Evidence Thread

[DavidA]

Do you think this is a good idea? I thought a list of known evidence or facts that support or could support any theory or theories. The idea is that this list is known things, not assumptions.

I chose the word evidence and clues because I think it can be useful to have a place where there is a list of things that are known as fact, although maybe can have different interpretations.

Here is my initial list that I hope others will add to. If anything I (or anyone else) writes that maybe is incorrect, maybe others should say this so it can be corrected.


1) The evidence and indications given by the dogs Eddie and Keera.
2) Gerry's unusually negative attitude on the airport bus at start of family holiday, and the bad language in front of his children, wife and friends, in public.
3) Gerry's started and kept writing the blog from soon after Madeleine's disappearance.
4) Very few photos of Madeleine from the holiday and especially final day.
5) Release of very important final day photo by McCanns over two weeks after event.
6) Gerry and Kate going running every morning covering the same area each day.
7) The report from Mr Smith about seeing a man carrying a child that could have been Gerry.
8) The children left alone again on tapas night even though the MCCanns had been told not to do this by club staff.
9) Because McCann's first TV interview was said to look false, the reason given by McCanns was because experts had told them not to show emotion.
10) Wilcox (first name?) said that he did not see Gerry talking to Jane Tanner at time when Gerry said he was in street talking to her, and when Jane Tanner said she saw man carrying child.
11) Description given by Jane Tanner of man carrying child improved over time.
12) Gerry left Portugal after two weeks to go to UK.


I hope this thread will be helpful. If there is similar thread or this does not fit here, it is ok if any moderator / administrator wants to change this.

I think it could be helpful if others add more evidence, and this thread could be a good reference.

Can I suggest that posts are not quoted, but referred to by page / post number. This makes threads much easier to read when they contain information others will refer to.

[Guest]

Shutters first reported as being jemmied and then later found to have been untouched.

[fred]

The huge rush to get the media in line with the 'abduction' theory!

[kitti]

Gerry sucking on a lollipop and laughing and joking whilst talking about sport whilst waiting for a telephone call from a possible kidnapper.

[comperedna]

David, I spent ages on here querying what is meant by 'evidence'. Evidence on whose terms? What counts as 'evidence'. Who calls it 'evidence' and why? Why is some 'evidence' ruled out of an investigation, and on whose say so? One person's evidence is another's indication merely as to where to look for evidence. This must vary to some extent from country to country.

What are the various types or evidence, and what reliance may be placed on their relative importance, or value towards solving a case? Concrete evidence. Hard Evidence. Expert evidence. Circumstantial evidence. People often think circumstantial evidence is thin evidence, unreliable evidence, or evidence needing to be backed up by forensics, or 'I was there and I saw it evidence'. In fact many convictions have been achieved on circumstantial evidence alone.

There is evidence of identification, which seems pretty important evidence, but so often people can be mistaken as to what or whom they saw! Some types of evidence are allowable in one country, but not in another. In the UK any evidence obtained from any kind of mechanical device to try and find out whether you are lying - ie lie detector tests - are not allowed in court, as they are deemed to be too unreliable. In the US this is not so, and more importance is given to them. The number of correspondences of genetic markers necessary to make a 'match' between a sample and a known person's DNA differs too from country to country... as we know well.

David, your topic is a really important one, and I would be interested to hear what you may have to say on the importance or reliability of different types of evidence. Similarly, I would from other forum members, especially if they have legal or justice dept connections or knowledge.

All of the evidence quoted in the postings so far seems relevant, and important to look at in the case, but can we classify it, and would that help at all?

I fear that in the case we are all interested in there will be piles and piles of 'evidence', but not enough of the right sort to make a case fully watertight in court. The defence always can say... the police bungled it... they messed this up... they contaminated that... they failed to do the other... No case is EVER conducted perfectly, with no errors on the part of the investigators. Moreover, in some cases boxes of tin tacks are spread across the route of the investigation by those who do not wish it to proceed, let alone to succeed!

[DavidA]

Good points comperedna.

Now I have read your post, I think evidence is the wrong word.

I was thinking of things that are facts. Things that we know are true because they happened, or because it is in the files, or because it is recorded.

I was not thinking of only evidence that could be used in a court, or evidence that only point to one theory.

For example, I think evidence / facts that could support abduction are also important.

However, the main reason for this thread was because, for me, the one thing that I see always with this case is the evidence / facts that we see that do not support an abduction theory, and perhaps having all these facts / evidence in one thread can be helpful.

[comperedna]

D'accord, David. One fact that fascinated me was that the McCanns made their own little video section for a Channel 4 programme complete with Kate standing by an open window, curtains blowing inwards, the lot... I watched it with my jaw dropping. They were supposed to be having a scene with some young lass of about M's age taking part in an abduction via that window ... but this bit had to be cancelled for all the reasons most of us can think of. I can't prove the last negative bit, but I watched the other ... amazed!

[DavidA]

Here is an example of what I would consider evidence, because it is a fact. What assumptions we make based on this is a different question.

----- Kate washing the CuddleCat toy after Madeleine's disappearance.

[susible]

Do you think this is a good idea? I thought a list of known evidence or facts that support or could support any theory or theories. The idea is that this list is known things, not assumptions.

I chose the word evidence and clues because I think it can be useful to have a place where there is a list of things that are known as fact, although maybe can have different interpretations.

Here is my initial list that I hope others will add to. If anything I (or anyone else) writes that maybe is incorrect, maybe others should say this so it can be corrected.


1) The evidence and indications given by the dogs Eddie and Keera.
2) Gerry's unusually negative attitude on the airport bus at start of family holiday, and the bad language in front of his children, wife and friends, in public.
3) Gerry's started and kept writing the blog from soon after Madeleine's disappearance.
4) Very few photos of Madeleine from the holiday and especially final day.
5) Release of very important final day photo by McCanns over two weeks after event.
6) Gerry and Kate going running every morning covering the same area each day.
7) The report from Mr Smith about seeing a man carrying a child that could have been Gerry.
8) The children left alone again on tapas night even though the MCCanns had been told not to do this by club staff.
9) Because McCann's first TV interview was said to look false, the reason given by McCanns was because experts had told them not to show emotion.
10) Wilcox (first name?) said that he did not see Gerry talking to Jane Tanner at time when Gerry said he was in street talking to her, and when Jane Tanner said she saw man carrying child.
11) Description given by Jane Tanner of man carrying child improved over time.
12) Gerry left Portugal after two weeks to go to UK.


I hope this thread will be helpful. If there is similar thread or this does not fit here, it is ok if any moderator / administrator wants to change this.

I think it could be helpful if others add more evidence, and this thread could be a good reference.

Can I suggest that posts are not quoted, but referred to by page / post number. This makes threads much easier to read when they contain information others will refer to.

Just a couple of points David involving the "facts" that I've put in bold, I'll paste the line in and add my comments

Gerry's unusually negative attitude on the airport bus at start of family holiday, and the bad language in front of his children, wife and friends, in public
I'm not sure that this counts as evidence or a fact that points to evidence. We all know Gerry is a rude and arrogant man, from what we have subsequently learned, therefore, his behaviour on the bus was just gerry being gerry, it's not really indicative of anything.


The children left alone again on tapas night even though the MCCanns had been told not to do this by club staff
I think that is just hearsay, I don't recall it being in the written record that staff actually spoke to the McCanns, and due to this they were able to rubbish Mrs Fenn's statement about the crying on the 1st, but you may want to add Mrs Fenn as her account is in the police files.

Because McCann's first TV interview was said to look false, the reason given by McCanns was because experts had told them not to show emotion.
Yet again, I don't think it was after the first interview, I know it was commented on at some point, also Kate reckoned at one point that if she had bigger boobs people might think she was more maternal and have a better opinion of her. But like many of the media releases, there are very few that can be attributed to a particular person as they are all quoted as being "a source close to the family" etc, so I don't think they can be classed as facts.

Wilcox (first name?) said that he did not see Gerry talking to Jane Tanner at time when Gerry said he was in street talking to her, and when Jane Tanner said she saw man carrying child


Sorry David, but this "fact" is totally inaccurate. Firstly it is Jeremy (Jez) Wilkins and he gave a statement saying that he was talking to Gerry outside of the apartment at the same time that Jane Tanner allegedly saw the abductor at the top of the road carrying a bundle (later to morph to a man) Both Jez Wilkins and Gerry gave statements about talking outside of the apartment, but whilst Gerry wants to tie it to a specific time to suit his agenda, Jez is a bit more flexible in his time scale, but can't really be sure about the time.

Neither Gerry or Jez claim to have seen Jane Tanner who was across the road in a very narrow street. Notably in the McCanns own reconstruction, Jez contradicted Gerry's statement as to where they were standing, as well as Jane's..Jane cried a bit and then super defective Edgar claimed that it did not matter which side of the road they were on (don't think Jez wilkins was too happy about that and it says a lot about Gerry's agenda to twist the actual facts to suit his own version)

Description given by Jane Tanner of man carrying child improved over time
Well I wouldn't say improved, as although it was devoid of facial features that was carrying a bundle, it then morphed into the George Harrison lookalike carrying a small child wearing pyjamas with a "frill and a pinkish aspect" the George Harrison lookalike was already being touted by a women who saw a man in the resort a couple of weeks before the disappearance and her description matched the morphed Jane tanner one.

Also the pajamas that Madeleine was alleged to be wearing (yet were able to be shown at a future press conference) were described by tanner in her morphed version of the "abductor"

Interesting side note about the pajamas, when David Payne visited the apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared, he described the children as "all dressed in white" though of course we have now been told Madeleine's pajamas were "pinkish"


Sorry to seem like I'm being a nit picker, but as you said in your OP, it's about getting the facts so I think it is important to get it right.

[DavidA]

Just a couple of points David involving the "facts" that I've put in bold, I'll paste the line in and add my comments

Gerry's unusually negative attitude on the airport bus at start of family holiday, and the bad language in front of his children, wife and friends, in public
I'm not sure that this counts as evidence or a fact that points to evidence.  We all know Gerry is a rude and arrogant man, from what we have subsequently learned, therefore, his behaviour on the bus was just gerry being gerry, it's not really indicative of anything.

I would say my statement is evidence or fact because it happened. We know it happened because we saw it. Whether we decide it is important or not is different. I would say 'Gerry being Gerry' and 'not indicative of anything' are assumptions based on the evidence that we saw.

The children left alone again on tapas night even though the MCCanns had been told not to do this by club staff
I think that is just hearsay, I don't recall it being in the written record that staff actually spoke to the McCanns, and due to this they were able to rubbish Mrs Fenn's statement about the crying on the 1st, but you may want to add Mrs Fenn as her account is in the police files.

As far as I know, the club staff reported this. I believe on the 1st they left the children while they went to a restaurant. The report in 2007 was that the club staff actually went looking for the McCanns because they were worried about the children. Maybe this can be confirmed?

However, yes, you are right about Mrs Fenn's account being a fact for sure.

Because McCann's first TV interview was said to look false, the reason given by McCanns was because experts had told them not to show emotion.
Yet again, I don't think it was after the first interview, I know it was commented on at some point, also Kate reckoned at one point that if she had bigger boobs people might think she was more maternal and have a better opinion of her.  But like many of the media releases, there are very few that can be attributed to a particular person as they are all quoted as being "a source close to the family" etc, so I don't think they can be classed as facts.

Not sure here. I remember reading a report about McCanns being asked why they looked unnatural in the first TV interview, and they said experts had told them not to show emotions. Maybe again it needs to be confirmed.[/quote]

Wilcox (first name?) said that he did not see Gerry talking to Jane Tanner at time when Gerry said he was in street talking to her, and when Jane Tanner said she saw man carrying child


Sorry David, but this "fact" is totally inaccurate.  Firstly it is Jeremy (Jez) Wilkins and he gave a statement saying that he was talking to Gerry outside of the apartment at the same time that Jane Tanner allegedly saw the abductor at the top of the road carrying a bundle (later to morph to a man) Both Jez Wilkins and Gerry gave statements about talking outside of the apartment, but whilst Gerry wants to tie it to a specific time to suit his agenda, Jez is a bit more flexible in his time scale, but can't really be sure about the time.  

Neither Gerry or Jez claim to have seen Jane Tanner who was across the road in a very narrow street.  Notably in the McCanns own reconstruction, Jez contradicted Gerry's statement as to where they were standing, as well as Jane's..Jane cried a bit and then super defective Edgar claimed that it did not matter which side of the road they were on (don't think Jez wilkins was too happy about that and it says a lot about Gerry's agenda to twist the actual facts to suit his own version)

Yes, Wilkins. I thought that name did not look right.

You are right about the event, although I believe Gerry did say he saw Jane, but Jeremy could not remember seeing her.

Description given by Jane Tanner of man carrying child improved over time
Well I wouldn't say improved, as although it was devoid of facial features  that was carrying a bundle, it then morphed into the George Harrison lookalike carrying a small child wearing pyjamas with a "frill and a pinkish aspect" the George Harrison lookalike was already being touted by a women who saw a man in the resort a couple of weeks before the disappearance and her description matched the morphed Jane tanner one.

Also the pajamas that Madeleine was alleged to be wearing (yet were able to be shown at a future press conference) were described by tanner in her morphed version of the "abductor"

On this point, based also on what you say, I think my statement is accurate. The description did improve (it became more detailed)

Sorry to seem like I'm being a nit picker, but as you said in your OP, it's about getting the facts so I think it is important to get it right.

Yes of course. No problem.

[susible]

No, Gerry claimed he did not see Jane at all, which given her location, would have been almost impossible if they had all been there at the same time, and of course, only Jane saw the alleged abducter.

I honestly cannot think of written witness statement that claims the McCanns were told by the resort staff not to leave their children, although the crying may have been reported to the Ocean club by either Mrs Fenn or her friend (who she phoned about the crying) but I think that along with the Chaplin's visit has never actually been verified formally

I seem to remember the first ever interview was the one in the early hours of the 4th, in fact I think it was still quite dark, and they did look quite freaked out in that one, but it was not until subsequent interviews with the poker faces and the matter of factness of their approach, that people started questioning them. Yet again, I would be grateful to see the original source myself for the..experts told us baloney.

Unfortunately many things have been whooshed, or where they were attributed to a specific person, the name has been substituted for "source close to family" which is a great get out for them as they can deny ever having said it, and without the video evidence or a directly attributed quote, it just becomes heresay.

Hopefully there is someone on here who can confirm or refute any of the above.

[LJC]

Well, it is a sort of fact, as its well documented, that Gerry was the last person to see Madeleine alive and well in the apartment on the night of 3rd May. It is also accepted by Gerry that he spent rather a long time in the apartment at that time 'going to the toilet' although this is not evidence or fact because there is only Gerry's word on this that he was sitting on the loo.

Also, another sort of fact, is that Tanner and the rest of the group, did/did not see Murat acting suspiciously on the night of 3rd around the apartment area.

Another sort of fact is Smith sighting, but not proved it was Gerry they saw or not proved they saw a bloke abducting a child.

Another sort of fact is the disputed distance between tapas bar and apartment, depending on which side of the fence you are on or which route one takesl

And another sort of fact is the discrepancies inb their checking times, if this has not already been mentioned.

[Sponsored content]