A question about the alleged sightings

Discussion in 'Madeleine McCann' started by Isabella, Apr 5, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Isabella

    Isabella Thank you! Justice for Meredith!

    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Ok I have a question about the 2 alleged sightings.

    1. We have sighting number one by Jane Tanner. A friend of the McCanns who has changed her description of the said "person" and what she saw the guy holding even and ..when asked by the Pjs she didnt correctly say where Gerry and Jezx were standing. In addition the two men that were there have both said she wasnt seen .. even though it would IMO have been impossible to miss her. Not witholding the fact also she was wearing flip flops which tend to make a noise.

    2. We have sighting number 2 by Martin Smith and his family. These people allegedly have no connection to the McCanns or there friends and therefore have no reason to lie. Martin Smith alleges he saw a guy down by the beach holding a child that appeared to be sleeping. He wasnt entirely sure of the time. After seeing pictures of Gerry walking down the runway at East Midlands he contacted police and told them that the man he had seen with the child down by the beach resembled Gerry McCann. Mr Smith was due to go to Portugal about this to see Mr Amaral however..Amaral was taken off ..

    So we have two "witnesses". One with every reason to lie..and one with no one reason to lie. So why is it only appeals are put out for the person seen by Jane Tanner and not the one seen by Martin Smith? Why are they trying to pretend that that sighting didnt happen? Surely if they want people to come forward..they would appeal for the man Smith to see to come forward also wouldnt they if only so they can eliminate him?

    Why...as members of the public..is it important for us to believe Tanner over Smith? Wouldnt Smith come over as more credible? They are there now to do a reconstruction...why not have Martin Smith there?

    Questions questions .. .:rolleyes:
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you know for a fact how the Portuguese police viewed this sighting?
    Did it fit with other witness statements? This is very important. Because if you have a dozen people who say that at 10.05pm Gerry McCann was with them and one person saying he saw him somewhere else, then by the law of probability, that the one person was mistaken. ESPECIALLY when (as you correctly point out) this man did not know Gerry McCann personally and could therefore have been mistaken.

    Pople who know Gerry McCann would be far less likely to have been mistaken about seeing him.

    I know this guy went to the papers, but did he go to the Portuguese police? If yes, why didn't the police didn't place more importance on his "witness testimony"? Unless if is for the reasons I swuggested above.

    10.05 is a very crucial time in the timeline because that was approximately when kate raised the alarm about Madeleine being missing and people were reacting to it. Gerry was back at the table then. If the Irishman had claimed to have seen Gery carrying a child towards the beach earlier on - before 8.30 or at the time Gerry was known to have gone back to the apartment, it might be considered more noteworthy.
     
  4. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here is an article about the Irish family sighting:-


    SNIP

    SNIP

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/maddie/article643970.ece

    Now - who's not getting their story straight this time?:rolleyes:

    Isabella - could you provide your source for this so that we can compare and discuss the differences?
     
  5. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    According to an anti-Mccann website which I won't link to, the Irishman said that the reason he thought the man loooked like Gerry McCann was because Gerry McCann lowered his head in a video he saw on TV and the man carrying the child also lowered his head.

    WTF????

    ROFL! You couldn't make it up! (I personally don't believe it but it does help to understand some of the logic I've read :))
     
  6. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ANother report about this witness. No mention of him thinking it was Gery McCann!:-

    http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641299179

     
  7. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7543064.stm

    Crucially, this four month time gap coincides with the dog alert stories.
     
  8. Isabella

    Isabella Thank you! Justice for Meredith!

    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes he went to the Pj. Amaral was going to have him there..and then he got replaced. Metado also went to see him and apparently his story changed after that. How true that is i dont know.

    For the record he said he saw the guy 9.50ish onwards.
     
  9. Isabella

    Isabella Thank you! Justice for Meredith!

    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Discuss what difference i have no idea what your talking about.

    The fact is though..the witness you believe..originally said the guy carried a bundle covered by a blanket..this over months turned into a child with Madeleienes Pjs on. And somehow..she saw all the legs of the girl..when to start with she had clamed the man had the bundle covered by a blanket. Now originally the supposed kidnapper looked like a eggman...now he looks Portugese...so...i dont get how the description resembles the one given by Martin Smith. Gerry doesnt look remotely foreign.

    Oh and your linking to the sun etc..i thought you didnt trust the trashy tabloids? :rolleyes:

    For the record..the stories about the dog hits came out the beginning of August/end July. The McCanns didnt come home for another month after that..so no it wasnt all at the same time at all.
     
  10. Isabella

    Isabella Thank you! Justice for Meredith!

    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  11. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Isabella, the FACT that you have yet again FAILED to provide your own source and that you have SELECTED that part of the several sources which which (appears to) suit your agenda I provided speaks volumes.

    I linked to multiple accounts of this story in which Martin Smith did NOT say he thought it was Gerry McCann.

    In each of these accounts - and the SkyNews one appears to be an interview with Mr Smith - he was critical of the Portuguese police and said he'd do whatever it took to find Madeleine.

    Note I also linked to the one article which I found where he says he now DID think it could be Gerry McCann he saw FOUR MONTHS AFTER HE FIRST REPORTED IT. I didn't only post sources which suit my opinion. Now, don't tell me Martin Smith only saw Gerry McCann for the first time on TV four months AFTER madeleine was taken? Why wait till then to decide that it "could" have been Gery McCann he saw? The "coincidence" is that his change of heart seems to come after the news about the sniffer dogs. He was a potentially important witness for the Intruder theory.

    Fortunately for the McCanns, the Portuguese police have disregarded it because it doesn't fit with the facts. Too many credible witnesses saw Gerry McCann at the hotel at the time Mr Smith saw the man at the beach.

    It wasn't rocket science to work this one out.

    And I do wish you would provide sources.
     
  12. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course it coincided time-wise. The BBC article says he contacted the police FOUR MONTHS after his initial report to say... That's within a couple of weeks of the sniffer dogs stories.
     
  13. Isabella

    Isabella Thank you! Justice for Meredith!

    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You wanted a source stating Martin Smith thought it was Gerry he saw. This also explains..why he took so long to realise it could be Gerry he saw. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html . This is information from the files and not some tabloid newspaper. I hope that satisfies you :)
     
  14. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A source! :rolleyes:
     
  15. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It would appear that Martin Smith's eyewitness testimony :-

    a) was consistent with Jane Tanner's
    b) was discredited as being Gerry McCann byt the PJs on the grounds that Gerry McCann was known to be elsewhere at the time of the sighting.

    Eye witness identifications are notoriously unreliable. The only thing that is likely to be reliable about Jane Tanner and Martin Smith's witness statements are that they probably did see a man carrying a child. That is the sort of thing you would remember correctly. Descriptions of the man however are not likely to be terribly accurate. For example, if you saw a car driving past with a flag on its roof, you might remember the flag but be unable to say what typen of car it had been.

    http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html
     
  16. Isabella

    Isabella Thank you! Justice for Meredith!

    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Regarding Jane Tanners "alleged sighting"

    As people know..i have stated..that originally Jane alleged she saw a man carrying something covered in a blanket..which may or may not have been a child. Over the months this description changed..to it was definetly a child...and she could even see her pyjamas and the blanket had disappeared. We also know..that Gerry and Jez said she wasnt there and that she didnt place them where they in fact was.

    I have been told many times on this board...that she didnt change her story..

    Hmm ... http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html

    Decide for yourselves :)
     
  17. badhorsie

    badhorsie Mouth operational, brain elsewhere...

    Messages:
    3,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
  18. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Martin Brunt being paraphrased on a third party website is not a credible source. Sorry, but the article you cited is just plain wrong. It says:-

    News about Jane Tanner seeing the man with the child was being published very soon after the abduction. Either Martin Brunt is mistaken or the source which parpahrased him is. If you believe Martin Brint, she changed her statement in Novemeber.

    Artilce dated May 2007 describing Tanner's witness statement
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1847879.ece

    What a surprise - more misinformation :rolleyes:

    Jane Tanner said she didn't realise the implication of the man carrying the child until Kate said Madeleine was missing and then she felt awful. I have actually never read anywhere that she said it might not have been a child the man was carrying.

    I remember the very early "photofit" the Portuguese police made from Tanner's statement - the "egg".

    ETA - the police put out a lot of false stories too. martin Brunt might have been sold a dud and from what I've seen of his reporting, that wouldn't necessarily have been a hard sell :)
     
  19. Isabella

    Isabella Thank you! Justice for Meredith!

    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Actually Martin Brunt is correct. Very correct in fact. Its nothing to do with the pjs putting out false stories...the original one was by Jane Tanner herself in a paper on her return from holiday. Its funny ..most stuff linked there i had already said on this forum - and yet i hadnt read that article til tonight.. Most people seem to know..about the evolving story of what she claims she saw...and yet people still think shes credible for whatever reason.



    Btw from your article - it says hes believed she was taken between 9.10 and 9.15 ...what time exactly was Gerry meant to be in the flat - and outside talking to Jez?
     
  20. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you have a source for Jane Tanner saying to a newspaper that she didn't know if it was a child? That does not fit with what we know.

    I'd like to clarify this.

    ETA - the story is not out of sync with the timline. Gerry McCann checked the apartment at 9.05 approx. The next person (Oldfield/payne I get those two mixed up) didn't see Madeleine. It is entirely possible that Madeleine was taken immedaitely after gerry left and that he was in the apartment when gerry checked as Gerry thought possible afterwards.

    The 9.15 abduction time would fit with everyone's version of the timeline and would make jane tanner's eye witness statement very relevant.
     
  21. Isabella

    Isabella Thank you! Justice for Meredith!

    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    *Sighs*

    Is there any point? Seriously?

    I have told you this many times. Texana has told you this many times. I have put a link on here tonight and you STILL dont believe it. It says quite clearly from Brunt a news journalist that she changed her story. To be honest it just appears your trying to stop any debate from going on.

    I told you where the article was. Either the Express or Mail. It was about a week after the "kidnapping". With so many articles being wiped I have no idea if its there or not - but still I have verified that i am not the only one saying this - that a media source who was there at the time ALSO said this.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice