Wandering Off Topic

[Wonderfulspam]

VS says I ignore witnesses, when she's quite happy to ignore parts of the McCanns own testimony. This is for the simple reason that she can't present a feasible abduction scenario & account for the details. She wants to test sceptics on their theories but when you push back on her non existent theory she goes quiet, stroppy or appeals to authority.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Don?t you think that if your daughter was missing and you, as the parents seem to, believed that she may be alive you?d update your website every now and again? Daniel Morecombe?s parent?s did even during the police investigation and in fact set up a foundation in his name to keep his image at the forefront of people?s minds, a foundation that now teaches children about safety.

Yes, I think the McCannd probably should update the website more frequently.  It hasn?t been updated since Operation Grange started and perhaps they were advised that as the Met was the main point of contact for the public going forward there would be no need.  Still I agree with you on this point but that doesn?t mean I think they threw Madeleine?s body in a bin.

[faithlilly]

?Tanner may have described Totman relatively accurately ie carrying a child, possibly in pyjamas but that doesn?t put the sighting when she claimed, that?s why she hasn?t been vindicated. Wilkins, who was allegedly having a chat with Gerry at the time of the sighting, didn?t see Tanner. TBF I think you need to hae visited the actual location of the sighting to know how impossible that would have been. Further it was the triangulation of information from statements that convinced the police that the man Tanner saw was Totman not his physical description. Tanner more than likely did see Totman and Gerry did have a chat with Wilkins however those events did not happen simultaneously.?

Well it?s a matter of opinion isn?t it.  The police are satisfied that the man JT saw has an explanation.  Of course you don?t accept it but that?s by the by, as far as I?m concerned she was thoroughly vindicated when Dr Totman said he passed the apartment at the time JT said she saw the man.

I absolutely agree. Totman is more than likely who Tanner saw. The question is was Gerry on the road at the same time but that is far from established. Gerry didn?t see her and neither did Wilkins and that would have been impossible in such a narrow, quiet road if she had actually been there.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I would suggest that you are wrong and that it was Gerry?s posture and mannerisms that triggered Mr Smith?s memory and that could have only happened at that one point in time.

I would suggest that you are stretching credulity to breaking point by claiming that this scenario has any credibility whatsoever.  Moreover you are failing to address the issue of the influence of negative media coverage and its possible influence on witnesses.  Chat GPT highlights the likelihood of this in one of its answers I posted earlier.  You have used this argument yourself in another case, why does it not apply in this one?

[Wonderfulspam]

- Don?t you think that if your daughter was missing and you, as the parents seem to, believed that she may be alive you?d update your website every now and again? Daniel Morecombe?s parent?s did even during the police investigation and in fact set up a foundation in his name to keep his image at the forefront of people?s minds, a foundation that now teaches children about safety.

Yes, I think the McCannd probably should update the website more frequently.  It hasn?t been updated since Operation Grange started and perhaps they were advised that as the Met was the main point of contact for the public going forward there would be no need.  Still I agree with you on this point but that doesn?t mean I think they threw Madeleine?s body in a bin.

No you think an abductor got in & out of the apartment & took Maddie quite easily. But you're totally unable to explain exactly how it all worked out. You dismiss Mr McCanns evidence that the bedroom door had moved because you have to.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I absolutely agree. Totman is more than likely who Tanner saw. The question is was Gerry on the road at the same time but that is far from established. Gerry didn?t see her and neither did Wilkins and that would have been impossible in such a narrow, quiet road if she had actually been there.

So if Totman passed the apartment at around 9pm and Gerry and Jez were talking outside the apartment at around the same time how did Jane see Totman?  What conspiracy needs to be woven to explain this?

[Wonderfulspam]

The movement of the bedroom door was felt significant enough to the McCanns that it prompted both of them to carry out their first visual check of the week. But we'll just ignore that minor detail now shall we?

[Joe Blogs]

So you think the Fatherlike coincidental trousers pyjama changing abductor is feasible do you?

Or the Innocent Fatherlike coincidental trousers man with Maddie clone daughter?

Those seem like possible & likely explanations for the Smith family evidence to you do they, Joe?

Have a think about it & you'll discover that Brueckner dunnit, naturally.

Don't get me wrong, Spam, the Smith evidence is slightly damning to the McCanns, as the Smiths wouldn't have taken it lightly implicating them in Maddies disappearance!

[Wonderfulspam]

The movement of the bedroom door was felt significant enough to the McCanns that it prompted both of them to carry out their first visual check of the week. But we'll just ignore that minor detail now shall we?

Even though it's the McCanns own evidence included in both their own documentary & on Crimewatch. We'll just skip past all that Mccann testimony & go straight to the moment Brueckner bundled her into the getaway car.

[Wonderfulspam]

Don't get me wrong, Spam, the Smith evidence is slightly damning to the McCanns, as the Smiths wouldn't have taken it lightly implicating them in Maddies disappearance!

The Smiths are in their 90's now & I do feel sorry for them having to be involved in this retched case. It probably haunts them every day.

[Wonderfulspam]

Don't get me wrong, Spam, the Smith evidence is slightly damning to the McCanns, as the Smiths wouldn't have taken it lightly implicating them in Maddies disappearance!

Anyway, I'd say it's slightly more than damning. When you put the all the McCanns door & window evidence to the test & try & fit it in with the most likely sighting of Madeleine it is rather difficult to do, as VS is kindly demonstrating by never presenting a cogent theory that can account for the details.

[Joe Blogs]

The Smiths are in their 90's now & I do feel sorry for them having to be involved in this retched case. It probably haunts them every day.

Kizzy's video said they were in their 50's at the time of the sighting Spam! if true, that would mean they're pushing 80!

[Wonderfulspam]

Kizzy's video said they were in their 50's at the time of the sighting Spam! if true, that would mean they're pushing 80!

I think Smith was in his late sixties.

[faithlilly]

So if Totman passed the apartment at around 9pm and Gerry and Jez were talking outside the apartment at around the same time how did Jane see Totman?  What conspiracy needs to be woven to explain this?

According to Tanner herself she didn?t leave the tapas bar until 9.15. Wilkins himself said the chat between him and Gerry happened between 8.45 and 9.15, that he couldn?t be more precise.

So Gerry arrives at the tapas bar at around 8.30. First check 9pm where he chats to Wilkins. Tanner?s check 9.15. Gerry?s next check around 9.30 when he finds Madeleine missing. A witness remembers hearing Madeleine?s name being called around this time. Could it have been Gerry looking for her?

[Joe Blogs]

I think Smith was in his late sixties.

You may well be right, Spam, its just what the video claimed!