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

[faithlilly]

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.

Did we really need a Sun article to to that ? Surely Tanner's statements provide all the relevant information. That, unlike her statements, she is not duty bound to tell the truth makes this little more than propaganda.

[faithlilly]

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.

[C.Edwards]

So Jane Tanner says, "It was on one of her visits to see her two daughters that Jane passed Maddie’s dad Gerry, 39.  He was returning from seeing his children." or, at least, the sun reporter does and by the pros' definition if it's not challenged it's valid.

If, as per her statement, Gerry is standing talking to Jez Wilkins when she passes him (and she fails to mention this in the sun report, or at least the reporter fails to mention it) then how can she know he was returning from seeing his children?  She has no idea if he has been talking for 30 seconds or 10 minutes.  It's pure speculation on her/the Sun's behalf.

Furthermore she says she was "10-15 ft" from the alleged abductor.  Not one of you, not even the great debunker, has picked up on this?

From Gerry McCann's statement:
Gerry McCann - witness statement 04 May 2007, 11.15am

'It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, JANE, at about 21h10/21h15, when she was going to her apartment, to check on her children, saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, JANE will be able to clarify this situation.'

50 metres?  That's complete rubbish too.  Look at Jane Tanner's map she drew: http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/tannersketch.jpg&target=tlx_piceyb6  From where she marks herself when she first saw the man, that's about 30-35 feet. Nothing like 10-15.

And "About 15 minutes later her partner Dr Russell O’Brien checked and found one of the girls had been sick so he asked a friend to fetch Jane.  It was while Jane was there that Maddie’s mum Kate, 39, went to see her children at around 10.05pm – and found the girl missing."  Oh REALLY?  amazing how this all differs from the statements but, hey, it's the Sun and if debunker says it's valid then it must be so. Nothing to do with it supporting debunker's position as "neutral", of course...

[debunker]

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!

[debunker]

@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?

[debunker]

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.

[C.Edwards]

@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?

Oh yeah?

"Using the Sun or other media is trustworthy depending on what is being said and how it is sourced. If someone gives a voluntary interview and doesnot later complain, then that may be seen as a fair view of what that person believed at that point."

it's "trustworthy".  Not "broadly correct".

You have failed (as usual) to actually address the points I made in my post.  Hitching up your skirt in faux outrage isn't debate, is it?  You're a hypocrite.

[faithlilly]

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!

Not guesswork. I have been to PDL several times, have viewed the location at equivalent times and know for certain Tanner could not have passed by McCann and Wilkins, in the position Wilkins and Tanner herself describe, without being seen and in flip flops as she describes, without being heard.

Of course her description of the child's pjs under the sodium lights is whole other debate all of its own.

[xtina]

 just think about what we are being asked to believe. Madeleine has been snatched, don't forget Kate knew this instantly maddie has been snatched,

Tanner has witnessed a man carrying a child in the vicinity of the apartment just prior to maddie being discovered gone, and tries to tell us,the sun and the PJ of course, that she waited five hours before she informed the parents for fear of upsetting them.

Why do I have trouble believing this?

[faithlilly]

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 ?

[debunker]

@faithylilly

I,meant your erroneous claim:

"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."

That is just guesswork from bias on your part. You could only know that if you could read minds.

[C.Edwards]

From DC 1756 Mike Marshall's report re Jez Wilkins:

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.

So he crossed the road to the side with the gate. He stood facing the gate.  He didn't see Tanner.  Yet you pros find this to be perfectly reasonable and not at all suspicious.  So Jez Wilkins is lying?  Or just mistaken?  Easy mistake to make, not seeing a grown woman in flip flops, particularly when his statements refer to details of other people he saw that night.  Hey, maybe he was so into Gerry that he was lost in his eyes and didn't see Tanner flip-slop noisily by only inches away!  That must be it.

Tanner and Wilkins both say they were on the gate side of the road. Gerry McCann is adamant (and has produced his documentary to prove it) that they were on the other side of the road.  Minor discrepancy, of course, but also bears the hallmarks of an invented story.

You are all very, very quick to dismiss things like this as irrelevant when it puts the McCann story in a bad light.  Trouble is, there are so many little discrepancies and anomalies like this that you just end up having to excuse these things over and over again...  it looks desperate.

[Eleanor]

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.

[debunker]

There are discrepancies of interpretation of statements by both sides.

[C.Edwards]

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.