Jane Tanner Revisited

I'm not happy about initiating yet another random thread about Jane Tanner.

The subject has taken off again as a result of a new member's comment in the Members Lounge but as I recognize the need for posts to be moved or merged elsewhere, I will reluctantly introduce this thread.

Verdi

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

You have inadvertently stumbled on one of the great clues that the abduction tale is one giant hoax.

Jane Tanner's statement that you've just quoted was made on Friday 4 May.

The very next day, a man by the name of Nuno Lourenco 'phoned the police claiming that his daughter had nearly been kidnapped six days earlier in the tiny village of Sagres. His statement was a pack of lies from start to finish.

In his statement, he gave a description of this bogus 'kidnapper'. Lourenco described the man as wearing 'cloth clothes' and 'classic' shoes, just as Jane Tanner had described the man she claimed to have seen. Not only that, but again, just like Jane Tanner, Lourenco said the man "didn't look like a tourist". Whatever that means!

What happened then? Goncalo Amaral thought he had 'got his man', and promptly wasted 24 hours of police time engaging three police forces, German, Polish and INTERPOL, to pin down a man called Wojchiech Krokowski, who had been on holiday with his wife/girlfriend that week in Praia da Luz and was on the plane back to Poland as Nuno Lourenco made his 'phone call to police that Saturday morning. He had given the police information that identified Krokowski as the man who allegedly nearly kidnapped his daughter.

Let me clearly spell out my theory:

Both Jane Tanner and Nuno Lourenco were primed IN ADVANCE OF 3 MAY 2007 to tell lies to the Portuguese Police in order to completely distract them from the truth. It is very good evidence for those who say that Madeleine may have died earlier in the week.

I suggest that conspirators had one or more planning meetings that week to plan in detail an abduction hoax and come up with as many plot lines as would be guaranteed to fool the police, the public and the mainstream media.

Have a look at the threads about Wojchiech Krokowski on this forum and see how artfully Nuno Lourenco, Jane Tanner and others planned this deception.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________---

Moved over from Members Lounge.  Mod

Dear Jane, coincidence I'm sure.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Nah... she was describing him.

Is that a he or a she? (Only kidding Bluebag)
Thanks very much for this Tony, I will take a closer look. I knew of both 'sightings' but had thought that Lourenco's was co-incidental.

Here are the threads in question: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks so much Jill.

"The shoes were black in colour and classic in style" Jane Tanner's 4th May statement
I mean, seriously how often do you really look at a man's shoes?"-Red from the Shawshank redemption (1994)
PS. Apologies pauloalexandre

I think it's a pretty revelatory signature, one that involves a quote from one of my all-time favorite movies.

I don't know about other members here, but I personally do not take much notice at someone's shoes... which is why I think it's very unlikely that Jane Tanner would notice Tannerman's shoes, especially in such a dark area.

We also have - and I thank [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for bringing this up - the statement by Nuno Lourenço, where he says that Sagresman (Wojciech Krokowski) was also wearing "classic shoes". The other similarities between Krokowski and Tannerman are unbelievably remarkable.

It's a great signature and linkage to the film and I agree with you in a situation such as this the very last thing that anybody would be expected to notice in any detail would be the shoes! Please take my silly account as intended, a little light hearted witticism to hopefully raise a smile on a Sunday afternoon. No offence intended.

@Tony Bennett

I hadn't realised that there had been a statement to police by this guy Laurenco, and the very day after Jane Tanner made her statement.  How interesting.

His claim that 6 days prior to Madeleine disappearing his own daughter had 'almost' been kidnapped seems far fetched to put it mildly.  

Did he report this to police at the time he claims it happened?

To use the term 'classic' in respect of the shoes, same as Jane Tanner, stretches the truthfulness of his statement.

I must read up on this one.  Thank you for posting the information you have.

As to Tanner's statement. 

Considering the conditions in which she claims to have seen this man (dark of night/street lighting (or lack of) distance between her and the man - who was a moving target (i.e. he was not standing still on the spot allowing her time to observe and take note of every minute detail, of not only his physical appearance, his clothing, and that also of the child she alleges he carried (pink coloured pyjamas with frill etc) but also such detail of his shoes - seems remarkable observation and recollection by her, more especially so when it did not stop at visuals - her thought process while viewing this man (for what 10 seconds as he crossed her path, moving away from her) was of how he must be a bad parent not having covered the child with a blanket to keep the child warm.

That's one lot of information she processed in short space time - seconds - in conditions as described.

Astonishingly though - not for even one split second did she consider that something was very wrong with what she was witnessing?  Didn't wonder where the guy had been coming from or where he was going, and knowing according to group, the kids were all alone in apartments, easy pickings, for anyone who wanted to take a chance, 

Personally, only reason I would have in such a situation, possibly been drawn and noted that shoes were of a classic style as opposed to soft soled/casual shoes, is that a decent pair of classic leather shoes, would in general on cobbled/concrete paved surfaces make a noise on contact with ground surface.  If I had heard the footsteps, I would have been drawn to look not only at the shoes but at the person wearing them.   Soft shoes would not resound in the same way.

In the quiet of night I would think that Jez Wilkins and Gerry McCann too would not only have heard the sound of this man's shoes, but the sound of Jane Tanner's flippy flop sandals flapping on the concrete. 

Do persons up to no good, burglar or whatever when breaking into apartments and stealing goods or children, tend to put on their Sunday best in footwear?

A case I know of, a young woman followed by a man.   She had passed him on a footpath going in the opposite direction.   At some point and unknown to her, he had about turned and followed her.   She had not heard him - soft soled training type shoes the reason why!

Abductors - do they tend to use an escape route, if abduction planned, where clearly they must have known there would be every chance of bumping into or being seen by one of the McCann group (if their story of checking is true)

Secondthoughts2 wrote:As to Tanner's statement. 

Considering the conditions in which she claims to have seen this man (dark of night/street lighting (or lack of) distance between her and the man - who was a moving target (i.e. he was not standing still on the spot allowing her time to observe and take note of every minute detail, of not only his physical appearance, his clothing, and that also of the child she alleges he carried (pink coloured pyjamas with frill etc) but also such detail of his shoes - seems remarkable observation and recollection by her, more especially so when it did not stop at visuals - her thought process while viewing this man (for what 10 seconds as he crossed her path, moving away from her) was of how he must be a bad parent not having covered the child with a blanket to keep the child warm.

That's one lot of information she processed in short space time - seconds - in conditions as described.

Even more remarkable, with all the information she'd processed in such a short space of time, was how she described him to the PJ:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

No classic shoes!!

@Jill Havern

Now anyone witnessing such a sight, day or night, would surely have been stopped in their tracks - their gaze fixated on strange features and not on footwear!

Had forgotten about egg head.  Thank you!

Jill Havern wrote:

Secondthoughts2 wrote:As to Tanner's statement. 

Considering the conditions in which she claims to have seen this man (dark of night/street lighting (or lack of) distance between her and the man - who was a moving target (i.e. he was not standing still on the spot allowing her time to observe and take note of every minute detail, of not only his physical appearance, his clothing, and that also of the child she alleges he carried (pink coloured pyjamas with frill etc) but also such detail of his shoes - seems remarkable observation and recollection by her, more especially so when it did not stop at visuals - her thought process while viewing this man (for what 10 seconds as he crossed her path, moving away from her) was of how he must be a bad parent not having covered the child with a blanket to keep the child warm.

That's one lot of information she processed in short space time - seconds - in conditions as described.

Even more remarkable, with all the information she'd processed in such a short space of time, was how she described him to the PJ:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

No classic shoes!!

Don't forget that Jane Tanner didn't see his face at this point but was later, able to produce an e-fit and add a moustache. This was before she claimed that it was Robert Murat that she had seen, but later again, with the help of Dave Edgar she realised that it may have been a woman, a Victoria Beckham look alike.

How long has Victoria Beckham had a moustache?

Only during lockdown when she couldn't get to the salon

Secondthoughts2 wrote:@Tony Bennett

I hadn't realised that there had been a statement to police by this guy Laurenco, and the very day after Jane Tanner made her statement.  How interesting.

His claim that 6 days prior to Madeleine disappearing his own daughter had 'almost' been kidnapped seems far fetched to put it mildly.  

REPLY: An absolute tissue of lies from start to finish. But so devilishly cunning that Goncalo Amaral and the PJ were deceived  

Did he report this to police at the time he claims it happened?

REPLY: NO. He SAYS the alleged kidnapping took place on Sunday. But of course there was no such incident. He gives the weakest of excuses for why he waited 6 days to report the alleged kidnapping. If I may, I'll let you discover what it was on one of the 'Krokowski' threads here. I would also point out that Lourenco was able to fabricate this story by taking an actual photo of Krokowski's hired car. To 'prove' that it was taken on Sunday, he invited the police to look at the date stamp on the photo. As we also know from the examination of the so-called 'Last Photo', it seems this wasn't the only case of the date of a photo being fiddled. More than a coincidence, isn't it?    

To use the term 'classic' in respect of the shoes, same as Jane Tanner, stretches the truthfulness of his statement. I must read up on this one.  Thank you for posting the information you have.

REPLY: 

As to Tanner's statement. 

Considering the conditions in which she claims to have seen this man (dark of night/street lighting (or lack of) distance between her and the man - who was a moving target (i.e. he was not standing still on the spot allowing her time to observe and take note of every minute detail, of not only his physical appearance, his clothing, and that also of the child she alleges he carried (pink coloured pyjamas with frill etc) but also such detail of his shoes - seems remarkable observation and recollection by her, more especially so when it did not stop at visuals - her thought process while viewing this man (for what 10 seconds as he crossed her path, moving away from her) was of how he must be a bad parent not having covered the child with a blanket to keep the child warm.

That's one lot of information she processed in short space time - seconds - in conditions as described.

Astonishingly though - not for even one split second did she consider that something was very wrong with what she was witnessing?  Didn't wonder where the guy had been coming from or where he was going, and knowing according to group, the kids were all alone in apartments, easy pickings, for anyone who wanted to take a chance. 

Personally, only reason I would have in such a situation, possibly been drawn and noted that shoes were of a classic style as opposed to soft soled/casual shoes, is that a decent pair of classic leather shoes, would in general on cobbled/concrete paved surfaces make a noise on contact with ground surface.  If I had heard the footsteps, I would have been drawn to look not only at the shoes but at the person wearing them.   Soft shoes would not resound in the same way.

In the quiet of night I would think that Jez Wilkins and Gerry McCann too would not only have heard the sound of this man's shoes, but the sound of Jane Tanner's flippy flop sandals flapping on the concrete. 

Do persons up to no good, burglar or whatever when breaking into apartments and stealing goods or children, tend to put on their Sunday best in footwear?

A case I know of, a young woman followed by a man. She had passed him on a footpath going in the opposite direction.   At some point and unknown to her, he had about turned and followed her. She had not heard him - soft soled training type shoes the reason why!

Abductors - do they tend to use an escape route, if abduction planned, where clearly they must have known there would be every chance of bumping into or being seen by one of the McCann group (if their story of checking is true)

REPLY: There are multiple indications that Jane Tanner's statement, Nuno Lourenco's statement  and Martin Smith's 'Smithman' are all cunning fabrications. Remember that the Smiths' description of the man they said they saw closely matched those of Tanner and Lourenco, down to 'cloth clothes' and 'didn't look like a tourist'   

SEE ABOVE: In the light of your comments and the evidence above, is not the sinister conclusion we reach that there must have been at least one, maybe two or more, planning meetings earlier that week to work out who was going to say what after the alarm about Madeleine was raised at 10pm, Thursday 3 May?

Think about it...

...Jane Tanner teed up to tell lies
...Nuno Lourenco teed up to tell lies
...Cat Baker teed up to say Maddie went sailing and went to a non-existent 'high tea' on Thursday
...David Payne and Kate McCann primed to say Payne visited Kate at 6.30pm that Thursday (but their stories are wholly contradictory).

So can anyone suggest who exactly planned all these artful lies?

Is this a pointer? - bearing in mind that Robert Murat suddenly arrived from England bright and early on Tuesday 1 May:

Hairs of the same haplotype as those of Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were found in the holiday flat of Wojchiech Krokowski! (see PJ files)

Also P.S.   Krokowski admitted to a Sunday People reporter in 2014 that he did own a large collection of photos of children and that taking photos of children was his special interest.

Here, then, are some 'dots' that we could attempt to connect with each other


   
.

Can we please continue this topic in a new thread as there is obviously a lot of ground to cover here.

Perhaps Verdi could split some of this thread re Tannerman and place it in the Debate Section as it's taken Miffy's thread off topic and is no longer about Happy Hour.

The first thing that struck me here is that Jane Tanner knew what Madeleine looked like. If she was not covered by a blanket wasn't it obvious to her that it was her? 
Secondly, how can you remove a nearly 4 year old child from its bed without her waking up?

Did Loureco only alert the police after Madeleine's disappearance was made known? If so, this makes some sense to me. His child was not actually abducted but when the story about Madeleine broke he came forward? Same for the Gaspar's. This is another story I wish to follow up as I cannot believe they listened to such conversation and didn't act on it immediately. I mean how can you not be horrified enough to report this immediately especially if you thought children could possibly be in imminent danger of abuse?

Thank you Jill. I just created s new thread called Phantom abductors. Hope this is ok?

With regard to the similarity of the statements given, it occurred to me that there might be options given to the witnesses to assist them in finding the right phraseology for want of better terminology. For example could there be suggestions about descriptions IE classic, modern, slip on shoes etc which might have led to them appearing to say similar things?

Let's see what Verdi thinks as it's the moderator's domain as to what goes where. 

JT changed her statement to add greater description of the pyjamas as more information became known. Adding frills around the cuffs or liney or lineny bits. How far away was she alleged to be? I have read that Julian Totman came forward saying that he was potentially Tannerman and was carrying his child towards the apartments (so in the reverse) and his daughters PJ's has bright orange cuffs but no mention was made of this. Please correct as much as necessary. Did JT reverse the scenario to fit or was the whole episode fabricated and she never saw anyone? Actually if she did see this man, did he see her?

Of course but I thought it needed rescuing from there as you say as it was way off topic.

miffy8 wrote:The first thing that struck me here is that Jane Tanner knew what Madeleine looked like. If she was not covered by a blanket wasn't it obvious to her that it was her? 
Secondly, how can you remove a nearly 4 year old child from its bed without her waking up?

Did Loureco only alert the police after Madeleine's disappearance was made known? If so, this makes some sense to me. His child was not actually abducted but when the story about Madeleine broke he came forward? Same for the Gaspar's. This is another story I wish to follow up as I cannot believe they listened to such conversation and didn't act on it immediately. I mean how can you not be horrified enough to report this immediately especially if you thought children could possibly be in imminent danger of abuse?

The Tanner sighting just didn't happen, she didn't even leave the table according to some witnesses.

Much the same for Lourenco, that was another red herring.

As for the Gaspars, what were they supposed to do? All they could do is report that whilst out with some friends, one of them made some worrying remarks about what a child may do. It would be their word against Paynes', no evidence, and no actual crime had been committed. When Madeleine disappeared, they decided to speak out.

Thank you Sharoni.

I think it's appropriate that I post what I consider to be one of Richard Hall's best Madeleine McCann films.