The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!


Nigel Foster

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by j.rob on 21.04.16 22:18

@Realist wrote:
@whodunit wrote:It is unclear who said this:  "I think we can safely dispense with all these wild conspiracy theories involving swingers, paedophiles, drug orgies, gov. secret agents, aliens from Mars et al."

It is your opinion that we can 'dispense with' 'wild conspiracy theories' involving pedophiles. As long as the Gaspar Statements exist, you are not allowed to wave away the possibility of pedophilic activity in this case.

I stated it. Firstly, I think 'not allowed' is perhaps an inappropriate expression, a more appropriate one might be 'can't dismiss.'



And I resent having pedophiles lumped in with 'aliens from Mars'. Pedos are real, they are a real danger to children, 

I'm sure they are, but apart from an unsubstantiated remark from another doctor, there is no evidence of paedophilia in this case. If this Gasper character was so concerned about what he witnessed, why did he not report it at the time, why wait until a sensational event was unfolding. Obviously, neither the British, or Portuguese police gave much credence to his observations.




That's one of the most ill-informed comments I have seen. Dr Katherine Gasper was concerned enough to make sure she was always around at bath-time when David Payne was there. Her husband found the gesture in extremely poor taste. While I can understand that they would have hesitated to get police involved on the strength of that gesture, it makes complete sense that Katherine Gasper, when she found  out that Payne was on that holiday, was concerned enough to contact police as what she had seen several years earlier had clearly stuck in her mind. She is quite unambiguous in her police statement, saying that she thought Payne might be interested in child porn on the web. 

Even if you ignore the above (which would be foolish, imo) there are literally DOZENS of red flags that paedophilia is a feature in this case. Detective Amaral most certainly did give credence to the Gasper allegations. 

The parents themselves thought that Madeleine had been abducted by a paedophile or a paedophile ring. Their friends too allude to this - Payne, Carpenter, several others allude to this. Why would they automatically come to this conclusion?  Kate in her book even gives a graphic description of what the abductor might have done.

There is a beyond-weird conversation with a fellow holiday maker, Nigel from Southampton, which Kate writes about in her book, apparently about how everyone is too paranoid about paedophiles. What Kate describes is NOT normal playground banter between parents. I think Kate was forced to include this conversation (and other TM members also write about it in their rogatories - most notably Russell) because she wants to give her own spin on the version of events. 

What I think happened judging by early Portuguese questioning of Russell is that Russell and other members of TM were standing on the grassy play area near the tennis courts filming Nigel's daughter playing mini-tennis on Tuesday morning. Nigel is uncomfortable enough about their manner of filming his daughter (clearly without his permission) that he approaches the group to tell them that what they are doing is making him uncomfortable.

I would imagine that Nigel, following news of the alleged 'abduction' would have gone forward to police and recounted this incident which would have been fresh in his mind and also would have stood out as it was clearly behaviour he found suspicious and inappropriate. Therefore, his testimony would be pretty accurate.

Nigel also handed over photographs and some film to the police. The filming included the playground area in which some of TM were included.

I think it is perfectly possible that Nigel made sure he got some footage of the group as evidence, in case anything else untoward happened. In any event, if it was Russell who was filming Nigel's daughter - and the police questioning is done in such a way that Russell is unable to deny it  - then Russell would stand out as he is exceptionally tall.

In typical TM fashion, the incident has been 'spun' to make it appear that it was Nigel who felt awkward filming his own daughter - 'like a dirty old man'. I've always thought that was a very strange and illogical comment. Why would a normal father feel like a dirty old man filming his child taking part in an activity?

No, TM have taken the thoughts that I assume were in Nigel's mind (why are those people filming my daughter - they look like dirty old men?) and put them into Nigel's mouth to make it appear as though Nigel thought of himself as 'a dirty old man'.

TM are sneaky like that...

Oh, and that's without mentioning the empty CATS file, social worker Yvette Martin's comments and thoughts (Dr Amaral was interested in this too) and the inappropriate photos of Madeleine wearing make-up and posing in a very unnatural way.

Police were extremely interested in the filming incident and asked Russell at length about it. Russell talks at length about it - far more than if it had just been a bit of a chat as TM would like us to believe it was.

I think Russell was caught red-handed and his over-lengthy explanations just tie him in greater and greater knots.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by MayMuse on 21.04.16 23:39

@j.rob wrote:
@Realist wrote:
@whodunit wrote:It is unclear who said this:  "I think we can safely dispense with all these wild conspiracy theories involving swingers, paedophiles, drug orgies, gov. secret agents, aliens from Mars et al."

It is your opinion that we can 'dispense with' 'wild conspiracy theories' involving pedophiles. As long as the Gaspar Statements exist, you are not allowed to wave away the possibility of pedophilic activity in this case.

I stated it. Firstly, I think 'not allowed' is perhaps an inappropriate expression, a more appropriate one might be 'can't dismiss.'



And I resent having pedophiles lumped in with 'aliens from Mars'. Pedos are real, they are a real danger to children, 

I'm sure they are, but apart from an unsubstantiated remark from another doctor, there is no evidence of paedophilia in this case. If this Gasper character was so concerned about what he witnessed, why did he not report it at the time, why wait until a sensational event was unfolding. Obviously, neither the British, or Portuguese police gave much credence to his observations.




That's one of the most ill-informed comments I have seen. Dr Katherine Gasper was concerned enough to make sure she was always around at bath-time when David Payne was there. Her husband found the gesture in extremely poor taste. While I can understand that they would have hesitated to get police involved on the strength of that gesture, it makes complete sense that Katherine Gasper, when she found  out that Payne was on that holiday, was concerned enough to contact police as what she had seen several years earlier had clearly stuck in her mind. She is quite unambiguous in her police statement, saying that she thought Payne might be interested in child porn on the web. 

Even if you ignore the above (which would be foolish, imo) there are literally DOZENS of red flags that paedophilia is a feature in this case. Detective Amaral most certainly did give credence to the Gasper allegations. 

The parents themselves thought that Madeleine had been abducted by a paedophile or a paedophile ring. Their friends too allude to this - Payne, Carpenter, several others allude to this. Why would they automatically come to this conclusion?  Kate in her book even gives a graphic description of what the abductor might have done.

There is a beyond-weird conversation with a fellow holiday maker, Nigel from Southampton, which Kate writes about in her book, apparently about how everyone is too paranoid about paedophiles. What Kate describes is NOT normal playground banter between parents. I think Kate was forced to include this conversation (and other TM members also write about it in their rogatories - most notably Russell) because she wants to give her own spin on the version of events. 

What I think happened judging by early Portuguese questioning of Russell is that Russell and other members of TM were standing on the grassy play area near the tennis courts filming Nigel's daughter playing mini-tennis on Tuesday morning. Nigel is uncomfortable enough about their manner of filming his daughter (clearly without his permission) that he approaches the group to tell them that what they are doing is making him uncomfortable.

I would imagine that Nigel, following news of the alleged 'abduction' would have gone forward to police and recounted this incident which would have been fresh in his mind and also would have stood out as it was clearly behaviour he found suspicious and inappropriate. Therefore, his testimony would be pretty accurate.

Nigel also handed over photographs and some film to the police. The filming included the playground area in which some of TM were included.

I think it is perfectly possible that Nigel made sure he got some footage of the group as evidence, in case anything else untoward happened. In any event, if it was Russell who was filming Nigel's daughter - and the police questioning is done in such a way that Russell is unable to deny it  - then Russell would stand out as he is exceptionally tall.

In typical TM fashion, the incident has been 'spun' to make it appear that it was Nigel who felt awkward filming his own daughter - 'like a dirty old man'. I've always thought that was a very strange and illogical comment. Why would a normal father feel like a dirty old man filming his child taking part in an activity?

No, TM have taken the thoughts that I assume were in Nigel's mind (why are those people filming my daughter - they look like dirty old men?) and put them into Nigel's mouth to make it appear as though Nigel thought of himself as 'a dirty old man'.

TM are sneaky like that...

Oh, and that's without mentioning the empty CATS file, social worker Yvette Martin's comments and thoughts (Dr Amaral was interested in this too) and the inappropriate photos of Madeleine wearing make-up and posing in a very unnatural way.

Police were extremely interested in the filming incident and asked Russell at length about it. Russell talks at length about it - far more than if it had just been a bit of a chat as TM would like us to believe it was.

I think Russell was caught red-handed and his over-lengthy explanations just tie him in greater and greater knots.
The 'P' word seems to cause a great deal of controversy, one that at first I refused to 'believe' , yet the more I have read over the years (files) and gone over the interviews from the 'elusive' 9 the more sickened feeling rises in my stomach! I always believed in some form of accident? But then why would a cadaver need to be ' missing' ? If that was the case... There are  far too many 'influential' people sidestepping the issue of (neglect) what we are supposed to believe, and that 'P' is insinuated or referred to from the start ( abduction nasty man) ... ( Redwood, sex crimes/burglary) in Portugal. What 'scent' are we being directed & diverted from?  Kate's grotesque writing incidentally on page 129 always struck me that it was the same number as another book written about the case 'MADDIE 129'  ( not available) and perhaps just a coincidence... Seems to be a great deal of those!?

MayMuse

Posts : 2033
Reputation : 1399
Join date : 2016-04-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Nigel Foster

Post by Spacecowboy on 22.04.16 5:16

In response to J. Rob:

What I think happened judging by early Portuguese questioning of Russell is that Russell and other members of TM were standing on the grassy play area near the tennis courts filming Nigel's daughter playing mini-tennis on Tuesday morning. Nigel is uncomfortable enough about their manner of filming his daughter (clearly without his permission) that he approaches the group to tell them that what they are doing is making him uncomfortable.

Have you read Nigel Foster's witness statement? If you have, please provide evidence from Nigel Foster himself.

Tuesday morning? Not Thursday morning then?





I would imagine that Nigel, following news of the alleged 'abduction' would have gone forward to police and recounted this incident which would have been fresh in his mind and also would have stood out as it was clearly behaviour he found suspicious and inappropriate. Therefore, his testimony would be pretty accurate.

But Nigel didn't go to the Portuguese Police on the 4th May did he?, when news of the alleged abduction circulated - the day before he flew home. Is it because Russell O' Brien did not covertly film his 3 year old daughter (without his permission)?

Nigel also handed over photographs and some film to the police. The filming included the playground area in which some of TM were included.

Where does it say in the police files that some of TM were included in 'video footage' of the playground area?  

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


The Portuguese Police visualised and analysed photographs from a CD sent to them by Leicestershire Police. Ricardo Paiva wrote ''Upon analysing these photos, the result was that there was at least one photograph where some of the elements making up the group of friends of the McCann couple were visualised, nothing relevant being found for the investigation''.

So, according to Ricardo Paiva, he didn't visualise anything in those photographs that was of interest to the investigation, nor did he mention that TM were visualised in the playground area.

Email received from Leicestershire police

Would you kindly permit an officer to visit Mrs F*****?. She has recently been on holiday to the MW complex and is in possession of video footage taken by her husband. It is understood that the footage is currently contained on their home computer. The allocated officer will need to review the footage and all footage of the complex should be downloaded onto a suitable storage disc. Mr F**** has indicated that it probably only consists of a thirty second pan of the playground area/pool area/Tapas bar. Mr and Mrs F are not technically competent to download the data. Please statement accordingly re exhibit continuity.

I have spoken to Mr F this morning and he has been advised that local officers will make contact with his wife.

If possible please send a copy to me for initial viewing in the Incident Room



Where does it say that TM were included/visualised in 'video footage' in the playground area?


''I think it is perfectly possible that Nigel made sure he got some footage of the group'' – So are you suggesting that Nigel Foster covertly filmed TM then? Where in the police files does it state that TM were visualised in video footage recorded by Nigel Foster?

In any event, if it was Russell who was filming Nigel's daughter - and the police questioning is done in such a way that Russell is unable to deny it - then Russell would stand out as he is exceptionally tall.


Why IF it was Russell who was filming his daughter? You were almost certain it was Russell who filmed his daughter on the tennis ball photo thread. Can you please post Nigel Foster's witness statement saying that he spotted an exceptionally tall individual 'covertly' filming his daughter.

In typical TM fashion, the incident has been 'spun' to make it appear that it was Nigel who felt awkward filming his own daughter - 'like a dirty old man'. I've always thought that was a very strange and illogical comment. Why would a normal father feel like a dirty old man filming his child taking part in an activity? He probably felt embarrassed to film his daughter in front of everybody else, hence the comment 'I feel like a dirty old man' - the sort of comment Nigel might say to someone he felt comfortable around. He boarded the same plane as Russell and Jane, spoke to Russell and Jane during the week – Why are you ignoring this evidence?

Why hasn't Nigel Foster said anything to the newspapers in the last 9 years? 

Why hasn't Nigel Foster said anything on social media in the last 9 years? 

Why didn't any other parent come forward before the Police files were released in Aug 2008 to say that they too noticed Russell attempting to covertly film their 3 year old daughter?

Why hasn't any other parent said anything to the newspapers or on social media in the last 9 years?

Why would Russell wait until Thursday to covertly film somebody else's daughter, when he had the opportunity to covertly film any 3 year old girl in Praia Da Luz on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday?
Why would Russell covertly film Nigel's daughter on Thursday, 4 days after Madeleine died and hours before the Portuguese Police arrived at the crime scene? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Why didn't the Tennis Instructors and other people who were at the courts on Thursday morning come forward to the Portuguese Police to say that they also noticed Russell attempting to covertly film somebody else's daughter?  Why haven't they said anything on social media in the last 9 years?
avatar
Spacecowboy

Posts : 36
Reputation : 31
Join date : 2015-07-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Tony Bennett on 22.04.16 10:25

@skyrocket wrote:
***********************
@j.rob & @spacecowboy above - I am confident in saying that the Portuguese version of ROB's 11 May statement regarding the 'Nigel conversation' has been badly translated into English at the critical points. The personal pronouns are misleading. IMO, Nigel is the one stated as using the video camera and also the one making the comment about himself feeling uncomfotable filming his own daughter. I have asked before if there are any native Portuguese speakers out there who can confirm this as it is a vital point. (My Spanish is good; Portuguese is very similar - verbs/ending follow the same pattern; I have checked the translation).
Please publish the 'Portuguese version' of RO'B's 11 May statement on this thread - and I will see if we can get a certified Portuguerse-English translator to have a look at it (bearing in mind that the 'Portuguese version' will itself be a translation of RO'B's English)

____________________

The amazing symbiosis between bees and flowers:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/god-created-plant-pollinator-partners/  

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14898
Reputation : 2990
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by whatsupdoc on 22.04.16 11:00

Tony, I think I have found what you are looking for. The English is on page 941 here...

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN.htm#p4p934to941


and the Portuguese version is here...

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_940.jpg


finishing on the next page 941 for the jpg
avatar
whatsupdoc

Posts : 601
Reputation : 320
Join date : 2011-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by j.rob on 22.04.16 11:30

@Spacecowboy wrote:In response to J. Rob:

What I think happened judging by early Portuguese questioning of Russell is that Russell and other members of TM were standing on the grassy play area near the tennis courts filming Nigel's daughter playing mini-tennis on Tuesday morning. Nigel is uncomfortable enough about their manner of filming his daughter (clearly without his permission) that he approaches the group to tell them that what they are doing is making him uncomfortable.

Have you read Nigel Foster's witness statement? If you have, please provide evidence from Nigel Foster himself.

Tuesday morning? Not Thursday morning then?

Surprise, surprise, Nigel Foster's witness statement is missing from the files along with other vital eye-witness statements from that week. Now why would that be? Answers on a stamp anyone? Kate in her book states that the incident happened on Thursday morning which was presumably when Nigel's daughter had her mini tennis session with her mini club group. Madeleine's was supposedly on Tuesday, according to Kate. I don't think that Madeleine attended the Tuesday session which would provide a motive for TM to feel the need to get footage of a 'blond, pink' three to four year old girl playing tennis which they might pass off as Madeleine McCann. In the event, I think they were rumbled by Nigel and resorted to the beyond-ridiculous, imo, 'tennis balls' photo which looks so fake it is laughable. They even got the foot-wear wrong. 







I would imagine that Nigel, following news of the alleged 'abduction' would have gone forward to police and recounted this incident which would have been fresh in his mind and also would have stood out as it was clearly behaviour he found suspicious and inappropriate. Therefore, his testimony would be pretty accurate.

But Nigel didn't go to the Portuguese Police on the 4th May did he?, when news of the alleged abduction circulated - the day before he flew home. Is it because Russell O' Brien did not covertly film his 3 year old daughter (without his permission)?

How do you know? I bet he did. How do you know Russell didn't covertly film Nigel's 3 year old daughter without his permission?  If you look at the early Portuguese police questioning of Russell it would appear that this is precisely what Russell did. Police angle the questions in such a way that he is unable to deny he was filming and Nigel approached saying what he was doing was making him (Nigel) feel uncomfortable. On early police questioning Russell gets so tied up in his own lies, imo,   to the extent of denying there was a video-recorder! Hilarious! He was put on the spot, imo and stumbled badly. This has to be highly sensitive, imo.

Later, when TM have lined their ducks up, Kate and Russell  placed the video-recorder in Nigel's own hands! That is EVIDENCE, as far as I am concerned, that  Russell lied in the first police statement. And also EVIDENCE, as far as I am concerned, that there is great sensitivity around the filming and particularly in relation to WHO is doing the filming. To the extent the the video-recorder that Russell didn't see in the first rogatory (despite the conversation with Nigel) becomes a video-recorder that Russell and Kate most definitely DID  see in the hands of Nigel himself!

Both versions cannot be correct and I know who I would believe...

I would think Nigel would have approached police quite early on, in view of this incident which would be fresh in his mind. And might well have unsettled him...


Nigel also handed over photographs and some film to the police. The filming included the playground area in which some of TM were included.

Where does it say in the police files that some of TM were included in 'video footage' of the playground area?  

It's in the PJ files and has been covered extensively on here. Hampshire Police visited the Fosters and picked up some film plus also photos, I do believe which police confirmed showed some members of TM.

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


The Portuguese Police visualised and analysed photographs from a CD sent to them by Leicestershire Police. Ricardo Paiva wrote ''Upon analysing these photos, the result was that there was at least one photograph where some of the elements making up the group of friends of the McCann couple were visualised, nothing relevant being found for the investigation''.

Is this the same police officer who ruled out guests that were staying at the hotel as suspects, on account of the fact that they were guests at the hotel? (eg: blond rastaman that Jez flagged up early on). Where's inspector Poiret when you need him? Since when did guests at at hotel become above suspicion of a crime? Most people have been guests at hotels at some point but it doesn't mean they can't also be criminals and it also doesn't mean that they won't commit a crime at the hotel. 

So, according to Ricardo Paiva, he didn't visualise anything in those photographs that was of interest to the investigation, nor did he mention that TM were visualised in the playground area.

The first comment above is correct in so far as what the inspector said. But, as already stated, I think this is the same police officer who ruled out people being suspects by virtue of the fact that they were guests at the hotel (particularly guests who joined in the searches, it would seem) . This is so illogical as to be laughable. Just because someone joins in a search, it doesn't mean that they are necessarily innocent. In general, if people don't want to get caught in a crime, they will cover their tracks. Often badly but nevertheless they will try to lay false trails and put investigators off the scent, as it were (as indeed TM tried to do, imo, with the sniffer dogs).

The second comment is wrong. The inspector states that at least one photograph contains some of the elements making up the group of friends of the McCann couple. It is quite clear the 'elements' can be seen. That means several of the McCann friends can be seen in at least one photo. This would be very important evidence. Not sure exactly where 'the element's were visualized but if the photos taken were similar to the filming then it would have been in the playground/pool/Tapas area.

It is perfectly possible that Nigel was concerned enough about TM's behaviour that he took some photographs and perhaps even film of them.  So he could identify them if something else happened that made him uncomfortable. The fact that some members of TM are in at least one of his photos might just suggest that this is precisely what he did! Of course it could also be a coincidence. There are so many in this case! But nevertheless this would be very important hard photographic evidence of exactly where certain members of TM where when Nigel took the photos and exactly what they were doing. Who was there. What they were wearing, what time it was, who else was there. And other details as well. 


Email received from Leicestershire police

Would you kindly permit an officer to visit Mrs F*****?. She has recently been on holiday to the MW complex and is in possession of video footage taken by her husband. It is understood that the footage is currently contained on their home computer. The allocated officer will need to review the footage and all footage of the complex should be downloaded onto a suitable storage disc. Mr F**** has indicated that it probably only consists of a thirty second pan of the playground area/pool area/Tapas bar. Mr and Mrs F are not technically competent to download the data. Please statement accordingly re exhibit continuity.

I think it is of great interest - given the nature of the encounter between TM and Nigel as described by TM - that Nigel has video footage of the playground area/pool area and Tapas bar area. This could very well have been taken at around the time of the encounter. This is a critical time in terms of what may have happened to Madeleine that week. It might have included footage of which children were playing mini tennis plus also footage of members of TM. Plus of course possibly footage of other eye-witnesses in the area at the time. Who may have noticed the encounter between Nigel and TM or something else peculiar going on. Vital evidence here I would have thought.

I have spoken to Mr F this morning and he has been advised that local officers will make contact with his wife.

If possible please send a copy to me for initial viewing in the Incident Room



Where does it say that TM were included/visualised in 'video footage' in the playground area?

It doesn't. But then again it doesn't say they weren't either! If taken at a similar time to the photos, it is quite possible that they were. In any event we know that some of them were in at least one photo as they police tell us so.


''I think it is perfectly possible that Nigel made sure he got some footage of the group'' – So are you suggesting that Nigel Foster covertly filmed TM then? Where in the police files does it state that TM were visualised in video footage recorded by Nigel Foster?

It doesn't. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen. He may not even have been covert. In general you do not have to ask permission to take video-recordings in hotel pool complexes where there will be people milling around who may be in the recordings/photographs. (As indeed some of the TM photos show other people - such as the playground photo.)  The filming or photographs only become covert when they are done covertly or there is something inappropriate about it. Such as an adult male focusing the video-camera on someone else's child. That is odd and suspicious. Because if Russell was going to film a child playing mini-tennis, then why not film his own child? His child played on Tuesday, I do believe? 

It's perfectly possible and indeed quite likely as we KNOW that some members of TM were in at least one photo taken by Nigel. So who is to say they weren't in the video-footage too? Plus other guest who are important eye-witnesses of course. Vital eye-witnesses in fact. It is on record that both Kate and Gerry had a couple's tennis lesson on Thursday afternoon. The only time they did this that week. I suspect that, by Thursday, some people were getting suspicious (Nigel? and probably others, imo) and there was a need for the couple to be seen 'out and about' with nothing more pressing to do than play tennis. Purely speculation but if it is true that something had happened to Madeleine by Thursday then an awful lot of covering up would have needed to be done. Plus there would be a need to pretend that all was fine and dandy. When that might not have been the case. 


In any event, if it was Russell who was filming Nigel's daughter - and the police questioning is done in such a way that Russell is unable to deny it - then Russell would stand out as he is exceptionally tall.


Why IF it was Russell who was filming his daughter? You were almost certain it was Russell who filmed his daughter on the tennis ball photo thread. Can you please post Nigel Foster's witness statement saying that he spotted an exceptionally tall individual 'covertly' filming his daughter.

His statement is missing from the files - surprise, surprise! Along with other vital eye-witness statements. Look at Russell's first rogatory. He is backed into a corner by police questioning and I think tells us what happened.  I never said Nigel spotted an exceptionally tall individual. I said Nigel spotted Russell filming his daughter in a manner that made him suspicious. And it is on record that Russell is exceptionally tall. So therefore he would stand out in a crowd and be memorable. 

In typical TM fashion, the incident has been 'spun' to make it appear that it was Nigel who felt awkward filming his own daughter - 'like a dirty old man'. I've always thought that was a very strange and illogical comment. Why would a normal father feel like a dirty old man filming his child taking part in an activity? He probably felt embarrassed to film his daughter in front of everybody else, hence the comment 'I feel like a dirty old man' - the sort of comment Nigel might say to someone he felt comfortable around. He boarded the same plane as Russell and Jane, spoke to Russell and Jane during the week – Why are you ignoring this evidence?

Rubbish. I don't believe Nigel said anything of the sort. There is nothing embarrassing about filming your children in front of other people. What an extraordinary suggestion! So it's embarrassing to film your children in front of other people but not embarrassing to film them without other people around? A very peculiar idea indeed, imo. I don't think Nigel was comfortable around Russell at all. On the contrary. The evidence is that Nigel is made to feel uncomfortable by Russell's behaviour. Since when does boarding a plan with someone make you 'feel comfortable' around them? What a very strange suggestion! You don't know that person from Adam. They could be an serial axe-murderer for all you know.  The evidence from Russell's first police statement is that what TM were doing - and particularly Russell - made Nigel uncomfortable enough for him to go up to them and remonstrate. Why are you ignoring this evidence?

Why hasn't Nigel Foster said anything to the newspapers in the last 9 years? 

Why haven't other vital eye-witnesses said anything? Carter-Rucked, scared, intimidated by the detectives, gagging clauses, secrecy needed for police investigation. Mostly gagged and Carter-Rucked I would think. Plus it is on record from Jez Wilkins that the McCann detectives were heavy-handed.

Why hasn't Nigel Foster said anything on social media in the last 9 years? 

All the above. Plus this is supposed to be a police investigation and therefore eye-witnesses if they speak out might prejudice the investigation.

Why didn't any other parent come forward before the Police files were released in Aug 2008 to say that they too noticed Russell attempting to covertly film their 3 year old daughter?

How do you know they didn't? They might have done. They could have been kept secret so as not to prejudice the investigation. Or, or course, to hinder the investigation so that vital and very incriminating evidence did not come to light. There's a thought!

Why hasn't any other parent said anything to the newspapers or on social media in the last 9 years?

As above.

Why would Russell wait until Thursday to covertly film somebody else's daughter, when he had the opportunity to covertly film any 3 year old girl in Praia Da Luz on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday?
Why would Russell covertly film Nigel's daughter on Thursday, 4 days after Madeleine died and hours before the Portuguese Police arrived at the crime scene? It makes no sense whatsoever.

I think that by Thursday, TM were in a right pickle and desperate for 'evidence' that Madeleine had been alive and well up to Thursday evening. I suspect something had happened by Tuesday and she had not played mini-tennis with her group, hence the need for a photo or footage. TM I imagine realized that it would be suspicious to have so few photos of Madeleine from the holiday and wanted to produce some 'evidence' . I think on Monday something *bad* happened. Tuesday and Wednesday were panic days of deciding what to do and how to hide the evidence. By Thursday the ducks had been lined up enough to allow time for a spot of photography and filming.

How do you know that Thursday was four days after Madeleine died? How do you know what day she died? It makes perfect sense for covert filming to be done on Thursday as, as stated above, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday there were more pressing things to do than photography. I imagine TM realized that once police arrived on the scene it would be too late to get photographic 'evidence' of Madeleine having been fine up to Thursday evening. So Thursday was a last-ditch attempt to do so which, imo, failed as Nigel rumbled them. Merely a theory.


Why didn't the Tennis Instructors and other people who were at the courts on Thursday morning come forward to the Portuguese Police to say that they also noticed Russell attempting to covertly film somebody else's daughter?  Why haven't they said anything on social media in the last 9 years?

I have no idea. Perhaps they did. Perhaps they didn't notice. After all, they were instructing rather than looking at the onlookers, presumably. Maybe they were questioned about it afterwards and their memories were jogged. What I think is of great interest is that I think it is on record from at least one of Russell's rogatories that there were other people present during this encounter. I think Russell mentions that one or maybe two women who played tennis were there (Jensen sisters?) These are very important eye-witnesses, imo. Their sighting (blond man) was ignored by TM which must be significant! Mrs Fenn's niece also gave a very detailed account of a blond man which Kate in her book, significantly, imo, morphs into a dark man with a somewhat Arab appearance. Whereas Mrs Fenn's niece saw a man of Scandinavian appearance!  This leads me to believe that both the above sightings are significant. Could even be the same person.

 I'll have to dig out the relevant Russell rogatory but police are definitely interested in finding out whether there were eye-witnesses at the time of this encounter. Who knows, perhaps there were and they saw something suspicious or noticed something odd. They also would not have spoken out because, presumably, it would be prejudicial to the investigation plus also Carter-Rucked, gagging order, sub-judicy and other reasons besides. 

There is no doubt that this was a very important encounter. Kate writes about it in her book. Police question Russell at length about it. And Russell's verbose answers speak volumes, imo. This was no casual chit-chat playground banter. TM have attempted to sanitize the encounter but have failed spectacularly, imo. Police most definitely noticed how Russell tries to downplay the incident, imo. You can tell by their line of questioning that they are intrigued by his responses. Given the line of police questioning, I would think it highly likely that Nigel approached police early on with his concerns. And, armed with Nigel's eye-witness testimony, they take a certain line of questioning that teases out Russell's responses. 

Matt also mentions the encounter and again, disingenuously imo, declares that what Nigel did and said was completely normal. Nice try, Matt! The issue was not whether what Nigel was doing was normal (which I believe it was) it was whether that TM was doing was normal!

I do love TM. Their modus operandi is quite transparent and I do believe the Portuguese sardine-munchers clocked them right from the very beginning. They think they can pull the wool over everyone's eye but they have failed.

I think the house of cards is coming down and the media will gloat. If only they had put their heads down. The Mcs were badly advised, imo, but I suppose while the money was pouring in the vultures all came to feed at the trough. I just can't believe that the twins were not properly protected from the very beginning in terms of their right to privacy. The McCanns have only themselves to blame for this, imo. GM harps on about press intrusion but he feted the press from the very beginning and the couple were quite happy to put their twins in back in the creche, and back into the spotlight, despite the 'fact' that Madeleine's abductor was still at large and could come back and steal the twins, for all they knew.

IMO only. Eye-witness statement are obviously open to different interpretations. The above are my interpretations which I think are backed up by the line of police questioning. And by analyzing the TM responses to the questions which I think show that there is great sensitivity around these areas.  This would not have escaped the notice of the police who are skilled in questioning of course.

I think the areas above are rich with clues as to what might have happened and when.



 

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Verdi on 22.04.16 12:18

What have Russell O'Brian and Nigel Foster got to do with Mr. Amaral's appeal?  Tis no wonder I'm dazed and confused trying to keep up.

If the translation of the files is again to be brought into play, the last nines years have been a waste of everyone's time and effort - almost every document contained within the files are transcribed in Portuguese and later translated into English, for the Ingleesh market!  Unless some kind wealthy donor is prepared to engage the services of yet another a bona-fide translator, to again translate the files from Portuguese to English - then we might as well pack our bags and go home.

There will always be discrepancies when translating one language to another - it's impossible to translate word for word in any meaningful sense.

What's the latest from Portugal?

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 8299
Reputation : 3843
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by j.rob on 22.04.16 14:17

@Verdi wrote:What have Russell O'Brian and Nigel Foster got to do with Mr. Amaral's appeal?  Tis no wonder I'm dazed and confused trying to keep up.

If the translation of the files is again to be brought into play, the last nines years have been a waste of everyone's time and effort - almost every document contained within the files are transcribed in Portuguese and later translated into English, for the Ingleesh market!  Unless some kind wealthy donor is prepared to engage the services of yet another a bona-fide translator, to again translate the files from Portuguese to English - then we might as well pack our bags and go home.

There will always be discrepancies when translating one language to another - it's impossible to translate word for word in any meaningful sense.

What's the latest from Portugal?

Look at the EXTENSIVE police questioning of Russell over this incident  

How can it possibly have nothing to do with the lead detective's case? TM claim Madeleine was abducted. For which there is no evidence. Detective Amaral claims - with evidence - that Madeleine died and TM covered it up and faked an abduction.  

They cannot both be right. Detective Amaral provided evidence for his theory. The McCanns provided none, apart from Tanner-man who is as fictional as the tooth-fairy, imo. While in the early days the McCanns managed to gag Detective Amaral it appears that he is now turning the tables on them with his court case. Given that the McCanns evidence for their theory is not there, whereas Detective Amaral has evidence, then surely the roles are now being reversed?

It is the McCanns who have defamed Detective Amaral, not the other way round. They have libelled him when all he ever did was his job. Their claims have damaged his reputation and so he has every right to sue for damages. 

Police, right from the very beginning, were exceedingly interested in the Russell/Nigel encounter and there are pages on it in the rogatories. Pages from Russell but also Kate writes about it in her book. Matt talks about it in his rogatory. 

Presumably Kate's rogatory has an account of this? Not sure. The book certainly does, though.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by j.rob on 22.04.16 14:29

Why else would anyone wish to abduct a 4 yr. old girl other than for sexual motives, particularly in the vein that the kidnapping clearly wasn't financially motivated. There was never a ransom demand and the McCanns were heavily indebted at the time. If you care to think about it, without any form of ransom demand, the only way the McCanns could get their abduction gambit off the runway, was to claim their daughter was the victim of a paedophile. In fact, it is Kate McCann who has always driven the enquiry towards paedophilia from the inception. Her first alleged words were 'They've taken her' In the immortal words of Wendy Murphy 'I'm not buying it.'

The only people sidestepping the issue of neglect are the McCann's acquaintances, for the McCanns it is imperative there was neglect, because without an element of neglect, there couldn't have been an abduction.

--

I don't agree that it would only be a sexual motive for abducting a child. A childless couple while unlikely is possible. Someone who was deranged or deluded could have taken her. Unlikely but not impossible. 

How could the McCanns KNOW that there wouldn't be a ransom demanded? Kidnapping is often done for financial reasons. A ransom note could have turned up at any time...

What about Shannon Matthews? Apparently they got the idea from the McCAnn case and the motive was to fake an abduction to gain money. Sounds familiar.....

What happened is far worse than neglect, imo. 

Yes, Kate drove the paedophilia angle and you have to ask: WHY?

Clue: Empty CATS file, perhaps?

Why might Kate have thought about handing over Madeleine's care to relatives? There are a number of possible reasons which are not mutually exclusive of course.

I think the Gaspers were spot on.

IMO.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by j.rob on 22.04.16 14:50

@skyrocket wrote:Copied over from one of my posts yesterday, from a piece in the Algarve Resident:

It is possible the McCann’s lawyers will argue that the appeal they claim to be lodging with Portugal’s Supreme Court could cover threats of legal action - but this is also debatable, say legal experts.
“The book is not held to be defamatory in any jurisdiction in the world”, said one - pointing out at the same time that an appeal to the Supreme Court in Portugal is equivalent to an appeal to the House of Lords in Great Britain.
“These courts only listen to cases involving important points of law, of general public importance”, he told us. “They are not interested in facts, nor minor squabbles - nor whether the Court of Appeal has made a good or bad decision.
“They are only interested if they have to clarify something which the substantive law has not made entirely clear”.
In other words, an appeal by the McCann’s to continue their action against former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral “may not even be entertained”, said the source.


************************

@j.rob & @spacecowboy above - I am confident in saying that the Portuguese version of ROB's 11 May statement regarding the 'Nigel conversation' has been badly translated into English at the critical points. The personal pronouns are misleading. IMO, Nigel is the one stated as using the video camera and also the one making the comment about himself feeling uncomfotable filming his own daughter. I have asked before if there are any native Portuguese speakers out there who can confirm this as it is a vital point. (My Spanish is good; Portuguese is very similar - verbs/ending follow the same pattern; I have checked the translation).

I disagree. Have sent the relevant passages to someone I know who is fluent in Portuguese to find out how accurate the translation is.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Realist on 22.04.16 14:54

@j.rob wrote:

The parents themselves thought that Madeleine had been abducted by a paedophile or a paedophile ring. Their friends too allude to this - Payne, Carpenter, several others allude to this. Why would they automatically come to this conclusion?  Kate in her book even gives a graphic description of what the abductor might have done.



In the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies, ''They would say that, wouldn't they'' In the absence of a ransom demand and no other indications that it was financially motivated, what other explanation could they offer as to why anyone would abduct their 4 yr. old daughter??

Perhaps more poignantly, why were they so adamant at such an early stage that their daughter had been abducted, when the more likely hypothesis would initially be that she had got out of the apt. and wandered off somewhere.

Realist

Posts : 421
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2014-11-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by j.rob on 22.04.16 15:10

@Realist wrote:
@j.rob wrote:

The parents themselves thought that Madeleine had been abducted by a paedophile or a paedophile ring. Their friends too allude to this - Payne, Carpenter, several others allude to this. Why would they automatically come to this conclusion?  Kate in her book even gives a graphic description of what the abductor might have done.



In the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies, ''They would say that, wouldn't they'' In the absence of a ransom demand and no other indications that it was financially motivated, what other explanation could they offer as to why anyone would abduct their 4 yr. old daughter??

Childless couple? Deluded/mad person? Unlikely, but not impossible. You would hope for the worst ETA: I obviously meant best, doh!!- eg: childless couple who would feel guilty. 

If it had been a genuine abduction then how would they know there would be no ransom note? It could have arrived at any time. That would be one of the most likely scenarios if Madeleine was kidnapped. Except, of course, as others point out, the McCanns were broke at the time of 'the abduction' (is this true?) so the kidnapper didn't do his or her homework properly.

They didn't really have to offer an explanation at all though, did they? They could just claim she 'disappeared'. That would have been far more convincing. Children can and do 'disappear'. They could have woken up and found her missing. 

I think the reason Kate says that this was the motive was partly because if Madeleine was found and found to have been abused then it must have been 'the abductor' that did it, rather than anyone else closer to home.

I think several times in Kate's book she gives descriptions of what probably did, sadly, happen to Madeleine. On page 105 she describes Madeleine lying, cold and mottled , on  a big grey stone slab.

Kate also addresses her fears about what might have happened to Gerry at one point in the book. I think this is quite a significant passage. 

Poor old Kate - shame that Gerry followed her to New Zealand, imo. She almost 'got away'.

IMO only.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by skyrocket on 22.04.16 15:12

I'm not sure how this discussion got started on this thread but I did add to it and I've been asked to post something so I'm responding.

@TB - the page with the Portuguese version of ROB's statement regarding Nigel, is here: 

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_940.jpg

@J.Rob - I'd be more than happy to be incorrect. yes As I mentioned, I only know Spanish well. I think it's important that this is cleared up though as it keeps resurfacing and it is an important point (I'm glad that you know someone who can do the job).
avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 669
Reputation : 652
Join date : 2015-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by j.rob on 22.04.16 16:01

@skyrocket wrote:I'm not sure how this discussion got started on this thread but I did add to it and I've been asked to post something so I'm responding.

@TB - the page with the Portuguese version of ROB's statement regarding Nigel, is here: 

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_940.jpg

@J.Rob - I'd be more than happy to be incorrect. yes As I mentioned, I only know Spanish well. I think it's important that this is cleared up though as it keeps resurfacing and it is an important point (I'm glad that you know someone who can do the job).

This statement taken on 10th April 2008 shows how the police question Russell extensively over this incident. Wanting to know exactly how Nigel approached them. Exactly what he said. Exactly who was there. Exactly when it happened.

I will never be satisfied with Russell's version of events unless I can see at first hand exactly how Nigel described this encounter. The story as told by TM simply does not ring true. Rather like 'the abduction'. 

According to this version, Jane, Kate, Rachael and Russell were there during the Nigel encounter. There were also other eye-witnesses. 

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by skyrocket on 22.04.16 16:14

@J.Rob - I completely agree with you, there is something fishy about the whole 'Nigel encounter'. All I am saying is that it needs to be established what is actually stated in ROB's 11 May statement by having the Portuguese version double checked. Difficult to fathom anything out if we are working with inaccurate translation on top of less than reliable witnesses.
avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 669
Reputation : 652
Join date : 2015-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Nigel Foster

Post by Spacecowboy on 22.04.16 16:54

Surprise, surprise, Nigel Foster's witness statement is missing from the files along with other vital every-witness statements from that week.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
Where is Nigel Foster's name on the missing from DVD page?

How do you know that Nigel Foster's witness statement is missing along with other vital eye witness statements from that week. Goncalo Amaral interviewed god knows how many people during his time as coordinator of the investigation. Why didn't he mention anything about these so called vital eye witnesses in his book?

How do you know? I bet he did. Nigel didn't make a statement on the 4th of May to the Portuguese police otherwise it would be there for all of us to see in the Portuguese files.

If Nigel Foster did make a statements on the 4th of May as you think he did, why didn't Goncalo Amaral mention anything about him in his book? I can't believe I'm wasting my time responding to someone who thinks MADELEINE DROWNED IN THE OCEAN CLUB SWIMMING POOL What an extraordinary suggestion! and THAT MADELEINE NEVER TRAVELLED TO PORTUGAL IN 2007.

How do you know Russell didn't covertly film his 3 year old daughter without his permission.

Why would Russell admit to covertly filming Nigel's daughter, effectively admitting to the public (when the files, including his statements were released in Aug 2008) that Madeleine died on Sunday and decided to covertly film somebody else's daughter to later Photoshop Madeleine's head onto. Hmm, wouldn't be the wisest thing to do when the public were donating money to the McCann’s fraudulent fund.

The Portuguese Police visualised and analysed photographs from a CD sent to them by Leicestershire Police. Ricardo Paiva wrote ''Upon analysing these photos, the result was that there was at least one photograph where some of the elements making up the group of friends of the McCann couple were visualised, nothing relevant being found for the investigation''.

Is this the same police officer who ruled out guests that were staying at the hotel as suspects, on account of the fact that they were guests at the hotel? (eg: blond rastaman that Jez flagged up early on). Where's inspector Poiret when you need him? I thought you didn't trust Jez Wilkins?

So, according to Ricardo Paiva, he didn't visualise anything in those photographs that was of interest to the investigation, nor did he mention that TM were visualised in the playground area.

The first comment above is correct. But, as I say, I think this is the same police officer who ruled out people being suspects who were guests at the hotel. Since when does being a guest at a hotel rule someone out as a suspect?

Ricardo Paiva, didn't visualise anything in those photographs that was of interest to the investigation end of.

The second comment is wrong. He states that at least one photograph contains some of the elements making up the group of friends of the McCann couple. It is quite clear the 'elements' can be seen. That means several of the McCann friends can be seen in at least one photo. This would be very important evidence.

Not importance evidence if he got to know the group and they allowed him to take a photo of them.

It is perfectly possible that Nigel was concerned enough about TM's behaviour that he took some photographs and perhaps even film of them. So he could identify them if something else happened. The fact that some members of TM are in at least one of his photos might just suggest that this is precisely what he did! Why didn't he make a statement on the 4
th of May then to the Portuguese Police if he was that concerned?

I think it is of great interest - given the nature of the encounter between TM and Nigel as described by TM - that Nigel has video footage of the playground area/pool area and Tapas bar area. This could very well have been taken at around the time of the encounter. This is a critical time in terms of what may have happened that week. It might have included footage of which children were playing mini tennis plus also footage of members of TM. Plus of course possibly footage of other eye-witnesses in the area. Who may have noticed the encounter between Nigel and TM or something else peculiar going on. Vital evidence here I would have thought.


What other eye-witnesses in the area? Why didn't any of these so called eye-witnesses give a statement to the Portuguese Police on the 4th May? Why has none of these so called eye-witnesses said anything on social media in the last 9 years?

Where does it say that TM were included/visualised in 'video footage' in the playground area?

It doesn't. But then again it doesn't say they weren't either. So it is possible that they were. Wishful thinking!

'I think it is perfectly possible that Nigel made sure he got some footage of the group'' –So are you suggesting that Nigel Foster covertly filmed TM then? Where in the police files does it state that TM were visualised in video footage recorded by Nigel Foster?

It doesn't. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's perfectly possible and indeed quite likely as we KNOW that some members of TM were in at least one photo taken by Nigel.

Nothing wrong with TM allowing Nigel to take a photo of them, they spoke to him during the week and got to know him.


I suspect that, by Thursday, some people were getting suspicious (Nigel? and probably others, imo)

Speculation! Why didn't he or others contact the Portuguese Police earlier on then?

Why IF it was Russell who was filming his daughter? You were almost certain it was Russell who filmed his daughter on the tennis ball photo thread. Can you please post Nigel Foster's witness statement saying that he spotted an exceptionally tall individual 'covertly' filming his daughter.

His statement is missing from the files - surprise, surprise! Along with other vital eye-witness statements.

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

Where is Nigel Foster's name on the missing from DVD page?

How do you know that Nigel Foster statement is missing along with other vital eye witness statements from that week? Why hasn't Nigel Foster and these so called eye-witnesses in the last 9 years said anything on social media about their missing statements?

There is nothing embarrassing about filming your children in front of other people. I know, but do you know Nigel's personality? Perhaps be was an anxious person/worried what people may think of him filming his daughter. Has he ever denied what Jane Tanner and Kate McCann said about the incident in the last 9 years? I don't think so.

Since when does boarding a plane with someone make you 'feel comfortable' around them? He felt comfortable enough to speak to Russell and Jane during the week!

The evidence from Russell's first police statement is that what TM were doing - and particularly Russell - made Nigel uncomfortable enough for him to go up to them and remonstrate. Why are you ignoring this evidence? What evidence? Has Nigel Foster confirmed this in the last 9 years?

Why would Russell contradict what his own wife and Kate said about the incident?

Why hasn't Nigel Foster said anything to the newspapers in the last 9 years? 

Why haven't other vital eye-witnesses said anything? Carter-Rucked, scared, intimidates by the detectives, gagging clauses, secrecy needed for police investigation. Mostly gagged and Carter-Rucked I would think. Plus it is on record from Jez Wilkins that the McCann detectives were heavy-handed.

Predictable explanation! Is this the best you can come up with? why haven't other vital eye-witnesses said anything? Is it because Russell did not covertly film anyone's daughter.


Why hasn't Nigel Foster said anything on social media in the last 9 years?

All the above. Plus this is supposed to be a police investigation and therefore eye-witnesses if they speak out might prejudice the investigation.

More speculation

Why didn't any other parent come forward before the Police files were released in Aug 2008 to say that they too noticed Russell attempting to covertly film their 3 year old daughter?

How do you know they didn't? They might have done. They could have been kept secret so as not to prejudice the investigation. Or, or course, to hinder the investigation so that vital and very incriminating evidence did not come to light. There's a thought!

How do you know they didn't? They might have done. Why didn't Goncalo Amaral mention anything about these witnesses statements in his book? Is it because nobody never witnessed Russell covertly filming anyone's daughter.

Why hasn't any other parent said anything to the newspapers or on social media in the last 9 years?

As above.

I'm sure the majority of the Madeleine McCann researchers who have studied this case from day 1 would of discovered information from social media about Russell covertly filming other parents daughters by now!

How do you know that Thursday was four days after Madeleine died? How do you know what day she died? When was the last photo taken? Read the witness statement of Tasmin Silence and ask youself why the McCann’s released J.Weinberger's photofit of pimpleman to the public two years later in the Madeleine Was Here Documentary.

I think on Monday something *bad* happened. How do you know something bad happened on Monday?

Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday there were more pressing things to do. What, like Kate running back to her apartment on Tuesday to grab her camera to take a photo of Madeleine in her gorgeous pink top and sandles!

Why didn't the Tennis Instructors and other people who were at the courts on Thursday morning come forward to the Portuguese Police to say that they also noticed Russell attempting to covertly film somebody else's daughter? Why haven't they said anything on social media in the last 9 years?

I have no idea. Perhaps they did. Perhaps they didn't notice. Perhaps Russell didn't covertly film anybody's daughter, so there was nothing to notice.

2007 - 2016
Jane Tanner – Nigel filmed his own daughter
Kate McCann – Nigel filmed his own daughter
Russell O' Brien ??
No statements, nothing on social media, nothing in the newspapers, absolutely no evidence from anyone else in 9 years that Russell covertly filmed anyone's daughter.


I think we're going to have to agree to disagree and move on because we're going round in circles.
avatar
Spacecowboy

Posts : 36
Reputation : 31
Join date : 2015-07-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 22.04.16 17:59

I've just split these posts from Amaral's appeal thread as it was way off topic.

Not sure if I've got all the posts or whether we've now got two confusing threads!
avatar
Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 11616
Reputation : 5592
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

View user profile http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by j.rob on 22.04.16 19:47

Thank you. Very interesting. My responses in black italics.


Where is Nigel Foster's name on the missing from DVD page?


No idea. You tell me. That means nothing. His eye-witness statement is not in the files. There must be one. He is a very important eye-witness.



How do you know that Nigel Foster statement is missing along with other vital eye witness statements from that week? Why hasn't Nigel Foster and these so called eye-witnesses in the last 9 years said anything on social media about their missing statements?


It's not in the files. Where is it? There must be one. It has obviously been withheld. It is a police investigation, ffs, why on earth would independent, unbiased, honest eye-witnesses say anything on social media? That would be prejudicial to a proper trial, wouldn't it? 



There is nothing embarrassing about filming your children in front of other people. I know, but do you know Nigel's personality? Perhaps be was an anxious person/worried what people may think of him filming his daughter. Has he ever denied what Jane Tanner and Kate McCann said about the incident in the last 9 years? I don't think so.


What do you think can be ascertained about Nigel's personality and character from all this? How a person behaves, what they say and in particular what they don't say are all important clues as to someone's character. Nigel would be aware, one assumes, that he is an important eye-witness in an on-going police investigation. If he has nothing to hide and no agenda which I believe then he knows what the truth is about what happened. He was there and saw it with his own eyes plus heard what was said. Therefore, if the TM version of events is different, he will know that someone or several people are being economical with the truth.  I suspect he is fully aware of what has been done but does not need to defend himself because he KNOWS what happened. TM will have shot themselves in the feet in this regard, I suspect.  Even if it is only details of the conversation that are different to the TM version of events. Nigel will know. 


Look what has happened to other people who have criticized the TM version of events? Perhaps he decided it was better to keep his head down and didn't fancy a barrage of legal writs being slung his way. After all, it is his word against the word of TM. (Although interesting that there were some eye-witnesses to this encounter).  Still I know who I would believe, even if it is only one (impartial, imo) eye-witness. 



Since when does boarding a plane with someone make you 'feel comfortable' around them? 


He felt comfortable enough to speak to Russell and Jane during the week!


Ahem, I would suggest that Nigel felt uncomfortable enough about what he saw to go up to TM and tell them so.. You are spinning - are you in a dish-washer?



The evidence from Russell's first police statement is that what TM were doing - and particularly Russell - made Nigel uncomfortable enough for him to go up to them and remonstrate. Why are you ignoring this evidence? 


The evidence from Russell's first police statement. 


What evidence? Has Nigel Foster confirmed this in the last 9 years?


He has most sensibly kept his mouth shut unlike some other people who are now reaping what they sowed, imo!



Why would Russell contradict what his own wife and Kate said about the incident?


When you tell lies, the more you tell the more difficult it is to remember the lies. And if lots of people are telling lies about an incidence, then it becomes more and more difficult to line up the lies. Everyone's lies will be different. They will contradict each other. This is precisely - and somewhat hilariously, imo - what has happened when you scrutinize TM's rogatories. Each person gives conflicting accounts of days of events, times of events, who was at events, when events happened, what happened (as in this incident) and much more besides. Portuguese police in their report note how the McCanns and their group have lied to the extent that their rogatories don't make any sense. It's true - they don't. And their memory loss is astonishing! Plus sometimes memory gains as time goes by, that's interesting too...



Why hasn't Nigel Foster said anything to the newspapers in the last 9 years? 


Not everyone is a blabber-mouth. Not everyone wants to speak to a main stream press who twist, distort, lie and write rubbish. IMO! He knows what happened as he was there. He will also be aware of whether any members of TM lied about what happened, imo. He doesn't want trouble, maybe. He has given his version of events and doesn't want to prejudice an investigation. All possible reasons. 

Why haven't other vital eye-witnesses said anything? Carter-Rucked, scared, intimidates by the detectives, gagging clauses, secrecy needed for police investigation. Mostly gagged and Carter-Rucked I would think. Plus it is on record from Jez Wilkins that the McCann detectives were heavy-handed. 

Predictable explanation! Is this the best you can come up with? why haven't other vital eye-witnesses said anything? Is it because Russell did not covertly film anyone's daughter.


Why - for what reasons do you think other key witnesses (the Smith family for instance) would have kept quiet? I'm coming up with much better stuff than you. Not everyone is bullying blabber-mouth that has to counter genuine testimony with counter allegations that are false. Yawn! Playground tactics which we have seen played out for the past 9 years as TM collectively spit their dummies from the communal pram. People have seen through their antics. They are vulgar. Not everyone is that vulgar, imo.


Why hasn't Nigel Foster said anything on social media in the last 9 years?

All the above. Plus this is supposed to be a police investigation and therefore eye-witnesses if they speak out might prejudice the investigation.

More speculation


Are you saying that to call this a police investigation is 'speculation'? It isn't speculation. It is FACT. Of course it's a ridiculous police investigation as there's been a cover-up of monumental proportions. In a normal police investigation eye-witnesses can prejudice the outcome of the case by speaking to the media. That is fact. It is one of the reasons jurors are not allowed to speak to the press. Interesting that the key suspects in the case have been able to protect information from their past from being in the public domain. 



Why didn't any other parent come forward before the Police files were released in Aug 2008 to say that they too noticed Russell attempting to covertly film their 3 year old daughter?

How do you know they didn't? They might have done. They could have been kept secret so as not to prejudice the investigation. Or, or course, to hinder the investigation so that vital and very incriminating evidence did not come to light. There's a thought! 

How do you know they didn't? They might have done. Why didn't Goncalo Amaral mention anything about these witnesses statements in his book? Is it because nobody never witnessed Russell covertly filming anyone's daughter.


You have no idea who came forward. Detective Amaral would have been careful who he wrote about in his book. He would be mindful of consequences, privacy, invasion of privacy and more besides. What he included and what he omitted would have been carefully considered and I imagine he would not in any way want to say or do something that might cause harm or distress to an innocent person. We have no idea how many eye-witnesses came forward. Detective Amaral I am sure would be discreet and would know how a PROPER police investigation should be conducted. He has stuck to evidence and facts. Unlike TM who relied on fantasy, fraud and then bullying tactics, imo. No wonder he is coming out as the hero. He has behaved with class. TM have not. 



Why hasn't any other parent said anything to the newspapers or on social media in the last 9 years?

As above.

I'm sure the majority of the Madeleine McCann researchers who have studied this case from day 1 would of discovered information from social media about Russell covertly filming other parents daughters by now!


AS already stated, not everyone is a blabber-mouth. We have no idea what other people thought or saw or who approached police with what information. Not everything is in the public domain and a great many people quite rightly do not trust MMM with sensitive information. And just want to keep their heads down. If they are truly innocent and have nothing to hide they probably don't give a fig what a bunch of lying holiday-makers say who faked the abduction of a child who died, according to the lead detective on the case. 



How do you know that Thursday was four days after Madeleine died? How do you know what day she died?When was the last photo taken? Read the witness statement of Tasmin Silence and ask youself why the McCann’s released J.Weinberger's photofit of pimpleman to the public two years later in the Madeleine Was Here Documentary.


Well, that could be interesting.....I think the last photo was all photo-shopped. The background was taken later in May, which would tie in more closely with the release date. Then Gerry, Madeleine and Amelie photo-shopped in. If it had been taken on Saturday or Sunday then it would have been in Kate's camera and available for immediate release. Why wait over 3 weeks? That makes no sense at all. A whopping 3 weeks - how is that going to help 'find Madeleine'? Why not have released it on Friday. 


I think on Monday something *bad* happened. How do you know something bad happened on Monday?


The McCanns deviated from the routine of the rest of the group from Monday morning onwards. This is a giant red flag. Saturday and Sunday they followed the routine of the group. After that they didn't. Madeleine would have wanted to share meals with her friends and I think both Madeleine and the twins would have wanted to join their friends for breakfast at the Millennium and lunch at the Paynes. I think the cleaner makes a reliable eye-witness account of having seen Madeleine heading off to the Payne's apartment on Sunday lunchtime. So I propose that something happened on Sunday night/Monday morning that needed to be concealed. The Sagres sighting was on Monday too. The McCanns fail to mention this at all but the press do. Why? Both accounts cannot be right. Someone is lying.



Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday there were more pressing things to do. What, like Kate running back to her apartment on Tuesday to grab her camera to take a photo of Madeleine in her gorgeous pink top and sandles!


Indeed! A great deal more pressing than that, I suspect. Why not even get Madeleine's footwear right in this photo? At least have her in the flashing heel trainers?



Why didn't the Tennis Instructors and other people who were at the courts on Thursday morning come forward to the Portuguese Police to say that they also noticed Russell attempting to covertly film somebody else's daughter? Why haven't they said anything on social media in the last 9 years?

I have no idea. Perhaps they did. Perhaps they didn't notice. 


I am sure you are aware that OC staff were put under strict gagging orders. The tennis instructors would have been busy instructing. What would be interesting would be to speak to any other eye-witnesses who were standing in the vicinity. Particularly those who might have overheard the rather extraordinary, imo, conversation. Or even just seen what had happened. Of course OC staff aren't allowed to blabber all over social media. Or at least they weren't. The latest news about the Amaral case might change things of course. Not everyone wants to motor-mouth about 'their innocence' and how everyone has lied about them and how they are victims and how anyone who doesn't believe them is a nasty troll who should be hounded down and punished. Gerry's 'troll dossier' is interesting, imo. Some of the worst trolls have always been in TM, imo. Still, accuse your critics of doing what you do - time honoured tactic and remarkable effective, for a while that is. 

Perhaps Russell didn't covertly film anybody's daughter, so there was nothing to notice.


Then again, perhaps he did! And Nigel noticed! Maybe even a few other bystanders but that is obviously speculation. 



2007 - 2016
Jane Tanner – Nigel filmed his own daughter
Kate McCann – Nigel filmed his own daughter
Russell O' Brien ?? 
No statements, nothing on social media, nothing in the newspapers, absolutely no evidence from anyone else in 9 years that Russell covertly filmed anyone's daughter.


On the contrary, pages and pages of 'explanations' from Russell about what happened which do not ring true at all. Nigel's eye-witness statement is not in the public domain - funny that. And one translation where Russell appears to put his foot well and truly 'in it' and admit what really happened. Kate's account of the encounter is entirely unconvincing, imo. As is Matt's. They have spun their way into a giant web of lies to tightly that they are surrounded by them, imo. Russell O'Brien in his first witness statement (English translation) claims he did not see a video-recorder.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree and move on because we're going round in circles.


Not at all. I await a response from my Portuguese friend about the quality of the translations. Even if the translations are sound I still think it proves very little. Because I do not believe the TM version of events around this encounter. Like so much of what they claim, including the elusive Tanner-man abductor, it does not ring true. And if something does not ring true it is usually because it isn't true.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Verdi on 22.04.16 20:49

Russell O'Brien  witness statement -  11th May 2007

The deponent remembers only one episode, that for him did not have any importance, but that, given the circumstances, make him relate it. States that between the activities of tennis and others on the beach, he took notice of an individual who he only knows as NIGEL - a British individual, married, and with a daughter of ¾ years whose name is Ixxx. He had trivial conversations with him. On the day of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, in the late morning, part of the group, with their children, were next to the tennis courts when Nigel approached him. They were filming his daughter, with a video camera, and that, questioned, the deponent states that he does not remember seeing anyone with such an apparatus. Considering the current particulars of paedophilia, they conversed and the deponent considered this perfectly normal. Nigel had commented that he felt uncomfortable in having his daughter filmed. The deponent finished by concurring with him and together they spoke about the ridiculous situation and "the state to which the world has come". The deponent states that he has no reason to suspect Nigel  in any circumstances whatsoever, and that he appeared to him a normal citizen, with a normal family. He never again thought about this conversation and only reports it of all the situations of the week, he has no incident to register or relate.
----------

There you have it!  Why does anyone assume that Nigel Foster should have been formally interviewed by the PJ as an important witness - let alone some sinister plot to withhold a presumed statement?  Has it never dawned that this alleged conversation was but a figment of the over active mind of a major player in a very serious crime or an over exaggeration of a casual conversation  - someone with a desperate need to provide an innocent explanation for anything or everything the police may or may not find?  By analyzing and comparing the witness statements of the key players, it becomes apparent that R. O'Brien and his other half are in the mire above their respective ear'oles.  Has it dawned that Nigel Foster would have been interviewed by rogatory request had he been considered an important witness?

Right from the beginning the McCanns and their adherents propagated the 'paedophile' element - the question remains why!

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 8299
Reputation : 3843
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by j.rob on 22.04.16 21:50

Because they are paedophiles?

Someone has to be and they tick all the boxes.

Poor Madeleine - you really cannot choose your parents and in this particular case, imo, your father.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Verdi on 22.04.16 23:34

This is not constructive - it's a road leading nowhere.

Following release of the PJ files into the public domain, a few well intended people (Portuguese their native tongue I believe) volunteered their services for the painstaking trouble of translating the files from Portuguese to English - free gratis and for nothing.  Now, eight years later, their expertise and some might say integrity, is being brought into question - for what?  It's akin to a doctor diagnosing influenza and the patient demanding a second opinion because they think they've got the dreaded lurgy.

Apart from the impossible task of translating from one language to another word for word and the consequent need to second guess the intended meaning and context of specific words/passages, the witness statements under scrutiny weren't even recorded verbatim - how can you accurately determine what was said and/or meant under such circumstances?

Besides, as I say, the translation of all documentation has been used as a base for debate for eight years - if they are now questioned as to accuracy, the past years have been a total waste of time and energy for all the enthusiastic selfless people who have devoted so much of their personal lives in quest of justice for little Madeleine McCann - the little girl on the edge of her fourth birthday, totally deserted by those who should care above all else - her parents!

Of course it's good to invite new ideas and explore new avenues with a view to opening minds to alternative thinking but not by delving into flights of imagination just for the sake of it.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 8299
Reputation : 3843
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by j.rob on 23.04.16 0:03

Perhaps it is a road leading everywhere....there is nothing in the TM testimony that stands any kind of scrutiny. Frankly they come over as complete creeps.

And what the heck happened to Madeleine?

Yes, we have that ghastly 'Madeleine was Here'  (mock) documentary with Jane Tanner feigning crocodile tears over Tannerman spiriting away Madeleine (ridiculous cod acting). Scenes chez McCAnn in that series are incredibly creepy, imo.

IMO TM are exceptionally unattractive individuals.

Detective Amaral , on the other hand, stands out as being different. He is the hero, Always was. always will be. Class act. Unlike TM. IMO!

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Verdi on 23.04.16 12:51

@j.rob wrote:Perhaps it is a road leading everywhere....there is nothing in the TM testimony that stands any kind of scrutiny. Frankly they come over as complete creeps.

And what the heck happened to Madeleine?

Yes, we have that ghastly 'Madeleine was Here'  (mock) documentary with Jane Tanner feigning crocodile tears over Tannerman spiriting away Madeleine (ridiculous cod acting). Scenes chez McCAnn in that series are incredibly creepy, imo.

IMO TM are exceptionally unattractive individuals.

Detective Amaral , on the other hand, stands out as being different. He is the hero, Always was. always will be. Class act. Unlike TM. IMO!
Sorry j.rob - haven't a clue what you're rambling on about.

My observation was relating to the thread subject matter - Nigel Foster.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 8299
Reputation : 3843
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Realist on 23.04.16 13:28

@Verdi wrote:


My observation was relating to the thread subject matter - Nigel Foster.
Who he, another wandering minstrel, perhaps big grin

Realist

Posts : 421
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2014-11-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Spacecowboy on 23.04.16 13:44

@ VERDI


''The deponent states that he has no reason to suspect Nigel''
Suspect Nigel of what precisely?

There you have it! Why does anyone assume that Nigel Foster should have been formally interviewed by the PJ as an important witness - let alone some sinister plot to withhold a presumed statement?

I'm only basing my opinion on the evidence available, how can I base my opinion on evidence that is not available? If members on here are not allowed to form their own opinions based on the available evidence, then what's the point in researching the case? What's the point in members joining this forum, if they're only obligated to agree with everybody else? That would be boring wouldn't it?, might as well be a LURKER then, like so many other members on here.

Has it never dawned that this alleged conversation was but a figment of the over active mind of a major player in a very serious crime or an over exaggeration of a casual conversation - someone with a desperate need to provide an innocent explanation for anything or everything the police may or may not find?

That's a possibility, but the ONLY reason I've brought up the incident involving Nigel Foster is because myself, Tony B, Richard D. Hall and many others believe that the TENNIS BALL PHOTO is not what it purports to be for the following reasons:

Tony B's list:
1.Different claims for the day it was taken
2. Different claims for who took it, on which camera
3. Adult tennis balls being collected, not soft ones
4. No-one else in shot
5. Madeleine wearing inappropriate large floppy clothes
6. Girl looks to have bigger, sturdier body frame than Madeleine
7. Girl wearing inappropriate sandals
8. Query as to whether Madeleine had such sandals
9. Absence of other photos taken about the same time
10. Girl's arms legs look red and sunburnt - unlike Madeleine's on 'Last Photo'
11. Girl seems to have big bruise on right knee and bruises/scratch marks on right arm
12. Sudden change of colour from red to pale on girl's right hand
13. Suggestion that Madeleine's head has been photoshopped onto girl's body - her head looks to the right of where it 'should' be.
14. Would adults have been playing tennis, with balls being hit at up to 100mph or more, on an adjacent court to where three year old children were allegedly playing mini-tennis?
15. Is the 'right' court in shot?
16. (and per Nina, just above) Girls' sandals or socks show no scuffs or signs of having run over the red/green court.



Doug D posted a photo of Amelie's shorts on the tennis ball photo thread, identical to the one the girl wore in the tennis ball photo. This clearly indicates to those who believe the photo was taken on the holiday, and that the tennis ball photo isn't what it purports to be, that the McCann’s made an agreement with another parent to have a photograph taken of their three year old, wearing Amelie's shorts before Madeleine's head was photoshopped onto the body of the child, most likely on the day when Alex Woolfall flew to Portugal.

Rachel claims the photo was taken on Thursday by Jane Tanner, which is significant in my opinion as Tuesday was the last day Lobsters played mini-tennis. Jane Tanner hasn't disputed what Rachel said, not to my knowledge, nor did Kate dispute Rachel's claim in her book released 4 years later. Although Jane hesitantly admitted seeing Rob Naylor at the tennis courts on Wednesday (Rob played tennis on Tuesday, so she probably referred to Tuesday) in her rogatory statement, Thursday was the first time, both her and Kate admitted to meeting with/ having a conversation with another parent who had a three year old daughter at the tennis courts. I have seen a photo provided by Kiko of E. Naylor, her 11 month old brother and her parents. If it is E. Naylor in that photo, then it's not her in the tennis ball photo because her body frame is much slimmer than the the girl in the tennis ball photo.

Of course it's good to invite new ideas and explore new avenues with a view to opening minds to alternative thinking but not by delving into flights of imagination just for the sake of it.

SO, I'M NOT DELVING INTO FLIGHTS OF IMAGINATION JUST FOR THE SAKE OF IT!


I'M NOT THE ONE WHO BELIEVES MADELEINE DROWNED IN THE OCEAN CLUB SWIMMING POOL!

I'M ATTEMPTING TO ASCERTAIN WHO THE TANNED (SUNBURNT) GIRL WITH A STURDIER BODY FRAME THAN MADELEINE IN THE TENNIS BALL PHOTO MIGHT BE, WHICH NOBODY ELSE HAS ATTEMPTED TO DO IN 9 YEARS! SO, HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF DELVING INTO FLIGHTS OF IMAGINATION MR KNOW IT ALL! I WANT JUSTICE FOR MADELEINE TOO! I ONLY WANTED TO HELP HIDEHO FIND OUT WHICH DAY THE TENNIS BALL PHOTO MAY HAVE  BEEN TAKEN ON.


Tony B wrote 'If it is a water tide-mark,and having regard to the rest of the thread, which suggests that cleaning with water was not a daily occurrence but mostly likely just a seasonal exercise at the beginning of a season, do you agree that the tide-mark would most likely be caused by rain water drying out, rather than any use of cleaning water?

If you do agree, that might help HideHo to be more precise about when the Tennis Balls Photo was taken.

I think most of the rain that week fell during the day on Wednesday. So the tide-mark would occur sometime after the rain had dried out.



Thursday morning would then be a strong candidate. Especially as we know it was cloudy all that morning''.


Thursday was a dry day

Nigel Foster's daughter played tennis at 11am

Ella O' Brien, E. Naylor and possibly Madalene R (if she was the sub) were all at the creche that morning and went Mini-Sailing at 10.30am

Kate, Rachel, Gerry, Matthew O, Russell and Jane Tanner, (that's a total of 6 members of the Tapas 9) were at the courts, either on or near Court 1 according to the Tennis booking sheet and other evidence at around 11am

In the tennis ball photo, there's a dirt mark visible on the tennis court, possibly due to someone stepping on the muddy grass after Wednesday's rain and sliding on Court 1

Nigel Foster's daughter did not attend the creche that week, her name is nowhere to be found on the creche registers

Kate, Russell, Jane and Nigel Foster had a conversation about a sensitive subject

Jane Tanner admitted that Nigel Foster ''wasn't a stranger'' , her, Nigel and Russell, boarded the same plane to Portugal and they spoke to him during the week.

Photographs from a CD provided by Leicestershire police were visualised and analysed by the Portuguese police, photographs taken by the Foster family during their holidays at the OC between the 28th April and 5th May 2007 and that a least one one photograph where some of the elements making up the group of friends of the McCann's couple were visualised. Nothing relevant found for this investigation.

In the tennis ball photo:
A) There's no sweat visible under the girl's armpits B) No dirt marks visible on the girl's outfit C) No paint mark visible on the girl's outfit D) The T-Shirt worn by the girl is dry E) Amelie's purple shorts are dry F) The girl's outfit looks clean, which suggests to me, that the girl in the photo didn't attend any creche on Thursday/participate in any activities that may of caused her to get her outfit dirty, prior to playing tennis. The clean condition of the girl's outfit in the photo suggests that the girl in question went to the courts with her parent(s) shortly after getting changed into Amelie's shorts/outfit. 


I'M ATTEMPTING TO FIND OUT WHY ON EARTH SOMEONE WHO IS TANNED (SUNBURNT) WITH A STURDIER BODY FRAME THAN MADELEINE IS WEARING AMELIE'S SHORTS AND WHICH PARENT AGREED TO HAVE THE PICTURE TAKEN. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE WEATHER CONDITIONS ON THURSDAY, ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE ABOUT THURSDAY AND TONY B's post If it is a water tide-mark,and having regard to the rest of the thread, which suggests that cleaning with water was not a daily occurrence but mostly likely just a seasonal exercise at the beginning of a season, do you agree that the tide-mark would most likely be caused by rain water drying out, rather than any use of cleaning water?

If you do agree, that might help HideHo to be more precise about when the Tennis Balls Photo was taken.

I think most of the rain that week fell during the day on Wednesday. So the tide-mark would occur sometime after the rain had dried out.

Thursday morning would then be a strong candidate. Especially as we know it was cloudy all that morning''.

THEN THERE'S SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR ME TO FORM THE OPINION THAT THE TENNIS BALL PHOTO WAS TAKEN ON THURSDAY. SURELY I'M ENTITLED TO FORM THAT OPINION BASED ON THE EVIDENCE VERDI.

SO WHY ON EARTH SHOULD I FEEL OBLIGATED TO ONLY TAKE WHAT NIGEL 'MAY' HAVE TOLD THE POLICE INTO CONSIDERATION AND NOT JANE TANNER/KATE McCANN'S VERSION OF THE INCIDENT JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR REPUTATION? DO PEOPLE WITH BAD REPUTATIONS OR PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIED IN THE PAST NEVER SAY ANYTHING TRUTHFUL DURING THE REST OF THEIR LIVES? IS IT ONCE A LIAR, ALWAYS A LIAR?

THE ONLY REASON I'VE BROUGHT UP THE INCIDENT INVOLVING NIGEL FOSTER IS BECAUSE I NEED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THE McCANN'S MADE AN AGREEMENT WITH NIGEL FOSTER TO HAVE A PHOTO TAKEN OF HIS DAUGHTER. APART FROM JANE SEEING ROB NAYLOR AT THE TENNIS COURTS ON TUE AND HER AND KATE'S ENCOUNTER WITH NIGEL ON THURSDAY, THERE'S LIMITED EVIDENCE FROM THE TAPAS 9 IN THEIR STATEMENTS ABOUT ANY OTHER PARENT WHO HAD A THREE YEAR OLD DAUGHTER, WHO THEY MAY HAVE KNOWN/MET UP WITH AT THE TENNIS COURTS THAT WEEK. SO, UNDERSTANDABLY I'M GOING TO LOOK INTO THE NIGEL FOSTER INCIDENT IN MORE DETAIL, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE WEATHER CONDITIONS ON THURSDAY, ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE ABOUT THURSDAY AND TONY B's POST ABOUT THE WATER MARK ON THE TENNIS COURT WHICH IS CLEARLY VISIBLE IN THE TENNIS BALL PHOTO, WITH AN OPEN MIND AND NOT JUST FLIPPANTLY DISMISS THE McCANN'S VERSION OF THE INCIDENT DUE TO THEIR REPUTATION.

Following release of the PJ files into the public domain, a few well intended people (Portuguese their native tongue I believe) volunteered their services for the painstaking trouble of translating the files from Portuguese to English - free gratis and for nothing. Now, eight years later, their expertise and some might say integrity, is being brought into question - for what?

@skyrocket wrote:
***********************
@j.rob & @spacecowboy above -I am confident in saying that the Portuguese version of ROB's 11 May statement regarding the 'Nigel conversation' has been badly translated into English at the critical points. The personal pronouns are misleading. IMO, Nigel is the one stated as using the video camera and also the one making the comment about himself feeling uncomfortable filming his own daughter. I have asked before if there are any native Portuguese speakers out there who can confirm this as it is a vital point. (My Spanish is good; Portuguese is very similar - verbs/ending follow the same pattern; I have checked the translation).

ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT SKYROCKET AND/OR MYSELF ARE QUESTIONING THE EXPERTISE OF VOLUNTEERS FOR THE SAKE OF IT? WHO THE HELL ARE YOU? MYSELF AND SKYROCKET ARE WELL INTENDED PEOPLE. WE BOTH HAVE GIVEN UP OUR SPARE TIME TO RESEARCH THE CASE, TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH AND HOPEFULLY GET JUSTICE FOR MADELEINE WHO DESERVED SO MUCH BETTER.

IF THE GIRL IN THE TENNIS BALL PHOTO IS NOT NIGEL FOSTER'S DAUGHTER, THEN I WILL HAVE A DETAILED LOOK AT THE GUEST LIST, IN THE HOPE OF NOTICING ANY OTHER PARENTS WHO TRAVELLED TO PORTUGAL WITH THEIR 3/4 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER, WHO MAY HAVE KNOWN/ BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE TAPAS 9 DURING THAT FATEFUL HOLIDAY.

YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW ME AND I'VE ONLY STARTED POSTING REGULARLY FOR THE LAST MONTH, BUT I SEE YOU HAVE A KNACK OF QUESTIONING THE INTEGRITY OF OTHER MEMBERS ON THIS FORUM.


I AWAIT YOUR RESPONSE VERDI AND AFTER THAT I DON'T WANT ANY FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE WITH YOU ON HERE. I'VE GOT NO TIME FOR POMPOUS PEOPLE.
avatar
Spacecowboy

Posts : 36
Reputation : 31
Join date : 2015-07-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum