Conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room!

[kizzy]

I think it is perfectly possible if not probable that the intruder could have been female.

Shouldn't that be IYO, and not stating as fact.

No proof whatsoever that an intruder exists.

Obviously maddie is missing, but as yet no one knows what happened to her. IMO

there is no conclusion anyone had to have been in the room.

[Robittybob1]

Shouldn't that be IYO, and not stating as fact.

No proof whatsoever that an intruder exists.

Obviously maddie is missing, but as yet no one knows what happened to her. IMO

there is no conclusion anyone had to have been in the room.

In the OP I quote that conclusion by the 3 Tapas friends.  They concluded that someone had to have been in the room (apartment).
Whether that was justified is the debate.

[kizzy]

In the OP I quote that conclusion by the 3 Tapas friends.  They concluded that someone had to have been in the room (apartment).
Whether that was justified is the debate.

Yes i know, imo no one had been.

so what was the point of your post, was it because they said someone had, we have to take that as gospel.

[Carana]

Yes i know, imo no one had been.

so what was the point of your post, was it because they said someone had, we have to take that as gospel.

I thought we were discussing a hypothesis. Did I miss something?

[kizzy]

I thought we were discussing a hypothesis. Did I miss something?

How would i know, what you have missed.

[sadie]

So what was wrong with their reasoning.  I see what you mean now, if he was never there that is the ultimate reason they are wrong.  Then Tannerman becomes someone else carrying a child. That is what Jane wanted in the first place.

Can you please explain what you mean by "That is what Jane wanted in the first place" ?

I cant understand what you are saying.

[Robittybob1]

Can you please explain what you mean by "That is what Jane wanted in the first place" ?

I cant understand what you are saying.

IMO In the study of her statement she repeatedly expressed the wish that there would be an alternative explanation for her Tannerman sighting other than it being an abduction of Madeleine McCann.  Do you need the actual words she used?

She did not want Tannerman to be the abductor, she wanted another explanation.

Quote from JT rogatory: "And I think that’s all, you know, that’s sort of, erm, I think that’s where the sort of I thought ‘Oh’, and that was the only reason I really clocked it I think.  Because at that point I thought it’s a person taking their child either back from the crèche or, you know, just some father carrying their own child, so it didn’t really, you know, and that didn’t.  I’m making it sound like it really registered at the time, but it didn’t, that is literally, I thought ‘Oh’”."  there is an even plainer one than that.

"4078    “I know, yeah.  And also you said that, you know, your immediate assumption or not probably even thought about it that much at the time, but you thought he might have been carrying a child home from the crèche?”

Reply    “Yeah, well I think you did see people, I mean, not that late at night, and, again, that should have made me think more, but especially sort of, you know, earlier on you’d see them carrying children in pyjamas to the, the crèche where you can leave them at night and then pick them up again”.

 

4078    “Would that fit in with the direction he had come from?”

Reply    “Well, again, no.  Well, it would have been, I mean, at that time, you would of more expected him to be going the other way, coming back from the crèche maybe.  But he could have gone, if he’d have gone that way and then cut down, there is a way you could have cut down to the crèche, going that way, so”."  She even makes up excuses about the wrong direction!

[sadie]

IMO In the study of her statement she repeatedly expressed the wish that there would be an alternative explanation for her Tannerman sighting other than it being an abduction of Madeleine McCann.  Do you need the actual words she used?

She did not want Tannerman to be the abductor, she wanted another explanation.

Quote from JT rogatory: "And I think that’s all, you know, that’s sort of, erm, I think that’s where the sort of I thought ‘Oh’, and that was the only reason I really clocked it I think.  Because at that point I thought it’s a person taking their child either back from the crèche or, you know, just some father carrying their own child, so it didn’t really, you know, and that didn’t.  I’m making it sound like it really registered at the time, but it didn’t, that is literally, I thought ‘Oh’”."  there is an even plainer one than that.

"4078    “I know, yeah.  And also you said that, you know, your immediate assumption or not probably even thought about it that much at the time, but you thought he might have been carrying a child home from the crèche?”

Reply    “Yeah, well I think you did see people, I mean, not that late at night, and, again, that should have made me think more, but especially sort of, you know, earlier on you’d see them carrying children in pyjamas to the, the crèche where you can leave them at night and then pick them up again”.

 

4078    “Would that fit in with the direction he had come from?”

Reply    “Well, again, no.  Well, it would have been, I mean, at that time, you would of more expected him to be going the other way, coming back from the crèche maybe.  But he could have gone, if he’d have gone that way and then cut down, there is a way you could have cut down to the crèche, going that way, so”."  She even makes up excuses about the wrong direction!

Thank you Rob 

The way it was worded sounded a bit odd, that is why I asked.

[Robittybob1]

Thank you Rob 

The way it was worded sounded a bit odd, that is why I asked.

There is another rave by Jane on the same topic that is even more emphatic. 
Here it is: 
"Reply    “But, you know, it’s just the frustration of not being believed on this, it’s”.

 

4078    “Yeah (inaudible)”.

Reply    “No, but the best thing that could happen to me, apart from Madeleine being found, is somebody coming up and saying ‘That was me’, you know, ‘That was me walking across there’, because, you know, you know, I don’t want that to be Madeleine, but, you know, there’s no, but I’m convinced that was and, you know, people have got to, so I don’t know what I can do to make them believe that.  I’m sorry”.

 

4078    “Don’t worry.  Take a moment”.

[pathfinder73]

She didn't think that was Madeleine until she disappeared. A lot of them have a lot to answer for as the following link proves:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/POWERPOINT.htm

[Robittybob1]

She didn't think that was Madeleine until she disappeared. A lot of them a lot to answer for as the following link proves:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/POWERPOINT.htm

IMO It was ridiculous that Jane could say with 80% certainty that this picture was the man she saw, when she had never seen his face. 

[sadie]

IMO It was ridiculous that Jane could say with 80% certainty that this picture was the man she saw, when she had never seen his face.

80% does seem rather high, but a side view with shadows gives a lot of clues as to the full face appearance .... and then there is the hair and the way that the head fits into the shoulders. 

All sorts of clues help.  Maybe Tannerman was long slim faced like this man and she thought that she caught a glimpse of a moustache  .... we just dont know, do we ?



When urged to identify him, Jane was honest that she hadn't seen Murat.

That is not compatible with being dishonest about this man IMO

[Benice]

IMO It was ridiculous that Jane could say with 80% certainty that this picture was the man she saw, when she had never seen his face.

The text says..... ''After seeing the sketches''.....  not just the one sketch.  As she never claimed to have seen the man's full face -  then common sense alone dictates that it was the full length sketches of the man, drawn by the same artist, that JT was referring to.    IMO

[faithlilly]

The text says..... ''After seeing the sketches''.....  not just the one sketch.  As she never claimed to have seen the man's full face -  then common sense alone dictates that it was the full length sketches of the man, drawn by the same artist, that JT was referring to.    IMO

So by his posture Tanner could tell that Gail Cooper's efit was more than likely the man she saw yet Martin Smith, when using the same form of identification is derided for it. Have I got that right ?

[Carana]

So by his posture Tanner could tell that Gail Cooper's efit was more than likely the man she saw yet Martin Smith, when using the same form of identification is derided for it. Have I got that right ?

Where did Jane state that? I can't find it for the moment.

I do remember her saying that she thought it could be cooperman (or more or less agreed or however she put it) based on the hair.