Being in two places at once

by suzyjohnson 20.11.13 20:50

How is it possible for Gerry McCann to have been seen at the Tapas restaurant until after 10 pm when Kate McCann gave the alarm, and also for him to have been seen by the Smith family at 10 pm?

It's about 6 minutes walking time from apartment 5A to where the Smith family saw a man carrying a child, quicker for a runner. Maybe 2 or 3 minutes?

Suppose Kate goes to the apartment a couple of minutes before 10 pm, Gerry is sitting at the Tapas. Somebody else (perhaps a person who demonstrates how she carried the child in a tv interview) carries MM either into her own apartment or to a meeting point along the road.

Back goes Kate. Gerry has his alibis, he was sitting there all along.

Everyone, including Gerry McCann, runs around to apartment 5A. Whilst everyone is searching the immediate area, off runs Gerry to meet the person who is carrying MM at just 10 pm.

He doesn't need to be back for several minutes. It seems to me like a possibility.

Cannot explain the change of trousers though. He could easily have changed them but everyone would remember what he was wearing?

by **Tony Bennett** 20.11.13 21:15

suzyjohnson wrote:How is it possible for Gerry McCann to have been seen at the Tapas restaurant until after 10 pm when Kate McCann gave the alarm, and also for him to have been seen by the Smith family at 10 pm?

It's about 6 minutes walking time from apartment 5A to where the Smith family saw a man carrying a child, quicker for a runner. Maybe 2 or 3 minutes?

Suppose Kate goes to the apartment a couple of minutes before 10 pm, Gerry is sitting at the Tapas. Somebody else (perhaps a person who demonstrates how she carried the child in a tv interview) carries MM either into her own apartment or to a meeting point along the road.

Back goes Kate. Gerry has his alibis, he was sitting there all along.

Everyone, including Gerry McCann, runs around to apartment 5A. Whilst everyone is searching the immediate area, off runs Gerry to meet the person who is carrying MM at just 10 pm.

He doesn't need to be back for several minutes. It seems to me like a possibility.

Cannot explain the change of trousers though. He could easily have changed them but everyone would remember what he was wearing?

Your post assumes that the Smiths really did see someone. That is an assumption; there are many doubts about their claimed sightings

by ultimaThule 20.11.13 21:40

According to statements made by various MW employees, on the evening of 3 May 2007 all but Diane Webster had left the table by c9.30pm and any accounts by the group of KM making a grand announcement c10pm to all assembled in the Tapas Bar would seem to be less than accurate.

by **PeterMac** 20.11.13 21:49

Tony Bennett wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:How is it possible for Gerry McCann to have been seen at the Tapas restaurant until after 10 pm when Kate McCann gave the alarm, and also for him to have been seen by the Smith family at 10 pm?

It's about 6 minutes walking time from apartment 5A to where the Smith family saw a man carrying a child, quicker for a runner. Maybe 2 or 3 minutes?
Suppose Kate goes to the apartment a couple of minutes before 10 pm, Gerry is sitting at the Tapas. Somebody else (perhaps a person who demonstrates how she carried the child in a tv interview) carries MM either into her own apartment or to a meeting point along the road.
Back goes Kate. Gerry has his alibis, he was sitting there all along.
Everyone, including Gerry McCann, runs around to apartment 5A. Whilst everyone is searching the immediate area, off runs Gerry to meet the person who is carrying MM at just 10 pm.
He doesn't need to be back for several minutes. It seems to me like a possibility.
Cannot explain the change of trousers though. He could easily have changed them but everyone would remember what he was wearing?
Your post assumes that the Smiths really did see someone. That is an assumption; there are many doubts about their claimed sightings

Your post also assumes the that timings are accurate.
The time details that night are vague, as would be usual, until we get to 9:04 BY HIS WATCH courtesy of Kate McCann, and then
"Five minutes later, the witness left, to go to her apartment to see whether her daughters were OK." Tanner-fantasists-R-us

Could you tell us what you did last night - to the minute,and then what you did exactly FIVE minutes later ?

by Varriott 20.11.13 22:04

Also, the Smith sighting is an estimate. They went to a bar and forgot exactly what time they left. 10pm is a calculation based on when they thought they left, how much time they think they spent drinking and the time stamp on their receipt, which may or may not have been accurate anyway. The evidence that Kate raised the alarm at 10pm is, likewise, pretty thin. There is compelling evidence that she did this earlier, perhaps closer to 9:30pm. I think someone calculated that a brisk walk could take you from 5A to the Smith sighting in less than 5 minutes. Given the uncertainties of the timings, it's certainly possible that the same person could have been seen by the Smiths and be seen in 5A when (or soon after) the alarm was raised. Just which came first is anyone's guess.

by roy rovers 20.11.13 22:13

Tony Bennett wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:How is it possible for Gerry McCann to have been seen at the Tapas restaurant until after 10 pm when Kate McCann gave the alarm, and also for him to have been seen by the Smith family at 10 pm?

It's about 6 minutes walking time from apartment 5A to where the Smith family saw a man carrying a child, quicker for a runner. Maybe 2 or 3 minutes?

Suppose Kate goes to the apartment a couple of minutes before 10 pm, Gerry is sitting at the Tapas. Somebody else (perhaps a person who demonstrates how she carried the child in a tv interview) carries MM either into her own apartment or to a meeting point along the road.

Back goes Kate. Gerry has his alibis, he was sitting there all along.

Everyone, including Gerry McCann, runs around to apartment 5A. Whilst everyone is searching the immediate area, off runs Gerry to meet the person who is carrying MM at just 10 pm.

He doesn't need to be back for several minutes. It seems to me like a possibility.

Cannot explain the change of trousers though. He could easily have changed them but everyone would remember what he was wearing?
Your post assumes that the Smiths really did see someone. That is an assumption; there are many doubts about their claimed sightings

This is a bit philosophical. I thought Tony Bennett existed but it's only an assumption.

by suzyjohnson 20.11.13 22:24

Tony Bennett wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:How is it possible for Gerry McCann to have been seen at the Tapas restaurant until after 10 pm when Kate McCann gave the alarm, and also for him to have been seen by the Smith family at 10 pm?

It's about 6 minutes walking time from apartment 5A to where the Smith family saw a man carrying a child, quicker for a runner. Maybe 2 or 3 minutes?

Suppose Kate goes to the apartment a couple of minutes before 10 pm, Gerry is sitting at the Tapas. Somebody else (perhaps a person who demonstrates how she carried the child in a tv interview) carries MM either into her own apartment or to a meeting point along the road.

Back goes Kate. Gerry has his alibis, he was sitting there all along.

Everyone, including Gerry McCann, runs around to apartment 5A. Whilst everyone is searching the immediate area, off runs Gerry to meet the person who is carrying MM at just 10 pm.

He doesn't need to be back for several minutes. It seems to me like a possibility.

Cannot explain the change of trousers though. He could easily have changed them but everyone would remember what he was wearing?
Your post assumes that the Smiths really did see someone. That is an assumption; there are many doubts about their claimed sightings

Yes, Tony, I am convinced by the Smith sighting (I know that you are not) possibly because I don't believe that this whole mystery is any more complicated than it has to be.

Either someone unknown took a child from the apartment (little evidence to support this) or GM panicked after an accident and ran down to the beach to try and cover things up, where several people saw him in a quiet street. I think it's that simple.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.11.13 22:52

suzyjohnson wrote:
Either someone unknown took a child from the apartment (little evidence to support this) or GM panicked after an accident and ran down to the beach to try and cover things up, where several people saw him in a quiet street. I think it's that simple.

But those two alternatives are far from 'simple' as you claim.

Take this:

"GM panicked after an accident and ran down to the beach to try and cover things up, where several people saw him in a quiet street".

You would need to explain these things, among others:

1. Why would anyone do something as plain daft as run (or walk) for up to half-a-mile through a village at the very same time as his wife and friends were raising the alarm about an abducted child?
2. Why did not one other person see the 'man carrying a child' that the Smiths say they did?
3. How do you account for the witnesses who confirm that Gerry McCann was around the Ocean Club and the apartment either side of 10.00pm?
4. What rational explanation is there for the Smiths not to report their sighting to the proper authorities until 13 days later, when Peter Smith (so it is said) rings up his father and says: "Dad, am I dreaming or something, did we see someone carrying a child 13 days ago?" What kind of evidence is that? Please pause and consider how ludicrous a statement that is. Then weigh up how the man who thought he might be dreaming could then possibly make a statement with enough details - about the man he thought he was only dreaming about - to occupy two sides of A4

by Guest 20.11.13 22:55

So should I take it, that you completely ignore / contradict Amaral's importance on this sighting ... ?

by **Tony Bennett** 20.11.13 23:03

Châtelaine wrote:So should I take it, that you completely ignore / contradict Amaral's importance on this sighting ... ?

I certainly don't ignore it, Chatelaine - but whether I'm loved or loathed for it, yes, I disagree very much with him on the importance he attached to this claimed 'sighting'

by suzyjohnson 20.11.13 23:14

Tony Bennett wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:
Either someone unknown took a child from the apartment (little evidence to support this) or GM panicked after an accident and ran down to the beach to try and cover things up, where several people saw him in a quiet street. I think it's that simple.
But those two alternatives are far from 'simple' as you claim.

Take this:

"GM panicked after an accident and ran down to the beach to try and cover things up, where several people saw him in a quiet street".

You would need to explain these things, among others:

1. Why would anyone do something as plain daft as run (or walk) for up to half-a-mile through a village at the very same time as his wife and friends were raising the alarm about an abducted child?
2. Why did not one other person see the 'man carrying a child' that the Smiths say they did?
3. How do you account for the witnesses who confirm that Gerry McCann was around the Ocean Club and the apartment either side of 10.00pm?
4. What rational explanation is there for the Smiths not to report their sighting to the proper authorities until 13 days later, when Peter Smith (so it is said) rings up his father and says: "Dad, am I dreaming or something, did we see someone carrying a child 13 days ago?" What kind of evidence is that? Please pause and consider how ludicrous a statement that is. Then weigh up how the man who thought he might be dreaming could then possibly make a statement with enough details - about the man he thought he was only dreaming about - to occupy two sides of A4

1) because they were in a desperate situation
2) because it was quiet in PdL that night
3) because the beach is only a few minutes from the apartment
4) because people have other priorities OR because people don't like to get involved OR because what they saw didn't seem very relevant at the time OR because something jogged their memory OR because they thought there would be other witnesses OR because they didn't expect to see what they had seen

There was a robbery once in my area. There were two suspects. A few days later I clearly remembered having seen one of the suspects wearing the other suspects jumper. People don't always realise what they are seeing at the time.

by ultimaThule 20.11.13 23:43

1. Who was in a 'desperate situation' and why? If there had been an accident, there'd be no need to cover it up.

2. No-one can say with any certainty that no other person or persons saw what the Smiths' claim to have seen.

3. If you look at map of Luz you'll see there is a beach nearer to 5A than the one which is situated close to the Smiths' sighting. Why head for the beach which carried a greater risk of being seen - unless, perhaps, that beach was not the intended destination?

I agree that the Smiths may not have made an immediate connection between news of a missing child and the child they allegedly saw apparently being carried home by her father, but I cannot agree that any of the doctor members of the Tapas 9 would panic in an emergency and I'd like to know why you believe differently.

by canada12 20.11.13 23:49

Tony Bennett wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:So should I take it, that you completely ignore / contradict Amaral's importance on this sighting ... ?
I certainly don't ignore it, Chatelaine - but whether I'm loved or loathed for it, yes, I disagree very much with him on the importance he attached to this claimed 'sighting'

Do you think, Tony, that there may be something else going on with Amaral and SY, placing this importance on the claimed "sighting"? The operative phrase is "placing this importance".

by Guest 20.11.13 23:57

ultimaThule wrote: [...]
I cannot agree that any of the doctor members of the Tapas 9 would panic in an emergency and I'd like to know why you believe differently.

***
Well I may be wrong, but ... I can imagine under circumstances they could. You see, doctors in E.R. for instance are trained to remain clinical, unemotional and do what they have to do and can do. BUT ... in a holiday situation, abroad, if they've been drinking merrily and maybe even have been more recreational and if they have something or the other that they'd rather not be brought into daylight ... they may have panicked - all of them. IMO, of course.

by roy rovers 21.11.13 0:02

Say MM had been dead for days. GM and KM had scoped out a hiding place to which GM was to take MM under cover of darkness and under cover of the confusion of the 'abduction' alarm - say the church. Before he gets out of the complex GM bumps into Jez Wilkins and has to hide MM at the foot of the steps for a bit putting the plan into disarray. Then off he heads down the hill past the Smiths etc. What's wrong with that for a theory?

by canada12 21.11.13 0:07

Châtelaine wrote:
ultimaThule wrote: [...]
I cannot agree that any of the doctor members of the Tapas 9 would panic in an emergency and I'd like to know why you believe differently.
***
Well I may be wrong, but ... I can imagine under circumstances they could. You see, doctors in E.R. for instance are trained to remain clinical, unemotional and do what they have to do and can do. BUT ... in a holiday situation, abroad, if they've been drinking merrily and maybe even have been more recreational and if they have something or the other that they'd rather not be brought into daylight ... they may have panicked - all of them. IMO, of course.

I can imagine it too. Doctors are well trained to remain clinical and calm, but that's when dealing with situations and people unrelated to themselves. I think that training would do them well to a point, but after that point's been crossed, I think human nature coupled with extra things mentioned above, might well result in a panic situation. One other thing to consider. Perhaps they did have a well-planned, well-thought out process they were going to follow. But possibly something unforseen went wrong. Now that's throwing a spanner in the works, and if you've suddenly got a new scenario you have to follow, abandoning the old scenario, how well can you improvise?

by notlongnow 21.11.13 0:15

Writing out a timeline instead of searching looks to me of panic.
If you had thought it through you would surely never write one out.

by ultimaThule 21.11.13 5:26

I have little doubt that whoever was responsible for Madeleine's demise experienced intense panic of the 'what the f*"! have I done' variety and it's possible their entire life flashed before their eyes as they imagined the potential consequences of their crime being discovered, but nothing can persuade me this caused them, or their partner, to grab the body and immediately set off through the streets of Luz in order to conceal it as self-preservation would have rapidly overtaken any feelings of panic, guilt, remorse, etc - if it hadn't, the appropriate authorities would have been alerted to the death.

Considerable planning went into Project C for concealment before the deed was done; walls, floors, curtains were washed and thought was given to the most effective way(s) of destroying and contaminating DNA - giving a bath towel to the search dog handlers and claiming to own one toothbrush for the whole family didn't come to any mind on the spur of the moment.

Dinner at the Tapas on the night of May 3 2007 was orchestrated in advance; the McCanns arrived half an hour before the time booked in order to engage with other diners. While there's no reason to suppose a body was concealed on that night, it's feasible GM left the table to do his 'check' at c9pm shortly followed by JT and that he entered the apartment by the rear patio door and passed the body to someone who was waiting outside the front door - it would have been far to risky to remove the body through the patio door as anyone in the Tapas bar could have looked up at any time and seen a recognisable figure holding a child on the balcony.

On exiting the same way he went in, GM saw JW making his way to the top of the road where, if left unimpeded, he may have been in time to see the rear of another recognisable figure carrying a child along the road outside the apartment block before turning left in order to walk down the side road and make another left turn to walk alongside the 12' perimeter wall of the swimming pool complex to the rear of 5A, where the body was placed in the flowerbed pending arrival of the next baton carrier, so to speak. Therefore, although GM had ordered his starter, it was necessary for him to engage JW in conversation.

As I believe some of the group were, partially/initially at least, kept out of the loop it would have been too dangerous to write a timeline in advance. Had any crib sheet been taken to the dinner table for reference it may have attracted the attention of others*, hence the need to review the group's individual movements over the course of the evening and write them down after the event incorporating GM's unexpected encounter with JW which, I suspect, gave rise to certain embellishments on the preplanned Tannerman story.

Fwiw, in the absence of access to unoccupied premises containing a working fridge/freezer, or a car to transport a body far into the countryside, the most expedient method of concealment would be to bury it some 4' deep on a beach where the proceeds of decomposition would drain into the sand below and the process of mummification would preserve it in some recognisable form for later recovery - this depth would be sufficient to render the spot undetectable to the noses of untrained hounds.

If more than usual vino was consumed on that evening, I would regard it as evidence of relief on the part of some that the stress of the previous 12-20 hours was over and all that remained was to launch Plan D for damage limitation.

By way of a note to roy: 5A is in an apartment block which is not part of any 'complex' that GM would have needed to get out of, and an unembalmed body would announce its presence within 20-24 hours of death - in which case the Smiths would have had ample cause to remember their encounter, presupposing they were able to forget an odour which, once smelled, tends to linger in the memory as well as on the clothes of those who come into close proximity to it.

Ftr, it's also the case that within comparatively few hours of death an unembalmed body whose facial features may look to be simply sleeping becomes an obvious corpse - or cadaver to use the legal/medical term.

*in much the same way as a napkin caught the attention of a certain judge big grin

by **Tony Bennett** 21.11.13 5:54

canada12 wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:So should I take it, that you completely ignore / contradict Amaral's importance on this sighting ... ?
I certainly don't ignore it, Chatelaine - but whether I'm loved or loathed for it, yes, I disagree very much with him on the importance he attached to this claimed 'sighting'
Do you think, Tony, that there may be something else going on with Amaral and SY, placing this importance on the claimed "sighting"? The operative phrase is "placing this importance".

Amaral in my humble opinion has fallen into some error in his analysis of the events of the afternoon and evening of 3 May 2007; my only other comment is that by the time he was removed from the investigation, he had only had 5 months on the case.

We have been spending six years and six months analysing it - and quite a lot more has come to light during those 78 months.

As for Redwood, he has spent 2.5 years and six million pounds of taxpayers' money. His investigation has the blessing of the McCanns and the McCann Team, the Prime Minister, the BBC, the mainstream media, the political and media establishment and, most important of all, Rupert Murdoch. His long-planned joint Crimewatch programme with the BBC was an act of great calculation. He had definite reasons for hyping up the highly questionable Smith sighting and giving us glimpses of 5 efits of assorted Praia da Luz street corner lurkers and charity collectors. Time will eventually tell whether his reasons were good or bad ones

by lj 21.11.13 6:40

ultimaThule wrote:1. Who was in a 'desperate situation' and why? If there had been an accident, there'd be no need to cover it up.

2. No-one can say with any certainty that no other person or persons saw what the Smiths' claim to have seen.

3. If you look at map of Luz you'll see there is a beach nearer to 5A than the one which is situated close to the Smiths' sighting. Why head for the beach which carried a greater risk of being seen - unless, perhaps, that beach was not the intended destination?

I agree that the Smiths may not have made an immediate connection between news of a missing child and the child they allegedly saw apparently being carried home by her father, but I cannot agree that any of the doctor members of the Tapas 9 would panic in an emergency and I'd like to know why you believe differently.

Alcohol does funny things, even to doctors. A group of cardiologists had diner in a restaurant. One of them slipped on the last steps of the stairs, alcohol played a role there too. What followed was almost a slapstick film. His drunk colleagues started an unnecessary and unprofessional CPR that costed him most of his ribs. By the time the ambulance arrived he really needed emergency care.

The panic here could very well have been caused by a guilty conscience. Add some New Zealand wine, a daiquiri, more wine and you have the perfect mix for stupid decisions.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.11.13 7:21

roy rovers wrote:...Before he gets out of the complex GM bumps into Jez Wilkins and has to hide MM at the foot of the steps for a bit putting the plan into disarray. Then off he heads down the hill past the Smiths etc. What's wrong with that for a theory?

GM: Hang on a mo, Jez, while I just put this body down and have a chat with you for a few minutes

JW: No problem, Gezz

by Guest 21.11.13 7:53

Snipped wrote:
Considerable planning went into Project C for concealment before the deed was done; walls, floors, curtains were washed and thought was given to the most effective way(s) of destroying and contaminating DNA - giving a bath towel to the search dog handlers and claiming to own one toothbrush for the whole family

I have never seen, other than forum rumour, evidence from the policy files or something like that, that walls floors and curtains were washed *before* the DNA sampling?

The towel and the toothbrush: totally agree.

by Guest 21.11.13 10:06

Tony Bennett wrote:
canada12 wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:So should I take it, that you completely ignore / contradict Amaral's importance on this sighting ... ?
I certainly don't ignore it, Chatelaine - but whether I'm loved or loathed for it, yes, I disagree very much with him on the importance he attached to this claimed 'sighting'
Do you think, Tony, that there may be something else going on with Amaral and SY, placing this importance on the claimed "sighting"? The operative phrase is "placing this importance".
Amaral in my humble opinion has fallen into some error in his analysis of the events of the afternoon and evening of 3 May 2007; my only other comment is that by the time he was removed from the investigation, he had only had 5 months on the case.

We have been spending six years and six months analysing it - and quite a lot more has come to light during those 78 months.

As for Redwood, he has spent 2.5 years and six million pounds of taxpayers' money. His investigation has the blessing of the McCanns and the McCann Team, the Prime Minister, the BBC, the mainstream media, the political and media establishment and, most important of all, Rupert Murdoch. His long-planned joint Crimewatch programme with the BBC was an act of great calculation. He had definite reasons for hyping up the highly questionable Smith sighting and giving us glimpses of 5 efits of assorted Praia da Luz street corner lurkers and charity collectors. Time will eventually tell whether his reasons were good or bad ones

Tony, do you think as an ex copper Goncalo Amaral would not have been analysing the case since he left? If we have been then why shouldn't he? He was at the centre of it after all and he is is much better placed to carry on analysing it. He probably still has contacts, and he was also privy to far more information than we have. For a start there is much information we are missing from the files, including maybe Mrs Smiths statement. I am sure that as ex coordinator of the case he will still be studying it in great detail and I'm sure he knows more than any of us.

by joyce1938 21.11.13 10:22

Hi ,just to add my thoughts to this . as needed to make 2 copies of times etc ,to convince them selves and to give to police,is it really possible to take it as truth ,as mr amaral has said ,there are only 3 timelines can be counted on ,all others are open aren't they ? Maybe we have spent a lot of time trying to fit in to what they want us to use ? They have done a good job of confusion and as Gerry said confusion is good ,maybe we have started to realize that has hindered a bit of our thoughts . No we have known for a long time that all info. wasn't put out on the files ,so we have not had all that mr amaral has to work with ,one day maybe we shall know joyce1938

by **Tony Bennett** 21.11.13 10:26

candyfloss wrote:
Tony, do you think as an ex copper Goncalo Amaral would not have been analysing the case since he left?

REPLY: I am not sure to what extent he has occupied himself in keeping up with developments on the case - and in any case, the investigation is shelved - and so nothing much is happening within the Portuguese Police. Even if it was, it's far from certain that he would be told about anything significant. His recent statements suggest that if he has kept his eye on anything, it is the way the mainstream press in the UK continues to give a wholly one-sided picture of the case. He most certainly won't know what DCI Redwood has been up to

If we have been then why shouldn't he? He was at the centre of it after all and he is is much better placed to carry on analysing it. He probably still has contacts, and he was also privy to far more information than we have. For a start there is much information we are missing from the files, including maybe Mrs Smiths statement.

REPLY: I think there is a very simple explanation for that. Mrs Mary Smith, along with the 3 other Smiths, visited a police station in Ireland originally to give statements, some time between 16 and 26 May 2007. However, Mrs Smith did not travel to Portugal on 26 May to make a statement to the PJ; that is why her statement is not there. It will bprobably be held by the Irish Gardai. Incidentally, Mrs Smith is reported as claiming that she spoke to the man, a statement not backed up by her husband and two sons

I am sure that as ex coordinator of the case he will still be studying it in great detail and I'm sure he knows more than any of us.

REPLY: I do not necessarily agree with you there. I think there are many things, many analyses, quite a bit of information on this very forum for example that he may be unaware of.

Is it not strange, if not bizarre, that Goncalo Amaral's attachment of great significance to the Smith sighting is now being taken up so enthusiastically by the McCann Team, the BBC and Scotland Yard?

If so many great people agree, why should I even think of raising any doubts?