Re: Jane Tanner Liar?

by aliberte2 05.01.10 18:09

littlepixie wrote:In their own way, not physically searching - still as shocking today.

Why?

by Guest 05.01.10 18:37

candyfloss wrote:
Molly wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Molly wrote:littlepixie the timeline was written while the police was present. The men and some of the women have been searching (including Kate). It's all in the files.

She actually said in an interview with Jane Hill, that she hadn't been searching.

Can't recall the context of that remark in the interview. But she's been outside the apartment, searching for Madeleine, calling her name. Don't know for how long though. It's really all in the files.

Don't think so, and could you please provide a link to where she said this in the files, I haven't read that.

Here is what she said to Jane Hill on the You Tube interview: thanks to the mccannfilesThe first interview with Jane Hill from the BBC - 25 May 2007

This interview is interesting as it is the first interview given by the McCanns after the disappearance of Madeleine. They had previously only given short, scripted statements.

Perhaps the most revealing question in the interview is this one:

Jane Hill: "I met people who didn't go to work for more than a week because everyday they were down on the beach, searching the streets. Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well."

Kate: (Pause) I mean, I did. Errm... (Long Pause) Errm, we'd been working really hard really. Apart... I mean, the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are incredibly difficult and we were almost non-functioning, I'd say, errm, but after that you get strength from somewhere. We've certainly had loads of support and that's given us strength and its been able to make us focus really so we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back."

ETA Note "it might not be physically searching"

Exactly, that's the context I was talking about. She and Jane Hill weren't talking about that evening, they were talking about the rest of the week.

"could you please provide a link to where she said this in the files, I haven't read that."

Now when did I say it was her who's said it?

Erm, tut, so Dave and I went to bed and we tried to sleep. Erm, I think about half an hour after that or an hour after that it was starting to get sort of vaguely light and Kate had come into the room just said 'Look, will you', would I look after Sean and Amelie and said they need to go and look for Madeleine and, erm, which I did. And I was conscious that, you know, Kate and Gerry were wrapped up warm and went out on the streets looking for Madeleine.

Fiona Payne Rogatory

“Erm, well I think I was in a bit of a, I mean, obviously, erm, the next thing I can
remember is seeing Kate and Fiona, they came running from the direction of Kate’s
flat, say sort of along the, sort of it’s, I’ll try and describe how it is, but as you come
into the flats there’s sort of a passageway and there’s flats above so there’s a roof and
there’s a passageway, it’s really badly described, but they came running along there
and they were shouting ‘Madeleine’ and they were like looking in the stairwell and
what have you."

Jane Tanner Rogatory

by marigold 06.01.10 0:06

Ruby wrote:i hope that settles that.

not likely on here, mind.

No Ruby, not likely at all. The Mccanns 'subjects' only want to read about how terrible Amaral is, how the abduction is a certainty because the Mccanns say so and how it was completely understandable that the children were left alone, her eye defect was a good marketing ploy, they acted normally after a few days and they paid their mortgage with fund money. All I can say is birds of a feather flock together. Just be glad you don't have their mindset!

by Guest 06.01.10 0:42

A pity Team Bennetts agenda for 2010 was moved to the trashcan.
The above post shows how right that analysis was. Back to nagging about the parents, let's forget or rather ignore, what's in the files. The tabloid stories are much more juicy.
What a mindset that is.

by marigold 06.01.10 2:52

Molly wrote:A pity Team Bennetts agenda for 2010 was moved to the trashcan.
The above post shows how right that analysis was. Back to nagging about the parents, let's forget or rather ignore, what's in the files. The tabloid stories are much more juicy.
What a mindset that is.

I think you are ignoring and forgetting what's in the files, purely because of some warped adoration of two strange and neglectful parents.

by Guest 06.01.10 10:12

marigold wrote:
Molly wrote:A pity Team Bennetts agenda for 2010 was moved to the trashcan.
The above post shows how right that analysis was. Back to nagging about the parents, let's forget or rather ignore, what's in the files. The tabloid stories are much more juicy.
What a mindset that is.

I think you are ignoring and forgetting what's in the files, purely because of some warped adoration of two strange and neglectful parents.

You'd better stop thinking then, because the results of your thinking are not impressive.
First of all I don't adore them, second I've been putting up links to the files over and over again, opposite to what you're doing: stating opinion (and myths) as facts. Which makes it clear it's you who's ignoring what's in the files.

by Guest 06.01.10 10:14

by preciousramotswe 06.01.10 19:48

badmanners wrote:Let us look at what Tanner actually said, in its time context:

00.56.47 4078 “And what happened after that?”
Reply “Erm, I think that’s when I went back to the roadside, I sort of looked out of the
roadside door. I think I heard some shouting, erm, so I actually went to sort of put
my head out the roadside door. And I think it was Rachael that I saw first because
she had run back I think to check that G***e was obviously okay. And then I think
Rachael said, you know, she told me what had, you know she said ‘Oh Madeleine’s
gone’ or, you know, something along those lines. And that’s, it was almost
straightaway as she said that I sort of had that, this person sort of came into my head
at that”.
4078 “It was that quick was it after you?”
Reply “It was almost, yeah, I was sort of like, oh, it just sort of seemed a bit, the connection
made, you know, I thought ‘Oh that person was a bit odd’, he sort of seemed a bit, a
bit odd. But I think at that point I was obviously, I think I actually might have
wondered, wondered and, you know, I was sort of thinking ‘Well I’m sure it couldn’t
have been’, but it did come that immediate into my mind”.
4078 “So what happened from then?”
Reply “Erm, well I think I was in a bit of a, I mean, obviously, erm, the next thing I can
remember is seeing Kate and Fiona, they came running from the direction of Kate’s
flat, say sort of along the, sort of it’s, I’ll try and describe how it is, but as you come
into the flats there’s sort of a passageway and there’s flats above so there’s a roof and
there’s a passageway, it’s really badly described, but they came running along there
and they were shouting ‘Madeleine’ and they were like looking in the stairwell and
what have you. And Fi started running upstairs and that’s when I ran to Fi and said
what I thought, you know, I said ‘I think I’ve seen somebody’. I didn’t want to say to
Kate at that point, which might sound odd now, you know, ‘Oh why wouldn’t you say
straight away to Kate’, but, you know, the thought of telling the mother of a child
that you might have seen being carried away is, it’s too horrible to even say. So I just
said to Fi, erm, you know, ‘I think I might have seen somebody a bit odd when I came
back to do one of the checks’.

So, she told Fiona at that time that she had seen a man carrying a child. This was just after the alarm had been raised. I have italicised the bit I think Himself has quoted.

then:

4078 “Who else did you speak to?”
Reply “I’m trying to think of the order, it was sort of like, it was Rachael first, then it was Fi
and I can’t remember when Russell and Matt came back, they came back at, erm, tut,
I don’t know whether they came back first or I told them or who else was there, but
as soon, the Police, when the Police came, I know Rachael went straight away to get
them to say, so that I could tell the GNR, I think, yeah, the GNR, what I’d seen, but I
don’t know if I told anybody else, I can’t remember when people like Sylvie, who
was the translator, I’m not sure when she arrived whether it was before the Police
arrived or after the Police arrived or whenever, but”.
4078 “But you told the Police when they came?”
Reply “Yeah, when they arrived Rachael I think went and got the GNR and I told the GNR
chap and then when the PJ actually arrived they came and got me to go and talk to
the, the PJ”.

and finally:

Russell was there when I spoke to the PJ, because I can remember Russell
coming in with me when I spoke to the PJ, because there was Russell and Gerry was
there as well in the apartment when I spoke to the PJ. And that was the first time I’d
ever been into their, into Kate and Gerry’s apartment through the whole week, I
hadn’t, it might seem like, but we hadn’t really been into their apartment before”.

01.04.52 4078 “Sorry, was that on the night that Madeleine had disappeared?”
Reply “That was at three o’clock in the morning after she’d disappeared, yeah”.

4078 “Okay. Well tell me about that part then, how did you come to go into Gerry and
Kate’s apartment?”
Reply “Well when the GNR people came, so the first lot of Police, the local Police came,
erm, I spoke to them and I think that was through the translator, which was, I think
she’s called Sylvie, she’s the Head of Housekeeping or something, she was doing the
translating at that point. So I’d spoken to the GNR Police and then when the PJ
came, they came to get me to talk to them to say, to say what, what I’d seen. And
then I can remember the same GNR person saying to me later on in the night ‘Oh
have you spoken to the PJ’ and I had by that stage, so”.
4078 “So when you went into Gerry and Kate’s apartment who else was there?”
Reply “Erm, I think there was Russ, I think Russell came with me and there was Sylvie who
was the translator. I can’t remember which, there was some, there was a PJ chap was
sitting on the, by the table. And there was Gerry who was standing by the, the
bedroom door”.
4078 “And how was Gerry at that point?”
Reply “Oh he was just, well obviously, obviously distraught. And I think it was quite hard
for me to be saying at that, you know, looking in his face and to be explaining what
I’d seen, at that point was quite hard because, you know, Gerry was obviously

standing there, I don’t know whether, and you sort of think ‘Oh God, here’s me, if I’d
tried to stop them this wouldn’t have happened’ sort of thing. So I think I did feel
sort of a bit obviously guilty at that stage even though I didn’t know whether it was
anything, but obviously you think ‘Oh blo*dy hell, what if I’, not stopped it happened
potentially”.
01.06.30 4078 “And what was Gerry’s reaction to what you said?”
Reply “Well I don’t even know whether he took it in, I mean, he was just, he was, you
know, obviously just standing there looking absolutely horrified, so”.
4078 “And where was Kate?”
Reply “I don’t know at that point, she wasn’t, she wasn’t in the, she wasn’t there. I don’t
know whether, I think they had taken the twins out of the room by that stage, so I
don’t know whether she was up in Dave and Fi’s room”.

I think she is wrong about the time - it's that simple.
She clearly places this telling of the PJ in front of Gerry at 3 in the morning. It wasn't, it was much earlier as is clear from everyone else's account of it, and given that we know that this 'note' was written when a PJ officer was present, it solves the mystery. Kate would not have found out until afterwards because Jane had not told her straight away afterwards and she wasn't in the room when the PJ were there.

I am reposting this because I would really like to engage an 'anti' in serious discusison on the points I raised. I did so with chapter and verse from the files, but no-one has taken up the challenge, which is rather disappointing.

It is unfair to continuously label this woman a liar when a close analysis of the files shows that she didn't lie - although she was almost certainly wrong about the reported time she first spoke to the PJ.

by mmmlindz 07.08.11 19:08

what does this mean Jane Tanner statement 10th May

Asked, she relates that she does not recall any incident or argument between any of the couples, or any of the group members individually, nor between them and any third parties. Until the 'unsuccessful/failed' disappearance of MBM, the holidays had been peaceful and fun, like all such other holidays of the group of friends.

thanks :)

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

by IAmNotMerylStreep 08.08.11 9:30

I hadn't seen that before

by LG78 10.08.11 18:54

After reading on this site[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I clearly see Jyne Tanner lie.
They say this : when deceptive people have to come up with a number they will often use the number three.. And Jane Tanner says she noticed Gerry about her sighting 0300. And other things she said is a typical liars way to talk.

Another thing about the abducter she "saw". If that is/are true, and you look at where Maddie slept, and the posision and the main entrance, if she saw the abducter, then it should have been the child's head where Jane Tanner saw feets. If not, the abducter would have had to turn Maddie around with her head pointing at the ending of bed before picking her up. And that is not very likely. Or he would have to turn her around sometime before living. And if it was an abducter, would he even carried her in the way JT describes? I mean not a clever way to carrie a child you abducted?

And I dont belive that if they where innocent, it wouldnt been so many things pointing against them. I also think that people would stop searching if there was not so much to search about..To many strange things in this case I think...

And about the word Really : I didn't really talk to them about any drugs."

The witness denies talking to them about drugs. However, he adds emphasis to his denial by including the word "really" which is one of the words that indicates untruthfulness. This is similar to saying that he didn't "truthfully" talk to them about drugs. We see the same use of the word "really" when another defendant was asked if he had ever robbed a bank. "I've never really done those types of things.

This are interesting, I defently see a lot of that in the mccann statements..[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by mmmlindz 11.08.11 17:18

Jane said she didn't tell McCanns about seeing man carrying child straight away but it was written on the original timeline on the kid book cover was this added later or another lie?

by Guest 12.08.11 12:33

What happened about this?.........................

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

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

17 February 2010 | Posted by
makeprofilelink("Joana Morais");
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

Today, a UK media journalist, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] was able to confirm with Mr. Pagarete, Robert Murat's lawyer, that he has filed a legal complaint against Jane Tanner.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] twitter, the case which is still at the inquest phase and under the secrecy of justice, is taking place at the Criminal Court of Lagos, in the Algarve, and apparently Mr. Amaral has already testified. Jane Tanner has not yet been constituted as an arguida, nor has she appeared in court.

Robert Murat's criminal complaint against Jane Tanner for [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], has already heard some witnesses, and will continue to hear some more, one of which is[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

by LG78 12.08.11 14:44

mmmlindz wrote:Jane said she didn't tell McCanns about seeing man carrying child straight away but it was written on the original timeline on the kid book cover was this added later or another lie?

Opinion on this ? : Another thing about the abducter she "saw". If that is/are true, and you look at where Maddie slept, and the posision and the main entrance, if she saw the abducter, then it should have been the child's head where Jane Tanner saw feets. If not, the abducter would have had to turn Maddie around with her head pointing at the ending of bed before picking her up. And that is not very likely. Or he would have to turn her around sometime before living. And if it was an abducter, would he even carried her in the way JT describes? I mean not a clever way to carrie a child you abducted?

by Guest 12.08.11 15:00

LG78 wrote:
mmmlindz wrote:Jane said she didn't tell McCanns about seeing man carrying child straight away but it was written on the original timeline on the kid book cover was this added later or another lie?

Opinion on this ? : Another thing about the abducter she "saw". If that is/are true, and you look at where Maddie slept, and the posision and the main entrance, if she saw the abducter, then it should have been the child's head where Jane Tanner saw feets. If not, the abducter would have had to turn Maddie around with her head pointing at the ending of bed before picking her up. And that is not very likely. Or he would have to turn her around sometime before living. And if it was an abducter, would he even carried her in the way JT describes? I mean not a clever way to carrie a child you abducted?

Yes, he would have had to put Madeleine down and change position for her head to be facing the way JT described. Furthermore if we are to believe the Smith sighting was of the same person, he had changed position again, after walking around for 35/40 minutes, and had Madeleine over his shoulder.

by FatherC 12.08.11 15:43

I have seen this attributed to Jane Tanner about the "abductor":

"His head was egg-shaped, he had some short hair, and was carrying a bundle, maybe a blanket"

I have been unable to find a source for quote this does anyone know it?

by Guest 12.08.11 15:51

FatherC wrote:I have seen this attributed to Jane Tanner about the "abductor":

"His head was egg-shaped, he had some short hair, and was carrying a bundle, maybe a blanket"

I have been unable to find a source for quote this does anyone know it?

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

I remember reading this very early on, the Egg Man, I expect they have all been whooshed now! Will have a search.

by Guest 12.08.11 16:04

Found an article which says she saw a man carrying a bundle. So how did that bundle morph into a child, complete with description of pyjamas bare feet etc. Strange bundle!......................

Is this the man who snatched Madeleine? McCanns release artist's impression

By VANESSA ALLEN

Last updated at 17:17 26 October 2007

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

This is the man a witness claims she saw carrying a child away from the McCann family's holiday apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared.

The picture - an artist's impression - was commissioned by the McCanns in an attempt to kickstart the hunt for their daughter.

An artist drew the picture after speaking to witness Jane Tanner and asking her what she remembered of the man she saw on the night of May 3.

Scroll down for more...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Faceless suspect: The McCanns hope this image will reinvigorate the search for Madeleine

Read more...

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

Miss Tanner, 36, was one of the group of friends on holiday with the McCanns - the Tapas Nine - and told police she saw a man carrying a bundle away from the apartment and down towards the church in Praia da Luz, at about 9.15pm.

She thought nothing of it until the alarm was raised 45 minutes later, and was said to be "racked with guilt".

She told police she thought it was strange to see a man carrying a child so late at night, but thought he must be its father.

She has spent several hours with the woman forensic artist who has an international reputation in her field.

The picture shows a child's legs dangling over the man's arm, wearing white trousers decorated with a floral pattern and a lacy trim.

The child appears to be asleep or barely conscious.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Madeleine: Disappeared from the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz on May 3

The clothing fits the description of the pyjamas Madeleine's parents say she was wearing on the night she vanished.

Gerry McCann spoke in detail of the suspect seen by Miss Tanner, saying he was about 35, around 5ft 9ins, with dark hair parted at the side and slightly longer at the back. He wore a dark jacket, beige trousers and dark shoes.

Mr McCann said: "This could have been someone who could have been picking up a child from a creche or coming back from dinner.

"But we are certainly suspicious of the timing and that person needs to be eliminated from the investigation."

The artist left the man's face blank because Miss Tanner, of Exeter, said she never saw it in the dark street.

Her account has caused controversy because another witness, TV producer Jeremy Wilkins, has said he stopped to speak to Mr McCann in the street at the same time, but said he did not see Miss Tanner or the unidentified man.

The McCanns have been frustrated by the Portuguese police's seeming unwillingness to publicise the sighting.

Their decision to commission their own picture was time to coincide with their interview with the Spanish broadcaster Antena 3.

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

by LG78 12.08.11 18:19

candyfloss wrote:
LG78 wrote:
mmmlindz wrote:Jane said she didn't tell McCanns about seeing man carrying child straight away but it was written on the original timeline on the kid book cover was this added later or another lie?

Opinion on this ? : Another thing about the abducter she "saw". If that is/are true, and you look at where Maddie slept, and the posision and the main entrance, if she saw the abducter, then it should have been the child's head where Jane Tanner saw feets. If not, the abducter would have had to turn Maddie around with her head pointing at the ending of bed before picking her up. And that is not very likely. Or he would have to turn her around sometime before living. And if it was an abducter, would he even carried her in the way JT describes? I mean not a clever way to carrie a child you abducted?

Yes, he would have had to put Madeleine down and change position for her head to be facing the way JT described. Furthermore if we are to believe the Smith sighting was of the same person, he had changed position again, after walking around for 35/40 minutes, and had Madeleine over his shoulder.

And all this without her waking up screaming of fear in the arms of a stranger, unless she already was dead or the arms was her dads...

by FatherC 12.08.11 18:36

I think Jane Tanner's "sighting" is a nonsense but it is not fair to attribute something to her which she did not in fact say. There appears to be no record of her saying the man she saw "was carrying a bundle, maybe a blanket" and if there isn't 21 reasons really should not be saying that there is.

by LG78 12.08.11 18:55

FatherC wrote:I think Jane Tanner's "sighting" is a nonsense but it is not fair to attribute something to her which she did not in fact say. There appears to be no record of her saying the man she saw "was carrying a bundle, maybe a blanket" and if there isn't 21 reasons really should not be saying that there is.

Seems like she told that she saw pink/white pyjamas bear feet and all that in the first interview with police may 4th. Not something she made up long after as some claime. Tough im not sure what she said to the police same night it happened. She might not been so clear then? anyone know? Im very sure she lies anyway..To dark and to short time to get all those details I think...And to remember it all so clear and hour later as well...

by Guest 12.08.11 20:42

FatherC wrote:I think Jane Tanner's "sighting" is a nonsense but it is not fair to attribute something to her which she did not in fact say. There appears to be no record of her saying the man she saw "was carrying a bundle, maybe a blanket" and if there isn't 21 reasons really should not be saying that there is.

Well, she can't have convinced GM can she, he didn't seem very sure, because he states in this video " a man probably carrying a child" plus the piece in the article I posted about a man carrying a bundle..........................

[youtube]