Why did Madeleine 'go missing'?

[Jmoose]

No i'm not. I said someone could have been hiding in a bush or something/ in their car/ even in one of those apartments. I doubt the neighbours were looking out their windows 24/7. Children have been successfully abducted from their bedrooms with others in the house.

Scotland Yard are investigating an abduction. They clearly think that it is possible that Madeleine was abducted.

And if they never ever find either maddie or the abductor, the answer will be "i don't know who did it or how they did it, but they did it!

 

[Gem2626]

Sorry, but that's just speculation on your part Gem!

Link to Scotland Yard believing it abduction. Preferably direct from Scotland Yard as you don't like the media.

Urmmmmm is it not obvious the direction they're taking on this case? I'll wait till Monday when I can provide a link straight to the crime watch programme where they will ay that they are looking for an abductor.

 

[Linda7NJ]

No i'm not. I said someone could have been hiding in a bush or something/ in their car/ even in one of those apartments. I doubt the neighbours were looking out their windows 24/7. Children have been successfully abducted from their bedrooms with others in the house.

Scotland Yard are investigating an abduction. They clearly think that it is possible that Madeleine was abducted.

FACT

Just because law enforcement is investigating doesn't mean they clearly think its possible. Oftentimes investigating is, as much,if not more, about ruling out all possibilities.

Never assume because some lead is followed up on.. It's some genuinely considered possibility.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[blefuscu]

Urmmmmm is it not obvious the direction they're taking on this case? I'll wait till Monday when I can provide a link straight to the crime watch programme where they will ay that they are looking for an abductor.

And if Scotland Yard find that the Mccanns are the main suspects?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Urmmmmm is it not obvious the direction they're taking on this case? I'll wait till Monday when I can provide a link straight to the crime watch programme where they will ay that they are looking for an abductor.

Perhaps the "powers that be" are also taking a page from the Ramsey case.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[SapphireSteel]

Urmmmmm is it not obvious the direction they're taking on this case? I'll wait till Monday when I can provide a link straight to the crime watch programme where they will ay that they are looking for an abductor.

Yeah they've apparently got another sketch.

We'll add it to the pile....that's 8 now? Or 9?

Don't forget Tanner has already positively identified the "abductor" as being Robert Murat!

I would like to know why everyone is waiting so breathlessly for this program when this is just another red herring like we have seen so many times before...

LE have not announced anything officially as to what they are doing and where the investigation is going so I'm not sure how the IDI's think they know what is going to be broadcast on Monday?

On the other hand, imagine if they produce a sketch of Gerry!!!!

:lol:

 

[~n/t~]

IMO if the parents are involved, it would have happened before the dinner. Still questioning that call. It's been a while so I would have to check the timeline to refresh my memory.

Quoting my post to ask this question. On the timeline thread, a post states the McCanns picked up the children at the crèche between 5:30 - 6:30. They took Maddie for a snack. Where were the twins and why was Madeleine the only one who got a snack?

 

[blefuscu]

Yeah they've apparently got another sketch.

We'll add it to the pile....that's 8 now? Or 9?

Don't forget Tanner has already positively identified the "abductor" as being Robert Murat!

I would like to know why everyone is waiting so breathlessly for this program when this is just another red herring like we have seen so many times before...

LE have not announced anything officially as to what they are doing and where the investigation is going so I'm not sure how the IDI's think they know what is going to be broadcast on Monday?

On the other hand, imagine if they produce a sketch of Gerry!!!!

:lol:

Unfortunately I don't think most of the UK is waiting breathlessly.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yeah they've apparently got another sketch.

We'll add it to the pile....that's 8 now? Or 9?

Don't forget Tanner has already positively identified the "abductor" as being Robert Murat!

I would like to know why everyone is waiting so breathlessly for this program when this is just another red herring like we have seen so many times before...

LE have not announced anything officially as to what they are doing and where the investigation is going so I'm not sure how the IDI's think they know what is going to be broadcast on Monday?

On the other hand, imagine if they produce a sketch of Gerry!!!!

:lol:

I personally don't find any of this funny. A baby girl is missing, She was taken and no one has seen her. Someone saw her being carried away. I believe her.

I don't care how many sketches they put out as long as they keep looking for her.
There are tons of official reports of them investigating. It has been in the news all week.

 

[blefuscu]

I personally don't find any of this funny. A baby girl is missing, She was taken and no one has seen her. Someone saw her being carried away. I believe her.

I don't care how many sketches they put out as long as they keep looking for her.
There are tons of official reports of them investigating. It has been in the news all week.

As asked several times yesterday, WHY do you believe Jane Tanner? What is it about her that makes her so remarkably credible to you?

 

[SapphireSteel]

I believe Tanner saw someone carrying Madeleine away too.

The same person the Smiths saw.

The person they identified as Gerry McCann.

:sick:

The only people who are entitled to outrage at this case or the discussion of it are *IMO* the PJ, specifically one Goncalo Amaral, also Robert Murat and his mother who were literally examined from the inside out thanks to Tanner and her false ID.

:cow:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I believe Tanner saw someone carrying Madeleine away too.

The same person the Smiths saw.

The person they identified as Gerry McCann.

:sick:

The only people who are entitled to outrage at this case or the discussion of it are *IMO* the PJ, specifically one Goncalo Amaral, also Robert Murat and his mother who were literally examined from the inside out thanks to Tanner and her false ID.

:cow:

Tanner's ID is valid. It stands.

Amaral is nothing more than a biased person looking for his 15 mins.

His book reads like a Dear Diary book..

IT is a shame he did not do his job better, Maybe they would have found Madeleine.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

As asked several times yesterday, WHY do you believe Jane Tanner? What is it about her that makes her so remarkably credible to you?

Because I do. It is that simple. Her story rings true. As soon as Madeleine was missing she put the pieces together. She also saw Gerry so we know it was NOT him.

She is telling the truth.

 

[blefuscu]

Because I do. It is that simple. Her story rings true. As soon as Madeleine was missing she put the pieces together. She also saw Gerry so we know it was NOT him.

She is telling the truth.

Because you do?

But Jane Tanner believed herself that Robert Murat was the abductor. She ID'd him. And yet she was wrong!

 

[Linda7NJ]

Tanner's ID is valid. It stands.

Amaral is nothing more than a biased person looking for his 15 mins.

His book reads like a Dear Diary book..

IT is a shame he did not do his job better, Maybe they would have found Madeleine.

When compared to whose diary? Kate's?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I personally don't find any of this funny. A baby girl is missing, She was taken and no one has seen her. Someone saw her being carried away. I believe her.

I don't care how many sketches they put out as long as they keep looking for her.
There are tons of official reports of them investigating. It has been in the news all week.

I also fail to see any humor in the case. There was plenty of opportunity for an intruder to take Madeleine and there is an eye witness that corroborates that being a possibility. MOO.

 

[Venom]

Because you do?

But Jane Tanner believed herself that Robert Murat was the abductor. She ID'd him. And yet she was wrong!

Eyewitnesses aren't reliable.

"Indeed, it is now widely known that eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions across the country."

http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/nj-supreme-court-revises-eyewitness-id-rules.htm

Article has how Elizabeth Smart's sister was wrong in her eyewitness account; DC snipers eyewitness id'ed the shooters were in a white box truck, they weren't.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Eyewitnesses aren't reliable.

"Indeed, it is now widely known that eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions across the country."

http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/nj-supreme-court-revises-eyewitness-id-rules.htm

Article has how Elizabeth Smart's sister was wrong in her eyewitness account; DC snipers eyewitness id'ed the shooters were in a white box truck, they weren't.

I agree that circumstantial evidence is better that direct evidence in a court of law. I still think that eye witness testimony has a place in getting to the truth. It just has to be looked at and given it's proper weight. It shouldn't be dismissed just because it may be wrong. It could be right. MOO.

 

[Venom]

I thought that all opinions were welcome here, and facts were to be stuck too?

Where is it a fact that JT positively identified the child being carried as MM? Perhaps I've missed it. :dunno: In all the articles that have been linked yesterday and today, I have not found a one that she stated it was MM. I've read she saw legs, and light colored pj's, a bundle, and a man from the back. :waitasec: And after MM was discovered abducted, then she put 2 and 2 together and thought it must have been MM. So it's a positive id on legs and pajamas, and circumstance alone?
Why are some allowed to state that it was a positive id without a source to back it up? I'm sure if I was the one who was saying that the man was id'ed as GM, I'd have to have sources to back that one up. (And no, I'm not saying that it was GM who was carrying the child)

JMO :twocents: :moo:

 

[Venom]

I agree that circumstantial evidence is better that direct evidence in a court of law. I still think that eye witness testimony has a place in getting to the truth. It just has to be looked at and given it's proper weight. It shouldn't be dismissed just because it may be wrong. It could be right. MOO.

That is one thing I agree with you. It is still a possibility that she is wrong and it's a possibility that she's right. I just find it hard for her to be 100% sure without having a look at the childs face.