Was this paper ever sued?

Noted and np.

Hehe I had to look up np, Kolioli, I thought you were being rude[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Not just directed at you, others do it, including me[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] but it's ok with one, two or maybe three quotes, but seven is a bit much, I think you would all agree.

Me rude?????

Ok ok maybe possibly but on this ocassion not at all hehe.

As for my faith in social services, I don't have faith in any of them! What I actually think of the whole system is not printable, to be perfectly frank. Bullies, cowards, and that's the good ones - babies are dying, and will continue to die whilst parents who would never harm a hair on their child's head are hassled because maybe their garden is overgrown, or they maybe are a bit 'different'. Single mums seem to be a favourite target, Mums with big scary boyfriends (a la Baby P) much less so. That is the best thing I have to say about any of them. 
My heart breaks every time another child is reported dead, and I can't help wondering which unlucky people were being hounded when the really abused children with evil parents are just left to rot. 
Off soapbox now. I could write much much more, but nobody is interested I'm sure!


Yes, and of course doctors would never do anything to harm their children, would they? So they get off scott-free, imo. Plus they have a huge amount of clout when it comes to pointing the finger of suspicion onto parents who might have abused their children. Nothing wrong with this, per se, if this power is used responsibly. But, unfortunately, this is not always the case. Sometimes the finger of blame is pointed wrongly (solicitor Sally Clarke wrongly accused) while other times abuse is missed (many high profile cases, sadly) . Based on a doctor's and social worker's suspicions, a child can be removed from a family by police very quickly indeed. And then have to fight to prove their innocence. 

Professor Meadows and Dr Southall did not exactly have an unblemished reputation in this respect (diagnosing their pet theory of Munchausen's by Proxy left, right and centre on hapless mothers whose children/babies might have difficult medical conditions/suffer from iatrogenic illness/have suffered the misfortune of more than one cot-death,  for instance)  and there were a number of miscarriages of justice. Funny how this diagnosis no longer seems to be flavour of the month with pediatricians. 

The fact that the McCanns are doctors is hugely significant to this case, in all sorts of ways. What doctor will accuse another doctor of child neglect/abuse? This goes against the very foundation of what medicine is supposed to be about, right?

In any event, it is on record that at least one social worker DID  make a statement to police that she thought the McCanns had something to do with their daughter's disappearance. And that David Payne acted suspiciously and should be checked to see if he was on any sex offender register. Plus she recognized him but wasn't sure in what professional context.

And I agree with the above comments, the 'soft targets' - single mothers, poor, ill etc - will always be appealing as they are in a weak position to defend themselves. Those who are in much more powerful positions are not so easy to bring to justice, which of course some people who wish to abuse their positions of power will capitalize on.

Mentioned back within the argument re Social Workers was a "murder" of Allan Saunders by  Scott Anderson.   Allan Saunders was living (or at least at the same address as Jacqueline McCann in 2003 but I cannot find ANYTHING about a murder NOR Scott Anderson.  I have found something about Diane 

"Men out for laughs drag prostitute under a van" - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

But on the same news site & indeed the entire internet about Allan Saunders? Zilch

 

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

This article (about halfway down) about Jacqueline McCann and Alan Saunders is all I can find - I don't know where it was published originally.

It is odd that there are no reports about the case anywhere.

P.S. I've found out from Pamalam's site that it originated in the Scottish News of the World on 3rd June 2007.

If she was Jackie mccanns child it would explain alot. First GM says she looks like Kate but.. She is a McCann... Not she is MY daughter... Second.. The mysterious poster on Cristobell's blog posting about their two children and saying something about the cousin.... Third is lack of affection towards her perhaps thinking they couldn't conceive they took in Maddy, but the twins came and that screwed up TM because they didn't want Maddy maybe? And... Now here is motive for murder... Perhaps JMccann wanted her daughter back seeing the neglect of love, but what if TM knew if she got her back maybe more.. Distressing abuse would be discovered? Just my opinion... And maybe GM had to get rid if DNA in Portugal... He goes to UK to. Get it..... Got me thinking now

This 2013 article by social worker Camila Batmanghelidjh, is a devastating  report on the state of UK  child protection/social services.

DAILY MAIL
Social workers are  so immune to abuse that they turn into robots who cannot protect our children
By Camila Batmanghelidjh
24 November 2013

It is naïve to imagine that we can know what takes place behind every front door at every moment. Time will tell in the case of the three women apparently kept as slaves in an ordinary London house for a staggering 30 years, but the indications are that no one, including the authorities, could have known. Yet there are plenty more examples where evidence of abuse is clear. And when we consider that more than 400 children have died in horrifying circumstances since 2000, it is obvious something in our approach to vulnerable people is very wrong. Last year in Coventry, Daniel Pelka was found scavenging in bins for food. His mother eventually killed him. Hamzah Khan from Bradford was dead for two years before the smell of his decomposing body brought the police to the door in 2011. Before them, there was baby Peter Connelly in Haringey, North London. There were 22 visits from social workers and 14 appointments with a GP. Despite 60 injuries including a broken spine, a hospital doctor sent him home. In 2007 he died. And no one will forget Victoria Climbie in Ealing, West London, tied up in a bin bag in a bathtub, dead in her own excrement. Each time such a child dies we are promised case reviews and told ‘lessons are to be learnt’. Then there is a catalogue of recommendations: better communication, enhanced administration, ‘multi-agency working’. And we’re left none the wiser.

As the founder of Kids Company, which provides a refuge for vulnerable children and young adults, many of whom have suffered terrible abuse, I know the dangerous circumstances in which they have to live – and I’m very aware of the positive and negative responses they get from the authorities. I have come to believe that after years of exposure to traumatic events, professionals can become desensitised – so disturbed that they shut down their feelings to protect themselves. To protect children you need a sense of alarm to propel you into action. Without that sense of alarm, whole social work and child mental health departments can end up unwittingly justifying inaction, placing hundreds, probably thousands, of children at further risk. Some will go as far as beginning to grade levels of abuse. I know of child protection departments where sexual abuse of children involving penetration will be acted on, but those involving exposure to inappropriate behaviour or sexual touching will not. When we start grading child abuse we become institutionally savage.

One in ten children suffers significant mental health difficulties and, according to the NSPCC, one in ten children is being sexually abused. In research carried out by University College London, one in five of our young people attending the Kids Company’s educational facility were found to have been shot at and/or stabbed. Half had witnessed shootings and stabbings in the past year. Yet the most recent national child protection review failed to comment on sexual and physical abuse of children in gangs. There are reasons for this widespread failure, of course – including the low priority we give to child protection. Our social work and child mental health departments are so grossly underfunded they can no longer act appropriately. Child protection is not a priority for Governments. Abused children won’t hold them accountable so they’re relegated to the bottom of the pile. We spend £42.2 billion on defence, £40 billion is set aside for high-speed rail, but the budget for child protection in England and Wales in 2010 was £113 million. This is against the backdrop of 3.5 million children living in poverty in the UK, some 1.5 million children affected by neglect and approximately 1.5 million children suffering maltreatment.

There is a sense of despair in these child protection workers because of the gap between their wish to do good and their poor delivery. A collusive, perverse silence pervades, driven from the top. At some point these professionals have to protect themselves from that anxiety. Some do it by leaving. Others become physically and mentally ill. Those who stay on are either remarkable in their resilience or, worryingly, they shut down their abilities to feel and become almost robotic. Trauma can lead to reduced functioning of the pro-social parts of the brain; a sort of ‘acquired psychopathy’ borne of over-exposure to abuse.

This mechanism in maltreated children can manifest itself in workers who work with them if the worker is not supported. No national child protection review has gone anywhere near discussing the desensitisation, the perversion of feeling, in workers which can ensue. I remember a two-year-old who was brought to Kids Company by his siblings. He barely reacted, and he looked haunted. We spent years trying to get social services to take him into care. The case was constantly transferred between authorities who didn’t want to take responsibility. There were three changes of social worker, and eventually in 2009 the child was presented at hospital. He was now four, had 36 separate injuries, was malnourished, and was taken into care.

So the cycle repeats itself. Every so often our conscience is pricked by catastrophic harm. Workers will be blamed and reports will be produced. The millions of children who are desperate, terrified and deeply alone cannot rely on one of the world’s richest societies to ensure their protection. Chronic exposure to harm begins to alter these children’s brains until the child adapts to the savagery they’re exposed to. Incubated in terror, they emerge as disturbed adults who either harm themselves or others. It doesn’t have to be this way. We can do better. The first step needs to be one of truth-telling. Early next year the Centre for Social Justice will report on the profound failures in children’s services and the concerns workers have shared with them.

Kids Company is arguing for a 15-year national improvement plan and a taskforce to redesign child mental health and social care services. The reason Kids Company consistently returns children to education and employment at rates of above 90 per cent is that we look after the emotional life of our workers. And we act robustly to protect our kids. The minute a worker is too paralysed to protect a child, the murder of their emotional life begins. Maltreated children are yearning for human warmth and dignity. The cruelest thing is to greet them with the coldness of denial. Sometimes it results in the death of children but always it leads to their betrayal. Enough lessons. Let’s act.
Kids Company relies on public donations. Visit kidsco.org.uk.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So jacki  had problems at this house plus the previous house? was she not in the  bosom of the mccann family at this time? was she an outcast? Why would the police take her down the street to ID her boyfriend's bloodstained body (how insensitive of the police) and this person must have recongnised  Alan and knew it was Jackie's boyfriend and knew what number house they lived at..so IMO this was not a couple who kept themselves to themselves..

As a side note regarding IVF

Parents who go the IVF route, depending on what type of IVF they choose.

If the parents provide the eggs and sperm then there will be a family resemblance, the same as if they use donor eggs/sperm from a family member.

if they go down the donor eggs/ sperm or eggs and sperm route, they will choose donors that are similar physically to themselves.

they are not going to have donor eggs sperm from donors of a different race as the child would stick out like a sore thumb and would lead to awkward questions not only from the child but also family members, especially awkward if you don't want them to know you used IVF such as for religious beliefs or cultural reasons.

By selecting donors who resemble the parents then, should they decide not to tell the family or the child they are IVF no one will say hang on the child doesn't look like any of the family, the family will see what they want to see/believe.

It is possible that kate and gerry are the donors and Maddie is their bio child.

However with IVF the other options is that gerry is the dad and a donor egg was used
Kate's egg was used and donor sperm was used.
Donor egg and sperm were used.

The same applies then to the twins.
Embryos could have been frozen from the first round if any were created, and implanted in which case the twins would show  a relationship to Maddie.
This would also apply if further rounds of IVF were done and kate and gerry were the donors.

This is where it can get complicated

Other options include

kate's egg and donor sperm from the same donor as for Maddie
gerry's sperm and donor egg from the same donor as for Maddie

This would show a partial DNA link to the parents and a full DNA link to the twins as the same donors were used
( the twins will always show a full DNA match as they were fertilized at the same time unless different embryos were implanted from different donor combinations which is highly unlikely)

If different donor eggs and sperm were used to create the twins and not from the same donor eggs and sperm as was used to create Maddie
then there would be no biological link to Maddie (different parents) and also no biological link to kate and gerry.

There may be DNA links if for example family members donated, the links would only be a partial genetic link say if philomena donated her eggs or one of gerry's brothers donated sperm

As it was IVF which is a sin in catholicism did the family know about it or was it a secret that only came out after Maddie vanished?

The parentage of Maddie and the twins is of importance to the case and could provide a motive.
Maddie was  the result of kate's egg and donor sperm would explain the distancing and the non existent maternal bond, the twins being kate and gerry's eggs and sperm would be wholly their bio children and thus acceptable, Maddie being only part mccann would be the outcast.

Also with IVF there is a higher risk of health issues and disabilities which would explain the born almost perfect comments and the subtle demeaning comments from the parents and the family.
She wasn't a full mccann unlike the twins.

This of course is my thinking out loud.

it would also explain the refusal to hand over all the medical records etc.

If gerry wasn't the bio dad it would be a huge blow to his ego, Maddie being living proof of his infertility, his not being man enough to sire a child.

For a man with his ego and narcississtic sociapathic personality it would be rubbing salt in the wound.

russiandoll wrote:Just to give my opinion... while I see a lot of Kate, I  also see in the photos of Maddie a resemblance to Gerry. She sometimes looks not as attractive as others and I put this down to her unfortuante link to her uncle coming through more than her likeness to her nice- looking Dad !

The thing is though that apart from a couple of videos of Madeleine when she was a toddler, what we perceive to be how Madeleine looked is based purely on the images of her that the Macs have issued to the world. There has been that much controversy as to whether those photos were themselves edited or photoshopped or were even all of Madeleine anyway, so no one can say for definite who she resembled or even if she resembled any of 'em. Technically, every single photo we have seen may or may not have already been adjusted. It is so easy to merge other people's characteristics onto any photo if you have the right photo package and the right person to do it well. Not saying this happened -only that it is possible to feature-in say the eyes of a parent and the nose of someone's great grandma if ever required. So everyone's baseline idea of what she looked like and how much she resembled either parent could itself be a bit of a non-starter imo. Then again it might not be. :) Just a thought.

I can't help wondering if that story about Jacqueline McCann's partner is actually true.

Do we have any members who live in or know that area and can recall hearing about it?

Sadly, absolutely anything put out by the McCanns is open to great suspicion.

It could of course be an error but Jacqueline's quoted age of 46 in 2007 does not tie in with her position of 4th child in the family.

John, born 1959; Trisha, born 1960; Phil, born 1964, Jacqueline, born 12th May but what year and Gerry, born 1968.

If Jacqueline is actually the 3rd child, that would make sense.

I can't find a thing on the internet about the murder. I can find a lot about 5 murders the previous week in Glasgow so would expect the media to follow on with this one.

Link to google search [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Nothing, nada...why not?

There are a remarkable lack of photos of Madeleine. For instance I have been unable to find one of her on her third birthday. And the photos that have been produced of her after her 'disappearance' are all odd. The supposed 'final photos' that Gerry produced three weeks after she disappeared look to be fake. And the ones produced of her for a later poster campaign where she is wearing make-up and/or being made to pose for the photographs in a provocative manner are at the very least inappropriate. 

Who is responsible for 'burying' the Gasper statements? And what is being done to safeguard the twins, given the level and intensity of red flags billowing around this case?

All those millions of pounds spent, and what has been achieved apart from lining the pockets of the greedy and unscrupulous?

MILLIE wrote:

russiandoll wrote:Just to give my opinion... while I see a lot of Kate, I  also see in the photos of Maddie a resemblance to Gerry. She sometimes looks not as attractive as others and I put this down to her unfortuante link to her uncle coming through more than her likeness to her nice- looking Dad !

The thing is though that apart from a couple of videos of Madeleine when she was a toddler, what we perceive to be how Madeleine looked is based purely on the images of her that the Macs have issued to the world. There has been that much controversy as to whether those photos were themselves edited or photoshopped or were even all of Madeleine anyway, so no one can say for definite who she resembled or even if she resembled any of 'em. Technically, every single photo we have seen may or may not have already been adjusted. It is so easy to merge other people's characteristics onto any photo if you have the right photo package and the right person to do it well. Not saying this happened -only that it is possible to feature-in say the eyes of a parent and the nose of someone's great grandma if ever required. So everyone's baseline idea of what she looked like and how much she resembled either parent could itself be a bit of a non-starter imo. Then again it might not be. :) Just a thought.

In the 'Madeleine was here' series at the start of  episode 5 the McCanns are in America at the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children. The director there has fashioned an age-progressed image of Madeleine, partly basing it on photos of the McCanns as children. He is being remarkably sycophantic to the McCanns and talks along the lines of how Madeleine is 'the best of genetics'. The Macs are lapping it up - clearly delighted with the flattery. Gerry, in particular, is looking extremely pleased with himself. He makes a comment about their 'genes mixing well' in relation to how Madeleine would look now.

As always, it is all about them and nothing whatsoever to do with their daughter, imo. 

At the 2.5 minute mark, the director talks about 'somebody somewhere knowing something' and there are some interesting facial expressions from both the Macs. 

Also, note Gerry talking about the age-progressed photo. He refers to the image of Madeleine as not 'the' four year old and not the 'nearly' four year old that he remembers from the last day in Portugal.

How this pair can have kept up this charade for so long is anyone's guess.

j.rob wrote:

MILLIE wrote:

russiandoll wrote:Just to give my opinion... while I see a lot of Kate, I  also see in the photos of Maddie a resemblance to Gerry. She sometimes looks not as attractive as others and I put this down to her unfortuante link to her uncle coming through more than her likeness to her nice- looking Dad !

The thing is though that apart from a couple of videos of Madeleine when she was a toddler, what we perceive to be how Madeleine looked is based purely on the images of her that the Macs have issued to the world. There has been that much controversy as to whether those photos were themselves edited or photoshopped or were even all of Madeleine anyway, so no one can say for definite who she resembled or even if she resembled any of 'em. Technically, every single photo we have seen may or may not have already been adjusted. It is so easy to merge other people's characteristics onto any photo if you have the right photo package and the right person to do it well. Not saying this happened -only that it is possible to feature-in say the eyes of a parent and the nose of someone's great grandma if ever required. So everyone's baseline idea of what she looked like and how much she resembled either parent could itself be a bit of a non-starter imo. Then again it might not be. :) Just a thought.

In the 'Madeleine was here' series at the start of  episode 5 the McCanns are in America at the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children. The director there has fashioned an age-progressed image of Madeleine, partly basing it on photos of the McCanns as children. He is being remarkably sycophantic to the McCanns and talks along the lines of how Madeleine is 'the best of genetics'. The Macs are lapping it up - clearly delighted with the flattery. Gerry, in particular, is looking extremely pleased with himself. He makes a comment about their 'genes mixing well' in relation to how Madeleine would look now.

As always, it is all about them and nothing whatsoever to do with their daughter, imo. 

At the 2.5 minute mark, the director talks about 'somebody somewhere knowing something' and there are some interesting facial expressions from both the Macs. 

Also, note Gerry talking about the age-progressed photo. He refers to the image of Madeleine as not 'the' four year old and not the 'nearly' four year old that he remembers from the last day in Portugal.

How this pair can have kept up this charade for so long is anyone's guess.

Thanks j.rob. I hadn't seen that before. So, then, obviously, the 'merging in' of the parents' facial characteristics was how the age progression pics were created? We can never know whether or not something similar had not been done beforehand on any of the previous images released. Gerry's remark to the effect that the result was a different child is probably meant in the context that the futuristic version is just that; however, my question to the computer people and or the guy talking would have been can we see all the potential versions. However, what's missing from me is the parental consideration of what the guy says. I would, as a parent, just have had to have had a chance to select the most likely futuristic version in my opinion at the time, given that I would also know for a fact what family characteristics she bore better than anyone else. I would have wanted to see the other versions, to add in my own observatons. As a mother no-one elses 'vision' of what my child might have looked like, would have been acceptable over and above my own gut instincts and knowledge.

However, what's missing from me is the parental consideration of what the guy says.


Yes. But that would be consistent with everything that the Macs have done, which is always about them, imo. Given that in my opinion they know that Madeleine will never be found alive (and probably her body/remains will never be found either) this is all a game for them. When this series was made, things were going pretty well for them. They have hoodwinked a gullible public, the money is pouring in and the friends are still prepared to play into their 'game'. The 'wider agenda' is working. 

Their obvious fascination with the age-progressed images of Madeleine is more evidence of their desire to 'play God'. Madeleine was an object for them, imo. She was, tragically,  a vehicle to be used and abused. Even if the abuse was 'just' neglect, although imo it is much worse than that. But leaving three children under four alone night after night in a strange place (remember Jane Tanner saying it was dark and creepy to get to the apartments at night?) is negligent parenting. 

The parents even have the audacity to publicly acknowledge that Madeleine woke up and cried one night (to try to make light of Mrs Fenn's deeply worrying statement about an hour an a quarter of sustained crying coming from their apartment on Monday evening) but still leave them all alone on subsequent evenings.

There clearly are some issues with regard to DNA, genetics, hereditary processes, IVF and so on in the Madeleine case. Why were all the medical records held back from the Portuguese police, for instance? 

It's odd that there are no photos of KM pregnant. 

As a mother no-one elses 'vision' of what my child might have looked like, would have been acceptable over and above my own gut instincts and knowledge.



They know what Madeleine looked like last time they saw her. And they know what subsequently happened to her, imo. 

Remember, GM told us that 'everyone is acting' and some in quite big ways. 

Why didn't they go to drama school? And why is there not more rigid screening for medical students and other professionals working in the so-called 'caring' industries to weed out the psychopaths, narcissists and other assorted weirdos who simply should not be there. (Look how long it took before Harold Shipman was finally removed from the medical profession?)

I looked for pics of Jackie and found nothing which I don't know how she has managed to stay out of the media with all she has had happened in her family...

Looking more closely at the 'reconstruction' that Gerry, Matt Oldfield and Jane Tanner took part in in episode 4 of 'Madeleine was Here' , I find it instructive that their faces are mostly in darkness so you cannot closely examine their facial expressions. Jane Tanner gives the game away quite early on by laughing around her statements to the effect that it was obvious, in hindsight, that the person she saw was abducting a child. There is inappropriate laughter as she makes these comments and the tone of her voice is glib and insincere.

She clearly shares a big 'in' joke with Gerry as she recounts how Kate had been (at the table in the restaurant) moaning that Gerry had been gone a long time watching football. Gerry manages to keep a straight face as he looks straight at Jane (although his expression is partly obscured by the darkness) but Jane has a huge grin on her face. She can't even be bothered to conceal this totally inappropriate response. Why is it so funny that Kate was allegedly moaning that Gerry was watching football on the evening that Madeleine 'was stolen'

There is a ridiculous little cameo whereby Gerry and Jane evidently feel the need to elaborate on the Jez Wilkins encounter. Jane Tanner claims she remembers Gerry standing in a different place to where Gerry remembers standing when he was talking to Jez Wilkins. Again, Jane Tanner talks about this alleged encounter in a flippant and glib way. It appears that this is another 'in joke' Dave Edgar then reassuringly tells Jane that there are inconsistencies in every investigation and the camera pans onto Jane's face which, interestingly, is not shrouded in darkness at this stage. She smiles in an unconcerned way and says: 'okay, that's fine.' Which is an odd response. Fine for Gerry and Kate that the detective is so obliging of their little fairy tale, no doubt. 

Jane Tanner's laughing around her statements that, with hindsight, what she saw was so much like someone abducting a little girl, are such a giveaway. Why is this funny?

After her comments about all the 'what ifs' (as in 'if only I had tried to stop the abductor) the camera then pans onto her supposedly breaking down into tears. Her face is in darkness so it is difficult to closely examine her expressions. I could not see any tears and I think it is a completely fake 'performance'. Gerry at one point walks past her very quickly, but with his back to the camera.  No doubt concealing all manner of smirks at Jane Tanner's Oscar-winning crying performance. 

Then we have another absurd cameo in which Matt Oldfield apparently reconstructs how he 'looked in' at the bedroom door of the McCann children. He recalls how it was all 'dead quiet' - an interesting choice of phrase. He unconvincingly asks: 'why didn't I take those extra couple of steps in?' at which point Gerry obligingly helps him out by sharing that 'at no point other than that night did I stick my head in. That was the only time because the door was like that for me.'

Here we go again - the obsession with doors, how open they are, whether someone goes into the room or stays outside. 

Matt then cuts in with another curious response: 'It's more that, you know, I felt you had done enough. It was quiet.'

Gerry then continues with his obsession about doors and entering and exiting bedroom and apartments: 'Part of the reason we came through the back was the noise coming through the front. You don't want to disturb them. Stupid now.'

What the hell is all this about?

J.rob could Jane Tanners laughter be nerves? When i was young and somebody told me of a death or other bad news i used to start laughing, although i didn't find it funny in the least it was put down to nerves.

I dont want to answer for J.rob but i believe that although its possible i dunno if a doctor would have the jitters most likely she had saw so many different nerve racking things she would hide it....most docs put on a poker face..they have too most times. Id think nerves only if she is hiding a reason to be nervous...just my opinion..:) plus its just strange if they all are laughing, maybe an inside joke

Just to clarify that Jane Tanner isn't a doctor. I've heard her described as either a marketing manager or a website designer.

I thought about that. Sometimes nerves make people act in ways that are inconsistent. But that huge grin she has on her face when Gerry walks towards her and she says that Kate was moaning about him taking so long because he was watching football.

That's not nerves, that's a big 'in joke'. It's jaw-droppingly inappropriate and, to my mind, indicates the depth and breadth and level of deception behind Madeleine's disappearance. Jane Tanner is enjoying 'the game', imo.

She didn't have to make the flippant comments Kate moaning about Gerry watching football.  Kate doesn't write that in her book. Kate  merely notes that Gerry was gone longer than expected. Why throw in a little 'in joke' about Gerry disappearing to watch football when they are supposedly talking part in a police reconstruction to help the world find missing Madeleine?

I presume it was done to demonstrate that the group were all having a completely normal, carefree evening without a worry in the world right up to the point that Kate 'discovered' that Madeleine' had been 'stolen'. But, given that this reconstruction takes place two years after what is supposed to have been a terrible dreadful event for the McCanns and their friends, why display such insensitive frivolity around the events of an evening whereby an innocent child has, allegedly, been abducted? Apart from anything else, it displays a contempt for Madeleine. But then that has always been demonstrated by the her parents and the group. Ripping a page out of Madeleine's book on which to write up a 'time-line' - that also shows contempt, imo. As though neither Madeleine or her possessions are worthy of any care. 

I think it also demonstrates extreme narcissism and anti-social personality traits. 

When Jane demonstrates where she thinks Jez was standing with his pram, while talking to Gerry, she flaps her hands around aimlessly. There is no sincerity behind the gesture. Gerry does exactly the same flapping gesture with his hands when he crosses the road to show where he was talking to Jez. It's all part of their silly 'script'. And they think they are so clever, hoodwinking the public with their cringeworthy acting, imo.

I wanted to believe Jane Tanner's crying episode, I really did. But in my opinion she gave the game away with her huge grin and her laughing around how, in hindsight, it was so obvious that what she saw with Tannerman was a man abducting a child. Given that this was clearly an alibi, imo, why would there be any sincerity around this. Tanner knows perfectly well that what she saw was not a stranger abducting Madeleine, imo. 

If you watch her crying performance closely, slowing down the footage, you will see little moments where she completely regains composure, her face alert and looking for the next cue. This is particularly noticeable when Gerry walks past her, back to the camera. She is completely alert to this. It is all part of the script which GM is directing. 

With the Matt re-enactment, I think there is less symbiosis between Oldfield and Gerry. Gerry is less relaxed, looks shifty and nervous. Matt only mentions the twins cots, never Madeleine or even Madeleine's bed. 'You could see the cots. I never felt like there was any real need to go into the room. You could see the cots and see into them from there.'

Matt is simply not prepared to mention Madeleine or that he had any kind of responsibility to check on her. 

In any event, his 'check' I imagine was partly to 'buy time' before the police arrived on the scene. Plus also allow for a wider window of opportunity for the 'abductor' to allegedly pounce. 

The exchange between him and Gerry is also slightly disconnected. While Gerry helps him out by saying that other than that night he did not stick his head in because the door 'was like that for me. I knew I'd left then/them'. Matt then discontinues this theme, almost cutting in with: 'It's more that I felt, you know, you'd done enough.'

This is a curious phrase. What exactly did Matt mean by this? 

Gerry quickly acknowledges this with 'absolutely' but then immediately reverts to the door theme saying that 'part of the reason we ended up coming through the back was the noise coming through the front door. You don't want to disturb them.'

I think there are a host of clues to decipher here.

@j.rob. Hi, as usual a very interesting post from you.

I am fascinated by that little episode in the McCann exhihit GM1 but my take on it is different. I think there were big undercurrents going on during that reconstruction between JT and GM. Remember this was a couple of years down the line and I'm wondering if Jane wasn't regretting her 'sighting' of Tannerman,  concerned at the centre stage position and importance the sighting had taken in the case and therefore her implication.  No doubt she'd have worried about what consequences she could face if the sighting was ever proven to be false. In the event, SY 'found' Crecheman,  but Tanner didn't know that then.

I wonder if she was feeling vulnerable and saw the reconstruction as an opportunity to shift a couple of question marks over GM's head. I can't for the life of me understand why she should choose to mention the football otherwise. I've waxed lyrical on my take on what happened during filming, before, so rather than waste time writing it again, I'll dredge up an old post I made some time ago:

Dee Coy wrote:Portia, re the crying and why it may have been left in, there was a discussion about this a month ago here:

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

I believe the crying was left in because it was used in a completely different context. After Gerry pooh-poohs and humiliates Jane and her jaw drops in disbelief and dawning horror and she mumbles "Ok, that's fine", the scene is cut after they patronizingly explain to her it doesn't matter that she's mistaken and we know they are going with Gerry's unquestioned version. Next Jane is shown walking down the street and sees Tannerman. She describes her frustration and helplessness as with hindsight she should have twigged the significance of what she was seeing. We are then shown her crying, ostensibly to back up emotionally how she feels after describing the Tannerman incident. She is shown weeping for pity for Madeleine and her own impotence at not twigging what Tannerman was doing.

But it is quite clear from the lighting and the positions of the people on the set that the weeping took place just after Gerry's discrediting of her memory of where he and Wilkins were positioned. The crying relates to her humiliation and the realisation she's been undermined and is therefore vulnerable.

The film has been cynically edited to use the tears to strengthen the Tannerman myth rather than emphasize the difference between Gerry and Jane's versions and the implications that could have.

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

Tanner's bit starts about 1min in.

Either way, I think there's no love lost between those two.