Why did Madeleine 'go missing'?

[gord]

Oh god the daily mail! Nooooo
Tv
It's got a quote from her. If she hadn't said it then she'd sue!

Got news for ýou the mail makes things up on a daily basis. If that is what you base your " facts " on then we are not going to have a very sensible debate

 

[gord]

They haven't????

This must be corrected!

Jane Tanner is a liar and an attention seeker.

There, that's better.

:scared:

Pretty abusive comment

 

[Donjeta]

Here's the same quote from BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/7098703.stm

Ms Tanner insists she has done everything to help with the police investigation but decided to talk to the media after being called "a liar and a fantasist".

"I know what I saw and I think it's important that people know what I saw because I believe Madeleine was abducted," she said.

 

[chlban]

gord;9902315

Got news for ýou the mail makes things up on a daily basis. If that is what you base your " facts " on then we are not going to have a very sensible debate

Yeah, that's what everyone here likes to say about the Enquirer. In fact, I recall watching John Edwards saying exactly that right after that rag reported that he fathered a child with his nut job mistress while his wife was dying of cancer, I mean can you imagine the absurdity? The man was running for President for heavens sake, who would believe a rag like that when that nice, honorable family man was insisiing it was all a lie................

Oh, wait, nevermind.

 

[gord]

Here's the same quote from BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/7098703.stm

Ms Tanner insists she has done everything to help with the police investigation but decided to talk to the media after being called "a liar and a fantasist".

"I know what I saw and I think it's important that people know what I saw because I believe Madeleine was abducted," she said.

yes she saw a man carrying a child - it says it in the first paragraph

It doesn't say I saw Madeleine being carried.

she saw a man wit a child. - her thought that thus could be madeleine is understandable

This man has now been traced - interviewed and he backs up James statement

In what way was her police statement wrong - not a BBC link or a god forbid daily Mail piece

can someone quote from her statement where she said she saw Madeleine being carried off

 

[blefuscu]

yes she saw a man carrying a child - it says it in the first paragraph

It doesn't say I saw Madeleine being carried.

she saw a man wit a child. - her thought that thus could be madeleine is understandable

This man has now been traced - interviewed and he backs up James statement

In what way was her police statement wrong - not a BBC link or a god forbid daily Mail piece

can someone quote from her statement where she said she saw Madeleine being carried off

The Daily Mail isn't allowed to make quotes up. You know that!

 

[gord]

gord;9902315

Yeah, that's what everyone here likes to say about the Enquirer. In fact, I recall watching John Edwards saying exactly that right after that rag reported that he fathered a child with his nut job mistress while his wife was dying of cancer, I mean can you imagine the absurdity? The man was running for President for heavens sake, who would believe a rag like that when that nice, honorable family man was insisiing it was all a lie................

Oh, wait, nevermind.

we have her police statements to examine - is that not common sense to use as a yardstick as opposed to a tabloid newspaper ?

Tanner is being accused of lying - I would like to see what that is being based on

 

[gord]

The Daily Mail isn't allowed to make quotes up. You know that!

tell me you are not being serious !!

The daily mail has made a lifetime of making up quotes

anyway forget the mail - can you quote me from her statement where she said she saw madeleine being carried off as opposed to her saying she caught a glimpse of a man carrying a child

 

[blefuscu]

tell me you are not being serious !!

The daily mail has made a lifetime of making up quotes

anyway forget the mail - can you quote me from her statement where she said she saw madeleine being carried off as opposed to her saying she caught a glimpse of a man carrying a child

In the second statement she made to the Portuguese police:

"Subsequently she had no doubt it was Madeleine. This was after she had spoken with Fiona Payne who had described Madeleines pyjamas."

 

[Cappuccino]

In the second statement she made to the Portuguese police:

"Subsequently she had no doubt it was Madeleine. This was after she had spoken with Fiona Payne who had described Madeleines pyjamas."

Oooh. So really she was just sure it was Madeleine's pyjamas. The police also said that the other child was wearing the same, or very similar, pjs to Madeleine, so that would explain that.

 

[Donjeta]

yes she saw a man carrying a child - it says it in the first paragraph

It doesn't say I saw Madeleine being carried.

she saw a man wit a child. - her thought that thus could be madeleine is understandable

This man has now been traced - interviewed and he backs up James statement

In what way was her police statement wrong - not a BBC link or a god forbid daily Mail piece

can someone quote from her statement where she said she saw Madeleine being carried off

Is BBC the devil too?

I think it's quite clear from everything that she just saw someone and the only reason she said it was Madeleine was because Madeleine is missing.

Here's the Panorama interview
Panorama - Mystery of Madeleine McCann - Nov 19/2007 - YouTube

I have to say that towards the end, looking at her makes me nervous. She shakes her head no all the time when talking about her complete willingness to go back and talk to the police again.

 

[Inana]

The truth? I never belittled her, never called her an attention seeker and I never called her a liar. So please stop repeating this nonsense. Repeating it will not make it true or a fact!

"Small part"??? The most important part of the entire assertion made by Jane was that it was the child's abductor. That's huge! She was wrong.

I'm certain that lots of people witnessed parents carrying children. People carry children often. No gigantic clue there... She CLAIMED it was Madeleine! That's not small.

If deductive reasoning was used, it would have been ruled out long ago.... Oh wait ... It was. !!!!!

Only bias I see here is from those that simply refuse to acknowledge the parents behaved negligently and acted beyond suspicious ever since

IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

bolded by me

No, she did not:

"Because at that point I thought it’s a person taking their child either back from the crèche or, you know, just some father carrying their own child, so it didn’t really, you know, and that didn’t. I’m making it sound like it really registered at the time, but it didn’t, that is literally…And I think I did actually think ‘Oh a bit odd’, but never in a million years would I have thought ‘That’s Madeleine’. "
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Tanner4of7_HO4.pdf

maybe it's time we all started providing links, so as not to get too far off of facts.

 

[blefuscu]

Oooh. So really she was just sure it was Madeleine's pyjamas. The police also said that the other child was wearing the same, or very similar, pjs to Madeleine, so that would explain that.

Read it again. Jane Tanner told the police in her second statement that once she knew what Madeleine was meant to be wearing she was sure it was her. Just like she told the police she was sure the man carrying the child was Murat, and she picked him out of surveillance. This information has directed the case in entirely the wrong direction for 6 years!

 

[gord]

Is BBC the devil too?

I think it's quite clear from everything that she just saw someone and the only reason she said it was Madeleine was because Madeleine is missing.

Here's the Panorama interview
Panorama - Mystery of Madeleine McCann - Nov 19/2007 - YouTube

I have to say that towards the end, looking at her makes me nervous. She shakes her head no all the time when talking about her complete willingness to go back and talk to the police again.

no the beeb is not the devil - neither is the mail - I never said that - the mail does make things up though - and if you follow the Jimmy saville case then some people think the Beeb has got a lot to answer for - but that is another case

I just see Tanner as someone who was caught in an awful horrible case -- and she thinks she might have witnessed the actual abduction. She was always clear that she had a fleeting side view

I just think that the online abuse of this woman has been pretty poor - she has kids and does not deserve sole of what has been dished out

 

[Cappuccino]

Read it again. Jane Tanner told the police in her second statement that once she knew what Madeleine was meant to be wearing she was sure it was her. Just like she told the police she was sure the man carrying the child was Murat, and she picked him out of a lineup. This information has directed the case in entirely the wrong direction for 6 years!

I know what Jane Tanner said. She seems a bit suggestible, to say the least. So she was sure it was Madeleine once she'd heard the pyjamas described - anyone listening to that statement should have ignored what she was "sure of" and realised that all she'd actually seen were the pyjamas.

 

[gord]

I know what Jane Tanner said. She seems a bit suggestible, to say the least. So she was sure it was Madeleine once she'd heard the pyjamas described - anyone listening to that statement should have ignored what she was "sure of" and realised that all she'd actually seen were the pyjamas.

exactly if amaral had just did a bit of police work and interviewed all the tourists in the are that night taken statements - find out where they where at the crucial time then maybe this person could have been found and and discounted.

it was his case his JOB to do some proper police work

 

[blefuscu]

I know what Jane Tanner said. She seems a bit suggestible, to say the least. So she was sure it was Madeleine once she'd heard the pyjamas described - anyone listening to that statement should have ignored what she was "sure of" and realised that all she'd actually seen were the pyjamas.

And yet for 6 years, some people have held Tanner's statement as the reason they believe there was an intruder.

 

[Cappuccino]

And yet for 6 years, some people have held Tanner's statement as the reason they believe there was an intruder.

They were wrong to do so. Her statement should have been followed up more closely, the man should have been traced sooner, but her "surety" that the child was Madeleine shouldn't have been taken as gospel, when its clear from her own words that - unknownst to herself - she was really identifying pyjamas not a person.

 

[gord]

And yet for 6 years, some people have held Tanner's statement as the reason they believe there was an intruder.

yep it was Amarals job to do a bit of digging and maybe find out if this witness statement was correct or just an innocent person taking his kid back from the crèche

It wasn't any one elses

 

[blefuscu]

yep it was Amarals job to do a bit of digging and maybe find out if this witness statement was correct or just an innocent person taking his kid back from the crèche

It wasn't any one elses

It is clear from his book that Amaral and his colleagues discounted Jane Tanner's "sighting" ages ago. Now I'm off to bed, so please excuse me if I don't reply any further.