The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Nigel Foster

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Realist on 23.04.16 15:40

@Spacecowboy wrote:

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.



No disrespect, but wouldn't your valuable spare time be far more usefully employed in researching pertinent matters relating to the case. For instance, was Gerry McCann's brobdingnagian sports bag ever seen after his daughter was reported missing, did the McCanns have access to buggies or any other mode of transport which could have been utilised to convey a 4 yr. old child, how extensive was Kate McCann's knowledge of the local terrain acquired from her daily jogging expeditions, to name but a few.

I fully appreciate that these are mundane matters and far less intriguing than paedophile rings, conspiracies involving half of Praia da Luz and the NHS, doctored images, gov. secret agencies etc. etc. etc. but nevertheless, the only way the McCanns are ever going to be indicted for any type of offence is if the remains of their daughter are discovered.

Realist

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Guest on 23.04.16 15:46

Stay on topic, please.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Realist on 23.04.16 15:58

Ladyinred wrote:Stay on topic, please.
I'm not altogether sure what the topic is, Ladyinred, because other than the title heading of Nigel Foster(whom I can't see has anything whatsoever to do with the disappearance of Madeleine) the contents appear to be a mix 'n match of various other topics.

Is there an emoticon for confused.  big grin

Realist

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Guest on 23.04.16 16:10

@Realist, the topic is Nigel Foster and it's drifting because of posters like you who believe he has nothing to do with the case.  However, others think the incident, and the fact that K included it in the bewk, relevant.

If you don't like this topic then I suggest you could spend time looking at buggies, terrain and sports bag and let us know what you find.  nod
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Realist on 23.04.16 16:58

Ladyinred wrote:
If you don't like this topic then I suggest you could spend time looking at buggies, terrain and sports bag and let us know what you find.  nod
Very interesting subject, buggies.


Realist

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Guest on 23.04.16 17:06

@Realist.  You first mentioned buggies upthread.

Back on topic, please, you are disrupting this thread.  Off-topic posts will be deleted.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Spacecowboy on 23.04.16 17:07

@Realist wrote:
@Spacecowboy wrote:

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.



No disrespect, but wouldn't your valuable spare time be far more usefully employed in researching pertinent matters relating to the case.

I HAVE RESEARCHED THE PERTINENT MATTERS IN THIS CASE, YOU WOULD KNOW THIS IF YOU BOTHERED TO LOOK AT MY PREVIOUS POSTS.

HIDEHO - ONE OF THE MODERATORS/RESEARCHERS IS KEEN TO FIND OUT WHEN THE TENNIS BALL PHOTO MAY HAVE BEEN TAKEN! SO I DECIDED TO TRY AND ANSWER HIDEHO's QUESTION BY COLLATING INFORMATION OF WHEN THE TAPAS 9 WERE AT THE TENNIS COURTS THAT WEEK AND OTHER PARENTS WHO TRAVELLED TO PORTUGAL THAT WEEK WITH THEIR 3/4 YEAR OLD DAUGHTERS, WHO THE TAPAS 9 MAY HAVE KNOWN/ HAD BEEN CONTACT WITH, AS THE TENNIS BALL PHOTO IS NOT WHAT IT PURPORTS TO BE IN MY OPINION, OTHER MEMBERS ON HERE SHARE THE SAME OPINION. TWO PEOPLE CLAIMED THAT THE TENNIS BALL PHOTO WAS TAKEN THAT WEEK, AND ON TWO DIFFERENT DAYS. SOME MEMBERS ON HERE, INCLUDING MYSELF, BELIEVE THE PHOTO WAS TAKEN ON THAT HOLIDAY. SO ALL I'VE DONE USING THE INFORMATION I COLLATED IS EXAMINE THE POSSIBILITY THAT McCANN's MADE AN AGREEMENT WITH ANOTHER PARENT TO HAVE A PHOTO TAKEN OF THEIR 3/4 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER IN AMELIE's PURPLE SHORTS. NIGEL FOSTER AND HIS DAUGHTER WENT TO THE TENNIS COURTS ON THURSDAY, THAT'S WHY I'VE BROUGHT UP THE INCIDENT INVOLVING NIGEL FOSTER ON THIS THREAD.

I fully appreciate that these are mundane matters -

NOT IN MY OPINION, TONY B's, HIDEHO's AND MANY OTHERS ON HERE.


avatar
Spacecowboy

Posts : 35
Reputation : 29
Join date : 2015-07-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Verdi on 23.04.16 23:59

@Spacecowboy

Well, I'm sure your response is excellent in general terms but I'm not quite sure what relevance it has to my comments that you appear to be responding to.  My observations only relate to the alleged conversation between Russell O'Brien and Nigel, 'fellow tourist from Southampton - he thinks' and the question raised about the translation of O'Brien's witness statement of 11th May 2007.  I say alleged conversation as there is no proof other than the word of one or more of the Tapas group.  So if you don't mind, in the spirit of goodwill, I'll cut to the chase by restricting my reply to this short paragraph .. 

I'm only basing my opinion on the evidence available

No you are not - you are creating a scenario built on shifting sands.  There is no evidence that the conversation between O'Brien and Foster occured.

how can I base my opinion on evidence that is not available?

By a flight of imagination.
 

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?

As far as I'm aware, members are allowed to form opinions (providing they don't contravene forum etiquette) whether based on evidence or not, in the same way members are allowed to contest the opinions of others.

What's the point in members joining this forum, if they're only obligated to agree with everybody else?

No point whatsever if that were indeed the case but I don't believe it is.  I read many conflicting opinions on this forum - some plausible, some worth consideration, some a bit OTT and some totally wacky.  Never a dull moment on CMoMM eh?

If it's all the same with you, I think it best I ignore your very loud conclusion.     

Sorry you've wasted your time as regards my observations but I'm sure your efforts would be a most welcome contribution to the Tennis Ball Photograph thread - warts 'n all!

I wish you well. howdy

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

Posts : 5609
Reputation : 3261
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Realist on 24.04.16 11:34

@Spacecowboy wrote:





SO ALL I'VE DONE USING THE INFORMATION I COLLATED IS EXAMINE THE POSSIBILITY THAT McCANN's MADE AN AGREEMENT WITH ANOTHER PARENT TO HAVE A PHOTO TAKEN OF THEIR 3/4 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER IN AMELIE's PURPLE SHORTS. NIGEL FOSTER AND HIS DAUGHTER WENT TO THE TENNIS COURTS ON THURSDAY, THAT'S WHY I'VE BROUGHT UP THE INCIDENT INVOLVING NIGEL FOSTER ON THIS THREAD.




But that would involve yet another person being party to the knowledge that the McCanns were involved in a conspiracy to conceal the death of their daughter. Bear in mind we already have seven of their direct acquaintances and at least half a dozen Warner camp employees involved in this conspiracy, none of whom have succumbed to the temptation of selling their stories to the world's media for vast financial gain, or for that matter, shown the slightest pang of conscience by imparting their knowledge to the authorities.

There may well be a school of thought which would subscribe to the aforementioned being way beyond the bounds of credibility.

Realist

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Verdi on 24.04.16 13:21

So, to avoid further ambiguity about translation issues which I don't think can ever be accurately resolved, nor does it lead anywhere constructive, why not use Russell O'Brien's rogatory interview which was recorded in English.  Here is the relevant extracts - on and off camera..

Russell O'Brien rogatory interview - 10th April 2008.  [reference to Thursday 3rd May)

I recall that one of the guests a guy from Southampton came over his daughter was playing tennis, he wanted to take a picture but expressed to us how uncomfortable he felt in doing so- he said something similar to feeling like a pervert or a dirty old man when taking a picture of his own child, I do not wish to implicate him. It says ‘I recall that a guy from Southampton came up, his daughter was playing tennis, he wanted to take a picture’, erm, ‘but casual’, maybe ‘casually expressed to us how uncomfortable he felt in doing so’”.

Further down page..

1578    “’But casually expressed’'

Reply    “Yeah, you know, he wasn’t, he just.  And it might be worth saying that, you know, he said that the, you know, something like, you know, ‘These days you feel like a pervert’ or maybe just extending that, you know, ‘You feel like a dirty old man taking a picture of your own daughter’ maybe just to make it a bit more explicit, because that’s what he said, you know, he didn’t just come up and say ‘Oh I feel like a dirty old man’, you know, sort of, you know, ‘In this’, you know, ‘The way things are these days’, erm, you know, ‘you feel like a criminal’ or ‘a dirty old man taking a photo of your own kid’”.

1578    “’The way things are these days you feel like a’'

Reply    “Yeah, you know, it, it was, it was a, it wasn’t just a ‘Oh I feel a bit dirty taking this’”.

1578    “Did he use the word ‘pervert’'

Reply    “Huh, we had a whole conversation about this and whether those were his first words or whether this was what, you know, because there was Kate, there was myself, Jane, Rachael, him, there was a small group, you know, around, and I think he felt a little self-conscious because he was walking past another group of parents taking a photograph of several kids at the net of the tennis”.

1578    “Yeah”.

Reply    “I don’t know if he used the word ‘perv’, but the conversation went round on this and, you know, that, that society, you know, makes, can make normal parents feel uncomfortable doing what ten, twenty, thirty years ago would have been considered an entirely innocent thing, like taking a photograph.  Erm, I think it would be ‘a dirty old man’, ‘feel a bit of a perv’, phew, I don’t know what his first words were.  But then we actually had a conversation and I think, you know, we, probably as a group, kind of said, you know, said ‘It’s ridiculous isn’t it, you know, you take a picture of your own kid and you’re made to feel like you’re a pervert’ or something like that.  Erm, and I don’t like the next paragraph the way it is, I think its, erm”.

1578    “Just a moment.  And present at that conversation were'”

Reply    “Well certainly myself, Jane, Kate and Rachael, erm, I don’t know if there was any, erm, I think it was kind of generally a sort of women’s tennis lesson that had gone on, there may have been a partner of one of the other, of the other guests, there were a couple of people who were, who Kate and Rachael and Jane had played with, I, I forget the names. I’ve got this vague recollection there was a lady who, probably in her mid-forties, blonde hair, who may have been there as well, I, I never really spoke to her really.  But there may have been one person like in the group as well who had been playing tennis.  And this chap who, who, erm, whose name is in my original statement, I’m afraid I’ve forgotten what it was, erm, but he, as I say, he lives in Southampton, he was there with his wife and a young kid and, erm, and had lived in Exeter about fifteen years before, which was one of the conversations we had, erm, at that point.  Erm, but, yeah, those are, those, certainly Rachael, Kate and myself, Jane and this man”.
----------

Does that erm, clarify erm. events erm, in more erm, detail erm - or erm, you could ask erm, Jane Tanner who seemed to be erm, his guiding light erm...

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

Posts : 5609
Reputation : 3261
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Spacecowboy on 24.04.16 21:42

@Verdi wrote:So, to avoid further ambiguity about translation issues which I don't think can ever be accurately resolved, nor does it lead anywhere constructive, why not use Russell O'Brien's rogatory interview which was recorded in English.  Here is the relevant extracts - on and off camera..

Russell O'Brien rogatory interview - 10th April 2008.  [reference to Thursday 3rd May)

I recall that one of the guests a guy from Southampton came over his daughter was playing tennis, he wanted to take a picture but expressed to us how uncomfortable he felt in doing so- he said something similar to feeling like a pervert or a dirty old man when taking a picture of his own child, I do not wish to implicate him. It says ‘I recall that a guy from Southampton came up, his daughter was playing tennis, he wanted to take a picture’, erm, ‘but casual’, maybe ‘casually expressed to us how uncomfortable he felt in doing so’”.

Further down page..

1578    “’But casually expressed’'

Reply    “Yeah, you know, he wasn’t, he just.  And it might be worth saying that, you know, he said that the, you know, something like, you know, ‘These days you feel like a pervert’ or maybe just extending that, you know, ‘You feel like a dirty old man taking a picture of your own daughter’ maybe just to make it a bit more explicit, because that’s what he said, you know, he didn’t just come up and say ‘Oh I feel like a dirty old man’, you know, sort of, you know, ‘In this’, you know, ‘The way things are these days’, erm, you know, ‘you feel like a criminal’ or ‘a dirty old man taking a photo of your own kid’”.

1578    “’The way things are these days you feel like a’'

Reply    “Yeah, you know, it, it was, it was a, it wasn’t just a ‘Oh I feel a bit dirty taking this’”.

1578    “Did he use the word ‘pervert’'

Reply    “Huh, we had a whole conversation about this and whether those were his first words or whether this was what, you know, because there was Kate, there was myself, Jane, Rachael, him, there was a small group, you know, around, and I think he felt a little self-conscious because he was walking past another group of parents taking a photograph of several kids at the net of the tennis”.

1578    “Yeah”.

Reply    “I don’t know if he used the word ‘perv’, but the conversation went round on this and, you know, that, that society, you know, makes, can make normal parents feel uncomfortable doing what ten, twenty, thirty years ago would have been considered an entirely innocent thing, like taking a photograph.  Erm, I think it would be ‘a dirty old man’, ‘feel a bit of a perv’, phew, I don’t know what his first words were.  But then we actually had a conversation and I think, you know, we, probably as a group, kind of said, you know, said ‘It’s ridiculous isn’t it, you know, you take a picture of your own kid and you’re made to feel like you’re a pervert’ or something like that.  Erm, and I don’t like the next paragraph the way it is, I think its, erm”.

1578    “Just a moment.  And present at that conversation were'”

Reply    “Well certainly myself, Jane, Kate and Rachael, erm, I don’t know if there was any, erm, I think it was kind of generally a sort of women’s tennis lesson that had gone on, there may have been a partner of one of the other, of the other guests, there were a couple of people who were, who Kate and Rachael and Jane had played with, I, I forget the names. I’ve got this vague recollection there was a lady who, probably in her mid-forties, blonde hair, who may have been there as well, I, I never really spoke to her really.  But there may have been one person like in the group as well who had been playing tennis.  And this chap who, who, erm, whose name is in my original statement, I’m afraid I’ve forgotten what it was, erm, but he, as I say, he lives in Southampton, he was there with his wife and a young kid and, erm, and had lived in Exeter about fifteen years before, which was one of the conversations we had, erm, at that point.  Erm, but, yeah, those are, those, certainly Rachael, Kate and myself, Jane and this man”.
----------

Does that erm, clarify erm. events erm, in more erm, detail erm - or erm, you could ask erm, Jane Tanner who seemed to be erm, his guiding light erm...


Does that erm, clarify erm. events erm, in more erm, detail erm 

Can you point out where I've stated that RUSSELL O' BRIEN said Nigel felt ''like a dirty old man''?
I pointed out that Kate said it in her book and Jane said it in her rogatory statement, which is a fact.

My main concern is whether or not Russell O' Brien covertly filmed Nigel's daughter.

Russell O'Brien rogatory interview - 10th April 2008.

I recall that one of the guests a guy from Southampton came over his daughter was playing tennis, he wanted to take a picture but expressed to us how uncomfortable he felt in doing so- he said something similar to feeling like a pervert or a 'dirty old man' when taking a picture of his own child.

Skyrocket wrote:

I have concerns over the translation done on ROB's statement. I do not speak Portuguese and I can feel certain persons' breathing down my neck as I type BUT my Spanish is good and the languages are verysimilar. The following 2 sentences need checking by a native speaker (preferably also fluent in English), but I am certain in my own mind (having also checked) that:

'Estava a filmar a sua filha' translates into English as, 'He (I or she) was filming his daughter'. 'He' would seem to fit the context of what ROB says best, however, who 'he' is at this stage is unclear (ROB or Nigel).

'They were' should have been written as 'estavam'

The sentence below this which starts 'Nigel comentado' also needs looking at. For me it translates as'Nigel commented that he almost felt uncomfortable photographing his own daughter'. 'Propria' meaning 'own'. The English translation given in the files gives quite a different slant on the meaning.

Does that erm, clarify erm. events erm, in more erm, detail erm - or erm, you could ask erm, J. Rob
avatar
Spacecowboy

Posts : 35
Reputation : 29
Join date : 2015-07-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by JohnyT on 24.04.16 21:51

@j.rob wrote:
@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.

Perhaps April28th could email Nigel and get a few answers................
JohnyT

 

JohnyT

Posts : 191
Reputation : 89
Join date : 2014-06-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by j.rob on 24.04.16 23:28

Perhaps April28th could email Nigel and get a few answers................
JohnyT


------


There's a thought.....

I suspect Nigel is confident enough in what he saw with his very eyes and heard with his own ears to not need to resort to any third parties emailing him and then posting up the email exchanges on internet forums.

But maybe others are not as confident...

Who knows in this strange case?

fan

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 232
Join date : 2014-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Verdi on 24.04.16 23:35

@Spacecowboy wrote:

Does that erm, clarify erm. events erm, in more erm, detail erm 

Can you point out where I've stated that RUSSELL O' BRIEN said Nigel felt ''like a dirty old man''?
I pointed out that Kate said it in her book and Jane said it in her rogatory statement, which is a fact.

----------

Delighted you have temporarily waived your declared intention of avoiding me - so unnecessary don't you think to take umbridge because someone disagrees, especially when the contre opinion is not directed at you personally.

Unfortunately you are at it again - I don't understand why you create these self accusatory statements.  Because I post-up Russell O'Brien's rogatory interview, it doesn't mean I'm suggesting specific quotations emanate from you e.g. Can you point out where I've stated that RUSSELL O' BRIEN said Nigel felt ''like a dirty old man''  I pointed out that Kate said it in her book and Jane said it in her rogatory statement, which is a fact.

Reverting to basics.  My observations only relate to the veracity of Russell O'Brien's claim about the conversation with the man from Southampton (backed only by other members of the Tapas group) and the question of the translation of Russell O'Brien's statement taken in May 2007.  To make it as simple as I can..

a)  There is no proof or evidence or indication to verify the claimed conversation between Russell O'Brien and Nigel Foster.
 
b)  I've repeatedly said, it's not possible to translate from one language to another verbatim.  Following release the PJ files were translated into English by a few volunteers with  the appropriate skill so to do.  I see no point in yet another translation to check out the original translation - more so when the query is instigated by someone who doesn't even speak Portuguese.

c)  I posted Russell O'Brien's rogatory interview taken and recorded in English to avoid any translation anomalies - a medium to assist with whatever clarification was required in the first place - who can remember that far back?

You'll be pleased to hear that is my final word!  PEACE! - 'n pudding if you like, I'm not fussed.

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

Posts : 5609
Reputation : 3261
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Realist on 25.04.16 14:34

@j.rob wrote:

Who knows in this strange case?

fan
The only element of this case that is strange, apart from the 'americana' mode of media coverage, is the fact that the Portuguese police initially gave the McCanns the benefit of the doubt. This in itself is strange, because it is normal police practice to treat the closest person/persons to the victim as suspects until they can be eliminated. The reason being, statistics demonstrate that in circa 70% of cases, it is the people closest to the vicim who ultimately transpire to be the culpable parties.

It is even stranger, after determining within a few hrs. of the reported abduction, that the McCanns were lying about how the alleged kidnapper gained access to their apt. the police continued to afford them the benefit of the doubt whilst failing to treat them as suspects. They also failed to initially secure the apt. as a crime scene which enabled the McCanns to further cover their tracks and muddy the waters. Some might even conclude that the police allowed the McCanns to set the agenda as to which direction the enquiry was to be headed. This was indeed a bungled investigation, but ironically, in the diametrically opposed vein as portrayed by Clarence Mitchell and the British media.

Realist

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by j.rob on 25.04.16 23:17

@Verdi wrote:So, to avoid further ambiguity about translation issues which I don't think can ever be accurately resolved, nor does it lead anywhere constructive,

Then why follow the topic? I think it is richly illustrative of Russell's state of mind over this incident which is so extraordinarily sensitive to Russell that he digs his way down to Australia but not before also covering himself in manure.

why not use Russell O'Brien's rogatory interview which was recorded in English.  Here is the relevant extracts - on and off camera..


Agree they are the relevant extracts. Your use of the word 'camera' is interesting because in Kate's book and in other statements it was a video-recorder that was the offending object. But from this account in which Russell says Nigel 'wanted to take a picture' it would suggest it was a camera rather than filming with a video-recorder. Given how much information Russell imparts about this supposedly 'casual' exchange, you would think he would remember the most basic of information - whether Russell was using a camera or a video-recorder. 


Russell O'Brien rogatory interview - 10th April 2008.  [reference to Thursday 3rd May)

I recall that one of the guests a guy from Southampton came over his daughter was playing tennis, he wanted to take a picture but expressed to us how uncomfortable he felt in doing so-

Not credible, imo. A normal parent would not go up to other people and express that thought. They wouldn't even think it let alone express it to near strangers or anyone else for that matter. There must be a very good reason why Russell has alleged Nigel said this. It does not ring true. That is because this account is untrue, imo.

he said something similar to feeling like a pervert or a dirty old man when taking a picture of his own child, I do not wish to implicate him. It says ‘I recall that a guy from Southampton came up, his daughter was playing tennis, he wanted to take a picture’, erm, ‘but casual’, maybe ‘casually expressed to us how uncomfortable he felt in doing so’”.

Again, this does not ring true. A normal parent would not approach a group of people he did not know, or knew only slightly, and express this thought. It is not credible. You wouldn't think this if you were normal and you certainly wouldn't 'casually express' it. Again, there is something very sensitive going on here. And police questioning suggests they picked up on it. The juxtaposition of 'casually expressed' and 'dirty old man' or 'pervert' is also perplexing. It doesn't make sense because there is nothing 'casual' about perversion in the context of children. Therefore there is something weird, creepy and mind-scrambling about this. A normal person would not think this. Nor would they say it, imo. 

Further down page..

1578    “’But casually expressed’'

Police bring up the expression again. They too must think it is a very odd thing to have said so they want to question Russell further on this:

Reply    “Yeah, you know, he wasn’t, he just. 

He wasn't what? He just what? Unfinished sentences. Poor old Russell can't get the words out. There is great sensitivity around this and deception, imo. This is awkward for Russell and he doesn't know how to finish the sentences. 

And it might be worth saying that, you know, he said that the, you know, something like, you know, ‘These days you feel like a pervert’

Russell has dug himself a hole and is now proceeding to cover himself with manure. He has used the term pervert twice already and the expression 'dirty old man' once. Look at all the hesitation and stumbling. Why 'these days?'

or maybe just extending that, you know,

Yet more elaboration! Why the need to 'extend' this? He is practically writing a thesis on what is supposed to have been a casual conversation.

‘You feel like a dirty old man taking a picture of your own daughter’

So Russell has now used the expression 'dirty old man' twice, as well as the term 'pervert' twice. Notice how he has used the second person personal pronoun 'you'. Rather than: 'He said he felt like a dirty old man taking a picture of his own daughter.' Again this is not what Nigel said, imo. I think words have been placed into Nigel's mouth. Russell is quite literally unable to say 'he' said that because, imo, Nigel didn't! And I am sure he doesn't appreciate being lumped into the small minority - hopefully - of people (like Russell perhaps?) who might think this.

maybe just to make it a bit more explicit,
Ye Gods! He has already elaborated....surely enough is enough. But no - he must now become  explicit!  eek
It gets worse by the line. Not only has he dug his way deep into a hole but he is positively drowning in sh*t by this stage. 

because that’s what he said, you know,

Did he Russell? I suspect he didn't and you are slithering and sliding like an eel caught on a hook. Why this unbelievably lengthy explanation?

he didn’t just come up and say ‘Oh I feel like a dirty old man’, you know, sort of, you know,

But I thought you already said he 'casually expressed' these things? Look at those 'you know, sort of, you know' - spit it out, man? I'm beginning to feel sorry for Russell Nigel. How difficult it is for him to carry out this everyday procedure which for the average person involves nothing more anxiety-provoking than approaching the subject of the photo with the camera and pressing the button while saying: 'cheese'? But not for poor Russell Nigel. 

‘In this’, you know, ‘The way things are these days’, erm, you know, ‘you feel like a criminal’ or ‘a dirty old man taking a photo of your own kid’”.

In this what? Then another 'erm' and yet another 'you know'. Who is 'you'? Then 'the way things are these days'. What an odd thing to say. This poor bloke Nigel is supposedly engaged in the process of taking a picture (picture suggests photo whereas I thought Nigel was supposedly video-recording his daughter?)  What sorts of things might usually run through one's mind - assuming you wanted a decent photo - if taking a picture of your child? You might ask her to pose. You might prefer an un-staged shot. You might want both. You might try to stand against the sun. You might make a decision about how much you wanted to include in the photo. How much background. Whether any other children were in the shot - perhaps friends she had made in the Mini club, for instance. Or perhaps include the nice friendly instructor? You might take several just to make sure you get a decent one. You would probably be mindful that a three year old's attention span is quite short and she wants to be engaged in the activity with her pals rather than posing for a long time.

But poor old Russell Nigel seems to have got himself into a lather of anxiety about taking the picture to the extent that he has called himself a dirty old man three times, a pervert twice and now - the piece de resistance - 'a criminal'. I'm really feeling very sorry for Russell Nigel now who clearly thinks he's about to be carted off to prison and held in solitary confinement for having committed the heinous offence of taking a picture of his daughter! Poor, poor Nigel! Notice how Russell uses the person pronoun 'you' in the phrase 'you feel like a criminal'. Why not say: 'He said he felt like a criminal?' Answer, imo: because that is not what Nigel said! It is quite simply, as GM might say 'preposterous' to make that suggestion. Russell has to distance the words from Nigel by using the pronoun 'you' (which of course could include Russell too) rather than 'he', because he knows that Nigel did not say those words, imo.


1578    “’The way things are these days you feel like a’'

Why 'these days'?  So 'you' wouldn't have felt like that before 'these days'.

Reply    “Yeah, you know, it, it was, it was a, it wasn’t just a ‘Oh I feel a bit dirty taking this’”.

Spit it out Russell. What was it? Or what wasn't it? I don't believe for one minute Nigel 'felt dirty' taking a picture of his child or said anything like that. Was it Kate that said dirty minds have dirty thoughts, or something like that? So it wasn't just feeling a bit dirty taking this? It was more than that? Yet another reference to feeling 'dirty'. 

1578    “Did he use the word ‘pervert’'

Police are no doubt fully aware of how suspicious this account is and want to pin Russell down to the exact terms and words that Nigel is supposed to have used. Bearing in mind that Russell has now used the word 'pervert' three times. 

Reply    “Huh, we had a whole conversation about this and whether those were his first words or whether this was what, you know, because there was Kate, there was myself, Jane, Rachael, him, there was a small group, you know, around,

I bet they had a 'whole conversation' between the group about what Nigel's first words were! I am sure they all remember quite well what they were. And so would Nigel. And it sounds as though other people were nearby too. So others might have witnessed some of this. Who knows, perhaps there was even a little bit of a scene? Perhaps Nigel's words were not 'casually expressed' but expressed in a different manner? And it did not escape the notice of others, even? Perhaps Nigel thought that TM were 'perverts', even? Maybe even said something to this effect? Not impossible.

and I think he felt a little self-conscious because he was walking past another group of parents taking a photograph of several kids at the net of the tennis”.

Ridiculous suggestion. Why would Nigel feel 'self-conscious'? The poor bloke is supposed to be pressing the button on a camera but according to Russell - who has somehow managed to penetrate the inner workings of Nigel's mind - the poor man not only thinks he is a perverted criminal but is also self-conscious. I guess you would be if all those thoughts were running through your mind while engaged in an innocent activity like taking a photograph of your child.

1578    “Yeah”.

Reply    “I don’t know if he used the word ‘perv’,

But Russell you have now, yourself, used that word a whopping four times. Why are you repeating that word, plus the expression 'dirty old man' and 'feeling dirty' if this is NOT what Nigel said? Hmmm....

but the conversation went round on this

It certainly did seem to go on for a long time in this vein - although who was saying what to whom exactly? Who is thinking what? And how can Russell have penetrated Nigel's inner psyche? This poor fellow holiday maker who is so lathered up with anxiety about pressing the button on his camera that he is convinced he is about to be locked away for life in solitary confinement?

and, you know, that, that society, you know, makes, can make normal parents feel uncomfortable doing what ten, twenty, thirty years ago would have been considered an entirely innocent thing, like taking a photograph.

This is fascinating....so it's all the fault of 'society' is it? But Russell 'normal parents' don't feel uncomfortable taking a photograph of their children. Sorry - but they just DON'T. They didn't ten or twenty or thirty years ago either. What might have changed over this period of time is that children have been made more aware of what are appropriate boundaries. People in general are less in awe of authority figures. And whereas in the past the parents would just say 'teacher'/'doctor' knows best and ignore what the child has to say, parents will now listen to their children if they are in distress and find out why. Teacher does not always know best.

  Erm, I think it would be ‘a dirty old man’, ‘feel a bit of a perv’, phew,

Okay - so I think I have now lost count of the number of times Russell has used the expression 'dirty old man' and 'perv' or 'pervert. It appears to have become a mantra. I wish Nigel would just put himself out of his misery and press the button on that frigging camera.....please...... big grin

Notice the 'phew' - this is a metaphorical fanning of the face (a bit like Kate in that early interview when she quite literally fans her face when asked about Madeleine's crying incident). I'm not surprised Russell is getting hot under the collar all this talk about 'dirty old men' and 'pervs' is enough to get anyone hot and bothered. 

I don’t know what his first words were. 

Here we go again. Of course you do. I suspect he thought it inappropriate that you were filming his daughter in a certain way and told you so...

But then we actually had a conversation

I'd love to know exactly how that conversation went.....

and I think, you know, we, probably as a group,

As a group - really? You all bonded over this experience did you? Poor old Nigel is practically on a ventilator and then you all end up, as a group, having a nice little conversation about paedophiles.

kind of said, you know, said ‘It’s ridiculous isn’t it, you know, you take a picture of your own kid and you’re made to feel like you’re a pervert’

'Made to feel' like a pervert? Who 'makes you feel' like a pervert for taking a picture of your own child? Why would anyone 'make' you feel like that? It's perfectly normal to take a picture of your own child. However, I could quite understand that you might be seen as a pervert if you took pictures of other people's children in a clandestine way.  That would look pervy.


or something like that. 

But perhaps not quite like that I suspect...

Erm, and I don’t like the next paragraph the way it is, I think its, erm”.

Errm....what? Incriminating, perhaps?

1578    “Just a moment.  And present at that conversation were'”

Love it! The sardine-munchers are no doubt by now utterly astonished by the above as I would imagine that they too could not understand how taking a photo could cause such huge anxiety. So they are no doubt, imo, highly suspicious of Russell's account and want to find out if there are any independent witnesses. This is a beautifully timed intervention, imo. Russell has been given so much rope that he has pretty much hung himself but just before the chair is pulled away, the inspector interjects and changes the flow.

Reply    “Well certainly myself, Jane, Kate and Rachael,

Ha - certainly myself! Priceless! Really - you were there? You don't say so! Bet he wishes he hadn't been. A 'normal' response would be - 'well, apart from myself....'

erm, I don’t know if there was any, erm,

Any witnesses to this? You 'don't know'? Or perhaps you do know?

I think it was kind of generally a sort of women’s tennis lesson that had gone on, there may have been a partner of one of the other, of the other guests, there were a couple of people who were, who Kate and Rachael and Jane had played with, I, I forget the names. I’ve got this vague recollection there was a lady who, probably in her mid-forties, blonde hair, who may have been there as well, I, I never really spoke to her really.

So this happened at the same time as not only a Mini Club session that Nigel's daughter was taking part in but also at the same time as a 'sort of' women's tennis lesson? (Possible that Nigel's wife was playing even?) That's quite a lot of other people around. From the sounds of it there was at least one eye-witness - the blonde lady (maybe one of the Jensen sisters?) and possible one or two others? Interesting - did he speak to her or didn't he?

  But there may have been one person like in the group as well who had been playing tennis. 

Okay - so who was this 'one person' in the the group who had been playing tennis?

And this chap who, who, erm, whose name is in my original statement, I’m afraid I’ve forgotten what it was, erm, but he, as I say, he lives in Southampton, he was there with his wife and a young kid and, erm, and had lived in Exeter about fifteen years before, which was one of the conversations we had, erm, at that point.  Erm, but, yeah, those are, those, certainly Rachael, Kate and myself, Jane and this man”.

Okay so Nigel was there and went up to TM. Nigel's wife was there (playing tennis?) and Nigel's daughter was obviously there playing mini-tennis and being photographed/filmed by someone but not quite sure who.  

And there were also a couple of other witnesses, including the blonde woman in her 40s...


----------

Does that erm, clarify erm. events erm, in more erm, detail erm - or erm, you could ask erm, Jane Tanner who seemed to be erm, his guiding light erm...


big grin

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 232
Join date : 2014-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by Verdi on 25.04.16 23:45

@j.rob wrote:  Then why follow the topic?

My profound apologies - I didn't realize forum criteria dictates that one follows a topic only if in total agreement with member comments.

Note taken!

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

Posts : 5609
Reputation : 3261
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Nigel Foster

Post by j.rob on 25.04.16 23:56

@Verdi wrote:@j.rob wrote:  Then why follow the topic?

My profound apologies - I didn't realize forum criteria dictates that one follows a topic only if in total agreement with member comments.

Note taken!

Very happy if you disagree!

No problem with that at all.....

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 232
Join date : 2014-02-02

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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