Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

by Guest 29.11.09 18:30

ROCKY wrote:Clarity I am not leaping anywhere . Have you seen the interview of Jane Tanner on Panorama? Her own words when asked and I repeat she said she did not see his face. I am willing to check my facts when wrong ,not you? We are trying to see both sides here. We will not get anywhere if we get agitated.

Lets move on.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The owner of this boat is Rhonda Wylie, one of the most wealthiest women in Australia. She is also well known to Rupert Murdoch. All of Murdochs papers carried this story. You would think that he would have told his friend Mrs Wylie that she had come under suspicion for the most sought after child in the world.

We know she didn't see his face front on, she has said it on multiple occasions, you seem to think that because she said another witness sketch might be the same man she saw this means that suddenly she did see his face or something, you are not making any sense.

I'd rather not move on until you understand where your mistake is, otherwise you will continue to make it and someone else might not be as clued up as me and might take your word for it and think she changed her description.

by Guest 29.11.09 18:36

Autumn wrote:So if they thought she had been taken out by boat, why didnt the PIs follow it up? simple question. They held a press conference to announce their latest theory, but after that - nothing.

We don't know what they are doing, and nor should we. They are looking for a missing child who could be harmed. Some things have to be kept quiet.

by Guest 29.11.09 18:37

Clarity - Jane Tanner never saw the mans face so how could she think he looked the same as the man GC saw.

The McCanns had a so called FBI artist do the sketch from JT's description and he had no face.

by Guest 29.11.09 18:42

candyfloss wrote:Clarity - Jane Tanner never saw the mans face so how could she think he looked the same as the man GC saw.

The McCanns had a so called FBI artist do the sketch from JT's description and he had no face.

She didn't say he looked the same. That's the point I am making, I have no idea where you and rocky get this idea from, if she did she would have been contradicting everything she has said over two and half years lol!

She said a certain percentage, I already pointed that out on this very thread which presumeably you have read but decided to ignore in favour of repeating the same error.

by Autumn 29.11.09 18:48

Sabot wrote:
Autumn wrote:So if they thought she had been taken out by boat, why didnt the PIs follow it up? simple question. They held a press conference to announce their latest theory, but after that - nothing.

We don't know what they are doing, and nor should we. They are looking for a missing child who could be harmed. Some things have to be kept quiet.

Have you got one scrap of evidence that they are searching? Excuse my skeptism but, following the recent revelations regarding the McCanns' previous Private investigators, we wouldn't want them to be squandering more of the fund on fraudsters would we?

by Guest 29.11.09 18:54

Autumn wrote:
Sabot wrote:
Autumn wrote:So if they thought she had been taken out by boat, why didnt the PIs follow it up? simple question. They held a press conference to announce their latest theory, but after that - nothing.

We don't know what they are doing, and nor should we. They are looking for a missing child who could be harmed. Some things have to be kept quiet.

Have you got one scrap of evidence that they are searching? Excuse my skeptism but, following the recent revelations regarding the McCanns' previous Private investigators, we wouldn't want them to be squandering more of the fund on fraudsters would we?

Well you are about to provide evidence that they haven't been searching so .... I think this time it falls on your shoulders to back up your claim.

by Autumn 29.11.09 19:00

Clarity, with all that has been in the press recently about the McCanns' Private detective agencies, I am genuinlly puzzled why you have no concerns. If you are totally happy that people connected with these agencies are being arrested for fraud well lets leave it there. I suppose it was too much to hope for that 'pros' and 'antis' could debate the issues but, as usual, the 'pros' are defending the indefensible.

by Pussycat 29.11.09 19:01

Getting back to the OP; has anyone actually posted evidence of proof of an abduction yet?

Just curious

by Guest 29.11.09 19:05

Autumn wrote:Clarity, with all that has been in the press recently about the McCanns' Private detective agencies, I am genuinlly puzzled why you have no concerns. If you are totally happy that people connected with these agencies are being arrested for fraud well lets leave it there. I suppose it was too much to hope for that 'pros' and 'antis' could debate the issues but, as usual, the 'pros' are defending the indefensible.

Where did I say I have no concerns, in fact if you have read my posts on this thread you will know that I have expressed a lack of satisfaction with them but I am waiting on your providing evidence of a statement you made regarding Mr Mitchell, cheers :)

I think you will find that generally, as a rule, most pros are all about the facts, that's why we are still fascinated with this sad case. How about you, when did you stop paying attention to the evidence and facts of the case and decide to go full time with your feelings?

by Guest 29.11.09 19:05

Pussycat wrote:Getting back to the OP; has anyone actually posted evidence of proof of an abduction yet?

Just curious

have you not read the thread, try it, genuinely, you will almost certainly learn something.

by Autumn 29.11.09 19:10

clarity wrote:
Autumn wrote:Clarity, with all that has been in the press recently about the McCanns' Private detective agencies, I am genuinlly puzzled why you have no concerns. If you are totally happy that people connected with these agencies are being arrested for fraud well lets leave it there. I suppose it was too much to hope for that 'pros' and 'antis' could debate the issues but, as usual, the 'pros' are defending the indefensible.

Where did I say I have no concerns, in fact if you have read my posts on this thread you will know that I have expressed a lack of satisfaction with them but I am waiting on your providing evidence of a statement you made regarding Mr Mitchell, cheers :)

I think you will find that generally, as a rule, most pros are all about the facts, that's why we are still fascinated with this sad case. How about you, when did you stop paying attention to the evidence and facts of the case and decide to go full time with your feelings?

I dont have a link to the Mail on sunday article but, I expect if you dig around a bit , it shouldnt be too hard to find, along with Clarence's adimission of failure and apology on behalf of the PIs.

by Guest 29.11.09 19:15

Autumn wrote:
clarity wrote:
Autumn wrote:Clarity, with all that has been in the press recently about the McCanns' Private detective agencies, I am genuinlly puzzled why you have no concerns. If you are totally happy that people connected with these agencies are being arrested for fraud well lets leave it there. I suppose it was too much to hope for that 'pros' and 'antis' could debate the issues but, as usual, the 'pros' are defending the indefensible.

Where did I say I have no concerns, in fact if you have read my posts on this thread you will know that I have expressed a lack of satisfaction with them but I am waiting on your providing evidence of a statement you made regarding Mr Mitchell, cheers :)

I think you will find that generally, as a rule, most pros are all about the facts, that's why we are still fascinated with this sad case. How about you, when did you stop paying attention to the evidence and facts of the case and decide to go full time with your feelings?

I dont have a link to the Mail on sunday article but, I expect if you dig around a bit , it shouldnt be too hard to find, along with Clarence's adimission of failure and apology on behalf of the PIs.

To be fair, that's not really how it works, if you are going to make that sort of assertion and more than that, interpret it further that no follow up was done at all based on something someone said then etiquette really suggests that you need to put up or shut up, I mean I have read what Mitchell said (obviously) and so I know that at no point was it ever said that no follow up was done regarding the boat and the australian and of course Clarence did not apologise for that lack of follow up either, I was just wondering if you would admit that you got it wrong or if you would fudge the issue and hope you still came across as trustworthy, now I know I suppose. It's a shame because as you said, debate would be good, but not if only one half of the debate acts appropriately.

by ROCKY 29.11.09 19:16

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Here is the link...but what do you know the page has been removed.

by ROCKY 29.11.09 19:19

Wow back up Clarity, it is no ones fault if the page has been removed. You can just see where it says Mitchel apologise..will see if I can find some other proof for you.

by Guest 29.11.09 19:21

ROCKY wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Here is the link...but what do you know the page has been removed.

I'd say nice try but it's not really, the apology caught by the google search engine refers to an easyjet apology on the same page rather than a Clarence Mitchell one.

by Pussycat 29.11.09 19:21

clarity wrote:
Pussycat wrote:Getting back to the OP; has anyone actually posted evidence of proof of an abduction yet?

Just curious

have you not read the thread, try it, genuinely, you will almost certainly learn something.

Yes, thank you very much, I have read the thread. I still await proof, facts only, of an abduction. Likewise, proof, facts only, of no abduction

by ROCKY 29.11.09 19:23

You also have fudged the issue Clarity regards Jane Tanner. I asked you if you had seen Panorama when Jane Tanner said she had NEVER seen the abductors face. Now that is a fact. It is still there for all to see. My question ,by her own admission she had not seen his face how could she say it was the same man that Gail Cooper had seen?

by ROCKY 29.11.09 19:27

Apart from Jane Tanners witness sighting there is no proof of an abduction. Therefore Jane is very important to this case. She seems to have been forgotten by the Mccanns. Why have the detectives not questioned her more in depth instead of telling her during Mccanns reconstruction it really is of no importance where Mccann and jez stood that night. This is the woman who claims to have seen madeleine abducted.

by Guest 29.11.09 19:27

ROCKY wrote:You also have fudged the issue Clarity regards Jane Tanner. I asked you if you had seen Panorama when Jane Tanner said she had NEVER seen the abductors face. Now that is a fact. It is still there for all to see. My question ,by her own admission she had not seen his face how could she say it was the same man that Gail Cooper had seen?

I don't fudge, how would that help anyone?

I responded to you already and have been waiting for you to get back to me, of course I have seen panorama and I have read all of jane tanners statements and they have all been consistent, she did not see the possible abductor from the front, only in profile, she also did not say the man Gail Cooper described was definitely the man she saw that night, how could she? she only saw him in profile as we have already established, please explain to me what you think she said about Gail Coopers sketch and why this bothers you?

by Guest 29.11.09 19:28

ROCKY wrote:You also have fudged the issue Clarity regards Jane Tanner. I asked you if you had seen Panorama when Jane Tanner said she had NEVER seen the abductors face. Now that is a fact. It is still there for all to see. My question ,by her own admission she had not seen his face how could she say it was the same man that Gail Cooper had seen?

People don't just have faces. Other aspects of their bodies could be recognisable.

by Guest 29.11.09 19:28

ROCKY wrote:Apart from Jane Tanners witness sighting there is no proof of an abduction. Therefore Jane is very important to this case. She seems to have been forgotten by the Mccanns. Why have the detectives not questioned her more in depth instead of telling her during Mccanns reconstruction it really is of no importance where Mccann and jez stood that night. This is the woman who claims to have seen madeleine abducted.

She was questioned more times than anyone else outwith immediate family, how many more times should she have been interviewed? And what do you think would have been gained from that?

by ROCKY 29.11.09 19:42

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks to the Mccannfiles..

by Autumn 29.11.09 19:43

Have any of you 'abduction theory' believers ever considered that the McCanns may have been involved in Madeleine's disappearance? If they were not doctors, would you have been more doubtful of their claim of abduction?

by ROCKY 29.11.09 19:45

Clarity you still have not answered my question and the question is why did she say on Panorama that she did not see the abductors face...later claiming she did when Gail Cooper came up with her photo fit. It is a simple enough question. A witness holds the key to an abduction. Either she saw his face or she did not.

by Autumn 29.11.09 19:53

ROCKY wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks to the Mccannfiles..

Good find, Rocky, doubt clarity will be interested in it :lol:

Log in for more topics