The Tanner "Sighting" - AGAIN

chilli wrote:Please can you remove that Avatar. It is offensive and above all, disrespective to a family that has lost a child in such dreadful circumstances.

I agree entirely with this post and am sending candyfloss a P.M.
J.S has been asked several times to stop using offensive avatars and the present one is absolutely out of order.

PeterM wrote:

It is clear from examining the statements that this did not happen

The group consisted of four couples, plus the mother of one of the women in the group.  Nine adults in total.

David and Fiona Payne  did no checking of anyone’s children, including their own, as they had a baby monitor and relied on this.
Dianne Webster  (Fiona Payne’s mother) did no checking at any time.
Rachael and Matthew Oldfield did not check on anyone else’s children.
Jane Tanner and Russell O’Brien did not check on anyone else’s children
Kate and Gerry McCann never checked on anyone else’s children.

So this impression the McCanns have given of the adults in their group all running back and forth checking each others' children is most certainly not the truth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 10th of May 2007, at 3.20 p.m.
They left the house through the main door, that he was sure he locked, and the back door was also closed and locked.
On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007. On this day, the deponent and KATE had already left the back door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their group colleagues to check on the children. He clarifies that the main door was always closed but not necessarily locked with the key.
------------------------------------------------------

So, "on Wednesday night, 2nd May 2007 On this day, the deponent (GM) and KATE had already left the back door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their group colleagues to check on the children".
-------------------------------------------

(why is the 2nd of May 'mentioned' and NOT all the other nights up to that date?)

ALLOW ENTRANCE BY THEIR GROUP COLLEAGUES TO 'CHCEK' ON THE  (MCCANN) CHILDREN?
----------------------------------------

As we know from PeterM's 'research' NONE of the McCanns 'colleagues' ever 'checked' the McCann children,

YET GM tells us, SPECIFICALLY, the reason the McCanns left their apartment 'unlocked/unsecured'  was to 'ALLOW ENTRANCE BY THEIR GROUP COLLEAGUES TO 'CHECK' on HIS children!

I WONDER WHY HIS COLLEAGUES NEVER ONCE, DURING THE HOLIDAY, CHECKED HIS KIDS?

They (GM&KM) had, diliberately and consciously, (incidentally, putting their three children at total RISK of a stranger entering their apartment and doing GKW to their children) left the 'back door' unlocked, so that their colleagues could do just that, so they tell us!

ERGO: It was NOT a 'mistake' to leave their apartment 'unlocked' when they went out of sight to tapas restaurant, it WAS a DILIBERATE and CONSCIOUS 'decision' by THEM, the most super responsible parents in the world, who would never, ever, put their most precious kids, the most important 'persons' in their lives, EVER, at risk or danger or in harms way, to do so. And they DID it every night they went 'out'!

But, NONE of his colleagues set foot in the MCCanns apartment UNTIL the 'fateful night' when Madeleine went 'missing'!

WHY were there no 'checks' all week, of the McCann children, by GM's colleagues, as HE 'envisaged' there would be?

OR, is GM telling 'porkies' AGAIN!

eta: WHY did the McCanns think that their colleagues should/would check THEIR children when they sat on their ass*s at the tapas and, AFAIK, THEY didn't 'offer' once to check their colleagues children all that week?

DON'T DO AS I DO, DO AS I SAY!

Hmmmm.

jeanmonroe wrote:PeterM wrote:

It is clear from examining the statements that this did not happen

The group consisted of four couples, plus the mother of one of the women in the group.  Nine adults in total.

David and Fiona Payne  did no checking of anyone’s children, including their own, as they had a baby monitor and relied on this.
Dianne Webster  (Fiona Payne’s mother) did no checking at any time.
Rachael and Matthew Oldfield did not check on anyone else’s children.
Jane Tanner and Russell O’Brien did not check on anyone else’s children
Kate and Gerry McCann never checked on anyone else’s children.

So this impression the McCanns have given of the adults in their group all running back and forth checking each others' children is most certainly not the truth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 10th of May 2007, at 3.20 p.m.
They left the house through the main door, that he was sure he locked, and the back door was also closed and locked.
On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007. On this day, the deponent and KATE had already left the back door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their group colleagues to check on the children. He clarifies that the main door was always closed but not necessarily locked with the key.
------------------------------------------------------

So, "on Wednesday night, 2nd May 2007 On this day, the deponent (GM) and KATE had already left the back door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their group colleagues to check on the children".
-------------------------------------------

(why is the 2nd of May 'mentioned' and NOT all the other nights up to that date?)

ALLOW ENTRANCE BY THEIR GROUP COLLEAGUES TO 'CHCEK' ON THE  (MCCANN) CHILDREN?
----------------------------------------

As we know from PeterM's 'research' NONE of the McCanns 'colleagues' ever 'checked' the McCann children,

YET GM tells us, SPECIFICALLY, the reason the McCanns left their apartment 'unlocked/unsecured' was to 'ALLOW ENTRANCE BY THEIR GROUP COLLEAGUES TO 'CHECK' on HIS children!

I WONDER WHY HIS COLLEAGUES NEVER ONCE, DURING THE HOLIDAY, CHECKED HIS KIDS?

They (GM&KM) had, diliberately and consciously, left the 'back door' unlocked, so that his colleagues could do just that, so they tell us!

But NONE of his colleagues set foot in the MCCanns apartment UNTIL the 'fateful night' when Madeleine went 'missing'!

WHY were there no 'checks' all week, of the McCann children, by GM's colleagues?

OR, is GM telling 'porkies' AGAIN!

Maybe they left the back door open on the 2nd May so the abductor could enter for a trial run and practice giving sedation to Madeleine and the twins.
Certainly it wasn't for any of their colleagues to check.
Didn't KM say that she thought the "abductor" had entered the night before.
And he had maybe disturbed the children leading to the crying episode (where were you when etc).
And he had given Maddie sedation which was why she was so tired the following day.
And this had possibly caused the "tea stain" on Maddies pjs.

What a colourful imagination she has.

ETA who gives tea to a child with sleeping problems???

dantezebu wrote:

Maybe they left the back door open on the 2nd May so the abductor could enter for a trial run and practice giving sedation to Madeleine and the twins.
--------------------------------------------------------

And that would be the 'abductor' who was NOW in the  kiddies room, the night BEFORE, the big 'night' who thought, "I COULD 'abduct' Madeleine right NOW, and the twins are breathing nicely, but as i have to collect my happy meal from MackiDs, i'll come back tomorrow. I won't get caught and none of the parents 'friends' will see me tomorrow, i'll risk it"

Is THAT the PROFESSIONAL 'abductor' you allude to?

jeanmonroe wrote:dantezebu wrote:

Maybe they left the back door open on the 2nd May so the abductor could enter for a trial run and practice giving sedation to Madeleine and the twins.
--------------------------------------------------------

And that would be the 'abductor' who was NOW in the  kiddies room, the night BEFORE, the big 'night' who thought, "I COULD 'abduct' Madeleine right NOW, and the twins are breathing nicely, but as i have to collect my happy meal from MackiDs, i'll come back tomorrow. I won't get caught and none of the parents 'friends' will see me tomorrow, i'll risk it"

Is THAT the PROFESSIONAL 'abductor' you allude to?

That's the one. Except after finding three children he decided he would come back with a couple of his burglar mates the next night and they could get one each.

bobbin wrote:

chilli wrote:Please can you remove that Avatar. It is offensive and above all, disrespective to a family that has lost a child in such dreadful circumstances.

I agree entirely with this post and am sending candyfloss a P.M.
J.S has been asked several times to stop using offensive avatars and the present one is absolutely out of order.

Why? What was offensive or disrespectful about the picture of Tia Sharp? Or are you talking about the current avatar?

This has been resolved now AndyB. Not everyone agreed that the picture of Tia was inappropriate but it has been removed.

STAY ON TOPIC! AGAIN! FFS!

Good job then, that NONE of the McCanns colleagues entered the apartment through the, diliberately left, 'unlocked' back door, which the McCanns had left 'unlocked' so they, the colleagues, could gain 'allowed' entrance, whilst the McCanns were at the tapas restaurant, to check on the McCann children, THAT night, Wednesday 2nd May 2007!

THAT would have 'shocked' the PROFESSIONAL 'abductor' i can tell you!

But NO colleagues of the McCanns did enter to 'check' the McCanns, all alone, THREE kids, aged under 4 years old, so that's alright then.

PHEW!

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:This has been resolved now AndyB. Not everyone agreed that the picture of Tia was inappropriate but it has been removed.

I know its been removed but I'm still keen to understand why people think it offensive and/or disrespectful

jeanmonroe wrote:dantezebu wrote:

Maybe they left the back door open on the 2nd May so the abductor could enter for a trial run and practice giving sedation to Madeleine and the twins.
--------------------------------------------------------

And that would be the 'abductor' who was NOW in the  kiddies room, the night BEFORE, the big 'night' who thought, "I COULD 'abduct' Madeleine right NOW, and the twins are breathing nicely, but as i have to collect my happy meal from MackiDs, i'll come back tomorrow. I won't get caught and none of the parents 'friends' will see me tomorrow, i'll risk it"

Is THAT the PROFESSIONAL 'abductor' you allude to?

It can only be Tractorman who, having successfully sedated the 3 infants, was about to make off with Madeleine when he realised he'd left his phone at home and thought to himself 'Dammit, I'll have to come back tomorrow night because if my mobile doesn't ping in the vicinity of this apartment the child's parents, not to mention the police forces of two nations, will have no one to pin it on at some future date'.

The rest, as we know, is history and history shows us that large scale crimes can be perpetrated by small time crooks intent on bending the truth to suit their purposes.

dantezebu wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:dantezebu wrote:

Maybe they left the back door open on the 2nd May so the abductor could enter for a trial run and practice giving sedation to Madeleine and the twins.
--------------------------------------------------------

And that would be the 'abductor' who was NOW in the  kiddies room, the night BEFORE, the big 'night' who thought, "I COULD 'abduct' Madeleine right NOW, and the twins are breathing nicely, but as i have to collect my happy meal from MackiDs, i'll come back tomorrow. I won't get caught and none of the parents 'friends' will see me tomorrow, i'll risk it"

Is THAT the PROFESSIONAL 'abductor' you allude to?

That's the one. Except after finding three children he decided he would come back with a couple of his burglar mates the next night and they could get one each.

Except, of course, when he and his 'burglar' mates went back into the apartment the next night Thursday 3rd May 2007, the kiddies room was EMPTY!

Madeleine had 'vanished' into 'thin', as opposed to 'fat', air, and the twins were in another apartment with all the other T9 kids!

His 'burglar' mates then said to him "why the fcuk didn't you 'abduct' the kid yesterday, when you were in this room alone?"

To which, the PROFESSIONAL 'burglator' replied "have you ever eaten a fcuking COLD happy meal? It's 'gross'"

"ok, we'll phone around a few taxi firms, to see if they've got a taxi available to get us away from here"

"Don't do that" the PROFESSIONAL 'burglator' said, 'the ol' Bill might be able to trace those 'pings' in seven years time'

"God, YOU really is a proper PROFESSIONAL burglator, ain't ya?"

"YEP. Me and the PROFESSIONAL PI Dave Eggman."

jeanmonroe wrote:

dantezebu wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:dantezebu wrote:

Maybe they left the back door open on the 2nd May so the abductor could enter for a trial run and practice giving sedation to Madeleine and the twins.
--------------------------------------------------------

And that would be the 'abductor' who was NOW in the  kiddies room, the night BEFORE, the big 'night' who thought, "I COULD 'abduct' Madeleine right NOW, and the twins are breathing nicely, but as i have to collect my happy meal from MackiDs, i'll come back tomorrow. I won't get caught and none of the parents 'friends' will see me tomorrow, i'll risk it"

Is THAT the PROFESSIONAL 'abductor' you allude to?

That's the one. Except after finding three children he decided he would come back with a couple of his burglar mates the next night and they could get one each.

Except, of course, when he and his 'burglar' mates went back into the apartment the next night Thursday 3rd May 2007, the kiddies room was EMPTY!

Madeleine had 'vanished' into 'thin', as opposed to 'fat', air, and the twins were in another apartment with all the other T9 kids!

His 'burglar' mates then said to him "why the fcuk didn't you 'abduct' the kid yesterday, when you were in this room alone?"

To which, the PROFESSIONAL 'abductor' replied "have you ever eaten a fcuking COLD happy meal? It's 'gross'"

That's hysterical jean.   
Makkie Ds chips have to be eaten immediately. I'm totally with the professional here.

Just reminds me of that old adage

"A policeman's lot is not a happy one"

If we, on this forum, can give the 'monitoring' 38 traps, of Operation Strange, a little 'entertainment' now and again, and 'relieve them' (oh, how we still chortle when we remember Jane said she was going to 'relieve' Russell) from their 24/7 relentless 'reading' of 'files' in their stuffy office, then that's a good thing, isn't it?

jeanmonroe wrote:Just reminds me of that old adage

"A policeman's lot is not a happy one"

If we, on this forum, can give the 'monitoring' 38 traps, of Operation Strange, a little 'entertainment' now and again, and 'relieve them' (oh, how we still chortle when we remember Jane said she was going to 'relieve' Russell) from their 24/7 relentless 'reading' of 'files' in their stuffy office, then that's a good thing, isn't it?

Lovely stuff Jean. I am sure that you spark a few synapses into momentary life. Just enough to let them know they are still living and - I was going to say sentient, but I believe that's a higher qualification with such stringent requirements that no one ever gets on the course.

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

He,ll have to stop dying his hair.
The man who killed Suzanne Pilley was attacked in prison on his first day.
Can you imagine the reception for this guy?

Don't worry, everything is under control!

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

cassius wrote:

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

He,ll have to stop dying his hair.
The man who killed Suzanne Pilley was attacked in prison on his first day.
Can you imagine the reception for this guy?

I imagine that it will not be dissimilar to that given to the killer of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, or that given to another oxygen thief who killed little April Jones and who is now asking to be moved to another prison as the inmates he's currently banged up with are being mean to him, cassius.

Imo anyone found guilty of causing the demise of Madeleine McCann will be given whole life terms which is just as well as, such is the high rate of unfortunate accidents involving scalding water, sharp instruments, and suchlike which befall certain guests of Her Maj when warders are otherwise engaged, her killer(s) are unlikely to emerge from jail looking as they did when they were first incarcerated and I wouldn't like to think that, after serving 20/30 years or so, they'd be released into society with anything other than clearly recognisable, albeit aged, features.

with thanks to the blogger [email=Johanna@unterdenteppichgekehrt]Johanna@unterdenteppichgekehrt[/email]  [ swept under the carpet]

 
Freitag, 6. Juni 2014

Where is Jane?


During the recent Miles for Missing People charity run Kate was competing in the 10k run while Gerry and the twins entered the 3k competition. According to the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Kate was to be accompanied by such old friends as Rachel Oldfield and Jane Tanner for moral support and to show that all was well within the Tapas group. There are pictures of Rachel to prove that she gladly stood by her old friend although she would have lost sight of Kate rather quickly tailing behind.






But where was Jane? There is no picture of her at the start of the race and she did not make it to the finish line according to the[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Did she get lost on the way or was she not there at all? Was her name entered into the attendee's list, waisting precious ~ 20 pounds from the FUND to give the impression that she was still good friends with the couple or did she simply not turn up because of things more important like the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

I am afraid we will hardly ever know.

But what we have learned only recently is, that after Andy Redwood had exonerated her from the suspicion of being a mere liar and fantasist by producing the ever so elusive "Man who carried a child", she has been placed firmly back into the very position she so desperately wanted to leave. And unfortunately by the very people she so badly wanted to help that night in May 2007.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], offered to Channel 5 by a BRIGHTON based independent film company served only two purposes apart from secretly reveiling that it was the possibility of satellite images of the ABDUCTOR during the night of May 3rd that allowed Kevin Halligen to cheat the McCanns out of at least half a million: To document that the "world's best intelligence people" never ever once suspected the parents themselves and to place Jane firmly back into her role as a fantasist who makes up stories as she flip-flops along.

The "docu" also showed that the very people she tried to help out got her taped during interviews and did not trust her at all to keep quiet. Imagine the moment Andy Redwood showed her the Omega Report and what it contained regarding herself. If she did not have second thoughts after she had to read in Kate's book yet another alleged phantasy attributed to her (that she saw Madeleine during the sailing on the morning of May 3rd) that would have certainly made her reevaluate her position in the chess game she had always been a pawn in.

Wherever she is, I wish her all the strength she can muster for the upcoming months and years and give her one thing: She is the only human being in the game.

Eingestellt von Johanna um [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks for reproducing the above blog RD.

It echoes thoughts I have been having. As I read through the thread about the C5 documentary, I wondered to myself whether I had been watching something else entirely. I felt that its purpose was to:

a) Give the impression that the investigators considered the McCanns to be innocent of all accusations
b) Make Jane Tanner look like a liar again

And I noticed that exactly the same as in Kate's book, the name 'Smith' was not mentioned.

I hadn't considered that SY had possession of these files, and could have shown Jane Tanner what they contained. That adds to my belief that she has told all.

Just who is the elusive Jane TANNER?
Liar? fantasist?  loyal friend?, innocent?, guilty?  whistleblower?

She must curse the day she went to P d L.

Why would she lie if Madeleine was abducted? It doesn't make sense. It only make sense if she knew Madeleine was NOT abducted.

tasprin wrote:Why would she lie if Madeleine was abducted? It doesn't make sense. It only make sense if she knew Madeleine was NOT abducted.

OK following from that

 if JT lied then there was no abduction

did she or didnt she lie?

well whoever he was with child ,those pyjamas are definatly not the same as we have been led to believe , Some the police purchessed from Marks and spencers to show what they looked like ,mother kate holding them up ,maybe a photo of that  still.? So why it seemed strange the man turning up ,makes more strange they showed the picture of child being carried in totally different jammies,and he had supposedly kept them 6 years I think ?  joyce1938

Hobs wrote:Ask yourself this:

Why would Jez Wilkins have reason to lie about where he and gerry were standing when they spoke and when tanner allegedly walked past them and saw 'the abductor' walking across the top of the street?

What motive would wilkins have to say he was standing here and not there?

Now

Why would gerry have reason to lie about where he and Wikins were standing when they spoke and when tanner allegedly walked past them and saw 'the abductor' walking across the top of the street?

Why would tanner have reason to lie about where gerry and Wilkins were standing when  she allegedly walked past them and saw 'the abductor' walking across the top of the street?


If they were by the gate as per Wilkins then tanner could not have seen 'the abductor' and both gerry and Wilkins would have seen her as she would have to walk directly round them

If they were on the other side of the street as per gerry then tanner could have seen an unobstructed view of 'the abductor' and walked past them and not round them possibly allowing for her not to be seen ( stop snickering at the back)


Both gerry and tanner have a reason to be deceptive as to who was where, who saw what and when.
Anything they say therefore has to be taken with a pinch of salt and questioned further.

Wilkins has no reason to be deceptive since he was not part of the tapas group and thus classed as an independant witness.

I do wonder about Wilkins role in all this and whether he is an entirely independent witness or whether there is some 'wider agenda' going on here. Especially with the TV drama documentary and Crimewatch links.

However, logically you can see that Wilkins version of events, with him talking to Gerry by the apartment gate, does not allow for Jane Tanner to walk past unseen by Gerry and Jez. It would simply be impossible. And it does not allow her an unobstructed view of 'Tanner-man' . - this factor clearly important to them as emphasized by the private detective, Dave Edgar I think, in the Madeleine was Here reconstruction, who plays down the inconsistencies (about where everyone was standing) and states that the important thing is that Jane got an obscured view of the 'abductor'. 

Gerry has to change the side of the road that he was standing on while talking to Jez in order to give more credence to Jane Tanner walking along the road without being seen and to her sighting.

Why, then is Jane not prepared to go along with Gerry's version of events? Insisting that they were both on the side of the road near the apartment even though it makes her testimony look fake?

Is it because she thinks it is even more flaky to contradict Jez' version of events? If you bear in mind that Jez gives conflicting accounts to police of where he was and what he was doing that night, the picture becomes murkier still.

By changing his version of events of where he was that night, did Jez provide Gerry with a much-needed 'independent' alibi? And Jane doesn't want to contradict Jez' account, even though it does rather blow her own testimony right out of the water.

I think some have suggested that the early descriptions of 'Tanner-man' were not that dissimilar to the description given by Jez Wilkins of 'rasta-man' (not mentioned in Kate's book, strangely) acting suspiciously that night dressed in combat gear either in the tapas bar or in the toilet near the bar, depending on which statement you read. ('Rasta-man later identified as a fellow guest at the hotel, Mike Sperrey, surfing friend of Gerry's.)

And how does all this fit in with Smith-man?

Interesting how Bridget O'Donnell, partner of Jez Wilkins, is happy to land Murat in it, while eulogizing about Kate and Gerry. 

She also has a dig about Portuguese police incompetence, claiming they didn't know what Madeleine looked like.

Hardly surprising, really, when you consider that photo produced of Madeleine in the earliest days was one of her when she was much younger. And neither the couple or their friends were able to produce a single photo of Madeleine from the holiday. And the ones produced by Gerry weeks after appear heavily photo-shopped. 

What a cheek, given that her own partner gave conflicting accounts of where he was and what he was doing on the evening of 4th May 2007 to police.

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

If you want another conspiracy theory
TM used Tannerman for 4 years, and people gave generously because he was the proof of abduction.
Now he has gone, and only once he has gone, do they release
Smithman.
Carrying a child so must be the abductor - (in the minds of the terminally stupid who do not understand cadaverine )

They can keep Skithman going for a long time, or at least until DCI Redwood says he has Traced, Interviewed and Eliminated him.

Then they have to think of something else, but of course they already have the long list of smelly potbellymen, cape verdeman, Tractorman,  cleaners, burglars, lurkers
all of which will take your eyes off the Squirrel.

Madeleine Beth McCann was NOT abducted.

What I wonder is why the argument between JT and GM was 'allowed' to be included  in the mocumentary. If Team Mc Cann didnt want it in there then it would not have been in there.
To me, this shows they wanted the disagreement to be aired in front of viewers.  In some way that argument must have furthered their cause.  Perhaps it was in there because
it was intended to make  us, as viewers, doubt Jane's testimony.
GM,  who no doubt viewed and ok'd the version that went out on air,  wanted us to see that disagreement for a reason...

"British police later took a statement from Mr Wilkins, but she said Portuguese police never bothered."


That is an outright lie. 



Not entirely sure when this article was written, but it is clearly not the very early days, as Portuguese police are by now openly suspicious about the possible involvement of the McCanns. 


Jez Wilkins spoke to the Portuguese police on 4th May 2007 and reported a suspicious-looking 'rasta-man' whom he saw between 8.30pm and 9pm when he was in the Tapas bar. 

Police report 04/05/07:  http://www.mccannfiles.com/id327.html

Following this, on 7th May 2007, Amaral sent an urgent fax to Leicestershire police with suggested line of questioning for Jeremy Wilkins.

Jeremy Wilkins filled in and signed a 12 page police witness statement on 7th May 2007 which was sent back to Portuguese police. 
Curiously, British police, in their cover note, record: Unfortunately, we were not able to get him to see the map that you provided, but he has prepared a sketch plan.


In this statement, given only 3 days later, Jez completely contradicts what he had previously stated. He claims he and his partner spent the evening in the apartment watching television. But his son was awake and unable to sleep so he decided to take him for a walk in his pram. I left about 8.15 pm – 8.30 pm. I was pushing the pram around the complex and went to the toilet near the bar. I couldn't see inside the restaurant.


In this statement there is no mention at all of rasta-man. Instead, he describes meeting Gerry near the apartment and chatting with him for a few minutes. He describes him as completely calm and relaxed.


In a later statement in November to Leics police he again describes how he bumped into Gerry while pushing his pram around the resort. No mention of 'rasta-man'. 


Which version is true, Jez? Either one is true and the other is a lie. Or both are lies. Both versions cannot be true and it is impossible that you did not remember what you were doing that evening, given the time-frames involved and given the catastrophic event that supposedly took place which you were alerted to in the early hours of the morning. 

HelenMeg wrote:What I wonder is why the argument between JT and GM was 'allowed' to be included  in the mocumentary. If Team Mc Cann didnt want it in there then it would not have been in there.
To me, this shows they wanted the disagreement to be aired in front of viewers.  In some way that argument must have furthered their cause.  Perhaps it was in there because
it was intended to make  us, as viewers, doubt Jane's testimony.
GM,  who no doubt viewed and ok'd the version that went out on air,  wanted us to see that disagreement for a reason...

I agree, they definitely wanted that disagreement aired. They knew that people had long since sussed out that it was impossible for Jane Tanner to have passed McCann and Wilkins without them seeing her and it had to be dealt with publicly. So, their positions were changed to explain "what really happened" according to GM - he changed two witness statements on TV. The whole charade must have been agreed between them before filming.