Thank you to watcher of the Amazon forum for the post below which makes an excellent point.
In her statement of 4th May 2007, Jane Tanner, when asked to describe the child she saw, said the following:
`'(**) 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.''
When questioned again on 10th May 2007, she was again asked about the child she saw. She said :
`'About the description of the child, she confirmed that it was being carried in his arms, with the legs in her direction and barefoot. She thought that it was a female child because the pyjamas were a light colour (seemingly pink to her). She never saw the hair of the child. She never saw it move nor make any sound, thinking that it was asleep.''
On the 8th April 2008, Jane Tanner was interviewed by an officer from Leicestershire Police on behalf of the Portuguese authorities. She was again asked about what she saw. This is what she said:
`'....................4078 "And then think about the child again, as much as you can see of that child in that
split second, and tell me what you saw?"
Reply "Well, again, I mean, and this is, I think initially I couldn't really bring, I could only
really remember the feet. But the day after, when we had, they, at the interview, the
person that was interviewing was really pushing me to try and, you know, remember
any more details, and the one thing that I could really think was, erm, a turn-up of
some description. And I don't know whether this made it into my statement, but
there was, and this is the thing that convinces me it was her, there was, erm, sort of
the pyjamas were, there was some sort of, I thought it was a turn-up, but some sort of
design on the bottom of the pyjamas. And I did say it in my first statement and in my
second statement I can remember saying it again and, erm, the translator in there,
because I said `I don't know whether this made it into my first statement or not', but
the translator sort of went `Oh yes, I can remember you going like this', because I
was moving my hands up, but I was sort of talking about something at the bottom of
the pyjamas. Because, from my own point of view, and I think, you know, `Oh was I
trying to', I can think that I would think `Oh maybe a little girl would be wearing
pink pyjamas', so, you know, if you were subconsciously putting things in your head,
I can think pink pyjamas, yes, but I wouldn't think of some detail around the bottom
of the pyjamas as a specific thing to, to mention".
00.36.39 4078 "And when you noticed the detail was it in any colour?"
Reply "I don't, I didn't know, I thought there was sort of a pink flowery bit on, bit on it, but,
no, I mean, the actual frill itself or turn-up, as I thought it was, I couldn't think of the
colour, but I thought there was pink sort of flowery and sort of like liney bits on the
bottom, so".
4078 "And, overall, what colour would you say the pyjama bottoms were?"
Reply "Erm, I can't, I can't remember, I mean, I, I can't remember, well I can't remember
now, but I think they were sort of whitey but with this, with this pattern on, but then
some pink. That's, that's what I thought at the time. It's harder because now I know
what the pyjamas were so I can't"..........................''
So - at no point did Jane Tanner actually state that she identified the child at the time as a girl, and certainly not as Madeleine, although she later came to believe that she saw Madeleine. She is, though, in formal police interviews, fairly consistent about what she saw, which is in essence, fleeting, limited and confined to the legs only.
How, in that case, were the McCanns in a position to hand a document to the police on 10th May 2007 in which they claimed the following:
`' Description of Child:
- The child appeared to be a Caucasian girl about the ages of 3-4.
- She was seen to lie motionless/limp in the man's arms consistent with her sleeping or possibly drugged.
- She did not seem to be wrapped up well for the time of night wearing only pyjamas; the trousers were lightly coloured with a floral element, possibly with turn-ups. The top was not well seen though there was thought to be
another colour involved possibly pink.
- She was not wearing shoes. `'
*Jane Tanner did not claim in any of her interviews that she saw a girl.
*She never mentioned the race of the child, although clearly bare legs would indicate the colour of her skin.
*She certainly never speculated on the age of the child.
*She never described the top the child was wearing, and indeed stated quite clearly, in each interview, that she had only observed the legs.
*She did not mention any suspicion that the child had been drugged.
I feel this document was very revealing. It illustrates that Jane Tanner was misrepresented by the McCanns or the people surrounding them. Jane did not offer this level of detail, and was actually consistent in her interviews with the police. It seems that it was very important to the McCanns that the authorities believe the child Jane Tanner saw WAS Madeleine, regardless of the fact that Tanner could not and did not identify the child as such. Tanner also mentions that it was a common sight to see parents wandering home carrying a child, and expresses the wish that, secondary only to Madeleine being found, her most fervent hope was that someone would come forward and say `'That was me, carrying my child home''
Now personally I would want to be absolutely certain before sending people off on a wild goose chase, that what had been observed was the missing child being carried away. It does therefore call into question why someone in the McCann camp felt it appropriate to exaggerate the extent of what Jane Tanner saw, adding detail which appears specifically designed to cement the idea that the child observed was Madeleine
Also, an unprompted mention of the possibility of the child being drugged, apropos of absolutely nothing, is, to say the least, curious.
According to Kate McCann's version of events, she believed on the evening in question that the twins had been drugged. This is confirmed by the accounts of others who observed the children to be essentially unrousable and who witnessed Kate McCann apparently checking to see that they were still breathing, something which she also confirms.
Yet at this point there is no communication of these suspicions to the police, despite a week having passed. What we have is an insertion of the idea that the child being carried had been drugged - despite the fact that this was never, and has never, been claimed by the sole witness to this episode. It should also be noted that by this point, Kate McCann has had one, and Gerry McCann two interviews with the police. Yet not once has either of them brought up the matter of their suspicions that all the children were drugged - a matter which, as they simultaneously handed over a document in which they suggested that Madeleine had been drugged, one would have thought they might have mentioned
