Re: Photo of new Madeleine Foundation book

by christabel Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:01 am

Hey Vee,

I know a journalist who's ordered one, but don't tell anyone will you Photo of new Madeleine Foundation book - Page 2 576550

. She isn't British but he won't know that. Photo of new Madeleine Foundation book - Page 2 599426

by Sabot Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:02 am

vee8 wrote:I explained to my daughter that, having broken his injunction, he could well end up in jail, she laughed, and said she kind of hoped he would sell some more now, so it would mean a longer term in jail!

Dear of her. Obviously a bright girl. Tell her she isn't the only one.

by Peaceful1 Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:06 am

Yes Vee, we hope so too.
You know, he could be wanting to go behind bars, maybe he has no money for his retirement, fears how he is going to cope alone in old age, pay the bills etc, so thought prison/mental institution may be a free option for him. Can't think of any other reason why a man is so willingly helping to put himself behind bars, can you?

by bluj1515 Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:06 am

Certainly going to be an unbiased and correct translation of just the files, considering the photos they've chosen for the cover.

Bundleman -- along with the claim that they are including "excerpts" of Tanner's statements -- so they're going after Jane Tanner -- no shock, Bennett and Co. have always harbored a particular hatred of her.

And the self-explanatory dog alert.

I wouldn't mind them so much if they weren't constantly lying. Just say you are cherry-picking the segments of the files that you think support your theory. Don't lie and claim it's just the files and they say what they say.

by Peaceful1 Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:07 am

Poor UK tax payers though having to feed this creature for the rest of his life! Photo of new Madeleine Foundation book - Page 2 356737

by clairesy Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:04 am

Tinkerbell43 wrote:Oh dear indeed Chris, lol. Tape up your letterboxes everyone, Bennetts new booklet is coming to a doorstep near you, lol.

If it gets that far, let them dare try and put one through mine!

I aint taping my letterbox up tinks...no way!!...i have two terriers who love to fetch the mail for me of a morning...Grrrrrrrrrrr Photo of new Madeleine Foundation book - Page 2 466476

Photo of new Madeleine Foundation book - Page 2 466476

bennet and his little sidekicks are welcome to pop their slimy little fingers in my letter box anytime they wish,If they dare that is!! Photo of new Madeleine Foundation book - Page 2 466476

by dianeh Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:34 am

Bluj

Bennett hates Jane Tanner because she is the proof of the abduction. She saw Madeleine being carried away, and so they have to prove she lied, or was mistaken etc.

It is funny (strange) that with an actual witness to the abduction, that some people still believe it is not an abduction. I could never understand those that said there was no evidence. JT's statement is evidence, and there is nothing to disprove what she said. In any other country in the world, JT's statement would be considered proof that an abduction took place.

It reminds me of Jaycee's stepfather. He told the police that he saw a Jaycee bundled into a car, but there were questions over whether he told the truth. Well, he did, and she was abducted.

by Rosie Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:18 am

They had better not have libelled JT, because I think they will find she will not hesitate to take legal action!

by vee8 Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:39 pm

Rosiepops wrote:They had better not have libelled JT, because I think they will find she will not hesitate to take legal action!

They have, greatly, and I sincerely hope she does.

by Rosie Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:04 pm

vee8 wrote:
Rosiepops wrote:They had better not have libelled JT, because I think they will find she will not hesitate to take legal action!

They have, greatly, and I sincerely hope she does.

My,my Bennett, what a filthy kitchen you have!

Bennett has broken the terms of the injunction served against him, I hear there are so many officers in Essex who want to do the honours of arresting him that they are thinking of holding a raffle!

by Cath Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:22 pm

bluj1515 wrote:Certainly going to be an unbiased and correct translation of just the files, considering the photos they've chosen for the cover.

Bundleman -- along with the claim that they are including "excerpts" of Tanner's statements -- so they're going after Jane Tanner -- no shock, Bennett and Co. have always harbored a particular hatred of her.

And the self-explanatory dog alert.

I wouldn't mind them so much if they weren't constantly lying. Just say you are cherry-picking the segments of the files that you think support your theory. Don't lie and claim it's just the files and they say what they say.

Amaral isn't fond of her either. He's tried to discredit her over and over again in his book by the way he talks about her.
Nobody knows, including Tanner, if she's seen Madeleine and an abductor. Why ridiculing her for telling what she's seen? Why didn't they (Amaral and Co.|) put more effort into finding that man?
PdL isn't that large. Walking with a child in his arms would mean he's a local, a holiday maker or someone on his way to a car. Couldn't be that hard to find him. Unless he didn't want to be found.

by Sabot Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:34 pm

Why didn't either of the men who were seen, come forward? They would have had nothing to fear. This alone has convinced me that Jane Tanner and The Smiths saw the abductor. It isn't difficult to work out. The Smiths had nothing to gain, even if it could be suggested that Jane Tanner did.

The time difference wasn't that great, and could easily be explained by the length of the route that would have been taken.

by Rosie Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:42 pm

Cath wrote:
bluj1515 wrote:Certainly going to be an unbiased and correct translation of just the files, considering the photos they've chosen for the cover.

Bundleman -- along with the claim that they are including "excerpts" of Tanner's statements -- so they're going after Jane Tanner -- no shock, Bennett and Co. have always harbored a particular hatred of her.

And the self-explanatory dog alert.

I wouldn't mind them so much if they weren't constantly lying. Just say you are cherry-picking the segments of the files that you think support your theory. Don't lie and claim it's just the files and they say what they say.

Amaral isn't fond of her either. He's tried to discredit her over and over again in his book by the way he talks about her.
Nobody knows, including Tanner, if she's seen Madeleine and an abductor. Why ridiculing her for telling what she's seen? Why didn't they (Amaral and Co.|) put more effort into finding that man?
PdL isn't that large. Walking with a child in his arms would mean he's a local, a holiday maker or someone on his way to a car. Couldn't be that hard to find him. Unless he didn't want to be found.

Well Cath if Amaral had bothered to attend the scene, then "supposedly" that would have been one if the first searches put into action, but as we know, getting drunk with his drinking buddies was more important than the life of an innocent little child missing on his patch! I seriously doubt a properly coordinated search was ever put into place trying to locate that person!

by Rosie Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:45 pm

Sabot wrote:Why didn't either of the men who were seen, come forward? They would have had nothing to fear. This alone has convinced me that Jane Tanner and The Smiths saw the abductor. It isn't difficult to work out. The Smiths had nothing to gain, even if it could be suggested that Jane Tanner did.

The time difference wasn't that great, and could easily be explained by the length of the route that would have been taken.

And where the Smiths saw the man with this child wouold also have given clues as to whose places to search first! As for the time difference, asking such a lot of people the time, it will always come back varying greatly too!

by Sabot Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:49 pm

We are talking Maximum, half an hour. Not much time at all when you are carrying a dead weight child. He would have to have stopped for a rest, or even hidden somewhere for a while.

by Catkins Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:53 am

Tinkerbell43 wrote:Oh dear indeed Chris, lol. Tape up your letterboxes everyone, Bennetts new booklet is coming to a doorstep near you, lol.

If it gets that far, let them dare try and put one through mine!

Or mine.....as I know exactly where I would shove it !!!!

by Cath Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:52 am

Sabot wrote:Why didn't either of the men who were seen, come forward? They would have had nothing to fear. This alone has convinced me that Jane Tanner and The Smiths saw the abductor. It isn't difficult to work out. The Smiths had nothing to gain, even if it could be suggested that Jane Tanner did.

The time difference wasn't that great, and could easily be explained by the length of the route that would have been taken.

Agreed, but I'm playing devil's advocate right now (got a smiley for that?)
When did it hit the papers Tanner saw someone? The Smith sighting has been kept quiet as we know till August/September, when it suited Amaral to leak it.
When was a description of that man released and how accurate was it (remember the eggman?).
What if it was a holidaymaker, even living on a yacht perhaps, carrying his child home? Would he recognise himself, would he know they were looking for him if he didn't speak Portuguese, if he didn't read he (English) papers?
And most important question of all : how serious did they take Tanner's sighting? Looks like there's a lot of scepticism about it. Perhaps even from the start?

by Peaceful1 Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:54 am

Photo of new Madeleine Foundation book - Page 2 127278

Rosie, I see a tony bennett Tile Fund starting, soon, very soon.
Clean your 70's kitchen tiles bennett, will give you something worthwhile to do in your sad life.

by Sponsored content