"Who would leave children that young alone?"

[lawstudent]

The only realistic risk of leaving those kids alone (besides a fire, but fortunately in a hotel that would probably be addressed quickly) is that one of them will exit the hotel room and wander off, or possibly get a hold of medication or something else dangerous within the hotel room. I don't understand why they didn't lock the door, unless they didn't believe those kids would ever wander off. That's the thing that makes me wonder about possible use of medication. Presumably they put anything dangerous away before they left. Stranger abductions are so rare that I'm suspect of that allegation in any case, but if people did notice them repeatedly checking on the kids and then leaving, I guess it's somewhat possible. I doubt it though. But through most of human history, kids haven't been watched nearly as closely as they are now, and still aren't in many countries. It's a luxury of modern life. I'd never do what they did, but I don't find it unbelievably shocking.

They couldn't be charged with her death or kidnapping to her because, assuming the UK is like the US, a negligent act has to be a foreseeable consequence of your actions. Getting kidnapped is not a foreseeable consequence of what they did. If she'd drowned in the swimming pool, then it would be more likely that a prosecution for manslaughter could be initiated, or endangering a child. Plus, they don't even know what happened. They could charge them with child neglect, but I always thought social services in other countries are way more lax than in the US.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I don't see anything odd about her statements. In fact I find it truthful that she did not automatically jump to it being Madeleine.

Seeing a diety in toast is not the same thing as actually seeing a man carry a child away.

At first she thought PERHAPS it was a child... She said "COULD have been"




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

At first she thought PERHAPS it was a child... She said "COULD have been"




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

"She has been "tormented" ever since that she did not immediately realise the significance of what she had seen."
"Miss Tanner said she has felt "absolute horror" ever since and has lived with the "daily torment" of not immediately realising the significance of what she had seen."



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-insists-Tapas-Nine-friend.html#ixzz2hHEi0YPZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

She was not trying to make something up. It is obvious by her wording that she is trying to deal with her own feelings about witnessing the event.


She saw it. I believe her.

 

[PrivateInvestigator]

Rather than utilize the term "risky" when discussing the potential of abduction in the situation, how about saying whether or not we believe:

the situation/environment was more likely to invite an abduction of opportunity

or

if the situation/environment was more likely to invite a planned abduction.

Jmoo


I believe both are possible to a degree - given some witness testimonies released to the media, one specifically I seem to remember about a man on the resorts beach who resembled a known child abductor/predator prowling and looking at children at the same time The McCann's were on holiday at said resort. This was his "planning" phase IMHO.

He stalked the night of that party and when he overheard/noticed the parents were gone, the "opportunity" phase kicked in. That was his chance to finally grab her. And I do believe what the female witness saw that night was Maddy being taken off by that known child predator.

IMOO.

 

[Linda7NJ]

"She has been "tormented" ever since that she did not immediately realise the significance of what she had seen."
"Miss Tanner said she has felt "absolute horror" ever since and has lived with the "daily torment" of not immediately realising the significance of what she had seen."



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-insists-Tapas-Nine-friend.html#ixzz2hHEi0YPZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

She was not trying to make something up. It is obvious by her wording that she is trying to deal with her own feelings about witnessing the event.


She saw it. I believe her.

I believe that she believes it. I believe she is tormented by her belief.

I simply don't trust eyewitness testimony after such a traumatic and stressful event. I know it's notoriously unreliable because there are numerous studies stating as much and I myself experienced false memories after a traumatic event. That's my opinion and my basis for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I believe that she believes it. I believe she is tormented by her belief.

I simply don't trust eyewitness testimony after such a traumatic and stressful event. I know it's notoriously unreliable because there are numerous studies stating as much and I myself experienced false memories after a traumatic event. That's my opinion and my basis for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

I do. I believe that she knew what she saw.
We use eye witnesses in court every day. Because they are reliable as a whole.

 

[lawstudent]

If it were a "planned" abduction, I'd think there would be more kids missing. Or he'd have tried it again, if he's bold enough to do it at a resort around all those people. Planned abductions seem to revolve around people the perp knows well - it gives them time to figure out the dynamics of who is a good victim (i.e. they notice a child is being left alone a lot and the parents don't look on top of things). This guy would have had no reason to know she'd be left alone with only her siblings at that point in time. If anything, I'd say crime of opportunity. But even that sounds far-fetched to me. I don't have a good motive for the parents though, so anything is possible.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If it were a "planned" abduction, I'd think there would be more kids missing. Or he'd have tried it again, if he's bold enough to do it at a resort around all those people. Planned abductions seem to revolve around people the perp knows well - it gives them time to figure out the dynamics of who is a good victim (i.e. they notice a child is being left alone a lot and the parents don't look on top of things). This guy would have had no reason to know she'd be left alone with only her siblings at that point in time. If anything, I'd say crime of opportunity. But even that sounds far-fetched to me. I don't have a good motive for the parents though, so anything is possible.

I don't think that is necessarily true. Most abductors have a type or lock on someone. Look at Elizabeth Smart. He could have taken both girls. But only took Elizabeth.

A recent case on HLN also two young girls out playing and he has the opportunity to grab one but waits for the other..

I believe that most likely he was watching and waiting to have his chance.

 

[Venom]

The uncritical acceptance of eyewitness accounts may stem from a popular misconception of how memory works. Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. On the contrary, psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them. The act of remembering, says eminent memory researcher and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine, is “more akin to putting puzzle pieces together than retrieving a video recording.” Even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witness’s testimony because fragments of the memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the questioner, leading to inaccurate recall.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-the-eyes-have-it

 

[PrivateInvestigator]

If it were a "planned" abduction, I'd think there would be more kids missing. Or he'd have tried it again, if he's bold enough to do it at a resort around all those people. Planned abductions seem to revolve around people the perp knows well - it gives them time to figure out the dynamics of who is a good victim (i.e. they notice a child is being left alone a lot and the parents don't look on top of things). This guy would have had no reason to know she'd be left alone with only her siblings at that point in time. If anything, I'd say crime of opportunity. But even that sounds far-fetched to me. I don't have a good motive for the parents though, so anything is possible.

This perp may have gleaned all he needed to know about the character of Maddy's parents and their parenting style by simply watching their behavior at the beach and around the resort. These criminals are predators. They smell prey and stalk it just long enough to learn its movements/habits and then pounce as soon as they get the opportunity.

So I believe she was abducted by a child predator who was rather proficient in stalking and consequentially abducting.

 

[Linda7NJ]

This perp may have gleaned all he needed to know about the character of Maddy's parents and their parenting style by simply watching their behavior at the beach and around the resort. These criminals are predators. They smell prey and stalk it just long enough to learn its movements/habits and then pounce as soon as they get the opportunity.

So I believe she was abducted by a child predator who was rather proficient in stalking and consequentially abducting.

I believe she died in that room and was removed by a parent. I base my opinion largely on their behavior, statistics and the dogs



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The uncritical acceptance of eyewitness accounts may stem from a popular misconception of how memory works. Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. On the contrary, psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them. The act of remembering, says eminent memory researcher and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine, is “more akin to putting puzzle pieces together than retrieving a video recording.” Even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witness’s testimony because fragments of the memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the questioner, leading to inaccurate recall.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-the-eyes-have-it

however we use eyewitnesses all the time in court.
She knows what she saw. I believe her OMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I believe she died in that room and was removed by a parent. I base my opinion largely on their behavior, statistics and the dogs



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

In my opinion statistics don't mean a whole lot, dog alerts are not evidence, and peoples behaviors vary.

Not much there I'm afraid. MOO.

 

[PrivateInvestigator]

The uncritical acceptance of eyewitness accounts may stem from a popular misconception of how memory works. Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. On the contrary, psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them. The act of remembering, says eminent memory researcher and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine, is “more akin to putting puzzle pieces together than retrieving a video recording.” Even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witness’s testimony because fragments of the memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the questioner, leading to inaccurate recall.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-the-eyes-have-it

However, eyewitness testimony can be qualified when information about the case that would be unknown to the public is known by the witness.

Let's say that for example:

An abducted girl had a pink blanket and the public didn't know she had this pink blanket that went missing when she disappeared. The only people who would know would be the child victim's immediate relatives and definitely detectives.

So the witness says to LE something like "I saw a child covered by a pink blankie and was being carried by a man that looks like such and such"...

A light would go off in the detectives mind bc She/he would wonder how that witness could know about the pink blankie unless they actually saw the child being taken with the pink blanket.

I'm sure for investigative purposes they haven't released certain information in Maddy's case in order to weed out the false leads from the valid leads much easier. Obviously something that female witness said resonated with LE. It was probably because of a minute detail we are not and probably will not ever be privy to.

IMOO and Thanks for Reading

 

[PrivateInvestigator]

I believe she died in that room and was removed by a parent. I base my opinion largely on their behavior, statistics and the dogs



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Dogs?

Were they cadaver dogs?

This interests me as well. Thank you.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Dogs?

Were they cadaver dogs?

This interests me as well. Thank you.

The biggest issue I see with dogs in this case is that it is a rental car and a hotel room. So anything that they hit on that could be just old decomposed blood or tissue from someone would not be directly linked to maddie.

I just see too much that negates the dogs here.

 

[Venom]

Sure it's used in courts, but not 100% reliable. The eyewitness we're talking about here is a friend of the McCannn's, she could be biased. JMO.


APA has filed two friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the need for courts to carefully scrutinize eyewitness testimony in criminal cases. The cases — one in the U.S. Supreme Court and one in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court — seek rulings that recognize the psychological research findings showing the many circumstances that can lead to eyewitness testimony being flawed and manipulated, says APA's general counsel, Nathalie Gilfoyle, JD. from:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/12/eyewitness.aspx


http://justicedenied.org/eyewitness.htm


Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.

While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable.
from: http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

 

[Deleted member 39678]

The biggest issue I see with dogs in this case is that it is a rental car and a hotel room. So anything that they hit on that could be just old decomposed blood or tissue from someone would not be directly linked to maddie.

I just see too much that negates the dogs here.

I agree. Add to it the possibility that the dog handler inadvertently "cued" the dogs to alert and I just don't see it as proving anything.

 

[PrivateInvestigator]

Sure it's used in courts, but not 100% reliable. The eyewitness we're talking about here is a friend of the McCannn's, she could be biased. JMO.


APA has filed two friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the need for courts to carefully scrutinize eyewitness testimony in criminal cases. The cases — one in the U.S. Supreme Court and one in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court — seek rulings that recognize the psychological research findings showing the many circumstances that can lead to eyewitness testimony being flawed and manipulated, says APA's general counsel, Nathalie Gilfoyle, JD. from:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/12/eyewitness.aspx


http://justicedenied.org/eyewitness.htm


Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.

While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable.
from: http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

Thank you. In my opinion from the information you gave me, it is highly suspect that one if the McCann's friends be the likely person to witness this supposed abduction she claims to have witnessed.

I would think if she were a friend and knew the plans of that night, she would recognize it as Maddy right away or at least be aware that Maddy was unattended and think immediately "hm Maddy is alone and now this girl that looks like Maddy is being carried away by some strange man" would click in her head and she would alert the McCann's.

Hm. It's a toss up now for me.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Sure it's used in courts, but not 100% reliable. The eyewitness we're talking about here is a friend of the McCannn's, she could be biased. JMO.


APA has filed two friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the need for courts to carefully scrutinize eyewitness testimony in criminal cases. The cases — one in the U.S. Supreme Court and one in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court — seek rulings that recognize the psychological research findings showing the many circumstances that can lead to eyewitness testimony being flawed and manipulated, says APA's general counsel, Nathalie Gilfoyle, JD. from:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/12/eyewitness.aspx


http://justicedenied.org/eyewitness.htm


Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.

While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable.
from: http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

I don't see the bias. She said she saw the man as soon as she found out Maddie was missing. She has not recanted.