"Who would leave children that young alone?"

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I personally would love it if the IDI's stopped criticising and deconstructing every single word, and started adding something positive to the sleuthing...like a new idea or some other evidence that explains the events of that night?

Sleuthing is not one sided. It is a process. AS for myself, I don't accuse people of things until there is proof. I don't make up wild stories about crazy things happening unless there is proof that any such thing occurred. I think sleuthing is a responsible art, That does not slander people or make up stories, But takes each piece of evidence and looks for a way for it to fit. To either exonerate or convict.

 

[Venom]

She does not know for a FACT that it was MM being carried away. The guy had his back towards her, how could she get a good view of the child to say definitely that it was MM? She only saw legs and pinkish pajamas. She believed the child to have been MM, after it became known that MM was missing.

About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.

and I got that from here: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap2

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

She does not know for a FACT that it was MM being carried away. The guy had his back towards her, how could she get a good view of the child to say definitely that it was MM? She only saw legs and pinkish pajamas. She believed the child to have been MM, after it became known that MM was missing.

About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.

and I got that from here: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap2

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

She knows what she saw. She may not have recognized it in the moment but she has not strayed from her story. She knows it was madeleine.

 

[blefuscu]

Jane Tanner.

No proof that Madeleine is dead, Just is. They are still looking for her. No body, No crime scene, Nothing.. She is missing.. No proof of a death.

That is not a source. Please provide a link to a credible source that PROVES that Jane Tanner saw her.

There was blood in the apartment. There was cadaverine in the apartment. There was DNA and cadaverine in the car. There was cadaverine on Kate's clothes, there was cadaverine on cuddlecat.

 

[Jmoose]

This is not even close to the same thing. The point is they ALL felt safe doing it. They felt good at this place and protected.

It is what it is now, People want to be mad at them for their child care choices, fine, But that does not mean they hurt Maddie. She is missing, They did not take her.

They felt safe because they wanted to feel safe doing it-because they weren't about to let their children ruin their vacation. If I wasn't planning on spending my vacation time with my children, I would ask my parents or in-laws to keep them, which they would have been pleased to do. The answer to why they did not do it, could be that the McCann children were "difficult". That is not a good enough reason to leave them with strangers for the entire vacation, or worse, by themselves. I don't know who came up with the notion that they drugged them and Maddie succumbed, and don't know if I believe it, but it's an interesting thought. I don't know of any doctors who've done that with their children, but I know one who drugged his dogs for a wedding, and one never woke up.

 

[blefuscu]

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

She knows what she saw. She may not have recognized it in the moment but she has not strayed from her story. She knows it was madeleine.

That proves nothing. I could say "oh I saw a UFO just now and aliens in a carpark."

Without corroboration it's useless. Please show actual proof that she saw Madeleine being abducted. Her say so isn't enough. She has to prove it was Madeleine. Plus she picked out Robert Murat, even after she gave the police the "egg man" description.

 

[Venom]

Jane Tanner.

No proof that Madeleine is dead, Just is. They are still looking for her. No body, No crime scene, Nothing.. She is missing.. No proof of a death.

Do you have a source that says Jane Tanner recognized the child being carried as MM right when she saw the man?

 

[blefuscu]

They felt safe because they wanted to feel safe doing it-because they weren't about to let their children ruin their vacation. If I wasn't planning on spending my vacation time with my children, I would ask my parents or in-laws to keep them, which they would have been pleased to do. The answer to why they did not do it, could be that the McCann children were "difficult". That is not a good enough reason to leave them with strangers for the entire vacation, or worse, by themselves. I don't know who came up with the notion that they drugged them and Maddie succumbed, and don't know if I believe it, but it's an interesting thought. I don't know of any doctors who've done that with their children, but I know one who drugged his dogs for a wedding, and one never woke up.

Exactly, they were selfish, self interested snobs. They wanted their "adult" time and to heck with the children. Kids clubs and leaving them unsupervised for over 5 hours is fine. They are a disgrace! They didn't parent their children on this holiday. They hardly spent any time with them.

 

[Linda7NJ]

That proves nothing. I could say "oh I saw a UFO just now and aliens in a carpark."

Without corroboration it's useless. Please show actual proof that she saw Madeleine being abducted. Her say so isn't enough. She has to prove it was Madeleine. Plus she picked out Robert Murat, even after she gave the police the "egg man" description.

Omg the Eggman! I forgot all about the Eggman!

Roflmao!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Do you have a source that says Jane Tanner recognized the child being carried as MM right when she saw the man?

No. She said at first she did not realize what she had seen but then she knew and put it all together. IT makes perfect sense.

 

[Venom]

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

She knows what she saw. She may not have recognized it in the moment but she has not strayed from her story. She knows it was madeleine.

From that same article you quoted:

Key witness Jane Tanner saw a dark-haired man carrying away a child wearing pink floral pyjamas about the time that the four-year-old vanished from her parents' holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal.
But it was only an hour later, when she was told that Madeleine had gone, that Miss Tanner realised it could have been the abductor.
She has been "tormented" ever since that she did not immediately realise the significance of what she had seen.

In her own words- she saw a man carrying a child. And an hour later she realized it could have been the abductor.
No, she doesn't state she saw Madeleine being carried, just a child.
And it could have been the abductor. Could also have been a father carrying his own child.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

That proves nothing. I could say "oh I saw a UFO just now and aliens in a carpark."

Without corroboration it's useless. Please show actual proof that she saw Madeleine being abducted. Her say so isn't enough. She has to prove it was Madeleine. Plus she picked out Robert Murat, even after she gave the police the "egg man" description.

Yes it does. She said it that night. She knew what she saw. You don't want to believe her, that is fine but the police did. They made sketches and interviewed her. She still sticks to the same conviction that she knows it was madeleine.

 

[blefuscu]

No. She said at first she did not realize what she had seen but then she knew and put it all together. IT makes perfect sense.

Ahhh 20/20 hindsight. Always great eh?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

From that same article you quoted:

Key witness Jane Tanner saw a dark-haired man carrying away a child wearing pink floral pyjamas about the time that the four-year-old vanished from her parents' holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal.
But it was only an hour later, when she was told that Madeleine had gone, that Miss Tanner realised it could have been the abductor.
She has been "tormented" ever since that she did not immediately realise the significance of what she had seen.

In her own words- she saw a man carrying a child. And an hour later she realized it could have been the abductor.
No, she doesn't state she saw Madeleine being carried, just a child.
And it could have been the abductor. Could also have been a father carrying his own child.

Really, at the same time as Madeline goes missing.. What a coincidence.. I am sure though that people believe that people saw Gerry carrying madeleine.

I believe Jane.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Ahhh 20/20 hindsight. Always great eh?

Absolutely. As it does in any case.. That is why police say things like, Just tell me what you saw, Because sometimes people cannot piece it together but the police can.

 

[blefuscu]

Yes it does. She said it that night. She knew what she saw. You don't want to believe her, that is fine but the police did. They made sketches and interviewed her. She still sticks to the same conviction that she knows it was madeleine.

So why did her first police statement say she couldn't see the man because it was too dark but then in her second statement she gave a great description of him? I don't believe her because she is inconsistent!

 

[blefuscu]

Really, at the same time as Madeline goes missing.. What a coincidence.. I am sure though that people believe that people saw Gerry carrying madeleine.

I believe Jane.

Why do you believe her? Based on what?

 

[blefuscu]

Absolutely. As it does in any case.. That is why police say things like, Just tell me what you saw, Because sometimes people cannot piece it together but the police can.

Errrr that was sarcasm! :floorlaugh:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Why do you believe her? Based on what?

I believe her. I believe her accounting, The way she told her story and how the information came from her. I believe that she saw someone carrying madeleine away because IN FACT, Madeleine went missing.

Those two things together support each other.

 

[Jmoose]

She is missing.. That is the easiest part of it. She was not found.
Someone saw her being carried away. She know it was Maddie.
That is the easiest part of believing it. No one can prove these two things are not true.

There is no proof that madeleine is dead.

She did not immediately recognize Maddie being carried by the stranger until later-that's a fact. The McCanns did have an opportunity to harm their daughter and get rid of her-that opportunity is a fact. There has, to date, been no evidence that a stranger came into their room and took her-Tanner is not an unbiased source of info-that's a fact. The dogs hit on some spots in the villa and the car-that's a fact

I hope she isn't dead, but if she isn't I am disturbed about what her life may have been like for the last 6 years.