The Timeline - A Work Of Fiction

by Autumn 13.02.10 14:43

The 'timelines' , scrawled on the torn out page of Madeleine's sticker book, remains for me, one of the most extraordinary features of this case. Presumably, it was put together to create confusion and reduce their chances of being charged with neglect - however, due to it being so specific, it leaves only a tiny window of opportunity for an 'abduction' to have taken place. The Timeline raises some interesting questions:

Why did Gerry not see Jane Tanner's 'Sighting' on the Timelines - afterall he wrote his name on them? How could he NOT have noticed? Jane Tanner claims, in her statements to the PJ and LP that she did not tell Gerry until 3.00 am approx the following morning.

And why no mention of Wilkins on either of the Timelines? Afterall, he was there at the time of the 'abduction' chatting to Gerry!!!!

I would imagine that the original Timeline would have allowed plenty of time for an abduction to have taken place had it not been for the Smith Sighting, thus forcing them to add the Jane Tanner Sighting.

by jmbd 13.02.10 14:55

Tanner may well have seen someone carrying a child.

It does not mean that that person was the abductor or an accomplice.

This has sidetracked so many people.

Nobody knows who Tanner saw and whether the person is connected to the case or not.

by Autumn 13.02.10 17:03

You have forgotten another option

Tanner may not have been where she said she was and, therefore, did not see anyone carrying a child. In other words, she was lying.

by jmbd 13.02.10 17:05

of course that is an option. So it widens the window for abduction then.

Not such a tight window as we are lead to believe?

by jmbd 13.02.10 17:09

they can not be liars when it suits the argument - and not be liars when it doesn't suit the argument.

"it leaves only a tiny window of opportunity for an 'abduction' to have taken place."

by jmbd 13.02.10 17:12

you cannot say she is a liar and at the same time say there was a tiny window of opportunity.

One statements falls on the other.

by marigold 13.02.10 23:10

jmbd wrote:they can not be liars when it suits the argument - and not be liars when it doesn't suit the argument.

"it leaves only a tiny window of opportunity for an 'abduction' to have taken place."

There is absolutely NO evidence of an abduction whatsoever. None.Zero.Zilch.

by Cath 13.02.10 23:58

There is absolutely NO evidence of parental involvement whatsoever. None.Zero.Zilch.

by Autumn 14.02.10 17:24

Lnyx, of course they are involved in as much as, had they not left their very young children alone while they wento out drinking, presumably, Madeleine would not have disappeared - that is if you believe in the 'abduction' rubbish, which of course, I do not.

by Autumn 14.02.10 17:42

Inyx wrote:There is absolutely NO evidence of parental involvement whatsoever. None.Zero.Zilch.

Oh dear, those pesky dogs will not go away just because you would prefer to ignore them

by Cath 14.02.10 17:45

If she was abducted, what you've said AuntUm, isn't involvement.
If she wasn't abducted, there's still no evidence of their involvement.
Linky please for your claim they went out drinking.

by Cath 14.02.10 17:46

Nah I love dogs.

by Autumn 15.02.10 1:01

Inyx wrote:If she was abducted, what you've said AuntUm, isn't involvement.
If she wasn't abducted, there's still no evidence of their involvement.
Linky please for your claim they went out drinking.

Lynx, it is not hard to find this info out for yourself therefore, if you do not accept that they went out drinking the night Madeleine disappeared then you are at liberty to do your own research.

by vaguely1 15.02.10 1:10

They went out for a meal with which they had a drink.

They weren't out on the lash.

Either way....does it actually matter, or make a difference?

It doesn't need exaggerating. They were out.

by marigold 15.02.10 1:31

vaguely1 wrote:They went out for a meal with which they had a drink.

They weren't out on the lash.

Either way....does it actually matter, or make a difference?

It doesn't need exaggerating. They were out.

Yep out and leaving 3 helpless children home alone. Wouldn't think they'd have many friends would you? However, you'd be wrong. Many, as on this forum for example, jump to their defence time and time again. Unbelievable.

by vaguely1 15.02.10 1:40

I hardly think wishing to stick with facts is leaping to someone's defence.

People only correct facts time and time again because time and time again people choose to sway away from them in preference for a cute sound bite.

by marigold 15.02.10 1:45

vaguely1 wrote:I hardly think wishing to stick with facts is leaping to someone's defence.

People only correct facts time and time again because time and time again people choose to sway away from them in preference for a cute sound bite.

Correct facts are the children were left home alone. Every night. For hours. In an apartment that was unlocked and on a corner next to a public road. Who does that? Idiots.

by vaguely1 15.02.10 1:52

Has anyone here claimed that the children weren't left alone? And has anyone on here said that they fully support the children being left alone?

by Cath 15.02.10 11:00

I'd rather stick with facts and I don't agree with anybody who leaves (young) children alone.
They went out for dinner and left the children alone 5 out of 6 evenings.

by aliberte2 15.02.10 21:36

Autumn wrote:
Inyx wrote:If she was abducted, what you've said AuntUm, isn't involvement.
If she wasn't abducted, there's still no evidence of their involvement.
Linky please for your claim they went out drinking.

Lynx, it is not hard to find this info out for yourself therefore, if you do not accept that they went out drinking the night Madeleine disappeared then you are at liberty to do your own research.

They had a Couple of Bottles of Wine at dinner. With Food.
Again, One Must Wonder Why Certain Antis Must Gild the Lily.

by aliberte2 15.02.10 21:37

marigold wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:I hardly think wishing to stick with facts is leaping to someone's defence.

People only correct facts time and time again because time and time again people choose to sway away from them in preference for a cute sound bite.

Correct facts are the children were left home alone. Every night. For hours. In an apartment that was unlocked and on a corner next to a public road. Who does that? Idiots.

Only Relevant if You Think Madeleine was Abducted.
You don't.
So Who Cares?

by butterfly23 23.09.12 12:56

..its a well known fact- the only way to keep your story 'the same' & unchanging...is to stick to the truth...!!! clearly the group of individuals who composed the 'timeline' of events on that evening never had any intentions of telling the truth- for whatevr reasons..!!! they prepared a suitable version of events- on the missing child's book- & prob intended to stick with it--- but as other facts came up they had to alter their story , various times, adding things & remembering key incidents etc as it went on !!! eventually we had a completely unbelievable story- which everyone questioned...& so began the 'feeling like victims' act....& the often hostile way the group chose to protect themselves !!!! had the story been fact in the first place they would not have changed it to suit things so many times- & they would not have trouble 'remembering' the true events of that night- or indeed- the entire holiday !!!! if they truly wanted & encouraged help in locating their 'missing' daughter - why so hostile when anyone brings up a fact which needs to be looked at- merely because it doesnt fit their carefully crafted fairytale version of the night in question !!![You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]