How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?

[faithlilly]

So they've been cleared then?

If they were never in the frame how can they be cleared?

[Alfie]

If they were never in the frame how can they be cleared?

Because according to some members of this forum everyone who was in PdL that night is a suspect.  Jane Tanner was never in the frame but you wouldn't describe her that way would you?

[faithlilly]

Because according to some members of this forum everyone who was in PdL that night is a suspect.  Jane Tanner was never in the frame but you wouldn't describe her that way would you?

It doesn't matter how I'd describe her, she was never officially in the frame so she also would not need to be cleared.

[Robittybob1]

Because according to some members of this forum everyone who was in PdL that night is a suspect.  Jane Tanner was never in the frame but you wouldn't describe her that way would you?

I don't think she is a suspect, in fact I really appreciate her honesty. To the point where I treat people who take her down as being worthy of suspicion themselves.

[John]

I don't think she is a suspect, in fact I really appreciate her honesty. To the point where I treat people who take her down as being worthy of suspicion themselves.

Anyone who hasn't viewed the Ch4 TV Cutting Edge production aired on 7 May 2009 called "Madeleine was here" in which Jane and Gerry tried to re-enact what occurred just before the sighting of Tannerman must really watch it because the real Jane was laid emotionally bare for all the world to see.  She was made to feel a right plonker if I'm honest when that accolade should have gone elsewhere.

Time stamp 9.03

Jane Tanner, Jeremy Wilkins and Dr Gerald McCann gave significantly contradictory statements about the very moment when Jane Tanner claimed to have seen the abductor at 9.15pm. These were contemptuously dismissed on the TV reconstruction by the McCanns’ then chief private investigator, ex-Detective Inspector Dave Edgar, as ‘inevitable inconsistencies’. Any serious detective would have probed the contradictions, which should have been fully aired on the programm

[Brietta]

Anyone who hasn't viewed the Ch4 TV Cutting Edge production aired on 7 May 2009 called "Madeleine was here" in which Jane and Gerry tried to re-enact what occurred just before the sighting of Tannerman must really watch it because the real Jane was laid emotionally bare for all the world to see.  She was made to feel a right plonker if I'm honest when that accolade should have gone elsewhere.

Time stamp 9.03

Jane Tanner, Jeremy Wilkins and Dr Gerald McCann gave significantly contradictory statements about the very moment when Jane Tanner claimed to have seen the abductor at 9.15pm. These were contemptuously dismissed on the TV reconstruction by the McCanns’ then chief private investigator, ex-Detective Inspector Dave Edgar, as ‘inevitable inconsistencies’. Any serious detective would have probed the contradictions, which should have been fully aired on the programm

Jane was re-enacting the moment she saw the person she believed to be Madeleine's abductor making off with her.

Had she realised that, one shout from her could have prevented a very real tragedy.

She was in bits about that.

[stephen25000]

Jane was re-enacting the moment she saw the person she believed to be Madeleine's abductor.  She was in bits about that.

Yet again typing abductor as a fact.

 &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+

[Robittybob1]

Yet again typing abductor as a fact.

 &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+

I wouldn't want you marking my exam papers, she said "Jane was re-enacting the moment she saw the person she believed to be Madeleine's abductor".  It was Jane's belief.

[John]

I wouldn't want you marking my exam papers, she said "Jane was re-enacting the moment she saw the person she believed to be Madeleine's abductor".  It was Jane's belief.

Well seens she was wrong if SY are to be believed.

[Alice Purjorick]

Jane was re-enacting the moment she saw the person she believed to be Madeleine's abductor making off with her.

Had she realised that, one shout from her could have prevented a very real tragedy.

She was in bits about that.

How do you know that?

[Robittybob1]

Well seems she was wrong if SY are to be believed.

Beliefs can be wrong, its Christmas time and Santa is busy delivering presents, and your sentence ends on the word "believed", so that may allow that SY maybe wrong too, I believe. 

My belief it was someone else altogether, not an abductor or the Crecheman but a mother carrying an unconscious child.  But that is just my belief.
I maybe wrong but it is my belief.

[Alice Purjorick]

Well in 2013 "Tannerman The Abductor" was well and truly fragged by The Met and he remains that way until he has somekind of resurrection.
Under the circumstances The Met hold sway.

[Robittybob1]

Well in 2013 "Tannerman The Abductor" was well and truly fragged by The Met and he remains that way until he has somekind of resurrection.
Under the circumstances The Met hold sway.

"Tannerman The Abductor" fragged is no problem to me.  Crecheman - unnamed, going the wrong way, has a blanket but not using it.  Conscious child not one limp. PJs the wrong colour.

I'm not convinced it is crechemen. - for some good reasons above.

[Brietta]

How do you know that?

You obviously didn't bother to watch the video link John provided before leaping in, did you?

Try checking it out at appx. 11:33 and listen to what Jane is saying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY

[Alice Purjorick]

"Tannerman The Abductor" fragged is no problem to me.  Crecheman - unnamed, going the wrong way, has a blanket but not using it.  Conscious child not one limp. PJs the wrong colour.

I'm not convinced it is crechemen. - for some good reasons above.

The Met said they had located a man who they were reasonably convinced was the man Jane Tanner saw.
Do you believe in this instance The Met are mistaken ?