Justice 4 ALL Madeleine McCann Family
You need to be a member of this forum in order to view its entire contents.
We welcome applications to join the forum from genuine caring compassionate people that wish to support Mr Mrs McCann in their never ending resolve to finding their daughter Madeleine and bringing her back home where she truly belongs.

All applicants are checked out so people with no sense, no moral compass, no rationality and only half a brain cell and even less grip on reality and who are devoid of all logic - need NOT apply!
This also applies to ex-members, who no longer want to be members, yet spend their lives viewing this forum and telling people they no longer want to be members.
This is said without prejudice with no one in particular in mind.

Paint Stripper and the Open window

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Paint Stripper and the Open window

Post by sadie on Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:37 am

Rosiepops wrote:I believe there is too much emphasis put on the time line, as we all know different people's watches are all set differently, especially in a holiday setting, where people would have actually altered their watches to coincide with hat country's time zone. The fact is that there could have been a gap in the time line for several explanations, which are quite plausible.
Jane Tanner was reported to have given her description and included the colour of the pyjamas, before she knew what Madeleine was wearing.

The thing with eye witnesses giving statements, is that the police want to get eye witness statements ASAP, before they have a chance to superimpose something in their minds which isn't correct and we all know what a fiasco the SOC was that evening.

For those that doubt JT, let me give you a little scenario that happened to me.

Once I was eye witness to an incident outside my house, it was very dark and raining and only a small amount of light from the street lamp and I caught sight of someone for no more than approximately 10 secs, yet i gave a full description to the policeman, my OH asked me how I could possibly know that in such a short space of time, he had witnessed the same thing yet could not relay anything much.

2 hours later there was a knock on the door and the police were there, telling me that they had apprehended someone and that was thanks to the description I had given.

My point is, that you can take an awful lot in, in just a few seconds.
The same thing happened when someone broke into my car in town, I saw the man for just about 4/5 seconds in the dark and I was able to pick his photo out and he was arrested and had my radio! (Without the face as the face was in my bag!) So I quite believe that JT was able to give that description and also understand that from where she was she NEVER actually saw the face and she insisted that she had not seen his face. But her description of that man and clothes etc has coincided with the description of other eye witnesses gave after she gave hers.

With all due respect, Rosie, I dont think it is so much to do with peoples watches although that could be a factor. I think it is more to do with one of the following scenarios:

1) Bundleman took Madeleine somewhere first, either
a) to get advice what to do, as the abduction had gone wrong. The pick up had failed.
b) because he wanted to, for his own nasty reasons (I think this unlikely). I simply do not believe an abductor would walk through the streets openly carrying a stolen child, unless forced to.

2) After the pick up failed, he hung around in the alleyway, uncertain what to do and hoped that the getaway vehicle would return.
Maybe he saw Kate returning to the apartment and decided to leg it quickly - It's only about 4 minutes from the alleyway to Rua d'Escola (or the commotion might have alerted him)


Now the colours:

Sodium lamps give an orange glow.

No doubt some of the ladies in the group would have worn pink outfits (a common holiday colour) so after the first day or so, they would be aware how the colour pink changed under sodium lighting.
The white would become orange.
His trousers were probably a light colour and maybe not the mustardy colour that I believe, was originally claimed

I think bundleman was reported to be wearing a maroon coloured jacket. If an allowance is made for the lighting, then that could, in reality, have been a navy jacket.

Navy +orange = maroon

The Hewletts had navy jackets - but then so does almost everyone in the Western world!
avatar
sadie
Star Poster
Star Poster

Number of posts : 953
Location : UK
Registration date : 2008-11-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Paint Stripper and the Open window

Post by Jayelles on Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:39 pm

Hewlett may not be involved directly, but paedos often form their own little networks and he may know who did take her.

Jayelles
Apprentice
Apprentice

Number of posts : 380
Location : Scotland
Registration date : 2009-04-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Paint Stripper and the Open window

Post by goldengirl57 on Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:01 pm

Tinkerbell43 wrote:Hi Goldengirl,

Firstly welcome to our forum.

Re Jane Tanner, I believe she is a credible witness and the reason I give her sighting credibility is because the description she gave is pretty much identical to the one Mr. Smith gave.

I know people question how could she have seen this, that and the other, but she obviously did because imo with exception to the time line, The Smiths sighting corroborates with the details Jane gave and Janes statement was made long before the Smiths.

Hi Tinkerbell I thought i just saw you at the bottom of my garden LOL. (Yes I believe in Fairy's).

Look I dont think Jane Tanner is a credible witness sorry.

She states in her rogatory interview that the COMBINATION OF DARK AND THE STREET LIGHT made the scene look ORANGE.

How could she then be so certain she saw someone so quickly and swiftly carrying a BLOND CHILD with pink pyjamas.??

Its not credible to me. IF the guy stood in front of her face on and just stood still for 30 seconds then I might agree with you.

This guy was she said walking along "briskly", she wasnt expecting any trouble so why would she notice so much. Even to the BLACK SHOES, pink pyjamas with frills on the bottoms???

No sorry I think she saw someone yes I dont disagree but the significants of it could well have been exaggerated perhaps trying to help. For me why didnt she as soon as she heard about the child going missing run around and say OMG I just saw a man 45 minutes ago carrying a blond child with pink pyjamas the search could then have followed this guys route.

Also you have to admit surely that her description has changed she even believed it was MURAT at one point.

So sorry no I dont believe this is a credible sighting, just someone trying to help but probably made things worse. IMHO.

The above is only what I think, I respect you fully for your thoughts.

I could do with some fairy dust right now feel like poo LOL.

goldengirl57
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 22
Location : Midlands
Registration date : 2009-06-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Paint Stripper and the Open window

Post by goldengirl57 on Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:07 pm

Rosiepops wrote:I believe there is too much emphasis put on the time line, as we all know different people's watches are all set differently, especially in a holiday setting, where people would have actually altered their watches to coincide with hat country's time zone. The fact is that there could have been a gap in the time line for several explanations, which are quite plausible.
Jane Tanner was reported to have given her description and included the colour of the pyjamas, before she knew what Madeleine was wearing.

The thing with eye witnesses giving statements, is that the police want to get eye witness statements ASAP, before they have a chance to superimpose something in their minds which isn't correct and we all know what a fiasco the SOC was that evening.

For those that doubt JT, let me give you a little scenario that happened to me.

Once I was eye witness to an incident outside my house, it was very dark and raining and only a small amount of light from the street lamp and I caught sight of someone for no more than approximately 10 secs, yet i gave a full description to the policeman, my OH asked me how I could possibly know that in such a short space of time, he had witnessed the same thing yet could not relay anything much.

2 hours later there was a knock on the door and the police were there, telling me that they had apprehended someone and that was thanks to the description I had given.

My point is, that you can take an awful lot in, in just a few seconds.
The same thing happened when someone broke into my car in town, I saw the man for just about 4/5 seconds in the dark and I was able to pick his photo out and he was arrested and had my radio!
(Without the face as the face was in my bag!) So I quite believe that JT was able to give that description and also understand that from where she was she NEVER actually saw the face and she insisted that she had not seen his face. But her description of that man and clothes etc has coincided with the description of other eye witnesses gave after she gave hers.

Ah but there you have it. Jane Tanner was strolling along she went past Gerry and Gez and they didnt acknowledge her, so she walks upwards along the path probably thinking to herself GOD ARNT MEN RUDE LOL, not expecting any trouble. She notices a man walking very briskly along. WHY WOULD SHE NOTICE HIM, she had no need to.

YOU SAW someone stealing out of your car, your brain goes into adrenalin mode and you almost take a photographic snap of the guy.

THATS THE DIFFERENCE of course in my humble opinion.

goldengirl57
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 22
Location : Midlands
Registration date : 2009-06-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Paint Stripper and the Open window

Post by goldengirl57 on Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:14 pm

Rosiepops wrote:I believe there is too much emphasis put on the time line, as we all know different people's watches are all set differently, especially in a holiday setting, where people would have actually altered their watches to coincide with hat country's time zone. The fact is that there could have been a gap in the time line for several explanations, which are quite plausible.
Jane Tanner was reported to have given her description and included the colour of the pyjamas, before she knew what Madeleine was wearing.

The thing with eye witnesses giving statements, is that the police want to get eye witness statements ASAP, before they have a chance to superimpose something in their minds which isn't correct and we all know what a fiasco the SOC was that evening.

For those that doubt JT, let me give you a little scenario that happened to me.

Once I was eye witness to an incident outside my house, it was very dark and raining and only a small amount of light from the street lamp and I caught sight of someone for no more than approximately 10 secs, yet i gave a full description to the policeman, my OH asked me how I could possibly know that in such a short space of time, he had witnessed the same thing yet could not relay anything much.

2 hours later there was a knock on the door and the police were there, telling me that they had apprehended someone and that was thanks to the description I had given.

My point is, that you can take an awful lot in, in just a few seconds.
The same thing happened when someone broke into my car in town, I saw the man for just about 4/5 seconds in the dark and I was able to pick his photo out and he was arrested and had my radio! (Without the face as the face was in my bag!) So I quite believe that JT was able to give that description and also understand that from where she was she NEVER actually saw the face and she insisted that she had not seen his face. But her description of that man and clothes etc has coincided with the description of other eye witnesses gave after she gave hers.

Well firstly Portugal is on the same timeline as the UK so that wouldnt have happened there.

Also if the timelines could be different why did the group of friends write them down by tearing out the front page of Maddys book. IT IS THEIR timeline that we are talking about, so I am assuming if they were all carrying watches they would synchronize them when they were together working out the timeline for the police. So no sorry I dont believe that.

No the window of opportunity was just too small for me.

I think she was taken later about 9.40, and I think someone alerted the kidnapper that ALL the guests were at the table and had just done a check. 9.30 then the next one would be 10pm so that person had time to take her without being seen.

Thats my opinion obviously i dont know what happened, but using my logics I cant see how it could have happened at 9.15.

goldengirl57
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 22
Location : Midlands
Registration date : 2009-06-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Paint Stripper and the Open window

Post by clairesy on Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:31 pm

hi golden girl.I see what your saying about the street lights making things appear orange etc. Although in all honestly our eyes do adjust and compensate,just like they do when we wear sun glasses.You might be looking through tainted glasses but your not suddenly colored blind.

As for jane saying it was Murat.I though she said it could of been Murat.I wasn't aware she said she saw a face.I though they put jane into the back of a van,walked Murat passed the spot jane saw the child being carried and then jane said that it looked like him,that it could of been him as he walked the same etc and looked the same.Im not sure she 100% said a yes to him.I haven't heard that so cant really comment on it.
Although i will say that luz is a very quiet place,not many folk around etc and if that wasn't the abductor taking madeleine off then who was it??and why haven't they come forward to eliminate themselves?If they were an innocent guy carrying his child back to the apartments then why not say so? Im not sure that makes sence.The only other explanation for that is that is that no on as come forward because there was no one and jane lied and made the whole story up.WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE. So...i think she saw madeleine being carried away. I think the reason no one as come forward to say that was me before now is because it was infact the abductor. He isn't about to come forward is he. IMO he either went to Murats house and then around the back and down that path before popping up below the ocean clubs tapas area.Or he went into the car park,got into a vehicle and drove off with madeleine.
avatar
clairesy
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 2698
Age : 32
Location : uk
Registration date : 2008-06-04

Back to top Go down

Re: Paint Stripper and the Open window

Post by goldengirl57 on Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:03 am

I am sorry but I just doubt her sighting. She stated she only saw the man from the back (this is from her mouth not mine), so how could she be so sure about anything).

A man could easily be walking along innocently not noticing the time perhaps someone did come forward we dont know do we?

No this sighting just bugs me. As to orange glow even if you got used to it, how could you see pink if you can only see the back of someone striding briskly along the road. At first she never even mentioned a child anyway.

Ah well we will never know will we.

If we do believe her sighting and it was maddy I cant believe how someone could have taken her so quickly if her dad had just been in the room less then 5 minutes ago and was still talking outside. Bit far fetched to me.

If you believe JT do you believe the smiths? IF this was the guy, then he couldnt have gotten into a car and drove off with maddy to be seen walking along about 40 minutes later.

The two sightings just dont make any sense to me. Why didnt gerry see her? That bothers me.

Either way she was taken but I am not sure at what time, I still go for later when there was more time and less chance of being caught.

You would need to be mad to snatch a child at a busy time of the evening surely.

I take it from what you wrote you still think Robert Murats in the frame?

goldengirl57
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 22
Location : Midlands
Registration date : 2009-06-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Paint Stripper and the Open window

Post by clairesy on Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:23 am

Hi golden girl,

i have always though Murat knows more.Im not sure where he is in the investigation...weather he was involved or weather he just knows something and is scared to say.But i believe there is more than meets the eye with him.

Im also confused as to why gonc as gone quiet since Hewlett as been on the scene.I also trying to work out when he was diagnosed with cancer as being terminal,and when Murat felt the need to chill out,relax and go for compo!!

Im not sure that we can really say 100% sure about the sighting because mi not actually sure that jane as even said she was 100% sure it was Madeleine.she as said she sure of what she saw,although not of it being madeleine.I think they are using janes sighting as the most credible because that is the most credible source they have right now.

You said you would need to be mad to snatch at child at a busy time of the evening........lol I know what you mean but...you would need to be mad to snatch one anyway.People get snatched abused murdered etc in broad day light to,busy shopping centers etc

I just wish they had a positive id on madeleine somewhere. Its getting extremely frustrating lately isnt it.There seems to be a whole of stuff,but absolutely none of it is being reported as a breakthrough.Why not for gods sake.There as to be something?Madeleine didn't just disappear into thin air.The only one definite thing they have is that she is on this planet somewhere.Thats a 100% fact.
avatar
clairesy
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 2698
Age : 32
Location : uk
Registration date : 2008-06-04

Back to top Go down

Re: Paint Stripper and the Open window

Post by sadie on Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:41 am

goldengirl57 wrote:
Tinkerbell43 wrote:Hi Goldengirl,

Firstly welcome to our forum.

Re Jane Tanner, I believe she is a credible witness and the reason I give her sighting credibility is because the description she gave is pretty much identical to the one Mr. Smith gave. I agree. Also Jane Tanners time line is backed up by Mrs Stephen Carpenters statement; the timings and the places fit perfectly

I know people question how could she have seen this, that and the other, but she obviously did because imo with exception to the time line, The Smiths sighting corroborates with the details Jane gave and Janes statement was made long before the Smiths.
There are plausible reasons for the anomolies in the time line in my post above. Did you read that, GG?

Hi Tinkerbell I thought i just saw you at the bottom of my garden LOL. (Yes I believe in Fairy's).

Tinks loves fairies, but she isn't one, really. She tells the truth as she sees it always and NEVER tells fairy tales

Look I dont think Jane Tanner is a credible witness sorry.

She states in her rogatory interview that the COMBINATION OF DARK AND THE STREET LIGHT made the scene look ORANGE.

GG, you are from the Midlands, touchee. Are you old enough to really know about sodium lighting? Gawd awful it was, but it lighted the streets better than the old gas lamps.

The lamps did give an orange glow; they did affect the colour of things, but as Clairesy remarked about sun glasses, the brain soon pretty well adjusts to recognise the colours - maybe not exactly, but it adjusts. If you had read my post above, I covered thgis point, saying that some of the women would most likely have worn pink and have been aware how that changes in the sodium light. Almost certainly JT would have been able to recognise pink and white (Maybe not the exact shade, but she would have recognised it was pink and white (or very pale), IMO

How could she then be so certain she saw someone so quickly and swiftly carrying a BLOND CHILD with pink pyjamas.?? Covered above

Its not credible to me. IF the guy stood in front of her face on and just stood still for 30 seconds then I might agree with you. Why do you think this? She never claimed to have seen his face so she only could see his side and back - bet he turned his head away. but that doesn't mean that she didn't have a good look at him from the side/rear

This guy was she said walking along "briskly", she wasnt expecting any trouble so why would she notice so much. Bet she was cautious, most women are after dark and he was a man. Even to the BLACK SHOES, pink pyjamas with frills on the bottoms??? Clever people have quick minds and take lots in. She noticed the bare feet and thought that it was too cold to be carrying a child around like that.

Some people are very visual. Rosie is one and I think I am too. My problem would be remembering it all
Laffin . She is a Mum of a small child isn't she? She would notice that

No sorry I think she saw someone yes I dont disagree but the significants of it could well have been exaggerated perhaps trying to help. For me why didnt she as soon as she heard about the child going missing run around and say OMG I just saw a man 45 minutes ago carrying a blond child with pink pyjamas..........Yes, why , Oh why? .. Bet she is thrashing herself for that. But how do you know that another of the Tapas 7 didn't say to her, " SHUSH, dont say anything about that; it will terrify Kate and Gerry...just keep quiet; we will find her?" How do you know the circumstances? I dont! .......the search could then have followed this guys route.

Also you have to admit surely that her description has changed she even believed it was MURAT at one point. According to the Rogatory Statements her description has been consistent, I understand. Have you read the Rogs?

Seems to me that there were lots of red herrings around at that time...........dont know whether they were the imagination of the press or whether they were as a result of deliberate disinformation on Amarals part.

For some reason that elludes me, Amaral wanted that Bundleman went in a Westerly direction and not the Easterly direction that two independant witnesses gave legal written statements to verify. Can you, GG, think of any reason why he persisted in disbelieving the statements of two independant witnesses? Why would he want to push the perception that Bundleman went West? What are your thoughts, GG?

So sorry no I dont believe this is a credible sighting, just someone trying to help but probably made things worse. IMHO. ...Hmm, seems that either you have not read the Rogatory statements, or that you are set in your thinking and unable to throw off the early disinformation that was released....in other words, have you been brain washed to a minor degree by trash reporting and disinformation?

The above is only what I think, I respect you fully for your thoughts.

I respect you for your thoughts, as well, but ask you to re-examine them. They are out of date. We now have legal evidence in the form of two witnesses statements, which verify the situation. Also we have Mr Smiths statement, which verifies the likely hood of bundleman and Madeleine.

I could do with some fairy dust right now feel like poo LOL.

Bring out the fairy dust, Tinks! lol! lol! lol! We could all do with a sprinkling of that!

GG, please do not take it badly that I am somewhat destroying your thoughts. I just think that you have come from somewhere that deliberately refuses to look at fact; legal facts. If you are keen for the truth of what likely happened, then the subject has been disected here and we have some pretty powerful ideas of the likely scenario.

No one knows absolutely, but there are pointers which should not be disallowed. Some places/forums chose to ignore these facts and have prevented the search for Madeleine because of that. walkinghomecrying walkinghomecrying walkinghomecrying .....and they claim to be Madeleines supporters. affraid affraid !
What Tommy Rot! pullinghairout
avatar
sadie
Star Poster
Star Poster

Number of posts : 953
Location : UK
Registration date : 2008-11-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Paint Stripper and the Open window

Post by Rosie on Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:01 am

Just typed a post and it disappeared into cyberspace! pullinghairout

Sadie the reasons you give for the time discrepancies are very plausible, I was just trying to say how it is possible for people to give different times, after all, most people's watches say a different time.

I too, believe Jane saw what she said she saw. She is not silly, she is an educated woman, if she was going to lie about something like that I am sure she would have made it fit, but I cannot possibly think of a reason why she would want to lie.
That woman has stayed consistent through everything and when I saw her interviewed on TV she did not appear to be lying to me.
It is true people do report different things and believe they saw something that isn't quite right, which is why detectives like to take eye witness accounts ASAP, but I do not believe that this happened in Jane's case, her description has stayed the same.

There have been different accounts of what she said she saw in the newspapers, but she can hardly be responsible for bad reporting. Equally if Amaral had done his job correctly and had decided to attend the scene and take charge instead of staying drinking with his mates, then perhaps all this confusion would never have taken place.

Jane Tanner said as she was walking up the road, the man walked across the top, he would have been in her view for a while, so I believe her description is accurate, she saw him from the side as well as the back and would have had plenty of time to take in the details she described, also, some people give very good witness accounts with a lot of detail, while others who may have witnesses exactly the same thing, give scant detail, it is quite normal.

With regard to Hewlett, although I am not convinced that this was him walking past, this was 2 years ago and he would have looked very different to the way he looks now and it is quite possible that his hair would have not only been a little thicker it would have definitely looked thicker, regardless of an orange glow, which may have even made his hair appear thicker than it was. From what I can gather Hewlett's hair has been longish for a while.
He definitely wasn't as weak as he is now 2 years ago as he still had enough breath and stamina left to make babies!

Clairesy, I remember reading about Jane being taken into the van too and although I am not a 100% sure, I think when Murat walked past she said she didn't think it was him she saw on that night.

_________________
no way
Goncalo Amaral Your Time Is Nearly Up!


"RICARDO PAIVA SHOULD RESIGN, HIS POSITION IS UNTENABLE - IF HE DOES NOT RESIGN, THEN SACK HIM!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Paint Stripper and the Open window

Post by Tinkerbell43 on Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:44 am

Rosiepops wrote:Just typed a post and it disappeared into cyberspace! pullinghairout

Sadie the reasons you give for the time discrepancies are very plausible, I was just trying to say how it is possible for people to give different times, after all, most people's watches say a different time.

I too, believe Jane saw what she said she saw. She is not silly, she is an educated woman, if she was going to lie about something like that I am sure she would have made it fit, but I cannot possibly think of a reason why she would want to lie.
That woman has stayed consistent through everything and when I saw her interviewed on TV she did not appear to be lying to me.
It is true people do report different things and believe they saw something that isn't quite right, which is why detectives like to take eye witness accounts ASAP, but I do not believe that this happened in Jane's case, her description has stayed the same.

There have been different accounts of what she said she saw in the newspapers, but she can hardly be responsible for bad reporting. Equally if Amaral had done his job correctly and had decided to attend the scene and take charge instead of staying drinking with his mates, then perhaps all this confusion would never have taken place.

Jane Tanner said as she was walking up the road, the man walked across the top, he would have been in her view for a while, so I believe her description is accurate, she saw him from the side as well as the back and would have had plenty of time to take in the details she described, also, some people give very good witness accounts with a lot of detail, while others who may have witnesses exactly the same thing, give scant detail, it is quite normal.

With regard to Hewlett, although I am not convinced that this was him walking past, this was 2 years ago and he would have looked very different to the way he looks now and it is quite possible that his hair would have not only been a little thicker it would have definitely looked thicker, regardless of an orange glow, which may have even made his hair appear thicker than it was. From what I can gather Hewlett's hair has been longish for a while.
He definitely wasn't as weak as he is now 2 years ago as he still had enough breath and stamina left to make babies!

Clairesy, I remember reading about Jane being taken into the van too and although I am not a 100% sure, I think when Murat walked past she said she didn't think it was him she saw on that night.


Rosie I agree, regardless of anything else, the woman see what she see and gave a description that matched someone elses.

Her description was given before she even knew what Madeleine was wearing and certainly before Smith gave his statement. If somebody can explain to me how else Jane could have got this information that she detailed in her statement, I will gladly listen.

For whatever reason and it may have just been purely because it was only her and him around that her attention was drawn to the man carrying a child with no shoes on. She explained what went through her mind at the time which is why she possibly observed as much as she did.

I seem to remember reading, she did tell Rachel of her sighting the same night and Gerry early hours of the following morning but he asked that it be kept from Kate. I may be wrong here.
avatar
Tinkerbell43
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 1473
Age : 53
Registration date : 2008-04-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Paint Stripper and the Open window

Post by dianeh on Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:11 am

I too think that JT was telling it like it was. After watching her on the Panorama show, I was convinced she is telling the truth.

As for being in the van and seeing Murat. From what I read, but of course cant find it now. Gonc dismisses JT's sighting because she identified Murat as the man that she saw that night, after Murat was pointed out by Gonc. But here is the one thing about that. If a person is pointed out to me as the possible suspect by the senior policeman, than I may agree with them, because being a law abiding citizen, I tend to have faith in the police and I would subconciously just agree. But on further reflection, I would realise it was wrong, particularly as Murat doesnt match the description that JT gave. And on this. It is not correct to point out someone and then ask if that is the man. Given a choice of 1, is not evidence of anything which is why police use a line up, and get the witness to try to identify them from there. And that is done to avoid the reality that most people will simply agree with the police that this is the man they saw. Very very sloppy police work IMO, and now look, a big mess, with the prime witness' testimony questioned.

Completely unavoidable if the proper police processes (as defined in most western nations, including I would have thought Portugal) are followed.
avatar
dianeh
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3465
Age : 53
Location : Outback, Australia
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Paint Stripper and the Open window

Post by goldengirl57 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:44 am

sadie wrote:
goldengirl57 wrote:
Tinkerbell43 wrote:Hi Goldengirl,

Firstly welcome to our forum.

Re Jane Tanner, I believe she is a credible witness and the reason I give her sighting credibility is because the description she gave is pretty much identical to the one Mr. Smith gave. I agree. Also Jane Tanners time line is backed up by Mrs Stephen Carpenters statement; the timings and the places fit perfectly

I know people question how could she have seen this, that and the other, but she obviously did because imo with exception to the time line, The Smiths sighting corroborates with the details Jane gave and Janes statement was made long before the Smiths.
There are plausible reasons for the anomolies in the time line in my post above. Did you read that, GG?

Hi Tinkerbell I thought i just saw you at the bottom of my garden LOL. (Yes I believe in Fairy's).

Tinks loves fairies, but she isn't one, really. She tells the truth as she sees it always and NEVER tells fairy tales

Look I dont think Jane Tanner is a credible witness sorry.

She states in her rogatory interview that the COMBINATION OF DARK AND THE STREET LIGHT made the scene look ORANGE.

GG, you are from the Midlands, touchee. Are you old enough to really know about sodium lighting? Gawd awful it was, but it lighted the streets better than the old gas lamps.

The lamps did give an orange glow; they did affect the colour of things, but as Clairesy remarked about sun glasses, the brain soon pretty well adjusts to recognise the colours - maybe not exactly, but it adjusts. If you had read my post above, I covered thgis point, saying that some of the women would most likely have worn pink and have been aware how that changes in the sodium light. Almost certainly JT would have been able to recognise pink and white (Maybe not the exact shade, but she would have recognised it was pink and white (or very pale), IMO

How could she then be so certain she saw someone so quickly and swiftly carrying a BLOND CHILD with pink pyjamas.?? Covered above

Its not credible to me. IF the guy stood in front of her face on and just stood still for 30 seconds then I might agree with you. Why do you think this? She never claimed to have seen his face so she only could see his side and back - bet he turned his head away. but that doesn't mean that she didn't have a good look at him from the side/rear

This guy was she said walking along "briskly", she wasnt expecting any trouble so why would she notice so much. Bet she was cautious, most women are after dark and he was a man. Even to the BLACK SHOES, pink pyjamas with frills on the bottoms??? Clever people have quick minds and take lots in. She noticed the bare feet and thought that it was too cold to be carrying a child around like that.

Some people are very visual. Rosie is one and I think I am too. My problem would be remembering it all
Laffin . She is a Mum of a small child isn't she? She would notice that

No sorry I think she saw someone yes I dont disagree but the significants of it could well have been exaggerated perhaps trying to help. For me why didnt she as soon as she heard about the child going missing run around and say OMG I just saw a man 45 minutes ago carrying a blond child with pink pyjamas..........Yes, why , Oh why? .. Bet she is thrashing herself for that. But how do you know that another of the Tapas 7 didn't say to her, " SHUSH, dont say anything about that; it will terrify Kate and Gerry...just keep quiet; we will find her?" How do you know the circumstances? I dont! .......the search could then have followed this guys route.

Also you have to admit surely that her description has changed she even believed it was MURAT at one point. According to the Rogatory Statements her description has been consistent, I understand. Have you read the Rogs?

Seems to me that there were lots of red herrings around at that time...........dont know whether they were the imagination of the press or whether they were as a result of deliberate disinformation on Amarals part.

For some reason that elludes me, Amaral wanted that Bundleman went in a Westerly direction and not the Easterly direction that two independant witnesses gave legal written statements to verify. Can you, GG, think of any reason why he persisted in disbelieving the statements of two independant witnesses? Why would he want to push the perception that Bundleman went West? What are your thoughts, GG?

So sorry no I dont believe this is a credible sighting, just someone trying to help but probably made things worse. IMHO. ...Hmm, seems that either you have not read the Rogatory statements, or that you are set in your thinking and unable to throw off the early disinformation that was released....in other words, have you been brain washed to a minor degree by trash reporting and disinformation?

The above is only what I think, I respect you fully for your thoughts.

I respect you for your thoughts, as well, but ask you to re-examine them. They are out of date. We now have legal evidence in the form of two witnesses statements, which verify the situation. Also we have Mr Smiths statement, which verifies the likely hood of bundleman and Madeleine.

I could do with some fairy dust right now feel like poo LOL.

Bring out the fairy dust, Tinks! lol! lol! lol! We could all do with a sprinkling of that!

GG, please do not take it badly that I am somewhat destroying your thoughts. I just think that you have come from somewhere that deliberately refuses to look at fact; legal facts. If you are keen for the truth of what likely happened, then the subject has been disected here and we have some pretty powerful ideas of the likely scenario.

No one knows absolutely, but there are pointers which should not be disallowed. Some places/forums chose to ignore these facts and have prevented the search for Madeleine because of that. walkinghomecrying walkinghomecrying walkinghomecrying .....and they claim to be Madeleines supporters. affraid affraid !
What Tommy Rot! pullinghairout

Hi sadie you are not destroying my thoughts, and I am not quite sure what you mean when you say: I just think that you have come from somewhere that deliberately refuses to look at fact;

Care to enlighten me? I found your forum on amazon, a friend of mine sent me a link to a book and I thought as I hadnt heard of your forum before I would give it a go. AFTER ALL we are trying to FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED to maddy arnt we or am I missing the point?

As to facts, well I think I am quite informed about the maddy case and I can also think for myself. IF I am not happy with something then I say so.

We will agree to differ over Jane Tanners sighting. As to WEARING SUNGLASSES why would you at 9pm at night? Oh well there are some funny folks about lOL. Errrm I am nearly 60 so yes I would know about lighting although I try to avoid it as it shows up to many flaws.

The one sighting I actually do believe and think is significant is the Smiths sighting actually.

They pass a man walking down the middle of the street, carrying a child, with the head against his left shoulder and the arms hanging down alongside the body, in light colored or pink pyjamas, bare feet, pale skin typical of British and blond, shoulder-length hair; the girl is about 3-4 years old, about 1 meter tall.

The man is not dressed like a tourist; he's wearing cream or beige trousers, classic cut, of linen or cotton. He is white, 30-35 yrs, 1.70-1.80 meters tall, average build, physically fit, short, brown hair, with a face that looks tanned.



Two things this person is nothing like Jane Tanners sighting and if we are to believe BOTH of them then neither are they Hewlett.

I think this guy was the abductor who moved Maddy under the tunnels to the church and then went to the beach and onto a boat.

I believe Maddy went about 9.40. Thats just what I believe I am just an armchair detective like most people as I am not privy to proof I just muse like others do.

I cannot understand why the McCanns detectives havent used the smith sighting and issued an IDENTIFIT why not? Surely this guy is important.

goldengirl57
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 22
Location : Midlands
Registration date : 2009-06-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Paint Stripper and the Open window

Post by Tinkerbell43 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:21 am

goldengirl57 wrote:
sadie wrote:
goldengirl57 wrote:
Tinkerbell43 wrote:Hi Goldengirl,

Firstly welcome to our forum.

Re Jane Tanner, I believe she is a credible witness and the reason I give her sighting credibility is because the description she gave is pretty much identical to the one Mr. Smith gave. I agree. Also Jane Tanners time line is backed up by Mrs Stephen Carpenters statement; the timings and the places fit perfectly

I know people question how could she have seen this, that and the other, but she obviously did because imo with exception to the time line, The Smiths sighting corroborates with the details Jane gave and Janes statement was made long before the Smiths.
There are plausible reasons for the anomolies in the time line in my post above. Did you read that, GG?

Hi Tinkerbell I thought i just saw you at the bottom of my garden LOL. (Yes I believe in Fairy's).

Tinks loves fairies, but she isn't one, really. She tells the truth as she sees it always and NEVER tells fairy tales

Look I dont think Jane Tanner is a credible witness sorry.

She states in her rogatory interview that the COMBINATION OF DARK AND THE STREET LIGHT made the scene look ORANGE.

GG, you are from the Midlands, touchee. Are you old enough to really know about sodium lighting? Gawd awful it was, but it lighted the streets better than the old gas lamps.

The lamps did give an orange glow; they did affect the colour of things, but as Clairesy remarked about sun glasses, the brain soon pretty well adjusts to recognise the colours - maybe not exactly, but it adjusts. If you had read my post above, I covered thgis point, saying that some of the women would most likely have worn pink and have been aware how that changes in the sodium light. Almost certainly JT would have been able to recognise pink and white (Maybe not the exact shade, but she would have recognised it was pink and white (or very pale), IMO

How could she then be so certain she saw someone so quickly and swiftly carrying a BLOND CHILD with pink pyjamas.?? Covered above

Its not credible to me. IF the guy stood in front of her face on and just stood still for 30 seconds then I might agree with you. Why do you think this? She never claimed to have seen his face so she only could see his side and back - bet he turned his head away. but that doesn't mean that she didn't have a good look at him from the side/rear

This guy was she said walking along "briskly", she wasnt expecting any trouble so why would she notice so much. Bet she was cautious, most women are after dark and he was a man. Even to the BLACK SHOES, pink pyjamas with frills on the bottoms??? Clever people have quick minds and take lots in. She noticed the bare feet and thought that it was too cold to be carrying a child around like that.

Some people are very visual. Rosie is one and I think I am too. My problem would be remembering it all
Laffin . She is a Mum of a small child isn't she? She would notice that

No sorry I think she saw someone yes I dont disagree but the significants of it could well have been exaggerated perhaps trying to help. For me why didnt she as soon as she heard about the child going missing run around and say OMG I just saw a man 45 minutes ago carrying a blond child with pink pyjamas..........Yes, why , Oh why? .. Bet she is thrashing herself for that. But how do you know that another of the Tapas 7 didn't say to her, " SHUSH, dont say anything about that; it will terrify Kate and Gerry...just keep quiet; we will find her?" How do you know the circumstances? I dont! .......the search could then have followed this guys route.

Also you have to admit surely that her description has changed she even believed it was MURAT at one point. According to the Rogatory Statements her description has been consistent, I understand. Have you read the Rogs?

Seems to me that there were lots of red herrings around at that time...........dont know whether they were the imagination of the press or whether they were as a result of deliberate disinformation on Amarals part.

For some reason that elludes me, Amaral wanted that Bundleman went in a Westerly direction and not the Easterly direction that two independant witnesses gave legal written statements to verify. Can you, GG, think of any reason why he persisted in disbelieving the statements of two independant witnesses? Why would he want to push the perception that Bundleman went West? What are your thoughts, GG?

So sorry no I dont believe this is a credible sighting, just someone trying to help but probably made things worse. IMHO. ...Hmm, seems that either you have not read the Rogatory statements, or that you are set in your thinking and unable to throw off the early disinformation that was released....in other words, have you been brain washed to a minor degree by trash reporting and disinformation?

The above is only what I think, I respect you fully for your thoughts.

I respect you for your thoughts, as well, but ask you to re-examine them. They are out of date. We now have legal evidence in the form of two witnesses statements, which verify the situation. Also we have Mr Smiths statement, which verifies the likely hood of bundleman and Madeleine.

I could do with some fairy dust right now feel like poo LOL.

Bring out the fairy dust, Tinks! lol! lol! lol! We could all do with a sprinkling of that!

GG, please do not take it badly that I am somewhat destroying your thoughts. I just think that you have come from somewhere that deliberately refuses to look at fact; legal facts. If you are keen for the truth of what likely happened, then the subject has been disected here and we have some pretty powerful ideas of the likely scenario.

No one knows absolutely, but there are pointers which should not be disallowed. Some places/forums chose to ignore these facts and have prevented the search for Madeleine because of that. walkinghomecrying walkinghomecrying walkinghomecrying .....and they claim to be Madeleines supporters. affraid affraid !
What Tommy Rot! pullinghairout

Hi sadie you are not destroying my thoughts, and I am not quite sure what you mean when you say: I just think that you have come from somewhere that deliberately refuses to look at fact;

Care to enlighten me? I found your forum on amazon, a friend of mine sent me a link to a book and I thought as I hadnt heard of your forum before I would give it a go. AFTER ALL we are trying to FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED to maddy arnt we or am I missing the point?

As to facts, well I think I am quite informed about the maddy case and I can also think for myself. IF I am not happy with something then I say so.

We will agree to differ over Jane Tanners sighting. As to WEARING SUNGLASSES why would you at 9pm at night? Oh well there are some funny folks about lOL. Errrm I am nearly 60 so yes I would know about lighting although I try to avoid it as it shows up to many flaws.

The one sighting I actually do believe and think is significant is the Smiths sighting actually.

They pass a man walking down the middle of the street, carrying a child, with the head against his left shoulder and the arms hanging down alongside the body, in light colored or pink pyjamas, bare feet, pale skin typical of British and blond, shoulder-length hair; the girl is about 3-4 years old, about 1 meter tall.

The man is not dressed like a tourist; he's wearing cream or beige trousers, classic cut, of linen or cotton. He is white, 30-35 yrs, 1.70-1.80 meters tall, average build, physically fit, short, brown hair, with a face that looks tanned.



Two things this person is nothing like Jane Tanners sighting and if we are to believe BOTH of them then neither are they Hewlett.

I think this guy was the abductor who moved Maddy under the tunnels to the church and then went to the beach and onto a boat.

I believe Maddy went about 9.40. Thats just what I believe I am just an armchair detective like most people as I am not privy to proof I just muse like others do.

I cannot understand why the McCanns detectives havent used the smith sighting and issued an IDENTIFIT why not? Surely this guy is important.

Personally, I wouldnt say this man is nothing like JT's sighting at all.

They both said exactly the same about the age and build ie slim 35-40.

Smith said he was wearing cream/beige trousers.
Jane said he was wearing golden beige.

Jane said the child didnt have shoes on.
Mr. Smith couldn't remember but his family seem to think she wasn't.

Smith said the child was wearing light coloured pyjamas.
Jane said the child was wearing light coloured pyjamas perhaps pink or white.

With regards to the mans hair, Mr. Smith would have viewed the man from the front, where Jane viewed the man side on and from the back.

Mr. Smith said the hair was short, Jane said it was long at the neck. Seeing the hair from different angles they could both be right.

They both said he didnt look like a tourist.

I think there are many similarities.
avatar
Tinkerbell43
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 1473
Age : 53
Registration date : 2008-04-18

Back to top Go down

Hewlett & the sketch.

Post by Royal on Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:47 am

Hi there Tinkerbell, is it really true you are not a 'Fairy' now I'm in utter despair, I have always loved your image, (and the one before). Now then, about the similarities between Hewlett and the drawings, I agree there is some likeness but I'm not sure if there is enough to convince me. As I have already explained in an earlier post, the photo's of the two have been selected because of their stance and both had hands in their pockets so I don't think this is a convincing comparison. In fact in my opinion each drawing of the suspect indicates a person of Mediteranian origin, either Spanish, Portuguese, or even of Arabic desent. Certainly he has a very dark complexion with what appears to be black hair. This of course could be due to the fact that the drawings were done in either pencil or charcoal giving a false appearance, yet I don't think so somehow. The drawing images certainly do not indicate a man of north European origin. It seems both Jane Tanner and the Smith woman's description of the suspect are quite similar so I think we can accept that as reliable info. Am I right in saying the detectives on the case at one time suggested they thought the kidnapper could be a local man living within a few hundred yards of PDL, and if so has anything else developed recently down that line of investigation?
Alroy.

Royal
Star Poster
Star Poster

Number of posts : 858
Location : Manchester
Registration date : 2008-08-09

Back to top Go down

Re: Paint Stripper and the Open window

Post by Tinkerbell43 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:08 am

Royal wrote:
Hi there Tinkerbell, is it really true you are not a 'Fairy' now I'm in utter despair, I have always loved your image, (and the one before). Now then, about the similarities between Hewlett and the drawings, I agree there is some likeness but I'm not sure if there is enough to convince me. As I have already explained in an earlier post, the photo's of the two have been selected because of their stance and both had hands in their pockets so I don't think this is a convincing comparison. In fact in my opinion each drawing of the suspect indicates a person of Mediteranian origin, either Spanish, Portuguese, or even of Arabic desent. Certainly he has a very dark complexion with what appears to be black hair. This of course could be due to the fact that the drawings were done in either pencil or charcoal giving a false appearance, yet I don't think so somehow. The drawing images certainly do not indicate a man of north European origin. It seems both Jane Tanner and the Smith woman's description of the suspect are quite similar so I think we can accept that as reliable info. Am I right in saying the detectives on the case at one time suggested they thought the kidnapper could be a local man living within a few hundred yards of PDL, and if so has anything else developed recently down that line of investigation?


Alroy.



Hey Alroy, no its all lies, lol, I'm still very much a fairy lol!

I dont know if you are at cross wires with me, I wasn't referring to Hewlett, I was just comparing the description given by Jane Tanner with the description given by Mr. Smith, which proved to me there were many similarities between the two.

Re Hewlett, I do see similarities between the photo where Hewlett is walking with his wife and the sketch of the man I think many labelled toothman. But the age thing does throw me. I know he is ill now but even so he would have been 60ish when Madeleine disappeared and both JT and MS put the man they saw at 35-40. Even if Hewlett looked good for his age I doubt he would have looked some 20 years younger than he was.

Saying that, I do believe Hewlett knows something.
avatar
Tinkerbell43
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 1473
Age : 53
Registration date : 2008-04-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Paint Stripper and the Open window

Post by sadie on Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:17 am

[quote="Tinkerbell43"][quote="goldengirl57"]
sadie wrote:
goldengirl57 wrote:
Tinkerbell43 wrote:Hi Goldengirl,

Firstly welcome to our forum.

Re Jane Tanner, I believe she is a credible witness and the reason I give her sighting credibility is because the description she gave is pretty much identical to the one Mr. Smith gave. I agree. Also Jane Tanners time line is backed up by Mrs Stephen Carpenters statement; the timings and the places fit perfectly

I know people question how could she have seen this, that and the other, but she obviously did because imo with exception to the time line, The Smiths sighting corroborates with the details Jane gave and Janes statement was made long before the Smiths.
There are plausible reasons for the anomolies in the time line in my post above. Did you read that, GG?
...section omitted....

She states in her rogatory interview that the COMBINATION OF DARK AND THE STREET LIGHT made the scene look ORANGE.

[color=green]GG, you are from the Midlands, touchee. Are you old enough to really know about sodium lighting? Gawd awful it was, but it lighted the streets better than the old gas lamps.

The lamps did give an orange glow; they did affect the colour of things, but as Clairesy remarked about sun glasses, the brain soon pretty well adjusts to recognise the colours - maybe not exactly, but it adjusts. If you had read my post above, I covered thgis point, saying that some of the women would most likely have worn pink and have been aware how that changes in the sodium light. Almost certainly JT would have been able to recognise pink and white (Maybe not the exact shade, but she would have recognised it was pink and white (or very pale), IMO

How could she then be so certain she saw someone so quickly and swiftly carrying a BLOND CHILD with pink pyjamas.?? Covered above

Its not credible to me. IF the guy stood in front of her face on and just stood still for 30 seconds then I might agree with you. Why do you think this? She never claimed to have seen his face so she only could see his side and back - bet he turned his head away. but that doesn't mean that she didn't have a good look at him from the side/rear
............section omitted..........

Also you have to admit surely that her description has changed she even believed it was MURAT at one point. [color=green]According to the Rogatory Statements her description has been consistent, I understand. Have you read the Rogs?


Seems to me that there were lots of red herrings around at that time...........dont know whether they were the imagination of the press or whether they were as a result of deliberate disinformation on Amarals part.

For some reason that elludes me, Amaral wanted that Bundleman went in a Westerly direction and not the Easterly direction that two independant witnesses gave legal written statements to verify. Can you, GG, think of any reason why he persisted in disbelieving the statements of two independant witnesses? Why would he want to push the perception that Bundleman went West? What are your thoughts, GG?

So sorry no I dont believe this is a credible sighting, just someone trying to help but probably made things worse. IMHO. ...Hmm, seems that either you have not read the Rogatory statements, or that you are set in your thinking and unable to throw off the early disinformation that was released....in other words, have you been brain washed to a minor degree by trash reporting and disinformation?

The above is only what I think, I respect you fully for your thoughts.

[color=green]I respect you for your thoughts, as well, but ask you to re-examine them. They are out of date. We now have legal evidence in the form of two witnesses statements, which verify the situation. Also we have Mr Smiths statement, which verifies the likely hood of bundleman and Madeleine.

..........section deleted..........

GG, please do not take it badly that I am somewhat destroying your thoughts. I just think that you have come from somewhere that deliberately refuses to look at fact; legal facts. If you are keen for the truth of what likely happened, then the subject has been disected here and we have some pretty powerful ideas of the likely scenario.

No one knows absolutely, but there are pointers which should not be disallowed. Some places/forums chose to ignore these facts and have prevented the search for Madeleine because of that.
...........Section omitted.............
I am not quite sure what you mean when you say: I just think that you have come from somewhere that deliberately refuses to look at fact;

[color=olive]Well there are a number of places that seem to ignore the facts as given in the legal witness statements (the Rogs). I dont know them all, but I do know the 3A's, digital Spy, Jaona morais and a few others......and it seemed to me that maybe you had been influenced by one of them. Please forgive me if i have that wrong........but I must admit that I cannot understand why the three witness statements cannot be right and why you should dismiss two in favour of one.

All three can be right; if they are - then we have to figure out why the delay in getting from 5A to the Smiths in Rua d'Escola.....it's a walk of about 4-5 minutes! Elsewhere I have listed a number of suggestions as to why the journey could have been so delayed; I will try and find it if you haven't already seen it.

The amazing thing is, that as we have been discussing this, another idea has popped into my head as to where she might have been during the lost 25 - 40 minutes - and the reason for the delay........ I am convinced that the pick up was abandoned by the getaway driver, because of the unexpected presence of Gerry and Jez and the fear on the drivers behalf that the game was up as he saw that JT had witnessed Bundleman taking Madeleine.

My new thoughts are that she possibly was taken to the Nannies/staff apartment building, which is higher up Rua d'escola than the smiths sighting. [A scream was heard coming from this or an adjacent building according to a poster on the 3A's]. From here bundleman, in a panic, phoned for advice, to be instructed to take her somewhere else. This is lateral thinking and could be totally incorrect, but it fits the bill.

Now this is why it is good to have disagreements on the forum, because it gets us thinking and, maybe, we are finding our way through the maze?
Care to enlighten me? I found your forum on amazon, a friend of mine sent me a link to a book and I thought as I hadnt heard of your forum before I would give it a go. AFTER ALL we are trying to FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED to maddy arnt we or am I missing the point?

[i]Every bit GG. We all want the same thing; to find Madeleine hopefully well and Ok. I personally, and most others, you too I expect, want to see the abductors behind bars and I desperately want to find the Head Honcho behind all these abductions in Portugal - so that it doesn't happen again; to any other child ; to any other family[/i]

As to facts, well I think I am quite informed about the maddy case I can see that you have read much about it and are well informed, but I wonder if you are relying on the falsehoods that were deliberately spread in the early days by Amaral and unhappily by the gutter press?[/i] [i]I wonder if you have taken on board the altered perception now that we have facts in the form of witness statements? and I can also think for myself. IF I am not happy with something then I say so. Me too, and IMO, that is a difficult thing to do, but necessary if we are to get anywhere with finding out what actually happened. You know, GG, like you I am a Midlander and I am forthright, but that doesn't always go down well with others, because I am often out of step. However, i think they are used to my blunt ways and now (hopefully) can see some merit in my persistence

We will agree to differ over Jane Tanners sighting. As to WEARING SUNGLASSES why would you at 9pm at night?[i] I dont think i mentioned wearing sunglasses after 9pm; I think you have misunderstood something there[/i] Oh well there are some funny folks about lOL. Errrm I am nearly 60 so yes I would know about lighting although I try to avoid it as it shows up to many flaws. Laffin Me too, I am over 70, so there are plenty of flaws!

The one sighting I actually do believe and think is significant is the Smiths sighting actually.

They pass a man walking down the middle of the street, carrying a child, with the head against his left shoulder and the arms hanging down alongside the body, in light colored or pink pyjamas, bare feet, pale skin typical of British and blond, shoulder-length hair; the girl is about 3-4 years old, about 1 meter tall.

The man is not dressed like a tourist; he's wearing cream or beige trousers, classic cut, of linen or cotton. He is white, 30-35 yrs, 1.70-1.80 meters tall, average build, physically fit, short, brown hair, with a face that looks tanned.



Two things this person is nothing like Jane Tanners sighting [i]Sorry, I disagree - see Tinks post; she covers this very well. The only real difference is the trouser colour, and cream/beige trousers would look a golden colour in sodium light[/i] and if we are to believe BOTH of them then neither are they Hewlett. [i] I think you probably are correct in that last bit.[/i]I think this guy was the abductor who moved Maddy under the tunnels to the church and then went to the beach and onto a boat. You could be right? - in fact I am getting another idea as i mull over this, partly from you and partly from my previous idea further up this post about the nannies apartment. prior to thinking that bundleman might have stopped off at the staff apartment block, I had thought 'no way' would he be going to the church, because he had taken a route that was too rounda bout; he would have gone more directly. now if he had stopped over at the nannies/staff apartments to make a desperate telephone call for instructions, it makes sense that he might have been told to go to the church and the tunnels, and if it is true that Madeleine had screamed, he would be pretty anxious to pass her on - pronto!

Eureeka! this is a Eureeka moment; this is the first time that i have satisfactorily managed to link bundlemans route with the tunnels. Well done GG, for bringing me to this point. Thank you for your help in making me think this out - your comments about the church, which I initially dismissed, suddenly fell into place with the new idea that bundleman might have stopped off at the nannies/staff apartments - brilliant GG


I accept that this might be incorrect but it must be considered, especially with that reported scream.

I believe Maddy went about 9.40. Here, I am sorry but I do not agree with you. there are two witnesses who have narrowed the time down to the 9.15 - 9.30 slot. I feel confident that the actual abduction took place at that time. Why would two people lie?[/i] Thats just what I believe I am just an armchair detective like most people as I am not privy to proof I just muse like others do.

[i]We are all in the same boat, GG, but the witness statements have honed our views - 6 months ago, we were all floundering, not knowing what to believe, but gradually with reference to the legal witness statements we have refined our perception of what happened. All of us are willing to be proved wrong, but the proof must be there to persuade us from whatb the witness statements imply


I cannot understand why the McCanns detectives havent used the smith sighting and issued an IDENTIFIT why not? Surely this guy is important.

The Smiths did not see his face - he turned his/her head away - so it would be another eggman of the same build and clothes description as JT's man. after all the eggman flak maybe they decided that there wasn't enough difference to bother?

Personally, I wouldnt say this man is nothing like JT's sighting at all. Sorry, like Tinks, i disagree: There are many similarities and hardly any differences - and they can be sensibly explained

They both said exactly the same about the age and build ie slim 35-40.

Smith said he was wearing cream/beige trousers.
Jane said he was wearing golden beige.

Jane said the child didnt have shoes on.
Mr. Smith couldn't remember but his family seem to think she wasn't.

Smith said the child was wearing light coloured pyjamas.
Jane said the child was wearing light coloured pyjamas perhaps pink or white.

With regards to the mans hair, Mr. Smith would have viewed the man from the front, where Jane viewed the man side on and from the back.

Mr. Smith said the hair was short, Jane said it was long at the neck. Seeing the hair from different angles they could both be right.

They both said he didnt look like a tourist.

I think there are many similarities.

GG, I have no wish to antagonise you, so will not argue the point any further, unless you wish it - and i do welcome differing thoughts. Discussion and disagreement bring forth progress frequently - as has just been the case twice. I cant tell you how pleased i am at the progress you have enabled me to make highfive waytoohappy ecstatic perfect

Now, i have made my points and will leave you in peace to mull it over. We are very happy to have you on board. Keep the ideas coming; if we have another discussion/argument, we might progress further - you never know! thankyou
avatar
sadie
Star Poster
Star Poster

Number of posts : 953
Location : UK
Registration date : 2008-11-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Paint Stripper and the Open window

Post by sadie on Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:25 am

GG, My post above had to be chopped shorter as the forum wouldn't accept such a long post. i am not sure that the start makes sense now - hope you can understand it.

haven't the energy to go over it again. Already , this afternoon I had almost finished answering it when my hubbie hassled me and whoosh i had lost it pullinghairout and i have never needed to type in my life, so am an extreemly slow one finger typist prone to lots of mistakes

Byee, sadie x ohdear
avatar
sadie
Star Poster
Star Poster

Number of posts : 953
Location : UK
Registration date : 2008-11-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Paint Stripper and the Open window

Post by clairesy on Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:39 am

it was me who mentioned sun glasses not sadie, i only mentioned them to point out that when you are looking through tinted lenses you can till tel what colour something is.Therefore just because the street lights are orange on the road where Jane seen a child being carried off doesn't mean she was suddenly made coloured blind.She is more than capable of distinguishing between whats red blue or beige etc because your brain/eyes compensates.I didn't mean jane was wearing shades at 9pm.lol

Unlike gonc!!! ive seen him walking about wearing shades in pictures loads of times...............he probably sleeps with them on to take the focus of the rest of him for his wife a bit....... haha poor thing someone wipe the sh/t of her eyes for godsake.
avatar
clairesy
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 2698
Age : 32
Location : uk
Registration date : 2008-06-04

Back to top Go down

Re: Paint Stripper and the Open window

Post by sadie on Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:14 pm

clairesy wrote:it was me who mentioned sun glasses not sadie, i only mentioned them to point out that when you are looking through tinted lenses you can till tel what colour something is.Therefore just because the street lights are orange on the road where Jane seen a child being carried off doesn't mean she was suddenly made coloured blind.She is more than capable of distinguishing between whats red blue or beige etc because your brain/eyes compensates.I didn't mean jane was wearing shades at 9pm.lol

Unlike gonc!!! ive seen him walking about wearing shades in pictures loads of times...............he probably sleeps with them on to take the focus of the rest of him for his wife a bit....... haha poor thing someone wipe the sh/t of her eyes for godsake.

Sunglasses, when not needed, hide shifty eyes, Clairesy. Liars have shifty eyes usually and gonc has been found a liar in the Law courts. Wonder whether he wears his even when not needed?
avatar
sadie
Star Poster
Star Poster

Number of posts : 953
Location : UK
Registration date : 2008-11-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Paint Stripper and the Open window

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum