i saw Maddie in a supermarket on the Costa del Sol claims women

Justiceforallkids wrote:

The former M&S sales assistant, 63, is adamant the young girl is the missing Briton after seeing her with a man she describes as looking like ‘a gypsy’.

Yvonne Tunnicliffe, who has lived in Spain for six years, made the sighting while shopping at a Mercadona store in Alhaurin el Grande in 2009.

The grandmother has only now come forward, after reading about increasing suggestion that the toddler might have been snatched by a gypsy gang while on holiday in Portugal in 2007.

“My whole body shook when I saw her, she looked just like her daddy (Gerry),” Tunnicliffe told the Olive Press newspaper.....


Tunnicliffe contacted police a week after the sighting and was visited by detectives who immediately took her back to the store to view CCTV footage.

I was so busy with my friends n all having a ball at Christmas it slipped my mind that I may have seen Madeleine (but the police came to LATE to view the CCTV footage - typical police laxness)

But police were informed by the store’s manager that footage was only stored for one week and had subsequently been destroyed.

So convinced was she of the sighting, she was unable to sleep for much of the week and finally drew a number of sketches of both the girl and man for police.

Well I had a look at Jane Tanners excellent E-Fit and thought I can do that.


Fighting back tears, she told the Olive Press: “It really upset me and I couldn’t stop thinking about it and why I hadn’t gone to the police straight away.

That £2.5 million reward could have been mine - pass the onion please (sob)

“It was Christmas and we had friends over. I kept getting sidetracked.”

Well I didn't think it was really Madeleine so thought "It'll wait"

On the sighting she said: “The girl’s demeanour bothered me. I don’t think she belonged to the man because she didn’t look anything like him.

“He had dark, curly hair down to his neck and was wearing a distinctive bullring-type earring.

“He sounded Portuguese and was certainly not from Alhaurin.”

Tunnicliffe claims the girl – who was wearing a pale blue top and trousers – did not look Spanish.

What does Spanish look like? "Greasy Dago"? Spaniards can be blonde hair & blue eyed as much as UK people. Usually have a better tan though

“It disturbed me for a long time and still upsets me thinking about it now,” an emotional Tunnicliffe added.

That £2.5 million reward could have been mine

When contacted by the Olive Press, a Scotland Yard spokesman confirmed: “It’s an open investigation and any information received will be reviewed and considered by detectives.”

EG We know this is another load of McCann Bxllockx

The McCanns’ spokesman was unavailable for comment as we went to press.

Angelique wrote: Panda

Excellent! It certainly rings true to me.

But while there is no official comment from CM saying it's an old sighting could mean he is elsewhere and unavailable. Are they on their own now?

Annabel wrote:http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/236873/Brit-s-new-Madeleine-McCann-claim-I-m-100-certain-I-saw-her-/

gillyspot wrote:The Daily Star has never had any compunction against printing such rubbish sadly. How on earth it can be called a "newspaper" I have no idea.

I notice a response from the McCanns' COUGH spokesman here.

A spokesman for the McCanns said: “Any verifiable information will go to police and private investigators and they will act where appropriate.”

Police (aka SY) probably will already have it I would imagine and "private investigators" will???? - you know the rest.

Just re-read & saw "any verifiable" - Clarrie speak for "no more credible than any other sighting"

Panda wrote:

gillyspot wrote:The Daily Star has never had any compunction against printing such rubbish sadly. How on earth it can be called a "newspaper" I have no idea.

I notice a response from the McCanns' COUGH spokesman here.

A spokesman for the McCanns said: “Any verifiable information will go to police and private investigators and they will act where appropriate.”

Police (aka SY) probably will already have it I would imagine and "private investigators" will???? - you know the rest.

Just re-read & saw "any verifiable" - Clarrie speak for "no more credible than any other sighting"

Morning gillyspot, I don't think Clarence is the "spokesman", he usually puts his name to these "sightings"....probably Gerry . it remains to be seen whether
the Express et al prints this rubbish.

kitti wrote:Talking off the express....have a look at what they have put next to a UFO sighting lol....

gillyspot wrote:

Panda wrote:

gillyspot wrote:The Daily Star has never had any compunction against printing such rubbish sadly. How on earth it can be called a "newspaper" I have no idea.

I notice a response from the McCanns' COUGH spokesman here.

A spokesman for the McCanns said: “Any verifiable information will go to police and private investigators and they will act where appropriate.”

Police (aka SY) probably will already have it I would imagine and "private investigators" will???? - you know the rest.

Just re-read & saw "any verifiable" - Clarrie speak for "no more credible than any other sighting"

Morning gillyspot, I don't think Clarence is the "spokesman", he usually puts his name to these "sightings"....probably Gerry . it remains to be seen whether
the Express et al prints this rubbish.

Hi Panda

I am not so sure Clarrie would any more after the India sighting. Gerry was not complimentary to the press coverage about the India sighting to Leveson.

"Q. Thank you. Then paragraph 100, you deal with a piece in
11 the Daily Mail, quite recently, July of this year, about
12 an alleged reported sighting in India. What are your
13 feelings about that, please?
14 A. It's probably one of the most recent examples of what
15 I would say is the contempt for Madeleine and her
16 safety. There was no check. This sighting had been
17 reported to the police, I think we were actually on
18 holiday. They emailed us a photograph and we quickly
19 indicated that it was not Madeleine, and as far as we
20 were concerned, it was dealt with. And then a day or
21 two later, it's published and the newspaper on that
22 occasion have chosen to publish it and they may want to
23 justify why, but from our point of view, they don't know
24 whether it's true, they haven't contacted us, and
25 additionally we have the issue that if this really was
Page 56
1 a genuine sighting of Madeleine, then her captors may be
2 alerted and move her."

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-23-November-2011.pdf

So Gerry said they "quickly indicated that it was not Madeleine" by email after seeing a photograph but Clarence (on video) at that time was saying amongst other spin "The private investigators have been trying to get to the bottom of it for the past few days"

Justiceforallkids wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

kitti wrote:“She had mousy blonde hair in scruffy plaits, very fair skin and looked about seven or eight, which is how old she would have been now.”


So she was spotted in 2009...if you work that out she would off been 6.......but she is 100% sure she saw her and yet she was the age she would be today....7-8..does that make any sence to anyone lol as she would be neally 9 in 2012!!!!!


How can a person supposedly abducted In 2007 at age neally 4 be seen two years later in 2009 and be 7-8?

And that child was very small for her age when she disappeared.

But that's before coming in contact with our great food and air. People here are very healthy and strong!

hey claudia xxxxxxxx realistically this is all bullshit a abductor would not have hada child like maddie out in public imo usally f there isa story like this something else is going on!!!

gillyspot wrote:

Panda wrote:

gillyspot wrote:The Daily Star has never had any compunction against printing such rubbish sadly. How on earth it can be called a "newspaper" I have no idea.

I notice a response from the McCanns' COUGH spokesman here.

A spokesman for the McCanns said: “Any verifiable information will go to police and private investigators and they will act where appropriate.”

Police (aka SY) probably will already have it I would imagine and "private investigators" will???? - you know the rest.

Just re-read & saw "any verifiable" - Clarrie speak for "no more credible than any other sighting"

Morning gillyspot, I don't think Clarence is the "spokesman", he usually puts his name to these "sightings"....probably Gerry . it remains to be seen whether
the Express et al prints this rubbish.

Hi Panda

I am not so sure Clarrie would any more after the India sighting. Gerry was not complimentary to the press coverage about the India sighting to Leveson.

"Q. Thank you. Then paragraph 100, you deal with a piece in
11 the Daily Mail, quite recently, July of this year, about
12 an alleged reported sighting in India. What are your
13 feelings about that, please?
14 A. It's probably one of the most recent examples of what
15 I would say is the contempt for Madeleine and her
16 safety. There was no check. This sighting had been
17 reported to the police, I think we were actually on
18 holiday. They emailed us a photograph and we quickly
19 indicated that it was not Madeleine, and as far as we
20 were concerned, it was dealt with. And then a day or
21 two later, it's published and the newspaper on that
22 occasion have chosen to publish it and they may want to
23 justify why, but from our point of view, they don't know
24 whether it's true, they haven't contacted us, and
25 additionally we have the issue that if this really was
Page 56
1 a genuine sighting of Madeleine, then her captors may be
2 alerted and move her."

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-23-November-2011.pdf

So Gerry said they "quickly indicated that it was not Madeleine" by email after seeing a photograph but Clarence (on video) at that time was saying amongst other spin "The private investigators have been trying to get to the bottom of it for the past few days"

Panda wrote:


Thanks kitti ...saved before it gets whoosh clunked.

kitti wrote:I'm quite sure these articles are put on line in the hope that someone sees it and copies and pastes it then after an hour or so they whip it off as if to say....ain't got nothing to do with us....after an hour or so it would off probably been posted all over the Internet ....job done.

kathybelle wrote:The McCanns have never mentioned the reward that is on offer for the safe return of Madeleine. They have sat on sofas in television studios, reminding the general public she is missing and told them to keep looking for Madeleine, but they have never mentioned the reward.

I think the size of the reward was drastically reduced, because some of businessmen, withdrew their pledges, when the McCanns were made areguidos. It doesn't matter how much the reward is, the fact is the McCanns have never mentioned anything about it and if ever there was an incentive for people to go and look for Madeleine, this was it.

I wonder why the media have never pushed this reward, after all they were the ones started the ball rolling with the reward. Closely followed by a couple of footballers, celebrities and businessmen.

Thinking about it, why would the McCanns mention the reward? If Madeleine had gone missing, while the McCanns were out, they would have been leading the hunt for her. They weren't even at the back of the hunt, they were safe and warm in their apartment, looking for ways to save their own skins. Since then the McCanns priority, has been to issue lawsuits against anyone who dares to repeat in public, what is written in the files.