Another look at Tannerman and those pyjamas.

[pegasus]

Word count for detail at base of pyjama legs in JT rogatory:   
turn-up = 8   
frill = 1

--- possibly with turn-ups
--- a turn-up of some description
--- I thought it was a turn-up
--- with a turn up
--- and the turn up
--- the turn up bit
--- about the turn ups
--- the actual frill itself or turn-up as I thought it was ---

[colombosstogey]

Did she actually see anything at all?

I watched the new reconstruction on Portuguese telly and they showed the area. IMHO the only thing she could have seen was someone walking along how she could possibly describe a child and PJs is beyond comprehension.

Actually a guy on Sky when they did a reconstruction they used someone he new and he said even with a telephoto lense he could not recognise him.

Also on Carol Transmers statement she said it got dark around 6.30 so by 9.15 it would be really dark, and street lights give an odd glow and change colours drastically.

I think she saw someone striding along but the rest I believe her brain filled in.

[pegasus]

Which half of innocent dad kids pyjamas are being called "rotten"?
Please consider that the top was covered by the light pink blanket.
Look, there is a blanket in the Crimewatch photo.
Innocent man kept those three items all these years.
Why would he keep the blanket if its irrelevant?
It's obvious IMO he used the blanket that night.
It looked to JT like a top.
The mantra almost universal across forums to call JT a liar fantasist seems to be unstoppable.
IMO that witness is totally reliable and honest, 100%, no doubt IMO.

[Redblossom]

Which half of innocent dad kids pyjamas are being called "rotten"?
Please consider that the top was covered by the light pink blanket.
Look, there is a blanket in the Crimewatch photo.
Innocent man kept those three items all these years.
Why would he keep the blanket if its irrelevant?
It's obvious IMO he used the blanket that night.
It looked to JT like a top.
The mantra almost universal across forums to call JT a liar fantasist seems to be unstoppable.
IMO that witness is totally reliable and honest, 100%, no doubt IMO.

The blanket in the CW programme was WHITE.....and Tanner never saw any top....well, not in her own words, but those put in her mouth

[AnneGuedes]

The blanket in the CW programme was WHITE.....and Tanner never saw any top....well, not in her own words, but those put in her mouth

Very true. I do believe Ms Tanner and she didn't say she saw a blanket.. This is even the lack of blanket that shocked her and fixed the carrier's image in her mind.

[AnneGuedes]

Which half of innocent dad kids pyjamas are being called "rotten"?
IMO that witness is totally reliable and honest, 100%, no doubt IMO.

The whole pyjama has a shabby aspect. You wouldn't have the courage to put it on !
If Ms Tanner is 100%, then DCI RW is ??? 0% ?

[pegasus]

The blanket in the CW programme was WHITE.....and Tanner never saw any top....well, not in her own words, but those put in her mouth

Looks very light pink to me but I might be wrong.
Easy enough to look at the RGB, although admittedly that may not be a conclusive method.
Disbelieving JT is non-essential to the non-abduction theory IMO,
absolutely non-essential.
In fact its a side-track which prevents reaching the solution IMO.
She stuck to her guns in the mcdocumentary video..
If she is lying, why would she contradict one of the other witnesses who apparantly can't even remember which side of the road it was on?
100% honest, and unjustly maligned on forums IMO.
And there is one other innocent witness who has been a thousandfold mis-accused IMO.

[AnneGuedes]

If she is lying, why would she contradict one of the other witnesses who apparantly can't even remember which side of the road it was on?

I've seen one witness contradict her... And she didn't protest for long. As well she was alone, the other witness who remembered like her wasn't there.

[pegasus]

Well there are three witnesses, but surely you must exclude one who cannot remember which side of the road. So you have only two witnesses with adequate memory of the event.

[Angelo222]

She described the pyjamas as having frilly bottons and being of the short legged type, exactly like those worn by Madeleine. 

The child Innocentman was carrying was wearing full length pyjama bottoms and the legs did not have frilly bottoms. 

So the question is...where did Tanner get her description from??

* Did she see Madeleine previously?
* Was she told what Madeleine was wearing?
* Does she have some special powers?
* Did she make the whole thing up?

[pegasus]

She described the pyjamas as having frilly bottons and being of the short legged type, exactly like those worn by Madekeine. 

The child Innocentman was carrying was wearing full length pyjama bottoms and the legs did not have frilly bottoms. 

So the question is...where did Tanner get her description from??

"She described the pyjamas as having frillly bottoms"
In her statements to PJ she describes the pyjamas as having turn-ups.
Eight times in statements to PJ she says turn-ups.
Only once in police statements does she mentions "frills" and that is only in the context (my words) "other people mention frills but I saw turn-ups".
I assure you this witness is reliable IMO.

[AnneGuedes]

I agree with Pegasus.

She did repeatably describe them as turn ups. I can't find any reason to doubt her on this so would have to say in this respect her description does appear to be credible.

This is true but arouses a question. Why did she let the sketcher draw a frill ?
The pyjama  exhibited by the parents in front of TV cameras on the 10th of May 2007 has no turn-up but a frill...

[Redblossom]

This is true but arouses a question. Why did she let the sketcher draw a frill ?
The pyjama  exhibited by the parents in front of TV cameras on the 10th of May 2007 has no turn-up but a frill...

I was going to ask the same question.

If the artist got that "wrong", what else might she have got wrong? The hair maybe? I dint recall in any of JTs statements her saying whether the mans hair was straight or wavy/curly, and she definitely didnt say it that long all around,which is what the sketch shows more or less.

Some might say it doesnt matter too much....but what if Tannerman was definitely Innocentman? That might be a reason neither he or anyone who knew him/ his childs pyjamas as worn at the time didnt come forward, ie, wrong hair length and not straight but semi curly, wrong colour and detail of pyjamas......and probably walking in wrong direction

Side by side

http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=45&u=18181963

[AnneGuedes]

On CW Innocentman has definitively no straight hair at all and not long all around.
Logically, if he ever crossed FGM, he did it in the opposite direction.
The quite different pyjama exhibited as soon as the 10th of May could explain he didn't feel concerned.
The remaining question is the so unusual way of carrying ? If he did carry this way, it's strange that he said nothing at all.
And the blanket ? Was it another "adjusting facts" to say there was none ? Ms Tanner knew certainly that Madeleine had been abducted without a blanket.
Though Ms Tanner was certainly doing it "for the good cause", she obstructed the course of justice.
Imagine the PJ claiming Tannerman was almost certainly not the abductor ! 

[icabodcrane]

This is true but arouses a question. Why did she let the sketcher draw a frill ?
The pyjama  exhibited by the parents in front of TV cameras on the 10th of May 2007 has no turn-up but a frill...

I think a more important question might be why the sketcher drew the frill in the first place   ...  given that it was not the description given to her by Jane Tanner

As to why Jane may have been convinced to let that little detail go,  without objecting,  it might be useful to recall  the conversation she,  Gerry,  and Dave Edgar had during the reconstruction enacted for the Cutting Edge programme  :

Jane  "See I think you were about here,  cos I think you were standing like that and Joe,  Jez,  was there, with  with his pram pointing down that way.  Cos I think if you'd been looking at me if I,  cos I would have said something cos I would have said about cos I would have said about Kate cos had been moaning cos you'd been gone a long time watching the football"

( Gerry interrupts at this point  )

Gerry  "i'm almost certain  (  Jane laughs  )   that when I came out I came over  (  Gerryis  crossing the road as he speaks  )  and he was here,  and I was like that.  That's my memory of it,  as like Jez is 6' 3  or something and I was looking up,  and then turning in when I finished.  That's my memory of it"

Jane  "Hmm,  yeah I mean well, it just "

Edgar interrupts

Dave Edgar  "It's like I said there are inconsistancies in every major investigation"

Jane  "OK,  that's fine"

They proceed with the reconstruction as Gerry remembered it,  ignoring Jane's observations regardless of the fact that she was the key witness

That might give us a clue as to why Jane made no objection to the sketch artist misrepresenting  her recollection

Jane appears to be an easily manipulated 'people pleaser' 

Perhaps the real  question is  ....   what lay behind the clear manipulation   ...  why was there a need to do that  ?