Jane Tanner

Well spotted though Clairesy!! Just goes to show those little things that can still be found. One bit may prove profound.

Clairesy

I have no doubt in my mind (and just watched it again for the 20th time) that she means that she was carrying the child. She does say "I was carrying" and then continues on and it is quite clear she is talking about someone else carrying the child. There is no stumble, or attempt to cover up what she is saying.

You must also be aware that this is edited. He doesnt ask the questions and have it videoed and then she immediately answered. When interviewing what generally happens is that the interviewer asks lots of questions and they chat, with the camera on the subject (Jane) all the time. Then the interviewer's questions are added in later, he actually says them all again and they are taped this time. The two tapes are then edited together. So although she is answering that questions, her answer may have been the result of a much longer discussion than you are seeing. that is the problem with interviews and why they cannot be taken as gospel. They can be edited to show whatever the producer/interveiwer want. And this one with Bilton is very sympathetic, yet he didnt realise what he was doing, probably because he was aware of the context of what was said.

The simple rule for interviews is to remember that there is only one camera, unless it is being done in a television studio, and I dont think this one was. My guess is that it is done in a hotel room, looking at the curtains, paint, vase etc. And if only one camera, then it is done the way I have said above, and therefore editing is involved. I have been interviewed for the tv before, and it was done with one camera. Only half of what I said made the interview but it did represent pretty well what I had said. And it wasnt for anything criminal, it was for my uni course, I was one of the first students in a new course being offered at my uni, and there were doing a recruitment drive for new students for the following year, and I was asked to do the interview for the local news. I was surprised at how I sounded, much more Aussie than I thought, although I shouldnt have been surprised, as I was raised in the bush.

Hi mod,Diane.... thanks for the reply about the video. Just got some really confusing things going on for me with regards to this case just lately.Usually i can come to some sort of answer in my mind as to whats going on etc but lately ive come up agianst a brick wall and all im concerned about now is madeleine..noone else...noone. Of course i believe the mccanns to be innocent..always have done.But.......someone knows something.........they know to much aswel and i believe this is why madeleine as never been found.

Tinkerbell43 wrote: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.

Absolutely correct! Why would a couple who are obviously not close friends, lay their liberty, their careers, their professional reputation and the well being of their own children on the line, in the way Amaral and the other part brains have described? I believe this goes for some of the other 'friends' too. I do not think that this group were that close when they went away together.

It really makes a mockery of this notion of Amaral's, that these friends were and are covering up for the McCanns.

Can you just imagine it? Kate and Gerry after Kate having supposed killed her daughter, called a meeting of the Tapas group and asked these people to help them cover up the death and in order to do so;

• They had to agree to hiding a death
  
• Concealing a body
  
• Find the first ("unfindable") place to hide the body.
  
• Then carry on as if nothing had happened.
  
• Turn up for dinner, laughing and joking
  
• Actually eat dinner knowing they hid the body of small child
  
• Then just casually wait around until the planned prompt came to raise the fake alarm.
  
• Lie to the police (as well as everyone else)
  
• Search for the child knowing it is all futile
  
• Give sworn statements to the police, (through an interpreter called 'Robert Murat'!)
  
• Then help find more places to hide the body of this poor child, (places where other locals who know the area very well could not find!).
  
• Jane Tanner had to come up with this sighting and make it coincide with other people's descriptions (even though she had not heard of these other people at that time)
  
• Oh and do not forget also that the McCanns had to persuade two other people to give them an alibi, two people they had not met previously and did not know. Jes Wilkins and Bridget O'Donnell!

This is just pathetic and what I want to know is, how come a detective who is supposed to have been at the pinnacle of his investigative prowess, even think this was a starter?

Goncalo Amaral, makes Inspector Clueso look brilliant!

clairesy wrote:Hi mod,Diane.... thanks for the reply about the video. Just got some really confusing things going on for me with regards to this case just lately.Usually i can come to some sort of answer in my mind as to whats going on etc but lately ive come up agianst a brick wall and all im concerned about now is madeleine..noone else...noone. Of course i believe the mccanns to be innocent..always have done.But.......someone knows something.........they know to much aswel and i believe this is why madeleine as never been found.

I noticed this when this programme first went to air. Firstly overall what struck me was Jane Tanner's openess and the fact that no criminal psychologist has lambasted her and said she looks like she is lying is very telling, I believe because she is not lying, her body language would have given her away and it hasn't. Remember at the time of this interview, the antis were very disappointed that they could not say her body language was that of a liar! With regard to her saying 'I' was carrying her', there is a very important fact that followed this, Jane Tanner did nothing to correct herself, showing that this was just a simple error. If she was lying and knew more than she is letting on, she would have been acutely aware of her own words and what she was saying and would have moved to correct this error, immediately, instead, she carried on, no fidgeting, no flushing, no nervous twitches etc, in fact she was just talking normally. Unless they have edited it heavily around that area, then I do not think she was lying. I also cannot see the programme makers editing something like this out either, remember at this point, all the newspapers and TV stations were all trying to outdo each other over who could produce the most sensational pieces of news over Madeleine's disappearance and to intimate that a main witness may be lying and knew more, would have been sensational at that time!

Something else I would like to mention here is, is that we all know when we lift and carry children, we adapt the carrying to what we are going to do at the other end and we also adapt carrying them to if they are asleep or awake.

Take for example the way Gerry carried Sean down the airplane steps, this is exactly the way I would carry a child 'DOWN' these steps, or any steps or stairs. I would do this because I would want to see where I was placing my feet and where the next step was and also because if I fell or stumbled, carrying a child this way would mean you could actually protect them more and could if needed have one hand freed quickly to steady yourself.

If I picked up a sleeping child from a bed or the sofa and was going to lay the child somewhere else, or pass the child to another person and wanted to cause the child minimal chance of being woken up or disturbed, I would carry the child in my arms, exactly the same way as JT described seeing Madeleine being carried by her abductor.
In fact I actually proved this to myself (unaware that I had done so until I thought about it a few days later). I picked up my sleeping grandchild to transfer to their bed from the sofa and knowing I was going 'UP' the stairs (not down) I carried on carrying them in this way, so as not to disturb too much.

It does make a difference going up or down the stairs as to the way we carry children, we cannot see the stairs/steps when coming down them so cannot accurately judge them, but we can see them when we are going up and also we can butt our toes against the next stair/step, so can judge them very well, this is not so easy to do coming down the stairs. I picked the child up by sliding my hands and arms underneath and kept them close to me like this, not moving to the shoulder because I did not want to disturb the child too much.

If I was going to pass a sleeping child through a window like the one in Madeleine's room, I would have held the child in my outstretched arms and passed her into the arms of another person in exactly the position JT says she saw this man carrying Madeleine. As this man/woman (still not convinced about the sex of this abductor) would definitely not have wanted to disturb Madeleine, I believe they would have carried on carrying her in the position they received her in and if they were then going to place her in a car or pass her on to someone seated in a car, they would just turn and angle their arms to accommodate this manoeuvre, equally (and I hate thinking this) if they were going to place her in the back of a van or the boot of a car, again this would be the 'exact' position you would hold the child in. If the child did wake you have more control and the child cannot kick out at you or use your body to lever themselves away from you with their feet.

I believe Jane Tanner is telling the truth and I believe that this was just a simple error of speech made by someone unused to public speaking, or speaking on camera.

I also think because of the nature of all of this, that every little thing is taken and magnified and pondered about so much.

But you are correct Clairesy, someone in Praia da Luz knows what happened to Madeleine, in fact I think there is more than one person in PDL that knows what happened to Madeleine and I think there is at least two people covering up what happened. they should tell now, because I think it will all come out, in fact I do not think it will all come out, I know it it will! So perhaps they should do themselves a big favour and start talking now!
They should start talking before God forbid, something happens to another child and before another family is totally destroyed, they cannot keep this secret forever, it 'WILL' come out.

Hi Clairesy,

Listening to the proper video of Panorama programme, I think Jane says "yer er was carrying the child" not I. You have to listen to it a few times to realise what she actually says. I may be wrong but thats what I am hearing.
This Youtube one is very out of sync. I remember the anti's going on about what she actually said at the time this was on the TV and I said the same then as I do now.

Yes Christabel, you are probably right! I have just listened to this a few times and now that you have mentioned it,it does sound like she said 'yeah er' and don't forget she has an accent too, so this would come into it also. This would account for her just carrying on talking and not correcting herself and just looking normal. Well spotted!

Rosie,

I found it better listening to the video but not watching Jane talk. It becomes clearer what she said doing it this way.
If you notice throughout the interview she uses "er and erm" quite a bit.

Sadie

Not only did she make the sketch with Gerry and Jez on 'her' side of the road, also she says

She noticed this person exactly at the moment when she walked past Gerald and Jez

. To me, this is only adding more question marks.

maria wrote:Sadie

Not only did she make the sketch with Gerry and Jez on 'her' side of the road, also she says

She noticed this person exactly at the moment when she walked past Gerald and Jez

. To me, this is only adding more question marks.

Hi maria

You are cetainly right; she did show them on the same side of the road, but likewise I am sure that I read that Gerry came down the steps and crossed the road to speak to Jez and I was also under the impression that G and Jez were a little lower down the road than in the sketch.

Have just googled and come up with several different places where they met and talked! Everyone seems to give a different story - so who knows? Gerry says he crossed the road to Jez. Panorama have picture of where they were supposed to have talked and that goes along with Gerry being on the opposite side of the road and much further down. Jez says they met and talked in the sidewalk (gully?) or (American for pavement?); it's not totally clear but I think he said that he crossed over to Gerry.

You could be right, maria, as JT is pretty sure she passed them close by. But I dont think that we can be certain, because there are so many different descriptions of where they talked. It's a pity about that, as accuracy is quite important IMO