A CHILD BEING CARRIED.

[Angelo222]

The point made by Stephen about it being quite normal to see parents carrying their children about is valid but requires clarification.  This was not a normal sighting by any means.  The child was being carried in a very strange manner given the cold and slightly windy night.  She had little protection against the cold yet the carrier (notice how I avoid the word abductor) was very well clad.  That for me suggests a situation which was not all as it first suggests.  To be fair, even Jane Tanner passed it off as normal but slightly strange and it was only when the alarm was raised that the penny dropped with her.

[stephen25000]

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.

No what it really means is that the questions I asked aren't being answered.

As to nauseous, I find the defense of 2 parents who clearly neglected their children, clearly nauseous.

[stephen25000]

And so say all of us 

No, just the mccannites.

[stephen25000]

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.   

See previous reply.

If I am banned so be it.

Again it simply reinforces the impression elsewhere the 'debate' here was always going to be geared to one side.

[Angelo222]

No what it really means is that the questions I asked aren't being asked.

As to nauseous, I find the defense of 2 parents who clearly neglected their children, clearly nauseous.

Yes Stephen, we all get the neglect bit but that is a long long way from intentionally disposing of her remains.

You obviously dispute the abduction so what is your alternative?

[AnneGuedes]

As to nauseous, I find the defense of 2 parents who clearly neglected their children, clearly nauseous.

The problem, Stephen, is that the neglect issue has been polluted or turned simplistic in order to be considered as anti tool against the McCanns who were the first to say that they lamented they weren't there where their daughter was taken, or something of the kind.
The concept of neglect can't be isolated from intention nor from capacity to anticipate. Had the McCanns been aware there was a risk of abduction and had they left theirs kids alone all the same, the suggestion of neglect could be justified. But it wasn't the case. This is why, and though the reason of the disappearance of Madeleine MC couldn't be established, the AG didn't charge her parents with neglect.
Now, as Icabodcrane observed very subtly once, the McCann couldn't but be aware of the risk of accident when kids are left alone, even if they're supposed to sleep, because they can wake up in a nutshell, get out of bed (Madeleine only could) and eventually do dangerous things. If, checking on their kids, they had found Madeleine had a serious or fatal accident, would they have been able to argue they found it very secure there and were within the limits of responsible parenting ?

[faithlilly]

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.

I have asked this before but it's worth asking again. What if Tanner, for reasons we are not yet aware of, made up the sighting ? Jez, an independent witness didn't see or hear her flip flopping down the street and he claimed he almost certainly would have if she  had passed him ? 

[DCI]

The point made by Stephen about it being quite normal to see parents carrying their children about is valid but requires clarification.  This was not a normal sighting by any means.  The child was being carried in a very strange manner given the cold and slightly windy night.  She had little protection against the cold yet the carrier (notice how I avoid the word abductor) was very well clad.  That for me suggests a situation which was not all as it first suggests.  To be fair, even Jane Tanner passed it off as normal but slightly strange and it was only when the alarm was raised that the penny dropped with her.

Seems a bit odd, a man on his own, without other family and carrying a child, in the direction he was going. Where would he have been or come from? Was there a man on his own, with a child,  in one of the apartments?
That should have been checked, surely!

The night creche, was in the same building where Madeleine went during the day.

[faithlilly]

Seems a bit odd, a man on his own, without other family and carrying a child, in the direction he was going. Where would he have been or come from? Was there a man on his own, with a child,  in one of the apartments?
That should have been checked, surely!

The night creche, was in the same building where Madeleine went during the day.

Waste police time chasing shadows you mean ?

[DCI]

Waste police time chasing shadows you mean ?

Unless brain dead, any cop would check on things like that.

[Benice]

I have asked this before but it's worth asking again. What if Tanner, for reasons we are not yet aware of, made up the sighting ? Jez, an independent witness didn't see or hear her flip flopping down the street and he claimed he almost certainly would have if she  had passed him ?

Getting back to human nature Faith - why would JT agree to lie - she hardly knew the McCanns. 

If I was on holiday with a group of people some of whom I'd only ever met about 6/7 times in my life, and they approached me to say that their daughter had died, and that they wanted to cover the death up by disposing of her body and asked me to help them by telling lies to the police for them  - my answer - (when I'd got my breath back)  - would be a resounding NO WAY!!   

Apart from anything else - Human nature in the form of the need to protect MY familyand MY children would kick-in and there is no chance that I would put MY babies in even the slightest danger to assist a couple who I hardly knew, to commit a massive crime.  Or in fact ANY couple or anyone,  regardless of my relationship with them     

I don't believe you would either.

Unless you can come up with a reason why JT would agree to take such a terrible risk with her own and her childrens future then the whole idea is pure nonsense  imo.














 

[faithlilly]

Getting back to human nature Faith - why would JT agree to lie - she hardly knew the McCanns. 

If I was on holiday with a group of people some of whom I'd only ever met about 6/7 times in my life, and they approached me to say that their daughter had died, and that they wanted to cover the death up by disposing of her body and asked me to help them by telling lies to the police for them  - my answer - (when I'd got my breath back)  - would be a resounding NO WAY!!   

Apart from anything else - Human nature in the form of the need to protect MY familyand MY children would kick-in and there is no chance that I would put MY babies in even the slightest danger to assist a couple who I hardly knew, to commit a massive crime.  Or in fact ANY couple or anyone,  regardless of my relationship with them     

I don't believe you would either.

Unless you can come up with a reason why JT would agree to take such a terrible risk with her own and her childrens future then the whole idea is pure nonsense  imo.














 

As I have said until we know exactly what happened that night we can have no idea why, or indeed if, Tanner lied for the McCanns. Like most things in this case it cannot be ruled out at this point.

[Redblossom]

The carrier and child that Tanner says she saw could have been anyone coming from a variety of places,going to a variety of places for a variety of reasons.The only odd thing is the method of carrying for what is said to be a young child and not a baby. That way of carrying makes a child heavier and harder to carry. As for a jacket or cardigan or blanket, seeing as Tanner only saw the legs, and it wasnt a swaddled baby, she would have no idea if there was any covering. I dont find bare feet odd either.

Eta, the location of the sightng and direction of walking,and location of the night creche though do not tally.

I also don't see what Gerry Mccann meant, when he said, the abductor was nearly caught by Jane.
 >@@(*&)


caught how???
4.40 on

!!
 
LOL she had no idea what clothes madeleine was wearing and no inkling or idea it could be her, why would she? total and utter bloody nonsense

[AnneGuedes]

May be he was    courteously letting Jane have the leading role, because in fact the abductor was twice nearly caught by him !

[Benice]

The carrier and child that Tanner says she saw could have been anyone coming from a variety of places,going to a variety of places for a variety of reasons.The only odd thing is the method of carrying for what is said to be a young child and not a baby. That way of carrying makes a child heavier and harder to carry. As for a jacket or cardigan or blanket, seeing as Tanner only saw the legs, and it wasnt a swaddled baby, she would have no idea if there was any covering. I dont find bare feet odd either.

Eta, the location of the sightng and direction of walking,and location of the night creche though do not tally.

I also don't see what Gerry Mccann meant, when he said, the abductor was nearly caught by Jane.
 >@@(*&)

The man was carrying the child in the same way as you would when a sleeping child has been picked up from a bed and handed across to you.    That also explains why her head was on the left side of the man seen with her.

Her head would have been on the right arm of the person who picked her up from the bed, but if he handed her to someone positioned in front of him - then her head would end up on that person's left side.   

She could have been handed down to someone standing over the other side of the wall outside the front door.

IMO Gerry McCann was referring to the fact that if Jane had been just a few seconds earlier - she would have bumped into the man.