Re: The McCanns didn't check

by canada12 02.02.14 14:00

The very first question Kate should have asked the last person who did the check should have been, "Did you leave a door open?" Because logically the first question that should come to mind is that the child had woken up and perhaps found a door open and wandered away.

by pennylane 02.02.14 14:05

suzyjohnson wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:
mysterion wrote:MO did the last check before the great announcement by KM. Is there any statement made about KM & GM's conversation with MO at that time. I would imagine that a lot of parent`s would have wrongly lashed out verbally, out of panic.
This one stands out among the red flags in the published accounts. A parent has checked children; all well. Fifteen minutes later a friend offers to check children and reports all well. Thirty minutes later the other parent checks children and one now missing.

You might think that KM's first questions upon running back to the tapas would be to Matthew, asking 'Where's my daughter?' 'Was she asleep when you saw her?' 'Did you see anything unusual?' Etc.

As far as I know, it isn't in KM's statements or MO's statements that she ever asked.

You'd think so wouldn't you! Also mommie and pappy dearest just left Sean and Amelie to sleep it off.... whatever "it" may be! roll

by ultimaThule 02.02.14 14:06

PeterMac wrote:
Jayneykul wrote:If that is correct about smith man and GM is Smithman why was there no evidence of cadaverine on his clothing
Because he had weeks, if not months to dispose of it. Beige trousers with buttons disappeared the first night from the bed, for example.
The mystery to me is why Kate hung onto all her stuff.
But that may be a male / female thing - chucking out favourite items

But IF SY are now looking for 3 Burglars / 3 Ocean Club employees / three Kings of Orient,
THEN Smithman has also by implication been trashed.
No one who knew the resort and had planned their getaway would take that route.
And with the trashing of Smithman, THEN also the trashing of thIe 10pm timeline.
So we now have no timeline, and no suspects.

Well done DCI Redwood

It seems probable that one pair of trousers were disposed of because of their distinctive features, while another pair were retained because they were not considered to be potentially incriminating by a pair who aren't overly endowed with grey matter. big grin

If Smithman is out of the frame, we are left with a timeline of c9.53-9.55pm for any abduction perpetrated by person/s unknown to the child/her parents/Tapas 7 to have taken place.

Well done, indeed, DCI Redwood.

Considering this show was staged by a bunch of amateurs, it's proved to be quite a performance which I can only hope won't turn out to be as long running as The Mousetrap.

by Monty Heck 02.02.14 14:11

canada12 wrote:The very first question Kate should have asked the last person who did the check should have been, "Did you leave a door open?" Because logically the first question that should come to mind is that the child had woken up and perhaps found a door open and wandered away.

Apparently there was no need to ask questions of the last person to check, KMcC was there and knew immediately what had happened, just knew. Enqiuries to establish what had happened rendered superfluous from the moment of discovery.

by plebgate 02.02.14 14:17

canada12 wrote:And what was so special about the McCanns' kids that everyone had to check on them, as well as their own kids, but not anyone else's kids? Kate and Gerry didn't check on any of the other kids. The other Tapas friends checked on their own kids and the McCann kids, but not the other Tapas friends' kids. Completely strange. Just goes to show you the overegging of the "checking" dance. It isn't logical. And it makes no sense whatsoever.

That's the point, there doesn't seem to be (at least to me) any logic in what has been said about any of it.

by mysterion 02.02.14 14:19

KM knew there was more than one person involved in the abduction - she said "they", or is that a myth.

by mysterion 02.02.14 14:31

Further thought on clear photographic evidence of T9 - In the aftermath of the disappearance of MBM, the MSM went into overdrive. I don`t recall, at the time, the classis media photo obtained by the MSM of "And here is K&G with their holiday group including MBM in happier times".Surely they must all have tried to get it with the whole T9. All very odd to put it mildly.

by Monty Heck 02.02.14 14:33

plebgate wrote:
canada12 wrote:And what was so special about the McCanns' kids that everyone had to check on them, as well as their own kids, but not anyone else's kids? Kate and Gerry didn't check on any of the other kids. The other Tapas friends checked on their own kids and the McCann kids, but not the other Tapas friends' kids. Completely strange. Just goes to show you the overegging of the "checking" dance. It isn't logical. And it makes no sense whatsoever.
That's the point, there doesn't seem to be (at least to me) any logic in what has been said about any of it.

And so this should have been the starting point for SY, IMO. When a story told is is inconsistent or fails in many aspects to make sense, there needs to be questioning to get to the truth. From what I can see, to date this has not been done in any significant way. At the beginning, language barriers and claims/assumptions about customs or culture allowed aspects which should have been thoroughly examined to go largely without challenge. Yet, knowing this, SY began from the standpoint that the T9 are not persons of interest and that this is a case of stranger abduction which they are treating the same way as they would if the disappearance happened in the UK.

by Bishop Brennan 02.02.14 14:46

Let's not forget too that there were other people around that night between 8:30pm and 10pm. It's not just the T9 and jez. Witnesses in or returning to their apartments or walking by. So the timeline has to allow for them. All of which makes the window of opportunity vanishingly small. Especially with all the T9 up and down like yo-yos that night.

Basically unless it was a lone abductor with a van outside then it doesn't seem possible. I'm still awaiting for the white van to reappear at some stage (probably near libel time). Although nobody saw a van or indeed a car. And the CCTV would have also nailed it. So maybe that's a non starter even for TM.

by **tigger** 02.02.14 15:40

Bishop Brennan wrote:Let's not forget too that there were other people around that night between 8:30pm and 10pm. It's not just the T9 and jez. Witnesses in or returning to their apartments or walking by. So the timeline has to allow for them. All of which makes the window of opportunity vanishingly small. Especially with all the T9 up and down like yo-yos that night.

Basically unless it was a lone abductor with a van outside then it doesn't seem possible. I'm still awaiting for the white van to reappear at some stage (probably near libel time). Although nobody saw a van or indeed a car. And the CCTV would have also nailed it. So maybe that's a non starter even for TM.

Didn't the six British cleaners also have a white van? Mandatory I'd say. So that's a spare white van in case the other one stalls.

by joyce1938 02.02.14 15:56

I believe that a few people have wondered about ,the button trousers Is it possible that they were worn to go back home to fetch pillowcase? or put into bag to take back end up in a bin for old clothes that sit around the streets ? well no I don't think thet were available at that time ,too long ago,.joyce1938

by suzyjohnson 02.02.14 16:53

KM found the window open when she returned to 5A at 10 pm, she said she KNEW immediately that MM had been taken. Yet, despite this, Jane Tanner did not volunteer the information that she had seen someone crossing the road carrying a child.

The McCann's phoned relatives to tell them that the apartment shutters had been broken into. Yet they did not immediately ask Jane Tanner, who was in her own apartment and therefore the nearest of the tapas group to that side of the building, if she had heard or seen anything? Presumably she would not have withheld the information from the McCanns that she had seen Tannerman had she been asked directly by them?

by Guest 02.02.14 17:07

It's all those initial mistakes, that have taken nearly 7 years to be straightened out. And it still hasn't worked ....

by **PeterMac** 02.02.14 17:08

suzyjohnson wrote:KM found the window open when she returned to 5A at 10 pm, she said she KNEW immediately that MM had been taken. Yet, despite this, Jane Tanner did not volunteer the information that she had seen someone crossing the road carrying a child.

The McCann's phoned relatives to tell them that the apartment shutters had been broken into. Yet they did not immediately ask Jane Tanner, who was in her own apartment and therefore the nearest of the tapas group to that side of the building, if she had heard or seen anything? Presumably she would not have withheld the information from the McCanns that she had seen Tannerman had she been asked directly by them?

You may be falling into the trap of trying to make it make sense !

by Jayneykul 02.02.14 18:13

Where we're the tapas 7 in the aftermath? We have evidence that the men were searching/making posters/dreaming up a timeline, that at least Fiona Payne and her mother were with KM leaving only JT & RO to look after all the children surely if the circs were true they would never have let their children out of their sight again? It doesn't make sense!

by bobby18 02.02.14 18:21

Monty Heck wrote:
plebgate wrote:
canada12 wrote:And what was so special about the McCanns' kids that everyone had to check on them, as well as their own kids, but not anyone else's kids? Kate and Gerry didn't check on any of the other kids. The other Tapas friends checked on their own kids and the McCann kids, but not the other Tapas friends' kids. Completely strange. Just goes to show you the overegging of the "checking" dance. It isn't logical. And it makes no sense whatsoever.
That's the point, there doesn't seem to be (at least to me) any logic in what has been said about any of it.
And so this should have been the starting point for SY, IMO. When a story told is is inconsistent or fails in many aspects to make sense, there needs to be questioning to get to the truth. From what I can see, to date this has not been done in any significant way. At the beginning, language barriers and claims/assumptions about customs or culture allowed aspects which should have been thoroughly examined to go largely without challenge. Yet, knowing this, SY began from the standpoint that the T9 are not persons of interest and that this is a case of stranger abduction which they are treating the same way as they would if the disappearance happened in the UK.

I agree that the seemingly 'VIP' checking of the McCann children on 3rd May is biggest indication of that any checking of the McCann's children on that date was non-existent and is a blatant piece of arse-covering for the McCann's, purely because of the regular sedation going on in the groups.

In my mind, I can almost visualise Gerry warning 'if we go down, we all go down'.

Have they or any of the T7 been asked directly on this? It could be the key for it to all unravel.

by Guest 02.02.14 18:24

Janeykul, re Where were the Taps in the aftermath? Could they have been waiting for the kidnappers to call with the amount of ransom required? Because they couldn't have known at that immediate stage that it had been an abduction and not a kidnapping, could they?

by Guest 02.02.14 18:35

I don't believe there was any checks done by anyone prior to the 3rd.

I think all the children were being minded by one adult in one apartment.

by Guest 02.02.14 18:47

Belissa, do you think BMB died on 3rd whilst being looked after by one of the group?

by Guest 02.02.14 19:23

No ladyinred I believe that it happened on the Tuesday night/Wednesday early hours

by Bishop Brennan 03.02.14 10:41

Bishop Brennan wrote:Let's not forget too that there were other people around that night between 8:30pm and 10pm. It's not just the T9 and jez. Witnesses in or returning to their apartments or walking by. So the timeline has to allow for them. All of which makes the window of opportunity vanishingly small. Especially with all the T9 up and down like yo-yos that night.

Basically unless it was a lone abductor with a van outside then it doesn't seem possible. I'm still awaiting for the white van to reappear at some stage (probably near libel time). Although nobody saw a van or indeed a car. And the CCTV would have also nailed it. So maybe that's a non starter even for TM.

And just on cue, the van has today appeared! (See Russian Doll's post in this thread - p28 - from today!)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by suzyjohnson 03.02.14 22:04

PeterMac wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:KM found the window open when she returned to 5A at 10 pm, she said she KNEW immediately that MM had been taken. Yet, despite this, Jane Tanner did not volunteer the information that she had seen someone crossing the road carrying a child.

The McCann's phoned relatives to tell them that the apartment shutters had been broken into. Yet they did not immediately ask Jane Tanner, who was in her own apartment and therefore the nearest of the tapas group to that side of the building, if she had heard or seen anything? Presumably she would not have withheld the information from the McCanns that she had seen Tannerman had she been asked directly by them?
You may be falling into the trap of trying to make it make sense !

Yes, I know.

Trying to make it make sense IMO is the best way to show that it doesn't

Log in for more topics