Jane Tanner REALLY DID see someone - in her own words

by **Tony Bennett** 15.10.13 18:30

During her interview with Leicestershire Police, she told them:

Jane Tanner: “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, is it?”

by aiyoyo 15.10.13 18:51

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460669/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapping-innocent-British-father-mistaken-key-suspect.html

According to that article, she did not invent that man. The man exists but was belated in coming forward.

The man came forward 6-1/2 years later to get himself eliminated.
What seems STRANGE is he'd preserved and brought the clothes he wore that fateful night as well the pyjamas of his two-year old daughter to prove to Police he was Tanner's bundleman.
He can't not have known he was (JT's bundelman) being sought after by Police if he'd preserved those items all these years for this purpose!!

You have to question what made him think he'd to bring possessions to prove anything if he's not the snatcher and has a daughter that age to prove it.

The Police should be able to verify his identity and story against Evening Creche Record without him having to proof anything.

ETA: (1) He was Redwood's revelation moment, hence the shift of focus on a changed timeline.
(2) One is left wondering why Tanner and Friends fingered Robert Murat.

by Guest 15.10.13 18:54

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8WVMAazd0I

Any of Jane Tanner's ramblings remind me so much of Vicky Pollard!

by Dr What 15.10.13 19:00

I'm sure she has many redeeming facets to her personality, but intelligence does not appear to be one of them.

It seems that she has been willingly used.

by tiny 15.10.13 19:05

aiyoyo wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460669/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapping-innocent-British-father-mistaken-key-suspect.html

According to that article, she did not invent that man. The man exists but was belated in coming forward.

The man came forward 6-1/2 years later to get himself eliminated.
What seems STRANGE is he'd preserved and brought the clothes he wore that fateful night as well the pyjamas of his two-year old daughter to prove to Police he was Tanner's bundleman.
He can't not have known he was (JT's bundelman) being sought after by Police if he'd preserved those items all these years for this purpose!!

You have to question what made him think he'd to bring possessions to prove anything if he's not the snatcher and has a daughter that age to prove it.

The Police should be able to verify his identity and story against Evening Creche Record without him having to proof anything.

ETA: (1) He was Redwood's revelation moment, hence the shift of focus on a changed timeline.
(2) One is left wondering why Tanner and Friends fingered Robert Murat.

does any one really believe this guff.this was to let jane of the hook by sy

by aiyoyo 15.10.13 19:06

tiny wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460669/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapping-innocent-British-father-mistaken-key-suspect.html

According to that article, she did not invent that man. The man exists but was belated in coming forward.

The man came forward 6-1/2 years later to get himself eliminated.
What seems STRANGE is he'd preserved and brought the clothes he wore that fateful night as well the pyjamas of his two-year old daughter to prove to Police he was Tanner's bundleman.
He can't not have known he was (JT's bundelman) being sought after by Police if he'd preserved those items all these years for this purpose!!

You have to question what made him think he'd to bring possessions to prove anything if he's not the snatcher and has a daughter that age to prove it.

The Police should be able to verify his identity and story against Evening Creche Record without him having to proof anything.

ETA: (1) He was Redwood's revelation moment, hence the shift of focus on a changed timeline.
(2) One is left wondering why Tanner and Friends fingered Robert Murat.
does any one really believe this guff.this was to let jane of the hook by sy

Well, SY did, and has been telling the world audience that the Mccanns are neither suspects nor Persons of Interest.

by tiny 15.10.13 20:38

aiyoyo wrote:
tiny wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460669/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapping-innocent-British-father-mistaken-key-suspect.html

According to that article, she did not invent that man. The man exists but was belated in coming forward.

The man came forward 6-1/2 years later to get himself eliminated.
What seems STRANGE is he'd preserved and brought the clothes he wore that fateful night as well the pyjamas of his two-year old daughter to prove to Police he was Tanner's bundleman.
He can't not have known he was (JT's bundelman) being sought after by Police if he'd preserved those items all these years for this purpose!!

You have to question what made him think he'd to bring possessions to prove anything if he's not the snatcher and has a daughter that age to prove it.

The Police should be able to verify his identity and story against Evening Creche Record without him having to proof anything.

ETA: (1) He was Redwood's revelation moment, hence the shift of focus on a changed timeline.
(2) One is left wondering why Tanner and Friends fingered Robert Murat.
does any one really believe this guff.this was to let jane of the hook by sy
Well, SY did, and has been telling the world audience that the Mccanns are neither suspects nor Persons of Interest.

I don't think sy believed her bundleman,but they did need the smiths sighting to get out,drop a sprat to catch a mackeral winkwink

by SixMillionQuid 15.10.13 20:49

A man carrying a child in what appears to be a sleeping or comatose state, from the direction of the McCann's apartment, in pyjamas similar to what Madeleine was said to be wearing, is eliminated from SY enquiries. How did Mr Redwoord explain that one? Oh he didn't bother.

by **PeterMac** 15.10.13 20:53

Why do all the Tapas group "gibber" when asked important questions.
Why can not the McCanns use standard English grammar, ( even if we are prepared to accept their ghastly whining accents.)

by ChippyM 15.10.13 22:33

What you posted is complete gibberish, I can imagine alot of gesticulating and expressions to engender sympathy went along with those words in an attempt to make it seem credible.

by russiandoll 15.10.13 22:37

who posted gibberish ?

by ultimaThule 15.10.13 23:38

SixMillionQuid wrote:A man carrying a child in what appears to be a sleeping or comatose state, from the direction of the McCann's apartment, in pyjamas similar to what Madeleine was said to be wearing, is eliminated from SY enquiries. How did Mr Redwoord explain that one? Oh he didn't bother.

Andy said the magic word 'whoosh' and JT's sighting of bundleman/woman/abductor disappeared yes

by tiny 16.10.13 7:35

On one of the threads yesterday some one mentioned a woman on her balcony and she said that she did not see any one on the road below,

any one know where I can find this post ,please

by marxman 16.10.13 7:51

tiny wrote:On one of the threads yesterday some one mentioned a woman on her balcony and she said that she did not see any one on the road below,

any one know where I can find this post ,please

If I'm not wrong, wasn't there a teenage girl out having
a sly smoke at approx. at the time who said she didn't
see anyone?

by tiny 16.10.13 8:05

marxman wrote:
tiny wrote:On one of the threads yesterday some one mentioned a woman on her balcony and she said that she did not see any one on the road below,

any one know where I can find this post ,please
If I'm not wrong, wasn't there a teenage girl out having
a sly smoke at approx. at the time who said she didn't
see anyone?

I think it was said that this lady was having a drink on her balcony

by tiny 16.10.13 9:02

we all talk about how the twins must be feeling,but have we given any thought to the tapas children,it must be terrible for janes eldest daughter, who would be about 8 now, if when at school a child says to her "my mum said your mum lied",

by Guest 16.10.13 9:52

Jane's daughter is 10 now as Madeleine was only a few weeks older than her.

Personally, I doubt that children of her age would have much awareness of the names of the other people who were there.

by tiny 16.10.13 9:58

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Jane's daughter is 10 now as Madeleine was only a few weeks older than her.

Personally, I doubt that children of her age would have much awareness of the names of the other people who were there.

no i doubt she would have but then she was only 3 at the time ,but at 10 she can use the internet and read the papers and all children have big ears:biggrin: and always hear what you don't want them to.

by Guest 16.10.13 10:37

No she wouldn't know the names of the other people from 2007 and, unless they are still in contact with each other, it's unlikely that she does now.

I meant that the screaming headlines are more about the McCanns than the other couples.

None of the Tapas children can be kept in the dark (pun fully intended) for ever though.