Gerry and Jez chat while Jane walks by. Seconds later she spots Tannerman!

[faithlilly]

And JT's motive for lying would be...?  It wasn't her kid who went missing.  Suspicion naturally falls on the parents.  An accusation of deceit from a witness against the father, and his statement directly contradicted by another witness would put him in a very bad light indeed.  If you can't see this then I can't help you any further.

I've no idea what Tanner's motive might have been but that does not rule out that she may have had one. Further if Tanner had already been caught out in a lie how willing would the police be to believe her claim that Gerry put her up to it ? Surely they would think she was simply trying to shift the blame ? And as to the 'road' contradiction, the police may have thought it was simply a minor discrepancy that sometimes happens in police statements.

[Alfred R Jones]

1. It is not 'normal' to carry a child for any distance in the way Tanner's sighting was allegedly carrying the child.

2. On as cold a night as we are lead to believe it was ( Tanner had a large fleece on we are told ) no it would not be normal behaviour for not one but two unconnected fathers not to put warm apparel on their child's feet be that socks, slippers or shoes.

3. Tanner did not see a covering so I would assume if SY are tying the two together Crecheman's child wouldn't be covered either.

Your final assertion does not take into account my points made above.

Re: point 1 - can you please tell me why it is not normal?  Is there a prescribed way of carrying a sleeping child recently scooped out of bed?  Do we know that Tannerman carried the child the entire way in that manner?  If Tannerman is indeed Smithman then evidence would tend to suggest he moved the child into a more accommodating position for himself to carry.
Point 2 - that's a matter of opinion.  I would venture that a father would rather not wake a sleeping child to put shoes and socks on its feet, especially not as the child is not walking anywhere.  If you can provide some empirical evidence that all fathers would cover their sleeping children's feet when moving them from one locale to the other then I will concede that point.
Point 3 - Jane does not categorically state no covering does she?  And even if she did, would this be a deal-breaker in terms of tying in the two sightings?  If most other points concur then blanket or no blanket could be explained by the fact that it was dark and she only really got a clear view of the child's feet, which in theory called have fallen out of a blanket.

[Brietta]

He is not Madeleine's abductor. He was carrying a younger child and had longer hair. Two people disappeared that night. Madeleine and Smithman. That child matched Madeleine.

"I would have thought if I’d have seen him I would have definitely probably stopped and said ‘Oh you’re in trouble, you’ve been long, we think you’ve been watching the footy’ (JT)

Jane didn't even hear Gerry. That sounds like Smithman the Mute 

I don't know if there is a tablet you can take for your 'smithman' obsession ... however it probably doesn't matter ... the Pj and SY haven't caught the affliction and Martin Smith seems to have recovered almost as completely as Mr McCluskey did nearly eight years ago.

Just to remind you ... the PJ and SY are looking for an abductor and neither policing authority have the slightest bit of interest in Madeleine's parents ... except to keep them informed of progress and developments in Madeleine's case.

[Alfred R Jones]

I've no idea what Tanner's motive might have been but that does not rule out that she may have had one. Further if Tanner had already been caught out in a lie how willing would the police be to believe her claim that Gerry put her up to it ? Surely they would think she was simply trying to shift the blame ? And as to the 'road' contradiction, the police may have thought it was simply a minor discrepancy that sometimes happens in police statements.

I would have thought the police would have been only too willing to get a confession from JT that GM made her lie.  He was after all their chief suspect and had she confessed to lying at his behest then he'd almost certainly have been charged with perverting the course of justice at the very least, especially with back up from an independent witness who could supply further evidence that a) JT never walked by and b) that Gerry was not where he said he was. 

[faithlilly]

Re: point 1 - can you please tell me why it is not normal?  Is there a prescribed way of carrying a sleeping child recently scooped out of bed?  Do we know that Tannerman carried the child the entire way in that manner?  If Tannerman is indeed Smithman then evidence would tend to suggest he moved the child into a more accommodating position for himself to carry.
Point 2 - that's a matter of opinion.  I would venture that a father would rather not wake a sleeping child to put shoes and socks on its feet, especially not as the child is not walking anywhere.  If you can provide some empirical evidence that all fathers would cover their sleeping children's feet when moving them from one locale to the other then I will concede that point.
Point 3 - Jane does not categorically state no covering does she?  And even if she did, would this be a deal-breaker in terms of tying in the two sightings?  If most other points concur then blanket or no blanket could be explained by the fact that it was dark and she only really got a clear view of the child's feet, which in theory called have fallen out of a blanket.

1. Surely SY have ruled Smithman out as Tannerman.

2. I would suggest the child would have at least socks on their feet already when taken to the crèche, especially if the night was cold.

3. Again I thought SY had ruled out there being a connection between Smithman and Crecheman and  I thought you were trying to distance Tannerman from Crecheman and tie Tanneman to Smithman ( via HG's theory ) ?

[slartibartfast]

I think your post does indeed prove that "The mind is a very malleable thing".

It really is far easier to go with statements made at the time than fictionalised ones.

You mean independent accounts would have been better than the timeline.

If Jane had been seen by the two men and had briefly acknowledged a greeting ... she might not have seen the man at the junction ... therefore we would not have had a "Tannerman" and we would not have been having this discussion.

Tannerman's existence has been hotly disputed and Jane Tanner called a liar because she saw him in the location at the time which would have made him Madeleine's abductor ... and we couldn't have that since it blew a particular theory apart.

[Alice Purjorick]

Re: point 1 - can you please tell me why it is not normal?  Is there a prescribed way of carrying a sleeping child recently scooped out of bed?  Do we know that Tannerman carried the child the entire way in that manner?  If Tannerman is indeed Smithman then evidence would tend to suggest he moved the child into a more accommodating position for himself to carry.
Point 2 - that's a matter of opinion.  I would venture that a father would rather not wake a sleeping child to put shoes and socks on its feet, especially not as the child is not walking anywhere.  If you can provide some empirical evidence that all fathers would cover their sleeping children's feet when moving them from one locale to the other then I will concede that point.
Point 3 - Jane does not categorically state no covering does she?  And even if she did, would this be a deal-breaker in terms of tying in the two sightings?  If most other points concur then blanket or no blanket could be explained by the fact that it was dark and she only really got a clear view of the child's feet, which in theory called have fallen out of a blanket.

You are quite right there isn't. It will probably be self selecting based on several physical factors. All you need do is work back from how he was allegedly holding the child. Then do the usual.

[Alfred R Jones]

1. Surely SY have ruled Smithman out as Tannerman.

2. I would suggest the child would have at least socks on their feet already when taken to the crèche, especially if the night was cold.

3. Again I thought SY had ruled out there being a connection between Smithman and Crecheman and  I thought you were trying to distance Tannerman from Crecheman and tie Tanneman to Smithman ( via HG's theory ) ?

We were having a discussion prompted by Slarti's comment that memory is malleable.  Heri has made this point before regarding JT's sighting.  What if she misremembered seeing Tannerman on passing GM and JW, when in reality it was on her next visit to her apartment?  It's an interesting theory.  It's a question she should have been asked (and maybe she has been since): are you certain you saw Tannerman at 9.15pm check and not later that evening.  If she is certain then that's an end to it, if she can't be certain then it opens up that possibility.  I'm not trying to distance anything, you have misunderstood my point 3 - I was explaining things from the POV of the police trying to tie JT's sighting with Crecheman.  I am not a firm advocate of Heri's theory, but on a thread to discuss this incident I don't see why it shouldn't be considered.

[Alfred R Jones]

Here's a thought: maybe JT (subconsciously?) needed to believe that she saw Tannerman moments after seeing Gerry to give her the excuse that "it couldn't have been Madeleine" as she had just seen Gerry and assumed he'd just been to check on her.  If the sighting actually happened at 9.40pm and less than thirty minutes later Madeleine is reported missing then it looks worse for her - in not challenging the abductor and in not speaking up straight away to say she saw a man carrying a child only a few minutes previously.  Self-preservation, conscious or not, and she has by now firmly convinced herself that the sighting occurred at 9.15pm....? 

[Brietta]

You are quite right there isn't. It will probably be self selecting based on several physical factors. All you need do is work back from how he was allegedly holding the child. Then do the usual.

Lots of interest doing the rounds about how people hold children.

Me?? ... I never gave it a thought ... just whatever was more comfortable and appropriate in the circumstances and the age and size of the child.


Students awarded at young scientist event

FIONA MAGENNIS   (Drogheda Independent)
PUBLISHED
14/01/2009 | 15:59

Greenhills students Aoife Smith, Ruth McGuinness and Lisa Barry took second place in the Junior Group Social and Behavioural Sciences Section for their project, 'Is There a Science Behind Baby-holding?' while second place in the Senior Group Biological and Ecological Sciences went to Áine Smyth and Laura Sheils for their project 'Factors Determining Running Speed of Young People'.

[Lyall]

Here's a thought: maybe JT (subconsciously?) needed to believe that she saw Tannerman moments after seeing Gerry to give her the excuse that "it couldn't have been Madeleine" as she had just seen Gerry and assumed he'd just been to check on her.  If the sighting actually happened at 9.40pm and less than thirty minutes later Madeleine is reported missing then it looks worse for her - in not challenging the abductor and in not speaking up straight away to say she saw a man carrying a child only a few minutes previously.  Self-preservation, conscious or not, and she has by now firmly convinced herself that the sighting occurred at 9.15pm....?

Phew.

Poor woman. But nothing would surprise me if yet another change in the narrative occurred.

[Alice Purjorick]

Lots of interest doing the rounds about how people hold children.

Me?? ... I never gave it a thought ... just whatever was more comfortable and appropriate in the circumstances and the age and size of the child.


Students awarded at young scientist event

FIONA MAGENNIS   (Drogheda Independent)
PUBLISHED
14/01/2009 | 15:59

Greenhills students Aoife Smith, Ruth McGuinness and Lisa Barry took second place in the Junior Group Social and Behavioural Sciences Section for their project, 'Is There a Science Behind Baby-holding?' while second place in the Senior Group Biological and Ecological Sciences went to Áine Smyth and Laura Sheils for their project 'Factors Determining Running Speed of Young People'.

Nail bang on the head. Now extend that to the case under consideration.

[Alfred R Jones]

Nail bang on the head. Now extend that to the case under consideration.

You've just picked a small sleeping child out of her bed and don't wish to wake her - what position are you holding her in?

[Alice Purjorick]

You've just picked a small sleeping child out of her bed and don't wish to wake her - what position are you holding her in?

How do I know? you are light on significant detail there; where is the bed in relation to relevant features, how high is the bed, in what attitude is the child in bed, is the child on top of the covers or under them , how far will I be carrying the child, how heavy is the child, what do I have to negotiate after picking the child up in order to get out, can I fully open the door to the room, do I need a free hand at any point to open other doors or lock them.
Your call.

[jassi]

How do I know? you are light on significant detail there; where is the bed in relation to relevant features, how high is the bed, in what attitude is the child in bed, is the child on top of the covers or under them , how far will I be carrying the child, how heavy is the child, what do I have to negotiate after picking the child up in order to get out, can I fully open the door to the room, do I need a free hand at any point to open other doors or lock them.
Your call.

Someone picking up Madeleine from her bed would hold her with her head to the right & feet to the left.
Tanner described  it as being the other way round - ie head to the left, therefore it couldn't have been a simple case of picking her up and walking out. She would have to be turned round after being lifted from the bed.