Why did Madeleine 'go missing'?

[Hexe]

It proves have was not lying as she was accused of over and over here.

Oh, but she did. She described the dude at first as a dark complexioned and black haired, you can read it in the transcriptions of her official statements. Then she fingered Murat (as the police did not exactly found the man that was allegedly walking his child on that street in the right time, we don't know how did he look). Whoever was walking there could not have black hair and dark skin and, in the same time, look like Murat. So Jane Tanner lied.

 

[Linda7NJ]

It proves have was not lying as she was accused of over and over here.

The new information, sightings, searching proves that the police find all the information credible and are not looking at the mccanns.

The mccanns had nothing to go with maddie missing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk. Auto correct has a mind of its own.

It also proves her gut feeling was wrong and the faith you placed in her gut feeling that she saw the abductor was wrong.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Donjeta]

Oh, but she did. She described the dude at first as a dark complexioned and black haired, you can read it in the transcriptions of her official statements. Then she fingered Murat (as the police did not exactly found the man that was allegedly walking his child on that street in the right time, we don't know how did he look). Whoever was walking there could not have black hair and dark skin and, in the same time, look like Murat. So Jane Tanner lied.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ather-mistaken-key-suspect.html#ixzz2hnwqgd1O

The complexion is not very dark but it is similar to the sketch in that the face is a blur.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I don't think it proves any such thing. It is quite possible that the McCanns had nothing to do with Maddie's disappearance and that the Scotland Yard don't suspect them but sightings and asking for information don't prove anything to me. I've seen many cases in which there were sightings and the police was asking for information and it turned out to be family-related anyway. This is a holiday resort, there are going to be sightings of lots of strangers on any given night you choose to ask for observations.

If, as you say, the police find all the information equally credible they're just being silly imo. They have interviewed lots of people and I'm sure that this crowd is not an exception to the rule that witness statements are unreliable and some more so than others. Several people who they interviewed had consumed alcohol, for one thing, and that does not help your memory and make you more observant.

Perhaps we just have a very different idea of what the word 'prove' means.

I'm hoping this entire new push is actually to eliminate every other possible suspect. I hope it's to gain the cooperation of the McCann's and their friends since genuine cooperation ceased long ago. I hope they lock them into statements and finally, through exceptional police work obtain justice for a little girl that was never abducted!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Hexe]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ather-mistaken-key-suspect.html#ixzz2hnwqgd1O

The complexion is not very dark but it is similar to the sketch in that the face is a blur.

Ah, so my mistake, they did find him. Still, the dude is quite slim and does not resemble Murat (a big man) very much. He does not look like a swarthy foreigner, nor like a mustachoed creep with bad teeth from that sketch Tanner said resembled the man she saw.

 

[aa9511]

Has anyone seen this?

For years attention was focused on a man whom a friend of the McCanns said she saw carrying a small girl near the McCanns' apartment. But Metropolitan Police released new descriptions and electronic images Monday of a different man, saying the man who was seen carrying the girl is now believed to have been a resort guest who likely had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance.

In an interview Monday night on the BBC program "Crimewatch," Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood said the resort where the McCanns were staying on vacation had a nighttime child-care center where eight families that week were boarding 11 children. He said investigators had tracked down the families — one of which told them that they believed they were seen taking their daughter to the child-care center for the night.
"I would say it was a revelation moment," Redwood said.


From here: http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...paths-in-madeleine-mccanns-disappearance?lite

It would be helpful if the article had included what the people looked like who had done the recent burglaries at the resort (assuming someone saw them or they caught someone). Were they White, Black, Spanish-looking, etc..? Because if those were done by people of a different race, and then this man walking towards the beach is reported to be White, then that would be useful information.

 

[aa9511]

I can understand all theories.. the only part i dont understand is why she seemed to be asleep in the arms of a stranger walking outside... she didnt wake, cry or struggle ? Or had she seen this person before and trusted them so she didnt need to b alarmed.. unless she was already dead.. hence the dogs scent..

Well if that was actually the innocent father taking his daughter back to their room, then it would make sense....the daughter probably fell asleep in the child care watching a movie or something, the father just picked her up in his arms and carried her back to her room.

 

[chlban]

aa9511;9901532

It would be helpful if the article had included what the people looked like who had done the recent burglaries at the resort (assuming someone saw them or they caught someone). Were they White, Black, Spanish-looking, etc..? Because if those were done by people of a different race, and then this man walking towards the beach is reported to be White, then that would be useful information.

This burglar stuff is just nonsense. Why is a burglar,even if caught in the act, going to turn his relatively minor crime into a Kidnapping and/or child murder.

She was four for gods sake. What is she going to describe to the police. That he was tall like Daddy? That his skin was white like daddy or maybe that it was darker than Daddy's? Yeah, huge threat to a Burglar.

Come to think of it, maybe Scotland Yard did get this latest description from a four year old. Between 20 and 40, white, average height, average build.........:seeya:.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It also proves her gut feeling was wrong and the faith you placed in her gut feeling that she saw the abductor was wrong.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

No it does not. I believed that she saw what she saw. That has been proven correct. She saw a man carrying a child.

The odds that she would see that at around the same time maddie went missing, using deductive reasoning adds to get credibility.

What the truth is is that people were wrong for calling her a liar and attention seeker. For belittling her.

She was telling the truth and that was proven.

I knew she was not lying about what she saw.

Was I wrong that it was maddie? Okay. I'm okay with that. I don't care about being wrong about the small part. The big part is she was indeed truthful.

The big part is that the investigators believe that maddie was taken. They believe and are searching for someone and have more information that supports the fact it was an intruder.


I realized this weekend that there are cases in this site where people really sleuth and take facts and work them into true and accurate theories. And then there are cases like this where it is just filled with bias and avarice and people spend more time making things up and sensationalizing and the real case and facts get lost.

I am going to continue my hopes and prayers we find maddie. I am so excited with all the new activity.

Regards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk. Auto correct has a mind of its own.

 

[Linda7NJ]

No it does not. I believed that she saw what she saw. That has been proven correct. She saw a man carrying a child.

The odds that she would see that at around the same time maddie went missing, using deductive reasoning adds to get credibility.

What the truth is is that people were wrong for calling her a liar and attention seeker. For belittling her.

She was telling the truth and that was proven.

I knew she was not lying about what she saw.

Was I wrong that it was maddie? Okay. I'm okay with that. I don't care about being wrong about the small part. The big part is she was indeed truthful.

The big part is that the investigators believe that maddie was taken. They believe and are searching for someone and have more information that supports the fact it was an intruder.


I realized this weekend that there are cases in this site where people really sleuth and take facts and work them into true and accurate theories. And then there are cases like this where it is just filled with bias and avarice and people spend more time making things up and sensationalizing and the real case and facts get lost.

I am going to continue my hopes and prayers we find maddie. I am so excited with all the new activity.

Regards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk. Auto correct has a mind of its own.

The truth? I never belittled her, never called her an attention seeker and I never called her a liar. So please stop repeating this nonsense. Repeating it will not make it true or a fact!

"Small part"??? The most important part of the entire assertion made by Jane was that it was the child's abductor. That's huge! She was wrong.

I'm certain that lots of people witnessed parents carrying children. People carry children often. No gigantic clue there... She CLAIMED it was Madeleine! That's not small.

If deductive reasoning was used, it would have been ruled out long ago.... Oh wait ... It was. !!!!!

Only bias I see here is from those that simply refuse to acknowledge the parents behaved negligently and acted beyond suspicious ever since

IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Donjeta]

It would be helpful if the article had included what the people looked like who had done the recent burglaries at the resort (assuming someone saw them or they caught someone). Were they White, Black, Spanish-looking, etc..? Because if those were done by people of a different race, and then this man walking towards the beach is reported to be White, then that would be useful information.

They say the burglars have never been caught but there are e-fits of suspicious individuals in the Crimewatch video, in the last ten minutes or so.

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-...ry-new-information-greatly-encouraged-appeal/

Scroll down.

 

[Jmoose]

No it does not. I believed that she saw what she saw. That has been proven correct. She saw a man carrying a child.

The odds that she would see that at around the same time maddie went missing, using deductive reasoning adds to get credibility.

What the truth is is that people were wrong for calling her a liar and attention seeker. For belittling her.

She was telling the truth and that was proven.

I knew she was not lying about what she saw.

Was I wrong that it was maddie? Okay. I'm okay with that. I don't care about being wrong about the small part. The big part is she was indeed truthful.

The big part is that the investigators believe that maddie was taken. They believe and are searching for someone and have more information that supports the fact it was an intruder.


I realized this weekend that there are cases in this site where people really sleuth and take facts and work them into true and accurate theories. And then there are cases like this where it is just filled with bias and avarice and people spend more time making things up and sensationalizing and the real case and facts get lost.

I am going to continue my hopes and prayers we find maddie. I am so excited with all the new activity.

Regards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk. Auto correct has a mind of its own.

This case is like all the others, in terms of the right to one's own opinion-the facts here are that Maddie is gone, and the dogs found signs of death in the apt., however these things happened. The authorities have to examine the possibilty that she was abducted, because it's one possibilty, but not the only one. I am sure that they'd also like to examine the possibilty that something happened to that child in the villa, but the McCanns have circled the wagons and declined to assist. I am not sure why the need to hang onto Jane Tanner's certain sighting of the abductor at 9:15-this is no different from your characterization of people who have a different point of view, as biased, avaricious ones who are making things up and ignoring the facts.

 

[Venom]

I don't think anyone disputed JT seeing a man carrying a child. What was disputed was her positive id of the child being MM.

 

[blefuscu]

No one called Tanner a liar or an attention seeker. We disputed what she saw, and her assertations. Her claims that started as seeing the back/side of a man, a bundle being carried, a child in pyjamas, the eggman, the child being Madeleine, an e-fit, a detailed description of the man, and then picking Murat out of a surveillance video. Murat could have been convicted if the police just believed what Jane Tanner had said. Luckily for him they prefer to base their justice on evidence and not gut feelings.

Tanner may have seen a man carrying his own child, which way we aren't sure as she covered both bases depending on which statement you read, but she DID NOT see an intruder carrying Madeleine. And therefore there is now no evidence at all of an intruder, as there is no one who has seen a stranger with Madeleine.

We should concentrate our sleuthing on evidence and not gut feelings.

 

[gord]

I don't think anyone disputed JT seeing a man carrying a child. What was disputed was her positive id of the child being MM.

For goodness sake she never ever gave a positive id that it was maddie. She was always clear that she had a very fleeting view. If you can give a verifiable quote and link to her 100% id I would like to see it.

the abuse that she has received over the years has been disgusting

 

[blefuscu]

For goodness sake she never ever gave a positive id that it was maddie. She was always clear that she had a very fleeting view. If you can give a verifiable quote and link to her 100% id I would like to see it.

the abuse that she has received over the years has been disgusting

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...leine-abducted-insists-Tapas-Nine-friend.html

Apparently she knew what she saw!

"I know what I saw. I think it's important that people know what I saw because I believe Madeleine was abducted."

 

[gord]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...leine-abducted-insists-Tapas-Nine-friend.html

Apparently she knew what she saw!

"I know what I saw. I think it's important that people know what I saw because I believe Madeleine was abducted."

The daily mail ????? Read her statements she never ever id'd maddie. She was always clear she saw a man with a child . The person has now eventualy been traced something the pj should have done 6 years ago

 

[blefuscu]

Oh god the daily mail! Nooooo

It's got a quote from her. If she hadn't said it then she'd sue!

 

[SapphireSteel]

No one called Tanner a liar or an attention seeker. We disputed what she saw, and her assertations. Her claims that started as seeing the back/side of a man, a bundle being carried, a child in pyjamas, the eggman, the child being Madeleine, an e-fit, a detailed description of the man, and then picking Murat out of a surveillance video. Murat could have been convicted if the police just believed what Jane Tanner had said. Luckily for him they prefer to base their justice on evidence and not gut feelings.

Tanner may have seen a man carrying his own child, which way we aren't sure as she covered both bases depending on which statement you read, but she DID NOT see an intruder carrying Madeleine. And therefore there is now no evidence at all of an intruder, as there is no one who has seen a stranger with Madeleine.

We should concentrate our sleuthing on evidence and not gut feelings.

They haven't????

This must be corrected!

Jane Tanner is a liar and an attention seeker.

There, that's better.

:scared:

 

[blefuscu]

They haven't????

This must be corrected!

Jane Tanner is a liar and an attention seeker.

There, that's better.

:scared:

Hahahaha