The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Page 6 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by jeanmonroe on 13.12.13 0:07

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@jeanmonroe wrote:whatliesbehindthesofa:

WHEN did 'smithman' change the pyjama top on the child he was carrying, from the VERY SHORT SLEEVED pyjama top the McCanns said Madeleine was wearing, and they 'showed' to the press at news conferences, if they are now focussed solely on 'smithman' as the 'abductor', to LONG SLEEVED pyjama top that Mrs Smith saw the child wearing and said so in her signed police statement?

I've no idea jeanmonroe, nor what your real point is :)

My point is, i think, that 'smithman' could not be carrying Madeleine if the child he was carrying had a long sleeved top on.
Unless he changed the 'top' between the McCanns apartment and before the Smiths saw him.

Ergo: If the child, the Smiths saw, had long sleeved top on, compared to the very short sleeved top the Mcs say Madeleine WAS wearing, when 'abducted', then 'smithman' could not be 'abductor' could he?

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 13.12.13 0:12

@jeanmonroe wrote:

My point is, i think, that 'smithman' could not be carrying Madeleine if the child he was carrying had a long sleeved top on.
Unless he changed the 'top' between the McCanns apartment and before the Smiths saw him.

Ergo: If the child, the Smiths saw, had long sleeved top on, compared to the very short sleeved top the Mcs say Madeleine WAS wearing, when 'abducted', then 'smithman' could not be 'abductor' could he?

So you believe that the McCanns were telling the truth when they said Maddy was wearing short-sleeved pajamas?

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by jeanmonroe on 13.12.13 0:15

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:@jeanmonroe

I suppose I'll have to guess what it is you are implying - maybe that this somehow 'proves' that the Smiths fabricated their sighting?  I apologise if that isn't the case, but I'll respond as if it is.

The McCanns have demonstrated that they are very willing to lie.  Is that not why we are all here discussing the case?  So they produced some short-sleeved pajamas to show the public.  Obviously, these were not the pajamas Maddy was actually wearing that night.  We only have the McCanns' word for what Maddy was wearing that night.  If we assume they are ready to lie whenever it suits them, why not assume that the Smiths reported what they saw accurately, and that the McCanns are, as usual, telling fibs?

If i were you i'd 're word' your reply.CR.

"We only have the McCanns' word for what Maddy was wearing that night"
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
True'

We also only have  the McCanns 'word' that............................. Madeleine 'was abducted'

JT didn't 'see' the 'abductor' so DCI A Redwood now says!

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by Guest on 13.12.13 0:18

Which triggers the question: how many pyjamas did they bring to Portugal on holiday ...

How and why did JT "recognise" the EyeOre ones, with frills and pinky flowers under sodium light?
Why did Kate say, she'd have wanted her to wear the long-sleeved pyjamas ?

I think she did ... IMO, of course.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by jeanmonroe on 13.12.13 0:20

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@jeanmonroe wrote:

My point is, i think, that 'smithman' could not be carrying Madeleine if the child he was carrying had a long sleeved top on.
Unless he changed the 'top' between the McCanns apartment and before the Smiths saw him.

Ergo: If the child, the Smiths saw, had long sleeved top on, compared to the very short sleeved top the Mcs say Madeleine WAS wearing, when 'abducted', then 'smithman' could not be 'abductor' could he?

So you believe that the McCanns were telling the truth when they said Maddy was wearing short-sleeved pajamas?

Well it's certainly TRUE that they 'described, SHOWED', held up, to be photographed by the world's media, a pair of short sleeved pyjamas that they said were 'indentical' to the ones Madeleine was wearing at the time of her 'disappearance'

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 13.12.13 0:23

@jeanmonroe wrote:
We also only have  the McCanns 'word' that............................. Madeleine 'was abducted'

Exactly!

Stating that the Smiths must have lied because one of them described long-sleeved pajamas, which contradicts the word of the McCanns, is a non sequitur. It does not follow because we do not know whether the McCanns told the truth about the short sleeved pajamas.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 13.12.13 0:24

@jeanmonroe wrote:
Well it's certainly TRUE that they 'described, SHOWED', held up, to be photographed by the world's media, a pair of short sleeved pyjamas that they said were 'indentical' to the ones Madeleine was wearing at the time of her 'disappearance'

Right, so how do we get from that to the certainty that the Smiths lied?

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by jeanmonroe on 13.12.13 0:32

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@jeanmonroe wrote:
Well it's certainly TRUE that they 'described, SHOWED', held up, to be photographed by the world's media, a pair of short sleeved pyjamas that they said were 'indentical' to the ones Madeleine was wearing at the time of her 'disappearance'

Right, so how do we get from that to the certainty that the Smiths lied?

Who said the Smiths 'lied'?

Certainly not me!

I said one of their family said the child had long sleeves on her top.

The McCanns told the world Madeleine had very short sleeves on her top at the time of her 'disappearance'

My rationale is that the child with the long sleeves the Smiths 'saw' could not be Madeleine unless the man carrying her CHANGED the top between the McCanns apartment and being 'sighted' by the Smith family.

Ergo: imo, 'smithman' could not be the 'abductor'

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 13.12.13 0:35

@jeanmonroe wrote:

Who said the Smiths 'lied'?

Certainly not me!

I said one of their family said the child had long sleeves on her top.

The McCanns told the world Madeleine had very short sleeves on her top at the time of her 'disappearance'

My rationale is that the child with the long sleeves the Smiths 'saw' could not be Madeleine unless the man carrying her CHANGED the top between the McCanns apartment and being 'sighted' by the Smith family.

Ergo: imo, 'smithman' could not be the 'abductor'

Ah OK - as I said before, I had to assume what you were implying as you hadn't made your position clear :)

But it doesn't change what I've already stated. If your view is that the child was not Madeleine because of the difference in sleeves, then you must believe that Madeleine was wearing short sleeves, as stated by the McCanns.

What is it in particular about this element of the McCanns' story that makes you believe them?

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by Guest on 13.12.13 0:36

My rationale is, that they may have mislead us and Madeleine was wearing long sleeved pyjamas that night ... IMO, of course.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by jeanmonroe on 13.12.13 0:44

whatliesbehindthesofa

Firstly: Please don't 'assume'

It will make an ASS out of U and ME!

Secondly i have never said i 'believe' the McCanns on anything.

Thirdly THEY were the ones to parade 'indentical pyjamas', Madeleine 'was wearing' around tv studios.

And the ones they 'showed', had very short sleeves.

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 13.12.13 0:49

@jeanmonroe wrote:Firstly: Please don't 'assume'

It will make an ASS out of U and ME!

Secondly i have never said i 'believe' the McCanns on anything.

Thirdly THEY were the ones to parade 'indentical pyjamas', Madeleine 'was wearing' around tv studios.

And the ones they 'showed', had very short sleeves.

When one is asked something with an unknown motivation, all you can do is make assumptions or just not reply.

You asked me a question tonight, I tried my best to figure out what was being asked and give an answer :)  I'm still not sure what was being asked.  Perhaps you're making the point that there can't be an abductor, because the McCanns insisted that Maddy was wearing short sleeved pajamas, and are now 'backing' the Smith sighting which was of long sleeved pajamas?  If so, I'm confused as to why I was addressed in particular.  My previous contribution to this thread was to rebut Tony's claims that Smithman was a fabrication.  That's why I thought you had posed your question, to rebut me.

Of course there was no abductor, no abduction ... surely that's why we're all here :)*

*in my opinion obviously, I can't speak for anyone else!

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by jeanmonroe on 13.12.13 0:51

Châtelaine wrote:My rationale is, that they may have mislead us and Madeleine was wearing long sleeved pyjamas that night ... IMO, of course.

I probably agree with you, as a lot of the T7 + KM said 'it was rather chilly that night'

Now the biggie:

WHY would the parents of an 'abducted, missing, disappeared, vanished' child WANT to MISLEAD anyone?

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by jeanmonroe on 13.12.13 0:59

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@jeanmonroe wrote:Firstly: Please don't 'assume'

It will make an ASS out of U and ME!

Secondly i have never said i 'believe' the McCanns on anything.

Thirdly THEY were the ones to parade 'indentical pyjamas', Madeleine 'was wearing' around tv studios.

And the ones they 'showed', had very short sleeves.

You asked me a question tonight, I tried my best to figure out what was being asked and give an answer :)  I'm still not sure what was being asked.  Perhaps you're making the point that there can't be an abductor, because the McCanns insisted that Maddy was wearing short sleeved pajamas, and are now 'backing' the Smith sighting which was of long sleeved pajamas?  If so, I'm confused as to why I was addressed in particular.  My previous contribution to this thread was to rebut Tony's claims that Smithman was a fabrication.  That's why I thought you had posed your question, to rebut me.

Of course there was no abductor, no abduction ... surely that's why we're all here :)*

*in my opinion obviously, I can't speak for anyone else!
........................................................................
"Perhaps you're making the point that there can't be an abductor, because the McCanns insisted that Maddy was wearing short sleeved pajamas, and THEY AND DCI REDWOOD are now 'backing' the Smith sighting which was of long sleeved pajamas"?

KA-CHING!

 winkwink winkwink winkwink

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 13.12.13 1:01

I'm glad we finally understand each other now!  big grin 

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by Roamin on 13.12.13 10:47

Hi All,

Go easy on me, a 6 week lurker, always had grave doubts about what/when happened to Madelaine.

I'm catching up on the research that has gone here and elsewhere to reach the truth. You all have my total respect.

Just following a quick point which Tony made on this thread. In the list of 20 points it is said that in the FOI request the the Police were asked to conduct an inquiry "as if the abduction had occurred in the Uk"

Is there such a crime as "conspiracy to abduct" ? If so, is there a suggestion in the FOI answer that the Police are looking at a crime that had its roots in the Uk and can therefore convict in the Uk?

Thanks Roamin

Roamin

Posts : 11
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2013-12-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by tiny on 13.12.13 10:59

@Jontait wrote:They did supply tel no & email yesterday. I opted to email so as to keep the phonelines free for any important calls! I await a reply from Op Grange
 Any thing come of this or have I missed it

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by Nina on 13.12.13 11:02

Just a small point re the pjs. long or short legs and sleeves, it was reported that the little girl had very white skin, so what skin were they looking at?

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2627
Reputation : 215
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by jeanmonroe on 13.12.13 11:12

winkwink 
@Roamin wrote:Hi All,

Go easy on me, a 6 week lurker, always had grave doubts about what/when happened to Madelaine.

I'm catching up on the research that has gone here and elsewhere to reach the truth. You all have my total respect.

Just following a quick point which Tony made on this thread. In the list of 20 points it is said that in the FOI request the the Police were asked to conduct an inquiry "as if the abduction had occurred in the Uk"

Is there such a crime as "conspiracy to abduct" ? If so, is there a suggestion in the FOI answer that the Police are looking at a crime that had its roots in the Uk and can therefore convict in the Uk?

Thanks Roamin

Welcome.

UK Police were asked to conduct an inquiry "as if the abduction had occurred in the UK"
..................................................................................

WHAT 'abduction' was that then?

Let alone, THE 'abduction'!

....the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police, who stated in July 2008 that "While one or both of them [the McCanns] may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."

Even he would not say the 'A' word/s rather preferring to say 'disappearance'

I don't know if there is such a crime as 'conspiracy to abduct'

As i also don't know if there is such a crime as 'conspiracy to cover up an abduction'

 winkwink  winkwink  winkwink

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by Roamin on 13.12.13 11:30

Hi Jean

Thanks for the welcome.

Abduct/ to make disappear, it's just playing with words. I understand what you are driving at and concur, however, if the police were trying to get various parties to come to the table and discuss things with them it would make sense to use language that would encourage them to co-operate. Regardless whether that co-operation was complete bulls**t (they would eventually make mistakes, trip and fall) better they are on the inside p*****g out than on the outside p*****g in!

Clay R in recent posts has alluded to a distint lack of genuine imagery regarding Madelaine arriving/travelling to Portugal, airport cctv etc.

I'm sure you can see where I am going with this thumbsup 

Roamin

Roamin

Posts : 11
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2013-12-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by jeanmonroe on 13.12.13 11:42

Clay R in recent posts has alluded to a distinct lack of genuine imagery regarding Madelaine arriving/travelling to Portugal, airport cctv etc.
.................................................................................

I have 'seen' more of 'Madeleine' through various tv 'reconstructions' than 'real' footage of her!  big grin  big grin 

Did anyone find out WHO uploaded the 'airport bus' (DP 'phone/handicam') footage, including 'GM's 'expletive' to Youtube............and WHY did they do THAT?

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by Guest on 13.12.13 11:47

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6698737.stm

The footage was released by the McCanns apparently!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by jeanmonroe on 13.12.13 11:58

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6698737.stm

The footage was released by the McCanns apparently!

So perhaps DP 'using' one of the McCanns 'phones' to record with then?

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by Guest on 13.12.13 11:59

I assumed that DP was using his own phone?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

Post by Cristobell on 13.12.13 12:08

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I assumed that DP was using his own phone?





There is a realism about that footage that we have not seen since they were catapaulted into fame. Gerry is the atypical macho male, separating himself from the wife and kids, who he appears to be ignoring. If that was his attitude throughout the holiday, Kate must have been seething.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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