Is Goncalo Amaral more respected than what some seem to think on this forum.

[Venturi Swirl]

Yet Redwood clearly says on tape the child being carried by Smithman matched a description to that of Madeleine , Tannermans child obviously didnt.

In what ways did Tannerman’s child not match Madeleine?  Please list the myriad points of difference below.

[Brietta]

In what ways did Tannerman’s child not match Madeleine?  Please list the myriad points of difference below.

Quite obviously the Smith's didn't immediately see the resemblance some members do.  It took Peter thirteen days to wonder if he had dreamt the encounter and having to remind everyone else about it.

[G-Unit]

In what ways did Tannerman’s child not match Madeleine?  Please list the myriad points of difference below.

If the child was a Totman it was either a 2 year old girl or a 3 year old boy. The girl was in Toddler 2 creche with the McCann twins and the boy was in the Lobster minis with Madeleine.

Either way, with just a pair of legs and feet, the child being carried could have differed in age, sex, height, hair colour and length.

The child seen by the Smiths was identified as a girl, aged about 4 years, with shoulder length blond hair. 

[Venturi Swirl]

If the child was a Totman it was either a 2 year old girl or a 3 year old boy. The girl was in Toddler 2 creche with the McCann twins and the boy was in the Lobster minis with Madeleine.

Either way, with just a pair of legs and feet, the child being carried could have differed in age, sex, height, hair colour and length.

The child seen by the Smiths was identified as a girl, aged about 4 years, with shoulder length blond hair.

Accordng to the actual witness who saw the child and who knew Madeleine personally  she felt there was a strong possibility the child was indeed Madeleine, that’s a fact.

[Mr Gray]

If the child was a Totman it was either a 2 year old girl or a 3 year old boy. The girl was in Toddler 2 creche with the McCann twins and the boy was in the Lobster minis with Madeleine.

Either way, with just a pair of legs and feet, the child being carried could have differed in age, sex, height, hair colour and length.

The child seen by the Smiths was identified as a girl, aged about 4 years, with shoulder length blond hair.

Wasnt it said the creche was ful of little blonde girls

[Brietta]

If the child was a Totman it was either a 2 year old girl or a 3 year old boy. The girl was in Toddler 2 creche with the McCann twins and the boy was in the Lobster minis with Madeleine.

Either way, with just a pair of legs and feet, the child being carried could have differed in age, sex, height, hair colour and length.

The child seen by the Smiths was identified as a girl, aged about 4 years, with shoulder length blond hair.

I agree ~ the important point is that around the time it is estimated a child was being abducted a child was seen being carried off from the closest proximity to the scene of the crime.

Until that person carrying the child either comes forward to be identified or is found, this is obviously the closest candidate to have been Madeleine being carried off the scene by an abductor.

[G-Unit]

Accordng to the actual witness who saw the child and who knew Madeleine personally  she felt there was a strong possibility the child was indeed Madeleine, that’s a fact.

Are you saying she knew Madeleine so well that she was able to recognise her legs? We know that's not so, because her only thought at the time was that the child might be cold as it lacked a blanket. She didn't think 'what's that man doing carrying Madeleine's legs', did she? Jane saw a man with a child, then was told a child had been abducted. She then assumed a connection.

[G-Unit]

I agree ~ the important point is that around the time it is estimated a child was being abducted a child was seen being carried off from the closest proximity to the scene of the crime.

Until that person carrying the child either comes forward to be identified or is found, this is obviously the closest candidate to have been Madeleine being carried off the scene by an abductor.

The time estimated by her parents and their friends, you mean? The time estimated by Operation Grange differed. Events moved on and the 'abduction' time changed.

[Venturi Swirl]

Are you saying she knew Madeleine so well that she was able to recognise her legs? We know that's not so, because her only thought at the time was that the child might be cold as it lacked a blanket. She didn't think 'what's that man doing carrying Madeleine's legs', did she? Jane saw a man with a child, then was told a child had been abducted. She then assumed a connection.

I'm saying exactly what I'm saying - that she felt there was a strong possibility that the child she saw was Madeleine - if you can provide a cite where she says she doubts (based on the appearance of the legs) that it was Madeleine feel free to cite it. 

[G-Unit]

I'm saying exactly what I'm saying - that she felt there was a strong possibility that the child she saw was Madeleine - if you can provide a cite where she says she doubts (based on the appearance of the legs) that it was Madeleine feel free to cite it.

Only in hindsight did she develop that 'feeling', at the time she didn't recognise the child. 

[Brietta]

The time estimated by her parents and their friends, you mean? The time estimated by Operation Grange differed. Events moved on and the 'abduction' time changed.

You've got yourself somewhat tied into this notion that the exact time is imperative.  The really, really important issue is that a little girl went missing.  That is the fact of the matter.

And if it is your supposition that Scotland Yard have told us every detail of their investigation I think you may very well be up a gum tree.

[Venturi Swirl]

Only in hindsight did she develop that 'feeling', at the time she didn't recognise the child.

Well obviously not, otherwise one would have to ask why she didn't tell the parents she'd just seen their child carried away by a stranger.  But do you understand why in retrospect she thought the child was quite possibly Madeleine?  It's because of the points of similarity wrt to the child, not because of any points of difference (none were discernible as far as she reported). 

[Brietta]

Only in hindsight did she develop that 'feeling', at the time she didn't recognise the child.

I believe from the instant she heard that Madeleine had disappeared she knew exactly what she had witnessed.

[G-Unit]

Well obviously not, otherwise one would have to ask why she didn't tell the parents she'd just seen their child carried away by a stranger.  But do you understand why in retrospect she thought the child was quite possibly Madeleine?  It's because of the points of similarity wrt to the child, not because of any points of difference (none were discernible as far as she reported).

So it only became Madeleine because she was reported as missing. Had a different child been reported as missing from that area, Jane would have assumed it was that child imo.

[Venturi Swirl]

So it only became Madeleine because she was reported as missing. Had a different child been reported as missing from that area, Jane would have assumed it was that child imo.

What, even if it was a 10 year old boy?  Don't be silly.