Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

by tiny 16.10.13 12:38

galena wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
bobbin wrote:I also agree, having seen the last two posts before mine, that the 'legal' liability question should have its own thread.
In the meantime, tigger said something which was amusing and set me thinking.
There have been so many posts but I got that she hinted at Egg-man carrying perhaps, not a child, but a hot meal, wrapped in a blanket.
Jane first described the 'abductor' as striding quite fast, from her left to her right, with his arms outstretched, carrying a sort of bundle.
So my question is, Is there a Pizza Take-Away somewhere to Jane's left, and instead of Egg-man hurrying off (back TOWARDS the creche from where a child would just have been collected) he was keeping his pizza hot and rushing back to his apartment before it got cold (it being a cold night and too dark to see any shoes on the Pizza's feet) and he was holding it with Outstretched Arms because that's how you keep the cheese topping level and don't end up with it all dribbling down your best cotton draws.
So she was perhaps right but wrong at the same time.
Yes it was food, but it wasn't an Egg, it was a PIZZA.
Whether she was lying or confused, whether the police know she was lying or confused, Andy Redwood has served a cracking hot goose up, with all the trimmings.
With Egg-man and all of the scrambled E-offerings that ensued, the focus is on SmithMan, whose buttoned trousers are extremely similar to the ones seen on Gerry McCann's bed and in subsequent photos.
This is where Gonçalo Amaral got some 7 months into the investigation.
Last night on ITV UK, he was finally acknowledged and able to put his points across, in a civilised environment, without being insulted, and one of those points was that he was removed and his replacement chose NOT to pursue the Smith sighting.
This to me smacks heavily of pressure being applied from above.
The McCs have steadfastly 'ignored' or sought to 'distract' from any recognition of the potential validity of the Smith sighting, and for me that speaks VOLUMES.
I think Andy Redwood has done what no other UK authority has dared to do to date.
He has taken the McCs and their protectors/ bullying entourage head on and pulled the floor boards out from under their feet.
Interesting times ahead indeed. Força Andy Redwood, Força Gonçalo Amaral:
Interesting times ahead indeed (& as they say in Ireland) indeed, they are, Bobbin

I also thought that Jane Tanner most probably did see a guy cross the road ahead of her at some time or other, but I didn't give a great deal of credence to her story that he was carrying a child. I like your pizza theory - I thought it might be some guy carrying his washing home to his mum or some such.

The problem with JT is she's eager to please and highly suggestible. I wonder how she'll fare as a witness for the prosecution
That's an interesting point. The reason she did nothing at the time was very likely that there was nothing remotely suspicious about it - just a guy carrying his kid from the creche in the normal way. My feeling is that at some future date she was perhaps asked 'Now think Jane - did you see anything suspicious - it's really important' and dredged up this memory. I think at some point imagination and the desire to please the McCanns morphed this innocent figure into the highly suspicious 'blanket man'

I don't believe jane saw anyone,or was even on that road as Wilkins and Gerry would have seen /heard her.i believe jane is a fantasist and a liar

by gbwales 16.10.13 12:40

galena wrote:That's an interesting point. The reason she did nothing at the time was very likely that there was nothing remotely suspicious about it - just a guy carrying his kid from the creche in the normal way. My feeling is that at some future date she was perhaps asked 'Now think Jane - did you see anything suspicious - it's really important' and dredged up this memory. I think at some point imagination and the desire to please the McCanns morphed this innocent figure into the highly suspicious 'blanket man'

Don't forget the note about her seeing man with child is already on the scribbled timelines before the police arrive. The purpose of her sighting is bedded in right from the start.

by bobbin 16.10.13 12:41

galena wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
bobbin wrote:I also agree, having seen the last two posts before mine, that the 'legal' liability question should have its own thread.
In the meantime, tigger said something which was amusing and set me thinking.
There have been so many posts but I got that she hinted at Egg-man carrying perhaps, not a child, but a hot meal, wrapped in a blanket.
Jane first described the 'abductor' as striding quite fast, from her left to her right, with his arms outstretched, carrying a sort of bundle.
So my question is, Is there a Pizza Take-Away somewhere to Jane's left, and instead of Egg-man hurrying off (back TOWARDS the creche from where a child would just have been collected) he was keeping his pizza hot and rushing back to his apartment before it got cold (it being a cold night and too dark to see any shoes on the Pizza's feet) and he was holding it with Outstretched Arms because that's how you keep the cheese topping level and don't end up with it all dribbling down your best cotton draws.
So she was perhaps right but wrong at the same time.
Yes it was food, but it wasn't an Egg, it was a PIZZA.
Whether she was lying or confused, whether the police know she was lying or confused, Andy Redwood has served a cracking hot goose up, with all the trimmings.
With Egg-man and all of the scrambled E-offerings that ensued, the focus is on SmithMan, whose buttoned trousers are extremely similar to the ones seen on Gerry McCann's bed and in subsequent photos.
This is where Gonçalo Amaral got some 7 months into the investigation.
Last night on ITV UK, he was finally acknowledged and able to put his points across, in a civilised environment, without being insulted, and one of those points was that he was removed and his replacement chose NOT to pursue the Smith sighting.
This to me smacks heavily of pressure being applied from above.
The McCs have steadfastly 'ignored' or sought to 'distract' from any recognition of the potential validity of the Smith sighting, and for me that speaks VOLUMES.
I think Andy Redwood has done what no other UK authority has dared to do to date.
He has taken the McCs and their protectors/ bullying entourage head on and pulled the floor boards out from under their feet.
Interesting times ahead indeed. Força Andy Redwood, Força Gonçalo Amaral:
Interesting times ahead indeed (& as they say in Ireland) indeed, they are, Bobbin

I also thought that Jane Tanner most probably did see a guy cross the road ahead of her at some time or other, but I didn't give a great deal of credence to her story that he was carrying a child. I like your pizza theory - I thought it might be some guy carrying his washing home to his mum or some such.

The problem with JT is she's eager to please and highly suggestible. I wonder how she'll fare as a witness for the prosecution
That's an interesting point. The reason she did nothing at the time was very likely that there was nothing remotely suspicious about it - just a guy carrying his kid from the creche in the normal way. My feeling is that at some future date she was perhaps asked 'Now think Jane - did you see anything suspicious - it's really important' and dredged up this memory. I think at some point imagination and the desire to please the McCanns morphed this innocent figure into the highly suspicious 'blanket man'

However, she was written in, on both time lines, on the back of Madeleine's colouring in book, as Jane's sighting, even before the police arrived, so it must have been decided right early on that she had seen an abductor. Perhaps someone had seen the family Smiths and was concerned that an abductor should be identified heading in the opposite direction (back towards the creche).

by tiny 16.10.13 12:48

bobbin wrote:
galena wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
bobbin wrote:I also agree, having seen the last two posts before mine, that the 'legal' liability question should have its own thread.
In the meantime, tigger said something which was amusing and set me thinking.
There have been so many posts but I got that she hinted at Egg-man carrying perhaps, not a child, but a hot meal, wrapped in a blanket.
Jane first described the 'abductor' as striding quite fast, from her left to her right, with his arms outstretched, carrying a sort of bundle.
So my question is, Is there a Pizza Take-Away somewhere to Jane's left, and instead of Egg-man hurrying off (back TOWARDS the creche from where a child would just have been collected) he was keeping his pizza hot and rushing back to his apartment before it got cold (it being a cold night and too dark to see any shoes on the Pizza's feet) and he was holding it with Outstretched Arms because that's how you keep the cheese topping level and don't end up with it all dribbling down your best cotton draws.
So she was perhaps right but wrong at the same time.
Yes it was food, but it wasn't an Egg, it was a PIZZA.
Whether she was lying or confused, whether the police know she was lying or confused, Andy Redwood has served a cracking hot goose up, with all the trimmings.
With Egg-man and all of the scrambled E-offerings that ensued, the focus is on SmithMan, whose buttoned trousers are extremely similar to the ones seen on Gerry McCann's bed and in subsequent photos.
This is where Gonçalo Amaral got some 7 months into the investigation.
Last night on ITV UK, he was finally acknowledged and able to put his points across, in a civilised environment, without being insulted, and one of those points was that he was removed and his replacement chose NOT to pursue the Smith sighting.
This to me smacks heavily of pressure being applied from above.
The McCs have steadfastly 'ignored' or sought to 'distract' from any recognition of the potential validity of the Smith sighting, and for me that speaks VOLUMES.
I think Andy Redwood has done what no other UK authority has dared to do to date.
He has taken the McCs and their protectors/ bullying entourage head on and pulled the floor boards out from under their feet.
Interesting times ahead indeed. Força Andy Redwood, Força Gonçalo Amaral:
Interesting times ahead indeed (& as they say in Ireland) indeed, they are, Bobbin

I also thought that Jane Tanner most probably did see a guy cross the road ahead of her at some time or other, but I didn't give a great deal of credence to her story that he was carrying a child. I like your pizza theory - I thought it might be some guy carrying his washing home to his mum or some such.

The problem with JT is she's eager to please and highly suggestible. I wonder how she'll fare as a witness for the prosecution
That's an interesting point. The reason she did nothing at the time was very likely that there was nothing remotely suspicious about it - just a guy carrying his kid from the creche in the normal way. My feeling is that at some future date she was perhaps asked 'Now think Jane - did you see anything suspicious - it's really important' and dredged up this memory. I think at some point imagination and the desire to please the McCanns morphed this innocent figure into the highly suspicious 'blanket man'
However, she was written in, on both time lines, on the back of Madeleine's colouring in book, as Jane's sighting, even before the police arrived, so it must have been decided right early on that she had seen an abductor. Perhaps someone had seen the family Smiths and was concerned that an abductor should be identified heading in the opposite direction (back towards the creche).

jane had to say she saw bundleman because Gerry knew the Mr Smith and Family had seen him, they are all in it up to there necks

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 12:55

candyfloss wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:The so-called 'first arrest' was the blagger who told the barrister he'd seen Madeleine and this had no bearing whatsoever on Crimewatch and what's going down now.

I had Friday pencilled in my diary but it seems we may get news of the arrest of the 'prime suspect' considerably earlier.
Mr Amaral has said the same thing in his interview posted on Goncalo Amaral on ITV thread
Really? Wasn't 'first arrest' a headline in the Mirror and it then transpired the blagger had been arrested on a drugs or indecent image charge? I'm sure I read that on here somewhere.
He said it had nothing to do with the case.

Of course it wouldn't have anything to do with this case. As I understand it, the conversation between the barrister and the blagger took place at a party. I seem to recall I made some comment when that 'sighting by proxy' first surfaced about the number of ales that had been imbibed but, in the light of further evidence shall we say, I'll amend that to 'recreational substances'. winkwink

When it emerged the setting was Manchester rather than the Balearic island where the sighting took place, along with others, I assumed it was another ~~pink~~ ruse to deflect attention from the gruesomes. O well, they've courted publicity on their terms and now they're going to get the world's undivided attention on ours or, rather, the law's. big grin

by galena 16.10.13 13:10

bobbin wrote:
galena wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
bobbin wrote:I also agree, having seen the last two posts before mine, that the 'legal' liability question should have its own thread.
In the meantime, tigger said something which was amusing and set me thinking.
There have been so many posts but I got that she hinted at Egg-man carrying perhaps, not a child, but a hot meal, wrapped in a blanket.
Jane first described the 'abductor' as striding quite fast, from her left to her right, with his arms outstretched, carrying a sort of bundle.
So my question is, Is there a Pizza Take-Away somewhere to Jane's left, and instead of Egg-man hurrying off (back TOWARDS the creche from where a child would just have been collected) he was keeping his pizza hot and rushing back to his apartment before it got cold (it being a cold night and too dark to see any shoes on the Pizza's feet) and he was holding it with Outstretched Arms because that's how you keep the cheese topping level and don't end up with it all dribbling down your best cotton draws.
So she was perhaps right but wrong at the same time.
Yes it was food, but it wasn't an Egg, it was a PIZZA.
Whether she was lying or confused, whether the police know she was lying or confused, Andy Redwood has served a cracking hot goose up, with all the trimmings.
With Egg-man and all of the scrambled E-offerings that ensued, the focus is on SmithMan, whose buttoned trousers are extremely similar to the ones seen on Gerry McCann's bed and in subsequent photos.
This is where Gonçalo Amaral got some 7 months into the investigation.
Last night on ITV UK, he was finally acknowledged and able to put his points across, in a civilised environment, without being insulted, and one of those points was that he was removed and his replacement chose NOT to pursue the Smith sighting.
This to me smacks heavily of pressure being applied from above.
The McCs have steadfastly 'ignored' or sought to 'distract' from any recognition of the potential validity of the Smith sighting, and for me that speaks VOLUMES.
I think Andy Redwood has done what no other UK authority has dared to do to date.
He has taken the McCs and their protectors/ bullying entourage head on and pulled the floor boards out from under their feet.
Interesting times ahead indeed. Força Andy Redwood, Força Gonçalo Amaral:
Interesting times ahead indeed (& as they say in Ireland) indeed, they are, Bobbin

I also thought that Jane Tanner most probably did see a guy cross the road ahead of her at some time or other, but I didn't give a great deal of credence to her story that he was carrying a child. I like your pizza theory - I thought it might be some guy carrying his washing home to his mum or some such.

The problem with JT is she's eager to please and highly suggestible. I wonder how she'll fare as a witness for the prosecution
That's an interesting point. The reason she did nothing at the time was very likely that there was nothing remotely suspicious about it - just a guy carrying his kid from the creche in the normal way. My feeling is that at some future date she was perhaps asked 'Now think Jane - did you see anything suspicious - it's really important' and dredged up this memory. I think at some point imagination and the desire to please the McCanns morphed this innocent figure into the highly suspicious 'blanket man'
However, she was written in, on both time lines, on the back of Madeleine's colouring in book, as Jane's sighting, even before the police arrived, so it must have been decided right early on that she had seen an abductor. Perhaps someone had seen the family Smiths and was concerned that an abductor should be identified heading in the opposite direction (back towards the creche).

Sorry I think I'm losing track of what happened it's so long since I've discussed it. I thought Jane said she didn't tell Kate about the sighting until then next day?

by bobbin 16.10.13 14:02

galena wrote:
bobbin wrote:
galena wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
bobbin wrote:I also agree, having seen the last two posts before mine, that the 'legal' liability question should have its own thread.
In the meantime, tigger said something which was amusing and set me thinking.
There have been so many posts but I got that she hinted at Egg-man carrying perhaps, not a child, but a hot meal, wrapped in a blanket.
Jane first described the 'abductor' as striding quite fast, from her left to her right, with his arms outstretched, carrying a sort of bundle.
So my question is, Is there a Pizza Take-Away somewhere to Jane's left, and instead of Egg-man hurrying off (back TOWARDS the creche from where a child would just have been collected) he was keeping his pizza hot and rushing back to his apartment before it got cold (it being a cold night and too dark to see any shoes on the Pizza's feet) and he was holding it with Outstretched Arms because that's how you keep the cheese topping level and don't end up with it all dribbling down your best cotton draws.
So she was perhaps right but wrong at the same time.
Yes it was food, but it wasn't an Egg, it was a PIZZA.
Whether she was lying or confused, whether the police know she was lying or confused, Andy Redwood has served a cracking hot goose up, with all the trimmings.
With Egg-man and all of the scrambled E-offerings that ensued, the focus is on SmithMan, whose buttoned trousers are extremely similar to the ones seen on Gerry McCann's bed and in subsequent photos.
This is where Gonçalo Amaral got some 7 months into the investigation.
Last night on ITV UK, he was finally acknowledged and able to put his points across, in a civilised environment, without being insulted, and one of those points was that he was removed and his replacement chose NOT to pursue the Smith sighting.
This to me smacks heavily of pressure being applied from above.
The McCs have steadfastly 'ignored' or sought to 'distract' from any recognition of the potential validity of the Smith sighting, and for me that speaks VOLUMES.
I think Andy Redwood has done what no other UK authority has dared to do to date.
He has taken the McCs and their protectors/ bullying entourage head on and pulled the floor boards out from under their feet.
Interesting times ahead indeed. Força Andy Redwood, Força Gonçalo Amaral:
Interesting times ahead indeed (& as they say in Ireland) indeed, they are, Bobbin

I also thought that Jane Tanner most probably did see a guy cross the road ahead of her at some time or other, but I didn't give a great deal of credence to her story that he was carrying a child. I like your pizza theory - I thought it might be some guy carrying his washing home to his mum or some such.

The problem with JT is she's eager to please and highly suggestible. I wonder how she'll fare as a witness for the prosecution
That's an interesting point. The reason she did nothing at the time was very likely that there was nothing remotely suspicious about it - just a guy carrying his kid from the creche in the normal way. My feeling is that at some future date she was perhaps asked 'Now think Jane - did you see anything suspicious - it's really important' and dredged up this memory. I think at some point imagination and the desire to please the McCanns morphed this innocent figure into the highly suspicious 'blanket man'
However, she was written in, on both time lines, on the back of Madeleine's colouring in book, as Jane's sighting, even before the police arrived, so it must have been decided right early on that she had seen an abductor. Perhaps someone had seen the family Smiths and was concerned that an abductor should be identified heading in the opposite direction (back towards the creche).
Sorry I think I'm losing track of what happened it's so long since I've discussed it. I thought Jane said she didn't tell Kate about the sighting until then next day?

Yes, Galena, Kate did say that, but it was still written in, on the right hand side of the so-called timelines, by Gerry ? someone, but page signed by Gerry and the police took the two pages immediately they arrived.
Therefore, the 'sighting' of the 'abductor' was already written down by 11 p.m. of 3rd May.

by tiny 16.10.13 14:22

bobbin wrote:
galena wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
bobbin wrote:I also agree, having seen the last two posts before mine, that the 'legal' liability question should have its own thread.
In the meantime, tigger said something which was amusing and set me thinking.
There have been so many posts but I got that she hinted at Egg-man carrying perhaps, not a child, but a hot meal, wrapped in a blanket.
Jane first described the 'abductor' as striding quite fast, from her left to her right, with his arms outstretched, carrying a sort of bundle.
So my question is, Is there a Pizza Take-Away somewhere to Jane's left, and instead of Egg-man hurrying off (back TOWARDS the creche from where a child would just have been collected) he was keeping his pizza hot and rushing back to his apartment before it got cold (it being a cold night and too dark to see any shoes on the Pizza's feet) and he was holding it with Outstretched Arms because that's how you keep the cheese topping level and don't end up with it all dribbling down your best cotton draws.
So she was perhaps right but wrong at the same time.
Yes it was food, but it wasn't an Egg, it was a PIZZA.
Whether she was lying or confused, whether the police know she was lying or confused, Andy Redwood has served a cracking hot goose up, with all the trimmings.
With Egg-man and all of the scrambled E-offerings that ensued, the focus is on SmithMan, whose buttoned trousers are extremely similar to the ones seen on Gerry McCann's bed and in subsequent photos.
This is where Gonçalo Amaral got some 7 months into the investigation.
Last night on ITV UK, he was finally acknowledged and able to put his points across, in a civilised environment, without being insulted, and one of those points was that he was removed and his replacement chose NOT to pursue the Smith sighting.
This to me smacks heavily of pressure being applied from above.
The McCs have steadfastly 'ignored' or sought to 'distract' from any recognition of the potential validity of the Smith sighting, and for me that speaks VOLUMES.
I think Andy Redwood has done what no other UK authority has dared to do to date.
He has taken the McCs and their protectors/ bullying entourage head on and pulled the floor boards out from under their feet.
Interesting times ahead indeed. Força Andy Redwood, Força Gonçalo Amaral:
Interesting times ahead indeed (& as they say in Ireland) indeed, they are, Bobbin

I also thought that Jane Tanner most probably did see a guy cross the road ahead of her at some time or other, but I didn't give a great deal of credence to her story that he was carrying a child. I like your pizza theory - I thought it might be some guy carrying his washing home to his mum or some such.

The problem with JT is she's eager to please and highly suggestible. I wonder how she'll fare as a witness for the prosecution
That's an interesting point. The reason she did nothing at the time was very likely that there was nothing remotely suspicious about it - just a guy carrying his kid from the creche in the normal way. My feeling is that at some future date she was perhaps asked 'Now think Jane - did you see anything suspicious - it's really important' and dredged up this memory. I think at some point imagination and the desire to please the McCanns morphed this innocent figure into the highly suspicious 'blanket man'
However, she was written in, on both time lines, on the back of Madeleine's colouring in book, as Jane's sighting, even before the police arrived, so it must have been decided right early on that she had seen an abductor. Perhaps someone had seen the family Smiths and was concerned that an abductor should be identified heading in the opposite direction (back towards the creche).

yes it was wrote on the colouring book,after Gerry told her he had been seen by Mr smith and family,so jane made up the bundleman

by russiandoll 16.10.13 14:29

quote " Perhaps someone had seen the family Smiths and was concerned that an abductor should be identified heading in the opposite direction (back towards the creche). "

oh bobbin this case is so very grave, but my dark humour gets the better of me when I read that...... concerned that an abductor should be identified.

quote from a post by tiny : jane had to say she saw bundleman because Gerry knew the Mr Smith and Family had seen him, they are all in it up to there necks
Imo some more than others and DW was the only truthful one out of the bunch. Maybe she has talked to police and her son in law who said he had something to say in an interview but that was not the right place to do so.

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 14:39

Points well made, tiny & gbwales, and taken on board.

Of course they have to all be in it up to their necks otherwise the story would never have grown legs, hence I've crossed Jane Tanner off the prosecution witness list so we can see how she'll fare as a defendant.

There's also the small matter of the meeting in a hotel in Rothley? Leics shortly after the McCs returned from Portugal. What didn't they want their nannies/au pairs/children to hear?

And who can forget the photo of them posed triumphantly outside the High Courts, which august building they hadn't entered, looking for all the world like a ~~bunch of ill-dressed prats~~ syndicate of lottery winners? I'm sure Mr Dirty hasn't forgotten that shot, or the hit he took in his back pocket nah

All loot donated to the 'fund'? A foresnic audit will easily discover where the ill-gotten gains have gone. I sincerely hope measures have been put in place to freeze certain bank accounts as I wouldn't like to think those who have been conned into donating were in any way facilitating the retention of high end lawyers for the defence.

You haven't missed anything, galena. Although prominently featured on the scribbled timeline, JT claimed she didn't tell the saintly one about bundleman & the non-existent infant until the next day. If it'd been my child who was missing I'd have wrung her neck on the spot, but I ~~don't wear pizzas on my head~~ am not a saint.

Interesting times, bobbin? You never said truer words - I'm almost afraid to post a response in case I miss out on news of the arrest big grin

by galena 16.10.13 14:52

bobbin wrote:
galena wrote:
bobbin wrote:
galena wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
bobbin wrote:I also agree, having seen the last two posts before mine, that the 'legal' liability question should have its own thread.
In the meantime, tigger said something which was amusing and set me thinking.
There have been so many posts but I got that she hinted at Egg-man carrying perhaps, not a child, but a hot meal, wrapped in a blanket.
Jane first described the 'abductor' as striding quite fast, from her left to her right, with his arms outstretched, carrying a sort of bundle.
So my question is, Is there a Pizza Take-Away somewhere to Jane's left, and instead of Egg-man hurrying off (back TOWARDS the creche from where a child would just have been collected) he was keeping his pizza hot and rushing back to his apartment before it got cold (it being a cold night and too dark to see any shoes on the Pizza's feet) and he was holding it with Outstretched Arms because that's how you keep the cheese topping level and don't end up with it all dribbling down your best cotton draws.
So she was perhaps right but wrong at the same time.
Yes it was food, but it wasn't an Egg, it was a PIZZA.
Whether she was lying or confused, whether the police know she was lying or confused, Andy Redwood has served a cracking hot goose up, with all the trimmings.
With Egg-man and all of the scrambled E-offerings that ensued, the focus is on SmithMan, whose buttoned trousers are extremely similar to the ones seen on Gerry McCann's bed and in subsequent photos.
This is where Gonçalo Amaral got some 7 months into the investigation.
Last night on ITV UK, he was finally acknowledged and able to put his points across, in a civilised environment, without being insulted, and one of those points was that he was removed and his replacement chose NOT to pursue the Smith sighting.
This to me smacks heavily of pressure being applied from above.
The McCs have steadfastly 'ignored' or sought to 'distract' from any recognition of the potential validity of the Smith sighting, and for me that speaks VOLUMES.
I think Andy Redwood has done what no other UK authority has dared to do to date.
He has taken the McCs and their protectors/ bullying entourage head on and pulled the floor boards out from under their feet.
Interesting times ahead indeed. Força Andy Redwood, Força Gonçalo Amaral:
Interesting times ahead indeed (& as they say in Ireland) indeed, they are, Bobbin

I also thought that Jane Tanner most probably did see a guy cross the road ahead of her at some time or other, but I didn't give a great deal of credence to her story that he was carrying a child. I like your pizza theory - I thought it might be some guy carrying his washing home to his mum or some such.

The problem with JT is she's eager to please and highly suggestible. I wonder how she'll fare as a witness for the prosecution
That's an interesting point. The reason she did nothing at the time was very likely that there was nothing remotely suspicious about it - just a guy carrying his kid from the creche in the normal way. My feeling is that at some future date she was perhaps asked 'Now think Jane - did you see anything suspicious - it's really important' and dredged up this memory. I think at some point imagination and the desire to please the McCanns morphed this innocent figure into the highly suspicious 'blanket man'
However, she was written in, on both time lines, on the back of Madeleine's colouring in book, as Jane's sighting, even before the police arrived, so it must have been decided right early on that she had seen an abductor. Perhaps someone had seen the family Smiths and was concerned that an abductor should be identified heading in the opposite direction (back towards the creche).
Sorry I think I'm losing track of what happened it's so long since I've discussed it. I thought Jane said she didn't tell Kate about the sighting until then next day?
Yes, Galena, Kate did say that, but it was still written in, on the right hand side of the so-called timelines, by Gerry ? someone, but page signed by Gerry and the police took the two pages immediately they arrived.
Therefore, the 'sighting' of the 'abductor' was already written down by 11 p.m. of 3rd May.

Thanks! Maybe she didn't know she'd seen him until the next day big grin

Does anyone have a link to this timeline? Is it in GA's book?

by russiandoll 16.10.13 14:53

ultima T ROB was noticeable by his absence at that event.

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 15:01

russiandoll wrote:ultima T ROB was noticeable by his absence at that event.

Maybe he was unable to attend due to circumstances beyond his control? His partner was there and time will tell whether he received a share of Mr Dirty's money which he subsequently donated to the 'fund'.

by galena 16.10.13 15:06

galena wrote:
bobbin wrote:
galena wrote:
bobbin wrote:
galena wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
bobbin wrote:I also agree, having seen the last two posts before mine, that the 'legal' liability question should have its own thread.
In the meantime, tigger said something which was amusing and set me thinking.
There have been so many posts but I got that she hinted at Egg-man carrying perhaps, not a child, but a hot meal, wrapped in a blanket.
Jane first described the 'abductor' as striding quite fast, from her left to her right, with his arms outstretched, carrying a sort of bundle.
So my question is, Is there a Pizza Take-Away somewhere to Jane's left, and instead of Egg-man hurrying off (back TOWARDS the creche from where a child would just have been collected) he was keeping his pizza hot and rushing back to his apartment before it got cold (it being a cold night and too dark to see any shoes on the Pizza's feet) and he was holding it with Outstretched Arms because that's how you keep the cheese topping level and don't end up with it all dribbling down your best cotton draws.
So she was perhaps right but wrong at the same time.
Yes it was food, but it wasn't an Egg, it was a PIZZA.
Whether she was lying or confused, whether the police know she was lying or confused, Andy Redwood has served a cracking hot goose up, with all the trimmings.
With Egg-man and all of the scrambled E-offerings that ensued, the focus is on SmithMan, whose buttoned trousers are extremely similar to the ones seen on Gerry McCann's bed and in subsequent photos.
This is where Gonçalo Amaral got some 7 months into the investigation.
Last night on ITV UK, he was finally acknowledged and able to put his points across, in a civilised environment, without being insulted, and one of those points was that he was removed and his replacement chose NOT to pursue the Smith sighting.
This to me smacks heavily of pressure being applied from above.
The McCs have steadfastly 'ignored' or sought to 'distract' from any recognition of the potential validity of the Smith sighting, and for me that speaks VOLUMES.
I think Andy Redwood has done what no other UK authority has dared to do to date.
He has taken the McCs and their protectors/ bullying entourage head on and pulled the floor boards out from under their feet.
Interesting times ahead indeed. Força Andy Redwood, Força Gonçalo Amaral:
Interesting times ahead indeed (& as they say in Ireland) indeed, they are, Bobbin

I also thought that Jane Tanner most probably did see a guy cross the road ahead of her at some time or other, but I didn't give a great deal of credence to her story that he was carrying a child. I like your pizza theory - I thought it might be some guy carrying his washing home to his mum or some such.

The problem with JT is she's eager to please and highly suggestible. I wonder how she'll fare as a witness for the prosecution
That's an interesting point. The reason she did nothing at the time was very likely that there was nothing remotely suspicious about it - just a guy carrying his kid from the creche in the normal way. My feeling is that at some future date she was perhaps asked 'Now think Jane - did you see anything suspicious - it's really important' and dredged up this memory. I think at some point imagination and the desire to please the McCanns morphed this innocent figure into the highly suspicious 'blanket man'
However, she was written in, on both time lines, on the back of Madeleine's colouring in book, as Jane's sighting, even before the police arrived, so it must have been decided right early on that she had seen an abductor. Perhaps someone had seen the family Smiths and was concerned that an abductor should be identified heading in the opposite direction (back towards the creche).
Sorry I think I'm losing track of what happened it's so long since I've discussed it. I thought Jane said she didn't tell Kate about the sighting until then next day?
Yes, Galena, Kate did say that, but it was still written in, on the right hand side of the so-called timelines, by Gerry ? someone, but page signed by Gerry and the police took the two pages immediately they arrived.
Therefore, the 'sighting' of the 'abductor' was already written down by 11 p.m. of 3rd May.
Thanks! Maybe she didn't know she'd seen him until the next day

Does anyone have a link to this timeline? Is it in GA's book?

Ignore this request I did a google search and found in the mccannfiles. However they say it was written by Russell O'Brien not Gerry McCann.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.10.13 15:15

galena wrote:
galen wrote:Does anyone have a link to this timeline? Is it in GA's book?
Ignore this request, I did a google search and found it in the mccannfiles. However they say it was written by Russell O'Brien not Gerry McCann.

bobbin answered you correctly, pointing out that the statement 'Jane Tanner sees man carrying a child' was already written down by the 'Tapas 9', who clearly already had their story of the night's events ready for when the police arrived around 11.00pm.

I'm not sure if this link at mccannfiles makes this clear:

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

...but it has always been understood from what is known about their respective handwritings that Russell O'Brien wrote out the two timelines and that Gerry McCann then signed them off.

All the claims that Jane Tanner 'didn't tell Kate until the following day' etc. etc. are obviously complete balderdash, since Gerry McCann knew about the incident in order for him to sign off the two timelines.

The fact that these two timelines were written out on the back cover of Madeleine's Acticvity Sticker Book is also interesting.

by russiandoll 16.10.13 15:19

quote TB "All the claims that Jane Tanner 'didn't tell Kate until the following day' etc. etc. are obviously complete balderdash, since Gerry McCann knew about the incident in order for him to sign off the two timelines. "

Their explanation for their hiding this from Kate was to spare her anguish, wasn't it ? Did they ever go looking in the direction of bundleman?

by tiny 16.10.13 15:21

Tony Bennett wrote:
galena wrote:
galen wrote:Does anyone have a link to this timeline? Is it in GA's book?
Ignore this request, I did a google search and found it in the mccannfiles. However they say it was written by Russell O'Brien not Gerry McCann.
bobbin answered you correctly, pointing out that the statement 'Jane Tanner sees man carrying a child' was already written down by the 'Tapas 9', who clearly already had their story of the night's events ready for when the police arrived around 11.00pm.

I'm not sure if this link at mccannfiles makes this clear:

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

...but it has always been understood from what is known about their respective handwritings that Russell O'Brien wrote out the two timelines and that Gerry McCann then signed them off.

All the claims that Jane Tanner 'didn't tell Kate until the following day' etc. etc. are obviously complete balderdash, since Gerry McCann knew about the incident in order for him to sign off the two timelines.

The fact that these two timelines were written out on the back cover of Madeleine's Acticvity Sticker Book is also interesting.

why would Gerry sign them off,whats all that about, did they think they wouldn't have to make any more statements

by gbwales 16.10.13 15:24

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

by galena 16.10.13 15:29

Tony Bennett wrote:
galena wrote:
galen wrote:Does anyone have a link to this timeline? Is it in GA's book?
Ignore this request, I did a google search and found it in the mccannfiles. However they say it was written by Russell O'Brien not Gerry McCann.
bobbin answered you correctly, pointing out that the statement 'Jane Tanner sees man carrying a child' was already written down by the 'Tapas 9', who clearly already had their story of the night's events ready for when the police arrived around 11.00pm.

I'm not sure if this link at mccannfiles makes this clear:

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

...but it has always been understood from what is known about their respective handwritings that Russell O'Brien wrote out the two timelines and that Gerry McCann then signed them off.

All the claims that Jane Tanner 'didn't tell Kate until the following day' etc. etc. are obviously complete balderdash, since Gerry McCann knew about the incident in order for him to sign off the two timelines.

The fact that these two timelines were written out on the back cover of Madeleine's Acticvity Sticker Book is also interesting.

Seems a VERY strange way to react when a child of the party has gone missing. I would have thought everyone would have been too frantically searching to write up timelines. If they DID know of the sighting is there any record of them rushing off to search for 'bundleman' on their own? Again that would have been the natural human reaction.

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 15:37

Ignore this request I did a google search and found in the mccannfiles. However they say it was written by Russell O'Brien not Gerry McCann.

Was there no mention of GM having signed it or having written his name on it? It doesn't matter as Russell O'Brien could only have come into possession of Madeleine's holiday sticker book through one or other of her parents.

Out of all of the evidence that will serve to condemn the McCanns, the fact they tore the cover off their 3 year old daughter's book within an hour of her allegedly going missing and used it to write out an account of their movements ~~to cover their arses~~, even if it was with the intention of aiding the police, will be the one factor which has the most impact on a jury of their peers, some of whom will also be parents.

It's inconceivable that any caring parent would use their missing child's book for this purpose; they'd tear off a piece of their skin to write on rather than defile such an item. This callous act says they knew COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY on the night of 3 May 2007, if not before, that Madeleine would not be coming home.

by gbwales 16.10.13 15:41

ultimaThule wrote:It's inconceivable that any caring parent would use their missing child's book for this purpose

I reckon it's also inconceivable they wouldn't go out and search for her first either...

I need to go do some checking as I am pretty certain I have seen somewhere more detail on the writing up of the notes - and that GM is present / assisting even though it's not his writing. Let me check...

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 15:50

That too, but the defilement of their little girl's book does it for me - and it'll do it for the jury.

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 15:54

gbwales wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:It's inconceivable that any caring parent would use their missing child's book for this purpose
I reckon it's also inconceivable they wouldn't go out and search for her first either...

I need to go do some checking as I am pretty certain I have seen somewhere more detail on the writing up of the notes - and that GM is present / assisting even though it's not his writing. Let me check...

I seem to recall seeing more detail in a report by one of the police officers who were first on the scene. I've got to log off for a while but I'll look on mccannfiles if you haven't found it by the time I return.

by galena 16.10.13 15:58

gbwales wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:It's inconceivable that any caring parent would use their missing child's book for this purpose
I reckon it's also inconceivable they wouldn't go out and search for her first either...

I need to go do some checking as I am pretty certain I have seen somewhere more detail on the writing up of the notes - and that GM is present / assisting even though it's not his writing. Let me check...

What parents would stand by while their child is carried off into the night by some unknown male? Who would wait for police knowing that children are very often assaulted and killed in the first hours after they are taken?

by gbwales 16.10.13 16:05

Still not found the page I am thinking of, but this suggests it might also have been DP who was there helping...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
(See "Extract from Russell O'Brien's rogatory interview" section)
The PJ officer statements all seem to suggest two men who are not GM in the apartment if I am reading them right.

Will carry on looking...

by Woburn_exile 16.10.13 16:11

galena wrote:
bobbin wrote:
galena wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
bobbin wrote:I also agree, having seen the last two posts before mine, that the 'legal' liability question should have its own thread.
In the meantime, tigger said something which was amusing and set me thinking.
There have been so many posts but I got that she hinted at Egg-man carrying perhaps, not a child, but a hot meal, wrapped in a blanket.
Jane first described the 'abductor' as striding quite fast, from her left to her right, with his arms outstretched, carrying a sort of bundle.
So my question is, Is there a Pizza Take-Away somewhere to Jane's left, and instead of Egg-man hurrying off (back TOWARDS the creche from where a child would just have been collected) he was keeping his pizza hot and rushing back to his apartment before it got cold (it being a cold night and too dark to see any shoes on the Pizza's feet) and he was holding it with Outstretched Arms because that's how you keep the cheese topping level and don't end up with it all dribbling down your best cotton draws.
So she was perhaps right but wrong at the same time.
Yes it was food, but it wasn't an Egg, it was a PIZZA.
Whether she was lying or confused, whether the police know she was lying or confused, Andy Redwood has served a cracking hot goose up, with all the trimmings.
With Egg-man and all of the scrambled E-offerings that ensued, the focus is on SmithMan, whose buttoned trousers are extremely similar to the ones seen on Gerry McCann's bed and in subsequent photos.
This is where Gonçalo Amaral got some 7 months into the investigation.
Last night on ITV UK, he was finally acknowledged and able to put his points across, in a civilised environment, without being insulted, and one of those points was that he was removed and his replacement chose NOT to pursue the Smith sighting.
This to me smacks heavily of pressure being applied from above.
The McCs have steadfastly 'ignored' or sought to 'distract' from any recognition of the potential validity of the Smith sighting, and for me that speaks VOLUMES.
I think Andy Redwood has done what no other UK authority has dared to do to date.
He has taken the McCs and their protectors/ bullying entourage head on and pulled the floor boards out from under their feet.
Interesting times ahead indeed. Força Andy Redwood, Força Gonçalo Amaral:
Interesting times ahead indeed (& as they say in Ireland) indeed, they are, Bobbin

I also thought that Jane Tanner most probably did see a guy cross the road ahead of her at some time or other, but I didn't give a great deal of credence to her story that he was carrying a child. I like your pizza theory - I thought it might be some guy carrying his washing home to his mum or some such.

The problem with JT is she's eager to please and highly suggestible. I wonder how she'll fare as a witness for the prosecution
That's an interesting point. The reason she did nothing at the time was very likely that there was nothing remotely suspicious about it - just a guy carrying his kid from the creche in the normal way. My feeling is that at some future date she was perhaps asked 'Now think Jane - did you see anything suspicious - it's really important' and dredged up this memory. I think at some point imagination and the desire to please the McCanns morphed this innocent figure into the highly suspicious 'blanket man'
However, she was written in, on both time lines, on the back of Madeleine's colouring in book, as Jane's sighting, even before the police arrived, so it must have been decided right early on that she had seen an abductor. Perhaps someone had seen the family Smiths and was concerned that an abductor should be identified heading in the opposite direction (back towards the creche).
Sorry I think I'm losing track of what happened it's so long since I've discussed it. I thought Jane said she didn't tell Kate about the sighting until then next day?

You might call it a moment of "revelation" for me. I read the bewk (well flicked through the pages) until I got to the "abduction bit", I read how kate found the shutters forced open, how the woman next door was unsympathetic, how the Portuguese police were not as responsive , during the 15 mins or so I actually questioned my judgement as to what crap parents they were which had been my only knowledge of the case so far. Then I read the bit that Jane had not told about the sighting until the next day .

No need for the swearing. Please could you not use so many quotes.

by galena 16.10.13 16:14

Woburn_exile wrote:
galena wrote:
bobbin wrote:
galena wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
bobbin wrote:I also agree, having seen the last two posts before mine, that the 'legal' liability question should have its own thread.
In the meantime, tigger said something which was amusing and set me thinking.
There have been so many posts but I got that she hinted at Egg-man carrying perhaps, not a child, but a hot meal, wrapped in a blanket.
Jane first described the 'abductor' as striding quite fast, from her left to her right, with his arms outstretched, carrying a sort of bundle.
So my question is, Is there a Pizza Take-Away somewhere to Jane's left, and instead of Egg-man hurrying off (back TOWARDS the creche from where a child would just have been collected) he was keeping his pizza hot and rushing back to his apartment before it got cold (it being a cold night and too dark to see any shoes on the Pizza's feet) and he was holding it with Outstretched Arms because that's how you keep the cheese topping level and don't end up with it all dribbling down your best cotton draws.
So she was perhaps right but wrong at the same time.
Yes it was food, but it wasn't an Egg, it was a PIZZA.
Whether she was lying or confused, whether the police know she was lying or confused, Andy Redwood has served a cracking hot goose up, with all the trimmings.
With Egg-man and all of the scrambled E-offerings that ensued, the focus is on SmithMan, whose buttoned trousers are extremely similar to the ones seen on Gerry McCann's bed and in subsequent photos.
This is where Gonçalo Amaral got some 7 months into the investigation.
Last night on ITV UK, he was finally acknowledged and able to put his points across, in a civilised environment, without being insulted, and one of those points was that he was removed and his replacement chose NOT to pursue the Smith sighting.
This to me smacks heavily of pressure being applied from above.
The McCs have steadfastly 'ignored' or sought to 'distract' from any recognition of the potential validity of the Smith sighting, and for me that speaks VOLUMES.
I think Andy Redwood has done what no other UK authority has dared to do to date.
He has taken the McCs and their protectors/ bullying entourage head on and pulled the floor boards out from under their feet.
Interesting times ahead indeed. Força Andy Redwood, Força Gonçalo Amaral:
Interesting times ahead indeed (& as they say in Ireland) indeed, they are, Bobbin

I also thought that Jane Tanner most probably did see a guy cross the road ahead of her at some time or other, but I didn't give a great deal of credence to her story that he was carrying a child. I like your pizza theory - I thought it might be some guy carrying his washing home to his mum or some such.

The problem with JT is she's eager to please and highly suggestible. I wonder how she'll fare as a witness for the prosecution
That's an interesting point. The reason she did nothing at the time was very likely that there was nothing remotely suspicious about it - just a guy carrying his kid from the creche in the normal way. My feeling is that at some future date she was perhaps asked 'Now think Jane - did you see anything suspicious - it's really important' and dredged up this memory. I think at some point imagination and the desire to please the McCanns morphed this innocent figure into the highly suspicious 'blanket man'
However, she was written in, on both time lines, on the back of Madeleine's colouring in book, as Jane's sighting, even before the police arrived, so it must have been decided right early on that she had seen an abductor. Perhaps someone had seen the family Smiths and was concerned that an abductor should be identified heading in the opposite direction (back towards the creche).
Sorry I think I'm losing track of what happened it's so long since I've discussed it. I thought Jane said she didn't tell Kate about the sighting until then next day?
You might call it a moment of "revelation" for me. I read the bewk (well flicked through the pages) until I got to the "abduction bit", I read how kate found the shutters forced open, how the woman next door was unsympathetic, how the Portuguese police were not as responsive , during the 15 mins or so I actually questioned my judgement as to what crap parents they were which had been my only knowledge of the case so far. Then I read the bit that Jane had not told about the sighting until the next day .

Deleted

Perhaps they asked her to say that, to explain why they had not rushed off after the man right away. And forgot that it was already written in the timelines. Yet another inconsistency to add to the very many ones we already. Kate may end up regretting that book!

by Woburn_exile 16.10.13 16:30

ultimaThule wrote:
Ignore this request I did a google search and found in the mccannfiles. However they say it was written by Russell O'Brien not Gerry McCann.
Was there no mention of GM having signed it or having written his name on it? It doesn't matter as Russell O'Brien could only have come into possession of Madeleine's holiday sticker book through one or other of her parents.

Out of all of the evidence that will serve to condemn the McCanns, the fact they tore the cover off their 3 year old daughter's book within an hour of her allegedly going missing and used it to write out an account of their movements ~~to cover their arses~~, even if it was with the intention of aiding the police, will be the one factor which has the most impact on a jury of their peers, some of whom will also be parents.

It's inconceivable that any caring parent would use their missing child's book for this purpose; they'd tear off a piece of their skin to write on rather than defile such an item. This callous act says they knew COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY on the night of 3 May 2007, if not before, that Madeleine would not be coming home.

Sorry ultima, I cannot agree with this and fear it could be used as a prosecution sea bass, sorry red herring.

by Lance De Boils 16.10.13 16:49

bobbin wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:
I've just caught up too.
1. I agree that there might be a division between McCs and the Company.
But I think the distinction is one of 'civil law' versus 'criminal law' liabilities.
I may be completely wrong. I agree that 'company house' rules dictate terms, but criminal acts, as punishable by the courts, are not dispelled simply because of the technical application of 'company house rules'.
If the PIs have been 'paid' to search but have NOT, or not adequately according to their payments, then it would start to open questions up of 'money laundering'.
If the directors knowingly claimed terms and conditions for their company, (searching for a live child when knowing that she is dead) which were in fact dishonest claims, then the directors become legally responsible under criminal law, as would any other felon.
Yes, Andy, company law limits itself to company matters.
Criminal law however must be able to be freely applied to persons, where persons have acted in a criminal way, whether they worked this through a company or any other method of action.
I do not believe that Andy Redwood would not have been advised and that the CPS are impotent whichever way they turn, to apply the law where crimes of fraud (whatever their vehicle) have been perpetrated.
This is my opinion only.... I don't know if I am correct.

Just to clarify, when I wrote "I agree", I was referring to keeping this thread on topic and putting the fraud/company stuff elsewhere. (I haven't read the posts relating to companies/fraud/jurisdiction here, so cannot comment on them.)
smilie

by Woburn_exile 16.10.13 16:49

Sorry I think I'm losing track of what happened it's so long since I've discussed it. I thought Jane said she didn't tell Kate about the sighting until then next day?

You might call it a moment of "revelation" for me. I read the bewk (well flicked through the pages) until I got to the "abduction bit", I read how kate found the shutters forced open, how the woman next door was unsympathetic, how the Portuguese police were not as responsive , during the 15 mins or so I actually questioned my judgement as to what crap parents they were which had been my only knowledge of the case so far. Then I read the bit that Jane had not told about the sighting until the next day .

No need for the swearing. Please could you not use so many quotes.

OK to keep the mods happy, imagine you are Michael Caine playing Jack Carter in one of the best productions of British cinema and you are trying to glean some info from your girlfriend Glenda up in the bath, I reacted like that when I had my "revelation moment"