A CHILD BEING CARRIED.

[stephen25000]

''Jeremy explained that he used the crèche facility provided by the resort. This was a child care facility which allowed parents to leave their children, aged between 3 - 5 yrs old, with trained staff at various times of the day. He recalled walking to the crèche with Gerry who had left Madeleine with the staff. This was about 1230 hrs on Tues 1 May. He then went on to explain that the children could be left with the staff during the evening and that most would be picked up before 10pm. It was not an unusual sight to see people walking through the site at night with a child in their arms asleep. The crèche would also provide a blanket to cover the child if required. He had taken up this facility hence his knowledge of the procedure.''

From Jeremy Wilkins' statement.

''It was not an unusual sight to see people walking through the site at night with a child in their arms asleep.''

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well,well.

[Lace]

So all we need to do is check the crèche records Stephen.

[Benice]

''Jeremy explained that he used the crèche facility provided by the resort. This was a child care facility which allowed parents to leave their children, aged between 3 - 5 yrs old, with trained staff at various times of the day. He recalled walking to the crèche with Gerry who had left Madeleine with the staff. This was about 1230 hrs on Tues 1 May. He then went on to explain that the children could be left with the staff during the evening and that most would be picked up before 10pm. It was not an unusual sight to see people walking through the site at night with a child in their arms asleep. The crèche would also provide a blanket to cover the child if required. He had taken up this facility hence his knowledge of the procedure.''

From Jeremy Wilkins' statement.

''It was not an unusual sight to see people walking through the site at night with a child in their arms asleep.''

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well,well.

A simple check of the Creche records would show who used it that night and at what time they collected their child.   Obviously nothing tallied with the sightings.

[stephen25000]

A simple check of the Creche records would show who used it that night and at what time they collected their child.   Obviously nothing tallied with the sightings.

How many other people were in PDL at the time and were not using the creche. Any ideas ?

Also, as stated today and before, seeing a child being carried does not mean abdcution.

[Benice]

How many other people were in PDL at the time and were not using the creche. Any ideas ?

Also, as stated today and before, seeing a child being carried does not mean abdcution.

From the quote you provided from Jeremy Wilkins:-

It was not an unusual sight to see people walking through the site at night with a child in their arms asleep.
Unquote

He was not referring to the whole of PdL.   

 I see you don't want to acknowledge that creche records would reveal all the people who collected their children from there that night.     

You also seem to think that it is impossible for an abducted child to be carried off by her abductor.  Care to explain the reasoning behind that Stephen?

[icabodcrane]

How many other people were in PDL at the time and were not using the creche. Any ideas ?

Also, as stated today and before, seeing a child being carried does not mean abdcution.

Well of course not

Two men were seen carrying a child that night  (  by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm,  and  by the Smith family at 10.00pm  ) 

They did not  'see'  abductors  ...  they saw  men carrying children

[stephen25000]

From the quote you provided from Jeremy Wilkins:-

It was not an unusual sight to see people walking through the site at night with a child in their arms asleep.
Unquote

He was not referring to the whole of PdL.   

 I see you don't want to acknowledge that creche records would reveal all the people who collected their children from there that night.     

You also seem to think that it is impossible for an abducted child to be carried off by her abductor.  Care to explain the reasoning behind that Stephen?

Do you really think only people will carry a child in their arms, only if they come back from a creche ?

I am thoroughly aware what part he was referring to.

I merely pointed out, well other people might carry a child in their arms as well, WOW.

Why would an abductor advertise they are carrying a child, and John calls them 'professional abductors' ?

The bottom line which you won't face is simple.

No proof of abductor, who is then responsible for Madeleine's disappearance ?

Tough choice.

[Lace]

Do you really think only people will carry a child in their arms, only if they come back from a creche ?

I am thoroughly aware what part he was referring to.

I merely pointed out, well other people might carry a child in their arms as well, WOW.

Why would an abductor advertise they are carrying a child, and John calls them 'professional abductors' ?

The bottom line which you won't face is simple.

No proof of abductor, who is then responsible for Madeleine's disappearance ?

Tough choice.

Why would an abductor advertise they are carrying a child?   Because as you say,  people would think the child would have been collected from the crèche and not think it was unusual

The crèche records can be checked..

Fact is,  this person was seen again by the Smith family.

[Benice]

Do you really think only people will carry a child in their arms, only if they come back from a creche ?

I am thoroughly aware what part he was referring to.

I merely pointed out, well other people might carry a child in their arms as well, WOW.

Why would an abductor advertise they are carrying a child, and John calls them 'professional abductors' ?

The bottom line which you won't face is simple.

No proof of abductor, who is then responsible for Madeleine's disappearance ?

Tough choice.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that there could be people around that night carrying their child for any amount of reasons.   

The point is that none of them came forward to be eliminated.   

No mother phoning the police to say it was her husband collecting their daughter from a relatives.   No relative phoning to say it was her son who had  picked up her granddaughter who she'd been babysitting.  etc etc     Nothing - Zilch - from a single person.    That should tell you something Stephen.

If you don't believe an abduction happened - then give us your/evidence proof of what DID happen.   That's all you have to do Stephen.   Simples.

[stephen25000]

Why would an abductor advertise they are carrying a child?   Because as you say,  people would think the child would have been collected from the crèche and not think it was unusual

The crèche records can be checked..

Fact is,  this person was seen again by the Smith family.

As has been said REPEATEDLY, the 2 sightings do not tally and you know that.

[icabodcrane]

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that there could be people around that night carrying their child for any amount of reasons.   

The point is that none of them came forward to be eliminated.   

No mother phoning the police to say it was her husband collecting their daughter from a relatives.   No relative phoning to say it was her son who had  picked up her granddaughter who she'd been babysitting.  etc etc     Nothing - Zilch - from a single person.    That should tell you something Stephen.

If you don't believe an abduction happened - then give us your/evidence proof of what DID happen.   That's all you have to do Stephen.   Simples.

There are very rational reasons for an innocent man carrying his  own  child not presenting himself to the police to be  'eliminated'  from an enquiry he could simply choose not to be involved in at all

To address the other point you make   (  although I understand you were making it to Stephen )  there is no  'need'  to present an alternative theory in order  to dismiss one that has already  been presented inadequately

It  will not do to say that unless some other suggestion is made,  then 'abduction'  MUST   be accepted as fact  ... the case for abduction must be made,  and evidenced,  in it's own right  ...  it has not been

[stephen25000]

There are very rational reasons for an innocent man carrying his  own  child not presenting himself to the police to be  'eliminated'  from an enquiry he could simply choose not to be involved in at all

To address the other point you make   (  although I understand you were making it to Stephen )  there is no  'need'  to present an alternative theory in order  to dismiss one that has already  been presented inadequately

It  will not do to say that unless some other suggestion is made,  then 'abduction'  MUST   be accepted as fact  ... the case for abduction must be made,  and evidenced,  in it's own right  ...  it has not been

Well said.

[Angelo222]

Grasping at straws yet again is what comes to mind here.  Is Stephen so naive as to think that that wasn't the first port of call for the GNR that night ie. to check with the crèche staff?   Whoever Tanner saw passing in front of her definitely had something to hide, had it been an innocent encounter then that person would have come forward years ago.

I for one am getting tired of your constant nauseous rantings Stephen and your attempts to sidetrack discussions.

[DCI]

Grasping at straws yet again is what comes to mind here.  Is Stephen so naive as to think that that wasn't the first port of call for the GNR that night ie. to check with the crèche staff?   Whoever Tanner saw passing in front of her definitely had something to hide, had it been an innocent encounter then that person would have come forward years ago.

I for one am getting tired of your constant nauseous rantings Stephen and your attempts to sidetrack discussions.

And so say all of us 

[Dog The Bounty Hunter]

Grasping at straws yet again is what comes to mind here.  Is Stephen so naive as to think that that wasn't the first port of call for the GNR that night ie. to check with the crèche staff?   Whoever Tanner saw passing in front of her definitely had something to hide, had it been an innocent encounter then that person would have come forward years ago.

I for one am getting tired of your constant nauseous rantings Stephen and your attempts to sidetrack discussions.

YEAH        way to go man!!   I saw that coming ages ago with the no evidence jibes and there is no proof of a abduction being brought into every post.