The reports of a man seen walking with a child in his arms

[John]

I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.

I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?

Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?

Great post Sika      

[faithlilly]

Lest we forget that the street lighting at the time in Luz was very poor.

I reckon an experienced investigator would have taken that into account when evaluating the validity of any witness statement pertaining to that night.

Perhaps that explains why the PJ gave very little credence to Tanner's sighting.

EIther that or it did not fit their prejudices

Prejudices ? These were the first officers on the scene.

[registrar]

Lest we forget that the street lighting at the time in Luz was very poor.

I reckon an experienced investigator would have taken that into account when evaluating the validity of any witness statement pertaining to that night.

Perhaps that explains why the PJ gave very little credence to Tanner's sighting.

EIther that or it did not fit their prejudices

Prejudices ? These were the first officers on the scene.

Yes they were - but you are aware these were GNR officers (no disrespect to them) - when mentioning experienced
investigators - I was referring to Mr. Amaral - who could not get his backside out of bed that night. 

 

[stephen25000]

I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.

I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?

Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?

They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.

Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.

Placing socializing over their children's' safety.

[registrar]

I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.

I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?

Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?

They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.

Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.

Placing socializing over their children's' safety.

Ah ok - so I must assume this is the motivational factor for your posts - and I applaud you for posting them:

Lambasting the McCanns and their friends for not ensuring the TOTAL  and ABSOLUTE safety of their kids 24/7

They have shown total remorse for leaving the kids unattended for periods of time - Kate's mum had a right
go at them for it - and publically.

What do you want blood/a pound of flesh? Would that make you feel better?

I just wish I was as infallible as you

 

[sika]

I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.

I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?

Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?

They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.

Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.

Placing socializing over their children's' safety.

Really?
Even if I were to concede that one member of that group was having those thoughts. There is no way that it is even conceivable, that all of them were.
Where has this ever happened before?

[registrar]

I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.

I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?

Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?

They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.

Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.

Placing socializing over their children's' safety.

Really?
Even if I were to concede that one member of that group was having those thoughts. There is no way that it is even conceivable, that all of them were.
Where has this ever happened before?

quite - and Diane Webster - she is/was a credit controller - no repercussions to fear from the GMC - but risking her freedom for a convoluted 'scheme'?

No, can't see that at all

[Eleanor]

None of them have ever denied their child care arrangements, so hardly cause for a cover up since they didn't cover it up.

[gilet]

None of them have ever denied their child care arrangements, so hardly cause for a cover up since they didn't cover it up.

Quite, the idea that the child care is a motive for a cover up is totally mad as they have never even made the slightest effort to cover up those arrangements.

Perhaps Stephen might care to think that through again?

[John]

Have you considered the possibility that some of the Mccanns associates did indeed collude to cover up what really happened to Madeleine ?

I remember the meeting they had in a Rothley Hotel after their return to the UK to 'discuss' the case.

Tanner's sighting is unproven and lacks any backing.

It was getting dark with minimum street lighting, and we have seen the 'image' produced from the so called sighting.

It could well be the case that no one has come forward because there was no sighting in the first place.

Mr. Smith believes it was probably G.Mccann.  So why would Mr. Smith lie  ?

He is simply mistaken.

[John]

I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.

I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?

Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?

They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.

Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.

Placing socializing over their children's' safety.

Suggesting that the tapas group of diners were complicit in an alleged cover-up is one thing but then you would have to include the tapas bar staff and potentially others as well.  Most unlikely and highly improbable in my opinion.

[gilet]

I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.

I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?

Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?

They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.

Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.

Placing socializing over their children's' safety.

Suggesting that the tapas group of diners were complicit in an alleged cover-up is one thing but then you would have to include the tapas bar staff and potentially others as well.  Most unlikely and highly improbable in my opinion.

Exactly. It was not just the Tapas group who confirmed that Gerry McCann was in the bar, it was the staff as well. And the PJ under Amaral were quite clear that Mr Smith could not have seen Gerry McCann.

[John]

I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.

I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?

Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?

They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.

Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.

Placing socializing over their children's' safety.

Really?
Even if I were to concede that one member of that group was having those thoughts. There is no way that it is even conceivable, that all of them were.
Where has this ever happened before?

Spot on Sika   

Getting an entire group to agree to concoct such a serious lie and then to stick to it would have been a recipe for disaster never mind the tapas staff...were they to be in on it too?   Quite ridiculous.

Sometime I wonder if people actually read what they write? 

[sika]

I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.

I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?

Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?

They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.

Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.

Placing socializing over their children's' safety.

Really?
Even if I were to concede that one member of that group was having those thoughts. There is no way that it is even conceivable, that all of them were.
Where has this ever happened before?

Spot on Sika   

Getting an entire group to agree to concoct such a serious lie and then to stick to it would have been a recipe for disaster never mind the tapas staff...were they to be in on it too?   Quite ridiculous.

Sometime I wonder if people actually read what they write? 

I know John, I have to keep checking that I'm not actually on the Blue Forum!

[gilet]

I believe that Mr Smith, did indeed think that he may have seen Gerry with Maddie. He is no where near 100% sure that he did however.
I believe that Mrs Tanners later recollection of her sighting, is as unreliable as Mr Smiths.

I can't believe for one second, that all those individuals colluded in order to conceal her death. Why would they?

Because they were all 'guilty' of leaving their children unattended?

They had more than a vested interest in covering up any accident to Madeleine, it's called self-preservation.

Since most of them did exactly the same as the Mccanns, i.e. leave the children by themselves whilst drinking and eating. They would have the potential loss of their careers if a death occurred, due to the CRB check, which would have prohibited them from working with children or vulnerable adults, not even counting the repercussions from doing what they did.

Placing socializing over their children's' safety.

Really?
Even if I were to concede that one member of that group was having those thoughts. There is no way that it is even conceivable, that all of them were.
Where has this ever happened before?

Spot on Sika   

Getting an entire group to agree to concoct such a serious lie and then to stick to it would have been a recipe for disaster never mind the tapas staff...were they to be in on it too?   Quite ridiculous.

Sometime I wonder if people actually read what they write? 

It is quite clear to me that some people do not read either what they write or what others write. They have a fixed view and nothing will get in the way of that, not even reality or common sense.