Regarding Jane Tanner and her many versions...

[Donjeta]

JMO. I don't believe her.

So she is able to consistently tell that it was a slim dark skinned male aged between 35 – 40, about five foot nine tall with very dark, thick hair, which was longer at the back but glossy, and very dark, and each individual hair was long in the neck, and who was dressed very warmly in ill fitting clothes including linen type cloth trousers, that were straight and slightly wide their entire length and beige to golden or yellowy dark browny in colour, and a duffy type jacket that was not that thick and that was darker than the trousers, and classic dark shoes, and this individual was carrying a child lying in front of his chest on both his arms wearing floral patterned pajamas that were pale pink or white.

I probably couldn't describe the outfit I wore today in as much detail and she only saw this guy in the dark from behind a little distance away walking hurriedly away for a moment or two and didn't have any particular reason to pay attention to him at the time.

Maybe she saw someone but her imagination has filled in the details. There is no way she took in all that in a couple of seconds only seeing someone from behind in the dark.

 

[fabgod]

JMO. I don't believe her.

So she is able to consistently tell that it was a slim dark skinned male aged between 35 – 40, about 1.70m tall with very dark, thick hair, which was longer at the back but glossy, and very dark, and each individual hair was long in the neck, and who was dressed very warmly in ill fitting clothes including linen type cloth trousers, that were straight and slightly wide their entire length and beige to golden or yellowy dark browny in colour, and a duffy type jacket that was not that thick and that was darker than the trousers, and classic dark shoes, and this individual was carrying a child lying in front of his chest on both his arms wearing floral patterned pajamas that were pale pink or white.

I probably couldn't describe the outfit I wore today in as much detail and she only saw this guy in the dark from behind a little distance away walking hurriedly away for a moment or two and didn't have any particular reason to pay attention to him at the time.

Maybe she saw someone but her imagination has filled in the details.

I agree,
I also find it strange that she could pick out a "pinky aspect" from the distance she was away in street lighting that apparently gave off an orange hue, but no doubt someone will be along shortly to tell me that it was perfectly normal to be able to see these colours from such a difference and that If I know any better I should inform Scotland Yard etc etc

 

[SapphireSteel]

Tanner "played down" the importance of what she may have seen and told LE on the evening that while she saw the child, she hardly noticed the man.

This description has evolved over time, becoming ever more detailed.

It remains impossible that she saw the abductor carrying Madeleine away, and that Jez Wilkins and Gerry saw neither her nor the abductor, even though they were all in a very small, deserted, quiet street and she virtually brushed against Gerry and Jez while passing them.

She is quite simply, lying.

:cow:

 

[brit1981]

I have not seen any primary sources that state jane told the LE that evening that she hardly saw the man.

But this shows how she cannot win, on the one hand peopel claim she changed her story, then when it is pointe dout that she has been consistent, we then have people saying that is suspicious too.

And no-one has been able to demonstrate how it was impossible that neithe rjeremy or gerry saw the abductor. There were not facing in that direction, they were firther down the street, and the abductor (if it was an abductor) was only there for a few seconds.
As for them not seeing Jane, it was not a particulary narrow street, it was dark where they were and they wer ein conversation and one had their back to jane, so she coudl easily have walked by without them noticing. Plus if she did nto walk by them then, then where did she go during this time as witnesses state she left the table, so she either had to walk past them or go into the village for some time. And why lie about seeing gerry with jeremy, she doe snot provide him with any sort of alibi as jeremy coudl ahve given it, and her claiming to see the abductor there does not in anyway provide gerry with his only alibi because several other people inc. guests and mw staff give gerry alibis for the rest of the evening, so there is no benefit to her claiming to have seen jeremy and gerry at this point. If she was going to lie about an abductor then why not claim she had seen him another time when the road was empty. Thats the thing, it is all too easier to imply jane is lying, but not so easier to explain whre she went, why she went there, and why would she lie about seeing jeremy and gerry.

 

[Donjeta]

I have not seen any primary sources that state jane told the LE that evening that she hardly saw the man.

But this shows how she cannot win, on the one hand peopel claim she changed her story, then when it is pointe dout that she has been consistent, we then have people saying that is suspicious too.

No such thing. I didn't say it is suspicious that she has been consistent. I said it is suspicious that she describes so much detail that she can't possibly have observed in such a brief moment of time in such viewing conditions. Eyewitnesses just aren't that good.

It's so dark that Gerry and Jeremy can't see Jane Tanner but Jane Tanner can see a floral pattern in a child's pajamas and tell the man's age on the basis of seeing the back of his head.

 

[brit1981]

From her statements it seems she saw him side on so saw the side of the face not just the back. In her rog. statement she describes being told that they could not do a side on artists impression, hence that eggman face that first came out.
I think one could remember his description like she does because he was passing under street lights and she was not so far away and she was looking at him directly albeit not side on. But more importanly because she thought it was odd he was dressed warmly but the child as barefoot. The smith description is also fairly detailed considering they said it was dark and they only saw the man and child for a few seconds.
Tanner said she noticed him because he did not appear dressed like a tourist and was dressed warmly but the child was not and all in all it seemed a bit odd, and also it was less than an hour later that the alarm was raised, so she could still recall what she saw.

 

[SapphireSteel]

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%20of%20%22Fact%22%208

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'.

Yes, the police who Kate and Gerry complained about so bitterly that night for not "taking them seriously enough".

<Mod Snip>

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html

Tanner clearly states that CID used cognitive techniques on her ON THE NIGHT.

Why then, does her memory become more detailed only much, much later?

Whatever they recovered using cognitive techniques on the night, was all there was to recover, memory wise.

So why all the embroidery?

Why make up a full description when earlier you actually stated you didn't even really SEE the abductor?

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.

She saw the pajamas "clearly" yet failed to describe them on the night either.

:banghead:

 

[brit1981]

Her very first statement to the police gives the same description of the pyjamas and the man. It doe snot become more embroided.

And I cannot see any police statement claiming her sighting is not credible anywhere in the PJ files, could you please link to that.

The fact it was written on a timeline does not prove who wrote it or when it was writtne on. It wa sno an official document so did not need her to witness and initial the addition. To me it looks like it was added afterwards. No-one has provided any evidence to show she wrote it on the timeline herself, or when it was added to the timeline.

 

[Gem2626]

Her very first statement to the police gives the same description of the pyjamas and the man. It doe snot become more embroided.

And I cannot see any police statement claiming her sighting is not credible anywhere in the PJ files, could you please link to that.

The fact it was written on a timeline does not prove who wrote it or when it was writtne on. It wa sno an official document so did not need her to witness and initial the addition. To me it looks like it was added afterwards. No-one has provided any evidence to show she wrote it on the timeline herself, or when it was added to the timeline.

From Russel O'Brien's statement

"I recall 'baby face' or his colleague saying 'No media', and, and that was full-stop and then turning round to me writing the timeline and saying 'That's what we want'"

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm

It was Russel O'brien writing the timeline (after he'd been searching). Only him and gerry were there and Pj (as per statements). Seeing as it is all in the same handwriting i'd say that Russell O'Brien wrote both the timelines.

From the statements it seems that the first timeline was done by Brian with Gerry's help. Jane Tanner had been out searching came back, told the police and Gerry what she saw (kate was sorting the twins).

At some point the rest of the tapas 9 came in the room and verified the facts. To me it looks like the 1st timeline is a draft because the information on the 2nd timeline, although there is no real difference in events, is clearly constructed whereas the first is a bit muddled and harder to read and understand. Jane's sighting could have been added (seeing as it's at the end) or she could have walked in during the time the 1st timeline was done. There are no times mentioned of who was where when so we cannot know.

The PJ did say something in his statement about thinking Jane's sighting wasn't credible (can't find the link but will keep looking). This was his opinion at the time.

 

[Gem2626]

Yes, the police who Kate and Gerry complained about so bitterly that night for not "taking them seriously enough".

<mod Snip>

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html

Tanner clearly states that CID used cognitive techniques on her ON THE NIGHT.

Why then, does her memory become more detailed only much, much later?

Whatever they recovered using cognitive techniques on the night, was all there was to recover, memory wise.

So why all the embroidery?

Why make up a full description when earlier you actually stated you didn't even really SEE the abductor?

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.

She saw the pajamas "clearly" yet failed to describe them on the night either.

:banghead:

Memory is a funny thing which under stress can be impaired (hence the cognitive methods used) Just because she did not remember things clearly that night does not mean that it will not come back to her at a later time. She may have misunderstood why she couldn't remember, thinking it was because it was dark when in fact it was because her head was all over the place. Having got over the initial shock her mind would have been able to work through what it had seen.

<Mod Snip>

 

[SapphireSteel]

I've edited my very long post down to the important parts -

Tanner's first mention of the "abductor" was to a GNR Officer, who were the first LE on the scene at 11pm.

He says

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

~sbm~

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...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 “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”.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap2

Amazing.

It was TOO DARK for her to see him.

No hidden memory. It was TOO DARK. Her brain could not imprint an image she could not see.

Compare that to the elaborate and detailed and clear description a year later.

This cannot be an accurate memory as she did not see the abductor. It was TOO DARK.

:furious:

 

[Donjeta]

Memory is a funny thing which under stress can be impaired (hence the cognitive methods used) Just because she did not remember things clearly that night does not mean that it will not come back to her at a later time. She may have misunderstood why she couldn't remember, thinking it was because it was dark when in fact it was because her head was all over the place. Having got over the initial shock her mind would have been able to work through what it had seen.

<Mod Snip>

If she didn't even remember whether it was dark or not it does not give one much confidence in the other things she said she rememberered.

 

[Clutchbag]

Her very first statement to the police gives the same description of the pyjamas and the man. It doe snot become more embroided.

And I cannot see any police statement claiming her sighting is not credible anywhere in the PJ files, could you please link to that.

Sapphire already quoted and linked to a policeman's statement saying he didnt think her sighting credible:- Here it is again case you missed it.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NELSON-DA-COSTA.htm

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.

 

[Gem2626]

If she didn't even remember whether it was dark or not it does not give one much confidence in the other things she said she rememberered.

No you've misunderstood what i'm saying.

She can't remember what she's seen and she's blaming it on the fact that it's dark when in fact it's because she's under stress and simply can't remember at that time.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Sapphire already quoted and linked to a policeman's statement saying he didnt think her sighting credible:- Here it is again case you missed it.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NELSON-DA-COSTA.htm

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.

The GNR officer on the scene found her sighting to be "not credible".

That means, he thought it was FALSE.

This is an extraordinary detail of the night that seems to have been glossed over.

While certain parties are determined to label the entire Portugese judicial system corrupt and incompetent, the fact remains that the original respondent was a long-term, experienced policeman.

These guys know a lie when they hear it.

Once again, she stated she could not SEE THE ABDUCTOR AS IT WAS TOO DARK.

If you cannot see something, your brain cannot imprint it, therefore you have no memory.

No memory on the night, nothing to be recovered later. The brain simply cannot record what the eyes do not see.

No matter what sort of spin is put on Tanners statements, they are clearly fabricated.

Fabricated = untrue, false, created out of the imagination.

:cow:

 

[brit1981]

I should however mention that it was a GNR officer who said this, not the PJ. The GNR officers do not know a lie when they see it -they are in charge of traffic, they are nothign to do with criminal investigations! So i fail to see why a traffic officers opinion on first hearing of an abductor sighting is not credible (noting the GNR said she wandered off), is taken as gospel, but the PJ and AG are dismissed when they say the mccanns are not guilty.

 

[Clutchbag]

Police are police whatever domain they work under, traffic, military, crime, no difference, they are trained to spot law evasion

 

[Clutchbag]

In any case both the tanner and smith sightings can be discounted as the live scent sniffer dogs did not track the scent in any of their directions ergo both red herrings it seems

 

[SapphireSteel]

In any case both the tanner and smith sightings can be discounted as the live scent sniffer dogs did not track the scent in any of their directions ergo both red herrings it seems

Now the sniffer dogs are going to be discredited again...

I personally do not discount the Smith sighting.

I also think Tanner relied on a grain of truth...she saw Gerry carry Madeleine's body away.

The million dollar question is - where did he carry it to?

The beach is the most likely answer.

I believe Kate and Gerry retrieved it the next morning on their solitary walk. By their own description, there was "no one about". The McCann was not watched or observed or even under suspicion in the very early days and were free to move about unchecked. This is what Amaral refers to when speaking of "mistakes" made early in the investigation.

Once they had retrieved her body from whatever hidey hole they had placed her in, they were free to move it whereever they liked. Suspicions are, she was refrigerated or frozen for 25 days then dumped out to sea.

Poor Madeleine.

:cow:

:cow:

 

[Clutchbag]

Now the sniffer dogs are going to be discredited again...

I personally do not discount the Smith sighting.

I also think Tanner relied on a grain of truth...she saw Gerry carry Madeleine's body away.

The million dollar question is - where did he carry it to?

The beach is the most likely answer.

I believe Kate and Gerry retrieved it the next morning on their solitary walk. By their own description, there was "no one about". The McCann was not watched or observed or even under suspicion in the very early days and were free to move about unchecked. This is what Amaral refers to when speaking of "mistakes" made early in the investigation.

Once they had retrieved her body from whatever hidey hole they had placed her in, they were free to move it whereever they liked. Suspicions are, she was refrigerated or frozen for 25 days then dumped out to sea.

Poor Madeleine.

:cow:

:cow:

the live scent sniffer dogs would not be able to sniff any iota of anything if a child was taken in a bag

thefact they never sniffed madeleine in any of those directions of tanner and smith is cos they couldnt ie she was never there

UNLESS the mccanns did NOT give a true item with just madeleins scent on