Regarding Jane Tanner and her many versions...

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Isabella

Isabella

Thank you! Justice for Meredith!
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
1,141
Reaction score
21
Respectfully snipped...
Isabella said:
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2009/04/niggle-and-strange-tale-of-robert-murat.html

You ou seriously could not make this crap up.
Click to expand...
Paulo Reis can. :yes:

Check out the real thing! Her actual statement in the final report.

And regarding the PJ's efit of egg man....
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/commen...6/maddie-police-stand-accused-86908-20685928/

There are few who will comprehend why they failed to publicise two highly detailed - and strikingly similar - efit pictures of possible suspects.
The efits were available to them just three days after Madeleine went missing on May 3 last year.
An English tourist remembers a man watching the McCann flat.
A second Briton provided data for a second efit after spotting a suspicious man in the area in the days before Madeleine disappeared.
Instead of using these efits to secure worldwide attention, the inquiry team issued a ridiculous drawing of the rear view of an egg-shaped head with hair. Why?
Because they didn't want to put out the images of the suspects the two Brits described because of secrecy laws and the fear of prejudicing further investigations.

It beggars belief that the police could even consider that the privacy of an unknown person, who might just be a dangerous child abductor, takes precedence over the life of a missing child.

If that's the attitude which prevails in Portugal it's amazing they catch any criminals at all.
 
april4sky said:
Respectfully snipped...Paulo Reis can. :yes:

Check out the real thing! Her actual statement in the final report.

And regarding the PJ's efit of egg man....
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/commen...6/maddie-police-stand-accused-86908-20685928/

There are few who will comprehend why they failed to publicise two highly detailed - and strikingly similar - efit pictures of possible suspects.
The efits were available to them just three days after Madeleine went missing on May 3 last year.
An English tourist remembers a man watching the McCann flat.
A second Briton provided data for a second efit after spotting a suspicious man in the area in the days before Madeleine disappeared.
Instead of using these efits to secure worldwide attention, the inquiry team issued a ridiculous drawing of the rear view of an egg-shaped head with hair. Why?
Because they didn't want to put out the images of the suspects the two Brits described because of secrecy laws and the fear of prejudicing further investigations.

It beggars belief that the police could even consider that the privacy of an unknown person, who might just be a dangerous child abductor, takes precedence over the life of a missing child.

If that's the attitude which prevails in Portugal it's amazing they catch any criminals at all.
Click to expand...


No disrespect but Reis has followed the case m uch closer then the press at the link you posted..

Jane Tanner to me comes across as quite loony - and i think not only should she be prosecuted for wasting the pjs time she should get fined for trying to put the blame onto Murat.

There actions are shocking :furious:
 
Respectfully snipped....
Isabella said:
No disrespect but Reis has followed the case m uch closer then the press at the link you posted..
Click to expand...
Paulo Reis didn't make Jane Tanners statements Isabella.

So the same applies........

Check out the real thing for yourself! Her actual statement in the final report.
 
april4sky said:
Respectfully snipped....Paulo Reis didn't make Jane Tanners statements Isabella.

So the same applies........

Check out the real thing for yourself! Her actual statement in the final report.
Click to expand...


And your point is? She comes across as totally unbelievable and making it up as she goes along.

Maybe they should have made her a arguido too.

JMO
 
Jane Tanner is not a credible witness. The reasons for her changing accounts could be many--but the net effect is, her account has changed.

And for an eye witness acount, changing the details so significantly is fatal.
 
Texana said:
Jane Tanner is not a credible witness. The reasons for her changing accounts could be many--but the net effect is, her account has changed.

And for an eye witness acount, changing the details so significantly is fatal.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is the McCanns supporters say her account has never changed..which kinda makes you believe they would believe her whatever she came out with.
 
Isabella said:
And your point is? She comes across as totally unbelievable and making it up as she goes along.

Maybe they should have made her a arguido too.

JMO
Click to expand...
I think you are mixing up your "opinions" with the facts:waitasec: again!
 
april4sky said:
I think you are mixing up your "opinions" with the facts:waitasec: again!
Click to expand...

Belief in anyone is always a matter of opinion.

And since Jane's account that night is not verified in any way by another person or other evidence, her account can not be considered factual.

It may be true, but it cannot be considered a fact.

An opinion may be true, but it cannot be proven.

Hence, your belief in God is opinion. Etc, etc.

Those aren't my standards, those are the accepted standards for teaching fact/opinion in reading for the U.S. Of course, Great Britain may be different, but I frequently use material from the U.K, and it has always been very much in line with our curriculum. (except of course for the darn spelling of color, practice, theater, etc.)

:)
 
Respectfully snipped....
Texana said:
Belief in anyone is always a matter of opinion.
It may be true, but it cannot be considered a fact.
An opinion may be true, but it cannot be proven.
Hence, your belief in God is opinion. Etc, etc.
:)
Click to expand...
Which is why it's important when someone posts accusations without proof they should also make it clear it's only in "fact" their "opinion." :)
 
april4sky said:
Respectfully snipped....
Which is why it's important when someone posts accusations without proof they should also make it clear it's only in "fact" their "opinion." :)
Click to expand...

Isn't it obvious that everyone's post here is opinion only?

You can't prove that the McCanns weren't involved, so you're right in the Opinion Boat with the rest of us.

Please, it will get very tiresome if we all state "And this of course is my opinion only, since it can't be proven as yet, and may very well turn out to true, but as of now, can only be stated as opinion."
 
jane Tanner has never changed her story. the only discrepancy was that the PJ released the height in cm (she gave it in feet and inches, metric is used officially in the UK, but a normal person would usually use imperial in everyday life) and got the conversion wrong.
her account also matches that of the smiths, and neither knew of each other.
 
brit1981 said:
jane Tanner has never changed her story. the only discrepancy was that the PJ released the height in cm (she gave it in feet and inches, metric is used officially in the UK, but a normal person would usually use imperial in everyday life) and got the conversion wrong.
her account also matches that of the smiths, and neither knew of each other.
Click to expand...

The real questions raised by Jane Tanners story are -

How she walked straight past Gerry and Jeremy Wilkins, in a narrow deserted street, and neither of them saw her;

How she also claims she saw a child being carried away, in the same street, that neither Gerry nor Jeremy saw;

How the description of the person carrying the child (and indeed the child itself) evolved over time to fit the description of Madeline and a vague abductor';

How she DIDN'T RECOGNISE MADELINE BEING ABDUCTED, RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER EYES until much, much later.
 
brit1981 said:
jane Tanner has never changed her story. the only discrepancy was that the PJ released the height in cm (she gave it in feet and inches, metric is used officially in the UK, but a normal person would usually use imperial in everyday life) and got the conversion wrong.
her account also matches that of the smiths, and neither knew of each other.
Click to expand...

No not all. the smiths saw a caucasian man with short hair, tanner said she saw a swarthy dark skinned man with long hair so no match whatsoever

If it was the same man withmadeleine what was he doing strolling around the resort for 45 minutes, pathetic
 
Tanner's first mention of the "abductor" was to a GNR Officer, who were the first LE on the scene at 11pm.

He says

After the search of the interior, his colleague went to check the area around the apartments and the Tapas Bar, while the witness remained next the apartment, just outside it. At that moment a female individual, he does not know whether she was a member of the group of friends, who was in the neighbouring apartment, said that she saw an individual carrying a child, running, and that because of the pyjamas she was wearing it could have been Madeleine. It was in these circumstances that abduction began to be talked about. He made a report about this situation and sent it to the police.

This sighting did not seem to him to be very credible, because when he asked her about the physical characteristics of the individual, she said it was very dark, however she saw the pyjamas clearly.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id258.html

Tanner's second version, statement taken 4 May 2007 -

( * ) Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35 – 40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back (she could only see him from behind). He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a "duffy" sic type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type. He had a hurried walk. He was carrying a child, who was lying on both his arms, in front of his chest. By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".

(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.

As regards these details, she does not know what Madeleine was wearing at the moment of her disappearance, because she did not talk to anyone about this. As she concerns the man she saw, she only spoke to Gerald about this, not entering into details, and to the police.

She did not mention it to Kate, and Gerry did not ask for details of her alleged sighting.

How did Kate not know, when the "sighting" appeared on a timeline prepared by her and Gerry and Russell O'Brien at around midnight?

Then, by 10 May, we have this -

Subsequently, she had no doubts that it could have been Madeleine Beth McCann because, through conversations with Fiona Payne in which [Fiona Payne] described the pyjamas that Madeleine Beth McCann had worn that night, which coincided with those she had seen. Questioned why she had not commented to Kate Healy what she had seen that night, namely that she had seen a male individual who carried a child with pink pyjamas, she relates that she always avoided making this comment to the McCanns so as not to torture them more in their suffering.

Ok so now we're back to Kate not knowing, nor Gerry!.

Yet, they put it on their timeline. How odd.

:waitasec:

Later, Gerry gets in on elaborating on the "abductor" -

BBC Cimewatch appeal - 05 June 2007

Gerry says the 'suspect' was 'probably carrying a child' and was 'Approximately 35 years of age, approximately 1 metre 75. There's a little bit of discrepancy, I think mainly in conversion, I think initial descriptions said 1.70, but went into 5ft 10in. So, I think you can assume round about 5ft 8, 5ft 9, something like that. He had dark hair, parted to one side, slightly longer at the back. And he was wearing a dark jacket, slightly longer than a suit jacket and light coloured trousers which may have been beige or mustard coloured and dark shoes.'

Now we have a hair do and some mustard coloured trousers...

The first sketch is released by the McCann via Gerry's blog, facilitated by their "detective agency", Metodo 3 (in fact ALL of the sketches originate with the McCann) -

Gerry's blog - Release of the artist's impression, 26 October 2007

Referring to Metodo 3:

'They have also released a sketch of an eyewitness who saw a man carrying a small child away from near the apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared. We believe this child was Madeleine. The Portuguese police have released the description of the man previously: he is 35-40 years old, approximately 5ft 8in - 5ft 10in (1.72-1.78m), Caucasian with southern European/Mediterranean appearance, slim build with dark hair.'

Now we have a build and a racial appearance produced from the ether...!

Back to Tanner, interviewed who also can't stop elaborating -


Jane Tanner - Panorama documentary, 'The Mystery of Madeleine McCann', 19 November 2007

Excerpts from transcript:

JT: He was about probably 5'8 tall, he was taller than me but not 6' and so between those two. He was wearing quite a lot of clothes and that's one thing in hindsight again I think was quite odd because tourists when they're abroad, Brits abroad would always have cropped trousers or shorts or something, and he had a sort of a big heavy jacket and trousers on, and hair.. the one thing that I remember a lot is the hair. He did seem to have quite a lot of dark, reasonably-long-to-the-neck hair.

RB: Describe exactly what he's carrying, what you can see.

JT: Well I could see.. I could tell it was a child, and I could see the feet and... feet and the bottom of the pyjamas, and I just thought that child's not got any shoes on because you could see the feet, and it was quite a cold night in Portugal in May it's not actually that warm, and I'd got a big jumper on, and I can remember thinking oh that parent is not a particularly good parent, they've not wrapped them up.

RB: And could you tell if it was a boy or a girl?

JT: Only because the pyjamas had a pinky aspect to them so you presume a girl.


Now this handsome devil has acquired extra layers of clothing, and long, noticeable hair.

On 20 Nov 2007 Tanner gives yet another interview, this time an "exclusive" to the Sun Newspaper, and although is careful not to describe the abductor, gives us a dribble more on "Madeleine" and why she didn't tell Kate about the sighting -

It was while Jane was there that Maddie’s mum Kate, 39, went to see her children at around 10.05pm – and found the girl missing.

sbm

She said: "I saw all our friends outside shouting. I opened the door and one, Rachael, shouted at me, 'Madeleine’ s gone!' As soon as she said that the image of that man carrying the child came into my head and I felt physically sick. A feeling of complete horror washed over me."

Minutes later Jane saw Kate. Close to tears, Jane admitted she could not bear to tell her about the man. She said: "At that time it seemed everyone thought Madeleine was hiding.

I knew that if I told her about the man it would shatter that. I was also hoping desperately that I’d been wrong. Instead I took another friend, Fiona, to one side and told her.

"Then, at around 11.15, two policemen arrived and I told them. Later CID arrived. They did this thing called a cognitive technique, where they put you back in the moment, and it was then that I remembered the pyjamas.

"There were pink and white, they were what Madeleine was wearing. I just felt so awful, I felt I could have stopped this from happening. I think of that everyday.

Now it was Fiona Tanner told, not Gerry.

Which STILL doesn't explain how it ended up on the "timeline".

The pajamas are now pink and white instead of a "pinkish aspect".

:banghead:

By the time of Tanner's rogatory interview by LE on 8 April 2008, it had become thus -

JT: But, I mean, I think... so the things that I'm happy; that are still in my head... that still stick in my head, is the hair and it was longer... it was sort of longish and, errm... I don't know how to (inaudible)... but each... each... almost the hair was long... the bits of hair were long, so it was long into the neck, you know, sort of in... when people have a number one or whatever at the back and it's shaved; not shaved up, but, you know, sort of layered up, this was more long into the neck, so sort of long, each... each individual hair was long, errm... and dark; it was sort of quite dark and glossy, that sticks in my head. And, sort of... the dark... dark clothes and quite billowy; not billowy clothes but quite baggy, sort of... they seemed, errm... not ill fitting but quite baggy clothes, like... not jeans, but trousers, sort of... not Chinos but not Farrahs either but sort of baggy'ish, sort of, ill fitting more than... And they're the bits that I remember quite vividly, sort of.

4078: And what colours?

JT: Dark colours, but again it was... I think, it was quite dark, so dark, sort of darkish jacket but then a more, a lighter trouser but a horrible colour, again this is, sort of a yellowy dark browny, horrible, but not, not a nice colour trousers, but then I wonder whether that was the lights making them look, making them look more of a sort of a mustard, it wasn’t mustard because that’s too bright, but it was just like a, as I say they weren’t nice, they weren’t the sort of clothes I’d expect somebody on a MARK WARNER holiday to, they was, I can’t think of the material, I tried to describe this before, but sort of a cottony material but baggy”.

Now the "abductor" has got mustardy coloured trousers on too, per Gerry's description, and individual long hairs :confused: on his glossy head, but badly dressed and scruffy besides.

No mention of his race.

And on "Madeleine" -

4078 “And when you noticed the detail was it in any colour?”

Reply “I don’t, I didn’t know, I thought there was sort of a pink flowery bit on, bit on it, but, no, I mean, the actual frill itself or turn-up, as I thought it was, I couldn’t think of the colour, but I thought there was pink sort of flowery and sort of like liney bits on the bottom, so”.

Now we have flowers and liney bits! Coincidentally, describing to a T the pajamas the McCann had displayed at one of their many pressers.

If you compare the original description to the final one, it has clearly been embroidered. Tanner's apparent excitement at being the focus of so much media made her a teensy bit careless and we've ended up with a chinese whisper masquerading as fact.

Also, if she had such a great description, why did it take the McCann 175 days to release the suspect sketch based on what Tanner allegedly saw?

:banghead:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap2
 
SapphireSteel said:
Tanner's first mention of the "abductor" was to a GNR Officer, who were the first LE on the scene at 11pm.

He says

After the search of the interior, his colleague went to check the area around the apartments and the Tapas Bar, while the witness remained next the apartment, just outside it. At that moment a female individual, he does not know whether she was a member of the group of friends, who was in the neighbouring apartment, said that she saw an individual carrying a child, running, and that because of the pyjamas she was wearing it could have been Madeleine. It was in these circumstances that abduction began to be talked about. He made a report about this situation and sent it to the police.

This sighting did not seem to him to be very credible, because when he asked her about the physical characteristics of the individual, she said it was very dark, however she saw the pyjamas clearly.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id258.html

Tanner's second version, statement taken 4 May 2007 -

( * ) Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35 – 40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back (she could only see him from behind). He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a "duffy" sic type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type. He had a hurried walk. He was carrying a child, who was lying on both his arms, in front of his chest. By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".

(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.

As regards these details, she does not know what Madeleine was wearing at the moment of her disappearance, because she did not talk to anyone about this. As she concerns the man she saw, she only spoke to Gerald about this, not entering into details, and to the police.

She did not mention it to Kate, and Gerry did not ask for details of her alleged sighting.

How did Kate not know, when the "sighting" appeared on a timeline prepared by her and Gerry and Russell O'Brien at around midnight?

Then, by 10 May, we have this -

Subsequently, she had no doubts that it could have been Madeleine Beth McCann because, through conversations with Fiona Payne in which [Fiona Payne] described the pyjamas that Madeleine Beth McCann had worn that night, which coincided with those she had seen. Questioned why she had not commented to Kate Healy what she had seen that night, namely that she had seen a male individual who carried a child with pink pyjamas, she relates that she always avoided making this comment to the McCanns so as not to torture them more in their suffering.

Ok so now we're back to Kate not knowing, nor Gerry!.

Yet, they put it on their timeline. How odd.

:waitasec:

Later, Gerry gets in on elaborating on the "abductor" -

BBC Cimewatch appeal - 05 June 2007

Gerry says the 'suspect' was 'probably carrying a child' and was 'Approximately 35 years of age, approximately 1 metre 75. There's a little bit of discrepancy, I think mainly in conversion, I think initial descriptions said 1.70, but went into 5ft 10in. So, I think you can assume round about 5ft 8, 5ft 9, something like that. He had dark hair, parted to one side, slightly longer at the back. And he was wearing a dark jacket, slightly longer than a suit jacket and light coloured trousers which may have been beige or mustard coloured and dark shoes.'

Now we have a hair do and some mustard coloured trousers...

The first sketch is released by the McCann via Gerry's blog, facilitated by their "detective agency", Metodo 3 (in fact ALL of the sketches originate with the McCann) -

Gerry's blog - Release of the artist's impression, 26 October 2007

Referring to Metodo 3:

'They have also released a sketch of an eyewitness who saw a man carrying a small child away from near the apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared. We believe this child was Madeleine. The Portuguese police have released the description of the man previously: he is 35-40 years old, approximately 5ft 8in - 5ft 10in (1.72-1.78m), Caucasian with southern European/Mediterranean appearance, slim build with dark hair.'

Now we have a build and a racial appearance produced from the ether...!

Back to Tanner, interviewed who also can't stop elaborating -


Jane Tanner - Panorama documentary, 'The Mystery of Madeleine McCann', 19 November 2007

Excerpts from transcript:

JT: He was about probably 5'8 tall, he was taller than me but not 6' and so between those two. He was wearing quite a lot of clothes and that's one thing in hindsight again I think was quite odd because tourists when they're abroad, Brits abroad would always have cropped trousers or shorts or something, and he had a sort of a big heavy jacket and trousers on, and hair.. the one thing that I remember a lot is the hair. He did seem to have quite a lot of dark, reasonably-long-to-the-neck hair.

RB: Describe exactly what he's carrying, what you can see.

JT: Well I could see.. I could tell it was a child, and I could see the feet and... feet and the bottom of the pyjamas, and I just thought that child's not got any shoes on because you could see the feet, and it was quite a cold night in Portugal in May it's not actually that warm, and I'd got a big jumper on, and I can remember thinking oh that parent is not a particularly good parent, they've not wrapped them up.

RB: And could you tell if it was a boy or a girl?

JT: Only because the pyjamas had a pinky aspect to them so you presume a girl.


Now this handsome devil has acquired extra layers of clothing, and long, noticeable hair.

On 20 Nov 2007 Tanner gives yet another interview, this time an "exclusive" to the Sun Newspaper, and although is careful not to describe the abductor, gives us a dribble more on "Madeleine" and why she didn't tell Kate about the sighting -

It was while Jane was there that Maddie’s mum Kate, 39, went to see her children at around 10.05pm – and found the girl missing.

sbm

She said: "I saw all our friends outside shouting. I opened the door and one, Rachael, shouted at me, 'Madeleine’ s gone!' As soon as she said that the image of that man carrying the child came into my head and I felt physically sick. A feeling of complete horror washed over me."

Minutes later Jane saw Kate. Close to tears, Jane admitted she could not bear to tell her about the man. She said: "At that time it seemed everyone thought Madeleine was hiding.

I knew that if I told her about the man it would shatter that. I was also hoping desperately that I’d been wrong. Instead I took another friend, Fiona, to one side and told her.

"Then, at around 11.15, two policemen arrived and I told them. Later CID arrived. They did this thing called a cognitive technique, where they put you back in the moment, and it was then that I remembered the pyjamas.

"There were pink and white, they were what Madeleine was wearing. I just felt so awful, I felt I could have stopped this from happening. I think of that everyday.

Now it was Fiona Tanner told, not Gerry.

Which STILL doesn't explain how it ended up on the "timeline".

The pajamas are now pink and white instead of a "pinkish aspect".

:banghead:

By the time of Tanner's rogatory interview by LE on 8 April 2008, it had become thus -

JT: But, I mean, I think... so the things that I'm happy; that are still in my head... that still stick in my head, is the hair and it was longer... it was sort of longish and, errm... I don't know how to (inaudible)... but each... each... almost the hair was long... the bits of hair were long, so it was long into the neck, you know, sort of in... when people have a number one or whatever at the back and it's shaved; not shaved up, but, you know, sort of layered up, this was more long into the neck, so sort of long, each... each individual hair was long, errm... and dark; it was sort of quite dark and glossy, that sticks in my head. And, sort of... the dark... dark clothes and quite billowy; not billowy clothes but quite baggy, sort of... they seemed, errm... not ill fitting but quite baggy clothes, like... not jeans, but trousers, sort of... not Chinos but not Farrahs either but sort of baggy'ish, sort of, ill fitting more than... And they're the bits that I remember quite vividly, sort of.

4078: And what colours?

JT: Dark colours, but again it was... I think, it was quite dark, so dark, sort of darkish jacket but then a more, a lighter trouser but a horrible colour, again this is, sort of a yellowy dark browny, horrible, but not, not a nice colour trousers, but then I wonder whether that was the lights making them look, making them look more of a sort of a mustard, it wasn’t mustard because that’s too bright, but it was just like a, as I say they weren’t nice, they weren’t the sort of clothes I’d expect somebody on a MARK WARNER holiday to, they was, I can’t think of the material, I tried to describe this before, but sort of a cottony material but baggy”.

Now the "abductor" has got mustardy coloured trousers on too, per Gerry's description, and individual long hairs :confused: on his glossy head, but badly dressed and scruffy besides.

No mention of his race.

And on "Madeleine" -

4078 “And when you noticed the detail was it in any colour?”

Reply “I don’t, I didn’t know, I thought there was sort of a pink flowery bit on, bit on it, but, no, I mean, the actual frill itself or turn-up, as I thought it was, I couldn’t think of the colour, but I thought there was pink sort of flowery and sort of like liney bits on the bottom, so”.

Now we have flowers and liney bits! Coincidentally, describing to a T the pajamas the McCann had displayed at one of their many pressers.

If you compare the original description to the final one, it has clearly been embroidered. Tanner's apparent excitement at being the focus of so much media made her a teensy bit careless and we've ended up with a chinese whisper masquerading as fact.

Also, if she had such a great description, why did it take the McCann 175 days to release the suspect sketch based on what Tanner allegedly saw?

:banghead:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap2
Click to expand...


Having read the following link it appears that Jane wasn't there writing the timeline. There is no mention of her sighting of an abductor actually being written on the timeline only that she walked into the room when the timeline was being done and told the police, Kate and Gerry directly.

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077595/Rebuttal of "Fact" 8

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077589/Rebuttal of "Fact" 7

"This sighting did not seem to him to be very credible, because when he asked her about the physical characteristics of the individual, she said it was very dark, however she saw the pyjamas clearly"

I wonder if now he thinks it more credible after the Smith sighting?
I don't think it's odd that she one minute she can't remember and then the next she could. People are interviewed years after an incident to see if they can remember anything else. Under the circumstances I think it's quite reasonable to think that there was a lot going through their minds. They used cognitive techniques on her to try to get her to remember so they are obviously used to information getting 'lost'.
 
Here is what jane actually said to the police

4th May http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap2
Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35 – 40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back (she could only see him from behind). He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a "duffy" sic type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type. He had a hurried walk. He was carrying a child, who was lying on both his arms, in front of his chest. By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".[/I]

10th may http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap12
That, indeed, there had passed in front of her a man carrying, in his arms, a barefoot child. At the time she had not paid him much attention because it is common, at the Ocean Club, for children to pass in the arms of their parents between the crèche and their respective homes, when they have collected them from the baby-sitting service. Only it was strange that the child had no cover (blanket) and the way the man walked, rapidly, and how he was dressed, the trousers were slightly wide their entire length, being straight. They (trousers) were as to colour, identical to "corticite" [a type of floor covering], "chino" style. As for the coat it was dark coloured, she was not able to specify what, seeming to be the same material as the trousers, it being a type of "anorak". As for the footwear she relates that she cannot confirm with certainty but [they were] shoes which enabled the man to be fleet-footed.

rog. interview april 2008 http://www.mccannfiles.com/id222.html
4078 “Right. And when you first became aware of this man holding the child, if you can try and picture in your mind, as I am sure you have done over and over again, and start from the top of his head and work your way down and tell me what he looked like?”

Reply “You see this is where now I’m really, I don’t even know whether it’s worth doing this, because there’s been so much, since then I’ve had the, when they took me round for the surveillance to look at, and I’m guessing now it’s MURAT they wanted me to look at and, you know, all the other bits and bobs, I really don’t know, but I think I’d prefer just to stick with what I said in my original statement, in terms of the, because even, I mean, this is coming back to the sketch, even when I did the sketch, by that stage, you know, things were, were murky,I needed to that sketch that first night, I mean, they took me in to do the sketch, but they only had, erm, front facing software, so you know, and at that point I said, you know, is there, can I do, because the clothes and everything was the thing was the thing that was the most in my mind then and I can remember saying to the chap I met on the stairs earlier, I think it’s (inaudible), is it?”

4078 “Yeah”.

Reply “Because he took me in the car back and forth and I can remember saying to him on the way back ‘Look, is there a way I can do a sketch with clothes, you know, do you have software or any way that I can do a sketch of the clothes or a side, a side view’. And he sort of said ‘No, we don’t have that feasible, you know, feasibility or availability’. And I said then ‘Can I do that when I go back to the UK’, you know, because at that point it was in my head and it would have been, and they were the bits that I think would have been recognisable to get down on paper. But at that point it was like ‘Oh no, we can’t do that, we don’t work in that way’. Which I can understand and, you know, now obviously I think ‘Oh I should have pushed and really pushed’, but at that point you rely on, you don’t, you know, you’re just in such shock and you just think ‘Okay that’s the way things do’, but”.

4078 “Yeah”.

Reply “But, I mean, I think, so the things that I’m happy, that are still in my head, that still stick in my head is the hair and it was longer, it was sort of longish and, erm, I don’t know how to (inaudible), but each, each, almost the hair was long, the bits of hair were long, so it was long into the neck, you know, sort of in, when people have a number one or whatever at the back and it’s shaved, not shaved up, but, you know, sort of layered up, this was more long into the neck, so sort of long, each, each individual hair was long, erm, and dark, it was sort of quite dark and glossy, that sticks in my head. And sort of the dark, dark clothes and quite billowy, not billowy clothes, but quite baggy, sort of they seemed, erm, not ill fitting but quite baggy clothes, like not jeans, but trousers sort of not Chinos but not Farrahs either, but sort of baggy’ish sort of ill fitting more than. And they’re the bits that I remember quite vividly sort of”.

4078 “And what colours?”

Reply “Dark colours, but again it was, I think it was quite dark, so dark, sort of darkish jacket but then a more, a lighter trouser but a horrible colour, again this is, sort of a yellowy dark browny, horrible, but not, not a nice colour trousers, but then I wonder whether that was the lights making them look, making them look more of a sort of a mustard, it wasn’t mustard because that’s too bright, but it was just like a, as I say they weren’t nice, they weren’t the sort of clothes I’d expect somebody on a MARK WARNER holiday to, they was, I can’t think of the material, I tried to describe this before, but sort of a cottony material but baggy”.

4078 “You know the artist’s impression that you”.

Reply “Umm”.

4078 “That has been circulated a lot. How happy are you with that?”

Reply “Erm, phew, reasonably, but, I mean, it was the best I could do after that time, I mean, it was more, the hair was the one thing on that that I wasn’t completely happy about but we couldn’t get it any better because it was the sort of, I almost think that might have been slightly too long or just, but on the whole I think the actual sort of style and everything was, was fairly right. I mean, I tried to do that though from my original description that we wrote down, sort of well afterwards (inaudible) we tried to get all our thoughts down and I tried to do it as much as I could from that, because six months on, as I say, there was, I think the problem is there’d been so much put into my head since then, like doing the surveillance and, you know, looking at people on that and things, it was very hard to, to do it”.

4078 “I must come back and talk about that when we have finished going through everything”.

Reply “Yeah, that’s fine, yeah”.

4078 “What about the height of the man?”

Reply “Erm, phew, well, you know, I did it on the, I sort of pointed out where it was on the person that interviewed me originally and, erm, sort of, not six foot but taller than me but sort of not, but not, I’d say I think it was sort of about five foot nine, five foot ten. But I think that had got confused in translation because I don’t know what it was in metres and they sort of then transferred that into metres from my statement, so I think it came out actually lower. But I think it was sort of like five foot nine, five foot ten, as much as I could, so”.4078 “Okay. And his build?”

Reply “Medium, well sort of just normal build. As I say, I think the clothes were quite baggy, so I think they made him look more bigger than he probably was, but. And also he would have been, his shoulders would have been out, you know, sort of. So, I think, erm, yeah, medium’ish, a medium’ish build”.

4078 “And you said earlier you thought he was, I can’t remember what word you used, walking, you didn’t say briskly, but”.

Reply “Purposefully”.

4078 “Purposefully”.

Reply “Yeah”.

4078 “Did you notice anything else about the way he walked?”

Reply “Not really, just that it was very, as I say, it did seem quite a very, you know, a purposeful. And also the way he was carrying was sort of, it’s the way I would pick my children up if I didn’t want to wake them up, you know, if you’re sort of picking them up to put them into another bed or something, it is the way I would pick them up if they were asleep, because it’s, normally you would imagine you would carry them over your shoulder or something. So, again, in hindsight, that was probably a bit of an odd way to be, you know, be carrying, but”.

4078 “Is there anything else about the man that you can remember now?”

Reply “No, I mean, I would be so worried now about things that are put into my, I think the only two things that I’m still absolutely adamant on is a lot of hair, sort of a lot of thick, thick hair and sort of dark and baggy, well not, ill fitting clothes I think is the sort of, you know, sort of is the two things that still, I mean obviously I get this image in my head all the time and they are the two things that are still, are still, are still there”.

So her actual descriptions are consistent and contrary to claims that it was metodo 3 were first described the race, one can see from her very first statement that she says dark skinned individual, with dark hair and that she consistently describes the hair as being long at the back to the neck. She is also consistent in describing the child's pyjamas as pale white or pink with a floral patten.
As are her claims that she told gerry that night as well as the police, but kate was not informed until the morning. There is nothing contradictory. And as kate did not make a timeline, but her friends did the fact that they put this on the timeline does not mean kate knew that night. Plus if you actually look at the timeline it could easily have been added at anytime after the initial timeline. There is nothing int he PJ filses stating that kate and gerry did the timeline that evening, nor that they added the tanner sighting. If anyone can actually provide evidence of kate and gerry doing this that night, and that the tanner sighting was added by them that night could they please provide it.


I fail to see ehow a description of a colour as beige to golden, and then mustardy are contradictary, they are just different ways of describing similar shades. However, if one actually reads what Jane says, one will see that she does not say the trousers were a mustard colour, she says the lights might have made them look more mustardy but they were not mustardy as she thinks that is too bright.

Gerry's description fits with tanner's consistant description.

As for e-fits most were produced by the police. But I think it is unfair for people on the one hand to hint it is suspicious if themccanns release an efit, and then equally hint it is suspicious if they do not.
 
Gem2626 said:
Having read the following link it appears that Jane wasn't there writing the timeline. There is no mention of her sighting of an abductor actually being written on the timeline only that she walked into the room when the timeline was being done and told the police, Kate and Gerry directly.

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077595/Rebuttal of "Fact" 8

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077589/Rebuttal of "Fact" 7

"This sighting did not seem to him to be very credible, because when he asked her about the physical characteristics of the individual, she said it was very dark, however she saw the pyjamas clearly"

I wonder if now he thinks it more credible after the Smith sighting?
I don't think it's odd that she one minute she can't remember and then the next she could. People are interviewed years after an incident to see if they can remember anything else. Under the circumstances I think it's quite reasonable to think that there was a lot going through their minds. They used cognitive techniques on her to try to get her to remember so they are obviously used to information getting 'lost'.
Click to expand...


She appears to have had a veritable amnesiac episode.

First remembering zero of something you noticed as odd at the time, just hours after you saw it.

Then telling LE all you know, which is you saw nothing of the man but saw the pajamas clearly.

You remember every single second of the odd sighting when it becomes clear the abducted child is one of your own party...but you do not find it important or worrying enough to tell anyone except Gerry, or was that Fiona?

The point about the handwritten timeline is this -

Tanners sighting appears on the second version.

At the time of writing, Tanner had not told LE or anyone else of her sighting.

How then, did her "sighting" appear on the timeline which was written before Tanner alleges she told anyone of what she saw.
 
SapphireSteel said:
She appears to have had a veritable amnesiac episode.

First remembering zero of something you noticed as odd at the time, just hours after you saw it.

Then telling LE all you know, which is you saw nothing of the man but saw the pajamas clearly.

You remember every single second of the odd sighting when it becomes clear the abducted child is one of your own party...but you do not find it important or worrying enough to tell anyone except Gerry, or was that Fiona?

The point about the handwritten timeline is this -

Tanners sighting appears on the second version.

At the time of writing, Tanner had not told LE or anyone else of her sighting.

How then, did her "sighting" appear on the timeline which was written before Tanner alleges she told anyone of what she saw.
Click to expand...


The fact the police used cognitive techniques to try and get her 'back into the time' says to me that not remembering information when under stress and in shock is fairly common. Having studied degree level psychology I don't think this is strange at all.

You seem to have this idea that the tapas 9 were all sitting around writing this timeline. This is not the case. Most of them were searching, police arrived, Brian and Gerry wrote the timeline. If there are different versions of a timeline I imagine this is from were the rest of the tapas 9 were coming in and out checking it and saying something like 'actually I checked at 8.05 not 8.10' scribble that out. It's messy lets write it out again so it's clear.

Jan told the PJ first and Gerry was present. This was when she first arrived in the room where Gerry and Brian were doing the timeline.

So any additional timeline would have had her sighting on and this was after she had told the PJ, whilst Gerry was present.

This is quite clear in the links I sent you.


ETA- Having just looked at the timelines. They are hardly any different. Things have been written clearer for others to understand and a couple of names have been changed as to who did what when, which isn't surprising when they were not there when the original timeline was started at least.
 
Jane did tell the police that very evening what she had seen.

There is no confirmation of when jane's sighting was added to the timeline, the timeline I have seen shows it could easily have been added after once it was known.

Jane gave a description to the police in her first official statement to them on the 4th, this statement, which gives details such as skin tone, clothing, hair length, hair colour, etc and included a description of a child in pale pink or white pyjamas with a floral pattern on them. her description is consistent throughout her statements both to LE, and the media.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 224 more.
Total: 3,843 (members: 225, guests: 3,618)

Online statistics

Members online
225
Guests online
3,618
Total visitors
3,843
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,535
Messages
17,954,184
Members
228,525
Latest member
Lefer
Back
Top