Re: "Incompetent and unco-operative Portuguese held up Scotland Yard for a year by refusing to supply forensic evidence" - Sunday Mirror 21 Dec 2014

by joyce1938 26.12.14 15:39

thanks decoy for your reply . I feel we have read so much over the years ,just cant put a finger on a lot ,but we do know we have heard things but cant track it all ,take too much energy.I often hear new folk asking questions that we have gone over ages ago ,and often somethingpops into mind of what we spoke of .No harm in taking another look see I guess. joyce1938

by aiyoyo 26.12.14 16:07

Dee Coy wrote:I realise that he wouldn't comment anyway in case the case ever came to trial. But why the meeting at the airport - did it happen?

If it is true, and we know the PJ arranged via Harrison to get Martin and the dogs out there, I can only assume the UK hierarchy were unaware of his presence there but knew what it would inevitably yield. When they found out they panicked and sent a man out there. To say what?

IIRC, it was Dr Amaral who said that.
How Dr Amaral knew the man approaching MG at the airport was a secret service agent is $64M question.
If his source or deduction was correct, it can still be purely a chance meeting but that would be too much of a coincidence but one can't exclude that.

If MI5 or MI6 want to put a word to MG, you'd think it would be done discretely and in a private venue and not at the airport. Especially when Grime was seen accompanied by a member of the PJ, you'd think the secret service agent would avoid contact with Grime at all cost in that kind of circumstance.

To say what exactly ? If there is a conspiracy why involve MG into it?
A conspiracy is typically kept within the conspirators, avoiding involving outsiders. What can they use to threaten MG to buy his silence?

by Sceptic 26.12.14 17:13

Dee Coy wrote:
joyce1938 wrote:I saw a post long time ago that stated mr grimes was told not to speak to anyone about his results joyce1938

Me too, Joyce, but I simply can't find evidence of it or the alleged airport meeting.

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

Mr Grime is now a director of a forensic science company, GSS International, and is employed as a sniffer dog expert. He owns both his former police dogs and they continue to work with him.

Yesterday he was in the U.S. on business and a spokesman for the Hampshire-based company said he had been asked by police in the UK not to comment on the McCann case.

Mr Grime and his dog Eddie were involved in the search for remains at the Haut de la Garenne children’s home in Jersey.

The massive investigation in 2008 ended with the conclusion that nothing suspicious was found at the scene and there was no evidence of murder.

by Realist 29.12.14 17:21

woodforthetrees wrote:Dear oh dear, Realist still not getting it.

---and what pray, am I not getting?? As previously stated on many occasions, this is a very simple case, but difficult to prove because of a lack of evidence which is mainly due to the PJ failing to make the McCanns their prime suspects from the inception.

The wild and preposterous conspiracy theories merely serve to benefit the McCann's cause and prevent others from seeing the wood for the trees. As for the negligence angle, there was no negligence other than that propagated by the McCanns, because without an element of the aforementioned, there couldn't possibly have been a kidnapping. Literally thousands are blinded by this patent red herring.

The most likely scenario is that Madeleine was whacked by one of the McCanns in a rage and either died as a direct result of the blow, or as a consequence of hitting her head on a hard surface. This event took place long before 8.30 pm on the 3rd. May and may have even transpired before that date. Madeleine's body was then stored in the apt. whilst the McCanns cleaned up and decided what course of action to take, hence the dogs scentings of cadaver odour. In the event they decided to dispose of her body and concoct a phoney kidnapping story to be enacted at a later stage.

In the interim period the McCanns disposed of Madeleine's body in the surrounding terrain which has been described as being a wilderness with thousands of disused shafts, ravines etc. where a body would never be discovered. Kate McCann would have been familiar with the surrounding terrain because every day whilst on vacation in Priara de Luz, she had embarked on long jogging trips around the aforementioned. It really is as simple as that and all these ridiculous stories of bodies hidden at sea by secret service agents, Smith sightings, child neglect, swingers, paedophile rings etc. etc. may make interesting reading for the tabloid's intellectually challenged subscribers, but they do nothing whatsoever to help establish tangible evidence with which to convict the McCanns of anything, let alone murder/manslaughter, fraud etc.

by scrants 29.12.14 17:56

Realist wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:Dear oh dear, Realist still not getting it.

---and what pray, am I not getting?? As previously stated on many occasions, this is a very simple case, but difficult to prove because of a lack of evidence which is mainly due to the PJ failing to make the McCanns their prime suspects from the inception.

The wild and preposterous conspiracy theories merely serve to benefit the McCann's cause and prevent others from seeing the wood for the trees. As for the negligence angle, there was no negligence other than that propagated by the McCanns, because without an element of the aforementioned, there couldn't possibly have been a kidnapping. Literally thousands are blinded by this patent red herring.

The most likely scenario is that Madeleine was whacked by one of the McCanns in a rage and either died as a direct result of the blow, or as a consequence of hitting her head on a hard surface. This event took place long before 8.30 pm on the 3rd. May and may have even transpired before that date. Madeleine's body was then stored in the apt. whilst the McCanns cleaned up and decided what course of action to take, hence the dogs scentings of cadaver odour. In the event they decided to dispose of her body and concoct a phoney kidnapping story to be enacted at a later stage.

In the interim period the McCanns disposed of Madeleine's body in the surrounding terrain which has been described as being a wilderness with thousands of disused shafts, ravines etc. where a body would never be discovered. Kate McCann would have been familiar with the surrounding terrain because every day whilst on vacation in Priara de Luz, she had embarked on long jogging trips around the aforementioned. It really is as simple as that and all these ridiculous stories of bodies hidden at sea by secret service agents, Smith sightings, child neglect, swingers, paedophile rings etc. etc. may make interesting reading for the tabloid's intellectually challenged subscribers, but they do nothing whatsoever to help discover tangible evidence with which to convict the McCanns of anything, let alone murder/manslaughter, fraud etc.

Realist, I entirely agree with you, this case is essentially simple. The difficulty of proof is how and when was it
done. All in my opinion only, of course.

by Realist 29.12.14 18:54

scrants wrote:
.
Realist, I entirely agree with you, this case is essentially simple. The difficulty of proof is how and when was it
done. All in my opinion only, of course.

The supreme irony being, Scrants, there are thousands, if not millions, some of whom subscribe to this forum, who are of the belief that at the end of the day, the McCanns are to to blame for the disappearance of their daughter because they left her alone and unattended in their apt.

This of course is not true and had it really been a case of Madeleine McCann merely being left alone and unattended in their apt. she would have been alive and well today, as are her brother and sister.

by Joss 30.12.14 5:02

Realist wrote:
scrants wrote:
.
Realist, I entirely agree with you, this case is essentially simple. The difficulty of proof is how and when was it
done. All in my opinion only, of course.

The supreme irony being, Scrants, there are thousands, if not millions, some of whom subscribe to this forum, who are of the belief that at the end of the day, the McCanns are to to blame for the disappearance of their daughter because they left her alone and unattended in their apt.

This of course is not true and had it really been a case of Madeleine McCann merely being left alone and unattended in their apt. she would have been alive and well today, as are her brother and sister.

If what you are purporting in your theory happened, then that means one of the McC's killed Maddie through a violent action that may or may not have been intentional, and what then? They proceeded to lie to all the Tapas crew about how she died, so they would all be in on a cover up for the McC's? To the point the tapas crew lied to police about leaving their kids in their apartments, did checks on them etc? possible help with disposal of a child's body?, and whatever else they lied about to support their good friends the McC's? That is not keeping things simple IMO.

by Joss 30.12.14 5:22

If one of the McC's did unintentionally kill their daughter, then they would of had to lie to their friends about what happened. And i can't see the tapas lot lying for them and implicating themselves in a crime, if it was a case of Maddie dying because of abuse by one of her parents. For the lie to have worked i think maybe the leaving of the children in apartments while they went out to wine & dine, and probably sedating children was more likely. We have read about the twins being most likely sedated from all the noise going on after the alarm was raised that Maddie was gone, and how K.McC had to keep checking they were still breathing. Unless that is a lie too?
Who were the independent witnesses to notice that scenario? The police?, if we assume the McC's and tapas friends were all lying.
And wouldn't there have been evidence of the McC's and tapas friends receipts from the restaurant that evening that they actually were all there having a meal and numerous bottles of wine? What about the waiters or waitresses, wouldn't they have seen the children there too if the McC's & friends hadn't left them alone in their apartments? Not just on the night Maddie went missing, but on previous nights as well?

by columbostogeys 30.12.14 6:01

These dogs are highly trained and rarely get it wrong. See they went in and found that young girl who went missing 17th month old Zia Turner. Whats so disgusting is if they hadnt she would have probably lain there dead a long time in that mess....poor baby.

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

by scrants 30.12.14 14:47

Joss wrote:If one of the McC's did unintentionally kill their daughter, then they would of had to lie to their friends about what happened. And i can't see the tapas lot lying for them and implicating themselves in a crime, if it was a case of Maddie dying because of abuse by one of her parents. For the lie to have worked i think maybe the leaving of the children in apartments while they went out to wine & dine, and probably sedating children was more likely. We have read about the twins being most likely sedated from all the noise going on after the alarm was raised that Maddie was gone, and how K.McC had to keep checking they were still breathing. Unless that is a lie too?
Who were the independent witnesses to notice that scenario? The police?, if we assume the McC's and tapas friends were all lying.
And wouldn't there have been evidence of the McC's and tapas friends receipts from the restaurant that evening that they actually were all there having a meal and numerous bottles of wine? What about the waiters or waitresses, wouldn't they have seen the children there too if the McC's & friends hadn't left them alone in their apartments? Not just on the night Maddie went missing, but on previous nights as well?

The only close friends of the Mccanns were the Paynes. They only knew the others through the Paynes and then only on occasional social get togethers.

In my opinion, if the Mccanns confided in anyone, it would have been David Payne as they may have needed his help and probably Fiona later on. I don't think the others were "in the know" at all.

I've often wondered if, on the 3 May, when the Mccanns went back to the apartment, Madeleine might have thrown a tantrum when she realised she wasn't going back to the pool to see the other children as usual. Kate or Gerry "over-reacted" and Madeleine was fatally injured.

I assume that they would then try to resuscitate her and she would have remained on the spot long enough for cadaverine to develop. They then moved her to their bedroom to get her out of sight of the twins, perhaps telling them Maddie wasn't feeling well.

This may have been when the Blue Bag came into play. Either she was taken away and disposed of before dinner or (big risk) when the twins were moved out of the apartment, the bag may have gone too, supposedly containing clothing or whatever for the twins. However, this second possibility doesn't explain how the bag got back into the wardrobe to be photographed by the PJ after the apartment was vacated later that night. Nor can I explain where the bag was put after it left the apartment. If it had entered the Payne's apartment, it would have left cadaverine and the dogs didn't react to the Payne's apartment.

It has often puzzled me why, if they were trying to keep everything under wraps, Kate raised the alarm at all.
Why not just wait until morning and say she had disappeared in the night and they had forgotten to lock the patio doors.

I'm sorry if this is a bit rambling but this case is endlessly fascinating and my mind goes racing off in all sorts of directions trying to work out what happened.

All this, is of course, in my opinion only!

by joyce1938 30.12.14 16:34

I must say that the bag was not very visable at all . picture of wardrobe door not wide open enough to see SIZE of said bag ,it may just have been a bag of type that could be a carry on bag ,not big enough to carry much in ? I cant in all honesty be sure it was used as some have said . joyce1938

by phil_burton 30.12.14 16:36

A grizzly thought but maybe MM was in the blue bag when it was photographed?

Only my opinion of course!

by plebgate 30.12.14 16:48

snipped from scrants last post:

"
It has often puzzled me why, if they were trying to keep everything under wraps, Kate raised the alarm at all.
Why not just wait until morning and say she had disappeared in the night and they had forgotten to lock the patio doors."

Could one possibility be that they wouldn't have all been able to alibi each other if Maddie had disappeared in the night?

If Maddie had disappeared in the night what about Crecheman/Smithman?

by Realist 30.12.14 16:54

Joss wrote:
and what then? They proceeded to lie to all the Tapas crew about how she died, so they would all be in on a cover up for the McC's? To the point the tapas crew lied to police about leaving their kids in their apartments, did checks on them etc? possible help with disposal of a child's body?, and whatever else they lied about to support their good friends the McC's? That is not keeping things simple IMO.

The McCanns would never have confided to their acquaintances as to what happened to their daughter, never in a billion, zillion light yrs. Had they done so, they would have been banged up yonks ago. When your friends become your foes----- By the same hypothesis, they would never have enlisted their aid in disposing of the body.

Their acquaintances and that's all they were would have been confined to a strictly need to know basis. They are lying for entirely different reasons and that's why their stories don't tally with those of the McCanns. You'll no doubt have noted that Dr. Oldfield doesn't commit himself to having seen Madeleine at circa 9.30 pm, whilst safely stating that he definitely observed the other two, secure in the knowledge that he knew nothing had happened to them.

by Realist 30.12.14 16:57

plebgate wrote:

If Maddie had disappeared in the night what about Crecheman/Smithman?

They'd have simply become 'Nightmen.'

by secrets and lies 30.12.14 17:12

I can accept there might be a million-to-one shot chance that Madeleine McCann did die at the hands of a burgler/intruder/paedophile who broke into the McCanns holiday apartment. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility but raises question like why was no DNA belonging to this person found, how did they remove the child from the apartment etc.,

But why have the McCanns been so adamant about their abduction theory? If they are wholly innocent then the alert of the dogs to cadevrine would not have been an issue for them. Being doctors you would think they might have reached the same conclusion SY seemed to have reached seven years later-that Maddie died in the apartment.

But their outright refusal to acknowledge the dogs findings suggests they were indeed hiding something. Or were they afraid that acknowledging the odour of cadaver would automatically incriminate them in a crime they didn't commit?

This seems about as likely to me as pigs colonising outer space.

by plebgate 30.12.14 17:17

Realist wrote:
plebgate wrote:

If Maddie had disappeared in the night what about Crecheman/Smithman?

They'd have simply become 'Nightmen.'

who would have seen the "Nightmen" I wonder?

by Realist 30.12.14 17:33

I think we can safely assume that anything transpiring after 8.30 pm. on the 3rd. May 2007 had nothing whatsoever to do with what happened to Madeleine and that includes all the sightings etc. Everything that occurred after this time was either part of the McCann's prearranged theatrical antics or figments of other's imagination.

To determine what actually happened to Madeleine, one has to concentrate on what happened in the days and times prior to 8.30 pm May 3rd. That's is why Operation Grange is a patent charade, its not what the Met. Police are doing which is necessarily wrong, its what they're not doing.

by scrants 30.12.14 17:43

plebgate wrote:snipped from scrants last post:

"
It has often puzzled me why, if they were trying to keep everything under wraps, Kate raised the alarm at all.
Why not just wait until morning and say she had disappeared in the night and they had forgotten to lock the patio doors."

Could one possibility be that they wouldn't have all been able to alibi each other if Maddie had disappeared in the night?

If Maddie had disappeared in the night what about Crecheman/Smithman?

Creche man and Smithman wouldn't have been of any importance if the story was she disappeared in the night. It was only because everyone thought she had gone during dinner and they were looking for suspects/witness around that time.

Only if they knew that Madeleine was no longer in the apartment did it make any sense to raise the alarm when they did. If her body was still there it would raise many more problems like someone finding her and vastly increase the difficulty of disposal. Matt, if he had entered the room, could have been the one to raise the alarm and it would have suited their purpose just as well

As for cleaning up behind the sofa, just how long does it take to get out the bleach and clean up a few spots of blood and scrub between the tiles? Being doctors, they would know that bleach would interfere with DNA. Not very long, in my opinion. Think of cleaning up something spilled in your kitchen. Bleach doesn't take very long to do its work. Open windows before going out would get rid of the smell.

Yes, Plebgate, having alibis could have been the reason, but I still think that not all were in the know. You or I would not be happy telling a 'social acquaintance' something so damning and expect them to go along with it. Whereas telling a very old friend that you were in a spot of bother.......

I do think the twins were sedated to have one fewer thing to worry about and to keep them quiet when it all kicked off.

Gerry refused to allow them to be questioned because he said they did not have the language skills. As I remember from my own children language goes in leaps and bounds from age 2.5 and they would certainly have been able to answer simple questions like what went on before they went to bed and did Madeleine go to bed too? If I had been in the situation Kate claims to have found, the first thing I would have done is wake my other children and ask them did they see anything

by **Tony Bennett** 30.12.14 18:14

scrants wrote:
I still think that not all were in the know.

Can you explain all, or indeed any, of the following, if they were 'not in the know':

JANE TANNER

...seeing Tannerman, changing her descriptions?

...picking out Robert Murat in an ID parade, then later changing her mind?

...claiming that 'Monster Man' and Tannerman were one and the same, even though she never saw Tannerman's face?

RUSSELL O'BRIEN

...writing out the timeline on Madeleine's ripped-out Sticker Book cover?

...claiming he saw Robert Murat outside the Ocean Club on the night of 3 May?

FIONA PAYNE

...claiming she saw Robert Murat outside the Ocean Club on the night of 3 May?

RACHAEL OLDFIELD

...claiming she saw Robert Murat outside the Ocean Club on the night of 3 May?

MATTHEW OLDFIELD

...chopping and changing his story about what he did on his alleged 'checking' visit at 9.30pm?

DAVID PAYNE

...making claims about visiting the McCanns' apartment on 3 May at 6.30pm which appear to be false?

...claiming that the Tapas 9 had 'a pact of silence'?

by scrants 30.12.14 19:06

Tony,

I did not say that none of them knew. I think David Payne and Fiona knew and that David's supposed visit to 5a was invented to show that Madeleine was still alive at that time.

If the rest of them were genuinely under the impression that it all happened as the Mccanns said, Jane Tanner seeing Crechman could be true. After all, Andy Redwood tells us he exists. She was trying to help and her embellishments etc. we're well intentioned, if ludicrous, efforts to help.

The same with Russell O'Brien. I personally cannot see anything very strange about writing his timeline on the sticker book or anything else. There probably wasn't anything else to hand. He is a trained doctor so he was probably trying to do things logically.

Fiona Payne was probably in the know and saw the opportunity to point the finger away from the Mccanns. I seem to remember that the man who resembled Murat was supposed to be one of MW staff who was there on the night. It would be interesting to know who first 'remembered' Murat being there on the night. The power of suggestion/persuasion under stressful circumstances can be very strong. Perhaps Fiona suggested it to the others like "Wasn't he that man we sawthat night?"

You'll probably shoot me down in flames but I have tried to answer your questions as best I can.

by scrants 30.12.14 19:09

Oh, I left out Matt.

Again, over eager efforts to help and make himself look good by 'remembering' lots of details.

by plebgate 30.12.14 21:09

scrants wrote:Tony,

I did not say that none of them knew. I think David Payne and Fiona knew and that David's supposed visit to 5a was invented to show that Madeleine was still alive at that time.

If the rest of them were genuinely under the impression that it all happened as the Mccanns said, Jane Tanner seeing Crechman could be true. After all, Andy Redwood tells us he exists. She was trying to help and her embellishments etc. we're well intentioned, if ludicrous, efforts to help.

The same with Russell O'Brien. I personally cannot see anything very strange about writing his timeline on the sticker book or anything else. There probably wasn't anything else to hand. He is a trained doctor so he was probably trying to do things logically.

Fiona Payne was probably in the know and saw the opportunity to point the finger away from the Mccanns. I seem to remember that the man who resembled Murat was supposed to be one of MW staff who was there on the night. It would be interesting to know who first 'remembered' Murat being there on the night. The power of suggestion/persuasion under stressful circumstances can be very strong. Perhaps Fiona suggested it to the others like "Wasn't he that man we sawthat night?"

You'll probably shoot me down in flames but I have tried to answer your questions as best I can.

As a poster (sorry can't remember who) asked at the time Crechman was revealed, it still begs the question as to why Mr. & Jez didn't see him too? Tannerman/crechman or anyman, they say they didn't see anyone at all!

by Joss 31.12.14 3:19

Tony Bennett wrote:
scrants wrote:
I still think that not all were in the know.
Can you explain all, or indeed any, of the following, if they were 'not in the know':

JANE TANNER

...seeing Tannerman, changing her descriptions?

...picking out Robert Murat in an ID parade, then later changing her mind?

...claiming that 'Monster Man' and Tannerman were one and the same, even though she never saw Tannerman's face?

RUSSELL O'BRIEN

...writing out the timeline on Madeleine's ripped-out Sticker Book cover?

...claiming he saw Robert Murat outside the Ocean Club on the night of 3 May?

FIONA PAYNE

...claiming she saw Robert Murat outside the Ocean Club on the night of 3 May?

RACHAEL OLDFIELD

...claiming she saw Robert Murat outside the Ocean Club on the night of 3 May?

MATTHEW OLDFIELD

...chopping and changing his story about what he did on his alleged 'checking' visit at 9.30pm?

DAVID PAYNE

...making claims about visiting the McCanns' apartment on 3 May at 6.30pm which appear to be false?

...claiming that the Tapas 9 had 'a pact of silence'?

Exactly. IMO they were all in on some kind of cover up, for reasons only they know.

by Joss 31.12.14 3:25

scrants wrote:Tony,

I did not say that none of them knew. I think David Payne and Fiona knew and that David's supposed visit to 5a was invented to show that Madeleine was still alive at that time.

If the rest of them were genuinely under the impression that it all happened as the Mccanns said, Jane Tanner seeing Crechman could be true. After all, Andy Redwood tells us he exists. She was trying to help and her embellishments etc. we're well intentioned, if ludicrous, efforts to help.

The same with Russell O'Brien. I personally cannot see anything very strange about writing his timeline on the sticker book or anything else. There probably wasn't anything else to hand. He is a trained doctor so he was probably trying to do things logically.

Fiona Payne was probably in the know and saw the opportunity to point the finger away from the Mccanns. I seem to remember that the man who resembled Murat was supposed to be one of MW staff who was there on the night. It would be interesting to know who first 'remembered' Murat being there on the night. The power of suggestion/persuasion under stressful circumstances can be very strong. Perhaps Fiona suggested it to the others like "Wasn't he that man we sawthat night?"

You'll probably shoot me down in flames but I have tried to answer your questions as best I can.

I think you will find Tanner's sightings have been debunked.
As for the timelines written from a torn out cover of Maddie's sticker book, who on earth would think to do something like that when a little girl is missing?? Wouldn't their efforts have been better spent helping to search for Madeleine at that crucial time? The whole lot of them were trying to get their stories straight at that time IMO.

by Joss 31.12.14 3:47

Then we have what we must call a really, really amazing theory, the kidnap by abduction. A burglar who seeing himself interrupted in his business by a 4 yr old, decides to take her instead of, for example, the digital camera that was on the table.

In a house that adults kept on supposedly entering every 15 minutes…

It all boils down to what was supposed to be a highly revealing documentary about the Maddie mystery that reveals, in fact, absolutely nothing.

It raises the possibility that Two-Face could be a person of interest and nothing else.

If anything it undermines the possibility of abduction by ruling out, inexplicably as we said, Tanner’s Bundleman as an abductor.

And that may have been the whole point of the documentary. Without Tanner’s Bundleman the probability of an abduction is significantly reduced, not to say nullified.

The abduction theory now resides solely in a sighting of a man carrying a child half a mile away that the prestigious Scotland Yard says may be completely innocent and unrelated.

Add to this the remarkable resemblance between Two-Face and Gerry McCann.

As we’ve said time and time again there are no coincidences in “Maddie’s world”. We have a missing girl, we have no abduction and we have a Gerry lookalike seen with a child in Rua da Escola Primária, half a mile away from apartment 5A.

Do you want us to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Joss 31.12.14 3:51

In this case it was the attempt to isolate the McCanns and protect everyone else.

Revisit the Mock 2 and overlook all its ridiculousness.

See how it exempts completely David Payne who isn’t even mentioned.

How it exempts Jane Tanner by giving a perfectly innocent explanation to her sighting.

How it exempts the Ocean Club by supposedly confirming that the Tapas Dinners existed, and even showing a version of our beloved friend, the Big Round Table!

How it exempts any and all guests from any participation in the events.

It exempts everyone, except the McCanns. That’s why they were so gloomy in Lisbon.

But Mock 2 failed entirely its objectives, except one which was to draw worldwide attention on to the subject.

And for some very stupid and illogical reason, has literally thrown Scotland Yard’s credibility out of the window.

It came up with a version, again quoting the Portuguese, which is “neither meat nor fish”. It’s simply… ludicrous.

No way back now.

by columbostogeys 31.12.14 6:01

plebgate wrote:
scrants wrote:Tony,

I did not say that none of them knew. I think David Payne and Fiona knew and that David's supposed visit to 5a was invented to show that Madeleine was still alive at that time.

If the rest of them were genuinely under the impression that it all happened as the Mccanns said, Jane Tanner seeing Crechman could be true. After all, Andy Redwood tells us he exists. She was trying to help and her embellishments etc. we're well intentioned, if ludicrous, efforts to help.

The same with Russell O'Brien. I personally cannot see anything very strange about writing his timeline on the sticker book or anything else. There probably wasn't anything else to hand. He is a trained doctor so he was probably trying to do things logically.

Fiona Payne was probably in the know and saw the opportunity to point the finger away from the Mccanns. I seem to remember that the man who resembled Murat was supposed to be one of MW staff who was there on the night. It would be interesting to know who first 'remembered' Murat being there on the night. The power of suggestion/persuasion under stressful circumstances can be very strong. Perhaps Fiona suggested it to the others like "Wasn't he that man we sawthat night?"

You'll probably shoot me down in flames but I have tried to answer your questions as best I can.
As a poster (sorry can't remember who) asked at the time Crechman was revealed, it still begs the question as to why Mr. & Jez didn't see him too? Tannerman/crechman or anyman, they say they didn't see anyone at all!

I can answer that. Men dont see things out of their peripheal vision, when they are engrossed in conversation lol. My husband cant see a pair of socks when they are right in front of him. I dont find it strange they didnt see him, they were talking and their brains were trained on the conversation...men dont do multi task......so i dont find it strange they never saw anyone and if they even did it might not have registered as it was of no importance......

by columbostogeys 31.12.14 6:04

scrants wrote:Tony,

I did not say that none of them knew. I think David Payne and Fiona knew and that David's supposed visit to 5a was invented to show that Madeleine was still alive at that time.

If the rest of them were genuinely under the impression that it all happened as the Mccanns said, Jane Tanner seeing Crechman could be true. After all, Andy Redwood tells us he exists. She was trying to help and her embellishments etc. we're well intentioned, if ludicrous, efforts to help.

The same with Russell O'Brien. I personally cannot see anything very strange about writing his timeline on the sticker book or anything else. There probably wasn't anything else to hand. He is a trained doctor so he was probably trying to do things logically.

Fiona Payne was probably in the know and saw the opportunity to point the finger away from the Mccanns. I seem to remember that the man who resembled Murat was supposed to be one of MW staff who was there on the night. It would be interesting to know who first 'remembered' Murat being there on the night. The power of suggestion/persuasion under stressful circumstances can be very strong. Perhaps Fiona suggested it to the others like "Wasn't he that man we sawthat night?"

You'll probably shoot me down in flames but I have tried to answer your questions as best I can.

Totally agree with what you wrote.

I think if there was a pact it was only with DP and and the McCanns. This would never have worked if you had so many players in the game.

I think we all make this case far too complicated, i dont think it is complicated at all. I can easily work out two different scenarios one for abduction and one against.

This case cant be complicated as it would have been solved by now, as too many errors could have been made.

by Joss 31.12.14 7:58

plebgate wrote:
scrants wrote:Tony,

I did not say that none of them knew. I think David Payne and Fiona knew and that David's supposed visit to 5a was invented to show that Madeleine was still alive at that time.

If the rest of them were genuinely under the impression that it all happened as the Mccanns said, Jane Tanner seeing Crechman could be true. After all, Andy Redwood tells us he exists. She was trying to help and her embellishments etc. we're well intentioned, if ludicrous, efforts to help.

The same with Russell O'Brien. I personally cannot see anything very strange about writing his timeline on the sticker book or anything else. There probably wasn't anything else to hand. He is a trained doctor so he was probably trying to do things logically.

Fiona Payne was probably in the know and saw the opportunity to point the finger away from the Mccanns. I seem to remember that the man who resembled Murat was supposed to be one of MW staff who was there on the night. It would be interesting to know who first 'remembered' Murat being there on the night. The power of suggestion/persuasion under stressful circumstances can be very strong. Perhaps Fiona suggested it to the others like "Wasn't he that man we sawthat night?"

You'll probably shoot me down in flames but I have tried to answer your questions as best I can.
As a poster (sorry can't remember who) asked at the time Crechman was revealed, it still begs the question as to why Mr. & Jez didn't see him too? Tannerman/crechman or anyman, they say they didn't see anyone at all!

That is because Tanner was lying about seeing anyone, and Crecheman was not in the same area, but half a mile in a different direction. The Crecheman has been cleared by SY, and was a dad walking home with his child, so i don't know why he is still being mentioned as if he is some kind of suspect. So in lieu of that No abductor exists.

"Incompetent and unco-operative Portuguese held up Scotland Yard for a year by refusing to supply forensic evidence" - Sunday Mirror 21 Dec 2014