The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by Nina on 11.03.13 18:17

Châtelaine wrote:
Jean wrote:http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html

She was 12; both she and her father Martin described the clothing of the man they saw.
***
Thank you, Jean! So can we conclude that a witness giving a most detailed description of the carrier in her first statement was NOT drunk?

BTW OT here, but still McC case. I've been trawling the net again to find the famous GAP top of the last photo. I have meanwhile stumbled upon GAP archive pictures going back to 2006, BUT I still haven't been able to identify this particular piece of clothing [which is NOT smock BTW ...].
http://kidsfashionpassion.com/

I have looked at every item on that link Chatelaine and I cannot find it either for 2007 nor 2006, so am thinking was it maybe bought second hand and is from 2005 , or maybe not even Gap shhhh

____________________
Not one more cent from me.
avatar
Nina

Posts : 2861
Reputation : 334
Join date : 2011-06-16
Age : 74

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by tigger on 11.03.13 19:13

@Nina wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
Jean wrote:http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html

She was 12; both she and her father Martin described the clothing of the man they saw.
***
Thank you, Jean! So can we conclude that a witness giving a most detailed description of the carrier in her first statement was NOT drunk?

BTW OT here, but still McC case. I've been trawling the net again to find the famous GAP top of the last photo. I have meanwhile stumbled upon GAP archive pictures going back to 2006, BUT I still haven't been able to identify this particular piece of clothing [which is NOT smock BTW ...].
http://kidsfashionpassion.com/

I have looked at every item on that link Chatelaine and I cannot find it either for 2007 nor 2006, so am thinking was it maybe bought second hand and is from 2005 , or maybe not even Gap shhhh

Ebay might be a good place to look for it?

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by Guest on 11.03.13 21:02

@tigger wrote:
@Nina wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
Jean wrote:http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html

She was 12; both she and her father Martin described the clothing of the man they saw.
***
Thank you, Jean! So can we conclude that a witness giving a most detailed description of the carrier in her first statement was NOT drunk?

BTW OT here, but still McC case. I've been trawling the net again to find the famous GAP top of the last photo. I have meanwhile stumbled upon GAP archive pictures going back to 2006, BUT I still haven't been able to identify this particular piece of clothing [which is NOT smock BTW ...].
http://kidsfashionpassion.com/

I have looked at every item on that link Chatelaine and I cannot find it either for 2007 nor 2006, so am was it maybe bought second hand and is from 2005 , or maybe not even Gap

Ebay might be a good place to look for it?

Maybe the garbage they dressed in cowering/pleasing 'Tennis Girl' had to be explained away.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by Guest on 11.03.13 21:13

I haven't been able to find Monsoon archives, so far.

Having had a sincere look at GAP [which has been discredited for using child labour BTW] I don't see a real link to their garments and designs. Apart from that KM got the colour completely wrong and is is NOT smock at all. As for allowing a little folly ... even 2013 prices for GAP haven't impressed me as being "haute gamme". Most is around 20 USD, which I cannot find expensive.

ETA the pink looks a bit tight to me. I'll have a go at EBay - see what surfaces ...

It's a detail, I know. But I also know that [unnecessary] lying about a detail in general often means lying about big things.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by Newintown on 11.03.13 21:14

Châtelaine wrote:
Jean wrote:http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html

She was 12; both she and her father Martin described the clothing of the man they saw.
***
Thank you, Jean! So can we conclude that a witness giving a most detailed description of the carrier in her first statement was NOT drunk?

BTW OT here, but still McC case. I've been trawling the net again to find the famous GAP top of the last photo. I have meanwhile stumbled upon GAP archive pictures going back to 2006, BUT I still haven't been able to identify this particular piece of clothing [which is NOT smock BTW ...].
[url=http://kidsfashionpassion.com/
http://kidsfashionpassion.com/[/quote[/url]]

Wasn't the top from Monsoon and the white shorts were from Gap. Sorry, I haven't got the book so can't check.

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"

avatar
Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by Guest on 11.03.13 21:17

"She was wearing an outfit I’d bought especially for her holiday: a
peach
-coloured smock top from Gap and some white broderie anglaise shorts
from Monsoon."
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by Newintown on 11.03.13 21:21

Châtelaine wrote:"She was wearing an outfit I’d bought especially for her holiday: a
peach
-coloured smock top from Gap and some white broderie anglaise shorts
from Monsoon."

Oops, my mistake, sorry. As I said on another thread that the girl in the top and shorts may not have been Madeleine so the clothes could have been brought anywhere by anyone, on the Continent maybe if Gap and Monsoon have outlets in Europe, or even Canada or the USA.

Would Kate McCann have thought that people were going to check 6 years later whether or not the clothes were actually brought in Gap or Monsoon in the UK or elsewhere or maybe Kate knew someone who had bought that outfit for a girl about Madeleine's age and asked where the outfit came from but didn't ask from which country. Could it have been a photo of another girl sitting at the side of the pool maybe wearing that outfit with Madeleine's head superimposed on the body.

Does that sound away with the fairies, but who knows, anything seems likely with this saga.

As someone mentioned following my earlier post (it could have been Tigger) when I mentioned the outfit, where had that outfit gone, if it was the last one Madeleine was supposed to have been wearing before she disappeared. Was it given to the PJ for DNA analysis, if not, why not? Why was a towel given to the PJ and not that outfit?

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"

avatar
Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by Miraflores on 11.03.13 22:01

I think it's been said before but it was Amelie who was wearing the peach top with some smocking. Not Madeleine who was wearing a pink strappy empire line top.

One other thought occurs - do GAP necessarily sell the same clothes in different countries? I ask because if you find a US site for 2007 and it doesn't list the top, it doesn't mean it wasn't on sale in the UK. Another question - how long do they stock each range for? I have kept buying the same style of trousers from M&S for about six years now so 2006 stock doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't bought in 2007.
avatar
Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by Guest on 11.03.13 22:22

@Miraflores wrote:I think it's been said before but it was Amelie who was wearing the peach top with some smocking. Not Madeleine who was wearing a pink strappy empire line top.
[...].
***
From the horse's mouth: KATE McCANN's "madeleine"

"THURSDAY
May 3, 2007: Some images are etched for all time on my brain. Madeleine that
lunchtime is one of them.She was wearing an outfit I’d bought especially for her holiday: a
peach
-coloured smock top from Gap and some white broderie anglaise shorts
from Monsoon"
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by Nina on 11.03.13 22:33

Châtelaine wrote:
@Miraflores wrote:I think it's been said before but it was Amelie who was wearing the peach top with some smocking. Not Madeleine who was wearing a pink strappy empire line top.
[...].
***
From the horse's mouth: KATE McCANN's "madeleine"

"THURSDAY
May 3, 2007: Some images are etched for all time on my brain. Madeleine that
lunchtime is one of them.She was wearing an outfit I’d bought especially for her holiday: a
peach
-coloured smock top from Gap and some white broderie anglaise shorts
from Monsoon"

Right, so they were bought directly before the holiday for the holiday and Kate obviously expected hot weather. They were saved for the 3rd and were for the pool photograph. Kate did say that she thought that Madeleine looked lovely in her tennis outfit, though I think the shoes were not at all suitable, so Kate seems to put great store on what Madeleine wore and looked like. The twins and what they wore is never mentioned as far as I have seen. Odd that.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.
avatar
Nina

Posts : 2861
Reputation : 334
Join date : 2011-06-16
Age : 74

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by Guest on 11.03.13 23:24

Hm, Nina, if I were her, I would indeed not mention the red airplane T-shirt, which Sean is wearing after May 3. The one that Eddie singled out as having cadaver scent ...
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by Miraflores on 11.03.13 23:44

"THURSDAY
May 3, 2007: Some images are etched for all time on my brain. Madeleine that
lunchtime is one of them.She was wearing an outfit I’d bought especially for her holiday: a
peach
-coloured smock top from Gap and some white broderie anglaise shorts
from Monsoon"

So what does all this tell us then? That the two girls swapped clothes around? Possibly, especially if Madeleine was small for her age, although I think Amelie was quite petite also.
That Kate bought peach tops for both girls? Possible.
That Kate is a bit colour blind and can't tell peach from pink? Possibly.
That colours caught on film are not always true so that pink looks peach? Not always true, yes, but if pink looked peach, wouldn't peach look more orange?
Or that Kate couldn't be bothered to look at the 'last photo' before writing her book? Possibly.
Or that the 'last photo' was taken on a different day, when Madeleine was wearing peach? In which case this isn't the 'last photo' because she is clearly wearing pink.
avatar
Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by aiyoyo on 12.03.13 2:39

The over explaining and emphasizing is very typical trait of a liar.
Kate's emphasis of the May3rd clothing is just smoke and mirror to sell the idea Maddie was alive on the 3rd theory, nothing else.

How did she know that was going to be last time she saw Maddie that she paid particular attention to Maddie's attire?

There was no need to tell readers what "run of the mill brand" Maddie wore. Why should clothes brand add value, or be of any value for that matter, to her memory of Maddie.



avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 321
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by Guest on 12.03.13 6:27

The Monsoon, Gap outfit episode was to counter what was said on the internet about this tennispic.

She looks uneasy and desperate to please. She does not look well cared for at all. Strange shabby t-shirt over poor hunched little back. Frumpy shorts and worn, wrong shoes. Traces of bruising on her arms and legs.
That was the impression people voiced on forums. It was and is my impression as well.
All smoke and mirrors.

My opinion of course

parapono

avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by tigger on 12.03.13 6:38

Châtelaine wrote:Hm, Nina, if I were her, I would indeed not mention the red airplane T-shirt, which Sean is wearing after May 3. The one that Eddie singled out as having cadaver scent ...

Which is clearly too big for Sean a few months later. However, he started wearing it around the 8th of June when we get the first mention of sea bass in the blog. Canny, they call such a strategy in Glasgow.

@Miraflores
There's a topic on Maddie's clothes. The pink top and shorts are far off the chart compared with all her other clothes. The only other dress which looks cute is the one on the body of the Donegal girl.
I'm convinced those clothes were never in Maddie's wardrobe.
In one of the early photos of 5a the same top that Amelie wore in Donegal is hanging on the door.
The pool photo is always trotted out as a trump card. Weird I think. The peach/pink confusion must be that. Forgot that it's Amelie wearing the peach.
One glass of NZ white too many methinks. Easy to do when you're writing a work of fiction.

I don't believe she ever bought 'expensive' clothes for the children. To be fair, her own clothes look cheap as well.
Anyone notice the little smock type tops and cardis that she wore in the early years? Presentation with the cute ponytail was very 'little girl'. imo

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by Oh come on on 04.07.13 19:18





In light of what is now looking like a whitewash I have decided to upload a series of videos explaining my doubts. I'd like to thank those who replied to my original post. Personally I find HiDeHo's videos difficult to watch so I'm making my own.

Oh come on

Posts : 21
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-06-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by tigger on 04.07.13 21:20

As for the searching: from mccannfiles.com

Gerry McCann

Overview

In Gerry's 4th May and 10th May statements, he appears to be describing search activities in which he was personally involved but his statement of 7th September makes it clear that he is actually describing the activities of other people.

On 4th May, he describes how 'the group' searched in various locations.

On 10th May, he describes how 'they' continued their searches outside.

On 7th September, he describes how 'guests and resort workers' were searching, whilst he 'went to the main reception to check whether they had called the police'. Gerry states that he 'looked for her all over the apartment' and 'particularly remembers having looked under all the beds, inside the wardrobes in all the rooms'. After returning from the reception 'he went back into the apartment where he stayed in the living room and in their bedroom'.


04 May 2007 statement

'Faced with this altered scenario, KATE checked that the twins were in their respective beds, unlike MADELEINE, who had disappeared. After thoroughly searching the apartment, his wife, quite scared and upset, went to the restaurant to alert the deponent and the others about the disappearance. Immediately, the group headed for the club and searched across all the facilities, swimming pool, tennis etc., as well as in the apartment, with the help of Ocean Club employees, while at the same time they contacted the authorities, that would later appear.'

10 May 2007 statement

'Then he closed the shutters, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside. They continued with searches outside, around the various apartment blocks, the deponent having asked MATHEW to go to the secondary reception in order to communicate the fact to the local police, since he had no doubt that his daughter had been abducted. He refutes, peremptorily, the possibility that MADELEINE could have left the apartment by her own means.'

07 September 2007 statement

'He remembers that after it was known that Madeleine had disappeared he looked for her all over the apartment. He particularly remembers having looked under all the beds, inside the wardrobes in all the rooms at the same time that Kate told him she had looked everywhere already.'

---

'When asked why instead of scouring the land next to the complex they remained inside the apartment, he replies that it did not happen that way. While the guests and resort workers were searching, he went to the main reception to check whether they had called the police, and told Kate to wait inside the apartment. After returning from the reception he went back into the apartment where he stayed in the living room and in their bedroom.'
unquote
(First call to police 22.40sh. not by Gerry/ MO has different story iirc)
unquote

I've always found that Gerry testing the shutters was ridiculous if you are a father who is sure that his daughter has been abducted. The only important action , indeed the only action to take is to search for the child immediately not lose valuable time working out how the trick was done.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by Guest on 04.07.13 22:14

@Oh come on wrote:



In light of what is now looking like a whitewash I have decided to upload a series of videos explaining my doubts. I'd like to thank those who replied to my original post. Personally I find HiDeHo's videos difficult to watch so I'm making my own.
***
That's one of the most toe-curling ones [and there have been many others]. We cannot be reminded too often of parents, who don't  go out and search for their daughter, whilst most of us would have been out in the dark and cold  for hours [days!] searching for our cat or dog ...
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by Seek truth on 04.07.13 23:05

 jd wrote:
2. The Portuguese police finding no evidence that the windows had been forced (no marks left on the Aluminium frame or disturbance of lichen on windowsill.
There are only 2 people (if you can call them that) that ever "saw" the shutters open...kate and gerry mccann (This should tell you all you need to know)....just their words words words, nothing else
3. The admission by Kate McCann that she did not physically search for her child the night she went missing. This was given in a BBC interview before Clarence Mitchell took control.
In the bewk (half written by someone else) she says she did search!!! If you ever want to highlight a lie then this is one of them.


5. The interview with Philomena M. where she says on radio that Gerry and Kate haven't told the twins where madeleine is then corrects heself.
Very telling
9. JT again, How her memory improves with time as regards her description of the would be abducter.

Her abductor has changed from appearance to sex to everything. from not seeing a face to then describing a face...This is so laughable that anyone with an IQ over 5 can even think of giving this witness any credit, but I guess when you are protected by the UK government on a different wider agenda they will spin anything, and as proven most believe ANYTHING the government tells us...Reality of life, we know this and they know this








By Seek truth: 

Typed here by mistake :



Actually in her book, I think she says she searched it was 6 am, and there was nobody around, why not? 
When I read that I thought how ungrateful! Staff helped to search too. And the next day it was all over the telly. But then I thought, oh this is really to say that, she searched when theres was nobody around to see her, working hard searching. 

Did anybody see her driving around in a car searching?
Did the police drive her around?
did Jane Tanner point which way they should go, because she had seen The abductor !

when you've lost your child, you run everywhere insanely, even if its dark. Without wanting to your body would still drag you searching everywhere!

Oh nobody would stay home, I'd get everyone on their feet, GO SEARCH!!!

It must have been a quick death, their stories are not well planned, in fact the whole thing sounds silly.


spit coffee 

Seek truth

Posts : 447
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by russiandoll on 04.07.13 23:08

because it does not make any sense when looked at logically and rationally.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by Seek truth on 04.07.13 23:20

@russiandoll wrote:because it does not make any sense when looked at logically and rationally.
Of course it doesn't make any sense.
They're doctors too.

When you've lost someone so precious you cry! No matter where and you cant be camara shy When You've lost all your emotions! So there's absolutely no excuse. She wouldn't have cried behind the camara either, in fact they've been caught Laughing instead.

If she ever gets caught in the end you WILL see her crying!

Seek truth

Posts : 447
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by Seek truth on 04.07.13 23:37

@iluvpelageya wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
@iluvpelageya wrote:
[...]
7. I have passed people who have been involved in conversation at a closer distance in broad daylight. And they haven't noticed me. Story of my life.
[...]
***
Would the same thing have happened, if the three of you were in a dark and deadly silent street and you were wearing flipflops? I think they might even have registered you, if you were a stranger to them  

When two men are talking about their tennis backhands or soccer or film actresses or whatever, things can get - how shall we say? - intense? They may have had their backs to her. They may have been so drunk that if JT had cartwheeled down the road, they wouldn't have noticed. As it is a holiday complex, there would be people walking about all the time, even during the evening.

But it is irrelevant anyway. If she said she saw the two of them talking as she was passing them, then that is probably correct. How else did she know they were there? And if the two men didn't notice her, that doesn't matter. They both confirm they were there. What it does not do is confirm GMcC's story that he went into the apartment and checked out the kids. He may have seen this other guy, had a conversation with him, and went back to the party without checking on the kids at all. I mean, he says he looked over Madeleine (with the lights off), saw how beautiful she was and realised how lucky he was. Well, I don't have to believe that. And I don't.

The only important thing from my point of view is that this phantasm she saw at the end of the road changes with every telling, so the best thing to do, IMO, is to ignore her testimony completely. You will save yourself a lot of time that way.

 "When two men are talking ......., there would be people walking around all of the time"

Well actually there  wasn't anybody walking there! So why didn't Gerry say I didn't see her because I ignored everyone walking past me.

It was dark and quiet at that moment, and if you went to check on your sleeping child, You'd be aware of strangers of people walking around. You'd be on the look out, especially if its quiet and empty and someone appeared all of a sudden you'd normally look, especially when it's dark!

In broad daylight you may not be so aware, you feel safer.

Did the waiters say they were so drunk?

Seek truth

Posts : 447
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by tigger on 05.07.13 9:53

I'd think they weren't drunk at all that night. Gerry couldn't say he'd seen Jane because ?

a) she wasn't there at that time
b) it might show collusion - Jane was there, the abductor was there, I was there, I couldn't be the abductor.
c) imo the Smiths sighting threw the schedule out. It was supposed to be glancing sighting by an independent witness/total stranger of a man seen carrying a child through PdL, on a fairly logical route  if coming from 5a.
The Smith sighting wasn't so much a sighting as an unforeseen encounter, 9 people, all interested and asking questions.
d) Jane's sighting had to be independent of Gerry and at a time when Gerry had an independent alibi by an independent witness. I.e. not one of the tapas.
e) Jane's sighting was added to the timeline when Gerry was at the table. Yet it seemed important to deny knowledge of it until many hours later when Jane could bring herself to tell him.
f) Jane wasn't supposed to see eggman untill about 9.40/945, that would have synchronised nicely with a similar sighting in PdL ten minutes later.

Imo without the Smiths we would have had: Check at 9.30sh. All well. Jane sees eggman around 9.40/9.45. Independent witness (e.g. couple or single person leaving bar in that area where incidentally there are a number of bars) sees imo Gerry with Sean marching through Pdl. 10.00 Discovery.

Minds like corkscrews.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by Guest on 05.07.13 15:12

@tigger wrote:I'd think they weren't drunk at all that night. Gerry couldn't say he'd seen Jane because ?

a) she wasn't there at that time
b) it might show collusion - Jane was there, the abductor was there, I was there, I couldn't be the abductor.
c) imo the Smiths sighting threw the schedule out. It was supposed to be glancing sighting by an independent witness/total stranger of a man seen carrying a child through PdL, on a fairly logical route  if coming from 5a.
The Smith sighting wasn't so much a sighting as an unforeseen encounter, 9 people, all interested and asking questions.
d) Jane's sighting had to be independent of Gerry and at a time when Gerry had an independent alibi by an independent witness. I.e. not one of the tapas.
e) Jane's sighting was added to the timeline when Gerry was at the table. Yet it seemed important to deny knowledge of it until many hours later when Jane could bring herself to tell him.
f) Jane wasn't supposed to see eggman untill about 9.40/945, that would have synchronised nicely with a similar sighting in PdL ten minutes later.

Imo without the Smiths we would have had:  Check at 9.30sh. All well. Jane sees eggman around 9.40/9.45. Independent witness (e.g. couple or single person leaving bar in that area where incidentally there are a number of bars) sees imo Gerry with Sean marching through Pdl. 10.00 Discovery.

Minds like corkscrews.

g) conveys the impression that they were on a big busy street and takes the emphasis away from Gerry missing the "abduction" of his daughter right under his nose and blocking the only possible entrance to the apartment.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

Post by tigger on 05.07.13 15:21

Finn wrote:
@tigger wrote:I'd think they weren't drunk at all that night. Gerry couldn't say he'd seen Jane because ?

a) she wasn't there at that time
b) it might show collusion - Jane was there, the abductor was there, I was there, I couldn't be the abductor.
c) imo the Smiths sighting threw the schedule out. It was supposed to be glancing sighting by an independent witness/total stranger of a man seen carrying a child through PdL, on a fairly logical route  if coming from 5a.
The Smith sighting wasn't so much a sighting as an unforeseen encounter, 9 people, all interested and asking questions.
d) Jane's sighting had to be independent of Gerry and at a time when Gerry had an independent alibi by an independent witness. I.e. not one of the tapas.
e) Jane's sighting was added to the timeline when Gerry was at the table. Yet it seemed important to deny knowledge of it until many hours later when Jane could bring herself to tell him.
f) Jane wasn't supposed to see eggman untill about 9.40/945, that would have synchronised nicely with a similar sighting in PdL ten minutes later.

Imo without the Smiths we would have had:  Check at 9.30sh. All well. Jane sees eggman around 9.40/9.45. Independent witness (e.g. couple or single person leaving bar in that area where incidentally there are a number of bars) sees imo Gerry with Sean marching through Pdl. 10.00 Discovery.

Minds like corkscrews.

g) conveys the impression that they were on a big busy street and takes the emphasis away from Gerry missing the "abduction" of his daughter right under his nose and blocking the only possible entrance to the apartment.

Of course! the whole exercise also focusses on the window at the front when Gerry is blocking the rear entrance. No wonder that reduced the time to an impossible 1.5 minutes or so when the patio doors had to be made operational.
.
If only those shutters had cooperated!

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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