Re: Theory

by joyce1938 26.06.14 15:49

I have not been able to access this site today and now its moving very slowly ,are others experiencing similar problem joyce1938

by whatliesbehindthesofa 26.06.14 15:50

joyce1938 wrote:I have not been able to access this site today and now its moving very slowly ,are others experiencing similar problem joyce1938

It's not just me then, they must be having server issues :)

ETA - oh, do you mean this forum, or the mccannpjfiles site? I haven't had a problem accessing the forum today.

by joyce1938 26.06.14 16:05

ITs this forum ,even to press to reply ,took a few mins to respond,and each page I try to access does the same ,no response for another few mins ,not on other sites so must be server eh ? joyce1938

by whatliesbehindthesofa 26.06.14 16:10

MarcoG wrote:
You're even saying that it was not John Hill but another person ordering the phonecalls.

MarcoG, I'm confused by this. I haven't said that at all. I said that according to his statement, he claimed to have gone to reception to get them to call the police as soon as he arrived at the OC. Luis says otherwise, that it was a Tapas staff member. I've only said in this case that perhaps Hill was on his way to reception, and then asked the Tapas staff member to go to reception for him, as he was in the middle of an emergency. That's delegation for you, and seems a perfectly reasonable explanation to me.

I've also mentioned that Hill said that he went to 5A, and then accompanied Gerry to reception where the police were called a second time. I don't know what you mean when you say that I've said it wasn't John Hill ordering phonecalls.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 26.06.14 16:11

joyce1938 wrote:ITs this forum ,even to press to reply ,took a few mins to respond,and each page I try to access does the same ,no response for another few mins ,not on other sites so must be server eh ? joyce1938

Can't be the server, I have no problem accessing the forum at the moment. You might have a problem in your local area. Are other websites slow to respond or is it just this one?

by Boosey 26.06.14 16:58

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
joyce1938 wrote:ITs this forum ,even to press to reply ,took a few mins to respond,and each page I try to access does the same ,no response for another few mins ,not on other sites so must be server eh ? joyce1938

Can't be the server, I have no problem accessing the forum at the moment. You might have a problem in your local area. Are other websites slow to respond or is it just this one?

I had bother this afternoon as well. You could nearly have time to make a cup of tea before a new page came up.

by Guest 26.06.14 17:50

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
MarcoG wrote:
Those are not the phonerecords the PJ needed. Those needed are not in the files. Further, you're discarding the statement of the person who actually called the police, the person who got called by that person, and the executive manager of the tapas who corroborates the time.
You can't just call every witness evenly key. Terribly sorry, trying to make the T9 timeline fit the facts won't work, because it's all a stageplay. You're even saying that it was not John Hill but another person ordering the phonecalls.

Not attacking you, btw. I appreciate and respect your postings.

And among the witnesses that you are discarding are John Hill, manager of the Ocean Club, and Lindsey Johnson, creche manager, who enacted the procedures for missing children. If what you are saying is correct, then both of these people lied or were mistaken (in the same way). There are lots of others. I can list them if you like, all the people who must have been greatly mistaken.

I have my thoughts, but not one theory of what must have happened. I can't know.

I don't think the receptionist is mistaking when he remembers that John Hill with Gerry came in to his reception, agitated.

Of course John Hill who came in with Gerry can't have been mistaken. He can't be. John Hill? Who came in with Gerry? Mistaken? Impossible.

by Guest 26.06.14 17:55

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
MarcoG wrote:
You're even saying that it was not John Hill but another person ordering the phonecalls.

MarcoG, I'm confused by this. I haven't said that at all. I said that according to his statement, he claimed to have gone to reception to get them to call the police as soon as he arrived at the OC. Luis says otherwise, that it was a Tapas staff member. I've only said in this case that perhaps Hill was on his way to reception, and then asked the Tapas staff member to go to reception for him, as he was in the middle of an emergency. That's delegation for you, and seems a perfectly reasonable explanation to me.

I've also mentioned that Hill said that he went to 5A, and then accompanied Gerry to reception where the police were called a second time. I don't know what you mean when you say that I've said it wasn't John Hill ordering phonecalls.

Luis said that he was informed/ alerted by Tapas staff, and then was spurred by John Hill. That's what he said. That's what he told the housing manager as well. John Hill. Agitated about the police having been phoned several times and not showing up. No delegation.

by Guest 26.06.14 21:39

tigger wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
MarcoG wrote:No Dianne Webster either, by the way. Peleja says the table was empty.

And several members of the Tapas bar staff saw her at the table alone and said this in their statements. And DW did leave at some point leaving an empty table.

Do you want me to quote those statements, or can you find them yourself?

Iirc DW went to 5a with the group and was sent back by Fiona. So everybody is right if you like.
Sorry, can't be much bothered to get the evening timeline into sharp focus as the more we keep looking at 3/5, the more details are found that don't fit. To the great delight of TM imo.

The 3rd is not that important imo. It's similar to the great mediaeval debate on the number of angels who could dance on the head of a pin.
T9 evidence worthless.
MW/OC evidence - much found to be significantly changed within a short time or with widely varying times.
Nannies evidence - similar scenario.

Conclusion: stick to facts and those witnesses who had nothing to gain from telling lies, e.g. The waiters, the Smiths.

IMO perhaps too much emphasis is being put on the exact timings as claimed by independent witnesses such as the Tapas staff. They were working, I doubt if they clocked every movement of the Mccanns and their friends, a rough idea of timing yes but it would be ridiculous to expect any of them to be precise. The important thing as I see is the time that the GNR were contacted and the last time that Maddie was seen alive by an independent witness. The rest is just a jumble crafted by Kate & Gerry etc to create confusion and that is clearly what they have done.

by Okeydokey 27.06.14 2:40

Gollum wrote:
IMO perhaps too much emphasis is being put on the exact timings as claimed by independent witnesses such as the Tapas staff. They were working, I doubt if they clocked every movement of the Mccanns and their friends, a rough idea of timing yes but it would be ridiculous to expect any of them to be precise. The important thing as I see is the time that the GNR were contacted and the last time that Maddie was seen alive by an independent witness. The rest is just a jumble crafted by Kate & Gerry etc to create confusion and that is clearly what they have done.

I agree. Timing can be a bit of a distraction. Let's look at the basics. The Tapas 9 (or at least several of them) claim that at 10pm or close to that time Jane Tanner had already revealed she had seen the abduction of Madeleine McCann. Why on earth then did none of them undertake a systematic search in the direction the "abductor" witnessed by Jane Tanner had been travelling? Why were they all involved in this unfocussed search around the resort if Jane Tanner had witnessed the abduction? It makes no sense - whatever the precise timings might be.

by Guest 27.06.14 19:56

Okeydokey wrote:
Gollum wrote:
IMO perhaps too much emphasis is being put on the exact timings as claimed by independent witnesses such as the Tapas staff. They were working, I doubt if they clocked every movement of the Mccanns and their friends, a rough idea of timing yes but it would be ridiculous to expect any of them to be precise. The important thing as I see is the time that the GNR were contacted and the last time that Maddie was seen alive by an independent witness. The rest is just a jumble crafted by Kate & Gerry etc to create confusion and that is clearly what they have done.

I agree. Timing can be a bit of a distraction. Let's look at the basics. The Tapas 9 (or at least several of them) claim that at 10pm or close to that time Jane Tanner had already revealed she had seen the abduction of Madeleine McCann. Why on earth then did none of them undertake a systematic search in the direction the "abductor" witnessed by Jane Tanner had been travelling? Why were they all involved in this unfocussed search around the resort if Jane Tanner had witnessed the abduction? It makes no sense - whatever the precise timings might be.

You make a very good point, why didn't they follow the obvious trail instead of floundering about (or flip flopping in Tanners case) all over the place. Why did they think that Maddie might have walked towards or be taken to the beach? The simplest clue to confirm my suspicions is the vey fact that is was assumed by the Mccanns and their friends that Maddie was abducted on foot, surely such a risky manouevre as a stranger removing a child from within an apartment would require transport? Or am I being naive.

As far as I know, the PJ wanted the group to participate in a reconstruction to iron out the apparent discrepencies in thier statements but the group declined so that opportunity was lost forever. That leaves the investigation with nothing but the witness statements that created the confustion in the first place, that situation cannot now change so as I said, the timings other than the call/s received by the GNR and subsequently the PJ are the only important remaining issue along with the last time Maddie was seen alive by a 'totally' indepedent witness. Trouble is, I haven't a clue who this 'totally' independent witness might be.

It's established that the group were at the Tapas restaurant that night and that they were up and down like a fiddlers elbow but that proves nothing for all is know they might have been visiting the bog, there did appear to be a problem in that direction with some of the group during the week.

Over and over again I read the word 'evidence' and 'fact' but what evidence and what fact? There really is very little for an effective investigation to proceed outside of the words of the Tapas group, which to me amounts to nothing!

by ReinierK 27.06.14 22:18

I didn't see the police phone records before, thanks for that!

There's quite a bit of time between the last sighting of MBM and the calling of the police as well.

I also agree that the given times are all very unreliable, it's very plausible that no one kept track of time accurately, so I don't put much value on them.

Question: did any of the TapasTeam have a vehicle? Or any of the people "involved" at that time?

I ask because the dogs picked up MBM's scent to the parking lot. However, the path to the parking lot is far from logical: around the apartment block, through the corridor. Risking exposure and the lot was literally around the corner.

Did GM use someone's car to quickly dispose of MBM? And retrofitted the timeline to make it look he never left?

Log in for more topics