Re: MADDIE COPS PRIME SUSPECT BLUNDER- tomorrows MIRROR 28/12/13

by Cristobell 28.12.13 18:36

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:Their eagerness for OPM (Other peoples money) wouldn't allow 3 weeks of delay. It could be set up in minutes, or at the most, hours.

I was just thinking the same. The original website was up in days wasn't it? 5-6 weeks and counting to update the payment system sounds like an excuse.

A webmaster would also have known and/or been reminded about the 'retiring' of the payment system and plan a course of action in advance.

Exactly. Someone's told them with two police forces doing a proper investigation, that they can't collect money for supporting the family any more. No excuse for skanking off the public anymore.

Are there still any millionaires out there willing to contribute to the bottomless pit that is the McCanns legal expenses? I think not. They did not even contribute to Kate and Gerry's fundraising for a 'genuine' charity - if the embarrassingly small amounts they raised for Missing People is a reflection of their own Fund, then they must be on their uppers.

They have driven themselves headlong into a corner, the success of the review has led to a real investigation and the re-opening of the original Portuguese one. Lucky them! They have no reason to fund raise, no one could ask for a better 'search', in fact they have a search that money cannot buy. Even they cannot have the cheek to ask for donations to support the family, though I feel they will when the story breaks, on the grounds that they are being stitched up and need everyone to campaign on their behalf and indeed riot in the streets.

I doubt very much that they are happy about the shop being closed. If they were, they would have thanked everyone for all their help, and explained their reasons for closing it down. That is, it is not necessary as two police forces are investigating the disappearance of Madeleine and/or they no longer have the funds to keep it going. With the updating excuse they are keeping their options open.

by Daisy 28.12.13 18:37

Châtelaine wrote:I think there may be a little misunderstanding evolving here. CW showed the Crechefather's child's pyjamas, a photo of which is on http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460669/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapping-innocent-British-father-mistaken-key-suspect.html

You are right Châtelaine, thank you for alerting me.

Cristobell, sorry for misreading you. I see the point you were making now. crossed wires

by chillyheat 28.12.13 18:41

Always read the whole front page big grin

Trust me.....Ive been told this. They love subliminal.
Here goes......Russell Grant
Russell
Grant
Horoscopes 2014

Pronounced Initials
RGH
Meaning....
rgh
Web definitions

Abbreviation for Rough Lumber, or lumber which has not been surface planed.
(In other words the truth will be smoothed out in 2014)

YOU find in 2014......We will find the truth or the end this year, I reckon by February we will know one way or another (as depicted by the Tannerman walking one way or another)

big grin

Not a good thing with Cameron overseeing the page..... thinking

by Casey5 28.12.13 19:04

Bishop Brennan wrote:The problem is that if they remove Tannerman, they remove everything... bedroom doors being moved / abductors hiding behind doors / Jane's story / matching pyjamas... The website then has to reflect Crimewatch - (Smithman / charity collectors / lurking men). No actual abductor - no time of abduction.
-------------------
They could remove Tannerman and substitute it for E-fit Smithman and still go for abduction and keep the bedroom doors, lurking abductor etc. just dropping Jane's story as a mistaken identity scenario.
Of course that would likely bring Gerry into the frame without an alibi but hey you can't have everything.
The McCanns are dab hands at producing rubbish scenarios and persuading the media that they must have happened and then not allowing any questioning of their accounts.
They've had 6 years of practice now.

by Mirage 28.12.13 19:57

I mentioned earlier that I'd taken a look at the Mockumentary again. It is very striking how GM is almost antagonistic towards JT First he barges forward and cuts her off when she mentions KM was moaning about the footie. She gives a bitter laugh.

Then she is pretty much ignored by him over which side of the road he was standing. In the end he drifts away as she talks. He makes a big point of positioning himself looking up at a tallish building, saying he remembers looking up at this. He is angled away from the top of the road. It's as if he must on no account see up this road to where JT does. In fact she has become an invisible non-entity to him, both on the night in question, and on the re-construction (such as it was), Yet she is, on the face of it, a lifeline to GM by her witnessing of the abductor. She is giving him an alibi, but it may as well be a poisoned chalice judging by his reaction. He can hardly bear to look at her There is an undercurrent between them.

It comes back to what Smoke and Mirrors said earlier - did she really see someone? Was she persuaded to add detail about the pyjamas etc.

What I can't get my head around is the degree of upset she exhibited on that reconstruction, and not a little frustration. But GM was not going to be gainsaid. His word was going to prevail - you could see that from the start. He was directing operations and she was left in the demeaning position of having to agree to a stand-in re-enacting her part in a scene with which she fundamentally disagreed - to the point of tears.

Then there's Dave Edgar reassuring her that it doesn't really matter where they were all standing, the main point being GM and JW had not obstructed her view up the street.

GM ensured he positioned himself in such a way that there wasn't the slightest chance of him looking up the street and seeing what she saw. The question is why? There has to be a very big reason behind this dogmatic line taken by GM. A line which would brook no argument; no discussion or teasing out with JT. One thing I picked up was that this woman was very resentful of being side-lined by him and I suspect she has borne a significant grudge since if her face was anything to go by. I also picked up they do not like each other - at all.

by Smokeandmirrors 28.12.13 20:15

Some good observations there Mirage. Tanner and the McCanns were only slightly acquainted before the holiday I think. Also she doesn't seem as confident as the others (note her body language/posture outside the court when they won their payout, and her partner was not there either).

There is no way Gerry could have made himself be in a position to see, or where would that leave his check? Not very thorough, and lying about his proud father moment. Certainly no abductor hiding under a bed - from a practical point of view, an intruder had nowhere to hide other than under a bed (the sofa had been pushed against the wall, so not behind there). Under a bed makes no sense, they'd be completely trapped if caught, an intruder would more likely make a dash for it.

Moving on to the 10pm sighting is the only way forward for all concerned, by why the hesitation? The reluctance to use the e-fit? Perhaps CW being inundated with 3,000 phone call saying it was Gerry was not very helpful.

by Tangled Web 28.12.13 20:17

Mirage wrote:I mentioned earlier that I'd taken a look at the Mockumentary again. It is very striking how GM is almost antagonistic towards JT First he barges forward and cuts her off when she mentions KM was moaning about the footie. She gives a bitter laugh.

Then she is pretty much ignored by him over which side of the road he was standing. In the end he drifts away as she talks. He makes a big point of positioning himself looking up at a tallish building, saying he remembers looking up at this. He is angled away from the top of the road. It's as if he must on no account see up this road to where JT does. In fact she has become an invisible non-entity to him, both on the night in question, and on the re-construction (such as it was), Yet she is, on the face of it, a lifeline to GM by her witnessing of the abductor. She is giving him an alibi, but it may as well be a poisoned chalice judging by his reaction. He can hardly bear to look at her There is an undercurrent between them.

It comes back to what Smoke and Mirrors said earlier - did she really see someone?

What I can't get my head around is the degree of upset she exhibited on that reconstruction, and not a little frustration. But GM was not going to be gainsaid. His word was going to prevail - you could see that from the start. He was directing operations and she was left in the demeaning position of having to agree to a stand-in re-enacting her part in a scene with which she fundamentally disagreed - to the point of tears.

Then there's Dave Edgar reassuring her that it doesn't really matter where they were all standing, the main point being GM and JW had not obstructed her view up the street.

GM ensured he positioned himself in such a way that there wasn't the slightest chance of him looking up the street and seeing what she saw. The question is why? There has to be a very big reason behind this dogmatic line taken by GM. A line which would brook no argument; no discussion or teasing out with JT. One thing I picked up was that this woman was very resentful of being side-lined by him and I suspect she has borne a significant grudge since if her face was anything to go by. I also picked up they do not like each other - at all.

Yes, I recall this. JT did seem genuinely upset at the way she was treated by GM. As you say, she was providing him with an alibi so why would he be so nasty in return? There were three people involved in this scenario and none of their stories tally, whether it be the length of time spent chatting (JW & GM) or where they were all stood and what they saw. Maybe you're right and JT *did* see something and for some reason GM wants to promote some but not all of this sighting. Or, JT was so upset because she'd somehow (maybe innocently) been dragged into giving GM an alibi, yet he almost ridiculed her during the reconstructon. One thought I had was (presuming she was being truthful) could the bundle/blanket she originally 'saw' be anything to do with the missing blanket? Could something have been wrapped up in it? Said blanket could've been used and then returned to the apartment where it was photographed but then 'disappeared'. Maybe she did see someone carry this but was pressured by GM to add in extra details that morphed her sighting into 'the abductor'.

by canada12 28.12.13 20:18

Perhaps, in spite of GM's claim that he saw nothing, he was the one who actually spotted the innocent father carrying his child. And then persuaded JT to say that she had seen him, even though she'd seen no one. That would be one reason why he would be adamant that he'd seen no one. not even JT. All his idea. Not hers at all. Hence the animosity?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 28.12.13 20:20

Mirage wrote:I mentioned earlier that I'd taken a look at the Mockumentary again. It is very striking how GM is almost antagonistic towards JT First he barges forward and cuts her off when she mentions KM was moaning about the footie. She gives a bitter laugh.

Then she is pretty much ignored by him over which side of the road he was standing. In the end he drifts away as she talks. He makes a big point of positioning himself looking up at a tallish building, saying he remembers looking up at this. He is angled away from the top of the road. It's as if he must on no account see up this road to where JT does. In fact she has become an invisible non-entity to him, both on the night in question, and on the re-construction (such as it was), Yet she is, on the face of it, a lifeline to GM by her witnessing of the abductor. She is giving him an alibi, but it may as well be a poisoned chalice judging by his reaction. He can hardly bear to look at her There is an undercurrent between them.

It comes back to what Smoke and Mirrors said earlier - did she really see someone? Was she persuaded to add detail about the pyjamas etc.

What I can't get my head around is the degree of upset she exhibited on that reconstruction, and not a little frustration. But GM was not going to be gainsaid. His word was going to prevail - you could see that from the start. He was directing operations and she was left in the demeaning position of having to agree to a stand-in re-enacting her part in a scene with which she fundamentally disagreed - to the point of tears.

Then there's Dave Edgar reassuring her that it doesn't really matter where they were all standing, the main point being GM and JW had not obstructed her view up the street.

GM ensured he positioned himself in such a way that there wasn't the slightest chance of him looking up the street and seeing what she saw. The question is why? There has to be a very big reason behind this dogmatic line taken by GM. A line which would brook no argument; no discussion or teasing out with JT. One thing I picked up was that this woman was very resentful of being side-lined by him and I suspect she has borne a significant grudge since if her face was anything to go by. I also picked up they do not like each other - at all.

The dogmatic approach is - in my opinion - because neither Gerry nor Jez mentioned seeing Tanner in their statements, despite her claiming that she walked right past them, nor did either of them mention seeing the 'abductor'. He's trying to make conflicting statements agree with each other, at any cost.

What strikes me is that they could have cut that footage, come to an agreement off camera, and filmed it again, without Jane crying or disagreeing. Which gives me hope because even from early days, Jane Tanner wasn't entirely on their side, stuck to what she said, and didn't succumb to bullying.

by Smokeandmirrors 28.12.13 20:23

It was alleged that she wanted to change her statement - something hotly denied by Clarence Mitchell. Perhaps she was bullied, and backed down to spare her husbands career and reputation? Wouldn't do them any favours being thrust into the middle of a media furore.

by Guest 28.12.13 20:32

Mirage wrote:I mentioned earlier that I'd taken a look at the Mockumentary again. It is very striking how GM is almost antagonistic towards JT First he barges forward and cuts her off when she mentions KM was moaning about the footie. She gives a bitter laugh.

Then she is pretty much ignored by him over which side of the road he was standing. In the end he drifts away as she talks. He makes a big point of positioning himself looking up at a tallish building, saying he remembers looking up at this. He is angled away from the top of the road. It's as if he must on no account see up this road to where JT does. In fact she has become an invisible non-entity to him, both on the night in question, and on the re-construction (such as it was), Yet she is, on the face of it, a lifeline to GM by her witnessing of the abductor. She is giving him an alibi, but it may as well be a poisoned chalice judging by his reaction. He can hardly bear to look at her There is an undercurrent between them.

It comes back to what Smoke and Mirrors said earlier - did she really see someone? Was she persuaded to add detail about the pyjamas etc.

What I can't get my head around is the degree of upset she exhibited on that reconstruction, and not a little frustration. But GM was not going to be gainsaid. His word was going to prevail - you could see that from the start. He was directing operations and she was left in the demeaning position of having to agree to a stand-in re-enacting her part in a scene with which she fundamentally disagreed - to the point of tears.

Then there's Dave Edgar reassuring her that it doesn't really matter where they were all standing, the main point being GM and JW had not obstructed her view up the street.

GM ensured he positioned himself in such a way that there wasn't the slightest chance of him looking up the street and seeing what she saw. The question is why? There has to be a very big reason behind this dogmatic line taken by GM. A line which would brook no argument; no discussion or teasing out with JT. One thing I picked up was that this woman was very resentful of being side-lined by him and I suspect she has borne a significant grudge since if her face was anything to go by. I also picked up they do not like each other - at all.

Coincidentally I have just watched 'Madeleine was here' for the first time. I have been unable to watch it before, as I get upset and angry watching anything with G & K, but finally steeled
myself.

JT did get very upset doing the mockumentary, more emotion than I have ever seen KM display, which I felt was somehow brought on by a feeling of guilt (or am I misled by her comments as a reason for her tears?)

One point I wish to bring up - and it has probably been brought up before, but I can't find it - is GM saying regretfully (when in the flat with MO) that he (GM) didn't go in the childrens' bedroom that night on his checks. Please can someone here remember when he had his "proud father" moment?? I thought it was that night. Didn't he say he stood looking at the children (Maddie in particular), had his "proud father" moment, then went to the bathroom before going back to the Tapas ?

by Mirage 28.12.13 20:42

daffodil wrote:
Mirage wrote:I mentioned earlier that I'd taken a look at the Mockumentary again. It is very striking how GM is almost antagonistic towards JT First he barges forward and cuts her off when she mentions KM was moaning about the footie. She gives a bitter laugh.

Then she is pretty much ignored by him over which side of the road he was standing. In the end he drifts away as she talks. He makes a big point of positioning himself looking up at a tallish building, saying he remembers looking up at this. He is angled away from the top of the road. It's as if he must on no account see up this road to where JT does. In fact she has become an invisible non-entity to him, both on the night in question, and on the re-construction (such as it was), Yet she is, on the face of it, a lifeline to GM by her witnessing of the abductor. She is giving him an alibi, but it may as well be a poisoned chalice judging by his reaction. He can hardly bear to look at her There is an undercurrent between them.

It comes back to what Smoke and Mirrors said earlier - did she really see someone? Was she persuaded to add detail about the pyjamas etc.

What I can't get my head around is the degree of upset she exhibited on that reconstruction, and not a little frustration. But GM was not going to be gainsaid. His word was going to prevail - you could see that from the start. He was directing operations and she was left in the demeaning position of having to agree to a stand-in re-enacting her part in a scene with which she fundamentally disagreed - to the point of tears.

Then there's Dave Edgar reassuring her that it doesn't really matter where they were all standing, the main point being GM and JW had not obstructed her view up the street.

GM ensured he positioned himself in such a way that there wasn't the slightest chance of him looking up the street and seeing what she saw. The question is why? There has to be a very big reason behind this dogmatic line taken by GM. A line which would brook no argument; no discussion or teasing out with JT. One thing I picked up was that this woman was very resentful of being side-lined by him and I suspect she has borne a significant grudge since if her face was anything to go by. I also picked up they do not like each other - at all.

Coincidentally I have just watched 'Madeleine was here' for the first time. I have been unable to watch it before, as I get upset and angry watching anything with G & K, but finally steeled
myself.

JT did get very upset doing the mockumentary, more emotion than I have ever seen KM display, which I felt was somehow brought on by a feeling of guilt (or am I misled by her comments as a reason for her tears?)

One point I wish to bring up - and it has probably been brought up before, but I can't find it - is GM saying regretfully (when in the flat with MO) that he (GM) didn't go in the childrens' bedroom that night on his checks. Please can someone here remember when he had his "proud father" moment?? I thought it was that night. Didn't he say he stood looking at the children (Maddie in particular), had his "proud father" moment, then went to the bathroom before going back to the Tapas ?

daffodil I have listened again and he said at no point " other than that night" had he gone in either.

by Smokeandmirrors 28.12.13 20:46

I've just started watching it on Youtube. In the first section around 6 mins his bedside manner with a patient leaves a lot to be desired!

by aiyoyo 28.12.13 20:47

@Mirage
Then there's Dave Edgar reassuring her that it doesn't really matter where they were all standing, the main point being GM and JW had not obstructed her view up the street.

This is the PI who told the Libel Court he's the first real detective Mccanns hired.
A detective who believes accuracy value of witness statement does not matter so long as the bigger picture is not compromised.

by Mirage 28.12.13 20:55

aiyoyo wrote:
@Mirage
Then there's Dave Edgar reassuring her that it doesn't really matter where they were all standing, the main point being GM and JW had not obstructed her view up the street.

This is the PI who told the Libel Court he's the first real detective Mccanns hired.
A detective who believes accuracy value of witness statement does not matter so long as the bigger picture is not compromised.

Exactly aiyoyo.

by aiyoyo 28.12.13 21:02

Mirage wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
@Mirage
Then there's Dave Edgar reassuring her that it doesn't really matter where they were all standing, the main point being GM and JW had not obstructed her view up the street.

This is the PI who told the Libel Court he's the first real detective Mccanns hired.
A detective who believes accuracy value of witness statement does not matter so long as the bigger picture is not compromised.

Exactly aiyoyo.

DE real detective value/expertise should be highlighted to Court by Amaral & Co during closing statement. So should Mccanns concealment of the E-fits for 5 years as that goes against their claim that the Defendants hamper the search.

by Mirage 28.12.13 21:03

Smokeandmirrors wrote:I've just started watching it on Youtube. In the first section around 6 mins his bedside manner with a patient leaves a lot to be desired!

Good luck with that! big grin

I'm off to watch Pemberley.

by Smokeandmirrors 28.12.13 21:08

Oh what channel?

by Guest 28.12.13 21:35

Smokeandmirrors wrote:It was alleged that she wanted to change her statement - something hotly denied by Clarence Mitchell. Perhaps she was bullied, and backed down to spare her husbands career and reputation? Wouldn't do them any favours being thrust into the middle of a media furore.

In JTs Rog statement she makes it quite clear that her and GM don't get on. They didn't on the holiday certainly. Thats why I find it hard to believe she would give him an alibi without there being some small truth in it from her part. Perhaps she saw the creche father but this was then evolved by persuasion and suggestion from others into Tannerman abductor.

by Woofer 28.12.13 21:59

Regarding JT, I`ve never thought she`s the devious type and, from her mixed-up statements, seems quite gullible and easily pushed into doing or saying something she didn`t want to by a pushy type like GM. IMO the majority of that group were threatened into towing the line.

by Hongkong Phooey 28.12.13 22:17

Woofer wrote:Regarding JT, I`ve never thought she`s the devious type and, from her mixed-up statements, seems quite gullible and easily pushed into doing or saying something she didn`t want to by a pushy type like GM. IMO the majority of that group were threatened into towing the line.

What did they have to threaten them with?

by Woofer 28.12.13 22:32

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Woofer wrote:Regarding JT, I`ve never thought she`s the devious type and, from her mixed-up statements, seems quite gullible and easily pushed into doing or saying something she didn`t want to by a pushy type like GM. IMO the majority of that group were threatened into towing the line.
What did they have to threaten them with?

I wouldn`t like to say HKP. If we knew that, the case would almost be solved. It couldn`t have been merely that they all left their children unattended as that ended up being the supporting `fact` for abduction which became general knowledge and none of them have been struck off.

by canada12 28.12.13 22:44

I think the mere fact that they may all have had knowledge of what happened to Madeleine would result in charges being laid, eg, accessories to the crime. That's enough of a threat to buy someone's collusion and silence, I would think.

And if not that, then any number of unsavory reasons for bullying into collusion come to mind, all of them detrimental to a person's reputation and livelihood.

by xanastaciax 28.12.13 22:57

Hi, im new to this as ive never used a forum before. Ive been watching the goings on but not posted. I came across this tonight and thought i'd share as i can't see any discussions about it. Sorry if i've posted in the wrong place.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/16238751-madeleine-mccanns-parents-should-be-investigated-closely

by Guest 28.12.13 22:58

Hi and welcome, it has been posted in the thread directly below this one

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8815-madeleine-mccann-s-parents-should-be-investigated-closely

Log in for more topics