A Dissection of the EBook about the McCanns

panda thanks love for updates of this book

off topic from me - i have been bought as a prezzie a kindle -not used it much so how can i get this e book ?

cass wrote:panda thanks love for updates of this book

off topic from me - i have been bought as a prezzie a kindle -not used it much so how can i get this e book ?

Hi Cass...youv'e asked the right one   Someone on here will know but I think you can download it from the blog link. The link is on here, if you can't find it I will post it.

 panda im trying to get to grips with that kindle thing grrr anyway thanks i will make a thread on another section - and i can just about get around the comp too  

This bit cracked me up, Page 84...

"Although Jane had never seen or known about Madeleine's Eeyore pyjamas , her description of this child's night clothes - light coloured pink or WHITE
with a trailing or frloral pattern and turnups on the bottom- matched Madeleine's almost exactly."

BBC Crimewatch recorded in PDL 4th June 2007 , televised 5th June 2007 ( I don't remember seeing this one)

Fiona Bruce (to Camera) It's 33 days since little Madeleine McCann disappeared from PDL in Portugal , her Parents, Gerry and Kate, plead for your help
in the hunt for their Daughter.

GERRY McCann " For the Crimewatch viewers at home I think this would be a good time now to review all the information.

Kate McCann : These are virtually identical to the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken. As you can see it's a pink top , errm....with gathered short sleeves and it has a picture of Eeyore on the front. Errr, the bottoms are white with a ...a floral design and have an Eeyore , ermmm......on the right leg.

This must have been reviewed and the email from John Buck to the Foreign Office not to get too involved with the McCanns because their timelines did not match was a direct alarm bell, yet Redwood overlooked this in the Review and never brought the Tapas group in for questioning before he asked for an Investigation.???

Panda wrote:This bit cracked me up, Page 84...

"Although Jane had never seen or known about Madeleine's Eeyore pyjamas , her description of this child's night clothes  - light coloured pink or WHITE
with a trailing or frloral pattern and turnups on the bottom- matched Madeleine's almost exactly."

BBC Crimewatch recorded in PDL 4th June 2007 , televised 5th June 2007 ( I don't remember seeing this one)

Fiona Bruce (to Camera) It's 33 days since little Madeleine McCann disappeared from PDL in Portugal , her Parents, Gerry and Kate, plead for your help
in the hunt for their Daughter.

GERRY McCann  " For the Crimewatch viewers at home I think this would be a good time now to review all the information.

Kate McCann :    These are virtually identical to the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken. As you can see it's a pink top , errm....with gathered short sleeves and it has a picture of Eeyore on the front. Errr, the bottoms are white with a ...a floral design and have an Eeyore , ermmm......on the right leg.

This must have been reviewed and the email from John Buck to the Foreign Office not to get too involved with the McCanns because their timelines did not match was a direct alarm bell, yet Redwood overlooked this in the Review and never brought the Tapas group in for questioning before he asked for an Investigation.???

I thought that was the most amazing coincidence, what with Jane never having seen Maddie's pjs. Of course David Payne had seen them, and by the time Jane talked to Kate abut this incident the description of Maddie and what she was wearing would have been all over the grapevine.

The pj's on the kid who was actually the daughter of Not Bundleman, the Brit who came forward and said this was me - were SIMILAR from the knee down in that they were clingy and had a turn up and had detail on them. However, they were green not white. But in that pitch dark I'm surprised she saw anything of detail and probably filled in the rest because they were all so sure that that was Maddie's kidnapper being witnessed.

Just going in to Kate's book to re read this bit; it's so good of her to not blame Jane for witnessing the abduction and failing to rescue Maddie while her father stood there chatting up Jez - Kate was grateful because it gave us something to go on, it meant that Maddie hadn't disappeared into thin air, it proved there was an abduction and now they could find that person etc. Not.

To cap it all, there was a programme , Panorama, on the BBC a couple of years after Madeleine went missing and Jane said " I know what I saw" for the World to see and hear , how must she feel now that her "sighting" has been discounted., especially among family and friends.

wonder how the tapas buddies feel now jt must think they have thrown her under a bus - not in real terms

widowan wrote:so you think he wasn't even in the apt? He'd only been to the front door area, to listen at that window?

Which is the short cut - why would you go round to the front if it's further?

Because the patio doors were LOCKED?

If you read G McCann statements during the day(s) Kate and kids had to stand outside the LOCKED patio door until GM had gone around to the LOCKED front door and gone through apartment to UNLOCK patio door from INSIDE to let KM and kids in.

So if you believe the McCanns they LOCK up the apartment, front and back (patio) during the DAY when they and the kids were NOT there, but leave the apartment UNLOCKED at NIGHT when the kids were in there all alone!

http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/mpjf/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
After 17H30 they went to the apartment, the deponent having entered by the main door, which he did not lock while he was inside the residence. KATE and the children entered by the rear door, after this had been opened from the inside by the deponent.

At 12h30 they started lunch, the meal having lasted an hour until 13h30. After that time they made their way to the resort play area, the deponent left by the front door and the rest of the family by the rear door that, once again, he shut and locked from the inside. As to the front door, he does not know exactly if he locked it.

He is sure that they always entered through the front door, not knowing [how] to show [demonstrate] that they locked it with a key

cass wrote:wonder how the tapas buddies feel now jt must think they have thrown her under a bus - not in real terms

maybe she's told everything to the PJ in return for the favour. :-0

I see this another way. I always thought Jane was lying, her panorama interview was bizarre with the inappropriate smiling and what not. But it seems she DID know what she saw - the Crimewatch showe the guy fitting into her description like a glove in the clothes he said were like the ones he was wearing. She saw a man carrying a child, she didn't see an abductor, but she did see the guy. So I have to apologize in my head to her for thinking she was a nut case or as she put it a fantasist. She wasn't.

The only thing she got wrong, in the dark of night, was the color of the pajama bottoms as he moved out of her view.

I will give her that small discrepancy because once she knew Maddie's pj description that could fit into your head as "what I saw" given the bad lighting, the distance, the dark.

It wasn't her who insisted that efit be shown to every newspaper as the actual abductor. The friends were asked to be quiet and let the machine run, and they did, mostly.

Their preconceived notions and guess work and prejudice against the PJ and their own guilt and need to expiate that by helping "solve" the crime threw them. The Secretive Seven...

jeanmonroe wrote:

widowan wrote:so you think he wasn't even in the apt? He'd only been to the front door area, to listen at that window?

Which is the short cut - why would you go round to the front if it's further?

Because the patio doors were LOCKED?

If you read G McCann statements during the day(s) Kate and kids had to stand outside the LOCKED patio door until GM had gone around to the LOCKED front door and gone through apartment to UNLOCK patio door from INSIDE to let KM and kids in.

So if you believe the McCanns they LOCK up the apartment, front and back (patio) during the DAY when they and the kids were NOT there, but leave the apartment UNLOCKED at NIGHT when the kids were in there all alone!

That doesn't make sense does it... but maybe the day Mrs Fenn saw Kate standing out there was early in the visit and they later "felt it was so safe" and so inconvenient to keep it locked, that they decided to leave that back patio door open.

The locked doors though meant the burglar had to get in the window, which did not happen without scraping even a scrap off moss off the sill unless the guy was like Ocean's Eleven Chinese gymnast. So that's out.

I think they did leave the door unlocked and didn't want to admit this because it made them look negligent. In the Crimewatch I can't recall if they show people taking their keys with them to do the checks but they had Kate going thru the patio doors which only unlock from inside.

It all depends on what you think they are lying about.

I think it is all academic now, it seems both SY and Oportos' enquiries are about ABDUCTION.!!!

A Portugese Journalist has just been interviewed and said in the beginning there were 100 Policemen involved in the search for Madeleine , now there are 4 more specialised Officers . They are no way connected to the SY investigation but the Attorney Genereal in Portugal needed their evidence to give the go-ahead., not the SY . Whatever they have come up with it is NOT the same as SY.

Panda wrote:I think it is all academic now, it seems both SY and Oportos' enquiries are about ABDUCTION.!!!  

A Portugese Journalist has just been interviewed and said in the beginning there were 100 Policemen involved in the search for Madeleine , now there are 4 more specialised Officers . They are no way connected to the SY investigation but the Attorney Genereal in Portugal needed their evidence to give the go-ahead., not the SY . Whatever they have come up with it is NOT the same as SY.

Abduction doesn't have to be by a stranger - removal by a family member can also be abduction.

jassi wrote:

Panda wrote:I think it is all academic now, it seems both SY and Oportos' enquiries are about ABDUCTION.!!!  

A Portugese Journalist has just been interviewed and said in the beginning there were 100 Policemen involved in the search for Madeleine , now there are 4 more specialised Officers . They are no way connected to the SY investigation but the Attorney Genereal in Portugal needed their evidence to give the go-ahead., not the SY . Whatever they have come up with it is NOT the same as SY.

Abduction doesn't have to be by a stranger - removal by a family member can also be abduction.

Agreed. There is family abduction (the majority of the cases involving toddlers) and stranger abduction (very rare, nearly always teen or pre-teen girls). Based on statistics alone, it is quite obvious which is most likely.

jassi wrote:

Panda wrote:I think it is all academic now, it seems both SY and Oportos' enquiries are about ABDUCTION.!!!  

A Portugese Journalist has just been interviewed and said in the beginning there were 100 Policemen involved in the search for Madeleine , now there are 4 more specialised Officers . They are no way connected to the SY investigation but the Attorney Genereal in Portugal needed their evidence to give the go-ahead., not the SY . Whatever they have come up with it is NOT the same as SY.

Abduction doesn't have to be by a stranger - removal by a family member can also be abduction.

Hi jassi, surely that is only in a case where either the father or the mother wants the child back.? I think this thread ought to be put in the sky News thread, it was only because i was just about to post on the Buzzard thread and the news turned to the McCanns on sky

widowan wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:

widowan wrote:so you think he wasn't even in the apt? He'd only been to the front door area, to listen at that window?

Which is the short cut - why would you go round to the front if it's further?

Because the patio doors were LOCKED?

If you read G McCann statements during the day(s) Kate and kids had to stand outside the LOCKED patio door until GM had gone around to the LOCKED front door and gone through apartment to UNLOCK patio door from INSIDE to let KM and kids in.

So if you believe the McCanns they LOCK up the apartment, front and back (patio) during the DAY when they and the kids were NOT there, but leave the apartment UNLOCKED at NIGHT when the kids were in there all alone!

That doesn't make sense does it... but maybe the day Mrs Fenn saw Kate standing out there was early in the visit and they later "felt it was so safe" and so inconvenient to keep it locked, that they decided to leave that back patio door open.

The locked doors though meant the burglar had to get in the window, which did not happen without scraping even a scrap off moss off the sill unless the guy was like Ocean's Eleven Chinese gymnast. So that's out.

I think they did leave the door unlocked and didn't want to admit this because it made them look negligent. In the Crimewatch I can't recall if they show people taking their keys with them to do the checks but they had Kate going thru the patio doors which only unlock from inside.

It all depends on what you think they are lying about.

 
 
I also believe that the patio doors were locked. They only became unlocked in order to facilitate the abduction because there was no sign of forced entry. Unlocking the back door only saved them a very small amount of time during a check (which were conducted so rarely anyway). Would that minimal amount of time savings be worth putting your children at risk? Of course not! Listening services are always conducted with locked doors on a secure facility. What they were allegedly doing could not have even come close to a listening service if the doors were unlocked.

This is getting out of hand , I have just copied and pasted my post on to the pennylane thread , can you do the same with your posts and and replies from there.?

Thanks, there is more I need to add on here relating to the Book.

jinvvta that is also my understanding. the door was initially locked, but then there was a need for a way in and a way out and so the patio door became unlocked.

tanszi wrote:jinvvta that is also my understanding.  the door was initially locked, but then there was a need for a way in and a way out and so the patio door became unlocked.

the window was open, that was the way in, right? what made them change? Amaral did not tell them that the window showed no sign of being the entry point or did he? At that point still trying to get a straight answer out of them and bemused rather than suspicious?

JANE HILL BBC NEWS


And some of that support has translated into a lot of money that's gone into the fighting fund, I think nearly £300,000 has been pledged so far. What of the reports that say, perhaps ...those people who suggest that some of that money could be sensibly spent on things like private investigators, for example.

GERRY McCann Well, you know, the fund errm ...was really ...really evolved to provide an outlet for people who wanted to contribute financially and these offers , errm...will help us and are helping us to bring in a comprehensive legal team and independent sector, errr...consultants as to what we could and should be doing . I did address this and the situation hasn't changed that, at this time , with the huge amount of resource from the Police errr...both in the U.K. and Portugal that the is THAT PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS WILL NOT HELP . I personally , e, believe that it's the public who hold the key to this: someone knows something and we would urge that if anyone has any information to come forward and anyone who's been in this area , within the two weeks leading up to Madeleine,s disappearance , to come forward if they havn,t already done so and upload those pictures.

hiya widowan, I think it became obvious that if the window was used, the shutters would need to be open or opened and Mark Warner confirmed that the shutters weren't jemmied or broken, as was the difficulty of getting out of the window holding a child. so a new way of entering and exiting had to be found. I think questioning lead to this new entrance and exit. jimo

Panda wrote:JANE HILL BBC NEWS


And some of that support has translated into a lot of money that's gone into the fighting fund, I think nearly £300,000 has been pledged so far. What of the reports that say, perhaps ...those people who suggest that some of that money could be sensibly spent on things like private investigators, for example.

GERRY McCann  Well, you know, the fund errm ...was really ...really evolved to provide an outlet for people who wanted to contribute financially  and these offers , errm...will help us and are helping us to bring in a comprehensive legal team and independent sector, errr...consultants as to what we could and should be doing . I did address this and the situation hasn't changed that, at this time , with the huge amount of resource from the Police errr...both in the U.K. and Portugal that the is THAT PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS WILL NOT HELP . I personally , e, believe that it's the public who hold the key to this: someone knows something and we would urge that if anyone has any information to come forward and anyone who's been in this area , within the two weeks leading up to Madeleine,s disappearance , to come forward if they havn,t already done so and upload those pictures.

err... we're keepin it. To help us. Lawyers and consultants?

His argument about libel was that the book of Amaral "forced" them to use the Fund for lawyers and harmed the search.

he says in an earlier interview that their "benefactors" paid for the lawyers so the Fund was used entirely for the search.

Now, they will not need to have detectives and searches since the kindly taxpayers of the UK and Portugal are funding that - so all the money that comes in from people who "want to contribute" after being asked repeatedly can be used for the legal TEAM.

Why do you need a legal team to find Madeleine?

Round and round we go,

we're keeping it.

tanszi wrote:hiya widowan, I think it became obvious that if the window was used, the shutters would need to be open or opened and Mark Warner confirmed that the shutters weren't jemmied or broken, as was the difficulty of getting out of the window holding a child.  so a new way of entering and exiting had to be found.  I think questioning lead to this new entrance and exit. jimo

Gerry's sister said the shutters were jimmied, that may have been her assumption - any proof Gerry told her that? He may well have implied it.

I would agree that carefully pointing out to them that the shutters and window sill were unmarked would leave it quite obvious no one came in or out that way.

They could have handed MM out without disturbing the moss I suppose but that still leaves them a way to get in.

Doors not broken into either means they were unlocked or whoever did it had a key.

They went with we left the doors unlocked, when they could have left it that the person had a key but the idea of someone who had a key arriving to kidnap a child that very night is so unlikely. The "planned abduction" SY suspects would have had to have known before McCanns took up residence that they'd be in that apt or they'd have had to have inside help - they'd need inside help either way unless we want to believe they made a passkey without anyone noticing.

All opinions are equal I guess as we don't know, but mine is that they did leave the door unlocked. is that smart? No. Does it make sense to save five minutes' walk and jeopardize your kids? Maybe - if you didn't think they were in any jeopardy, however, I lock my doors at night and would rather be safe than sorry, lying in bed wondering "what are the odds someone looking to break into a house would hit upon mine" but McCanns knew best how to manage just about everything, in their own opinion - remember Gerry had the epiphany in the church that he was going into a tunnel of light and this was a sign that they should do everything they could on their own to investigate.    People don't change very much and if they think they know it all, they will likely continue to believe that even when their beliefs have been proven to be the very problem (let's disregard the advice of those who DO know about this resort and go ahead and leave the kids unattended).

Does it make sense to leave the kids for 30 or 45 or 90 minutes because you KNOW that they "only" wake up in the wee hours (2-3Am) and never would wake and cry at nine or ten? No. Madeleine had provably done so the very night prior, since she asked them where they were or why they did not come when she cried, and she didn't cry before they left her or after they came back - that only leaves between 830 and 11 the night before!

These people are not rational, they seek to rationalize their behavior but leaving the kids alone at all, never mind locked in (fire?) is not smart. It was a calculated risk as was leaving the door unlocked.

If two national police teams are looking for Madeleine and they have been told nobody is looking at them as having anything to do with it. They won't need a fund at all. Can we take it that the fund will be wound up shortly.

MaryB wrote:If two national police teams are looking for Madeleine and they have been told nobody is looking at them as having anything to do with it.  They won't need a fund at all.  Can we take it that the fund  will be wound up shortly.

Of course not, it will be needed for the libel appeal.