Other witnesses cast doubt on Bundleman sighting?

[icabodcrane]

Perhaps Jane didn't address Gerry because she didn't want to interrupt? She was also walking quite purposefully, one presumes, on the way to check her children, and didn't indicate, either verbally or in body language, that she wanted to stop for a chat - so she went un-noticed.

Nonetheless I agree with you that it is odd Gerry or Jez remember her walking past.

What do you say actually happened, then? Did Jane get her timing wrong?

I have no idea what  'actually'  happened  that night 

But it didn't happen like they said it did  ...  because none of it makes sense

Not just the  'ethereal'  passing of Jane Tanner up the street  ...  ALL   of it  ...  the nonsensical  'checking' times  (  sometimes only five minutes having passed between them  )   ...  the  check  that wasn't a check  by Mathew Odlfield  (  who conveniently did his  'non-check'  in place of Kate ) ....  the sick child that Russell O Brien had to bathe,  before putting the washing machine on to do  sheets ...  the conversation Kate had with Fiona Payne almost as soon as she sat down,  about Madeleine crying the night before  ... the reheated meals because of prolonged absences  from the table

The whole story   ...  none of it makes sense 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I have no idea what  'actually'  happened  that night 

But it didn't happen like they said it did  ...  because none of it makes sense

Not just the  'ethereal'  passing of Jane Tanner up the street  ...  ALL   of it  ...  the nonsensical  'checking' times  (  sometimes only five minutes having passed between them  )   ...  the  check  that wasn't a check  by Mathew Odlfield  (  who conveniently did his  'non-check'  in place of Kate ) ....  the sick child that Russell O Brien had to bathe,  before putting the washing machine on to do  sheets ...  the conversation Kate had with Fiona Payne almost as soon as she sat down,  about Madeleine crying the night before  ... the reheated meals because of prolonged absences  from the table

The whole story   ...  none of it makes sense

I'm not so sure 'none' of it makes sense..

Jane Tanner not being seen by G and J -

Hard to explain, yes. But even harder to imagine it not having happened. If Gerry had wanted to fabricate an abduction, or spin some tale about what happened that night, surely he would not have denied Jane's claiming to have seen another man with a child. If on the other hand Gerry is innocent, her observation helps him also, by placing him in the street talking to Jez whilst witnessing a possible abductor.  And I haven't read the files for a while, but presumably there are witnesses to Jane having left the table at the time she did; that she, G and J were all absent from the restaurant at the same time. So it is very possible that they converged when and where they did. Her description of 'bundleman' is also uncannily similar to that of the Smith family. If she, for her part, was fabricating something, it is an incredible co-incidence that the description she decided to give was so very similar to that of people she didn't know (we assume) and who did not report their sighting til long after they left the country.

The checking times -

Parents were concerned primarily with their own children and their own checking. The fact that the timeline was lumpy, with bigger and smaller gaps here and there, reflects this fact. The group as a whole were not necessarily trying to co-ordinate with each other - at least, that was not their main focus. Their main focus was when to do their own checks on their own kids.

Matthew Oldfield -

I don't see the purpose of this 'check' either.

The sick child -

What's so strange about bathing a child and washing the sheets?

Kate and Fiona Payne -

The McCanns have indicated before, between the lines, that they had reservations about their evening arrangements. Gerry says at one point, for example - will look it up - that dining in the restaurant and checking on the children had been a group decision, with which he did not feel entirely comfortable. Perhaps Kate is looking for reassurance from Fiona that the arrangement is OK? Just a thought.

[icabodcrane]

I'm not so sure 'none' of it makes sense..

Jane Tanner not being seen by G and J -

Hard to explain, yes. But even harder to imagine it not having happened. If Gerry had wanted to fabricate an abduction, or spin some tale about what happened that night, surely he would not have denied Jane's claiming to have seen another man with a child. If on the other hand Gerry is innocent, her observation helps him also, by placing him in the street talking to Jez whilst witnessing a possible abductor.  And I haven't read the files for a while, but presumably there are witnesses to Jane having left the table at the time she did; that she, G and J were all absent from the restaurant at the same time. So it is very possible that they converged when and where they did. Her description of 'bundleman' is also uncannily similar to that of the Smith family. If she, for her part, was fabricating something, it is an incredible co-incidence that the description she decided to give was so very similar to that of people she didn't know (we assume) and who did not report their sighting til long after they left the country.

The checking times -

Parents were concerned primarily with their own children and their own checking. The fact that the timeline was lumpy, with bigger and smaller gaps here and there, reflects this fact. The group as a whole were not necessarily trying to co-ordinate with each other - at least, that was not their main focus. Their main focus was when to do their own checks on their own kids.

Matthew Oldfield -

I don't see the purpose of this 'check' either.

The sick child -

What's so strange about bathing a child and washing the sheets?

Kate and Fiona Payne -

The McCanns have indicated before, between the lines, that they had reservations about their evening arrangements. Gerry says at one point, for example - will look it up - that dining in the restaurant and checking on the children had been a group decision, with which he did not feel entirely comfortable. Perhaps Kate is looking for reassurance from Fiona that the arrangement is OK? Just a thought.

Thanks for that very considered reply Sherlock

That's the point though  ....  the story told by the McCanns and their chums about that evening takes   SUCH   consideration  ...  it was only two hours afterall  ! 

The point that really  jars me though,  is the  insistance  that  an abductor struck at exactly 9.15pm

Why  ? 

Why is the story so  'exact'  ?   ...  even to the point where Gerry has to say that the   'the abductor'  was hiding behind the bedroom door when he looked in on his kids  ? 

It makes no sense I tell you   ... it is just too  'precise'  in every detail

[Sherlock Holmes]

Thanks for that very considered reply Sherlock

That's the point though  ....  the story told by the McCanns and their chums about that evening takes   SUCH   consideration  ...  it was only two hours afterall  ! 

The point that really  jars me though,  is the  insistance  that  an abductor struck at exactly 9.15pm

Why  ? 

Why is the story so  'exact'  ?   ...  even to the point where Gerry has to say that the   'the abductor'  was hiding behind the bedroom door when he looked in on his kids  ? 

It makes no sense I tell you   ... it is just too  'precise'  in every detail

'Consideration' is what it looks like from our perspective, Icabod.

We have spent hours pouring over the timelines. Those timelines, and the rest of the written information we have about that night, though coming initially from the McCanns and those in the  Ocean Club, was processed by police officers and other officials; meticulously reproduced, then released for public analysis in all the various arenas we on this forum are familiar with. It has become a 'case'; a 'mystery' for us; a mystery with a lot of detail.

Go back to T9 in direct speech and they come across very differently. Not 'precise' at all:

The abductor struck at 9.15 because Jane Tanner reports that time. But when you see Jane Tanner on camera or look at  the files, talking about the scenario as a whole, you see 'um, well, er, kind of, sort of, not sure, sort of sure, a bit this and a bit that....' and on it goes. The pink pyjamas sort of implied a girl. I 'never in a million years would have thought that it was Madeleine'. 'So you think...' this and 'you think...' that (using the grammatical second person as if to distance herself from her own words). Not precise at all! So perhaps the 9.15 itself was yet another approximation.

As for Gerry saying the abductor hid behind the door, I don't think he came to that conclusion for some time. It  certainly wasn't part of his initial reporting of the night's events. It was only on reflection that he considered that the abductor hiding in the apartment would explain certain things. Not precise either - just a theory plucked from the air.

If anything, I would say that a lot of what happened that night - or what is understood to have happened - was not 'precise', as you put it, but has come to appear that way, under the external analysis and repetition to which we have subjected it.

[icabodcrane]

'Consideration' is what it looks like from our perspective, Icabod.

We have spent hours pouring over the timelines. Those timelines, and the rest of the written information we have about that night, though coming initially from the McCanns and those in the  Ocean Club, was processed by police officers and other officials; meticulously reproduced, then released for public analysis in all the various arenas we on this forum are familiar with. It has become a 'case'; a 'mystery' for us; a mystery with a lot of detail.

Go back to T9 in direct speech and they come across very differently. Not 'precise' at all:

The abductor struck at 9.15 because Jane Tanner reports that time. But when you see Jane Tanner on camera or look at  the files, talking about the scenario as a whole, you see 'um, well, er, kind of, sort of, not sure, sort of sure, a bit this and a bit that....' and on it goes. The pink pyjamas sort of implied a girl. I 'never in a million years would have thought that it was Madeleine'. 'So you think...' this and 'you think...' that (using the grammatical second person as if to distance herself from her own words). Not precise at all! So perhaps the 9.15 itself was yet another approximation.

As for Gerry saying the abductor hid behind the door, I don't think he came to that conclusion for some time. It  certainly wasn't part of his initial reporting of the night's events. It was only on reflection that he considered that the abductor hiding in the apartment would explain certain things. Not precise either - just a theory plucked from the air.

If anything, I would say that a lot of what happened that night - or what is understood to have happened - was not 'precise', as you put it, but has come to appear that way, under the external analysis and repetition to which we have subjected it.

oh I agree that there was nothing  'precise'  about all the hemming and hawing from the tapas crew,  but that is incidental in relation to the   very    precise  narrative we have been fed from the begining

Jane Tanner saw  the abductor at the 'precise'  moment  Gerry McCann was talking to an independent witness in the street we are relentlessly told

Why  ?   ...  why are we relentlessly told that  ? 

Gerry McCann, himself,  questioned Jane Tanner's powers of recollection when he contradicted her saying he and Jez Wilkins were on the same side of the street as her

If he genuinely doubted her recall  ...  in something as fundemental as where he and Jez were standing when she saw them ...    how could he be so convinced that she was accurate about seeing 'precise' details of something /someone  further away  ?

Why didn't it occur to Gerry that Jane  might have been  mistaken  ?  ...  that maybe the man she saw was  NOT the abductor,  and Madeleine was still safe in her bed at that point 

Why did he not consider that Madeleine was still safe in her bed when Matthew Oldfield made his ( half arsed )  check 15 minutes later   (  at 9.30pm )  and that  'the abduction'   took place sometime  after  that   ...  between 9.30pm and 10.00pm  when  no-one  was checking  ?   ...  and that it was the  Smith family who actually saw the abductor making off with Madeleine  at about 10.00pm heading towards  of the beach  ?

Why is that possibility  'out of bounds' ...  why did the McCanns not even consider  it  ? 

Why must we accept the  very  PRECISE  abduction theory presented by the McCann's   ?   ...  what is the logic for it  ? 

[Redblossom]

Exaxtly Icab

Why MUST it have been at 9.15 and the man Tanner saw and NOT later and the man the Smiths saw?

[Benice]

oh I agree that there was nothing  'precise'  about all the hemming and hawing from the tapas crew,  but that is incidental in relation to the   very    precise  narrative we have been fed from the begining

Jane Tanner saw  the abductor at the 'precise'  moment  Gerry McCann was talking to an independent witness in the street we are relentlessly told

Why  ?   ...  why are we relentlessly told that  ? 

Gerry McCann, himself,  questioned Jane Tanner's powers of recollection when he contradicted her saying he and Jez Wilkins were on the same side of the street as her

If he genuinely doubted her recall  ...  in something as fundemental as where he and Jez were standing when she saw them ...    how could he be so convinced that she was accurate about seeing 'precise' details of something /someone  further away  ?

Why didn't it occur to Gerry that Jane  might have been  mistaken  ?  ...  that maybe the man she saw was  NOT the abductor,  and Madeleine was still safe in her bed at that point 

Why did he not consider that Madeleine was still safe in her bed when Matthew Oldfield made his ( half arsed )  check 15 minutes later   (  at 9.30pm )  and that  'the abduction'   took place sometime  after  that   ...  between 9.30pm and 10.00pm  when  no-one  was checking  ?   ...  and that it was the  Smith family who actually saw the abductor making off with Madeleine  at about 10.00pm heading towards  of the beach  ?

Why is that possibility  'out of bounds' ...  why did the McCanns not even consider  it  ? 

Why must we accept the  very  PRECISE  abduction theory presented by the McCann's   ?   ...  what is the logic for it  ?

I wouldn't expect anyone in those horrendous circumstances to immediately consider EVERY single possibility.   All they knew to begin with was that the bedroom window was wide open and their daughter had disappeared - and that JT had seen a man hurrying away carrying a child.     It would be over a matter of time that they would begin to consider other possibililties - e.g. that the perpetrator may have actually been in 5A when Gerry made his 9.05 check.

As for their accounts being too 'accurate' - I have to disagree.   If JT and GM had got together and concocted the story of JT passing by GM and Jez -   then the one thing Gerry would definitely have done IMO would have been to say that he HAD seen someone passing behind them - even if he'd said that he didn't take enough notice to realise who it was at the time.     To claim that he didn't see her at all seems to defeat the whole object of this alleged 'cunning plan' and makes no sense at all to me.

As I personally have experienced a very similar situation - except it was in broad daylight, -  where I was talking to a neighbour and we had no idea that another neighbour was passing by behind us - until that person drew our attention to his presence  by speaking to us  - then I have no problem in believing that this can happen.

     

[Jacinta]

But Jeremy Wilkin's did see Jane Tanner.

In his 3rd statement to British police (8th April 2008) he states:

“Q. Relative to whether I know Jane Tanner;

Jeremy Wilkins: 'Now I know her name, description of the clothes and photos which I have seen in the press. At that time I knew of her as a member of the group but did not know her name. I do not remember having seen her when I spoke with Gerry, but I believe I saw her when I first ventured out. She was stopped on the street in front of one of the group's apartments when I passed her down towards the exit to my apartment. I do not know if it was her apartment or not. I remember that she was wearing the colour purple.' “

Jes Wilkins first ventured out of his apartment between 8.15pm and 8.30pm.

I can only imagine she took it upon herself to lie about seeing the abductor at the time Jes Wilkins and Gerry McCann were talking in the street. But why did she feel it necessary to give Gerry McCann an alibi? Was it just misguided loyalty?

[Benice]

But Jeremy Wilkin's did see Jane Tanner.

In his 3rd statement to British police (8th April 2008) he states:

“Q. Relative to whether I know Jane Tanner;

Jeremy Wilkins: 'Now I know her name, description of the clothes and photos which I have seen in the press. At that time I knew of her as a member of the group but did not know her name. I do not remember having seen her when I spoke with Gerry, but I believe I saw her when I first ventured out. She was stopped on the street in front of one of the group's apartments when I passed her down towards the exit to my apartment. I do not know if it was her apartment or not. I remember that she was wearing the colour purple.' “

Jes Wilkins first ventured out of his apartment between 8.15pm and 8.30pm.

I can only imagine she took it upon herself to lie about seeing the abductor at the time Jes Wilkins and Gerry McCann were talking in the street. But why did she feel it necessary to give Gerry McCann an alibi? Was it just misguided loyalty?

Until someone can come up with a credible reason why Jane Tanner of all people in that group - i.e. the person who knew Gerry MCann least of all, would happily agree to perjure herself in the case of a missing child - as if it was nothing more than a casual 'favour' - then I simply don't believe she lied.   The dire consequences of being found out were MASSIVE and could have resulted in her ending up in prison charged as an accessory.    IMO she would have to be mentally deranged to decide to do something so risky - especially when she had absolutely no need whatsoever to get involved in the first place.   

As she is obviously a normal, intelligent person and not suffering from any mental illness then the whole idea of her making such a gigantic and potentially dangerous decision to lie - in order to provide an alibi for someone who was actually just 'a friend of a friend' makes no sense at all IMO.



   

[AnneGuedes]

Gerry says at one point, for example - will look it up - that dining in the restaurant and checking on the children had been a group decision, with which he did not feel entirely comfortable.

Where did you find this ?
The only person who said she thought, before arriving, checks would be organised, one different parent staying behind every night, is Ms Tanner.

[AnneGuedes]

Until someone can come up with a credible reason why Jane Tanner of all people in that group - i.e. the person who knew Gerry MCann least of all, would happily agree to perjure herself in the case of a missing child - as if it was nothing more than a casual 'favour' - then I simply don't believe she lied.   The dire consequences of being found out were MASSIVE and could have resulted in her ending up in prison charged as an accessory.    IMO she would have to be mentally deranged to decide to do something so risky - especially when she had absolutely no need whatsoever to get involved in the first place.   

As she is obviously a normal, intelligent person and not suffering from any mental illness then the whole idea of her making such a gigantic and potentially dangerous decision to lie - in order to provide an alibi for someone who was actually just 'a friend of a friend' makes no sense at all IMO.

Not only JW didn't see her, but mainly he didn't hear any flip flopping..
BTW from the Moyes' balcony two men and a push chair were only visible only if standing on the other side of the street.

[Benice]

Not only JW didn't see her, but mainly he didn't hear any flip flopping..
BTW from the Moyes' balcony two men and a push chair were only visible only if standing on the other side of the street.

What has any of that got to do with my post regarding the complete lack of any credible motive for Jane Tanner to lie?   

[AnneGuedes]

oh I agree that there was nothing  'precise'  about all the hemming and hawing from the tapas crew,  but that is incidental in relation to the   very    precise  narrative we have been fed from the begining

Jane Tanner saw  the abductor at the 'precise'  moment  Gerry McCann was talking to an independent witness in the street we are relentlessly told

Why  ?   ...  why are we relentlessly told that  ? 

Gerry McCann, himself,  questioned Jane Tanner's powers of recollection when he contradicted her saying he and Jez Wilkins were on the same side of the street as her

If he genuinely doubted her recall  ...  in something as fundemental as where he and Jez were standing when she saw them ...    how could he be so convinced that she was accurate about seeing 'precise' details of something /someone  further away  ?

Why didn't it occur to Gerry that Jane  might have been  mistaken  ?  ...  that maybe the man she saw was  NOT the abductor,  and Madeleine was still safe in her bed at that point 

Why did he not consider that Madeleine was still safe in her bed when Matthew Oldfield made his ( half arsed )  check 15 minutes later   (  at 9.30pm )  and that  'the abduction'   took place sometime  after  that   ...  between 9.30pm and 10.00pm  when  no-one  was checking  ?   ...  and that it was the  Smith family who actually saw the abductor making off with Madeleine  at about 10.00pm heading towards  of the beach  ?

Why is that possibility  'out of bounds' ...  why did the McCanns not even consider  it  ? 

Why must we accept the  very  PRECISE  abduction theory presented by the McCann's   ?   ...  what is the logic for it  ?

Absolutely. An abduction around 21:45 would
give more time to the abductor to sedate or knock out (the McCanns' version gives him 2/3 minutes), steal silently in the darkness, lift up the shutters, open the window, open the door and close it behind (with Madeleine in arms).
explain why Mr Oldfield didn't feel any draught nor saw flying curtains,
resolve the highly implausible changes of direction of Madeleine carrying Facelessman
and avoid the unlikely figure of a first aider attributed to the abductor.

[AnneGuedes]

What has any of that got to do with my post regarding the complete lack of any credible motive for Jane Tanner to lie?

It's an answer to an anterior post of yours (sorry, I should have picked it up instead of yours about motive for lie)
Convictions don't allow debate.

[Benice]

It's an answer to an anterior post of yours (sorry, I should have picked it up instead of yours about motive for lie)
Convictions don't allow debate.

Then can I take it that you don't have a credible motive for Jane Tanner to decide to put her own life and that of her own children and their father at grievous risk of ruination in a foreign country - in order to give an alibi to someone she was not in any way close to -  and had only met half a dozen times in her entire life?   

Until someone can come up with a MOTIVE for her to resort to such desperate illegal measures, then all talk of flip-flops, distances, times etc etc are irrelevant IMO.   First things first ---  establish a motive.