Are we using 'The Sun' as a source of reference now
Are we using 'The Sun' as a source of reference now
Are we using 'The Sun' as a source of reference now
Why ever not? This interview is an excellent reference as to what a principal witness saw first hand on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Statements tend to morph over time and are usually in a language which most people find alien. A warts and all interview with a Sun reporter on the other hand is something which can provide an interesting insight into what happened that morning.
Having read this article for the very first time, I must say I find it compelling.
Are we using 'The Sun' as a source of reference now
Why ever not? This interview is an excellent reference as to what a principal witness saw first hand on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Statements tend to morph over time and are usually in a language which most people find alien. A warts and all interview with a Sun reporter on the other hand is something which can provide an interesting insight into what happened that morning.
Having read this article for the very first time, I must say I find it compelling.
Are we using 'The Sun' as a source of reference now
Why ever not? This interview is an excellent reference as to what a principal witness saw first hand on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Statements tend to morph over time and are usually in a language which most people find alien. A warts and all interview with a Sun reporter on the other hand is something which can provide an interesting insight into what happened that morning.
Having read this article for the very first time, I must say I find it compelling.
Compelling, a sob story yes.
There is no proof Tanner saw a thing.
As to the Sun, hardly a neutral voice, bearing in mind they have supported the Mccanns throughout and paid for the serialization rights for the book.
Next please.
Are we using 'The Sun' as a source of reference now
Why ever not? This interview is an excellent reference as to what a principal witness saw first hand on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Statements tend to morph over time and are usually in a language which most people find alien. A warts and all interview with a Sun reporter on the other hand is something which can provide an interesting insight into what happened that morning.
Having read this article for the very first time, I must say I find it compelling.
Compelling, a sob story yes.
There is no proof Tanner saw a thing.
As to the Sun, hardly a neutral voice, bearing in mind they have supported the Mccanns throughout and paid for the serialization rights for the book.
Next please.
Are we using 'The Sun' as a source of reference now
Why ever not? This interview is an excellent reference as to what a principal witness saw first hand on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Statements tend to morph over time and are usually in a language which most people find alien. A warts and all interview with a Sun reporter on the other hand is something which can provide an interesting insight into what happened that morning.
Having read this article for the very first time, I must say I find it compelling.
Compelling, a sob story yes.
There is no proof Tanner saw a thing.
As to the Sun, hardly a neutral voice, bearing in mind they have supported the Mccanns throughout and paid for the serialization rights for the book.
Next please.
Just one question Stephen, why on earth would someone concoct such a story given the circumstances and as a consequence open them-self up to criticism such as posted by yourself?
Are we using 'The Sun' as a source of reference now
Why ever not? This interview is an excellent reference as to what a principal witness saw first hand on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Statements tend to morph over time and are usually in a language which most people find alien. A warts and all interview with a Sun reporter on the other hand is something which can provide an interesting insight into what happened that morning.
Having read this article for the very first time, I must say I find it compelling.
Compelling, a sob story yes.
There is no proof Tanner saw a thing.
As to the Sun, hardly a neutral voice, bearing in mind they have supported the Mccanns throughout and paid for the serialization rights for the book.
Next please.
There can be no proof that she saw anything. But this article does show what she said at the time.
DIfferent weight can be llaced on the value of stories depending upon the circumstances.
YOu are verging on paranoid as well as being grossly biased and hypocritical.
Are we using 'The Sun' as a source of reference now
Why ever not? This interview is an excellent reference as to what a principal witness saw first hand on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Statements tend to morph over time and are usually in a language which most people find alien. A warts and all interview with a Sun reporter on the other hand is something which can provide an interesting insight into what happened that morning.
Having read this article for the very first time, I must say I find it compelling.
Compelling, a sob story yes.
There is no proof Tanner saw a thing.
As to the Sun, hardly a neutral voice, bearing in mind they have supported the Mccanns throughout and paid for the serialization rights for the book.
Next please.
Just one question Stephen, why on earth would someone concoct such a story given the circumstances and as a consequence open them-self up to criticism such as posted by yourself?
Simple.
To try and give credence to an abduction, for which there is not one smattering of evidence
Remember all these people left their children unattended whilst in the Tapas Bar.
For that they are tarred with the same brush.
Would you have left children, very young children in such a situation in a country where you were merely a visitor on holiday ?
The irony being of course that G. Mccann and his associate could not remember seeing her there at the time she claimed.
Are we using 'The Sun' as a source of reference now
Why ever not? This interview is an excellent reference as to what a principal witness saw first hand on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Statements tend to morph over time and are usually in a language which most people find alien. A warts and all interview with a Sun reporter on the other hand is something which can provide an interesting insight into what happened that morning.
Having read this article for the very first time, I must say I find it compelling.
Compelling, a sob story yes.
There is no proof Tanner saw a thing.
As to the Sun, hardly a neutral voice, bearing in mind they have supported the Mccanns throughout and paid for the serialization rights for the book.
Next please.
Just one question Stephen, why on earth would someone concoct such a story given the circumstances and as a consequence open them-self up to criticism such as posted by yourself?
Simple.
To try and give credence to an abduction, for which there is not one smattering of evidence
Remember all these people left their children unattended whilst in the Tapas Bar.
For that they are tarred with the same brush.
Would you have left children, very young children in such a situation in a country where you were merely a visitor on holiday ?
The irony being of course that G. Mccann and his associate could not remember seeing her there at the time she claimed.
ANd that is your whole argument:
"I hate the McCanns and therefore they are guilty; sentence first, trial later."
Are we using 'The Sun' as a source of reference now
Why ever not? This interview is an excellent reference as to what a principal witness saw first hand on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Statements tend to morph over time and are usually in a language which most people find alien. A warts and all
interview with a Sun reporter on the other hand is something which can provide an interesting insight into what happened that morning.
Having read this article for the very first time, I must say I find it compelling.
Compelling, a sob story yes.
There is no proof Tanner saw a thing.
As to the Sun, hardly a neutral voice, bearing in mind they have supported the Mccanns throughout and paid for the serialization rights for the book.
Next please.
Just one question Stephen, why on earth would someone concoct such a story given the circumstances and as a consequence open them-self up to criticism such as posted by yourself?
Simple.
To try and give credence to an abduction, for which there is not one smattering of evidence
Remember all these people left their children unattended whilst in the Tapas Bar.
For that they are tarred with the same brush.
Would you have left children, very young children in such a situation in a country where you were merely a visitor on holiday ?
The irony being of course that G. Mccann and his associate could not remember seeing her there at the time she claimed.
ANd that is your whole argument:
"I hate the McCanns and therefore they are guilty; sentence first, trial later."
You're the one using that language again.
As so often, the 'mccannites' are so predictable.
Are we using 'The Sun' as a source of reference now
Why ever not? This interview is an excellent reference as to what a principal witness saw first hand on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Statements tend to morph over time and are usually in a language which most people find alien. A warts and all interview with a Sun reporter on the other hand is something which can provide an interesting insight into what happened that morning.
Having read this article for the very first time, I must say I find it compelling.
Gerry didn't back up her story because he knew it was a lie and, if found out as such, would impact on his credibility as well.
I think what people who haven't been to PDL fail to appreciate is how narrow the pavement is on which McCann and Wilkins were standing and the impossibility that Tanner could have passed them with one of the men seeing her. McCann knew that and that is why he was so desperate to put himself on the other side of the road, even if it meant destroying the credibility of his own witness.
It would seem like a very odd decision of Gerry McCann's to "destroy the credibility" of the only person who claims to have seen the abduction in process, if that was the plan they had all cooked up together.
@C.Edwards
Stop misquoting me.
I never said the claims in the Sun were correct, merely thattheycould beassumed to be a broadly correct description of what Tanner actually said to the Sun as she did not complain.
DO you always have this problem with English Comprehension?
Gerry didn't back up her story because he knew it was a lie and, if found out as such, would impact on his credibility as well.
I think what people who haven't been to PDL fail to appreciate is how narrow the pavement is on which McCann and Wilkins were standing and the impossibility that Tanner could have passed them with one of the men seeing her. McCann knew that and that is why he was so desperate to put himself on the other side of the road, even if it meant destroying the credibility of his own witness.
ARe you able to read minds years after an event?
Your opinion (guesswork) only!
It would seem like a very odd decision of Gerry McCann's to "destroy the credibility" of the only person who claims to have seen the abduction in process, if that was the plan they had all cooked up together.
AGreed.
As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry’s back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10 – 15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
He was adamant that he did not see any one else in the area. When spoken to in reference to Jane Tanner walking by, he again stated that he saw no one. He also stated that he did not see or hear anyone to his right. He was aware of the recent picture in the papers re the person with a child wrapped in a blanket and in a males arms alledgedly walking across the junction to his right but again stated that he did not see any one.
If Gerry had his back even half turned to her then he might not have seen her. And I on't suppose that Gez Wilkins actually knew her. But it's a bit odd that her description, albeit a bit vague, does somewhat match The Smiths, seen not much long after.
It's the fault of The PJ that it had no face. They couldn't do Side Images, apparently.
If Gerry had his back even half turned to her then he might not have seen her. And I on't suppose that Gez Wilkins actually knew her. But it's a bit odd that her description, albeit a bit vague, does somewhat match The Smiths, seen not much long after.
It's the fault of The PJ that it had no face. They couldn't do Side Images, apparently.
Why does him not knowing her mean she's invisible? What a ridiculous statement.
There are discrepancies of interpretation of statements by both sides.
If the Portuguese prosecutor could not make a case from the PJ files, what hope is there for a bunch of biased hate filled [ censored word ]s.
If the Portuguese prosecutor could not make a case from the PJ files, what hope is there for a bunch of biased hate filled [ censored word ]s.
Yeah... you're so neutral it hurts. 8(0(*
There are discrepancies of interpretation of statements by both sides.
Is that supposed to count as a debate on the points raised? You're very, very predictable in how you shy away from inexplicable things that put the McCanns in a bad light. Not just you, either. These "minor discrepancies" as the pros describe them are the things that have made the police very, very suspicious of the whole McCann story. I know you choose not to believe that, that's not a problem to me at all. :-)
Okay. Your rite. Have you told The Portuguese Prosecutor and Scotland Yard? Can we expect an arrest at any moment?
Okay. Your rite. Have you told The Portuguese Prosecutor and Scotland Yard? Can we expect an arrest at any moment?
"your rite"? Nice work.
I don't need to tell them. They know. "at any moment"? Theoretically, yes. The problem the police have is lack of hard evidence. They pretty much know what happened, they just know they can't prove it with the evidence they currently have. Sorry, the ADMISSIBLE evidence they currently have ;-)
This is still bugging me... C.Edwards what's your view?
It would seem like a very odd decision of Gerry McCann's to "destroy the credibility" of the only person who claims to have seen the abduction in process, if that was the plan they had all cooked up together.
AGreed.
But Gerry did so by putting himself on the other side of the road, even though Tanner and Wilkins gave signed
statements to a completely different scenario. So do you think Gerry was mistaken in his recollection ?
Well what other explanation is there? You seem to prefer the explanation that fellow co-conspirators were intent on destroying each other's credibility. What do you think their rationale was for that?
If Gerry had his back even half turned to her then he might not have seen her. And I on't suppose that Gez Wilkins actually knew her. But it's a bit odd that her description, albeit a bit vague, does somewhat match The Smiths, seen not much long after.
It's the fault of The PJ that it had no face. They couldn't do Side Images, apparently.
If Gerry had his back even half turned to her then he might not have seen her. And I on't suppose that Gez Wilkins actually knew her. But it's a bit odd that her description, albeit a bit vague, does somewhat match The Smiths, seen not much long after.
It's the fault of The PJ that it had no face. They couldn't do Side Images, apparently.
No matter which way you place them, either McCann or Wilkins would have seen and heard Tanner pass unless, of course, they were on the other side of the road. Gerry knew this and sacrificed the only witness to the abductions credibility to rescue his own.
@ Debunker
Not mind reading just a sensible appraisal of the known facts
@ Martha
Saving their own skin ?
It seems your comprehension isn't what it should be so I'll explain more fully.
Tanner agreed ( and until we know the full story we can only guess why ) to say she saw Gerry talking to Wilkins just before she saw a man with a child walking away from the direction of the apartments. The story was detailed in the timeline agreed by the group, including Tanner and the McCanns, and was handed into the PJ on the 10th of May. On the same day Gerry was questioned and no doubt having been made aware that the PJ were sceptical of his claim that he didn't see Tanner while talking to Wilkins, added veracity to it by saying he had crossed over to the other side of the road therefore making the scenario more plausible. Of course if Tanner was then found out to be liar in the future he would also have distanced himself from her lie as he had not claimed to have seen her.
Tanner didn't try to save her own skin, she was metaphorically thrown under the nearest bus by her supposed friend Gerald McCann.
It seems your comprehension isn't what it should be so I'll explain more fully.
Tanner agreed ( and until we know the full story we can only guess why ) to say she saw Gerry talking to Wilkins just before she saw a man with a child walking away from the direction of the apartments. The story was detailed in the timeline agreed by the group, including Tanner and the McCanns, and was handed into the PJ on the 10th of May. On the same day Gerry was questioned and no doubt having been made aware that the PJ were sceptical of his claim that he didn't see Tanner while talking to Wilkins, added veracity to it by saying he had crossed over to the other side of the road therefore making the scenario more plausible. Of course if Tanner was then found out to be liar in the future he would also have distanced himself from her lie as he had not claimed to have seen her.
Tanner didn't try to save her own skin, she was metaphorically thrown under the nearest bus by her supposed friend Gerald McCann.
Mindreading again.
Just saving debunker the effort this time. ;-)
(It's a very plausible explanation to me, but none of the pros will buy it Faithlilly.)
Nope. Still as clear as mud to me - your theory makes little sense as it doesn't begin to adequately explain why Gerry would seek to discredit his friend who had agreed to go along with the supposed deception. If Gerry HAD claimed he'd seen her, and it could somehow have been proven that it couldn't have been Jane at a later date then he could simply have said "oh, I must have been mistaken, must've been on another occasion or it was a woman who looked like JT, it was dusk, blah blah blah)". By the way where did Jez Wilkins say he and Gerry talked?
@ Martha
At or near the apartment gate, just like Tanner.
So, how did JT know where Gerry and Wilkins were chatting if she was never there?
@ Martha
The lying with regard to where McCann was standing was done when, I assume, it was pointed out to him by the PJ how unbelievable it was he didn't see Tanner and he had no other choice. He certainly agreed on the 10th May timeline that he was standing just up from the apartment gate.
@ John and Martha
Why when faced with the fact that the two other witness there on the night both said that Gerry was on the other side of the road did he not just admit that he must have been mistaken ? Why undermine the whole testimony of his main witness, on camera, by adamantly sticking to his version of the story ?
Hey, that's pretty much MY question! Care to answer?
" Minutes later Jane saw Kate. Close to tears, Jane admitted she could not bear to tell her about the man. She said: "At that time it seemed everyone thought Madeleine was hiding. I knew that if I told her about the man it would shatter that. I was also hoping desperately that I’d been wrong. Instead I took another friend, Fiona, to one side and told her...then, at around 11.15, two policemen arrived and I told them. Later CID arrived."
So we have two people who claim that they knew Maddie was abducted right away!
1. Why did Jane Tanner NOT scream at the Man (abductor) hey what you doing with Madeleine? and sought help from Gerry and Jes who were in the street? AND WHY WAIT UNTIL an hour and 15 minutes to tell the police a child was abducted? Seriously? come on. She saw a man OK,let's accept that, but did she see a stranger abductor running away with Maddie and not say anything? pppft
Yes so asking Jane WHY not alert someone that Maddie was being abducted by a stranger? oh yes reasonable answer is because you never witnessed Maddie being abducted by a stranger did you dearie?
2. Kate knew right away with the whooshing curtains,open window,jemmied shutters but didn't scream 'someone has abducted our daughter help, help, someone call the police!!!!!! oh, yes ,that's right they thought she was hiding..hmmmm
Where does your quote come from?
Jane has said that it didn't occur to her that the person she saw carrying a child could have been Madeleine at the time - there was no reason to. It was only after she found out that Madeleine had disappeared that she thought that she might have witnessed something significant.
Jane Tanner's interview with The Sun on 20 November 2007
In an exclusive interview with The Sun – her first with any newspaper – Jane forcefully hit back at critics who have suggested she is lying. Amid sobs, she said: "I DID see a man that night carrying away Madeleine...she WAS abducted."
Tears welling in her eyes, she went on: "I wake up to that image ever day. Every day I see him there, striding away, carrying Madeleine and I try desperately to remember more detail, what his face was like. "I think about it over and over again."
So where were we? ah yes her interview where she claims she saw Maddie being carried away. Now maybe I read this wrong but how did she know it was Maddie at all? could it be to protect her friends for leaving a door unlocked and Maddie waking up- just wandering off... No, my bad for even thinking that!
Jane Tanner's interview with The Sun on 20 November 2007
In an exclusive interview with The Sun – her first with any newspaper – Jane forcefully hit back at critics who have suggested she is lying. Amid sobs, she said: "I DID see a man that night carrying away Madeleine...she WAS abducted."
Tears welling in her eyes, she went on: "I wake up to that image ever day. Every day I see him there, striding away, carrying Madeleine and I try desperately to remember more detail, what his face was like. "I think about it over and over again."
So where were we? ah yes her interview where she claims she saw Maddie being carried away. Now maybe I read this wrong but how did she know it was Maddie at all? could it be to protect her friends for leaving a door unlocked and Maddie waking up- just wandering off... No, my bad for even thinking that!
Interesting thoughts.
So to sum up - in any case, she didn't see Madeleine (SY have 'almost certainly' ruled that out and the British tourist felt it was him and his young daughter).
So the only person she did see was Gerry, and Jeremy, and the British tourist.
If it ever goes to Court -- Jayne would testify Gerry was at the gate entry to 5A, Jeremy Wilkins would say the same.
Not sure if that has any relevance to anything, but 9 years on from The Sun article, the whole Tanner contribution to this case has been greatly diminished.
If it ever did go to court and the jury heard Gerry and Jeremy Wilkins deny seeing Tanner on that narrow street I think her credibility would be completely shot TBH.
Not if the witness who acknowledged being the person Jane Tanner saw turned up in court to testify ....
Interesting thoughts.
So to sum up - in any case, she didn't see Madeleine (SY have 'almost certainly' ruled that out and the British tourist felt it was him and his young daughter).
So the only person she did see was Gerry, and Jeremy, and the British tourist.
If it ever goes to Court -- Jayne would testify Gerry was at the gate entry to 5A, Jeremy Wilkins would say the same.
Not sure if that has any relevance to anything, but 9 years on from The Sun article, the whole Tanner contribution to this case has been greatly diminished.
She didnt see Madeleine, she saw a pair of feet
As she described in the Panorama programme in the same month and year as that pitiful Sun write up
Then again, she had also said in their joint statement of 10 May to the PJ she sort of saw the childs top and it was pinky...you never know what exactly she did see about the child...
I'm not quite sure that I follow your reasoning here ... Jane Tanner is a witness who saw a child being carried away from the place from which a child disappeared.
What do you think she should have done when she discovered that situation?
Jane Tanner is a witness -- a witness to a few things. First, she saw Gerry McCann at the gate of 5A. At the same time, she saw Jeremy Wilkins. And third, she saw a man who has now been identified and ruled out.
The only thing Jane Tanner should have done differently is -- when she gave her statement, to have talked ONLY about what she saw, and not about what others allegedly saw or did. Apart from that, what is there to criticise?
A lot of people have said disparaging things about Jane. For example, there are those who question how her memory became progressively better. There are those who ask questions about her conduct during the Robert Murat ID appointment and the subsequent rotatory interview exploring that. There are those who believe she wrongly identified 'George' as the man she saw to the private investigators (ruled out later). And there is the voice analysis expert who analysed her vocal replies during her interview with private detectives, and believed her not to be a credible witness.
But I'm not criticising her for any of that. Thanks for the question.
Thanks for the answer.
Who is 'George'?
Jane Tanner is a witness -- a witness to a few things. First, she saw Gerry McCann at the gate of 5A. At the same time, she saw Jeremy Wilkins. And third, she saw a man who has now been identified and ruled out.
The only thing Jane Tanner should have done differently is -- when she gave her statement, to have talked ONLY about what she saw, and not about what others allegedly saw or did. Apart from that, what is there to criticise?
A lot of people have said disparaging things about Jane. For example, there are those who question how her memory became progressively better. There are those who ask questions about her conduct during the Robert Murat ID appointment and the subsequent rotatory interview exploring that. There are those who believe she wrongly identified 'George' as the man she saw to the private investigators (ruled out later). And there is the voice analysis expert who analysed her vocal replies during her interview with private detectives, and believed her not to be a credible witness.
But I'm not criticising her for any of that. Thanks for the question.
He's the market trader put under surveillance fro a few months by Halligen's team - nicknamed George because of his vague resemblance to George Harrison. It was reported on in the Documentary about Halligen.
https://www.my5.tv/movie/92070
Thanks Misty.
Not going to revisit the Halligen video at the moment ... but was that not something to do with a very unprofessionally conducted interview with Jane which was so bad it was unusable?
Jane Tanner is a witness -- a witness to a few things. First, she saw Gerry McCann at the gate of 5A. At the same time, she saw Jeremy Wilkins. And third, she saw a man who has now been identified and ruled out.
The only thing Jane Tanner should have done differently is -- when she gave her statement, to have talked ONLY about what she saw, and not about what others allegedly saw or did. Apart from that, what is there to criticise?
A lot of people have said disparaging things about Jane. For example, there are those who question how her memory became progressively better. There are those who ask questions about her conduct during the Robert Murat ID appointment and the subsequent rotatory interview exploring that. There are those who believe she wrongly identified 'George' as the man she saw to the private investigators (ruled out later). And there is the voice analysis expert who analysed her vocal replies during her interview with private detectives, and believed her not to be a credible witness.
But I'm not criticising her for any of that. Thanks for the question.
LOL, yes. Amongst other things, I believe an "expert" voice analyst decreed JT was untruthful.
Jane Tanner is a witness -- a witness to a few things. First, she saw Gerry McCann at the gate of 5A. At the same time, she saw Jeremy Wilkins. And third, she saw a man who has now been identified and ruled out.
The only thing Jane Tanner should have done differently is -- when she gave her statement, to have talked ONLY about what she saw, and not about what others allegedly saw or did. Apart from that, what is there to criticise?
A lot of people have said disparaging things about Jane. For example, there are those who question how her memory became progressively better. There are those who ask questions about her conduct during the Robert Murat ID appointment and the subsequent rotatory interview exploring that. There are those who believe she wrongly identified 'George' as the man she saw to the private investigators (ruled out later). And there is the voice analysis expert who analysed her vocal replies during her interview with private detectives, and believed her not to be a credible witness.
But I'm not criticising her for any of that. Thanks for the question.
Lord preserve us from body language 'experts' and 'expert' voice analysts not to mention 'expert' profilers.
You say ... "A lot of people have said disparaging things about Jane. For example, there are those who question how her memory became progressively better. "
In what way did her memory become progressively better?
Just as I had no idea who "George" was without a cite. I have no idea to what you are referring as regards Jane Tanner's memory.
Might be a courtesy to provide a cite to back up your statement.
Only when she was told Madeleine was missing did she relate the man and child she had seen to the abduction. She did not know at the time she saw them ... if she had, why would she not have shouted for assistance from the two men she had just passed?
Indeed, that is what I said! why did she not say at the time of finding out Maddie was missing- she waited a very long time-until the police came to mention it. Why waste precious time keeping that to herself, they were searching for a missing child not a man carrying a child, she could have told someone if she thought it was a child being abducted to which she later confirmed it was a man abducting Maddie whom she saw. a main witness to an abduction. Well she WAS. not any more.
What she saw was a man carrying a child not an 'abductor carrying Maddie' talk about a wild goose chase. None of this makes any sense at all.
And those of us who refused to believe she saw Maddie being abducted were proved correct not to buy that story.
Hi Brietta -- I'll respond to another point of yours. You asked, what is the evidence for Jane Tanner's memory becoming progressively better.
This was the e-fit she produced after her initial interview. She later said in her rotatory:
"4078 “I know this seems like an obvious question, which I think I know the answer to, because I’ve seen the artist’s impression, did you see the man’s face?”
Reply “No, no, not, no, I mean, just the hair, well not, not that I could remember to give details.”.
Cite: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm
That is entirely consistent with the e-fit she produced at first (below), and even the later e-fit. It also ties in with her initial statement, so all is fine there.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/photofit_small.jpg)
BUT....
If in her initial interview, she was adamant she could not see a face. And if in a later e-fit, she confirmed that she couldn't see the face again... why did she then make a positive ID from a facial pic?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/15/article-2460669-18BD73CB00000578-492_636x382.jpg)
Her memory improved to the extent that she was secretly recorded identifying a man -- from a facial shot -- with the language "that is the man that I saw carrying the child." -- confirmed by Tim-Craig Harvey, who was paid by the McCanns to coordinate the private investigation. A voice analyst, also paid by the McCanns also noted with regard to her memory: 'the more she had to describe him, the more accurate she became.'
Cite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vphKz-Xjbn0 (From 15 minutes exactly to 16.15).
So to sum
May 2007 -- initially after Madeleine was removed from 5A -- no ability to recognise a face.
During the private investigation -- secretly recorded identifying a man as the man she saw via his face.
--
I'll end on this note. Jane Tanner said during her rotatory interview that: "the best thing that could happen to me, apart from Madeleine being found, is somebody coming up and saying ‘That was me’, you know, ‘That was me walking across there." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Scotland Yard did find that man. He did come forward. Everything about him tied in with Jane said - so she can relax about that now. SY know she didn't obstruct the course of justice or anything like that. Her eye-witness account can now be corroborated, so we should thank her for being so alert that night. They know the child wasn't Madeleine. So Jane simply becomes a witness to the other thing she saw -- Gerry and Jeremy's conversation. Near the gate of 5A.
Do you have a cite?
(snip) (snip) ...I did not hear Jane Tanner saying it nor have I found confirmation elsewhere that she did ... (snip)Gadfly I agree with Brietta, all that is in the video is someone claiming that JT said "that is the guy that I saw carrying the child". The video is no proof that JT said it. I suggest that the person spying on her from the next room misheard what she said.
I suggest that the person spying on her from the next room misheard what she said.
Suggest away. It was taped. It was (the interview where she picked George) heard by at least four people (you can ascertain that from the documentary). So it is up to you to evaluate TCH's credibility. Either way, whatever was happening with Tanner's memory with regard to faces, her memory of positional placement of GM/JW hasn't changed.
So again, just to sum-up.
1) The man Jane Tanner saw has been identified. A British tourist, who has been ruled out.
2) She saw Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins on the night Madeleine disappeared, talking near the garden gate of 5A,
and...
3) Her accounts were consistent (that she didn't see a face, and thus, couldn't identify a man via a facial photograph), which is why it was surprising to the private investigators that she identified Tim Craig-Harvey's "George" via a facial photo.
And lest we forget she was reported as being 80% sure that the man she saw on the night of the 3rd was the same man seen by Gsil Cooper.reported not by her, but by someone who wrote a powerpoint document.
reported not by her, but by someone who wrote a powerpoint document.
Suggest away. It was taped. It was (the interview where she picked George) heard by at least four people (you can ascertain that from the documentary). So it is up to you to evaluate TCH's credibility. Either way, whatever was happening with Tanner's memory with regard to faces, her memory of positional placement of GM/JW hasn't changed.
So again, just to sum-up.
1) The man Jane Tanner saw has been identified. A British tourist, who has been ruled out.
2) She saw Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins on the night Madeleine disappeared, talking near the garden gate of 5A,
and...
3) Her accounts were consistent (that she didn't see a face, and thus, couldn't identify a man via a facial photograph), which is why it was surprising to the private investigators that she identified Tim Craig-Harvey's "George" via a facial photo.
Suggest away. It was taped. It was (the interview where she picked George) heard by at least four people (you can ascertain that from the documentary). So it is up to you to evaluate TCH's credibility. Either way, whatever was happening with Tanner's memory with regard to faces, her memory of positional placement of GM/JW hasn't changed.Furthermore,
So again, just to sum-up.
1) The man Jane Tanner saw has been identified. A British tourist, who has been ruled out.2) She saw Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins on the night Madeleine disappeared, talking near the garden gate of 5A
and...
3) Her accounts were consistent (that she didn't see a face, and thus, couldn't identify a man via a facial photograph), which is why it was surprising to the private investigators that she identified Tim Craig-Harvey's "George" via a facial photo.
Suggest away. It was taped. It was (the interview where she picked George) heard by at least four people (you can ascertain that from the documentary). So it is up to you to evaluate TCH's credibility. Either way, whatever was happening with Tanner's memory with regard to faces, her memory of positional placement of GM/JW hasn't changed.
So again, just to sum-up.
1) The man Jane Tanner saw has been identified. A British tourist, who has been ruled out.
2) She saw Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins on the night Madeleine disappeared, talking near the garden gate of 5A,
and...
3) Her accounts were consistent (that she didn't see a face, and thus, couldn't identify a man via a facial photograph), which is why it was surprising to the private investigators that she identified Tim Craig-Harvey's "George" via a facial photo.
As I said Sadie, it is up to you as to whether or not you believe Tim Craig Harvey. :)
@Pegasus. If Miss Tanner is not happy with the 'almost certain' comments made by SY, or by the gentlemen who noticed his daughter's 'frilly pyjamas, then all she has to do is gave them a quick call any time she chooses and tell them. I'm sure she can clear this up. Until then, she will remain a witness who saw Gerry near the gate at 5A, and will corroborate Mr Wilkins on Gerry's positioning (to within a couple of metres or so).Gadfly I am not disputing JT's later identification of SY's brit tourist, it is correct IMO. Also I agree with you about the curious issue of the chat position, yes two people state it correctly and one incorrectly.
@Pegasus. I understand your 'dispute.'Gadfly I have great faith in the integrity of witness JT. Unless you are able to state that she said she specifically recognised the market trader's facial features, I will assume that she recognised the market trader's hair as being closely similar to hair of the carrier she saw on May 3. I base that conclusion on the hair being by far the most conspicuous natural feature visible on May 3, and on JT stating she did not see facial details on May 3.
@Pegasus. That is your prerogative. To make that assumption is your right but it would mean you are ignoring Tim Craig-Harvey saying the following:
''So we have got photographic evidence.'
'Now that we have a photograph'
'We had a device in the room to pick up what she was saying.'
'She was then presented of a photograph of this guy George in the market [while a facial photograph is shown during the Channel Five documentary McCanns And The Conman), at which point she broke down and said, "That is the guy I saw carrying the child."'
'Jane Tanner having said "This is the guy that I saw", it may just have been that she so wanted to help that she fooled herself."
Again -- if Miss Tanner disagrees with anything in Tim Craig Harvey's account, she can contact Channel Five. And if she believes that I have misrepresented her identification, she can contact me too. Finally, Pegasus, in case you are feeling restless about this, you are free to contact Tom Craig-Harvey so you can turn your assumption into something more concrete.
For any one wishing to decide for themselves, the documentary The McCanns And The Conman can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vphKz-Xjbn0
Deny. Deny. Deny. It's a simple but effective strategy Pegasus. The problem is that the denials often require explanations that lead to clear contradictions in an author's (or defendant's) logic and arguments. The evidence on this thread is so overwhelming and well cited that it is unspinnable. Brietta's latest point gave me a big smile as I could see it coming. But you'll be met with more of the same: deny, deny, and deny.
Thank God for the fact that Western justice systems aren't as succeptible to such a strategy as internet forums/ public opinion are. Portuguese juries even have judges on them. :)