She said she saw a man carrying a child whom she assumed to be female because of the colour of the pyjamas.
She was not in any way insistant that the child was Madeleine.
Ruling 'Tannerman' out as a suspect does not cast light on her integrity. If anything it reinforces it. The man who presented himself to SY in order to be ruled out of the investigation matches her description very well.
There are a great number of references throughout Kate's book that place Jane Tanners sighting as being of vital importance in the disappearance of Madeleine. The inference throughout the book is clear: they believe this was a vital piece of evidence.
This cannot be denied.
Page 77: Kate writes about how Jane had initially assumed that her sighting of the man carrying the sleeping child was innocent. But 'as soon as she heard about Madeleine's disappearance, everything fell into place and she felt sick.'
Now this is an entirely unambiguous statement. It clearly is conveys that Jane Tanner strongly suspects that she saw Madeleine's abductor taking her away. Why else would she 'feel sick?'
Page 84: 'there is little doubt in my mind then, nor is there now, that what Jane saw was Madeleine's abductor taking her away'.
Come on folks - there is no ambiguity there.
Page 97: ''For a start there was Jane's sighting of what was, in all likelihood, Madeleine being carried off.'
Again, this is a very clear statement.
As it now appears that the police have ruled out Jane Tanner's sighting as having any relevance to the enquiry, the focus must therefore be on other people.
I can't help noticing, on page 348 as Kate rages about Amaral with self-righteous indignation, she writes how 'he has been convicted of falsifying statements and has coordinated investigations into the disappearance of two little girls, neither of who mas been found. Why is this man being allowed a platform from which to peddle his absurd and offensive ideas? They say what goes around comes around. For Madeleine's sake, I certainly hope so.'
Well, it is interesting how Kate has latched onto the 'falsified statements'. As I have written elsewhere, having looked quite closely at the Cipriano case in which the mother and uncle of a child were convicted of her abuse, cruelty and murder under a team lead by Amaral, the 'falsified statements' conviction looks pretty much like one of those red herrings that tend to be flung around when there are people who desperately want to discredit someone. Someone who might put guilty people behind bars.
Kate is remarkably foolish in making some kind of association between the disappearance of Madeleine and the Cipriano case in which the mother was found guilty of the child's murder. The Cipriano case was a murder case and by suggesting that it involved 'the disappearance of a little girl who has not been found' she implies it was a wrongful conviction.
Take a look at the Cipriano case - it is excessively sordid, from the perspective of a little girl who was sexually abused, physically assaulted and then murdered. The child's mother and uncle, who were having an incestuous relationship, lied through their teeth to try to evade any responsibility for the child's disappearance. They are not exactly the type of people you would want babysitting your children.
Kate appears to be making the suggestion that the absence of a body in the Cipriano case somehow casts Amaral's team's conviction at doubt. I imagine that child murderers in general don't want to get caught so will go to quite extreme lengths to get rid of the body.
She really should do her research before she starts slinging mud around.
No-one wants to be accused of falsifying statements, do they?
