i'm sure that was how he got dragged into it....she saw him through a window and recognised him as the man running with a child....and now its a man resembling a vagrant with long greasy hair?
2007-10-25 23:53:34 · 16 answers · asked by littlemisssunshine 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
nearly 10 minutes and not 1 answer from a pro mccann! words fail me on the pathetic circus of lies and deception, played out to a world wide audience, this whole sad saga has turned into.
2007-10-26 00:05:07 · update #1
smokin gun...excellent summary of events.
2007-10-26 00:15:34 · update #2
faith...Murat is involved 'not just cos jane tanner pointed him out'.....read your own answer back to yourself...jane tanner pointed him out....shouted that he was the man running with the child....and now we have a long haired greasy vagrant photofit....your all stumbling over yourselves....them with their lies and the pro mccanns with their 'trying to justify the lies'.
2007-10-26 00:18:58 · update #3
I don't think Jane Tanner saw anything...but i do believe she is trying to cover up, or distract from something else...I'm not sure what but the word infidelity keeps jumping into my mind !
Go on give me the thumbs down if you wish...but i still think there are several things going on with this story..and for some unknown reason they are trying desperately to cover up something..be it the disappearance of Maddie or something else maybe less sinister but its something that would affect their professional and private credibility!
As for her pointing the finger at Robert Murat...well maybe he is still involved somewhere down the line..we don't know anything for sure.....BUT if i saw someone running away with a child and i was convinced beyond all doubt that it was Robert Murat..i would be screaming at the PJ's and the Media to LISTEN TO ME .....but she doesn't appear to be doing that does she?
2007-10-26 00:18:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
Is this before or after she described him as looking like an egg, I wonder?
Then she says she saw an abductor with, "what could've been a child" wrapped in a blanket, now the blanket has disappeared and you can clearly see the details on "Madeleine's " pyjama's!
Strange also, while Jane Tanner supposedly spotted all this, Jeremy Wilkins and Gerry McCann saw none of it and they were stood chatting exactly where Jane Tanner said she saw the suspect.
2007-10-26 01:20:34 · answer #2 · answered by Ysanne 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
So this 'swathy looking' stranger (that no one has seen before, not lurking around or looking suspicious) walks unspotted into the apartment.
He takes up a seemingly sleeping child who does not wake up, despite been removed from her bed, and blankets been taken off, and been taken into the fresh air outside.
He carries her and himself through a waist high window (according to the McCanns), despite the door been left unlock without waking the child, or disturbing the others.
He does'nt bother to try to cover or disguise the child in any way despite this been a child abuction.
He casually strolls past the resturant with a sleeping child uncovered in full view of anyone, not running or even walking jogging. Just walking.
With, what looks like, a comatose child dangling in his arms.
No one else sees a thing. No one says anything.
hmmmm
Better pass this one to Jessica Fletcher...
2007-10-26 00:10:09 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 10⤊ 0⤋
How do you know that Murat was not involved, and that the Tanner woman knows that if she had of accurately described the person more, and this lead to Murat again being investigated, he would crack under the pressure and dob her in if she is also involved?
Better to describe somebody the complete opposite i would say.
2007-10-26 00:07:30 · answer #4 · answered by archieis42 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
If you look back at the news 6 mths ago i think you will find that it was a news reporter that told the police about robert murat, as she thought he was acting strangely and hanging around the scene alot, so she told the police.Oh yeah i am a pro mccann so you were wrong there.I am not trying to justify lies, i am telling you it was the news reporter that reported murat in the beginning.
2007-10-26 00:05:23 · answer #5 · answered by pauline will never give up.xx 5 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Its ridiculous that any of this deception should be given any media publicity. Quite frankly its becoming an insult to the British Public to be asked to believe any of this. Lets get back to the fact that the parents are suspects, as much as Murat, and going by that dodgy drawing he's out, in the clear big time.
2007-10-26 00:02:13 · answer #6 · answered by Manhattan Skyline 4 · 12⤊ 1⤋
Yes and apparently she wasn't the only one who saw him but they seem to forgotten about this. She also saw the man running of with the child but the child was wrapped was a blanket, whereas this "sketch" clearly shows pink pyjamas.
2007-10-26 00:07:56 · answer #7 · answered by Charley 4 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Yes, in fact I believe they actually met at the police station and she said it was Murat she had seen.
Now we find there is perhaps someone else.
Doesnt make any sense.
2007-10-25 23:57:54 · answer #8 · answered by shafter 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
And he was meant to be in yellow that night according to the nanny at Mark Warner. It certainly doesn't add up!
2007-10-26 01:12:52 · answer #9 · answered by !Lady Stormy! 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes she did say that. As for the inditikit someone on the news today said that you would look at a persons face and remember it ,not the shoes.
2007-10-26 00:00:41 · answer #10 · answered by Lesley P 1 · 8⤊ 1⤋