A Dissection of the EBook about the McCanns

Gulp..

kitti wrote:Gulp..

Sorry kitti, I should have waited for the watershed!  

This is another extract from the EBook

" The decision by Clarence Mitchell to give to the Press -after the Rothley Meeting - a version of events which details increasing the vigilance or frequency of the checks seems spectacularly to have backfired on the McCsnns.

It not only draws attention to the paucity of any checks made during the week , but also draws attention to the contents of the statements in which it is clear that even if the McCanns had visitied the apartment was not to look at the children at all.

It seems that only an alleged change in the esoteric detail of the exact angle of the bedroom door caused them, individually, to do so.

It is important to remember that what is apparently to be referred to as "spin" like this was given regulalrly to the press long before either he or the McCanns knew that the original statements woud one day be released for scrutiny by the entire world.

What precisely we are expected to believe is somewhat unclear."

I wonder how the press found out about the secret meeting.


Bet the press know ALOT more too....

kitti wrote:I wonder how the press found out about the secret  meeting.


Bet the press know ALOT more too....

I'm sure they do kitti, but can't print anything in case they are sued for Libel. That Article today in the Express is a p*** taker I'm sure. Do you think we are witnessing the beginning of the end ???

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccann-story-switch-duo-named-519794

On this latest topic I remembered info I had stored ......this is relevant

Panda wrote:

   

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccann-story-switch-duo-named-519794

On this latest topic I remembered info I had stored ......this is relevant

The friends of the McCanns who allegedly want to alter their accounts of the night Madeleine vanished were named yesterday.

Newspaper 24 Horas said Dr Russell O'Brien and his partner Jane Tanner had contacted police to "correct" their statements.

Detectives leading the six month probe into the missing four-year-old said the move could lead to a major breakthrough.

A source was quoted as saying: "The investigation could be changed dramatically if the two witnesses decide to clarify what happened."

The paper said that Dr O'Brien, 36, and Ms Tanner, 37 - part of the socalled Tapas Nine - asked to be seen anonymously for fear of pressure by Kate and Gerry McCann's supporters.

Ms Tanner commented: "I'm sorry, I don't want to say anything."

But 24 Horas claimed the couple, from Exeter, Devon, want to change key parts of their statements - which could include Ms Tanner saying she saw a man carrying a child from the Ocean Club on May 3.

The paper said police were now certain she had not left the poolside restaurant during dinner.

Detectives have also queried Dr O'Brien's statement, including why he was absent from the meal for up to 45 minutes.

Other alleged "inconsistencies" include how much wine they had and childcare arrangements.

Kate and Gerry's spokesman Clarence Mitchell furiously denied Dr O'Brien and Ms Tanner had contacted the police.

He said: "They are categorically not the couple. There is no couple."


How angry was Clarence, lol. Of course they contacted the police to clear up their statements. We have witnesses that Jane never LEFT the table and we have witness that she was never AT the table and she herself says she was there and did leave and was back in her apt when the alarm went up.

Which is it?

Thanks Widowan......note how Redwood made it seem as thought it was his idea to take out Jane's statement when all the time it had been deleted a long time ago by Jane herself.that post was dated November 2007 , reported by the Daily Mirror, a paper noted for being a bit sparing with the truth, this article by the same Paper is dated December 2007.
 
"McCANNS: WE'LL GO BACK
31 Dec 2007 00:00 They're desperate to revive Madeleine hunt
 
Kate and Gerry McCann are desperate to return to Portugal to revive the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.
 
The couple fear the four-year-old is being forgotten in Praia da Luz where she vanished nearly eight months ago.
 
The McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "We've said they would go back if it would help the investigation."
 
FULL STORY: PAGE 5
 
==========================================

Another spin by Clarence to make light of Jane's confession. This is probably why none of the tapas group became a Witness at the Amaral Trial.

I'd have thought the guy who SY found turned out to be Bundleman that Jane saw would have been big news in the papers. They make big news out of far less than that, to have found the mysterious bundleman is certainly a good thing because it opens the time back up - it didn't happen when Jane said it did, at least - could have happened later, by car, by a woman, etc.

I suppose the person whom they found did not want to have his identity revealed... either that or he doesn't exist.

widowan wrote:I'd have thought the guy who SY found turned out to be Bundleman that Jane saw would have been big news in the papers. They make big news out of far less than that, to have found the mysterious bundleman is certainly a good thing because it opens the time back up - it didn't happen when Jane said it did, at least - could have happened later, by car, by a woman, etc.

I suppose the person whom they found did not want to have his identity revealed... either that or he doesn't exist.

I had questions about this "mystery" man a few days ago too. I find it odd the press have not discovered his whereabouts and chased him down. Maybe they are saving this for a big Sunday special, you know, "I am bundleman".

To be honest, the mystery man (if he exists) should hold his head in shame for not coming forward after 6 years! There is no way that anyone at that resort at that time does not know what Jane Tanner said and the timings. For that reason alone I would avoid the press.

Gross.

Well, you can read the death of Bundleman either way I suppose and people will.

if they think the PJ are incompetent there's your proof. how did they not look for and find him

if they think McCanns did something, there's the proof it wasn't the abductor they kept pointing to.

if they think Tanner is a liar, there's the proof that she didn't see the abduction

if they think she is truthful, well, she DID see something, and just falsely assumed it was the abduction

if you think McCanns are guilty then the frame is once again wide open

if you think they are innocent then this allows more time for the kidnapping to have taken place I guess though I don't really see how.

keeping Gerry's check at 910 is one end point and the other at ten for the discovery of her absence - both rely on the truth of his statement that he saw Maddie when he left the table (presumably to show they were responsibly checking) rather than just listened or didn't even go in, just stood chatting outside with Jez and not hearing any crying went away again - and the truth of what Kate said she saw and found and did at ten PM.

It seems like the death of Bundleman is a mirror reflecting back what you bring to it...

interested wrote:

widowan wrote:I'd have thought the guy who SY found turned out to be Bundleman that Jane saw would have been big news in the papers. They make big news out of far less than that, to have found the mysterious bundleman is certainly a good thing because it opens the time back up - it didn't happen when Jane said it did, at least - could have happened later, by car, by a woman, etc.

I suppose the person whom they found did not want to have his identity revealed... either that or he doesn't exist.

I had questions about this "mystery" man a few days ago too.  I find it odd the press have not discovered his whereabouts and chased him down.  Maybe they are saving this for a big Sunday special, you know, "I am bundleman".

Hi Interested, I don't think this guy existed, he was made up to detract from the negligence of the Mccanns, that's why Jane Tanner and her partner
later rescinded their Witness Statement . Witnesses at the OC said Tanner never left the Table.

Panda wrote:

interested wrote:

widowan wrote:I'd have thought the guy who SY found turned out to be Bundleman that Jane saw would have been big news in the papers. They make big news out of far less than that, to have found the mysterious bundleman is certainly a good thing because it opens the time back up - it didn't happen when Jane said it did, at least - could have happened later, by car, by a woman, etc.

I suppose the person whom they found did not want to have his identity revealed... either that or he doesn't exist.

I had questions about this "mystery" man a few days ago too.  I find it odd the press have not discovered his whereabouts and chased him down.  Maybe they are saving this for a big Sunday special, you know, "I am bundleman".

Hi Interested, I don't think this guy existed, he was made up to detract from the negligence of the Mccanns, that's why Jane Tanner and her partner
later rescinded their Witness Statement . Witnesses at the OC said Tanner never left the Table.

That would mean that SY made that up, and I hardly think that is feasible - other witnesses or a witness also said there was a woman missing all night which was meant to be JT.

Bundleman being McCanns best alibi if SY is as some presume doing a white wash to "make McCanns appear innocent" it would make little sense to publicize the information that this was a tourist carrying his own child home.

Am I correct in thinking that the crèche that this father was picking his child up from was the same one that the McCanns could have used at the Mark Warner complex? It's a shame that the McCanns thought that was less safe than leaving 3 toddlers in an unlocked room next to a main road, out of site of them.

But it would have cost them £10!

SteveT wrote:But it would have cost them £10!

I think it's worse, the night crèche was free afaik, it €10 per hour for the babysitting in the apartment.

Mossman, thanks for correcting me. But remember, they stated that they didn't want to leave their kids with strangers so didn't use that service. But during the day they had to because they needed to play tennis, jog and other things!

given the situation with the crying the night/s before, the stain on pajamas, the ill/tired/pale child needing to be carried home, the illness of nearly everyone else in the group at some point I would think we could all agree that at least a babysitter, one of the nice ones the kids knew, would have been a good idea, not in hindsight but at 6 PM. Creches are notorious places to catch illnesses because all the new germs and so on.

When I watched kids for a living, at one point in a daycare, parents used to drop off kids that had strep, thrush, even chicken pox and try to sneak out, it was our job to make sure before the kids were dropped off that they did not have a communicable disease, lice, a fever etc. Parents do like to keep to their own plans and they wouldn't be the first or last to try and foist a child who was getting sick onto a crèche full of other kids but I can't think of many who'd leave them at home in that state.

My hair stylist told me yesterday her child caught thrush from a child whose parent dropped the kid off telling them she might not eat today, she has blisters on her throat (foot and mouth disease!!) and the 20 year old girl accepted the child, not knowing any better... of course she wasn't a doctor.

One thing we did at the day care center was to speak with parents at pick up also, telling them if the child had been fussy, sick, unable to nap, etc and tell what they did that day. Of course we knew those kids and knew what was typical for them so could identify if a normally robust child was fretful and frightened or cried, atypically. You wouldn't expect to get that with temporary nannies who have only seen your kid a few days of their lives and they were probably told not to bother the parents unnecessarily because after all it's their holiday too and these ones seemed to expect extra consideration (feed us at Tapas because we wish to ignore your advice about the crèche and leave our children alone at home).

SteveT wrote:Mossman, thanks for correcting me. But remember, they stated that they didn't want to leave their kids with strangers so didn't use that service. But during the day they had to because they needed to play tennis, jog and other things!

It makes no sense on any level.

I think you have to go back to Gerry's "It was our holiday too" remark. The McCanns weren't exactly prepared for this holiday, no babybuggy, no monitor, but the Tennis Bag and jogging shorts and shoes were packed.!!

Pity they mislaid the blue tennis bag! But at least nothing of value was taken.

SteveT wrote:Pity they mislaid the blue tennis bag! But at least nothing of value was taken.

Yes, they were lucky Steve T, they didn't have to pay excess baggage for the Buggy either. 

Panda, don't get me wrong as some of my family originate from Scotland, but they are really tight! They bullied the resort to letting them book a table for their all inclusive food and drinks and wouldn't pay for night time childcare.

Gerry would have made a great MP!