Re: The Tanner "Sighting" - AGAIN

by **PeterMac** 08.06.13 10:00

Angelique wrote:Yes, the insertion of JT's sighting before she even told Gerry struck me a long time ago to be utterly farcical.
But I have said previously, they could say black was white and no one would bat an eyelid. I would imagine they tried their best to think on their feet but it all went pear shaped anyway.

It is the insertion of JT's 'sighting' that totally buggered up any chance they had of making the story of an abduction into a coherent possibility.
It is the elision of GM's stopping to talk to JW, and JT pushing past them and seeing the eggman that limits the window of opportunity to the one minute and 20 seconds.
And gives them all these difficulties.

If only JT had had the sense to be more vague, or to have moved the sighting to a later visit, they might have got away with it.
But she has always refused to accept that she could have been wrong.

by suzyjohnson 08.06.13 10:33

I have always thought that Gerry McCann must have been furious with Jane Tanner!!

by Angelique 08.06.13 11:03

suzyjohnson wrote:I have always thought that Gerry McCann must have been furious with Jane Tanner!!

Yes - I believe he was - absolutely - I think I read he just stared at JT when she entered 5a because he realised (if it was him that asked her to invent egg man as he needed an cover re the Smith sighting) that he had ruined the Timeline completely. It's difficult to stray from the Truth as it keeps biting you on the bum!

by **PeterMac** 08.06.13 13:19

But it doesn't explain why she did not do it in the Rogatory.
"I have had a long time to think this over and I now realise that probably . . . possibly . . .
In any event what I said at the time doesn't make sense, so this version must be the correct one.. ."

What she actually said was
" She swore "by everything most sacred" that what she said is true, namely that she saw an individual with a child in his arms. Confronted, she demonstrated the distance at which the man with the child had passed her, and that was gauged to be about 5 metres.
Confronted with the information that the [tracker] dog teams had followed / followed the scent trails in which, purportedly, Madeleine Beth McCann had not passed the intersection where she indicated a man carried a child, she affirmed, immediately, that she was not lying, maintaining the honesty of her initial version."
see also
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"I think you saw my reaction earlier that you know, I’m telling the truth, you know " Rogatory.
She had the chance to let the McCanns off the hook. To allow enough time for an abduction scenario to be at least feasible.
To prevent 6 years of speculation, and detailed analysis of the evidence which shows fairly clearly that abduction is not only not proved, but is not capable of commission.
But she blew it. And trapped them in their One minute and twenty second impossibility forever.

by suzyjohnson 08.06.13 14:03

I often wonder if Jane took the initial idea to say she had seen an abductor at 9.20 - 9.25pm (as on the sticker book timelines) 'from behind and at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road next to the club' (Gerry McCann's statement) and 'developed' it.

I wonder if she had a 'brainwave' to say she'd seen the abductor while Gerry was talking to Jez. I bet Gerry couldn't believe his ears!

by suzyjohnson 08.06.13 14:21

It's all there actually on the sticker book timelines isn't it? The struggle to make it all fit into place with each new added detail - like the fact that Matt's check at 9.35pm has been missed out on the second one because they've realised that, if Jane had seen someone already, then the window would've been wide open by that time.

I wonder if ROB was said to be in his apartment during this time to try and explain why there were just 8 adults around the table in the Tapas, when really it was GM who was absent from the table the whole time.

It really does look as though they were desperately trying to make everything fit after the Smith sighting at 9.50pm, sat around in the apartment in the time after the police were called, unfortunately for them everything they've said has had a knock on effect somewhere else. Once the police took these sheets of paper they have had to include everything on them. Oh dear.

by **PeterMac** 08.06.13 14:46

For those who can't remember, or find them easily

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

by suzyjohnson 08.06.13 15:45

Oh, yes I should have put that information in, PeterMac, thanks

by **PeterMac** 08.06.13 16:28

suzyjohnson wrote:Oh, yes I should have put that information in, PeterMac, thanks

It still makes no sense, either with or without the information !
All they have done is now put the impossibility into writing, and all agreed.
And Gerald apparently signed it off !
But still he does not bother to go rushing out into the night screaming, or to tell his wife about it even when they "resume" their search the following morning, after a good night's sleep and vigil keeping.
And they wonder why no one believes them !

by Casey5 08.06.13 17:33

And still the same question stands. Why?
Why would their 7 mates, some of them more acquaintances than pals, all lie for them - and keep on lying?

Anyone who reads their rogatory statements would be forgiven for thinking they were a bunch of illiterates who have English as a second language. Was this a deliberate action decided upon at the Hotel meeting, that they would be deliberately moronic in order to confuse?
Even if the 7 think Kate and Gerry are innocent why would they all come across the same, unable apparently to string a sentence together when we know they are all educated people?

I would hope if Scotland Yard does interview them they are more robust in their questioning and don't allow them to read each others' statements beforehand or give them time to talk to one another between interviews. All of which were done in the rogatories.

by DIBarlow 08.06.13 17:56

suzyjohnson wrote:It's all there actually on the sticker book timelines isn't it? The struggle to make it all fit into place with each new added detail - like the fact that Matt's check at 9.35pm has been missed out on the second one because they've realised that, if Jane had seen someone already, then the window would've been wide open by that time.

I wonder if ROB was said to be in his apartment during this time to try and explain why there were just 8 adults around the table in the Tapas, when really it was GM who was absent from the table the whole time.

It really does look as though they were desperately trying to make everything fit after the Smith sighting at 9.50pm, sat around in the apartment in the time after the police were called, unfortunately for them everything they've said has had a knock on effect somewhere else. Once the police took these sheets of paper they have had to include everything on them. Oh dear.

And there you have it suzyjohnson!

Any detective worth even half his salt will have this lot sussed completely. There's simply no other reason for them to omit Matt's check in the second 'version' of what is after all a completely fabricated timeline.

And you have summed it all up with 'desperately trying to make everything fit after the Smith sighting'. That was the catalyst.

As for whose 'masterplan' it was, IMO Gerry couldn't get over his short-bloke syndrome where Rob was concerned and insisted that he himself was the leader of the gang. Unfortunately for him he's not as clever as he thinks he is.

Still, he probably thought he'd bumbled his way through...... until the arrival of the dogs.

by bobbin 08.06.13 18:25

DIBarlow wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:It's all there actually on the sticker book timelines isn't it? The struggle to make it all fit into place with each new added detail - like the fact that Matt's check at 9.35pm has been missed out on the second one because they've realised that, if Jane had seen someone already, then the window would've been wide open by that time.

I wonder if ROB was said to be in his apartment during this time to try and explain why there were just 8 adults around the table in the Tapas, when really it was GM who was absent from the table the whole time.

It really does look as though they were desperately trying to make everything fit after the Smith sighting at 9.50pm, sat around in the apartment in the time after the police were called, unfortunately for them everything they've said has had a knock on effect somewhere else. Once the police took these sheets of paper they have had to include everything on them. Oh dear.
And there you have it suzyjohnson!

Any detective worth even half his salt will have this lot sussed completely. There's simply no other reason for them to omit Matt's check in the second 'version' of what is after all a completely fabricated timeline.

And you have summed it all up with 'desperately trying to make everything fit after the Smith sighting'. That was the catalyst.

As for whose 'masterplan' it was, IMO Gerry couldn't get over his short-bloke syndrome where Rob was concerned and insisted that he himself was the leader of the gang. Unfortunately for him he's not as clever as he thinks he is.

Still, he probably thought he'd bumbled his way through...... until the arrival of the dogs.

This would explain then, why Gerry is INSISTENT that Jez was on the other side of the road when he met him.
Jane and Jez both claim to be on the apartment/gate side of the road, which is why Jane had to Squeeze past.
Jez would not have been able to miss that, but says he did not see Jane.
Gerry then insists, against Jane who bursts into tears at the fake-reconstruction, and trying to bully Jez into believing that his memory is at fault, that they (Jez and Gerry) were on the other side of the road, with Gerry having gone all the way across the road to talk to Jez.
The two ~~twats~~ investigating cops are party to this connivance, since they are also taking Gerry's stance as correct and unbending, and trying to shut Jane up by persuading her that it doesn't matter which side of the road it is.
No doubt Gerry is hoping to be able to slide it in, when the final court questioning pins him down, that he and Gez were so animated talking and demonstrating their tennis swings and back hands, that Jane had slipped unnoticed by the two machos, on the other side of the road, in the dark, whilst they were in deepest conversation.
But Jane didn't see an abductor, because there wasn't one, until he got written into the plot and signed off by Gerry.
The timing, done in haste, and as a last ditch because of the Smiths' sighting, becomes a millstone/hangman's noose around Gerry's neck. Whoops. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **PeterMac** 08.06.13 19:48

AND . . .
When Kate visited at 10 the window would have been open for an HOUR, in the freezing cold
(they all say it was cold - except Gerry, of course who insists it was hot and that Madeleine was lying on top of the covers !)
so the room and the entire apartment would have been cold, and doors would have been slamming and curtains whooshing for an HOUR.
And the twins were still blissfully asleep,
But she did not notice and was not even going to bother checking the children until she noticed that it was at an angle of 23º, when they had left at 17.2º, and she realised that . .

Sorry, I have just lost the will to live.
They are LIARS.
Carte-Ruck , Kevin, trolls and supporters of Child Neglect please note.

by Ayniia 08.06.13 19:56

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

From "truth of the lie" and Mcs documentary. Spot the differences? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
"The most important thing is what you saw Jane,it's not where Gerry and Jez were" Dave Edgar

Edited to add: so you want us to believe Jane don't know which side of the road they were but you also want us to believe what she saw a second after?
Do we believe Jane or Gerry? You're confusing me Edgar!

by sonic72 08.06.13 21:20

Scotland Yard have spent a few million pounds on their 'review', and spent a good while on it thus far, and yet, just the small amount of people contributing this thread have busted the case, in a small time-frame, and at zero cost?!

Imagine what the people here could do with Operation Grange's budget and manpower!

by Guest 08.06.13 21:51

Well, I don't think that anyone here can state with certainty what happened to Madeleine, where she is now and who was responsible.

We just know that the McCanns' version of events has more holes in it than a string vest!

by Guest 08.06.13 21:56

PeterMac wrote:[...]
Sorry, I have just lost the will to live.

***
Please don't. Take a deep breath, look outside, nature, beauty, peace ... peace ...
And then come back with all of the little details, which prove they're lying.
And that's it.
Not you. It's them.
We all want justice, don't we?
All IMO, of course [to keep CR off my back]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **PeterMac** 08.06.13 22:17

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Well, I don't think that anyone here can state with certainty what happened to Madeleine, where she is now and who was responsible.
We just know that the McCanns' version of events has more holes in it than a string vest!

That is the point, put very neatly.
Every "version of the Truth" gleaned from the first set of official statements, or from the second set (which are different - Carter-Ruck, please note)
or from the Rogatory interviews (ditto) or from interviews with TV or radio people, or from the blogs, or from anywhere available to us mere mortals . .
have holes.
They do not stand up to proper examination
Even Mrs Mattorell, "Has she elegance? Has she fragrance? Would she have, without the strain of this trial, radiance?" in the High Court of England, and of immortal memory, had to admit that she had no evidence . . .

SY have available to them HOLMES II, and ANACAPA, ( and probably more recent programmes and versions of the same) and will have used them from the start.
The abject nonsense and practical impossibility of the TM story, whichever one you choose, will have popped up on day 2.

by Guest 08.06.13 23:14

Day 2.
Amen!
And will they've been taking the rest of the time so far to secure evidence for the prosecution?

by suzyjohnson 09.06.13 0:20

I was just taking another look at that documentary reconstruction mentioned earlier. Returning to apartment 5A, Gerry is talking about the events of May 3rd. He says,, 'we obviously, absolutely, what's the word, persecuted ourselves for not being here, and there is no doubt that not being here at that moment increased the risk of it.'

I am sure this has been picked up on before, but to me it doesn't sound as though he is talking about an abduction here, for two reasons. Firstly, the problem was not that they were not there 'at that moment' but as they frequently tell us, that they had not been there on any evening, thereby allowing an abductor to track their movements all week. Secondly, GM talks about an 'increased risk' whilst they were not there, yet if they had been in 5A there would have been virtually NO risk of an abductor casually walking through the lounge at 9pm.

But then if you think in terms of something a young child might do, like fall off some furniture, or take some tablets etc. then in that case there would be more or less risk of that happening, depending on whether the parents were in the next room?

by Guest 09.06.13 1:26

suzyjohnson wrote:I was just taking another look at that documentary reconstruction mentioned earlier. Returning to apartment 5A, Gerry is talking about the events of May 3rd. He says,, 'we obviously, absolutely, what's the word, persecuted ourselves for not being here, and there is no doubt that not being here at that moment increased the risk of it.'

I am sure this has been picked up on before, but to me it doesn't sound as though he is talking about an abduction here, for two reasons. Firstly, the problem was not that they were not there 'at that moment' but as they frequently tell us, that they had not been there on any evening, thereby allowing an abductor to track their movements all week. Secondly, GM talks about an 'increased risk' whilst they were not there, yet if they had been in 5A there would have been virtually NO risk of an abductor casually walking through the lounge at 9pm.

But then if you think in terms of something a young child might do, like fall off some furniture, or take some tablets etc. then in that case there would be more or less risk of that happening, depending on whether the parents were in the next room?

He viewed his daughter, considered how lucky he was, met Jez and chatted as JT passed by and noticed his daughter being abducted. So he was "right there" at the "moment" after all.

by View-from-Ireland 09.06.13 1:37

I have always found it so convenient that he had his proud father moment literally a few minutes before his daughter was 'abducted'.

Doesn't it not seem somewhat contrived?

by Ayniia 09.06.13 1:40

View-from-Ireland wrote:I have always found it so convenient that he had his proud father moment literally a few minutes before his daughter was 'abducted'.

Doesn't it not seem somewhat contrived?

He surely didn't had a moment like that in the bus when he made the famous comment.

by marconi 09.06.13 5:33

"I looked down an I saw how beautiful she was..."

happened a few hours after "I have'd the best day ever".

by AskTheDogsSandra 09.06.13 7:32

marconi wrote:"I looked down an I saw how beautiful she was..."

happened a few hours after "I have'd the best day ever".

And they all lived happily ever after.

Well, except Maddie.

Oh, but then even she's being treated like a princess.

by aiyoyo 09.06.13 8:39

I cant remember whether I've posted this thought before: -

If JT's reason for delay in telling Mccanns about her sighting was because she didn't want to upset them, what could Russell's reason be for not telling Gerry or Kate?

They would have us believe it is a telepathy communication between JT and Russell I suppose!

by sammyc 09.06.13 11:41

Has anyone any thoughts on what prompted ROB to write Ella's name on the first timeline and then strike through her name? Why was Ella in his immediate thoughts?

by View-from-Ireland 09.06.13 11:55

sammyc wrote:Has anyone any thoughts on what prompted ROB to write Ella's name on the first timeline and then strike through her name? Why was Ella in his immediate thoughts?

That is very odd. it has prompted various theories which I can't now find.

Some have speculated that Ella was a twin of Maddie, others that she had been used as a 'stand-in' Maddie at various times during the holiday due to lack of witnesses of the two girls together.

I don't know what the significance of it it. Maybe the children were altogether except Maddie and Ella? Didn't the other bed look more 'slept-in' than Madeleine's? Perhaps Ella did something to Maddie? I think it is worthy of a police question but as my own answers prove it is dangerous to go making theories based on no evidence except the striking off of one girl's name.

by Guest 09.06.13 12:14

Just for reference...

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

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

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

Note, Ella crossed out twice on top timeline.

by Guest 09.06.13 12:25

View-from-Ireland wrote:I have always found it so convenient that he had his proud father moment literally a few minutes before his daughter was 'abducted'.

Doesn't it not seem somewhat contrived?

It's as believable as Kate's saccharine-laden account of family life and how wonderful the holiday had been until the fateful evening; all a complete fabrication as far as I'm concerned.

I know I'm a pedantic old so-and-so but I noticed on the timelines that Gerry's name is also spelled as Jerry and then at the end given as Gerald - which apparently (like Maddie!) he was never known as.

Odd.