Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 20

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #121
Jane Tanner has reportedly said that the person she saw that night was Robert Murat.

The new sketch doesn't look anything like Robert Murat, but Jane Tanner reportedly says that is the man she saw as well.

Right? Reportedly, of course.
 
  • #122
  • #123

I read your quote before you edited it, and you asked for the link, you found it, as Im sure you could also find the links to some other of your posts without other posters having to repeat themselves or waste more time finding links that back up their posts. I have followed this case from the beginning but not posted much of late as there really has been no new news for quite some time.

Please read all the threads, posts, links etc.

This is getting so petty, everyones opinion is just that their opinion, so there are no links. But Im sure if you read everything your questions will be answered as your questions have been asked numerous times.
 
  • #124
I read your quote before you edited it, and you asked for the link, you found it, as Im sure you could also find the links to some other of your posts without other posters having to repeat themselves or waste more time finding links that back up their posts. I have followed this case from the beginning but not posted much of late as there really has been no new news for quite some time.

Please read all the threads, posts, links etc.

This is getting so petty, everyones opinion is just that their opinion, so there are no links. But Im sure if you read everything your questions will be answered as your questions have been asked numerous times.


Yes, it is getting petty! However, I was asked to back up everything I posted, so I was getting the idea that it was standard operating procedure.

Colomom said, "One of the things I have found on this board is that most posters are willing to back up their assertions with links to published information or, at least, with logical, thoughtful, considerate theory."

So, are we allowed to have opinions or not?


"Please read all the threads, posts, links, etc." Is everyone who first comes to this forum required to read the thousands of posts?

I have been keeping up with the McCann case for months, too! I have read articles all over the web and visited many forums as well. I have as much information as any of you have.
 
  • #125
1) Do you have a link re the lawyers called within 48 hours? I dont recall that TIA
2) I dont believe they did the set up of the website themselves did they? I dont see anything sinister in it anyway.
3) The UK gov did not protect them from investigation.
4) Neither of the McCanns contacted the media personally.
5) The world knew they had left the children alone so why would they mention it? I fail to see what is wrong with using what contacts you may have to help find your child and keep her in the headlines.
6) Whilst not what everyone would do it doesnt make them killers.
7) Do you have the link for them asking for the questions in advance because if that is true why didnt they have answers to them all? Why were some unanswered?

You emailed the Chief of Police to ask him why the police werent looking for Madeleine?:eek:


Hi Daffidil,

You might want to sit down with your beautiful crown among your crowd, your host of golden daffodils. LOL Your nik has great memories for me learning Wadsworth. :) I come unprepared for links but have studied this case day and night it seems with a passion for 8 1/'2 months.

A couple of these questions I might know the answers to:

I also heard that 2 lawyers arrived from England within two days from when she was taken. IMO these lawyers were not criminal defense types, but rather financial and document people, for within 10 days of Madeleine's disappearance the Fund was established, and by the 12th day it was a done deal and in place. Team McCann was on it's way take over the finding of Madeleine.

Those involved were basically family except for some dear friends and acquaintances, one of which was the young pluck of a teen who established and has run the website all of this time. He was under the tutiledge of Auntie Phil who had him in class at school.

The UK Governnent wrapped them in protection from the night she went missing, when one high up in the ranks was interrupted at a cocktail party got a call that a young 3 year old British girl had been abducted in Portugal. The protectorates were immediately involved as Gordon Brown and Clarence to a commenting Tony Blair put up a staunch wall for this abduction to give it the highest regard. Next we know that Gerry is calling Brown on his tele on a routine basis and that although the PJ on scene that night saw no evidence of abduction, that is what the PJ were bound to investigate at the lead from the British LE who were immediately called into the case and followed their superiors lead from the high portals of the government.

Carlos Anjos had an interview in which he made a statement that the very first call the parents made was by Kate to SKY news, even before the police were called to the scene. It is verifiable that the call went to the local Algarve correspondant.

The GNR were called to the scene at 10:40pm, 40 min after she was discovered gone. This call to SKY was made soon after the GR arroved. Two members of the GR commented in an article that Kate was on the phone continually to the media. The PJ were then called by the GNR,who thought a crime had been committed {which is their regulations,which was logged into the PJ station at 11:50pm. They arrived around midnight.

Anjos went on to say that it was 1 1/2 hours after the PJ arrived that SKY News was on the scene in PDL. In person, taking everything in and writing their script for a 6:30am broadcast that would wake up the world to Madeleine's plight.

I do agree with you Daffodil, but after what they had done in leaving their 3 children alone, which was night after night BTW and not just on the 3rd, if they saw the error of their ways the normal thing expected by the public would be to have a presser and make an apology. To tell the truth, express their sorrow at their mistake and beg for the public to please help them by searching for her everywhere, in barns, bldgs, under bridges, etc.

They didn't do this. 5 days later they did have a presser, but the problem is the world did not see them as sincerely distraught, and it was quite a lame statement made anyway. Hold that up to the way all the other parents have reacted where there wasn't even any negligence and you would wonder what is up with these people. They seem cold, and that stayed in the back of minds all this time.

I agree with you too that just because they didn't act like sincere grieving parents like people expected them to, it doesn't make them killers. People all over the world gave money to help fine Madeleine. They thought of her plight

But what I have always thought Daffodil, is that what if these 2 parents saw or caused her death and failed to call emergency to get her any help that could have possibly save her life? Would you respect them and hold them above fault in regards to their little wisp of a girl, Madeleine?

To think that her own parents could in silence and with a quick plan and a pact, spirit her away against the law of the land and mankind, to hide her and then have the gaul to dare the police to find her to prove she had died.

Tonight we know the PJ know when and how she was taken from the apt and where she was kept for a few days. It broke my heart to hear that as I wanted her to be alive. And learning that the bodily fluids and blood in the Scenic were hers, post mortem, Eddie alerting to her death scent, Gerry borrowing Russell's car on the night of the 3rd and a phone call he made sitting now on Rebelo's desk. It is all coming together now with facts that have been the subject of great and tedious investigation.

I apologize for seeming a bit stiff in writing to you. In the back of my brain I have all these things recently confirmed about Madeleine and we are on the eve of the interrogations of the T7 or some of them. Clarrie says they now have a request from Eurojust for interviews. I think the parents will be charged in the due process of time. Madeleine will get justice.

But she will never run and play again here with us. For that I am angry at those who cared about her less, and why she got no help from her protectors when she was helpless and needed it the most. So sad. xoxoxo
 
  • #126
Oh, I don't know, maybe because this whole exchange started with being referred to as a "shark at a feeding frenzy".

It is what it is. :cool:

Indeed, that might make anyone defensive. :crazy: :)

Claycat: If you've been around, you know that we've all seen the articles about Jane Tanner and Egg-Head Man or GeorgeHarrison/Charles Bronson Man. Sometimes he's a Brit dressed in fancy clothes, and the next week he's a con man in rags.

What does that prove? Only that Jane Tanner is changing her story. That's all it means to me. :rolleyes:

How does that help to find Maddie? So far it hasn't at all. Why doesn't Jane Tanner got back to Algarve and walk the streets to find this guy, if she is so sure of what he looks like? :waitasec:
 
  • #127
Indeed, that might make anyone defensive. :crazy: :)

Claycat: If you've been around, you know that we've all seen the articles about Jane Tanner and Egg-Head Man or GeorgeHarrison/Charles Bronson Man. Sometimes he's a Brit dressed in fancy clothes, and the next week he's a con man in rags.

What does that prove? Only that Jane Tanner is changing her story. That's all it means to me. :rolleyes:

How does that help to find Maddie? So far it hasn't at all. Why doesn't Jane Tanner got back to Algarve and walk the streets to find this guy, if she is so sure of what he looks like? :waitasec:

Jane Tanner made her statement to the police in May and then said nothing in public until an interview months later . She has been very consistant in saying she saw a man carrying a child - at the time . As far as I know this man has never been traced - if it were a holday maker or a local . I have never seen a report that he has been ruled out . Why do you say she keeps on changing her story . To me she has consistently repeated she saw a man with a child She saw something that could be vital. She didint get a close look at his face and said so ...... hence all the original sketches had no face

3 other witnesses reported seeing someone in the vicinity that didnt look correct - the healtth worker cooper and her husband and the nannies . I think there is possibly one other person as well I have seen a report on . That is 3 independent witnesses - did they all make it up ? . Even if this person is nothing more than a homless tramp ......it should be checked out . To do nothing would be nelgligent .

I have seen Tanner interviwed and she has clearly stated on film that she is willing to go back too Portugal anytime to help , repeat her statement . If I was the PJ I would take her uo on it .

do you think all these people are lying - should we just dismiss them ?
 
  • #128
gord: Nothing should be ruled out, however . . .

Just because Jane Tanner saw someone carrying a child does not mean that child was Maddie. And originally, what she said she saw was someone carrying a "bundle of clothes." That's why we called him "Bundleman."

Then she has changed her story for the TV show Panorama, saying the child had on "pinky" pajamas, though she saw only the legs. The bottoms of Maddie's pj's were white, not pink.

She has always said she didn't see his face, but now she thinks he looks like the details in the latest drawing. That is a major contradiction.

The first good drawing released by the McCann Team and Metodo, which was never done until October of last year, did not resemble this latest drawing, and I'm sure you know that. Jane Tanner told them to leave the face blank because she didn't see it, but they drew Maddie's pajamas in detail, even though she was some distance away from him. :rolleyes:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html

There are a number of reasons why Jane Tanner's account of the 'abductor' raise concern:

His height has been inconsistent, ranging at various times from 5ft 6in to 5ft 11in. On Panorama she describes that 'He was about probably 5ft 8in tall, he was taller than me but not 6ft and so between those two'. In one sentence he appears to have grown 2 inches, from 5ft 8in to 5ft 10in (somewhere between the two of 5ft 8in and 6ft).

His hair has gone from 'hair that was short on top' to 'quite a lot of dark, reasonably-long-to-the-neck hair'.

His build has gone from 'medium' to 'slim', although this must have been difficult to ascertain as Tanner describes the man wearing 'quite a lot of clothes' and 'a big heavy jacket'.

He was originally stated to be 'carrying a child or an object that could have been taken as a child' and now Tanner states that 'I could tell it was a child, and I could see the feet and... feet and the bottom of the pyjamas', she continues 'the pyjamas had a pinky aspect to them'.

His skin has gone from 'white' to 'swarthy' although she admits to being 'a reasonable distance away' from him and that 'He had his face turned away from me, sort of sideways and it was very dark. I just didn’t see it properly, I wish to God I had'.

So to answer your question, gord - yes, I think she is lying and changing her story. Either that, or she is crazy. Either that or she is covering up for someone, or for herself, since she left her own child vomiting in her room that night.
 
  • #129
So far, IN MY OPINION, the evidence points to the McCanns: the Maddie DNA in the Scenic, the cadaver scent on Kate and in the apartment, the missing or "stolen" tennis bag and stroller, not to mention their detached and rigid behavior. If I'm not mistaken (without going back through ALL of the posts since day one), the sketches were released AFTER all this information was made public, which IN MY OPINION, was the result of someone rushing to the defense of the McCanns. If this suspicious man was real and truly seen in that time frame, presumably carrying a CHILD, why did it take WEEKS for someone to remember that?

If there was a rapist, murderer, or KIDNAPPER terrorizing your neighborhood would you leave your windows and doors unlocked, walk alone in the wee hours of the night, or leave your children unattended? Probably not.

Put your emotions aside, stand back and look at what is known.
 
  • #130
BIG NEWS PEEPS!!!

mirror-1.jpg


Gotta fly this morning, will be back later.
 
  • #131
^^^^^

I never posted on the Mirror Forums but always read the relevant posts there. This is a huge step!! Wonder why now? The "silly" posters have been there all along!
 
  • #132
I guess this might mean an influx of new people here?
 
  • #133
I guess this might mean an influx of new people here?


Hold on to your hats, (and your tongues), it's going to get bad. Don't fall into the trap folks. Use the ignore button, or have a stiff drink, anything but fall into the trap of the mirror forum groupies.:eek: :silenced: :hand:

They'll eat us alive, (and get our forum locked forever), if we are not good! :croc:
 
  • #134
^^^^^^

God I hope not!!
 
  • #135
Hold on to your hats, (and your tongues), it's going to get bad. Don't fall into the trap folks. Use the ignore button, or have a stiff drink, anything but fall into the trap of the mirror forum groupies.:eek: :silenced: :hand:

They'll eat us alive, (and get out forum locked forever), if we are not good! :croc:

Amen to that, sister.

I wonder if there were threats of legal action made to the Mirror forum from certain involved or mentioned parties.
 
  • #136
  • #137
  • #138
Well it looks like at least someone is taking action over that dumb woman! At least her kids were not hurt, thank God! Kate McCanns child was & she gets away scott free! 'doesn't seem right somehow!

Scot free?????????????? You dont think she grieves for the loss of her child??? :waitasec:
 
  • #139
You dont think she grieves for the loss of her child???

Does it really matter???? Madeleine STILL missing!!!!! She is the one who probably went through hell and God knows what kind of abuse at the tender age of 3! Whether Kate grieves or no grieves, what's the point????
 
  • #140
http://www.dreamindemon.com/2008/01/23/wendy-chenoweth-needs-a-babysitter/

I posted over there:

I KNEW some ditz was going to read about Madeleine McCann and say….”if Kate McCann can do it, why can’t I?”

….dumbchit

She's not Kingwood area (which is quite affluent) she's Huffman--which is much more rural,chances are she lives in a trailer.

She's from a very different socioeconomic class than the McCanns. Sadly, she probably doesn't know very much, if anything, about the McCanns.

Which is interesting, if you want to draw conclusions about what the McCanns did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
142
Guests online
2,275
Total visitors
2,417

Forum statistics

Threads
632,502
Messages
18,627,730
Members
243,172
Latest member
neckdeepinstories
Back
Top