What exactly happened at 10.00pm on Thursday 3 May, 2007?

by **Tony Bennett** 03.05.15 0:03

What exactly happened at 10.00pm on Thursday 3 May, 2007?

Well, for starters, the Presiding Officers at thousands of polling stations in England, Wales and Scotland shut the doors of their polling stations to voters. It was to be a happy night for the Consrvatives. After exactly 10 years of Tony Blair, people were getting fed up with him. Under new leader David Cameron, the Conservatives made many gains. Just weeks later, Blair resigned, making way for Gordon Brown. Here’s the write-up of this event on Wikipedia:

QUOTE

The 2007 UK local government elections were held on 3 May 2007. These elections took place in most of England and all of Scotland. There were no local government elections in Wales though the Welsh Assembly had a general election on the same day. There were no local government elections in Northern Ireland. Just over half of English councils and almost all the Scottish councils began the counts on Friday, rather than Thursday night, because of more complex arrangements regarding postal votes.

These elections were a landmark in the United Kingdom as it was the first time that 18-20 year olds could stand as candidates for council seats. The change was due to an alteration of the Electoral Administration Act. At least fourteen 18-20 year olds are known to have stood as candidates for council seats^[1] and as a result William Lloyd became the youngest person to be elected to official office in Britain. There were also a number of councils which used new voting methods such as internet and telephone voting in addition to the traditional methods of polling stations and postal votes.

These were the final elections to be overseen by Labour leader and prime minister Tony Blair, who resigned the following month after a decade as prime minister to be succeeded by chancellor Gordon Brown. His party only finished in second place with a narrow lead over the third-placed Liberal Democrats, whose leader Menzies Campbell would also resign later in the year, while it was a strong showing for the Conservatives under David Cameron. The results confirmed that the Conservatives were well on their way to winning the next general election, making a very substantial 911 gains, the largest gains made by the party in over 20 years, although there was still the challenge of winning parliamentary by-elections and ultimately winning enough seats in the next general election to be considered.

UNQUOTE

But 10.00pm on Thursday, 3 May 2007 was also the exact time, more or less, that Madeleine McCann was first reported missing. One account says it was 10.03pm that Kate entered Room G5A, the strong wind blew the curtains open and the door shut – and she discovered Madeleine missing.

Then, so it is said, Kate left the two twins in their cots, and ran down to the Tapas bar – a distance of some 100 yards or so – screaming: ‘They’ve taken her; they’ve taken her’. The problem with this account is that there is very little corroboration of it.

‘Textusa’, whose views on what happened to Madeleine I do not always agree with, has recently written very long but very good piece in which she has pieced together all the known statements which touch on how Kate McCann is supposed to have broken the news to the Tapas group. Put it this way, Textusa’s analysis reveals many problems with Kate’s account.

Then, of course, there are the views of Tavares de Almeida in his interim report, and Goncalo Amaral in his book, who both alleged that the scene in Room G5A had been stage-managed.

What else happened at 10.00pm that night? According to three members of the Smith family from Drogheda, they were walking back up to their holiday apartment in the Estrela da Luz complex after a few drinks at Kelly’s bar. They say they saw a bloke carrying a young blond girl.

Now some say they are telling the truth and not a few maintain that the man was Gerry McCann carrying his dead daughter to a temporary hiding place. It’s not a theory I can support at all – because there is no evidence to support it (apart from Martin Smith’s ‘phone call on 20 September saying he thought it might have been Gerry he saw 4½ months previously, based on ‘the way he was carrying Sean’).

And there’s a great deal of evidence against it. Those who support this theory must provide a credible explanation of:

1) why anyone whose child had died hours earlier would carry that dead child through a busy tourist village at all

2) why he would choose the very time when his wife was raising the alarm and the place would soon be crawling with people searching for Madeleine

3) why he wasn’t seen by anyone else except the Smiths, and

4) how he could possibly find a secure hiding place for his dead daughter, hide or bury her body, then return (again unseen by anyone at all) to be involved at Ocean Club reception making arrangements to call the police and to produce photos of Madeleine?

I cannot get into the mindset of those who seriously think this is what happened that night.

So what else happened on that crazy, crazy night?

We know that the McCanns ’phoned their relatives and told them there had been a ‘disaster’ – Madeleine had been abduted.

They told their relatives, and straightaway the media, that the abductor had ‘broken into’ the apartment by ‘jemmying open’ the shutters. That was later proved to be untrue.

We know that Jane Tanner told Gerry McCann that she’d seen a bloke carrying a child. She didn’t like to mention it to Kate in case she got even more upset.

We know that Gerry McCann, or possibly one of the other Tapas group members, ripped off the cover of Madeleine’s Sainsbury’s Activity Sticker book – and wrote down two timelines.

We know that Gerry McCann performed a rite similar to that of a Muslim kneeling and bowing his head on the floor towards Mecca, an action reminiscent of the ‘Extreme Distress’ signal in the Masonic Handbook.

He and his wife appeared to do much the same on their bed when the police arrived. According to the police it seemed like they were wailing, but they were not actually crying.

Then there was Jez Wilkins. He was woken up to tell him that Madeleine had been abdcuted. He asked how he could help. He was told ‘There’s nothing you can do. Go back to sleep’. More mystery!

Mysterious calls to media contacts were made in the early morning. One of them roused Jon Clarke, editor of the ex-pat Spanish newspaper The Olive Press, out of his slumbers. He was to make the 5-hour journey from near Ronda, Spain to Praia da Luz and get there before noon.

The media strategy worked. Madeleine’s abduction was headline news the following morning. And has been headline news for 8 whole years.

A strange day in history.

What else happened on 3^rd May in history? >>> http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/may3rd.html

by Guest 10.06.15 10:44

Saturday, May 30, 2015

What I Believe May Have Happened To Madeleine McCann

I believe that Maddie died sometime during the vacation before Thurs may 3rd.
That cadaverine was found behind the sofa means she lay there for at least 90 Min's if she died in the apartment since that is how long (depending on the manner of death and the environmental conditions - temp, humidity etc)
This would blow away their claims of 30 min checks on the children that night since they clearly didn't notice her missing for at least 90 Min's.
Given also the fact the apartment was almost forensically cleaned, to the extent there was little evidence there were 3 children present and we all know how wet and sticky children can be especially at their ages, there was little to no DNA that Maddie was ever present.

Forensics look for what is there that shouldn't be and, just as importantly, what isn't there that should be.

This tells me that time had to be taken to clean the apartment, something not possible in the time frames given for Thurs, May 3rd.

This then tells me Maddie died sometime earlier in the week.
Looking at the statements and how much is written concerning each day of the trip, I and others have noticed there seems to be a lot missing from one day of the week (it might be the Mon or Tues, i can't recall off the top of my head)

This is noted in all the statements from the group.
We go from quite detailed to obfuscation and i can't remembers, which makes the day sensitive and thus requiring further information as to why the sensitivity.
If she died much earlier in the week as is probable, then there is plenty of time for the clean up, laundering and hiding of the body.

Think about this for a moment.

Thursday was the very last night they could have had the abduction, since on Friday they would be on their way home.

They would not have announced it earlier since they needed time for the cleanup, sorting out time lines and concealing Maddie's body.

Also, since this is the mccanns and chums, why spoil a good vacation by calling out the faked abduction any earlier?
Thus Thursday was the only day they could have used.
They knew they would have to stay in Portugal, the interviews by the PJ, the alleged searching plus the free accommodation for desperate ' innocent' parents and it also meant they could fly family and friends out for a freebie as well under the guise of helping and support.

Now, Why did the mccanns act the way they did?
Innocents parents act a specific and expected way.
Guilty parents act a specific and expected way (as in unexpected for innocent parents)

The two are mutually exclusive.

Innocent parents, had there been an accident, would have called 911 even, if she was long dead.
The parents are in denial and will always hope for a miracle.

Even though they are doctors, they would have still called 911 simply because a hospital has the equipment and staff, something the parents and chums didn't have.

The fact they didn't call 911 means that there was something they could not explain away as accidental.
If they found her dead, there was evidence that could not be explained away as accidental.

This could be current injuries, old and healing injuries, evidence of sedation (especially long term sedation - think Shannon Mathews and the hair tests) and signs of sexual injuries and abuse either old or new.
If injuries then if old, medical records would show if she had been treated in hospital or by a GP.
If signs of long term drugs, then medical records would indicate if they had been prescribed and who by.
Sexual injuries would result in a lot of darn awkward questions as to who had access to the children and when, any criminal records or history if not charged)

If it had been, for example, drug ingestion then they could have claimed she found the 'candy' and ate it and they didn't notice and only realised when they found her unresponsive or dead the next day.
This though would have meant them calling 911 as would be expected, since they didn't know or hear anything and thus could not have been charged.

If she had fallen and banged her head and died, again they could have claimed to be sleeping the sleep of the intoxicated and only found her the next morning dead behind the sofa.
Again the expected would be they called 911, since they didn't know or hear anything and thus could not have been charged

They didn't call 911 so this begs the question why not?

What was done that they could not explain it away as an accident either falling whilst they were asleep or eating medication again whilst they were asleep.?

The obvious conclusion is that they could not allow an autopsy because of what would be revealed.

Evidence of physical injuries, sedation or sexual abuse would result in arrest and prosecution since none could be explained away.
This would also account for why the medical records were not released.
Evidence of injuries, UTI's etc and no visits to the hospital or GP.
The GMC would also be involved if they were self medicating and self prescribing.

If sexual abuse was present (likely the most obvious reason) then it points straight to gerry and also to the men of the tapas group and, given the previous statements from the Dr's Gaspar, david payne would be high on the list as well as matthew oldfield since he too checked on the children that Thurs. night (allegedly)

If it was recent then they could have blamed the paedophile abductor if Maddie had been found within days and, again, dependant on the condition of the body.

If the injuries were old and Maddie was found within a few days, again it points straight to gerry and anyone who had access to the children.
It would not account for a paedophile abductor since the injuries would be older than the timeline could account for.

Kate introduced the word MURDER when using the process of free editing.
Words are thought a microsecond before being spoken.
MURDER is what was at the forefront of kate's mind when she spoke.
This then precludes an accidental death, otherwise she would have said accidental death or even death.

[size=undefined]Lori Campbell In Praia Da Luz[/size]

[size=undefined]09/09/2007
Daily Mirror Interview.
[/size]
Quote:

"They want me to lie - I'm being framed.

"Police don't want a murder in Portugal and all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they're blaming US

It is worth noting she takes ownership of lying and being framed ( the assumption is by the police but she doesn't tell us the police want her to lie or to frame her.
She could be referring to the members of the group including gerry)
The pronoun US shows unity and shared cooperation, often found when the guilty want to minimise their own role in the crime and spread the guilt - ask anyone with children and teenagers and the ever popular, everyone else was doing it as well excuse #1)

Both kate and gerry and even clarrie have told us Maddie is dead, though not how or at whose hand, that I Can see, although the tapas group have indicated Maddie was bumped on the head (an active action, something done deliberately as opposed to having bumped her head which is passive and done accidentally)
They also leaked that there were several doctors in the group who could have resuscitated her.

This then indicates a violent action occurred, something that could not be explained away such as her falling and bumping her head such as off the sofa.
This would lead me to ask where the injury was, that it could not be explained away as an accident.
This would include things such as finger marks (remember the bruises on kate's arm) jewellery marks, the location of the injury etc.
Perhaps even to multiple injuries perhaps caused when someone loses their temper and beats the victim.
They may not have set out to kill the victim, they just couldn't stop themselves until they either exhausted themselves or were pulled away by someone (again the bruises on kate's arm and wrist)

Whatever the cause, whoever did it, the parents could not allow an autopsy to be performed because of the consequences to themselves.
If it was a member of the group, why would they not point the finger?
Their daughter killed by a family friend.
The guilt would lie solely with the guilty person not the parent.
They would have sympathy and even donations for the funeral.

Unless, of course they knew about said friend's 'little peccadilloes' in which case questions would be asked as to how much the knew, and why they allowed said person access to their children and then an investigation into whether they themselves had 'little peccadilloes'.
There is also the risk the guilty person would drop them in it as well, on the grounds of if I am going down, I am taking everyone else with me.

There is a huge secret being hidden, swinging it is not since no one cares what you do with your sex lives if it is legal and consensual, although you may find your friends who aren't into each other putting a lot of distance between them and you (and a good many more introducing themselves)

Posted by tania cadogan at 5/30/2015 07:49:00 PM No comments:

Email This BlogThis!Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Pinterest

by Guest 10.06.15 10:56

"This then tells me Maddie died sometime earlier in the week.
Looking at the statements and how much is written concerning each day of the trip, I and others have noticed there seems to be a lot missing from one day of the week (it might be the Mon or Tues, i can't recall off the top of my head)"

Monday, 30th April.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3866-monday-april-30th-day-2

by jeanmonroe 10.06.15 12:32

What exactly happened at 10.00pm on Thursday 3 May, 2007?
------------------------------
K&G McC, and their T7 'friends', STARTED 'telling' their 'lies''?

by MRNOODLES 10.06.15 12:42

I've said before, I skeptical over the Smith sightings...

For example, "1) why anyone whose child had died hours earlier would carry that dead child through a busy tourist village at all?"

Very good question by TB, to add. How to do square the circle with the alledged missing bag? Would you rather risk being seen humping a heavy bag?

by worriedmum 10.06.15 12:51

What exactly happened at 10pm on Thursday 3rd May 2007 at 10.00pm?

Would Jane Tanner be watching her husband and others writing a time-line of the evening?

Would she be watching them rip the cover from Madeleine's sticker book to do it?

Would she be thinking, 'er, they look upset, I better not say I saw someone carrying a little girl who was wearing pyjamas, don't want to ~~get everyone looking in case it was little Madeleine~~ make them more upset--'

?

by Liz Eagles 10.06.15 12:57

worriedmum wrote:What exactly happened at 10pm on Thursday 3rd May 2007 at 10.00pm?

Would Jane Tanner be watching her husband and others writing a time-line of the evening?

Would she be watching them rip the cover from Madeleine's sticker book to do it?

Would she be thinking, 'er, they look upset, I better not say I saw someone carrying a little girl who was wearing pyjamas, don't want to ~~get everyone looking in case it was little Madeleine~~ make them more upset--'

?

by j.rob 10.06.15 16:46

While 10pm is supposedly the time that Kate McCann found Madeleine "had been taken" and of course supposedly around the time that the Smith family saw a man that looked like Gerry carrying a child that could have been Madeleine, there are eye witness reports of an alarm being raised considerably earlier - some time after 9pm and certainly prior to 10pm. Maybe even as early as 9.15pm?

How could this be? If Kate supposedly didn't raise the alarm until just after her 10pm 'check'? How could eye-witnesses have heard a commotion prior to this time?

A 9.15pm (ish) time frame would - by an amazing coincidence - coincide with when Gerry McCann allegedly left the apartment after his 9.05pm 'check' on his children and allegedly bumped into TV drama and documentary producer Jez Wilkins on the road outside the apartment.

And of course 9.15pm is the time that Jane Tanner allegedly walked past Gerry and Jez and spotted 'Tanner-man' spiriting Madeleine away, supposedly. (Yet - amazingly given the quiet road - Jez claims he saw neither Jane Tanner or Tannerman!)

An interesting eye-witness is the Ocean Club executive chef who arrived on the Tapas scene at around 9.10pm. Having driven from the main kitchen that he oversees. He is quite specific about timings - possibly because he oversees a number of restaurants on the site and therefore keeps a close track of time during the evenings when the restaurants are going to be especially busy at certain times? Maybe the timings could even be verified if there is some kind of 'logging in' system for restaurant staff?

In any event, he claims he heard a clamour at 9.20pm when he was in the Tapas kitchen. So he says that he then went into the restaurant area to investigate. He says the only people he saw on the "esplanade" (I presume this means the outside covered area?) were a group of three adult couples. He later learns that the missing child is the child of one of the couples he saw sitting there. He states that at 9.40pm when he left the Tapas area the McCann table was unoccupied and it is at this time that he learns from a colleague that the child who had disappeared was the child of one of the couples.

These are very specific timings that are well ahead of the 10pm McCann version of events as outlined by Kate in her book. Also presumably some of the kitchen and restaurant staff might have remembered the time when the chief 'honcho' arrives and revs everyone up.

(Of interest, imo, is that he recalls the McCann group as being six adults around the table. Does that mean there were three empty places when he saw the group as the 'checking' was being carried out by? Or what?)

So what the heck is going on here? I theorize that a 9.15pm (staged, faked) abduction was supposed to have happened (along with the jemmied shutters) but, for whatever reason, it got cobbled into a 10pm (staged, faked and last minute panic) abduction.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm

-----------

Smithman is hugely puzzling. Still, it would be fascinating to know what feedback there was following the Crimewatch programme when the two efits were shown. And given that some of the callers were people in the resort at the time including one ex-pat then they are going to be vital eye witnesses.

Snipped from Mirror news story in link below.

Finding the man and determining whether he was in Praia da Luz on the night the three-year-old vanished is a top priority of Scotland Yard detectives.
Around 1,000 people have contacted police as a result of the appeal.
They include a number of British people who were in the Algarve resort at the time. At least one ex-pat called from the town on Monday night.

At least two callers who responded to the TV appeal gave the same name for the two e-fits provided by the Smiths.

A total of 330 calls were made to the Operation Grange incident room and 400 to BBC1 Crimewatch as well as 220 emails.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328

by Mark Willis 10.06.15 17:55

Something bugs me about the Smiths' account.
Apparently, Mr Smith's memory is suddenly jogged by seeing Gerry alighting from the 'plane holding a twin in the same fashion he describes Smithman/Bundleman carrying a child.
Yet Gerry has the twin over his shoulder - Smithman/Bundleman is carrying a child like tray of drinks.
That is what I call an anomaly.

Also, I have a feeling that Gerry and Murat were acquainted and that Smith was too; much more than "seeing him around".
I agree about toting around anyone deceased, even at night. A tennis bag as transportation would have been far more discreet.

by **Nina** 10.06.15 18:25

Ladyinred wrote:
Saturday, May 30, 2015

What I Believe May Have Happened To Madeleine McCann

I believe that Maddie died sometime during the vacation before Thurs may 3rd.
That cadaverine was found behind the sofa means she lay there for at least 90 Min's if she died in the apartment since that is how long (depending on the manner of death and the environmental conditions - temp, humidity etc)
This would blow away their claims of 30 min checks on the children that night since they clearly didn't notice her missing for at least 90 Min's.
Given also the fact the apartment was almost forensically cleaned, to the extent there was little evidence there were 3 children present and we all know how wet and sticky children can be especially at their ages, there was little to no DNA that Maddie was ever present.

Forensics look for what is there that shouldn't be and, just as importantly, what isn't there that should be.

This tells me that time had to be taken to clean the apartment, something not possible in the time frames given for Thurs, May 3rd.

This then tells me Maddie died sometime earlier in the week.
Looking at the statements and how much is written concerning each day of the trip, I and others have noticed there seems to be a lot missing from one day of the week (it might be the Mon or Tues, i can't recall off the top of my head)

This is noted in all the statements from the group.
We go from quite detailed to obfuscation and i can't remembers, which makes the day sensitive and thus requiring further information as to why the sensitivity.
If she died much earlier in the week as is probable, then there is plenty of time for the clean up, laundering and hiding of the body.

Think about this for a moment.

Thursday was the very last night they could have had the abduction, since on Friday they would be on their way home.

They would not have announced it earlier since they needed time for the cleanup, sorting out time lines and concealing Maddie's body.

Also, since this is the mccanns and chums, why spoil a good vacation by calling out the faked abduction any earlier?
Thus Thursday was the only day they could have used.
They knew they would have to stay in Portugal, the interviews by the PJ, the alleged searching plus the free accommodation for desperate ' innocent' parents and it also meant they could fly family and friends out for a freebie as well under the guise of helping and support.

Now, Why did the mccanns act the way they did?
Innocents parents act a specific and expected way.
Guilty parents act a specific and expected way (as in unexpected for innocent parents)

The two are mutually exclusive.

Innocent parents, had there been an accident, would have called 911 even, if she was long dead.
The parents are in denial and will always hope for a miracle.

Even though they are doctors, they would have still called 911 simply because a hospital has the equipment and staff, something the parents and chums didn't have.

The fact they didn't call 911 means that there was something they could not explain away as accidental.
If they found her dead, there was evidence that could not be explained away as accidental.

This could be current injuries, old and healing injuries, evidence of sedation (especially long term sedation - think Shannon Mathews and the hair tests) and signs of sexual injuries and abuse either old or new.
If injuries then if old, medical records would show if she had been treated in hospital or by a GP.
If signs of long term drugs, then medical records would indicate if they had been prescribed and who by.
Sexual injuries would result in a lot of darn awkward questions as to who had access to the children and when, any criminal records or history if not charged)

If it had been, for example, drug ingestion then they could have claimed she found the 'candy' and ate it and they didn't notice and only realised when they found her unresponsive or dead the next day.
This though would have meant them calling 911 as would be expected, since they didn't know or hear anything and thus could not have been charged.

If she had fallen and banged her head and died, again they could have claimed to be sleeping the sleep of the intoxicated and only found her the next morning dead behind the sofa.
Again the expected would be they called 911, since they didn't know or hear anything and thus could not have been charged

They didn't call 911 so this begs the question why not?

What was done that they could not explain it away as an accident either falling whilst they were asleep or eating medication again whilst they were asleep.?

The obvious conclusion is that they could not allow an autopsy because of what would be revealed.

Evidence of physical injuries, sedation or sexual abuse would result in arrest and prosecution since none could be explained away.
This would also account for why the medical records were not released.
Evidence of injuries, UTI's etc and no visits to the hospital or GP.
The GMC would also be involved if they were self medicating and self prescribing.

If sexual abuse was present (likely the most obvious reason) then it points straight to gerry and also to the men of the tapas group and, given the previous statements from the Dr's Gaspar, david payne would be high on the list as well as matthew oldfield since he too checked on the children that Thurs. night (allegedly)

If it was recent then they could have blamed the paedophile abductor if Maddie had been found within days and, again, dependant on the condition of the body.

If the injuries were old and Maddie was found within a few days, again it points straight to gerry and anyone who had access to the children.
It would not account for a paedophile abductor since the injuries would be older than the timeline could account for.

Kate introduced the word MURDER when using the process of free editing.
Words are thought a microsecond before being spoken.
MURDER is what was at the forefront of kate's mind when she spoke.
This then precludes an accidental death, otherwise she would have said accidental death or even death.

Lori Campbell In Praia Da Luz

09/09/2007
Daily Mirror Interview.

Quote:

"They want me to lie - I'm being framed.

"Police don't want a murder in Portugal and all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they're blaming US

It is worth noting she takes ownership of lying and being framed ( the assumption is by the police but she doesn't tell us the police want her to lie or to frame her.
She could be referring to the members of the group including gerry)
The pronoun US shows unity and shared cooperation, often found when the guilty want to minimise their own role in the crime and spread the guilt - ask anyone with children and teenagers and the ever popular, everyone else was doing it as well excuse #1)

Both kate and gerry and even clarrie have told us Maddie is dead, though not how or at whose hand, that I Can see, although the tapas group have indicated Maddie was bumped on the head (an active action, something done deliberately as opposed to having bumped her head which is passive and done accidentally)
They also leaked that there were several doctors in the group who could have resuscitated her.

This then indicates a violent action occurred, something that could not be explained away such as her falling and bumping her head such as off the sofa.
This would lead me to ask where the injury was, that it could not be explained away as an accident.
This would include things such as finger marks (remember the bruises on kate's arm) jewellery marks, the location of the injury etc.
Perhaps even to multiple injuries perhaps caused when someone loses their temper and beats the victim.
They may not have set out to kill the victim, they just couldn't stop themselves until they either exhausted themselves or were pulled away by someone (again the bruises on kate's arm and wrist)

Whatever the cause, whoever did it, the parents could not allow an autopsy to be performed because of the consequences to themselves.
If it was a member of the group, why would they not point the finger?
Their daughter killed by a family friend.
The guilt would lie solely with the guilty person not the parent.
They would have sympathy and even donations for the funeral.

Unless, of course they knew about said friend's 'little peccadilloes' in which case questions would be asked as to how much the knew, and why they allowed said person access to their children and then an investigation into whether they themselves had 'little peccadilloes'.
There is also the risk the guilty person would drop them in it as well, on the grounds of if I am going down, I am taking everyone else with me.

There is a huge secret being hidden, swinging it is not since no one cares what you do with your sex lives if it is legal and consensual, although you may find your friends who aren't into each other putting a lot of distance between them and you (and a good many more introducing themselves)

Posted by tania cadogan at 5/30/2015 07:49:00 PM No comments:
Email This BlogThis!Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Pinterest

Snipped from the above post,...........................

That cadaverine was found behind the sofa means she lay there for at least 90 Min's if she died in the apartment since that is how long (depending on the manner of death and the environmental conditions - temp, humidity etc)
This would blow away their claims of 30 min checks on the children that night since they clearly didn't notice her missing for at least 90 Min's.

This isn't correct. A body doesn't have to be laid anywhere for 90 minutes to contaminate the area. It takes approximately 90minutes for cadaverine to be produced and then contamination would be where the body was placed. So it is death of at least 90 minutes previously then contamination, so Madeleine could have died elsewhere and then been placed behind the sofa once cadaverine was being produced.

by Guest 10.06.15 18:26

Mark Willis wrote:Something bugs me about the Smiths' account.
Apparently, Mr Smith's memory is suddenly jogged by seeing Gerry alighting from the 'plane holding a twin in the same fashion he describes Smithman/Bundleman carrying a child.
Yet Gerry has the twin over his shoulder - Smithman/Bundleman is carrying a child like tray of drinks.
That is what I call an anomaly.

Also, I have a feeling that Gerry and Murat were acquainted and that Smith was too; much more than "seeing him around".
I agree about toting around anyone deceased, even at night. A tennis bag as transportation would have been far more discreet.

Sorry, you mix up things: Tannerman supposedly carried a child like a tray; Smithman carried it on his shoulder

by Mark Willis 10.06.15 19:24

Portia wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:Something bugs me about the Smiths' account.
Apparently, Mr Smith's memory is suddenly jogged by seeing Gerry alighting from the 'plane holding a twin in the same fashion he describes Smithman/Bundleman carrying a child.
Yet Gerry has the twin over his shoulder - Smithman/Bundleman is carrying a child like tray of drinks.
That is what I call an anomaly.

Also, I have a feeling that Gerry and Murat were acquainted and that Smith was too; much more than "seeing him around".
I agree about toting around anyone deceased, even at night. A tennis bag as transportation would have been far more discreet.

Sorry, you mix up things: Tannerman supposedly carried a child like a tray; Smithman carried it on his shoulder

Ta. Clears that one up for me. thumbsup

by Guest 10.06.15 20:20

Portia wrote:Sorry, you mix up things: Tannerman supposedly carried a child like a tray; Smithman carried it on his shoulder

What exactly happened at 10.00pm on Thursday 3 May, 2007? Frankenstein-3

Who carries a living child like that in a place surrounded by accommodation where anyone could be watching?

by Benion 10.06.15 21:50

Thank you Tony for your excellent OP.

I come and go from this forum. I am not one of the regular users. I used to be, but I got so disillusioned with this case and how it has been handled I rarely read articles on the McCanns now. It gets me too angry.

However one user "Google Gaspar Statements" has got me reading about the case again, as his/her username prompted me to Google the Gaspar Statements!

I looked on the McCann files website, where there is also a statement from Yvone Martin, a lady who has worked in child protection (I am assuming she is a social worker) who is quite definite she has come across Dr Payne's face before in her safeguarding work, but she is unsure if he was a suspect or a witness.

The whole scenario is horribly sad. One thing that caught my eye was in Tony's OP where he states the "Praying Arab" actions of Gerry may in fact me a masonic signal, I will be doing some online research into that.

What I want to know is why the case became a political one, not a police one, so quick. Is this part of a wider cover up? Who are these friends in high places? I doubt we will ever find out.

by FH 11.06.15 9:28

BlueBag wrote:
Portia wrote:Sorry, you mix up things: Tannerman supposedly carried a child like a tray; Smithman carried it on his shoulder

Who carries a living child like that in a place surrounded by accommodation where anyone could be watching?

I have no idea if there was ever a creche man, or if he is a figment of various peoples imagination, but If you look at this CNN news video of a man abducting a small child from a playground in broad daylight, you can see that he is carrying the living little boy across his arms in exactly that fashion. Most of us would hold a child upright because it is easier, but this person isn't. If you were going to make up a sighting, I doubt you would say you saw someone carrying a child this way. Perhaps JT's sighting was based on something she had actually seen at some point in time? Not necessarily that evening.

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/03/10/pkg-attempt-abduction-from-playground.kxly

by Guest 11.06.15 10:33

Perhaps JT's sighting was based on something she had actually seen at some point in time?

Yes, Frankenstein made in 1931.

by j.rob 11.06.15 14:45

Another eye witness reports having been told that a child was abducted that fateful Thursday evening at between 9.30pm and 9.40pm. He then goes to Ocean Club arriving at between 9.45pm and 9.50pm where local people were already on the scene along with Mark Warner staff.

Again, this witness is quite clear on the time-frame as you would tend to be if a potential disaster of some sort is taking place or could take place. And could possibly be averted with timely action - hence why local people searched that night for Madeleine.

Amazing - so many people had heard about the 'abduction' before Kate had even announced it at 10pm!

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BAREND_WEIJDOM.htm

by lj 11.06.15 16:49

FH wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Portia wrote:Sorry, you mix up things: Tannerman supposedly carried a child like a tray; Smithman carried it on his shoulder

Who carries a living child like that in a place surrounded by accommodation where anyone could be watching?

I have no idea if there was ever a creche man, or if he is a figment of various peoples imagination, but If you look at this CNN news video of a man abducting a small child from a playground in broad daylight, you can see that he is carrying the living little boy across his arms in exactly that fashion. Most of us would hold a child upright because it is easier, but this person isn't. If you were going to make up a sighting, I doubt you would say you saw someone carrying a child this way. Perhaps JT's sighting was based on something she had actually seen at some point in time? Not necessarily that evening.

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/03/10/pkg-attempt-abduction-from-playground.kxly

I had seen that one too.

Almost all other photos where children are being carried that way are from situations where the child was severely injured or dead.

I don't know where this photo is from, but a "famous" one is from the Oklahoma City bombing:

picture removed

by garfy 11.06.15 18:30

O M G...... what was the point of that pic lj........it has really shook me up and i am in tears

by lj 11.06.15 19:45

Sorry I shocked you that was not the intention. My point was that children are carried in that position when they are either dead or severely injured.

I will remove the picture if I can. I guess it is different for everyone: you can see the evil in there, or, as for me, you can see the enormous compassion first responders have, always, everywhere.

I have a big version of it in my office to never forget the heavy burden they have to carry, how physically light it might be.

ETA: the black and white picture more up has the same effect on me: the child is either dead or severely ill or injured and the grief on the man's face is palpable.

by **tigger** 12.06.15 5:55

From Nina's post:
'That cadaverine was found behind the sofa means she lay there for at least 90 Min's if she died in the apartment since that is how long (depending on the manner of death and the environmental conditions - temp, humidity etc)
This would blow away their claims of 30 min checks on the children that night since they clearly didn't notice her missing for at least 90 Min's.'

This isn't correct. A body doesn't have to be laid anywhere for 90 minutes to contaminate the area. It takes approximately 90minutes for cadaverine to be produced and then contamination would be where the body was placed. So it is death of at least 90 minutes previously then contamination, so Madeleine could have died elsewhere and then been placed behind the sofa once cadaverine was being produced.
Unquote

The bloodspatter pattern in the corner behind the sofa and the blood found under the tiles (Both dogs alerted there) makes that the location where she died. That was the conclusion of the PJ. Without the bloodspatter it would be possible that death had taken place elsewhere.

@lj: I've always thought that JT saw Madeleine carried like that, I don't think a woman could do that. You need very good upper body strength. So she then used that memory to create bundleman. Just my thoughts.

by Guest 12.06.15 8:17

tigger wrote:@lj: I've always thought that JT saw Madeleine carried like that, I don't think a woman could do that. You need very good upper body strength. So she then used that memory to create bundleman. Just my thoughts.

I think JT said in a documentary that she carried Madeleine like that, but I'm sure that was just a brain fart.

by Rogue-a-Tory 12.06.15 10:09

I know what didn't happen - an abduction in PdL

by Joss 12.06.15 10:35

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:I know what didn't happen - an abduction in PdL

Yes that would be the general consensus on what happened.

by Lands_end 17.06.15 20:55

worriedmum wrote:What exactly happened at 10pm on Thursday 3rd May 2007 at 10.00pm?

Would Jane Tanner be watching her husband and others writing a time-line of the evening?

Would she be watching them rip the cover from Madeleine's sticker book to do it?

Would she be thinking, 'er, they look upset, I better not say I saw someone carrying a little girl who was wearing pyjamas, don't want to ~~get everyone looking in case it was little Madeleine~~ make them more upset--'

?

This is the concept I never managed to get my head around. Would you, knowing what really had happened, come out with a story like that off your own bat? Of course she may well be telling the truth and chinosman did exist but how come it took him 5 years to come forward to Op Grange? If he had any sense he would at least have gone through par excellence of journalism to secure a nice wedge. How much would the Sun have paid for this information upfront? Just a passing thought.