Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: British Police / Government Interference :: Smithman: Crimewatch Reconstruction and the appeal for new info / suspects
Page 6 of 8 • Share
Page 6 of 8 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
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 : 5818
Activity : 7756
Likes received : 1674
Join date : 2013-02-07
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
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
Activity : 1327
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-11-08
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
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 : 5818
Activity : 7756
Likes received : 1674
Join date : 2013-02-07
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
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.
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
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
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 : 5818
Activity : 7756
Likes received : 1674
Join date : 2013-02-07
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
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
Activity : 1327
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-11-08
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
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
Activity : 1327
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-11-08
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
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 : 5818
Activity : 7756
Likes received : 1674
Join date : 2013-02-07
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
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
Activity : 1327
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-11-08
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
My rationale is, that they may have mislead us and Madeleine was wearing long sleeved pyjamas that night ... IMO, of course.
Guest- Guest
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
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.
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 : 5818
Activity : 7756
Likes received : 1674
Join date : 2013-02-07
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
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
Activity : 1327
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-11-08
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
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 : 5818
Activity : 7756
Likes received : 1674
Join date : 2013-02-07
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
........................................................................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
KA-CHING!
jeanmonroe- Posts : 5818
Activity : 7756
Likes received : 1674
Join date : 2013-02-07
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
I'm glad we finally understand each other now!
whatliesbehindthesofa- Posts : 1320
Activity : 1327
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-11-08
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
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
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 : 12
Activity : 26
Likes received : 12
Join date : 2013-12-13
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
Any thing come of this or have I missed itJontait 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
tiny- Posts : 2274
Activity : 2311
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2010-02-03
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
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 : 2862
Activity : 3218
Likes received : 344
Join date : 2011-06-16
Age : 81
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
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'
jeanmonroe- Posts : 5818
Activity : 7756
Likes received : 1674
Join date : 2013-02-07
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
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
Roamin
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
Roamin
Roamin- Posts : 12
Activity : 26
Likes received : 12
Join date : 2013-12-13
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
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!
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?
.................................................................................
I have 'seen' more of 'Madeleine' through various tv 'reconstructions' than 'real' footage of her!
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 : 5818
Activity : 7756
Likes received : 1674
Join date : 2013-02-07
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6698737.stm
The footage was released by the McCanns apparently!
The footage was released by the McCanns apparently!
Guest- Guest
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
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 : 5818
Activity : 7756
Likes received : 1674
Join date : 2013-02-07
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
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
Activity : 2552
Likes received : 6
Join date : 2011-10-12
Page 6 of 8 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Similar topics
» MADDIE COPS PRIME SUSPECT BLUNDER- tomorrows MIRROR 28/12/13
» Tanner created a difficult Spanner.....
» Everyone report abuse to remove this sick page
» Maybe Tannerman was there after all?
» Can Tannerman sue ?
» Tanner created a difficult Spanner.....
» Everyone report abuse to remove this sick page
» Maybe Tannerman was there after all?
» Can Tannerman sue ?
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: British Police / Government Interference :: Smithman: Crimewatch Reconstruction and the appeal for new info / suspects
Page 6 of 8
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum