The Tanner "Sighting" - AGAIN

by **PeterMac** 06.06.13 10:37

I have tried to pull together some strange things about the Taner sighting.
This is just a short list, and I'll try to expand it and reference it properly later.

Was Jane Tanner’s account of seeing a man carrying a child a fabrication

1. Seconds before she claims to have seen the man carrying a child, Tanner states that she passed very close to Dr Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins. Neither man saw Tanner. Neither man saw the alleged abductor.

2. There is a clear contradiction between Tanner’s account of which side of the road the two men were standing on, and the statement of Gerald McCann, which itself contradicts that of Wilkins. In the Mockumentary this was glossed over and Tanner burst into tears as her version was trashed.

3. Tanner conveyed her sighting to Gerry McCann, Russell O’Brien and other members of the group. Her claimed ‘sighting’ was included in the two hand-written timelines of events which were given to the police around midnight of Thursday 3 / Friday 4 May.

4. It is almost certain that tearing off Madeleine’s activity sticker book cover was done by Gerry McCann. The person who wrote these two timelines, Russell O’Brien, said in a written statement that he had been handed the torn-off cover and said that ‘he thought it was the back of a cereal packet’.

5. Kate McCann claims she did not know of this ‘sighting’ until the following day, (in fact long after she and her husband had alleged spent an hour searching.) It seems her husband did not direct the search in the direction of the alleged sighting.) She further claims that Tanner did not tell her about the ‘sighting’ until about 24 hours after the event. Kate McCann was with her husband nearly all the time following their report of Madeleine’s disappearance, and certainly overnight, whist she “kept vigil” and he slept.

6. Tanner’s original description of the ‘sighting’ was vague, and spoke of a bundle being carried. There were also initial references to the child having been carried in a blanket, though neither of these appear in the statements

7 Tanner’s recollections of the person she said she saw became more detailed over time. This is unusual. Memory usually fades.

8 In her second and subsequent statements Tanner described in detail the shoes the man was wearing and was able to describe in great detail the child’s pyjamas, the length, the frilly edges at the bottom, the colour and the pattern. It was dark at the time, with only street lighting.

9 Her various statements about the sighting are long and rambling with a many hesitations and linguistic ‘fillers’. Forensic linguists tell us that these are typical indicators that the truth is not being told.

10 Despite the massive publicity claiming that Madeleine had been abducted, the Portuguese Police were from Day One so unconvinced by Tanner’s evidence that they discounted it completely.

11. The Portuguese Police were unwilling to release Tanner’s description of her ‘sighting’, and were only prompted to allow Gerry McCann to release a description following heavy political pressure.

12 On 13 May 2007, the Portuguese Police put Tanner in an unmarked police car with blacked out windows. Tanner identified Robert Murat as the man she claimed to have seen carrying a child 10 days earlier.

13 The fact that she did identify Robert Murat has not been denied and was in fact acknowledged by Clarence Mitchell. His carefully-chosen words were: “Jane
Tanner did not actually name Robert Murat and you can go back and check for yourselves, it is all in the police records”.
There is of course a clear difference between “naming” and “identifying”

14 By contrast with her description of the man Tanner saw, Robert Murat is:
taller, heavier build, had short hair, and always wears spectacles

15 Tanner subsequently changed her story, and attempted to deny that she had identified Robert Murat.

16. The McCann Team did not release an artist’s sketch of the abductor to the public until late October 2007. That was six months after the night Madeleine was reported missing.

17. From November 2007 to January 2008, the McCann Team worked on preparing for a publicity event centred around the statements of a Ms Gail Cooper. The same ‘forensic artist’ who had produced the sketch of the man released on 25 October, Melissa Little, now also produced an artist’s sketch of this man (now known variously as ‘Cooperman’, or ‘Monster man’).

18 The sketches based on Gail Cooper’s description, showed a man full-face with a number of features, notably a large moustache and straggly hair. These sketches were shown to Jane Tanner, who had already said she had seen no part of his face, and had already identified Robert Murat.
In fact Melissa Little’s ‘Cooperman’ looks nothing like Robert Murat

19 Tanner now said that she was 80% sure that the new person drawn by Melissa Little was the same person she had seen on 3 May.

20 In August 2009, David Edgar, the McCanns’ chief private investigator, said that Jane Tanner might have seen a woman, not a man.

It is certainly wierd.

by Praiaaa 06.06.13 10:47

What has puzzled me is that based on all this, and the police document regarding the reasons for making the McScams arguidos, why was RM also made an arguido?

by Guest 06.06.13 11:12

The only reason to be able to describe the SHOES of a stranger briefly passing in the distance would be that they are something special, like electric pink of colour or with flashing lights ... IF one observes the shoes and NOT the face it is RUBBISH. Period.

by jeanmonroe 06.06.13 12:55

4078 “Your mind’s trying to make sense of what you even know.”

JT's INTELLIGENT reply
“Yeah, no, yeah so I don’t know.”

Not Vicki Pollard, in disguise, is she?
"No, but, yeah, but, no, but... (and sometimes repeats this a few times)", "... or sumthin' or nuffin'",

by jeanmonroe 06.06.13 13:15

4078 “And what sort of length of time would it have taken you to get BACK after you’d done your check?”

JT Reply “Err about the same, you know I didn’t dawdle back or stop to talk to anyone.”

4078 “You didn’t skid DOWN the hill or anything?”

JT Reply “No I didn’t, so, no IT WAS UPHILL, so.”

Memo to Tanner: It IS DOWNHILL, not UPHILL, when you are GOING BACK, after your 'check' to the Tapas bar!

"Yeah but, no but, yeah but i dunno"!

by Guest 06.06.13 13:41

If there's ever a Crimewatch type reconstruction with actors playing the parts of the Tapas mob, we've solved the problem of who to cast as Jane Tanner!

Now we're just left with the remaining members of the Tapas mob. Maybe Catherine Tate for Kate (she's certainly not bovvered about anyone but herself) and David Tennant for Gerry?

by Praiaaa 06.06.13 13:48

David Tennant, no! He's gorgeous.
How about that Scots bloke that played the scientist in 'Primeval'
Norris Cole off Corrie for Payne

by Guest 06.06.13 13:54

That's Douglas Henshall, Praiaaa.

He was in a recent BBC drama called The Secret of Crickley Hall, playing a raving psychopath and child abuser - so yep, no need to look any further!

by Me 06.06.13 14:28

And for those who think she never identified Murat in the van here's her carefully chosen words in the Rogatory interview:

Reply “Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards. So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”.
4078 “Right”.
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.

The last line is proof that at that time in that she "just thought it was (him)".

Tells you all you need to know about her credibility and this is an area the Yard should be concentrating on.

by jeanmonroe 06.06.13 14:34

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

We could get Lisa Donovan to play 'precious' Kate!

Even 'our Lisa' had trouble keeping a straight face![You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
She says she dosen't know what happened to Madeleine.
didn't ANYBODY tell her Madeleine WAS 'ABDUCTED'!????????????
She was meant to be portraying a grieving mother of an abducted child!

No wonder she can barely conceal a 'smirk'!

by Ayniia 06.06.13 16:25

This is amazing! How can she contradict herself so many times? How could she identify Murat and later say she's not sure it was him?! And let's not forget the confrontation between the Tapas and Robert Murat when they said he was there and he said he wasn't and everyone stood their ground. JT face in the "truthful documentary " when she's confused about which side of the road Gerry was is priceless. I kinda feel sorry for her, I think she tried to help her friends and she made a mistake.

by suzyjohnson 06.06.13 17:52

Don't feel sorry for her, look what she's put Murat through. And also, if the whole abduction thing was a cover up, she has played her part in a massive fraud.

If, on the other hand, they have no idea of Madeleines whereabouts, then she is one of the people refusing to take part in a reconstruction which could shed some light on things.

by Ayniia 06.06.13 18:07

suzyjohnson wrote:Don't feel sorry for her, look what she's put Murat through. And also, if the whole abduction thing was a cover up, she has played her part in a massive fraud.

If, on the other hand, they have no idea of Madeleines whereabouts, then she is one of the people refusing to take part in a reconstruction which could shed some light on things.

Yes you're right. Personality, I always liked Murat. For no reason, but I do and I spoke to him once at my work, he's very polite. I still find his rush arrival to PDL weird along with all the meetings with his lawyer but I don't think he had anything to do with the "abduction ".But JT I think she didn't ponder on what she was doing by pointing the finger at him. And at least I saw people who knew him talking good of him and about Mccanns I only heard their FAMILY and some ghosts big grin

by Woburn_exile 06.06.13 18:34

This is what pretty much did it for me. I read in that Book that Jane Tanner had not released the information until the following day because she "didn't want to cause the parents any more distress"? PLEEEASSEE Does this have any ring of truth about it?

by Ayniia 06.06.13 18:48

Woburn_exile wrote:This is what pretty much did it for me. I read in that Book that Jane Tanner had not released the information until the following day because she "didn't want to cause the parents any more distress"? PLEEEASSEE Does this have any ring of truth about it?

Yes! Why would she even say that?! Well, I know, because PDL was so deserted that the only other "witnesses " were the Smith's and someone needed an alibi and fast...

by jd 06.06.13 19:26

Woburn_exile wrote:This is what pretty much did it for me. I read in that Book that Jane Tanner had not released the information until the following day because she "didn't want to cause the parents any more distress"? PLEEEASSEE Does this have any ring of truth about it?

There is this rather brilliant anaylse on a major contradiction of the sticker book timeline (probably by Paolo Reiss or Textusa or someone, can't remember).......

Firstly let me set the scene, this extract from Amaral's book: Two contradictory lists and a torn children's book. 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.

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 police.

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.

1578....
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 kno~~w, ‘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.

JT.......And then I think they, 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”.

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”.

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.

However according to Jane Tanners RI, 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.

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 timeline was being drafted ,was sat with his head resting on the same table.........It's all a mystery to me.

by Seek truth 06.06.13 20:20

So if JT said she didnt want to upset the mccanns, she didnt have to upset them! she could have gone on her own.

Why didnt she go in the direction she saw the abductor without telling them? Did she mention this?

by Cristobell 06.06.13 20:50

Seek truth wrote:So if JT said she didnt want to upset the mccanns, she didnt have to upset them! she could have gone on her own.

Why didnt she go in the direction she saw the abductor without telling them? Did she mention this?

Time doesn't make the Jane Tanner sighting sound any better, in fact it sounds worse. She should have told parents and searchers immediately, she saw which way the abductor went - they had something to work on. In the circumstances, 'didn't want to upset them' sounds ludicrous. Did she watch the searchers go off in the wrong direction?

As unbelievable as the sighting of the century was, I still cannot fathom Kate's thinking in her book. She says she was informed about Jane's sighting the following morning, and 'felt strangely relieved'. [there was something to work on] How can any mother be 'strangely relieved' to hear that her infant daughter was being carried away by a strange man. Even taking account of the fact that that, was what she had thought, the confirmation of it would surely induce hysteria! I know that it certainly would for me.

by Ollie1 06.06.13 21:06

Me wrote:And for those who think she never identified Murat in the van here's her carefully chosen words in the Rogatory interview:

Reply “Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards. So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”.
4078 “Right”.
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.

The last line is proof that at that time in that she "just thought it was (him)".

Tells you all you need to know about her credibility and this is an area the Yard should be concentrating on.

Please somebody correct me if I have read the lines that I have bolded wrong, but to me JT is saying that she got Bob Smalls number the day before it went out on Sky news that RM's house was being searched, so how did she know that Rachel and Russell would see RM on the news and may need to speak to Bob Small as they might have relevant information?
In the same sentence JT says that she got Bob Smalls number to tell him she had seen RM before she identified him "as well yeah just for that" so she got the number only to tell Bob she had previously seen RM or was it to also tell him about Rachel and Russell?

by Cristobell 06.06.13 21:08

I meant to add that I have never seen pro mccanns use the sighting of Jane Tanner to support the abduction story, yet this is the strongest piece of evidence they, this suggests that even they don't have much faith in it.

by Seek truth 06.06.13 21:19

Cristobell wrote:I meant to add that I have never seen pro mccanns use the sighting of Jane Tanner to support the abduction story, yet this is the strongest piece of evidence they, this suggests that even they don't have much faith in it.

Yes, surely they can't even answer this question : If Jane Tanner didn't want to upset them, why is it that
'She' didnt go searching on her own in the direction she saw the abductor?

So she must have stood around quietly, guilty and looking totally useless! bored

by Guest 06.06.13 21:53

Woburn_exile wrote:This is what pretty much did it for me. I read in that Book that Jane Tanner had not released the information until the following day because she "didn't want to cause the parents any more distress"? PLEEEASSEE Does this have any ring of truth about it?

Actually, she did not.

Proof: Maddies torn up picture book, where ROB wrote Janes statement down in the presence of Gerry hisself;

BEFORE the arrival of the police. In fact, the police disturbed them in the process of writing Janes statement into the timeline.

Now, we have not seen any explanation for ROB and Gerry being aware of Jane-darlings sighting of the Abductor-egghead, BEFORE the arrival of the police, have we?

And of why on earth they hid this knowledge from the PJ!

Hypothesis: if they had told the PJ that our girl Jane just an hour ago had seen Eggman carting off little Maddie, do we not agree, all of us, that then the PJ would have run into the direction pointed out to them by ROB, Gerry and our girl Jane?

Sardine munching and all: they would have run after the Eggman.

Raise your hands, all of you on this forum , who agree with me, and who think the PJ would have chased the Eggman down.

If he existed.

And IF the father of the missing child had taken the trouble of telling him of Janes observation, asking them to go look into the direction described by her.

Good Heavens, I forgot: he was asleep, with Amelie on his breast, wasn't he?

by Seek truth 06.06.13 22:16

Portia wrote:
Woburn_exile wrote:This is what pretty much did it for me. I read in that Book that Jane Tanner had not released the information until the following day because she "didn't want to cause the parents any more distress"? PLEEEASSEE Does this have any ring of truth about it?

Actually, she did not.

Proof: Maddies torn up picture book, where ROB wrote Janes statement down in the presence of Gerry hisself;

BEFORE the arrival of the police. In fact, the police disturbed them in the process of writing Janes statement into the timeline.

Now, we have not seen any explanation for ROB and Gerry being aware of Jane-darlings sighting of the Abductor-egghead, BEFORE the arrival of the police, have we?

And of why on earth they hid this knowledge from the PJ!

Hypothesis: if they had told the PJ that our girl Jane just an hour ago had seen Eggman carting off little Maddie, do we not agree, all of us, that then the PJ would have run into the direction pointed out to them by ROB, Gerry and our girl Jane?

Sardine munching and all: they would have run after the Eggman.

Raise your hands, all of you on this forum , who agree with me, and who think the PJ would have chased the Eggman down.

If he existed.

And IF the father of the missing child had taken the trouble of telling him of Janes observation, asking them to go look into the direction described by her.

Good Heavens, I forgot: he was asleep, with Amelie on his breast, wasn't he?

He wasn't asleep! He was standing around with Jane Tanner looking absolutely useless. Maybe she'd forgotten which direction he'd gone and pointed the wrong way as to not distress them.

thumbup

Yes absolutely agree with you. They'd all go searching, Jane Tanner would have been the leader, then the police, then the mccanns and lastly the rest of their friends, get the picture?

by Cristobell 06.06.13 22:21

Referring back to the torn sticker book, this leads me to believe that any plan must have been spontaneous rather than pre-planned. Had it been pre-planned they would have had time to find something more appropriate to write on. I also think the Jane Tanner sighting was hastily thought out, as though something had gone wrong and she had to think on her feet. Absolutely no-one (other than Frankenstein's monster) carries a child in the way described by Jane. I also tend to think that an abductor would make some attempt to be discreet, perhaps check that the coast was clear before boldly striding across a main road in full view of 3 witnesses with his booty stretched across his arms.

by Ayniia 06.06.13 22:25

Cristobell wrote:Referring back to the torn sticker book, this leads me to believe that any plan must have been spontaneous rather than pre-planned. Had it been pre-planned they would have had time to find something more appropriate to write on. I also think the Jane Tanner sighting was hastily thought out, as though something had gone wrong and she had to think on her feet. Absolutely no-one (other than Frankenstein's monster) carries a child in the way described by Jane. I also tend to think that an abductor would make some attempt to be discreet, perhaps check that the coast was clear before boldly striding across a main road in full view of 3 witnesses with his booty stretched across his arms.

Ayniia wrote:
Yes! Why would she even say that?! Well, I know, because PDL was so deserted that the only other "witnesses " were the Smith's and someone needed an alibi and fast...

That's when everything started to go wrong...

by Woburn_exile 07.06.13 0:23

Cristobell wrote:I meant to add that I have never seen pro mccanns use the sighting of Jane Tanner to support the abduction story, yet this is the strongest piece of evidence they, this suggests that even they don't have much faith in it.

Who are the pro McCanns. All I ever see on the biggest world forum is disbelief in their story. They can't all be in on the gravy train. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by jeanmonroe 07.06.13 0:33

jd:
"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 timeline was being drafted ,was sat with his head resting on the same table........."

Without the knowledge of Gerry mcCann?
You're kidding, surely?

Gerry McCann personally WROTE his name on the second 'handwritten' timeline! GERALD.

But he would have people believe that he knew NOTHING of JT ' saw child being carried by stranger' written on 'timeline' he PERSONALLY put his name on until JT told him, about THREE hours LATER!

by **PeterMac** 07.06.13 7:21

jeanmonroe wrote:jd:
"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 timeline was being drafted ,was sat with his head resting on the same table........."
Without the knowledge of Gerry mcCann?
You're kidding, surely?
Gerry McCann personally WROTE his name on the second 'handwritten' timeline! GERALD.
But he would have people believe that he knew NOTHING of JT ' saw child being carried by stranger' written on 'timeline' he PERSONALLY put his name on until JT told him, about THREE hours LATER!

Don't expect it to make sense !
This is why they need expensive lawyers.

by ufercoffy 07.06.13 7:30

PeterMac wrote:Don't expect it to make sense !
This is why they need expensive lawyers.

by Angelique 07.06.13 23:36

Yes, the insertion of JT's sighting before she even told Gerry struck me a long time ago to be utterly farcical.

But I have said previously, they could say black was white and no one would bat an eyelid. I would imagine they tried their best to think on their feet but it all went pear shaped anyway.