How likely is it that Jane Tanner and the Smiths saw the 'same' man ?

[AnneGuedes]

Why does the police sketch show pants right down to the ankles, never mind the colour or design?

They were shorts, even long shorts would ride up I agree, Ive always said Jane Tanners description was a bit too detailed for the time she actually observed which was a few seconds  and in the dusk and at the distance  to come out with such sharp details as she did about the man and the childs clothing,
Height, build, description of hair, skin, clothing colour and fabric and style, whether his trousers were creased or not,type of shoes, height of heels, childs pyjama colour, pattern, frills on bottom etc, is this possible? i dont know

What made me laugh is the pants colour that was brownish, yellowish, etc. to finish "ugly"!

[AnneGuedes]

Well I suppose there are many people who live in PDL who are not tourists but do carry their own children for a variety of reasons, if both seeing bare feet of a child  is your evidence they were one and the same, sorry, thats weak
On balance, there are more dissimilarities than similarities

Only T (Peter Smith's wife's son) noticed bare feet.

[Angelo222]

Jane wasn't at all happy with the basic facilities provided by the police.  She criticised them for not having side view software so she should noy have been able to give any real description of what the man looked like.  Even when the PJ did a photofit picture she said that the guys hair was too long.  It makes me think that there was a communication or language problem.  If they couldn't even get the basics right...?

The reason why the guy the Smiths encountered never came forward is a strange one but you have to remember that many people are media shy for all sorts of reasons.  Maybe he was on the run or hiding from someone or something.  One just never knows.

[Redblossom]

What made me laugh is the pants colour that was brownish, yellowish, etc. to finish "ugly"!

You mean the carrier? yes, from gold, to mustard, to light,dirty, ugly, khaki in the mccann documentary, bit like the ugly disgusting man with spots, seen just sitting and staring at the mccanns apartment for a few days beforehand to a sketch penned by I dont know who which showed that ugly scarface man with the teddyboy haircut which looked nothing like the efit the actual witness had created, to mrs cooper seeing a man two weeks before 2 miles away or so, and that gave her the creeps, he smelt of onions,and asked for donations,  and that turned into a major mccann investigation with Tanner saying yes thats him 80%, though she never saw his face and clarence mitchell doing a mass press conference, turns out Mrs cooper kept changing her story

Sorry, but......




And lets not forget fifth from the left second row, margaret hall saw a suspicious man i


in oct 06 loitering around 5a


http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/SUSPECTS.htm

Lets also not forget the daily mail puttng side by side the jane tanner sketch with murats girlfriend at the time and them also putting side by side a thirty year old photo of raymond hewlett alongside another *police sketch* from gail coopers testimony

Both examples showing uncanny resemblances, wierd or what! NOT coincidences either in my opinion at all, manipulations and shenanigans in this case by uk bods certainly compromised the pt investigation IMO, they are complicit in making the nvestigation fail

[icabodcrane]

Jane wasn't at all happy with the basic facilities provided by the police.  She criticised them for not having side view software so she should noy have been able to give any real description of what the man looked like.  Even when the PJ did a photofit picture she said that the guys hair was too long.  It makes me think that there was a communication or language problem.  If they couldn't even get the basics right...?

The reason why the guy the Smiths encountered never came forward is a strange one but you have to remember that many people are media shy for all sorts of reasons.  Maybe he was on the run or hiding from someone or something.  One just never knows.

That's a good point

If the man had some sort of  'history'  with the police then that would certainly give him second thoughts about coming forward

[AnneGuedes]

he smelt of onions,and asked for donations,  and that turned into a major mccann investigation with Tanner saying yes thats him 80%, though she never saw his face

Sorry, but......

What also made me laugh what the teethy one whom Mrs McCann found could be the faceless guy of Jane T's sketch !

[AnneGuedes]

That's a good point

If the man had some sort of  'history'  with the police then that would certainly give him second thoughts about coming forward

Both men ? Or only one of them (the Smith one) ?

[AnneGuedes]

Btw, the temperature was about 12°C.
Jane T was shocked the child wasn't wrapped in a blanket. This is what attracted his attention.
Mrs McCann was worried thinking Madeleine was half dressed.
These two mothers who were in PDL that night should be listened to, imo.

[icabodcrane]

Both men ? Or only one of them (the Smith one) ?

The McCanns say there was  only one man

I have never understood why they did that  ...  I mean there they were, faced with four  very credible witnessess who saw a man carrying a child who fitted Madeleine's description exactly,  and instead of thinking that might point to the possibility that the abduction occured some time later  ( just before 10pm )   they insisted on tying the Smiths sighting with that of Jane's

They appear to have never considered the Smith family sighting on it's own merit, and in isolation,  but,  rather,  have presented it as only being significant in as much as it  ( somehow )  corroborates Jane's 9.15pm abductor sighting

[AnneGuedes]

The McCanns say there was  only one man

I have never understood why they did that  ...  I mean there they were, faced with four  very credible witnessess who saw a man carrying a child who fitted Madeleine's description exactly,  and instead of thinking that might point to the possibility that the abduction occured some time later  ( just before 10pm )   they insisted on tying the Smiths sighting with that of Jane's

They appear to have never considered the Smith family sighting on it's own merit, and in isolation,  but,  rather,  have presented it as only being significant in as much as it  ( somehow )  corroborates Jane's 9.15pm abductor sighting

That's right, but they had a reason for this. Remember they were arguidos when Mr Smith thought the man he saw could be Mr McCann. Embarrassing situation. They hardly would mention the Smith carrier then. Later it appeared suspect they didn't, people finding it strange  the discrimination between potential abductors. They decided to merge the carriers in "their" reconstruction. They did it badly and people found it strange. Why didn't they follow the statements of the Smith witnesses ?

[Redblossom]

The McCanns say there was  only one man

I have never understood why they did that  ...  I mean there they were, faced with four  very credible witnessess who saw a man carrying a child who fitted Madeleine's description exactly,  and instead of thinking that might point to the possibility that the abduction occured some time later  ( just before 10pm )   they insisted on tying the Smiths sighting with that of Jane's

They appear to have never considered the Smith family sighting on it's own merit, and in isolation,  but,  rather,  have presented it as only being significant in as much as it  ( somehow )  corroborates Jane's 9.15pm abductor sighting

EXACTLY and 100% true, the smiths got a blase cursory mention once or twice, over the years, when their sighting was the MOST credible in many ways, the child desdriptionmatched,the time and day matched, the location was close, the curtains window and shutters open were not seen by matt at 9.30 and no slamming of doors from the heavy wind that night, and the mccanns knew about it from june 07, but they held press conferences about stupid (non) sightngs like cooperwoman and victoria beckham where there was NO link whatsoever to any abduction or sighting of a young child being carried and occured from two  to hundreds of miles away and the people decided to talk months or two years later, barmy at best

[Benice]

Well I suppose there are many people who live in PDL who are not tourists but do carry their own children for a variety of reasons, if both seeing bare feet of a child  is your evidence they were one and the same, sorry, thats weak
On balance, there are more dissimilarities than similarities , all posted by  me on this thread above, including the long sleeved Smith girl
 >@@(*&)

Unless that WAS Madeleine and the Mccanns lied about what she was wearing that COLD night once Gerry, if he was the carrier, knew he had been spotted by them? Possible? Or too conspiratorial?

I have to disagree that there are more dissimilarities than similarities Redblossom.

When you think of all the different shapes and sizes men can be, i.e.fat, thin, tall, short, bald, ginger, blonde, wearing a hat or not wearing a hat, wearing shorts or long trousers, old age pensioner or young man, etc etc  then I think when you read both descriptions of age, build, clothing etc - even down to the same colour trousers, it's quite difficult imo NOT to think they were one and same man.   

And both happened to be carring a little girl, of the same age,  not a baby, or a boy, who also could have been wearing anything from a vast variety of children's clothing and footwear - but both were described as wearing pajamas and had bare feet - and no blanket or cover even though it was a chilly night.  And both seen in the same proximity to where a child had been abducted, within the same hour.

If it was an innocent father with his daughter then he must have been coming from somewhere and going somewhere, so why no mother or wife ringing up saying 'That was my son picking my grandaughter up from my house' or a wife saying something along the same lines.

Having said that I do not completely dismiss the fact that people may have been frightened to come forward if the reputation of the PJ's 'robust' interviewing techniques were widely known about.  But if more than one member of this man's family were there to confirm that it was him then would they withhold that information?  I'm not sure.

[faithlilly]

So do most people believe Tanner actually saw someone ?

[icabodcrane]

So do most people believe Tanner actually saw someone ?

There is some uncertainty about Jane's sighting  ...   Gerry thinks she wasn't even able to accurately recall which side of the street he and Jez were standing on, for instance,  which in itself casts doubt on her powers of  her recollection generally

It would have made sense if the McCanns had considered whether or not Jane  may  have been mistaken,  and promoted,  at least as being equally possible,  the theory that the abduction might have occured later in the night   (  just before 10pm )  as the Smith familiy sighting would have, logically, suggested

[Redblossom]

There is some uncertainty about Jane's sighting  ...   Gerry thinks she wasn't even able to accurately recall which side of the street he and Jez were standing on, for instance,  which in itself casts doubt on her powers of  her recollection generally

It would have made sense if the McCanns had considered whether or not Jane  may  have been mistaken,  and promoted,  at least as being equally possible,  the theory that the abduction might have occured later in the night   (  just before 10pm )  as the Smith familiy sighting would have, logically, suggested

Which begs the question WHY promote the Tanner sighting instead to such a certain degree