Why did Madeleine 'go missing'?

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The man Jane Tanner witnessed had nothing to do with whatever happened to Madeleine. The police are looking at whoever the Smiths saw-whether he looked like Gerry McCann or not-I personally don't think the sketches look anything like him.

Apparently not. Since she reported a man carrying a child and these people are reporting the same thing. She reported it first making it now substantiated by other testimony.

The problem is now we have more witnesses not only who saw it but that have called in with a name. And not only names. But many have identified the same name though those witnesses are not at all connected.




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

 

[Cappuccino]

No, the witnesses who are calling in with names are referring to the Smith family sighting. The man JT saw has been traced and eliminated as a suspect.

 

[Cherwell]

The man Jane Tanner witnessed had nothing to do with whatever happened to Madeleine. The police are looking at whoever the Smiths saw-whether he looked like Gerry McCann or not-I personally don't think the sketches look anything like him.

Yes, as regards Tanner's statement there is nothing to "corroborate" beyond the fact that she saw a man carrying a child. That man has now been identified and is no longer a suspect in the enquiry.

It wouldn't surprise me if the man seen by the Smiths was another innocent parent, taking his child home from the creche or somewhere similar.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No, the witnesses who are calling in with names are referring to the Smith family sighting. The man JT saw has been traced and eliminated as a suspect.

No. The point is that there were not 3 guys walking around carrying Madeleine.

Jane said she saw a man carrying a child FIRST.
I don't believe this person is identified. Because we are still looking for someone that was carrying Madeleine. The smiths saw the same person apparently.

Unless there was a rash of babies being carried off that night.

Jane was telling the truth. Other people also saw Madeleine being carried away. They are coming forth and saying so.



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

 

[Cappuccino]

According to DCI Redwood on CW last night, the man JT saw has been identified, and the child he was carrying was his own daughter.

 

[Cherwell]

No. The point is that there were not 3 guys walking around carrying Madeleine.

Jane said she saw a man carrying a child FIRST.
I don't believe this person is identified. Because we are still looking for someone that was carrying Madeleine. The smiths saw the same person apparently.

Unless there was a rash of babies being carried off that night.

Jane was telling the truth. Other people also saw Madeleine being carried away. They are coming forth and saying so.

I'm afraid you are rather confused. No one definitely saw Madeleine.

There are two separate reported incidents of a man seen carrying a child. The first (seen by Jane Tanner) has been proved to be a father taking his own child home from the creche, and it's my opinion that the second sighting was of another parent doing a similar thing. A very common sight in the resort - not "a rash of babies being carried off" but merely parents taking their children home from the creche or perhaps a babysitter's house.

To clarify the second sighting - there was more than one witness to this. That is why there are two e-fit pictures. Not two separate men, but the impressions of two witnesses (the Smiths) who were together when they saw the man.

 

[Jmoose]

Apparently not. Since she reported a man carrying a child and these people are reporting the same thing. She reported it first making it now substantiated by other testimony.

The problem is now we have more witnesses not only who saw it but that have called in with a name. And not only names. But many have identified the same name though those witnesses are not at all connected.




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

Not true, ScarletScarpetta-the man Tanner saw at 9:15 was found to be some other person on holiday, picking his own child up at the creche. It is the person seen by the Smiths just before 10:00 on whom the attention is focused, exclusively

 

[goldengirl57]

I'm afraid you are rather confused. No one definitely saw Madeleine.

There are two separate reported incidents of a man seen carrying a child. The first (seen by Jane Tanner) has been proved to be a father taking his own child home from the creche, and it's my opinion that the second sighting was of another parent doing a similar thing. A very common sight in the resort - not "a rash of babies being carried off" but merely parents taking their children home from the creche or perhaps a babysitter's house.

To clarify the second sighting - there was more than one witness to this. That is why there are two e-fit pictures. Not two separate men, but the impressions of two witnesses (the Smiths) who were together when they saw the man.

I totally agree.

There is no way an abductor is going to walk through the town with this stolen child.

They obviously didnt think it was odd as why not challenge the man in the first place?

This town is actually full of ex patts and other people who have children. The guy on the T.V. yesterday a reporter who has lived there a long time said its common practice to see kids being carried about and its a quiet safe friendly place to bring them up.

IF this was a planned abduction surely they would have planned to take the child away in a car quickly ....

I just think for me there is nothing new whatsoever with this crimewatch programme, its all been gone through before.

Funny isnt it really that when the Smiths reported this sighting to Leicestershire police and the fact they thought it was Gerry they saw, they were more or less silenced.

Then Amaral brought Smith back to Portugal and he actually did another statement verifying that the person who he saw was Gerry McCann he did a sworn signed statement. No one would talk about it, we thought they had been Carter Rucked lol......

Now the McCanns are excepting this sighting because the Smiths have not said anything about them....and it was not mentioned on the programme that it was thought it was GM.

What a load of rubbish really.....Poor Maddy...i sometimes wonder i really do.

 

[Venom]

No. The point is that there were not 3 guys walking around carrying Madeleine.

Jane said she saw a man carrying a child FIRST.
I don't believe this person is identified. Because we are still looking for someone that was carrying Madeleine. The smiths saw the same person apparently.

Unless there was a rash of babies being carried off that night.

Jane was telling the truth. Other people also saw Madeleine being carried away. They are coming forth and saying so.



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

No, the man and child that JT saw have been found. It was a man carrying his own child after picking her up from child care. So JT did not see an abductor taking MM.
They are looking into the man the Smith's saw.

 

[goldengirl57]

No, the man and child that JT saw have been found. It was a man carrying his own child after picking her up from child care. So JT did not see an abductor taking MM.
They are looking into the man the Smith's saw.

very odd though they still had the childs pyjamas to show the police and also why were they walking to the creche at 9.15 and not back from the creche with a sleeping child......

 

[Donjeta]

very odd though they still had the childs pyjamas to show the police and also why were they walking to the creche at 9.15 and not back from the creche with a sleeping child......

It's not odd to me, I still have lots of children's clothes from six years ago as I've saved the oldest child's clothing for the youngest one.

And if he knew it was him who JT saw he might have saved them, just in case.

It was reported that he walked from the creche.

Pictured: The innocent British father who for SIX YEARS was mistaken for key suspect in Maddie investigation after picking his daughter up from night crèche

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ather-mistaken-key-suspect.html#ixzz2hnwWLvNu
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

He even agreed to be pictured in the clothes he wore in Praia da Luz, on May 3, 2007, to prove he was the man in the police sketch previously seen as key to cracking the case.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ather-mistaken-key-suspect.html#ixzz2hnwqgd1O
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

That's a bit silly imo, those clothes are not that strikingly similar to what JT drew that it can be said to be prove anything. Not saying that I don't believe it, just saying that he's probably not the only man who has nondescript clothing in his closet.

 

[Linda7NJ]

No. The point is that there were not 3 guys walking around carrying Madeleine.

Jane said she saw a man carrying a child FIRST.
I don't believe this person is identified. Because we are still looking for someone that was carrying Madeleine. The smiths saw the same person apparently.

Unless there was a rash of babies being carried off that night.

Jane was telling the truth. Other people also saw Madeleine being carried away. They are coming forth and saying so.



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

Shaking my head....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I see what you are saying that they are focusing on another suspect but I can not find a link to janes sighting being identified.

And what I think is more poignant is that she was not lying if what you say is true. That she did indeed see the event and that shows that all the comments about her were unfounded.

I think that it is time to pull the crazy theories out and look at the facts and realize that Madeleine was indeed taken by a stranger. There is no proof that the mccanns hurt their child.

All this proves is that someone did indeed steal maddie.




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

 

[Linda7NJ]

I see what you are saying that they are focusing on another suspect but I can not find a link to janes sighting being identified.

And what I think is more poignant is that she was not lying if what you say is true. That she did indeed see the event and that shows that all the comments about her were unfounded.

I think that it is time to pull the crazy theories out and look at the facts and realize that Madeleine was indeed taken by a stranger. There is no proof that the mccanns hurt their child.

All this proves is that someone did indeed steal maddie.




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

Here ya go

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Donjeta]

Jane Tanner's sighting of a completely unrelated person does not in any way prove anything about what happened to Madeleine.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Jane Tanner's sighting of a completely unrelated person does not in any way prove anything about what happened to Madeleine.

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.

 

[Jmoose]

I see what you are saying that they are focusing on another suspect but I can not find a link to janes sighting being identified.

And what I think is more poignant is that she was not lying if what you say is true. That she did indeed see the event and that shows that all the comments about her were unfounded.

I think that it is time to pull the crazy theories out and look at the facts and realize that Madeleine was indeed taken by a stranger. There is no proof that the mccanns hurt their child.

All this proves is that someone did indeed steal maddie.




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

What Jane Tanner saw was a guy holding his own child-the police know this now. We all saw the links. I don't understand why this dead horse is still being beaten. Jane Tanner saw nothing but a man walking with his own child!!!

 

[Jmoose]

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.

You do not know that-gut feeling, and the fact that you personally haven't seen anything, doesn't prove the negative-that they didn't do anything. They did do something-they left 3 little children alone while they went out, after the resort mgmt asked them not to

 

[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.

I never once said she was deliberately lying.

As a matter of fact several posters, myself included, explained to you how memory works and how the brain fills in imaginary details.

Fact: She saw a man carrying his own child, she did not see Madeline being carried by an abductor.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Donjeta]

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.

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.