3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Mirage wrote:Further gems from the school of obfuscation and confusion. MO at his Rogatory Leicester Police HQ April 9th 2008. Read it and weep.
----------------------------------

4078 "What about in the evenings when you were going back to check on G****, do you recall some of the other people around?"

Reply "No, there'd be rarely, rarely anybody about, maybe an occasional one person (just the one?). Erm, tut, was he, was it the chap, whose name I can’t remember, (you're getting warmer) he had a child who was willing to be part of, or was being suggested for the interview, Jeremy, Jeremy or somebody?" (That's the one. Ada boy)

4078 "Yeah".

Reply "Who had a child and I think I'd seen him around because I think their child didn't sleep particularly well (now you're motoring) and he may have been pushing or he might have been collecting from crèche,(can't remember what Gerry said. Better hedge my bets) but what day or what time, I don't really remember (the white mist descends again)".


4078 "How did you come to know Jeremy?"

Reply "It was a couple that we spoke to while we were on (on what? on the loo? on the lash? oh yeah it's coming back now)... let me think (ok) Jeremy (I managed to squeak that name at last ) I think I spoke to on the coach,either on the coach or we already said something, you know, something when we were checking in, ( like, "got your passport ok mate?") sort of that'd have been four o'clock in the morning or whenever it was, and there was, (yeah ....... was what?) so I think I spoke to him on the coach (fast forward to coach) or on the plane (skip the coach, maybe the plane)on the way over, definitely on the coach or on the plane on the way over, (so several times en route and a "definite" crept in) and sort of said hi every now and again,(as you do when you keep seeing someone at check-out and coach and plane when you're on holiday with your wife and kid and they are on holiday with their wife and kid) but didn't, erm, you know ( insert Les Dawson gurn and bosom hitch here) anything more than that really. (more than what really?)".

Oh dear. Sound of cogs grinding.

4078 "And did you speak to him during the holiday?"

Reply "Yeah, just on odd occasions". (The mist is clearing again.)

4078 "Okay. Right. So, I mean, having said that you had struggled to remember what you did each day, you have done pretty well really so far,

Best comment from 4078 to date. No follow up unfortunately.

I always say it's a crying shame Leicester police lost that 40 min interview. A blank cd just when 4078 was getting somewhere with a selective amnaesiac. She must have been gutted.

Lost it? Amazing how our bungling police and forensic service managed to destroy so much evidence...

Loved that commentary. And isn't it amazing just how soft the police questioning was.

Mirage wrote:Further gems from the school of obfuscation and confusion. MO at his Rogatory Leicester Police HQ April 9th 2008. Read it and weep.
----------------------------------

Great stuff Mirage. One of the biggest self-checks I have to do when studying this case is not to judge people's behaviour by comparison to my own. But it would be fair to say that when I'm travelling, or on holiday, I try to avoid casual contact with other people as much as possible. I mean, that's what I'm on holiday from, really - other people. But I appreciate that not everybody is the same and that some are indeed quite the opposite.

One of the strangest aspects of the trip over, I find, is Charlotte Pennington's comment that she didn't see Kate and Gerry at the airport. She was travelling independently of the Tapas party and she had never previously met the McCanns. Apparently.

Great article today in the Vancouver Province about a UBC professor who studies liars.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/vancouver/catch+liar+profs+have+become+master+human+detectors/9619466/story.html

Of note...

Murderers pleading on television for the return of loved ones will try to mimic distress, Porter says.

But the “the grief muscles” in the forehead — the corrugators — are difficult to control, he says. A lying pleader may accidentally activate a nearby muscle — the frontalis — which conveys surprise. he says.

“People trying to fake distress may look surprised or astonished,” he says. “They look like deer caught in headlights.”

Woodworth says that fake pleaders unintentionally choose words that distance themselves from what they’re saying. Instead of saying “I” or “we,” they turn to words such as “anybody” or “somebody.”

Even psychopaths — who are 2.5 times more likely to win release in parole hearings — may leak other emotions into the face when they’re faking remorse, Porter says.

“They often show something called duping delight,” Porter says. “They enjoy pulling the wool over people’s eyes and a trained observer can detect a little smirk.”

This does reinforce many points which have been raised previously. I was particularly intrigued by the "fake distress" signs.

..

And many of us here are interested in a certain person's uncontrollable smirks, too.

The wee one's smirks are so bleeding blatantly obvious that training is not needed to detect them, PPP, and his delight in duping others is as plain as the continually growing nose on his face.

As for the faked distress which gives the look of 'deer caught in the headlights', I cite the occasion of Kate's first appearance on the world stage and rest my case, canada12     

With regard to Porter's statement that psychopaths are 2.5 times more likely to win release in parole hearings (presumably over other categories of inmates), this may be because they are over-represented in the prison population and under-represented in the secure wards of mental hospitals as very few of them can be classed or certified as being insane.

ultimaThule wrote:The wee one's smirks are so bleeding blatantly obvious that training is not needed to detect them, PPP, and his delight in duping others is as plain as the continually growing nose on his face.

As for the faked distress which gives the look of 'deer caught in the headlights', I cite the occasion of Kate's first appearance on the world stage and rest my case, canada12     

With regard to Porter's statement that psychopaths are 2.5 times more likely to win release in parole hearings (presumably over other categories of inmates), this may be because they are over-represented in the prison population and under-represented in the secure wards of mental hospitals as very few of them can be classed or certified as being insane.

My impression of Gerry is that he is so so so desperate to tell everyone how clever he has been. He's like a toddler just bursting to say, "Look what I did."

While he undeniably enjoys duper's delight, I think he finds it frustrating that he cannot reveal his true genius to the world.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

Mirage wrote:Further gems from the school of obfuscation and confusion. MO at his Rogatory Leicester Police HQ April 9th 2008. Read it and weep.
----------------------------------

Great stuff Mirage. One of the biggest self-checks I have to do when studying this case is not to judge people's behaviour by comparison to my own. But it would be fair to say that when I'm travelling, or on holiday, I try to avoid casual contact with other people as much as possible. I mean, that's what I'm on holiday from, really - other people. But I appreciate that not everybody is the same and that some are indeed quite the opposite.

One of the strangest aspects of the trip over, I find, is Charlotte Pennington's comment that she didn't see Kate and Gerry at the airport. She was travelling independently of the Tapas party and she had never previously met the McCanns. Apparently.

Pennington travelled on the same flight as ROB and co.

tigger wrote:

Pennington travelled on the same flight as ROB and co.

Yes, but she wasn't travelling with them.

Or was she?   

4 new Lazzeri's to take to bed on a Sunday evening:

http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Maddie_McCann_Madness_1.html

http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/McCann_Parents_Who_Party.html

dantezebu wrote:
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/McCann_Parents_Who_Party.html

The injustice is infuriating.

Tangled Web wrote:

dantezebu wrote:
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/McCann_Parents_Who_Party.html

The injustice is infuriating.

I wonder if wee Kelly and co. ever read this blog?

plebgate wrote:

Tangled Web wrote:

dantezebu wrote:
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/McCann_Parents_Who_Party.html

The injustice is infuriating.

I wonder if wee Kelly and co. ever read this blog?

I WONDER if wee Kelly and co CAN read!

Day 10,739 of 'search' for 'missing' child wee Kelly is still NOT wearing her 'good quality FindMadeleine wristband'

Seen this posted on twitter, haven't read it yet (about the upcoming programme)...........



http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/McCanns-Con_of_Century_.html

jeanmonroe wrote:Just to add to above post:

WITNESS TESTIMONY OF JEREMY WILKINS

This statement, consisting of five pages, each signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have willfully states in it anything I know to be false or do not believe to be true.

AND

I am aware that my deposition is subject to the Portuguese Criminal Code in addition to British law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So if he 'lied' as the McCanns have said he did, regards him 'crossing the street to chat' when the McCanns have, on record, in print and filmed interviews, stated that it was GM that had 'crossed the street to chat with JW'

JW must be liable to prosecution, for having stated something he wilfully knows to be false, according to the McCanns, by both the Portuguese, under their Criminal Code AND, in addition, by the UK authorities under British law.

eta:

The McCanns would have absolutely no 'conscience'  in throwing Wilkins and Tanner 'under the bus' IF DCI Redwood EVER started asking JW/JT 'real' questions. (imo, obviously)

Jez' version of events does not stand up to scrutiny at all. When he first spoke to police on the day after Madeleine 'disappeared' he told them he was in the Tapas restaurant. Yet in later police statements, he changed this version of events to one in which he and his partner ate in their apartment that evening. But he went out with his baby in a pram as the baby could not sleep. So he walked around the resort. 

Why? Why such a dramatically different story? Jez' from the beginning pointed a finger of suspicion on a blonde 'rasta' type man who he claimed he saw acting suspiciously. In the first version of events he sees suspicious looking 'rasta-man' in the Tapas restaurant. In the later versions of events, he sees rasta-man in the toilets near the Tapas bar, where he happens to go as he is pushing his pram around. And he notices that rasta-man spends quite a long time in there. 

It appears that 'rasta-man' is identified by police as a guest at the Ocean Club - he is a surfing friend of Gerrys. So is this the same man that Jez reported to the police? Or a different man? And if it is the same man, the surfing friend of Gerrys who had been staying at the resort all week, then surely Jez would have recognized him, wouldn't he, as a guest at the hotel?

Yet in his police statement Jez says he had never seen the man before. 

And according to at least one of the police statements, Jez speaks to Robert Murat about 'rasta-man' and Murat tells him that this is a local man and everything is fine, or words to that effect.

So what does that mean? That, within a few days police have interviewed this 'rasta-man' and ruled him out? Surely not so soon? And why would Robert Murat be telling Jez that 'rasta-man is a local man, when it appears that police identified him as a fellow guest at the club? Or were there two blonde 'rasta-men'? 

Or did Jez make up the rasta-man? In which case, why did Robert Murat say it was a local man, which implies he was not a guest at the hotel?

Jez' role in all this is particularly intriguing, especially when you consider his Crimewatch links. Why was he so insistent to flag up 'rasta-man? But would give little, if any, credence to Jane Tanner's 'Tanner-man'? 

He was prepared to dramatically change his version of events for that evening. Why? What was the purpose of that? To give Gerry an alibi? Or was it to discredit Jane Tanner's Tannerman?

As far as I can tell, Jez also gives conflicting accounts of when he first heard that Madeleine had 'been abducted'. In one version it appears it is not until the morning after. In another version it is at 1.30pm, when he is woken up by the resort manager and one of the Tapas gang.

Given that the last Crimewatch 'reconstruction' was considered by some to be a bit of a farce, it really does make you wonder about the role of this programme in 'the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.'

In any event, Jez appears to be a crucial eye-witness. Interestingly, Kate does not mention Jez' rasta sighting in the 'key sightings' section of her book. So it would appear that Jez is not singing from the same hymn-sheet.

Talking of 'suspicious-looking' blonde men hanging around the Ocean Club resort at crucial times, it is interesting how the McCanns were keen to follow up some sightings in far-flung places, but chose to ignore other sightings. These two sisters tried in vain to contact the McCanns and their team for months. They event went as far as returning to Portugal, but could not speak to the McCanns as by this time they had become 'arguidos'. 

Eventually they spoke to Clarence Mitchell and Leics police interviewed them for 11 hours. 

In the version of events given in this piece (no idea how accurate it is)  it looks as though the sisters bumped into Jez while searching for Madeleine that evening, rather than the following day. Which would conflict with Jez' version of events in which he did not get up and search for Madeleine that evening, despite being woken up at 1.30am.

In any event, despite the sisters tenacity, Kate does not mention their sighting in her book. Which is odd, given the timings and the fact that they were two credible witnesses.

The sisters said they were immediately struck by the behaviour of the two men on the balcony. 

The pair, tanned and in Bermuda shorts, were standing outside the patio doors of a groundfloor apartment, which had been unoccupied all week, and were looking out over the resort's family swimming pool and restaurant area. 

Mrs Wiltshire, 58, a mother of two, said: "It was odd because I hadn't seen them before. In May the resort wasn't busy. 

{1}"There were only about 60 of us staying in the apartments and you got to recognise all the other people. 


http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2705.425;wap2

http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Family_Friends_Neighbour.html

'Redwood is increasingly looking a fool but he will live with that, he will retire shortly and move on.'

Earlier in the thread people were talking about a reason for the "cover-up" could be to do with hiding the fact that more people were sedating their children then going out on the lash, leaving them unattended all evening. My own belief is that smething far more cruel and sinister ties this lot together and getting them into a room one at a time and bombarding them with the info from this website would reveal a lot more than the keystone kops could hope to achieve. The tapas mob are the key, put the pressure on them and watch this case unfold.IMO.