Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

gbwales wrote:

margaret wrote:What's written at 9.12

RM Returns

Rachael Manphilly?

candyfloss wrote:

margaret wrote:What's written at 9.12

RM Returns

Rachael Manphilly?

Think it might be Russ or Rus as in ROB - Don't think it's  supposed to be 9.12

Truthandjustice wrote:

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

My 10 year old was horrified by that.

Hicks wrote:You are correct bobbin, it was the 1st of May. This article had confused me! See what you make of it.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/400796/Mystery-couple-seen-going-into-McCanns-flat-on-night-before-sobbing-Madeleine-disappeared.

Two witnesses said they saw a middle-aged couple enter the apartment to comfort Madeleine, who was crying, The Sunday Express has reported.

The newspaper quoted a source as saying: 'Apparently they were concerned about the crying and went to see if they could comfort the girl.'

Detectives are now believed to be trying to identify the couple as part of an ongoing review into the case - codenamed Operation Grange.