Re: Sunday Express - ACCEPTED VERSION OF EVENTS IS WRONG and DAILYSTAR - WHAT YOU KNOW IS NOT THE TRUTH

by **PeterMac** 14.10.13 13:11

PeeWit wrote:IMO because it was the ONLY "evidence" that PROVED that GM could not be involved. Moving the timeline to the Smith sighting it now becomes "possible"!

That is going to be a big problem.

If they now ditch Tanner as a liar or a fantasist, or the man and child she saw as totally unconnected,
THEN
they are going to nail OLDFIELD for GROSS NEGLIGENCE, as he was the one who should have seen Madeleine either there, or gone.

I wonder how he will feel about that ?

by scrants 14.10.13 13:12

BBC reporter has just said JT's sighting has now been 'discredited'!

by Truthandjustice 14.10.13 13:15

PeterMac wrote:
PeeWit wrote:IMO because it was the ONLY "evidence" that PROVED that GM could not be involved. Moving the timeline to the Smith sighting it now becomes "possible"!
That is going to be a big problem.

If they now ditch Tanner as a liar or a fantasist, or the man and child she saw as totally unconnected,
THEN
they are going to nail OLDFIELD for GROSS NEGLIGENCE, as he was the one who should have seen Madeleine either there, or gone.

I wonder how he will feel about that ?

I bet he rues the day he ever agreed to make that check. Wasn't he the one and only T7 who made a personal check inside the apartment the entire holiday?

by gbwales 14.10.13 13:17

scrants wrote:BBC reporter has just said JT's sighting has now been 'discredited'!

It might be worth drawing up a list of the amount of importance they've placed on it at the expense of any other sighting/alternative - and the detail that's come from her descriptions.

by Guest 14.10.13 13:19

Poor old Jane - she was so sure about what she saw - dilute your drinks a bit more in future, dear.

PeterMac, I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Matt Oldfield claims that he assumed Madeleine was there at 9.30 though he didn't see her. So does it make any difference if Eggman existed or not?

Madeleine could in theory have been taken before or after his visit.

by Guest 14.10.13 13:20

gbwales wrote:
scrants wrote:BBC reporter has just said JT's sighting has now been 'discredited'!
It might be worth drawing up a list of the amount of importance they've placed on it at the expense of any other sighting/alternative - and the detail that's come from her descriptions.

I wonder what Jane Tanner feels about that!

by worriedmum 14.10.13 13:23

scrants wrote:BBC reporter has just said JT's sighting has now been 'discredited'!

I wonder what her reaction will be?

by tasprin 14.10.13 13:23

candyfloss wrote:
gbwales wrote:
scrants wrote:BBC reporter has just said JT's sighting has now been 'discredited'!
It might be worth drawing up a list of the amount of importance they've placed on it at the expense of any other sighting/alternative - and the detail that's come from her descriptions.
I wonder what Jane Tanner feels about that!

From http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/50-more-facts-about-case-that-british_9118.html

55. Brian Kennedy paid Melissa Little to mock up two artists’ impressions of possible suspects. She said she was ‘FBI-trained’, which could mean anything. She describes herself as a ‘forensic artist’. She first sketched the man who Jane Tanner, one of the McCanns’ friends, claimed to have seen carrying a young child near the McCanns’ apartment on the evening Madeleine was reported missing. There are many reasons to question her story. She changed, several times, her description of the man she said she’d seen. She said that, at the time, she walked past Gerry McCann and another Ocean Club guest along a narrow lane. But both agreed that they had not seen her, nor had either of them seen the alleged abductor. The sketch she produced, however, wasn’t released until late October 2007, nearly six months after Madeleine was reported missing. Tanner admitted didn’t see the face of the man she said she’d seen. Even if Tanner really had seen someone, it was far too late to be any use. The sketch did however make the front pages of most British newspapers.

56. Shortly afterwards, Brian Kennedy paid for Little to draw another sketch - this time of a man said to have been acting suspiciously in the days before Madeleine was reported missing. He was said to have been collecting for charity. One of two people who claimed to have seen this man, however, Ms Gail Cooper, also changed her story, rendering it doubtful. The other person, Paul Gordon, later said he had been ‘pressurised’ by Brian Kennedy to say things about the sighting of this this man that he didn’t want to say.

by tiny 14.10.13 13:23

scrants wrote:BBC reporter has just said JT's sighting has now been 'discredited'!

But she was Gerry,s alibi,so where does that leave Gerry

by Truthandjustice 14.10.13 13:25

scrants wrote:BBC reporter has just said JT's sighting has now been 'discredited'!

Didn't the PJ discredit JT's sighting fairly early on after realizing the physical impossibility of what she claimed to have seen and her improving memory over time?
Amazing how these incompetent sardine munchers reached these conclusions in a smidgen of the time that SY have taken to get there.

by worriedmum 14.10.13 13:25

tiny wrote:
scrants wrote:BBC reporter has just said JT's sighting has now been 'discredited'!
But she was Gerry,s alibi,so where does that leave Gerry

standing with Jez Wilkins?

by Guest 14.10.13 13:26

Truthandjustice wrote:
scrants wrote:BBC reporter has just said JT's sighting has now been 'discredited'!
Didn't the PJ discredit JT's sighting fairly early on after realizing the physical impossibility of what she claimed to have seen and her improving memory over time?
Amazing how these incompetent sardine munchers reached these conclusions in a smidgen of the time that SY have taken to get there.

Exactly.

by MRNOODLES 14.10.13 13:27

candyfloss wrote:
gbwales wrote:
scrants wrote:BBC reporter has just said JT's sighting has now been 'discredited'!
It might be worth drawing up a list of the amount of importance they've placed on it at the expense of any other sighting/alternative - and the detail that's come from her descriptions.
I wonder what Jane Tanner feels about that!

Every man/woman for him/herself hopefully. And someone starts spilling their guts. Because who'd want to be holding the bag when the music stops?

by sweetex 14.10.13 13:28

Truthandjustice wrote:
scrants wrote:BBC reporter has just said JT's sighting has now been 'discredited'!
Didn't the PJ discredit JT's sighting fairly early on after realizing the physical impossibility of what she claimed to have seen and her improving memory over time?
Amazing how these incompetent sardine munchers reached these conclusions in a smidgen of the time that SY have taken to get there.

Amaral still said she can lay a complaint against him and he will prove to her that it is a lie!

by worriedmum 14.10.13 13:28

worriedmum wrote:
tiny wrote:
scrants wrote:BBC reporter has just said JT's sighting has now been 'discredited'!
But she was Gerry,s alibi,so where does that leave Gerry
standing with Jez Wilkins?

Are they saying that she didn't go and check, that she didn't see the 'abductor' or that she got mixed up?

by Hopespringseternal 14.10.13 13:30

Oh, how I feel for the Portuguese police. They followed the information they were given but to no avail and IMHO it appears they were hindered at every turn. They did the best they could under the circumstances but were castigated and ridiculed for not having cracked the case immediately. NOW it turns out that the information they were given as of great importance (jimjams identified etc) was drivel! Hung for a sheep or a lamb. Does that mean that TM's reps visit to Hewlett, on his deathbed, was unjustified intrusion as they picked on him because of his long hair and beard ( as per the statement)? How many others have been wrongfully accused/investigated because TM placed such importance on JTs statement ?

My head is nearly off my shoulders with the amount of shaking in disbelief I've been doing today! aaagh

by Guest 14.10.13 13:31

candyfloss wrote:
Truthandjustice wrote:
scrants wrote:BBC reporter has just said JT's sighting has now been 'discredited'!
Didn't the PJ discredit JT's sighting fairly early on after realizing the physical impossibility of what she claimed to have seen and her improving memory over time?
Amazing how these incompetent sardine munchers reached these conclusions in a smidgen of the time that SY have taken to get there.
Exactly.

Oily fish is of course good for brainpower!

http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/10-foods-boost-your-brainpower

Now let's deliver a truck load to Scotland Yard.

by **Tony Bennett** 14.10.13 13:31

scrants wrote:BBC reporter has just said JT's sighting has now been 'discredited'!

Er, wasn't that the conclusion of Dr Goncalo Amaral and his team more or less from Day One of the Portuguese police investigation?

And what does this mean for the contents of the 'very truthful' book, 'madeleine' by Dr Kate McCann?

p. 83: "That morning I learned of the man Jane had seen in the street"

p. 84: "This man was around thirty-five, forty years old, dark-haired and of southern European or Mediterranean appearance, his everyday clothes, beige or gold-coloured trousers and a dark jacket - gave Jane the impression he was not a tourist. He was cerrying the sleeping child...".

p.84: There was little doubt in my mind then, nor is there now, that what Jane saw was Madeleine's abductor taking her away"

I do hope that neither Jane Tanner nor anyone else was perverting the course of justice...

by gbwales 14.10.13 13:34

It will be interesting to see just how JT's sighting has been "discredited".

Logically speaking there are a pretty limited number of ways this could be so…

1 - The person she saw has been identified and eliminated (though strictly speaking that's not "discrediting" her)

2 - The person she described in such detail (and the little Maddie-like child in pyjamas etc) was a complete fantasy and she has some serious mental health issues.

3 - The person she described in such detail (and the little Maddie-like child in pyjamas etc) did not exist and was concocted to serve a purpose in alibis for some purpose.

I genuinely can't think of another off the top of my head.
Anyone else?

by **Tony Bennett** 14.10.13 13:35

worriedmum wrote:
worriedmum wrote:
tiny wrote:
scrants wrote:BBC reporter has just said JT's sighting has now been 'discredited'!
But she was Gerry,s alibi,so where does that leave Gerry
standing with Jez Wilkins?
Are they saying that she didn't go and check, that she didn't see the 'abductor' or that she got mixed up?

Wait,

Be patient.

Redwood's 'revelation moment'...

...and the BBC's 'very truthful' reconstruction...

...are coming soon.

A police force and a state broadcasting corporation whose brilliance is fabled worldwide.

Only just over 7 hours to go

by **PeterMac** 14.10.13 13:35

Tony Bennett wrote:
scrants wrote:BBC reporter has just said JT's sighting has now been 'discredited'!
Er, wasn't that the conclusion of Dr Goncalo Amaral and his team more or less from Day One of the Portuguese police investigation?

And what does this mean for the contents of the 'very truthful' book, 'madeleine' by Dr Kate McCann?

p. 83: "That morning I learned of the man Jane had seen in the street"

p. 84: "This man was around thirty-five, forty years old, dark-haired and of southern European or Mediterranean appearance, his everyday clothes, beige or gold-coloured trousers and a dark jacket - gave Jane the impression he was not a tourist. He was cerrying the sleeping child...".

p.84: There was little doubt in my mind then, nor is there now, that what Jane saw was Madeleine's abductor taking her away"

I do hope that neither Jane Tanner nor anyone else was perverting the course of justice...

And was not the McCanns' case against you along the lines that your refusal to accept that Jane Tanners sighting and Kate McCann's and Gerry McCann's absolute and unequivocal reliance on it was not the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth, so Help You God, - amounted to a Libel ?

by tiny 14.10.13 13:36

tony,it seem they all were.poor Madeleine what chance would she have had if she were truly abducted

by Woofer 14.10.13 13:39

What is the point of anyone going on about timelines?

Wasn`t the apartment scoured for traces of a stranger? Nothing found.

So NO ONE entered the apartment, apart from those who the PJ eliminated.

by Ollie1 14.10.13 13:40

If JT's sighting has been discredited it throws doubt on MO's claim that the MCCann' s children's bedroom door was open 50 degrees instead of the 5 degrees GM supposedly left it.

Had GM already been in the apartment when he spoke to JW, or did be go into the apartment after speaking to JW, or did he go back into the apartment again.

Did GM really speak to JW at the time he claims or could it of been earlier or later.

by **Tony Bennett** 14.10.13 13:41

gbwales wrote:It will be interesting to see just how JT's sighting has been "discredited".

Logically speaking there are a pretty limited number of ways this could be so…

1 - The person she saw has been identified and eliminated (though strictly speaking that's not "discrediting" her)

2 - The person she described in such detail (and the little Maddie-like child in pyjamas etc) was a complete fantasy and she has some serious mental health issues.

3 - The person she described in such detail (and the little Maddie-like child in pyjamas etc) did not exist and was concocted to serve a purpose in alibis for some purpose.

I genuinely can't think of another off the top of my head.

Anyone else?

Yes, good post, I've scratched my head and can't think of a fourth alternative. I wonder if perhaps this will be 'glossed over' in the reconstruction as Redwood swiftly rushes on from saying that this sighting 'has now been discounted by our team' - to some exciting new e-fits?

Sunday Express - ACCEPTED VERSION OF EVENTS IS WRONG and DAILYSTAR - WHAT YOU KNOW IS NOT THE TRUTH