DAILY MIRROR 20th July 2013 - Madeleine McCann: British detectives to arrive at scene 'within days' to follow up new leads

The Rooster wrote:Marconi, I enjoy your posts. I hope you are right about the knowledge the PJ may have. Keep on writing...

suzyjohnson wrote:Actually Marconi I think you are wrong on this point. I think that if MM's parents were responsible for her death and she therefore had a grave site, I think it would be in a carefully chosen place and would be looked after, perhaps visited on a regular basis. In the event that the parents know what happened to her, I think KM would have been very troubled indeed and would have wanted a funeral in keeping with her religion.

 I think that if the police were to find out something like this that it would be very difficult for the McCanns to try and say that somebody else had buried their daughter with such care.

suzyjohnson wrote:Actually Marconi I think you are wrong on this point. I think that if MM's parents were responsible for her death and she therefore had a grave site, I think it would be in a carefully chosen place and would be looked after, perhaps visited on a regular basis. In the event that the parents know what happened to her, I think KM would have been very troubled indeed and would have wanted a funeral in keeping with her religion.

 I think that if the police were to find out something like this that it would be very difficult for the McCanns to try and say that somebody else had buried their daughter with such care.

Metropolitan Police officers are expected to fly to Praia da Luz in the next few days, where they will work with their Portuguese counterparts on fresh leads.
They could interview suspects, search properties and make further investigations into the whereabouts of the toddler who disappeared six years ago.
So they may, or they may not.  They might just not bother.  Depends on the thickness of the sardines at lunch, I suppose.    
Earlier this month, British police had said that Madeleine might still be alive and have identified 38 potential suspects across Europe - 12 of which are British who were visiting or living in the Algarve at the time.
So only "potential suspects". not real ones.  Just ones who may, or may not, turn out to be suspects, depending on - how many sardines one has had for lunch.
Investigators say they have no prime suspect but have no evidence that the three-year-old was murdered.
No prime suspect, no evidence that Madeleine was murdered, and also, just as an afterthought - no evidence that she was abducted, either.

Cristobell wrote:Just trying to think how Scotland Yard will explain abduction.  If the mccanns are not persons of interest, then their original statements must stand.  There is therefore, only 3/4 minute of opportunity for an abduction to have taken place - possibly less. It will be interesting to see how that pans out.

russiandoll wrote: If JT saw anyone it would have been an innocent adult with child, and as Matt conveniently did not see Maddie at 9.30, the timeframe for an abductor would have widened considerably.
 The police would wonder why an innocent adult did not come forward to be eliminated from the investigation. Perhaps to avoid the media circus? Tanner threw a spanner in the works all right.  She has never once said " On second thoughts, maybe that was just a father and child coming back from crèche"
Neither have the McCanns.

marconi wrote:There is a very good article on McCann files written by Nigel Moore himself.
I totally agree with him.

russiandoll wrote:

Cristobell wrote:Just trying to think how Scotland Yard will explain abduction.  If the mccanns are not persons of interest, then their original statements must stand.  There is therefore, only 3/4 minute of opportunity for an abduction to have taken place - possibly less. It will be interesting to see how that pans out.

  I think they can only give credence to abduction if they dismiss the Tanner sighting, which backs the tale into a corner giving the abductor no time to do what he had to do. If JT saw anyone it would have been an innocent adult with child, and as Matt conveniently did not see Maddie at 9.30, the timeframe for an abductor would have widened considerably.
 The police would wonder why an innocent adult did not come forward to be eliminated from the investigation. Perhaps to avoid the media circus? Tanner threw a spanner in the works all right.  She has never once said " On second thoughts, maybe that was just a father and child coming back from crèche"
Neither have the McCanns.

jozi wrote:

russiandoll wrote:

Cristobell wrote:Just trying to think how Scotland Yard will explain abduction.  If the mccanns are not persons of interest, then their original statements must stand.  There is therefore, only 3/4 minute of opportunity for an abduction to have taken place - possibly less. It will be interesting to see how that pans out.

  I think they can only give credence to abduction if they dismiss the Tanner sighting, which backs the tale into a corner giving the abductor no time to do what he had to do. If JT saw anyone it would have been an innocent adult with child, and as Matt conveniently did not see Maddie at 9.30, the timeframe for an abductor would have widened considerably.
 The police would wonder why an innocent adult did not come forward to be eliminated from the investigation. Perhaps to avoid the media circus? Tanner threw a spanner in the works all right.  She has never once said " On second thoughts, maybe that was just a father and child coming back from crèche"
Neither have the McCanns.

Tanner and the Mcs cannot dismiss this sighting as the whole story would fall to pieces. There had to be someone who saw the abductor as he had been seen by the Smiths, so Tanner had to see it, to convince the Police and everyone that abduction had taken place ? What else could they do....no jemmied window ? no tampering of the shutters? no door falling off its hinges ? and no abduction, would have mean the police would have been on to them sooner ?

jeanmonroe wrote:JW chit chatting on the plane with Oldfields and O'B and JT on their way to PDL.
Oldfields Rog i think.
Maybe even in O'Bs as well.

So JW statement that he was told about Madeleines 'disappearance' by a Tapas member, on the night, whose name he only finds out 'LATER' (MO) is bo**ocks!

He met MO and was chatting to him on the plane BEFORE they even got to Portugal!

JW:The doorbell woke us up at about 1 am. It was the resort manager who I learnt to be John and one of Jerry’s friends. I think his name was Matt.

"I THINK his name was Matt"

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

Also:

Relative to the encounter with Gerry and Kate on the 3rd of May 2007;
I had a tennis lesson with Gerry from 10h00 to 11h00. After the lesson we went to fetch the children from the crèche. I saw Gerry and Kate near the pool relaxing. I remember that they were talking to a British tennis instructor whose name is George or Georgina. I remember that she was telling them a bit about her personal life. Later that day, I went once again to collect the children from the crèche and believe I saw them there, but I cannot affirm with exactitude if it was that day or if had been on a previous day. We did not see each other again on this day.

(George OR Georgina? LOL)

"WE DID NOT SEE EACH OTHER AGAIN ON THIS DAY".............3RD MAY 2007!

WHAT? Not even seeing Gerry outside gate of 5A and crossing the road to speak to him at 9 something PM, 3rd May 2007?

jeanmonroe wrote:JW chit chatting on the plane with Oldfields and O'B and JT on their way to PDL.
Oldfields Rog i think.
Maybe even in O'Bs as well.

So JW statement that he was told about Madeleines 'disappearance' by a Tapas member, on the night, whose name he only finds out 'LATER' (MO) is bo**ocks!

He met MO and was chatting to him on the plane BEFORE they even got to Portugal!

JW:The doorbell woke us up at about 1 am. It was the resort manager who I learnt to be John and one of Jerry’s friends. I think his name was Matt.

"I THINK his name was Matt"

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

Also:

Relative to the encounter with Gerry and Kate on the 3rd of May 2007;
I had a tennis lesson with Gerry from 10h00 to 11h00. After the lesson we went to fetch the children from the crèche. I saw Gerry and Kate near the pool relaxing. I remember that they were talking to a British tennis instructor whose name is George or Georgina. I remember that she was telling them a bit about her personal life. Later that day, I went once again to collect the children from the crèche and believe I saw them there, but I cannot affirm with exactitude if it was that day or if had been on a previous day. We did not see each other again on this day.

(George OR Georgina? LOL)

"WE DID NOT SEE EACH OTHER AGAIN ON THIS DAY".............3RD MAY 2007!

WHAT? Not even seeing Gerry outside gate of 5A and crossing the road to speak to him at 9 something PM, 3rd May 2007?

jeanmonroe wrote:JW chit chatting on the plane with Oldfields and O'B and JT on their way to PDL.
Oldfields Rog i think.
Maybe even in O'Bs as well.

So JW statement that he was told about Madeleines 'disappearance' by a Tapas member, on the night, whose name he only finds out 'LATER' (MO) is bo**ocks!

He met MO and was chatting to him on the plane BEFORE they even got to Portugal!

JW:The doorbell woke us up at about 1 am. It was the resort manager who I learnt to be John and one of Jerry’s friends. I think his name was Matt.

"I THINK his name was Matt"

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

Also:

Relative to the encounter with Gerry and Kate on the 3rd of May 2007;
I had a tennis lesson with Gerry from 10h00 to 11h00. After the lesson we went to fetch the children from the crèche. I saw Gerry and Kate near the pool relaxing. I remember that they were talking to a British tennis instructor whose name is George or Georgina. I remember that she was telling them a bit about her personal life. Later that day, I went once again to collect the children from the crèche and believe I saw them there, but I cannot affirm with exactitude if it was that day or if had been on a previous day. We did not see each other again on this day.

(George OR Georgina? LOL)

"WE DID NOT SEE EACH OTHER AGAIN ON THIS DAY".............3RD MAY 2007!

WHAT? Not even seeing Gerry outside gate of 5A and crossing the road to speak to him at 9 something PM, 3rd May 2007?

Châtelaine wrote:Coincidences do exist, Newintown.
I once went to Milan for a fair, I hadn't been planning to attend, because an Australian client [and friend] would be there. My husband and I were dining with him in a little known restaurant, when a man came up to our table and said to my husband in German: "I don't know you and you don't know me, but my wife knows your wife ...". A good friend indeed, who hadn't been planning to attend either and last minute changed her mind. They joined our table and much to my surprise my Australian friend spoke fluently German !

Jane Tanner passing Gerry McCann AND   Jeremy (Jez) Wilkins
Tanner says she passed them on the apartment side of the street, at the bottom of
the stairs. Wilkins confirms they were on that side of the street.
The pavement by the apartment is a little over 2m wide, the road is 6m, pavement
the other side similarly is 2m (google earth, maps google, personal visit)
A Maclaren buggy is 62 cm long
A man is 60 cm wide
A man is 40 cm deep, but with his arms bent at the elbow and held slightly to the
front with his hands on the handles of the buggy, is 60 cm
The “length” of man - buggy - decent social space - man , assuming the two men
were exactly facing each other is therefore around 220 cm
The men would not stand right on the kerb, for reasons of safety, but some
distance inboard of the kerb, perhaps 30 cm, or more.
Tanner would not pass with her shoulder scraping the wall, but would walk some
normal distance outboard of the wall. Perhaps 30 cm or more.
Taking the width of the pavement 220,
less 30 inboard of kerb
less 60 width of man
less 60 width of woman
less 30 outboard of wall
Jane Tanner must pass within 40 cm (16 inches) of the men
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />
If the men are standing 40 cm from the kerb, which is more likely, Tanner would
probably have to turn sideways to pass them without physically touching them.
THIS twisting sideways is in fact what is shown in the mokumentary
It is inconceivable that neither man would see her under these circumstances.
If we then turn to the way in which most men face each other to speak, they adopt a
body position of about 90 degrees and speak towards the apex of the triangle thus
formed.
This means that Wilson plus buggy now project into the pavement to a depth of
85 cm (Pythagorus - 45º iscoseles triangle with hypotenuse of 120)
Taking the width of the pavement 220,
less 30 inboard of kerb
less 85 triangulated depth of man and buggy
less 60 width of woman
less 30 outboard of wall
Jane Tanner must pass within 15 cm (6 inches) of the men
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />