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

Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

Page 8 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

Post by Woburn_exile on 16.10.13 16:11

@galena wrote:
@bobbin wrote:
@galena wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote:
@bobbin wrote:I also agree, having seen the last two posts before mine, that the 'legal' liability question should have its own thread.
In the meantime, tigger said something which was amusing and set me thinking.
There have been so many posts but I got that she hinted at Egg-man carrying perhaps, not a child, but a hot meal, wrapped in a blanket.
Jane first described the 'abductor' as striding quite fast, from her left to her right, with his arms outstretched, carrying a sort of bundle.
So my question is, Is there a Pizza Take-Away somewhere to Jane's left, and instead of Egg-man hurrying off (back TOWARDS the creche from where a child would just have been collected) he was keeping his pizza hot and rushing back to his apartment before it got cold (it being a cold night and too dark to see any shoes on the Pizza's feet) and he was holding it with Outstretched Arms because that's how you keep the cheese topping level and don't end up with it all dribbling down your best cotton draws.
So she was perhaps right but wrong at the same time.
Yes it was food, but it wasn't an Egg, it was a PIZZA.
Whether she was lying or confused, whether the police know she was lying or confused, Andy Redwood has served a cracking hot goose up, with all the trimmings.
With Egg-man and all of the scrambled E-offerings that ensued, the focus is on SmithMan, whose buttoned trousers are extremely similar to the ones seen on Gerry McCann's bed and in subsequent photos.
This is where Gonçalo Amaral got some 7 months into the investigation.
Last night on ITV UK, he was finally acknowledged and able to put his points across, in a civilised environment, without being insulted, and one of those points was that he was removed and his replacement chose NOT to pursue the Smith sighting.
This to me smacks heavily of pressure being applied from above.
The McCs have steadfastly 'ignored' or sought to 'distract' from any recognition of the potential validity of the Smith sighting, and for me that speaks VOLUMES.
I think Andy Redwood has done what no other UK authority has dared to do to date.
He has taken the McCs and their protectors/ bullying entourage head on and pulled the floor boards out from under their feet.
Interesting times ahead indeed. Força Andy Redwood, Força Gonçalo Amaral:  Mr  Mr 
Interesting times ahead indeed (& as they say in Ireland) indeed, they are, Bobbin Mrs Mr

I also thought that Jane Tanner most probably did see a guy cross the road ahead of her at some time or other, but I didn't give a great deal of credence to her story that he was carrying a child.  I like your pizza theory - I thought it might be some guy carrying his washing home to his mum or some such.

The problem with JT is she's eager to please and highly suggestible.  I wonder how she'll fare as a witness for the prosecution big grin
That's an interesting point.  The reason she did nothing at the time was very likely that there was nothing remotely suspicious about it - just a guy carrying his kid from the creche in the normal way.  My feeling is that at some future date she was perhaps asked 'Now think Jane - did you see anything suspicious - it's really important' and dredged up this memory.  I think at some point imagination and the desire to please the McCanns morphed this innocent figure into the highly suspicious 'blanket man'
However, she was written in, on both time lines, on the back of Madeleine's colouring in book, as Jane's sighting, even before the police arrived, so it must have been decided right early on that she had seen an abductor. Perhaps someone had seen the family Smiths and was concerned that an abductor should be identified heading in the opposite direction (back towards the creche).
Sorry I think I'm losing track of what happened it's so long since I've discussed it.  I thought Jane said she didn't tell Kate about the sighting until then next day?
You might call it a moment of "revelation" for me. I read the bewk (well flicked through the pages) until I got to the "abduction bit", I read how kate found the shutters forced open, how the woman next door was unsympathetic, how the Portuguese police were not as responsive , during the 15 mins or so I actually questioned my judgement as to what crap parents they were which had been my only knowledge of the case so far. Then I read the bit that Jane had not told about the sighting until the next day .

No need for the swearing.  Please could you not use so many quotes.

Woburn_exile

Posts : 239
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-05-30
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

Post by galena on 16.10.13 16:14

@Woburn_exile wrote:
@galena wrote:
@bobbin wrote:
@galena wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote:
@bobbin wrote:I also agree, having seen the last two posts before mine, that the 'legal' liability question should have its own thread.
In the meantime, tigger said something which was amusing and set me thinking.
There have been so many posts but I got that she hinted at Egg-man carrying perhaps, not a child, but a hot meal, wrapped in a blanket.
Jane first described the 'abductor' as striding quite fast, from her left to her right, with his arms outstretched, carrying a sort of bundle.
So my question is, Is there a Pizza Take-Away somewhere to Jane's left, and instead of Egg-man hurrying off (back TOWARDS the creche from where a child would just have been collected) he was keeping his pizza hot and rushing back to his apartment before it got cold (it being a cold night and too dark to see any shoes on the Pizza's feet) and he was holding it with Outstretched Arms because that's how you keep the cheese topping level and don't end up with it all dribbling down your best cotton draws.
So she was perhaps right but wrong at the same time.
Yes it was food, but it wasn't an Egg, it was a PIZZA.
Whether she was lying or confused, whether the police know she was lying or confused, Andy Redwood has served a cracking hot goose up, with all the trimmings.
With Egg-man and all of the scrambled E-offerings that ensued, the focus is on SmithMan, whose buttoned trousers are extremely similar to the ones seen on Gerry McCann's bed and in subsequent photos.
This is where Gonçalo Amaral got some 7 months into the investigation.
Last night on ITV UK, he was finally acknowledged and able to put his points across, in a civilised environment, without being insulted, and one of those points was that he was removed and his replacement chose NOT to pursue the Smith sighting.
This to me smacks heavily of pressure being applied from above.
The McCs have steadfastly 'ignored' or sought to 'distract' from any recognition of the potential validity of the Smith sighting, and for me that speaks VOLUMES.
I think Andy Redwood has done what no other UK authority has dared to do to date.
He has taken the McCs and their protectors/ bullying entourage head on and pulled the floor boards out from under their feet.
Interesting times ahead indeed. Força Andy Redwood, Força Gonçalo Amaral:  Mr  Mr 
Interesting times ahead indeed (& as they say in Ireland) indeed, they are, Bobbin Mrs Mr

I also thought that Jane Tanner most probably did see a guy cross the road ahead of her at some time or other, but I didn't give a great deal of credence to her story that he was carrying a child.  I like your pizza theory - I thought it might be some guy carrying his washing home to his mum or some such.

The problem with JT is she's eager to please and highly suggestible.  I wonder how she'll fare as a witness for the prosecution big grin
That's an interesting point.  The reason she did nothing at the time was very likely that there was nothing remotely suspicious about it - just a guy carrying his kid from the creche in the normal way.  My feeling is that at some future date she was perhaps asked 'Now think Jane - did you see anything suspicious - it's really important' and dredged up this memory.  I think at some point imagination and the desire to please the McCanns morphed this innocent figure into the highly suspicious 'blanket man'
However, she was written in, on both time lines, on the back of Madeleine's colouring in book, as Jane's sighting, even before the police arrived, so it must have been decided right early on that she had seen an abductor. Perhaps someone had seen the family Smiths and was concerned that an abductor should be identified heading in the opposite direction (back towards the creche).
Sorry I think I'm losing track of what happened it's so long since I've discussed it.  I thought Jane said she didn't tell Kate about the sighting until then next day?
You might call it a moment of "revelation" for me. I read the bewk (well flicked through the pages) until I got to the "abduction bit", I read how kate found the shutters forced open, how the woman next door was unsympathetic, how the Portuguese police were not as responsive , during the 15 mins or so I actually questioned my judgement as to what crap parents they were which had been my only knowledge of the case so far. Then I read the bit that Jane had not told about the sighting until the next day .

Deleted
Perhaps they asked her to say that, to explain why they had not rushed off after the man right away.  And forgot that it was already written in the timelines.  Yet another inconsistency to add to the very many ones we already. Kate may end up regretting that book!

galena

Posts : 286
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

Post by Woburn_exile on 16.10.13 16:30

@ultimaThule wrote:
Ignore this request I did a google search and found in the mccannfiles.  However they say it was written by Russell O'Brien not Gerry McCann.
Was there no mention of GM having signed it or having written his name on it?   It doesn't matter as Russell O'Brien could only have come into possession of Madeleine's holiday sticker book through one or other of her parents.

Out of all of the evidence that will serve to condemn the McCanns, the fact they tore the cover off their 3 year old daughter's book within an hour of her allegedly going missing and used it to write out an account of their movements to cover their arses, even if it was with the intention of aiding the police, will be the one factor which has the most impact on a jury of their peers, some of whom will also be parents.

It's inconceivable that any caring parent would use their missing child's book for this purpose; they'd tear off a piece of their skin to write on rather than defile such an item.  This callous act says they knew COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY on the night of 3 May 2007, if not before, that Madeleine would not be coming home.
Sorry ultima, I cannot agree with this and fear it could be used as a prosecution sea bass, sorry red herring.

Woburn_exile

Posts : 239
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-05-30
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

Post by Lance De Boils on 16.10.13 16:49

@bobbin wrote:
I've just caught up too.
1. I agree that there might be a division between McCs and the Company.
But I think the distinction is one of 'civil law' versus 'criminal law' liabilities.
I may be completely wrong. I agree that 'company house' rules dictate terms, but criminal acts, as punishable by the courts, are not dispelled simply because of the technical application of 'company house rules'.
If the PIs have been 'paid' to search but have NOT, or not adequately according to their payments, then it would start to open questions up of 'money laundering'.
If the directors knowingly claimed terms and conditions for their company, (searching for a live child when knowing that she is dead) which were in fact dishonest claims, then the directors become legally responsible under criminal law, as would any other felon.
Yes, Andy, company law limits itself to company matters.
Criminal law however must be able to be freely applied to persons, where persons have acted in a criminal way, whether they worked this through a company or any other method of action.
I do not believe that Andy Redwood would not have been advised and that the CPS are impotent whichever way they turn, to apply the law where crimes of fraud (whatever their vehicle) have been perpetrated.
This is my opinion only.... I don't know if I am correct.

Just to clarify, when I wrote "I agree", I was referring to keeping this thread on topic and putting the fraud/company stuff elsewhere. (I haven't read the posts relating to companies/fraud/jurisdiction here, so cannot comment on them.)
smilie

Lance De Boils

Posts : 805
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2011-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

Post by Woburn_exile on 16.10.13 16:49

Sorry I think I'm losing track of what happened it's so long since I've discussed it. I thought Jane said she didn't tell Kate about the sighting until then next day?

You might call it a moment of "revelation" for me. I read the bewk (well flicked through the pages) until I got to the "abduction bit", I read how kate found the shutters forced open, how the woman next door was unsympathetic, how the Portuguese police were not as responsive , during the 15 mins or so I actually questioned my judgement as to what crap parents they were which had been my only knowledge of the case so far. Then I read the bit that Jane had not told about the sighting until the next day .

No need for the swearing. Please could you not use so many quotes.

OK to keep the mods happy, imagine you are Michael Caine playing Jack Carter in one of the best productions of British cinema and you are trying to glean some info from your girlfriend Glenda up in the bath, I reacted like that when I had my "revelation moment"





Woburn_exile

Posts : 239
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-05-30
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

Post by Truthandjustice on 16.10.13 16:56

@ultimaThule wrote:That too, but the defilement of their little girl's book does it for me - and it'll do it for the jury.
My 10 year old was horrified by that.

Truthandjustice

Posts : 237
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-09-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

Post by rustyjames on 16.10.13 17:13

@gbwales wrote:
I commented on this in another thread but I find this strange with the spelling of Jerry (sic), the "did he check?" comment and what looks to me, (although it's probably the handwriting or the copy), as "tv room".

rustyjames

Posts : 288
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

Post by Guest on 16.10.13 17:24

I think that's "in to room" as in "Jerry" actually went in and checked and all was well.

As for the spelling of Gerry's name - can't remember off hand who wrote the list - they weren't all well acquainted with each other.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

Post by statsman on 16.10.13 17:52

rustyjames,

The whole page is very odd.

Both past and present tenses are used. The present tense rings warning bells for me as it seems like construction rather than recall.

Shutters are mentioned at 9.00 - 9.05 but not later. Seems like they were keeping their options open on this one.

Could tv be the start of 'twins' but cut short because that would be a giveaway that Madeleine wasn't there?

It could be 'in to' but it doesn't look like the other 'o's on the page.

9.30 says that Matt checked all 3 but he actually only checked the twins.

Can't make out 9.35 line. It seems to say Matt check door sec twins. Any ideas anyone?

9.55 and 10pm are circled. Could these be the only pure factual lines on this page.

statsman

Posts : 118
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-02-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

Post by Guest on 16.10.13 17:54

"See twins" I think - which agrees with his statement that he saw them but not Madeleine.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

Post by margaret on 16.10.13 18:15

What's written at 9.12

RM Returns

Rachael Manphilly?

margaret

Posts : 585
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-09-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

Post by Guest on 16.10.13 18:36

@margaret wrote:What's written at 9.12

RM Returns

Rachael Manphilly?
Think it might be Russ or Rus as in ROB - Don't think it's  supposed to be 9.12

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

Post by margaret on 16.10.13 18:39

candyfloss wrote:
@margaret wrote:What's written at 9.12

RM Returns

Rachael Manphilly?
Think it might be Russ or Rus as in ROB - Don't think it's  supposed to be 9.12
Thanks, l think you're right on both counts.

margaret

Posts : 585
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-09-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

Post by Guest on 16.10.13 18:40

Yes, 9.12 would be out of order time-wise. I think it's 9.50 and Russ - remember his super dad exploits of cleaning up his sick daughter all within the space of about 10 minutes.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

Post by ultimaThule on 16.10.13 20:45

We know they didn't search and we also know they had no intention of searching, but we also know 2 men were seen in the vicinity of the apartments talking in loud voices which became muted as the witness drew close to them and proficient liars such as the McCanns will have little difficulty in finding reason to counteract an allegation that they did not get off their bums to go look for Madeleine. 

In any event their inaction on that night, together with the act of defiling their daughter's book, will aid the prosecution and I will continue to maintain that, of the two, the destruction of the book will have far greater visual and emotive impact on a jury who will be supplied with copies of the list as presented on the mccannfiles website which also shows the front of the cover/reverse of the list on which it is written and which bought tears to my eyes.  As I'm not easily moved to tears please regard this as a < O hardboiled eggman emoticon >

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

Post by ultimaThule on 16.10.13 21:26

@Truthandjustice wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote:That too, but the defilement of their little girl's book does it for me - and it'll do it for the jury.
My 10 year old was horrified by that.
As was I, Truthandjustice, and as is every one of those I've talked to about it.  It's not common knowledge and, as it's unlikely to become widely known prior to any trial, the impact will be far reaching when published during the course of the proceedings. 


Deleted

  What really happened that night? Did it happen earlier than the evening of 3 May 2007?  Will we ever elicit the truth from imo a morally bankrupt couple and their equally immoral friends?

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

Post by BlueBag on 18.09.14 11:58

@Hicks wrote:You are correct bobbin, it was the 1st of May. This article had confused me! See what you make of it.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/400796/Mystery-couple-seen-going-into-McCanns-flat-on-night-before-sobbing-Madeleine-disappeared.

18 months down the line... what do we make of this Express article?

Who were the two witnesses if Pamela Fenn died in 2011?

Who stood on the balcony at 9.15 with a whiskey?

What the hell is this?:

"SCOTLAND YARD detectives are trying to find a middle-aged couple said to have entered Madeleine McCann’s holiday apartment to comfort her because she was crying, we can reveal today".


The article is infuriating because it's written in a very vague way.

BlueBag

Posts : 3420
Reputation : 1268
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

Post by BlueBag on 18.09.14 12:05

Same story in the Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2326977/Did-Madeleine-McCann-abductor-stay-resort-Investigators-probe-new-leads-amid-claims-couple-soothed-crying-year-old-disappeared.html



Two witnesses said they saw a middle-aged couple enter the apartment to comfort Madeleine, who was crying, The Sunday Express has reported.
The newspaper quoted a source as saying: 'Apparently they were concerned about the crying and went to see if they could comfort the girl.'
Detectives are now believed to be trying to identify the couple as part of an ongoing review into the case - codenamed Operation Grange.
They know the reason for them entering but not their identity?

So we have two witnesses who saw two people enter the flat on the 2nd May. We know why they went in but not who they are?

What is this?

BlueBag

Posts : 3420
Reputation : 1268
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 8 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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