Why do some people believe that Jane Tanner saw Madeleine

by friedtomatoes 05.05.12 18:50

When all she saw was a child's pair of feet.

It was normal to see parents carrying their children home in their pyjamas after collecting them from the night creche. As for no one coming forward to eliminate themselves, perhaps no one was asked. Perhaps they wanted no involvement.

Does anyone know where this night creche was?

How can the Mccanns and others state this as a certainty. For all they knew, seeing as they were not around but sitting in a Tapas Bar, 120 yards away, if there was an abduction, it could have happened in any minute from 9.15 to 10.00, if their statements are true.

And if Tanner saw Madeleine, being carried alive across the road, how come the live scent sniffer dogs didn't follow that trail.

And can anyone tell me why Tanners fbi photo shows long legged pyjamas when they were not.

And never forget that in the Mccanns so called reconstrction documentary Maddie Was Here, he voice over before the description of the Smith sighting actually said, Tanner may not have been the only person to see Madeleine being abducted, as if it was a fact, talk about taking liberties. Emma Loach and co, shame on you.

by Gillyspot 05.05.12 21:15

To be honest I don't even believe Jane Tanner saw a person with a child. She alleges she managed to walk past Gerry McCann & Jez Wilkins on a well lit narrow road without either of them seeing her.

by **PeterMac** 05.05.12 22:18

Or why she described the pyjama bottoms as having a "pinkish aspect", when the Mccanns showed ~~the pair~~ an identical pair and emphasised both on TV and in their statements that the bottoms were white.

by jd 05.05.12 23:49

Comment on the Sun website (very very true):

But most parents at the resort used the free evening creche while they ate out and then carried their often sleepy/sleeping kids back to their apartments. A man carrying a sleeping child in their pyjamas at the resort would therefore not be an unusual sight.

by Ribisl 06.05.12 1:11

She adds that there is another service that is offered during dinner time called "Dining Out Service", which is also located above the Ocean Club's main reception, and operates from 19H30 until 23H30.
Catriona Baker witness statement

The main reception is in the opposite direction to where the man with a child JT saw was coming from so he couldn't have come from the night creche.

by **PeterMac** 06.05.12 6:31

Did she not change the direction between statements ?

by jmac 06.05.12 6:51

I do not think there can be many people persuaded by her who are aware of Jane Tanner`s varying accounts of what she saw.. But the McCanns and friends have never had any doubts about her, which is very strange. It is even more strange that she is immediately forgiven for not reporting the matter as soon as she knew Madeleine was missing.

by friedtomatoes 06.05.12 17:54

PeterMac wrote:Or why she described the pyjama bottoms as having a "pinkish aspect", when the Mccanns showed ~~the pair~~ an identical pair and emphasised both on TV and in their statements that the bottoms were white.

not forgetting the orange lights
and not forgetting at 5 meters plus away she thought she saw turnups but failed to spot the humungous eyeore stamp

by friedtomatoes 06.05.12 17:56

Ribisl wrote:
She adds that there is another service that is offered during dinner time called "Dining Out Service", which is also located above the Ocean Club's main reception, and operates from 19H30 until 23H30.
Catriona Baker witness statement

The main reception is in the opposite direction to where the man with a child JT saw was coming from so he couldn't have come from the night creche.

ok thanks so that means it wasnt a parent

by friedtomatoes 06.05.12 17:58

PeterMac wrote:Did she not change the direction between statements ?

no
itwas in the papers originally she spotted someone on her way to the bar

by friedtomatoes 06.05.12 18:03

and lets not forget tanner said nothing to the mccanns because she didnt want to upset them when she thought of the man as soon as her door was knocked on, what an arse

Also Kate has no qualms about it either, that her saying something could have helped the search, she is forgiven as well as the abductor but she sues the person who tried to find the truth, what a bitch duh

by jmac 07.05.12 6:09

Nobody carries a child balancing on outstretched arms as described by Jane Tanner. You would think that doctors would have some understanding of how gravity works on muscles and ligaments, especially when carrying a weight. Even the most stupid abductor could never be that stupid! Aching muscles would soon let him or her know.

Nor does Gerry carry children like that!

Yet the McCanns go on believing Jane Tanner. Isn`t it often the case that people will go on believing what they WANT to believe?

by Guest 07.05.12 9:28

Just to clarify Jmac, Jane Tanner is not a doctor. Her occupation is described variously as a marketing manager or a website designer.

I don't know how the McCanns can believe her any more than the nonsense they spout themselves.

by jmac 09.05.12 1:22

Thanks for clarifying that. The point is the two doctors do not doubt her which given how ridiculous Jane Tanner`s description is, and the fact that Gerry did not see her flip-flopping passed him, makes me think none of that matters to the McCanns. They want to believe her. Without Jane Tanner there is nothing to back up any claim that they `know` Madeleine was abducted.

There are other things I find puzzling. We are told that Madeleine was a `screamer` and she would sometimes wake up and go into her parent`s bedroom. How is it possible that such a child could be snatched from her bed without waking? How is it possible that the parents find it plausible that the alleged abductor climbed through a window with Madeleine and still she made no sound. She is paraded through the streets and not a murmur. Surely the parents`first thought would be: no that could not have been Madeleine being carried off. Thank goodness!

by **tigger** 09.05.12 6:02

jmac wrote:Thanks for clarifying that. The point is the two doctors do not doubt her which given how ridiculous Jane Tanner`s description is, and the fact that Gerry did not see her flip-flopping passed him, makes me think none of that matters to the McCanns. They want to believe her. Without Jane Tanner there is nothing to back up any claim that they `know` Madeleine was abducted.

There are other things I find puzzling. We are told that Madeleine was a `screamer` and she would sometimes wake up and go into her parent`s bedroom. How is it possible that such a child could be snatched from her bed without waking? How is it possible that the parents find it plausible that the alleged abductor climbed through a window with Madeleine and still she made no sound. She is paraded through the streets and not a murmur. Surely the parents`first thought would be: no that could not have been Madeleine being carried off. Thank goodness!

Not only was she a screamer, just a week after 3/5 John McCann says in a BBC interview, she could be stroppy, Kate says she'd be giving her 'tuppence worth' - then there was here remark on 'very difficult Madeleine' - struggling to cope.
Having observed the family for most of the week, we are then asked to suspend belief further by this kidnapper taking Maddie instead of comatose Amelie.

by FH 09.05.12 15:01

The only evidence for an abduction is that JT claims to have seen a man in the vicinity of the appartment carrying a child, in one or other direction around the time madeleine was discovered to be gone. Her discription of the man has varied over time and she obviously didn't think it was madeleine at the time.

If you study psychology, or read any decent criminology books you will find that it is widely acknowledged that eye witness statements are notoriously unreliable.

Highly trained sniffer dogs are trusted to detect explosives/drugs. I'm not aware of any data that proves them to be anything like as unreliable as your average eye-witness.

Everytime someone from the proMcCann camp mentions the reliability of the dogs I suggest we bring up the reliability of eye witnesses whose statements constantly change.

by jd 09.05.12 15:43

I've lost count of 'who' tanner saw, but from kate mccann's statement on the 4th May 2007 at 2.20pm, so 16 hours after she 'discovered' Maddie had disappeared

Later, a member of the group, Russell's partner Jane, when she went to her apartment to see her children at around 9.15pm, saw from the back [rear] about 50 metres away, on the perimeter road of the club, a long-haired person, in what she thinks were jeans, with a child in his arms and walking very quickly. But she is better able to tell you about that herself

Long haired according to kate. And she 'knew' about it

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

by jmac 09.05.12 21:09

As Tigger pointed out the abductor was supposed to have observed the family for nearly a week and instead of snatching the comatose Amelie dragged off Madeleine the `screamer` instead.

And did it very quietly. Then this same abductor did something really stupid and marched swiftly across the road in front of the child`s father. Only Gerry didn`t notice.

Meanwhile the McCanns rubbish the dogs who never made any errors in their whole working lives. But they do not doubt for one minute Jane Tanner`s changing statements.

Is this really supposed to make sense?

by **PeterMac** 09.05.12 22:36

jmac wrote:As Tigger pointed out the abductor was supposed to have observed the family for nearly a week and instead of snatching the comatose Amelie dragged off Madeleine the `screamer` instead.
And did it very quietly. Then this same abductor did something really stupid and marched swiftly across the road in front of the child`s father. Only Gerry didn`t notice.
Meanwhile the McCanns rubbish the dogs who never made any errors in their whole working lives. But they do not doubt for one minute Jane Tanner`s changing statements.
Is this really supposed to make sense?

Only once upon a time, in a Galaxy far, far, away...
Or in the minds of people who obviously inhabit that galaxy.
The McCanns, Clarence All-knowing-all-seeing- Mitchell
Carter-Ruck et al.
The Trustees of the "Fund"
The five inhabitants of yet another galaxy even further away called J8A4TY6*K

and so on

by russiandoll 03.06.12 16:16

Ribisl wrote:
She adds that there is another service that is offered during dinner time called "Dining Out Service", which is also located above the Ocean Club's main reception, and operates from 19H30 until 23H30.
Catriona Baker witness statement

The main reception is in the opposite direction to where the man with a child JT saw was coming from so he couldn't have come from the night creche.

It could have been a holidaymaker coming from a fellow holidaymakers apartment where he had spent the evening.

to add..if she saw a stranger, this is who he might have been. But I do not accept that she saw a stranger with a child in his arms.
I suspect she saw someone she knew, with a child she knew very well, in his arms. And this is why she and ROB were absent from the tapas table at some crucial moments.

by russiandoll 03.06.12 17:43

Jane Tanner and her partner state that they did their swap- over of childcare minutes before Kate raised the alarm, with ROB returning to the tapas area and Jane going to their apartment, where she was when the alarm was raised.
It seems implausible to me that there would be so much toing and froing from a doctor like ROB under these circumstances, ill child....a meal and socialising was spoilt anyway, why not both stay in to eat that night?
Why was there this coming and going just prior to Kate's going to 5a? What was really going on with ROB and JT I wonder?

ROB left the table earlier just as Gerry returned from his check. Jane leaves the table just before Kate finds Maddie missing.

by jd 03.06.12 18:01

Whilst jane tanner and ROB were going backwards to and from from their apartment, neither of them saw the open shutter!

by friedtomatoes 03.06.12 18:12

jd wrote:Whilst jane tanner and ROB were going backwards to and from from their apartment, neither of them saw the open shutter!

neither did jez wilkins, or matt oldfield on his return after his 9 30 check

by russiandoll 05.06.12 10:45

Maybe there was some assistance with the staging taking place, although I am inclined to believe only a select few are in the know and that it was after the event.....but if the event as I suspect was before May 3rd perhaps there was help with the charade of Thursday evening going on.