Re: Libel diary 1: it's called gratitude by Blacksmith Bureau

by **tigger** 06.09.12 13:38

russiandoll wrote:
Ross wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Why did JW not want to do the reconstruction?
Warned off? Bought off?

Heaven knows. I guess if you were told the whole thing would be traumatic, feelings raw, reliving that evening, the police were useless and focusing on the group rather than elsewhere as they should be doing, it would not help find Maddie.... you might just feel pressured into declining to take part. He had witnessed the couple after the event, maybe he felt immese sympathy and simply had no reason to doubt their claims at the time.
Warned or bought off both distinct possibilities however. There was the interfering with witnesses going on.

Ross meant on the night itself I think. JW had quite enough of the McCanns I believe - he did complain about the fact that he never stated an exact time and Gerry had tried several times to press him on 9.15. If you read his account it's likely to be earlier. Since he didn't want to commit to even an approximate time - perhaps that was the reason. I don't know if he was asked to do the reconstruction by the PJ.

If you read the unterdenteppichgekehrt blog (above and on the topic on the timeline from 8.00 pm) I would think that he wasn't so much a spanner as a godsend.

by russiandoll 06.09.12 13:47

I am not sure about Ross meaning the same night Tigger, can you explain please?
I understand the point about JW being very convenient in one way, however the whole scenario despite giving Gerry an alibi at abduction time is implausible, 3 people including 2 associated with the abducted child only yards away when the abductor would have been seen and Maddie recognised by her pjs bottoms, if Gerry had been disturbed by noise and looked around him.
imo Gerry JT and ROB were preparing for the walkabout with Ella, I do not think Gerry wanted the disturbance of JW.
I also think that theory claims that Gerry was forced to place a large bag with Maddies body inside in the area of the flowerbed, because he was leaving the apartment to place the bag in a waiting car. I think if that were the case Gerry was very cool under the circumstances .

by **tigger** 06.09.12 14:19

russiandoll wrote: I am not sure about Ross meaning the same night Tigger, can you explain please?
I understand the point about JW being very convenient in one way, however the whole scenario despite giving Gerry an alibi at abduction time is implausible, 3 people including 2 associated with the abducted child only yards away when the abductor would have been seen and Maddie recognised by her pjs bottoms, if Gerry had been disturbed by noise and looked around him.
imo Gerry JT and ROB were preparing for the walkabout with Ella, I do not think Gerry wanted the disturbance of JW.
I also think that theory claims that Gerry was forced to place a large bag with Maddies body inside in the area of the flowerbed, because he was leaving the apartment to place the bag in a waiting car. I think if that were the case Gerry was very cool under the circumstances .

You're right, he didn't - I misread, apologies! smilie

As far as the bag goes: imo the body was long gone. Far too risky. The bag was back in the wardrobe so that would mean it had been emptied shortly before being put back?
The scent in the flowerbed etc. The S and R GNR dogs would certainly pick up scent and the real point is: The McCanns couldn't know when exactly the dogs were to be deployed. It might have been within a few hours.

by jd 06.09.12 14:24

tigger wrote:
Ross meant on the night itself I think. JW had quite enough of the McCanns I believe - he did complain about the fact that he never stated an exact time and Gerry had tried several times to press him on 9.15. If you read his account it's likely to be earlier. Since he didn't want to commit to even an approximate time - perhaps that was the reason. I don't know if he was asked to do the reconstruction by the PJ.

If you read the unterdenteppichgekehrt blog (above and on the topic on the timeline from 8.00 pm) I would think that he wasn't so much a spanner as a godsend.

He was and he refused....

"As discussed with your colleagues last week I still feel reluctant to agree to this for a number of reasons including family and work commitments, the likelyhood of media intrusion and a lack of information about anything tangible or constructive that is likely to be achieved by doing this."

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id279.html

by russiandoll 06.09.12 14:28

jd, thanks for finding that re- JW and the reconstruction. So he gave the same reasons as the tapas friends....that nothing would be achieved. How interesting.

by jd 06.09.12 14:30

russiandoll wrote: jd, thanks for finding that re- JW and the reconstruction. So he gave the same reasons as the tapas friends....that nothing would be achieved. How interesting.

Yes indeed. They all seem to be under the exact same brief

by russiandoll 06.09.12 14:46

and there is this from S Prior:
Ricardo
This is the reply from Jes.
It implies that if each of the other witnesses' are going to take part then Jes will consider his position as to whether he will attend or not.
[ I suppose as a lone participant it makes little sense, but this is not stated as a reason for not taking part]

and this from JW

Thanks for this and for your message.
I'm not sure what they mean by witnesses' being compelled to attend as my understanding is that I am under no obligation ?
My position remains the same really. As you mentioned in your message last night if everyone else is on board and I am the only outstanding person saying no I would be more likely to reconsider.
Feel free to call me if you wish to discuss it further.
Best

[yes ,it appears that they all have to be singing from the same hymn sheet.]

by jd 06.09.12 14:55

All only concerned about their own backsides rather than doing everything they can to help find Maddie! No stone unturned...I don't think so!

by **PeterMac** 06.09.12 15:15

jd wrote:
"As discussed with your colleagues last week I still feel reluctant to agree to this for a number of reasons including family and work commitments, the likelyhood of media intrusion and a lack of information about anything tangible or constructive that is likely to be achieved by doing this."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id279.html

He might have had a point.
A reconstruction would have been totally destructive of the official story. Even the Mockumentary brought JT to tears when she saw the ludicrous inconsistencies created by GM's and JW's and her own versions of events.

by aiyoyo 06.09.12 15:25

Matt said XXXXX to the effect that Jerry's daughter had been abducted, and that Jerry said that he had met me and wanted to know if I had seen anything. I said 'You're joking'. [i]I offered help but they said there was nothing that could be done at that stage. We remained at the apartment but could see people around the pool and at the front with torches. I also saw the police arriving. We then went to bed.

How odd.
He was woken up in the middle of the night, told that someone he knew and exchanged a convo. with only a few hours earlier had his daughter abducted, he then looked around, saw people searching, then went right back to bed. Charming person.

How can anyone go back to bed in that sort of circumstances?
I mean why accept nothing couldn't be done - a child is missing isn't it?

by ShuBob 06.09.12 15:56

Strange group of people the lot of them. I wish I never encounter people like them especially when I need help!

by Guest 06.09.12 16:14

I am reminded again of his wife's [Bridget O'Donnell] pink prose of her "Months with Madeleine":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann

by marxman 06.09.12 16:24

aiyoyo wrote:
Matt said XXXXX to the effect that Jerry's daughter had been abducted, and that Jerry said that he had met me and wanted to know if I had seen anything. I said 'You're joking'. [i]I offered help but they said there was nothing that could be done at that stage. We remained at the apartment but could see people around the pool and at the front with torches. I also saw the police arriving. We then went to bed.

How odd.
He was woken up in the middle of the night, told that someone he knew and exchanged a convo. with only a few hours earlier had his daughter abducted, he then looked around, saw people searching, then went right back to bed. Charming person.

How can anyone go back to bed in that sort of circumstances?
I mean why accept nothing couldn't be done - a child is missing isn't it?

And, as he slumbered, knowing what transpired with

people who he had met and became aquainted to, did

he not entertain a notion....I may go search... or...they

might need to search everywhere, even my place?

by ShuBob 06.09.12 16:33

Châtelaine wrote:I am reminded again of his wife's [Bridget O'Donnell] pink prose of her "Months with Madeleine":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann

To this day, I wonder why O'Donnell chose that article title since by her own account, she spent no time at all with Maddie and couldn't even pick her out from a group of about 10 girls Libel diary 1: it's called gratitude by Blacksmith Bureau - Page 2 234726

Libel diary 1: it's called gratitude by Blacksmith Bureau - Page 2 234726

by Guest 06.09.12 16:56

ShuBob wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:I am reminded again of his wife's [Bridget O'Donnell] pink prose of her "Months with Madeleine":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann

To this day, I wonder why O'Donnell chose that article title since by her own account, she spent no time at all with Maddie and couldn't even pick her out from a group of about 10 girls

***
IMO this article served a couple of purposes. To defend her husband's position, to depict some characteristics of the McCanns, to - indeed - make very clear that all of these 3-4 year old blonde, pink and beautiful girls couldn't be told apart, to name a few.

by Ross 06.09.12 16:59

aiyoyo wrote:
Matt said XXXXX to the effect that Jerry's daughter had been abducted, and that Jerry said that he had met me and wanted to know if I had seen anything. I said 'You're joking'. [i]I offered help but they said there was nothing that could be done at that stage. We remained at the apartment but could see people around the pool and at the front with torches. I also saw the police arriving. We then went to bed.

How odd.
He was woken up in the middle of the night, told that someone he knew and exchanged a convo. with only a few hours earlier had his daughter abducted, he then looked around, saw people searching, then went right back to bed. Charming person.

Having presumably told his wife, who shared his total indifference to the high drama happening just a few yards away. I wonder if they even checked on their own child?

How can anyone go back to bed in that sort of circumstances?
I mean why accept nothing couldn't be done - a child is missing isn't it?

I agree. Simple curiosity at the very least.

by Guest 06.09.12 17:07

If you read the article you'll see that O'Donnell claims they either would bring their children to the evening creche, or take them with them, or stay home as they did on May 3 because their baby wouldn't settle.

by **tigger** 06.09.12 17:23

Châtelaine wrote:
ShuBob wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:I am reminded again of his wife's [Bridget O'Donnell] pink prose of her "Months with Madeleine":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann

To this day, I wonder why O'Donnell chose that article title since by her own account, she spent no time at all with Maddie and couldn't even pick her out from a group of about 10 girls
***
IMO this article served a couple of purposes. To defend her husband's position, to depict some characteristics of the McCanns, to - indeed - make very clear that all of these 3-4 year old blonde, pink and beautiful girls couldn't be told apart, to name a few.

Trouble is - there's only about six names on the creche sheets at any one time. For the life of me I can't see how they couldn't tell them apart.
Brigit Wilkins said there were about ten or so.
How many children on the boat trip and does that tally with the creche sheet that day?

by aiyoyo 06.09.12 19:13

Blacksmith wrote:
Will she be in the audience in a week’s time to witness the struggle for her pound of flesh? We shall see.

I doubt Kate will appear in Court unless she's dragged there to answer questions.

Far as I know under Portuguese law civil parties (which Amaral and Mccanns are) of libel suit are not obliged to appear in court, they wont have to testify. At most, if the Judges have questions for them, they can be summoned and questions put to them directly, otherwise it is mostly done through their lawyer as intermediary.

Amaral might show up because it is in his interest to do so. Hopefully the mccanns are summoned to answer questions.

Log in for more topics