I would like to ask this Q. Jane Tanner has repeatedly said that she saw a man walking away from the McCanns' apartment carrying what looked like a child .If we are to believe her description as on the picture which was released then the child's legs were dangling over the man's right arm.
If you now think of the position of the Maddy's bed in the photo recently released then the "abducter" would have picked up the child and her feet would have been dangling over the man's left arm. Something just doesn't add up. What do you think ?
2007-11-17 06:41:40 · 28 answers · asked by little weed 6 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Jane Tanner is making things worse for the McCanns. Her story has changed more often than a prostitute drops her knickers, and she is no longer credible. In one article, she says 'I saw a child in pink floral pyjamas', and then she says 'I saw a man carrying what could have been a child.' Forgive me for being thick, but which one is it? To start with, she was close enough to identify the abductor as Murat because of his 'funny eye', and now she was so far away that she couldn't see his face. It's ridiculous, and the McCanns should deal with her in the same way that they have dealt with Auntie Phil - get her to be quiet, because it is doing them no favours. Far from 'convincing the public that Madeleine was abducted', they've planted more seeds of doubt in people's minds because of the conflicting statements. The whole case is descending into a farce, and the real issue is being forgotten. I pray that Madeleine is found and brought home, because she must have suffered untold horrors, and I want to see the person who has caused this child unspeakable misery brought to justice.
EDIT: Thanks Izo, I agree with what you said too!
2007-11-17 08:06:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
Sorry if I am being stupid or missing you point, but isn't that saying the "Madeleine McCann Fund: No Stone Unturned" donation is trademarked? If that is the case, I don't see what is the big deal - they will have trademarked the fund to stop unscrupulous fraudsters saying that they are collecting for the MM fund when they aren't anything to do with her. Common practice to register or trademark any appeal, I believe.... Again apologies if I have misunderstood but from your source, it is the appeal trademarked, not the little girl. Besides, you cannot trademark a person (90% sure) only their name...
2016-05-24 00:02:10 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good point little weed but the Tanner woman's story changes that much, it's hard to believe a word she says, well actually I don't! I mean the same abductor took the child's cuddle cat from her? and made the bed etc.... I mean you would take a child's toy away wouldn't you? and upset the child even more! so did he put Madeleine on the floor, while he made the bed or what? and of course he had time for all this and still cause no alarm....... Was this Tanner's Egg head man or one of the other ones she has made up?
It's a strange position to carry a child too? I used to carry mine so they were resting against my chest and snuggling in? or was this an attempt to make us think the child was dead? drugged?
She is a sick joke...
2007-11-17 07:09:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 11⤊ 1⤋
"little weed" that is a good point. So you are saying that you don't believe in that abduction theory or lie and NEITHER DO I. Can you see... if we all believe this woman's story then it would mean that the McCanns had nothing to do with the disappearance. I studied law and have a law degree (in England by the way) any testimony, any witness statement that cannot be tested in court is valueless, cannot be trusted, cannot be relied upon... because it is likely a lie or there is no way of telling that it is true !! That Tanner woman knows that she is free to say anything she likes in the knowledge that the PJ-GNR investigators will never land their hands on her for questioning. The more I read about this story the more I am convinced that the McCanns are not 100% innocent. If they ever admitted it they would get all my compassion. This way, well...
2007-11-17 07:25:41 · answer #4 · answered by RED-CHROME 6 · 10⤊ 2⤋
I agree with archieis42.. spot on hun!!
good question little weed (another one!!)
jane tanner has proved herself a liar time and again.. so far she has managed to be in at least 3 (4? feel free to put me straight.. can't keep up with her stories!!) different locations whilst spotting the man who was carrying her friends unconscious child!!... and she wonders why people don't believe in her?? sorry sorry case.. god bless Madeleine!!xx
Edit: well said flamebolt..
made in england.. you musn't know many people if little weed is the most dislikeable person you have come across ... i would like to live in your world (well.. maybe not!!) all little weed is doing (along with many others) is asking questions on a bizzare and sad case... jane tanner has lied many times.. and you don't like people questioning that?? is your name jane by any chance??
2007-11-17 07:38:20 · answer #5 · answered by izo 5 · 9⤊ 1⤋
i dont believe a word tanner says co its just an other distraction from the truth..... iagree with acanthus .... mccanns keep there twins ........
come on people this is like a smack in the face for the people who have had there kids taken away for something minor...
2007-11-17 07:07:44 · answer #6 · answered by kaz 3 · 13⤊ 1⤋
You might think I'm nitpicking here, but just a couple of tiny points..... you don't actually know which way Madeleine was lying in the bed, and you don't know that she was even picked up from the bed. If the blood in the apartment is hers it's unlikely that an abductor JUST picked up a sleeping child and took her, there had to have been some violence too.
The way the alleged abductor was carrying the child is therefore completely irrelevant.
Speculation is absolutely pointless unless you know all the facts.
2007-11-17 07:23:37 · answer #7 · answered by Netty 3 · 4⤊ 7⤋
Jane Tanner looks like a chav. And you should never under any circumstances trust chavs.
2007-11-17 07:02:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 11⤊ 2⤋
You are so right, think quite a few of us on here could solve the case.
2007-11-17 07:03:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 2⤋
Personally, I think the 'Tapas 9' are all covering up for each other. The whole story has been 'wrong' from the start - My guess is they were all 'under the influence' and none of them knew what time, or who, checked the children - if anybody did. I think the initial comments were made by JT to try to remove the focus from the group - and it's now backfired
2007-11-17 06:47:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 19⤊ 6⤋