Re: A Dissection of the EBook about the McCanns

**Panda** Tue 22 Oct - 18:57

jassi wrote:
Panda wrote:

If i remember correctly, you live in America widowan don't you? The Crimewatch programme was a dismal failure, and you have to question Redwoods competence. He must have knows an E-fit would not produce anything after over 6 years , he us clutching at straws trying to justify the expenditure and SY manpower over the last 2 + years. Kate has said the Redwood keeps her informed , is that an unbiased investigation. Of course the press joined in the frenzy , it's a bit like the King's new clothes .
That may not be true, but more a case of wishful thinking and keeping up appearances.

Hi jassi, well unless Redwood has an Ace up his sleeve I fail to understand how after years he uses an Efit that he received months ago when he took the Boxes from Metodo 3 and he hs had long enogh now...over 2 yrs, to come up with a better idea than to expect the Public to remember things for 6 yrs ago, most of us can't remember events from 6 months ago.!!! A Dissection of the EBook about the McCanns - Page 6 25346

A Dissection of the EBook about the McCanns - Page 6 25346

**widowan** Tue 22 Oct - 19:12

Why does it put a ? over Redwood's head? Because he ignores the fact that their timelines were drafted to support Bundleman timing - their stories changed not coincidentally but in a way contrived to make bundleman appear to have been the actual abductor - and focuses on the fact that there was, in fact, enough time for an abduction to occur?

I suppose that's right but it's something many suspected all along, that the parents were not covering up a death but their neglect because they weren't actually checking every half hour.

Too late to do much about their neglect, legally - the court of public opinion is different, for those who care to look further than the Mirror's breathless stories about Brave Kate and the Disgraced Amaral - but I think most people would question why you would lie, and why you would think you'd get away with that once never mind twice. They underestimated the PJ, did not work with them but against them, and are unlikely to put themselves in a position of revisiting those discrepancies now that they see what's at stake.

The media in the US has hit a new low, Fox news won a court case that they don't have to tell the truth on air except under oath - journalism is not what it once was, they exist to lead opinion not to report facts, to sell air time and papers, and I'm sure efits of the man/men who took Madeleine McCann would be a big seller. Especially given that unlike McCanns they don't have Carter Ruck working for them to sue anyone who might have a conflicting idea or want to delve deeper, possible suspects are just hung out to dry, never mind their civil rights or the fact that they were not in PT at the time or whatever.

I don't believe the UK gov't gave SY instructions to find McCanns innocent regardless of where the truth leads but a certain amount of prejudice and pride would be involved, under the expectation that surely our top police who have more experience etc would do better than the PJ did.

**widowan** Tue 22 Oct - 19:15

margaret wrote:
widowan wrote:

What efit did they show? Surely not the faked up photo of Jane's abductor - was it the two Scottish paedos? The one on the left looked a lot like Gerry, is that based on Smith sighting? Sorry to ask for the recap but I did not see the show so not sure what efit he showed around.
These ones widowan, it's actually two efits of the same person but it didn't stop them suddenly morphing into two people with the finger being pointed at the two Scottish paedos again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2468557/Good-Samaritan-questioned-Maddie-police-pair-paedophiles-let-live-home-released-prison.html

I don't get it. redwood says Tanner's sighting was of a dad carrying his kid back from crèche but they still use the same efit - fitting the description of the person she saw - knowing that? That does make him look not too organized nor clever. We're still looking for the baggy jacket, the chinos of Bundleman-?

**widowan** Tue 22 Oct - 19:18

They must know who this person or people are if they know they're Scots. So that should be pretty easy to find out where they were that night. ?

**Lioned** Tue 22 Oct - 19:20

Panda wrote:

Right....back on topic , do you think the buzzards are circling and why.

No Buzzards

Scotland Yard have found nothing new and what 'Inspector' in his right mind releases two completely different e fits of the same suspect.

Scotland Yard are not capable of solving a complex crime.

**widowan** Tue 22 Oct - 20:17

They don't appear to be if they don't query the fact that jane put Madeleine's pajamas including the pink flowers and lace turn ups on a child that was someone else's child, in the arms of a guy who was her father and who also is identified so what is the point of showing his dark hair and clothing, when we are no longer looking for this man?

**LJC** Tue 22 Oct - 20:57

widowan wrote:
margaret wrote:
widowan wrote:

What efit did they show? Surely not the faked up photo of Jane's abductor - was it the two Scottish paedos? The one on the left looked a lot like Gerry, is that based on Smith sighting? Sorry to ask for the recap but I did not see the show so not sure what efit he showed around.
These ones widowan, it's actually two efits of the same person but it didn't stop them suddenly morphing into two people with the finger being pointed at the two Scottish paedos again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2468557/Good-Samaritan-questioned-Maddie-police-pair-paedophiles-let-live-home-released-prison.html
I don't get it. redwood says Tanner's sighting was of a dad carrying his kid back from crèche but they still use the same efit - fitting the description of the person she saw - knowing that? That does make him look not too organized nor clever. We're still looking for the baggy jacket, the chinos of Bundleman-?

Hi Widowan, nice to hear from you again. A Dissection of the EBook about the McCanns - Page 6 306321

You probably know by now, but the original drawing of a man carrying a child was only shown on Crimewatch for continuity purposes, but you are right, it is this sighting that has been put aside, as the guy eventually came forward to say he thinks its him as he had a child in the creche and also says he was wearing similar clothes and his hair is dark. SY even had photos of him posing in similar clothes, sideways on with his face blurred to protect his ID.

The other two faces, although one and the same person, is from the Smith sighting and looks like Gerry, but being hopefully spun by our media into two Scottish paedos - how convenient for Gerry, who happens to be Scottish too though.

Redwood, imo, was not ruling anybody in or out and I would not be fooled by his courteous way of talking about the McCanns either - how else can he address them at this stage?

He has also cast aside Matt Oldfield's 9.30 check, which discredits MO imo because the reconstruction simply shows him saying "All quiet" to Kate back at the restaurant and, reading between the lines, Redwood is as much as saying MO didn't go inside the apartment at 9.30; therefore children left from 9.15 until 10pm with no supervision.

**Panda** Tue 22 Oct - 21:00

Lioned wrote:
Panda wrote:

Right....back on topic , do you think the buzzards are circling and why.
No Buzzards

Scotland Yard have found nothing new and what 'Inspector' in his right mind releases two completely different e fits of the same suspect.

Scotland Yard are not capable of solving a complex crime.

Cameron had the nerve to announce in Parliament that he was pleased with the investigation !!! What happened to investigative journalism, Lioned???
I would have had more respectfor him if he had taken the reins and said the investigation has not produced any fresh leads and he had ordered it to be closed in view of the cost.

**LJC** Tue 22 Oct - 21:09

There was alot that was unsaid in the reconstruction.

The problem I have with Tanner's sighting is that she went from seeing no face to agreeing it could be Robert Murat and then went so far as to say RM had been hanging around the complex that night and she and other tapas friends had seen him lurking, etc. That, in turn, led the PJ to RM and he was turned inside out because of it. PJ were led on a wild goose chase, which took alot of their manpower; they were investigating him for several weeks plus his associates which meant they were spread so thinly they struggled perhaps to look at other aspects of the investigation which is reason why, I believe, other parents picking up children from the creche were not looked at closely enough. Shame, because now SY have found this person after so long but PJ didn't.

Anyway, it blows the whole thing open because SY are saying 9.15 to 10pm no proper checks on children due to Matt Oldfield only listening and nothing more.

This is what many of us have said here on this forum but SY had to find the concrete proof of it rather than speculating as we have. I do wonder if Matt Oldfield has been more truthful with SY at long last.

**margaret** Tue 22 Oct - 21:10

LJC wrote:

You probably know by now, but the original drawing of a man carrying a child was only shown on Crimewatch for continuity purposes, but you are right, it is this sighting that has been put aside, as the guy eventually came forward to say he thinks its him as he had a child in the creche and also says he was wearing similar clothes and his hair is dark. SY even had photos of him posing in similar clothes, sideways on with his face blurred to protect his ID.

Because we all remember what we were wearing one night 6 years ago and we still have them in our wardrobes! They even had a photo of the 'child's pyjamas'. A Dissection of the EBook about the McCanns - Page 6 678246

A Dissection of the EBook about the McCanns - Page 6 678246

Funny how bundle man and smith man were wearing beige trousers and brown jackets too.

I hope Redwood knows what he's doing because it looks daft from here!

**LJC** Tue 22 Oct - 21:18

margaret wrote:
LJC wrote:

You probably know by now, but the original drawing of a man carrying a child was only shown on Crimewatch for continuity purposes, but you are right, it is this sighting that has been put aside, as the guy eventually came forward to say he thinks its him as he had a child in the creche and also says he was wearing similar clothes and his hair is dark. SY even had photos of him posing in similar clothes, sideways on with his face blurred to protect his ID.
Because we all remember what we were wearing one night 6 years ago and we still have them in our wardrobes! They even had a photo of the 'child's pyjamas'.

Funny how bundle man and smith man were wearing beige trousers and brown jackets too.

I hope Redwood knows what he's doing because it looks daft from here!

Not necessarily Margaret. I said on another thread that my husband hoardes clothes from years ago and then we have holiday photos too and I could very easily say, oh I know what my husband was wearing that night in Menorca or Gran Canaria because he travels so lightly on holiday, tends to only take one jacket and a couple of pairs of trousers, so I could easily say he was wearing this garment at that location which took place that month in that year.

Apart from the McCanns, most of us do take photos on holiday and I have plenty to show with hubby pretty much wearing the same jackets and trousers every night of the week, but obviously different shirts and clean underwear A Dissection of the EBook about the McCanns - Page 6 25346

**margaret** Tue 22 Oct - 21:43

Well naturally LJC A Dissection of the EBook about the McCanns - Page 6 294124

**widowan** Tue 22 Oct - 22:07

LJC wrote:
widowan wrote:
margaret wrote:
widowan wrote:

What efit did they show? Surely not the faked up photo of Jane's abductor - was it the two Scottish paedos? The one on the left looked a lot like Gerry, is that based on Smith sighting? Sorry to ask for the recap but I did not see the show so not sure what efit he showed around.
These ones widowan, it's actually two efits of the same person but it didn't stop them suddenly morphing into two people with the finger being pointed at the two Scottish paedos again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2468557/Good-Samaritan-questioned-Maddie-police-pair-paedophiles-let-live-home-released-prison.html
I don't get it. redwood says Tanner's sighting was of a dad carrying his kid back from crèche but they still use the same efit - fitting the description of the person she saw - knowing that? That does make him look not too organized nor clever. We're still looking for the baggy jacket, the chinos of Bundleman-?
Hi Widowan, nice to hear from you again.

You probably know by now, but the original drawing of a man carrying a child was only shown on Crimewatch for continuity purposes, but you are right, it is this sighting that has been put aside, as the guy eventually came forward to say he thinks its him as he had a child in the creche and also says he was wearing similar clothes and his hair is dark. SY even had photos of him posing in similar clothes, sideways on with his face blurred to protect his ID.

The other two faces, although one and the same person, is from the Smith sighting and looks like Gerry, but being hopefully spun by our media into two Scottish paedos - how convenient for Gerry, who happens to be Scottish too though.

Redwood, imo, was not ruling anybody in or out and I would not be fooled by his courteous way of talking about the McCanns either - how else can he address them at this stage?

He has also cast aside Matt Oldfield's 9.30 check, which discredits MO imo because the reconstruction simply shows him saying "All quiet" to Kate back at the restaurant and, reading between the lines, Redwood is as much as saying MO didn't go inside the apartment at 9.30; therefore children left from 9.15 until 10pm with no supervision.

Hi LJC I've missed the forum but thought I would come back in and check when the trial was on, and am glad I did.

I wonder if saying that here are pictures of two Scots might be not so good for Gerry McCann. Because his accent would be the same or quite similar. So if anyone hear anything - that is a tough accent to fake, it's quite distinctive. say if someone said hello and he said anything back. they are signaling that someone with a Scottish accent might have been involved, even if saying for the camera "but we think the parents are innocent" -

I do think Redwood discredits not only MO but all of them if they are, and I think they were, consciously or not, trying to fit what they "firmly believed" according to Gerry's interview - was the case, that the guy jane saw was the abductor taking Maddie. Which means that he doesn't believe about the checking.

that being so why would he believe Gerry went inside either, the bar had a restroom - although I suppose if you are taking the short way to the check and that is through the open door why not pop in, I prefer to use my own bathroom rather than a public one if it's available, just for privacy and sanitation.

However if MO is faking his check to be inside the house, to make it seem safer, then why not believe Gerry was doing the same - or even if he went in, that he only listened at the door - would you risk waking the children if you heard nothing? Why not say it could have been any time after they left at 830 until they sounded the alarm at 10 - or Mrs Carpenter heard someone calling madeleine, at 930. It's still an hour window at least, plenty of time for an abduction to take place provided someone were watching and knew their lackadaisical routine of leaving the kids alone.

**widowan** Tue 22 Oct - 22:12

LJC wrote:
margaret wrote:
LJC wrote:

You probably know by now, but the original drawing of a man carrying a child was only shown on Crimewatch for continuity purposes, but you are right, it is this sighting that has been put aside, as the guy eventually came forward to say he thinks its him as he had a child in the creche and also says he was wearing similar clothes and his hair is dark. SY even had photos of him posing in similar clothes, sideways on with his face blurred to protect his ID.
Because we all remember what we were wearing one night 6 years ago and we still have them in our wardrobes! They even had a photo of the 'child's pyjamas'.

Funny how bundle man and smith man were wearing beige trousers and brown jackets too.

I hope Redwood knows what he's doing because it looks daft from here!
Not necessarily Margaret. I said on another thread that my husband hoardes clothes from years ago and then we have holiday photos too and I could very easily say, oh I know what my husband was wearing that night in Menorca or Gran Canaria because he travels so lightly on holiday, tends to only take one jacket and a couple of pairs of trousers, so I could easily say he was wearing this garment at that location which took place that month in that year.

Apart from the McCanns, most of us do take photos on holiday and I have plenty to show with hubby pretty much wearing the same jackets and trousers every night of the week, but obviously different shirts and clean underwear

I couldn't tell you what I wore to work yesterday but I think on holiday I could do it, because of the photos. With digital camera and no one having to be canny about how much film they will pay to have developed like in the bad old days of film canisters, people take lots of photos and did in 2007 as well. I too pack lightly in that case - and they were possibly thinking tennis gear, bathing suits, something nice to wear to dinner, you don't have to take a lot because the rooms had washing machines so you could pack for a week in a small bag and recycle the horrible cropped trousers that even men seem to wear nowadays, and the cargo pants.

Speaking of small bags, and holiday photos I wonder if anything came out about missing tennis bags what with the dog alert in the closet and so on. A keen tennis player would take his own racquet and not rent, it's something personal. But maybe I'm getting off topic with that.

**widowan** Tue 22 Oct - 22:29

wjk wrote:Yep. I do get the feeling she isn't that close to her mother. Its just her dad, I wonder if she would want to leave him?
But you could right. A fresh start and all that.

Having your mum say "How could you be so stupid?" vs Trish and Philamena with their "Shutters were jimmied, and police dogs aren't Lassie, the police are rubbish" kind of total, uncritical support, it doesn't sound like Mrs Healy is as "supportive" or maybe just more honest than Gerry's sisters. We often marry people who are like our parents... in both good and bad ways.

Kate would be saying those same critical things to herself but having her mother echo it - IN THE PRESS- would not sit too well, given the kind of stories they wanted to be put out there all focused not on blame after the fact and "hindsight" but on Finding the Abductor.

I think no matter how upset and disgusted her mum was with kate at that time, that is her daughter and they are probably still close. Gerry and Kate appear to be still together although the recent photos of her she does reflect being under a tremendous strain which would make your mom, no matter what else she thinks, pity you terribly, but that is one person who would be counted on to say "she has suffered enough" - although I think the marriage would be negatively impacted.

They have a lot to stay together for, in either case, if Maddie was abducted, or if not. With the libel trial you put your game face on as a team. If they lose it maybe cracks will begin to show, or if this investigation goes nowhere or goes anywhere short of vindication of them - those poor twins.

**widowan** Tue 22 Oct - 22:40

Krisy22 wrote:
widowan wrote:Hi guys, and gals, just checking in; not sure why but I am glad I did.

Something told me to look at Joana Morais and I see that the trial has been going on 7 days now, last day (day 7 of trial) was Oct 8 - I thought you'd be talking about that here but I guess I missed the thread?

Just read the tweets etc from the first 7 days of the libel trial and as expected, McCanns saying it was hurtful and damaging, Amaral's lawyer and others saying it was a good investigation and the book only repeats what's in the now open PJ files and constitutes the theory.

I did note that they had said they had "a few dark days" around the time she was taken but the damage of the book was (according to trish) 100 times worse - what could be worse than having your child kidnapped.

Also saw that they (Team McCann) wanted to bring in the South African with his body finding equipment and had accepted the likelihood of her death early on and that was what convinced the PJ to bring in Eddie and Keela.

And then I saw this:

British detectives launched a fresh investigation into the youngster's disappearance in July this year - two years into a review of the case - and believe she could still be alive.

A new BBC Crimewatch appeal is to be aired on Monday a bid to produce new witnesses.

The appeal will include a reconstruction of the "latest, most detailed understanding" of the events around the time Madeleine went missing.

Scotland Yard has revealed a vast log of mobile phone traffic could be the key to finding out what happened to the girl.

I see Clarrie still launching his "Maddie's in Africa!" type stories to coincide with the days Amaral's team gets to speak, or the papers are doing their thing - but I wondered - could SY be clever in announcing they believe the child is still alive - to get these phone records? Or what's going on with that? Presumably they can get records of the Tapas 9 and anyone else and then see the texts and so on, or at least the records of where everyone was when they were meant to be searching?

I understand from Blacksmith that SY detective has pretty much ruled out the Tanner sighting which puts all the rogatory statements and the written timeline if it was crafted to support Jane's bogus sighting, in a new and unfavorable light...

Widowan is back.

Hi Krisy22

Yes I am back to dip in here and hopefully not become totally immersed because I was spending more time than I should on this but it's easy to get pulled in,, especially with the trial - I just wish we had the same ability to see what is going on that you do

I didn't know Cameron had Murdoch's backing. That man is repulsive and has done more to damage free press and an accountable press than most people will ever admit. There is far too much at stake in the media today with its ability to persuade people of whom to vote for - Murdoch has a real axe to grind just in seeing how much cr@p he can get the public to swallow, so when it's time for him to ply his arts with the next election he knows whom he can count on etc. and who will "owe" their election to him. I will never trust the press again, in the US it's infected as well with Murdoch owning certain channels that are quite blatant about their role. This is big business and part of me feels like the whole McCann saga in the Murdoch owned press is just to show how highly powerful they are - you will never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the general public

**widowan** Tue 22 Oct - 22:59

LJC wrote:There was alot that was unsaid in the reconstruction.

The problem I have with Tanner's sighting is that she went from seeing no face to agreeing it could be Robert Murat and then went so far as to say RM had been hanging around the complex that night and she and other tapas friends had seen him lurking, etc. That, in turn, led the PJ to RM and he was turned inside out because of it. PJ were led on a wild goose chase, which took alot of their manpower; they were investigating him for several weeks plus his associates which meant they were spread so thinly they struggled perhaps to look at other aspects of the investigation which is reason why, I believe, other parents picking up children from the creche were not looked at closely enough. Shame, because now SY have found this person after so long but PJ didn't.

Anyway, it blows the whole thing open because SY are saying 9.15 to 10pm no proper checks on children due to Matt Oldfield only listening and nothing more.

This is what many of us have said here on this forum but SY had to find the concrete proof of it rather than speculating as we have. I do wonder if Matt Oldfield has been more truthful with SY at long last.

That's right, she did agree it could be Murat - had forgotten about him. Yes, no proper checks were done but the parents were informed they were within the bounds of responsible parenting - eh? A Dissection of the EBook about the McCanns - Page 6 87849

A Dissection of the EBook about the McCanns - Page 6 87849

They took what they believed and made the "facts" fit and it happens to better people all the time. we have people on death row in the USA because some prosecutor did the same thing, thank god none of these is in any position to do further harm to innocent people, they will not run out of pedophiles to investigate but that doesn't bother me that much nor will it bother many others - although there is no evidence that a pedophile abducted Madeleine and her mother is quick to point out that there's no proof anything bad happened to her which you'd think abduction by pedophile would fall under that umbrella as a bad thing happening, but you can't really promote that theory and the nothing bad happened to her theory at the same time without some cognitive dissonance.

I guess the fact is that anything could have happened and no one knows what did because the parents were not there at the TIME and that is actually the best spin that can be put on it. The worst case is much worse but any police agency in the world no matter how good has unsolved and cold cases where they suspect someone or even have evidence pointing to that person, but just don't have enough to add up to a conviction if brought to trial.

**Panda** Wed 23 Oct - 7:22

I have been reading some of the EBook, a lot to absorb but this is interesting . The Author is discussing the Twins and how they never woke up even with all the chaos in 5a , moving them in the cold night air to the Payne's Apartment , even Fiona's Mother commented on it.
Quote:-

Levels of sedation are assessed according to the Ramsay Sedation Scale RSS. This was the first scale to be defined for sedated patients and was designed as a test of rousability. The RSS scores sedation at 6 different levels , according to how rousable the patient is. It is an intuitively obvious scale and therefore lends itself to Universal use, not only in the ICU but wherever sedative drugs or narcotics are given." Without typing the scale it is established the twins were on the highest and the Author then points out that Kate and Fiona Payne are qualified anaesthetists.

Why was this never investigated by the Police ??? A blood sample could have been taken and it would be a great feat to expect the abductor to arrive with enough knowledge to sedate all three children, lift Madeleine from her bed and carry her off.

**kitti** Wed 23 Oct - 7:38

In the meredith kercher trial, the bar owner has attended and he has said, Knox is guilty, if she was innocent she would not off implicated ME.

I feel the same as this man, innocent people are innocent and that's that.

Guilty people always try to take away the emphasis from THEM to someone else.

I don't know why they do that because in the end, the police always come back to them....suppose it gives them time, but time for what though, time for confusion?

**Panda** Wed 23 Oct - 7:52

kitti wrote:In the meredith kercher trial, the bar owner has attended and he has said, Knox is guilty, if she was innocent she would not off implicated ME.

I feel the same as this man, innocent people are innocent and that's that.

Guilty people always try to take away the emphasis from THEM to someone else.

I don't know why they do that because in the end, the police always come back to them....suppose it gives them time, but time for what though, time for confusion?

Morning kitti, when the Police arrived they could see the twins were still sleeping , as could Sylvia Batista when she arrived and there were lots of people in 5a contaminating any evidence of an abductor. Gerry was the last person to see Madeleine , why did not the Police organise a blood test on the Twins when they arrived and saw the twins slept through all the commotion. If Madeleine was taken from her bed she would have screamed, loud enough to wake the twins, see what I mean? The Lady upstairs heard nothing that night, neither did anyone else.

jassi Wed 23 Oct - 9:01

Panda wrote:
kitti wrote:In the meredith kercher trial, the bar owner has attended and he has said, Knox is guilty, if she was innocent she would not off implicated ME.

I feel the same as this man, innocent people are innocent and that's that.

Guilty people always try to take away the emphasis from THEM to someone else.

I don't know why they do that because in the end, the police always come back to them....suppose it gives them time, but time for what though, time for confusion?

Morning kitti, when the Police arrived they could see the twins were still sleeping , as could Sylvia Batista when she arrived and there were lots of people in 5a contaminating any evidence of an abductor. Gerry was the last person to see Madeleine , why did not the Police organise a blood test on the Twins when they arrived and saw the twins slept through all the commotion. If Madeleine was taken from her bed she would have screamed, loud enough to wake the twins, see what I mean? The Lady upstairs heard nothing that night, neither did anyone else.

Not quite true. Gerry is the last person who claims to have seen Madeleine. The previous sighting claim is by Payne, though that earlier claim is now being airbrushed out of the story

tigger Wed 23 Oct - 9:29

This statement -keeping in mind that the McCanns and the book iirc 'No press, no press' we said - this is Batista's statement, certainly no fool this woman.

Quote

The deponent recalls that the cots that were used by the babies were placed in the middle of the room and aligned, and therefore she found it strange that someone could have taken Madeleine from the bed where she was sleeping up to the window, because there was no space to get through.

and:

The deponent remained in the living room for a while, with the GNR officers, Gerry and the other group members that were there in a frenzy, going in and out and speaking on their mobile phones.
She noticed that none of the group members, including the child’s mother and father, were busy looking for her. The mother was sitting on the master bedroom’s bed, the father accompanied the deponent and the GNR officers and the other group members walked in and out and spoke on the phone, apparently concerned about informing the press about the event.
Unquote

**Panda** Wed 23 Oct - 9:31

Morning jassi, I have never read that Payne was the last person , he was in the apartment about 6pm , before the McCanns went to the Restaurant at 8.30pm . What is annoying me now is the whitewash Redwood is conducting regarding the McCanns culpability.

**Panda** Wed 23 Oct - 9:36

tigger wrote:This statement -keeping in mind that the McCanns and the book iirc 'No press, no press' we said - this is Batista's statement, certainly no fool this woman.

Quote

The deponent recalls that the cots that were used by the babies were placed in the middle of the room and aligned, and therefore she found it strange that someone could have taken Madeleine from the bed where she was sleeping up to the window, because there was no space to get through.

and:

The deponent remained in the living room for a while, with the GNR officers, Gerry and the other group members that were there in a frenzy, going in and out and speaking on their mobile phones.
She noticed that none of the group members, including the child’s mother and father, were busy looking for her. The mother was sitting on the master bedroom’s bed, the father accompanied the deponent and the GNR officers and the other group members walked in and out and spoke on the phone, apparently concerned about informing the press about the event.
Unquote

Morning tigger, doesn't it make you mad that all this was not investigated at the time???? Had it been , the chances are the Mccanns would be in Prison . Was it a cover-up or incompetence, who knows?

jassi Wed 23 Oct - 9:41

Panda wrote:Morning jassi, I have never read that Payne was the last person , he was in the apartment about 6pm , before the McCanns went to the Restaurant at 8.30pm . What is annoying me now is the whitewash Redwood is conducting regarding the McCanns culpability.

Perhaps I expressed myself badly. Payne was the last one prior to McCann's claim of 9pm ish.

On reflection, I realise that in fact Kate says that she saw Madeleine at 8.30, so I should have said 'except for the parents' in mentioning Payne.

Sponsored content