Re: Twitter:"Sunday the 12th of October is T-DAY for the McCann´s"

by tiny 20.10.14 11:58

When are they releasing them??????.what are they waiting for.is this a hoax

by bobbin 20.10.14 13:42

tiny wrote:When are they releasing them??????.what are they waiting for.is this a hoax

Cheap, easy and lazy man's way of getting loads of people's Identity Details, all gathered together in one neat place.
Hope they are not as 'dramatic' as the 'goose and wild chase book' which was really worth the wait.... now where's the sarcastic icon ?

by tiny 20.10.14 14:03

bobbin wrote:
tiny wrote:When are they releasing them??????.what are they waiting for.is this a hoax
Cheap, easy and lazy man's way of getting loads of people's Identity Details, all gathered together in one neat place.
Hope they are not as 'dramatic' as the 'goose and wild chase book' which was really worth the wait.... now where's the sarcastic icon ?

my opinion is they have got nowt,if they had they would give it to the police first and not play silly buggers

by Snifferdog 20.10.14 14:10

Exactly!

by Guest 20.10.14 14:23

Attention-seekers, best ignore them. IF they have something, then we can comment. Something fishy going on, IMO.

by Doug D 20.10.14 16:31

My only thinking with them is that they have been in confirmed e-mail contact with Joana Morais, who has said nothing, but also has not come out and ‘rubbished’ them.

So maybe, just maybe?

by Guest 20.10.14 16:47

Didn't they say they have had a visit from men in suits,well last week Portugal was visited by men in suits,just saying.

by Lance De Boils 20.10.14 17:00

I think the best thing we can do is just wait and see. Not much point in speculating - it will become evident in time whether or not this is genuine.

by worriedmum 20.10.14 17:01

Lance De Boils wrote:I think the best thing we can do is just wait and see. Not much point in speculating - it will become evident in time whether or not this is genuine.

by deafoldbat 21.10.14 9:14

by Doug D 23.10.14 16:20

Part 3 has just been posted up.

by Doug D 23.10.14 16:42

Nothing new again and makes a ‘fact’ of how GM entered 5A for his 9.04 check, when nobody really knows, (not even GM, based on his differing statements).

Even S & S in their ‘most definitive account’ make no mention of how GM got there.

Certainly nothing to cause any problems with the ‘men in black’ or ‘C-R’ that I can see.

Looks like there is going to be more than just the original four as the closing statement:

‘The following videos will undermine these testimonies’

suggests a series.

by unchained melody 23.10.14 16:46

Garbled I thought. Trying to make logic out of lies

by Brian Griffin 23.10.14 17:30

I'm feeling underwhelmed by these 'new' videos too.

Thinking about all this faffing around checking on the children the way the Tapas crowd said they did, you'd have a stream of parents going up and down and in and out throughout dinner, like a military patrol of a sensitive area. If you go on holiday and want to go out and have some grown-up time without the kids, just hire a bloody baby-sitter! It isn't going to cost that much, especially if you and your spouse are doctors FFS! Where is the common sense here?

by Stillthinking 23.10.14 17:31

Huh? they're ignoring the more recent statement where Gerry said he'd gone through the patio doors.

Re Gerry and Jez not noticing Jane pass them... what could have happened is that Jane may have also been checking her kids via her patio doors but had to keep the official line at that point that they were all checking via locked front doors(same as Gerry originally said he did). If she was checking via her patio doors sh'ed have turned off down that alley way on the left after allegedly seeing the man at the top of the road, and would not have had to pass Gerry and Jez.

by Carrry On Doctor 23.10.14 17:54

Yes, another angle on things, but just picking different holes in a fictional story the public are being fed.

On current form, video 4 (perhaps further videos too) seems unlikely to force TM's to speak.

Richard D Halls videos were far harder hitting.

2&2 - you have apparently got over your legal issues, so go ahead and release what you have. Your intended audience will lose interest otherwise.

IMO of course

by **PeterMac** 23.10.14 18:23

Stillthinking wrote:Huh? they're ignoring the more recent statement where Gerry said he'd gone through the patio doors.
Re Gerry and Jez not noticing Jane pass them... what could have happened is that Jane may have also been checking her kids via her patio doors but had to keep the official line at that point that they were all checking via locked front doors(same as Gerry originally said he did). If she was checking via her patio doors sh'ed have turned off down that alley way on the left after allegedly seeing the man at the top of the road, and would not have had to pass Gerry and Jez.

That is what Dr Amaral thought as well.

by **PeterMac** 23.10.14 18:35

I wish people would not confuse "incredulous" with "incredible"
The circumstances are incredible = impossible or difficult to believe
I am incredulous = unwilling or unable to believe something
Quote:
Incredible means 'unbelievable' or 'not convincing' and can be applied to a situation, statement, policy, or threat to a person: : I find this testimony incredible.
Incredulous means 'disinclined to believe, skeptical'—the opposite of : credulous,: gullible —and is usually applied to a person’s attitude: : you shouldn’t be surprised that I’m incredulous after all your lies.

And it is not pedantry.
It is possible to say he is incredible OR he is incredulous
Just as it is possible to say he is uninterested OR he is disinterested. He may of course be both
They mean totally different things.

by Stillthinking 23.10.14 19:03

PeterMac wrote:

That is what Dr Amaral thought as well.

How interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I had a few years not really following the case, did he mention it in book or in interviews since?

by Guest 23.10.14 23:33

Hmmmm, did Jane Tanner actually state that Tannerman was carrying 'a lifeless child'? From memory I just remember bits.

This jumped out of the video at me, because if SHE didn't, why say lifeless?

Apart from the factual results from Eddie and Keela which have been all but ignored by the MSM, we have more recently had Redwood acknowledging the possibility that Madeleine may have been dead before she left 5a, which I'm sure I've seen others here make suggestions along the lines that this may have been backfilling due to the dogs' findings if this is indeed a cover up. I can't reference exact posts I'm sorry, but just generally remember posts remarking on the incredible theory that a burglar stole a dead child that night.

Well, given the cynicism about 2&2 so far, this 'lifeless' thing jumped out at me as possibly a ploy to feed into this (dead when 'abducted' scenario) if it is part of the whitwash? Sewing seeds and all that.....

Apologies if JT did indeed state 'lifeless' child, for my thus rendered pointless post. It has been a long day coffee

and I got all excited by this, so just had to ask.

by Okeydokey 24.10.14 0:03

Doug D wrote:Nothing new again and makes a ‘fact’ of how GM entered 5A for his 9.04 check, when nobody really knows, (not even GM, based on his differing statements).

Even S & S in their ‘most definitive account’ make no mention of how GM got there.

Certainly nothing to cause any problems with the ‘men in black’ or ‘C-R’ that I can see.

Looks like there is going to be more than just the original four as the closing statement:

‘The following videos will undermine these testimonies’

suggests a series.

I think these videos are v. good. Lots of little darts hitting targets and undermining the Team McCann version. For instance, the idea that Jane Tanner would walk past Gerry without saying "Hi" is simply not credible. That needs pointing out. It isn't pointed out enough, but this video does point it out.

No one pretends you can make sense of the Tapas 9 testimony - but you can undermine it.

by Brian Griffin 24.10.14 4:13

PeterMac wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:Huh? they're ignoring the more recent statement where Gerry said he'd gone through the patio doors.
Re Gerry and Jez not noticing Jane pass them... what could have happened is that Jane may have also been checking her kids via her patio doors but had to keep the official line at that point that they were all checking via locked front doors(same as Gerry originally said he did). If she was checking via her patio doors sh'ed have turned off down that alley way on the left after allegedly seeing the man at the top of the road, and would not have had to pass Gerry and Jez.
That is what Dr Amaral thought as well.

Why do you think none of the Tapas crowd wants anything else to do with this case, especially something that brings them under scrutiny like a reconstruction? Heaven forbid! A 5-year-old would be able to poke holes through the logic of the testimony. I'm starting to think this is a bit like a Ruth Rendell story 'A Fatal Inversion' in which a group of young individuals who conceal a crime for what they think is the best at the time, find that it ends up destroying their lives at a fundamental level.

In my opinion, of course. I wouldn't want to suggest a crime has been committed here or draw any parallels.

by NickE 24.10.14 8:44

Rose Quartz wrote:Hmmmm, did Jane Tanner actually state that Tannerman was carrying 'a lifeless child'? From memory I just remember bits.

This jumped out of the video at me, because if SHE didn't, why say lifeless?

Apart from the factual results from Eddie and Keela which have been all but ignored by the MSM, we have more recently had Redwood acknowledging the possibility that Madeleine may have been dead before she left 5a, which I'm sure I've seen others here make suggestions along the lines that this may have been backfilling due to the dogs' findings if this is indeed a cover up. I can't reference exact posts I'm sorry, but just generally remember posts remarking on the incredible theory that a burglar stole a dead child that night.

Well, given the cynicism about 2&2 so far, this 'lifeless' thing jumped out at me as possibly a ploy to feed into this (dead when 'abducted' scenario) if it is part of the whitwash? Sewing seeds and all that.....

Apologies if JT did indeed state 'lifeless' child, for my thus rendered pointless post. It has been a long day and I got all excited by this, so just had to ask.

I don't Think JT said "lifeless" but (correct me if I'am wrong) I Think they used the word "lifeless" in "Madeleine was here" "documentery".

by Guest 24.10.14 12:55

NickE wrote:
Rose Quartz wrote:Hmmmm, did Jane Tanner actually state that Tannerman was carrying 'a lifeless child'? From memory I just remember bits.

This jumped out of the video at me, because if SHE didn't, why say lifeless?

Apart from the factual results from Eddie and Keela which have been all but ignored by the MSM, we have more recently had Redwood acknowledging the possibility that Madeleine may have been dead before she left 5a, which I'm sure I've seen others here make suggestions along the lines that this may have been backfilling due to the dogs' findings if this is indeed a cover up. I can't reference exact posts I'm sorry, but just generally remember posts remarking on the incredible theory that a burglar stole a dead child that night.

Well, given the cynicism about 2&2 so far, this 'lifeless' thing jumped out at me as possibly a ploy to feed into this (dead when 'abducted' scenario) if it is part of the whitwash? Sewing seeds and all that.....

Apologies if JT did indeed state 'lifeless' child, for my thus rendered pointless post. It has been a long day and I got all excited by this, so just had to ask.

I don't Think JT said "lifeless" but (correct me if I'am wrong) I Think they used the word "lifeless" in "Madeleine was here" "documentery".

Thankyou for the reply NickE. In the cold light of day, it's probably something and nowt, but this case has me suspicious of everything.

by **PeterMac** 24.10.14 14:02

Stillthinking wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
That is what Dr Amaral thought as well.
How interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I had a few years not really following the case, did he mention it in book or in interviews since?

Book IIRC
I'll look it up again

by Guest 24.10.14 17:28

A new video posted today by 2&2, titled 'McCann, Gerald Patrick. (Part A)'.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tS_3gQKPdUc&feature=youtu.be

This series of videos is slower than Molasses...

by Guest 24.10.14 17:42

Rose Quartz wrote:A new video posted today by 2&2, titled 'McCann, Gerald Patrick. (Part A)'.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tS_3gQKPdUc&feature=youtu.be

This series of videos is slower than Molasses...

Is it inferring that there was no one in there so no need to be quiet? IMO

by nomendelta 24.10.14 17:44

WMD wrote:
Rose Quartz wrote:A new video posted today by 2&2, titled 'McCann, Gerald Patrick. (Part A)'.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tS_3gQKPdUc&feature=youtu.be

This series of videos is slower than Molasses...
Is it inferring that there was no one in there so no need to be quiet? IMO

I don't think so - not specifically. I think it's just picking on the inconsistencies of the story.

Of course if Maddie was no longer alive and the twins had been drugged then he could afford to make as much noise as he wanted.

by NickE 24.10.14 17:58

Gerry didn´t have to be quiet with the frontdoor because the twins was in another apartment and Madeleine was already gone.
it is my opinion.

by Doug D 24.10.14 18:03

Again promoting ‘the fact’ that GM entered by the front door, backed up by Jez Wilkins statement.

These are the May statements, which don’t back up this assertion, although the immediate statement which does go for the front door, is more likely to be the true version i.m.o., that is, if it happened at all.

GM 4^th May 2007

Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition. He then went to the toilet, where he remained for a few instants, left the apartment, and then crossed ways with someone with whom he had played tennis, who had a baby buggy, also a British citizen, with whom he had a brief conversation. He then returned to the restaurant.

GM 10^th May 2007

At 21H05, MATHEW returned, the time at which the deponent left the table to go check on his children.

He walked the normal route up to the back door, which being open he only had to slide, and while he was entering the living room, he noticed that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought was strange, having then thought that possibly MADELEINE had got up to go to sleep in his bedroom, so as to avoid the noise produced by her siblings. Therefore, he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and he is certain of this, that the three were deeply asleep. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, then went to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the shutters, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the living room.

He adds that he did not enter any other part of the residence, where he was for only two or three minutes, leaving yet again through the back door, that he closed but did not lock. He clarifies that he returned without checking any other couple’s children, even because he had not been asked to do so.

After leaving through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw “JEZ” walking up the street on the opposite pavement, bringing with him a baby buggy with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction who was walking up on the right-hand side, in the ascending direction, both having chatted for 3 to 4 minutes, about tennis, holidays and children. While talking with JEZ, he saw no-one from the group, nor detected any suspicious individual or vehicle.

Jeremy Wilkins 7^th May 2007

I left about 8.15 pm – 8.30 pm. I was pushing the pram around the complex and went to the toilet near the bar. I couldn't see inside the restaurant. As I got the baby to sleep, I was on my way back to the apartment. I came out of the top road. I met him near some stairs and a ground floor flat.

There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said 'you're on walking duty'. I said I was staying in and the pro's and con's and what to do with the children. He said that if he was staying two (2) weeks, he may stay in one night. I don't remember anyone else walk past with a child. The conversation lasted for about three (3) to five (5) minutes. He was acting completely normal from what I know of him so far.

I then walked back to the apartment. I had dinner, watched a DVD and went to bed at about 11 pm.

Latest topics