Re: Norwegian ex-military detective claims to have solved Madeleine case

by Paddingtom 10.07.24 7:30

your argument would appear to be that because GAs comments are repeated by everyone, theyre obviously not true. Not sure I follow the logic there but yiou are obviously entitled to your opinion.

As to what does GA really think, well, according to his books, he thinks the Smith sighting was made by reputable law abiding citizens and that it is crucial and pivotal in resolving the sequence of events. He even said that

When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of may 3rd. in Villa de Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner sent the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from gerald who - if he was the guilty party -would have taken this route. Leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murats house, but west in the direction of the beach.

But them Im probably just misquoting him.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 10.07.24 7:51

My argument is that his comments are three separate quotes strung together as though one. Where is the context for each one? All the media carried the same article which obviously came from the same source. A pink one probably.

As for amaral and the Smith sighting it was important for a process of elimination.
As Amaral said. Gerry had alibis for that time. Not just the tapas 9 either.

There is no way Gerry was carrying a dead child around pdl because her body was already gone. There is no way he was carrying another child as he could have been seen by people, he knew - like Jez.

by **crusader** 10.07.24 8:10

Assuming it wasn't Gerry the Smiths saw, there can only be 2 explanations.
1 Madeleine was kidnapped and the Smith family were witnesses to the event.
2 It was an innocent man carrying his own child through the streets at around 10pm.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 10.07.24 8:14

No 2.. because even smith said it was a normal thing to see men carrying children around pdl.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 10.07.24 8:17

In the early days Amaral was working from the assumption Madeleine died that night so the body was carried off in panic.

I don't think anyone thinks that any more - especially Amaral.

by Cake Lover 10.07.24 8:28

If number 2, was it necessary for the McCann's to invent somebody? They would have known that a child being carried about was a common sight?

by **Bluebagthepirate** 10.07.24 9:11

Smith saw Gerry getting off a plane weeks later and apparently knew from the body posture.

Norwegian ex-military detective claims to have solved Madeleine case - Page 25 Smith10

by **Bluebagthepirate** 10.07.24 9:13

Cake Lover wrote:If number 2, was it necessary for the McCann's to invent somebody? They would have known that a child being carried about was a common sight?

They invented someone at the right time in the right place... for someone climbing out the window (of opportunity).

by Paddingtom 10.07.24 10:35

This was meant to be posted earlier but seems to have gone into the ether so I will try again....

I take my hat off to you Bluebagthepirate for your enthusiasm in believing the alibi of gerry. Were gonna have to agree to disagree on that one.

For me, gerry wasnt carrying maddie. At the point GM saw Jez, he wasnt carrying anybody. He had just got changed into his button trousers and was going to go to Russ flat where a "sick" ella was being prepared to be abducted by GM..

Most of the journey was done in a car borowed from friends of Jane to reduce being seen other than the cctv at EdL. The entire journey back was in a car driven by Russ who was absent from the tapas attending to his "sick" child.. GA seized the car and gave it to the dogs. The dogs werent interested. It was Ella not Maddie.

I know Im the only person that thinks this and thats fine. but I have not seen anything that convinces me it didnt take place and untilI do, I will be convinced of its merit. And dont think Im one of those people that get so stuck into their theory that an earthquake wont change their mind. I have already changed my mind about burial at sea in favour of Bernt's theory. It makes sense. and so does my theory to me.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 10.07.24 10:38

It doesn't matter it Gerry wasn't carrying anyone when he met Jez.

He would have been insane to do it later and bump into someone like Jez.

It never happened,.

by GreenTara 10.07.24 10:41

The McCanns have given countless media interviews since Amaral was taken off the case. I imagine having seen these interviews, he wonders himself about his original hypothesis, given how much they inadvertently seem to spill. He at least worked out immediately that Maddie was not abducted, her body was hidden and they were being protected from very high up. To this day, these are still the only 3 things we can be pretty certain of.

by Paddingtom 10.07.24 10:48

like i say, we will have to agree to disagree.

Also, Cake Lover, I take your point of why did they invent someone if it was a random.

My theory says they needed a Tannerman to say "he went that way" Then they would get smithman on cctb heading to the beach (Sagres by sea) and then Sagresman (patsy) turns up. But the smith sighting meant they wanted to distract from it so Tannerman went towards the sagres road instaed (sagres by road) and then the patsy could take over from there, Obviously GA was all over sagresman and eliminated him so they started pointing their fingers at the next patsy...Murat.

They always needed a tannerman to start the ball rolling in the direction they wanted to.

by **crusader** 10.07.24 10:48

If Gerry was going to 5d he wouldn't have been going by way of the patio in my opinion.
He could have been seen by anyone exiting from there, it would make more sense to go via the front door.
I think now, Madeleine was dealt with on the 2nd and the Smith family saw a man with a child on 3rd as Martin Smith said.
He/they had obviously seen this before.

by **crusader** 10.07.24 10:54

Tannerman is real according to Julian Totman and Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood.

by Paddingtom 10.07.24 11:10

Crusader, I take my hat of to you for your enthusiasm in believing Andy redwood...

Bluebagthepirate I think Ive suddenly realised what you are sayig about the quotes!!!
Do you mean that because each sentence starts with a quote mark, they are from different sources? If so, I totally agree with you that it is odd, but I do believe that it is the way to write a quote from someone. For me, you would have a quote mark to start it and then, no matter how many sentences, you would have another one to finish it. But Ive always seen it written like this whereby you suply quote to start every sentence. Is there anyone out there that knows about grammer and can put us straight please?
It is my belief that it is one big quote not serveral strung together.

Perhaps Ive totally misunderstood your point Bluebagthepirate, but if you are saying what I thjink, we will have to wait for a grammer expert to advise.

by GreenTara 10.07.24 11:13

The whole abduction theory hung on Tannerman, that’s all they had. Tannerman was the foundation used to hold up the abduction theory. The moment Tannerman was shot down, the abduction theory should logically have tumbled. Yet it didn’t. It is currently floating in the air with no foundation to hold it up.

by **crusader** 10.07.24 11:18

I'm not saying I believe Andy Redwood or J Totman, but there it is coming out of his own mouth, so when it all gets sorted, his lightbulb moment may pop. bingo

G Amaral will have checked if Totmans child was at night creche that night and at what time it was picked up.
The Totmans had 2 children a boy aged 3 and a girl aged 2.

by Paddingtom 10.07.24 11:21

Im only teasing you Crusader. I totallly agree that GA would have been all over a random and eliminated him within days.

do you know anything about grammer?

by **crusader** 10.07.24 11:23

I do but I'm by no means an expert.

by Paddingtom 10.07.24 11:24

re you able to state what the situation is with quotes please?

by Paddingtom 10.07.24 11:30

GreenTara wrote:The McCanns have given countless media interviews since Amaral was taken off the case. I imagine having seen these interviews, he wonders himself about his original hypothesis, given how much they inadvertently seem to spill. He at least worked out immediately that Maddie was not abducted, her body was hidden and they were being protected from very high up. To this day, these are still the only 3 things we can be pretty certain of.

I have to say I am very impressed with GA willingness to entertain other theories other than his own. He always seems to be willing to listen to alternatives which is very refreshing. Let us not forget that awful policeofficer that tried to frame Colin Stagg just because he would not be redirected from his theory even though there was mounting evidence against/.

by **crusader** 10.07.24 11:32

I think the main stream media have taken quotes from various different places and put them together to form a sentence or paragraph that is misleading.
They have "quoted" G Amaral out of context.
Bluebag will know better than me.
I haven't seen the original quote.

When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of may 3rd. in Villa de Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner sent the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from gerald who - if he was the guilty party -would have taken this route. Leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murats house, but west in the direction of the beach.

Is this what G Amaral wrote in his book? If so then he quoted it himself.

by Paddingtom 10.07.24 11:35

Paddingtom wrote:re you able to state what the situation is with quotes please?

its a bit complicated so pay attention.

I could have misunderstood Bluebagthepirate, but what I think the point is that because there are quotes at the beginning of every sentence within a several sentence quote, they are from different sources...i.e not one speech.

But Im sure Ive seen it always written with quotes at the beginning of every sentence despite it being one large quote.

any ideas/

by Cake Lover 10.07.24 11:43

Separate quotes should be separately quoted, and with their own set of speech marks, I was told by a very precise teacher of English. He'd be horrified by my use of 'and' at the beginning of a written sentence.

by Paddingtom 10.07.24 11:44

crusader wrote:I think the main stream media have taken quotes from various different places and put them together to form a sentence or paragraph that is misleading.
They have "quoted" G Amaral out of context.
Bluebag will know better than me.
I haven't seen the original quote.

When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of may 3rd. in Villa de Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner sent the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from gerald who - if he was the guilty party -would have taken this route. Leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murats house, but west in the direction of the beach.

Is this what G Amaral wrote in his book? If so then he quoted it himself.

Yes this is what GA said in his book...its not this we are talking about.

it was a quote from a page ago which I dont know how to quote now.

The principle is if you want to say I went for a walk. The dog came with me. would you say

"I went for a walk.
"the dog came with me"

or would you say "I went for a walk.
The dog came with me"

by Paddingtom 10.07.24 11:47

Cake Lover wrote:Separate quotes should be separately quoted, and with their own set of speech marks, I was told by a very precise teacher of English. He'd be horrified by my use of 'and' at the beginning of a written sentence.

Thankyou Cake Lover, but its not quite what Im asking.

If someone makes a speech and it has several sentences, do you put quotes at the start of every sentence?

It seems to me that you do. (even thou I find it rather odd)

by **crusader** 10.07.24 11:47

If it was one quote there wouldn't be quote signs at the beginning of every sentence.
Example 2 is correct in my opinion.

by **Ladyinred** 10.07.24 11:50

Quote marks at the beginning of each paragraph.

by **crusader** 10.07.24 11:51

Thanks Ladyinred, that's what I meant.

by Paddingtom 10.07.24 11:57

Hurrah thankyou Ladyinred!!

So, if I was understanding you correctly Bluebagthepirate, then the fact there are new quote marks regularly, doesnt not mean they are different quotes added together. They are all the same speech.

But please put me staright if Ive got the wrong end of the stick.

Thankyou to all who tried to help resolve the quote problem much appreciated.

Latest topics