Re: 'VIDEO OF THE DAY'

by Verdi 05.05.18 1:16

GMTV Kate and Gerry McCann in exclusive interview with Lorrraine Kelly [on the telly]

07:29 minutes

fishie 1855

Bums on seats!

by Verdi 05.05.18 1:25

Madeleine McCann - DAYBREAK Interview DCI Andy Redwood April 27 2012

040;44 minutes

anotheroneforjustice

'...... either Madeleine is alive or sadly she is dead......'

by Verdi 08.05.18 16:07

Once Upon a Crime ..

Feat. Sheriff Randy Firtree and undercover agent Janey Sixpennyworth

by Verdi 10.05.18 21:52

Sandra Felgueiras interviews McCanns

xklamation

06:24 minutes

by Verdi 10.05.18 21:59

Away from the staged interviews with UK media, Sandra Felgueiras deserves a medal for being the only one to tie Gerry and Kate McCann in knots - watch them squirm..

McCann - Sandra Felgueiras 05.11.09 (Pt 3)

anotheroneforjustice

08:30 minutes

by willowthewisp 11.05.18 13:19

Verdi wrote:Away from the staged interviews with UK media, Sandra Felgueiras deserves a medal for being the only one to tie Gerry and Kate McCann in knots - watch them squirm..

McCann - Sandra Felgueiras 05.11.09 (Pt 3)

anotheroneforjustice

08:30 minutes

Hi Verdi,take a very close look at Gerry's reaction(04.10) to Sandra's question to Kate about how they are coping living with the situation,without Madeleine!
Observe his eye movements of who is watching his reactions!

by Verdi 11.05.18 16:06

willow wrote:Hi Verdi,take a very close look at Gerry's reaction(04.10) to Sandra's question to Kate about how they are coping living with the situation,without Madeleine!
Observe his eye movements of who is watching his reactions!

What better than a video to illustrate the machinations of the McCanns and their associates.

No lost in translation or misquoting, it's all there straight from the horse's mouth - body language an' all !

by Liz Eagles 11.05.18 16:30

Did someone pin a poppy on Mr McCann's jacket?

by Verdi 13.05.18 21:55

Unmissable viewing no matter how many times. Lest they forget..

The sound is poor quality, interview transcript can be found here..

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14374-mccann-interview-transcripts?highlight=interview+transcripts

by Verdi 17.05.18 15:44

10th September 2007

by Verdi 17.05.18 15:47

by Verdi 17.05.18 15:50

by willowthewisp 18.05.18 14:40

Verdi wrote:

10th September 2007

Hi Verdi,a couple of points?

So Martin Brunt states,the McCann family"Two weeks" in Portugal?

Jeremy Wilkens spoken words to Gerry McCann out side of the apartment 3 May 2007,(Jez wishing he was there for Two Weeks) as opposed to Gerry stating it was the families Second week!

The McCann Family spotted on a Nudist Beach a week earlier April 21-28 2007?

Which then contradicts the flying out from Birmingham on the 28th April 2007,Madeleine bus video,which was produced after Madeleine had disappeared,Evidence?

Are the flight tickets fabricated!

Mr Julian Totman was booked into an apartment in G4 Block for Two Weeks,but only took up residence for the second week,aka 28th April,according to Mark Warner records, So someone could have taken up this kind offer to stay for"Free" for one week,a financial struggling Doctor Family?

Deep Throat,"follow the Money"?

by Verdi 18.05.18 15:53

by Verdi 18.05.18 16:02

by willowthewisp 18.05.18 17:05

Hi Verdi,thanks for showing the Bookings for the Totmans April 28th to 11 May 2007.

what is confusing is that Mr Julian Totman claims his family only took up residence in Apartment G4 block for the Second week?

So therefore if Mr Totman claims to have been playing tennis with Gerry McCann on the 3 May 2007,how could he be taking his daughter home from the night Creche,as according to what he has stated he wasn't there on the 3 May 2007!

Perhaps I am Wrong,but why state he wasn't to be in the apartment until the Second week from the 5th May-11th May 2007?

by Verdi 18.05.18 23:10

willowthewisp wrote:Hi Verdi,thanks for showing the Bookings for the Totmans April 28th to 11 May 2007.

what is confusing is that Mr Julian Totman claims his family only took up residence in Apartment G4 block for the Second week?

So therefore if Mr Totman claims to have been playing tennis with Gerry McCann on the 3 May 2007,how could he be taking his daughter home from the night Creche,as according to what he has stated he wasn't there on the 3 May 2007!

Perhaps I am Wrong,but why state he wasn't to be in the apartment until the Second week from the 5th May-11th May 2007?

A lot of water has passed under the bridge (hopefully taking a few trolls with it video of the day - 'VIDEO OF THE DAY' - Page 17 110921

) since this new report broke, you need to remind me where it was stated that the Totman family only took up residence in apartment G4 for the second week. As far as I'm aware, no official declaration has been made by Julian Totman or any of his family, only a news report which frankly I take with a sack of salt every time, without exception.

Looking at the Tapas restaurant booking for the week 28th April - 5th May, the name Totman is booked in Tuesday 1st May as two + one. According to the shambolic Ocean Club computerized records, the Totman family was booked in with two children - a two year old girl and a three year old boy. I don't think it unreasonable to suggest the Totmans used the night creche for their two year old girl whilst taking their three year old boy to the Tapas restaurant for dinner.

I can't help but think this is a non story, a sort of dangling carrot for the donkey. Who knows, maybe it was suggested to Julian Totman that he could have been the stranger allegedly seen by Jane Tanner - under the circumstances why would he think to deny it? He was there, his young child could have been at the creche, he could have collected her and taken her back to their lodging. Would it occur to him to research the case to see what Jane Tanner had said eleven years ago?

Cut the bloke some slack, I think he's most likely the victim of circumstances.

by worriedmum 20.05.18 21:22

But if he's a doctor and, ergo, smart, why hasn't he realised he was travelling in the opposite direction?

Should we really 'cut him some slack' if he hasn't said that 'Tannerman ' was going the wrong way for it to be him?

by Phoebe 21.05.18 0:25

I fear poor Jane T is in a bit of a bind here. If Totman was the man she saw going from left to right at around 9.10 pm then it makes sense that he was going to collect his child, ie. the man she saw was not carrying a child across his arms. She cannot attempt to backtrack now and agree to this, as she gave so much detail about the child's bare feet and the pyjama legs she "saw".
If Totman was carrying a child he can only have been walking in the opposite direction to that which she claimed. One way or another, if Totman is accepted as Tannerman, it means Jane has given misleading (at best) evidence.
Op. grange would like everyone to forget this sighting and accept that the "abduction" must have happened after the Tannerman sighting. I don't accept that it should just be quietly dropped. If Totman is Tannerman Jane has clearly given misleading and false testimony. That, in my book, calls into question all her other statements and testimony. She has proven herself an unreliable witness with Tannerman - this brings into question the veracity of All her statements!

by Verdi 21.05.18 1:09

worriedmum wrote:But if he's a doctor and, ergo, smart, why hasn't he realised he was travelling in the opposite direction?

Should we really 'cut him some slack' if he hasn't said that 'Tannerman ' was going the wrong way for it to be him?

As I said, would it occur to him eleven years down the line, to check out Jane Tanner's description in the PJ files? Like as not, he didn't even know the PJ files exist in the public domain, not everyone follows this case enough to know the detail, if at all. As far as he was concerned, he collected his daughter from the night creche and returned to his accommodation. If it were me and I hadn't been involved with the investigation at any stage, it wouldn't occur to me for one moment about direction - whatever Jane Tanner did or didn't say.

As I also say, I've not seen any official documentation that might confirm this story to be true or otherwise. It's a press report which can hardly be considered factual, generally their sense of reality hovers somewhere between Walter Mitty and Arthur Rackham.

All that aside, there was no evidence that Madeleine McCann was abducted on 3rd May 2007 or any other time during the weeks holiday.

No abduction = no sighting.

by skyrocket 21.05.18 8:35

@Verdi - I'm sorry but I don't think Totman should be given a mm of slack on this one, along with Redwood/Grange. Redwood clearly stated on Crimewatch (Oct 2013) that in their eureka moment the MET had realised that Tannerman was a MW father, carrying his 2 year old daughter back from the night creche. Totman has apparently now outed himself as that father. In theory, he could now say he didn't realise Jane had seen someone walking in the opposite direction and it can't, therefore, have been him BUT for Op Grange there are no viable excuses - they can't blame the confusion on Totman. And, if Op Grange do-away with Totman aka crecheman, Tannerman is back in the frame after Grange had conveniently disposed of him.

Dr Totman:

- at what time, and using which route did you return to your apartment after picking up your daughter?
- did you see or talk to anyone?
- why didn't your daughter have socks on (to keep her feet warm AND clean, if walking around on a hard floor in the night creche)?

Simple questions, should be simple answers.

by Phoebe 21.05.18 11:15

@ Skyrocket. I absolutely agree with your point. Whatever lack of information about the sighting Totman may have had, the Met cannot use such an excuse! How could Redwood announce his "Eureka" moment without having checked out every aspect of this important development. It is elementary - if Totman had already collected his child then he could not have been walking in the direction Jane claimed Tannerman was. If he was on his way to collect his child (and therefore going in the right direction) then Jane cannot have seen a child WITH him. The Met need to explain this glaring contradiction. If Totman is Tannerman, Jane's testimony cannot be the true.

by willowthewisp 21.05.18 14:11

Phoebe wrote:@ Skyrocket. I absolutely agree with your point. Whatever lack of information about the sighting Totman may have had, the Met cannot use such an excuse! How could Redwood announce his "Eureka" moment without having checked out every aspect of this important development. It is elementary - if Totman had already collected his child then he could not have been walking in the direction Jane claimed Tannerman was. If he was on his way to collect his child (and therefore going in the right direction) then Jane cannot have seen a child WITH him. The Met need to explain this glaring contradiction. If Totman is Tannerman, Jane's testimony cannot be the true.

Hi Phoebe,perhaps operation grange should recall the Three outstanding Police Officers to account for the "thesis,eureka moving time frame moment" SIO Hamish Campbell,DCI Andy Redwood,DCI Simon (nodding Head ) Foy,they were,where they where at the Tapas table,when Madeleine disappeared,so cannot be the suspects,the three Amigo's!

I would note,just take a look at what had happened since the Supreme Court Action on defamation taken in Portugal by Kate,Gerry,Operation Grange.
Sir Bernard Hogan Howe and the Assistant Commander, Mark Rowley of the Metropolitan Police Force have both stood down from any "Duties" to Operation Grange within a Five month decision taken in Portugal,25th January 2017, "One last line of Inquiry" and they very quickly vanished away to pastures new?

The New Metropolitan Police Service Commissioner, Cressida Dick has simply stated," We will see where we go with Operation Grange"?

Which concludes that the Metropolitan Police Force has lost "Five" very senior Ranking Officers on One single Operation Grange investigation and No further along in solving the Madeleine McCann disappearance after eight Years of investigation?

by Verdi 21.05.18 14:33

@skyrocket wrote:I'm sorry but I don't think Totman should be given a mm of slack on this one, along with Redwood/Grange. Redwood clearly stated on Crimewatch (Oct 2013) that in their eureka moment the MET had realised that Tannerman was a MW father, carrying his 2 year old daughter back from the night creche. Totman has apparently now outed himself as that father. In theory, he could now say he didn't realise Jane had seen someone walking in the opposite direction and it can't, therefore, have been him BUT for Op Grange there are no viable excuses - they can't blame the confusion on Totman. And, if Op Grange do-away with Totman aka crecheman, Tannerman is back in the frame after Grange had conveniently disposed of him.

I make no excuses for ex-DCI Andy Redwood, Operation Grange, the Metropolitan Police nor the Crimewatch production team. It was/is not they who have so far named Julian Totman.

If it turns out Totman is the mystery man that led to Andy Redwood's revelation moment and not just another media blitz, then I'll gladly reconsider. Meanwhile I'll cut Totman some slack - there's enough names been dragged into this charade just because they happened to be at the Ocean Club at the same time as the McCann's, let's not add to the list unnecessarily.

by Kathian1997 21.05.18 16:51

I have come to the conclusion that there have been so many lies told over the years by so many involved (or not) in this case that nobody can remember who said what to who (or should that be whom?) or where they were at any given time!