Edit…

It’s because the programme raises all these questions (whereas before we only had newspaper reports of what JT had said, not her actual words) that I don’t think anyone could say it was biased. Some people had never questioned this question seriously before because inconsistencies are to be expected and newspaper reports are inaccurate. The programme gave them JT’s own words and proved that this oddity really was just that.

++++++++++++++++++++

Maria, I’m sorry but the Panorama program did nothing to ‘raise questions’. It was more like a party political broadcast for Team McCann. What the program did was sidestep any ‘issues’ and avoided asking ‘difficult questions’ of the McCann’s.

Any member of the general public who had not previously taken an interest in this case and begun to understand some of the inconsistencies in the McCann’s alleged statements would have been none the wiser from watching the Panorama program.

One of the most obviously contentious areas of the witness statements is Jane Tanner’s alleged sighting of the Egg Man. It is fairly common knowledge that Jane Tanner’s statement(s) is/are at best suspect/unreliable and at worst an outright lie. It is also fairly common knowledge that Wilkins, who was talking to Gerry, does not recollect seeing Jane Tanner at the time she alleges she saw the Egg Man despite being in the same narrow street as she claims she was in. I notice from posts here yesterday that there is also a suggestion that Gerry didn’t see Tanner?

Why then did the Panorama reporter not press Tanner on these questions? He didn’t I suspect because the McCann’s/their team retained editorial control of the program. Team McCann decided what could be shown and what questions could be asked, certainly of Tanner and Jon Corner.

People will have been ‘misled’ by the interspacing of Jon Corner’s “home video”. This was not a “home video”, it was a broadcast quality heavily scripted program in it’s own right. Worse, because it was interspaced with BBC/Panorama footage it became impossible to tell which was Jon Corner’s “home video” and BBC footage.

In fact, Kate and Gerry were NOT interviewed for this Panorama program, all the footage of them speaking comes from Jon Corner.

For obvious reasons the PJ could not contribute to the Panorama program so they had no “right of reply” to the reporters claim that the evidence against the McCann’s was ‘tenuous’. The Panorama program has no more knowledge of precisely what evidence the PJ may have against the McCann’s than you or I do. They’ll have access to the same media leaks/speculations as we do.

Team McCann’s objectives for that program did not include trying to persuade Anorak posters, it was aimed solely and squarely at Joe Public. Even in this respect, I think it missed it’s mark since the McCann’s once again failed miserably to convince that they were either suffering for their loss nor willing to accept any responsibility for their part in Madeleine’s alleged abduction.

:{
:~

;(

:^

I posted this yesterday morning - but its still relevant to your ongoing thread.

I had a thought last night, whilst lying in the bath with a glass of wine - beats the husband - lasts longer (sorry Mods and Admin).

Exactly how did whichever of them hurt Madeleine tell the other?

I mean I can’t imagine my old man coming home after a tennis lesson or whatever and me casually saying “Good lesson dear? By the way I’ve just killed our daughter” or vice versa.

No. Sorry. They both have to be involved somehow. So maybe it did happen earlier and Sean and Amelie were at the kinds club. Or - like I said on here eons ago - they were having an afternoon nap in the apartment and told Madeliene was asleep.

Then when they were asleep - sedated or otherwise - the removal plan was put into action.

The child that JT so say saw was her own. Being carried by her husband to give the abduction theory weight. They hoped someone else would notice. Her child was supposedly sick wasn’t she. But the resort say no one wanted sheets. Of course they didn’t - she wasn’t sick - she was a stand in.

Madeleine was already gone. Then moved. to Heulva or wherever.

JT said she was in her apartment . I thought she said before she was at the bar when Kate came in screaming they’ve taken her.

At that point someone else in the Tapas bar - unconnected with the Tapas 9 was supposed to say “I saw a man carrying a child - he went thataway” or something like that.

But it didn’t happen.

Oh shit.

What do we do now.

The rest is improvisation.

Well?

——————————–

You were a liar yesterday. You’re a liar today. You’ll probably be liar tomorrow

Sorry! Meant to say
“Some people had never questioned this “oddity” before because inconsistencies…………..”

Still tired!

Thank you for your answers.

I also wonder if Jane Tanner would have been willing to appear on Panorama if she was concerned that this oddity (GM and JM not having seen her or the man) was obviously going to come out. Maybe there is some simple explanation. She would hardly have said or done anything which could make things worse for her friends.

Of course, with a programme like that, there must have ben a whole lot of stuff which was covered in the making of it but which didn’t appear in the final edited version.

Again, have we actually seen GM say himself that he didn’t notice JT passing? I know he didn’t see the man carrying the child but that is more understandable, depending on exactly where he and JW were standing while chatting.

I wonder which way JW was walking? Had he come from the street at the top (at right angles to the street where the two men were talking)or was he making his way towards it? I think I need to watch the programme again.

Since JW did not see the man, why would JT even say she’d seen him unless it was true? Where was Russell O’B at this time? I rather think he was in the restaurant, from what JT said on Panorama? She decided to do her check just before the starters arrived. Presumably O’B was in the tapas bar? So she can’t have been saying this thing about the man simply in order to throw suspicion off O’B in case anyone else noticed him carrying Madeleine away. O’B wasn’t there at the time and GM was talking to JW. So neither GM nor O’B would be seen by anyone else carrying Madeleine away! JT had no need to make up that story to cover for either of them, from what I can see.

Without being there, knowing what the light was like etc. it’s difficult to know how easy it might have been for the two men not to have noticed the man carrying the child. It would even have been possible for GM to say he HAD noticed a figure passing at the top of the street but didn’t focus in on him/her because he was chatting to JW. If GM is lying and/or guilty of something sinister, why didn’t he support JT’s story by saying just that?

Have to go now but will look in much later this evening. Will watch Panorama again tomorrow.

It’s because the programme raises all these questions (whereas before we only had newspaper reports of what JT had said, not her actual words) that I don’t think anyone could say it was biased. Some people had never questioned this question seriously before because inconsistencies are to be expected and newspaper reports are inaccurate. The programme gave them JT’s own words and proved that this oddity really was just that.

Thanks again.

Well, your posts show no evidence of temerity whatsoever, so I guess that rules you out as MTzero then. That leaves, what? Pro-McCann.

Whatever you say, Gerry!

“419 Hideki
Had a brief word with Ade some time ago about this and he said MTzero not pro McCann”

I do not know what MTzero denotes. Can someone explain?

+++++++++++++++++++

Can’t remember the codes. Essentially, shorthand for the Anti-McCann ‘in-group’ to label other posters who have the temerity to disagree with them in any way.

You were a liar yesterday. You’re a liar today. You’ll probably be liar tomorrow. At least your consistent.

“419 Hideki
Had a brief word with Ade some time ago about this and he said MTzero not pro McCann”

I do not know what MTzero denotes. Can someone explain?

Something else to ponder is the Alcohol.

The Police who initially turned up, allegedly(for Peter O’s sake) described the people at the scene as being obviously intoxicated to some degree. There is also the matter of the bar bill.

If there had been an accident of some kind that evening, I fail to see how there would have been enough time for a couple of tipsy people to do a clean up so thorough that next to no meaningful forensic trace was left. Edit…

Skilled and experienced criminals could not have done a better job cold sober than the McCanns are alleged by some to have achieved while a bit pissed.

++++++++++++++

I tend to agree with your assessment. A bit like abduction though, which whilst it appears unlikely I don’t think you can say it’s impossible.

The tight timelines is one of the reasons why we need to keep a thoroughly open mind about what the real timelines may be in this case. The McCann’s are desperate that we should believe Madeleine was alive and well in that apartment when they left it at 8.30PM on May 3rd.

As has been reported on numerous occasions, the PJ are allegedly concerned about a period of time that has been dubbed “the missing six hours”. If this is taken in it’s most literal sense then this means six hours prior to 8.30PM. That implies they are interested in the time from about 2.30 PM, immediately after the alleged ‘last photo’.

+++++++++++++

Pardon? That’s a disgraceful thing to say.
========================================

Peter O,

You missed earlier messages then?

Stevo and Julie claim the term ‘chinamen’ is acceptable and okay because Wikipedia says so.

My comment was poking fun at their incredible ignorance.

I apologise.

But interesting only one poster challenged Julie and Stevo after they continued to harass and attack. Everyone else thought it was either acceptable too (both the word and their harrrasing) or it depends on who is making the comment and who is doing the harassing.

++++++++++++++

Ah sorry, hadn’t realised you were being humorous.. Apology not necessary, but thank you anyway.

Antihistamines are used as soon as a reaction manifests. They are also used PRIOR to administering drugs when the patient has a history of allergic response. You are correct that in severe cases , antihistamines are not adequate.

If Madeleine’s reaction progressed to life-threatening, an emergency tracheotomy was also performed. This would result in blood of course, such as that found in the apartment.

There is the further chance that an allergic reaction was FOLLOWED by fatal fall, and either one could be the cause of death.

Who might that be? I have not been following your posts at all. BTW, according to PeterO , your OPINION that I have a “counterpart” is a lie, and you are a liar. Don’t worry, though, that’s not what I think!