"Who would leave children that young alone?"

[blefuscu]

She knew madeleine. She believes it was madeleine and since madeleine went missing right at that time, It makes sense.. There are no other reports of missing children there.

If she knew and believed it was Madeleine then why didn't she stop this person? Hindsight is a useful thing.

 

[Gem2626]

Unfortunately your theory is essentially impossible.

Jeremy Wilkins is the unforseen fly in the ointment, as are the Smith family.

If neither of these two independent witnesses had not seen what they claimed, it would be easy to account for Tanner's abductor.

As far as the description of what she saw changing, lets look at the reality -

Tanner's statement that night to the GNR (first responders) -

Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa (GNR Patrol) - Praia da Luz, 03 May 2007

'After the search of the interior, his colleague went to check the area around the apartments and the Tapas Bar, while the witness remained next to the apartment, just outside it. At that moment a female individual, he did not know whether she was a member of the group of friends, who was in the neighbouring apartment, said that she saw an individual carrying a child, running, and that because of the pyjamas she was wearing it could have been Madeleine. It was in these circumstances that abduction began to be talked about. He made a report about this situation and sent it to the police.

This sighting did not seem to him to be very credible, because when he asked her about the physical characteristics of the individual, she said it was very dark, however she saw the pyjamas clearly.'

From the Ocean Club Manager, who was working as a translator at the time -

Sylvia Batista (Ocean Club Manager/Translator) - Praia da Luz, 03 May 2007

'At a given moment, the deponent translated the deposition from one of the ladies that belonged to the group of English people, namely one that she indicates as being a brunette. This lady told the GNR officers, and the deponent translated, that she had seen a man crossing the road, possibly carrying a child. The deponent found that situation strange because she was convinced that when she saw this man, the lady was positioned in a spot that has no viewing angle to the location where she had seen the man.

Fast forward a day and Tanner's version is now thus -

Personal description:

* 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" 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".

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

Hows that for an "inconsistency"?

:scared:

How are the Smith family a fly in the ointment?

These are not inconsistencies coming out of her mouth. These are other people's interpretations on a situation.

You missed this part out of Sylvia Batista's statement

This lady said to the GNR elements, and she (the witness) translated, that she had seen a man on the road who might have carried a child.
This situation surprised her because she (the witness) was convinced that when the lady saw the man, the lady was in a place from where she had no angle of vision for the place where she saw the man. She doesn't know exactly what was the position of the lady when she saw the man, but she knows that the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm

She didn't know the exact position Jane Tanner was standing at the time of giving the statement. Enough said.

I suggest you go back and read all of Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa's statements.

In his first on May 7th 2007 he says:

"States that other details that may be relevant to the investigation concerns that they were directed to a citizen, of British nationality, who made up the group of tourists together with the family, name of Jane Tanner, and who detected the presence of a suspicious movement of an individual in the immediate area above identified, in the discourse of which was seen transporting a child of an early age"

Nothing about him not finding this credible but then in his next statement in September 4 months later and right after the McCanns had been made arguidos all of a sudden he doesn't find Jane Tanners evidence credible. Hmmmmmmmm.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id258.html

So what if it was dark. It wasn't pitch black at 9.30pm in May, in portugal. It would have been getting dark but not dark enough that she wouldn't have been able to see the colour of his trousers and his height etc.


Please explain why an abduction theory is impossible?

 

[Gem2626]

This is my favourite comment of all time, made by the inimitable Gerry McCann, shortly after Madeleine's "abduction", discussing staging a massive, big name fundraiser he hoped to start -


Gerry McCann, 38, said: "One of the ideas is maybe getting all the people who have publicly supported us to come together. I don't just mean from the UK but from different parts of the world. We want a big event to raise awareness that she is still missing.

"We would look at high-profile people who have already pledged support. It will be some sort of focus around an anniversary, to tell people that Madeleine's still missing. I think it would be later this year, once media attention has dropped, to bring it back up, hopefully, for a short period.

"It wouldn't be a one-year anniversary, it will be sooner than that. .

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id302.html


These pearls came out of Gerry's mouth in June 2007...the very next month after Madeleine had vanished and allegedly was still alive somewhere and being abused by a ring of pedophiles.

Gerry was already planning the anniversary celebrations....money making plans that is.

:sick:

You missed this paragraph from that same article

“What we want at the current time is maximum message out there now, about her disappearance but then just events to bring it back up occasionally just to remind people, if she’s not found.”


They were planning a long term campaign strategy. What is wrong with doing that? It is advised

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=... can do to keep your child's story in&f=false

 

[SapphireSteel]

Planning it within the first 4 weeks of her disappearance - you don't find that hinky?

I was watching a show on Amber Dubois the other day and her mother could not even bring herself to think she was dead, even after they found and buried her.

That woman drove to Mexico herself, day after day, looking for her daughter. She just could not accept that she was gone.

These two plan the Anniversary celebrations...at a point where everyone is hoping Madeleine is still in PDL, to be found.

How is that not hinky, stinky, completely inexplicable? They weren't planning a search, nor a vigil - CELEBRATIONS, to make money (he spoke of releasing Madeleine's CD that he wanted recorded and sold) 11 months BEFORE the Anniversary of her disappearance.

:sick:

 

[BOESP]

I doubt that is true. PEople all parent differently so to say that they all take their kids everywhere is not exactly accurate.

All that is just speculation and has no basis in fact. The fact remains that someone saw Maddie be carried off. More than one person possibly.

Nothing about these parents says they harmed their children. Nothing.

Just because a poster here attributes credibility to one eye witness and discredits another eye witness does not validate or invalidate the testimony of either one. It is not "fact" that the child seen being carried was "Maddie."

For those interested in logical analysis of the value of eye witness testimony, please Google "statistics on reliability of eye witness testimony."

BBM. As to the above statement I wholeheartedly disagree. Any parent who would leave two children that age alone in a hotel room are exhibiting careless, reckless behavior and in my opinion are not good parents. The fact that some posters seem to think Madeleine was kidnapped should provide inclusive evidence for my opinion.

 

[SapphireSteel]

It all boils down to the same old.

Never a word on a plausible IDI theory, just constantly criticising and invalidating the work of the professionals around this case.

It gets old...

 

[Gem2626]

It all boils down to the same old.

Never a word on a plausible IDI theory, just constantly criticising and invalidating the work of the professionals around this case.

It gets old...

What more do you want from 'an intruder done it theory' than someone walked in, took Madeleine, walked out and has now disappeared with her. I don't understand why there has to be some complicated theory or why it is unbelievable that someone didn't do that.

It gets old when actual facts from primary sources about the case are posted, then ignored and then 6 months later the same stuff is being brought up again.

 

[blefuscu]

But there is nothing to suggest she was abducted apart from Jane Tanners's statement which has been torn to pieces and contradicts independent witnesses.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Just because a poster here attributes credibility to one eye witness and discredits another eye witness does not validate or invalidate the testimony of either one. It is not "fact" that the child seen being carried was "Maddie."

For those interested in logical analysis of the value of eye witness testimony, please Google "statistics on reliability of eye witness testimony."

BBM. As to the above statement I wholeheartedly disagree. Any parent who would leave two children that age alone in a hotel room are exhibiting careless, reckless behavior and in my opinion are not good parents. The fact that some posters seem to think Madeleine was kidnapped should provide inclusive evidence for my opinion.

Logical analysis and statistics ?

How could that be relevant or important?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Gem2626]

Planning it within the first 4 weeks of her disappearance - you don't find that hinky?

I was watching a show on Amber Dubois the other day and her mother could not even bring herself to think she was dead, even after they found and buried her.

That woman drove to Mexico herself, day after day, looking for her daughter. She just could not accept that she was gone.

These two plan the Anniversary celebrations...at a point where everyone is hoping Madeleine is still in PDL, to be found.

How is that not hinky, stinky, completely inexplicable? They weren't planning a search, nor a vigil - CELEBRATIONS, to make money (he spoke of releasing Madeleine's CD that he wanted recorded and sold) 11 months BEFORE the Anniversary of her disappearance.

:sick:

No I don't. They obviously had people advising them plus I imagine they were doing all the can to just keep going. Searches were being done and vigils aren't a very British thing to do. They wanted to raise an event (not sure where the word celebrations has come from?) of course they'd want to do something that would attract a lot of people so doing something fun would make more sense.

And people don't all grieve in the same way you know.

 

[Gem2626]

But there is nothing to suggest she was abducted apart from Jane Tanners's statement which has been torn to pieces and contradicts independent witnesses.

How so? If you are going to make such claims then you need to provide links that back up your claims. Jane Tanner's statement hasn't been ripped to shreds by any 'independent witnesses'

I replied to a post you made yesterday. This is what I wrote in regards to an abductor theory.

What evidence do you want of an intruder in the apartment? Door was unlocked, intruder walks in picks up Madeleine and walks out. It's as simple as that. They weren't going to hang around touching everything and spitting on the floor etc. There are many crimes where no DNA or any other evidence is left. People disappear all the time and are not found/ or murdered and no one is brought to justice because there is a lack of DNA evidence.

As an example...
The kidnapping and murder of Danielle van Dam

"Authorities say Westerfield crept into the van Dam home through an unlocked side garage door and lurked in the girl's darkened bedroom for an hour before abducting her"

"Westerfield's defense argued that there was no evidence that he was ever in the van Dam household: no fingerprints, no DNA, no signs of a struggle from abduction"

He was guilty based on DNA evidence found in his home/on his clothes.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91359&page=1


ETA: Of course had the apartment not been contaminated and then further contaminated when police failed to seal off the crime scene allowing further people into the apartment as well as the dogs then who knows what DNA could have been found.

 

[blefuscu]

No I don't. They obviously had people advising them plus I imagine they were doing all the can to just keep going. Searches were being done and vigils aren't a very British thing to do. They wanted to raise an event (not sure where the word celebrations has come from?) of course they'd want to do something that would attract a lot of people so doing something fun would make more sense.

And people don't all grieve in the same way you know.

What ARE you talking about? Are you British? Because I am, and vigils and floral tributes, candles and sky lanterns ARE quite common! This is possibly the most absurd comment I've seen on WS!

 

[Linda7NJ]

No I don't. They obviously had people advising them plus I imagine they were doing all the can to just keep going. Searches were being done and vigils aren't a very British thing to do. They wanted to raise an event (not sure where the word celebrations has come from?) of course they'd want to do something that would attract a lot of people so doing something fun would make more sense.

And people don't all grieve in the same way you know.

Why would they be grieving? According to them she's alive and well globe trotting with her abductor.

If my child were ever to be abducted, I would cooperate, I'd be law enforcements shadow, I'd sleep on the steps of the station, I'd take polygraph after polygraph, I'd answer any question they asked and do anything they asked of me. I'd hide nothing.

I wouldn't hire PR firms, attorneys and I certainly wouldn't leave the county if there was anyway I could stay.

But that's me..... Just a mom that would have never left her babies alone in a hotel room while I went off to party with friends.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[SapphireSteel]

What ARE you talking about? Are you British? Because I am, and vigils and floral tributes, candles and sky lanterns ARE quite common! This is possibly the most absurd comment I've seen on WS!

Lol stick around.

:scared:

 

[SapphireSteel]

What ARE you talking about? Are you British? Because I am, and vigils and floral tributes, candles and sky lanterns ARE quite common! This is possibly the most absurd comment I've seen on WS!

Oh gosh remember when Diana died?

Flowers and mourners everywhere...

Yes the British can show emotion, in spades, when they feel it.

 

[Linda7NJ]

How so? If you are going to make such claims then you need to provide links that back up your claims. Jane Tanner's statement hasn't been ripped to shreds by any 'independent witnesses'

I replied to a post you made yesterday. This is what I wrote in regards to an abductor theory.

What evidence do you want of an intruder in the apartment? Door was unlocked, intruder walks in picks up Madeleine and walks out. It's as simple as that. They weren't going to hang around touching everything and spitting on the floor etc. There are many crimes where no DNA or any other evidence is left. People disappear all the time and are not found/ or murdered and no one is brought to justice because there is a lack of DNA evidence.

As an example...
The kidnapping and murder of Danielle van Dam

"Authorities say Westerfield crept into the van Dam home through an unlocked side garage door and lurked in the girl's darkened bedroom for an hour before abducting her"

"Westerfield's defense argued that there was no evidence that he was ever in the van Dam household: no fingerprints, no DNA, no signs of a struggle from abduction"

He was guilty based on DNA evidence found in his home/on his clothes.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91359&page=1


ETA: Of course had the apartment not been contaminated and then further contaminated when police failed to seal off the crime scene allowing further people into the apartment as well as the dogs then who knows what DNA could have been found.

DNA found in a hotel room would mean what to you? Strange DNA in a hotel room! ?! Unless it's fresh blood or fresh unsourced still mobile semen who cares?

Obviously, this is not a case where "intruder" DNA is an issue.

According to Jane the intruder was briskly walking in two different directions at the same time. How exactly does that work?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Linda7NJ]

Lol stick around.

:scared:

Cheers!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Gem2626]

Why would they be grieving? According to them she's alive and well globe trotting with her abductor.

If my child were ever to be abducted, I would cooperate, I'd be law enforcements shadow, I'd sleep on the steps of the station, I'd take polygraph after polygraph, I'd answer any question they asked and do anything they asked of me. I'd hide nothing.

I wouldn't hire PR firms, attorneys and I certainly wouldn't leave the county if there was anyway I could stay.

But that's me..... Just a mom that would have never left her babies alone in a hotel room while I went off to party with friends.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

I would hire a lawyer. I know of far too many miscarriages of justice and

dodgy policeman to EVER put a whole lot of faith in them. I would never take

a polygraph because in the UK they are considered junk science. They did cooperate until they felt they were being wrongly accused of something. Then I imagine their lawyers told them to shut up. They took their right to remain silent that is not evidence of guilt.

Madeleine was lost. You grieve loss.

 

[Gem2626]

Oh gosh remember when Diana died?

Flowers and mourners everywhere...

Yes the British can show emotion, in spades, when they feel it.

Yeah exactly she was dead. There are not that many missing people in the UK and most of those have never had a vigil.

ETA- I'd like your opinions on my last posts where I have rebutted information that you've posted. I've noticed before that when I link to statements dismissing your claims that you go quiet.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I would hire a lawyer. I know of far too many miscarriages of justice and

dodgy policeman to EVER put a whole lot of faith in them. I would never take

a polygraph because in the UK they are considered junk science. They did cooperate until they felt they were being wrongly accused of something. Then I imagine their lawyers told them to shut up. They took their right to remain silent that is not evidence of guilt.

Madeleine was lost. You grieve loss.

She wasn't lost. They didn't misplace her. They left her ... Alone... In a dark hotel room...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free