A question about the alleged sightings

[Barnaby]

I just dont understand..for the life of me..with the amount of times Jane changed her mind about things ...a nd with the added fact that both Jez and Gerry are sure she wasnt there ... how anyone could take Jane Tanners sighting seriously. I really think in a court of law she would get ripped apart.

What gets me about all the changes in her story & yes she changed her story several times about "Bundleman" & being on the road with Gerry & Jez, why has noone publicly called her out on these inconsistencies & just accepted her lies?

 

[Texana]

What gets me about all the changes in her story & yes she changed her story several times about "Bundleman" & being on the road with Gerry & Jez, why has noone publicly called her out on these inconsistencies & just accepted her lies?

Two words: Clarence. Mitchell.

 

[Isabella]

Thanks to Amaral's documentary, we can clear this up once and for all. It would appear that Isabella is "mistaken". Here is the child's sticker book on which the McCann friends wrote their timeline on the very night Madeleine was taken. Note what it says next to Jane tanner's entry:-



(not a "bundle", a CHILD and this was on the 3rd may, 2007). Incidentally, I have checked the translation of the subtitles and "uma crianca" means "a child".

Once again, it would appear that tabloid myths have been spun as fact

Just gotta say this..as ive already said..she originally said in a interview with a daily British paper she wasnt sure if the guy was carrying a child or not.

Today i was reading an interview...not one of the Tapas...and in it it said she "possibly saw a child being carried" and not that she definetly saw one..yet as well know within weeks/months it was definetly a child in pjs like Madeleines. It was also noted that from where she claimed she was standing that it wouldnt have been possible to have seen what she claimed she did.

It was also noted that Gerry claims he closed the window when he got in. However as we all know...the only prints on the windows were Kates ...maybe he took some surgical gloves on holiday with him to hide his finger prints ?

Something else i thought strange was that they had all these photos ready postcard size. Apparently these all looked the same. Which is odd because..who takes loads of photos on holiday with them? And not just that..why put out pictures of her at least a year younger than she was...when he apparently had a picture of her taken that very afternoon which at least was useful in that it showed how she looked at the time "she disappeared"

 

[Texana]

Just gotta say this..as ive already said..she originally said in a interview with a daily British paper she wasnt sure if the guy was carrying a child or not.

Today i was reading an interview...not one of the Tapas...and in it it said she "possibly saw a child being carried" and not that she definetly saw one..yet as well know within weeks/months it was definetly a child in pjs like Madeleines. It was also noted that from where she claimed she was standing that it wouldnt have been possible to have seen what she claimed she did.

It was also noted that Gerry claims he closed the window when he got in. However as we all know...the only prints on the windows were Kates ...maybe he took some surgical gloves on holiday with him to hide his finger prints ?

Something else i thought strange was that they had all these photos ready postcard size. Apparently these all looked the same. Which is odd because..who takes loads of photos on holiday with them? And not just that..why put out pictures of her at least a year younger than she was...when he apparently had a picture of her taken that very afternoon which at least was useful in that it showed how she looked at the time "she disappeared"

Using the photo of a year younger child is very puzzling. In fact, all of the "child safety" organizations stress always having a current photo of your child(ren) handy in case they do go missing. There is such a change in children first as they go from preschool age to school age (as Madeleine would have in the year she went missing) and then again from about kinder/first grade to middle grades--and then in another 2 or so years as they start edging up to puberty.

Particularly when they start losing the baby teeth, their faces definitely change.

It is like the recently released photo of Madeleine in the ballet/princess dress up costume. She looks adorable. And yet, she didn't look like that in her last photo (the one oddly released weeks after she went missing.) If you have that mental image in your mind you are not going to be looking at the right age children, IF indeed she is truly as they put it, "Findable."

Just as puzzling as the fact that the only age progression photo was one a newspaper did. No age progression, no drawings of how she might look with different hair, etc.

So what's the explanation for being so inexplicably incompetent about getting a recent photo of Madeleine made public?

And to this day--we have yet to hear the actual size/weight of Madeleine McCann released publicly. The McCanns could still do that on their own today. But they don't.

How can anyone reasonably expect a child to be found when so many missing key facts are not disclosed?