Re: The Tanner "Sighting" - AGAIN

by Guest 09.06.13 12:34

The oddest thing for me is that the check of 5A at approx. 9:30 is completely missing from the neatly written down 2nd version. And whereas all "participants" are now referred with their proper first and last name, Matt Oldfield has gone completely "missing" too ...

by **PeterMac** 09.06.13 12:38

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
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.

Don't expect it to make sense. You need third-of-a-million pound lawyers for that.

by Liz Eagles 09.06.13 12:41

PeterMac wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
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.
Don't expect it to make sense. You need third-of-a-million pound lawyers for that.

and a great deal of sponsorship from.........

by bobbin 09.06.13 13:04

Châtelaine wrote:The oddest thing for me is that the check of 5A at approx. 9:30 is completely missing from the neatly written down 2nd version. And whereas all "participants" are now referred with their proper first and last name, Matt Oldfield has gone completely "missing" too ...

Particularly interesting is this:
Matt Oldfield in his statement says (not verbatim) that about 9.30 he entered by the patio doors, looked into the children's bedroom, and saw the twins, but didn't see if Maddy was in her bed.
The door opens in such a way, that he would have had to have seen PAST Maddy's bed to look in around the door to see the cots, presumably, but not necessarily, with the twins in their cots.
The cots had deep sides, one opaque.
If he could not see Maddy, it would be because of the dark. If it was dark, how would he see the twins.
If it was light because the window had been forced open after the shutters had been jemmied open, then he would have noticed it was light and would have been able to see Maddy's bed, either empty or with her in it, except that Jane had already seen the egg man with a child.
So, Matt, what is it?
A long while back I also recall somewhere that Matt had stayed a while, on his check, and was looking at books on a book shelf, to see if there was any good holiday reading.(does anyone else remember this. It might have been 3 arguidos time. I certainly remember thinking, it's the end of the holiday, is 'now' the time to start looking for 'holiday reading'.
Well, there was no bookshelf which he was looking at (perhaps the fictitious one with Cuddle cat placed high on it that Kate knew instantly meant that Maddie had been abducted).
He also got it wrong about the number of windows in the McCann children's room, there being one, and not the two he referred to.
So again, Matt, were you there at all. In the first time sheet you are, in the second you are not.
You have signed a police statement saying that you saw the twins around 9.30, yet you describe a room which is not the same as the 5A room.
I would bend over backwards to believe you, but somehow, your very own words prevent me from going to all of the effort of putting my spine out.
Which is it, did you do a half hourly check as claimed by the McCanns, or is this all a big lie? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 09.06.13 13:55

I'm still "impressed", Bobbin, that Matt had the courage to go to PdL for the mockumentary and repeat his nonsense on camera ...

by View-from-Ireland 09.06.13 14:50

Châtelaine wrote:I'm still "impressed", Bobbin, that Matt had the courage to go to PdL for the mockumentary and repeat his nonsense on camera ...

And Tanner should also get an honorary mention.

Some BS spouted by that lot.

This is worth another look, from about 5.30 in. At 7.48 he even pulls his ear as he says 'I just thought how beautiful she was'.

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

by Lance De Boils 10.06.13 21:46

What I've always found peculiar about those timelines is the use of Gerry's surname. Why bother putting "Gerry McCann" when he was the only Gerry in the group?
Then writing Gerald at the bottom, as well as the Gerry/Jerry spellings.

Now, if there was a SECOND "Jerry" in the group, it would make sense, as they would need to differentiate between the two....

[ETA: I realise that on the "2nd" timeline, all of their surnames are given, but I was honing in on Gerry because of the Gerry/Jerry/Gerald peculiarity.]

by Guest 10.06.13 22:02

Lance De Boils wrote:What I've always found peculiar about those timelines is the use of Gerry's surname. Why bother putting "Gerry McCann" when he was the only Gerry in the group?
Then writing Gerald at the bottom, as well as the Gerry/Jerry spellings.

Now, if there was a SECOND "Jerry" in the group, it would make sense, as they would need to differentiate between the two....

[ETA: I realise that on the "2nd" timeline, all of their surnames are given, but I was honing in on Gerry because of the Gerry/Jerry/Gerald peculiarity.]

Or...:"why bother putting "Gerry McCann", when he was the only McCann in the group?

parapono

by Praiaaa 10.06.13 22:17

I don't know why anyone bothers trying to make sense of the timeline as reported by the Tapasniks - the PJ stated very clearly in the arguido-isation document that it made no sense, and they did not believe it. SY will not believe it either, no-one who saw it would.

by suzyjohnson 11.06.13 1:29

[quote="Lance De Boils"]What I've always found peculiar about those timelines is the use of Gerry's surname. Why bother putting "Gerry McCann" when he was the only Gerry in the group?

Yes Lance, I hadn't noticed that before but it is odd.

Do we know who actually did write these two timelines. I think two different people writing at the same time, whilst several group members were discussing things. That way, different points would have been noted as they were going along.

I would be interested to know exactly how the two notes ended up in the hands of the PJ, were they handed over, did the PJ pick them up from a table or somewhere?

by aiyoyo 11.06.13 6:29

Lance De Boils wrote:What I've always found peculiar about those timelines is the use of Gerry's surname. Why bother putting "Gerry McCann" when he was the only Gerry in the group?
Then writing Gerald at the bottom, as well as the Gerry/Jerry spellings.

Now, if there was a SECOND "Jerry" in the group, it would make sense, as they would need to differentiate between the two....

[ETA: I realise that on the "2nd" timeline, all of their surnames are given, but I was honing in on Gerry because of the Gerry/Jerry/Gerald peculiarity.]

Likely because they meant it as official piece of document meant for the Officials thus was formal about it. Gerald is likely how Gerry sign off formal letters.

Just goes to prove the whole lot or at least one of them was deliberate in their conscientious effort to fabricate evidence for the Police.

by **Jill Havern** 11.06.13 9:28

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

by dragonfly 30.10.13 2:16

is their creche records for the evening available? The janner tanner sighting has been 'found ' to be a british man with a two year old

now if you look at old reports

I can't put image up it went from egg man to Robert Murrat to portuguese oddball to British man now eliminated

snip

]McCann family friend says sketch 'strongly resembles' man she saw carrying a child wearing pyjamas identical to Madeleine's on the night of the abduction[/size][/size][/size]

Charlotte Pennington, a nanny at the Ocean Club holiday complex where the McCanns were staying, told police last May she saw Murat chatting to "a man aged around 27 to 35, average height, very dark eyes and of Portuguese or Spanish appearance"

The sketch was based on the evidence of a British tourist who came forward saying she had seen a "creepy man"

Grandmother Gail Cooper, who was staying just 500 yards from Gerry and Kate McCanns' holiday apartment, told police how she came face to face with the "disturbing" man hanging around the resort three times.

Based on her descriptions, an FBI-trained artist produced a likeness of the suspect whom British and Portuguese police and Interpol were desperately trying to trace last night.
The sketch bears a striking resemblance to an image of a man seen by family friend, Jane Tanner carrying a child away on the night Madeleine vanished on May 3

[/size]
will the portuguse have access to the photo of the british manwho has been eliminated ?
Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by suzyjohnson 30.10.13 5:47

It would certainly be interesting to see those evening creche records. The police said there were 11 children from 8 families there that night. Crecheman would have to be a British man who left the creche at around 9.05 pm - 9.10 pm.

In the same way that JW and GM didn't notice JT or Crecheman, it seems that Crecheman didn't see the three of them either.

I wonder why SY felt the need to show us all a photo of Crecheman on Crimewatch, why noy just say he had been found and eliminated from the enquiry and leave it at that? IMO there is much more going on behind the scenes at the moment than we know about.

by **tigger** 30.10.13 7:15

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Seeing those again it seems to me fairly clear that these weren't meant for the police but a hurried attempt to fit in the changes to a verbal arrangement.

All the 'evidence' is there.
The first list much as it was first decided, simple to remember by heart and the second one with the changes.
All still hinged on the shutter, without that 'all shutters down' ( note ALL) .
RM when asked, dutifully says that the patio door shutters were closed.

by Okeydokey 31.10.13 2:37

tigger wrote:
Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Seeing those again it seems to me fairly clear that these weren't meant for the police but a hurried attempt to fit in the changes to a verbal arrangement.

All the 'evidence' is there.
The first list much as it was first decided, simple to remember by heart and the second one with the changes.
All still hinged on the shutter, without that 'all shutters down' ( note ALL) .
RM when asked, dutifully says that the patio door shutters were closed.

Has there ever been another case like this in history where the principals sat down and wrote TWO timelines instead of going out to search?

Let's be kind and assume they were writing a timeline to help the police... why on earth will the Police be interested in Russell's kid being poorly...

This is alibi stuff isn't it?

by **PeterMac** 31.10.13 8:41

tigger wrote:
All still hinged on the shutter, without that 'all shutters down' ( note ALL) .
RM when asked, dutifully says that the patio door shutters were closed.

That was a classic "stick to the script" mistake.
The patio window shutters are full width, 2 m across by 2m high.
He really got it wrong, but no one seems to have pressed him and then the rest about this

by galena 31.10.13 10:09

Okeydokey wrote:
tigger wrote:
Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Seeing those again it seems to me fairly clear that these weren't meant for the police but a hurried attempt to fit in the changes to a verbal arrangement.

All the 'evidence' is there.
The first list much as it was first decided, simple to remember by heart and the second one with the changes.
All still hinged on the shutter, without that 'all shutters down' ( note ALL) .
RM when asked, dutifully says that the patio door shutters were closed.
Has there ever been another case like this in history where the principals sat down and wrote TWO timelines instead of going out to search?

Let's be kind and assume they were writing a timeline to help the police... why on earth will the Police be interested in Russell's kid being poorly...

This is alibi stuff isn't it?

That is very true and the same thought had occurred to me - the only thing of any interest is the sighting of a man carrying a child - the rest really has no relevance to the supposed abduction. It certainly suggests - however you believed Madeleine disappeared - that the priority for these people was to close ranks and cover their own backs? Perhaps partly a result of their medical training?

by Guest 31.10.13 10:29

galena wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
tigger wrote:
Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Seeing those again it seems to me fairly clear that these weren't meant for the police but a hurried attempt to fit in the changes to a verbal arrangement.

All the 'evidence' is there.
The first list much as it was first decided, simple to remember by heart and the second one with the changes.
All still hinged on the shutter, without that 'all shutters down' ( note ALL) .
RM when asked, dutifully says that the patio door shutters were closed.
Has there ever been another case like this in history where the principals sat down and wrote TWO timelines instead of going out to search?

Let's be kind and assume they were writing a timeline to help the police... why on earth will the Police be interested in Russell's kid being poorly...

This is alibi stuff isn't it?
That is very true and the same thought had occurred to me - the only thing of any interest is the sighting of a man carrying a child - the rest really has no relevance to the supposed abduction. It certainly suggests - however you believed Madeleine disappeared - that the priority for these people was to close ranks and cover their own backs? Perhaps partly a result of their medical training?

I still can't understand wht they left MO check off the second i.e. final version.
Has there ever been a reason given for this?

by **tigger** 10.03.14 19:33

As I'm re-reading Dr. Roberts, here is a snippet that is now relevant since creche man entered stage right.
Oprah Winfrey interview

We interrupt this sentence to bring you...

Aborted statements are intriguing as they invariably reveal the subsequent constructs to have been other than at the forefront of the speaker's thoughts.

GM (to Oprah): "...Jane went to check on her children and it was at that point she was just past me going up to the corner and she saw a man carrying a young girl with almo... she described independently the pyjamas that Madeleine had on and she didn't see the child's face. She didn't, you know, she saw me there, she'd seen that I'd just been in the apartment and so she... at the time she thought it was something odd, but it didn't raise enough alarm bells to challenge the person or anything."

Mention of a young girl with 'almost the same pyjamas' would have been rather less convincing than describing one with the very same pyjamas. If it were not the same child however, they are most unlikely to have been the same pyjamas. The replacement clause avoids any untruth, substituting instead a comment lacking temporal specificity, and therefore significance, i.e. 'She described independently the pyjamas that Madeleine had on.' The description coming well after the putative event, its author could simply have been provided with the details in the meantime. She 'didn't see the child's face', so the child was not identified as Madeleine. 'She'd seen that I'd just been in the apartment' is an unwarranted assumption, unless she (Jane Tanner) actually saw Gerry McCann leave the apartment, which she never claimed to have done; so too is the clause we are denied by Gerry's change of syntactic direction.

by worriedmum 10.03.14 20:28

On the first timeline (not the one with 'Gerald' written on it) does it say '-1' after M.0.'s entry?

Meaning 'minus one' ?

by jeanmonroe 10.03.14 21:11

worriedmum wrote:On the first timeline (not the one with 'Gerald' written on it) does it say '-1' after M.0.'s entry?

Meaning 'minus one' ?

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

Good Spot Mrs!

Explanation anyone?

eta: WHY is there LESS information on the second timeline than the first timeline?

The T9 would have been 'racking their brains' to remember EVERY last 'detail' after the 'abduction' and there would be a lot more 'remembered' information on the second 'timeline', imo.

But there's LESS.

by Guest 10.03.14 21:37

jeanmonroe wrote:
worriedmum wrote:On the first timeline (not the one with 'Gerald' written on it) does it say '-1' after M.0.'s entry?

Meaning 'minus one' ?

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

Good Spot Mrs!

Explanation anyone?

eta: WHY is there LESS information on the second timeline than the first timeline?

The T9 would have been 'racking their brains' to remember EVERY last 'detail' after the 'abduction' and there would be a lot more 'remembered' information on the second 'timeline', imo.

But there's LESS.

Could it be something to do with the time difference they thought existed between Portugal and UK - making sure that the people primed back in the UK to raise the alarm were in synch with the Portuguese timings?

Although it is in that particular place in the schedule I do not know - maybe because according to their calculations (wrongly assuming that Portugal was one hour behind the UK) the UK alerts would kick in at this section i.e. at just after 10pm (UK time).

by Guest 10.03.14 21:41

worriedmum wrote:On the first timeline (not the one with 'Gerald' written on it) does it say '-1' after M.0.'s entry?

Meaning 'minus one' ?

minus one child?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 21:51

It just looks to me like they've started to write something and then stopped.

by Guest 10.03.14 21:52

9:35 - Matt check door see twins -1.

Perhaps?

Or could 'dash' 1 have been the start of another comment on a new line?

Or could it be 'dash' l (letter L)?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 21:56

The important thing to me about the first timeline - and I've written this lots of times - is the entry for Gerry's check.

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

1) Curious description of the 'tv room', perhaps concurs with Jane Tanner's statement in the Mockumentary that Kate was worried because Gerry had been away for a while 'watching football'

2) The author is aware of Gerry's visit, and that Gerry was in the 'tv room', that all was well, but does not know if he checked the children. I believe that this is an accurate recounting of what Gerry had told them at this point in the evening.

3) The positioning of the question mark makes the second line look like a question to be asked

4) 'Did he check' indicates that Gerry was not present when this timeline was written.

So ... never mind why they were sat around writing timelines when they should have been searching.

Why were they writing a timeline when the father of the missing child wasn't even there?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 22:00

Another point - the importance of the time 9.55pm.

On the first timeline, the time 9.55 is circled.

On the second timeline, the time 9.55 is there with nothing next to it.

On the second timeline, the time 9.20 is highlighted when it wasn't on the first, indicating that it now has greater importance.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 22:05

Third point - the author of the first timeline has scribbled out Ella's name twice. Ella is significant in some way, and they were undecided whether they should mention it during the first timeline.

Second timeline mentions 'poorly daughter'. No mention of this on first timeline.

First timeline says 'Russ + Ella', and then Ella is replaced with Matt.

What about Russ and Ella?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 22:07

Fourth point - the first timeline mentions Matt Oldfield's check at 9.35pm.

The second timeline makes no reference to this check.

However, Matt described this check during his police statement. I wonder if he got a little confused about what he was supposed to say.

Latest topics