This just gone on to Daily Mail.

WMD wrote:Lets run with the Textusa theory,not saying its right or wrong,JT saw GM carrying MM away from a vantage point of a window,thats why JW never saw her,MO didn't see MM at 9-30 because she wasn't there and he was checking because of? Km was stopped from visiting at this time.These times are assumptions based on the statements,whats to say these are right.

ScarletLaw wrote:

WMD wrote:Lets run with the Textusa theory,not saying its right or wrong,JT saw GM carrying MM away from a vantage point of a window,thats why JW never saw her,MO didn't see MM at 9-30 because she wasn't there and he was checking because of? Km was stopped from visiting at this time.These times are assumptions based on the statements,whats to say these are right.

Good point. I don't know about what Jane saw but she has something on Gerry and keeps trying to drop him in it. I know she doesn't like him. Could be?

As for Oldfield he's the one person who has told the truth for me. If he stood to the side and looked in the door he wouldn't have seen Madeleine in her bed. I saw this in a scientific reconstruction with same light etc on somebody's blog. Also he points to things in his interview and reconstruction that fits in with the facts. So for me he is one of the honest ones.

I don't know much about Kate being stopped.

 I do my own theories by looking at their psychological behaviour, not only by interviews but by their statements in the police files and, unless somebody in a post points to something really interesting, I generally ignore it because I try to rely on what I see. So the statements they make I use for the purpose of where they are lying and trying to point us to only. I think this entire case has been staged and the abduction, definitely so.

Ladyinred wrote:"So for me he is one of the honest ones"

Could you post a link to the scientific reconstruction, please?  Also, do you believe there are other honest ones?

ScarletLaw wrote:

G-Unit wrote:I have thought that perhaps Gerry McCann was making sure Jeremy Wilkins didn't see something. I thought he may have distracted him so he didn't see 'Tannerman' but then they told the police about Tannerman themselves. Unless Jeremy would have recognised him? Then they told just in case he had seen him, or someone else had? That would have been OK if he was long gone and they knew that, especially if the description given by Jane Tanner was nothing like him. All IMO. 

SY said he was a holiday maker returning from the creche with his child, but surely he was heading towards the creche if, as I understand it, it was where Madeleine's daytime club was?

 Great observations. I'm pretty sure this was some kind of staging going on here because Gerry's recollection, directly conflicts with that of both Jane and Jez. Gerry insists  that it was he who crossed the road that night whilst the other two people present say that did not happen. Also if you look at Jez's statement he isn't even sure what time this was initially because he walking around for a while. This is the real time of the taking away Madeleine for me, not the rubbish of the Yard's Smithman theory. There is a time lapse where Gerry; Tanner and O'Brien are missing. 
 
The 'important' thing about the differing recollections is that by his own recollection Gerry McCann had placed himself in the only position where it would have been impossible for him to have seen either Jane or the abductor. Psychologically on purpose I think.

If you watch the video you see him wanting to shut her up. He does not want to be seen near the gate from his apartment, that's for sure. Why? Maybe this is why-Jeremy said;  I would say that when I spoke with Gerry it was possible to recognize someone I knew who was passing on foot at the crossing at the top of the hill or to describe approximately someone unknown from that distance.



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

I'm not sure of the direction of the crèche but it wouldn't be that hard for the Yard to doctor papers and say a man was there that night. Yes, but he was going towards the creche not away from it, I think.

Ladyinred wrote:"So for me he is one of the honest ones"

Could you post a link to the scientific reconstruction, please?  Also, do you believe there are other honest ones?

Ladyinred wrote:IMO, he is économique avec la vérité

Another poster previously pointed out that if MO admitted he'd observed MBM in her bed, then he would have been the last person to have seen her before her reported disappearance.

G-Unit wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:

G-Unit wrote:I have thought that perhaps Gerry McCann was making sure Jeremy Wilkins didn't see something. I thought he may have distracted him so he didn't see 'Tannerman' but then they told the police about Tannerman themselves. Unless Jeremy would have recognised him? Then they told just in case he had seen him, or someone else had? That would have been OK if he was long gone and they knew that, especially if the description given by Jane Tanner was nothing like him. All IMO. 

SY said he was a holiday maker returning from the creche with his child, but surely he was heading towards the creche if, as I understand it, it was where Madeleine's daytime club was?

 Great observations. I'm pretty sure this was some kind of staging going on here because Gerry's recollection, directly conflicts with that of both Jane and Jez. Gerry insists  that it was he who crossed the road that night whilst the other two people present say that did not happen. Also if you look at Jez's statement he isn't even sure what time this was initially because he walking around for a while. This is the real time of the taking away Madeleine for me, not the rubbish of the Yard's Smithman theory. There is a time lapse where Gerry; Tanner and O'Brien are missing. 
 
The 'important' thing about the differing recollections is that by his own recollection Gerry McCann had placed himself in the only position where it would have been impossible for him to have seen either Jane or the abductor. Psychologically on purpose I think.

If you watch the video you see him wanting to shut her up. He does not want to be seen near the gate from his apartment, that's for sure. Why? Maybe this is why-Jeremy said;  I would say that when I spoke with Gerry it was possible to recognize someone I knew who was passing on foot at the crossing at the top of the hill or to describe approximately someone unknown from that distance.



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

I'm not sure of the direction of the crèche but it wouldn't be that hard for the Yard to doctor papers and say a man was there that night. Yes, but he was going towards the creche not away from it, I think.

My comments in blue.

ScarletLaw wrote:
 Have you noticed he always says in statements that he would only recognise someone he knew? This is very strange thing to say. The path is very narrow; it is part of our dna and fight or flight response to be aware of somebody approaching and particularly with parents out with baby, we have more aware sensors at this time. Especially in flip flops too that Jane says were squelchy, I think that is word. Jez is truthful for me and I don't think that Jane did pass him.

WMD wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:
 Have you noticed he always says in statements that he would only recognise someone he knew? This is very strange thing to say. The path is very narrow; it is part of our dna and fight or flight response to be aware of somebody approaching and particularly with parents out with baby, we have more aware sensors at this time. Especially in flip flops too that Jane says were squelchy, I think that is word. Jez is truthful for me and I don't think that Jane did pass him.

Because neither were there,or because one or the other wasn't?

ScarletLaw wrote: I feel that important to this discussion in Matthew Oldfield's check.
I have some questions about this.

- Why do an internal check that night at that time, as opposed to external checks outside the children's bedroom window every other time, including earlier that night?

- If deciding or being asked to do an internal check, did he not actually check? If his check was only for sounds, why the need to enter the apartment?

- Why if wondering where Madeleine slept, and why did he wonder this? not look inside the children's bedroom properly, but rather go further out of his way to go and look inside the parents' bedroom to see if Madeleine was sleeping there? Because if you were looking for child, you would not be satisfied to leave until you find her, surely. Not just go, oh she must be in bed tucked in corner.

His not saying he felt any cold or draught from that room does suggest any abduction occurred after his visit though if Kate's slamming of door and whooshing of curtain is true.

Very confusing.

Ladyinred wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote: I feel that important to this discussion in Matthew Oldfield's check.
I have some questions about this.

- Why do an internal check that night at that time, as opposed to external checks outside the children's bedroom window every other time, including earlier that night?

- If deciding or being asked to do an internal check, did he not actually check? If his check was only for sounds, why the need to enter the apartment?

- Why if wondering where Madeleine slept, and why did he wonder this? not look inside the children's bedroom properly, but rather go further out of his way to go and look inside the parents' bedroom to see if Madeleine was sleeping there? Because if you were looking for child, you would not be satisfied to leave until you find her, surely. Not just go, oh she must be in bed tucked in corner.

His not saying he felt any cold or draught from that room does suggest any abduction occurred after his visit though if Kate's slamming of door and whooshing of curtain is true.

Very confusing.

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

joyce1938 wrote:without a body ,I can never see a conclusion to this  what with all that can be spoken about online,nd I fear no one is going to look deeper into this case . been plenty of opportunity with the police. My one bit of hope really is that . I believe that the pj ,have reopened this case , not revealing all yet and we hear little about what they may be doing .Its possible that there is more evidence been found and are not out hereyet .Whilst the british were doing their searches ,pj were keeping mum ,just hope it will come to conclusion .I just wonder what truth there was that pj would not give up all they have to our own force ?  Good to keep some stuff back and then maybe a lot more will come together.joyce1938

ScarletLaw wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:without a body ,I can never see a conclusion to this  what with all that can be spoken about online,nd I fear no one is going to look deeper into this case . been plenty of opportunity with the police. My one bit of hope really is that . I believe that the pj ,have reopened this case , not revealing all yet and we hear little about what they may be doing .Its possible that there is more evidence been found and are not out hereyet .Whilst the british were doing their searches ,pj were keeping mum ,just hope it will come to conclusion .I just wonder what truth there was that pj would not give up all they have to our own force ?  Good to keep some stuff back and then maybe a lot more will come together.joyce1938

We don't necessarily need a body but there now must be a campaign and petition set-up for the new home secretary, after the election and hopefully not corrupt May, to release the files that have the statements of not only Carolyn Carpenter but the other people in the Tapas that have gone missing because this evidence collaborates that Gerry "was not" in the restaurant at 10.03 (the time he told Kate she must do her check) because the real time they left the restaurant was 9.45-9.50.

 When they arrived at the apartment after five minutes he suggested to FP, DP, MO, ROB that they split up and he wasn't seen for at earliest 30-35 minutes. I've asked 6 other analysts to look over my findings too and they prove it's safe. He lied about the time and the governments Teresa May have taken the files that conclude this. Hence a cover up.

I posted Yesterday that I'm sending DC1 Wall Evil Under the Sun by Christie because in the story the killers do the same thing, they change time and made it later in order to not possibly be the killers. IMO this is what Gerry did in order to supply his own alibi for the Smithman sighting. A sighting I didn't believe myself until yesterday because I felt there was something not right about it.  

Diane the mother, says they left her at 9.45 which I believe is the true time and she mentions also that the little girls bed wasn't slept him too with the neat folding, also the drugged twins sleeping. So I feel that she smelt a rat with the entire thing and therefore is the one honest statement. If the YARD, have any good intentions of resolving this they must now interview each member of the Tapas and cross check it with Diane's because there were others who helped Gerry.

If the little girl had been dead along time the scent of her would've been lingering on Gerry because cadaver is unmistakeable strong. So my feeling is, no factual proof in evidence at this time but going by the scent, that she'd only been dead for a short time and not the entire day.

IMO Gerry first removed Madeleine at his 9.05 check and put her somewhere temporarily, either he had help from O'Brien I don't now, but either way somewhere was prepared and checked out for her to be placed later. At 9.50 after he left to do his search he then disappeared and removed the little girl in order to become Smith man. Appearing later at 10.40 ish. Gerry is a fast runner and IMO used this time to race to the place to retrieve her and bumped into the Smiths coming out the restaurant. I feel they're statements might be doctored in some way so I implore the Portugese to interview them themselves.

You're only hope now as a group is to petition the government for the release of the statements and make lots of noise because I still don't feel you can prove the injustice without the rest of these and you will just be fixing the jigsaw without the missing pieces.

If you have investigator friends in Portugal ask them to interview Carolyn Carpenter because she saw something I'm sure or shows Gerry wasn't where he was in his searching statement, proving he was somewhere else.

Either way, this case will never be solved if you don't get these statements.

As some of the statements are missing I know I won't be happy with Scotland Yards report if they conclude it's a burglar because for justice EVERYTHING  has to be open in order for the findings to be taken seriously.

If they don't to this then it proves they were involved in covering up the crime and it's an INJUSTICE to the people.

I now ask them, to do the right thing.