerald and Kate McCann both 'instantly' knew that their children had been abducted, around 10pm on 3 May 2007, and raised the alarm.

Then Russell O'Brien wrote it down in his scribbled note.

Why did not Jane tell everyone, including Gerry and Kate, about the stranger she'd seen - and give them a description?

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by Angelique on 09.04.11 22:27

Yes too much of a muddle.

The way I was thinking was in almost all alibi's that are made up with a grain of truth.

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 35
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by Angelique on 12.04.11 0:26

Tony

Sorry to be a nuisance but can you look at this again.

Its driving me mad - but surely the fact that "JT sees stranger with child" (remember not abductor at this time) but Gerry & Jez don't even see her. Then the fact that it was included on the Timeline means they made a fatal mistake. It was put in there because Gerry had been seen by the Smiths ?

She then mentions it to Fiona when they were initially looking for Madeleine that she had seen a stranger and was worried because she was putting two and two together and getting 10. Is this the set up - Do we believe this bit ? Then later to the Police and eventually at 3 a.m. to Gerry in the apartment.

Isn't it the fact that it was in the timeline at all proof of faked abduction and JT was to set up the sighting that she sees ?

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 35
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by tigger on 02.11.13 7:31

Nice easy read, just one page -came across this by accident. 

Always pays to go back to basics. I'm sure those two scribbled timelines weren't meant for the police. Quite possible ROB was either asked for them or more likely was himself under the impression that these were for the police. 
Which would mean the T7 weren't entirely in the loop. 
I cannot imagine that  Gerry wanted two timelines, different in content to be for the police. 
Knowing that these were in possession or the police around 11.00 PM and sticking to the story that JT didn't tell him until hours afterwards, how could that be explained? 
Because the timeline would be verbalised as it was written, confirmation from those listed e.g. 'that was around 9.30 Matt?'  Gerry, unless he had one of those short term incapacitating illnesses - in this case profound hearing loss - must have heard such remarks.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by plebgate on 02.11.13 8:26

@tigger wrote:Nice easy read, just one page -came across this by accident. 

Always pays to go back to basics. I'm sure those two scribbled timelines weren't meant for the police. Quite possible ROB was either asked for them or more likely was himself under the impression that these were for the police. 
Which would mean the T7 weren't entirely in the loop. 
I cannot imagine that  Gerry wanted two timelines, different in content to be for the police. 
Knowing that these were in possession or the police around 11.00 PM and sticking to the story that JT didn't tell him until hours afterwards, how could that be explained? 
Because the timeline would be verbalised as it was written, confirmation from those listed e.g. 'that was around 9.30 Matt?'  Gerry, unless he had one of those short term incapacitating illnesses - in this case profound hearing loss - must have heard such remarks.
Let's hope that when they are eventually re-interviewed this is one of the questions on the list.

plebgate

Posts : 5445
Reputation : 1160
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by StraightThinking on 02.11.13 8:38

Imo the significant things about the sticker book timelines are:

Both timelines place all the T9 at the table just before the end, ie everyone who has done checks has returned

The timing of the alarm is 22.00, 5 minutes after Smithman, ie T9 were all at the table when Smithman was spotted. Actually the alarm was raised before 21.40 and probably as early as 21.20, before Smithman appeared

MO's second check disappears from version 2

R O'B wrote the timeline but refers to "poorly daughter" - why would he forget his own daughter's name?

StraightThinking

Posts : 180
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by tigger on 02.11.13 9:17

@StraightThinking wrote:Imo the significant things about the sticker book timelines are:

Both timelines place all the T9 at the table just before the end, ie everyone who has done checks has returned

The timing of the alarm is 22.00, 5 minutes after Smithman, ie T9 were all at the table when Smithman was spotted. Actually the alarm was raised before 21.40 and probably as early as 21.20, before Smithman appeared

MO's second check disappears from version 2

NR  m O'B wrote the timeline but refers to "poorly daughter" - why would he forget his own daughter's name?
Yes,that's  another  point. One would write that for a stranger. Just how to say it to the police. 
I would think it more likely that these points were agreed upon at the table so that they'd each know their new timings and mode of checking. 
I would think that these two timelines must have brought up a big red flag once the first statements were in. 

Imo the following timeline typed out and distributed to all T9  by DP didn't quite manage to straighten it out. 

There are three times of JT seeing Eggman: 
9.20. -9.25
9.20
9.15. The time given later imo to sync with the very latest that Wilkins would give?

I find it interesting that the JT sighting  was given as 9.25 - which could allow Eggman to be seen by the 
Smiths. 
Beige trousers and dark top 'given' to Eggman by JT. Could have worked if all else hadn't gone wrong.


I thought the second timeline had Matt added because, having set the original discovery earlier, they now had a gap in their 15 minute checks?

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by ProfessorPPlum on 02.11.13 10:43

Regardless of when these lists were made (assuming that whenever that was it was before the arrival of the PJ) the bit that interests me is that 'JT sees man' is on both. 

We are later told that Gerry was NOT told about Tannerman until the wee hours.

This implies two things: 1) Gerry is NOT present at the drawing up of the two lists and 2) that those present at the drawing up of the lists become honorary members of the 'Lets not tell Kate the most important piece if information that could save this child's life' club.

Kate tells us in her book that Jane Tanner didn't tell Gerry about Tannerman until hours later to save her from distress. That's incredible. Are we also to believe that whoever else was the 'drawing up of the lists' also passed over that critical piece of information to protect her feelings?

____________________
The prime suspects in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann cannot be permitted to dictate what can and can't be discussed about the case

ProfessorPPlum

Posts : 411
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-05-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by SchrodingersBody on 02.11.13 11:14

three words...

fitting & retro & obvious

SchrodingersBody

Posts : 110
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-10-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by canada12 on 02.11.13 12:55

I think it's really important that this thread is not buried by other speculations and news stories. I think the scribbled timelines and the glaringly obvious inclusion of Bundleman, and then apparently not telling K & G about Bundleman until later, was obvious when the investigators went back to have another look recently. 

1. If you tell someone who is assembling a "timeline" that you saw a stranger with a child, then
2. Why would you not tell the parents of missing child, even if they are not present? (you could phone them immediately. No - wait - their phones were turned off? And all their messages were deleted!)

I think I agree that the other glaringly obvious thing is that JT did probably see someone and it likely was GM with M. And it wasn't at the time she claimed it was. Hence the need to establish that GM was chatting with JW at the time she saw Bundleman.

canada12

Posts : 1457
Reputation : 187
Join date : 2013-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by tigger on 02.11.13 13:44

@ProfessorPPlum wrote:Regardless of when these lists were made (assuming that whenever that was it was before the arrival of the PJ) the bit that interests me is that 'JT sees man' is on both. 

We are later told that Gerry was NOT told about Tannerman until the wee hours.

This implies two things: 1) Gerry is NOT present at the drawing up of the two lists and 2) that those present at the drawing up of the lists become honorary members of the 'Lets not tell Kate the most important piece if information that could save this child's life' club.

Kate tells us in her book that Jane Tanner didn't tell Gerry about Tannerman until hours later to save her from distress. That's incredible. Are we also to believe that whoever else was the 'drawing up of the lists' also passed over that critical piece of information to protect her feelings?
But ROB told the police that Gerry was sitting at the table when he was writing out the timelines....

There is a limit to what I can  can believe, either before breakfast or after. 

The wording imo is what one would expect if they'd said to each other, right - this is  what we're going to say: scribbled it down, then a revised schedule, I can't imagine that it was given to the GNR or PJ except by accident (I.e. the T 7 expected the investigation to be concentrated outwards, not that they would be investigated,  example being Matt who was questioned at length by the P J). 
ROB seems easily distracted, the crèche records alone show that, so perhaps he handed them over. 

Surely we all know people who can absolutely be relied upon in an emergency.....to do the wrong thing.  winkwink

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by canada12 on 02.11.13 13:53

"But ROB told the police that Gerry was sitting at the table when he was writing out the timelines...."

Then that's all the police need to know in order to see the glaringly obvious.

1. Gerry is sitting at the table when the timeline is written out.
2. Bundleman is included in the timeline.
3. Gerry therefore knows about Bundleman
4. Gerry doesn't ask JT about Bundleman, doesn't alert anyone about Bundleman, including the police
5. Police start asking questions.
6. JT states she didn't tell Gerry & Kate about Bundleman til later as she didn't want to worry them
7. Police draw a big red box around the timeline
8. The obvious becomes even more obvious.

canada12

Posts : 1457
Reputation : 187
Join date : 2013-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by pennylane on 02.11.13 13:59

@SchrodingersBody wrote:three words...

fitting & retro & obvious
Bang on, SB thumbup

pennylane

Posts : 2529
Reputation : 1189
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by jeanmonroe on 02.11.13 14:23

@canada12 wrote:"But ROB told the police that Gerry was sitting at the table when he was writing out the timelines...."

Then that's all the police need to know in order to see the glaringly obvious.

1. Gerry is sitting at the table when the timeline is written out.
2. Bundleman is included in the timeline.
3. Gerry therefore knows about Bundleman
4. Gerry doesn't ask JT about Bundleman, doesn't alert anyone about Bundleman, including the police
5. Police start asking questions.
6. JT states she didn't tell Gerry & Kate about Bundleman til later as she didn't want to worry them
7. Police draw a big red box around the timeline
8. The obvious becomes even more obvious.
And poor ol' JEZ Wilkins dosen't even get a MENTION on BOTH handwritten timelines even though he is an  absolutely 'pivitol 'character in the whole 'story' to provide GM with an 'alibi' for NOT seeing JT and her 'egghead abductor'

ETA: straightthinkiing
Both timelines place all the T9 at the table just before the end, ie everyone who has done checks has returned
............................................................

Not all.
JT was in her apartment at 10:00pm keeping an eye on McCanns 'open window, raised shutter' as KM 'ran' back to the tapas table!.

to make sure a 'real' abductor didn't nick the twins!

All STAGED!


jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by tigger on 02.11.13 14:29

@jeanmonroe wrote:
@canada12 wrote:"But ROB told the police that Gerry was sitting at the table when he was writing out the timelines...."

Then that's all the police need to know in order to see the glaringly obvious.

1. Gerry is sitting at the table when the timeline is written out.
2. Bundleman is included in the timeline.
3. Gerry therefore knows about Bundleman
4. Gerry doesn't ask JT about Bundleman, doesn't alert anyone about Bundleman, including the police
5. Police start asking questions.
6. JT states she didn't tell Gerry & Kate about Bundleman til later as she didn't want to worry them
7. Police draw a big red box around the timeline
8. The obvious becomes even more obvious.
And poor ol' JEZ Wilkins dosen't even get a MENTION on BOTH handwritten timelines even though he is an  absolutely 'pivitol 'character in the whole 'story' to provide GM with an 'alibi'
He was reminded of his meeting no doubt around 1.00 am when he was told of the abduction but assured that he didn't need to go out and search.

Eta: on how many other doors did those same members of the group bother to knock?
Or was JW's door the only one? 
I think it was.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by jeanmonroe on 02.11.13 14:34

@tigger wrote:
@jeanmonroe wrote:
@canada12 wrote:"But ROB told the police that Gerry was sitting at the table when he was writing out the timelines...."

Then that's all the police need to know in order to see the glaringly obvious.

1. Gerry is sitting at the table when the timeline is written out.
2. Bundleman is included in the timeline.
3. Gerry therefore knows about Bundleman
4. Gerry doesn't ask JT about Bundleman, doesn't alert anyone about Bundleman, including the police
5. Police start asking questions.
6. JT states she didn't tell Gerry & Kate about Bundleman til later as she didn't want to worry them
7. Police draw a big red box around the timeline
8. The obvious becomes even more obvious.
And poor ol' JEZ Wilkins dosen't even get a MENTION on BOTH handwritten timelines even though he is an  absolutely 'pivitol 'character in the whole 'story' to provide GM with an 'alibi'
He was reminded of his meeting no doubt around 1.00 am when he was told of the abduction but assured that he didn't need to go out and search.
Exactly! The searchers didn't need an extra pair of eyes did they?
It was MO that knocked on JW door.
I believe to 'tip him the wink'!
all imo, obviously.

I have NEVER understood why JW has NOT ever 'challenged' the McCann 'account' of where he was 'chatting' to GM.
The McCanns continue to portray him as a 'liar' at every opportunity.
BUT he has NEVER, EVER 'disputed' their account.
Extremely odd, i think!

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by StraightThinking on 02.11.13 14:51

@jeanmonroe wrote:JT was in her apartment at 10:00pm keeping an eye on McCanns 'open window
Well neither timeline has her returning to the table, but given that both versions place her check at 21.20, I assumed she would have been back by the time the alarm is said to have been raised at 22.00

It's interesting that R O'B is the only T9 that is specifically stated to have returned to the table (at 21.55, in version 2). Which for some reason makes me think that maybe he didn't

And what is the significance of 21.55 in version 1, when nothing apparently happened?

Oh, it's the time of the Smith sighting ....

StraightThinking

Posts : 180
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by ProfessorPPlum on 02.11.13 15:01

@canada12 wrote:"But ROB told the police that Gerry was sitting at the table when he was writing out the timelines...."

Then that's all the police need to know in order to see the glaringly obvious.

1. Gerry is sitting at the table when the timeline is written out.
2. Bundleman is included in the timeline.
3. Gerry therefore knows about Bundleman
4. Gerry doesn't ask JT about Bundleman, doesn't alert anyone about Bundleman, including the police
5. Police start asking questions.
6. JT states she didn't tell Gerry & Kate about Bundleman til later as she didn't want to worry them
7. Police draw a big red box around the timeline
8. The obvious becomes even more obvious.
My point exactly canada12. Apologies Mods if this IS off-topic (kind of hard to know since the original thread title has been whoosh-clunked!). 

The above surely HAS to be enough for any sensible police officer. Oh wait. It was enough for the PJ. Next step hard evidence - harder task.

____________________
The prime suspects in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann cannot be permitted to dictate what can and can't be discussed about the case

ProfessorPPlum

Posts : 411
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-05-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by Woofer on 02.11.13 15:25

Do we know when the timeline was written out?

Because if it was written out after 10.00pm, you`d think GM would have listed himself as being somewhere at 9.55pm (having come back and realised he`d been seen), that`s if it was him the Smiths saw.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by tigger on 02.11.13 16:05

@Woofer wrote:Do we know when the timeline was written out?

Because if it was written out after 10.00pm, you`d think GM would have listed himself as being somewhere at 9.55pm (having come back and realised he`d been seen), that`s if it was him the Smiths saw.
He had the word of his honourable friends that he was at the table in the Tapas.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Monsterman' - TITLE OF THREAD CHANGED AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY CARTER-RUCK (6 October 2011)

Post by Woofer on 02.11.13 16:18

@tigger wrote:
@Woofer wrote:Do we know when the timeline was written out?

Because if it was written out after 10.00pm, you`d think GM would have listed himself as being somewhere at 9.55pm (having come back and realised he`d been seen), that`s if it was him the Smiths saw.
He had the word of his honourable friends that he was at the table in the Tapas.
Cor, he`s a lucky fella in `ee  laughat

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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