The Tanner "Sighting" - AGAIN

And WHY would he enter through the LOCKED front door, when he has already ADMITTED to leaving the patio door UNLOCKED so his 'colleagues could gain entrance' to check HIS kids?

WHY did HE walk 'pass' the UNLOCKED patio door, that he says he LEFT diliberately 'unlocked' on previous night(s) and go the 'long way around' through the car park to go in through the front locked door?

And more importantly, WHY did he CHANGE his first, signed as true, STATEMENT?

jeanmonroe wrote:And WHY would he enter through the LOCKED front door, when he has already ADMITTED to leaving the patio door UNLOCKED so his 'colleagues could gain entrance' to check HIS kids?

WHY did HE walk 'pass' the UNLOCKED patio door, that he says he LEFT diliberately 'unlocked' on previous night(s) and go the 'long way around' through the car park to go in through the front locked door?

And more importantly, WHY did he CHANGE his first, signed as true, STATEMENT?

My answer was in my last post :)

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
If there was no need for anyone else to enter the apartment they could have locked it. Which means that the point of entry and exit would have to be the front door, and Gerry stated in his first police interview that he entered 5A via the locked front door. In subsequent interviews he changed this story, to account for Oldfield's 'checks' (only the 9:30 'check', as the earlier one was allegedly a listening check and so would not contradict Gerry's account).

In my opinion this is another strong indication that Oldfield was not supposed to recount the 9:30 check to the police, that the idea had been abandoned by the writing of the second timeline. Gerry would not have stated that he entered through the locked front door if he had known what Oldfield told the police. I think this was a massive mistake.

I would be interested to know if Jeremy Wilkins saw which direction Gerry went after they finished their conversation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4aBr5PTYY

Here's one for Oldfield.

"it was 'dead' QUIET so i didn't go in" (unfortunate 'use' of word there Oldfield)

So, Madeleine MIGHT have been QUIET because she was lying de*d in her bed (ANY number of 'reasons')

But a DOCTOR didn't think to 'check' because all 'was QUIET'?

Pull the other one, Oldfield!

Poe wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:IMO it's understandable that the McCanns may struggle with extending their forgiveness to TB who has done so much to highlight their deficiencies as parents but, having forgiven the abductor, it does seem a tad curious that they don't feel able to forgive the man whose only sin was to try to find where they'd put their daughter. 

I wonder where AR features on G&K's forgiveness chart?  Have they placed a gold or black star by his name, or is there a blank space waiting to be filled before volume 2 of Kate's memoirs hits the shelves?

To me, this is quite simple:

They can't forgive somebody who exists.  They can easily forgive a figment of their imagination.

Tongue was firmly in cheek when posting, wlbts, but it occurs to me that forgiving the figment of their imagination also reinforces the notion of devout christianity, albeit manifested via the roman catholic church, when the only god the McCanns worship is Mammon.

The saddest thing is that Kate most likely doesn't see the need to forgive herself either.


I'm editing this post to explain what I mean:

Most mothers feel guilty about every little bad thing that happens to their child(ren). From scraped knees to illness, it's part of a mother's instinct to prevent these things and failure to do so, whether they were there or not, induces feelings of guilt. It's natures way of making sure that youngsters are kept safe.

If Kate had an ounce of empathy, she would never be able forgive herself for her role in whatever happened to Madeleine.

As it is, I don't think she understands why she would even feel guilty let alone forgive herself.

Does that make sense?

It makes perfect sense to me, Poe.  Having only recently obtained a 50p copy of the bewk, I'm struck by how Kate has clearly struggled for words to describe feelings which she believes will portray her as being 'just like any other mother', while her words flow easily when she is disparaging others.

Although I've yet to finish reading the tome, her preoccupation with herself above all other considerations has shone out of every page I've perused to date.  It's as if this woman has a panoramic mirror attached to her being which enables her to admire her perfection from every angle.

Just Checking

Just Checking
We examine and compare the various accounts given by the group of their “system” for checking the children during the evenings they spent in the Tapas bar.
Book, p. 75 That Sunday night we headed over to the restaurant. We were all there except Matt, who had a bit of a dodgy stomach, which he attributed to something he’d eaten en route to Portugal. The rest of us enjoyed our meal. The food was good and it was nice to have a little adult time. There weren’t many other diners and, since we were such a large group, we were focused on chatting to and bantering with each other and not taking much notice of anyone else. It was, I remember, very cold and windy and I discovered that five layers of clothing were required to keep me comfortable. We nipped back to our respective apartments every half-hour to check on the children – apart from Rachael, since Matt had stayed behind, and Dave and Fiona, who had a state-of-the-art baby monitor with them. Our visits also gave us a convenient opportunity to pop to the loo or, in my case, to pick up an extra cardigan. [1]

In press interviews the McCanns always give the impression that there was a checking system in place whereby everyone took a turn of checking not only their own children, every half hour, but probably the children of the others in the group.

It is clear from examining the statements that this did not happen
 
The group consisted of four couples, plus the mother of one of the women in the group.  Nine adults in total.

David and Fiona Payne  did no checking of anyone’s children, including their own, as they had a baby monitor and relied on this.
Dianne Webster  (Fiona Payne’s mother) did no checking at any time.
Rachael and Matthew Oldfield did not check on anyone else’s children.
Jane Tanner and Russell O’Brien did not check on anyone else’s children
Kate and Gerry McCann never checked on anyone else’s children.

So this impression the McCanns have given of the adults in their group all running back and forth checking each others' children is most certainly not the truth.

On the night Madeleine was reported as missing the McCanns claim their checks were around every 30 minutes. [2]

But after Madeleine had told them on the Thursday morning (she was reported missing on Thursday night) that she and her brother had been crying on the previous night – the McCanns decided they would check their children more regularly. [3], [4], [5]
If every 30 minutes was more regular than previous nights, then the McCann children were not being checked every 30 minutes throughout that week. Hourly is more credible.
On the night Madeleine was reported as missing, Gerry McCann claims to have checked around 9pm. Kate McCann claimed her check took place around 10pm.
This would tie in with the statement of Mrs Fenn who lived in the apartment above the McCanns that she heard a child crying in the McCann apartment for more than an hour on the night of Tuesday 1st May 2007. [6]
Note: The statement about deciding to check the children more regularly, or “keep a closer watch” or be “more vigilant” was released to the Press some time after the secret meeting of the Tapas group in Rothley. This meeting was before the Tapas friends were due to give their Rogatory interviews, but it was specifically denied by their spokesman that the intention was to “get their stories right”. [7]
But it is fairly obvious that the Media were given this statement by Clarence Mitchell on their behalf, and it seems it was an important part of the attempt to show that the McCanns, and indeed all the group were “responsible parents”

As an aside one must recall that both Gerry and Kate stated clearly that had it not been for the altered position of the bedroom door neither of them would have bothered even to look into the room. [8], [9]
And Oldfield was very quick to distance himself from the position of having been the last person to see Madeleine alive. [10]

Carlos Anjos from the Association of Police Investigators stated
“They said that every half an hour they would go and look in on the children and all of them, we found in EVERYBODY'S statement, some questions that suggest that actually they DIDN'T go and see the children.” [11]

According to the bewk, p.70, "Obviously, we didn't want any of our children waking and wondering where we were even for a few minutes, and if the chances of that happening seemed remote, it was enough of a concern to make us absolutely prompt wth our checks on the kids. That is why Gerry and I were subsequently able to be so accurate about timings'. 

Also according to the book "Gerry left to do the first check just before 9.05 by his watch."  No doubt the very same watch he wasn't wearing according to Clarence but which miraculously appeared on his wrist at that very same time on that very same evening, also according to the very same Clarence.

According to the pantomime tale, Matthew Oldfield checked at 9.30pm.  

According to my calculations, if one of the children had woken just after one of these checks they could have been wondering where their parents were for considerably more than a few minutes and may have been awake and wondering for at least 20 minutes to be precise.

According to another of Kate's accounts I have read, despite the Tapas Bar having toilet facilities, the bathroom at 5A appears to have been used as a communal lavatory* by the group hence the phenomena of synchronised tinkling as Gerry takes a leak in the apartment loo while JW sprinkles in the Tapas urinal and notices that Rastaman is taking what seems to be a long time to relieve himself.

*Did it occur to Kate or her spouse that using and flushing the toilet before checking on the children would have ensured someone was on hand to soothe them in the event they were disturbed by the sound of the cistern in the next room?

As this thread is about Bundleman/Tannerman/Crecheman etc., I hope its ok just to get something off my chest, so to speak, although its slightly off what is being discussed in the latest posts. This is just my opinion of course.

I happened to see this picture on Textusa's site, yes I know its not everyone's cup of tea, but I do visit. Maybe this is why Kate feels "worthless" or that "she can now forgive him" ?
Anyway here it is:



To me this shows Gerry walking in what I thought was familiar in some way. This may have been discussed before but I have looked and have not found anything similar yet, so..... this is who it reminded me of:
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post466.html#p466
 
Jane Tanner (3/3), Friend, travelling companion of the McCann family, Rogatory interview 08.04.08
 
Jane Tanner Rogatory Interview
Snips
 
“4078 “Because we have been”.
Reply “Yeah”.
4078 “Right. Okay. So you have seen Gerry and you have seen Jez?”
Reply “So this person, he walked across the road and the things, I think the three things that struck me was the feet, purely for the reason, and that’s the reason I spotted them, the clothes were a bit, not what I’d expect and also they were walking quite, quite, they
looked like they were, they weren’t running but it was a purposeful walk, so they
were walking quite purposefully”.
4078 “Where were they, I was going to exactly, but exactly, in as far as you can
remember?”
Reply “They were sort of, I think I spotted them sort of in the middle, sort of here’ish or, I
don’t, I mean, I can’t say for sure, but sort of more sort of from that angle and then
they were carrying on that way”.
 
And
 
“4078 “And you said earlier you thought he was, I can’t remember what word you used,
walking, you didn’t say briskly, but”.
Reply “Purposefully”.
4078 “Purposefully”.
Reply “Yeah”.
4078 “Did you notice anything else about the way he walked?”
 
Reply “Not really, just that it was very, as I say, it did seem quite a very, you know, a
purposeful. And also the way he was carrying was sort of, it’s the way I would pick
my children up if I didn’t want to wake them up, you know, if you’re sort of picking
them up to put them into another bed or something, it is the way I would pick them
up if they were asleep, because it’s, normally you would imagine you would carry
them over your shoulder or something.
 
Picture/Sketch of Bundleman/Tannerman/Crecheman






 
 

@ultimaThule

Kate's subconscious mind speaking up again?

Is it 'wondering' or 'wandering', I wonder?

Kate appears to apply adult reasoning to her young children, wlbts, whereas IME a non-verbal infant in a cot may start bawling its head off if it wakes and finds itself alone, while a young child may climb out of bed and go in search of its parents (or mischief as the case may be) before bawling its head off if they can't be found.

I can't imagine that many young children would wake and lay twiddling their thumbs 'wondering' where their parents are before letting their disapproval be known.

Angelique wrote:
“4078 “And you said earlier you thought he was, I can’t remember what word you used,
walking, you didn’t say briskly, but”.
Reply “Purposefully”.
4078 “Purposefully”.
Reply “Yeah”.

I've thought about this a fair bit myself, along with the Smith sighting and what it means to be or not to be a tourist. I suppose when I'm out in Portugal I walk purposefully, and not like a tourist - that's because I've been there so many times.

ultimaThule wrote:Kate appears to apply adult reasoning to her young children, wlbts, whereas IME a non-verbal infant in a cot may start bawling its head off if it wakes and finds itself alone, while a young child may climb out of bed and go in search of its parents (or mischief as the case may be) before bawling its head off if they can't be found.

I can't imagine that many young children would wake and lay twiddling their thumbs 'wondering' where their parents are before letting their disapproval be known.

Yes, which is why I considered whether Kate has transformed the word 'wandering' (which makes sense) into 'wondering' (which makes no sense - Kate's total lack of empathy at work again).

A 'wandering' child may well climb up onto something high and fall and hit their head ... and that is something Kate doesn't want anyone to consider.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

Angelique wrote:
“4078 “And you said earlier you thought he was, I can’t remember what word you used,
walking, you didn’t say briskly, but”.
Reply “Purposefully”.
4078 “Purposefully”.
Reply “Yeah”.

I've thought about this a fair bit myself, along with the Smith sighting and what it means to be or not to be a tourist. I suppose when I'm out in Portugal I walk purposefully, and not like a tourist - that's because I've been there so many times.

I used to travel with my dog; the moment we exited the car, we blended in with any crowd

Maybe that's what happened purposefully to little Maddie: she -or what was left of her- was transferred from A to B at precisely the same time everyone else was busy transporting their own kids from the creche. Following the principle: hide the hay in the haystack

ultimaThule wrote:According to the bewk, p.70, "Obviously, we didn't want any of our children waking and wondering where we were even for a few minutes, and if the chances of that happening seemed remote, it was enough of a concern to make us absolutely prompt wth our checks on the kids. That is why Gerry and I were subsequently able to be so accurate about timings'. 

Also according to the book "Gerry left to do the first check just before 9.05 by his watch."  No doubt the very same watch he wasn't wearing according to Clarence but which miraculously appeared on his wrist at that very same time on that very same evening, also according to the very same Clarence.

According to the pantomime tale, Matthew Oldfield checked at 9.30pm.  

According to my calculations, if one of the children had woken just after one of these checks they could have been wondering where their parents were for considerably more than a few minutes and may have been awake and wondering for at least 20 minutes to be precise.

According to another of Kate's accounts I have read, despite the Tapas Bar having toilet facilities, the bathroom at 5A appears to have been used as a communal lavatory* by the group hence the phenomena of synchronised tinkling as Gerry takes a leak in the apartment loo while JW sprinkles in the Tapas urinal and notices that Rastaman is taking what seems to be a long time to relieve himself.

*Did it occur to Kate or her spouse that using and flushing the toilet before checking on the children would have ensured someone was on hand to soothe them in the event they were disturbed by the sound of the cistern in the next room?

It's so nonsensical, what she states. The very fact of leaving them for half and hour exactly means they are very likely to be awake and wondering  for, well, half an hour if the 'check' itself disturbed them. The only way of ensuring they are not distressed for even a few minutes would be, um, not to leave them at all.

Has the woman no sense of how ridiculous her words are? Of course, she knew the real reason to feel confident that slumber would be absolute, but we're not supposed to know. How come no interviewer has never said "Eh? Your words contradict themselves, love".

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote: [...]

A 'wandering' child may well climb up onto something high and fall and hit their head ... and that is something Kate doesn't want anyone to consider.

***
You mean, like a can of beans falling of a high shelf ...?

If you're confused with my comment, check KM's comments on Mrs. Fenn.

Châtelaine wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote: [...]

A 'wandering' child may well climb up onto something high and fall and hit their head ... and that is something Kate doesn't want anyone to consider.

***
You mean, like a can of beans falling of a high shelf ...?

If you're confused with my comment, check KM's comments on Mrs. Fenn.

- and Russiandoll's analysis of that remark in Forensic Linguistics.

Châtelaine wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote: [...]

A 'wandering' child may well climb up onto something high and fall and hit their head ... and that is something Kate doesn't want anyone to consider.

***
You mean, like a can of beans falling of a high shelf ...?

If you're confused with my comment, check KM's comments on Mrs. Fenn.

I suppose when you look at it Chatelaine, that's quite an unusual comparison (made by Kate)

Tigger, perhaps that's what Russian Doll said in Forensic Linguistics, I don't know I haven't seen it (yet)

"Forensic linguistics" is a 30+ page thread. I may even have contributed it myself. But, if so, "long" ago ... so can someone, please, guide me more or less to the pages, which are of interest in this respect?

Russian Doll's post on page 24, Forensic Linguistics

The Tanner sighting has been ruled out in the words of AR it was his  :wtf2: :wtf2: :wtf2: :wtf2: moment diluted for crimewatch. If that is indeed the case with crechebeigechinoscarryingchildinpyjamasman then all I can say about him is that he is a gormless idiot for not coming forward to sell his story to the British press. They would have paid a fortune for an interview with him. What is probably more likely is that the message has to be got across to those who know what happened can receive no quarter from the law when the truth is revealed. It will take until their children grow up but somebody will blow sooner or later.

Please can you remove that Avatar. It is offensive and above all, disrespective to a family that has lost a child in such dreadful circumstances.

chilli wrote:Please can you remove that Avatar. It is offensive and above all, disrespective to a family that has lost a child in such dreadful circumstances.

I agree entirely with this post and am sending candyfloss a P.M.
J.S has been asked several times to stop using offensive avatars and the present one is absolutely out of order.

PeterM wrote:

It is clear from examining the statements that this did not happen

The group consisted of four couples, plus the mother of one of the women in the group.  Nine adults in total.

David and Fiona Payne  did no checking of anyone’s children, including their own, as they had a baby monitor and relied on this.
Dianne Webster  (Fiona Payne’s mother) did no checking at any time.
Rachael and Matthew Oldfield did not check on anyone else’s children.
Jane Tanner and Russell O’Brien did not check on anyone else’s children
Kate and Gerry McCann never checked on anyone else’s children.

So this impression the McCanns have given of the adults in their group all running back and forth checking each others' children is most certainly not the truth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 10th of May 2007, at 3.20 p.m.
They left the house through the main door, that he was sure he locked, and the back door was also closed and locked.
On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007. On this day, the deponent and KATE had already left the back door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their group colleagues to check on the children. He clarifies that the main door was always closed but not necessarily locked with the key.
------------------------------------------------------

So, "on Wednesday night, 2nd May 2007 On this day, the deponent (GM) and KATE had already left the back door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their group colleagues to check on the children".
-------------------------------------------

(why is the 2nd of May 'mentioned' and NOT all the other nights up to that date?)

ALLOW ENTRANCE BY THEIR GROUP COLLEAGUES TO 'CHCEK' ON THE  (MCCANN) CHILDREN?
----------------------------------------

As we know from PeterM's 'research' NONE of the McCanns 'colleagues' ever 'checked' the McCann children,

YET GM tells us, SPECIFICALLY, the reason the McCanns left their apartment 'unlocked/unsecured'  was to 'ALLOW ENTRANCE BY THEIR GROUP COLLEAGUES TO 'CHECK' on HIS children!

I WONDER WHY HIS COLLEAGUES NEVER ONCE, DURING THE HOLIDAY, CHECKED HIS KIDS?

They (GM&KM) had, diliberately and consciously, (incidentally, putting their three children at total RISK of a stranger entering their apartment and doing GKW to their children) left the 'back door' unlocked, so that their colleagues could do just that, so they tell us!

ERGO: It was NOT a 'mistake' to leave their apartment 'unlocked' when they went out of sight to tapas restaurant, it WAS a DILIBERATE and CONSCIOUS 'decision' by THEM, the most super responsible parents in the world, who would never, ever, put their most precious kids, the most important 'persons' in their lives, EVER, at risk or danger or in harms way, to do so. And they DID it every night they went 'out'!

But, NONE of his colleagues set foot in the MCCanns apartment UNTIL the 'fateful night' when Madeleine went 'missing'!

WHY were there no 'checks' all week, of the McCann children, by GM's colleagues, as HE 'envisaged' there would be?

OR, is GM telling 'porkies' AGAIN!

eta: WHY did the McCanns think that their colleagues should/would check THEIR children when they sat on their ass*s at the tapas and, AFAIK, THEY didn't 'offer' once to check their colleagues children all that week?

DON'T DO AS I DO, DO AS I SAY!

Hmmmm.

jeanmonroe wrote:PeterM wrote:

It is clear from examining the statements that this did not happen

The group consisted of four couples, plus the mother of one of the women in the group.  Nine adults in total.

David and Fiona Payne  did no checking of anyone’s children, including their own, as they had a baby monitor and relied on this.
Dianne Webster  (Fiona Payne’s mother) did no checking at any time.
Rachael and Matthew Oldfield did not check on anyone else’s children.
Jane Tanner and Russell O’Brien did not check on anyone else’s children
Kate and Gerry McCann never checked on anyone else’s children.

So this impression the McCanns have given of the adults in their group all running back and forth checking each others' children is most certainly not the truth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 10th of May 2007, at 3.20 p.m.
They left the house through the main door, that he was sure he locked, and the back door was also closed and locked.
On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007. On this day, the deponent and KATE had already left the back door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their group colleagues to check on the children. He clarifies that the main door was always closed but not necessarily locked with the key.
------------------------------------------------------

So, "on Wednesday night, 2nd May 2007 On this day, the deponent (GM) and KATE had already left the back door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their group colleagues to check on the children".
-------------------------------------------

(why is the 2nd of May 'mentioned' and NOT all the other nights up to that date?)

ALLOW ENTRANCE BY THEIR GROUP COLLEAGUES TO 'CHCEK' ON THE  (MCCANN) CHILDREN?
----------------------------------------

As we know from PeterM's 'research' NONE of the McCanns 'colleagues' ever 'checked' the McCann children,

YET GM tells us, SPECIFICALLY, the reason the McCanns left their apartment 'unlocked/unsecured' was to 'ALLOW ENTRANCE BY THEIR GROUP COLLEAGUES TO 'CHECK' on HIS children!

I WONDER WHY HIS COLLEAGUES NEVER ONCE, DURING THE HOLIDAY, CHECKED HIS KIDS?

They (GM&KM) had, diliberately and consciously, left the 'back door' unlocked, so that his colleagues could do just that, so they tell us!

But NONE of his colleagues set foot in the MCCanns apartment UNTIL the 'fateful night' when Madeleine went 'missing'!

WHY were there no 'checks' all week, of the McCann children, by GM's colleagues?

OR, is GM telling 'porkies' AGAIN!

Maybe they left the back door open on the 2nd May so the abductor could enter for a trial run and practice giving sedation to Madeleine and the twins.
Certainly it wasn't for any of their colleagues to check.
Didn't KM say that she thought the "abductor" had entered the night before.
And he had maybe disturbed the children leading to the crying episode (where were you when etc).
And he had given Maddie sedation which was why she was so tired the following day.
And this had possibly caused the "tea stain" on Maddies pjs.

What a colourful imagination she has.

ETA who gives tea to a child with sleeping problems???

dantezebu wrote:

Maybe they left the back door open on the 2nd May so the abductor could enter for a trial run and practice giving sedation to Madeleine and the twins.
--------------------------------------------------------

And that would be the 'abductor' who was NOW in the  kiddies room, the night BEFORE, the big 'night' who thought, "I COULD 'abduct' Madeleine right NOW, and the twins are breathing nicely, but as i have to collect my happy meal from MackiDs, i'll come back tomorrow. I won't get caught and none of the parents 'friends' will see me tomorrow, i'll risk it"

Is THAT the PROFESSIONAL 'abductor' you allude to?

jeanmonroe wrote:dantezebu wrote:

Maybe they left the back door open on the 2nd May so the abductor could enter for a trial run and practice giving sedation to Madeleine and the twins.
--------------------------------------------------------

And that would be the 'abductor' who was NOW in the  kiddies room, the night BEFORE, the big 'night' who thought, "I COULD 'abduct' Madeleine right NOW, and the twins are breathing nicely, but as i have to collect my happy meal from MackiDs, i'll come back tomorrow. I won't get caught and none of the parents 'friends' will see me tomorrow, i'll risk it"

Is THAT the PROFESSIONAL 'abductor' you allude to?

That's the one. Except after finding three children he decided he would come back with a couple of his burglar mates the next night and they could get one each.