Re: Would anyone do the supposed child checks without a mobile phone?

by **PeterMac** on 25.01.13 17:01

@Woofer wrote:
Yes, if we can believe JW is completely independent.
That whole scenario is confusing.

There is one point of view which holds that JW is the real problem. He wasn't supposed to be there, and got in the way, and messed up the timings.
Hence the nonsense about GM not seeing JT pass him within 30 cm (if we take width of man, (60 cm.) width of woman, (60) and width of two strips of pavement either too close to the road or too close to the wall,( 2 x 30) and subtract it from width of pavement, (210). She is less than a foot away. At that distance you can detect someone's body heat, and the movement of air.
If they were standing as men normal do, at an angle to each other, JW and his buggy then take up about 85 cm. of the pavement. JT would have had to turn sideways and "squeeze" past. Normal social conventions require a murmer of recognition and apology by both parties in this situation.
But both men say they did not see her.

What is peculiar is that it would not hurt the story if the men said they had been aware of her passing by. There was no need for them to have looked up the street or noticed anything else in particular, and the scene would have been at least slightly more believable. It would have added credence to JT's account, which at the moment is entirely unsupported.
But they didn't, which damages the story.

by southern_gal on 25.01.13 17:22

I would suggest that all of their contradictions of movements and changed stories and timelines stem from the fact that there was NO evidence of a break in at the window as stated. No sign of forced or jemmied shutters. Had there been where would be the need for all this business of different doors etc. In my opinion all stems from that one shall we say.....glaring error. [/quote]

Another thing that's always nagged me is that the apartment doesn't look like it had been searched for a missing child. The bed linens were undisturbed. The couch's didn't appear to have been moved. The curtains in the living room didn't appear to have been checked to see if a little girl was hiding behind them. The apartment just looks too tidy.

by **monkey mind** on 25.01.13 17:24

Nice analysis Peter.

Imho, if JW was indeed the proverbial spanner in the works then he is an independent witness.

As such no reason to lie.

It’s a quiet narrow road as you describe so if she was there when she says she was he would have seen.

He says he didn’t see her.

Gerry was there at the time so he is likely aware of what JW was aware of imo, so it follows that he has a good idea what JW is going to say when asked to describe their meeting.

Ergo......

by **monkey mind** on 25.01.13 17:34

True story. As a boy I once told my parents I had lost my pocket money in the hope they would give me some more (come on I’m not the only one surely).

Instead of giving me some more they began to look for it. Bugger! Did I help? Well I had to a bit so as not to get caught for lying, but not much because I knew where it was all along.

by Smokeandmirrors on 25.01.13 17:40

The notion that they did not have mobiles on them is as ridiculous as the notion that supposedly intelligent people would leave babies alone. It's just rubbish.

by aiyoyo on 25.01.13 17:46

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:The notion that they did not have mobiles on them is as ridiculous as the notion that supposedly intelligent people would leave babies alone. It's just rubbish.

They did have mobiles on holiday, just didn't take it to the Restaurant they claimed. Believable? Of course NOT!

by Guest on 25.01.13 17:48

Just for the record, both k and g had watches on the entire Holliday also may 3.
Matthew and russel did checkings together according to their statements, when one find their child ill the other told their wife when returning to the table, according to their statements.

G is sure he left the table 21.04 because he looked at his watch. JT says she left 5 minutes after g.
Gives the abducter little time to enter, sedate all children, open window etc then pick up a kid and go. Must have been a superman ..

by Smokeandmirrors on 25.01.13 17:52

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Smokeandmirrors wrote:The notion that they did not have mobiles on them is as ridiculous as the notion that supposedly intelligent people would leave babies alone. It's just rubbish.

They did have mobiles on holiday, just didn't take it to the Restaurant they claimed. Believable? Of course NOT!

Which is double BS. Women generally take a bag, they would have had keys, of course they had their mobiles with them in the evening. I could believe one out of a couple leaving a phone on charge for example, or one or two out of the group, but the way they have portrayed it just stinks. They had a camera in the tapas, there was a reference to Diane Webster getting it from the table once the ~~abduction~~ disappearance happened. If you bothered to take a camera chances are you'd bother with your phone too.

by Smokeandmirrors on 25.01.13 17:55

Moa wrote:Just for the record, both k and g had watches on the entire Holliday also may 3.
Matthew and russel did checkings together according to their statements, when one find their child ill the other told their wife when returning to the table, according to their statements.

G is sure he left the table 21.04 because he looked at his watch. JT says she left 5 minutes after g.
Gives the abducter little time to enter, sedate all children, open window etc then pick up a kid and go. Must have been a superman ..

And we had the fragrant Clarence telling us that the Tapas timeline was so flaky because none of them had watches on!! That was probably one of his most laughable lies. He must have been high on Silverkrin Max-Hold at the time.

by southern_gal on 25.01.13 18:09

Those mobile phones contain a lot of evidence of this crime I highly suspect. Hmm...were the records of those who quickly showed up after the crime occurred ever collected since there's evidence that aspects of this crime continued up to when the McCann's boarded the plane?

by Woofer on 25.01.13 18:58

@southern_gal wrote:Those mobile phones contain a lot of evidence of this crime I highly suspect. Hmm...were the records of those who quickly showed up after the crime occurred ever collected since there's evidence that aspects of this crime continued up to when the McCann's boarded the plane?

If you mean the Tapas 7, this is the only link I know of : http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PHONE_TEXTS.htm

by worriedmum on 25.01.13 23:26

Sorry to be a bore about this, but does it state somewhere that Kate didn't take her phone with her to the restaurant? Because if she didn't, what other places would it be than in the apartment?

To put it another way, if for argument's sake, you say 'Oh I'm on holiday, no-one is likely to ring me except my friends and as we are all eating together, I don't need to take my phone with me, do I?-THEN YOU WOULD LEAVE IT IN THE APARTMENT?
OR
you say 'Oh I'm on holiday, eating with my friends, I'll take my phone with me and then I can get in touch/my husband /one of the friends who are checking so regularly/can ring me if there's a problem when I/they/ do my checks-THEN YOU WOULD HAVE IT WITH YOU.

So IMO, it would available to use while you are frantically looking around the apartment?

Are there more possibilities?

by Guest on 25.01.13 23:28

Well, I know I wouldn't leave my valuables in an unlocked apartment, including a mobile phone.

by Inspectorfrost on 25.01.13 23:37

None of their phones make a ping that night from being inthe restaraunt to 10 pm that night

Apart from jane tanner at 8.30 pm or so which was about a bbq the next day or something

So no, to whoever asked, tanner and her boyfriend did not exchange phone calls to tell of their vomitting daughter

Must have relied ontheir crows wings as it was only 50 metres as they flew between checks, oops, 49.4 as kate corrects a certain interviewer whilst saying to be exact

by **monkey mind** on 25.01.13 23:37

candyfloss wrote:Well, I know I wouldn't leave my valuables in an unlocked apartment, including a mobile phone.

Nor would I. Nor my passport let alone my kids.

by Ollie on 26.01.13 0:07

@monkey mind wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Well, I know I wouldn't leave my valuables in an unlocked apartment, including a mobile phone.
Nor would I. Nor my passport let alone my kids.

But the children were of no value - wasn't it philly who said nothing of value was taken?

I think they would of had their mobiles on them. I take my mobile with me when I go to the corner shop and it's two minutes from my home...I always think an emergency may arise and I may have to call 999!

by Woofer on 26.01.13 0:30

@worriedmum wrote:Sorry to be a bore about this, but does it state somewhere that Kate didn't take her phone with her to the restaurant? Because if she didn't, what other places would it be than in the apartment?

To put it another way, if for argument's sake, you say 'Oh I'm on holiday, no-one is likely to ring me except my friends and as we are all eating together, I don't need to take my phone with me, do I?-THEN YOU WOULD LEAVE IT IN THE APARTMENT?
OR
you say 'Oh I'm on holiday, eating with my friends, I'll take my phone with me and then I can get in touch/my husband /one of the friends who are checking so regularly/can ring me if there's a problem when I/they/ do my checks-THEN YOU WOULD HAVE IT WITH YOU.

So IMO, it would available to use while you are frantically looking around the apartment?

Are there more possibilities?

Well spotted - so it had to either be 1) In the apartment; 2) About her person or 3) Left on the Tapas table (which is highly unlikely when she had to walk through a dark street, past dark alleyways, up dark back-stairs to the apartment, enter a dark apartment knowing she couldn`t phone for help if one of the kids was sick).

by bristow on 26.01.13 2:29

@Smokeandmirrors wrote: He must have been high on Silverkrin Max-Hold at the time.

by aiyoyo on 26.01.13 8:03

candyfloss wrote:Well, I know I wouldn't leave my valuables in an unlocked apartment, including a mobile phone.

And they did place a value on their possessions, when they said nothing valuable was taken. Priceless!

by southern_gal on 26.01.13 14:15

Sorry everyone, I have family coming in and out while typing and distracting me.

by southern_gal on 26.01.13 14:18

I commented on the phone analysis topic because I could not copy one of the specific phone analysis graphs over. splat

So,

by Ribisl on 26.01.13 23:01

Apart from the highly questionable stickerbook timelines, I find it hard to believe any of the women routinely went to check on their children. The resort is half empty and streets are poorly lit. Would you let your wife or girlfriend to walk alone to and from the apartment to do checks?

by Nina on 27.01.13 0:18

@Ribisl wrote:Apart from the highly questionable stickerbook timelines, I find it hard to believe any of the women routinely went to check on their children. The resort is half empty and streets are poorly lit. Would you let your wife or girlfriend to walk alone to and from the apartment to do checks?

Hi Ribsl, a very good point that. I would have thought the women would have all gone together did a check and then all go back together, but no they went alone, were frightened but did it, bless, for the safety of their sleeping babies and toddlers, what motherly love, NOT.

by Inspectorfrost on 27.01.13 0:25

@Nina wrote:
@Ribisl wrote:Apart from the highly questionable stickerbook timelines, I find it hard to believe any of the women routinely went to check on their children. The resort is half empty and streets are poorly lit. Would you let your wife or girlfriend to walk alone to and from the apartment to do checks?
Hi Ribsl, a very good point that. I would have thought the women would have all gone together did a check and then all go back together, but no they went alone, were frightened but did it, bless, for the safety of their sleeping babies and toddlers, what motherly love, NOT.

It is bizarre that any mother would leave her baby alone especially in an unlocked flat and then come out and say we felt safe, who are they kidding? LIARS

by **tigger** on 10.03.13 19:39

I dont want to start a new topic and this is as good a jumping-off point as any: mobiles.

You would
a) not leave your mobile in an apartment of which you have left the door open (or in Tapas speak: closed but not locked)
b) most certainly not if you'd been alerted by staff about a spate of burglaries
c) most certainly not in a strange and totally accessible resort which had no gated access but was open to all and sundry.
d) definitely take you mobile with you - just in case - you'd have it on you - if you had to call for help it seems silly to have to find the thing in the dark (don't wake up the children) if you suspected anything wrong/if you'd forgotten de key/ if one of the children had fallen out of bed - endless possibilities

OK, that's those mobiles, the official ones from the UK from their official provider and all. We've got the pings for those.

The first or one of the first calls Gerry made was: from McCannfiles:
Between 10.00 and 10.50 pm The first call that Gerry made on the night of the crime was to Alistair Clark, a good friend from university days and a diplomat who is close to Gordon Brown. Clark made contacts at the highest level and - before Policia Judiciaria - already Sky News and the British Ambassador were being informed about the abduction. unquote

About 11.15 McKenzie, a guest helping to look for Maddie saw Gerry on the phone saying she'd been taken by a paedophile gang.

What I'd like to know is on which mobile these calls were made? Because the pings for these don't seem to be on the list. See page one.
23.14 and 23.17 Kate and Gerry seem to have phoned each other.

Would anyone do the supposed child checks without a mobile phone?