The accepted version of events are wrong?
Investigation significantly changes timeline?
Would this be changes to the Sticker Book timeline?
Or changes to the Tapas statement timelines?
Is it someone else's timeline? Maybe Erik, the ice cream man? Or Henry, the mild mannered janitor?
The accepted version of events have been out there for over 6 years, mulled over and analysed by all. Who noticed that they were wrong? Didn't the McCanns ever notice? Kate has, after all, been working very hard and spent countless hours analysing the files. Their private dicks must be kicking themselves for not spotting such an anomaly.
Maybe their watches were all out (just like the camera) and we really should have been following that alternative timeline which did indeed seem to start an hour earlier?
If this is such a revelation!!! then surely it's enough to reopen the case in Portugal. No?...
How many versions of events are there? Can we add this to the versions of the truth? Maybe we could have one big Spot the Difference competition, where all entrants have to circle and underline in green ink. The winner gets to add their own timeline into the mix.
This is all so very intriguing but pointless speculating... Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
I can't help but thinking that everyone involved are callously playing with a child's life. Dribbling news to the press... waiting to release e-fit pictures... showing snippets of a programme yet to be broadcast... parading the parents as if they're celebrities. This is Crimewatch, not some 'coming soon to a screen near you'.
Or maybe they know something we don't. Whatever, it's all been done in the worst possible taste.
They're using Kate book as basis for the new timeline, at least that is what it seems, since the images from the teaser clearly point that they've discarded all the Tapas statements given to the PJ. It's fiction. Not reality.
ReplyDeleteScotland Yard can't just decide that the original timeline was incorrect and substitute a new one though, the tapas 9 ALL made and signed official police statements in Portugal and the tapas 7 in England also with the rogatory statements. All of these statements include the original timeline given by them.
ReplyDeleteEither they are all guilty of perverting the cause of justice by knowingly lying to the police or their statements should stand.
I have a vision of Inspector Plod of the yard gathering them all together in Operation Grange Headquarters and saying "Now if YOU change the time you say you went to the tapas bar and then YOU say that you walked more slowly than you thought you had and Gerry, you must have been chatting with Jez Wilkins at a later time and for a longer or shorter period (sorry we haven't quite worked out which it is yet) then the margin for the abductor will be increased to a reasonable level and Bob's your uncle - we've managed to make abduction a viable proposition"
I only hope they can all live with their collective consciences if Scotland Yard make this a whitewash.
Poor Madeleine.
"Scotland Yard can't just decide that the original timeline was incorrect" - but they have, and since their investigation won't be open to public scrutiny, the PJ will get the blame for a 'botched' investigation, a dead patsy or no one will be found, Maddie, alive or dead, neither. SY, who are probably under political pressure to sort this mess, will likely say 'we did our best, see we even appealed all "over Europe" and we can't find the girl but equally we can't find any evidence that points towards the parents or the Tapas7. Tapas 9 will be then absolved 'of any suspicions', with a whitewash stamp. Who is going to dispute SY findings and conclusions? The PJ? How? SY aren't investigating because a crime took place in the UK, they are doing it because of political interference - that has always been a factor in this case. Justice has no place here.
DeleteThe PJ doesn't have to dispute anything, they have done their work it's there for everyone to see. If SY, politicians and the media want to make fools of themselves so be it. I've been saying for quite a while now that the objective of this review / investigation was to devalue the contents of the case files it has nothing to do with searching for truth.
Delete@ Anonymous 14.57: we have to wait until we've seen Crimewatch but Scotland Yard can certainly deem the original timeline incorrect. How so? Well remember one of the initial statements made by Clarence Mitchell? That nobody sitting in the Tapas bar that night were wearing watches or had mobiles with them, hence the apparent inconsistencies in the times and why nobody could pin down their movements exactly.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so what you can do is discard everyone's timeline because if they didn't have a way of telling the time accurately, their statements and timeline reconstruction are meaningless. Not lies of course but genuine mistakes made by people under a lot of stress etc. Very unfortunate but we can ignore all of that and start afresh. This is undoubtedly DCI Redwod's "revelation" moment. Okay I could be wrong on that last point but you can see where this is going. The abduction theory only really works if there was a larger window of opportunity and that's what I think will be promoted. The original statements made by everyone were regrettable etc etc.
I've personally never believed in the complicated movements that happened that night. It all seems too contrived and I'm sure the PJ thought exactly the same. Instead of searching for Madeleine, the Tapas crew at one point sit down and write a timeline to hand to the police. Ostensibly to "help" but more likely to cover their sorry backsides i.e. the fact that they weren't carrying out checks as often as they should have therefore exposing all their children to a greater degree of risk than was acceptable. The PJ probably didn't want to accuse them directly of lying hence the reason for wanting a reconstruction in Praia de Luz. The whole timeline would have collapsed under scrutiny and arrests might possibly have been made on the grounds of obstructing a police investigation.
Alan G hi,
DeleteGerry is on record as stating that he left the tapas bar at 9.04, now that's a very explicit time for someone who hadn't a watch.
Are we saying that 9 people wore no watches and carried no mobile phones?
In fact the only person who can't put a pretty exact time on their movements that night is Jez Wilkins who met Gerry outside Apartment 5A but was unwilling to be drawn on a time. I believe him because he was walking with his baby and didn't need to look at his watch, unlike the tapas lot who needed to have a time frame to know when the next check would be needed - if indeed there were any.
They should all be arrested and questioned under caution imo.
@anonymous 19:15
DeleteGerry did indeed put a very exact time on his movements. This is the same Gerry McCann who stated in his first police interview that he entered the apartment by the front door then remembering a couple of days later that in fact it was the patio doors he used. Strange how his memory is very precise on the time of his check but not which door he used.
I agree, the idea that 9 people went to dinner and not one of them had a means of telling the time is ludicrous but that is exactly the spin that Mitchell put on it at the time. Of course they had watches and must have known the time. As you say, they would have to have had some means to tell the time to schedule the checks. Until we've seen the Crimewatch reconstruction, we can't say how this new timeline has been put together but it wouldn't surprise me if it transpires certain people have "realised" that they got the timeframe wrong or the checks they remembered making happened on a different day.
If there is any doubt put on the statements made by the tapas 9 to the PJ then it should be raising some big red flags. This whole thing is a complete shambles.
If I might add.
ReplyDeleteGerry McCann did have a watch that night. When I have a moment I will look the police files etc as he stated explicitly he did. I recall this clearly as when I read this I was surprised as like others here I was under the impression none of the group had a watch, simply pink spin!
That said the Metropolitan Police cannot simply change a timeline.
The group had a booking for dinner at 8:30 pm A block booking for the entire week.
There were other people in the restaurant, staff aside and there is Jez Wilkins who stated he met Gerry McCann at whatever time it was 9.10PM etc.
They checked half hourly they said.
I rather reckon the Met are going to introduce a witness who saw someone, and widen the gap, that is widen the 'window of opportunity' which Kate McCann described as small - it will be extended be sure of that but not after 9pm the time Tanner saw her man - to before Gerry's visit to the apartment.
Possibly we are back to someone being secreted in the apartment while Gerry was there. An intruder who entered, who was there when Oldfield checked at the shuttered window – as how would Oldfield know there was not someone else in the apartment apart from the children?
The Met know that Kate’s window of opportunity is not credible, an intruder requiring more time – what better way than to give him more by having him already inside 5A?
I am of course speculating on this but I cannot see the Yard dismissing Tanner’s sighting. And I cannot see how else they can change the timeline very much.
What is worth pondering though is that how interesting it is that witnesses always seem to have seen a strange or suspicious person around the McCann apartment - Did no one ever see the McCanns & co on street?
If there is a witness somewhere to be produced who is to provide details of something or someone seen before McCann did the first check of the evening - one wonders if any of these witnesses, witnessed if you like any of the group going back and forth, on this night or any other night?
What we must not forget is that the Yard have no evidence - no matter what they present in Crimewatch it is simply speculation. They are presenting us with a 'what could have' happened - Not with a 'what happened.'
Just as you or I if we had the very same means to do so - could present something entirely different, though an honest account, not one to fit an agenda.
Me,Myself,Moi - Excellent Blog as always. I agree your every word.
Cheers
Back again...
ReplyDeleteFrom Gerry McCann's arguido statement of 7th September 2007:
'When asked at what time he went to check on the children the night Madeleine disappeared, he recalls that this was around 21:04 according to HIS WATCH.'
Goodnight all hope that helps
Thank you
Delete"Around 21.04." Seems a very specific time to be "around." If you were going to give an approx time would you not say "around 9" or "around 9.05?"
ReplyDeletePJ Files: The McCanns' Statements
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html
From book "Madeleine" by Kate McCann (page 70)
ReplyDeleteObviously, we didn't want any of our children waking and wondering where we were even for a few minutes, and if the chances of that happening seemed remote, it was enough of a concern to make us absolutely prompt with our checks on the kids. That is why Gerry and I were subsequently able to be so accurate about timings.
After ordering his food, Gerry left to do the first check at 9.05 by his watch.
The McCanns done it but the net is closing in. The statements given by the Irish family walking home from Kelly's bar that night seem to be damning, yet nobody noticed. Why???
ReplyDeleteOn the weekend leading up to Crimewatch on 14 October Sky news were reporting that the timeline was wrong as Madeleine was on the tennis court at 6pm and that the last photo was the tennis ball photo, not the swimming pool photo. I haven't seen any comment about this since which is odd to say the least!
ReplyDelete