Jane Tanner Liar?

Posted by Himself on the McCann Gallery [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Firstly let me set the scene, this extract from Amaral's book.


Two contradictory lists and a torn children's book

The first investigator who went to the apartment after the alarm was raised was informed of the existence of a plan for checking on the children while the parents dined one hundred metres away.

At the time, Russell O'Brien handed over two lists handwritten on the inside cover of a children's book, a sticker activity book for children more than 3 years of age. We believe the book was Madeleine's and we do not understand why they tore off the cover of the child's book.

A child had just gone missing and all its belongings should be precious to those who loved her. Was there really no other paper around? Not even a simple napkin? The question hangs in the air and the response is yet another contradiction. The lists contained the possible record of the checks in the apartment.


That it was Madeleine's book is not vital to the case but it is a good indicator to what was seemingly transpiring in apartment 5A at the time the alarm was raised.
Not Vital as I say, but worth remembering when I pose a question a little later on.

The next Extract from Russell O'Brien's Rogatory interview does give us two pieces of information, one extremely important piece of information is that it places Gerry McCann in the apartment at the time O'Brien was writing the timeline, at the same table in fact, and the other: "I thought it was a cereal box" is worth remembering.

But it is the time that is the critical component in all this

In response to a question from Leicester plod.


Reply Russell O'Brien........ at some stage sort of quietened off and the, the PJ sat down with, you know, came in and sat down with Gerry....

(I thought) that we were writing on the back of a piece of card,I thought it was a cereal box but obviously it was a children’s book,

that (it) was written with me sat at the table in Kate and Gerry’s room. Gerry by this point had certainly calmed down but was, his head was just on the table, you know, like that, he was just staring at the, at the table, very, very quiet and very, very low.
Question Leicester plod....

LP. “Was the first attempt, the earlier attempt as you say. When was this drafted up”?

Reply Russell O'Brien
Erm this was drafted er *around the time that the initial pair of Officers from the PJ came to 5A
I can certainly recall writing some of this, I think perhaps the neat, maybe the neater version erm sat down at the table in Gerry’s flat...


Let us now look at some bits from Jane Tanner's Rogatory statements.


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.

The nitty gritty.



4078 (Leic plod) “Sorry, was that on the night that Madeleine had disappeared?”

JT.“That was at three o’clock in the morning after she’d disappeared, yeah”.

LP. "So when you went into Gerry and Kate’s apartment who else was there?”

JT. “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”.

LP. “And how was Gerry at that point?”

JT.“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 bloody hell, what if I’ not stopped it happened potentially”.

LP. “And what was Gerry’s reaction to what you said?”

JT. “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?”.....



Short ending.

Prior to the PJ arriving at 12:40/12:50 Russell O'Brien has written the timeline for them all, including, "Jane tanner sees stranger walking carrying child." He does this while Gerry McCann sits at the same table.

At three o' clock in the morning Jane Tanner informs Gerry McCann for the first time, about the existence of a possible abductor.

Gerry looks horrified upon hearing this.

Err hello, hello mister English policeman, are you there?


ETA. But why did Tanner feel the need to lie to the PJ, to put the time at three o' clock in the morning for when both McCanns were "first made aware" of the possible abductor.

Other than, I can only assume, in their way of thinking they perhaps thought it best that the McCanns appeared outside the loop, separate somehow from the conspiracy that they all were so actively engaged in. I'm at a loss here, I really can't imagine.

And not only that, just think about what we are being asked to believe. Madeleine has been snatched, don't forget Kate knew this instantly, Madeleine has been snatched, Tanner has witnessed a man carrying a child in the vicinity of the apartment just prior to Madeleine being discovered gone, and tries to tell us, and the PJ of course, that she waited five hours before she informed the parents for fear of upsetting them.

Why do I have trouble believing this?


~ ~ ~



Long ending.

Firstly let me dispense with the book.

Having read all that O'Brien has to say I would have difficulty in believing that Monday followed Sunday if such statement came from his lips, but for once and for purposes of this article I shall go with one sentence being the truth.


"I thought it was a cereal box but obviously it was a children’s book."


At first glance it might not seem so terribly important but it does bother me somewhat and makes me ask who handed the torn book to O'Brien, who would feel comfortable enough to tear up a book belonging to a child, someone else's child and a recently "abducted" child to boot?

How likely is it that one of the Tapas Seven would tear up a book belonging to Madeleine? for all their faults I would say they have enough social graces that to do such a thing would be abhorrent and totally alien to them, who then?

Well it can't have been Gerry can it? because according to Jane Tanner she didn't inform McCann until three in the morning that she had in fact seen a possible abductor.

But that begs another question, especially with Gerry being placed in the apartment at the time.

How did O'Brien and Co. conjure up so surreptitiously the timeline, commit it all to paper duly noting Tanner's 9.20pm sighting of the possible abductor without the knowledge of Gerry McCann who was, at the very time the thing was being drafted,was sat with his head resting on the same table.

It's all a mystery to me.




*This is the critical part, what time did the PJ arrive, before or after 3am?


Vitor Manuel Martins
Occupation : PJ Officer
He is an inspector with the PJ and currently works at the Porto PJ Directorate.
(...)On the night of 3rd May 2007 he was on duty at the Portimão DIC, in the company of Inspector Manuel Queirós, who was acting as head of the station.
When questioned he confirms the integrity of the service information drawn up from the station’s inquiries carried out in the early morning of 04/05/2007, adding that he arrived on the scene about 30 – 40 minutes after the phone call from the GNR, at about 00.40/00.50.

João Franciso Páscoa Luis Trigo Barreiras
Occupation: PJ Deputy Specialist
Place of work: Criminal Investigation Department Portimão
(...)He was brought into service together with an Inspector from the station. It was the inspector’s duty to take notes of the services as well as all the information relating to them. The inspector who accompanied him on that date, Vitor Martins, informed him that the case in question was that of the disappearance of a small girl, of British nationality, who was staying at the OC with her parents.
The immediately left for the scene and arrived about 30 – 40 minutes later, at about 00.40/00.50.

ETA: Why I place so much emphasis on the official timeline is that this story had been on the back burner for months and took just as long to tie down an official source.

Let me get this right, you believe everything in Amarals book is correct?

rockyrobin wrote:Let me get this right, you believe everything in Amarals book is correct?

Did I write this post?

Nope. It was written by Himself from the McCann Gallery and posted here for discussion.

I know i have re-read it and noticed that sorry.

But Stevo is himself, hope you know that.

rockyrobin wrote:I know i have re-read it and noticed that sorry.

But Stevo is himself, hope you know that.

No, Himself is not Stevo.

jkh wrote:

rockyrobin wrote:I know i have re-read it and noticed that sorry.

But Stevo is himself, hope you know that.

No, Himself is not Stevo.

One seems so sure.

rockyrobin wrote:

jkh wrote:

rockyrobin wrote:I know i have re-read it and noticed that sorry.

But Stevo is himself, hope you know that.

No, Himself is not Stevo.

One seems so sure.

I am very sure.

Can we just clarify the emotive 'Madeleine's book' issue.

I believe said book was one of the 99p supermarket sticker travel books.......I could be completely wrong, but I have a feeling that this is what it was.

A book for the duration of a holiday - rather than a child's best book.

I know it's pedantic, but so much emphasis was put on the heartlessness of the book being torn elsewhere.

I think the point of these threads are to show that they are liars. Which they are, clearly.

Oh okay, might as well lock it now then - save anyone else inadvertently stumbling across it and thinking it was worth contributing.

vaguely wrote:Oh okay, might as well lock it now then - save anyone else inadvertently stumbling across it and thinking it was worth contributing.

OH! So your opinion is that none of them lied then?

marigold wrote:

vaguely wrote:Oh okay, might as well lock it now then - save anyone else inadvertently stumbling across it and thinking it was worth contributing.

OH! So your opinion is that none of them lied then?

Okay thank you.

What do I owe you?

vaguely wrote:Can we just clarify the emotive 'Madeleine's book' issue.

I believe said book was one of the 99p supermarket sticker travel books.......I could be completely wrong, but I have a feeling that this is what it was.

A book for the duration of a holiday - rather than a child's best book.

I know it's pedantic, but so much emphasis was put on the heartlessness of the book being torn elsewhere.

It says Sainsbury on It. Is that not a UK Grocery Store? It Wasn't a First Edition of Winnie the Pooh.
Cue: BUT IT WAS MADELEINES AND EVERYTHING SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREASURED.

aliberte2 wrote:

vaguely wrote:Can we just clarify the emotive 'Madeleine's book' issue.

I believe said book was one of the 99p supermarket sticker travel books.......I could be completely wrong, but I have a feeling that this is what it was.

A book for the duration of a holiday - rather than a child's best book.

I know it's pedantic, but so much emphasis was put on the heartlessness of the book being torn elsewhere.

It says Sainsbury on It. Is that not a UK Grocery Store? It Wasn't a First Edition of Winnie the Pooh.
Cue: BUT IT WAS MADELEINES AND EVERYTHING SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREASURED.

Vaguely, how heartless to be so dismissive about Madeleine's sticker book. As aliberte2 rightly points out, the price of the book is irrelevant. It was Madeleine's book and, for that reason, should have been treasured by the McCanns.

Autumn wrote:

Vaguely, how heartless to be so dismissive about Madeleine's sticker book. As aliberte2 rightly points out, the price of the book is irrelevant. It was Madeleine's book and, for that reason, should have been treasured by the McCanns.

I was Being Sarcastic. I think the Madeleine's Book "Issue" is More of the Misguided Female Hate Toward Kate McCann that has Tainted and Probably Prevented Any Realistic Prosecution of the McCanns For Their Misdeeds. Especially as Kate McCann is Not even The Person who Tore the Book. I am Sure Madeleine McCann had Many Real Books at Home and even With Her On Vacation that were Actually Read to Her and Were Reading Books and Not Silly Coloring books.

Do you honestly think that anyone in that apartment was doing a sentimental stock take on Madeleine's personal belongings?
If the extent of the argument is that something as incidental and irrelevant as the use of a copy book is somehow important it shows how vapid Amaral's case was.
Little wonder he was taken of the case.

Autumn wrote:

Vaguely, how heartless to be so dismissive about Madeleine's sticker book. As aliberte2 rightly points out, the price of the book is irrelevant. It was Madeleine's book and, for that reason, should have been treasured by the McCanns.

Utterly ridiculous. You treasure every bit of tat that your children have ever been bought to keep them amused on holiday, do you? Do you?

I would if said child had disappeared.

What have you got instead of a heart?

Ruby wrote:I would if said child had disappeared.

What have you got instead of a heart?

A brain?

2 brains then, one probably in your sac .

that explains the heartlessness.

Ruby wrote:2 brains then, one probably in your sac .

that explains the heartlessness.

What does "in your sac" mean?

“Prior to the PJ arriving at 12:40/12:50 Russell O'Brien has written the timeline for them all, including, ‘Jane tanner sees stranger walking carrying child.’ He does this while Gerry McCann sits at the same table. At three o' clock in the morning Jane Tanner informs Gerry McCann for the first time, about the existence of a possible abductor.”


Wonder why Jane didn't inform Gerry about the abductor til 3am?

jkh wrote:“Prior to the PJ arriving at 12:40/12:50 Russell O'Brien has written the timeline for them all, including, ‘Jane tanner sees stranger walking carrying child.’ He does this while Gerry McCann sits at the same table. At three o' clock in the morning Jane Tanner informs Gerry McCann for the first time, about the existence of a possible abductor.”


Wonder why Jane didn't inform Gerry about the abductor til 3am?

This is the actual scribbled note, thanks to the mccannfiles

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

Perelli wrote:

Ruby wrote:2 brains then, one probably in your sac .

that explains the heartlessness.

What does "in your sac" mean?

I think it's probably rude, unless it's a belated reference to Santa.

Old Nick wrote:

Perelli wrote:

Ruby wrote:2 brains then, one probably in your sac .

that explains the heartlessness.

What does "in your sac" mean?

I think it's probably rude, unless it's a belated reference to Santa.

OK, thanks for the explanation, it says something about a person's debating skills when even their insults need clarification

So first you assault with your witty line about me not having a brain, then you top that by blaming me for your being 'hard of understanding'.

Oh dear.

We have a link to one of the notes, but it's claimed there were two.

Do we know what the other one said, and in what way, if any, did it differ from this one?

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.

Ruby wrote:So first you assault with your witty line about me not having a brain, then you top that by blaming me for your being 'hard of understanding'.

Oh dear.

No, merely pointing out that V has a brain does not necessarily preclude you from having one too, but as you say

A new day has begun. How about moving on?