'Is ' Madeliene is still alive and is living with a 'woman' ?

[misty]

Thanks once again.  I owe you a few favours now don't I.    Can you really determine colour from the CCTV image?

You're welcome, Rob & don't owe me anything.
The image I've linked to has colour on my computer - you can see orange on the back of some chairs & blue sea in the background. JT's top looks light purple/lilac to me.

[Miss Taken Identity]

It's an intriguing question, would Madeleine remember who she really is?

I think John has pretty much covered this for me, it's likely she does have some memory of her family and events that happened, memorable ones for example, a birthday or a day out. As time goes on though those memories will disappear to be replaced with the ones more recent.

Question I also think is important to consider is, if Madeleine does have some recall of her proper life and family, how would she reconcile the two completely differing memories if she didn't realise she had been abducted?

I wrote this as  it has been suggested  as a possible scenario for an alleged abduction. Having been suggested that Maddie could be living in 'plain sight' by one of the many' crawling out of the woodwork police officers to coincide with 10th anniversary'.  I would find it very difficult to believe that no neighbours or other people in LUZ or anywhere else in the world found it strange that a couple who were childless brought a child home with a mark in her eye, who knew her name to be Madeleine and had a family? I would suggest that this is in the realms of fantasy land, also Kate told us that Maddie would give her 'tuppence worth' i.e. she was very well aware of her surroundings, her life and was very astute/ clever. So this is a story to remove the stigma that it was nice people and not nasty paedophiles who  allegedly abducted Maddie In my opinion.

[Lace]

I wrote this as  it has been suggested  as a possible scenario for an alleged abduction. Having been suggested that Maddie could be living in 'plain sight' by one of the many' crawling out of the woodwork police officers to coincide with 10th anniversary'.  I would find it very difficult to believe that no neighbours or other people in LUZ or anywhere else in the world found it strange that a couple who were childless brought a child home with a mark in her eye, who knew her name to be Madeleine and had a family? I would suggest that this is in the realms of fantasy land, also Kate told us that Maddie would give her 'tuppence worth' i.e. she was very well aware of her surroundings, her life and was very astute/ clever. So this is a story to remove the stigma that it was nice people and not nasty paedophiles who  allegedly abducted Maddie In my opinion.

Stephen Stayner a child abducted at seven was living in plain sight,   the man dyed his hair and changed his name.

The mark in Madeleine's eye the McCann's say can be seen up close.  Could be she is being kept in a remote area.  There are probably areas that don't follow the Madeleine case as we do.

[Alfie]

Stephen Stayner a child abducted at seven was living in plain sight,   the man dyed his hair and changed his name.

The mark in Madeleine's eye the McCann's say can be seen up close.  Could be she is being kept in a remote area.  There are probably areas that don't follow the Madeleine case as we do.

I would think the vast majority of people on this planet have never heard of Madeleine McCann.

[John]

I wrote this as  it has been suggested  as a possible scenario for an alleged abduction. Having been suggested that Maddie could be living in 'plain sight' by one of the many' crawling out of the woodwork police officers to coincide with 10th anniversary'.  I would find it very difficult to believe that no neighbours or other people in LUZ or anywhere else in the world found it strange that a couple who were childless brought a child home with a mark in her eye, who knew her name to be Madeleine and had a family? I would suggest that this is in the realms of fantasy land, also Kate told us that Maddie would give her 'tuppence worth' i.e. she was very well aware of her surroundings, her life and was very astute/ clever. So this is a story to remove the stigma that it was nice people and not nasty paedophiles who  allegedly abducted Maddie In my opinion.

I don't believe such a situation could exist where she might live a normal life in the public eye [sorry about the pun].  She could be held just about anywhere though, out of sight and away from anyone who might just recognise her. 

More recently, events in the US and in Germany have shown us that abducted young females can be kept hidden away for years very easily and survive to tell their tale given the right conditions.

[Miss Taken Identity]

I don't believe such a situation could exist where she might live a normal life in the public eye [sorry about the pun].  She could be held just about anywhere though, out of sight and away from anyone who might just recognise her. 

More recently, events in the US and in Germany have shown us that abducted young females can be kept hidden away for years very easily and survive to tell their tale given the right conditions.

Yes I agree wholeheartedly John, however we are led to accept that Maddie came to no harm, and that it was a loving childless couple who allegedly 'abducted' her. My point is: someone would wonder if a childless couple just turned up with a child, and furthermore, if there was  an alledged'abductor', why did they not take one of the twins they would have no memory at all.

[Robittybob1]

How can you swoop on to someone unless you know who they are?
"Madeleine McCann: the woman in purple and plum
by Anorak | 2nd, May 2017
   
Only one front page features Madeleine McCann today: the Daily Star leads with “Hunt for woman in purple”.

News is that a”mystery woman in purple was spotted where she vanished 10 years ago”. On Page 6, there’s more. Indeed, Police are “SET TO ‘SWOOP'” on the “prime suspect in Madeleine McCann’s disappearance”.

What do we know of this mysterious woman? Only that she was seen “lurking outside” the McCanns’ holiday apartment 90 minutes before we know the child vanished. Two “witnesses saw her staring at the holiday flat”. Scotland year “believe” they know the woman’s identity. She “could have been involved in the youngster’s disappearance”.

Daily Mirror (Page 5: “A ‘woman in purple’ now Maddie cops’ No1 suspect.”

Big news, then. But the paper says the woman is someone British police are “thought to be searching for”. We hear from Jenni Murat, “whose son Robert Murat was the first arguido… but was formerly cleared  of suspicion in 2008”. She’s quoted: “I saw the woman standing on the corner of the street… She caught my eye as she was dressed in purple-plum clothes. It struck me as strange. It’s so unusual for anyone, particularly a woman, to be standing alone on the street in our resort, just watching a building.”

You can read more about how innocent Mr Murat was brought to the police’s attention here. Indeed, the Express mentions it online:

At the time he was living with his elderly mother, Jenny, at their villa, Casa Liliana, only a couple of hundred yards from apartment 5a. In one of the greatest blunders of the case, police arrested him after hearing vague suspicions from a British journalist who was nowhere near Luz at the time Madeleine vanished.

That British journalist worked for the Daily Mirror.

The Mirror quotes a “police insider” who says the woman is not currently resident in Portugal. Police are “ready to move in and arrest the mystery woman”.  It is a “hugely significant line of inquiry”.

No other newspaper features the news in it print editions.

Is that because it’s not new news?

In 2015, the Daily Express reported:

Jenny Murat, 78, the mother of wrongly accused Robert Murat, has potentially breakthrough evidence but no one has spoken to her. At 8pm on May 3, 2007, she went to a supermarket and then drove past Apartment 5a and saw a woman hanging around. Her notes from the time say: “There was a woman standing on the corner under a lamp post.

“I don’t remember much of her other than she was of slight build and was wearing a plum coloured jacket. She moved around the lamp post as if trying not to be noticed.”

As she turned into the driveway of her home, Casa Liliana, she was nearly hit by a car going the wrong way. “When I stopped to open the gates I could not see the car but the woman was in the road looking in my direction.”

http://www.anorak.co.uk/439414/tabloids/madeleine-mccann-the-woman-in-purple-and-plum.html/

[pathfinder73]

I don't think they're going to swoop on Jane Tanner do you? She was the woman in purple outside the apartments according to Jez Wilkins.

[Eleanor]

I don't think they're going to swoop on Jane Tanner do you? She was the woman in purple outside the apartments according to Jez Wilkins.

But only in your opinion.  Beware of stating Opinion as Fact.  S'il vous plait.

[Robittybob1]

Yes I agree wholeheartedly John, however we are led to accept that Maddie came to no harm, and that it was a loving childless couple who allegedly 'abducted' her. My point is: someone would wonder if a childless couple just turned up with a child, and furthermore, if there was  an alledged'abductor', why did they not take one of the twins they would have no memory at all.

I think this is the reason I go more for the replacement child.  In my theory Madeleine replaces a child they lost and gives her a home where she is cared for etc. to justify the action.

[Eleanor]

I think this is the reason I go more for the replacement child.  In my theory Madeleine replaces a child they lost and gives her a home where she is cared for etc. to justify the action.

Whatever the reason, there will always be the possibility that Madeleine was abducted for a family.  And I'm not going down any other road.

That's just me.  But do feel free to prove me wrong.

[pathfinder73]

But only in your opinion.  Beware of stating Opinion as Fact.  S'il vous plait.

Not my opinion. Fact from a witness Jez Wilkins who named Jane Tanner standing outside the apartments - same thing Jenny Murat saw. Both saw purple.

[Eleanor]

Not my opinion. Fact from a witness Jez Wilkins who named Jane Tanner standing outside the apartments - same thing Jenny Murat saw. Both saw purple.

Don't try me, Pathfinder.  I don't actually want to delete your posts.  But I will if I must.

[Miss Taken Identity]

There is nothing wrong with Pathys posts.  I do not agree that a loving family stole Maddie. I believe this is a cover clinical clean scenario  to hide  a real serious crime. IMO

[Robittybob1]

Not my opinion. Fact from a witness Jez Wilkins who named Jane Tanner standing outside the apartments - same thing Jenny Murat saw. Both saw purple.

One had a plum top and the other a plum jacket.  Jane is a big framed person whereas Jenny Murat describes the woman she saw as slim (from memory and Jane would not be called slim.)