Have you donated to "The Fund"

[Cappuccino]

Anyway, if something happened to Madeleine earlier in the evening when it was just Gerry and Kate no one of the Tapas 9 needs to lie.

In that case it must have happened between 6.30pm, when David Payne saw her - and 10pm. For most of that time the McCanns are alibid, giving them a very small window of opportunity to do something to their daughter, dispose of the body so well its never been found and impress their version of events on their friends.

Its all a bit far fetched to my eyes. I know statistics say its mostly the parents, but this is one of those rare cases when a stranger abduction looks more likely. MOO.

 

[Donjeta]

Is there a theory of Madeleine's disappearance that denies that there were people getting up from the table or that Kate came back and raised the alarm? I don't see the relevance.

There are also personal psychological factors that may influence a person. JT may have seen the abductor but she wouldn't be the first witness to seek attention by making up something or interpret something they saw wrong because they so desperately want to help.

Neither Gerry or Jeremy saw what she saw and the abductor had a lot of nerve carrying Madeleine where Madeleine's father could have seen them. Why didn't the abductor go the other way?
It was an incredible and unnecessary risk.

 

[Donjeta]

In that case it must have happened between 6.30pm, when David Payne saw her - and 10pm. For most of that time the McCanns are alibid, giving them a very small window of opportunity to do something to their daughter, dispose of the body so well its never been found and impress their version of events on their friends.

Its all a bit far fetched to my eyes. I know statistics say its mostly the parents, but this is one of those rare cases when a stranger abduction looks more likely. MOO.

So what exactly is it that they'd have had to impress on their friends if something happened between 6:30 and 8:30 while none of the friends were there?

 

[Cappuccino]

If it happened between 6.30 and 8.30, impressing anything on their friends wouldn't apply, but that's an even smaller window of opportunity for them to do something, and dispose of the body so well its never been found. In a strange country.

 

[Donjeta]

The beach is not far and dumpsters look pretty much the same in any country.

 

[Cappuccino]

Its been years, Donjeta, and no trace has ever been found. I think that takes a bit more than the nearest beach or dumpster.

 

[brit1981]

But gerry was not back until half seven. So he had an hour to come to terms with his first born's death, hatch a plan with his wife, dump his first born in a dumpster or somewhere, get showered and changed and appear at dinner chatting and laughing with other guests at half past eight. Plus it has to be remembered he did not know the area well, had to go on foot, was not witnessed by anyone at this time, and put her somewhere she was not found. Plus there would have to be a motive, and what motive could they have for covering up their child's death (and why not try to get her help, it is unlikely she died immediately if she died in the flat)?

 

[Donjeta]

I would agree if I didn't know for a fact that there have been people who drowned or were put in a dumpster and were never found. They just searched for Jhessye Shockley for months in a landfill, having a pretty good idea when and where she was dumped, but they couldn't find her.

 

[brit1981]

But Gerry had just an hour to do an awful lot, and no-one has come up with a motive as t why they would do this. Dump their three year old in a bin! There was no history of abuse, their GP states they were good and doting parents etc, yet we have to belive they dumped their little girl, a much wanted little girl, in a bin or something in a foreign country. Not only that but they made the alert, and got people looking that night, and campaigned to have the case reviewed by the police. How many criminals campaign to get the police to review a crime they got away with.

 

[fabgod]

Can I just say, one of the problems we face is that what do we believe and what do we question as far as statements go?

My thought is that we should believe the early statements as being as close to events as possible, there is less chance of any manipulation and/or fine tuning, it would seem to be the most accurate as it would be fresher and without intentional or unintentional embellishment.

Re the comment about having to stick to influenced testimony, once a statement had been made to the PJ, it would be very difficult to change the statement very much as it would be more likely to be flagged up as a potential concern.

Remember, I/we are not saying that we suspect the McCanns of murder, we are trying to find a timeline that we can agree on, subject to the statements/reports.

I feel that there are many problems with the statements, I realise that it would be difficult to remember perfectly everything that happened on a certain day, even without the added stress of an event like this, but we need to flag up any inconsistencies and work from there.

 

[fabgod]

TIMELINE as agreed to being as close to fact as possible (updated as we go)
all 3rd May 2007


All day there were confirmed sightings of Madeleine by various members of the Creche staff, either directly or indirectly involved with her care.
5.30pm last confirmed sighting by a person/persons not connected to the Tapas group
(High Tea at the Tapas supervised by Creche staff)

10pm approx Kate McCann raises the alarm that Madeleine is missing

 

[brit1981]

Jeremy wilkins also states he saw Gerry Mccann coming down the steps from the patio path just after nine, and spoke to him for several minutes. jeremy was not a friend, just someone they were friendly with on holiday.

Kate and Gerry were seen at dinner at eight thirty by two other guests

 

[SapphireSteel]

Jeremy wilkins also states he saw Gerry Mccann coming down the steps from the patio path just after nine, and spoke to him for several minutes. jeremy was not a friend, just someone they were friendly with on holiday.

Kate and Gerry were seen at dinner at eight thirty by two other guests

Jeremy Wilkins ALSO states he did not see Jane Tanner (who claimed to walk straight past him) or the "man carrying the child....oops Madeleine" who also walked straight past them (allegedly).

Jeremy Wilkins has since distanced himself completely from this mess - another selfish individual who finds his own discomfort more important than that of a missing child....my opinion only.

 

[brit1981]

jeremy wilkins gave a statement, what else should he do? How is he being selfish, he has spoken to the relevant authorities, it is not the business of anyone else.

 

[SapphireSteel]

jeremy wilkins gave a statement, what else should he do? How is he being selfish, he has spoken to the relevant authorities, it is not the business of anyone else.

He could participate in a reconstruction, so could the rest of them.

 

[fabgod]

I can and can't understand why they wouldnt do a reconstruction.

I can see the McCanns having concerns about going back, doing a reconstruction, it not playing out how the PJ would be happy and then arresting them or making them arguidos again, which would be a devastating blow to the McCanns as it would be to anybody.

But I can't see why the others would not go, surely the purpose is to find Madeleine or whatever happened to her, the tapas friends and WIlkins surely don't know better than the PJ if a reconstruction would be of benefit and if it reopened the case, then how could that be a bad thing?
Why did the PJ not force the reconstruction through and request officially that they returned?

 

[brit1981]

The mccanns did not refuse to take part in a reconstruction, and the others chose not to go because it was being done a long time after and they were told it was not being used to try to get more witnesses by airing it. The Pj seemed to have dropped the idea. But given the spite that wa sbeing peddled on the internet one cannot blame jeremy wilkins for not wanting to go. there was a reconstruction done for a documentary though.
The mccanns were still aguidos at the time of the initial request too.

 

[fabgod]

I really don't understand the train of thought that says they didnt go because it was a long time after.
So is the intention then to forget that Madeleine is still missing?

The documentary was in no way a true representation of events that evening, from timelines to positionings of people, its not even worth discussing in a serious conversation

 

[brit1981]

I really don't understand the train of thought that says they didnt go because it was a long time after.
So is the intention then to forget that Madeleine is still missing?

The documentary was in no way a true representation of events that evening, from timelines to positionings of people, its not even worth discussing in a serious conversation

But a reconstruction was always going to be based on what the witnesses stated whether people believe them or not. So if the same witness say in the documentary this is what happened, the same would happen on any reconstruction.

But if people have given several statements to the police about where they were I can understand they might tell the police just to get actors to play them.

 

[fabgod]

Your point is correct, the witnesses would have to reconstruct the timeline according to the statements, they didnt do that on the TV version.
If it had been an official reconstruction, they would have had to adhere to the statements and not a script for TV.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7422787.stm,
It seems that the friends wanted it televised, but then we know that isnt allowed under Portuguese law, i wonder if the friends and their lawyers knew that?