CRIMEWATCH Update on MadeleineMcCann case tonight 19th March

pennylane wrote:

candyfloss wrote:PAT BROWN ‏@ProfilerPatB  · 7 mins  
My new blog post - "No, Andy Redwood and Scotland Yard are not Trying to Solve the Madeleine McCann Case" #McCann http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2014/03/why-andy-redwood-and-scotland-yard-are.html …

Well done Pat Brown and a big thank you!

We need to leave no stone unturned in exposing the corrupt circle surrounding the McCanns, and the Met's foul attempt at rewriting history. Please keep up the good work from the other side of the pond!  

Mirage wrote:

pennylane wrote:

candyfloss wrote:PAT BROWN ‏@ProfilerPatB  · 7 mins  
My new blog post - "No, Andy Redwood and Scotland Yard are not Trying to Solve the Madeleine McCann Case" #McCann http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2014/03/why-andy-redwood-and-scotland-yard-are.html …

Well done Pat Brown and a big thank you!

We need to leave no stone unturned in exposing the corrupt circle surrounding the McCanns, and the Met's foul attempt at rewriting history. Please keep up the good work from the other side of the pond!  

Seconded. Thanks to Pat for all her endeavours. We need eyes from outside trained on the UK every bit as much as Russia does. Sad but true.

Just watched Hogan-Howe at the Home Affairs Select Committee show.. A slippery customer - and a bully IMO, judging by the way he treated the inoffensive female on the panel. No one nailed him really. But he is getting a Home Affairs Inquiry into corruption that he said wasn't necessary, like it or not.

I place all my hope in the PJ. They will need good luck and a following wind judging by the geezer I just watched. The MET needs to be dismantled IMO.

Years ago, when living in S London, I remember it was common parlance that there were three major gangs back in the day. The Krays, the Richardsons and the MET. I rejected it as nonsense at the time. But I knew, just knew, the day that Norris lout came out of court throwing punches at the public that his arrogance betrayed protected status. Plus ca change! (sorry for the missing cedilla)

pennylane wrote:

Mirage wrote:

pennylane wrote:

candyfloss wrote:PAT BROWN ‏@ProfilerPatB  · 7 mins  
My new blog post - "No, Andy Redwood and Scotland Yard are not Trying to Solve the Madeleine McCann Case" #McCann http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2014/03/why-andy-redwood-and-scotland-yard-are.html …

Well done Pat Brown and a big thank you!

We need to leave no stone unturned in exposing the corrupt circle surrounding the McCanns, and the Met's foul attempt at rewriting history. Please keep up the good work from the other side of the pond!  

Seconded. Thanks to Pat for all her endeavours. We need eyes from outside trained on the UK every bit as much as Russia does. Sad but true.

Just watched Hogan-Howe at the Home Affairs Select Committee show.. A slippery customer - and a bully IMO, judging by the way he treated the inoffensive female on the panel. No one nailed him really. But he is getting a Home Affairs Inquiry into corruption that he said wasn't necessary, like it or not.

I place all my hope in the PJ. They will need good luck and a following wind judging by the geezer I just watched. The MET needs to be dismantled IMO.

Years ago, when living in S London, I remember it was common parlance that there were three major gangs back in the day. The Krays, the Richardsons and the MET. I rejected it as nonsense at the time. But I knew, just knew, the day that Norris lout came out of court throwing punches at the public that his arrogance betrayed protected status. Plus ca change! (sorry for the missing cedilla)

Yes Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe is a mega slippery character, and I absolutely agree the Met... and indeed the incestuous British Establishment, both require major dismantling and overhauling.

HelenMeg wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Mirage wrote:

pennylane wrote:

candyfloss wrote:PAT BROWN ‏@ProfilerPatB  · 7 mins  
My new blog post - "No, Andy Redwood and Scotland Yard are not Trying to Solve the Madeleine McCann Case" #McCann http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2014/03/why-andy-redwood-and-scotland-yard-are.html …

Well done Pat Brown and a big thank you!

We need to leave no stone unturned in exposing the corrupt circle surrounding the McCanns, and the Met's foul attempt at rewriting history. Please keep up the good work from the other side of the pond!  

Seconded. Thanks to Pat for all her endeavours. We need eyes from outside trained on the UK every bit as much as Russia does. Sad but true.

Just watched Hogan-Howe at the Home Affairs Select Committee show.. A slippery customer - and a bully IMO, judging by the way he treated the inoffensive female on the panel. No one nailed him really. But he is getting a Home Affairs Inquiry into corruption that he said wasn't necessary, like it or not.

I place all my hope in the PJ. They will need good luck and a following wind judging by the geezer I just watched. The MET needs to be dismantled IMO.

Years ago, when living in S London, I remember it was common parlance that there were three major gangs back in the day. The Krays, the Richardsons and the MET. I rejected it as nonsense at the time. But I knew, just knew, the day that Norris lout came out of court throwing punches at the public that his arrogance betrayed protected status. Plus ca change! (sorry for the missing cedilla)

Yes Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe is a mega slippery character, and I absolutely agree the Met... and indeed the incestuous British Establishment, both require major dismantling and overhauling.

After hearing him on that radio program (in fact, the fact that he actually agreed to appear on that program was absurd) and reading about him and seeing pictures of him,  I would not place any faith or trust in him.
I wonder why he became a 'Sir'.  Slipper eel indeed.

SixMillionQuid wrote:When a person claims this isn't a whitewash I look at my sig.
____________________
"It is my belief that Scotland Yard was set out on a mission, not one to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann but to rewrite the history of the case in such a way that the majority of the public simply forgets the past." - The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency

lj wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:When a person claims this isn't a whitewash I look at my sig.
____________________
"It is my belief that Scotland Yard was set out on a mission, not one to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann but to rewrite the history of the case in such a way that the majority of the public simply forgets the past." - The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency

Exactly. There will not be 3 trio arrest, or a dead man dug up.There will be a story that ends there, because the doer is dead, there is not enough evidence, and Portgal does not want to operate.

lj wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:When a person claims this isn't a whitewash I look at my sig.
____________________
"It is my belief that Scotland Yard was set out on a mission, not one to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann but to rewrite the history of the case in such a way that the majority of the public simply forgets the past." - The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency

Exactly. There will not be 3 trio arrest, or a dead man dug up.There will be a story that ends there, because the doer is dead, there is not enough evidence, and Portgal does not want to operate.

jozi wrote:

lj wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:When a person claims this isn't a whitewash I look at my sig.
____________________
"It is my belief that Scotland Yard was set out on a mission, not one to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann but to rewrite the history of the case in such a way that the majority of the public simply forgets the past." - The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency

Exactly. There will not be 3 trio arrest, or a dead man dug up.There will be a story that ends there, because the doer is dead, there is not enough evidence, and Portgal does not want to operate.

I'm leaning more to SY and Andy trying to find out what really happened (although they are going about it all wrong in my eyes, but what the heck do I know ) ? It does give me hope that Andy now thinks Maddie was dead when abducted ? If we think about this properly who or what sex offender or abductor,abducts his dead victim???.........Big Question here !!!

Bishop Brennan wrote:

jozi wrote:

lj wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:When a person claims this isn't a whitewash I look at my sig.
____________________
"It is my belief that Scotland Yard was set out on a mission, not one to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann but to rewrite the history of the case in such a way that the majority of the public simply forgets the past." - The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency

Exactly. There will not be 3 trio arrest, or a dead man dug up.There will be a story that ends there, because the doer is dead, there is not enough evidence, and Portgal does not want to operate.

I'm leaning more to SY and Andy trying to find out what really happened (although they are going about it all wrong in my eyes, but what the heck do I know ) ? It does give me hope that Andy now thinks Maddie was dead when abducted ? If we think about this properly who or what sex offender or abductor,abducts his dead victim???.........Big Question here !!!

And indeed who or what burglar does the same...?   Leaving no traces of themselves, or indeed Maddie.  And carefully closing and locking all doors behind them.

russiandoll wrote:and the typewritten timeline has

  9.35      MO returns to table, telling JT that Evie is unwell.

  9.40      JT leaves table to take over care of Evie.

  9.45      ROB returns to table to have his meal.

  9.55      Rachel MO asks time, ROB starts his meal.


   There was this much coming and going and nobody on the quiet street or in the quiet apartment block, heard or saw anything suspicious.

   A seasoned intruder chooses a time when there is this much activity in the target area to enter 5a, select, harm possibly kill a child, exit with her in his arms, leaving the scene looking undisturbed?

Instead of going elsewhere and finding a victim?

russiandoll wrote:and the typewritten timeline has

  9.35      MO returns to table, telling JT that Evie is unwell.

  9.40      JT leaves table to take over care of Evie.

  9.45      ROB returns to table to have his meal.

  9.55      Rachel MO asks time, ROB starts his meal.


   There was this much coming and going and nobody on the quiet street or in the quiet apartment block, heard or saw anything suspicious.

   A seasoned intruder chooses a time when there is this much activity in the target area to enter 5a, select, harm possibly kill a child, exit with her in his arms, leaving the scene looking undisturbed?

Instead of going elsewhere and finding a victim?

SixMillionQuid wrote:When a person claims this isn't a whitewash I look at my sig.

Mirage wrote:I am interested in Jez Wilkins and Matt Oldfield. There's something not right here.

From Jez Wilkins Statement 7th May 2007

The doorbell woke us up at about 1 am. It was the resort manager who I knew to be John and one of Jerry's friends.
(Straight away we see hierarchy. He introduces him into the narrative as one of Jerry's (sic) friends so this suggests he is more familiar with Gerry than Matt)

 I think his name was Matt
(he feels obliged to put a name to the face now, but qualifies this by another act of distancing  with 'I think''.)

 He is white, slim, tall with greying hair. From previous conversations
(So now he has had previous conversations so not so distant as we are given to understand - he could have said this  -' I recognised the chap right away as Matt. One of Gerry's group. We've chatted a number of times)

I knew him to be a diabetic specialist.
(I knew him to be? Why not - ' he told me he was a diabetic specialist.' ? Perhaps he discovered this information in the Lancet)

We met him on the plane on the way to the destination.
 (So now  it's 'We' met him - he wants to brings his wife into the equation. Finally, bit by painful bit, he has admitted he has had interactions with Matt over  4/5 days).

Matt said words to the effect that Jerry's daughter had been abducted,
( There's the old chestnut  - the 'A' word . Note his strangulated  use of  the phrase 'words to the effect.'  If someone rat-a-tats on your door at that hour, you are all ears to know why. Therefore I would expect crystal clear recall of the first desperate utterance. which  might be Jerr'ys daughter's been abducted or Jerry's daughter has disappeared or Jerry's daughter is missing. Or 'Jerry's daughter's gone' The words used when you are told of a tragic event or emergency situation are usually indelibly imprinted on the mind and recalled years later with the immediacy of the panic. And this is only four days later, remember)

and that Jerry said he had seen me
(First a reminder )

and wanted to know if I had seen anything
(  Second on the to-do check list comes the appeal to Jez that might help Madeleine.Note the anything? Not the expected 'anyone'.
Don't forget,  Gerry has already been to see Rachael Oldfield who was standing guard at her apartment at 10.30pm  over her own daughter. She abandons duties and she and Gerry search the landings and balconies for five minutes.
Oddly enough there is a call she was questioned about from her mobile at 10.36 pm.
Is it believable that Jane, who was also present on her doorstep with her sick child talking to Rachael ,did not  grab Gerry to tell him about the abductor she'd just been chewing the fat about with Rachael and send him hot foot to Jez Wilkins who may be a crucial witness.
So what was so important that Gerry sent Matt on this crucial mission instead and two and a half hours after searching with Rachael? .)

I said 'You're joking'. I offered help but they
(both Matt and this Warner bloke. Well, there's an authority figure to back Matt's considered opinion)

said there was nothing that could be done at that stage.
(Nothing could be done at that stage????? Sounds like the emergency room. So nothing could be done at this stage for missing Madeleine? What does he mean?  Did Jez think to over-rule this barmy  comment and shove Matt aside saying, 'Nonsense. Where there's life there's hope!' ????? He was a father after all)

 We remained in the apartment
(I had nothing further to do with this)

but could see people around the pool
 (I peeped out through the curtains)

and at the front with torches.
(Matt was wrong there is something to be done at this stage. Torches supplied  too. I' ought to pull on a sweater and join the menfolk)

I also saw the police arriving.
 (Bridget, the police are here! )

We then went to bed.
(Bridget quit this inane dishwashing that kept her mind off the horror of Madeleine missing in the dark, I stopped with the curtain twitching and we both skidaddled and got our heads under the duvet).

Mirage wrote:I am interested in Jez Wilkins and Matt Oldfield. There's something not right here.

From Jez Wilkins Statement 7th May 2007

The doorbell woke us up at about 1 am. It was the resort manager who I knew to be John and one of Jerry's friends.
(Straight away we see hierarchy. He introduces him into the narrative as one of Jerry's (sic) friends so this suggests he is more familiar with Gerry than Matt)

 I think his name was Matt
(he feels obliged to put a name to the face now, but qualifies this by another act of distancing  with 'I think''.)

 He is white, slim, tall with greying hair. From previous conversations
(So now he has had previous conversations so not so distant as we are given to understand - he could have said this  -' I recognised the chap right away as Matt. One of Gerry's group. We've chatted a number of times)

I knew him to be a diabetic specialist.
(I knew him to be? Why not - ' he told me he was a diabetic specialist.' ? Perhaps he discovered this information in the Lancet)

We met him on the plane on the way to the destination.
 (So now  it's 'We' met him - he wants to brings his wife into the equation. Finally, bit by painful bit, he has admitted he has had interactions with Matt over  4/5 days).

Matt said words to the effect that Jerry's daughter had been abducted,
( There's the old chestnut  - the 'A' word . Note his strangulated  use of  the phrase 'words to the effect.'  If someone rat-a-tats on your door at that hour, you are all ears to know why. Therefore I would expect crystal clear recall of the first desperate utterance. which  might be Jerr'ys daughter's been abducted or Jerry's daughter has disappeared or Jerry's daughter is missing. Or 'Jerry's daughter's gone' The words used when you are told of a tragic event or emergency situation are usually indelibly imprinted on the mind and recalled years later with the immediacy of the panic. And this is only four days later, remember)

and that Jerry said he had seen me
(First a reminder )

and wanted to know if I had seen anything
(  Second on the to-do check list comes the appeal to Jez that might help Madeleine.Note the anything? Not the expected 'anyone'.
Don't forget,  Gerry has already been to see Rachael Oldfield who was standing guard at her apartment at 10.30pm  over her own daughter. She abandons duties and she and Gerry search the landings and balconies for five minutes.
Oddly enough there is a call she was questioned about from her mobile at 10.36 pm.
Is it believable that Jane, who was also present on her doorstep with her sick child talking to Rachael ,did not  grab Gerry to tell him about the abductor she'd just been chewing the fat about with Rachael and send him hot foot to Jez Wilkins who may be a crucial witness.
So what was so important that Gerry sent Matt on this crucial mission instead and two and a half hours after searching with Rachael? .)

I said 'You're joking'. I offered help but they
(both Matt and this Warner bloke. Well, there's an authority figure to back Matt's considered opinion)

said there was nothing that could be done at that stage.
(Nothing could be done at that stage????? Sounds like the emergency room. So nothing could be done at this stage for missing Madeleine? What does he mean?  Did Jez think to over-rule this barmy  comment and shove Matt aside saying, 'Nonsense. Where there's life there's hope!' ????? He was a father after all)

 We remained in the apartment
(I had nothing further to do with this)

but could see people around the pool
 (I peeped out through the curtains)

and at the front with torches.
(Matt was wrong there is something to be done at this stage. Torches supplied  too. I' ought to pull on a sweater and join the menfolk)

I also saw the police arriving.
 (Bridget, the police are here! )

We then went to bed.
(Bridget quit this inane dishwashing that kept her mind off the horror of Madeleine missing in the dark, I stopped with the curtain twitching and we both skidaddled and got our heads under the duvet).

ultimaThule wrote:It seems to me you've got them down to a T, Mirage.   A most peculiar bunch, aren't they?  One might almost be tempted to think they're another species since none of their behaviour appears to be that commonly exhibited or expected in such unfortunate circumstances.

HelenMeg wrote:

Mirage wrote:I am interested in Jez Wilkins and Matt Oldfield. There's something not right here.

From Jez Wilkins Statement 7th May 2007

The doorbell woke us up at about 1 am. It was the resort manager who I knew to be John and one of Jerry's friends.
(Straight away we see hierarchy. He introduces him into the narrative as one of Jerry's (sic) friends so this suggests he is more familiar with Gerry than Matt)

 I think his name was Matt
(he feels obliged to put a name to the face now, but qualifies this by another act of distancing  with 'I think''.)

 He is white, slim, tall with greying hair. From previous conversations
(So now he has had previous conversations so not so distant as we are given to understand - he could have said this  -' I recognised the chap right away as Matt. One of Gerry's group. We've chatted a number of times)

I knew him to be a diabetic specialist.
(I knew him to be? Why not - ' he told me he was a diabetic specialist.' ? Perhaps he discovered this information in the Lancet)

We met him on the plane on the way to the destination.
 (So now  it's 'We' met him - he wants to brings his wife into the equation. Finally, bit by painful bit, he has admitted he has had interactions with Matt over  4/5 days).

Matt said words to the effect that Jerry's daughter had been abducted,
( There's the old chestnut  - the 'A' word . Note his strangulated  use of  the phrase 'words to the effect.'  If someone rat-a-tats on your door at that hour, you are all ears to know why. Therefore I would expect crystal clear recall of the first desperate utterance. which  might be Jerr'ys daughter's been abducted or Jerry's daughter has disappeared or Jerry's daughter is missing. Or 'Jerry's daughter's gone' The words used when you are told of a tragic event or emergency situation are usually indelibly imprinted on the mind and recalled years later with the immediacy of the panic. And this is only four days later, remember)

and that Jerry said he had seen me
(First a reminder )

and wanted to know if I had seen anything
(  Second on the to-do check list comes the appeal to Jez that might help Madeleine.Note the anything? Not the expected 'anyone'.
Don't forget,  Gerry has already been to see Rachael Oldfield who was standing guard at her apartment at 10.30pm  over her own daughter. She abandons duties and she and Gerry search the landings and balconies for five minutes.
Oddly enough there is a call she was questioned about from her mobile at 10.36 pm.
Is it believable that Jane, who was also present on her doorstep with her sick child talking to Rachael ,did not  grab Gerry to tell him about the abductor she'd just been chewing the fat about with Rachael and send him hot foot to Jez Wilkins who may be a crucial witness.
So what was so important that Gerry sent Matt on this crucial mission instead and two and a half hours after searching with Rachael? .)

I said 'You're joking'. I offered help but they
(both Matt and this Warner bloke. Well, there's an authority figure to back Matt's considered opinion)

said there was nothing that could be done at that stage.
(Nothing could be done at that stage????? Sounds like the emergency room. So nothing could be done at this stage for missing Madeleine? What does he mean?  Did Jez think to over-rule this barmy  comment and shove Matt aside saying, 'Nonsense. Where there's life there's hope!' ????? He was a father after all)

 We remained in the apartment
(I had nothing further to do with this)

but could see people around the pool
 (I peeped out through the curtains)

and at the front with torches.
(Matt was wrong there is something to be done at this stage. Torches supplied  too. I' ought to pull on a sweater and join the menfolk)

I also saw the police arriving.
 (Bridget, the police are here! )

We then went to bed.
(Bridget quit this inane dishwashing that kept her mind off the horror of Madeleine missing in the dark, I stopped with the curtain twitching and we both skidaddled and got our heads under the duvet).

I think that is really interesting and significant analysis Mirage.
There appears to be a definite intention to mislead about Jez's relationship with MO. He clearly wishes to distance his family from the whole scenario and to distance himself from a relationship with MO.

I know its not a very popular theory here,  but for me, it reinforces the theory that the majority of people present at OC that week were there for an arranged event such as swinging (which is common in resorts such as this out of season).

Why is Jez attenpting to convince that he does not really know MO ? Little by little he goes from describing Matt as 'one of Jerry's friends' to 'diabetic specialist ' that he 'met on the plane'

I am certain that these people were all going to OC for the same reason, and that reason was not just that it was a 'low season off peak cheap  family holiday'. Take P Edmonds - on the Board of a major multi nat company, take a bunch of Consultant doctors on very high salaries, take someone in the TV industry.....

Mirage wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:

Mirage wrote:I am interested in Jez Wilkins and Matt Oldfield. There's something not right here.

From Jez Wilkins Statement 7th May 2007

The doorbell woke us up at about 1 am. It was the resort manager who I knew to be John and one of Jerry's friends.
(Straight away we see hierarchy. He introduces him into the narrative as one of Jerry's (sic) friends so this suggests he is more familiar with Gerry than Matt)

 I think his name was Matt
(he feels obliged to put a name to the face now, but qualifies this by another act of distancing  with 'I think''.)

 He is white, slim, tall with greying hair. From previous conversations
(So now he has had previous conversations so not so distant as we are given to understand - he could have said this  -' I recognised the chap right away as Matt. One of Gerry's group. We've chatted a number of times)

I knew him to be a diabetic specialist.
(I knew him to be? Why not - ' he told me he was a diabetic specialist.' ? Perhaps he discovered this information in the Lancet)

We met him on the plane on the way to the destination.
 (So now  it's 'We' met him - he wants to brings his wife into the equation. Finally, bit by painful bit, he has admitted he has had interactions with Matt over  4/5 days).

Matt said words to the effect that Jerry's daughter had been abducted,
( There's the old chestnut  - the 'A' word . Note his strangulated  use of  the phrase 'words to the effect.'  If someone rat-a-tats on your door at that hour, you are all ears to know why. Therefore I would expect crystal clear recall of the first desperate utterance. which  might be Jerr'ys daughter's been abducted or Jerry's daughter has disappeared or Jerry's daughter is missing. Or 'Jerry's daughter's gone' The words used when you are told of a tragic event or emergency situation are usually indelibly imprinted on the mind and recalled years later with the immediacy of the panic. And this is only four days later, remember)

and that Jerry said he had seen me
(First a reminder )

and wanted to know if I had seen anything
(  Second on the to-do check list comes the appeal to Jez that might help Madeleine.Note the anything? Not the expected 'anyone'.
Don't forget,  Gerry has already been to see Rachael Oldfield who was standing guard at her apartment at 10.30pm  over her own daughter. She abandons duties and she and Gerry search the landings and balconies for five minutes.
Oddly enough there is a call she was questioned about from her mobile at 10.36 pm.
Is it believable that Jane, who was also present on her doorstep with her sick child talking to Rachael ,did not  grab Gerry to tell him about the abductor she'd just been chewing the fat about with Rachael and send him hot foot to Jez Wilkins who may be a crucial witness.
So what was so important that Gerry sent Matt on this crucial mission instead and two and a half hours after searching with Rachael? .)

I said 'You're joking'. I offered help but they
(both Matt and this Warner bloke. Well, there's an authority figure to back Matt's considered opinion)

said there was nothing that could be done at that stage.
(Nothing could be done at that stage????? Sounds like the emergency room. So nothing could be done at this stage for missing Madeleine? What does he mean?  Did Jez think to over-rule this barmy  comment and shove Matt aside saying, 'Nonsense. Where there's life there's hope!' ????? He was a father after all)

 We remained in the apartment
(I had nothing further to do with this)

but could see people around the pool
 (I peeped out through the curtains)

and at the front with torches.
(Matt was wrong there is something to be done at this stage. Torches supplied  too. I' ought to pull on a sweater and join the menfolk)

I also saw the police arriving.
 (Bridget, the police are here! )

We then went to bed.
(Bridget quit this inane dishwashing that kept her mind off the horror of Madeleine missing in the dark, I stopped with the curtain twitching and we both skidaddled and got our heads under the duvet).

I think that is really interesting and significant analysis Mirage.
There appears to be a definite intention to mislead about Jez's relationship with MO. He clearly wishes to distance his family from the whole scenario and to distance himself from a relationship with MO.

I know its not a very popular theory here,  but for me, it reinforces the theory that the majority of people present at OC that week were there for an arranged event such as swinging (which is common in resorts such as this out of season).

Why is Jez attenpting to convince that he does not really know MO ? Little by little he goes from describing Matt as 'one of Jerry's friends' to 'diabetic specialist ' that he 'met on the plane'

I am certain that these people were all going to OC for the same reason, and that reason was not just that it was a 'low season off peak cheap  family holiday'. Take P Edmonds - on the Board of a major multi nat company, take a bunch of Consultant doctors on very high salaries, take someone in the TV industry.....

First of all thank you HelenMeg. Could I just say, before anyone else cares to comment on the above post of mine and your comment, that I have re-posted this on the more relevant RED FLAG thread. I wonder. I was about to delete it here but you had replied. If you would like to transfer your comment to there HM  that would be brilliant. Thanks again

russiandoll wrote:and the typewritten timeline has

  9.35      MO returns to table, telling JT that Evie is unwell.

  9.40      JT leaves table to take over care of Evie.

  9.45      ROB returns to table to have his meal.

  9.55      Rachel MO asks time, ROB starts his meal.


   There was this much coming and going and nobody on the quiet street or in the quiet apartment block, heard or saw anything suspicious.

   A seasoned intruder chooses a time when there is this much activity in the target area to enter 5a, select, harm possibly kill a child, exit with her in his arms, leaving the scene looking undisturbed?

Instead of going elsewhere and finding a victim?

Cristobell wrote:

russiandoll wrote:and the typewritten timeline has

  9.35      MO returns to table, telling JT that Evie is unwell.

  9.40      JT leaves table to take over care of Evie.

  9.45      ROB returns to table to have his meal.

  9.55      Rachel MO asks time, ROB starts his meal.


   There was this much coming and going and nobody on the quiet street or in the quiet apartment block, heard or saw anything suspicious.

   A seasoned intruder chooses a time when there is this much activity in the target area to enter 5a, select, harm possibly kill a child, exit with her in his arms, leaving the scene looking undisturbed?

Instead of going elsewhere and finding a victim?

All this coming and going, yet the McCanns did not for one moment suspect any of their friends.  Both Matt and Russell were away from the tapas table during the crucial time when Madeleine disappeared - that is from when Gerry saw Madeleine alive at 9.10pm and Kate discovered her missing at 10.00pm. Lets not leave out the women? What was Jane up to? She could only have had a few moments to woof down her food, between seeing the abductor and relieving (yuck) Russell.  I must go back to Rachel's statement, hoping that the ghastly woman had the decency to spend at least some time with her sick baby during her evening at the bar.  

These people were missing from the table, yet the McCanns rule them above suspicion!  Jane Tanner claims she and Russell hardly knew Kate and Gerry.  From the McCanns' perspective, I cannot understand why they didn't challenge their friends.  I certainly would have, even if they were blood brothers.  The loss of a child goes above friendship, and they weren't particularly close.  As for Jane Tanner I would have throttled her for not mentioning she saw a strange man walking away my child and any other violent feelings I had would be directed at my other half for persuading me the kids would alright on their own.