Re: KEY TO FINDING MADDIE Madeleine McCann abductor walked right past Irish family carrying the missing girl minutes after snatching her, US expert says

by Phoebe 12.03.19 12:15

Tony B. dramatically writes above re. Mark Saunokonoko " The game is Up".
Am I correct in inferring from this that you believe Mark is part of some dastardly plot, designed to hide the truth about there being no abduction, and is part of a McCann cover-up, given Gemma O'Doherty was likewise accused of this.
The simple fact is that Mark. S. (like Dr. Amaral and the P.J., Mark Harrison, Lee Rainbow etc). accepts that May 3rd '07 was the last date on which Madeleine was seen by independent witnesses.
Also like the P.J. and many others, he sees no reason to believe that the Smiths are liars or part of any McCann plot.
Mark S. is obviously happy that the P.J. were on the right track re. when Madeleine was last seen in public and the importance of the Smith sighting. Just because he does not appear to agree with the earlier death and complicit Smiths theory does not mean he is playing some sort of dastardly game.

by Dannz 12.03.19 13:35

As I've suggested to you before, you really need to thoroughly read through the subject matter to understand what leads forum research and analysis to reach particular conclusions

Suggesting I need to read more to understand is simply sidestepping the problem that that there are fundamental errors in key steps of the argument that Madeleine must have died before 3 May.

The claim that 90 minutes was necessary for cadavarine detection has been disproved by examining the study that was relied on. The claim of no sighting of Madeleine after Sunday has also been disconfirmed e.g. by showing that Ms Romao’s statement is not inconsistent with crèche records as was argued. Key planks in the argument fail. Studying the wiring diagram doesn’t save the Titanic.

by Dannz 12.03.19 13:51

I think we can be certain that none of the mountain of doubts about the authenticity of the Smiths' evidence will be aired in his podcasts.

It is a mountain of doubts built on a theory that doesn’t hold water.

I think we can be very certain that he won’t be promoting some delusional conspiracy theory with fantasies of secret deals over After Eights.

by Dannz 12.03.19 14:48

To get back to topic -

@ TonyBennett

I think these are very valid and important points you raise:

Looking at the ten points below, does anyone on here seriously believe that Jane Tanner saw anyone at all that Thursday night?

Looking at the ten points below, does anyone on here seriously believe that Dr Julian Totman was carrying his 2-year-old daughter back through the chilly, dark streets at 10pm, in light pyjamas, with no blanket or covering, and without a buggy? Seriously!

Looking at the ten points below, does anyone on here seriously believe that Gerry McCann saw Madeleine alive at 9.15pm on Thursday 3 May?

And so on.

Please someone tell me if they do seriously believe any of those three statements.

Yet these things are precisely what ordinary readers will take away from this Saunkonoko podcast and PA report.

As I’ve suggested, I don’t think Jane Tanner objectively saw the stranger she describes, but this may be a false memory rather than her lying. Recognising that actually implicates Gerry.

There is good reason to doubt she saw Totman - also he wasn’t even going in the same direction. Why get Totman to do this and/or decide it was him? Was it to take the heat of JT? to try to help maintain JT’s and T9 credibility? Because someone recognised it was false memory implicating Gerry? All of the above?

IMO Gerry did not go into the apartment- he got chatting with Jez and just listened from outside (“it was incredibly quiet”). The McCanns did not check every 30 minutes as they claim. (IMO She was last seen alive at 8:30pm when they left and she died moments after)

These points should be questioned and I hope he will. Often the story is told in stages, establishing basics and then adding questions and complications. Ordinary listeners new to it become lost in details otherwise. He is engaging listeners in questioning the McCanns abduction story. That’s good. Just because he isn’t presenting a particular view that you hold doesn’t mean he is pro-McCann. Lambasting journalists who question the McCanns and attacking the credibility of potential witnesses against the McCanns only serves to help them.

by skyrocket 12.03.19 15:04

Grief [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I've been refraining from getting involved but you're slowly driving me nuts with your posts!

Apologies everyone for this being OT but I have an aversion to repetitive, misleading statements being slipped in. You know what they say - repeat something enough and it becomes fact.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - can we just qualify a couple of your statements for the record. The cadaverine study that you quote as reference, states 85 minutes as the time required for detection - 5 minutes under the 90 minute time frame that you keep throwing out with derision. Five minutes ain't going to make much difference - had it been halved to 45 minutes or similar I might have taken this point more seriously.

Also, I have one question for you regarding Elisa Romao. If in fact she was such a good/reliable witness to Madeleine's presence during the week, why specifically does she say that ‘she does not know whether the 3 (children) were together (in the same crèche group) or whether they were separated due to the differences in their ages’? (Despite apparently having noticed a lot of the Mcs comings and goings).

How would Elisa not notice that the 3 children were separated during the day if the Mcs were walking backwards and forwards through the enclosed, small reception, sometimes with the 3 kids, sometimes with just the twins and sometimes with just Madeleine - specifically around the start and finish times of creche? Gerry states that all three shuttling combinations took place.

IMO, if Madeleine was there all week and if she was being taken to a creche outside of the Tapas area, as and when is stated by the Mcs, and if Elisa was on post when she says she was, she would have had to have been comatose not to realise that Madeleine and the twins were in different creche groups, in different locations. She apparently didn't notice, so what does that say about Elisa's reliability as a witness?

I completely concur with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]’s analysis of the Elisa Romao and Barrieros statements. IMO, they are far from proof that Madeleine was around during the week - they are both vague and unspecific.

Any response should perhaps be posted back on the 'Was Madeleine Seen After Sunday' thread.

by Dannz 12.03.19 15:24

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - please see posts in “no stone unturned” thread for cadaverine - my second post there answers to that. Discussion with you on that in that thread would be welcome.

The original argument against Ms Romao was inconsistency with crèche records. You raise a different point. I’ll post the answer to that in the relevant thread and we can discuss there.

by Guest 12.03.19 15:36

Dannz said: "This indicates a strong possibility that JT’s sighting may have been a false memory. Dismissing this out of hand as “ridiculous” does not refute this and instead suggests that you may not be aware of relevant research in the field of memory science."

Well, She either saw someone or she didn't. To say there is a perfectly understandable reason for "inventing" a sighting is neither here nor there, to me.
And no, I don't give much credence to the psychobabble churned out by pseudo science.

by Guest 12.03.19 15:50

skyrocket said: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I've been refraining from getting involved but you're slowly driving me nuts with your posts!

Maybe we should stop feeding the Trolls.

by plebgate 12.03.19 15:59

Dannz wrote:@Tony Bennett. I am astonished at how much you are able to read into that tweet.

Focusing on the 'reality' of the Smithman sighting destroys all the claims made on here that something very bad must have happened to Madeleine on the Sunday

The claim that something very bad must have happened to Madeleine on the Sunday is unsound as already shown. Focusing on reality is good and sensible.

hahahahahhahahahha yeah just like false memories are good and sensible. big grin

JT and false memory. What a load of .................................................. (imo) of course. hahahahhahahahah big grin

by Phoebe 12.03.19 16:40

I don't believe Jane Tanner saw anyone on the night of May 3rd and believe she invented "crecheman" to try to put legs under the abduction story while simultaneously exonerating Gerry and her husband of any involvement. Her evolving descriptions of Tannerman and her avowal that it was Murat she saw smack of very deliberate deception IMO.
Regarding the time needed for dogs to detect the odour of death - surely Martin Grime briefed the P.J. on how long it would take before his dogs could reliably alert to a corpse having been in the apartment. If a minimum time limit was required, one would imagine that he would have informed the police of this fact and advised that they factor this into their thinking. At the very least I would expect the police to have checked this with him.
I have never seen any test results concerning how long it would take before a dog could alert to the past presence of a whole corpse in situ, as opposed to a piece of cloth which had been rubbed on a corpse at various post mortem intervals.

by Dannz 12.03.19 16:58

JimbobJones wrote:Dannz said: "This indicates a strong possibility that JT’s sighting may have been a false memory. Dismissing this out of hand as “ridiculous” does not refute this and instead suggests that you may not be aware of relevant research in the field of memory science."

Well, She either saw someone or she didn't. To say there is a perfectly understandable reason for "inventing" a sighting is neither here nor there, to me.
And no, I don't give much credence to the psychobabble churned out by pseudo science.

False memory is recognised and studied by reputable academic and is a phenomena that has been recognised by courts. That’s not pseudoscience. There is nothing implausible about JT thinking she had seen someone when she didn’t.

I don’t give much credence to the views of people who can’t differentiate science from pseudoscience and which rely on “hahahahaha” and emojis. But that’s just me. Let’s just disagree on that - that’s fine by me.

by **Jill Havern** 12.03.19 17:08

Dannz wrote:
JimbobJones wrote:Dannz said: "This indicates a strong possibility that JT’s sighting may have been a false memory. Dismissing this out of hand as “ridiculous” does not refute this and instead suggests that you may not be aware of relevant research in the field of memory science."

Well, She either saw someone or she didn't. To say there is a perfectly understandable reason for "inventing" a sighting is neither here nor there, to me.
And no, I don't give much credence to the psychobabble churned out by pseudo science.

False memory is recognised and studied by reputable academic and is a phenomena that has been recognised by courts. That’s not pseudoscience. There is nothing implausible about JT thinking she had seen someone when she didn’t.

And what is it called when someone thinks they've seen something when they didn't but their description of the person she thought she saw but didn't evolves from an egg to a full person carrying a child wearing pyjamas that matched Madeleine's?

I don’t give much credence to the views of people who can’t differentiate science from pseudoscience and which rely on “hahahahaha” and emojis. But that’s just me. Let’s just disagree on that - that’s fine by me.

I don't give much credence to someone who, using just twelve words in a previous post, seeks to discredit nine years of research when they couldn't possibly have read all our research and how we reached our conclusions.

But that's just me.

by Dannz 12.03.19 17:25

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I agree that her identifying this as Murat smacks of deliberate deception as does embellishing the description to differentiate from Gerry. I just have doubts that this was deliberate deception by her from the start.

For accuracy- the study did not rub the cloth on a corpse. A gauze was placed on it for just 20 minutes. The study did show some dogs were able to detect sooner than others (the best in 85 mins). It did not use the same breed of dog, and Martin Grimes’s dog was considered best in the world. It does not show that Martin Grimes’ dog could not have detected after 70 minutes (Madeleine’s death just after her parents left at 8:30pm) or even 45 minutes. If anything it lends support to detection by Martin Grimes’ dog after less than 85 minutes.

by Dannz 12.03.19 17:30

And what is it called when someone thinks they've seen something when they didn't but their description of the person she thought she saw but didn't evolves from an egg to a full person carrying a child wearing pyjamas that matched Madeleine's?

“Contagion” would be the term used in memory science, unless this is attributable to deception.

I don't give much credence to someone who, using just twelve words in a previous post, seeks to discredit nine years of research when they couldn't possibly have read all our research and how we reached our conclusions.

Glad I wasn’t verbose. The detailed critique which that was based on can be seen in other threads. (It only takes a few fatal flaws - you don’t have to study the wiring diagrams and seating plans to know the Titanic won’t float). While the main conclusion was flawed that she must have died on Sunday, there is nevertheless a lot of very useful discussion.

by plebgate 12.03.19 18:01

Identifying Murat smacks of deliberate deception according to Danzzzzzzzz but this poster still doubts this was deliberate deception from the start? Huh!
Do we have a pro trying to take the proverbial?

Sounds complete NONSENSE to me. hahahaha big grin

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

by **Jill Havern** 12.03.19 18:11

Dannz wrote:
And what is it called when someone thinks they've seen something when they didn't but their description of the person she thought she saw but didn't evolves from an egg to a full person carrying a child wearing pyjamas that matched Madeleine's?

“Contagion” would be the term used in memory science, unless this is attributable to deception.

I don't give much credence to someone who, using just twelve words in a previous post, seeks to discredit nine years of research when they couldn't possibly have read all our research and how we reached our conclusions.

Glad I wasn’t verbose. The detailed critique which that was based on can be seen in other threads. (It only takes a few fatal flaws - you don’t have to study the wiring diagrams and seating plans to know the Titanic won’t float). While the main conclusion was flawed that she must have died on Sunday, there is nevertheless a lot of very useful discussion.

Thank you.

Could you please remind me what kind of lawyer you are?

And please could you refer me to where we might find the research you have conducted into Madeleine McCann's death?

by Guest 12.03.19 18:26

Dannz said: "False memory is recognised and studied by reputable academic and is a phenomena that has been recognised by courts. That’s not pseudoscience. There is nothing implausible about JT thinking she had seen someone when she didn’t. "
NO, it is just excuse making by pseudo science, for those who have been caught out LYING. Absolute psychobabble, invented to absolve the dishonest. People have had their lives RUINED by this kind of nonsense.
That line is just beginning to sound desperate now. Face the facts, it is most likely NOT a "false memory". More likely outright deception. CONSCIOUS deception.

by NickE 12.03.19 18:37

Phoebe wrote:I don't believe Jane Tanner saw anyone on the night of May 3rd and believe she invented "crecheman" to try to put legs under the abduction story while simultaneously exonerating Gerry and her husband of any involvement. Her evolving descriptions of Tannerman and her avowal that it was Murat she saw smack of very deliberate deception IMO.
Regarding the time needed for dogs to detect the odour of death - surely Martin Grime briefed the P.J. on how long it would take before his dogs could reliably alert to a corpse having been in the apartment. If a minimum time limit was required, one would imagine that he would have informed the police of this fact and advised that they factor this into their thinking. At the very least I would expect the police to have checked this with him.
I have never seen any test results concerning how long it would take before a dog could alert to the past presence of a whole corpse in situ, as opposed to a piece of cloth which had been rubbed on a corpse at various post mortem intervals.

I think you are right.
I also believe she didn't saw anyone that night and I've also have a feeling that SY knew this but could for some reasons not expose McCann's/JT as liars and took the easy way out and took a photo of an Police officer and named him as an "innocent father".

by Phoebe 12.03.19 18:38

Yes, "False Memory Syndrome" does exist (check out the research by Elisabeth Loftus, a prominent researcher in the field) but unfortunately, so does lying and dissembling and IMO Tanner's testimony falls into the latter category. False memories generally (but not always) occur at some distance from the event in question. Jane Tanner's "memory" of seeing Tannerman is noted on the timeline sheets drawn up by the Tapas 9 very shortly after the "abduction". She claims to have seen him at 9.20ish p.m. and had immediate recall of this event as evidenced by the drawing up of the time within two hours. This is inconsistent with the normal pattern of false recall. Just sayin' big grin

by plebgate 12.03.19 18:49

yes I read about Loftus and it came to the fore in the 80s and 90s. A lot of the cases were about memories of fathers and abuse according to wiki.

by Verdi 12.03.19 21:02

Phoebe wrote:I don't believe Jane Tanner saw anyone on the night of May 3rd and believe she invented "crecheman" to try to put legs under the abduction story while simultaneously exonerating Gerry and her husband of any involvement. Her evolving descriptions of Tannerman and her avowal that it was Murat she saw smack of very deliberate deception IMO.

Oh my - how that ties in so nicely with the alleged Smith sighting.

A very deliberate deception indeed !!!

by Phoebe 12.03.19 22:02

@ Verdi The Smith sighting, far from EXONERATING anyone (including Murat, their sighting did not mean he could not have been involved) points the finger of BLAME at Gerry. Did you not spot that.
Jane Tanner lying - yes, very credible. She had good reason - her husband had no alibi and was absent from the Tapas bar when the "abduction" occurred.
The Smiths had no reason to lie and there were a large group of them including youngsters.
One liar with direct connections and skin in the game = credible.
A whole bunch of unconnected people with nothing to gain from lying = not credible. The P.J. think likewise!!!

by crusader 12.03.19 22:32

Hi, I`m new, just a comment on the tanner sighting. if Tanner had seen man abducting Maddie, then she could not have missed the large round EEYOR patch on the right leg of her pyjamas.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.03.19 0:19

Phoebe wrote:@ Verdi The Smith sighting, far from EXONERATING anyone (including Murat, their sighting did not mean he could not have been involved) points the finger of BLAME at Gerry. Did you not spot that.

So Phoebe continues to believe that Gerry McCann was seen carrying Madeleine, presumably dead, by the Smiths, at about 10pm on Thursday 3 May.

If she's right, we must ask what on earth Operation Grange were doing promoting the Smith's two efits on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] CrimeWatch on 14 October 2013.

Here are some possibilities.

1 Not having the brain power and deductive reasoning skills of Phoebe, they made a stupid mistake and should have arrested & charged the McCanns six years ago.

2 They knew it was Gerry McCann all along, and produced that programme to try and trap him, especially as one of the images looked a bit similar to him.

3 They knew the efits were phoney & knew Maddie had died in Praia da Luz but wanted to get 7 million viewers to carry on believing the abduction narrative.

It must really be one of those.

WHICH?

by **Mainline** 13.03.19 0:50

I posted this on twitter some months ago. For reference, the purple 'path' represented a route that was respresented at the time on the '#McCann' tag on twitter, put forward as an explained 'Smithman' route. The red line illustrates the necessary path. Purple shows the proposed 'final destination' in the video I was responding to.

For context; I stayed in PdL, on the same road as Smith sighting, in 2017. I deliberately walked the streets at similar times on similar days. Including walking around 2100-2300 on May 3rd 2017.

The first thing I observed was that even though restaurants close at 2200, they continue to spill out into the streets well past that as clients finish their meals and leave. This was never more obvious than the pizza place at the base of Rua Primeiro de Maio. I walked there at just past 2210 one night. People were still eating. Bear in mind this is 2017 not 2007 - tourism is way down, I was turned away but the street was filled with people (note the location, bottom of first line on 'green path').

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

KEY TO FINDING MADDIE Madeleine McCann abductor walked right past Irish family carrying the missing girl minutes after snatching her, US expert says