What did Kate McCann really see in the Children's Bedroom

[slartibartfast]

Do we all agree on the bolded bit now?  Jane saw a man carrying a child around 9:15 - 15 minutes prior to Kate's planned check.

I think you are safe with... “Jane says she saw a man carrying a child...”

[Robittybob1]

I think you are safe with... “Jane says she saw a man carrying a child...”

I can see the benefit of that but the passing Jez and Gerry are part of the same time sequence supposedly.

[slartibartfast]

I can see the benefit of that but the passing Jez and Gerry are part of the same time sequence supposedly.

We know what Jane and all the witnesses said but we are not in a position to say if what they said was true. That is a fact.

[Robittybob1]

We know what Jane and all the witnesses said but we are not in a position to say if what they said was true. That is a fact.

.... but we are not in a position to say if what they said was true or false.  So it becomes a judgement.  The fact that she hits two observations correctly suggests to me it is true.

[John]

For the benefit of posters who didn't see this earlier:

A reminder to all posters to keep comments constructive and amicable. Attack opinion by all means but please do not make personal comments towards fellow members. This forum prides itself in allowing all shades of opinion so please bear this in mind when responding. TY and have a pleasant weekend.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I think you are safe with... “Jane says she saw a man carrying a child...”

So you doubt Totman is telling the truth?

[slartibartfast]

So you doubt Totman is telling the truth?

Did Totman say he saw Jane?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Did Totman say he saw Jane?

What’s that got to do with the price of fish?  Either he was there carrying a child or he wasn’t.  If he wasn’t then he’s lying, if he was then either Jane saw him or she made it all up and by sheer and amazing coincidence she described a man who actually was there just as she described.  Which do you think is most likely?

[Alice Purjorick]

An observation that has since proven to have actually occurred despite many years of sceptics scoffing at the very idea. What was your point again?

Did you want to start the "investigation" with Jane Tanner's observation as the primary event?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Did you want to start the "investigation" with Jane Tanner's observation as the primary event?

Sure, fill your boots.

[Robittybob1]

What’s that got to do with the price of fish?  Either he was there carrying a child or he wasn’t.  If he wasn’t then he’s lying, if he was then either Jane saw him or she made it all up and by sheer and amazing coincidence she described a man who actually was there just as she described.  Which do you think is most likely?

I think you have expressed the situation it just as I feel ATM. 

[Alice Purjorick]

Sure, fill your boots.

I was offereing you the opportunity if you read my post properly.

[Robittybob1]

I was offereing you the opportunity if you read my post properly.

Well would you like to start a thread describing how your concept is going to work please?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I was offereing you the opportunity if you read my post properly.

Stop playing games and refer to my earlier posts, you know perfectly well I am not interested in investigating Jane Tanner’s sighting, I’m interested in understanding more from those who believe she colluded with Gerry McCann and how they think that came about.  Your attempts at turning the tables on me are doomed to fail so kindly desist.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Let’s work this through.  Jane actually DID see a man carrying a child fromthe direction of the apartment at 9.15 pm.  So, what then happened next vis-a-vis hatching the convoluted plot, involving whooshing curtains?

My question again, addressed to those with anything to add to the discsussion.