Re: Onlychecked on her *two*....

by Guest 25.11.12 13:48

Typing in "dos seus" and asking for a translation comes up with "their" so it does look as if the only checking their own children is correct.

So why then did Matt Oldfield check on the McCann children - allegedly?

by russiandoll 25.11.12 16:10

alem de = apart from and seus is a possessive...... alem dos seus...apart from hers. imo.
2 = dois or duas

by **PeterMac** 25.11.12 16:51

Jean wrote:Typing in "dos seus" and asking for a translation comes up with "their" so it does look as if the only checking their own children is correct.

So why then did Matt Oldfield check on the McCann children - allegedly?

Quite. That would imply that three parents jumped up every 30 minutes.
McCs would return in about 5 minutes, the others at slightly longer intervals.

It takes one minute to go the bottom of the 5A stairs on the street, and two minutes to go to the front door.
A further minute to enter, check and a minute to exit, means that even to 5A we are talking either 5 minutes or 7 (depending whether we believe the "truth" of the first statement, or of the second and subsequent statements.)
The other apartments are slightly further away, therefore we must add another minute or so to each of those.
For one parent to do multiple checks would add significantly to these times.

Is there any evidence from the waiters that all thus rushing around was happening every evening ? (Rhetorical question - I know the answer )
It must have made the quiz night almost impossible, and service of food a nightmare.

Conclusion ?
All together now, 1, 2, 3 - It did not happen.

by aiyoyo 26.11.12 3:00

It did not happen every night, except for May 3rd, a necessary charade to give them an alibi against neglect charges.
Unless it was rota-check in words and not of actions. No one outside their group would be any wiser anyway as to whether they checked or not.

Even Jez encounter with Gerry is no indication one way or the other whether he had or had not done the check.
He just have Gerry's word for it. All it proves is, Gerry was outside his apt, nothing else.
Apart from that, no witness exists to confirm their checks story.

If checks did not happen on 3rd, it could mean several things:
Maddie had met her fate earlier, disposed off, done and dusted prior to the evening, actions thereafter were just staging of the abduction.
Else, there is a bigger window of opportunity for a snatch job.

And we know which is the answer don't we? Otherwise their back-to-back checks story is a total disregard for Maddie if she was really snatched.

Understandably, the Investigators focused on their movements mainly of the 3rd (day of reported disappearance). Waiters evidence of the group's movement to and from the table would also be concentrated particularly on night of the disappearance as well one would imagine.

Unless waiters were particularly sharp, I doubt any waiter would notice (or could be certain) whether an adult missing from the table was because they'd not arrived or had left the table. Even if a waiter had noticed one or more of the parents had left the table, there's still no way of telling where they went or what they did.

So, yes, there is no witness' evidence of their checks (If, a big IF it took place). It did not happen.

by Mariita 26.11.12 21:07

I remember having read something about a teenage girl who did see Gerry while he had that conversation with Jeremy Wilkins (which he probably did have.. but, as said in post above, it's no proof for any checking on children). The interesting thing is that she doesn't remember anyone else walking on that road while this conversation took place, no Jane Tanner-resembling person whatsoever. Maybe no one gave this girl's statement any credibility. If I'm not all wrong about this, but by saying this she kind of had to explain what exactly she was doing herself at that time, which was awkward because it was something forbidden(smoking?).

Among all lies, Jane's share was not only the childchecking-lie, but also a fulldetailed description of an abductor.

by Guest 26.11.12 21:29

Mariita wrote: [...]

Among all lies, Jane's share was not only the childchecking-lie, but also a fulldetailed description of an abductor.

***
An abductor, who didn't look like:
- dead "pervert" Hewlett
and as for that matter:
- Gerry McCann
- Russell O'Brien
- David Payne
- Matt Oldfield
- Pimpleman
- Eggman
- Posh-look-alike
- George Harrison
- or anyone else we've seen passing in the past 5 + years

by aniandr 26.11.12 21:50

Enough Said :-)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Mariita 26.11.12 22:33

aniandr wrote:Enough Said :-)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Yes, by now we all know that his/her/its looks is of no importance at all. He/She/It carried a child dressed in a pyjamas identical to the one Madeleine was wearing that evening, now that is something that counts. Colour match and everything, rock-solid proof that hasn't changed over the years. Who needs to know what the ghost was wearing?

by Guest 26.11.12 22:39

Mariita wrote:
aniandr wrote:Enough Said :-)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Yes, by now we all know that his/her/its looks is of no importance at all. He/She/It carried a child dressed in a pyjamas identical to the one Madeleine was wearing that evening, now that is something that counts. Colour match and everything, rock-solid proof that hasn't changed over the years. Who needs to know what the ghost was wearing?

***
Yes, of course. It was rock-solid one of Madeleine's three pairs of pyjamas, as one has for a week's holiday .... But I wouldn't ignore the beige trousers and the dark jacket and the thick long hair in the back ... big grin

by russiandoll 26.11.12 22:58

I would not ignore the to-ing and fro-ing of the O 'Brien pair Thurs evening leading up to abduction time. Something to do with the dark jacketed and beige trousered one carrying a very much alive little girl around PdL that night imo.
hence the lack of cadaver odour on HIS clothes.

by Guest 26.11.12 23:06

Thanks, Russiandoll. I don't ignore anything, just cannot make it fit. That's all. There's so much deception on all sides and in all directions, that I can only repeat myself again: "They know more than they're telling" for 5+ years now. Well, Aisenbergs got charged after many more years ...

by russiandoll 26.11.12 23:26

I know just how you feel Chatelaine! I read so much and go down an avenue thinking......this is starting to make sense..... then reach a dead end.

The tiny piece of the jigsaw, the key is hiding amongst all those words and pictures, I am sure.
Confusion sure is good.

Maybe a left field approach is needed, a bit of lateral thinking?