Re: GNR Statements

by bobbin 15.05.12 10:17

monkey mind wrote:Bobbin, it's a good question, but friedtomatoes doesn' seem to like those.

I think you, Newintown and Snifferdog find the same thing regarding friedtomatoes. One goes and another just seems to fill their space, and very soon afterwards, same old same old. One gets skilled over time at picking these out very early now.

I seriously though would like a better translation, or even to see the original in Portuguese, for the strange comment 'he did not see the fridge' given the query about a fridge being removed. It would help to eliminate any misunderstanding.

A further note for friedtomatoes who seems to prefer certain subjects to not be discussed...... the devil is in the detail.
Failing to chew over every detail, whether it leads up a blind alley or not, is the only way to honestly and confidently arrive at a solution AND, with the serious members of this forum we are here for the duration. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by monkey mind 15.05.12 10:23

The devil is indeed in the detail, and as anyone who has ever had anything to do with a criminal trial will tell you, that detail becomes the very feeding ground of the defence counsel.

by tuom 15.05.12 14:27

bobbin wrote:
friedtomatoes wrote:door opensleft to right, fridge is right behind the door, sorry theres enough rub bish in this case

Good morning friedtomatoes, I hope you have had a better nights sleep, after staying up so late to pass comment on my post.

In terms of your opinion that 'there is enough rubbish in this case' (forgive me for correcting your bad spelling) please re-read my posts and if you are bilingual in Portuguese / English, please give some possible explanation for the GNR statement by Jose Maria Batista Roque, who with officer Costa, did a complete search of rooms, opening doors, looking under beds, BUT SAYS HE DID NOT SEE THE FRIDGE.

I wonder how he did not see the fridge if it was there, and why he should highlight the fact that he did not see the fridge.

Given that it seems odd to make such a statement, I make the next deduction and query if something has been lost in translation.

Just a thought would the comment regarding the fridge mean that "he did not LOOK in the fridge" as he was looking in everything else , rooms wardrobes, under beds etc ?

by bobbin 15.05.12 14:39

tuom wrote:
bobbin wrote:
friedtomatoes wrote:door opensleft to right, fridge is right behind the door, sorry theres enough rub bish in this case

Good morning friedtomatoes, I hope you have had a better nights sleep, after staying up so late to pass comment on my post.

In terms of your opinion that 'there is enough rubbish in this case' (forgive me for correcting your bad spelling) please re-read my posts and if you are bilingual in Portuguese / English, please give some possible explanation for the GNR statement by Jose Maria Batista Roque, who with officer Costa, did a complete search of rooms, opening doors, looking under beds, BUT SAYS HE DID NOT SEE THE FRIDGE.

I wonder how he did not see the fridge if it was there, and why he should highlight the fact that he did not see the fridge.

Given that it seems odd to make such a statement, I make the next deduction and query if something has been lost in translation.

Just a thought would the comment regarding the fridge mean that "he did not LOOK in the fridge" as he was looking in everything else , rooms wardrobes, under beds etc ?

Tuom, Thanks, yes, that's completely possible, but that's why I would like the Portuguese to be translated again. It would help to clear up whether for some reason the fridge was not there, or he just did not look into it.

by friedtomatoes 15.05.12 15:38

Bobbin I didn't mean to offend, and I certainly don't mind people discussing most things, sorry if I gave that impression, In this case, the fridge was there as another gnr officer stated he looked in it. You are right about the photos, I didn't look closely enough. If you go to mccannpjfiles and do a search on fridge, the third entry that comes up, the photos of 5a, have a listing under the blue title which actually says fridge behind door flag

ps Nelson da Costa is the other gnr officer. I think he also said he didn't see the washing machine, so I think its fairly safe to say they meant didn't look inside with those words.

by bobbin 15.05.12 18:27

friedtomatoes wrote:Bobbin I didn't mean to offend, and I certainly don't mind people discussing most things, sorry if I gave that impression, In this case, the fridge was there as another gnr officer stated he looked in it. You are right about the photos, I didn't look closely enough. If you go to mccannpjfiles and do a search on fridge, the third entry that comes up, the photos of 5a, have a listing under the blue title which actually says fridge behind door [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

ps Nelson da Costa is the other gnr officer. I think he also said he didn't see the washing machine, so I think its fairly safe to say they meant didn't look inside with those words.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] thank you friedtomatoes, and that can eliminate any diversion of thinking the fridge might not be in the kitchen.

Leaves us still with no further progress on Goncalo Amaral's reference to signs of thawed / previously frozen material in the boot of the car, and I hope he is holding some information back, for he must have had some reason for mentioning it.

It also leaves us with the reckoning of many members of former sites, who recall reference to replacing a fridge but for which there is no written reference that we can now find.

Once again, thank you for your helpful response. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by friedtomatoes 15.05.12 19:28

That's OK Bobbin smilie

First thing that comes to mind is the statement of the brother in law who said some meat or fish blood had leaked from a carrier bag during a supermarket trip in July, maybe it was something as simple as that?

I can't think why Gerry would blog about a fridge in the first place and then delete it if there was anything suspicious.

by **Nina** 15.05.12 21:02

How the devil did they look under beds, as they are all to the floor divans unless they were those lift up mattresses with a huge drawer underneath, a bit like the one where Shannon Mathews was hidden?

by uppatoffee 15.05.12 21:35

Thanks Jd. I had never read the Police statements before either. I'd always concentrated on what the family and friends said. However as Smokeandmirrors said, it is interesting to see that even the first officer on the scene, Roque, was suspicious of the abduction line being heavily promoted by the McCanns.

by jd 15.05.12 23:08

uppatoffee wrote:Thanks Jd. I had never read the Police statements before either. I'd always concentrated on what the family and friends said. However as Smokeandmirrors said, it is interesting to see that even the first officer on the scene, Roque, was suspicious of the abduction line being heavily promoted by the McCanns.

To get a real grasp of what the situation was that night its good to read all the statements of whom were there, from all angles. Not just take the mccann version. Yes the GNR were suspicious from the very start and they were the ones actually there and saw it all unfold with their own eyes and ears

by Guest 17.05.12 12:42

This one interesting from Rui Segio Lopes Silva GNR officer re GM asking where the church was at 4 am ........

He only had direct contact with the couple and their friends at about 04.00 when Gerry McCann approached the GNR group of which he was a member to ask whether there was a church close by. He replied to him in English, giving the directions to a nearby church.

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

by **tigger** 17.05.12 14:45

candyfloss wrote:This one interesting from Rui Segio Lopes Silva GNR officer re GM asking where the church was at 4 am ........

He only had direct contact with the couple and their friends at about 04.00 when Gerry McCann approached the GNR group of which he was a member to ask whether there was a church close by. He replied to him in English, giving the directions to a nearby church.

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

...and Kate was very scathing about this officer not understanding that one would want to pray. Pray as you are searching would be my advice. Haven't we all at least once promised God pretty well anything he' want from us if only we could - in this case, find your child.

by bobbin 20.05.12 16:52

bobbin wrote:
friedtomatoes wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I think the fridge can be seen in the kitchen, behind the door.

I find the photos confusing, relative to the design of the kitchen.

If you look at photo 11, with the windows and sink straight ahead, the door seems to be opening to the left, up to the corner edge of the oven/hob. If this is the case, the fridge on the right would be totally visible.

If you look at 12, windows and sink to the right hand side, I agree there is something white which could be a fridge freezer. It is not clear which way the door is opening, but if the door is opening onto the side of the fridge, it cannot justify the position of the door in the other photo.

My thoughts being, if the door is opening to the left, it would not be difficult to see fridge on right. Also, if looking through the opening dining to kitchen, the fridge would also be visible.
I a just curious as to why the statement says, he did not see the fridge.

We can finally put the GNR statement about the fridge to rest. Finally found proof of kitchen door and visibility of fridge in kitchen. The designs are incorrect, and the door opens to the left, fridge on right of entrance. I imagine the GNR statement 'he did not see the fridge' has perhaps lost its meaning in translation.

to see video from youtube with fridge visible in apartment 5A you'll need to look at the following post from TheTruthwillOut, in 'the last photo' thread. I don't know how to transfer videos. sorry. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 4:08 pm skip to 8.40, Gerry entering apartment.

by jd 02.06.12 2:08

Fiona Paynes statement from the 16th May (day the fund was launched) is remarkably contradictory to the GNR about robert murat. The GNR say they never saw him that night (nor did anyone else outside the Tapas 9 group) but fiona payne says this:

- That she never saw this individual before, and saw him for the first time, as stated, on the night of May 3rd, around 22H39, outside, and next to the door of the McCANN apartment in the company of GNR elements, who had arrived.

- That at a certain time, he said that he was there to help the police but his behaviour was not compatible with this role, in that he looked to be leading the process, stating that he was offering his help in all that was necessary

- That she does not remember if he entered the McCANN's apartment on this night. She does not know if he spoke to GERRY, but is certain that he did not speak to KATE, in that after the disappearance of MADELEINE, the deponent stayed with [KATE] for most of the time in her [KATE's] apartment.

- That during this night, she saw him walking to and fro, the majority of the time accompanied by the police, and always with an air of authority, offering suggestions and trying to lead the situation.

- That she did not speak to him, and only observed his behaviour.

- She only came across him at around 23H30, next to the McCANN apartment, when he went there to offer his help in any way possible. She does not remember if anyone was with him at this time.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Somebody is really lying here!

by jd 02.06.12 2:24

From May 16th statement fiona payne also says "- That in the following days she saw him various times with numerous reporters who were in the locale. "

However in her RI she now says "When I realised, in fact, it was the day he was made, erm, brought in for questioning and we were watching SKY News, it was the afternoon in my apartment and Russell was in the apartment, and obviously, you know, again, we were all very shocked, there was any progress, who is this man, and he was on telly and it showed a picture and I was like 'Oh, is that the guy that was around on the night acting as translator', you know, 'with the squint', because you couldn't see in this picture, and Russell said 'Yeah, yeah, that's him', but I hadn't seen him at all in the days following, erm, you know, Madeleine's disappearance, that, that on the telly was the next time I'd seen him'.

wow

by bobbin 02.06.12 7:23

jd wrote:From May 16th statement fiona payne also says "- That in the following days she saw him various times with numerous reporters who were in the locale. "

However in her RI she now says "When I realised, in fact, it was the day he was made, erm, brought in for questioning and we were watching SKY News, it was the afternoon in my apartment and Russell was in the apartment, and obviously, you know, again, we were all very shocked, there was any progress, who is this man, and he was on telly and it showed a picture and I was like 'Oh, is that the guy that was around on the night acting as translator', you know, 'with the squint', because you couldn't see in this picture, and Russell said 'Yeah, yeah, that's him', but I hadn't seen him at all in the days following, erm, you know, Madeleine's disappearance, that, that on the telly was the next time I'd seen him'.

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

oh dear ! At what point did any, previously assigned, forum myths metamorphose to become such Fiction. This and your previous post jd. make for FICTION AT ITS VERY BEST.
When is she going to write her book and completely up-stage Kate.
If the joint police review/ operation/investigation (call it what you will) doesn't see right through this, we'll know it's a whitewash, and then will have to decide how to follow it up.

This is just awful. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 02.06.12 10:01

Ocean Club manager John Hill is a kind of lookalike and he WAS there that night after the alarm was given. He also spoke to journalists the next day.

by Guest 02.06.12 10:06

John Hill, May 4 2007

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

by friedtomatoes 02.06.12 10:14

Châtelaine wrote:Ocean Club manager John Hill is a kind of lookalike and he WAS there that night after the alarm was given. He also spoke to journalists the next day.

She couldnt have mistaken the two because she said he (Murat) introduced himself iirc and she mentioned his dodgy eye.

Anyway John Hill looks more like Payne. Murat had a full head of hair too. She was lying imo, no GNR officer or any local that knew him said he was there.

Good spot on that glaring contradiction in statements JD. The time you have put in red 22 39 is a typo, the GNR didnt get the call till 22 40 and arrived 15 mins or so later. The original portuguese page on the link you gave shows both times as 23 30.

by bobbin 02.06.12 13:58

friedtomatoes wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Ocean Club manager John Hill is a kind of lookalike and he WAS there that night after the alarm was given. He also spoke to journalists the next day.
She couldnt have mistaken the two because she said he (Murat) introduced himself iirc and she mentioned his dodgy eye.

Anyway John Hill looks more like Payne. Murat had a full head of hair too. She was lying imo, no GNR officer or any local that knew him said he was there.

Good spot on that glaring contradiction in statements JD. The time you have put in red 22 39 is a typo, the GNR didnt get the call till 22 40 and arrived 15 mins or so later. The original portuguese page on the link you gave shows both times as 23 30.

Hi friedtomatoes, have you got a link for the original Portuguese page where both times are shown as 23.30. Could you please post it. Thanks.

by friedtomatoes 02.06.12 14:07

Bobbin, you can access them via the link JD put up earlier.

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

Click on the pages in the photos to the left of the English text. They are on the first and second pages.

by jd 02.06.12 16:55

When I realised, in fact, it was the day he was made, erm, brought in for questioning and we were watching SKY News, it was the afternoon in my apartment and Russell was in the apartment, and obviously, you know, again, we were all very shocked, there was any progress, who is this man, and he was on telly and it showed a picture and I was like 'Oh, is that the guy that was around on the night acting as translator', you know, 'with the squint', because you couldn't see in this picture, and Russell said 'Yeah, yeah, that's him', but I hadn't seen him at all in the days following, erm, you know, Madeleine's disappearance, that, that on the telly was the next time I'd seen him'

One thing to remember is that Russell O'Brien had Robert Murats mobile number in his phone on the morning of 4th May

by mira2 02.06.12 23:14

I am still having probs getting to grips with posting on here.

My reply is to JD

hi JD, I picked up on your comment re Murat and I have a question.

I have noticed over and over again on sites that even those who question the system, like to bring Murat into the mix.

It is puzzling to me, since Murat co-operated fully with the investigation and came up clean, which made a mockery of fact that 3 of the Tapas Group fell over themselves to fly out to the Algarve to implicate him, yet found themselves way to busy to turn up for a police co-ordinated reconstruction of events that would 100% have put this case on track and gobne a long way to eliminate the Tapas Group from involvement.

As far as I am concerned Murat has co-operated fully with the investigation, he is no longer a suspect in the enquiry.

The Tapas Group have failed to cooperate fully with the enquiry, in fact the McCanns hired extradition lawyers early on and it is no secret that they used public donations to frustrate the Portuguese efforts in getting to the facts of this case.

Mark Klaas is a wonderdul advocate for children, he understands what it feels like to lose a child and be accused of his own childs dissapearance, he made the right moves from day 1, he will never get over the loss of his daughter, but he is adament in getting the message across to other parents of missing children that htey have a duty to eliminate themselves from the enquiry in order for the investigation to move forward.

P.S. I hear that Gerry Mc Cann has been afiliating himself with the parents of Elizabeth Smart . 2 peas in a pod

by jd 02.06.12 23:35

Hi mira2. What interests me the most about robert murat is 'why' the Tapas 9 were trying to frame him from day 1, which if you look at the evidence especially from jane tanner who did not see her abductor mans face in the dark and only saw the back of him and he had long hair..yet a few days later sits inside a smoked out police car with bob small from LPP identifying him as the abductor man. The other tapas members mentioned nothing until a few weeks later when suddenly he was there on the night of the 3rd May. ROB has his mobile number since the morning of 4th May at least which does not tie in with fiona paynes seeing him a few weeks later on sky TV

The tapas 9 know each other, so why are they together trying to frame him? Its very bizarre to say the least and there is a reason why but what?

If you go to 'Articles' on the link below and scroll down you will see a 6 page article of the events with robert murat. its a long read but very factual and reveals a lot

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

by mira2 03.06.12 0:06

Hi mira2. What interests me the most about robert murat is 'why' the Tapas 9 were trying to frame him from day 1, which if you look at the evidence especially from jane tanner who did not see her abductor mans face in the dark and only saw the back of him and he had long hair..yet a few days later sits inside a smoked out police car with bob small from LPP identifying him as the abductor man. The other tapas members mentioned nothing until a few weeks later when suddenly he was there on the night of the 3rd May. ROB has his mobile number since the morning of 4th May at least which does not tie in with fiona paynes seeing him a few weeks later on sky TV

The tapas 9 know each other, so why are they together trying to frame him? Its very bizarre to say the least and there is a reason why but what?

If you go to 'Articles' on the link below and scroll down you will see a 6 page article of the events with robert murat. its a long read but very factual and reveals a lot

________

JD, ty for your reply.

To be honest with you the actions and reactions from the parents in this case leaves me aghast, bearing in mind that they are no ordinary members of the public they were both employed by the NHS in roles that demand accountability, even more so the mere fact that they were supposedly holidaying with a group of fellow NHS professionals .

It has been obvious from day 1 that this was no family holiday, kids tagging along was nothing more than an added bonus. Reason I say this is that this event was not preplanned and the the statements of the various parties involved make this clear. Now you tell me how a Group of medical professionals can suddenly organise a holiday to the Argarve within the space of a week or more with kids in tow?

There is a reason that the McCanns credit card details were witheld from the Portuguese authorities, there is a reason why the Group stay silent, their is a reason why the truth cannot emerge it is called corruption, and that is why we are not going away. We know that there is a scandal that is linked to this case, the problem for the authorities is that they are caught in a catch 22 situation.

by jd 03.06.12 0:13

I totally agree mira2. And the scandal must run deep for the government to have such an interest and using all their powers to maintain the coverup too. No wonder gerry mccann was so smug, he knew all stops would be made to keep it covered up, and you must have a pretty good reason to feel this secure

by mira2 03.06.12 1:35

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 12:13 am

I totally agree mira2. And the scandal must run deep for the government to have such an interest and using all their powers to maintain the coverup too. No wonder gerry mccann was so smug, he knew all stops would be made to keep it covered up, and you must have a pretty good reason to feel this secure
____
jd, I have no idea what lies behind the cover up, reading up on this case it is a fact that the UK Governments actions were clear from the off, the Tapas Group were beyond reproach. I agree with you regarding the smugness of the Group, but I put that down to Murdoch's indirect contact with the group.
Kate McCann has always given me the creeps, Gerry does not give me that feeling.
I could give you a few good reasons why this group of NHS professionals might have taken up on a freebie around that time that had Government links and was classed as secret negotiations, no secret anymore, but it would not get us anywhere in discovering what became of Madeleine, because I trully believe that Madeleine's fate was an accident waiting to happen and that there is a lot of guilt for that.
I feel that Madeleine's remains will be found, the facts will never emerge, and it will be business as usual.
So be it, what I will not tolerate is UK politicians touting suspects as advocates for children, that is a step to far in my book.

by jd 03.06.12 2:37

The only way a government would get involved like this is for self interests, not just for the mccanns. There can only be 2 reasons they would get involved like this. I personally do not think Maddies remains will be found and are long gone somewhere where they will never be found like the sea or cremated. Without a body they can claim their abduction story forever. However they are seriously misguided if they think people will get bored and fade away from exposing them, as each day goes by my determination only gets stronger and there is plenty of facts and evidence to prove they are lying and this is a faked abduction

by friedtomatoes 03.06.12 6:41

[quote="mira2"
________

It has been obvious from day 1 that this was no family holiday, kids tagging along was nothing more than an added bonus. Reason I say this is that this event was not preplanned and the the statements of the various parties involved make this clear. Now you tell me how a Group of medical professionals can suddenly organise a holiday to the Argarve within the space of a week or more with kids in tow?

[/quote]

the holiday was booked months before around xmas new year, why do you say THIS was no family holiday? they had been on a few before with the group

by **tigger** 16.07.13 7:13

This topic too can do with another airing - early statements are revealing. The Daily Mail article on page two is still available with the Mrs. Fenn statement, I'll take a screenshot as I'm surprised it's still accessible.

Latest topics