A thread of evidence with sources

This forum can be a bit of a minefield to negotiate with many threads spawning large discussions over a long time frame.

Could we make a sticky thread which clearly states the facts of the case with a source (the police files or a direct quote) that does not come from rumour or an unnamed source used by a newspaper etc.

That way it will be easier for new and old members to immediately see the facts of the case and inconsistencies in statements etc without wondering if they are just reading an opinion or a rumour.

thegoat wrote:This forum can be a bit of a minefield to negotiate with many threads spawning large discussions over a long time frame.

Could we make a sticky thread which clearly states the facts of the case with a source (the police files or a direct quote) that does not come from rumour or an unnamed source used by a newspaper etc.

That way it will be easier for new and old members to immediately see the facts of the case and inconsistencies in statements etc without wondering if they are just reading an opinion or a rumour.

the goat, may I suggest that you begin such a thread right now by publishing here, on your own thread, a llst of what you say are the indisputable facts of the case, and then others can go along and add to your list. That could then become a 'Sticky' later. There would need to be some editorial agreement at the end of the day about which 'facts' are incontrovertible. 

Bear in mind, as well, that not every alleged 'fact' in a police witness statement is true!

How do we know what is fact?
I suppose the PJ's records are fact so statements contained in them are fact e.g. Gerry McCann changed his story about which door he was using, but beyond that?

Miraflores wrote:How do we know what is fact?
I suppose the PJ's records are fact so statements contained in them are fact e.g. Gerry McCann changed his story about which door he was using, but beyond that?

That is an interesting poknt.
What we can prove as FACT, is that they lied, but little more.

We can show, as FACT they they reported broken shutters to their relatives
We can show as FACT that other people on the scene reported that the shutters had not been broken.

We can prove as FACT that Kate made a formal signed Police statement declaring that the curtains were wide OPEN and
we can prove as FACT that she has subsequently insisted that they were tightly CLOSED and whooshed.

But we do not know which of those statements is TRUE.
The only FACT we have is that one, or other, is, and was, and remains, a lie.

And that is an odd definition of FACT ! !

Miraflores wrote:How do we know what is fact?
I suppose the PJ's records are fact so statements contained in them are fact e.g.

Just because a person makes a statement to the police doesn't necessarily classify the contents as being fact, Miraflores. What is fact is that they have made a statement.

I think this what you are actually implying.

The Metropolitan Police Service continues to offer a reward of up to £20,000 for information leading to the identification, arrest and prosecution of the person(s) responsible for the abduction of Madeleine McCann from Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007.

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

The Met's 'proclamation/statement' that they are investigating 'the abduction' (of Madeleine McCann) is NOT, in fact, a fact.

UNLESS, they have IRREFUTABLE 'proof' that Madeleine McCann WAS 'abducted'

What, in FACT, they are investigating, are the circumstances surrounding the 'disappearance' of a 'missing' person.

eta: A FACT is a thing that is known or proved to be true:

NOT AN ACTUAL, Probative, MATERIAL 'FACT':  "THE ABDUCTION of Madeleine McCann"............(UK Metropolitan Police, since 2011).....not KNOWN or PROVEN to be TRUE.

AN ACTUAL, Probative, MATERIAL FACT: "Madeleine McCann is 'missing'"...........KNOWN and PROVEN to be TRUE.

Miraflores wrote:How do we know what is fact?
I suppose the PJ's records are fact so statements contained in them are fact e.g. Gerry McCann changed his story about which door he was using, but beyond that?

My "fact" point may have not been the best word to use but what I mean is that we can say

e.g. fact 1. Person X refused to answer police questions regarding the disappearance of their daughter
      fact 2. Person X gave a contradictory statement to Person Y regarding the timing of their visit to apartment A
      fact 3. Person X claims that they left their twin children alone in unlocked apartment A whilst they raised the alarm regarding the disappearance of their daughter

I am in no way well versed enough in the case to give a comprehensive list and I realise that this would be a big effort, but hopefully collaboratively we could put together something. If the statements all had to be referenced as to where exactly they have come from, we avoid personal opinions or inferences, that people are free to make themselves once they have read said article.

My motivation for suggesting an article comes from conversations I have had with people about the case who were very much of the opinion that KM and GM were treated poorly by the press and were unaware of any contradictions in statements or refusal of anyone to co-operate in terms of not answering questions or partaking in reconstruction's. When directed to this forum, said people struggled to find any information easily and lost interest.

My 'suggestion' for people to try to get 'particular' information, on specific, people/events is to direct them to :

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

If they are only 'interested' in one person/event, based on what they have 'heard', the above website is most 'informative'

THANX to Pamalam. XXX.

Good luck.

It's a pity "60 reasons" isn't available anymore.
I used to have a copy, but my dogs ate it [this is not a joke   ].

Mods, Admin, please remove this, if you deem fit.

I think it would be easier documenting the known INCONSISTENCIES... rather than the known FACTS.

"refusal of anyone to co-operate in terms of not answering questions or partaking in reconstruction's"
---------------------------------------------------------
THAT has got to be a 'myth' surely!     

What mother/parents/friends, anywhere in the world, would do THAT if one of their kids had gone 'missing?

Not answer questions?, not take part in reconstructions?

Surely, NO 'friends/family' would ever REFUSE, would they?

Oh, wait..........actually, i can think of NINE people who would do 'that'

Even after they all promised they would do absolutely ANYTHING to get a kid 'found'

Something just jumped out at me. It may have been covered already. Jez Wilkins and THE PRAM.

Jez Wilkins appears to have been quite a key person. And his partner as well.

Gerry, Kate and Jane Tanner put a lot of weight on Gerry's encounter with Jez.

In the 'Madeleine was Here' reconstruction, Jane Tanner goes back to the scene of the encounter between Gerry and Jez and physically shows, with much hand gesticulation, where Jez was standing and in which direction his pram was pointing.

I know there has been speculation about Jez Wilkins. His role as a film maker. The role of Brigette O'Donnell who I know wrote in the media about her the holiday with the McCAnns and also used to work as a producer on BBC's crimewatch. 

I know some people have questioned why Jez didn't join Gerry in searches when he was woken up to be told the news of Madeleine's disappearance (at 1pm - is this right?) Why wake him up several hours after Madeleine had allegedly been stolen, if not to get him to help in some way? In any event, he is clearly a crucial eye- witness.

There has been so much speculation about how Madeleine could have been removed from the apartment. The reality of having to carry an ill/sedated/dead child from an apartment. How can you do that without being spotted? 

Then THE PRAM sprang into my mind. In Kate's book, it is described as a buggy. But there is no mistaking that Jane Tanner, in the reconstruction, describes it as a pram and talks about the direction it was heading. Jez, in his statement, describes it as a pram.

Every single English person (and presumably many non-English people) knows that there is the world of difference between a pram and a buggy. A pram can conceal a baby or young child under a hood and blankets, whereas generally in a buggy a child is more upright and visible.

What do others think? If I was criminally minded and wanted to remove someone or something without being seen and without causing suspicion, a pram in which a child is supposedly been pushed around to sleep in would be much safer than a buggy?

Or am I just getting over-excited here and turning more and more into Inspector Clouseau!!

I do find it interesting, though that Jane specifically refers to Jez's 'pram' and even the direction that it was pointing in, in the reconstruction. And given the timing that Gerry supposedly bumps into Jez, this encounter could, potentially, be highly significant in all sorts of ways.

Apart from quite a few other arguments I could think of, the main one is that JW WOULD NOT support the time Gerry gave of his meeting.
He even complained about harassment to the police. although he did not use that exact term.

Do we also have to believe that after doing this little service for an acquaintance he'd be using the pram for his children?

Taking children for  a walk in the pram/buggy is a very good way to get them to sleep. As simple as that. He ran into a person who thought he was being clever and used him for an alibi.
Why mention this meeting in any case if what you are suggesting is true?  

It won't fly imo - you're not the only one who's had a go at this theory.  

Bridget O'Donnell's highly emotive and truly dreadful article published in the Guardian December 2007.

There is much I could pick out here. A lot of red flags. But notice how Bridget writes about all the terrible cases of abducted children that she worked on for Crimewatch and how they often ended in tragedy just a few hours later. Also notice how she juxtaposes there was nothing they (her or Jez)  could do to help - Madeleine had already been missing for 3 hours.

So - already a fait accompli, then. The 'golden hours' already gone. Time to give up, then.

The story of Madeleine had already been decided. 

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

Although it's not properly referenced or annotated, this list defines itself as sourced from the PJ files and as such is not a bad list of points...

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

tigger wrote:Apart from quite a few other arguments I could think of, the main one is that JW WOULD NOT support the time Gerry gave of his meeting.
He even complained about harassment to the police. although he did not use that exact term.

Do we also have to believe that after doing this little service for an acquaintance he'd be using the pram for his children?

Taking children for  a walk in the pram/buggy is a very good way to get them to sleep. As simple as that. He ran into a person who thought he was being clever and used him for an alibi.
Why mention this meeting in any case if what you are suggesting is true?  

It won't fly imo - you're not the only one who's had a go at this theory.  

Still, if you were going to go along with the theory that the 'missing Madeleine McCann story' was designed to be some kind of UK version of Elizabeth Smart, with associated massive media coverage, films, books, merchandise, Amber Alert and all the rest of it, then this theory might carry some weight. 

It is quite a coincidence that Bridget and Jez are part of the media, and Bridget, at least, has written about the whole episode practically eulogizing the McCanns. 

I don't think the Jez/Bridget connection is quite as simple as a complete coincidence. 

I'm only throwing out an idea.......the timing of this encounter is important, whatever its significance.

Also, if you read Bridget's article she quite distinctly writes how in the cases she has dealt with the children have always been taken away in a vehicle. Is that true? How many cases die Bridget work on for Crimewatch where children had been abducted from their baths or where-ever? She seems to suggest it was loads but stranger abductions are quite rare.

This was what I was going to post before I got carried away with the pram possibilities!

A bit like Kate not answering 48 police questions. Why would a mother who wants to do everything in her power to find her missing daughter not want to assist the police? Why would she have a problem answering questions that might help police find her daughter?

And why would the nine adults who spent a holiday with Madeleine and her family (and all their own children) refuse to take part in an official police reconstruction organized by the police force who is trying to help find out what happened to Madeleine but, instead, two of them, along with Gerry McCann, take part in a reconstruction organised by their own private detectives? The ones they hired and paid for with money that the general public had very generously donated to The Fund which they had set up to, purportedly, Find Madeleine.

The reconstructions, which Jane Tanner and Matt Oldfield took part in several years after Madeleine's disappearance, (which can be seen in episode 4 of the 'Madeleine was here' mockumentary series appear to have achieved nothing in terms of helping to find out what happened to Madeleine. But it would appear that that was not in actual fact the objective. 

Jane Tanner's alleged sighting of 'Tannerman' has now, apparently, been ruled out by the police. And the Portugese police never felt it had any credibility.

And, if you watch Matt Oldfield reconstruct his alleged visit into the McCann's apartment at approximately 9.30pm on the evening that Madeleine 'was taken', in which Gerry looks on, you wonder quite how this particularly weird and rather sinister cameo is going to do anything at all to help 'find Madeleine'. 

Filmed in a murky darkness, Matt is shown walking into the apartment and is filmed standing at the door of the McCann children's bedroom. A frankly bizarre exchange takes place between him and Gerry, in which Gerry looks shifty and nervous, whereby Matt appears to be justifying his decision not to actually go inside the apartment because he was able to see the twins in their cots from the door. So it didn't seem necessary to go inside as all was quiet. He lamely and very unconvincingly asks: 'why didn't I take those two extra steps in?' (or words to that effect) which is presumably meant to signify that had he done so, he would have found Madeleine missing (given that Jane Tanner claims she saw Madeleine's abductor at 9.15pm) and therefore the alarm would have been raised earlier.

Gerry, at this point, helpfully intercedes claiming that it was only during this evening that he did anything more than 'put his head in' to his children's apartment, mumbling something about the angle of the door (which, as Kate has written in her book, he apparently noticed at his 9.05pm check was further ajar than it had been when they had left at 8.30pm).

But the point is, how does any of this help anyone at all to 'find Madeleine'? It cannot possibly help anyone find Madeleine.

So, therefore, the reconstruction as carried out by the friends of the McCanns has another purpose. 

As always with this case, the mind starts somersaulting around at the sheer deviousness of the central players and their callous disregard for Madeleine.

Sorry, I'm not convinced. jW never made a documentary on the case,  Bridget was down there to start an estate agency and managed to get just one article published.
They DID complain that the McCanns were unnecessarily insistent on the time. That's on record.

I don't feel  you've answered my arguments at all. Imo it is rather a stretch to imagine - presumably - a very recently deceased child was transported in a pram. So did Gerry contact JW during the afternoon?  Asking for a small favour?
Because if it wasn't done that day, are you suggesting that there was a plot to kill M and have handy media people along to lend a hand?
So he didn't really need Murat and Murat came over in a hurry for no reason?
Would JW have been part of the swinging group as well?  
In the short time available that afternoon, a safe hiding place was found?  Or was this all planned and the fold-up pram taken along on purpose?

Ps: as I'm poking this out on an iPad, this came after the post before.
the relationship MO/JW is purely subjective reasoning imo. I get the impression that the T 7 cooperated in the circus because they were made to do so. Made them look better and at the sametimethe reconstruction was changed to fit the McC story.
So TM could construct a visual version of their very own truth and tell the world there was a reconstruction. Etc.   

Quite

But how do we explain that the T7 deliberately left the Mecs out at the seaside, the last afternoon, and all joined up there at the beach restaurant?
Why on earth would that have happened?

Why did they turn their backs on the Mecs, why did they shirk from them; the very day their child went missing (with hindsight)

Why did the T7 distance themselves from the Mecs, hours before the event?

Portia wrote:Quite

But how do we explain that the T7 deliberately left the Mecs out at the seaside, and all joined up there at the beach restaurant?
Why on earth would that have happened?

I'm trying to make sense of this particular theory, I believe that as early as the 29th/30th something already had happened and solutions were being found.

Your post fits that theory just fine. the preparations for the 'abduction' that evening. Not the only indication by far.
They didn't have lunch with the others all week either.

Thank you for the Bronzini, forgotten the girl's name just  now: Isabella?

j.rob wrote:[size=32]I'd dearly love to see evidence of these cases - which child from which bath? Which child from which bike?[/size][size=32]Which child from which garden? Which cases is she referring to?[/size][size=32] Which petrol station with a £10 note to get a cab back to Mummy? Gee - that was a very sweet and kind abductor, who was thoughtful enough to provide cab money home after he had molested her.[/size]
[size=32]The woman is full of it. [/size]

J.Rob, the girl in the bath story is true, unfortunately.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
A six-year-old girl was snatched from her bath, kidnapped and raped before being dumped in an alley, a court has heard.
Peter Voisey, 35, of Blyth, Northumberland, denies raping, sexually assaulting and abducting the girl from her North Tyneside home in December.

Newcastle Crown Court heard how the youngster, now seven, was repeatedly abused in Mr Voisey's car.

She was found later, blood-stained and shivering in the freezing back alley.

Prosecutor James Goss QC told the jury of six men and six women that Mr Voisey entered the bathroom of the family's home in Willington Quay, on the evening of 27 December last year.

He said: "He told her to be quiet or he would hurt her, lifted her out of the bath, put his hand over her mouth, carried her to a car outside and drove off.

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

Your judgment must be fair and dispassionate, based on a calm and rational analysis of all the evidence Prosecutor James Goss QC

"After a short time, he stopped and sexually assaulted her. He did this twice.

"Having done what he wanted to do to her, he drove her to a back lane about 300 metres from her home, where he left her, still naked, telling her to face the wall."

Mr Goss said local resident Geoffrey Brown, whose house backed on to the lane where the girl was dumped, found her crying and blood stained.

Mr Goss said: "The prosecution allege that her kidnapper and abuser was this defendant, Peter Voisey.

"The combination of circumstantial and scientific evidence points surely and conclusively to him."

Well-behaved'

He warned the jury to guard against the emotion the case would evoke, adding: "Cases of this kind inevitably provoke horror and disgust.

"Your judgement must be fair and dispassionate, based on a calm and rational analysis of all the evidence."

Mr Goss said the girl lived with her family in a terraced street.

He said video evidence from the youngster would show she was an "engaging and lively child".

The trial continues.

Portia wrote:. . .But how do we explain that the T7 deliberately left the Mecs out at the seaside, the last afternoon, and all joined up there at the beach restaurant?
Why on earth would that have happened?
Why did they turn their backs on the Mecs, why did they shirk from them; the very day their child went missing (with hindsight)
Why did the T7 distance themselves from the Mecs, hours before the event?

Or the other way round ?
The Tapas group were 'sent' to the Paraiso, to parade in front of the cameras, and to do nothing else,
so that the absence of Madeleine during that day could not be commented on by anyone.
Which leaves ony the McCanns able to state that Madeleine was there.
But then in true blundering Mitchell fashion they try to augment that with the nonsense about the Last Photo
and try to show that the time and date 'proves' she was alive and well at lunchtime.
In fact, as we know, it does no such thing.
Mitchell was involved, so it has been scrutinised al the more carefully
The time and date shown merely indicates that it has been changed.
The weather shown on the Last Photo can ONLY relate to the Sunday.
They arrived too late on the Saturday, and by Monday the weather had closed in and did not improve until Friday.

So back to the Paraiso, the Tapas group HAD to be kept out of the loop that whole day, and could not be allowed to be in the area of the Tapas bar
until what remained of the family was safely back in the apartment.

Just "purporting" obviously !

Further to the case of the child in the bath mentioned by Bridget O'Donnell - and which has been confirmed already - the child in the garden probably is the dreadful case of Sophie Hook.

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

I am trying to find a link to the other case about a child left at a petrol station. If it's the one I'm thinking of, it happened within days of the case of the child in the bath and the attacker was known to the mother.

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

This is the one I was thinking of but it doesn't seem to involve a petrol station.

I don't think it's ever been explained how the bath attacker knew that the child was there and gained access so I surmise that he too was connected to the family.

tigger wrote:

Portia wrote:Quite

But how do we explain that the T7 deliberately left the Mecs out at the seaside, and all joined up there at the beach restaurant?
Why on earth would that have happened?

I'm trying to make sense of this particular theory, I believe that as early as the 29th/30th something already had happened and solutions were being found.

Your post fits that theory just fine. the preparations for the 'abduction' that evening. Not the only indication by far.
They didn't have lunch with the others all week either.

Thank you for the Bronzini, forgotten the girl's name just  now: Isabella?

Spot on: 'Bia', 5 yr old daughter of Cosimo de' Medici.
She was bound to be married off, and this portrait served as a teaser to possible interested grooms; but she died before she could be trotted out to anyone

PeterMac wrote:

Portia wrote:. . .But how do we explain that the T7 deliberately left the Mecs out at the seaside, the last afternoon, and all joined up there at the beach restaurant?
Why on earth would that have happened?
Why did they turn their backs on the Mecs, why did they shirk from them; the very day their child went missing (with hindsight)
Why did the T7 distance themselves from the Mecs, hours before the event?

Or the other way round ?
The Tapas group were 'sent' to the Paraiso, to parade in front of the cameras, and to do nothing else,
so that the absence of Madeleine during that day could not be commented on by anyone.
Which leaves ony the McCanns able to state that Madeleine was there.
But then in true blundering Mitchell fashion they try to augment that with the nonsense about the Last Photo
and try to show that the time and date 'proves' she was alive and well at lunchtime.
In fact, as we know, it does no such thing.
Mitchell was involved, so it has been scrutinised al the more carefully
The time and date shown merely indicates that it has been changed.
The weather shown on the Last Photo can ONLY relate to the Sunday.
They arrived too late on the Saturday, and by Monday the weather had closed in and did not improve until Friday.

So back to the Paraiso, the Tapas group HAD to be kept out of the loop that whole day, and could not be allowed to be in the area of the Tapas bar
until what remained of the family was safely back in the apartment.

Just "purporting" obviously !

OT: just look at the DM today, coming down on the Greens in Brighton;
who pays the piper, or the ferryman?

tigger wrote:Sorry, I'm not convinced. jW never made a documentary on the case,  Bridget was down there to start an estate agency and managed to get just one article published.
They DID complain that the McCanns were unnecessarily insistent on the time. That's on record.

I don't feel  you've answered my arguments at all. Imo it is rather a stretch to imagine - presumably - a very recently deceased child was transported in a pram. So did Gerry contact JW during the afternoon?  Asking for a small favour?
Because if it wasn't done that day, are you suggesting that there was a plot to kill M and have handy media people along to lend a hand?
So he didn't really need Murat and Murat came over in a hurry for no reason?
Would JW have been part of the swinging group as well?  
In the short time available that afternoon, a safe hiding place was found?  Or was this all planned and the fold-up pram taken along on purpose?

Ps: as I'm poking this out on an iPad, this came after the post before.
the relationship MO/JW is purely subjective reasoning imo. I get the impression that the T 7 cooperated in the circus because they were made to do so. Made them look better and at the sametimethe reconstruction was changed to fit the McC story.
So TM could construct a visual version of their very own truth and tell the world there was a reconstruction. Etc.   

I'm not particularly suggesting anything. The pram just jumped out at me, that's all. Mainly because Jane Tanner makes quite a big deal about it in the Madeleine was Here reconstruction. Plus Jez definitely describes it as a pram in his witness statement whereas Kate calls it a buggy. These details matter. They are important as this is clearly a key encounter at a crucial time, whatever its significance. 

It just got me thinking that a pram would be a good way to conceal evidence, that's all. 

In any case, I still think it is possible that there was a plan for Madeleine to be removed alive from the apartment. 

I don't feel  you've answered my arguments at all. Imo it is rather a stretch to imagine - presumably - a very recently deceased child was transported in a pram. 


I wasn't aware I was under any obligation to answer anyone's arguments!!!  Unfortunately I'm not been paid to do this. Even though I have contributed in taxes to the £10 million that has been spent of tax payers money to supposedly 'find out' what happened to Madeleine.

I am simply suggesting that a pram, or a covered buggy, might be a handy way to remove incriminating evidence of some sort.

j.rob
1] you have to be very close or involved to do that
2) MO = Matt Oldfield, not Matt O'Brien [that's Russell].

Sorry to be brief.
Have a flu and a fever :-(

Given that Gerry who, in my opinion, is one of the chief suspects, bumps into someone that he already knows - Jez - on the evening of the alleged disappearance of Madeleine, then Jez is a crucial witness. The nature of the relationship between Jez Wilkins, his partner Bridget O'connell and the McCanns and their friends is obviously highly relevant.

Is he a completely independent witness or could there be some bias? The eulogizing article written by Bridget O'Connell suggest that, she, in any case, is not looking at Madeleine's disappearance with any objectivity.

I am not necessarily suggesting that Jez was there specifically to be an alibi - I am simply saying that he did provide a good alibi. And I do think it is a little odd that he was woken up at 1pm but did not join the searches.

Plus I think some of the things Bridget wrote were weird - such as the link between Madeleine having been missing 3 hours and Jez being told there was nothing he could do. 

I am just curious how long Bridget worked on Crimewatch and how many cases of children being abducted by strangers she covered because statistically it is pretty rare.

And given the very high level of media interest in this case from the very beginning, encouraged by Gerry McCann and his friends, it is quite a coincidence that a former Crimewatch BBC Producer and a Film Maker (of quite sensationalist type documentaries) were in the same place at the same time. And not only that - one of them also saw Gerry on the night of the disappearance.

Plus Bridget talks about how Madeleine must have been in the kids club but she didn't recognize her as there were about 10 blonde pretty girls who all looked the same.

It's just baffling how all those people with all those children just happened not to see Madeleine all that time, or take a photo or her, or ANYTHING.