Paint Stripper and the Open window

Rosiepops wrote:I believe there is too much emphasis put on the time line, as we all know different people's watches are all set differently, especially in a holiday setting, where people would have actually altered their watches to coincide with hat country's time zone. The fact is that there could have been a gap in the time line for several explanations, which are quite plausible.
Jane Tanner was reported to have given her description and included the colour of the pyjamas, before she knew what Madeleine was wearing.

The thing with eye witnesses giving statements, is that the police want to get eye witness statements ASAP, before they have a chance to superimpose something in their minds which isn't correct and we all know what a fiasco the SOC was that evening.

For those that doubt JT, let me give you a little scenario that happened to me.

Once I was eye witness to an incident outside my house, it was very dark and raining and only a small amount of light from the street lamp and I caught sight of someone for no more than approximately 10 secs, yet i gave a full description to the policeman, my OH asked me how I could possibly know that in such a short space of time, he had witnessed the same thing yet could not relay anything much.

2 hours later there was a knock on the door and the police were there, telling me that they had apprehended someone and that was thanks to the description I had given.

My point is, that you can take an awful lot in, in just a few seconds.
The same thing happened when someone broke into my car in town, I saw the man for just about 4/5 seconds in the dark and I was able to pick his photo out and he was arrested and had my radio! (Without the face as the face was in my bag!) So I quite believe that JT was able to give that description and also understand that from where she was she NEVER actually saw the face and she insisted that she had not seen his face. But her description of that man and clothes etc has coincided with the description of other eye witnesses gave after she gave hers.

Tinkerbell43 wrote:Hi Goldengirl,

Firstly welcome to our forum.

Re Jane Tanner, I believe she is a credible witness and the reason I give her sighting credibility is because the description she gave is pretty much identical to the one Mr. Smith gave.

I know people question how could she have seen this, that and the other, but she obviously did because imo with exception to the time line, The Smiths sighting corroborates with the details Jane gave and Janes statement was made long before the Smiths.

Rosiepops wrote:I believe there is too much emphasis put on the time line, as we all know different people's watches are all set differently, especially in a holiday setting, where people would have actually altered their watches to coincide with hat country's time zone. The fact is that there could have been a gap in the time line for several explanations, which are quite plausible.
Jane Tanner was reported to have given her description and included the colour of the pyjamas, before she knew what Madeleine was wearing.

The thing with eye witnesses giving statements, is that the police want to get eye witness statements ASAP, before they have a chance to superimpose something in their minds which isn't correct and we all know what a fiasco the SOC was that evening.

For those that doubt JT, let me give you a little scenario that happened to me.

Once I was eye witness to an incident outside my house, it was very dark and raining and only a small amount of light from the street lamp and I caught sight of someone for no more than approximately 10 secs, yet i gave a full description to the policeman, my OH asked me how I could possibly know that in such a short space of time, he had witnessed the same thing yet could not relay anything much.

2 hours later there was a knock on the door and the police were there, telling me that they had apprehended someone and that was thanks to the description I had given.

My point is, that you can take an awful lot in, in just a few seconds.
The same thing happened when someone broke into my car in town, I saw the man for just about 4/5 seconds in the dark and I was able to pick his photo out and he was arrested and had my radio! (Without the face as the face was in my bag!) So I quite believe that JT was able to give that description and also understand that from where she was she NEVER actually saw the face and she insisted that she had not seen his face. But her description of that man and clothes etc has coincided with the description of other eye witnesses gave after she gave hers.

Rosiepops wrote:I believe there is too much emphasis put on the time line, as we all know different people's watches are all set differently, especially in a holiday setting, where people would have actually altered their watches to coincide with hat country's time zone. The fact is that there could have been a gap in the time line for several explanations, which are quite plausible.
Jane Tanner was reported to have given her description and included the colour of the pyjamas, before she knew what Madeleine was wearing.

The thing with eye witnesses giving statements, is that the police want to get eye witness statements ASAP, before they have a chance to superimpose something in their minds which isn't correct and we all know what a fiasco the SOC was that evening.

For those that doubt JT, let me give you a little scenario that happened to me.

Once I was eye witness to an incident outside my house, it was very dark and raining and only a small amount of light from the street lamp and I caught sight of someone for no more than approximately 10 secs, yet i gave a full description to the policeman, my OH asked me how I could possibly know that in such a short space of time, he had witnessed the same thing yet could not relay anything much.

2 hours later there was a knock on the door and the police were there, telling me that they had apprehended someone and that was thanks to the description I had given.

My point is, that you can take an awful lot in, in just a few seconds.
The same thing happened when someone broke into my car in town, I saw the man for just about 4/5 seconds in the dark and I was able to pick his photo out and he was arrested and had my radio! (Without the face as the face was in my bag!) So I quite believe that JT was able to give that description and also understand that from where she was she NEVER actually saw the face and she insisted that she had not seen his face. But her description of that man and clothes etc has coincided with the description of other eye witnesses gave after she gave hers.

goldengirl57 wrote:

Tinkerbell43 wrote:Hi Goldengirl,

Firstly welcome to our forum.

Re Jane Tanner, I believe she is a credible witness and the reason I give her sighting credibility is because the description she gave is pretty much identical to the one Mr. Smith gave. I agree. Also Jane Tanners time line is backed up by Mrs Stephen Carpenters statement; the timings and the places fit perfectly

I know people question how could she have seen this, that and the other, but she obviously did because imo with exception to the time line, The Smiths sighting corroborates with the details Jane gave and Janes statement was made long before the Smiths.

There are plausible reasons for the anomolies in the time line in my post above. Did you read that, GG?

Hi Tinkerbell I thought i just saw you at the bottom of my garden LOL. (Yes I believe in Fairy's).

Tinks loves fairies, but she isn't one, really. She tells the truth as she sees it always and NEVER tells fairy tales

Look I dont think Jane Tanner is a credible witness sorry.

She states in her rogatory interview that the COMBINATION OF DARK AND THE STREET LIGHT made the scene look ORANGE.

GG, you are from the Midlands, touchee. Are you old enough to really know about sodium lighting? Gawd awful it was, but it lighted the streets better than the old gas lamps.

The lamps did give an orange glow; they did affect the colour of things, but as Clairesy remarked about sun glasses, the brain soon pretty well adjusts to recognise the colours - maybe not exactly, but it adjusts. If you had read my post above, I covered thgis point, saying that some of the women would most likely have worn pink and have been aware how that changes in the sodium light. Almost certainly JT would have been able to recognise pink and white (Maybe not the exact shade, but she would have recognised it was pink and white (or very pale), IMO

How could she then be so certain she saw someone so quickly and swiftly carrying a BLOND CHILD with pink pyjamas.?? Covered above

Its not credible to me. IF the guy stood in front of her face on and just stood still for 30 seconds then I might agree with you. Why do you think this? She never claimed to have seen his face so she only could see his side and back - bet he turned his head away. but that doesn't mean that she didn't have a good look at him from the side/rear

This guy was she said walking along "briskly", she wasnt expecting any trouble so why would she notice so much. Bet she was cautious, most women are after dark and he was a man. Even to the BLACK SHOES, pink pyjamas with frills on the bottoms??? Clever people have quick minds and take lots in. She noticed the bare feet and thought that it was too cold to be carrying a child around like that.

Some people are very visual. Rosie is one and I think I am too. My problem would be remembering it all . She is a Mum of a small child isn't she? She would notice that

No sorry I think she saw someone yes I dont disagree but the significants of it could well have been exaggerated perhaps trying to help. For me why didnt she as soon as she heard about the child going missing run around and say OMG I just saw a man 45 minutes ago carrying a blond child with pink pyjamas..........Yes, why , Oh why? .. Bet she is thrashing herself for that. But how do you know that another of the Tapas 7 didn't say to her, " SHUSH, dont say anything about that; it will terrify Kate and Gerry...just keep quiet; we will find her?" How do you know the circumstances? I dont! .......the search could then have followed this guys route.

Also you have to admit surely that her description has changed she even believed it was MURAT at one point. According to the Rogatory Statements her description has been consistent, I understand. Have you read the Rogs?

Seems to me that there were lots of red herrings around at that time...........dont know whether they were the imagination of the press or whether they were as a result of deliberate disinformation on Amarals part.

For some reason that elludes me, Amaral wanted that Bundleman went in a Westerly direction and not the Easterly direction that two independant witnesses gave legal written statements to verify. Can you, GG, think of any reason why he persisted in disbelieving the statements of two independant witnesses? Why would he want to push the perception that Bundleman went West? What are your thoughts, GG?

So sorry no I dont believe this is a credible sighting, just someone trying to help but probably made things worse. IMHO. ...Hmm, seems that either you have not read the Rogatory statements, or that you are set in your thinking and unable to throw off the early disinformation that was released....in other words, have you been brain washed to a minor degree by trash reporting and disinformation?

The above is only what I think, I respect you fully for your thoughts.

I respect you for your thoughts, as well, but ask you to re-examine them. They are out of date. We now have legal evidence in the form of two witnesses statements, which verify the situation. Also we have Mr Smiths statement, which verifies the likely hood of bundleman and Madeleine.

I could do with some fairy dust right now feel like poo LOL.

Bring out the fairy dust, Tinks!

No one knows absolutely, but there are pointers which should not be disallowed. Some places/forums chose to ignore these facts and have prevented the search for Madeleine because of that. .....and they claim to be Madeleines supporters. !

What Tommy Rot!

Rosiepops wrote:Just typed a post and it disappeared into cyberspace!

Sadie the reasons you give for the time discrepancies are very plausible, I was just trying to say how it is possible for people to give different times, after all, most people's watches say a different time.

I too, believe Jane saw what she said she saw. She is not silly, she is an educated woman, if she was going to lie about something like that I am sure she would have made it fit, but I cannot possibly think of a reason why she would want to lie.
That woman has stayed consistent through everything and when I saw her interviewed on TV she did not appear to be lying to me.
It is true people do report different things and believe they saw something that isn't quite right, which is why detectives like to take eye witness accounts ASAP, but I do not believe that this happened in Jane's case, her description has stayed the same.

There have been different accounts of what she said she saw in the newspapers, but she can hardly be responsible for bad reporting. Equally if Amaral had done his job correctly and had decided to attend the scene and take charge instead of staying drinking with his mates, then perhaps all this confusion would never have taken place.

Jane Tanner said as she was walking up the road, the man walked across the top, he would have been in her view for a while, so I believe her description is accurate, she saw him from the side as well as the back and would have had plenty of time to take in the details she described, also, some people give very good witness accounts with a lot of detail, while others who may have witnesses exactly the same thing, give scant detail, it is quite normal.

With regard to Hewlett, although I am not convinced that this was him walking past, this was 2 years ago and he would have looked very different to the way he looks now and it is quite possible that his hair would have not only been a little thicker it would have definitely looked thicker, regardless of an orange glow, which may have even made his hair appear thicker than it was. From what I can gather Hewlett's hair has been longish for a while.
He definitely wasn't as weak as he is now 2 years ago as he still had enough breath and stamina left to make babies!

Clairesy, I remember reading about Jane being taken into the van too and although I am not a 100% sure, I think when Murat walked past she said she didn't think it was him she saw on that night.

sadie wrote:

goldengirl57 wrote:

Tinkerbell43 wrote:Hi Goldengirl,

Firstly welcome to our forum.

Re Jane Tanner, I believe she is a credible witness and the reason I give her sighting credibility is because the description she gave is pretty much identical to the one Mr. Smith gave. I agree. Also Jane Tanners time line is backed up by Mrs Stephen Carpenters statement; the timings and the places fit perfectly

I know people question how could she have seen this, that and the other, but she obviously did because imo with exception to the time line, The Smiths sighting corroborates with the details Jane gave and Janes statement was made long before the Smiths.

There are plausible reasons for the anomolies in the time line in my post above. Did you read that, GG?

Hi Tinkerbell I thought i just saw you at the bottom of my garden LOL. (Yes I believe in Fairy's).

Tinks loves fairies, but she isn't one, really. She tells the truth as she sees it always and NEVER tells fairy tales

Look I dont think Jane Tanner is a credible witness sorry.

She states in her rogatory interview that the COMBINATION OF DARK AND THE STREET LIGHT made the scene look ORANGE.

GG, you are from the Midlands, touchee. Are you old enough to really know about sodium lighting? Gawd awful it was, but it lighted the streets better than the old gas lamps.

The lamps did give an orange glow; they did affect the colour of things, but as Clairesy remarked about sun glasses, the brain soon pretty well adjusts to recognise the colours - maybe not exactly, but it adjusts. If you had read my post above, I covered thgis point, saying that some of the women would most likely have worn pink and have been aware how that changes in the sodium light. Almost certainly JT would have been able to recognise pink and white (Maybe not the exact shade, but she would have recognised it was pink and white (or very pale), IMO

How could she then be so certain she saw someone so quickly and swiftly carrying a BLOND CHILD with pink pyjamas.?? Covered above

Its not credible to me. IF the guy stood in front of her face on and just stood still for 30 seconds then I might agree with you. Why do you think this? She never claimed to have seen his face so she only could see his side and back - bet he turned his head away. but that doesn't mean that she didn't have a good look at him from the side/rear

This guy was she said walking along "briskly", she wasnt expecting any trouble so why would she notice so much. Bet she was cautious, most women are after dark and he was a man. Even to the BLACK SHOES, pink pyjamas with frills on the bottoms??? Clever people have quick minds and take lots in. She noticed the bare feet and thought that it was too cold to be carrying a child around like that.

Some people are very visual. Rosie is one and I think I am too. My problem would be remembering it all . She is a Mum of a small child isn't she? She would notice that

No sorry I think she saw someone yes I dont disagree but the significants of it could well have been exaggerated perhaps trying to help. For me why didnt she as soon as she heard about the child going missing run around and say OMG I just saw a man 45 minutes ago carrying a blond child with pink pyjamas..........Yes, why , Oh why? .. Bet she is thrashing herself for that. But how do you know that another of the Tapas 7 didn't say to her, " SHUSH, dont say anything about that; it will terrify Kate and Gerry...just keep quiet; we will find her?" How do you know the circumstances? I dont! .......the search could then have followed this guys route.

Also you have to admit surely that her description has changed she even believed it was MURAT at one point. According to the Rogatory Statements her description has been consistent, I understand. Have you read the Rogs?

Seems to me that there were lots of red herrings around at that time...........dont know whether they were the imagination of the press or whether they were as a result of deliberate disinformation on Amarals part.

For some reason that elludes me, Amaral wanted that Bundleman went in a Westerly direction and not the Easterly direction that two independant witnesses gave legal written statements to verify. Can you, GG, think of any reason why he persisted in disbelieving the statements of two independant witnesses? Why would he want to push the perception that Bundleman went West? What are your thoughts, GG?

So sorry no I dont believe this is a credible sighting, just someone trying to help but probably made things worse. IMHO. ...Hmm, seems that either you have not read the Rogatory statements, or that you are set in your thinking and unable to throw off the early disinformation that was released....in other words, have you been brain washed to a minor degree by trash reporting and disinformation?

The above is only what I think, I respect you fully for your thoughts.

I respect you for your thoughts, as well, but ask you to re-examine them. They are out of date. We now have legal evidence in the form of two witnesses statements, which verify the situation. Also we have Mr Smiths statement, which verifies the likely hood of bundleman and Madeleine.

I could do with some fairy dust right now feel like poo LOL.

Bring out the fairy dust, Tinks! We could all do with a sprinkling of that!

GG, please do not take it badly that I am somewhat destroying your thoughts. I just think that you have come from somewhere that deliberately refuses to look at fact; legal facts. If you are keen for the truth of what likely happened, then the subject has been disected here and we have some pretty powerful ideas of the likely scenario.

No one knows absolutely, but there are pointers which should not be disallowed. Some places/forums chose to ignore these facts and have prevented the search for Madeleine because of that. .....and they claim to be Madeleines supporters. !
What Tommy Rot!

goldengirl57 wrote:

sadie wrote:

goldengirl57 wrote:

Tinkerbell43 wrote:Hi Goldengirl,

Firstly welcome to our forum.

Re Jane Tanner, I believe she is a credible witness and the reason I give her sighting credibility is because the description she gave is pretty much identical to the one Mr. Smith gave. I agree. Also Jane Tanners time line is backed up by Mrs Stephen Carpenters statement; the timings and the places fit perfectly

I know people question how could she have seen this, that and the other, but she obviously did because imo with exception to the time line, The Smiths sighting corroborates with the details Jane gave and Janes statement was made long before the Smiths.

There are plausible reasons for the anomolies in the time line in my post above. Did you read that, GG?

Hi Tinkerbell I thought i just saw you at the bottom of my garden LOL. (Yes I believe in Fairy's).

Tinks loves fairies, but she isn't one, really. She tells the truth as she sees it always and NEVER tells fairy tales

Look I dont think Jane Tanner is a credible witness sorry.

She states in her rogatory interview that the COMBINATION OF DARK AND THE STREET LIGHT made the scene look ORANGE.

GG, you are from the Midlands, touchee. Are you old enough to really know about sodium lighting? Gawd awful it was, but it lighted the streets better than the old gas lamps.

The lamps did give an orange glow; they did affect the colour of things, but as Clairesy remarked about sun glasses, the brain soon pretty well adjusts to recognise the colours - maybe not exactly, but it adjusts. If you had read my post above, I covered thgis point, saying that some of the women would most likely have worn pink and have been aware how that changes in the sodium light. Almost certainly JT would have been able to recognise pink and white (Maybe not the exact shade, but she would have recognised it was pink and white (or very pale), IMO

How could she then be so certain she saw someone so quickly and swiftly carrying a BLOND CHILD with pink pyjamas.?? Covered above

Its not credible to me. IF the guy stood in front of her face on and just stood still for 30 seconds then I might agree with you. Why do you think this? She never claimed to have seen his face so she only could see his side and back - bet he turned his head away. but that doesn't mean that she didn't have a good look at him from the side/rear

This guy was she said walking along "briskly", she wasnt expecting any trouble so why would she notice so much. Bet she was cautious, most women are after dark and he was a man. Even to the BLACK SHOES, pink pyjamas with frills on the bottoms??? Clever people have quick minds and take lots in. She noticed the bare feet and thought that it was too cold to be carrying a child around like that.

Some people are very visual. Rosie is one and I think I am too. My problem would be remembering it all . She is a Mum of a small child isn't she? She would notice that

No sorry I think she saw someone yes I dont disagree but the significants of it could well have been exaggerated perhaps trying to help. For me why didnt she as soon as she heard about the child going missing run around and say OMG I just saw a man 45 minutes ago carrying a blond child with pink pyjamas..........Yes, why , Oh why? .. Bet she is thrashing herself for that. But how do you know that another of the Tapas 7 didn't say to her, " SHUSH, dont say anything about that; it will terrify Kate and Gerry...just keep quiet; we will find her?" How do you know the circumstances? I dont! .......the search could then have followed this guys route.

Also you have to admit surely that her description has changed she even believed it was MURAT at one point. According to the Rogatory Statements her description has been consistent, I understand. Have you read the Rogs?

Seems to me that there were lots of red herrings around at that time...........dont know whether they were the imagination of the press or whether they were as a result of deliberate disinformation on Amarals part.

For some reason that elludes me, Amaral wanted that Bundleman went in a Westerly direction and not the Easterly direction that two independant witnesses gave legal written statements to verify. Can you, GG, think of any reason why he persisted in disbelieving the statements of two independant witnesses? Why would he want to push the perception that Bundleman went West? What are your thoughts, GG?

So sorry no I dont believe this is a credible sighting, just someone trying to help but probably made things worse. IMHO. ...Hmm, seems that either you have not read the Rogatory statements, or that you are set in your thinking and unable to throw off the early disinformation that was released....in other words, have you been brain washed to a minor degree by trash reporting and disinformation?

The above is only what I think, I respect you fully for your thoughts.

I respect you for your thoughts, as well, but ask you to re-examine them. They are out of date. We now have legal evidence in the form of two witnesses statements, which verify the situation. Also we have Mr Smiths statement, which verifies the likely hood of bundleman and Madeleine.

I could do with some fairy dust right now feel like poo LOL.

Bring out the fairy dust, Tinks! We could all do with a sprinkling of that!

GG, please do not take it badly that I am somewhat destroying your thoughts. I just think that you have come from somewhere that deliberately refuses to look at fact; legal facts. If you are keen for the truth of what likely happened, then the subject has been disected here and we have some pretty powerful ideas of the likely scenario.

No one knows absolutely, but there are pointers which should not be disallowed. Some places/forums chose to ignore these facts and have prevented the search for Madeleine because of that. .....and they claim to be Madeleines supporters. !
What Tommy Rot!

Hi sadie you are not destroying my thoughts, and I am not quite sure what you mean when you say: I just think that you have come from somewhere that deliberately refuses to look at fact;

Care to enlighten me? I found your forum on amazon, a friend of mine sent me a link to a book and I thought as I hadnt heard of your forum before I would give it a go. AFTER ALL we are trying to FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED to maddy arnt we or am I missing the point?

As to facts, well I think I am quite informed about the maddy case and I can also think for myself. IF I am not happy with something then I say so.

We will agree to differ over Jane Tanners sighting. As to WEARING SUNGLASSES why would you at 9pm at night? Oh well there are some funny folks about lOL. Errrm I am nearly 60 so yes I would know about lighting although I try to avoid it as it shows up to many flaws.

The one sighting I actually do believe and think is significant is the Smiths sighting actually.

They pass a man walking down the middle of the street, carrying a child, with the head against his left shoulder and the arms hanging down alongside the body, in light colored or pink pyjamas, bare feet, pale skin typical of British and blond, shoulder-length hair; the girl is about 3-4 years old, about 1 meter tall.

The man is not dressed like a tourist; he's wearing cream or beige trousers, classic cut, of linen or cotton. He is white, 30-35 yrs, 1.70-1.80 meters tall, average build, physically fit, short, brown hair, with a face that looks tanned.



Two things this person is nothing like Jane Tanners sighting and if we are to believe BOTH of them then neither are they Hewlett.

I think this guy was the abductor who moved Maddy under the tunnels to the church and then went to the beach and onto a boat.

I believe Maddy went about 9.40. Thats just what I believe I am just an armchair detective like most people as I am not privy to proof I just muse like others do.

I cannot understand why the McCanns detectives havent used the smith sighting and issued an IDENTIFIT why not? Surely this guy is important.

Royal wrote:

Hi there Tinkerbell, is it really true you are not a 'Fairy' now I'm in utter despair, I have always loved your image, (and the one before). Now then, about the similarities between Hewlett and the drawings, I agree there is some likeness but I'm not sure if there is enough to convince me. As I have already explained in an earlier post, the photo's of the two have been selected because of their stance and both had hands in their pockets so I don't think this is a convincing comparison. In fact in my opinion each drawing of the suspect indicates a person of Mediteranian origin, either Spanish, Portuguese, or even of Arabic desent. Certainly he has a very dark complexion with what appears to be black hair. This of course could be due to the fact that the drawings were done in either pencil or charcoal giving a false appearance, yet I don't think so somehow. The drawing images certainly do not indicate a man of north European origin. It seems both Jane Tanner and the Smith woman's description of the suspect are quite similar so I think we can accept that as reliable info. Am I right in saying the detectives on the case at one time suggested they thought the kidnapper could be a local man living within a few hundred yards of PDL, and if so has anything else developed recently down that line of investigation?

Alroy.

sadie wrote:

goldengirl57 wrote:

Tinkerbell43 wrote:Hi Goldengirl,

Firstly welcome to our forum.

Re Jane Tanner, I believe she is a credible witness and the reason I give her sighting credibility is because the description she gave is pretty much identical to the one Mr. Smith gave. I agree. Also Jane Tanners time line is backed up by Mrs Stephen Carpenters statement; the timings and the places fit perfectly

I know people question how could she have seen this, that and the other, but she obviously did because imo with exception to the time line, The Smiths sighting corroborates with the details Jane gave and Janes statement was made long before the Smiths.

There are plausible reasons for the anomolies in the time line in my post above. Did you read that, GG?
...section omitted....

She states in her rogatory interview that the COMBINATION OF DARK AND THE STREET LIGHT made the scene look ORANGE.

[color=green]GG, you are from the Midlands, touchee. Are you old enough to really know about sodium lighting? Gawd awful it was, but it lighted the streets better than the old gas lamps.

The lamps did give an orange glow; they did affect the colour of things, but as Clairesy remarked about sun glasses, the brain soon pretty well adjusts to recognise the colours - maybe not exactly, but it adjusts. If you had read my post above, I covered thgis point, saying that some of the women would most likely have worn pink and have been aware how that changes in the sodium light. Almost certainly JT would have been able to recognise pink and white (Maybe not the exact shade, but she would have recognised it was pink and white (or very pale), IMO

How could she then be so certain she saw someone so quickly and swiftly carrying a BLOND CHILD with pink pyjamas.?? Covered above

Its not credible to me. IF the guy stood in front of her face on and just stood still for 30 seconds then I might agree with you. Why do you think this? She never claimed to have seen his face so she only could see his side and back - bet he turned his head away. but that doesn't mean that she didn't have a good look at him from the side/rear
............section omitted..........

Also you have to admit surely that her description has changed she even believed it was MURAT at one point. [color=green]According to the Rogatory Statements her description has been consistent, I understand. Have you read the Rogs?

Seems to me that there were lots of red herrings around at that time...........dont know whether they were the imagination of the press or whether they were as a result of deliberate disinformation on Amarals part.

For some reason that elludes me, Amaral wanted that Bundleman went in a Westerly direction and not the Easterly direction that two independant witnesses gave legal written statements to verify. Can you, GG, think of any reason why he persisted in disbelieving the statements of two independant witnesses? Why would he want to push the perception that Bundleman went West? What are your thoughts, GG?

So sorry no I dont believe this is a credible sighting, just someone trying to help but probably made things worse. IMHO. ...Hmm, seems that either you have not read the Rogatory statements, or that you are set in your thinking and unable to throw off the early disinformation that was released....in other words, have you been brain washed to a minor degree by trash reporting and disinformation?

The above is only what I think, I respect you fully for your thoughts.

[color=green]I respect you for your thoughts, as well, but ask you to re-examine them. They are out of date. We now have legal evidence in the form of two witnesses statements, which verify the situation. Also we have Mr Smiths statement, which verifies the likely hood of bundleman and Madeleine.

..........section deleted..........

GG, please do not take it badly that I am somewhat destroying your thoughts. I just think that you have come from somewhere that deliberately refuses to look at fact; legal facts. If you are keen for the truth of what likely happened, then the subject has been disected here and we have some pretty powerful ideas of the likely scenario.

No one knows absolutely, but there are pointers which should not be disallowed. Some places/forums chose to ignore these facts and have prevented the search for Madeleine because of that.
...........Section omitted.............
I am not quite sure what you mean when you say: I just think that you have come from somewhere that deliberately refuses to look at fact;

[color=olive]Well there are a number of places that seem to ignore the facts as given in the legal witness statements (the Rogs). I dont know them all, but I do know the 3A's, digital Spy, Jaona morais and a few others......and it seemed to me that maybe you had been influenced by one of them. Please forgive me if i have that wrong........but I must admit that I cannot understand why the three witness statements cannot be right and why you should dismiss two in favour of one.

All three can be right; if they are - then we have to figure out why the delay in getting from 5A to the Smiths in Rua d'Escola.....it's a walk of about 4-5 minutes! Elsewhere I have listed a number of suggestions as to why the journey could have been so delayed; I will try and find it if you haven't already seen it.

The amazing thing is, that as we have been discussing this, another idea has popped into my head as to where she might have been during the lost 25 - 40 minutes - and the reason for the delay........ I am convinced that the pick up was abandoned by the getaway driver, because of the unexpected presence of Gerry and Jez and the fear on the drivers behalf that the game was up as he saw that JT had witnessed Bundleman taking Madeleine.

My new thoughts are that she possibly was taken to the Nannies/staff apartment building, which is higher up Rua d'escola than the smiths sighting. [A scream was heard coming from this or an adjacent building according to a poster on the 3A's]. From here bundleman, in a panic, phoned for advice, to be instructed to take her somewhere else. This is lateral thinking and could be totally incorrect, but it fits the bill.

Now this is why it is good to have disagreements on the forum, because it gets us thinking and, maybe, we are finding our way through the maze? Care to enlighten me? I found your forum on amazon, a friend of mine sent me a link to a book and I thought as I hadnt heard of your forum before I would give it a go. AFTER ALL we are trying to FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED to maddy arnt we or am I missing the point?

[i]Every bit GG. We all want the same thing; to find Madeleine hopefully well and Ok. I personally, and most others, you too I expect, want to see the abductors behind bars and I desperately want to find the Head Honcho behind all these abductions in Portugal - so that it doesn't happen again; to any other child ; to any other family[/i]

As to facts, well I think I am quite informed about the maddy case I can see that you have read much about it and are well informed, but I wonder if you are relying on the falsehoods that were deliberately spread in the early days by Amaral and unhappily by the gutter press?[/i] [i]I wonder if you have taken on board the altered perception now that we have facts in the form of witness statements? and I can also think for myself. IF I am not happy with something then I say so. Me too, and IMO, that is a difficult thing to do, but necessary if we are to get anywhere with finding out what actually happened. You know, GG, like you I am a Midlander and I am forthright, but that doesn't always go down well with others, because I am often out of step. However, i think they are used to my blunt ways and now (hopefully) can see some merit in my persistence

We will agree to differ over Jane Tanners sighting. As to WEARING SUNGLASSES why would you at 9pm at night?[i] I dont think i mentioned wearing sunglasses after 9pm; I think you have misunderstood something there[/i] Oh well there are some funny folks about lOL. Errrm I am nearly 60 so yes I would know about lighting although I try to avoid it as it shows up to many flaws. Me too, I am over 70, so there are plenty of flaws!

The one sighting I actually do believe and think is significant is the Smiths sighting actually.

They pass a man walking down the middle of the street, carrying a child, with the head against his left shoulder and the arms hanging down alongside the body, in light colored or pink pyjamas, bare feet, pale skin typical of British and blond, shoulder-length hair; the girl is about 3-4 years old, about 1 meter tall.

The man is not dressed like a tourist; he's wearing cream or beige trousers, classic cut, of linen or cotton. He is white, 30-35 yrs, 1.70-1.80 meters tall, average build, physically fit, short, brown hair, with a face that looks tanned.



Two things this person is nothing like Jane Tanners sighting [i]Sorry, I disagree - see Tinks post; she covers this very well. The only real difference is the trouser colour, and cream/beige trousers would look a golden colour in sodium light[/i] and if we are to believe BOTH of them then neither are they Hewlett. [i] I think you probably are correct in that last bit.[/i]I think this guy was the abductor who moved Maddy under the tunnels to the church and then went to the beach and onto a boat. You could be right? - in fact I am getting another idea as i mull over this, partly from you and partly from my previous idea further up this post about the nannies apartment. prior to thinking that bundleman might have stopped off at the staff apartment block, I had thought 'no way' would he be going to the church, because he had taken a route that was too rounda bout; he would have gone more directly. now if he had stopped over at the nannies/staff apartments to make a desperate telephone call for instructions, it makes sense that he might have been told to go to the church and the tunnels, and if it is true that Madeleine had screamed, he would be pretty anxious to pass her on - pronto!

Eureeka! this is a Eureeka moment; this is the first time that i have satisfactorily managed to link bundlemans route with the tunnels. Well done GG, for bringing me to this point. Thank you for your help in making me think this out - your comments about the church, which I initially dismissed, suddenly fell into place with the new idea that bundleman might have stopped off at the nannies/staff apartments - brilliant GG

I accept that this might be incorrect but it must be considered, especially with that reported scream.

I believe Maddy went about 9.40. Here, I am sorry but I do not agree with you. there are two witnesses who have narrowed the time down to the 9.15 - 9.30 slot. I feel confident that the actual abduction took place at that time. Why would two people lie?[/i] Thats just what I believe I am just an armchair detective like most people as I am not privy to proof I just muse like others do.

[i]We are all in the same boat, GG, but the witness statements have honed our views - 6 months ago, we were all floundering, not knowing what to believe, but gradually with reference to the legal witness statements we have refined our perception of what happened. All of us are willing to be proved wrong, but the proof must be there to persuade us from whatb the witness statements imply

I cannot understand why the McCanns detectives havent used the smith sighting and issued an IDENTIFIT why not? Surely this guy is important.

The Smiths did not see his face - he turned his/her head away - so it would be another eggman of the same build and clothes description as JT's man. after all the eggman flak maybe they decided that there wasn't enough difference to bother?

Personally, I wouldnt say this man is nothing like JT's sighting at all. Sorry, like Tinks, i disagree: There are many similarities and hardly any differences - and they can be sensibly explained

They both said exactly the same about the age and build ie slim 35-40.

Smith said he was wearing cream/beige trousers.
Jane said he was wearing golden beige.

Jane said the child didnt have shoes on.
Mr. Smith couldn't remember but his family seem to think she wasn't.

Smith said the child was wearing light coloured pyjamas.
Jane said the child was wearing light coloured pyjamas perhaps pink or white.

With regards to the mans hair, Mr. Smith would have viewed the man from the front, where Jane viewed the man side on and from the back.

Mr. Smith said the hair was short, Jane said it was long at the neck. Seeing the hair from different angles they could both be right.

They both said he didnt look like a tourist.

I think there are many similarities.

clairesy wrote:it was me who mentioned sun glasses not sadie, i only mentioned them to point out that when you are looking through tinted lenses you can till tel what colour something is.Therefore just because the street lights are orange on the road where Jane seen a child being carried off doesn't mean she was suddenly made coloured blind.She is more than capable of distinguishing between whats red blue or beige etc because your brain/eyes compensates.I didn't mean jane was wearing shades at 9pm.lol

Unlike gonc!!! ive seen him walking about wearing shades in pictures loads of times...............he probably sleeps with them on to take the focus of the rest of him for his wife a bit....... haha poor thing someone wipe the sh/t of her eyes for godsake.