Reconstructions ...

[Carana]

She was originally derided due to eggman. Which then became bundleman. And then she may have agreed that Harrison-man could have corresponded.

It could seem as if she's changed her mind several times. But when you read her version, initially there was no way of presenting what she saw - there was a standard e-fit kit to match eyebrows and facial features - which she hadn't seen.

Then, a police artist's sketch was done, once back in the UK.

But she was then accused of changing eggman into bundleman.

Then, when asked her opinion on Harrison-man, from the side, well he might have been the guy she'd seen.

In the circumstances, what is so odd? I really don't see it.


In the early days, I did wonder why these versions kept changing. The tabloids could lead you to think, "Here comes Jane with yet another version...", but, if you believe what she explains in her rog (which I find totally plausible), then the tabloids were totally wrong.

I agree with you, Carana, I don't think Jane T's versions kept changing, they thickened, which is normal because she was so much questioned and questioned again.
What I find remarkable in her statements is that she describes the lace at the bottom of the pyjamas,the type of shoe and even the possible heel of the abductor's shoe but has no idea of his features. This carrier has unfortunately no face, hence the eggman.

I don't find that odd, Anne.

I remember seeing a dog on a lead (yesterday, I think). I could have told the police the name of the breed, and the colour of the lead, but I wouldn't be able to describe the person, aside from being middle-aged and she was wearing trainers and a coat that seemed more "dressed-up" than what I would have expected for someone wearing trainers. It's just a flash memory with mental associations (a breed of dog that I recognise, and a mismatch of clothes). Eggwoman with dog. LOL

Would you have drawn a picture showing where this person had come from something you couldn't possibly have known as Jane Tanner did.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/tanner2.jpg&target=tlx_pic89z5

What couldn't JT have possibly known?

[AnneGuedes]

Still nothing puts them across fhe road as Gerry alleged just HIS say

No wonder Jane laughed when they were making the Ch4 programme.

Well I dont know what you mean John, why did she laugh?

She laughed when Gerry construed what she had just said and went on to claim that his chat with Jez happened on the other side of the road.   

FF to 10.20

Congratulations, John, you're remarkably sharp-eyed, could be a sleuth I suppose !

[AnneGuedes]

She was originally derided due to eggman. Which then became bundleman. And then she may have agreed that Harrison-man could have corresponded.

It could seem as if she's changed her mind several times. But when you read her version, initially there was no way of presenting what she saw - there was a standard e-fit kit to match eyebrows and facial features - which she hadn't seen.

Then, a police artist's sketch was done, once back in the UK.

But she was then accused of changing eggman into bundleman.

Then, when asked her opinion on Harrison-man, from the side, well he might have been the guy she'd seen.

In the circumstances, what is so odd? I really don't see it.


In the early days, I did wonder why these versions kept changing. The tabloids could lead you to think, "Here comes Jane with yet another version...", but, if you believe what she explains in her rog (which I find totally plausible), then the tabloids were totally wrong.

I agree with you, Carana, I don't think Jane T's versions kept changing, they thickened, which is normal because she was so much questioned and questioned again.
What I find remarkable in her statements is that she describes the lace at the bottom of the pyjamas,the type of shoe and even the possible heel of the abductor's shoe but has no idea of his features. This carrier has unfortunately no face, hence the eggman.

 It's just a flash memory with mental associations (a breed of dog that I recognise, and a mismatch of clothes). Eggwoman with dog. LOL

I find your Eggwoman very plausible, Carana ! In JT's case, it's the contrast with tiny details that motives my perplexity.

[AnneGuedes]

What couldn't JT have possibly known?

PC might mean that JT couldn't have seen the route of the carrier before she noticed him crossing FGM. Though she indicates it on her sketch. But it might have been just to show the police inspector what was the shortest route from G5A to FGM.

[Carana]

Still nothing puts them across fhe road as Gerry alleged just HIS say

No wonder Jane laughed when they were making the Ch4 programme.

Well I dont know what you mean John, why did she laugh?

She laughed when Gerry construed what she had just said and went on to claim that his chat with Jez happened on the other side of the road.   

FF to 10.20

Congratulations, John, you're remarkably sharp-eyed, could be a sleuth I suppose !

Speculation. Everyone will interpret this differently. Mine is that they'd discussed it probably many times before and simply couldn't agree. There doesn't seem to be any animosity, just an agreement to disagree and a shared memory of the fact that they couldn't agree.

[AnneGuedes]

Gerald McCann had an imperious reason to reconstruct the "invisible lady" episode. He hardly could dodge it, as he evades, but it might be speculative if he didn't, the moment where the abductor is in the flat with him, the first being conscious of the presence of the second, and the very crucial one when he seizes Madeleine from her bed and leaves. This imperious reason appears in the PGR final dispatch where the JT/GMC/JW tenebrous episode is mentioned as one of the essential points backing the need for a reconstruction.

[AnneGuedes]

Speculation. Everyone will interpret this differently. Mine is that they'd discussed it probably many times before and simply couldn't agree. There doesn't seem to be any animosity, just an agreement to disagree and a shared memory of the fact that they couldn't agree.

Possible, Carana, and I agree there's no feeling of animosity (Jane could be eventually ironical). But isn't it unexpected that nobody recalls Jeremy and Jane had the same spontaneous recollection.

[AnneGuedes]

What judicial secrecy, Anne?

How do you explain that any tiny bit of half-truth (or police rumour) that could be construed in a negative sense just happened to fly out of a window into the waiting arms of the PT tabloids?


Some factions of the UK press were equally irresponsible, in my view. One for poking Portuguese pride with xenophobic nonsense and two for repeating PT tabloid myths.

A consequence appears to have been the non-stop hounding of people who had never even be arrested, let alone charged.

Hi Carana, I see this post's part hasn't been answered.
Investigation secrecy is a principle of Portuguese judiciary system. Leaks and mainly disinformation were inevitable in a context where UK media, accustomed to be informed, were very demanding.
What PT tabloids are you thinking of ? There's nothing in Portugal compared to British tabloids. Portuguese popular press deals with football !
What  is "the non-stop hounding of people who had never even be arrested, let alone charged" ?

[icabodcrane]

Benice, it doesnt matter, unless you can come up with a reason they both crossed the road to continue their convo, whenever it was, but its ONLY Gerry who claims this that they were EVER on the other side of the road, ergo Gerrys testimony is suspicious
Never mind

Why does Gerry's recollection have to be suspicious?  What do you think he had to gain by his recollection of where they stood  being different to that of Jane T and Jes W?    It's accepted by all policemen that witnesses to the same event often give vastly differing descriptions of what happened.    No-one is lying - it's simply a fact of life.

What does Gerry have to gain by his 'vastly differing'  witness statement ?

His statement  ( which directly contradicts the statements of the other two witnesses present at the time ) places him in just about the only position where he could realistically claim to have seen neither Jane Tanner  or the abductor

He allows himself an alibi for the exact moment the abductor was seen by Tanner,  whilst simultaneously excusing himself from having witnessed anything at all

That's  what Gerry McCann gains by having a different recollection from Jane Tanner and Jez Wilkins

I'm afraid you've lost me now Icabodcrane.     Surely if Gerry was contemplating any skullduggery over JT's sighting it would have been to lie and say he HAD seen her ?  It would have made a big difference if he had made that claim.

I don't find it odd or suspicious that neither he nor Jez saw JT or the abductor because both were only in view for a few seconds - especially the abductor - (4/5 seconds?) - and if they happened to be looking at eachother or facing away during those few seconds then there is no reason why they should have seen them.


       

Gerry  couldn't claim to have seen Jane Tanner Benice  ...  if he did,  then he would have to explain how he and she saw each other and made no acknowledgement of having done so  ...  no  "Hi" ...  no conversation ...  not even  a cursory raising of the hand in brief greeting

I just wouldn't have  played

[AnneGuedes]

@ Anne

We were getting down lots of quotes within quotes which I find confusing.

To go back to a point:

Your comment:   Some want to have the cake and eat it. I wonder whether Jane's sobbing had something to do with being publicly contradicted.

My question in reply:
Who by?

I didn't answer that, Carana, I don't understand what you mean !

[Luz]

It wasn't going to include the staff ( correct me if I am wrong ) so again some of the discrepancies about who was there what times might have been raised - and by the time it was finally got round to being organised everyone was back home and operating under the cloud of arguido , suspect , etc . The tapas lot were quite rightly nervous that a stitch up could be in the offing.

why id dint happen days after the event when everones memory was fresher was beyond me

South of the River, the MP mainly wanted to check elements they found weird like not feeling cold when the window had been open for 45 minutes, the temperature outside being 12° C and having wind.
They should have reconstructed quickly, no doubt, in order to solve the discrepancies. They should have first suspected the parents, no doubt, in order to clear them. They should have wondered where the walking bundleman could have gone, since you don't go miles carrying a child, instead of checking frontiers and following far sightings, no doubt.
Why didn't they ? Some consider it is due to incompetence. I don't agree. They were  intimidated by the deployment of diplomats, foreign liaison officers and media. It was mainly their imagination. But unfortunately it worked.

How would a reconstruction with the actual participants have resolved their questions about a temperature issue? Their hair wouldn't turned blue.

They were  intimidated by the deployment of diplomats, foreign liaison officers and media.

Intimidated? 

How can professional police be intimidated, if they had nothing to hide, it shouldn't have mattered who was there.
Every bit of help that was offered, was refused, now why, would that be?.

The one that wasn't intimidated was taken of the case and put back at Faro's Directory.

[Luz]

I hope the puss cat didn't frighten you all. I was quite enjoying to read.

[icabodcrane]

What is your priority then  ?

...  the recovery of a child who may be suffering unspeakably at this very moment ?

... or the reputation of her parents ?

If you are as bored with the subject as your  *yawn* suggests,   you may, of course, just leave the thread

[Carana]

What judicial secrecy, Anne?

How do you explain that any tiny bit of half-truth (or police rumour) that could be construed in a negative sense just happened to fly out of a window into the waiting arms of the PT tabloids?


Some factions of the UK press were equally irresponsible, in my view. One for poking Portuguese pride with xenophobic nonsense and two for repeating PT tabloid myths.

A consequence appears to have been the non-stop hounding of people who had never even be arrested, let alone charged.

Hi Carana, I see this post's part hasn't been answered.
Investigation secrecy is a principle of Portuguese judiciary system. Leaks and mainly disinformation were inevitable in a context where UK media, accustomed to be informed, were very demanding.
What PT tabloids are you thinking of ? There's nothing in Portugal compared to British tabloids. Portuguese popular press deals with football !
What  is "the non-stop hounding of people who had never even be arrested, let alone charged" ?

On a scale of serious/responsible to sensationalist reporting, where would you place CdaM and 24 Horas?

[AnneGuedes]

On a scale of serious/responsible to sensationalist reporting, where would you place CdaM and 24 Horas?

Hi Carana ! I certainly wouldn't say "serious", but practising quick reporting with the objective to sell, not to understand. Nevertheless they're more sentimentalists  than sensationalists, more pointless than malicious . Nothing like the Sun.