Re: Wot? no Smithman

by **crusader** 13.07.24 19:24

What do you dislike about my post [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]?

by Paddingtom 14.07.24 6:20

crusader wrote:I don't think the McCann's ever abandoned Tannerman.
Jane Tanner always said it wasn't Julian Totman she saw.

Crikey Crusader, I didnt know this thankyou.

So Op Grange thought they had shut Tannerman down due to all the inconsistencies but the Mccanns have decided to keep promoting him. wow. Youd think they would all want to sing from the same hymn sheet!!

In fairness to Jane, it really wasnt Totman she saw...it wasnt anyone...but all the same bit weird going off script.

Do you think shes persisting with it because of the ridicule she suffered?...trying to redeem herself, sort of thing?

by **crusader** 14.07.24 8:25

Tanner "swore by everything most sacred" that what she said about the man carrying the child was true.
At the time she made the statements she wouldn't have known they would become public.
That's her part in the scenario and she has no other option but to stick with it.

by **PeterMac** 14.07.24 9:09

Screen shot 10 seconds ago
14 July 2024. 1007

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

They CANNOT give up on Tannerman, because the entire timeline DEPENDS on it

Without Tannerman Gerry's assertion that he saw Madeleine alive at 2115 has to be looked at in more detail

by **AnneCGuedes** 14.07.24 12:56

crusader wrote:What do you dislike about my post [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]?

I didn't dislike, Crusader, no other option to say I didn't agree neither with Ella, Russ, the car, nor the CCTV, that as well didn't exist (focusing the street is prohibited as I explained already). Just no evidence !

by **crusader** 14.07.24 13:12

No problem, I agree with you.

by **AnneCGuedes** 14.07.24 16:52

crusader wrote:Tanner "swore by everything most sacred" that what she said about the man carrying the child was true.
At the time she made the statements she wouldn't have known they would become public.
That's her part in the scenario and she has no other option but to stick with it.

I don't think JT is a liar, Crusader, she saw or imagined she saw or reconstructed something on the fateful night of the announcement of the disappearance. She told the GNR (and the MCs), not the PJ, who was busy with other tasks, and chances are that the police officer who interviewed her the next day knew nothing about this first "Tannerman" narrative. We know about it from the testimony of the person who translated Jane's story for the GNR, Silvia Batista. This account is a little confused, even in Portuguese, SB herself found it so, but two crucial points are certain: 1) Jane wasn't going to see if her children were asleep, she was returning to Tapas, she said she was in the corridor alongside the building when she saw whatever she saw and 2) therefore she wasn't in Francisco Gentil Martins street and moreover she makes no mention of GMC and JW chatting (it's possible she saw them afterwards, as she was on her way back).
It's easy to imagine that questioning M's abduction was, at first, a matter of shock, unthinkable for the group. It's possible that Jane told the PJ a story designed to stimulate the search for a predator she believed in and which the police didn't seem to care much about. All in all, it was for a good cause.

by Cake Lover 14.07.24 17:41

Do you think that Jane Tanner believed the McCann's story of the abduction?

by **crusader** 14.07.24 17:48

In her first statement, J Tanner drew a map of where she was when she saw the man with a child.
She was near the top of Francisco Gentil Martins, having just passed Gerry and Jez.
I believe Silvia Batista was referring to the placement of the cots in the children's bedroom as being confusing, there not being enough room to get to the window.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong because I haven't read Silvia Batista's statement for a while.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

by Cake Lover 14.07.24 18:07

I can't remember as much as you can. I watched Jane Tanner interviewed on tv years ago, but what she said is lost in the mists of time. I can recall how she smirked, though. A little girl - a baby, in my eyes - was missing, and Tanner should have been noticeably upset.

by **crusader** 14.07.24 18:35

I've just re read Silvia Batista's statement and you are right Anne, this is what she said.

At some point she translated the statement of one of the ladies who belonged to the group and that she describes as a brunette one. This lady said to the GNR elements, and she (the witness) translated, that she had seen a man on the road who might have carried a child.

This situation surprised her because she (the witness) was convinced that when the lady saw the man, the lady was in a place from where she had no angle of vision for the place where she saw the man. She doesn't know exactly what was the position of the lady when she saw the man, but she knows that the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.

In her statement the following day, Tanner drew a map of where she said she was after seeing Gerry and Jez.

by **AnneCGuedes** 14.07.24 19:17

crusader wrote:In her first statement, J Tanner drew a map of where she was when she saw the man with a child.
She was near the top of Francisco Gentil Martins, having just passed Gerry and Jez.
I believe Silvia Batista was referring to the placement of the cots in the children's bedroom as being confusing, there not being enough room to get to the window.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong because I haven't read Silvia Batista's statement for a while.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

You refer to JT's statements to the PJ. I mentioned JT's narrative to the GNR (national republican guard), that had been translated by Silvia Batista. You have to read SB's statements !
Apart from that you'll note that ROB also first said JT was on her way back to the Tapas and that the MCs' first statements mentioned a JT's one quite different of what she said to the PJ.

by **AnneCGuedes** 14.07.24 19:25

Cake Lover wrote:Do you think that Jane Tanner believed the McCann's story of the abduction?

Yes, I believe all of them believed it first. Suspicion must have overwhelmed them little by little, and they must have repressed it and probably taken care never to talk about it. Nobody likes to find out they've been duped. Illusion is a more comfortable territory to live in than doubt.

by **crusader** 14.07.24 19:26

See my post [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], I acknowledge this is from Silvia Batista's statement.

by **AnneCGuedes** 14.07.24 19:32

I saw it too late, Crusader !

by **crusader** 14.07.24 19:36

No problem.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 14.07.24 19:43

Cake Lover wrote:Do you think that Jane Tanner believed the McCann's story of the abduction?

Not a chance for me.

Totally in on it.

by Cake Lover 14.07.24 20:33

Totally in on it for me, too.

by **crusader** 14.07.24 20:37

They were all in on it in my opinion.

by Paddingtom 15.07.24 7:11

PeterMac wrote:Screen shot 10 seconds ago
14 July 2024. 1007

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

They CANNOT give up on Tannerman, because the entire timeline DEPENDS on it

Without Tannerman Gerry's assertion that he saw Madeleine alive at 2115 has to be looked at in more detail

But surely once they had all provided their timelines and the police had realised it was all a load of nonsense, there was a point where it was better to let sleeping dogs lie.?

Bear with me for a minute....   If GM saw MM at 9.15 and JT saw an abductor who was later eliminated, it doesnt directly negate the 9.15 viewing.   It doesnt directly cancel an abduction, just because he wasnt seen.

Obviously it is all rubbish and the police know it is all rubbish so you would think it is better just to say, "Oh, yes, I see it was an innocent, but just because I didnt see the actual abductor, doesnt mean there wasnt one as we are prooving by the absence of MM"

Do you see what I mean?   JT dug herself a hole, Op. Grange gave her a ladder and she rejected it in favour of another shovel.

Im also interested in the possibility that JT really did believe the abduction!!...For me the clock starts ticking on 29th April, so there would be 4 days in which MM was missing before she was abducted on 3rd. I really struggle to believe that JT hadnt noticed anything starnge. For everyone who belives this, (particulary Anne)what is your timeline please? Could JT really belive it?

If she did, she knows the truth now. Wouldnt she resent them having used her and want to distance herself from it all even more?   I just help but think that if I was JT I would grab Crecheman with both hands and heave a sigh of relief.

by Cake Lover 15.07.24 7:35

If one person or the whole group believed the abduction story, and later discovered that they had been lied to, would they keep quiet? They had been made complicit in the disappearance and cover up of that disappearance of a three year old child. None of them knew how the future would unfold; would they allow themselves to be used in this despicable way, and have it hang over them until they died? Two McCanns, having such a hold over three couples? They were all in on it, or all innocent, but went along with the cover up. Their mumbling, stuttering inarticulate statements speak for themselves. Just my opinion though.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 15.07.24 7:35

Jane had "never been more certain of anything in her life".

She can't change from left to right to right to left.

Read the book.. it's incredibly detailed about all this.

Also, she didn't walk past gerry and jez. Never happened.

by **crusader** 15.07.24 8:29

Unless Gerry and Jez weren't there of course, we only have their statements and timelines to go off.
Jez said he was talking to Gerry about 9:15, If he's telling the truth, Jane's lying.
How come they are so accurate about all the "checkings" but are confused or can't remember much about any of the finer details.

by Cake Lover 15.07.24 8:55

They couldn't remember to wear watches, or take their phones, on the evening in question. What a shame. There would be no confusion about time lines if they had.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 15.07.24 9:09

crusader wrote:Unless Gerry and Jez weren't there of course, we only have their statements and timelines to go off.
Jez said he was talking to Gerry about 9:15, If he's telling the truth, Jane's lying.
How come they are so accurate about all the "checkings" but are confused or can't remember much about any of the finer details.

In the book it says that Jane had her time down for 9.15 and because she later heard that gerry was talking to jez at that time (not planned) she included the walk past because logically she would have.

Sadly for her jez SAID he didn't see her even though he was looking that way and Gerry didn't want to call him a liar.

Another part of their story that would have failed a reconstruction.

by **crusader** 15.07.24 10:01

Gerry didn't mind contradicting Tanner when she said they were on her side of the road.
It's impossible to pass anyone without being seen even if Gerry had crossed the road to speak to Jez, it's so narrow.

Latest topics