Jane Tanner

I've just been reading the PJ Files and Jane Tanners Statement April 2008.

I never realised she didnt know Kate and Gerry very well. She has only known them since 2003 and has met them maybe 3 times a year at 40th birthday parties, Weddings etc.,

I have never once doubted what Jane has said and still dont, but I just wanted to make the point, if she is covering in anyway, she has put a hell of a lot on the line for 2 people who have to all intents and purposes been nothing more than friends of friends.

What would be the point in Jane Tanner concocting a story about a man carrying an inadequately dressed child late at night if it wasn't true? At the time of giving her evidence neither Kate or Gerry were openly accused of any wrong doings and were not unfairly branded as Aguidos's until several weeks later when the PJ were feeling under severe pressure to come up with results. By this time the trail had gone cold and accusations were being made against the PJ's concerning their initial slow response to Madeleine's abduction, their professional incompetence and general lack of purpose. Had Jane Tanner given her statement 'after' the McCanns were made aguido's it could possibly then have been loosly construde that she was covering up for two rather distant friends. But were that the case and the Mccanns were later charged with murder, would any sensible person comit perjury and risk receiving a prison sentence for giving false evidence under oath, I somehow feel that that would be extremely improbable!
Alroy.

Ah but it the twilight world of Tony Bennett and Stevo, the McCanns have something on all these people who are "lying and covering up" for them and the list is endless.

Gerry has even blackmailed Gordon Brown.

Quite frankly if all their statements were identical id find it worrying, a fact im sure that has not gone unnoticed.
Ive no doubt Jane Tanner did see Madeleine being abducted, and if this had occurred in this Country a description would of been televised and publicised asap.

Muleena, you are absolutely right of course!
Alroy.

I think jane tanner was telling truth,thought long and hard about her statement many times and keep coming back to this..........why would a person tell such a thing knowing it wasn't true??Not to protect k+g surely??Pretty dum thing to do especially given that it was later she come up with the statement and not immediately as Madeleine went missing(so not planned)

The only time she mentioned it was when she got wind Madeleine had vanished!She was back at the apartment and so learned of her abduction later that the rest of the taps.it was only then she connected her earlier sighting to Madeleine's abduction.

Also, something thats bugged me about this sighting.The blanket Madeleine was wrapped in.Where did it come from? Nothing was reported missing from the apartment.So does that indicate a definite stalker.................someone watching and planning to take her? They came prepared with a blanket?An opportunist wouldn't have had a blanket at hand would he?

So maybe people also need to be asking witnesses if they saw anyone prior to Madeleine's abduction carrying a blanket about.Wonder if they have checked cctv for that. Could it be a member of staff who would have had access to laundry and spare blankets!.

Why did they deny that o'brian had requested a spare sheet for the bed after his child was sick.Why would staff have no recognition of that? Were they covering.Have they used O'Brian unfortunate experience with his sick child to turn the suspicion on him?Have they deliberately denied he asked for a sheet because they want cops to be suspicious as to why he stated he had requested one?

lots of questions still need answering in my opinion.

Was Madeleine actually wrapped in a blanket Clairesy, I can only remember her mentioning the pink pyjams? Does anyone have a copy of her statement from the PJ's files?
Alroy.

Well that's what Jane said...she gave a description to of a guy walking off with a child in a blanket...she said she saw the legs dangling from the blanket and spotted the bare feet and jammies. The drawing released by cops at the time was also of a guy with a child in a blanket and bare feet with jammies on.Of course with this case and its many twists and turns nothing can be held as gospel no more can it.

clairesy wrote:Well that's what Jane said...she gave a description to of a guy walking off with a child in a blanket...she said she saw the legs dangling from the blanket and spotted the bare feet and jammies. The drawing released by cops at the time was also of a guy with a child in a blanket and bare feet with jammies on.Of course with this case and its many twists and turns nothing can be held as gospel no more can it.

The picture of the abductor carrying Madeleine doesn't seem to show a blanket. I wonder why that is missing?

Did the Smiths see a blanket when they saw the man? They said that the way that Gerry carried Sean as they were disembarking on the flight home reminded them of the way the man was carrying the chid (Madeleine?) looked. There is no blanket in the photograph of Gerry and Sean. Are we sure JT said there was a blanket?

Cause there seems no point in worrying about where the blanket came from, if there wasn't one, and it's just been misreported, does there?

It would seem to me that if there was indeed a blanket and no blanket was reported missing it could suggest that the man was not the abductor but was in fact carrying his own daughter. But were that the case why did that man not come forwards?
Alroy.

From 4th May 07 interview. Says Jane said there was no blanket?

The suspicious man.

However, she spotted a man (*) who was going along at a fair speed with a child in his arms (*) with the child in pyjamas without a blanket, which attracted her attention. The interviewee only saw the man from the side with the child in his arms. She noticed this person exactly at the moment when she walked past Gerald and Jez. That person was coming out of the path at the end of the apartment block (1) where they are staying. The man quickly crossed the intersection. The entrance to the building where the apartments are is the exact place where she saw the man. After checking on her children, the interviewee went back to the "tapas." On her way back, Gerald McCann was no longer in the road where she had seen him talking. On her arrival at the restaurant (3) Gerald McCann was with his wife Kate Healy.

From 10th May interview. Not good translation. Him means Her.
About description of the child, confided that it was transported to the pass, with the
legs in his direction and barefoot. He thought it was a female child because the pajamas
was light-colored (pink seemed to him). I never saw the child's hair. I never saw her move to ned
any sound, thinking he was sleeping.

This surely is a continuence of the "YOUR SUGGESTIONS" block which now seems to have dried up through lack of support. The idea behind introducing the "Revision of Madeleines abduction" thread was to have an in- deapth and comprehensive discussion on the subject in the hope of perhaps revealing some minute previously overlooked piece of fresh evidence, or perhaps casting a new or different light on things by delving even deeper into all the known existing evidence. As a good example there is or was a difference of opinions over the blanket, how entry was gained into the apartment, was there a key used and is it possible members of the Ocean Club staff were actually involved in the kidnapping. Did the PJ question them and did any staff leave their employ rather hurriedly? Was the abduction pre-planned of the act of some opportunist pervert, or perhaps even the actions of a mentally disturbed burglar who lost control and stepped over the mark? And ultimately, what did actually happen to Madeleine?
Alroy.

Tinks

As I always put it, I do not doubt Janne saw something, but not necessarily a man carrying a child. I never said she was deliberately lieing, but that she might be trying to 'close a hole' without knowing it rationally.

Alroy is of the opinion that she is a doctor, therefore a trained observer. So is Gerry (Jez?) and he did not see bundleman nor Jane who passed by him at a 10 inches distance???

Therefore, I do maintain she saw something, not necessarily Madeleine being carried away.

maria wrote:Tinks

As I always put it, I do not doubt Janne saw something, but not necessarily a man carrying a child. I never said she was deliberately lieing, but that she might be trying to 'close a hole' without knowing it rationally.

Alroy is of the opinion that she is a doctor, therefore a trained observer. So is Gerry (Jez?) and he did not see bundleman nor Jane who passed by him at a 10 inches distance???

Therefore, I do maintain she saw something, not necessarily Madeleine being carried away.

Maria, I think that you will find that despite her sketch to the contrary, Gerry and jez were talking on the other side of the road from Jane. When Gerry saw Jez walking his little one, he crossed over the road to talk to him on the other pavement - so it is quite possible that Jez and Gerry didn't see Jane - especially if the lighting wasn't very good. And equally possible they didn't see the man, because my understranding is that they were a bit further down the road than Jane - and you know what these men are like when they get gassing!!

the e-fit does show a blanket ...she was kind of wrapped in it and only her legs dangled.Ive put a copy of the drawing here.






Question is where did the blanket come from???

Clairesy, I dont want to upset you, but I dont think that it is clear that there is a blanket. There could be, but there is nothing that really indicates there is one IMO. The pink part could equally well be her pj top. She would be mighty cold without a blanket though, her pj top had very short sleeves

There is no harm in trying to find out where a blanket, such as the one you feel is wrapped around her, could be obtained as you could be right and i could be completely wrong. Then it could be the vital clue.

Agreed, not clear if it is a blanket.

Did anyone spot my bad mistake now deleted, doh I am an idiot sometimes.

where can ir ead janes statement to??ONly right fro the start i have always read and belived she sa wmadeine being arried off and that she could only see her legs damgling as she was wrapped in a blanket?

Hrtes smoe more on what i have always read..................

""""""""A family friend of Gerry and Kate McCann has told police she saw a
blonde-haired girl being carried away from an Algarve holiday apartment
wrapped in a blanket at the time Madeleine is believed to have been snatched
from her room.""""""""
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1847879.ece

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"""Miss Tanner claims she saw a man rushing
away from the complex with a child wrapped
in a blanket at around 9.10pm, 50 minutes
before the alarm was raised."""

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/4aug7/Express-14-08-07.htm

++++++++++++++

there are loads of reports stating she said this...Ive always though she said that to.Which is why i said the picture of the man carrying a child away does appear to have the top half of the child wrapped in a blanket.Would be interesting to read her statement and the part about her description of this guy again then.No wonder the poor child's never been found with so much sh/t being passed around in the media..no one knows whats true and whats not anymore.

Clairesy you are certainly right, both the Times on Line and the Gerry Mccann Blog (Daily Express) say there was a blanket, yet in Jane Tanners statement in her 4th May 2007 interview, she says there wasn't a blanket (see moddys post, this thread - Sat, Jan 3rd at 10.07pm).

So we really can't say, can we?

Would be good to know though, if a pink blanket was used, where could it have been got from? Wonder if it could have been from the OC? There was no mention of one missing from her bed was there?

Can anyone show me where I can view a video of Jane tanner talking on panorama...its really important not to do with this earlier debate about the guy with the blanket etc. Somethings been pointed out to me and i need to check it for myself.Its the interview where she wars the red top...talking to a guy about what she saw...how she saw the child being carried etc.Really need to view the original interview.

Hi sadie,..yer the blanket is a certain mystery..maybe a leak fro the early days though as many papers stated many different things. Was it Jane tanners daughter who was poorly...was it her hubbie who said he went back and asked for a new sheet after his child was sick.Im looking for something at the moment that im really confused about ..LOL...im tired to so it isn't helping me at all.

Here you go Clairesy, http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

There were many reports in the newspaper which differ and are used to accuse Jane of lying and questions are asked as to why she changed her story so many times.

It comes down to newspaper reports versus investigation facts. The nearest thing we have to the investigation facts are the files. If we stick to the files and in tis case Janes statement to the police then nobody can question the authenticity.

I'll see if I can find that Panorama interview. I'd like to see that myself.

Hi mod...ive found what im looking for and to be honest im stuck on something.Confused for a better word.Please watch the video...you don't have to watch it all.....just the beginning bit. Im a little confused about something..Need to look more into maybe but im not really sure what to thinkn about it to be honest. call me silly maybe im tired...but i don't think im to be blamed for being a little confused at her answer to a particular question.Maybe there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for it..one that I have missed during my following of this case.Im hoping someone here can help me with this matter...clear it up for maybe??

See what YOU think of the answer to a question given to jane at exactly....1.44 minuits into the interview. I notice something she said and im a little confused at it.A little urmmm shocked to maybe.

Claire

When Jane says that in retrospect/hindsight the child would be carried over the shoulder, she means that now she sees something wrong with it but didnt notice that at the time. Nothing sinister in it. She doesnt mean that she said the wrong thing, or that if she had to make up the story again or anything like that. It is quite simply that she should have immediately noticed that it was odd the way the man carried the child, but didnt notice until it was odd until later. That is why she said in hindsight. After all, in hindsight, she is looking at everything with suspicion as Madeleine is gone. Prior to Madeleine's abduction there is nothing to be suspicious of.

Hi diane,

I see what you saying,i understand that, although it isn't that im confused at!Maybe there is a error in the taping of the interview or something.
Also poeple from different parts of the country use certain words or phrases to describe something that some poeple could misunderstand or get confused as meaning something else etc etc. I know minxy gets confused sometimes with things i say...i might say something to mean it this way...although minxy could take it to mean something else.....in the interview when asked about the way she described madeleine being carried jane tanner answers the guy at 1.44 by saying 'yer I was carrying her this way"v " ..not ...''the abductor was carrying her this way"" ......watch it again.
It took me by surprise.Im surprised the antis haven't ripped her apart for it yet.Its a bit of a dum thing to come out with.im not anti.im not an anti and never will be but......... I think for someone whos fed up with being called a liar shes just said somethign that could even have caused more problems for her .

The interviewer starts the question at exactly 1.44 in the video...and then Jane gives her answer...the first ....4-5 words of her answer is what im referring to.

She said "Yeah I was carrying"

The interviewer asked "In your picture" So she may have been prompted to talk as in "In my picture, I was carrying"

Jane was seemingly camera shy and a bit nervous.