A question about the alleged sightings

[Isabella]

Do you have a source for Jane Tanner saying to a newspaper that she didn't know if it was a child? That does not fit with what we know.

I'd like to clarify this.

ETA - the story is not out of sync with the timline. Gerry McCann checked the apartment at 9.05 approx. The next person (Oldfield/payne I get those two mixed up) didn't see Madeleine. It is entirely possible that Madeleine was taken immedaitely after gerry left and that he was in the apartment when gerry checked as Gerry thought possible afterwards.

The 9.15 abduction time would fit with everyone's version of the timeline and would make jane tanner's eye witness statement very relevant.

Except..that Gerry would have been outside talking to Jez...so...your claiming the guy walked out of 5A while Gerry stood there talking to Jez?

 

[Jayelles]

Except..that Gerry would have been outside talking to Jez...so...your claiming the guy walked out of 5A while Gerry stood there talking to Jez?

No, I'm not claiming it, the eye-witness Jane Tanner is claiming that. Here is the map. I colour coded it to make it easier to understand.

It would have been growing dark at this time.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=168399&postcount=207

 

[Isabella]

No, I'm not claiming it, the eye-witness Jane Tanner is claiming that. Here is the map. I colour coded it to make it easier to understand.

It would have been growing dark at this time.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=168399&postcount=207

I am sorry but the more i read about Jane Tanner she just appears less and less credible MOO

 

[Jayelles]

I am sorry but the more i read about Jane Tanner she just appears less and less credible MOO

Well I don't know why she would lie. Why on earth would you lie about having seen a child being taken away knowing the unbelievable heartache of the parents and family? That doesn't make sense.

I don't doubt she saw a man - especially since her sighting appears to be corroborated by Martin Smith's. Plus, there's another eye-witness whom I've read nothing about - sounds a Portuguese name and I forget it. I don't recall ever having seen his sighting being discussed.

 

[Isabella]

Well I don't know why she would lie. Why on earth would you lie about having seen a child being taken away knowing the unbelievable heartache of the parents and family? That doesn't make sense.

I don't doubt she saw a man - especially since her sighting appears to be corroborated by Martin Smith's. Plus, there's another eye-witness whom I've read nothing about - sounds a Portuguese name and I forget it. I don't recall ever having seen his sighting being discussed.

Hang on...you said Martin Smiths sighting wasnt valid. And the simple fact is..if you want to say her sighting is cooberated by Martin Smiths...well Martin Smith claims it could be Gerry he saw. Now you have stated Martin had to be mistaken because Gerry was allegedly with the rest of the crew at that time..so..how can he cooberate Janes story?

And of course it makes sense she would say say she saw someone carrying a child ( well eventually she apparently saw it at least) ... IF she knew exactly what DID happen to Madeleine and was trying to pretend along with her friends that Madeleine had been abducted to get her friends off. It would also make sense if she knew that her own partner was involved in any way with helping to cover it up.

The other question is..why would she lie indeed?? Why say what she did at the beginning and then totally change her story the way she did? Because that just made her look even more suspicious. MOO

 

[Jayelles]

Hang on...you said Martin Smiths sighting wasnt valid.

No I didn't. I said his assertion that it could have been Gerry was without foundation. Not that he didn't see a man carrying a child.

And the simple fact is..if you want to say her sighting is cooberated by Martin Smiths...well Martin Smith claims it could be Gerry he saw. Now you have stated Martin had to be mistaken because Gerry was allegedly with the rest of the crew at that time..so..how can he cooberate Janes story?

Very simple - he did see someone, but it wasn't Gerry McCann. Just because it was established that it couldn't be Gerry McCann doesn't mean Smith was mistaken he saw any man at all!

And of course it makes sense she would say say she saw someone carrying a child ( well eventually she apparently saw it at least) ... IF she knew exactly what DID happen to Madeleine and was trying to pretend along with her friends that Madeleine had been abducted to get her friends off. It would also make sense if she knew that her own partner was involved in any way with helping to cover it up.

The other question is..why would she lie indeed?? Why say what she did at the beginning and then totally change her story the way she did? Because that just made her look even more suspicious. MOO

I don't believe she did change her story. The sources for that are tabloids and discussion forums. She gave one statement in 2007 according to the PJ files and one in late 2008 to the Leicestershire police.

There were rumours that they were going to change their stories but these were officially denied.

I googled this and came up with about a dozen different versions of this story. Not Jane Tanner giving a dozen different versions, but forums/blogs/tabloids giving a dozen different versions of the story.

 

[Isabella]

[/size][/font]
No I didn't. I said his assertion that it could have been Gerry was without foundation. Not that he didn't see a man carrying a child.



Very simple - he did see someone, but it wasn't Gerry McCann. Just because it was established that it couldn't be Gerry McCann doesn't mean Smith was mistaken he saw any man at all!




I don't believe she did change her story. The sources for that are tabloids and discussion forums. She gave one statement in 2007 according to the PJ files and one in late 2008 to the Leicestershire police.

There were rumours that they were going to change their stories but these were officially denied.

I googled this and came up with about a dozen different versions of this story. Not Jane Tanner giving a dozen different versions, but forums/blogs/tabloids giving a dozen different versions of the story.

As I have said so many times now its getting repetitive..the original story..where she said she saw a bundle covered by a blanket was NOT to the PJS. It was an interview in either the Express or Mail. Because you did not see it ..does not mean it doesnt exist. Plenty of other people have seen it and therefore know she changed her story.

If you choose to ignore that..to be honest thats your choice.

 

[Texana]

No, I'm not claiming it, the eye-witness Jane Tanner is claiming that. Here is the map. I colour coded it to make it easier to understand.

It would have been growing dark at this time.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=168399&postcount=207

And again, since no one can vouch for Jane Tanner's actual location in that spot at that time, her account cannot be credited as evidence of an abduction; given that her testimony contradicts two other people who corroborate each other's accounts.

To ask "why would she lie" is not a logical question. It infers that the only reason Jane's account is not true is a deliberate falsehood on her part, and absent more evidence, that can't be inferred reasonably.

"Why would Jane's account not be true?" is more rational.

She could have seen someone and sincerely believe she saw someone related to the crime. She could truly be so anxious to help the McCanns and so anxious about Madeleine, that her subconscious over compensated.

She could have deliberately made up an account to help the McCanns because she wanted to help her friends.

We only know that her account was changed. One proof of that was that the actual physical drawings of the "Bundleman" changed as they were released to the media. There is no other explanation for the media changing the release other than Jane's provided information changing.

You can infer as well that as a friend of the McCanns, Jane would have had more motive for either explanation A or explanation B, but saying that she is an "eyewitness" is not a statement backed up by known fact or corroboration.

Incidentally, eyewitness accounts are notoriously prone to mistakes. Executions/convictions based on eyewitness evidence have been increasingly under fire as they have been proven time and time again to be most error-prone and more likely to cause wrongful convictions.

 

[april4sky]

Respectfully snipped...

And again, since no one can vouch for Jane Tanner's actual location in that spot at that time, her account cannot be credited as evidence of an abduction; given that her testimony contradicts two other people who corroborate each other's accounts.

She could have seen someone and sincerely believe she saw someone related to the crime.

We only know that her account was changed. One proof of that was that the actual physical drawings of the "Bundleman" changed as they were released to the media. There is no other explanation for the media changing the release other than Jane's provided information changing.

Jane Tanners statement does not contradict anyones elses statement - Nor has hers ever changed.
If you "know" different then please provide links that "quote her" - not 3rd party sources.

She did see someone - And most likely the abductor as no innocent person came forward to be ruled out.
And she wasn't the only person who reported seeing a similar man carrying a child that could have been Madeleine.

This could explain the smears against Jane Tanner regarding changed evidence and the Egg head drawing issued by the PJ.....

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/comment/newspaper-opinion/2008/08/06/maddie-police-stand-accused-86908-20685928/

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.

 

[Texana]

Her statement contradicts Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins in that she places herself in that location but is not seen by them.

 

[Isabella]

Her statement contradicts Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins in that she places herself in that location but is not seen by them.

They reportedly wasnt standing where she claimed they was either.

 

[Isabella]

Respectfully snipped...Jane Tanners statement does not contradict anyones elses statement - Nor has hers ever changed.
If you "know" different then please provide links that "quote her" - not 3rd party sources.

She did see someone - And most likely the abductor as no innocent person came forward to be ruled out.
And she wasn't the only person who reported seeing a similar man carrying a child that could have been Madeleine.

This could explain the smears against Jane Tanner regarding changed evidence and the Egg head drawing issued by the PJ.....

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/comment/newspaper-opinion/2008/08/06/maddie-police-stand-accused-86908-20685928/

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.

Again you are WRONG. Jane Tanner DID change her story and everyone knows this except the McCann supporters by the sounds of it. I will tell you once again..that originally in a interview with a daily paper she claimed she saw a man carrying a bundle covered in a blanket. At that point she wasnt sure what the bundle was except that it MAY have been a blanket. A time later she changed her story..and said it was a man carrying a little girl with pyjamas on like Madeleienes. Somehow now the blanket had disappeared and the bundle had turned into a little girl. Now i understand why MCCann supporters want to deny this happened...because to admit it happened...means ...there is absolutely no proof of any kidnapper.

The Portugese way of doing things is different to ours sure. They dont believe in publicising pictures of missing kids. Now i dont agree with that but..its up to them to make there laws. When the picture of the egg man was released...and this was a picture that the McCanns threatened to take the pjs to court for if they didnt release it..they didnt complain about the picture even though everyone else thought the picture was "ludicrous". Then around 6 months or so later..the other picture was released..of the Portugese looking guy in beige trousers.

You said she did someone..most likely the abductor. There is NO proof there WAS an abductor. None! Yes there was another witness..one who said in his opinion it was Gerry he had seen..but based on the testimony ofJez and Gerry there simply is no logical reason for anyone to believe Jane was where she claimed to be that night.

 

[Texana]

An account that is not verified by any other witness is not credible. Even if she never changed her story one bit, there are always issues with this kind of testimony.

 

[april4sky]

Her statement contradicts Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins in that she places herself in that location but is not seen by them.

Since when is that a contradiction?

 

[badhorsie]

Sorry but the "broken record" routine just will not work in this case

 

[Isabella]

I just dont understand..for the life of me..with the amount of times Jane changed her mind about things ...a nd with the added fact that both Jez and Gerry are sure she wasnt there ... how anyone could take Jane Tanners sighting seriously. I really think in a court of law she would get ripped apart.

 

[Texana]

Since when is that a contradiction?

When she first said it, that would be when.

 

[Jayelles]

Again you are WRONG. Jane Tanner DID change her story and everyone knows this except the McCann supporters by the sounds of it. I will tell you once again..that originally in a interview with a daily paper she claimed she saw a man carrying a bundle covered in a blanket. At that point she wasnt sure what the bundle was except that it MAY have been a blanket. A time later she changed her story..and said it was a man carrying a little girl with pyjamas on like Madeleienes. Somehow now the blanket had disappeared and the bundle had turned into a little girl. Now i understand why MCCann supporters want to deny this happened...because to admit it happened...means ...there is absolutely no proof of any kidnapper.

Thanks to Amaral's documentary, we can clear this up once and for all. It would appear that Isabella is "mistaken". Here is the child's sticker book on which the McCann friends wrote their timeline on the very night Madeleine was taken. Note what it says next to Jane tanner's entry:-

Seen stranger walking carrying a CHILD

(not a "bundle", a CHILD and this was on the 3rd may, 2007). Incidentally, I have checked the translation of the subtitles and "uma crianca" means "a child".

Once again, it would appear that tabloid myths have been spun as fact

 

[Isabella]

Thanks to Amaral's documentary, we can clear this up once and for all. It would appear that Isabella is "mistaken". Here is the child's sticker book on which the McCann friends wrote their timeline on the very night Madeleine was taken. Note what it says next to Jane tanner's entry:-



(not a "bundle", a CHILD and this was on the 3rd may, 2007). Incidentally, I have checked the translation of the subtitles and "uma crianca" means "a child".

Once again, it would appear that tabloid myths have been spun as fact

The problem is...as ive said many many times before...it was said in a interview with Jane herself...the tabloids cant be blamed for that one

No offence but Jane changes her story so much..maybe she forget the "plan"

 

[Texana]

Well I don't know why she would lie. Why on earth would you lie about having seen a child being taken away knowing the unbelievable heartache of the parents and family? That doesn't make sense.

I don't doubt she saw a man - especially since her sighting appears to be corroborated by Martin Smith's. Plus, there's another eye-witness whom I've read nothing about - sounds a Portuguese name and I forget it. I don't recall ever having seen his sighting being discussed.

We've been through this before.

Again: She doesn't have to be lying purposefully to not be giving the factual in reality account as to what was actually there that night, not what she said she saw. I am rather surprised that you do not allow for this possibility, as it is entirely possible, and again, has been brought up previously.

We'll go through it again.

Jane could have seen someone that in the emotion of the evening, she honestly believed later to be carrying a child. (She did produce the later account of an actual child wearing matching pajamas with the aid of a hypnotherapist.)

She could feel so guilty (as many very nice people do, taking on false guilt) for being there when Madeleine went missing, that she produced a false memory to help the McCanns, upon the power of suggestion that Madeleine had been abducted.

There are many other reasons that she might have been mistaken and not been purposefully lying. Unless you can rule out each and everyone of those reasons with sources, then it is quite fair to say that Jane Tanner's account changed, for reasons unknown, but it changed, and therefore cannot be given credibility.

The fact that Jane herself did not tell Kate McCann or Gerry what she saw that night is the key fact. There is nothing in the official records that says that she saw someone carrying a child whose clothing matched Madeleine's and gave the evidence that night.

Perhaps Jane, desperate to help another grieving mother, thinks and thinks over what she thought she saw, consults a hypnotherapist, and produces the result--not because she actually saw that person, but because she sincerely wants to help the McCanns. A very plausible explanation of why her account is not credible, and one that is quite kind to Jane, I might add.

Martin Smith's' encounter could have varied in actual timing, with the same leeway given the McCanns and the other Tapas diners in terms of exact times. It is an essential question to ask why Martin Smith's account was given so little attention or validity in the British press and Jane Tanner's was.

Recognizing someone from their physical moves or way of carrying themselves is quite common.

The scribbled time line in Madeleine's sticker book says "saw stranger carrying child."

That doesn't mean in fact, that anyone saw a stranger carrying a child. It doesn't mean that if anyone saw a person carrying a child, it was INDEED a child. It doesn't mean that if it was a child, it was Madeleine.

All the notation means in fact is that someone wrote those lines down in a child's sticker book.

I've never read anything about another sighting that night, so Jayelles, I would love to see your source.

And before you say it, my sources are all in the old threads. Snipped, clipped, and posted--some of them repeatedly.

Since you are new to the forum, if I am not mistaken, yours are not. So please provide the source for your memory of the other sighting.

I am sure we would all be very much interested and appreciative in discussing another reported eyewitness account of something that could be pertinent to Madeleine's disappearance, so thank you very much in advance for that.