Jane Tanner's interview with The Sun on 20 November 2007

[Carana]

" 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.

[Miss Taken Identity]

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!

[Brietta]

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!

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?

[mercury]

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!

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...

[Gadfly1.3]

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. 

[faithlilly]

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.

[ferryman]

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 ....

[faithlilly]

Not if the witness who acknowledged being the person Jane Tanner saw turned up in court to testify ....

And only if a jury were silly enough to believe that individual had kept all his and his child's clothes from six years previously.

[mercury]

Alot of people keep kids clothes for years, many dont remember though what they or themselves were wearing on a specific day...

then agan we read in one of the papers that this man filled in a questionnaire early on for leicester police...something which, once agan, seems to have been hidden or "lost"  somewhere for years

[Brietta]

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.

 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?

[Brietta]

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...

Do you think she shouldn't have bothered then?

[Gadfly1.3]

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.

[Brietta]

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'?

[misty]

Thanks for the answer.

Who is 'George'?

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

[Brietta]

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.

You say in your post ... "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?"

Not quite at the gate of 5A ... more towards the opening to the lane at the back of 5A ... assuming that Jez Wilkin's statement is correct.
The man she saw when she had passed the two men may have been identified and ruled out in 2013 ... but he is still very much the man she saw in 2007.

You have absolutely no idea what Jane Tanner said in her initial statement to the police ... so where are you getting the information from that she talked about what others allegedly saw or did?
Since that is your point of criticism ... may we have a cite, please.