Re: CRIMEWATCH Update on MadeleineMcCann case tonight 19th March

by Cristobell 29.03.14 13:21

jeanmonroe wrote:I am seriously believing that the 8:45pm 'all at poolside' on BOTH R O'B's 'timelines' was the 'kick off' time.

JW was in the tapas area, for a pee. allegedly, and then walked around the pool, instead of going straight back out through 'recepton', which is visible from the tapas restaurant, where the T9 were 'supposed' to be ALL 'assembled' at 8:45pm.

However R O'B knows that they are NOT 'all assembled' at that time because the Paynes were nowhere in sight and MO had to go chivvy them up at almost 9:00pm.

R O'B's 'partner' JT also says that R O'B, himself, was not there until nearer 9:00pm.

SO definitely NOT 'all assembled' at poolside at 8:45pm as R O'B states TWICE.

JW wasn't in tapas to see the T9, he was, imo, there to be SEEN by the T9. (on 'station' so to speak)

Walks 'around' hangs 'around' until sees GM leaving OC 'making his check'

REMOVAL?

Tanner 'on lookout' in case real holiday makers' accidentally 'walking by'?

She had the top road 'covered'

imo, obviously.

Might account for the high mobile phone activity in the area that the police were looking at Jean?

by Hicks 29.03.14 15:46

jeanmonroe wrote:I am seriously believing that the 8:45pm 'all at poolside' on BOTH R O'B's 'timelines' was the 'kick off' time.

JW was in the tapas area, for a pee. allegedly, and then walked around the pool, instead of going straight back out through 'recepton', which is visible from the tapas restaurant, where the T9 were 'supposed' to be ALL 'assembled' at 8:45pm.

However R O'B knows that they are NOT 'all assembled' at that time because the Paynes were nowhere in sight and MO had to go chivvy them up at almost 9:00pm.

R O'B's 'partner' JT also says that R O'B, himself, was not there until nearer 9:00pm.

SO definitely NOT 'all assembled' at poolside at 8:45pm as R O'B states TWICE.

JW wasn't in tapas to see the T9, he was, imo, there to be SEEN by the T9. (on 'station' so to speak)

Walks 'around' hangs 'around' until sees GM leaving OC 'making his check'

REMOVAL?

Tanner 'on lookout' in case real holiday makers' accidentally 'walking by'?

She had the top road 'covered'

imo, obviously.

Jean, I think you are right on this, especially the bit about JT keeping a lookout.
It is provable that JT was indeed there on the street about an hour before M went missing.
An elderly Brit lady was witness to it, she gave the info to the PJ about seeing a Portuguese looking Lady in purple on the street opposite the McCann's apartment acting suspiciously on the night of the 3rd May.

On being asked the question, did he know Jane Tanner, JW said in his statement........"Now I know her name, description of the clothes and photos which I have seen in the press. At that time I knew her as a member of the group but did not know her name. I do not remember having seen her when I spoke with Gerry, but I believe I saw her when I first ventured out. She was stopped on the street in front of one of the apartments when I passed her down towards the exit of my apartment. I do not know if it was her apartment or not. I remember that she was wearing the colour purple".

JW states that he set out with his child between 8.15 pm and 8.30 pm. He clearly sees JT at this time.

Gerry McCann obviously needs the lie that he met JW in the street at 9.10. The meeting was earlier.

You can see why the McCann's will never go back to Portugal to do a reconstruction!

by russiandoll 29.03.14 16:15

and don't forget Redwood on Crimewatch

" We are interested in the time between 8.30 pm and 10 pm. "

by Hicks 29.03.14 16:44

russiandoll wrote:and don't forget Redwood on Crimewatch

" We are interested in the time between 8.30 pm and 10 pm. "

Quite right russiandoll. You would have to be extremely dumb not to see all these glaring inconsistencies. I don't believe AR and his team are dumb.
No whitewash here, just slowly slowly catchy monkey(s)....and there are quite a few

by Judex Venturus 29.03.14 19:34

jozi wrote:
If we think about this properly who or what sex offender or abductor,abducts his dead victim???.........Big Question here !!!

There is - alas! - one kind of sex offender who would do precisely that!

Sorry, folks, but we are already in very deep and murky waters here anyway...

For the sake of thoroughness - revolting though it is to contemplate - the perversion is called Necrophilia.

by Guest 29.03.14 20:37

There IS a perversion, called necrophilia.
But I've seen NO indication, this could be the case here, Judex Venturus!
So, please bring in your "facts", if you'd please.

by TheTruthWillOut 29.03.14 22:17

Châtelaine wrote:There IS a perversion, called necrophilia.
But I've seen NO indication, this could be the case here, Judex Venturus!
So, please bring in your "facts", if you'd please.

I think you may have read that post wrong....

by Judex Venturus 30.03.14 16:53

Châtelaine wrote:There IS a perversion, called necrophilia.
But I've seen NO indication, this could be the case here, Judex Venturus!
So, please bring in your "facts", if you'd please.

Châtelaine,
I was making no claims of any kind about this particular case, merely answering the specific question with a statement of a general "fact."

by Guest 30.03.14 19:06

O.K. I misunderstood your statement of a general "fact". roses

by jozi 31.03.14 11:56

Judex Venturus wrote:

jozi wrote:
If we think about this properly who or what sex offender or abductor,abducts his dead victim???.........Big Question here !!!

There is - alas! - one kind of sex offender who would do precisely that!

Sorry, folks, but we are already in very deep and murky waters here anyway...

For the sake of thoroughness - revolting though it is to contemplate - the perversion is called Necrophilia.

What !!!
Where has it been suggested that Necrophilia could be involved !!!

by Guest 31.03.14 11:58

Judex Venturus wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:There IS a perversion, called necrophilia.
But I've seen NO indication, this could be the case here, Judex Venturus!
So, please bring in your "facts", if you'd please.
Châtelaine,
I was making no claims of any kind about this particular case, merely answering the specific question with a statement of a general "fact."

I don't think that it was intended to suggest there was any relevance here, Jozi.

by plebgate 31.03.14 22:28

Re. the Crimewatch Vid.

I have recently watched this for the first time and at 25.56 Mr. Redwood says along the lines of - Madeleine McCann's disappearance does, ON ONE READING of the evidence, have the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction ................."

On ONE READING - now I wonder what a second/or more reading of the evidence might have shown to the investigation???

by russiandoll 01.04.14 9:23

Translation..... If you take the tale at face value, you just might believe it.
Scratch the surface and delve a little deeper and you soon start to see it for the crock it is.

Redwood being professional, however, worded it differently.

by Bishop Brennan 01.04.14 10:26

Well the latest "reading of the evidence" seems to suggests that "abduction might not fit in with our thinking"! About time!

My sense at the time of CW was that old redwood was really quite excited (for him) having perhaps just found crecheman and the suppressed efits. We all remember the breathless hype about 'breakthroughs and revelation moments... And we also remember the profound sense of let-down as a collective cry of "was that it?!?" went up at the end.

Perhaps at that stage of his reading he really thought there was a chance that there was an abductor - just not at 9:15. But as you say, once he did some more reading that quickly became just as unlikely. Hence perhaps his latest view that says she "may not have been alive when she left the apartment".

Perhaps one reading of Amaral's book would have been his better bet... smilie

by j.rob 03.04.14 20:57

plebgate wrote:Re. the Crimewatch Vid.

I have recently watched this for the first time and at 25.56 Mr. Redwood says along the lines of - Madeleine McCann's disappearance does, ON ONE READING of the evidence, have the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction ................."

On ONE READING - now I wonder what a second/or more reading of the evidence might have shown to the investigation???

Yes, I noticed that. And I agree with him. A pre-planned abduction by the McCanns/their friends and/or other accomplishes, imo. Even if not planned before the visit (but there are many indications that the McCanns were planning a lot more than a family holiday prior to that week) if one believes that Madeleine died or was seriously injured prior to Thursday evening, then there was pre-planning by the McCanns and/or accomplices to remove Madeleine from the apartment on Thursday evening (or possibly before, with the Thursday evening timeline as another decoy in the whole saga.)

by lj 03.04.14 21:55

plebgate wrote:Re. the Crimewatch Vid.

I have recently watched this for the first time and at 25.56 Mr. Redwood says along the lines of - Madeleine McCann's disappearance does, ON ONE READING of the evidence, have the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction ................."

On ONE READING - now I wonder what a second/or more reading of the evidence might have shown to the investigation???

That's 'n higher level reading, he has not had that yet.

It's sad that for 6 million quid you cannot even come up with good excuses.

by NickE 04.04.14 20:23

DCI Andy Redwood provides an (Smithman)update on the previous appeals supporting the Met's investigation into the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

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

by Cristobell 04.04.14 20:37

NickE wrote:DCI Andy Redwood provides an (Smithman)update on the previous appeals supporting the Met's investigation into the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

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

Interesting, especially in view of Andrew's phone call to Operation Grange, and the officer's response that many people have phoned in to say the efit is Gerry! They haven't identified him,he says, but I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of 'if it is you.....', and the 'you' he referred to was probably spooked by it.

by petunia 04.04.14 21:08

At 33 secs he looks to me like he wants to roll on the floor pi**ing himself with tears rolling down his face it's that funny.

by Seek truth 05.04.14 6:35

petunia wrote:At 33 secs he looks to me like he wants to roll on the floor pi**ing himself with tears rolling down his face it's that funny.

Why the need to thrown so much.
Not convincing enough maybe.

I must say he REALLY wants someone to to ring up, he even said they can PROVE or disprove, oh so it's easy then anybody can just ring up even if they're not too sure because it's not a problem.
Well they found Tannerman.

by SixMillionQuid 05.04.14 9:28

Seek truth wrote:
petunia wrote:At 33 secs he looks to me like he wants to roll on the floor pi**ing himself with tears rolling down his face it's that funny.
Why the need to thrown so much.
Not convincing enough maybe.

I must say he REALLY wants someone to to ring up, he even said they can PROVE or disprove, oh so it's easy then anybody can just ring up even if they're not too sure because it's not a problem.
Well they found Tannerman.

They'll probably explain it as another man walking towards the creche (in the wrong direction). Then provide him with appropriate clothes and take a photo just in time for the next CW update.

Latest topics