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

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Page 16 of 16 Previous  1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by canada12 on 23.03.14 18:31

It's where Kate's left hand is that has me intrigued. (Gerry's look frightens me too!)

canada12

Posts : 1457
Reputation : 187
Join date : 2013-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by HelenMeg on 23.03.14 19:38

@canada12 wrote:It's where Kate's left hand is that has me intrigued. (Gerry's look frightens me too!)
Yes, its normally heading towards his groin. Kate looks as if she's really trying hard to concentrate on looking serious.

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 192
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Guest on 23.03.14 19:44

That's exactly what I thought about the direction of the arm but I didn't want to cause anyone to regurgitate their supper!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by BlueBag on 12.10.14 9:23

This is what Jane Tanner claims she saw.. to scale!!!

50 meters away.



If you have the screen at arms length then you will have the right scale. That is how much of her field of vision was taken by Tannerman.

All scientifically tested this morning, hope the neighbours were not watching.

Now what details did she say she saw?

There is the lighting to consider as well.

BlueBag

Posts : 3425
Reputation : 1274
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by XTC on 12.10.14 21:12

@BlueBag wrote:This is what Jane Tanner claims she saw.. to scale!!!

50 meters away.



If you have the screen at arms length then you will have the right scale. That is how much of her field of vision was taken by Tannerman.

All scientifically tested this morning, hope the neighbours were not watching.

Now what details did she say she saw?

There is the lighting to consider as well.
According to the LP rogatory interviews:

4078 “How far away from you were they at the closest point?”
Reply “Phew, as, I mean, it’s hard to, sort of thing, but I think I was sort of halfway, it’s
probably sort of five metres, I mean, I’m trying to sort of think in terms of this room,
but sort of probably just further than that wall, probably sort of five to ten metres id’
say, if, I don’t know how far it is to there, but”.
4078 “I would say probably about, I am just guessing, but two and a half to three metres?”




   
Reply “Yeah, I’d probably say sort of five, five to ten metres, well probably five, nearer
five”.
00.40.00 4078 “So about as far away again the other side of the wall as you are from this side?”
Reply “Yeah, yeah, probably, yeah, sort of, as when I first, when I first saw them”.

Thanks to the maddiecasefiles for the info.

XTC

Posts : 210
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by BlueBag on 12.10.14 21:23

@XTC wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:This is what Jane Tanner claims she saw.. to scale!!!

50 meters away.



If you have the screen at arms length then you will have the right scale. That is how much of her field of vision was taken by Tannerman.

All scientifically tested this morning, hope the neighbours were not watching.

Now what details did she say she saw?

There is the lighting to consider as well.
According to the LP rogatory interviews:

4078 “How far away from you were they at the closest point?”
Reply “Phew, as, I mean, it’s hard to, sort of thing, but I think I was sort of halfway, it’s
probably sort of five metres, I mean, I’m trying to sort of think in terms of this room,
but sort of probably just further than that wall, probably sort of five to ten metres id’
say, if, I don’t know how far it is to there, but”.
4078 “I would say probably about, I am just guessing, but two and a half to three metres?”




   
Reply “Yeah, I’d probably say sort of five, five to ten metres, well probably five, nearer
five”.
00.40.00 4078 “So about as far away again the other side of the wall as you are from this side?”
Reply “Yeah, yeah, probably, yeah, sort of, as when I first, when I first saw them”.

Thanks to the maddiecasefiles for the info.
Mmm... I'm pretty sure I read 50 meters somewhere.

Where is her own diagram?

BlueBag

Posts : 3425
Reputation : 1274
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by BlueBag on 12.10.14 21:34



That's 20 meters.

New test required.

BlueBag

Posts : 3425
Reputation : 1274
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by PeterMac on 12.10.14 21:43

@BlueBag wrote:
New test required.

err, umm, yer 'no
NO.

Gerry and Jez are shown on the pavement.
Gerry insists, under oath - as in on international Television that this is NOT TRUE.
In other words that JANE TANNER IS LYING
He INSISTS he, and JW were on the other side of the road.
So that MUST be true. Because a McCann has said it.

JW also says, incidentally and a propos of nothing much, and obviously a venomous spotted reptile and lying with all the teeth in his mouth, that HE was where KT put him.
But that is not important
Obviously.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by BlueBag on 12.10.14 21:45

I knew I'd seen it!!!


Gerry McCann - witness statement 04 May 2007, 11.15am

'It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, JANE, at about 21h10/21h15, when she was going to her apartment, to check on her children, saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, JANE will be able to clarify this situation.'

BlueBag

Posts : 3425
Reputation : 1274
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by BlueBag on 12.10.14 21:48

More than once!!!!


Kate McCann - witness statement 04 May 2007, 14.20pm

'Later, the witness would learn that a member of the group, Russell's partner Jane, at around 9.15pm, when she went to her own apartment to check on her children, saw from behind and at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road along the club, a long-haired person, she thinks wearing jeans, with a child in his arms, walking very quickly. But she is better able to tell about that herself.'

BlueBag

Posts : 3425
Reputation : 1274
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Guest on 12.10.14 21:50

@PeterMac wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
New test required.

err, umm, yer 'no
NO.

Gerry and Jez are shown on the pavement.
Gerry insists, under oath - as in on international Television that this is NOT TRUE.
In other words that JANE TANNER IS LYING
He INSISTS he, and JW were on the other side of the road.
So that MUST be true.  Because a McCann has said it.

JW also says, incidentally and a propos of nothing much, and obviously a venomous spotted reptile and lying with all the teeth in his mouth, that HE was where KT put him.
But that is not important
Obviously.
One thing I've always wondered about this is why it is so important to undermine Jane so humiliatingly  and put him and Jez at the other side of the road?

Why is this position so important, Gerry?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Dont Make Me Laff on 12.10.14 21:58

yerh but no
but I said
well I fink I sed
I'm certain I sed
but you know she's a slut don't you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3SANODwQIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQjqxayxwt4

Dont Make Me Laff

Posts : 304
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-06-18
Location : Kent

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Seek truth on 12.10.14 22:03

MDee Coy wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
New test required.

err, umm, yer 'no
NO.

Gerry and Jez are shown on the pavement.
Gerry insists, under oath - as in on international Television that this is NOT TRUE.
In other words that JANE TANNER IS LYING
He INSISTS he, and JW were on the other side of the road.
So that MUST be true.  Because a McCann has said it.

JW also says, incidentally and a propos of nothing much, and obviously a venomous spotted reptile and lying with all the teeth in his mouth, that HE was where KT put him.
But that is not important
Obviously.
One thing I've always wondered about this is why it is so important to undermine Jane so humiliatingly  and put him and Jez at the other side of the road?

Why is this position so important, Gerry?
Maybe because, if they were speaking on the same side Jane passed it would mean that they had been walking on the same side as the abductor, so they would have come from the same place as him, so should have seen him? Or maybe it was just because confusion is good!

Seek truth

Posts : 447
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-06-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by petunia on 12.10.14 22:18

I have often pondered if Jane ever asked Jeremy why he changed his version of events to suite Jerry's and why and what made him make her out to be a liar on national tv.

petunia

Posts : 482
Reputation : 69
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by XTC on 14.10.14 23:05

Could some posters please shed some light on the sequence and reasons behind the Tannerman V smithman 
for me please?

As far as I know the chronology of Tannerman was that Mr Amaral and his team dismissed JT's  sighting in 2007.

Henry Exton contacts the Smiths in 2008 and writes a report. He only knows about the Smiths due to press reports or
the PJ case files? In other words did the PI payers suggest Exton should  contact them?

DI Redwood and his team didn't discover the 2008 report by Exton until 2013 ( Crimewatch revelation )  after all the PI's handed over their collected works so to speak.
.

How come DI Redwood and his team reading the files in 2011 didn't know about the Smith sighting ( PJ 2007 ) seeing as Amaral's team 
put it in their report? It is also referred to in the book The Truth of the Lie.

It's not exactly new evidence in my opinion it was around 4 years old at the time of SY becoming involved in the
new investigation.

When did SY interview the Smiths and are the e-fits referred to on Crimewatch based on SY's interviewing or are they
based on Exton's interviewing? The Sunday Times suggests Exton is reponsible for the e-fits which contradicts what the two Smiths said
that they couldn't see the carriers face. How do you get a face e-fit if that's the case?


Also if possible - when did 'revelation' man come forward to SY?

Either DI Redwood and his team didn't read the case files ( or even The Truth of the Lie?) or I'm becoming more baffled by the minute.

All thought appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

XTC

Posts : 210
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 16 of 16 Previous  1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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