Visits to the play area after tea. What is the truth?

[The General]

Hardly a myth if it's in an official statement - IMO

You forgot to factor in SSD that supporters use whimsically - selective statement dismissal  - you know, for backward, buck-toothed, savages translatin' anna listenin' anna writin' all wrong.

[G-Unit]

Let's not start yet another myth, folks!!!

I don't think 'might' comes into it at all ... Jane is clear on exactly what she saw and she never deviated from that.

From Jane Tanner's statement on 4th May 2007 ...
Meanwhile a man appeared ( * ) carrying a child (**), with a hurried walk, it being this detail together with the fact that the child dressed in pyjamas, without being wrapped up in a blanket, that caught her attention. She only managed to see him from the side, with the child in his arms. She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking, having seen this person step off the pavement that borders on the apartment block where they were staying and rapidly cross the road.

The entrance to the apartment building (1) is exactly at the place (street) where the individual appeared from.

___________________________________________________

(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.

As regards these details, she does not know what Madeleine was wearing at the moment of her disappearance, because she did not talk to anyone about this.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

'she saw only her legs'

A definite statement of fact.

'The top was not well seen though there was thought to be another colour involved possibly pink.'

How, when she only saw the child's legs??

[Brietta]

Hardly a myth if it's in an official statement - IMO

Where in Jane's statement does it say "might"?  You posted it was "important".

[Brietta]

'she saw only her legs'

A definite statement of fact.

'The top was not well seen though there was thought to be another colour involved possibly pink.'

How, when she only saw the child's legs??

Ah ... so you think the abductor was carrying disembodied pyjama clad legs.  Interesting.

[Mr Gray]

IMO the more important word there is 'might'

Carrying a child that might be the child... Obviously a mistranslation imo
I think Jane was clear the man was carrying a child

[barrier]

Ah ... so you think the abductor was carrying disembodied pyjama clad legs.  Interesting.

You think it was an abductor,I'm almost certain it wasn't,seems as if OG agree with me.

[G-Unit]

Ah ... so you think the abductor was carrying disembodied pyjama clad legs.  Interesting.

I don't think I or Jane Tanner said that. She said she only saw the legs. Why then was she discussing the child's top which she didn't see?

[jassi]

Where in Jane's statement does it say "might"?  You posted it was "important".

It wasn't in Jane's statement. Read back and see where it came from.  Post 24

[Mr Gray]

It wasn't in Jane's statement. Read back and see where it came from.  Post 24

It's Sylvia Batistas hearsay account of what she thinks Jane said... With 3 or 4 translations thrown in.. But some think it's, accurate

[alphonse]

How could Jane see the abductor at  21.15  when Matt said he was sure the curtains were closed at  21.30 and Kate found them open etc around 22.00. Did the abductor come back to open them??

[jassi]

How could Jane see the abductor at  21.15  when Matt said he was sure the curtains were closed at  21.30 and Kate found them open etc around 22.00. Did the abductor come back to open them??

Translation error , no doubt   

[The General]

How could Jane see the abductor at  21.15  when Matt said he was sure the curtains were closed at  21.30 and Kate found them open etc around 22.00. Did the abductor come back to open them??

Schrodinger's Curtains.

[sadie]

You think it was an abductor,I'm almost certain it wasn't,seems as if OG agree with me.

ORLY ?   Why ?

[sadie]

How could Jane see the abductor at  21.15  when Matt said he was sure the curtains were closed at  21.30 and Kate found them open etc around 22.00. Did the abductor come back to open them??

They were really flimsy cheap curtains from the way they blew.

The curtains were closed, but it was a blustery evening and the shutters were open; a sudden gust took them.

Not dificult really alphonse, is it ?

[pathfinder73]

The witness disagrees.

00.29.11 4078 'So you weren't, just to clarify what you have said, you weren't conscious of any draught''
Reply 'Yeah'.

4078 'The curtains were drawn and weren't blowing around''
Reply 'Yeah'.

I was there to check, erm, no, no funny sort of smells, no sort of funny draughts, no sort of funny sort of noises, no, erm, nothing that I can think of for that. I mean, it was a complete just a shock out of the blue when, you know, I'd been in and then suddenly somebody's saying Madeleine's missing, there was nothing that made me think, oh'.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm