« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: Conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room!  (Read 25906 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room!
« Reply #135 on: January 20, 2018, 02:35:40 PM »
Quote from: Carana on January 20, 2018, 02:26:17 PM
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.

Jane didn't say it, Benice suggested it.

As to Jane recognising the hair, do you have a cite ?
Logged
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Carana

Re: Conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room!
« Reply #136 on: January 20, 2018, 03:12:36 PM »
Quote from: Faithlilly on January 20, 2018, 02:35:40 PM
Jane didn't say it, Benice suggested it.

As to Jane recognising the hair, do you have a cite ?

I'm looking. I thought it might have been in her rog, but I can't find it in there for the moment. I'll have another look a bit later in case I skipped it.

I don't think it was on TV.
Logged

Offline Admin

Re: Conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room!
« Reply #137 on: January 20, 2018, 03:37:31 PM »
Yesterdays warnings as to inappropriate posting appears to have been lost on some members so I have instructed moderators to apply maximum sanctions against any member who continues to flaunt the forum rules. There will be no appeal against these sanctions.  In the worst cases the appropriate account will be deleted permanently.

No further warning will be given!

Admin
Logged

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room!
« Reply #138 on: January 20, 2018, 05:15:29 PM »
Quote from: kizzy on January 19, 2018, 05:47:37 PM
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.
Kizzy I am wanting you to detail your reasons for your opinion as you state " imo no one had been".
Why are you of this opinion what are your reasons?
Logged
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Benice

Re: Conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room!
« Reply #139 on: January 20, 2018, 05:16:38 PM »
Quote from: Faithlilly on January 20, 2018, 02:06:43 PM
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 ?

 IMO JT's comment referred to the full length sketch of the man which was made by the artist using JT's description.      IMO it wouldn't make sense for JT to make such a comment about a sketch of a full face made by the same artist but at another persons direction - as she never saw the man's face.

I don't recall anyone deriding Martin Smith.  IMO when he saw Gerry carrying Sean down the steps - the way Gerry was carrying his sleeping son reminded him of the man he saw in Pdl who was carrying a child in the same way - which led him to wonder if they could be one and the same man.     But it wasn't Gerry's face that reminded him - it was purely the way he was carrying his sleeping son.   IMO if Gerry had been carrying a wide awake Sean in a different position, Martin Smith would not have made the same connection.

 I can't see any similarities between that sudden 'revelation' by Martin Smith and JT studying sketches drawn by an artist and assessing how close they were to the picture she had of him in her own mind.     Two completely different scenarios IMO.

AIMHO

     

 
Logged
The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room!
« Reply #140 on: January 20, 2018, 05:22:36 PM »
Quote from: Benice on January 20, 2018, 01:51:49 PM
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
What is she comparing?  Their clothing or something?  If two people are 100% identical in their clothing are they the same person?  Different heights (5`7`` as opposed to 6` 2``, different facial hair (may be able to see that from the side).
Logged
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room!
« Reply #141 on: January 20, 2018, 06:52:04 PM »
Quote from: Benice on January 20, 2018, 05:16:38 PM
IMO JT's comment referred to the full length sketch of the man which was made by the artist using JT's description.      IMO it wouldn't make sense for JT to make such a comment about a sketch of a full face made by the same artist but at another persons direction - as she never saw the man's face.

I don't recall anyone deriding Martin Smith.  IMO when he saw Gerry carrying Sean down the steps - the way Gerry was carrying his sleeping son reminded him of the man he saw in Pdl who was carrying a child in the same way - which led him to wonder if they could be one and the same man.     But it wasn't Gerry's face that reminded him - it was purely the way he was carrying his sleeping son.   IMO if Gerry had been carrying a wide awake Sean in a different position, Martin Smith would not have made the same connection.

 I can't see any similarities between that sudden 'revelation' by Martin Smith and JT studying sketches drawn by an artist and assessing how close they were to the picture she had of him in her own mind.     Two completely different scenarios IMO.

AIMHO

   
r

Time and time again you have to use your own opinion based on absolutely no evidence to explain away an anomaly within the McCann narrative. Doesn't that ever give you pause for thought ? ( genuine question )
Logged
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline jassi

Re: Conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room!
« Reply #142 on: January 20, 2018, 07:06:56 PM »
Quote from: Faithlilly on January 20, 2018, 06:52:04 PM
r

Time and time again you have to use your own opinion based on absolutely no evidence to explain away an anomaly within the McCann narrative. Doesn't that ever give you pause for thought ? ( genuine question )

 8((()*/
Logged
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: Conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room!
« Reply #143 on: January 20, 2018, 07:26:07 PM »
Quote from: Faithlilly on January 20, 2018, 02:06:43 PM
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 ?

Yeah that sounds about right...heehee.  JT can't recall facial features or details of jammies, when first asked what she saw.... then after speaking to other people it is a miracle! she recalls his face AND claims the jammies were identical to what Maddie was wearing.   

OMG.. Pleeeeeeeez
Logged
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room!
« Reply #144 on: January 20, 2018, 07:29:02 PM »
Quote from: Benice on January 20, 2018, 05:16:38 PM
IMO JT's comment referred to the full length sketch of the man which was made by the artist using JT's description.      IMO it wouldn't make sense for JT to make such a comment about a sketch of a full face made by the same artist but at another persons direction - as she never saw the man's face.

I don't recall anyone deriding Martin Smith.  IMO when he saw Gerry carrying Sean down the steps - the way Gerry was carrying his sleeping son reminded him of the man he saw in Pdl who was carrying a child in the same way - which led him to wonder if they could be one and the same man.     But it wasn't Gerry's face that reminded him - it was purely the way he was carrying his sleeping son.   IMO if Gerry had been carrying a wide awake Sean in a different position, Martin Smith would not have made the same connection.

 I can't see any similarities between that sudden 'revelation' by Martin Smith and JT studying sketches drawn by an artist and assessing how close they were to the picture she had of him in her own mind.     Two completely different scenarios IMO.

AIMHO

   

"He has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 pm news on BBC and saw the McCANNS getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing. He also watched ITV news and SKY news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children. He was with a group of 9 family and friends the night he saw the male in Portugal. He sounded quite shaken and worried whilst speaking to me." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Logged
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline Admin

Re: Conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room!
« Reply #145 on: January 20, 2018, 07:39:48 PM »
Quote from: Miss Taken Identity on January 20, 2018, 07:26:07 PM
Yeah that sounds about right...heehee.  JT can't recall facial features or details of jammies, when first asked what she saw.... then after speaking to other people it is a miracle! she recalls his face AND claims the jammies were identical to what Maddie was wearing.   

OMG.. Pleeeeeeeez

This usually happens with the passage of time and professional police officers are well aware of it. Research has shown that it is relatively easy to introduce false memory. Media coverage or written recollections by other witnesses - if reviewed by a witness - could suggest "facts" to the witness. Witnesses will often discuss the occurrence amongst themselves and false memories can result. The most reliable statements are those taken almost immediately following any incident, statements taken months after an event are usually less reliable and open to question.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 07:46:13 PM by Admin »
Logged

Offline Brietta

Re: Conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room!
« Reply #146 on: January 20, 2018, 07:43:39 PM »
Quote from: pathfinder73 on January 20, 2018, 07:29:02 PM
"He has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 pm news on BBC and saw the McCANNS getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing. He also watched ITV news and SKY news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children. He was with a group of 9 family and friends the night he saw the male in Portugal. He sounded quite shaken and worried whilst speaking to me." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

Richard McKluskey's amended statement
I've agonised for days over whether or not to contact the police about this because it is a terrible thing to accuse somebody of. It had just not crossed my mind that the child?s parents could in some way be involved in her disappearance.

I have watched a good deal of news coverage about the McCanns over the past week or so. Another thing which has played on my mind is the coverage of Mr McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van in Portugal.

Although I could not describe the male I'd seen in Portugal because he had his back to me, it was the particular way Mr. McCann held the child that made me think. He held the child over his left shoulder with his left arm supporting the child?s weight.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RI_Mc.htm
« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 10:59:40 PM by Brietta »
Logged
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room!
« Reply #147 on: January 20, 2018, 07:48:02 PM »
SY find the Smiths credible. I haven't heard what they think about McCluskey witnessing a sighting two days after Madeleine disappeared. The Smiths sighting was when Madeleine disappeared near to the McCanns apartment.
Logged
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline Brietta

Re: Conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room!
« Reply #148 on: January 20, 2018, 08:06:36 PM »
Quote from: pathfinder73 on January 20, 2018, 07:48:02 PM
SY find the Smiths credible. I haven't heard what they think about McCluskey witnessing a sighting two days after Madeleine disappeared. The Smiths sighting was when Madeleine disappeared near to the McCanns apartment.

Mr and Mrs McKluskey do not deserve the contempt with which you are treating what was their report of a perfectly pertinent suspicious event in relation to a missing child case.
Or is it your contention that it is helpful to a police investigation for witnesses to ignore something which they have seen and found suspicious?

Mr and Mrs McKluskey reported what they saw immediately ... despite there being some difficulty for them to do so.

It was thirteen days before the Smith sighting was reported to the police.
Logged
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline faithlilly

Re: Conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room!
« Reply #149 on: January 21, 2018, 12:18:06 AM »
Quote from: Brietta on January 20, 2018, 08:06:36 PM
Mr and Mrs McKluskey do not deserve the contempt with which you are treating what was their report of a perfectly pertinent suspicious event in relation to a missing child case.
Or is it your contention that it is helpful to a police investigation for witnesses to ignore something which they have seen and found suspicious?

Mr and Mrs McKluskey reported what they saw immediately ... despite there being some difficulty for them to do so.

It was thirteen days before the Smith sighting was reported to the police.

And ?
Logged
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 15   Go Up
« previous next »