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

[Vertigo Swirl]

That's why it would have been better if the group had been there, as they would have been able to correct anomalies in statements, or alternatively concede particular errors.

If statements are so wildly different, is it any surprise that police came to certain conclusions ?

Yes, it is frankly.  Experimced policemen would know that in an incident with numerous witness statements there are bound to be differing accounts.  Let’s face it they were ‘t really “wildly different” were they, just somewhat contradictory mainly on timings.  What would be far more suspicious IMO is if all the Tapas group gave identical statements with identical timings.

[Robittybob1]

Yes, it is frankly.  Experimced policemen would know that in an incident with numerous witness statements there are bound to be differing accounts.  Let’s face it they were ‘t really “wildly different” were they, just somewhat contradictory mainly on timings.  What would be far more suspicious IMO is if all the Tapas group gave identical statements with identical timings.

Even the versions written on the sticker book covers varied from what was told in the statements so we end up with two extra versions as well. 

[jassi]

Yes, it is frankly.  Experimced policemen would know that in an incident with numerous witness statements there are bound to be differing accounts.  Let’s face it they were ‘t really “wildly different” were they, just somewhat contradictory mainly on timings.  What would be far more suspicious IMO is if all the Tapas group gave identical statements with identical timings.

I was merely quoting you, as it was you who said they were wildly different. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Put it this way I think it had something to do with the child being carried by Totman.  (And I'm not saying that child was Madeleine, for she left by the front door IMO.)

Someone had to carry the ladder to the reception that was tied to Harry's car.  I don't think William went and fetched it IMO.  There would be helpers.

So Totman is part of the prank is he?  The mind boggles.

[John]

Memo:

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 was merely quoting you, as it was you who said they were wildly different. 

I wasn’t being entirely serious, merely repeating an oft heard but not really substantiated claim.

[Alice Purjorick]

What thingy? As I said before I am interested in trying to understand the logic that drives people to conclude that numerous members of the Tapas group are involved in a highly convoluted plot.  I don’t think for one minute you are one of those people but thanks for continuing to draw attention to my question which hitherto has been completely ignored by those to whom it was addressed.

Jane Tanner's observation of a man carrying a child.

[Robin Banks]

That doesn't make any sense.

Madeleine: Our Daughter's Disappearance and the Continuing Search for Her, page 72

[faithlilly]

Do you have any valid  reason to doubt his sworn statement?

For that matter do you have any valid reason for doubting what Kate is on record as saying?

Apart from your belief?

I am asking valid questions. Isn’t that what you do on a discussion forum?

As to Kate, in the only statement that is officially recorded the window is fully open as soon as she enters the bedroom. Is it that you are referring to or the modified ‘whooshing’ episode added ( unofficially) later ?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Jane Tanner's observation of a man carrying a child.

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?

[Robittybob1]

So Totman is part of the prank is he?  The mind boggles.

He could well be.  He was going the wrong way if he was carrying his own daughter home and carrying a child across one's arms is a very unusual way to carry a child a long distance.  I have not been convinced by what we've been told about that incident yet.
And as Jane noted the child should have been wrapped up. 

No doubt all this has been explained to the satisfaction of Operation Grange but not to us as yet.

[Robittybob1]

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?

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.

[Robittybob1]

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 GA might have struggled with that at the time of writing his book.  So if one thing has virtually been proven was Jane was there to see Jez and Gerry and this other man.
Do both sides of this debate all agree on that?

[barrier]

I think GA might have struggled with that at the time of writing his book.  So if one thing has virtually been proven was Jane was there to see Jez and Gerry and this other man.
Do both sides of this debate all agree on that?

When and if its presented to a court of law,until then I'll reserve judgement.

[Robittybob1]

When and if its presented to a court of law,until then I'll reserve judgement.

Up until yesterday I was reserving judgement too, but now when I think Jane got the fact that the man she saw was carrying the child across his forearms and Crecheman was photographed carrying the child in the same manner, it becomes uncanny unless it was an actual observation on Jane's part.
So from now on I'm going with it.