Re: Jane Tanner Revisited

by Silentscope 06.06.22 18:36

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Can anyone spot the simple problem with ‘Tannerman’ ?

by sequested 06.06.22 18:46

Yes, he’s a figment of imagination

by **PeterMac** 07.06.22 9:01

Silentscope wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Can anyone spot the simple problem with ‘Tannerman’ ?

Ah yes, but he then drops her out of the window onto the concrete path, then climbs out of it himself, reaches back to operated the strap and lower the blinds, before closing the window, and then picks her up off the ground with what remains of her head over his left arm

by **Jill Havern** 07.06.22 9:13

Hmmm.....

What about both dog's alerts behind the sofa?

by crusader 07.06.22 9:39

The only way Tannerman would be holding a child in that way would be someone handed her over and placed the child into his open arms.

by CaKeLoveR 07.06.22 11:07

Do people carry a child in that manner? It's something I have never seen; the child is usually front to front against the carrier's chest, with legs dangling and her head over the carrier's shoulder. If that is what Tanner said she saw, she should have intervened.

by Doug D 07.06.22 14:08

Cakelover:

'Do people carry a child in that manner?'

We all know it's utter crap, but to add to it, it's pretty much impossible for anyone to carry a nearly four year old in that manner unless they're built like Arnie, as you're arms would give out pretty quickly.

A scoop like that off the bed and straight up and onto the shoulder, anything else is nigh impossible, which is probably one of the reasons why GA didn't give much credence to the JT 'sighting'.

by crusader 07.06.22 14:09

If you let an older sibling hold a new brother/sister, you usually sit them down and put the baby in their open arms, I've never seen a child handed to an adult either sitting or standing or pick up a child as Tanner described.

I agree with Doug D.

by Silentscope 07.06.22 16:37

The fabrication of ‘Tannerman’ proves that the ‘Abduction’ was a pre planned Event, in response to whatever happened to Madeleine.

But it, like so many other things, it was full of important mistakes.

The child seen by Jane was the wrong way round in the Arms of the Abductor, who had allegedly just scooped her out of the Bed.

Because if the Child had been carried head towards Jane’s view, no one would believe she had not recognised her, and raised the Alarm straight away.

Totman was no doubt brought in as a plausible excuse for the whole stupid story.

by crusader 07.06.22 17:01

Why would Totman lie and say it was him when it clearly was not?
Why would he be complicit in helping the McCann's?
He's been interviewed by the UK police, did they ask him if he's sure it was him and why was he walking away from his apartment?
Did he come foreword to make a statement or did the police contact him?
Why did he still have his child's pyjamas and his own clothes from years before?

The whole Totman debarkle would be laughable were it not backed up by the police, the police who worked on this aught to be ashamed.

by Silentscope 07.06.22 17:15

Good question, did anyone independent verify it really was him?

Or should we just believe it?

Only Jane saw him.

by crusader 07.06.22 17:51

Totman is 100% fabrication in my opinion,
I'm not convinced JT is lying when she said she saw someone carrying a child though.

by CaKeLoveR 07.06.22 17:58

If it was the time of night for parents to be collecting their offspring from the night creche, I'm surprised she saw only one person carrying a child.

by Silentscope 07.06.22 18:09

The Freedom of Information request to OG from Tony got nowhere.
The OG will not confirm whether it was really him or not.

The prearranged timeline reveals Jane was to see someone carrying a Child BEFORE the ‘Abduction’ was even reported.

So she was told to see someone.

by crusader 07.06.22 18:19

Could be, but why then did Gerry not back her up claiming he never saw her.

Jez Wilkins also claims he didn't see her.

by CaKeLoveR 07.06.22 18:21

I know it's all a load of rubbish, but they didn't make it at all realistic, did they? Tanner shouldn't have described a manner of carrying a small child which would have caused a normal person to ask if he/she was ill. That, on top of only one person and a child, at that time of night, makes makes her claim laughable.

by sandancer 07.06.22 18:22

Dr. Julian Totman or 6 years in a coma man , allegedly found by Operation Grange as the man Jane Tanner saw on the night of 3rd May carrying his child back from the night creche .
The Totmans have 2 children , so where was the other one ? Was his wife carrying the other , did they only put one child in the creche , if so why ?

The man who had never come forward for 6 years despite the wall to wall coverage of the " abduction " including the sketch of the " abductor " .

Yet could still remember what he was wearing on the night in question ( don't know about anyone else but I couldn't tell you what I was wearing on 3 May this year !)

He also still had the pyjamas the child was wearing ! The said pyjamas bore no resemblance to the ones Tanner described , or the ones Madeleine was allegedly wearing !

Jackanory , Jackanory !

by Doug D 07.06.22 18:24

And why was the supposed Totman walking in the wrong direction if he was coming back from the creche?

by CaKeLoveR 07.06.22 18:28

They have got away with this tripe, though.

by sandancer 07.06.22 18:42

CaKeLoveR wrote:They have got away with this tripe, though.

Because no body asks any questions , it's just accepted .
" oh look Grange found the man seen with a child , so J.T wasn't lying , but he wasn't the abductor so let's keep on searching ! Woman in purple anyone ? "
Don't mention that J.T said " he didn't look like a tourist " , turns out that's exactly what he was , ( well according to Redwood and Grange anyway )

Never did like tripe ! sick

by crusader 07.06.22 18:49

Ah yes, the woman in purple, seen by Jenny Murat and Jez Wilkins, what's the connection there.

by Silentscope 07.06.22 18:59

Heriberto Janosch Gonzales?

Spanish Criminologist who later identified her as Luisa Todorov.

Finder of Purple women and Campervan satellite images.

by CaKeLoveR 07.06.22 19:04

how can one separate a tourist from a local person? People wear all manner of clothes these days, and being naturally dark, or looking tanned, or being pale, mean zilch.

by crusader 07.06.22 19:44

Silentscope wrote:Heriberto Janosch Gonzales?

Spanish Criminologist who later identified her as Luisa Todorov.

Finder of Purple women and Campervan satellite images.

Ah yes, this sounds like another Tannerman moment, he said it was her, she said it wasn't.

Could it possibly have been Brueckner's girlfriend Nicole Fehlinger.

by Guest 07.06.22 20:34

no, could not be nf, as her phone number, when the son of her girlfriend is right(sat1 docu), as to be her number, was not in the pdl cell tower when it called/was called to the number that is supposed to be cb his nummer. so the lady in purple, as seen by j wilkins later said to be jane t. was not the one calling out the mccanns left 5a.

as always, what way you try, it never end in something at all. as is usually when the story is not based on any kind, type, way or manner of truth of course.

that is why the pj called them all liars.

Log in for more topics