Other witnesses cast doubt on Bundleman sighting?

[Jacinta]

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.

It's not possible to come up with a reason because we don't know what was running through her mind and we don't know if she had given any thought to the consequences if she had given a false alibi for Gerry McCann.

You're entitled not to believe that Jane Tanner lied. I'm not asking anyone to believe or to agree with me. Those are just my thoughts on account of Jeremy Wilkins saying he saw Jane Tanner when he left his apartment (between 8.15pm and 8.30pm) and that neither he or Gerry McCann saw her at 9.15pm.

[DCI]

It's not possible to come up with a reason because we don't know what was running through her mind and we don't know if she had given any thought to the consequences if she had given a false alibi for Gerry McCann.

You're entitled not to believe that Jane Tanner lied. I'm not asking anyone to believe or to agree with me. Those are just my thoughts on account of Jeremy Wilkins saying he saw Jane Tanner when he left his apartment (between 8.15pm and 8.30pm) and that neither he or Gerry McCann saw her at 9.15pm.

Q. Relative to the time I met Gerry McCann on the Thursday night of May 3, 2007;
As stated in my original deposition, I believe that I left the apartment around 20h30. I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15. I am aware of the importance of this hour and am also aware that the media announced our meeting time as 21h05. Even if this were correct, I have no idea from where such information originated. It is not possible to give you a more exact time.

Q. Relative to the exact location you met Gerry'
I left my apartment pushing my son's pram so that he could sleep. I did not have a particular direction to follow nor did I have a specific time to do this. I left the apartment and turned right. I walked via the lower street, looked to the building block where the McCann apartment was situated and saw a woman dressed in purple clothing. I referred to this woman in relation to the questions asked by Jane Tanner.

So Jez first saw Jane on her way to dinner! He left his apartment around 8.30 pm, not between (between 8.15pm and 8.30pm), as you stated!

Jane Tanner
The witness went for dinner at the Tapas restaurant at about 20.30.

[Lyall]

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.
 

Not all of those involved in conspiracies are willingly. Just a thought. A hypothetical one.

[Benice]

It's not possible to come up with a reason because we don't know what was running through her mind and we don't know if she had given any thought to the consequences if she had given a false alibi for Gerry McCann.

You're entitled not to believe that Jane Tanner lied. I'm not asking anyone to believe or to agree with me. Those are just my thoughts on account of Jeremy Wilkins saying he saw Jane Tanner when he left his apartment (between 8.15pm and 8.30pm) and that neither he or Gerry McCann saw her at 9.15pm.

I agree that neither Gerry nor Jez saw JT when she passed.   But IIRC Jez did not definitely identify the person he saw earlier as JT?    I could be wrong about that and if so am happy to be corrected.    None of the times given (except Gerry's time of 9.04) are claimed to be accurate - they are all approximations - which is why (off topic slightly) an accurate reconstruction is not possible to achieve - as there are so many different combinations of times that would have to be taken into account.   

 Maybe the person Jez saw was JT - and JT didn't see him, or maybe it was later than the time he gave and she was on her way to the restaurant.  Who knows?   But none of this explains why JT would decide to perjure herself in such a serious case.   Also - can you honestly believe that her partner would allow her to take such a dangerous course of action?   Not in a million years IMO.     


 

[Lyall]

You just found one motive right there, Benice. Her partner. Her children, another motive.

You've got to think outside the box.  >@@(*&)

[Lyall]

Her story may have been exaggerated by somebody else without her knowledge on that first night, and she finds herself right in the middle of it.

There are lots of possible explanations. Speaking hypothetically.

[Benice]

You just found one motive right there, Benice. Her partner. Her children, another motive.

You've got to think outside the box.  >@@(*&)

Please explain the motive.   

What could possibly be worse for your family than your being arrested for perjury and for being an accessory in the death/disappearance of a child and then having to face a jail sentence in a foreign country?    And all for someone you hardly knew and had no reason whatsoever to even put on a par with -  let alone massively ABOVE your own family !     Sorry but it simply isn't even remotely credible IMO.


   

[Jacinta]

....
So Jez first saw Jane on her way to dinner! He left his apartment around 8.30 pm, not between (between 8.15pm and 8.30pm), as you stated!

Jane Tanner
The witness went for dinner at the Tapas restaurant at about 20.30.

I combined his times because of his statements:

Statement one (07 April 2007): 8.15pm – 8.30
Statement two (31 October 2007): 'about 2015hrs;
Statement three (08 April 2008): 'around 2030hrs'

Hence my writing that he left his apartment between 8.15pm and 8.30pm

[Lyall]

Please explain the motive.   

What could possibly be worse for your family than your being arrested for perjury and for being an accessory in the death/disappearance of a child and then having to face a jail sentence in a foreign country?    And all for someone you hardly knew and had no reason whatsoever to even put on a par with -  let alone massively ABOVE your own family !     Sorry but it simply isn't even remotely credible IMO.
 

Will do Benice, l8r. But she didn't positively tell police it was Madeleine did she. Nigh on impossible to prove she didn't see something (as she may have of course).

[Jacinta]

I agree that neither Gerry nor Jez saw JT when she passed.   But IIRC Jez did not definitely identify the person he saw earlier as JT?    I could be wrong about that and if so am happy to be corrected.    None of the times given (except Gerry's time of 9.04) are claimed to be accurate - they are all approximations - which is why (off topic slightly) an accurate reconstruction is not possible to achieve - as there are so many different combinations of times that would have to be taken into account.   

 Maybe the person Jez saw was JT - and JT didn't see him, or maybe it was later than the time he gave and she was on her way to the restaurant.  Who knows?   But none of this explains why JT would decide to perjure herself in such a serious case.   Also - can you honestly believe that her partner would allow her to take such a dangerous course of action?   Not in a million years IMO.     

Jeremy Wilkins identified the woman in purple as being Jane Tanner. I will double check later on but I'm sure it's in his second and third statements.

I don't mean to sound as though I'm evading your question Benice, but I have no idea what her partner would or would not allow. I can speculate but that will only lead to further debates based on more speculation.

I will have to leave this now until this evening.

Jaci x

[AnneGuedes]

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.

I understand your point, Benice, and I agree that Ms Tanner for nothing on earth would have jeopardized her family life with no apparent reason but collaborating in a ridiculous staging. But I'm also sure she was very scared, she knew they shouldn't have left the children on their own.On this topic and unlike the McCanns, she was aware her daughter who was in a normal bed could wake up, see nobody and get out, this is why they locked the door, not to prevent an abduction.
As I said before, I believe Ms Tanner saw the carrier and I think she in fact saw his face. But I don't think she saw him at that time and in that place.
No, I don't think she lied because she had been asked to, she wouldn't have accepted that, I agree with you. There are cases in which a person consciously or inconsciously finds it's better not to say the truth. In that matter I don't agree with Kant.
Ms Tanner spontaneously tried to be helpful orienting towards abduction police officers who seemed to believe Madeleine had just wandered off. Once you've spoken of a sighting in such a dramatic case,  it's too late to say you might have made a confusion (meanwhile you realized this wasn't a good idea after all). She didn't ponderate, how could she ?, when she first talked to the GNR T&T, what the AG and we observed : not only her improbable passing without being noticed but the unfeasable abduction in 3 minutes, etc.

[Benice]

Will do Benice, l8r. But she didn't positively tell police it was Madeleine did she. Nigh on impossible to prove she didn't see something (as she may have of course).

JT had no reason to think it was Madeleine she saw being carried away when she first saw her, but common sense alone dictates that the chances of it not being her  - are miniscule IMO.    Particularly as no-one has ever come forward to say it was them who JT saw.   As soon as JT knew that Madeleine had disappeared the first thing she thought of was the man she saw carrying a child - and that was what she told the GNR when they arrived.   To not have linked both occurrences would not have been normal  IMO.

 

[AnneGuedes]

Not all of those involved in conspiracies are willingly. Just a thought. A hypothetical one.

These situations are very complex. I wonder what the famous HOLMES can make out of so many parameters and what about the emotions ?
Sometimes life places you in terrible double bind situations (paradoxical injunctions).

[Benice]

I understand your point, Benice, and I agree that Ms Tanner for nothing on earth would have jeopardized her family life with no apparent reason but collaborating in a ridiculous staging. But I'm also sure she was very scared, she knew they shouldn't have left the children on their own.

I totally disagree.  They were mirroring the perfectly acceptable Baby Listening service which some members of the group had signed up to during previous MW holidays where the service operated.     They had no reason to believe that what they were doing would be perceived by anyone as 'wrong'.     

Surely this is proved by the fact that the first thing they told the GNR was that this was the method of child checking they were using.    None of them made any attempt to hide that fact-  either then or at any subsequent time - including Jane Tanner, so your suggestion that she lied because she was scared just doesn't stand up to scrutiny IMO.


(Must go out now. )   

   

[Sherlock Holmes]

These situations are very complex. I wonder what the famous HOLMES can make out of so many parameters and what about the emotions ?
Sometimes life places you in terrible double bind situations (paradoxical injunctions).

Regarding Lyall's comment, #32 on this thread, we all know that a person can easily become embroiled in the most complex and difficult of situations through no fault or making of his or her own.

That being said, I find it hard to imagine that T9, or a number of T9, would have been able to hold a 'conspiracy' watertight until today. Would whatever it was that would have bound them together in secrecy in May 2007, voluntarily or not, still obtain today?

As for being in a double bind, as you put it Anne, T9 were of course concerned to support their friends the McCanns, but their ultimate loyalties lay with their own families. They had all left their children that night and were all culpable, at some level, for its events, and would have been concerned with shielding themselves against further investigation and terrified of any possible legal consequences to their actions. This, I would have thought, would have been the overriding factor, not any need to 'work' with the McCanns. The idea that they all scrambled together to agree on a cooked-up story, under extreme pressure of time, when instinct would be telling them to protect only themselves, doesn't add up.