SMITHS sighting NOW TAKEN seriously

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cappuccino said:
Why are you saying the guy was seen at ten? It was the Tanner sighting that was at ten, and he's been traced and eliminated as a suspect.
Click to expand...
Tanner sighting was at around 9.15. The Smith family saw a man walking to the beach at around 10pm and that's the correct timeline.
 
SapphireSteel said:
Kate sounded the alarm at ten.

This guy was seen at ten.

That means that Kate was there when he took Madeleine. He must've been actually there in the apartment at 9.55. If she looked for Madeleine as she'd claimed, she would have found him in the wardrobe.

:twocents:
Click to expand...

However did you arrive at that conclusion?

He wasn't seen in the apartment, it was a little farther away, as far as I can tell and who knows how long he took to get there. He could even have been molesting Madeleine in his hotel room for a while before going to the beach to dump her body in the sea.

There can be several things going on around the same time in different locations.

(Or it could have been another father carrying his tired daughter...)
 
thisiseku said:
Tanner sighting was at around 9.15. The Smith family saw a man walking to the beach at around 10pm and that's the correct timeline.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry, my bad. That wasn't really made clear in the CW broadcast though, I was paying attention and I got the impression it was the other way around.
 
There were two men strolling around PDL that evening, with sleeping/deceased daughters in their arms.

One, an innocent uninvolved fellow at 9.15.

Tanner obviously saw him, but why did she identify the child as Madeleine? Who knows...probably for the same reason she identified the guy as Murat. Once you start lying, you have to keep going.

Second guy at 10pm is the one with the efits, the one who looks exactly like Gerry, the one who the Smiths saw and identified as Gerry.

:twocents:
 
This latest information makes me suspect that Gerry was heading out the back with the body at the exact same time Kate started screaming.

Ok, I'll leave this way, you create a distraction out front.

:sick:
 
Right, got it now. That's what happens when I'm posting on WS and watching Crimewatch at the same time.

Anyway, in the update, they said several callers had given the same name for the e fit man.
 
SapphireSteel said:
Tanner obviously saw him, but why did she identify the child as Madeleine? Who knows...probably for the same reason she identified the guy as Murat. Once you start lying, you have to keep going.

:twocents:
Click to expand...

Maybe because she genuinely felt it could have been?
 
So if Gerry took Maddie's body away, when was he seen again? How much time did he have to dump the body?
 
Tanner never ever gave a 100% Id she just ssud what she saw. A man carrying s child. Who has now been traced and interviewed

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk now Free
 
thisiseku said:
Because Tanner claimed the man to be Murat and the girl to be Madeleine.
Click to expand...

And when the police compared the actual man to the photofit they'd done with Tanner, they said the resemblance was "uncanny", so presumably he bears a resemblance to Murat too. The child was also a little blonde girl wearing similar pyjamas to Madeliene.

A witness can be genuinely mistaken about who they saw, its not always lying.
 
Cappuccino said:
And when the police compared the actual man to the photofit they'd done with Tanner, they said the resemblance was "uncanny", so presumably he bears a resemblance to Murat too. The child was also a little blonde girl wearing similar pyjamas to Madeliene.

A witness can be genuinely mistaken about who they saw, its not always lying.
Click to expand...

Which photofit? The Eggman or this dude?

Suspect.jpg


Or there is a third portrait done with Tanner I don't know about?

Seriously, Tanner changed her story so many times she has zero credibility in my eyes. Zero.
 
Murat does not resemble JT's sketch that much, though...

MOO
 
Donjeta said:
I thought that mustached fella wasn't Tanner's, it was somebody else. She said she never saw a frontal view of the face.
Click to expand...

Yes, but she also stated the mustached fella resembled the guy she saw. My point is, the dude could not resemble both Murat and the creep with a mustache fom the sketch. Someone is lying.
 
This argument is now obsolete. They've traced a man who was at the place where Tanner saw a man, at the time she saw him, and who was carrying a 2 year old girl wearing similar pj's to Madeliene's.

The Tanner sighting is no longer relevant.
 
Cappuccino said:
This argument is now obsolete. They've traced a man who was at the place where Tanner saw a man, at the time she saw him, and who was carrying a 2 year old girl wearing similar pj's to Madeliene's.

The Tanner sighting is no longer relevant.
Click to expand...

I'd say it is relevant, because she was lying for some reason. Why would anyone lied in such a situation?
 
Hexe said:
Which photofit? The Eggman or this dude?

Suspect.jpg


Or there is a third portrait done with Tanner I don't know about?

Seriously, Tanner changed her story so many times she has zero credibility in my eyes. Zero.
Click to expand...

Like all the best lies, it has a kernel of truth.

The Smiths confirmed that it was common to see parents walking with sleeping children around PDL at that time of night. Not many folks have cars and the distances are very short anyway, tourists are about at odd hours (jet lag).

Tanner probably did see some guy with his daughter, and then used it to base her allegations on. Did Crimewatch confirm the exact timing she saw this guy, or explain why Gerry and Jez did not see him? Apparently she saw a father carrying a sleeping child, but did Crimewatch confirm when? Why didn't the PJ find this father earlier?

This explains the pause in between seeing the guy and telling LE about him - about two hours.

She knew all along her sighting wasn't of Madeleine but used it for a red herring, probably at the insistence of the overwhelming Gerry.

Heck they probably had all seen sleeping babies being carried by parents, all holiday, every night they left Tapas someone probably walked past them picking up their own child from the night creche. It was a common sight.

It could have been part of the plot "there's so many parents doing this, we wont stand out".

These people, while woefully short in common sense, are not exactly stupid. This is part of a "pact" and someone clever thought up answers to everything.

Except of course, the Smiths...the one aspect that couldn't be foreseen.

:cow:
 
Hexe said:
I'd say it is relevant, because she was lying for some reason. Why would anyone lied in such a situation?
Click to expand...

How was she lying? We know the man exists, he's been traced.
 
I just watched the UK Crime Watch program. I do not suspect the parents for a second.
I DO think there is something major about to come down the pipe though...with all this new media attention.
My impression was that they are not looking at the men profiled as 'suspects' but rather ruling them out.

I pray that my gut feeling is right and that she is still alive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 222 more.
Total: 2,969 (members: 223, guests: 2,746)

Online statistics

Members online
223
Guests online
2,746
Total visitors
2,969
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,256
Messages
17,966,285
Members
228,734
Latest member
TexasCuriousMynd
Back
Top