do you think maddie is alive or dead

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

Do you think Maddie is Alive or Not?

  • alive

    Votes: 12 3.4%

  • Not

    Votes: 46 12.9%

  • Alive and parents innocent

    Votes: 33 9.2%

  • Dead and parents not innocent

    Votes: 166 46.5%

  • Don't know

    Votes: 37 10.4%

  • Dead and parents are innocent

    Votes: 63 17.6%
  • Total voters
    357

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
But in her first police statement she said she didn't see him well as it was too dark. And explain the "eggman" description which morphed into a full detailed sketch!
 
blefuscu said:
But in her first police statement she said she didn't see him well as it was too dark. And explain the "eggman" description which morphed into a full detailed sketch!
Click to expand...



No she didn't.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap2

Nor in her following statements
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap12
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id222.html

It was the GNR officer who said in his SECOND statement 7 months later and right after the McCanns were given arguido status that he didn't put much credibility in her statement because she said it was dark. Funny how he didn't say that in his first statement 7 months earlier huh?

(I will go and find the link. My god i've posted it about 3 times already in the last few days)

The Eggman was to show the abductors facial shape. Pretty pointless IMO but hey when you're trying anything. I do think it's impossible to get a rough idea of a facial shape from a side view.
The full detailed sketch was based on someone else who had spotted someone suspicious hanging around it was NOT done by Jane Tanner. There are no official statements as far as i'm aware. Only published in the media.

Seriously where are you getting your information from?
 
Seeing I've posted from her official statements to the police, they might be credible!
 
SBM BBM

"She only managed to see him from the side, with the child in his arms"


That was your statement coming from jane tanner.


This is her first interview with the pj the next morning and this is her statment.


Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35 – 40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back (she could only see him from behind). He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a "duffy" sic type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type. He had a hurried walk. He was carrying a child, who was lying on both his arms, in front of his chest. By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".
 
jordynsmommy529 said:
SBM BBM

"She only managed to see him from the side, with the child in his arms"


That was your statement coming from jane tanner.


This is her first interview with the pj the next morning and this is her statment.


Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35 – 40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back (she could only see him from behind). He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a "duffy" sic type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type. He had a hurried walk. He was carrying a child, who was lying on both his arms, in front of his chest. By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".
Click to expand...

If you read the statement she says she saw him from the side, then it says the back, then she says she could identify him from the side.
 
Gem2626 said:
If you read the statement she says she saw him from the side, then it says the back, then she says she could identify him from the side.
Click to expand...

Then explain the Eggman


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
Gem2626 said:
It was a face shape maybe he turned ever so slightly so she could see his face shape.
Click to expand...

Which is nothing like Murat's face shape, but she picked him out as the abductor!
 
Gem2626 said:
It was a face shape maybe he turned ever so slightly so she could see his face shape.
Click to expand...



That's not what she said you wanted fact and you got it! You cannot say maybe he turned so she could see his face that is not what she said you cannot add anything too her statement!
 
Gem2626 said:
What evidence do you want of an intruder? An intruder would have been in and out within minutes it would be doubtful that they'd be trying to leave evidence behind.

I've already provided a link where a girl was abducted from her bedroom and there was no evidence that she'd been abducted or of who had abducted her. This shows it can be done.

It amazes me that something as simple as someone walking into an apartment, picking up and child and walking off into the night is unbelievable yet we have some complete absurd stories about government conspiracy on here.
Click to expand...

Precisely...the standard of evidence required for an Intruder Theory is um....so low as to be non-existent.

The standard of evidence required for MDI is so high that it excludes every single piece of standard evidence including forensic, circumstantial, and of course the dogs.

:(
 
It always amazes me when there are supposed new sightings and almost immediately comes the line "Kate and Gerry McCann have dismissed this being Madeleine." If there was a supposed sighting of my abducted child I'd be holding on to every last bit of hope, not the McCanns. Why not? Unless they know she's not going to be turning up anywhere soon.
 
blefuscu said:
It always amazes me when there are supposed new sightings and almost immediately comes the line "Kate and Gerry McCann have dismissed this being Madeleine." If there was a supposed sighting of my abducted child I'd be holding on to every last bit of hope, not the McCanns. Why not? Unless they know she's not going to be turning up anywhere soon.
Click to expand...

Because most likely they know more than we do. They have had access to the information first and know where it comes from and when and other information.

And who says they are saying that it is dismissed. Sounds like more spin to me.
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
Because most likely they know more than we do. They have had access to the information first and know where it comes from and when and other information.

And who says they are saying that it is dismissed. Sounds like more spin to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah right, they know DNA results before they come back!
 
blefuscu said:
It always amazes me when there are supposed new sightings and almost immediately comes the line "Kate and Gerry McCann have dismissed this being Madeleine." If there was a supposed sighting of my abducted child I'd be holding on to every last bit of hope, not the McCanns. Why not? Unless they know she's not going to be turning up anywhere soon.
Click to expand...

Gerry knew.

He was already planning the Anniversary Concert (oh wait it was going to be sooner than that) with all the big names, and marketing the resulting CD "Madeleine's songs", ONE MONTH after she vanished.

:sick:
 
SapphireSteel said:
Gerry knew.

He was already planning the Anniversary Concert (oh wait it was going to be sooner than that) with all the big names, and marketing the resulting CD "Madeleine's songs", ONE MONTH after she vanished.

:sick:
Click to expand...

Proof please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 96 more.
Total: 1,376 (members: 97, guests: 1,279)

Online statistics

Members online
97
Guests online
1,279
Total visitors
1,376
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,282
Messages
18,093,855
Members
230,841
Latest member
FastRayne
Back
Top