No comment.

Lioned wrote:Clarence 'the freak' maybe he's sitting on Brighton pier with his feet dangling in one of those fish tanks having his verrucas sucked off.Their the only friends he's ever likely to have.

Lol

What's he doing in Brighton? Does he live there? Is he still fully employed by the Fund and the Benefactors?

Well she might have got the nights mixed up. Because didn't she say something about Gerry Mccann taking ages because he was watching football. And then they said oh the football was the night before.

Original reports and interviews were that Tanner saw bundleman from behind, not from the side. This would explain why she did not see any facial features at all. There is also no way that she would have been able to make out pajama details from the distance that she was from the man (one of the many reasons her account was considered unreliable). From Jez, we know that Tanner was outside the apartments at about 8:30 pm in a purple jumper. Perhaps she saw this man carrying his daughter TO the creche at this time, as this would make so much more sense. Sleeping daughter carried to the creche across the body, just as she was lying in the bed, so as not to wake her. Also, as we all know, Tanner never left the table that night, so any sighting would need to have occurred on her way to the Tapas bar. Further, how are we to believe that Tanner checks on her kids at 9:15 right behind Gerry and finds everything fine, then returns to the table at 9:20, only to have her partner O'Brien get up 5 minutes later to find their daughter sick and crying?

Iv'e just been with my sister and mentioned the breakthrough with the McCanns and she won't have it that they are responsible for Madeleine's disappeaance and even when I said I know stuff that the public doesn't , she said ,"oh , come on , how could any Mother act normal if she knew her little girl was dead.!!!!! I coudn't say anything.

jinvta wrote:Original reports and interviews were that Tanner saw bundleman from behind, not from the side. This would explain why she did not see any facial features at all. There is also no way that she would have been able to make out pajama details from the distance that she was from the man (one of the many reasons her account was considered unreliable). From Jez, we know that Tanner was outside the apartments at about 8:30 pm in a purple jumper. Perhaps she saw this man carrying his daughter TO the creche at this time, as this would make so much more sense. Sleeping daughter carried to the creche across the body, just as she was lying in the bed, so as not to wake her. Also, as we all know, Tanner never left the table that night, so any sighting would need to have occurred on her way to the Tapas bar. Further, how are we to believe that Tanner checks on her kids at 9:15 right behind Gerry and finds everything fine, then returns to the table at 9:20, only to have her partner O'Brien get up 5 minutes later to find their daughter sick and crying?

if he was walking down that street at a perpendicular angle to her she'd have seen him at least quarter profile. not his face full on but f you look out the window the distance and picture noticing someone walking across your field of view, they would initially be in profile, then the back of them.

I think the primary reason her viewing was seen as unreliable was that it had the tendency to corroborate an alibi for Gerry at a time she herself was uncorroborated by him and Jez. I think it's more likely Gerry was lying about where he was standing than Jane.

Hard to say what she could have seen at that distance at that time of night. there was a street lamp there he walked right under. My eyes today I don't think could pick out lace at the bottom of pj's at 30 feet at night, but at 35 I had the vision of a jet fighter pilot and I think I could have done it then quite well. her efit fit the person SY found like a glove and details on the child's pajamas were correct apart from the color (which would change under a sodium light or depending on the type of lights they had in PDL at that time).

I believe she saw this guy and I think she and McCanns are no longer friends because of this case - Russell and David Paybe both came in for a lot of negative attention and rumor - and Kate is trying in the book to explain the distance as a result of Jane feeling badly because she witnessed the abduction and did nothing - you know, one person who WAS "there at the moment she was taken" who did nothing to save her. At least Jane need not have that guilt now.

She went to the bar at 830 ish, she could have been seen at that time on the street - And been back again at 915 to check her kids.

Why do we "all know" tanner never left the table that night? No need, because of a monitor? or the statement of whom? There are quite a number of statements that she did leave and that she did see the guy at 910 or at least that she did see him. Possibly at a different time I suppose.

Panda wrote:Iv'e just been with my sister and mentioned the breakthrough with the McCanns and she won't have it that they are responsible for Madeleine's disappeaance and even when I said I know stuff that the public doesn't , she said ,"oh , come on , how could any Mother act normal if she knew her little girl was dead.!!!!!  I coudn't say anything.

she has a point.

I know personally of  the most dire circumstances where Ive had to act normally when I just wanted to run around screaming, wishing it was all a nightmare and hoping to wake up but knowing it was real,  to do what had to be done.  so I think its possible.

widowan CBS employed a Private Detective to go to PDL and investigate , he was of Portugese descent so could converse freely with the Waiters . It was they who told him Jane Tanner never left the Bar that night. The fact that SY have discounted her statement suggests she was lying so Redwood himself said the timeline was now 9pm to 10 pm .

widowan wrote:

Panda wrote:Iv'e just been with my sister and mentioned the breakthrough with the McCanns and she won't have it that they are responsible for Madeleine's disappeaance and even when I said I know stuff that the public doesn't , she said ,"oh , come on , how could any Mother act normal if she knew her little girl was dead.!!!!!  I coudn't say anything.

she has a point.

Well actually I don't know how "normal" Kate's behaviour is. There were and are times I find her behaviour odd in the extreme.

tanszi wrote:I know personally of  the most dire circumstances where Ive had to act normally when I just wanted to run around screaming, wishing it was all a nightmare and hoping to wake up but knowing it was real,  to do what had to be done.  so I think its possible.

Absolutely agree with you Tanszi. Been there myself too.

Baby P's mother did, for one. So many cases in the news recently of poor little souls dying at the hands of mother/parents and social services not seeing the signs in time. Even when children are flagged up by an agency as being at risk, still nothing gets done because the mothers seem plausible in their explanations. What about the recent case of a mother who had the mummified remains of her child in a cot upstairs for two years?

Plenty of examples out there of mothers acting normally when they know their children are dead or dying or abused.

And the wee Polish boy who starved to death whilst his mother bought herself vitamins to improve her hair and nails.

The longer Clarence lets all this go by without a comment - even if only to say "no comment" - the worse this looks.

Panda wrote:widowan  CBS employed a Private  Detective to go to PDL and investigate , he was of Portugese descent so could converse freely with the Waiters . It was they who told him Jane Tanner never left the Bar that night. The fact that SY have discounted her statement suggests she was lying so Redwood himself said the timeline was now 9pm to 10 pm .

N o, he said it was 915 to ten PM. And Jane's sighting was at 915 and they found the guy who actually matched the description she gave, so it's hardly like SY is discounting or refuting her evidence.

If she never left the table then how did she see someone who was there dressed like that and carrying a child?

The one he discounted was Oldfield which is odd. Okay so he confessed he didn't SEE her when he checked at 930. However he was IN THE HOUSE supposedly, was the abductor also in there when Matt was in and also when GERRY WAS IN - both too drunk and stupid and in a hurry to abandon their kids to their fates and rush back to the bar to even NOTICE this?

Matt is the one being thrown under the bus if anyone, not only because his visit is not credited as a check on Maddie, but also whatever nonsense he babbled about the curtains windows and shutters is just completely ignored as if he and his testimony don't exist.

I am sure when CW began, Redwood said he was looking at events between 8.30 and 10pm. If he's taking the McCanns word on this, then its 9.15 to 10pm, but the way he worded his sentence, it sounds to me as if he's keeping an open mind from 8.30 onwards.

I think too that Tanner did see someone because SY could never fabricate anything around this for fear, if it ever went to Court, that SY would be accused of presenting false evidence and the case thrown out. Police have to be so careful about the evidence they present in a Court of Law.

However, the way I see it with SY, putting aside what Tanner saw which has now been kicked into the long grass, they are still keeping an open mind about the timeline as I don't think Wilkins can be exactly sure that Gerry was just coming out of the apartment when he saw him, just assumes it. He could have been coming or going, that is not really proved, just that Gerry spotted Wilkins and went over to him. Gerry could have been up to no good, having been in, then out, and going in again even? Gerry was away from the restaurant for some time, so in that slot from 9pm to 9.15 he could have been up to anything, anything at all. All Tanner knows is that she saw Gerry and Wilkins and a man carrying a child, and Wilkins confirms he saw Gerry but only assumes he was exiting the apartment.

What Tanner actually asserts above all is that Gerry was in the vicinity roughly around 9pm to 9.15 and what SY are saying is, due to Matt not seeing Madeleine, Gerry was the last person to see her!

widowan wrote:

Panda wrote:widowan  CBS employed a Private  Detective to go to PDL and investigate , he was of Portugese descent so could converse freely with the Waiters . It was they who told him Jane Tanner never left the Bar that night. The fact that SY have discounted her statement suggests she was lying so Redwood himself said the timeline was now 9pm to 10 pm .

N o, he said it was 915 to ten PM. And Jane's sighting was at 915 and they found the guy who actually matched the description she gave, so it's hardly like SY is discounting or refuting her evidence.

If she never left the table then how did she see someone who was there dressed like that and carrying a child?

The one he discounted was Oldfield which is odd. Okay so he confessed he didn't SEE her when he checked at 930. However he was IN THE HOUSE supposedly, was the abductor also in there when Matt was in and also when GERRY WAS IN - both too drunk and stupid and in a hurry to abandon their kids to their fates and rush back to the bar to even NOTICE this?

Matt is the one being thrown under the bus if anyone, not only because his visit is not credited as a check on Maddie, but also whatever nonsense he babbled about the curtains windows and shutters is just completely ignored as if he and his testimony don't exist.

Thanks Panda,
 
It was Mr. Moura (I think was his name) who claimed that Tanner never left the table that night. Not a single witness (including Gerry and Jez whom she allegedly walked within feet of down a narrow alley wearing noisy flip flops) saw Tanner in the area of the McCanns apartment at any time that night other than the Jez Wilkins sighting of her at 8:30 pm. All of the MW employees said it was only the men who left. I think that she fudged and manipulated the timing of her sighting for some reason, I just can't figure out what that reason is. Even Gerry claims in one of his interviews that Jane saw the man as she was leaving her apartment. There was also talk of an Irish girl who popped out for a ciggie and saw Jez and Gerry but not Jane. There really is absolutely nobody placing Jane on the road anywhere around the 9:00 - 9:20 time frame, unless you count Jane herself. This is certainly suspicious. And further, why would O'Brien get up to check on his daughters immediately upon Jane's return from this check? Makes absolutely no sense. "Hi Jane, glad to hear the girls are fine, but I don't trust you so now that you have sat down, I will go do my own check." Really you can't make it up.

LJC,

Agree with you that Jez only assumed that Gerry had checked, unlike Tanner who, as she allegedly passed Jez and Gerry, instinctively knew that Gerry had already conducted his check. Both Gerry and Jez claim that Gerry was walking when they noticed each other, so Gerry had to have been further up the road toward the main entrance in order to meet just outside the gate. Therefore, Gerry was either wandering around or had just left the main entrance, not the patio doors. So, his change of story to claim that he had exited the patio doors was clearly a lie.

could it be that jane and OBrien were not happy leaving their children for the length of time that others did, didn't want to appear to be critical of that and so had their own arrangement between them that when one arrived the other would leave, saying whatever came into their head at the time.

tanszi wrote:could it be that jane and OBrien were not happy leaving their children for the length of time that others did, didn't want to appear to be critical of that and so had their own arrangement between them that when one arrived the other would leave, saying whatever came into their head at the time.

 
 
Yes, in fact that makes alot of sense, especially given that one child was sick. It sure makes alot more sense than Russell leaving to check on his kids just moments after Jane returns from checking on them. For instance, lets say that just Russell went to the Tapas bar at 8:45 pm. He eats his starters and returns to the room at about 9:25 pm in order to relieve Jane so she can eat her starters and main course. After finishing her meal, she returns to the room at approximately 9:40/9:50 so that Russell can eat his main meal.
 
This scenario would fit into the theory that Jane never left the table all evening, as she would not have even arrived at the table until about 9:30 pm. It would also fit the scenario that she saw bundleman from behind as she was leaving the apartment (as stated by Gerry in one of his interviews), rather than as she was leaving the Tapas bar to conduct a check. It would further fit in with the fact that neither Gerry nor Jez saw her pass by them in close proximity on her way from the Tapas bar to the apartment.

mossman wrote:

widowan wrote:

Panda wrote:Iv'e just been with my sister and mentioned the breakthrough with the McCanns and she won't have it that they are responsible for Madeleine's disappeaance and even when I said I know stuff that the public doesn't , she said ,"oh , come on , how could any Mother act normal if she knew her little girl was dead.!!!!!  I coudn't say anything.

she has a point.

Well actually I don't know how "normal" Kate's behaviour is.  There were and are times I find her behaviour odd in the extreme.

I have never seen Kate act normal since it happened. She has never acted as though she is grieving for her lost daughter
never. She has gone from looking happy and relaxed when it first happened to looking stressed and ill the longer the charade has gone on. The strain of keeping it going is certainly having it's effect. Normal as in, I am in agony about my daughter, never.

Ian MccafferyThe Madeleine McCann CONTROVERSY
McCanns ask for extrajudicial settlement TVmais

They were the ones who took him to court for defamation and asked to suspend the judgement in order to negotiate. On the eve of the trial of Gonçalo Amaral, against whom they filed a complaint, the McCanns asked to negotiate.

By: Hernâni Carvalho
24 January 2013, at 10:37
With thanks to Joana Morais for translation

It is not often the accusers ask to negotiate before a trial, but in this case it was so. tvmais found that, on the eve of Gonçalo Amaral's trial, the McCann's lawyers proposed a meeting in order to reach an extrajudicial [out of court] settlement.

In court, Madeleine McCann's parents demanded from Gonçalo Amaral (see box*) compensation of 1.2 million euros for alleged defamation. Now it's them who propose an extrajudicial settlement. tvmais also learned the lawyers for the defendants (sic) have accepted a meeting to take place within the following 20 days.

As all parties have agreed, the start of the trial, scheduled for 24th of this month at the 1st Civil Court of Lisbon, "has been suspended because the parties are trying to reach an agreement", said a judiciary to Lusa News agency. All witnesses have already been notified of the suspension of the hearing.

Now follows a period of six months, after which, if there is no agreement, the hearing will be scheduled and the trial will start.

Read the full story in this week's edition of tvmais, on news-stands now!

LJC wrote:I am sure when CW began, Redwood said he was looking at events between 8.30 and 10pm. If he's taking the McCanns word on this, then its 9.15 to 10pm, but the way he worded his sentence, it sounds to me as if he's keeping an open mind from 8.30 onwards.

I think too that Tanner did see someone because SY could never fabricate anything around this for fear, if it ever went to Court, that SY would be accused of presenting false evidence and the case thrown out.  Police have to be so careful about the evidence they present in a Court of Law.

However, the way I see it with SY, putting aside what Tanner saw which has now been kicked into the long grass, they are still keeping an open mind about the timeline as I don't think Wilkins can be exactly sure that Gerry was just coming out of the apartment when he saw him, just assumes it.  He could have been coming or going, that is not really proved, just that Gerry spotted Wilkins and went over to him. Gerry could have been up to no good, having been in, then out, and going in again even?  Gerry was away from the restaurant for some time, so in that slot from 9pm to 9.15 he could have been up to anything, anything at all.  All Tanner knows is that she saw Gerry and Wilkins and a man carrying a child, and Wilkins confirms he saw Gerry but only assumes he was exiting the apartment.

What Tanner actually asserts above all is that Gerry was in the vicinity roughly around 9pm to 9.15 and what SY are saying is, due to Matt not seeing Madeleine, Gerry was the last person to see her!

Yes and I think they won't put too fine a point on the checks until they have to because that is the sure fire way to get Kate and Gerry's backs up, this whole debacle has dragged on the way it has because they insisted on their regular checks, but Gerry and Kate's tendency to use the evidence they saw of an abduction to prove their own innocence actually may backfire on them as well. Maddie may have been drugged, the abductor was in the house with her, at the time Gerry was meant to be checking because he'd left the door open, it was so easy for the abduction to happen (and not us to do anything to her) because we'd left the doors unlocked - they may have forgotten in five years time that the SPIN is for the great unwashed who read the red tops, SY is actually going to look a little more critically and deeper and they can't control that any more than they could Oakley's report.

fuzeta wrote:

mossman wrote:

widowan wrote:

Panda wrote:Iv'e just been with my sister and mentioned the breakthrough with the McCanns and she won't have it that they are responsible for Madeleine's disappeaance and even when I said I know stuff that the public doesn't , she said ,"oh , come on , how could any Mother act normal if she knew her little girl was dead.!!!!!  I coudn't say anything.

she has a point.

Well actually I don't know how "normal" Kate's behaviour is.  There were and are times I find her behaviour odd in the extreme.

I have never seen Kate act normal since it happened.  She has never acted as though she is grieving for her lost daughter
never.   She has gone from looking happy and relaxed when it first happened to looking stressed and ill the longer the charade has gone on. The strain of keeping it going is certainly having it's effect.  Normal as in, I am in agony about my daughter, never.

They had hope in the beginning and there is less hope now, the fantasy of the kindly couple will be knocked on the head as both PJ and SY look for a pedophile ring.

We don't see Kate, we see photos some tabloid thought to include or was able to get. She certainly has looked totally stressed and stunned at times. Gerry seems the more prone to compartmentalize and then also to break down - get angry, wail, cry etc. That stress will eat you up but may be the only thing that's holding her up.

As far as no comment, I think the old adage is the best one, when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.

Remember when the McCann's were asked why they weren't suing Halligen for their £300,000 back, and Clarrie said quite firmly that "the matter was closed". Well now we all know why.

Iris wrote:Remember when the McCann's were asked why they weren't suing Halligen for their £300,000 back, and Clarrie said quite firmly that "the matter was closed".  Well now we all know why.

According to the book, they had bid the work in three parts and Oakley did the first two and were paid for those. They decided not to go forward with the third segment of work. They have no beef with Halligen that I know of - they didn't like the report his work produced since it was highly critical of them, and decided not to retain him. No mincies matters!

widowan wrote:

Iris wrote:Remember when the McCann's were asked why they weren't suing Halligen for their £300,000 back, and Clarrie said quite firmly that "the matter was closed".  Well now we all know why.

According to the book, they had bid the work in three parts and Oakley did the first two and were paid for those. They decided not to go forward with the third segment of work. They have no beef with Halligen that I know of - they didn't like the report his work produced since it was highly critical of them, and decided not to retain him. No mincies matters!

Why do you believe the book? I remember pinky also saying they might take action against Halligen.