tanner sighting

by mariola 10.03.14 23:23

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:I'm going to put what I've found together in one post, as I find it hugely significant.

The first timeline says:

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

No mention of an abductor, or an open door. Just a question to ask Gerry on his return.

The second timeline says:

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

The 'A' looks to me like it means 'Abductor'. The 'A' leads into the top of a possible 'b'. But the author decides to leave it as 'code'.

The idea that an abductor was in the room, and that the door was open, is present on the second timeline but not the first.

The idea was formed between the writing of the two timelines.

wbts i salute your brilliant detective work .well done.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 23:31

mariola wrote:
wbts i salute your brilliant detective work .well done.

Thank you mariola, much appreciated :)

by suzyjohnson 11.03.14 0:57

PeterMac wrote:
Timeline 1 (as per sticker book above)

8:45. pm

Matt returns 9.00-9.05 - listened at all 3
- all shutters down

Jerry 9.10-9.15 in the room + all well
? did he check

9.20/5 - ~~Ella~~ Jane checked 5D sees stranger & child

9.30 - Russ. ~~Ella~~ Matt check all 3

9.35 - Matt check see twins

9.50 - Russ returns

9.55 - Kate realised Madeleine

10pm - Alarm raised

Timeline 2 (as per sticker book above)

8.45pm. all assembled at poolside for food

9.00pm. Matt Oldfield listens at all 3 windows 5A, B, D ALL shutters down

9:15pm Gerry McCann looks at room A ? Door open to bedroom

9:20pm Jane Tanner checks 5D - [sees stranger walking carrying a child]

9.30 Russell O'Brien in 5D. Poorly daughter
l
9.55pm

10:00pm. Alarm raised after Kate

Gerald

What seems clear to me is that ROB has included the surnames on the 2nd timeline for the benefit of the Portuguese police, also that ROB has clarified the spelling of Gerald.

On timeline 1, it is already made clear that Matt saw the twins on his 9.30 pm check of apartment 5A, yet this (vitally important) check is missing entirely from timeline 2.

by jeanmonroe 11.03.14 3:41

What seems clear to me is that ROB has included the surnames on the 2nd timeline for the benefit of the Portuguese police, also that ROB has clarified the spelling of Gerald.
------------------------------------------------------------------

McCann himself SIGNED/WROTE the word GERALD on bottom of timeline 2.

AND McCann used a BLACK pen, to write his name, as opposed to O'Brien's BLUER pen for the rest.

Anyway different pens used.

by Mirage 11.03.14 4:58

That ref to tv room stands out for me. It sounds communal. Remember how touchy GM was when JT mentions the footie in the Mockumentary. He closed that avenue of thought down pdq.

A lot of angst between those two IMO. I can't forget her saying, "I was carrying across the body like this.". Then the little eye roll. Dropped pronoun too IIRC.

by **tigger** 11.03.14 6:05

ROB is anxious about Ella, she must be at the forefront of his mind, so is he waiting for her return? Was that the child seen carried in PdL? She'd be the most likely one imo.

The door 'further open than we'd left it' which trumpcard has been played time and time again makes no sense in the light of Matt's check. Did Matt report back to say:'btw, I left the door open about 35 to 40 degrees which is as I found it' and then later the McCanns look at each other with a wild surmise ' we left it at precisely 22.5 degrees!'

At 9.05 precisely by his watch (one of the ones none of them wore) Gerry got up from the table for his check.
The exact angle made by the door is important. The Tapas bar is 49.5 meters distant.
But in the first place Kate could not know if either Gerry or Matt had left it further open.
So it was, together with the high ledge which wasn't present in that flat (but possibly in another flat? ) the proof of a third party having entered.

The door open wider. - irrelevant
Cuddlecat up on a ledge too high for M to reach. - no ledge
The broken and lifted shutter. - Didn't work

We're not even talking about the unique weather conditions which only affected 5a.
The pink blanket left on the bed. - not a very strong indicator, quite large, Cuddlecat out of reach would have been more convincing.
Btw slightly ot, but if Cc was her constant companion allegedly for years, how come it had to be washed after a mere 5 days of being carried around by Kate?

by canada12 11.03.14 6:12

Mirage wrote:That ref to tv room stands out for me. It sounds communal. Remember how touchy GM was when JT mentions the footie in the Mockumentary. He closed that avenue of thought down pdq.
.

That's what stood out for me too. A "tv room" sounds like a community sort of place where there might be a large screen tv where a group of people gathered to watch something. Or perhaps a nickname for a room where all of the Tapas group gathered communally to watch videos or DVDs or some other activity...? In one of their apartments?

What also stuck out for me is that the first two entries on the timeline have the persons' names first, followed by the time and a description. Whereas the remaining entries have the times listed first, followed by the names and the descriptions of activities. Why the change in style?

Also note the very large gap between the 9 and the 10 in the "Jerry" entry - almost as if the time entry was ACTUALLY 9pm to 10pm, and not 9:10 to 9:15 pm. As if space might have been left after the 10 in order to back-fill the 9:15pm time once the rest of the timeline had been figured out.

And just thinking outside the box for a moment... is it possible that the J followed by the squiggly letters is not "Jerry" but a deliberately blurry spelling of "Jeremy" or an abbreviation for "Jeremy"?

Just a few thoughts.

by Woofer 11.03.14 9:43

@ canada12 - " A "tv room" sounds like a community sort of place where there might be a large screen tv where a group of people gathered to watch something. Or perhaps a nickname for a room where all of the Tapas group gathered communally to watch videos or DVDs or some other activity...? In one of their apartments?"

Yes, agreed ....... the mind boggles thinking

by whatliesbehindthesofa 11.03.14 9:48

I'm really going to have to apply Occam's Razor to this :)

canada12 wrote:
That's what stood out for me too. A "tv room" sounds like a community sort of place where there might be a large screen tv where a group of people gathered to watch something. Or perhaps a nickname for a room where all of the Tapas group gathered communally to watch videos or DVDs or some other activity...? In one of their apartments?

Alternatively, probably just means the sitting room of 5A, the one with the TV in it.

What also stuck out for me is that the first two entries on the timeline have the persons' names first, followed by the time and a description. Whereas the remaining entries have the times listed first, followed by the names and the descriptions of activities. Why the change in style?

This didn't jump out at me, and I don't find it very significant. They were hurriedly manufacturing a timeline.

canada12 wrote:
Also note the very large gap between the 9 and the 10 in the "Jerry" entry - almost as if the time entry was ACTUALLY 9pm to 10pm, and not 9:10 to 9:15 pm. As if space might have been left after the 10 in order to back-fill the 9:15pm time once the rest of the timeline had been figured out.

Gerry was there for a whole hour??? Doesn't make any sense to me.

canada12 wrote:
And just thinking outside the box for a moment... is it possible that the J followed by the squiggly letters is not "Jerry" but a deliberately blurry spelling of "Jeremy" or an abbreviation for "Jeremy"?

Or it's just meant to be 'Gerry'. Wilkins was called 'Jez' for short I believe. Why 'deliberately blur' the spelling? This timeline clearly does not look like it was intended for the police.

There seems to be a desire here to needlessly widen the conspiracy.

by Guest 11.03.14 9:49

canada12 wrote:
Mirage wrote:That ref to tv room stands out for me. It sounds communal. Remember how touchy GM was when JT mentions the footie in the Mockumentary. He closed that avenue of thought down pdq.
.

That's what stood out for me too. A "tv room" sounds like a community sort of place where there might be a large screen tv where a group of people gathered to watch something. Or perhaps a nickname for a room where all of the Tapas group gathered communally to watch videos or DVDs or some other activity...? In one of their apartments?

What also stuck out for me is that the first two entries on the timeline have the persons' names first, followed by the time and a description. Whereas the remaining entries have the times listed first, followed by the names and the descriptions of activities. Why the change in style?

Also note the very large gap between the 9 and the 10 in the "Jerry" entry - almost as if the time entry was ACTUALLY 9pm to 10pm, and not 9:10 to 9:15 pm. As if space might have been left after the 10 in order to back-fill the 9:15pm time once the rest of the timeline had been figured out.

And just thinking outside the box for a moment... is it possible that the J followed by the squiggly letters is not "Jerry" but a deliberately blurry spelling of "Jeremy" or an abbreviation for "Jeremy"?

Just a few thoughts.

If Gerry had been interested in watching football, I'm sure the entire tapas group would have been dragged to the nearest bar with a widescreen tv and sky sports. Does Chaplins have a tv room?

by Woofer 11.03.14 9:52

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

This is List 1.

In between the 9.35 and circled 9.55 it says `9.12 - RM returns`. There`s no way it says 9.50 Russ returns as has been interpreted before. Who would RM be and why list it out of sequence? Or do I need new glasses?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 11.03.14 9:55

Woofer wrote:
This is List 1.

In between the 9.35 and circled 9.55 it says `9.12 - RM returns`. There`s no way it says 9.50 Russ returns as has been interpreted before. Who would RM be and why list it out of sequence? Or do I need new glasses?

It says '9:50 Russ returns'. New glasses probably required ;-)

by Guest 11.03.14 9:56

To me that's definitely 9.50 and Russ.

Good old doctor's handwriting there!

by Woofer 11.03.14 9:59

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Woofer wrote:
This is List 1.

In between the 9.35 and circled 9.55 it says `9.12 - RM returns`. There`s no way it says 9.50 Russ returns as has been interpreted before. Who would RM be and why list it out of sequence? Or do I need new glasses?

It says '9:50 Russ returns'. New glasses probably required ;-)

Right, I can see that the 9.12 could be a badly scribbled 9.50, but no way can the RM be his version of `Russ` - check how he writes it above.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 11.03.14 10:00

Woofer wrote:
Right, I can see that the 9.12 could be a badly scribbled 9.50, but no way can the RM be his version of `Russ` - check how he writes it above.

No, it is 'Russ', I disagree.

by Woofer 11.03.14 10:05

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Woofer wrote:
Right, I can see that the 9.12 could be a badly scribbled 9.50, but no way can the RM be his version of `Russ` - check how he writes it above.

No, it is 'Russ', I disagree.

I remain of the opinion it is RM.

by Guest 11.03.14 10:12

We'll have to agree to disagree here!

It does tie in with Russ's return from a marathon session of cleaning up his sick daughter, changing the bedding etc - all within the space of 10 minutes; what a superman.

by Woofer 11.03.14 10:34

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree here!

It does tie in with Russ's return from a marathon session of cleaning up his sick daughter, changing the bedding etc - all within the space of 10 minutes; what a superman.

I think we will NFWTD, although I can appreciate that `it is what one expects to see`.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 11.03.14 10:42

Woofer wrote:
I think we will NFWTD, although I can appreciate that `it is what one expects to see`.

I choose to go with the simplest explanation, that it is 'Russ returns', rather than add the massive complication of bringing Murat (I assume) into things.

by Woofer 11.03.14 10:59

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Woofer wrote:
I think we will NFWTD, although I can appreciate that `it is what one expects to see`.

I choose to go with the simplest explanation, that it is 'Russ returns', rather than add the massive complication of bringing Murat (I assume) into things.

I can appreciate the simpler option WLBTS, but find its worth looking beyond what we expect to see sometimes. And RM could also be Rachel Mampilly.

by **PeterMac** 11.03.14 11:00

And it is that which renders Smithman as a suspect impossible.
They have closed off all "windows of opportunity", probably without realising it.

1 munite and 20 seconds for Tannerman
Almost no time at all for Smithman.

by Mirage 11.03.14 12:02

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

This is List 1.

In between the 9.35 and circled 9.55 it says `9.12 - RM returns`. There`s no way it says 9.50 Russ returns as has been interpreted before. Who would RM be and why list it out of sequence? Or do I need new glasses?

I don't think you need new glasses Woofer. I agree - that looks like RM to me.

If you look at "Russ", the "u" is joined to the R. The "u" is curved. The first "s" seems not to be joined to the "u".The following "s" stands a little apart and is almost a straight line. It supports the sense for me that "s" is not a naturally flowing formation for the writer even as a stand-alone letter. The tightness of the letter formation maybe a relic of a childhood difficulty with letter "s" where a common fault is to form letter "s" back to front. This can hinder a natural flow when a conscious effort has been made by the child to self-correct. The hesitancy and tightness indicate that history to me.

Taking the second example, I see a totally different flow. For a start, everything is joined. If you imagine through half-closed eyes that there are x2 "s" , then you are looking at a totally different hand IMO because you have to assume that both are joined and that only half of the letter "u" is present . I see this handwriting overall as quite linear, almost italic-like in the stylised formations, which is why I see a capitalised M with an upward finishing flick in example 2.

I find writing broadly falls into two main areas: staccato or rounded. Both styles can join up fluently within their individual formats, which is why I believe the second example shows the R joining the capitalised M with the little flick up to finishThis indicates to me an ease of fluency absent from the difficulty shown in the formation of the x2 "s" of the first example, down to the finishing flourish at the end of the M.

I hope all this makes sense.

ETA Just had a look at the other "s" s. I can't see any that are joined. The starter "s"s are more rounded generally but one I saw within a word may even start at the bottom. The Greek "a"s seem to tip a nod towards the flourish of a more grown-up script but is yet another example to me of a lack of flow.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 11.03.14 12:24

Yeah, and on the 9:55 entry it says 'Note realises Madeleine...', except it doesn't say 'Note', it says 'Kate', the handwriting is poor. I can say with absolute conviction that it says 'Kate' and not 'Note', because I'm taking the whole thing in context, along with what I know to be the claimed sequence of events.

'Rm' makes no sense in the context of people trying to concoct a fictional timeline to cover their asses.

I feel that identifying the 'A?' as 'Abductor?' in the second timeline is a big clue, and a big move forward. I notice not very many people have commented on it, as my conclusion - that the abductor story was formulated between the writing of the two timelines - doesn't tally with the grand conspiracy theory of a pre-planned faked abduction. Lo and behold, we're now seeing 'Rm' in the timeline when nobody saw it before.

by bobbin 11.03.14 12:31

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

This is List 1.

In between the 9.35 and circled 9.55 it says `9.12 - RM returns`. There`s no way it says 9.50 Russ returns as has been interpreted before. Who would RM be and why list it out of sequence? Or do I need new glasses?

Woofer, it's not a matter of needing glasses, it's a matter of context.

What you see may look like RM, if it stands alone, but look at the Russ above, it looks like 'ruri' and if you look at many of his words, like 'checking' etc. many letters are either missing completely or, so restricted that it's hard to tell.

Overall, Russ went off at one time, and some minutes later 'returned'.
Rachel did not get noted as 'gone' so how could she be noted as 'returned'.
As for Robert Murat being RM, he would be noted as Rob, or Robert etc. as the other males are noted by first name or shortened version. Same would apply to Rachel as being 'Rachel' or 'Rach'.

Yes, doctor's writing is notorious, and done for the same reason as the chart at the end of the bed is 'upside down to the patient'. It's to keep the patient in the dark (and in awe if unable to read upside down) and to avoid anyone questionning their profound pronouncements of the well, or not, being of the pile of flesh under observation, whose relatives may well see and know this pile as a sentient human being.

Given the predisposition to 'secrecy' in the general doctors handwriting techniques, take also that these guys are lying through their teeth and trying to fiction what they can onto a sheet of (torn off child's colouring-in book) cardboard, to save their very sorry 'harses'.

The scribbled Rsi is definitely related only to Russ returning.

As for the -1 on Matt's entry, he sees the twins at the door, but does not see Maddie.

Even at that so very early time, they were preparing his later role as witness to checking on the McCs children much later on in the Mockumentary, which just as Kate's book is her own self declared 'prison sentence' so is it Matt Oldfield's ticket to Her Majesty's guest house, for a certain number of years.

Sickening, sickening self-serving bunch...... glad I don't ever go to the doctor's.... poor Maddie, what did happen to her.

by Guest 11.03.14 12:36

Agree 100% Bobbin.

Rachael was never said to be one of the "checkers" so wouldn't be on the timetable and it's just unbelievable (even by team McCann standards) that Robert Murat would be mentioned!

by **tigger** 11.03.14 12:45

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:I'm really going to have to apply Occam's Razor to this :)

canada12 wrote:
That's what stood out for me too. A "tv room" sounds like a community sort of place where there might be a large screen tv where a group of people gathered to watch something. Or perhaps a nickname for a room where all of the Tapas group gathered communally to watch videos or DVDs or some other activity...? In one of their apartments?

Alternatively, probably just means the sitting room of 5A, the one with the TV in it.

What also stuck out for me is that the first two entries on the timeline have the persons' names first, followed by the time and a description. Whereas the remaining entries have the times listed first, followed by the names and the descriptions of activities. Why the change in style?

This didn't jump out at me, and I don't find it very significant. They were hurriedly manufacturing a timeline.

canada12 wrote:
Also note the very large gap between the 9 and the 10 in the "Jerry" entry - almost as if the time entry was ACTUALLY 9pm to 10pm, and not 9:10 to 9:15 pm. As if space might have been left after the 10 in order to back-fill the 9:15pm time once the rest of the timeline had been figured out.

Gerry was there for a whole hour??? Doesn't make any sense to me.

canada12 wrote:
And just thinking outside the box for a moment... is it possible that the J followed by the squiggly letters is not "Jerry" but a deliberately blurry spelling of "Jeremy" or an abbreviation for "Jeremy"?

Or it's just meant to be 'Gerry'. Wilkins was called 'Jez' for short I believe. Why 'deliberately blur' the spelling? This timeline clearly does not look like it was intended for the police.

There seems to be a desire here to needlessly widen the conspiracy.

As far as 'conspiracy' goes (I prefer to call it 'Baldric's cunning plan') I don't think even the T 7 were completely in the loop.
They do seem to be an arrogant bunch, I'll do this and then you all do this and say this. Local plods will be no trouble, we're Doctors!
DW doesn't seem to have had much of an idea, except that both she and DP switched on their mobiles at the same time that evening, did not happen the other nights.
There is no hard evidence however that Gerry was in 5a at 10.00 or even at the table long before 9.00 pm as JW most likely met him rather earlier than 9.15.

That's why I think Ella being sick, ROB with the sheets and washing, JT being seen standing outside the block and some or other child needed for a swift stroll down PdL (there are such things as wigs) - I feel both of them exhibit behaviour of somewhat anxious parents. ROB writes down Ella twice, why on earth? Is he giving Ella an alibi for the Smith sighting?
That's the only 'extra' I get out of the timeline.
I would think that the swinging and cocaine theory was launched by MI5 or PR, a little rumour to explain why this group behaved so differently from normal holiday makers. An explanation sufficiently embarrassing not to appear in the press. But an explanation which would suppress the real reason they had preferential treatment.

I can't believe they meant to give this to the PJ. I'd love to see the neatly typed out A4 crib sheet of Payne, which he distributed to the group.

What is interesting is that phone call DP made and I believe that at an early stage Gerry phoned DP's father. Why?
But iirc both the Payne's changed their statements and that leaves Gerry without an alibi for most of the evening. I think it was briefly in the press around July. But they changed their original statements around July 08? It sort of slipped off the radar, so hopefully someone else knows what I'm trying to say.. smilie

by Mirage 11.03.14 12:52

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:Yeah, and on the 9:55 entry it says 'Note realises Madeleine...', except it doesn't say 'Note', it says 'Kate', the handwriting is poor. I can say with absolute conviction that it says 'Kate' and not 'Note', because I'm taking the whole thing in context, along with what I know to be the claimed sequence of events.

'Rm' makes no sense in the context of people trying to concoct a fictional timeline to cover their asses.

I feel that identifying the 'A?' as 'Abductor?' in the second timeline is a big clue, and a big move forward. I notice not very many people have commented on it, as my conclusion - that the abductor story was formulated between the writing of the two timelines - doesn't tally with the grand conspiracy theory of a pre-planned faked abduction. Lo and behold, we're now seeing 'Rm' in the timeline when nobody saw it before.

Within the idiosyncratic handwriting I see the first example as Russ and the second as RM. I might be wrong but that is how I see it; period.

I have not ventured an opinion on its significance, or what I think it may mean in the greater scheme of things. I leave that sort of thing to greater minds than mine. All I would proffer is that overall context and pesky little anomalies are always a question of balance and there have been many discussions about making the the evidence fit the theory right across this forum

Any myopia in the making of my point was entirely unintentional.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 11.03.14 12:56

On how the police obtained the timelines, this is from ROB's rogatory interview:

''But anyway Dave Payne said to, errm... there were two members of the PJ had arrived, there was a guy I remember being almost shaved bald head, quite dark complexion, and a second one who we kind of nicknamed 'baby face', who did our fingerprinting about a week later, errm... and those two were there and Dave was... was saying, you know, 'Shouldn't we', you know, 'Why are we sitting here, shouldn't you be on the radio, shouldn't there be more people here, shouldn't there be...', you know, 'this should be on the radio, it should be on the television' and, errm... I recall 'baby face', or his colleague, saying 'No media', and, you know... and that was full-stop and then turning round to me writing the timeline and saying 'That's what we want', fair enough. Errm... huh, and that's really it.'

I'm certain they didn't intend for the timeline to end up in the hands of the police.

by bobbin 11.03.14 12:58

Re the -1 Matt entry, I've just had a 'revelation' of a thought.

Matt was meant to 'discover Maddie gone' but Gerry hadn't managed to break the shutters and get them to stay up. Caught in the act of trying, by Jeremy wandering about with his child, the jemmied shutters didn't get jemmied. Uncle Phil was not informed in time and so the holes in the plan start to show.

The whole 'first organised' plan of 'discovery' has at this point f**ked up.

Now it is a PANIC.

and so all the back-filling starts.

Matt's kind offer to Kate, to let her, as a lady carry on sitting at table (only gentlemanly thing to do) was to find M missing. The earlier start of timing, around 9.20 - 9.40. was the scheduled time.

But those damned shutters, or rather, Gerry's lame attempt to get them up, after the practice run with the ones at the back of the house at the beginning of the week, is where the whole pack of cards turns to dust.

Yes Gerry, What a wally..... but instead of fixing time lines and running around PdL with someone else's child, you should have been ringing your sister to tell her to keep her mouth shut, and whilst you were at it, you could have reminded her, and yourself, that Portugal is on the SAME time as UK, and not one hour behind European time.

And Kate, screaming 'they've taken her' was caught completely off foot as well.

She hadn't rehearsed these words, nor the scream and rushing to the Tapas, leaving her other children alone (to be abducted as well) because that hadn't been scheduled into the 'plan'.

Several posts over the last 7 years have suggested that Matt was supposed to find Maddie missing, and that may or may not be wrong, but I wonder what others may think of this, now that so much more of the jigsaw has been put in place.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 11.03.14 13:11

What I've realised about the 'A?' entry has confirmed to me my theory:

- that Maddie died on the 3rd, possibly overdosed, possibly from hitting her head on the wall behind the couch, possibly both;
- that Gerry hastily disposed of the body;
- that he had his mobile and phoned that he had been seen at 9:55;
- that a timeline was hastily concocted, moving the alert from 9:30-ish to 10pm, giving Gerry an alibii;
- that when Gerry returned another timeline was formed including the idea of the abductor being in the room during Gerry's check.

I don't read too much into the '-1' thing - I just think that line was started but not finished.

Even if it is meant to be '-1', it could just indicate that this is the time the group became aware that Maddie was no longer of this world.