Re: The Tanner "Sighting" - AGAIN

by Guest 10.03.14 21:14

BlackCatBoogie wrote:
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).

This was written when probably still half cut and i'm sure at first they didn't expect the PJ to clap eyes on it.

They were 'concocting' the so called 'checking / reasonable parenting' stories. MO probably drew the short straw to be the last non Mccann member to check. Then it was quickly worked out and written down that he ONLY saw the twins at the door.

Minus 1 - means he DID NOT see MBM. He didn't want to implicate himself as being the last to see her. Minus 1 as she was not there. He knows that. He never even did a check for a start. All IMO of course.

by Guest 10.03.14 21:16

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote: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?

Can't remember where I read this, maybe Kikoratton, that Ella was a possible decoy child being carried spotted by the Smiths.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 21:18

Ooh, and something that has just occurred to me ... and I have to say it made me laugh, as I've been busting my brains to figure this one out for a long time.

On the second timeline:

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

I've been trying to figure out what the scribble is just before the question mark. I'm now certain that the scribble is a capital 'A'.

What if this is supposed to read:

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

The more I look at it, the more certain I become.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 21:19

Ladyinred wrote:
Can't remember where I read this, maybe Kikoratton, that Ella was a possible decoy child being carried spotted by the Smiths.

That view is quite popular here, but it's not something I agree with. Russell O'Brien is tall I believe, very tall. That would be the first thing any witness would mention to describe him, dark or not.

by Guest 10.03.14 21:24

The existence of the timelines can only mean one of 2 things:

1) The events of that night were not pre-planned and we are seeing the results of cobbled-together panic as things genuinely unfolded, or,

2) The events of that night were rehearsed but didn't go according to plan and the timelines are evidence of the necessary deviation from the original script, and their attempts to correct matters.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 21:25

Dee Coy wrote:The existence of the timelines can only mean one of 2 things:

1) The events of that night were not pre-planned and we are seeing the results of cobbled-together panic as things genuinely unfolded, or,

2) The events of that night were rehearsed but didn't go according to plan and the timelines are evidence of the necessary deviation from the original script, and their attempts to correct matters.

I'll add to that:

Whichever is true, the first timeline was written while Gerry was away on other business, and the second was completed on Gerry's return.

And very importantly, as I've alluded to above:

The idea of the abductor being in the room during Gerry's check was formed between the writing of the two timelines.

by Guest 10.03.14 21:26

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote: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?

That's interesting: it may pinpoint the time of GM's absence from apartment 5A directly after the alarm was raised and before the arrival of the GNR

by Guest 10.03.14 21:27

Dee Coy wrote:The existence of the timelines can only mean one of 2 things:

1) The events of that night were not pre-planned and we are seeing the results of cobbled-together panic as things genuinely unfolded, or,

2) The events of that night were rehearsed but didn't go according to plan and the timelines are evidence of the necessary deviation from the original script, and their attempts to correct matters.

Number 2 for me Dee Coy.

by Guest 10.03.14 21:27

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:
Can't remember where I read this, maybe Kikoratton, that Ella was a possible decoy child being carried spotted by the Smiths.

That view is quite popular here, but it's not something I agree with. Russell O'Brien is tall I believe, very tall. That would be the first thing any witness would mention to describe him, dark or not.

GM carrying Ella?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 21:30

Ladyinred wrote:
GM carrying Ella?

For me, that is a red herring. I can't see what purpose this 'decoy' mission serves, except to potentially identify Gerry in a place where he wasn't supposed to have been. I'm aware that people find the idea of a criminal master-plan seductive, but I prefer the simplest explanation.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 21:34

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.

by Guest 10.03.14 21:40

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.

Very good thinking!

Just asking: could the -assumed- little word "JERRY" in the first timeline not have concerned JERemy Wilkins? A.k.a. "Jezz"

The second timeline thought fit to specify last names, Gerry McCann, and even Gerald written out in full, so as to emphasize it was really him involved

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 21:43

Portia wrote:
Very good thinking!

Just asking: could the JERRY in the first timeline not have concerned JERemy Wilkins?

The second timeline thought fit to specify last names, and even Gerald written out in full, so as to emphasize it was really him involved

Never thought of that. I guess it's possible. I think it's more likely that the author didn't know how to spell Gerry's name.

by Guest 10.03.14 21:44

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote: [...] I think it's more likely that the author didn't know how to spell Gerry's name.

***
And that's how well they knew eachother ...

by Guest 10.03.14 21:46

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

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote: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?

Hmm. Ella (crossed out twice) makes her appearances in the first timeline at the point at which Jane 'sees Tannerman' carrying his child, and 15 mins later, next point on the timeline. She disappears in Gerry's final version, timeline 2.

by Guest 10.03.14 21:46

Could it be that 'Gerry looks at Room A'. MEANING APARTMENT 5A?

As the 'abduction' had to be staged from that apartment but the children rarely if at all actually slept in there?

Just thinking aloud....

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 21:57

Andrew77R wrote:Could it be that 'Gerry looks at Room A'. MEANING APARTMENT 5A?

As the 'abduction' had to be staged from that apartment but the children rarely if at all actually slept in there?

Just thinking aloud....

I don't think so. There's a full-stop after 'room', and before the scribble, which I am certain is a capital A. If you look closely at the 'A', the writer has moved the pen up and across into the start of the next letter, which I am also certain would have been a 'b'.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 22:01

I've blown up the scribble.

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

Doesn't this look like an A?

And you can clearly see the beginnings of another letter?

by Guest 10.03.14 22:07

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:Could it be that 'Gerry looks at Room A'. MEANING APARTMENT 5A?

As the 'abduction' had to be staged from that apartment but the children rarely if at all actually slept in there?

Just thinking aloud....

I don't think so. There's a full-stop after 'room', and before the scribble, which I am certain is a capital A. If you look closely at the 'A', the writer has moved the pen up and across into the start of the next letter, which I am also certain would have been a 'b'.

Yeah true.

All i know is that it's the biggest load of tripe ever. Clearly trying to get a plausible story correct for all concerned so can all sing from the same hymn sheet.

GA could see it was a crock of bull. Why the hell can't AR and SY for christ sake!!!!

by Guest 10.03.14 22:09

Andrew77R wrote: [...]

GA could see it was a crock or bull. Why the hell can't AR and SY for christ sake!!!!

***
Who can be sure, they don't ... ?

by Guest 10.03.14 22:15

Châtelaine wrote:
Andrew77R wrote: [...]

GA could see it was a crock of bull. Why the hell can't AR and SY for christ sake!!!!
***
Who can be sure, they don't ... ?

If Andy and chums are reasonably intelligent which i am sure they are then hopefully they also see its a load of shite.

Many years and many millions spent is not exactly filling me with lots of confidence though i must admit.

by Woofer 10.03.14 22:18

What was the point of adding surnames in the 2nd list ?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 22:28

Woofer wrote:What was the point of adding surnames in the 2nd list ?

I think this was supposed to be a more 'official' version. I'm taking a guess that they had intended to write out another version to give to the police, or just rip off the first version and give them this one.

by **PeterMac** 10.03.14 22:30

Woofer wrote:What was the point of adding surnames in the 2nd list ?

"Merely corroborative detail to add verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative."
— Poo-Bah in The Mikado by W.S. Gilbert

by Woofer 10.03.14 22:32

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Woofer wrote:What was the point of adding surnames in the 2nd list ?

I think this was supposed to be a more 'official' version. I'm taking a guess that they had intended to write out another version to give to the police, or just rip off the first version and give them this one.

Yes, it must have been, hence leaving out Matt`s visit.

by Woofer 10.03.14 22:34

PeterMac wrote:
Woofer wrote:What was the point of adding surnames in the 2nd list ?
"Merely corroborative detail to add verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative."
— Poo-Bah in The Mikado by W.S. Gilbert

ok - very official like, yeah

to help zee foreign cops understand

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 22:35

Woofer wrote:
Yes, it must have been, hence leaving out Matt`s visit.

They must have become hysterical when they found out that Matt didn't get the message and told the PJ about his 9:35 check (which probably never happened). And he changed his mind several times about what went on there. That tends to happen when you make stuff up.

by worriedmum 10.03.14 22:39

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.

Or is he about to copy the first time-line, which says 'all well'. Between writing the first and second timelines, there has been the opportunity to ask Gerry whether he checked;he begins to write 'All (well)' - but then realises it wasn't because of the open door-so he crosses it out?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.03.14 22:40

worriedmum wrote:
Or is he about to copy the first time-line, which says 'all well'. Between writing the first and second timelines, there has been the opportunity to ask Gerry whether he checked;he begins to write 'All (well)' - but then realises it wasn't because of the open door-so he crosses it out?

Then what is the question mark after the 'A' for?

by Guest 10.03.14 22:41

The alleged various angles at which the door was open, even after Tannerman was ruled out and AR shifted the time of the "abduction", is going to be part of their fall-down ...

Latest topics