McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

jeanmonroe wrote:It must have been a gale force wind that whooshed the curtains
-----------------------------------------------

It must have been a gale force wind that whooshed the curtains that were PINNED BACK TIGHT and TUCKED BEHIND the bed against the wall, by the bed, under the window!

And CC will at least get out of the house, next Sunday, Mother's Day , when Amelie will be 'carrying' him to Church, walking with Mummy.

(no photos please! Oh alright then, but just a few hundred!)

Bishop Brennan wrote:With all the recent revelations on CW and the Guardian, the McCanns are strangely silent...

Remember the key points of the McCann story:

1. Shutters were jemmied / windows open.    SY have said 'no sign of a forced entry' and even 'may have had keys'
2. That it was an abduction.                         This 'may not be in line with their thinking'
3. That she is still alive.                               SY say she 'may have died before leaving the apartment'
4. That she was taken at 9.15pm.                SY say it happened between 9.40pm and 9.55pm
5. That 'tannerman' was the abductor.           SY say that he was just a father taking his kid back

SY's strongest suspects appear to be the serial sex offender (abused her, killed her and hid the body) and/or 3-burglars (burglary went wrong, killed her and hid the body). If so the entire McCann narrative was wrong. And their website now looks horrifically out of date.  However it will not be changed.  The McCanns are committed to their story and I believe they will stick to it no matter what. (It's also the foundation of their libel case - a case which SY have effectively now ruined).

Sadly for Maddie, none of the SY theories suggest she could be alive. After almost 3 years, they appear to have got to the same position as the PJ.  That she died in the flat and that her body was hidden.  Maybe those dogs were right after all...     But then....      

columbostogeys wrote:
IF it was a burglary gone wrong, where does Smith man fit in? The guy carrying the child did not seem to be anxious or in a hurry, and why take a dead child through popular and lit streets...surely you would have a car close to the old lagos road, and go that way out of PDL the back route.

PeterMac wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:. . . I can think of no better candidate than PeterMac to demonstrate the slamming or otherwise of the bedroom door, together with the whooshing or otherwise of the curtains which were trapped behind the bed. 

I think anyone could do it.  Just stand outside and cough.

tigger wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:. . . I can think of no better candidate than PeterMac to demonstrate the slamming or otherwise of the bedroom door, together with the whooshing or otherwise of the curtains which were trapped behind the bed. 

I think anyone could do it.  Just stand outside and cough.

I think that whole sequence - raising the suspense, the 'almost' not looking, then Suddenly! .........Slam!!! Curtains flapping and there! The empty bed!, with the absolute proof of abduction, Cuddlecat and Princess Blanket (every parent will recognise this  attachment of a child to a given object)  and the Revelation!! - is a tried and tested formula very familiar to film and documentary makers.

I could go on but I want to point out:

Neither McCann nor Healy have enough imagination to construct this scene.
Therefore someone else wrote the script, which is part of  any media course  in the UK. Students are given a few bits of information to 'build a scene'  -  which is why TV drama is so formulaic it's hardly worth watching in most cases.

Such constructs  tend to trigger a Pavlovian response in the majority of viewers. All this time the performance given by McCann and Healy is closely  modelled on  a number of  soap  scripts familiar to millions of viewers and repeated by the tabloids.

All my opinion of course. 

columbostogeys wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote:With all the recent revelations on CW and the Guardian, the McCanns are strangely silent...

Remember the key points of the McCann story:

1. Shutters were jemmied / windows open.    SY have said 'no sign of a forced entry' and even 'may have had keys'
2. That it was an abduction.                         This 'may not be in line with their thinking'
3. That she is still alive.                               SY say she 'may have died before leaving the apartment'
4. That she was taken at 9.15pm.                SY say it happened between 9.40pm and 9.55pm
5. That 'tannerman' was the abductor.           SY say that he was just a father taking his kid back

SY's strongest suspects appear to be the serial sex offender (abused her, killed her and hid the body) and/or 3-burglars (burglary went wrong, killed her and hid the body). If so the entire McCann narrative was wrong. And their website now looks horrifically out of date.  However it will not be changed.  The McCanns are committed to their story and I believe they will stick to it no matter what. (It's also the foundation of their libel case - a case which SY have effectively now ruined).

Sadly for Maddie, none of the SY theories suggest she could be alive. After almost 3 years, they appear to have got to the same position as the PJ.  That she died in the flat and that her body was hidden.  Maybe those dogs were right after all...     But then....      

I thought at first burglary gone wrong, take child away, but why? The only reason would be because the burglars DNA is on file...but then no fingerprints so fully covered would not leave DNA...?

IF it was a burglary gone wrong, where does Smith man fit in? The guy carrying the child did not seem to be anxious or in a hurry, and why take a dead child through popular and lit streets...surely you would have a car close to the old lagos road, and go that way out of PDL the back route.

The serial sex attacker was checked on, and discussed in newspapers by Edgar the employee of the McCanns. The others have been rang through on CW, so I would take most of them with a pinch of salt. IF you knew your child had been sexually assaulted by someone you would have reported regardless of where you lived. Also if children had been sexually assaulted where they not taken to the hospital for swabs and DNA gathering?

This case is getting more and more bizarre. Too many cooks ..... comes to mind...the left doesnt know what the right is doing or the left has already done it.

gbwales wrote:

columbostogeys wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote:With all the recent revelations on CW and the Guardian, the McCanns are strangely silent...

Remember the key points of the McCann story:

1. Shutters were jemmied / windows open.    SY have said 'no sign of a forced entry' and even 'may have had keys'
2. That it was an abduction.                         This 'may not be in line with their thinking'
3. That she is still alive.                               SY say she 'may have died before leaving the apartment'
4. That she was taken at 9.15pm.                SY say it happened between 9.40pm and 9.55pm
5. That 'tannerman' was the abductor.           SY say that he was just a father taking his kid back

SY's strongest suspects appear to be the serial sex offender (abused her, killed her and hid the body) and/or 3-burglars (burglary went wrong, killed her and hid the body). If so the entire McCann narrative was wrong. And their website now looks horrifically out of date.  However it will not be changed.  The McCanns are committed to their story and I believe they will stick to it no matter what. (It's also the foundation of their libel case - a case which SY have effectively now ruined).

Sadly for Maddie, none of the SY theories suggest she could be alive. After almost 3 years, they appear to have got to the same position as the PJ.  That she died in the flat and that her body was hidden.  Maybe those dogs were right after all...     But then....      

I thought at first burglary gone wrong, take child away, but why? The only reason would be because the burglars DNA is on file...but then no fingerprints so fully covered would not leave DNA...?

IF it was a burglary gone wrong, where does Smith man fit in? The guy carrying the child did not seem to be anxious or in a hurry, and why take a dead child through popular and lit streets...surely you would have a car close to the old lagos road, and go that way out of PDL the back route.

The serial sex attacker was checked on, and discussed in newspapers by Edgar the employee of the McCanns. The others have been rang through on CW, so I would take most of them with a pinch of salt. IF you knew your child had been sexually assaulted by someone you would have reported regardless of where you lived. Also if children had been sexually assaulted where they not taken to the hospital for swabs and DNA gathering?

This case is getting more and more bizarre. Too many cooks ..... comes to mind...the left doesnt know what the right is doing or the left has already done it.

Too many crooks...  

tigger wrote:Lovely! One for the family album. Gerry is quite frightening even when he purports to be nice.   

canada12 wrote:It's where Kate's left hand is that has me intrigued. (Gerry's look frightens me too!)

BlueBag wrote:This is what Jane Tanner claims she saw.. to scale!!!

50 meters away.

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

If you have the screen at arms length then you will have the right scale. That is how much of her field of vision was taken by Tannerman.

All scientifically tested this morning, hope the neighbours were not watching.

Now what details did she say she saw?

There is the lighting to consider as well.

XTC wrote:

BlueBag wrote:This is what Jane Tanner claims she saw.. to scale!!!

50 meters away.

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

If you have the screen at arms length then you will have the right scale. That is how much of her field of vision was taken by Tannerman.

All scientifically tested this morning, hope the neighbours were not watching.

Now what details did she say she saw?

There is the lighting to consider as well.

According to the LP rogatory interviews:

4078 “How far away from you were they at the closest point?”
Reply “Phew, as, I mean, it’s hard to, sort of thing, but I think I was sort of halfway, it’s
probably sort of five metres, I mean, I’m trying to sort of think in terms of this room,
but sort of probably just further than that wall, probably sort of five to ten metres id’
say, if, I don’t know how far it is to there, but”.
4078 “I would say probably about, I am just guessing, but two and a half to three metres?”




   
Reply “Yeah, I’d probably say sort of five, five to ten metres, well probably five, nearer
five”.
00.40.00 4078 “So about as far away again the other side of the wall as you are from this side?”
Reply “Yeah, yeah, probably, yeah, sort of, as when I first, when I first saw them”.

Thanks to the maddiecasefiles for the info.

Gerry McCann - witness statement 04 May 2007, 11.15am

'It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, JANE, at about 21h10/21h15, when she was going to her apartment, to check on her children, saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, JANE will be able to clarify this situation.'

Kate McCann - witness statement 04 May 2007, 14.20pm

'Later, the witness would learn that a member of the group, Russell's partner Jane, at around 9.15pm, when she went to her own apartment to check on her children, saw from behind and at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road along the club, a long-haired person, she thinks wearing jeans, with a child in his arms, walking very quickly. But she is better able to tell about that herself.'

PeterMac wrote:

BlueBag wrote:
New test required.

err, umm, yer 'no
NO.

Gerry and Jez are shown on the pavement.
Gerry insists, under oath - as in on international Television that this is NOT TRUE.
In other words that JANE TANNER IS LYING
He INSISTS he, and JW were on the other side of the road.
So that MUST be true.  Because a McCann has said it.

JW also says, incidentally and a propos of nothing much, and obviously a venomous spotted reptile and lying with all the teeth in his mouth, that HE was where KT put him.
But that is not important
Obviously.

MDee Coy wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

BlueBag wrote:
New test required.

err, umm, yer 'no
NO.

Gerry and Jez are shown on the pavement.
Gerry insists, under oath - as in on international Television that this is NOT TRUE.
In other words that JANE TANNER IS LYING
He INSISTS he, and JW were on the other side of the road.
So that MUST be true.  Because a McCann has said it.

JW also says, incidentally and a propos of nothing much, and obviously a venomous spotted reptile and lying with all the teeth in his mouth, that HE was where KT put him.
But that is not important
Obviously.

One thing I've always wondered about this is why it is so important to undermine Jane so humiliatingly  and put him and Jez at the other side of the road?

Why is this position so important, Gerry?