The Tanner "Sighting" - AGAIN

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:The forgiving of the abductor was just a psychological trick to reinforce the idea that there was an abductor - which of course, there wasn't.  Keeps you on the front pages too.

ultimaThule wrote:IMO it's understandable that the McCanns may struggle with extending their forgiveness to TB who has done so much to highlight their deficiencies as parents but, having forgiven the abductor, it does seem a tad curious that they don't feel able to forgive the man whose only sin was to try to find where they'd put their daughter. 

I wonder where AR features on G&K's forgiveness chart?  Have they placed a gold or black star by his name, or is there a blank space waiting to be filled before volume 2 of Kate's memoirs hits the shelves?

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:The forgiving of the abductor was just a psychological trick to reinforce the idea that there was an abductor - which of course, there wasn't.  Keeps you on the front pages too.

Portia wrote:From what I understand, a sudden change in procedure is a policeman's favorite red flag;

Why, if no checking went on the whole week, did it suddenly spring up on the one and only particular evening in history when a small girl was lost?

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:IMO it's understandable that the McCanns may struggle with extending their forgiveness to TB who has done so much to highlight their deficiencies as parents but, having forgiven the abductor, it does seem a tad curious that they don't feel able to forgive the man whose only sin was to try to find where they'd put their daughter. 

I wonder where AR features on G&K's forgiveness chart?  Have they placed a gold or black star by his name, or is there a blank space waiting to be filled before volume 2 of Kate's memoirs hits the shelves?

To me, this is quite simple:

They can't forgive somebody who exists.  They can easily forgive a figment of their imagination.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:

Portia wrote:From what I understand, a sudden change in procedure is a policeman's favorite red flag;

Why, if no checking went on the whole week, did it suddenly spring up on the one and only particular evening in history when a small girl was lost?

It's my understanding that, until the fateful Thursday, each couple was checking only their own children; the difference then being that they looked in on the others too.

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

Just a reminder of the time when the media was still allowed to throw doubts on the official story.

ultimaThule wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:IMO it's understandable that the McCanns may struggle with extending their forgiveness to TB who has done so much to highlight their deficiencies as parents but, having forgiven the abductor, it does seem a tad curious that they don't feel able to forgive the man whose only sin was to try to find where they'd put their daughter. 

I wonder where AR features on G&K's forgiveness chart?  Have they placed a gold or black star by his name, or is there a blank space waiting to be filled before volume 2 of Kate's memoirs hits the shelves?

To me, this is quite simple:

They can't forgive somebody who exists.  They can easily forgive a figment of their imagination.

Tongue was firmly in cheek when posting, wlbts, but it occurs to me that forgiving the figment of their imagination also reinforces the notion of devout christianity, albeit manifested via the roman catholic church, when the only god the McCanns worship is Mammon.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:According to the Tapas group statements:

- Matthew Oldfield was the only other person who ever checked the McCann children;
- He only did this on the night of the disappearance;
- He checked not once, but twice, only on the night of the disappearance;
- Despite two checks, he did not see Madeleine on either occasion;
- The 9:30 was supposed to be Kate's, but MO insisted on going instead.

But in my opinion:

- Matthew Oldfield did not check on the McCann children ever, nor did anyone else other than the parents (if they did at all)
- Kate went to 5A at 9:30, and MO did not insist on going in her place
- The alert was raised shortly after this time
- Gerry was in 5A's 'tv room' for a significant period of time before Kate's check
- Kate went to 5A when Gerry returned to the Tapas bar
- Gerry and Kate could have been avoiding each other, and there was no need for checks as one or the other would have been in 5A, excepting a few minutes
- When the second timeline was concocted the 9:30 MO check was abandoned, but he was confused and told the earlier story to the police

jeanmonroe wrote:
EXACTLY!

So another 'red flag' by Gerry stating that apartment 5A was diliberately left 'unlocked' so his 'colleagues' could gain entrance to 'check' on HIS three children.

Which THEY never DID! EVER!

And definitely NOT on Wednesday 2nd May 2007, that GM alludes to!

jeanmonroe wrote:And WHY would he enter through the LOCKED front door, when he has already ADMITTED to leaving the patio door UNLOCKED so his 'colleagues could gain entrance' to check HIS kids?

WHY did HE walk 'pass' the UNLOCKED patio door, that he says he LEFT diliberately 'unlocked' on previous night(s) and go the 'long way around' through the car park to go in through the front locked door?

And more importantly, WHY did he CHANGE his first, signed as true, STATEMENT?

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
If there was no need for anyone else to enter the apartment they could have locked it. Which means that the point of entry and exit would have to be the front door, and Gerry stated in his first police interview that he entered 5A via the locked front door. In subsequent interviews he changed this story, to account for Oldfield's 'checks' (only the 9:30 'check', as the earlier one was allegedly a listening check and so would not contradict Gerry's account).

In my opinion this is another strong indication that Oldfield was not supposed to recount the 9:30 check to the police, that the idea had been abandoned by the writing of the second timeline. Gerry would not have stated that he entered through the locked front door if he had known what Oldfield told the police. I think this was a massive mistake.

I would be interested to know if Jeremy Wilkins saw which direction Gerry went after they finished their conversation.

Poe wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:IMO it's understandable that the McCanns may struggle with extending their forgiveness to TB who has done so much to highlight their deficiencies as parents but, having forgiven the abductor, it does seem a tad curious that they don't feel able to forgive the man whose only sin was to try to find where they'd put their daughter. 

I wonder where AR features on G&K's forgiveness chart?  Have they placed a gold or black star by his name, or is there a blank space waiting to be filled before volume 2 of Kate's memoirs hits the shelves?

To me, this is quite simple:

They can't forgive somebody who exists.  They can easily forgive a figment of their imagination.

Tongue was firmly in cheek when posting, wlbts, but it occurs to me that forgiving the figment of their imagination also reinforces the notion of devout christianity, albeit manifested via the roman catholic church, when the only god the McCanns worship is Mammon.

The saddest thing is that Kate most likely doesn't see the need to forgive herself either.


I'm editing this post to explain what I mean:

Most mothers feel guilty about every little bad thing that happens to their child(ren). From scraped knees to illness, it's part of a mother's instinct to prevent these things and failure to do so, whether they were there or not, induces feelings of guilt. It's natures way of making sure that youngsters are kept safe.

If Kate had an ounce of empathy, she would never be able forgive herself for her role in whatever happened to Madeleine.

As it is, I don't think she understands why she would even feel guilty let alone forgive herself.

Does that make sense?

Just Checking
We examine and compare the various accounts given by the group of their “system” for checking the children during the evenings they spent in the Tapas bar.
Book, p. 75 That Sunday night we headed over to the restaurant. We were all there except Matt, who had a bit of a dodgy stomach, which he attributed to something he’d eaten en route to Portugal. The rest of us enjoyed our meal. The food was good and it was nice to have a little adult time. There weren’t many other diners and, since we were such a large group, we were focused on chatting to and bantering with each other and not taking much notice of anyone else. It was, I remember, very cold and windy and I discovered that five layers of clothing were required to keep me comfortable. We nipped back to our respective apartments every half-hour to check on the children – apart from Rachael, since Matt had stayed behind, and Dave and Fiona, who had a state-of-the-art baby monitor with them. Our visits also gave us a convenient opportunity to pop to the loo or, in my case, to pick up an extra cardigan. [1]

In press interviews the McCanns always give the impression that there was a checking system in place whereby everyone took a turn of checking not only their own children, every half hour, but probably the children of the others in the group.

It is clear from examining the statements that this did not happen
 
The group consisted of four couples, plus the mother of one of the women in the group.  Nine adults in total.

David and Fiona Payne  did no checking of anyone’s children, including their own, as they had a baby monitor and relied on this.
Dianne Webster  (Fiona Payne’s mother) did no checking at any time.
Rachael and Matthew Oldfield did not check on anyone else’s children.
Jane Tanner and Russell O’Brien did not check on anyone else’s children
Kate and Gerry McCann never checked on anyone else’s children.

So this impression the McCanns have given of the adults in their group all running back and forth checking each others' children is most certainly not the truth.

On the night Madeleine was reported as missing the McCanns claim their checks were around every 30 minutes. [2]

But after Madeleine had told them on the Thursday morning (she was reported missing on Thursday night) that she and her brother had been crying on the previous night – the McCanns decided they would check their children more regularly. [3], [4], [5]
If every 30 minutes was more regular than previous nights, then the McCann children were not being checked every 30 minutes throughout that week. Hourly is more credible.
On the night Madeleine was reported as missing, Gerry McCann claims to have checked around 9pm. Kate McCann claimed her check took place around 10pm.
This would tie in with the statement of Mrs Fenn who lived in the apartment above the McCanns that she heard a child crying in the McCann apartment for more than an hour on the night of Tuesday 1st May 2007. [6]
Note: The statement about deciding to check the children more regularly, or “keep a closer watch” or be “more vigilant” was released to the Press some time after the secret meeting of the Tapas group in Rothley. This meeting was before the Tapas friends were due to give their Rogatory interviews, but it was specifically denied by their spokesman that the intention was to “get their stories right”. [7]
But it is fairly obvious that the Media were given this statement by Clarence Mitchell on their behalf, and it seems it was an important part of the attempt to show that the McCanns, and indeed all the group were “responsible parents”

As an aside one must recall that both Gerry and Kate stated clearly that had it not been for the altered position of the bedroom door neither of them would have bothered even to look into the room. [8], [9]
And Oldfield was very quick to distance himself from the position of having been the last person to see Madeleine alive. [10]

Carlos Anjos from the Association of Police Investigators stated
“They said that every half an hour they would go and look in on the children and all of them, we found in EVERYBODY'S statement, some questions that suggest that actually they DIDN'T go and see the children.” [11]

Angelique wrote:
“4078 “And you said earlier you thought he was, I can’t remember what word you used,
walking, you didn’t say briskly, but”.
Reply “Purposefully”.
4078 “Purposefully”.
Reply “Yeah”.

ultimaThule wrote:Kate appears to apply adult reasoning to her young children, wlbts, whereas IME a non-verbal infant in a cot may start bawling its head off if it wakes and finds itself alone, while a young child may climb out of bed and go in search of its parents (or mischief as the case may be) before bawling its head off if they can't be found.

I can't imagine that many young children would wake and lay twiddling their thumbs 'wondering' where their parents are before letting their disapproval be known.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

Angelique wrote:
“4078 “And you said earlier you thought he was, I can’t remember what word you used,
walking, you didn’t say briskly, but”.
Reply “Purposefully”.
4078 “Purposefully”.
Reply “Yeah”.

I've thought about this a fair bit myself, along with the Smith sighting and what it means to be or not to be a tourist. I suppose when I'm out in Portugal I walk purposefully, and not like a tourist - that's because I've been there so many times.

ultimaThule wrote:According to the bewk, p.70, "Obviously, we didn't want any of our children waking and wondering where we were even for a few minutes, and if the chances of that happening seemed remote, it was enough of a concern to make us absolutely prompt wth our checks on the kids. That is why Gerry and I were subsequently able to be so accurate about timings'. 

Also according to the book "Gerry left to do the first check just before 9.05 by his watch."  No doubt the very same watch he wasn't wearing according to Clarence but which miraculously appeared on his wrist at that very same time on that very same evening, also according to the very same Clarence.

According to the pantomime tale, Matthew Oldfield checked at 9.30pm.  

According to my calculations, if one of the children had woken just after one of these checks they could have been wondering where their parents were for considerably more than a few minutes and may have been awake and wondering for at least 20 minutes to be precise.

According to another of Kate's accounts I have read, despite the Tapas Bar having toilet facilities, the bathroom at 5A appears to have been used as a communal lavatory* by the group hence the phenomena of synchronised tinkling as Gerry takes a leak in the apartment loo while JW sprinkles in the Tapas urinal and notices that Rastaman is taking what seems to be a long time to relieve himself.

*Did it occur to Kate or her spouse that using and flushing the toilet before checking on the children would have ensured someone was on hand to soothe them in the event they were disturbed by the sound of the cistern in the next room?

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote: [...]

A 'wandering' child may well climb up onto something high and fall and hit their head ... and that is something Kate doesn't want anyone to consider.

Châtelaine wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote: [...]

A 'wandering' child may well climb up onto something high and fall and hit their head ... and that is something Kate doesn't want anyone to consider.

***
You mean, like a can of beans falling of a high shelf ...?

If you're confused with my comment, check KM's comments on Mrs. Fenn.

Châtelaine wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote: [...]

A 'wandering' child may well climb up onto something high and fall and hit their head ... and that is something Kate doesn't want anyone to consider.

***
You mean, like a can of beans falling of a high shelf ...?

If you're confused with my comment, check KM's comments on Mrs. Fenn.