Re: The Tanner "Sighting" - AGAIN

by Okeydokey 31.10.13 1:37

tigger wrote:
Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html
Seeing those again it seems to me fairly clear that these weren't meant for the police but a hurried attempt to fit in the changes to a verbal arrangement.

All the 'evidence' is there.
The first list much as it was first decided, simple to remember by heart and the second one with the changes.
All still hinged on the shutter, without that 'all shutters down' ( note ALL) .
RM when asked, dutifully says that the patio door shutters were closed.

Has there ever been another case like this in history where the principals sat down and wrote TWO timelines instead of going out to search?

Let's be kind and assume they were writing a timeline to help the police... why on earth will the Police be interested in Russell's kid being poorly...

This is alibi stuff isn't it?

by **PeterMac** 31.10.13 7:41

tigger wrote:
All still hinged on the shutter, without that 'all shutters down' ( note ALL) .
RM when asked, dutifully says that the patio door shutters were closed.

That was a classic "stick to the script" mistake.
The patio window shutters are full width, 2 m across by 2m high.
He really got it wrong, but no one seems to have pressed him and then the rest about this

by galena 31.10.13 9:09

Okeydokey wrote:
tigger wrote:
Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html
Seeing those again it seems to me fairly clear that these weren't meant for the police but a hurried attempt to fit in the changes to a verbal arrangement.

All the 'evidence' is there.
The first list much as it was first decided, simple to remember by heart and the second one with the changes.
All still hinged on the shutter, without that 'all shutters down' ( note ALL) .
RM when asked, dutifully says that the patio door shutters were closed.
Has there ever been another case like this in history where the principals sat down and wrote TWO timelines instead of going out to search?

Let's be kind and assume they were writing a timeline to help the police... why on earth will the Police be interested in Russell's kid being poorly...

This is alibi stuff isn't it?

That is very true and the same thought had occurred to me - the only thing of any interest is the sighting of a man carrying a child - the rest really has no relevance to the supposed abduction. It certainly suggests - however you believed Madeleine disappeared - that the priority for these people was to close ranks and cover their own backs? Perhaps partly a result of their medical training?

by Guest 31.10.13 9:29

galena wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
tigger wrote:
Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html
Seeing those again it seems to me fairly clear that these weren't meant for the police but a hurried attempt to fit in the changes to a verbal arrangement.

All the 'evidence' is there.
The first list much as it was first decided, simple to remember by heart and the second one with the changes.
All still hinged on the shutter, without that 'all shutters down' ( note ALL) .
RM when asked, dutifully says that the patio door shutters were closed.
Has there ever been another case like this in history where the principals sat down and wrote TWO timelines instead of going out to search?

Let's be kind and assume they were writing a timeline to help the police... why on earth will the Police be interested in Russell's kid being poorly...

This is alibi stuff isn't it?
That is very true and the same thought had occurred to me - the only thing of any interest is the sighting of a man carrying a child - the rest really has no relevance to the supposed abduction. It certainly suggests - however you believed Madeleine disappeared - that the priority for these people was to close ranks and cover their own backs? Perhaps partly a result of their medical training?

I still can't understand wht they left MO check off the second i.e. final version.
Has there ever been a reason given for this?

by **tigger** 10.03.14 18:33

As I'm re-reading Dr. Roberts, here is a snippet that is now relevant since creche man entered stage right.
Oprah Winfrey interview

We interrupt this sentence to bring you...

Aborted statements are intriguing as they invariably reveal the subsequent constructs to have been other than at the forefront of the speaker's thoughts.

GM (to Oprah): "...Jane went to check on her children and it was at that point she was just past me going up to the corner and she saw a man carrying a young girl with almo... she described independently the pyjamas that Madeleine had on and she didn't see the child's face. She didn't, you know, she saw me there, she'd seen that I'd just been in the apartment and so she... at the time she thought it was something odd, but it didn't raise enough alarm bells to challenge the person or anything."

Mention of a young girl with 'almost the same pyjamas' would have been rather less convincing than describing one with the very same pyjamas. If it were not the same child however, they are most unlikely to have been the same pyjamas. The replacement clause avoids any untruth, substituting instead a comment lacking temporal specificity, and therefore significance, i.e. 'She described independently the pyjamas that Madeleine had on.' The description coming well after the putative event, its author could simply have been provided with the details in the meantime. She 'didn't see the child's face', so the child was not identified as Madeleine. 'She'd seen that I'd just been in the apartment' is an unwarranted assumption, unless she (Jane Tanner) actually saw Gerry McCann leave the apartment, which she never claimed to have done; so too is the clause we are denied by Gerry's change of syntactic direction.

by worriedmum 10.03.14 19:28

On the first timeline (not the one with 'Gerald' written on it) does it say '-1' after M.0.'s entry?

Meaning 'minus one' ?

by jeanmonroe 10.03.14 20:11

worriedmum wrote:On the first timeline (not the one with 'Gerald' written on it) does it say '-1' after M.0.'s entry?

Meaning 'minus one' ?

The Tanner "Sighting" - AGAIN - Page 4 Captur12

Good Spot Mrs!

Explanation anyone?

eta: WHY is there LESS information on the second timeline than the first timeline?

The T9 would have been 'racking their brains' to remember EVERY last 'detail' after the 'abduction' and there would be a lot more 'remembered' information on the second 'timeline', imo.

But there's LESS.

by Guest 10.03.14 20:37

jeanmonroe wrote:
worriedmum wrote:On the first timeline (not the one with 'Gerald' written on it) does it say '-1' after M.0.'s entry?

Meaning 'minus one' ?

Good Spot Mrs!

Explanation anyone?

eta: WHY is there LESS information on the second timeline than the first timeline?

The T9 would have been 'racking their brains' to remember EVERY last 'detail' after the 'abduction' and there would be a lot more 'remembered' information on the second 'timeline', imo.

But there's LESS.

Could it be something to do with the time difference they thought existed between Portugal and UK - making sure that the people primed back in the UK to raise the alarm were in synch with the Portuguese timings?

Although it is in that particular place in the schedule I do not know - maybe because according to their calculations (wrongly assuming that Portugal was one hour behind the UK) the UK alerts would kick in at this section i.e. at just after 10pm (UK time).

by Guest 10.03.14 20:41

worriedmum wrote:On the first timeline (not the one with 'Gerald' written on it) does it say '-1' after M.0.'s entry?

Meaning 'minus one' ?

minus one child?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 20:51

It just looks to me like they've started to write something and then stopped.

by Guest 10.03.14 20:52

9:35 - Matt check door see twins -1.

Perhaps?

Or could 'dash' 1 have been the start of another comment on a new line?

Or could it be 'dash' l (letter L)?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 20:56

The important thing to me about the first timeline - and I've written this lots of times - is the entry for Gerry's check.

Jerry 9.10-9.15 in tv room + all well
? did he check

1) Curious description of the 'tv room', perhaps concurs with Jane Tanner's statement in the Mockumentary that Kate was worried because Gerry had been away for a while 'watching football'

2) The author is aware of Gerry's visit, and that Gerry was in the 'tv room', that all was well, but does not know if he checked the children. I believe that this is an accurate recounting of what Gerry had told them at this point in the evening.

3) The positioning of the question mark makes the second line look like a question to be asked

4) 'Did he check' indicates that Gerry was not present when this timeline was written.

So ... never mind why they were sat around writing timelines when they should have been searching.

Why were they writing a timeline when the father of the missing child wasn't even there?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 21:00

Another point - the importance of the time 9.55pm.

On the first timeline, the time 9.55 is circled.

On the second timeline, the time 9.55 is there with nothing next to it.

On the second timeline, the time 9.20 is highlighted when it wasn't on the first, indicating that it now has greater importance.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 21:05

Third point - the author of the first timeline has scribbled out Ella's name twice. Ella is significant in some way, and they were undecided whether they should mention it during the first timeline.

Second timeline mentions 'poorly daughter'. No mention of this on first timeline.

First timeline says 'Russ + Ella', and then Ella is replaced with Matt.

What about Russ and Ella?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 21:07

Fourth point - the first timeline mentions Matt Oldfield's check at 9.35pm.

The second timeline makes no reference to this check.

However, Matt described this check during his police statement. I wonder if he got a little confused about what he was supposed to say.

by Guest 10.03.14 21:14

BlackCatBoogie wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
worriedmum wrote:On the first timeline (not the one with 'Gerald' written on it) does it say '-1' after M.0.'s entry?

Meaning 'minus one' ?

Good Spot Mrs!

Explanation anyone?

eta: WHY is there LESS information on the second timeline than the first timeline?

The T9 would have been 'racking their brains' to remember EVERY last 'detail' after the 'abduction' and there would be a lot more 'remembered' information on the second 'timeline', imo.

But there's LESS.

Could it be something to do with the time difference they thought existed between Portugal and UK - making sure that the people primed back in the UK to raise the alarm were in synch with the Portuguese timings?

Although it is in that particular place in the schedule I do not know - maybe because according to their calculations (wrongly assuming that Portugal was one hour behind the UK) the UK alerts would kick in at this section i.e. at just after 10pm (UK time).

This was written when probably still half cut and i'm sure at first they didn't expect the PJ to clap eyes on it.

They were 'concocting' the so called 'checking / reasonable parenting' stories. MO probably drew the short straw to be the last non Mccann member to check. Then it was quickly worked out and written down that he ONLY saw the twins at the door.

Minus 1 - means he DID NOT see MBM. He didn't want to implicate himself as being the last to see her. Minus 1 as she was not there. He knows that. He never even did a check for a start. All IMO of course.

by Guest 10.03.14 21:16

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:Third point - the author of the first timeline has scribbled out Ella's name twice. Ella is significant in some way, and they were undecided whether they should mention it during the first timeline.

Second timeline mentions 'poorly daughter'. No mention of this on first timeline.

First timeline says 'Russ + Ella', and then Ella is replaced with Matt.

What about Russ and Ella?

Can't remember where I read this, maybe Kikoratton, that Ella was a possible decoy child being carried spotted by the Smiths.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 21:18

Ooh, and something that has just occurred to me ... and I have to say it made me laugh, as I've been busting my brains to figure this one out for a long time.

On the second timeline:

The Tanner "Sighting" - AGAIN - Page 4 Timeli10

The Tanner "Sighting" - AGAIN - Page 4 Timeli10

I've been trying to figure out what the scribble is just before the question mark. I'm now certain that the scribble is a capital 'A'.

What if this is supposed to read:

9:15pm Gerry McCann looks at room. Abductor ? Door open to bedroom.

The more I look at it, the more certain I become.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 21:19

Ladyinred wrote:
Can't remember where I read this, maybe Kikoratton, that Ella was a possible decoy child being carried spotted by the Smiths.

That view is quite popular here, but it's not something I agree with. Russell O'Brien is tall I believe, very tall. That would be the first thing any witness would mention to describe him, dark or not.

by Guest 10.03.14 21:24

The existence of the timelines can only mean one of 2 things:

1) The events of that night were not pre-planned and we are seeing the results of cobbled-together panic as things genuinely unfolded, or,

2) The events of that night were rehearsed but didn't go according to plan and the timelines are evidence of the necessary deviation from the original script, and their attempts to correct matters.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 21:25

Dee Coy wrote:The existence of the timelines can only mean one of 2 things:

1) The events of that night were not pre-planned and we are seeing the results of cobbled-together panic as things genuinely unfolded, or,

2) The events of that night were rehearsed but didn't go according to plan and the timelines are evidence of the necessary deviation from the original script, and their attempts to correct matters.

I'll add to that:

Whichever is true, the first timeline was written while Gerry was away on other business, and the second was completed on Gerry's return.

And very importantly, as I've alluded to above:

The idea of the abductor being in the room during Gerry's check was formed between the writing of the two timelines.

by Guest 10.03.14 21:26

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:The important thing to me about the first timeline - and I've written this lots of times - is the entry for Gerry's check.

Jerry 9.10-9.15 in tv room + all well
? did he check

1) Curious description of the 'tv room', perhaps concurs with Jane Tanner's statement in the Mockumentary that Kate was worried because Gerry had been away for a while 'watching football'

2) The author is aware of Gerry's visit, and that Gerry was in the 'tv room', that all was well, but does not know if he checked the children. I believe that this is an accurate recounting of what Gerry had told them at this point in the evening.

3) The positioning of the question mark makes the second line look like a question to be asked

4) 'Did he check' indicates that Gerry was not present when this timeline was written.

So ... never mind why they were sat around writing timelines when they should have been searching.

Why were they writing a timeline when the father of the missing child wasn't even there?

That's interesting: it may pinpoint the time of GM's absence from apartment 5A directly after the alarm was raised and before the arrival of the GNR

by Guest 10.03.14 21:27

Dee Coy wrote:The existence of the timelines can only mean one of 2 things:

1) The events of that night were not pre-planned and we are seeing the results of cobbled-together panic as things genuinely unfolded, or,

2) The events of that night were rehearsed but didn't go according to plan and the timelines are evidence of the necessary deviation from the original script, and their attempts to correct matters.

Number 2 for me Dee Coy.

by Guest 10.03.14 21:27

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:
Can't remember where I read this, maybe Kikoratton, that Ella was a possible decoy child being carried spotted by the Smiths.

That view is quite popular here, but it's not something I agree with. Russell O'Brien is tall I believe, very tall. That would be the first thing any witness would mention to describe him, dark or not.

GM carrying Ella?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 21:30

Ladyinred wrote:
GM carrying Ella?

For me, that is a red herring. I can't see what purpose this 'decoy' mission serves, except to potentially identify Gerry in a place where he wasn't supposed to have been. I'm aware that people find the idea of a criminal master-plan seductive, but I prefer the simplest explanation.

Log in for more topics