i dont recall tanner having a film crew at her house ever or enjoying media attention or calling the shots????
mccanns case and censorship
- Thread starter saggymoon
- Start date
- Status
i dont recall tanner having a film crew at her house ever or enjoying media attention or calling the shots????
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 101
I apologise, when I looked at what I thought was her house was perhaps not her house...
tanner - YouTube
But then I found this...
http://thetapas9janetanner.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/httpjillhavern.html
maybe the cameras weren't actually whirring at the time.
:dunno:
no worries
Tanner went on panorama in oct 07 to tell of the man she saw and clear her name as fantasist etc
Funny though how she kelt shaking her head as if to say no when sayingyes oops
Shame gerry and kate mccann screwed her over two years later in their so called documentary called madeleine was here making her cry and making her bekieve she was mistaken that sne saw gerry and jez on the aide of the road she was walking on
Madeleine was here part 4/5 - YouTube
from around 1.40
The whole docu is worthy lookimg at to see the mishmash and smoke n mirrors
So Martin Smiths admits there's a 20-40% chance he was wrong that it was Gerry- baring in mind his feeling was based on the way he walks and that 2 others in his group didn't think it was Smith. 1 witness places him at the hotel between 21.30-22.00 (we can assume it was closer to 22.00 seeing as Madeleine wasn't missing at 21.30) searching around the pool and playground. One witness says he was at the hotel reception at 22.20. A phone call to her supervisor backs up her time. And the woman in the apartment places him in the apartment at 22.30.
Yet you still think Gerry could have sneaked off in a very short space of time and disposed of a body so well it's never been found, in a country he'd been in for only 6 days, on foot.
Why don't you actually try and write out a timeline that would fit in with this being Gerry
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 101
Can you please link that statement? All information I have is that no one outside the Tapas 9 clapped eyes on her after 5.30...which is in the PJ's final report.
:waitasec:
This is irrelevant, we are talking about the events before 10.00? :dunno:
I don't need to.
'
I'm delighted to find, the McCann has done it for me.
I have now viewed their "account of the truth", the mockumentary "Madeleine was here".
They address the Smith sighting.
They themselves place the time of this sighting at 21.50.
Ten full minutes before the alert was sounded...at least.
We know that 10pm is not actually confirmed...some statements imply it was later.
So, let's assume it was actually 10.05 or 10.10 the alert was sounded.
That gives a full 15-20 minutes.
Earlier I stated that the round trip to the beach and back was timed at 15 minutes....I had not seen their "documentary" at the time.
So...there you have it. One perfect timeline, provided by the McCann themselves.
:banghead:
As I have asked before, please check your facts before you post them. It is very frustrating to have someone arguing so vehemently, over and over again, thread after thread, with inaccurate and unlinked allegations.
Extraordinary. But then, so is the entire case.
:cow:
So let me get this straight people think that Gerry was talking to jeremy wilkins whilst at the exact same time was seen by jane tanner walking across the junction? They also belive he was seen by several member sof MW staff as well as other guests, but that at the same time he walked past the smith family (who could not identify him, but weeks later one of them said they was a 60% chance it was gerry and a 40% it was someone else going by body language alone).
Oh, and the US government was somehow involved and pressured two EU governments into dropping the case?
I do hope people have told scotland yard about these theories.
There were no positive dna results - what needs to be explained is why people want this myth to go around?
There was no evidence of refrigeration - again why do people want this to go around?
There have been no mistruths about the shutters or the door?
there were no suspicious descrepancies about the payne visit
the gasper statement is not exactly damning, two grown men were maybe heard talking about somethign related to sex - the gaspar husband thought notheing of it, and the wife said she was happy for the guy to bath the children.
I think the main question is why are these lies being put around, who doe sit benefit to take attention away from an abductor and onto the parents? We know due to his aguido status amaral benefited from people thinking there were no abductors in the area, and the "madeleine foundation" was run by people with a history of doing this sort of thing and claiming cover-ups and conspiracies everywhere, and if one reads other sites about madeleine one can see that the ones accusing the parents as well as spreading lies, also do this with other cases and people so it is not just about the mccanns they are just the most well known internationally (some of these people are now looking at being sued by Lord McAlpine due to their twitterings).
Oh, and the US government was somehow involved and pressured two EU governments into dropping the case?
I do hope people have told scotland yard about these theories.
There were no positive dna results - what needs to be explained is why people want this myth to go around?
There was no evidence of refrigeration - again why do people want this to go around?
There have been no mistruths about the shutters or the door?
there were no suspicious descrepancies about the payne visit
the gasper statement is not exactly damning, two grown men were maybe heard talking about somethign related to sex - the gaspar husband thought notheing of it, and the wife said she was happy for the guy to bath the children.
I think the main question is why are these lies being put around, who doe sit benefit to take attention away from an abductor and onto the parents? We know due to his aguido status amaral benefited from people thinking there were no abductors in the area, and the "madeleine foundation" was run by people with a history of doing this sort of thing and claiming cover-ups and conspiracies everywhere, and if one reads other sites about madeleine one can see that the ones accusing the parents as well as spreading lies, also do this with other cases and people so it is not just about the mccanns they are just the most well known internationally (some of these people are now looking at being sued by Lord McAlpine due to their twitterings).
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 101
I agree.
If you know the facts, it is undeniable they are guilty of a cover up at the very least.
:cow:
dream on bit so stop libelling, oh and by the way, what abductor? You state it as a fact, steady on chum before u get too carried away hey?
:floorlaugh:
Shame on you for saying mr amaral benefited from his arguido status by people thinking there were no abductors in the area, whats that in ENGLISH
exactly what r u accusing him of?
What abductors in the area? lets see some facts for a change, would be refreshing
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 101
I missed responding to half of this - cant think why. My answers in blue. 
inally Posted by SapphireSteel
Can you please link that statement? All information I have is that no one outside the Tapas 9 clapped eyes on her after 5.30...which is in the PJ's final report.
My mistake. What I meant was that the alarm for a missing Madeleine was not raised until around 22.00. We can assume that the tapas bar waiter's time when he saw Gerry searching between 21.30 and 22.00 was in fact closer to 22.00 as the alarm hadn't been raised at 21.30. He spoke to one of the tapas 9 and asked her why she was sitting on her own and she said because the others were searching for Madeleine which again supports the latter time.
Why can we assume that?
Perhaps the waiter saw Gerry returning from hiding her, or doing his "check"...how on earth can we assume he was "searching"?
This is irrelevant, we are talking about the events before 10.00?
It's not irrelevant it narrows down the time Gerry would have to dispose of Madeleine
See above.
I don't need to.
'
I'm delighted to find, the McCann has done it for me.
I have now viewed their "account of the truth", the mockumentary "Madeleine was here".
They address the Smith sighting.
They themselves place the time of this sighting at 21.50.
Maybe you should link to this. They said 21.55-22.00 in their statements.
No problem. From the transcript -
Voice over: It is possible that JT is not the only person who saw Madeleine being carried away by the abductor. 40 minutes after J(T)s sighting and ½ mile away from the Mcs apartment a family also saw a man carrying a young girl away from the town. Later the witness thought that this might have been GM. But, this was investigated and ruled out by the Portuguese police.
DE: A man was seen here carrying a child, just before 10 pm on the night Madeleine was abducted. When the man saw the family he appeared furtive and veered off to one side and carried on walking. Obviously, anyone carrying a child at night, its really important. We need to find out who this person was.
So, Tanner's famous "check" was undertaken at 9.10. Add 40 minutes and it's 9.50. If you watch the documentary itself, a screen shot comes across confirming 9.50. Unfortunately it doesn't appear in the transcript I have found but it is freely available on youtube.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id235.html
Ten full minutes before the alert was sounded...at least.
We know that 10pm is not actually confirmed...some statements imply it was later.
Link please
From the PJ's final report -
4 What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy at around 10 p.m.;[/
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html
So, let's assume it was actually 10.05 or 10.10 the alert was sounded.
That gives a full 15-20 minutes.
Earlier I stated that the round trip to the beach and back was timed at 15 minutes....I had not seen their "documentary" at the time.
So...there you have it. One perfect timeline, provided by the McCann themselves.
I wasn't asking for the McCanns timeline
What are you asking for again? More links from me and more tolerance for posting more opinion as fact?
As I have asked before, please check your facts before you post them. It is very frustrating to have someone arguing so vehemently, over and over again, thread after thread, with inaccurate and unlinked allegations.
You are guilty of this too for starters it was you that said the Smith family thought it was Gerry when it fact it was only Martin Smith and according to him his wife.
You aren't seriously suggesting that this unimportant little slip of the tongue is in some way comparable to the unlinked whoppers you've been posting?
:lol:
Sometimes it's hard to keep up with all the information and remember what's in the files and what came from the media.
If you can't keep the facts apart from the spin, maybe don't dispute every single post by others who can, and who post the facts, with links.
Please.
lease:
inally Posted by SapphireSteel
Can you please link that statement? All information I have is that no one outside the Tapas 9 clapped eyes on her after 5.30...which is in the PJ's final report.
My mistake. What I meant was that the alarm for a missing Madeleine was not raised until around 22.00. We can assume that the tapas bar waiter's time when he saw Gerry searching between 21.30 and 22.00 was in fact closer to 22.00 as the alarm hadn't been raised at 21.30. He spoke to one of the tapas 9 and asked her why she was sitting on her own and she said because the others were searching for Madeleine which again supports the latter time.
Why can we assume that?
Perhaps the waiter saw Gerry returning from hiding her, or doing his "check"...how on earth can we assume he was "searching"?
This is irrelevant, we are talking about the events before 10.00?
It's not irrelevant it narrows down the time Gerry would have to dispose of Madeleine
See above.
I don't need to.
'
I'm delighted to find, the McCann has done it for me.
I have now viewed their "account of the truth", the mockumentary "Madeleine was here".
They address the Smith sighting.
They themselves place the time of this sighting at 21.50.
Maybe you should link to this. They said 21.55-22.00 in their statements.
No problem. From the transcript -
Voice over: It is possible that JT is not the only person who saw Madeleine being carried away by the abductor. 40 minutes after J(T)s sighting and ½ mile away from the Mcs apartment a family also saw a man carrying a young girl away from the town. Later the witness thought that this might have been GM. But, this was investigated and ruled out by the Portuguese police.
DE: A man was seen here carrying a child, just before 10 pm on the night Madeleine was abducted. When the man saw the family he appeared furtive and veered off to one side and carried on walking. Obviously, anyone carrying a child at night, its really important. We need to find out who this person was.
So, Tanner's famous "check" was undertaken at 9.10. Add 40 minutes and it's 9.50. If you watch the documentary itself, a screen shot comes across confirming 9.50. Unfortunately it doesn't appear in the transcript I have found but it is freely available on youtube.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id235.html
Ten full minutes before the alert was sounded...at least.
We know that 10pm is not actually confirmed...some statements imply it was later.
Link please
From the PJ's final report -
4 What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy at around 10 p.m.;[/
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html
So, let's assume it was actually 10.05 or 10.10 the alert was sounded.
That gives a full 15-20 minutes.
Earlier I stated that the round trip to the beach and back was timed at 15 minutes....I had not seen their "documentary" at the time.
So...there you have it. One perfect timeline, provided by the McCann themselves.
I wasn't asking for the McCanns timeline
What are you asking for again? More links from me and more tolerance for posting more opinion as fact?
As I have asked before, please check your facts before you post them. It is very frustrating to have someone arguing so vehemently, over and over again, thread after thread, with inaccurate and unlinked allegations.
You are guilty of this too for starters it was you that said the Smith family thought it was Gerry when it fact it was only Martin Smith and according to him his wife.
You aren't seriously suggesting that this unimportant little slip of the tongue is in some way comparable to the unlinked whoppers you've been posting?
:lol:
Sometimes it's hard to keep up with all the information and remember what's in the files and what came from the media.
If you can't keep the facts apart from the spin, maybe don't dispute every single post by others who can, and who post the facts, with links.
Please.
lease:I missed responding to half of this - cant think why. My answers in blue.
inally Posted by SapphireSteel
Can you please link that statement? All information I have is that no one outside the Tapas 9 clapped eyes on her after 5.30...which is in the PJ's final report.
My mistake. What I meant was that the alarm for a missing Madeleine was not raised until around 22.00. We can assume that the tapas bar waiter's time when he saw Gerry searching between 21.30 and 22.00 was in fact closer to 22.00 as the alarm hadn't been raised at 21.30. He spoke to one of the tapas 9 and asked her why she was sitting on her own and she said because the others were searching for Madeleine which again supports the latter time.
Why can we assume that?
Perhaps the waiter saw Gerry returning from hiding her, or doing his "check"...how on earth can we assume he was "searching"?
This is irrelevant, we are talking about the events before 10.00?
It's not irrelevant it narrows down the time Gerry would have to dispose of Madeleine
See above.
I don't need to.
'
I'm delighted to find, the McCann has done it for me.
I have now viewed their "account of the truth", the mockumentary "Madeleine was here".
They address the Smith sighting.
They themselves place the time of this sighting at 21.50.
Maybe you should link to this. They said 21.55-22.00 in their statements.
No problem. From the transcript -
Voice over: It is possible that JT is not the only person who saw Madeleine being carried away by the abductor. 40 minutes after J(T)’s sighting and ½ mile away from the Mc’s apartment a family also saw a man carrying a young girl away from the town. Later the witness thought that this might have been GM. But, this was investigated and ruled out by the Portuguese police.
DE: A man was seen here carrying a child, just before 10 pm on the night Madeleine was abducted. When the man saw the family he appeared furtive and veered off to one side and carried on walking. Obviously, anyone carrying a child at night, it’s really important. We need to find out who this person was.
So, Tanner's famous "check" was undertaken at 9.10. Add 40 minutes and it's 9.50. If you watch the documentary itself, a screen shot comes across confirming 9.50. Unfortunately it doesn't appear in the transcript I have found but it is freely available on youtube.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id235.html
Ten full minutes before the alert was sounded...at least.
We know that 10pm is not actually confirmed...some statements imply it was later.
Link please
From the PJ's final report -
4 – What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. – the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings – and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy – at around 10 p.m.;[/
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html
So, let's assume it was actually 10.05 or 10.10 the alert was sounded.
That gives a full 15-20 minutes.
Earlier I stated that the round trip to the beach and back was timed at 15 minutes....I had not seen their "documentary" at the time.
So...there you have it. One perfect timeline, provided by the McCann themselves.
I wasn't asking for the McCanns timeline
What are you asking for again? More links from me and more tolerance for posting more opinion as fact?
As I have asked before, please check your facts before you post them. It is very frustrating to have someone arguing so vehemently, over and over again, thread after thread, with inaccurate and unlinked allegations.
You are guilty of this too for starters it was you that said the Smith family thought it was Gerry when it fact it was only Martin Smith and according to him his wife.
You aren't seriously suggesting that this unimportant little slip of the tongue is in some way comparable to the unlinked whoppers you've been posting?
:lol:
Sometimes it's hard to keep up with all the information and remember what's in the files and what came from the media.
If you can't keep the facts apart from the spin, maybe don't dispute every single post by others who can, and who post the facts, with links.
Please.
Jeronimo Tomas Rodigues Salcedo
"At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching"
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm
I didn't say we can assume he was searching. I said the tapas waiter saw him searching (in his opinion as highlighted above) and we can assume that the time he saw Gerry was closer to 22.00 seeing as the alarm for a missing Madeleine hadn't be raised at 21.30.. Unless you can provide evidence to suggest that the alarm was raised earlier than around 22.00?
So we're going to ignore what the Smiths say in their police statements about the time and instead get our information from a documentary? Seriously?
Ignoring your personal insults and not rising to the bait. At least I can admit when i've made a mistake.
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 101
And that's not intended as a personal insult?
All I have asked for is accuracy and to not post opinion as fact.
:dunno:
PS..."get our information from a documentary"....that documentary was made and produced and written by Team McCann, so the "information" is straight from the source.
You clearly have not watched it, yet here you are arguing about it.
As for "Jeronimo Salcedo"....wtf????? One employee making assumptions, and it's now fact? (hint: the reason they are called "employees" is because they are working....usually very hard in a fully booked restaurant...they have no clue what is happening around them because the place is fully of people wandering about, vacating their seats, etc.)
Also, I am not often wrong, because I fact check before I make such profound, libellous statements...I am referring to the Team McCann troll posts now which have in the past two days only, blamed Amaral, the GNR, Raymond Hewlett, and of course the "abductor"...everyone indeed except where the blame firmly belongs, at the foot of two callous, irresponsible parents.
Unbelievable.
:cow:
I see the " troll " word is starting tio be used again - which I think is rather pathetic
That and the fact that there is now some " organised " Team Mccann . which is also very insulting
people have every right to post their views without being labeled trolls
That and the fact that there is now some " organised " Team Mccann . which is also very insulting
people have every right to post their views without being labeled trolls
fabgod
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 636
- Reaction score
- 1
Gord,
you are right, everyone does have the right to post without being labelled.
The problems arise when posters start to refer to themselves as "we" which does seem to be a sort of "gang" mentality imo.
It would be great if everyone on here could just debate constructively, look at the options and angles and form opinions, it doesnt really achieve much for the same points to be made repeatedly, often stated as fact without any actual support for that opinion (posted as fact)
I just see it in other forums ( non McCann ) where as soon as people cant be bothered to debate - the troll word comes out and then that is the slippery slope
I think that this case does polarise views and you do start to have two sets of posters who all debate the same issues - hence teh two camps - but to say we are organised groups cioming over from other forums !!
In this case noone can say they are correct - all we can do is debate and look at the posibiblities - the Police couldnt solve it and at the end of the day the case is still a mystery - we just dont know
we can have view points and my view is no more " correct " than anyone else -
fabgod
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 636
- Reaction score
- 1
Its only my opinion but, I don't think its a case of not being bothered to debate, I think its more a case of it's not possible to debate with some posters (both sides) as there is no discussion just the same outcome whatever the approach.
You are right, we don't know, none of us do, we only have the information that we have been given, we don't have the benefit of having been present at any of the interviews so we can only go off the written translations unlike the Police who were actually there (Portugal and the UK for the rogatories etc)
This case seems to really polarise two ways of thinking in some cases to the extreme, but at the end of the day as you rightly state, no views as outsiders are any more correct than any other. believers in the McCanns innocence are just as entitled to their opinions and beliefs as the posters who believe that the McCanns have some involvement in the case, neither can categorically prove their opinions one way or the other, its just a bit annoying imo when some seem to want to not debate, rather impress their views on the rest, when it is plainly obvious that that will never work for various reasons.
Again, it would be great if we could actually debate points, rather than argue who is right who is wrong, it never gets anywhere.
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 101
Definition of troll -
In Internet slang, a troll ( /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog
Now let's see -
Yesterday 06:50 PM
gord
I see the " troll " word is starting tio be used again - which I think is rather patheticThat and the fact that there is now some " organised " Team Mccann . which is also very insulting
:waitasec: Inflammatory, extraneous, and off-topic, I'd say.
These threads are becoming pro-McCann, and I for one am heartily sick of constantly pointing out the gigantic, repeated errors in those posts.
If I was going to be inflammatory, I would call them mistruths, or outright lies. As the same offenders are repeating the same misrepresentations on every thread (regardless of the actual topic), it fits the definition of trolling.
:dunno:
No one does know exactly what happened that night.
The problem starts when an alternate theory is consistently met with a barrage of derision, snark, inaccuracies and unlinked opinion as fact.
Impartially read the threads and note how many times the pro-McCann posts are either never supported by a link, or completely discounted by the next informed poster. It happens every single post, not just every now and then. Any thoughtful, linked and accurate response is completely ignored while the Pro McCann leaps on to the next load of baseless allegations.
No one can deny that the drubbing Goncalo Amaral recieves on these pages is beyond a normal impartial reaction. He was the Lead Investigator...I know of no case where a policeman is brought up by the defense with such monotony, as if it "proves" something....what? Exactly nothing about what happened to Madeleine, but still the trolling posts about Amaral continue. On every single thread.
:banghead:
Debate is wonderful, I have learnt a lot from these boards even inadvertently, but it has to be fair, and it has to be accurate and checkable. Otherwise it's not debate, it's propaganda. The pro-McCann posts are not fair, in that they do not stand up to examination or rebuttal. Regurgitating falsities and sledges then acting like a wounded innocent when someone points it out, is trolling behaviour. Not answering the responses, or requests for links, same.
I have asked for links that have never been given, had admissions of false posting even, yet mention the T word and all of a sudden the very fabric of the freedom of speech is threatened. By those of us who are actually concerned with the truth and links, no less. Mystifying.
I have no agenda except Madeleine. I don't passionately support the PJ or Amaral or my own comfort zone. What I do is consider the truth as published, and form an opinion. I have the right to expect anyone who is going to argue against my opinion so vehemently and with clockwork regularity to also be arguing from a place of knowledge and impartiality. That is not happening.
:waitasec:
I will keep on posting the truth on these threads. I have asked many times that those who critique my posts at least know the basic, undisputed facts of the case, many of which can be found in black and white in the PJ's final report. Unbiased assessment of the exact events of the evening, complete with signed statements, collected and analysed by experienced, qualified people who investigate these things for a living. It's amazing what you will find out if you read it.
People can post whatever opinion they like. What they cannot do, unchallenged, is make false and unlinked statements and allegations, especially in rebuttal.
If you are going to critique my posts, at least read the PJ report and the relevant msm first.
lease::cow:
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 101
Yeah, maybe not organised though...I'm taking that back.
More like disorganised.
More like disorganised.
- Status