Crimewatch Reconstruction 14.10.13 2100GMT

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Donjeta said:
JMO but it is in fact a bit about clearing people too, not just proving people guilty because it helps to narrow the field and the prosecutor is happier if the police can actually clear the victim's family and other interested parties who the defense might bring up as alternative theories, not just shrug and say that they haven't been proven guilty, so there.
Click to expand...

Well it normally helps LE to clear the family if they answer there questions but..there you go that didn't happen in this case or at least not with Kate.
 
At about 13:12 in the reconstruction there's a "Jane Tanner" looking at the man she saw carrying a child. If this reconstruction happens to be in any way accurate she was too far and it was too dark and the lights distorted the colors too much that she had no way of taking in all the liney bits and the decorative detail of the pajamas imo. Oh well, it doesn't matter any more.

But she does not pass Gerry and Jez in the recon.
:waitasec:

I don't really understand why both Gerry and Kate were so obsessive about the door. They both notice how much it was open and close it again. Why? What does it matter whether the door to the children's bedroom is open two inches or ten if everyone inside is fast asleep and couldn't care less?
 
Morag said:
I went back to look at some of my old posts, and found this, which I had totally forgotten about.

If true, this changes everything. It explains the random leaving the table to check on the kids- each couple was removing their children from the McCann apartment. And if this is true, it means that they mostly knew Madeleine had died or was in extremis at some point. What they probably didn't know was how it was going to play out.


http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk...cle2621809.ece

Quote:
However, a source within the investigation was quoted by 24 Horas as saying: “It’s not only the collected evidence that points to the fact that there were more children inside that [the McCanns'] apartment.

“Evidence also exists, following the interrogations to the other people who that were at the Ocean Club, that only the McCanns’ apartment was visited by the people who attended the dinner.”

I've always thought that the truth of what happened is known to a majority of the Tapas group. And looking back over only my own posts, I came across the part about the elderly British woman who lived upstairs. Not only did she hear Madeleine and one of the twins weeping the previous evening, she heard them the night of the abduction as well. So how could the Tapas 'listening squad' not have heard them when doing their checks?

I certainly have a theory about what happened, and I had it at the very beginning.[/QUOTE]

bbm

Morag, please share your theory! I have not been following this case, so am very interested in hearing from someone who has been folowing it from the beginning. TIA!
Click to expand...
 
I find that Redwood is being a little disingenious when he says that he says the photo of the man in the street is uncannily similar to the sketch JT drew... The hair is different (perhaps he had a different haircut six years ago), the the only real similarity in the clothes is that the trousers are a lighter shade than the top, the face is non-existent in the sketch... The posture is similar but hello, that is because he purposefully posed in a similar manner to replicate the sketch. You could photograph any number of dudes with a somewhat similar build and get the same effect.
 
Donjeta said:
At about 13:12 in the reconstruction there's a "Jane Tanner" looking at the man she saw carrying a child. If this reconstruction happens to be in any way accurate she was too far and it was too dark and the lights distorted the colors too much that she had no way of taking in all the liney bits and the decorative detail of the pajamas imo. Oh well, it doesn't matter any more.

But she does not pass Gerry and Jez in the recon.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a reconstruction in any technical sense and it's misleading of Crimewatch to call it a reconstruction. It was just a dramatisation of selected events for TV.

As far as I'm aware, there hasn't yet been a proper reconstruction of the alleged events using the timings and accounts of the Tapas 9. Something that should be done properly.
 
More than 730 calls were made and 212 emails received as a result of the appeal shown on Monday night.

Among them were two independent callers who phoned police on Monday night with the same name for the man shown on the e-fit picture.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7331034.stm


I'd say it's fairly unlikely the callers identified the e-fits as JM...
 
nomoresorrow said:
More than 730 calls were made and 212 emails received as a result of the appeal shown on Monday night.

Among them were two independent callers who phoned police on Monday night with the same name for the man shown on the e-fit picture.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7331034.stm


I'd say it's fairly unlikely the callers identified the e-fits as JM...
Click to expand...

If there are two people who genuinely recognized the e-fit picture and can put a name to the man, then he is unlikely to be a child kidnaper who was just passing through. He has to be 'john doe, my friend who was there at the time,' or 'juan doe, the clerk at the mini-mart', or ...? It should be fairly easy to rule this id in or out.
 
aa9511 said:
Morag said:
I went back to look at some of my old posts, and found this, which I had totally forgotten about.

If true, this changes everything. It explains the random leaving the table to check on the kids- each couple was removing their children from the McCann apartment. And if this is true, it means that they mostly knew Madeleine had died or was in extremis at some point. What they probably didn't know was how it was going to play out.


http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk...cle2621809.ece

Quote:
However, a source within the investigation was quoted by 24 Horas as saying: “It’s not only the collected evidence that points to the fact that there were more children inside that [the McCanns'] apartment.

“Evidence also exists, following the interrogations to the other people who that were at the Ocean Club, that only the McCanns’ apartment was visited by the people who attended the dinner.”

I've always thought that the truth of what happened is known to a majority of the Tapas group. And looking back over only my own posts, I came across the part about the elderly British woman who lived upstairs. Not only did she hear Madeleine and one of the twins weeping the previous evening, she heard them the night of the abduction as well. So how could the Tapas 'listening squad' not have heard them when doing their checks?

I certainly have a theory about what happened, and I had it at the very beginning.[/QUOTE]

bbm

Morag, please share your theory! I have not been following this case, so am very interested in hearing from someone who has been folowing it from the beginning. TIA!
Click to expand...

aa9511- I will think about what I can safely say on-line, and then I will try to answer you.
Click to expand...
 
Donjeta said:
I don't really understand why both Gerry and Kate were so obsessive about the door. They both notice how much it was open and close it again. Why? What does it matter whether the door to the children's bedroom is open two inches or ten if everyone inside is fast asleep and couldn't care less?
Click to expand...

Because they noticed that the door had moved from being only slightly ajar to being much further open!

Its a pertinent detail because unless the door kept moving of its own volition (which could be possible, drafts/dodgy hinge), then somebody had been into the room and moved the door whilst doing so.

Neither of the McCanns, or their friend did it, so who did? Madeleine herself? Or an unknown person??

If I went to check on my child and noticed the door had moved I would notice right away! I would worry that my child had woken and had come out of his room.
 
shadowdancer said:
Because they noticed that the door had moved from being only slightly ajar to being much further open!

Its a pertinent detail because unless the door kept moving of its own volition (which could be possible, drafts/dodgy hinge), then somebody had been into the room and moved the door whilst doing so.

Neither of the McCanns, or their friend did it, so who did? Madeleine herself? Or an unknown person??

If I went to check on my child and noticed the door had moved I would notice right away! I would worry that my child had woken and had come out of his room.
Click to expand...

I think I would notice that, too. But was it because somebody actually opened the door, or because the window was open and kept it moving? And who opened the window?
 
Morag said:
If there are two people who genuinely recognized the e-fit picture and can put a name to the man, then he is unlikely to be a child kidnaper who was just passing through. He has to be 'john doe, my friend who was there at the time,' or 'juan doe, the clerk at the mini-mart', or ...? It should be fairly easy to rule this id in or out.
Click to expand...

With two different callers identifying/providing the same name, I would agree that it should be fairly easy for LE to rule him in or out. Hopefully we will hear something soon...
 
Donjeta said:
At about 13:12 in the reconstruction there's a "Jane Tanner" looking at the man she saw carrying a child. If this reconstruction happens to be in any way accurate she was too far and it was too dark and the lights distorted the colors too much that she had no way of taking in all the liney bits and the decorative detail of the pajamas imo. Oh well, it doesn't matter any more.

But she does not pass Gerry and Jez in the recon.
:waitasec:

I don't really understand why both Gerry and Kate were so obsessive about the door. They both notice how much it was open and close it again. Why? What does it matter whether the door to the children's bedroom is open two inches or ten if everyone inside is fast asleep and couldn't care less?
Click to expand...

Considering there was supposedly a check after Gerry and Kate had left by one of the friends why would they be so focussed on how wide the door was or wasn't open anyhow? if
 
Cherwell said:
It wasn't a reconstruction in any technical sense and it's misleading of Crimewatch to call it a reconstruction. It was just a dramatisation of selected events for TV.

As far as I'm aware, there hasn't yet been a proper reconstruction of the alleged events using the timings and accounts of the Tapas 9. Something that should be done properly.
Click to expand...

The McCanns and their friends refused to do a reconstruction.
 
nomoresorrow said:
More than 730 calls were made and 212 emails received as a result of the appeal shown on Monday night.

Among them were two independent callers who phoned police on Monday night with the same name for the man shown on the e-fit picture.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7331034.stm


I'd say it's fairly unlikely the callers identified the e-fits as JM...
Click to expand...

However the sighting for which they referred to last night MS did very blatantly say it was GM he saw with the child.
 
I wonder if the McCanns had legal advice, and on that basis, declined both a reconstruction, and polygraphs? I am certain that legal counsel would never let them participate in either of these, innocent or not.
 
shadowdancer said:
Because they noticed that the door had moved from being only slightly ajar to being much further open!

Its a pertinent detail because unless the door kept moving of its own volition (which could be possible, drafts/dodgy hinge), then somebody had been into the room and moved the door whilst doing so.

Neither of the McCanns, or their friend did it, so who did? Madeleine herself? Or an unknown person??

If I went to check on my child and noticed the door had moved I would notice right away! I would worry that my child had woken and had come out of his room.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't work for me. And it's not what I was wondering about anyway. The point was not about noticing the door but trying to close the door the same way it was. Of course I can see how people might get worried if they see something out of place when they know they left it differently... But Kate had no reason to think there was anything odd about a door being more or less open than when she left since she knew that two people had been in to check on the kids. Gerry had been in the room, through that door, of course it wouldn't be left the same way Kate had seen it earlier in the evening. And I don't know if she knew whether the Matt person entered the room or not. Gerry was the first in the room at nine-ish so he might have been worried about the door being moved but supposedly he saw Madeleine sleeping safely in her bed at that time and surely if he had been worried about the door moving on its own suggesting an intruder being there he wouldn't have gone back to the Tapas bar and left the kids in the intruder's clutches.

So why did they care about closing the door about the same? The sleeping children wouldn't care.
 
shadowdancer said:
You probably couldn't rule out half of the residents and tourists in the town at the time! Anyone who was home alone for example couldn't be ruled out, because they have no witnesses to corroborate that they stayed home and didn't go down to the holiday apartments to abduct Madeleine.
Click to expand...

just b/c someone is home alone does not mean they can't be ruled out... were they on the computer? the phone? texting? electronic forensics can be very telling. also, would they have a motive to want to kidnap a child? means to kidnap a child? all tools used by LE to rule ppl out.
 
redheadedgal said:
just b/c someone is home alone does not mean they can't be ruled out... were they on the computer? the phone? texting? electronic forensics can be very telling. also, would they have a motive to want to kidnap a child? means to kidnap a child? all tools used by LE to rule ppl out.
Click to expand...

Of course, but I was obviously making a wider point about the face that lots of people couldn't be conclusively ruled out, but it doesn't make them guilty.
 
So, there was another crèche at the main reception area of Ocean Club. Who knew? It seems to me that the PJ should have found that out. I looked at the resort guest list in the PJ files a while back and remember wondering how big the crèche was, being able to accommodate all those children. It was advertised as a family friendly resort. IMO Jane Tanners sighting could have been explained the next day by looking at the list of who signed out who and at what time. How many crèches were there?
 
Donjeta said:
No, it doesn't work for me. And it's not what I was wondering about anyway. The point was not about noticing the door but trying to close the door the same way it was. Of course I can see how people might get worried if they see something out of place when they know they left it differently... But Kate had no reason to think there was anything odd about a door being more or less open than when she left since she knew that two people had been in to check on the kids. Gerry had been in the room, through that door, of course it wouldn't be left the same way Kate had seen it earlier in the evening. And I don't know if she knew whether the Matt person entered the room or not. Gerry was the first in the room at nine-ish so he might have been worried about the door being moved but supposedly he saw Madeleine sleeping safely in her bed at that time and surely if he had been worried about the door moving on its own suggesting an intruder being there he wouldn't have gone back to the Tapas bar and left the kids in the intruder's clutches.

So why did they care about closing the door about the same? The sleeping children wouldn't care.
Click to expand...

Of course, but why would they hide the detail? They must know by now whether their friend moved the door. I would imagine that they simply asked him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 193 more.
Total: 1,801 (members: 194, guests: 1,607)

Online statistics

Members online
194
Guests online
1,607
Total visitors
1,801
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,767
Messages
17,958,587
Members
228,603
Latest member
megalow
Back
Top