General Discussion Thread No. 17

[ThoughtFox]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2599613.ece

I saw Kate and Gerry McCanns’ despair and if they were acting they deserved an Oscar

Number one - Woolfall is a PR person, so he is probably glib himself, and wouldn't recognize if someone was lying or not. He is not a Profiler.

Number two - I find it fascinating that in the hours after the disappearance, the McCanns spent so much time with a Mark Warner PR person instead of outside looking for their daughter. Obviously Maddie's picture was important, but shouldn't that have been done by the police?

Also, this statement disturbing:

The McCanns had photographs of Madeleine on their digital camera, which Mr Woolfall began transferring to a laptop computer. “I said to Kate, ‘Let’s try to identify pictures where her face is visible’. Downloading the images was a very difficult process for them. It was upsetting.

I'm sure - they probably weren't expecting that!

Mr Woolfall transmitted the photographs to the Press Association in London, from where they were distributed to the media. The portfolio included the now famous image of Madeleine wearing a hat on a tennis court.

The McCanns wanted to do more. “They were exhausted and despairing but thinking, ‘Should we go outside and say something that might get her back?’ They said they wanted to head downstairs and talk to the media. They were very tired, but that was one thing they were determined to do.”

Wow - imagine that - the parents were debating whether to go to sleep or go make a speech about their missing daughter. And they needed a PR person to help them decide. :razz: What is wrong with that picture?

I'm so glad they were able to fend off sleep a few more minutes.

Mr Woolfall went out to alert journalists and returned to the McCanns. “They wrote down what they wanted to say and went out and gave a short statement. After that, they were completely spent. You could tell there was nothing left.”

:boohoo: Poor them - is this guy on their payroll now? :bang:

Mr Woolfall was surprised by the reaction of British viewers to the couple’s demeanour. “I was struck at the perception of people who had watched Kate and Gerry: that they were very controlled and perhaps were not responding in a way people thought would be more natural. They were not at all controlled. When I was with them, they were between being completely distraught and trying to do what they felt was the right thing.”

Um, from Mr. Woolfall's descriptions, they sound colder and more controlled than ever before.

Why did the parents have to "decide" whether to "make a statement" or not? If they were so intent on getting out the photos, shouldn't they have felt that it was also urgent to beg the public for help in finding Maddie?

When have we ever heard of distraught people having to "write down" what they wanted to say about a missing child? I've seen lots of interviews on CNN and MSNBC when people are missing, but very few "prepared statements" immediately following a disappearance.

Why weren't they beseeching the public to help them? Why weren't they out combing the countryside themselves?

This case is so incredibly odd. :waitasec:

 

[april4sky]

Number one - Woolfall is a PR person, so he is probably glib himself, and wouldn't recognize if someone was lying or not. He is not a Profiler.

Number two - I find it fascinating that in the hours after the disappearance, the McCanns spent so much time with a Mark Warner PR person instead of outside looking for their daughter. Obviously Maddie's picture was important, but shouldn't that have been done by the police?

Also, this statement disturbing:



I'm sure - they probably weren't expecting that!



Wow - imagine that - the parents were debating whether to go to sleep or go make a speech about their missing daughter. And they needed a PR person to help them decide. :razz: What is wrong with that picture?

I'm so glad they were able to fend off sleep a few more minutes.



:boohoo: Poor them - is this guy on their payroll now? :bang:


Um, from Mr. Woolfall's descriptions, they sound colder and more controlled than ever before.

Why did the parents have to "decide" whether to "make a statement" or not? If they were so intent on getting out the photos, shouldn't they have felt that it was also urgent to beg the public for help in finding Maddie?

When have we ever heard of distraught people having to "write down" what they wanted to say about a missing child? I've seen lots of interviews on CNN and MSNBC when people are missing, but very few "prepared statements" immediately following a disappearance.

Why weren't they beseeching the public to help them? Why weren't they out combing the countryside themselves?

This case is so incredibly odd. :waitasec:

Mr Woolfall's comments and conclusion also from the same Timeson line article.
************

When the McCanns were made suspects, "I thought it was ridiculous. I couldn’t believe it. Completely ludicrous.”

Did you suspect them? “My God, no, absolutely not in any way at any stage.

just saw two people who were frantic that their daughter had gone missing.

The whole idea that they could have done any of the things the police were suggesting was farcical.

 

[april4sky]

British police attack Portuguese 'dirty tricks' over Madeleine

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...uese+'dirty+tricks'+over+Madeleine/article.do

British police entered the war of words over Madeleine McCann.

The Leicestershire force said it did not back the theory put forward by Portuguese detectives that the four-year-old died in the care of her parents, Gerry and Kate, which was leaked to a Portuguese newspaper this week.

The force refuted the claim, saying: "Leicestershire Constabulary have been careful not to offer an opinion as to what has happened to Madeleine as it is not party to all the evidence as it is not our investigation."

Such a statement is unprecedented for the British force

 

[ThoughtFox]

Well, that's interesting, because they just proved what Amaral said about the British police - that they are not interested in investigating the parents. Otherwise, why would they call that a "dirty trick"? :

I think the problem is that many famous Brits have stepped forward to back the McCanns. Also they have a PR machine in full swing. So the parents' rights are taking precedence over the right to justice for Maddie.

Where is she, by the way, and why has the trail gone so cold?

 

[Barnaby]

Huge boost for Team McCann! They are definitely innocent now because the British police have said that they have not said they are guilty! Rock on!

 

[SleuthMom]

VERY unusual move by the British police and the way the British Media is handling the whole thing. Mr. and Mrs. Mc Cann know a lot of influential people and even though this may FOOL some people into believing they are somewhat innocent or is helping them in their reputation, to me speaks all the opposite.

 

[colomom]

Huge boost for Team McCann! They are definitely innocent now because the British police have said that they have not said they are guilty! Rock on!

Good point Barnaby.

"Leicestershire Constabulary have been careful not to offer an opinion as to what has happened to Madeleine as it is not party to all the evidence as it is not our investigation."

The actual quote shown here does not really say one way or the other, does it?

 

[Barnaby]

The actual quote shown here does not really say one way or the other, does it?

Too right Colomon! However, I believe someone is pulling their strings for sure. The article is being lept on by McCann supporters as evidence of innocence! Some people are too thick to think outside the box!

 

[Barnaby]

I saw video footage on another forum of PDL - the apartment, the path that Jane Tanner supposedly saw the adductor. I have asked permission from the poster to post it here, waiting on her reply.

Now she clearly shows that the McCanns back entrance & entrance to the apartment via the steps all lead to the road. That is the road that they would have walked down to get to the tapas bar. No reason to use the path at all so why was Gerry on it?

The path in question only serves as access to other apartments.

The alleged abductor would have had no reason to be on that path as it did not lead from the McCanns apartment, he would have been on the road!

From the footage if Jane Tanner had been there then anyone on that path such as Jeremy Wilkins would definitely have seen her.
Also if she was on that path she would only have had a fleeting side view of the "abductor" as he passed the entrance certainly not enough to report in the detail that she ended up doing! To see exactly where he was headed she would have had to run after him on to the road.

I never believed her story but seeing that footage confirms it for me!

 

[colomom]

I saw video footage on another forum of PDL - the apartment, the path that Jane Tanner supposedly saw the adductor. I have asked permission from the poster to post it here, waiting on her reply.

Now she clearly shows that the McCanns back entrance & entrance to the apartment via the steps all lead to the road. That is the road that they would have walked down to get to the tapas bar. No reason to use the path at all so why was Gerry on it?

The path in question only serves as access to other apartments.

The alleged abductor would have had no reason to be on that path as it did not lead from the McCanns apartment, he would have been on the road!

From the footage if Jane Tanner had been there then anyone on that path such as Jeremy Wilkins would definitely have seen her.
Also if she was on that path she would only have had a fleeting side view of the "abductor" as he passed the entrance certainly not enough to report in the detail that she ended up doing! To see exactly where he was headed she would have had to run after him on to the road.

I never believed her story but seeing that footage confirms it for me!

I have to warn you B, that video is misleading....

The main thing is that it has been widely reported that Jeremy Wilkins came upon Gerry just outside Madeleine's window at the front of the apartment. That path she indicates is on the backside of the apartments (where the patio doors are located). Plus she indicates that the Tapas Bar is just inside the security building. I think there is confusion about exactly where the McCann's were that evening, the Tapas Bar or the Tapas Restaurant. The Restaurant is much further inside the complex (see the L shaped building on the maps located in the pictures thread). Either way, she makes it seem like it is quite close to the apartment. MoonGoddess told us that the distance was distressing and as far as I am concerned, they were too far away to hear the children and as another poster said, "they might as well have been a million miles away". Last thing is, I am concerned that the person filming had their child along with them (filming the scene of a crime, perhaps a murder) and had the audacity to actually knock on Mrs. Fenn's door!! Creeps me out...

But if you get permission, please do post the video. It is interesting.

 

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

...From the footage if Jane Tanner had been there then anyone on that path such as Jeremy Wilkins would definitely have seen her.
Also if she was on that path she would only have had a fleeting side view of the "abductor" as he passed the entrance certainly not enough to report in the detail that she ended up doing! To see exactly where he was headed she would have had to run after him on to the road.

I never believed her story but seeing that footage confirms it for me!

Jane Tanner probably did see someone carrying a child in Pajamas. According to what I read on the child care center, parents could drop their children off and pick them up in the evenings for an adult night out on the town. Jane probably saw a responsible Daddy who went to pick up his child after he and Mommy when out for dinner. She found it odd, because that type of responsibility did not exist in her circle of friends...

Even if this mystery child was not at the child care center, maybe at it's grandma & grandpa's...or a friend who was watching it in their apt....you get the drift. I don't know Jane's claims, but if she said it was crying or struggling, that's pretty typical if you disturb a sleeping child. If the mystery child awoke in the middle of the jaunt home, it could have been disoriented...I've been there, done that.

When we take vacations to the beach with my brother and sister's families, we take turns a few nights watching the others kids so each couple can have one nice night out alone. The rest of the time we ALL, (kids and adults) hang out together. Thus the POINT of a family vacation....holiday, what ever you want to call it.

 

[Morag]

From yesterday's CBS interview (taped in August):

''I knew straight away she'd been taken," Kate replied.

"At the first moment?" Schindler asked.

"Well," Kate responded, "put it this way: I mean, she hadn't walked out of the apartment."

From the PR guy's article in today's timesonline:

Some have questioned why a mother would leap to the conclusion that a child had been abducted.

Mr Woolfall says that he heard no suggestion in the early days that the girl had been snatched. “Certainly I did not hear any discussion that this could be a paedophile or an aggravated robbery. All the time I was around it was whether she could have wandered off and had an accident or somebody had actually taken her in, perhaps not with ill-intent. ...

“During the first 48 hours the word being used was ‘missing’ rather than ‘abducted’ or any link with a paedophile or any sort of crime. Towards the end of the second week I detected a shift towards there being a consciousness that she had probably been taken rather than wandered off, just on the assumption that anybody would have found her by now.”

I wonder what she told PJ that night? And I wonder how she was so certain that Madeleine didn't walk out of the apartment? Does this mean that PJ was treating it as a walk and wander and she was desperately trying to convince them it was a kidnapping? If she was certain right away, you would think that others might have shared her opinion. Well, Auntie Phil did. anyway.

The comment about an aggravated robbery seems odd. I couldn't come across any definition which would seem to cover the case of a missing child- unless there is a UK or Portugal charge that is defined in a different way. Or maybe Mr. Woolfall is not sure either!

How can this guy say there was never any thought that she had been abducted?

 

[Barnaby]

I have to warn you B, that video is misleading....

The main thing is that it has been widely reported that Jeremy Wilkins came upon Gerry just outside Madeleine's window at the front of the apartment. That path she indicates is on the backside of the apartments (where the patio doors are located). Plus she indicates that the Tapas Bar is just inside the security building. I think there is confusion about exactly where the McCann's were that evening, the Tapas Bar or the Tapas Restaurant. The Restaurant is much further inside the complex (see the L shaped building on the maps located in the pictures thread). Either way, she makes it seem like it is quite close to the apartment. MoonGoddess told us that the distance was distressing and as far as I am concerned, they were too far away to hear the children and as another poster said, "they might as well have been a million miles away". Last thing is, I am concerned that the person filming had their child along with them (filming the scene of a crime, perhaps a murder) and had the audacity to actually knock on Mrs. Fenn's door!! Creeps me out...

But if you get permission, please do post the video. It is interesting.

Yes colomom, I totally agree with you that it was grossly inappropriate to have a child along while filming, I thought that was awful. Also I couldn't get over her knocking on the wonan's door. I also noted the reference to the wrong location "just 20 steps inside reception". However the path that she was referring to, entrance to which is between the steps to the apartment & the reception, are you sure that is not the path on which Jeremy Wilkins was? Here is the link to a map which marks it clearly as the same path
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/1609_maddie.shtml

 

[colomom]

Yes colomom, I totally agree with you that it was grossly inappropriate to have a child along while filming, I thought that was awful. Also I couldn't get over her knocking on the wonan's door. I also noted the reference to the wrong location "just 20 steps inside reception". However the path that she was referring to, entrance to which is between the steps to the apartment & the reception, are you sure that is not the path on which Jeremy Wilkins was? Here is the link to a map which marks it clearly as the same path
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/1609_maddie.shtml

Well I searched and searched and I cannot find that reference to Gerry being outside Madeleine's window when he encountered Jeremy.

That makes me think that I must have read it on a forum and perhaps it was an error. Everything I have found is as you say and as shown on the map. Everything I read says that Jane Tanner was on her way back to her apartment and passed the bundleman going in the opposite direction. This would be on the street alongside the apartment, the street that the little gate faced, not in the alley. That is what is misleading about the video I guess, doesn't she say "this is the alley that the bundleman was walking along?" I did read that Gerry and Jeremy stood talking at the head of the alleyway. No way did anybody walk down that alleyway and past the two of them and then past Jane Tanner.

It is all so mixed-up and hard to nail down.....I swear I read somewhere that Gerry was out in front of the apartment messing with the shutters.....

 

[Tuba]

Yes, you're right. A burglary is one thing, a robbery includes a threat to the person & can be aggravated by the nature of the threat & the harm done, etc. With a child missing, we are looking at not an aggravation but another felony, the kidnapping. We do know that there had been a series of burglaries at PDL & that keys were used to gain entry. It is possible that the McCann apt. was the target of a burglary & that Madeleine interfered. The man lurking in the stairwell observing the elevator, stairs and parking lot seems even more sinister, from the maid's description, than a burglary look-out, however. I do feel that Mark Warner owed all tenants notice that the burglaries had occurred but this was not given. Bad for business. Nonetheless, The Ocean Club did warn the family that the children required supervision, after the complaints from neighbors.

 

[Pinkhammer]

Just speculating here...I wonder if it was a pattern for Tanner and Gerry to disappear at the same time every evening for the kiddie checks as a cover, when they were really going off for a quickie together? That would explain why Jane might be willing to lie for Gerry?

Flame away.

 

[Barnaby]

Well I searched and searched and I cannot find that reference to Gerry being outside Madeleine's window when he encountered Jeremy.

That makes me think that I must have read it on a forum and perhaps it was an error. Everything I have found is as you say and as shown on the map. Everything I read says that Jane Tanner was on her way back to her apartment and passed the bundleman going in the opposite direction. This would be on the street alongside the apartment, the street that the little gate faced, not in the alley. That is what is misleading about the video I guess, doesn't she say "this is the alley that the bundleman was walking along?" I did read that Gerry and Jeremy stood talking at the head of the alleyway. No way did anybody walk down that alleyway and past the two of them and then past Jane Tanner.

It is all so mixed-up and hard to nail down.....I swear I read somewhere that Gerry was out in front of the apartment messing with the shutters.....

You are so right Colomom it is a tangled mess I must try to find links to exactly where Tanner said she was, I always thought it was on that path & I agree no way was there a man there or tanner without being seen by Gerry or Wilkins.

 

[Barnaby]

Just speculating here...I wonder if it was a pattern for Tanner and Gerry to disappear at the same time every evening for the kiddie checks as a cover, when they were really going off for a quickie together? That would explain why Jane might be willing to lie for Gerry?

Flame away.

Have you seen the state of Jane Tanner? :laugh:

 

[Pinkhammer]

Huge *advertiser censored*!

 

[Barnaby]

Huge *advertiser censored*!

:laugh:I was only looking at her face :laugh:

Does anyone else think she has an evil look?