CMTV Gonçalo Amaral - O Enigma - with English subtitles

[Robittybob1]

It has been established that Jane Tanner did not see an abductor.

Jane Tanner only mentioned this after Maddie disappeared- she didn't shout it out at the time. why not?
Kate said she knew right away that Maddie was abducted, but didn't say right away.
What is wrong with these people?

If you see a man walking with a child in his hand (holding hands) do you yell out "Child abductor! Help Help Help!"?

[Robittybob1]

I think Amaral was pretty close to Wilkins' cross.

Why does everyone believe Wilkins above the others?

[Robittybob1]

Sounds like clutching at an ever decreasing number of straws to me.

Haven't SY done this already ?

Sometimes you support SY and other times you don't.  I've come to understand SY want us to put the focus on Smathman not Tannerman, but no one can really do that for they have not convinced us.

[Miss Taken Identity]

If you see a man walking with a child in his hand (holding hands) do you yell out "Child abductor! Help Help Help!"?

No, you wouldn't Robbie.
a friend shouts her daughter has been 'taken' why didn't Jane say oh I think I know which way an abductor was heading... but they all split up in different directions? looking under beds and such I mean come on..

[Brietta]

Sounds like clutching at an ever decreasing number of straws to me.

Haven't SY done this already ?

It's a discussion forum.

Someone raised the point for discussion.  That's what I am doing.  Please feel free to join in.

[Robittybob1]

No, you wouldn't Robbie.
a friend shouts her daughter has been 'taken' why didn't Jane say oh I think I know which way an abductor was heading... but they all split up in different directions? looking under beds and such I mean come on..

They had done that before Jane was aware.  She was in her apartment.  I'm sure she said in what direction the man was walking, it is impossible to describe what she saw otherwise.

[Brietta]

It has been established that Jane Tanner did not see an abductor.

Jane Tanner only mentioned this after Maddie disappeared- she didn't shout it out at the time. why not?
Kate said she knew right away that Maddie was abducted, but didn't say right away.
What is wrong with these people?

Absolutely correct.

Jane Tanner saw what she thought was a father taking his child home.

She saw him before anyone was aware that Madeleine was missing ... so why on earth would she have started shouting "abductor"?

[Brietta]

If you see a man walking with a child in his hand (holding hands) do you yell out "Child abductor! Help Help Help!"?

I don't usually ... then that might just be me??

[Robittybob1]

I don't usually ... then that might just be me??

And neither did Jane but at least she mentioned it later.  But she didn't know if it was important then or even now, but I think someone did, for immediately there are those trying to downplay what she actually saw,  That to me is the clue more so than what she can remember about what she saw.

Jane "I saw someone"
Person B  "No you didn't, you weren't in the right place"
Person C "You weren't there, if you were I would have seen you"

[barrier]

And neither did Jane but at least she mentioned it later.  But she didn't know if it was important then or even now, but I think someone did, for immediately there are those trying to downplay what she actually saw,  That to me is the clue more so than what she can remember about what she saw.

Why do you suppose Redwood downplayed it then.

[Alice Purjorick]

Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a barefoot child in his arms crossing the road ahead of her.  The child was wearing pyjamas.

She also saw Gerry and Jez in conversation ... neither of whom saw her ... neither did they see the man crossing the road behind them.

In my opinion there was a chain of evidence here with Jane Tanner at the centre. Might that be why she had to be discredited ... who knows? but I'm sure somebody does.

• Jane's statement confirms Jeremy's statement
• Jane's statement confirms Gerry's statement.
• The fact that she saw the chance encounter which she could not have known about otherwise, confirms her statement

In my opinion it is immaterial what the men failed to see.  What is of importance is what Jane did see.

The stranger she witnessed carrying a child is a link in the chain of evidence.  I am of the opinion that as important as maintaining the search for Madeleine, was finding the man carrying the child who might have been Madeleine, to eliminate him from the inquiry ... or if that failed, to throw more resources at finding him and the child.

Jane Tanner reckoned she saw Jeremy Wilkins and Gerry McCann on the west side of the street. Gerry McCann reckoned he and Jeremy Wilkins were on the east side of the street. Was that ever reconciled ?

[Brietta]

Why do you suppose Redwood downplayed it then.

Why do you think Amaral didn't track down "innocentdad" years before Redwood appeared on the scene?

[G-Unit]

Jane Tanner definitely spoke to the GNR, because Silvia Batista translated for her;

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

Nelson da Costa confirms that Jane spoke to him. Jane also claims to have spoken to the PJ, but that isn't confirmed. According to Vitor Martins he spoke only with Gerry McCann, who told him what Jane had seen.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm#p15p3862

[Robittybob1]

Why do you suppose Redwood downplayed it then.

I think behind the scenes someone has owned up.  They can now go beyond that sighting and now putting the emphasis on the Smith sighting.  IMO. 

[Brietta]

Jane Tanner reckoned she saw Jeremy Wilkins and Gerry McCann on the west side of the street. Gerry McCann reckoned he and Jeremy Wilkins were on the east side of the street. Was that ever reconciled ?

Does it matter?  The main player here is Jane Tanner and who she saw and what she witnessed.  The other two saw nothing and witnessed nothing.

In my opinion what she saw and what she witnessed are of more value to an understanding of events than where Madeleine's father was standing in the street.

What value is there to the investigation in knowledge of the precise position of either man in conversation on the street?  Isn't the value in knowledge of the mobile man with the child at the junction?