The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

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 help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

Regards,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Was this paper ever sued?

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Was this paper ever sued?

Post by PeterMac on 24.04.14 14:08

And the whole thing was set to show the world the Tannerman story.

But a very senior Police officer has more recently told the world that Tannerman has been TIE'd
TRACED INTERVIEWED AND ELIMINATED.
It was not him.

So the entire mockumentary / reconstruction and all statements calculations, searched (Oh, sorry, wash my mouth out !!) based on that
lie / misunderstanding / fabrication / or whatever it was are all Null and Void.
Four years 'work' up in smoke

DCI Redwood has said so.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 149
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Was this paper ever sued?

Post by j.rob on 24.04.14 15:46

Either way, I think there's no love lost between those two. 


I'm not sure. At the beginning Jane does have a huge grin on her face with the footie joke and as Gerry walks towards her, he puts his arm out towards her.  I also think he is concealing a big smile at her 'Kate moaning about him watching football' joke.  Watch his movements and body language. At this point, in any event, there seems to be evidence of a close relationship between GM and JT  and also quite a genuine one. I've never seen GM (in any of the footage of him) acting so warmly towards anyone else, certainly not his children or Kate. 

Then, after this encounter, when the reconstruction shows JT  walking down the road and she talks laughingly about how it was so obvious that what she saw was a person abducting a child, she seems composed. I take her laughter to be a sign of insincerity. She knows what she is saying is not the truth, imo. Hence the laughter around it. 

I think the crying is a big act. I think the Portugese police noted that neither Kate or Gerry cried at the time of the alleged abduction, although they made noises as though they were crying. So Jane Tanner is providing the requisite tears at the reconstruction, to try to demonstrate that at least one of the friends is upset about Madeleine's disappearance. 

 But I have slowed the episode right down, and cannot see any tears. A the 4.07 mark and at the 14.14 mark you will see that, having coaxed her face into the necessary anguish of crying motions, J.M's face rapidly regains composure and becomes incredibly alert. Her eyes darting and her face very aware. She rubs here eyes a lot, as though rubbing away tears, but it's part of the stage show.

Sorry, but I think it a performance for the camera and that she and Gerry, at this time at any rate, are working as a team. And don't forget, she was able to put on quite a good performance on the very night that Madeleine 'was taken' when, presumably, emotions should have been running even higher. She was able to pretend that she didn't tell Kate about Tannerman because she didn't want to 'add to her distress' or some such twaddle. She was able and prepared to provide a massive alibi from the very word go.

Leopard's don't change their spots. By the time this film was made JT and the rest of the gang had had several years to refine their acting skills (and JT's crying episode is not bad, I have to hand it to her. Not Oscar winning but still) . Jane has to position Jez as facing away from her, as Jez is adament that he did not see her or Gerry. And presumably also to back up Jez's story, as if both JT and GM disagree with Jez' version of events, it would look suspicious. 

Gerry has to place his conversation with Jez as being on the opposite side of the road in order to explain how Jez did not see Jane.

And remember, confusion is good as no-one knows what's true or not, according to GM

All in my opinion.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Was this paper ever sued?

Post by Guest on 24.04.14 17:37

I'm with you j.rob

IMO Jane meandered too much about not "liking" Gerry in her rogatory statement. IMO and since a long time even before the rogatories were published *), it's the contrary and she has some "guilty knowledge". Remember, she seemed rather pleased with herself in the Panorama interview and made the famous "slip": I carried her ...

*) Peter may remember that I repeatedly said on Anorak in 2007: look at Tanner!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Was this paper ever sued?

Post by Guest on 24.04.14 18:05

@j.rob wrote:Either way, I think there's no love lost between those two. 


I'm not sure. At the beginning Jane does have a huge grin on her face with the footie joke and as Gerry walks towards her, he puts his arm out towards her.  I also think he is concealing a big smile at her 'Kate moaning about him watching football' joke.  Watch his movements and body language. At this point, in any event, there seems to be evidence of a close relationship between GM and JT  and also quite a genuine one. I've never seen GM (in any of the footage of him) acting so warmly towards anyone else, certainly not his children or Kate. 

Then, after this encounter, when the reconstruction shows JT  walking down the road and she talks laughingly about how it was so obvious that what she saw was a person abducting a child, she seems composed. I take her laughter to be a sign of insincerity. She knows what she is saying is not the truth, imo. Hence the laughter around it. 

I think the crying is a big act. I think the Portugese police noted that neither Kate or Gerry cried at the time of the alleged abduction, although they made noises as though they were crying. So Jane Tanner is providing the requisite tears at the reconstruction, to try to demonstrate that at least one of the friends is upset about Madeleine's disappearance. 

 But I have slowed the episode right down, and cannot see any tears. A the 4.07 mark and at the 14.14 mark you will see that, having coaxed her face into the necessary anguish of crying motions, J.M's face rapidly regains composure and becomes incredibly alert. Her eyes darting and her face very aware. She rubs here eyes a lot, as though rubbing away tears, but it's part of the stage show.

Sorry, but I think it a performance for the camera and that she and Gerry, at this time at any rate, are working as a team. And don't forget, she was able to put on quite a good performance on the very night that Madeleine 'was taken' when, presumably, emotions should have been running even higher. She was able to pretend that she didn't tell Kate about Tannerman because she didn't want to 'add to her distress' or some such twaddle. She was able and prepared to provide a massive alibi from the very word go.

Leopard's don't change their spots. By the time this film was made JT and the rest of the gang had had several years to refine their acting skills (and JT's crying episode is not bad, I have to hand it to her. Not Oscar winning but still) . Jane has to position Jez as facing away from her, as Jez is adament that he did not see her or Gerry. And presumably also to back up Jez's story, as if both JT and GM disagree with Jez' version of events, it would look suspicious. 

Gerry has to place his conversation with Jez as being on the opposite side of the road in order to explain how Jez did not see Jane.

And remember, confusion is good as no-one knows what's true or not, according to GM

All in my opinion.

j.rob, always interesting posts.

Is there any evidence that G was watching football?  Just wondering if he was doing something else with JT during his absence.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Was this paper ever sued?

Post by j.rob on 24.04.14 19:56

Châtelaine wrote:I'm with you j.rob

IMO Jane meandered too much about not "liking" Gerry in her rogatory statement. IMO and since a long time even before the rogatories were published *), it's the contrary and she has some "guilty knowledge". Remember, she seemed rather pleased with herself in the Panorama interview and made the famous "slip": I carried her ...

*) Peter may remember that I repeatedly said on Anorak in 2007: look at Tanner!

Interesting indeed!

Well, they all appear to be masters of the bluff/double bluff, probably treble bluff routine and none of them seem to have been especially 'truthful' in their police statements, so if J.T implies she is least comfortably with Gerry, that is either untrue or is a double bluff of some sort, imo.

The body language of the 'Madeleine was here' episode 4 most definitely does not suggest that J.T is in any way uncomfortable with GM, on the contrary, it appears they have quite a bit to share and are quite comfortable sharing it.  Also, it is telling that J.T talks about what Kate was doing (ie: she was 'moaning about Gerry watching football') in front of Gerry and is confident enough to recount this little version of events (which may or may not bear any relation to what was actually said)  with with a massive smile on her face. She faces Gerry squarely as she says this. And he moves towards her and reaches out his arm towards her. Seems they have many little 'in jokes' between them.

Later, during the 'crying' incident, J.T is incredibly alert when G,M (I am pretty sure it is him, although cannot be certain) walks past her very quickly with his back to the camera.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Was this paper ever sued?

Post by tigger on 24.04.14 20:12


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Was this paper ever sued?

Post by j.rob on 25.04.14 18:04

I had always thought that at least some of the Tapas group's role was *relatively* benign in that they perhaps found themselves embroiled in what they thought (but not necessarily the McCanns and possibly DP thought) was an accident, adverse drug reaction or some other unpremeditated mishap and they did their friends a favour by helping them out of a very sticky situation.

But now I am not so sure. Looking again at part 4 of the 'Madeleine was Here series' (although the whole series is incredibly creepy and sinister) there is so much in it that is just incredibly sinister. And, while I have always found DP's role to be fishy, I am now coming to the conclusion that at least one member of each of the couples appears to be playing quite a sinister role. 

Notice what complete gibberish (or perhaps not!) Gerry is talking, imo at the very start of episode 4. He says: 'my world was essentially shattered probably three or four minutes before Madeleine was taken.' Surely this tells us unequivocally that Gerry has prior knowledge of what happened to Madeleine? Three or four minutes before Madeleine 'was taken', isn't Gerry supposed to have been sitting at the dinner table, chatting, drinking wine and generally having a lovely fun-filled family holiday?!

There are so many Freudian slips like this, from both Kate and Gerry, it is almost comical, except that this involves the suspicious disappearance of an innocent child. 

He then goes on to utter another completely nonsensical sentence. This really is GM at his best, or should that be worst. 'We obviously - err, what's the word - persecuted ourselves for not being here...and....umm.....there's no doubt that not being here at the moment....umm...increased the risk of it.'

Leaving aside the use of the word 'persecute' which obviously has very strong religious connotations, this sentence is typical of the type of mumbo-jumbo that is uttered from GM. 

On the other hand, perhaps the sentence provides yet more clues. Gerry's world was 'essentially shattered' (notice, no mention of Madeleine's world) before 'Madeleine was taken' (notice use of passive tense which is distancing, rather than the active 'someone took Madeleine'.)  And the McCanns not 'being there' increased the risk of 'it'. 

To my mind, 'being taken' is a euphemism. Maybe for dying or being (sexually) abused and/or, possibly ill/injured. Gerry and Kate's 'not being there' at such a time when they might have been able to prevent this 'increased the risk of it'.

But this begs the question of when 'it' started to happen,, what 'it' was exactly. And would 'it' have definitely been prevented if the McCanns had been there at 'the moment'? Did they even want to prevent 'it'?

I am also curious about the person shown in the footage of the part 4 episode with the blanked out face. I wonder who he is? He does not appear to be a cameraman or anything. Why is his faced blanked out? He looks slightly similar to the man who 'slithered' out of the garage door in another of the episodes. 

Watching Matt and Gerry closely during the part where Matt reconstructs his listening at the door on the Thursday evening at 9.30pm, you can see, if you slow the film right down, they are both having quite strong physical reactions to what the other is saying.  At first I thought that there was some disagreement between them and/or the reactions were fear, nerves and so on.

But watch very, very closely (you can slow the youtube clip right down, although at the slowest setting you cannot hear the words, but the next slowest one you can).

Listen to what is being said by Matt at the 4.50 to 4.52 point and watch how Gerry reacts. His mouth is slightly open and he is chewing (his thumb?) then his tongue darts out of his mouth. At first I assumed it was extreme nervousness but then he actually turns his head quickly and fully away from the camera (just as Jane Tanner did when she wanted to conceal an inappropriate response) and when he turns back his expression is more of a smirk. At the 4.2 mark I detect a distinct smirk.

While Matt mostly does very well at keeping up his mask, he slips up. Blink and you miss it. 

Watch him at the 5.03 - 5.03 mark. His face moves round much faster (a dead giveaway of a strong emotional response and increased alertness/animation) his face definitely has a smile on it and is more animated and alert.

At around the 5.09 point his facial expressions are most interesting. At first I thought the expression was disgust at what Gerry was saying. But then I noticed that they both appeared to 'get back on track' so I think the expression is indicative of something else. I do not necessarily want to dwell on exactly what, but at the precise 5.09 point I again see a smile. And, once again, his facial movement around this time are much faster. 

At 5.21 Matt's face moves very quickly towards Gerry, and and you see the same expression of animation. The mask has slipped.

Watch both Matt and Gerry closely towards the end of this re-enactment, as Gerry utters the words: 'part of the reason we ended up coming through the back was the noise coming from the front door. Stupid now.'

Both of them turn away from the camera so their expressions cannot be seen. As Gerry turns back towards the camera at the  5.30 mark, his expression is once again quite a big smirk.

My other observation is that you will notice, particularly if you slow the film down, there are points where Matt and Gerry slur their words, sometimes so much that you cannot hear what they are saying. I think this is indicative of very significant and controversial/emotional subject matter. 

I will allow others to ponder on the significance, importance, relevance, or not, of my observations.

As always, I am left more and more disturbed by this case and really dread to think what happened to Madeleine.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Was this paper ever sued?

Post by j.rob on 26.04.14 16:26

The witness statement of Mrs Fenn's neice, Carol Tranmer, is interesting. She was at the apartment both during a period in the morning and again in the afternoon on the day that Madeleine disappeared from the apartment. As Mrs Fenn's apartment was directly above the McCann, both Mrs Fenn and Carol Tranmer were important eye-witnesses. She noticed a man letting himself out of the gate in front of the apartments in a furtive and sneaky manner, as though not wanting to be seen or heard by anyone, on the day Madeleine disappeared. 



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


I wonder who the blonde man that Carole sees letting himself out of the gate below her and the McCann's apartment is? She noticed his behaviour as being sneaky and fertive as though he did not want to be seen or heard. This was on the day of Madeleine's disappearance, I think she says during the afternoon between 3.30pm and 5.30pm. 

Surely someone to be ruled out of the investigation?

Thick blond closely cut hair, average height, looking British or Scandinavian, with a long face. 

I wonder who that was?

(As an aside: The Leics police detective interviewing her seems to have an interest in the fact that she worked for Windsor Castle and personally knew the Queen. He even asks her whether she met Diana and when she says no, he answers: "Not having the opportunity to meet her is a shame given what happened to her also. "


How peculiar! I noticed and mention this in view of the fact that there are some observers who have suggested that the reason GM was given protection from high levels was because he was privy to information about Princess Diana. So this jumped out at me. The policeman's choice of words, however, is quite strange - 'given what happened to her also', appears to make a suggestion that what happened to Diana in some way has a link with what happened to Madeleine, Otherwise, why add the 'also'? And of course, leaving aside the suggestion of any foul play, it is beyond reasonable dispute that what happened to Diana was that she was killed in an accident. Whereas, supposedly, no-one knows what happened to Madeleine McCann, not even Leics police!)

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

paper

Post by mariola on 26.04.14 18:16

@j.rob wrote:The witness statement of Mrs Fenn's neice, Carol Tranmer, is interesting. She was at the apartment both during a period in the morning and again in the afternoon on the day that Madeleine disappeared from the apartment. As Mrs Fenn's apartment was directly above the McCann, both Mrs Fenn and Carol Tranmer were important eye-witnesses. She noticed a man letting himself out of the gate in front of the apartments in a furtive and sneaky manner, as though not wanting to be seen or heard by anyone, on the day Madeleine disappeared. 



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


I wonder who the blonde man that Carole sees letting himself out of the gate below her and the McCann's apartment is? She noticed his behaviour as being sneaky and fertive as though he did not want to be seen or heard. This was on the day of Madeleine's disappearance, I think she says during the afternoon between 3.30pm and 5.30pm. 

Surely someone to be ruled out of the investigation?

Thick blond closely cut hair, average height, looking British or Scandinavian, with a long face. 

I wonder who that was?

(As an aside: The Leics police detective interviewing her seems to have an interest in the fact that she worked for Windsor Castle and personally knew the Queen. He even asks her whether she met Diana and when she says no, he answers: "Not having the opportunity to meet her is a shame given what happened to her also. "


How peculiar! I noticed and mention this in view of the fact that there are some observers who have suggested that the reason GM was given protection from high levels was because he was privy to information about Princess Diana. So this jumped out at me. The policeman's choice of words, however, is quite strange - 'given what happened to her also', appears to make a suggestion that what happened to Diana in some way has a link with what happened to Madeleine, Otherwise, why add the 'also'? And of course, leaving aside the suggestion of any foul play, it is beyond reasonable dispute that what happened to Diana was that she was killed in an accident. Whereas, supposedly, no-one knows what happened to Madeleine McCann, not even Leics police!)
MO or ROB?

mariola

Posts : 152
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

was paper sued

Post by mariola on 26.04.14 18:46

Rob reminds me of the tennis player Stephan Effenberg.He was from Sweden!

mariola

Posts : 152
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Was this paper ever sued?

Post by Guest on 26.04.14 19:02

@mariola wrote:Rob reminds me of the tennis player Stephan Effenberg.He was from Sweden!


Stefan Edberg I think you mean.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Was this paper ever sued?

Post by Guest on 26.04.14 19:22

Or the tennis coach, turning tricks?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

paper

Post by mariola on 26.04.14 21:14

candyfloss wrote:
@mariola wrote:Rob reminds me of the tennis player Stephan Effenberg.He was from Sweden!


Stefan Edberg I think you mean.
thank you super duper.

mariola

Posts : 152
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

was paper sued

Post by mariola on 26.04.14 21:16

@Portia wrote:Or the tennis coach, turning tricks?
como se llama?

mariola

Posts : 152
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

was paper sued

Post by mariola on 26.04.14 21:30

Dan Stuk .

mariola

Posts : 152
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

was paper sued

Post by mariola on 27.04.14 0:16

@Portia wrote:Or the tennis coach, turning tricks?
Great thread "having just met dan in the car".I,m with rolodog.

mariola

Posts : 152
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Was this paper ever sued?

Post by Richard IV on 01.11.15 14:43

Guest wrote:I can't help wondering if that story about Jacqueline McCann's partner is actually true.

Do we have any members who live in or know that area and can recall hearing about it?

Sadly, absolutely anything put out by the McCanns is open to great suspicion.

It could of course be an error but Jacqueline's quoted age of 46 in 2007 does not tie in with her position of 4th child in the family.

John, born 1959; Trisha, born 1960; Phil, born 1964, Jacqueline, born 12th May but what year and Gerry, born 1968.

If Jacqueline is actually the 3rd child, that would make sense.

Just in case it`s not been recorded here, Allan Hamilton Saunders did die in March 2003, but recorded as 17th March.







[th]Name:[/th][th]Gender:[/th][th]Age:[/th][th]Birth Date:[/th][th]Death Date:[/th][th]Residence Place at Death:[/th][th]Postal Code District:[/th]
Mr Allan Hamilton Saunders
Male
39
1964
17 Mar 2003
Glasgow, Glasgow City, Scotland
G76

I can`t find any thing about him being murdered either.

Richard IV

Posts : 552
Reputation : 260
Join date : 2015-03-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Was this paper ever sued?

Post by Rob Royston on 02.11.15 9:48

@mariola wrote:
@Portia wrote:Or the tennis coach, turning tricks?
Great thread "having just met dan in the car".I,m with rolodog.
Not just his car, or a car but "The" car. It makes it sound as if this is a car that they had become familiar with, maybe borrowed or been driven around in. I wonder if the PJ checked it out?

Reading further up where people are saying that Madeleine had a lot of Kate's features, since this thread was written it has been suggested that some of the pictures purporting to be Maddie are actually childhood pictures of Kate.

Rob Royston

Posts : 75
Reputation : 16
Join date : 2012-07-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Was this paper ever sued?

Post by jeanmonroe on 03.11.15 13:48

Was this paper, '24 Horas' ever sued?
--------------------

In a 'word'................NO!

As they, ALSO, did not SUE...............the Tal & Qual 'newspaper'!

(despite, being 'deeply hurt' and 'distessed' and 'firmly believeing' that the report, in Tal & Qual, 'was speculative, AND 'defamatory' and, AND, the lawyers for the family said the claims, in T&Q, WERE 'defamatory, untrue' and had caused the couple "humiliation and suffering".)

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5317
Reputation : 1177
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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