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

[jassi]

I know one of the children was unwell, but I thought that this discovered by Russell at 9.30 ish, who then stayed & sent a message back to Jane via Matt and she relived him later.
But why did Russell need to go at 9.30 when Jane must have only  returned a few minutes earlier?

[Anna]

I know one of the children was unwell, but I thought that this discovered by Russell at 9.30 ish, who then stayed & sent a message back to Jane via Matt and she relived him later.
But why did Russell need to go at 9.30 when Jane must have only  returned a few minutes earlier?

To see if the child was still OK, I suppose.

[Lyall]

The longer route sounds unlikely.
 Correct me if I've got this wrong, but if Jane went to her apartment at about 9.15, when did she return? Why did Russell feel the need to go at about 9.30 with Matt if she'd been only a few minutes earlier?

 %£&)**#

That's what the police wondered.

In the McCann book in the first description of the night Russell's 9.30 visit isn't mentioned at all (because everyone knows in black and white those timings don't match the checking every 30 minutes narrative).

[jassi]

To see if the child was still OK, I suppose.

That would suggest that Jane had left a sick child. She doesn't make any mention of discovering that her child is sick, it is Russell that talks about his child being sick and using washing machine etc.

[Anna]

That would suggest that Jane had left a sick child. She doesn't make any mention of discovering that her child is sick, it is Russell that talks about his child being sick and using washing machine etc.

I don't think any mother would leave a sick child. One of the children was not too well, earlier in the day and she was probably keeping a close eye on the child, for this reason. I do believe that they were all on the beach later.


Excerpt:-
Yesterday, the witness did not go for breakfast because she had a tennis lesson scheduled for 9 am. It was her partner who took the children for breakfast, having subsequently taken **** O’Brien to the Kids Club. Due to **** O’Brien being unwell she did not go to the Kids Club that day and went with her father to look for the witness. They arrived at about 9.30 having waited for about 30 minutes at the tennis courts (8) for the tennis lesson to finish

excerpt:-
After the lesson, the witness went with her partner and daughter **** to the beach (7) where they remained until about 12.20. Then they had been to fetch **** from the Kids Club.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post412.html#p412

[pathfinder73]

What reason do you think(In this supposed conspiracy) did Gerry have for saying that, he didn't see JT?

I haven't said there's a conspiracy. It's elementary. If Jez didn't see her pass then Gerry couldn't have either as I've said countless times it's impossible for her to pass them on a quiet deserted street as any reconstruction would prove.

[Anna]

I haven't said there's a conspiracy. It's elementary. If Jez didn't see her pass then Gerry couldn't have either as I've said countless times it's impossible for her to pass them on a quiet deserted street as any reconstruction would prove.

If you do not believe that it is a conspiracy, then why do you not believe the statements?

[faithlilly]

Dates:-

Date: 2007-05-04
Time: 11.30
Place: This Police Department
Responsible Officer: Inspector João Carvalho

Name: Jane Michelle Tanner
Exerpt:-

(**) Concerning the child, who seemed to be asleep, she only saw the legs. The child seemed to be older than a baby. The child was barefoot, dressed in cotton light-coloured pyjamas (possibly pink or white) She is not sure, but has the feeling that she saw a design on the pyjamas like flowers, but is not certain about it.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post412.html#p412

Appeal 25/5 by PJ
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html
(probably also on news)


26/5/ smith statement
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post535.html#p535


May 27, 2007
A friend of Madeleine's parents saw girl being carried away Timesonline
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html

So the appeal by the PJ on the 25th May didn't describe the child's clothing or bare feet and the Smiths gave their statements the next day. So if the sightings are unconnected as SY claim how do we  explain the bare feet anomaly ?

[faithlilly]

At some point she translated the statement of one of the ladies who belonged to the group and that she describes as a brunette one. This lady said to the GNR elements, and she (the witness) translated, that she had seen a man on the road who might have carried a child.
This situation surprised her because she (the witness) was convinced that when the lady saw the man, the lady was in a place from where she had no angle of vision for the place where she saw the man. She doesn't know exactly what was the position of the lady when she saw the man, but she knows that the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.
Asked about the way the members of the group were dressed up in that night, she only remembers that Fiona was wearing a green blouse, that Gerry was wearing a dark shirt and the husband of Fiona wearing clear pants, beige she thinks.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm

According to that statement it would probably mean she saw him from inside the car park passing the car park entrance.

walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.

So Gerry was wearing a dark shirt much like Smithman.

[pathfinder73]

If you do not believe that it is a conspiracy, then why do you not believe the statements?

Jane's statement can't be correct as the other two didn't see her pass. Baptista said she was confused when Jane first told the PJ about where she was situated when she saw the man. Jez was adamant that he never saw her but he said he saw Jane wearing purple in front of the apartments when he first ventured out.

[Anna]

Jane's statement can't be correct as the other two didn't see her pass. Baptista said she was confused when Jane first told the PJ about where she was situated when she saw the man. Jez was adamant that he never saw her but he said he saw Jane wearing purple in front of the apartments when he first ventured out.

So if you believe that JT statement is incorrect, then you believe that she lied, for some unexplainable reason.
 What could this reason be, that was important enough to take such a risk?

[jassi]

So if you believe that JT statement is incorrect, then you believe that she lied, for some unexplainable reason.
 What could this reason be, that was important enough to take such a risk?

What risk has she taken? Has any action been taken against her as a consequence if what she said?

[Brietta]

Jane's statement can't be correct as the other two didn't see her pass. Baptista said she was confused when Jane first told the PJ about where she was situated when she saw the man. Jez was adamant that he never saw her but he said he saw Jane wearing purple in front of the apartments when he first ventured out.

Baptista ... the woman with, is it three separate statements? ... is indeed responsible for many of the ... misunderstandings ... which encouraged PJ suspicion. 

One would have thought that with her command of the English language she might have picked up an understanding of the difference in Portuguese and English customs.

A priest may only be called in the event of a death in Portugal ... that is not necessarily the case in Britain.

[Anna]

What risk has she taken? Has any action been taken against her as a consequence if what she said?

There was no need for any action to be taken, against JT, because she told the truth and tannerman was found to be crecheman.

If she had been found to be lying, it would have been a very different case, with severe consequences indeed. So Mega-risk

[jassi]

There was no need for any action to be taken, against JT, because she told the truth and tannerman was found to be crecheman.

If she had been found to be lying, it would have been a very different case, with severe consequences indeed. So Mega-risk

Who could prove she was lying, even if she was?  Its all just been passed off as inconsistencies  in testimony.

No one can prove whether she made the journey she describes, or not as no one saw her.