Re: Gerry's clothes

by Watching 05.05.14 18:49

Hicks wrote:What other choice did GM have if he was to remove Madeleine from the apartment? By taxi? The McCann's had no use of a car so on foot it had to be .
I can't see GM carrying Amelie, it was cold so would he have not covered her to keep her warm? The child appeared in a deep sleep, arms dangling down by her side. This is an unnatural way for a child to be carried. I know from carrying my own children at that age, being in that upright position they almost always put there arms on you if not around your neck.

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

Couple of pictures of Mr carrying Sean, the little boy's arms dangling by his side.

I think a child may start off with their arms around a parents neck when being carried in this fashion, but once they nod off to sleep, their arms would naturally drop more into a hanging position.

If Amelie was one being carried every chance the cold night air would wake her, unless of course she was sedated to prevent this happening.

by sammyc 05.05.14 19:48

'If Amelie was one being carried every chance the cold night air would wake her, unless of course she was sedated to prevent this happening'.

As both the PJ and Fiona Payne noticed that the twins did not stir throughout the chaotic scenes of 5a then sedation has to be considered. As regards to being seen wearing the same pyjamas as Madeleine - didn't K and G hold up an identical pair for their Press conference? Were they the pair that they dressed Amelie in to make her look like Madeleine? Stand to be corrected about the pyjamas.

by Watching 05.05.14 20:22

russiandoll wrote:Disagree on the ID of the girl, Markus as Amelie imo would not have been described by an onlooker as a girl of 3 or 4. She definitely looked a compact 2 year old in the photos I have seen.

Maddie was small for her age but could a 2 year old, as Amelie was at that time be passed off as a 3, almost four year old? Perhaps!

Smiths did say the child they saw was around 3/4 years of age or thereabouts. At that time they had a grandchild around this age and gauged the age of the child they saw based on this.

In the tannerman image the legs of the child are flopped over the arm of the man carrying her. This image, for almost 7 years, was pretty much accepted as being the almost 4 year old Maddie. Redwood introduced the Brit father carrying his 2 year old child, but in CW footage, the man, the Brit father, was carrying the child the opposite way around, legs facing away from the direction Tanner had come from - so she would not have seen bare feet -but that aside - Did Redwood do this deliberately as he knew the legs of a two year old could never be mistaken for those of a four year old? I think so, and the footage was very dark too. He wasn't about to show us a clear view of a man carrying a 2 year old, as no one would believed how Jane Tanner could have got it so wrong. Huge difference between 2 and 4 years.

So agree russiandoll - in case of Smith sighting, just as in the (false sighting by Tanner, and equally false revelation by Redwood) a two year old would not have been mistaken for 4 year old.

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

16:27

by Hicks 05.05.14 20:23

Watching wrote:
Hicks wrote:What other choice did GM have if he was to remove Madeleine from the apartment? By taxi? The McCann's had no use of a car so on foot it had to be .
I can't see GM carrying Amelie, it was cold so would he have not covered her to keep her warm? The child appeared in a deep sleep, arms dangling down by her side. This is an unnatural way for a child to be carried. I know from carrying my own children at that age, being in that upright position they almost always put there arms on you if not around your neck.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Couple of pictures of Mr carrying Sean, the little boy's arms dangling by his side.

I think a child may start off with their arms around a parents neck when being carried in this fashion, but once they nod off to sleep, their arms would naturally drop more into a hanging position.

If Amelie was one being carried every chance the cold night air would wake her, unless of course she was sedated to prevent this happening.

Fair point. The Smiths said that the child was between 3-4. Would Amelie pass as that age?

by Watching 05.05.14 20:26

Markus 2 wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Disagree on the ID of the girl, Markus as Amelie imo would not have been described by an onlooker as a girl of 3 or 4. She definitely looked a compact 2 year old in the photos I have seen.

I was just quoting the previous posters opinion

Yes agree , and can't believe both children would be wearing the same distinct pyjamas as described by K an G and the Smiths.

Mr & Mrs did say Amelie had a pair of pyjamas identical to those of Maddie's, but did she really, or another one of her lies. She held up Amelie's pyjamas, said Maddie was wearing identical one's - but was she?

by Watching 05.05.14 20:27

Hicks wrote:
Watching wrote:
Hicks wrote:What other choice did GM have if he was to remove Madeleine from the apartment? By taxi? The McCann's had no use of a car so on foot it had to be .
I can't see GM carrying Amelie, it was cold so would he have not covered her to keep her warm? The child appeared in a deep sleep, arms dangling down by her side. This is an unnatural way for a child to be carried. I know from carrying my own children at that age, being in that upright position they almost always put there arms on you if not around your neck.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Couple of pictures of Mr carrying Sean, the little boy's arms dangling by his side.

I think a child may start off with their arms around a parents neck when being carried in this fashion, but once they nod off to sleep, their arms would naturally drop more into a hanging position.

If Amelie was one being carried every chance the cold night air would wake her, unless of course she was sedated to prevent this happening.
Fair point. The Smiths said that the child was between 3-4. Would Amelie pass as that age?

No Hicks, IMO Amelie would not pass as a four year old child, but merely my opinion.

by Guest 05.05.14 20:36

Did Jane Tanners daughter Ella, who was 3 at the time, have blonde hair??

I'm sure if Jane was prepared to come up with some cock and bull sighting then imo she will also be prepared to allow a 'maybe sedated' daughter to be carried around town for ten minutes by a certain Gerry Mccann....

by Guest 05.05.14 21:09

Here's a picture of Jane Tanner and her elder daughter. The latter's hair cannot be described as blonde but then neither could Madeleine's.

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

by Guest 05.05.14 21:18

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Here's a picture of Jane Tanner and her elder daughter. The latter's hair cannot be described as blonde but then neither could Madeleine's.

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

Not seen a pic of Ella before.

From a behind view then she could easily be passed off as Madeleine IMO.

DELETED

by Hicks 05.05.14 21:21

Andrew77R wrote:Did Jane Tanners daughter Ella, who was 3 at the time, have blonde hair??

I'm sure if Jane was prepared to come up with some cock and bull sighting then imo she will also be prepared to allow a 'maybe sedated' daughter to be carried around town for ten minutes by a certain Gerry Mccann....

If (as Mr Amaral believes ) Madeleine was moved at a later date to her final resting place surely this would make the Smith sighting all the more accurate. Why the need to move her again at a later date? There would have been much more time/planning if Madeleine had died prior to the 3rd. There would have been no need to risk walking around PDL at that time carrying a child when people were more likely to be roaming about, you would wait for the small hours when everyone would be sleeping.

by mariola 05.05.14 21:47

Hicks wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:Did Jane Tanners daughter Ella, who was 3 at the time, have blonde hair??

I'm sure if Jane was prepared to come up with some cock and bull sighting then imo she will also be prepared to allow a 'maybe sedated' daughter to be carried around town for ten minutes by a certain Gerry Mccann....
If (as Mr Amaral believes ) Madeleine was moved at a later date to her final resting place surely this would make the Smith sighting all the more accurate. Why the need to move her again at a later date? There would have been much more time/planning if Madeleine had died prior to the 3rd. There would have been no need to risk walking around PDL at that time carrying a child when people were more likely to be roaming about, you would wait for the small hours when everyone would be sleeping.

Hicks, they had to move her whilst the tapas bar was open otherwise they couldn,t use the "abduction when they were out "theory.Imo this had to be to an apt/house nearby.They then ,using the car,moved her to her final resting place when they knew Eddie and Keela were on their way.Total conjecture on my part.

by Hicks 05.05.14 22:10

mariola wrote:
Hicks wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:Did Jane Tanners daughter Ella, who was 3 at the time, have blonde hair??

I'm sure if Jane was prepared to come up with some cock and bull sighting then imo she will also be prepared to allow a 'maybe sedated' daughter to be carried around town for ten minutes by a certain Gerry Mccann....
If (as Mr Amaral believes ) Madeleine was moved at a later date to her final resting place surely this would make the Smith sighting all the more accurate. Why the need to move her again at a later date? There would have been much more time/planning if Madeleine had died prior to the 3rd. There would have been no need to risk walking around PDL at that time carrying a child when people were more likely to be roaming about, you would wait for the small hours when everyone would be sleeping.
Hicks, they had to move her whilst the tapas bar was open otherwise they couldn,t use the "abduction when they were out "theory.Imo this had to be to an apt/house nearby.They then ,using the car,moved her to her final resting place when they knew Eddie and Keela were on their way.Total conjecture on my part.

Yes I agree. What I was trying to say ( not very well) is that the theory of using a sub just doesn't make sense if you apply the above. The McCann's went to the Tapas every night leaving the children, how do we know for sure which day it happened?

by mariola 05.05.14 22:16

Hicks wrote:
mariola wrote:
Hicks wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:Did Jane Tanners daughter Ella, who was 3 at the time, have blonde hair??

I'm sure if Jane was prepared to come up with some cock and bull sighting then imo she will also be prepared to allow a 'maybe sedated' daughter to be carried around town for ten minutes by a certain Gerry Mccann....
If (as Mr Amaral believes ) Madeleine was moved at a later date to her final resting place surely this would make the Smith sighting all the more accurate. Why the need to move her again at a later date? There would have been much more time/planning if Madeleine had died prior to the 3rd. There would have been no need to risk walking around PDL at that time carrying a child when people were more likely to be roaming about, you would wait for the small hours when everyone would be sleeping.
Hicks, they had to move her whilst the tapas bar was open otherwise they couldn,t use the "abduction when they were out "theory.Imo this had to be to an apt/house nearby.They then ,using the car,moved her to her final resting place when they knew Eddie and Keela were on their way.Total conjecture on my part.
Yes I agree. What I was trying to say ( not very well) is that the theory of using a sub just doesn't make sense if you apply the above. The McCann's went to the Tapas every night leaving the children, how do we know for sure which day it happened?

Sub/decoy doesn,t work for me either.Not sure when she died but certainly not the 3rd may 2007.

by Hicks 05.05.14 22:43

mariola wrote:
Hicks wrote:
mariola wrote:
Hicks wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:Did Jane Tanners daughter Ella, who was 3 at the time, have blonde hair??

I'm sure if Jane was prepared to come up with some cock and bull sighting then imo she will also be prepared to allow a 'maybe sedated' daughter to be carried around town for ten minutes by a certain Gerry Mccann....
If (as Mr Amaral believes ) Madeleine was moved at a later date to her final resting place surely this would make the Smith sighting all the more accurate. Why the need to move her again at a later date? There would have been much more time/planning if Madeleine had died prior to the 3rd. There would have been no need to risk walking around PDL at that time carrying a child when people were more likely to be roaming about, you would wait for the small hours when everyone would be sleeping.
Hicks, they had to move her whilst the tapas bar was open otherwise they couldn,t use the "abduction when they were out "theory.Imo this had to be to an apt/house nearby.They then ,using the car,moved her to her final resting place when they knew Eddie and Keela were on their way.Total conjecture on my part.
Yes I agree. What I was trying to say ( not very well) is that the theory of using a sub just doesn't make sense if you apply the above. The McCann's went to the Tapas every night leaving the children, how do we know for sure which day it happened?
Sub/decoy doesn,t work for me either.Not sure when she died but certainly not the 3rd may 2007.

Madeleine was heard crying on the 1st May by Mrs Fenn. It is perhaps safe to assume then that it happened either 2/3rd. I still can't believe what GM said to Mrs Fenn when she asked what was happening. He said that a 'small girl had been abducted'. Not-his daughter! Can't even begin to speculate on that one.

by mariola 05.05.14 22:48

Indeed.You would also have thought he might have queried as to whether Mrs fenn had seen Maddie or had she wandered up there.More incriminating nails in their coffin ,so to speak.

by Guest 06.05.14 0:06

Hicks wrote:

Madeleine was heard crying on the 1st May by Mrs Fenn. It is perhaps safe to assume then that it happened either 2/3rd. I still can't believe what GM said to Mrs Fenn when she asked what was happening. He said that a 'small girl had been abducted'. Not-his daughter! Can't even begin to speculate on that one.

IMO, Gerry when he made that remark was still in acting mode high on adrenalin.

He had not long finished acting out a staged abduction to try and be spotted from a far by IMO 1 or 2 people - not a family of 9 (disaster), that a 'SMALL GIRL HAD BEEN ABDUCTED'.

His daughter Madeleine wasn't abducted. He knew that and we know that. Hence IMO why he didn't say that it was HIS DAUGHTER that had been abducted to Mrs Fenn but instead a 'small girl'

A 'small girl' (decoy) HAD BEEN abducted. Gerry was the abductor in his starring role on the big stage.

All IMO of course.

by joyce1938 06.05.14 8:27

That sounds a good clue about maybe maddie wasn't wearing same pyjamas as her sister ,.the taner mans pair P J I saw right away were NOT THE SAME AS BEEN HELD UP BY THE PARENTS AND A PICTURE TO SHOW ,THESE WERE THE ONES . tannerman is now come forward and the P J were as he tells he still has the Pj from his child ,and the picture WAS not same as the M And spencers ones that had to be purchessed to show us all .So it looks now that what he said and got pj ,m. was in that type joyce1938

by Doug D 06.05.14 10:14

I think too much is made of the pyjamas seen/not seen and the colour/design thereof.

DP had them all in white, Tannerman's now discredited and probably ficticious sighting, with a child held in an impossible long term carrying position, was the only one where any design, unless an all over pattern could possibly be seen.

Smithman's 'clutched to body' alleged sighting would not have allowed any sight of the pictures on the front and right leg.

In that position virtually all childrens pj's in a white/pink/pale pink (Berlin pictures they look almost white) will look almost identical depending on available light and the trim around the bottom of the legs barely shows, although has been exaggerated and emphasised in the Tannerman picture.

by worriedmum 06.05.14 12:05

Are we sure they were Amelie's pyjamas that were held up? IIRC didn't Amelie point to them on camera and say 'Maddie's jammies' ? Can anyone else remember this please?

by Clocker 06.05.14 13:29

worriedmum wrote:Are we sure they were Amelie's pyjamas that were held up? IIRC didn't Amelie point to them on camera and say 'Maddie's jammies' ? Can anyone else remember this please?

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

The McCanns raised the alarm when they found their daughter missing, but, while police responded quickly, they were not convinced she had been kidnapped. They neglected to protect the crime scene, allowing access to cleaners and failing to fingerprint the McCanns, so that their prints could be eliminated, until the following Monday.
As the family waited fearfully for news, they faced the agonising reality of trying to explain to their toddler twins why their big sister was no longer there.
"That was terrible for them," says John McCann, Mr McCann's elder brother, who has also travelled to Portugal to help search for his niece.
"Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: 'Maddy's jammies. Where is Maddy?' But she is too young to understand. And how do you explain? All we know is that Madeleine needs her family. She loves us, we love her. It is time for her to come home."
That hope is becoming ever harder to sustain.
While the Portuguese police tried, initially, to play down the sickening prospect that an organised pedophile ring may have taken her, or that she has become another victim of the child-trafficking trade - stolen to order for a childless couple - with every passing day, those fears become more real.
Telegraph, London

Ps the article is dated 15th may 2007, I haven't read it all, just posted it regarding the 'jammies' part. The rest will be about the 'abduction' sorry.

by worriedmum 06.05.14 14:33

Thanks Clocker! high5

by sammyc 06.05.14 14:36

We only have Uncle John's word for it that Amelie did actually say 'Maddies pyjamas' - so I'd take that with a huge pinch of salt.

by worriedmum 06.05.14 14:46

Are these the latest e-fits?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by notlongnow 06.05.14 14:57

worriedmum wrote:Are these the latest e-fits?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hopefully more facial details will be added over the coming months.

by Clocker 06.05.14 15:10

sammyc wrote:We only have Uncle John's word for it that Amelie did actually say 'Maddies pyjamas' - so I'd take that with a huge pinch of salt.

Why? These pyjamas were the ones allegedly worn by MM the night she allegedly went missing. IIRC didn't the Mcs say the pair they held up were Amelie's, that they both had a pair? If so, Amalie wouldn't have mentioned them being M's as they were her own and she would have been used to wearing them, therefore I don't think it should be taken with a pinch of salt that JM said that A said they were Maddies. Just my opinion.