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

[pegasus]

Wouldn't the closed shutter muffle the sound of any voices even more?

The 5D rear bedroom window was closed and its shutter was closed but it described in one of the relevant rogatories that human voice could easily be heard through them, before the door is opened, heard through closed window and closed shutter. 5D has same design windows and shutters as 5A.

[mercury]

Janes memory inproved with further discussions with Kate N Gerry..with time, because as Kate mentioned on Oprah show ( nothing to do with Maddies dissapearance in America?) Jane described the PYJAMAS Maddie wore similar to * she held some up to audience* as she was being carried away by the 'abductor'  which we now know was a just a guy carrying a child with similar jammies to Maddie...erm.. um..  hmm..

The glaring and questionable discrepancy I found with Jane Tanner was her saying she only saw a pair of feet and the bottoms of the child's pyjamas. Two weeks later  she or someone pretending to speak for her (in the Tapas groups' joint statement to police in May 10th 2007) said she thought the child's top was pink!


 &%+((£

Up until October 2007 when she appeared in Panorama, she maintained all she saw was the feet. Curious.

[Brietta]

The glaring and questionable discrepancy I found with Jane Tanner was her saying she only saw a pair of feet and the bottoms of the child's pyjamas. Two weeks later  she or someone pretending to speak for her (in the Tapas groups' joint statement to police in May 10th 2007) said she thought the child's top was pink!


 &%+((£

Up until October 2007 when she appeared in Panorama, she maintained all she saw was the feet. Curious.

Conjures up a mental image of the abductor making off with disembodied feet ...

[Miss Taken Identity]

Conjures up a mental image of the abductor making off with disembodied feet ...

The abductor? the one SY have told us is not the abductor, that one?

Well, whatever, thing is  she saw feet and then identified the pink jammies then forgot again... errm um yeah you know like  err um yeah nno I yeah... Kate went onto oprah and told the millions of viewers Jane identified the jammies. (does anyone thiink they went on operah for money from the rich mericans)?

She remembers it so well, why didn't she just go and do the reconstruction to jog her memory?  actually to jog all their memories boy they are a forgetful bunch!

[faithlilly]

The glaring and questionable discrepancy I found with Jane Tanner was her saying she only saw a pair of feet and the bottoms of the child's pyjamas. Two weeks later  she or someone pretending to speak for her (in the Tapas groups' joint statement to police in May 10th 2007) said she thought the child's top was pink!


 &%+((£

Up until October 2007 when she appeared in Panorama, she maintained all she saw was the feet. Curious.

Has anyone tried carrying a child of Madeleine's age as Tanner describes without the head a top of the body being visible? It's not possible. Don't believe me ? Then watch the McCann's own mockumentary. The head and upper torso of the child being carried is visible. If Tanner could see the pyjama top she could also see the child's head.

[pegasus]

Has anyone tried carrying a child of Madeleine's age as Tanner describes without the head a top of the body being visible? It's not possible. Don't believe me ? Then watch the McCann's own mockumentary. The head and upper torso of the child being carried is visible. If Tanner could see the pyjama top she could also see the child's head.

When she got the side view she was standing downhill of man that changes the angle she sees the child. Also the child had a pink blanket on its chest, see the clothing photo which SY released.

[G-Unit]

This story always raised a lot of questions. If that had been an abductor who was in the apartment before Gerry when was he supposed to have opened the shutters? Before he left? Why didn't Jeremy and Gerald hear them, it was very quiet? Why didn't they see Jane? Why didn't Matthew see the open window and shutters?

Then we have him being a Dad from the creche. Where had he been? He is coming from a direction which makes no sense, because he would have had to have left the creche and walked in a large circle to be where he was seen. DCI Redwood wanted to get rid of him, but this was a clumsy attempt.

[Brietta]

This story always raised a lot of questions. If that had been an abductor who was in the apartment before Gerry when was he supposed to have opened the shutters? Before he left? Why didn't Jeremy and Gerald hear them, it was very quiet? Why didn't they see Jane? Why didn't Matthew see the open window and shutters?

Then we have him being a Dad from the creche. Where had he been? He is coming from a direction which makes no sense, because he would have had to have left the creche and walked in a large circle to be where he was seen. DCI Redwood wanted to get rid of him, but this was a clumsy attempt.

       Are you saying the man seen by Jane Tanner was the abductor carrying Madeleine?

[Benice]

When she got the side view she was standing downhill of man that changes the angle she sees the child. Also the child had a pink blanket on its chest, see the clothing photo which SY released.

I've never thought that was a pink blanket.  IMO it's 'fuzzy bit'  put in by the artist to denote that JT did not see that part of the child, rather than leave an empty space which would have looked really strange and abnormal.

The fact that no pink blanket has ever been claimed to have been seen by JT or the Smiths would seem to bear that out.

[G-Unit]

       Are you saying the man seen by Jane Tanner was the abductor carrying Madeleine?

No

[Benice]

This story always raised a lot of questions. If that had been an abductor who was in the apartment before Gerry when was he supposed to have opened the shutters? Before he left? Why didn't Jeremy and Gerald hear them, it was very quiet? Why didn't they see Jane? Why didn't Matthew see the open window and shutters?

Then we have him being a Dad from the creche. Where had he been? He is coming from a direction which makes no sense, because he would have had to have left the creche and walked in a large circle to be where he was seen. DCI Redwood wanted to get rid of him, but this was a clumsy attempt.

FGS - The only information SY wanted to impart to the public was that Tannerman was almost certainly an innocent tourist.  Which is exactly what they did during the programme.   There was no need for them to waste programme time going into every single detail of how they came to that conclusion - simply for the benefit of a group of sceptics on the internet. 
 
Anyone who thinks SY did not get answers to the questions you raise before they decided he was an innocent tourist - is being completely unrealistic IMO.   Just because they didn't tell us what they were - doesn't mean they don't exist.   

[Alice Purjorick]

FGS - The only information SY wanted to impart to the public was that Tannerman was almost certainly an innocent tourist.  Which is exactly what they did during the programme.   There was no need for them to waste programme time going into every single detail of how they came to that conclusion - simply for the benefit of a group of sceptics on the internet. 
 
Anyone who thinks SY did not get answers to the questions you raise before they decided he was an innocent tourist - is being completely unrealistic IMO.   Just because they didn't tell us what they were - doesn't mean they don't exist.   

For once we are in agreement.
DCI Andy pretty much fragged "Tannerman The Abductor" good and proper like.

[G-Unit]

FGS - The only information SY wanted to impart to the public was that Tannerman was almost certainly an innocent tourist.  Which is exactly what they did during the programme.   There was no need for them to waste programme time going into every single detail of how they came to that conclusion - simply for the benefit of a group of sceptics on the internet. 
 
Anyone who thinks SY did not get answers to the questions you raise before they decided he was an innocent tourist - is being completely unrealistic IMO.   Just because they didn't tell us what they were - doesn't mean they don't exist.   

Then just like others who want us to believe things that don't make sense, they will be disbelieved. They showed us a pic of him in the 'pose', they showed us the pyjamas he kept for years, but didn't tell us where the heck he'd been? Yeah, right.

[pegasus]

The theory that the man JT saw was carrying the missing child does not work.
GM leaves apartment
Chat begins
Man enters apartment through front door.
To get to bedroom he must walk through part of living area.
From there he would hear the chat just outside the lounge side window, on Rua Martins
He goes into bedroom.
Leaves bedroom
To get back to front door and escape, he must pass through part of living area again.
From there he would hear the chat just outside on Rua Martins, again.
So it is obvious he would not choose toescape across that T junction, because he knows from hearing it twice that there are two people chatting on Rua Martins.
He would go the other way, west, not across the T junction where he knows there are people just down the road.

[Brietta]

The theory that the man JT saw was carrying the missing child does not work.
GM leaves apartment
Chat begins
Man enters apartment through front door.
To get to bedroom he must walk through part of living area.
From there he would hear the chat just outside the lounge side window, on Rua Martins
He goes into bedroom.
Leaves bedroom
To get back to front door and escape, he must pass through part of living area again.
From there he would hear the chat just outside on Rua Martins, again.
So it is obvious he would not choose toescape across that T junction, because he knows from hearing it twice that there are two people chatting on Rua Martins.
He would go the other way, west, not across the T junction where he knows there are people just down the road.

Maybe that wasn't where the get away vehicle was parked.

Maybe that wasn't where he was living at the time.

The duration of the conversation was probably about three minutes ... time enough for an intruder to be in and out of the apartment.

How do we know Madeleine wasn't taken upstairs to Apartment 5j which was the route taken by the GNR dogs?  Nothing like hiding in plain sight.