Monday, February 20, 2012

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: How Jane Tanner got Lost in a Crowd on an Empty Street

One can accept that on a night out with friends, drinking wine and chatting - maybe some folks are not perfectly correct with the exact time someone came and went. However, some things should be pretty clear and easy to remember about the night of and the day after a horrific event. Of all the Tapas 9 claims as to how things went down on the evening of May 3, 2007, Jane Tanner´s 9:15 (approximate) sighting of a man hurrying along Dr Augusthino da Silva with a child draped in his outstretch arms is the most unbelievable and unsupportable.

Let's ignore for now the issues of the lighting and whether Jane would be able see the details of the man and child's clothing so well. In order to prove whether she could or she could we would have to test her ability with a number of crime reenactments with the present lighting and, if one was able to see what she saw under those conditions, then one would have to use quite a bit of scientific and technical skill to build a set with the calculated lighting of that night and time and see if one could still see those details. I cannot obviously due that at this time, so I cannot make any absolute determinations on her ability to see what she said she saw.

However, I can comment on what Gerry and Jeremy (Jeremy Wilkins, also called Jez) said they didn't see - namely Jane.

Retired British police officer, PM, and I reenacted the scenario and I learned something very interesting. If Gerry's claim that he crossed the street, the Rua Dr Gentil Martins to speak to Jeremy is true (in his later statement, not his first which only said on his way back to the Tapas, he "crossed ways" which should mean "ran into," not ran across the street to talk to), then it is indeed possible for the two men to have neither seen Jane nor any man carrying a child across the street at the corner whilst they were conversing.

PM took thirteen steps to cross from one side to the other and I saw him out of the corner of my eye from the spot Gerry says he was standing with Jeremy. If, as Peter reminded me as we discussed the way men chat and the way women chat, that men tend to talk less face to face than women do, but more at angles, looking about themselves and not at each other, it would be totally possible for the men to have their backs to the street behind and never see a man quickly walk by, even if it took him thirteen strides. Interestingly, if they are looking down at a baby in a pram or off to the left side of the street, they might actually have not seen Jane go by either.

But, Jane denies that is how it went down and Jeremy agrees with her. Both state Gerry and Jeremy were on the same side of the street Jane walked up and Jane claims she was right on top of them when she walked by. Now, I would say, if this was true, it doesn't matter where these men were looking while talking; at least one would see Jane, and, more likely, both of them would see her. And, if they were positioned in such a way that both of their backs were to Jane as she came up behind them, they would have seen the man with the child crossing directly in front of them. If they had their backs to the man behind them, they couldn't have missed Jane walking straight at them. No matter exactly how they were standing, it is hardly believable that neither man would notice the only other person on the street trotting right up to them, past them, and on to the end of the street. Anyone on the street at that time of night at a time when Praia da Luz is very empty would very likely catch one's attention, so Jane didn't get lost in the crowd.
Let’s double check their position with Jane’s Rogatory Statement which she had months to get the “facts” straight.

No, I, phew, again, I would probably guess Gerry’s back was more towards me, because I would have thought if I’d have seen him I would have definitely probably stopped and said ‘Oh you’re in trouble, you’ve been long, we think you’ve been watching the footy’, you know, but. Because I think that’s almost when I went to acknowledge them, that’s almost what went through my head, you know, is to sort of give a bit of abuse about the fact he’d been so long, but. So I would imagine his, maybe his back was to me, but. And, again, in that way, that would make more sense, because I don’t know Jez, so it’s not like I would have gone ‘Oh hi Jez’, you know, that way, so. Yeah, I, I honestly, I can’t remember now which way they were. But I do, I stand by the fact I’m sure they were nearer than right over here.

Let’s see: she is “probably guessing” that Gerry’s back was towards her or she would have made a comment. Hmm...if his back was towards Jane, he would have seen a man right in front of him running off with his own child. Jane THINKS that’s ALMOST when she went to acknowledge them, that’s ALMOST what went through her head….so she would IMAGINE, maybe his back was towards her…yeah, that “WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE,” …yeah, “HONESTLY,” she can’t remember now, BUT, she does, “STAND BY THE FACT, I’m sure they were nearer than right over here.”
All of this lack of clarity in Jane's statement shows major signs of deception, of someone attempting to create a story. If it were simply true, she would not need to imagine any of it or develop the scenario as she is talking. Add to this, an odd comment in her original May 4, 2007 interview:

She (Jane Tanner) passed them KNOWING that Gerald McCann had already been in his apartment to check on his children

This is a clearly impossible for her to state, yet Jane Tanner KNOWS that this is so. Since Jane claims to have left the Tapas quite soon after Gerry, there is no way she could know he had been in to see his children already or whether he had run into Jeremy Wilkins and simply got caught up in conversation and hadn’t yet gone in. We are talking about a matter of a couple of minutes; therefore, it would be highly unlikely Jane could know if Gerry had popped into the apartment already or not. For Jane to KNOW this, Gerry would have to have told her prior to her interview.

But, you might point out, as Jane did:

... if I was trying to make this up, don’t you think I would have made damn sure they saw me?

Yes, I guess you would... if you could have, Jane. The problem is Jeremy Wilkins didn’t see you and, if Gerry was standing with his back to you, then Jeremy was most likely facing you and would have seen you clearly coming up the way. Or, if you want to go back to men both standing sort of at angles and not looking directly at each other, both men would have seen you AND the man carrying the child as you walked past them into their view and the man crossed the road directly in front of them. Tricky bit of a problem, eh?

Jeremy Wilkins says he and Gerry were standing right by the gate on the apartment side of the road.

I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs.

Jane says she walked right up to them and passed them. Jeremy Wilkins says he never saw her or the man. Gerry says he never saw her or the man which he must say or he has to call Wilkins a liar. I think he solves this problem by moving their location to the opposite side of the road where it is possible for them to both have not seen Jane or any man with a child. Then he doesn’t have to go up against Wilkins, but merely state he remembers where they were standing a bit differently.

It is Kate who sums the whole situation up quite interestingly in her book, Madeleine.

Either way, exactly where they were standing is not crucial. What may be important is that all three of them were there.

Indeed! What is important is all three of them were there. What does it really matter if all three of them are there? What does it matter if Jane Tanner saw the man five minutes later when she returned and neither man was on the street? It matters because Jeremy Wilkins gives Gerry an alibi. No, not Jane. Jane Tanner is not that useful in giving Gerry an alibi because she is one of the Tapas 9. Jeremy Wilkins is the LAST UNBIASED WITNESS who saw Gerry before Madeleine was found missing and before the Smiths’ 9:50-9:55 sighting of a man carrying a little child toward the beach.

No one outside the Tapas 9 can verify that Gerry returned to the table after his 9:15 check on his children or that he remained at the table until Kate gave the alarm. Jeremy Wilkins, being with Gerry at the time Jane sees “the abductor carrying off a child,” gives Gerry an airtight alibi for the only time that he can get one for that evening during that time frame.

Considering Kate and Gerry downplayed any importance to the Smith sighting until far later when they agreed it could be the abductor but ONLY if it was the same man Jane saw and Kate insists that it is mighty important the three of them were there when Jane saw a child being carried off, I repeat, the only reason this should be a big deal is that Jeremy is Gerry’s alibi.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown


Anonymous said...

were there any cars in the street when Jane walked up?

Anonymous said...

joint statement preparedby all ninemembers of the group on 10th may, scroll down to the jez and gerry meet after 9 ish and it says gerry and jez talked on the side of flat 5a

this is the same date as gerrys second statement saying he crossed the road to speak to jez

not sure when this statement was prepares but was given to the pj on the 10th may, so probably earlier

Anonymous said...

Thanks Pat. Back to the Bermuda Triangle

My take is Mr McCann would not have crossed over the road to has a casual chat - when he was in the middle of a meal

Therefore as he came out of the side gate, he bumped into JW, JW would have been going pass in the direction of the top road, whilst GMcC would have been going down the road in the direction of the Tapas; GMcC therefore would have been front on to JT but his back to the alleged abductor, therefore common manners would have been to acknowledge JT's passing

JW: would have been back to JT but might have seen the alleged abductor

But with the width of the pavement and the baby-pram it's hardly likely that anyone would not have seen, felt, heard or smelt JT as she passed them

As always, TOO MUCH information

But ask yourself this, JT's sighting gives, an alibi to everyone including herself! Yet, she remains basically only to have an alibi herself by vertue of the fact, she left the Tapas and claims to have seen the alleged abductor

Take her sighting out of the equation and you have three men who had left the Tapas bar\group, plus JT herself, without an alibi for the time M disappeared

Rather amazing how these people have been able to hold their silence, particularly when most of them are up for ridicule as fools

Only a reconstruction could resolve the issues of the timeline.

Could the simple truth be, that there was very little to no checking and Madeleine disappeared after her father's check and probably after MO's check, but still doesn't explain why MO checked within 10 minutes of McC's check

Only time now and a luck break

Anonymous said...

forgot to say excellent reasoning, why would tanner give him an alibi though?

Anonymous said...

Kate and Gerry attempted to persuade the public that the Smith sighting was of the same "abductor" that Jane Tanner saw by use of 'reconstructions' in their Channel 4 documentary "Madeleine Was Here". They actually said in that documentary that the man the Smith family saw was carrying the child with outstretched hands in the same way as described by Tanner. This is nonsense, the Smith family describe the child being held up right with head resting on the 'fathers' shoulder.

Anonymous said...

Hmm. For a long time I thought that JT might have given GM an alibi because she was involved in a relationship with him. Now though I think it's possible that something entirely different was going on, something that almost seems so obvious, I can't believe it's been missed. My theory would mean that the McCann's were, after all, innocent. Still thinking it through ..........

Anonymous said...

In Kate's book she also wrote something about Jane knowing that Gerry had already checked on the kids when she came across him and Jeremy. So odd. I remember reading that part and thinking, 'how would Jane know this?' Also, it's kind of odd that Jane told Kate this info. Why, in telling her version to Kate, would Jane say, 'I knew Gerry had already checked on the kids.' Weird. I can't believe all of Jane's qualifying language. Peter Hyatt would have a field day with their statements.

Anonymous said...

Why would Jane Tanner give him an alibi? Good point. In terms of "symbolic logic" what Jane seems to be implying is:

(1) the child was kidnaped because I saw the abductor.

(2) it is not "our" fault (group dynamics kick in) because we were checking on the children - here is the proof. "I saw Gerry and his friend Jez." (+ the "abductor" which they did not.) A possibility as Pat brilliantly explained.

Strange the two didn't see her but the fact she saw them makes the all thing credible to a point.

The point is that she could have found out about the encounter from the horses' mouth, as it were. "Ask them (Gerry & Jez) if you doubt me!"

Now was she really there?

She cannot prove she was because there are NO witnesses to that and that is as far as we can assert.

Pat's novel, perceptive observations on the incident leaves us with the possibility that such an alibi, as it were, could have been created and if this was the case, it is unlikely it was signed by "Jez". Someone else did it for her unless Miss Tanner acted on her own initiative and created the all story. In order to do so she must have known that Gerry had met Jez - not a great feat. She could have heard it on the internal grapevine...

My gut feeling is that the poor soul was just trying to divert the police's attention from the group's pecadilloes, if any, and of course trying to help out their friends. I don't feel a lot of planning went into a cover-up if indeed there was one. Aside one or two important details it was all played by the ear. Obviously.

Sorry Pat, I got carried away with my thoughts...

I can't wait to read the next instalment! Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

How about this for a theory:

Mr. McCann & Jane had a thing going on. He slipped away, not to 'check on the kids' but to have a quickie with Jane. Madeleine awoke and saw them, and had to be disposed of. The rest was just a bunch of lies to cover up and provide alibis.

Anonymous said...

Pat, I'm very visual. Can you draw a map for those of us that are not so brainy?
As someone alluded to, maybe Jane had something to do with the disappearance. Poor little Madeleine.

Anonymous said...

Why would jane tanner cant be just because she is a friend of the mccanns,because for the life of me i cant see anyone covering up the death of a child unless jane had something to do with it herself.
Thank you pat for all your hard work cant wait till the next blog

Johanna said...

The need for Jeremy Wilkins as the only unbiased witness all evening to give Gerry an alibi only arose after Gerry had been spotted by the Smith family. But Jez was not enough. Somebody had to see Gerry AND Jez AND abductorman at the same time to exclude him from being the person seen by the Smiths. That is when Jane had to jump in. After originally only having agreed to take part in a staged dinner without the need to lie to the police, everything changed with the Smith sighting. More active roles had to be performed by the members of the group. There was no way back, only forward because one had already enacted the whole Thursday. And from the passive role of onlookers Jane and Matt suddenly had to take active parts in the deception to avoid getting accused of supporting the cover-up of the death of a child during all Thursday.

Anonymous said...

If JT could recognise the child as Madeleine straight away she would have shouted to Gerry and Jez - 'there's a man taking Madeline'. She did not - why? Maybe she did not recognise the child as Madeleine.

When Kate raised the alarm that Madeleine was missing JT would have realised she had witnessed an abduction and screamed for everyone to look for the man she saw. She would have put what she saw and a description of the man to the police as soon as they arrived. She didn't - why?

Because she never saw a man with a child but what she saw she first described to the police - a man carrying a bundle.

It was significant enough for her to mention to the police. Why? To get a witness account of some stranger activity on file - but not significant enough for her to direct a search in the direction of the man.

Only later did JT change her account to one where she saw a man carrying a child and her memory improve sufficiently to be certain this was Madeleine's abductor. Why? To be in synch with the written timeline that said JT saw a man carrying a child. At first clearly she did not read the script in sufficient detail.

This whole thing is a sham and if there are reputable offices at SY that cannot see that then they need to call an ambulance as they need to see a Dr quick - two in fact!!

Great work Pat - thanks for your efforts.

Anonymous said...

Great Pat!
I doubt J.Tanner is being truthful - what a strange statement she gave!! Why does she have to be dishonest though? Hmmm. Maybe it's not to create an alibi for G.McCann at all - maybe it's to create an alibi for herself. If she wasn't in the Tapas Bar at that time and G.McCann was talking to J.Wilkins - both of whom didn't see her.....where was she really? J.Wilkins is G.McCanns alibi so who is J.Tanners alibi? Bearing in mind that the Smith family sighting was about 40-45 mins later.

Anonymous said...

Gerry and Jez did not see Tanner walk by, but surelly they must have heard her?! In her rogatory interview she goes on and on about her flipflops, that she was wearing flipflops and how difficult it was to walk in those, bla bla bla...flipflops made a lot of noise on the pavement, specially in our stone sidewalks, which are made of small cubic stones, tightly placed together kind of pieces of a puzzle.
So, there you stand, on a deserted road chatting with an acquaintance and you hear "flap, flap, flap", someone is approaching and you don't even look? You don't notice it? Were they suddenly and conveniently deaf or Gerry's loud scottish voice muffled Tanner's steps...?

Anonymous said...

Tanner's Rogatory interview,
Tanner and her relationship with Gerry McCann, in her own words:
(4078 is the interviewing police officer)
"4078 “Did you forge a stronger relationship for example with Kate and Gerry (inaudible)?”
Reply “Yeah definitely, yeah I think definitely and especially with the tennis lessons with Kate as well, definitely because I think before we went you know they were the two people in the group that, for me, I knew we’d get on with Dave and Fiona, I knew we’d get on well with Matt and Rachael just because you know they’re sort of probably our best friends so to speak so, but yeah and err it was nice to be able to get to know Kate and Gerry, Kate and Gerry better?”
4078 “Okay. And what did you think of them at that stage?”
Reply “Yeah they were nice, normal people, yeah you know, sort of, that’s the thing, I mean Gerry, the sort of person Gerry is, I could never see us being best buddies because he’s very, we’re very different. I think he’s very err he’s quite forthright and so I don’t think we’d ever be best friends but there’s no problem there or anything like that you know, I feel bad saying that because it makes it sound like there is a problem but there’s not but you know it’s not, whereas Kate I was really, I was getting to know Kate quite well but yeah I think Gerry is sort of like more of a man’s man maybe.”
4078 “Yeah.”
Reply “That sounds terrible, I don’t mean that at all.”
4078 “No.”
Reply “But you know I think out of the two I was probably, I know Kate better than I know Gerry.”
4078 “Right, it was a very specific question I asked anyway, so what you’re saying is his character is the sort of character that you probably wouldn’t naturally have…”
Reply “No I think he’s, we’re probably very different, I think he’s err yeah I’m trying to put it in to words because if I say he, he doesn’t intimidate me in any shape or form but you know what I mean I think he’s probably the person out of the whole group that I would feel least comfortable with, you know, just on, just chatting because we probably haven’t got as much in common.”
4078 “Yeah, but with Kate it was…”
Reply “With Kate it was fine yeah. That sounds terrible to say and it’s not meant to sound like that at all. But it’s just…”
4078 “Well it’s just a question I asked.”
Reply “Yeah and it’s just being honest yeah. I think out of everybody in the group Gerry’s probably the one that I know the least, least well.”"

If you ask me, from her words I would say she can't stand the man! But, of course it could all be an act...
And...waht if they were all in "relationships" with eachother..?
Another "Tapas"(O'Brien or Oldfield)made a comment in the lines of "we were so into eachother" (?!)

Anonymous said...

if gerry and jw were standing like
0--0 then one would have seen tanner and the other eggman,but if they were standing like this 0
0 they most certainly would both had seen tanner.

Anonymous said...

also her boyfriends alibi

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I missed an important point in my posting above. I wrote that they might have played it "by the ear" but after reading Pat Brown's interview in the Algarve123 - in full here:
I changed my mind.

I missed one important point which she highlights and I quote:

“If parents were separated when police first arrived on the scene, along with everyone else involved, it would be much easier to verify everyone’s stories - and a true timeline could be established.

“In this case, the McCanns and their friends were given days to confer with each other. The result is that in order to look better maybe, or to explain things that are embarrassing, they may have screwed up the timeline to the extent that they look guilty. Or, if the McCanns were involved in the death of their daughter, they had a chance to get their stories straight”.

Anonymous said...

Why did she go to check on her kids when the men always seemed to be the ones going to the units?

Why did she go at that time, it was the time the 'footie' was on as the big match on Sky of Spain and Germany and had a half time when Gerry went back to 'his' unit 5A?

Why did Jane not see the two parked cars of Nuno and the other as his girlfriend as Stephen Carpenter and his wife had to get by them at 9.15 - 9.20 p.m. as the say in their Leicester Police statements?

Why did Gerry not see Stephen carrying his three year old daughter at the gate side pavement where the cars were parked at this time?

Why did Jeremy also not see the cars or the couple and there children too whilst he was walking to and from, and met Gerry, and he would have gone the same way as Jane later would he not to get to the block 4?

Why did Jane not say ' Hey, Caroline and Stephen who you had coffee with at 8.45 - 9.00 p.m. here had carried .. home to the flat up the road as usual, maybe they saw someone kidnap Madeleine'?

Why is this witness statement being prevented from being inserted by Dave Edgar, a former policeman who had to use PACE in the terms of witness ID and vulnerable persons recollection?

For example whilst being under stress as she said she did not want to go, and was also under the influence of drink, tiredness and those flip flops in that dark passageway?

Why were certain important factors withheld that had a bearing on this as evidence that police in UK have on tape?

This is the case of the machine taking over what should have been a full scale air search of the region as all the flats were elliminated by dogs and by the searchers except one. It is called a promotion of a portrait that has no validity of the searched for person. Philomena has be utmost respect as she tells it as she sees it, or is told it. She shows the pale, thin, coming four year old in her tennnis hat and tall stature. Not a 'bonny baby' competition selection as graced the media and 'fans' who then found their own 'Diana' doll to cut out the image and put it on the mantle or window.

What these 'fans' cannot accept is that they are nothing, nothing unless they send money, and even then.

Would you want these unknown people to be in your 'social circle'?

Would Kate and Gerry?

SteelMagnolia said...

Jane did not see Wilkins but Wilkins saw Jane at 8.30 pm dressed in purple .

I believe this is when Tanner saw Wilkins which is why she went to such great lengths in her rogatory explaing her outfit, needed to change clothes and quick ( in her imagination) ! Tanner must have been the look - out.

Pat your sterling work has cut through 5 years of media spin and made us all look where we should have remained within the walls of the statements.

Thank-you. x

SteelMagnolia said...

Lots of new interest thanks to you Pat, so here is the first statement from Jez Wilkins for the newbies. Note the evening of May 2nd, McCann and Russell arrive together without their wives at the tapas and yet all statements claim couples left their apartments together and from reading Wilkins statement I am having trouble understanding if Jez ever actually had met Kate before the day he went to the pool to say good-bye. Wilkins talks of Gerry with female partners but NOT Kate his wife ? Maybe I have missed something.

And yes very odd to be sitting around the pool while the entire village was out looking for their child !

Anonymous said...

You don't suppose the real, and most obvious, reason that neither Gerry nor Jeremy saw Jane on the road at 9.10-9.15 is because Jane wasn't there?

Anonymous said...

Lots of important things were withheld from the McCanns own "documentary", namelly the most crucial moment, Kate's check, when she finds Madeleine missing, after the door slammed on her face, the window open, the curtains blowing in the wind, her frantic search for Madeleine in every corner of the apartment, and "all that jazz"! When this "documentary/reconstruction" was in the making process, in the days before they arrived in Portugal to film on location at Luz, a lot od noise was made around the hiring of an american actress to play Kate's role (Lisa Canning ?), the actress talked to the portuguese media (she didn't say much...she was under a strickt confidentiality agreement, it seems), but, when the program was aired there were no scenes with the actress to be seen. Not one! At the time it was rumoured that when they tried to shoot the scenes they realized none of it made any sense, it was impossible to film a convincing reenactement of Kate's check and subsequent actions. I can just picture the poor director, pulling his hairs in desperation and Gerry getting one of his famous outbursts of rage, lol! Why go to the trouble to fly the actress to Portugal, pay her a bundle and for what? For nothing at all!
In the end all we got from what should have been the most moving moment of the documentary, that terrible moment when the distraught mother finds her daughter missing, is a lame scene filmed inside the McCanns Rothley home, of Kate slamming a door!

Anonymous said...

People need to remember things as they were on the night, the next day, the next week to understand the discussion now, is not as it was then.
Lost child, parents and friends of course we allowed ‘time’ and in that time they wrote almost immediately a rough timeline (child’s book cover) to be supported within days of a type written fuller version of the nights timeline, which probably set in stone their statements basis, and from which they will\would never move. Not even the rather wish-washy, informal approach by ‘Stu’ of the LP to the T7 & JW to do a reconstruction, remember the McCanns as arguidos could not refuse, getting them back to Portugal, might have been another matter but it never got to that.
Move on towards the end of the week, the next few weeks and the emphasis and all eyes on Robert Murat. The T3 confrontational interview (Portuguese style) you might say having a taste for the ‘re-enactment’ they (T7 + 2) were and have avoided that at all costs, even currently it’s assumed they will not attend the ongoing legal battles in Portugal with Dr Amaral, perhaps instead of the T7 they should be call the Q7 (quiet)
All this business about looking or not looking for an alive or dead child is rubbish, the first 24 hours were the most important and NO ONE KNEW what they were really looking for.

What JT’s statement gives is an alibi to everyone that they could not have been involved, because she saw it, how unique, including herself.

But really by her alleged sighting it also, reinforces that:

McCann couldn’t have done it
MO couldn’t have done
O’B couldn’t have done

Yet these were the three men, who were away from the group, during the time of M’s disappearance, but who says it has to be a man ? Well of course JT since she saw it

Then, and only when the Smiths first came forward to exonerate Robert Murat, did we learn of a later sighting, thus … someone running around PDL for some forty minutes with an unconscious M. What type of sedation to you think would be required to obtain that level of sedation … believe me DIFFICULT

Whatever happened that night, just doesn’t fit the alleged sighting & T9Timeline of JT, it’s like trying to pour a pint into a two pint pot

Hopefully Pat you will throw some light on to this disappearance, else we wait for the MET. But as a follower from day one, I’ve long lost any hope, other than the copper best tool in his bag, THE LUCK BREAK.

As for JW I don’t know, his wife in her article BOD) for the Guardian, whilst still under judicial secrecy with an appropriate donation to the Madeleine Fund, explained fully their position; just turned over and went back to sleep!

What indeed a strange holiday group!

Anonymous said...

If, for example, Jane had arranged to meet someone from 9.15 onwards at or outside her apartment, she might know for a fact that Gerry had already been into his own flat as she could have seen him leaving the side gate. In these circumstances, she might not have been too pleased to see Gerry in conversation with Jeremy in the road, so instead of walking past them, did she nip in through the side entrance herself without them seeing her?

If she did walk past G&J and then see a man at 9.15 at the top of the road, then she would have been at the front of her own flat by about 9.20? and back once again at the tapas by 9.25 - 9.28? Just in time for her husband to set off back round to their flat by 9.30?

Incidently, O'brien stayed at his flat until Jane got back there again at 9.45 and he left at 9.50 to be back round at the tapas again for 9.55

Anonymous said...

Anon, February 24, 2012 8:21 AM

The police started to interview the Tapas9 the next day, 4th of May. They were interviewed in "batches" because they alledged that someone had to stay behind to look after the children. Of course this was a poor excuse, there were always the babysitters available, the ones who they had no problems in leaving the children with during the whole holiday, while they all went out to do their things. Why did the police accept that? I do not know...all I know is that by that time, the very next day, the case was alredy riddled with politics and diplomatic pressure.
In Mr. Amaral's own words: "this case has had too much politics and too little police"(meaning too little police work was allowed to be done properly, as it should).

Himself said...

Stills from both Channel 4 and Amaral's videos, along with diagrams and statements can be found here.

Anonymous said...

Why would Tanner lie...?
Maybe to protect her partner, O'Brien? He was the one absent from the Tapas, alledgedly attending to his sick daughter, who had vomited in the apartment causing him to change the bed sheets. However, the housekeeping services of the Ocean Club had no request for clean sheets nor were they handed over the dirty ones...
Later on, in 2008, there were rumours that O'Brien had suffered a nervous breakdown and that he and Tanner had separated. Don't know if true or false, however, when the tabloids made the compensation payment, which was not decided in court, but by a private agreement, the group was photographed on the steps of the High Courts Building in London (to fool the public that the payback money was ordered by a court of law?), O'Brien was the only one absent.

Anonymous said...

The written timeline was put together quite quickly, I suppose even before the police was called. Kate and Gerry must have participated in its making, at least Gerry must. Tanner's "sighting" is mentioned in it, so Kate and Gerry must have known about it, they immediately were aware of what Tanner said she saw. However, Tanner later said to the police that she did not inform Kate and Gerry about it because she didn't want to add to their distress!!!
This case is a tangled web of lies and deception, and thet got away with it!

Anonymous said...

Now I've changed my mind again about the involvement of any of the Tapas group in Madeleine's disappearance. And I can't help but wonder whether our inability to believe any of them is a result of our astonishment at their utter, totally incredible, stupidity?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous who said Jane first reported a man carrying a bundle. She did not. I have read her first statement and she clearly says it was a child. It was a newspaper story that stated a bundle. Please separate myth from truth.

Anonymous said...

Stephen Carpenter carried his child, 9.20 p.m. End of. Myth could be the actions of a deranged person's logic. Now who could that be? Why did Jane Tanner state that it was Robert Murat when of course it was Stephen Carpenter and his child with HIS wife?

Anonymous said...

'I would never in a million years think that was Madeleine'. Quote. Ms Jane Tanner.

'I would never in a million years think that was Madeleine'. Quote. Ms Jane Tanner. So good she said it twice.

Chip said...

Some of the reasons that Jane Tanner may have lied; A) All the children were actually put in the same apartment to sleep to save members of the group having to walk so far in the checks (how ever many were actually carried out and something went wrong.
B) All of the parents, being doctors sedated the children and left them for long periods making them all guilty of neglect/manslaughter etc. in the event that something happen to one of the children.
It's possible that there were 'relationships' going on between some of the adults that meant they didn't want pesky children waking up and interrupting.

It could be a combination of these or something different but her account sounds fabricated to me. All the umming and ahh-ing in the statements is odd.

oldhippy said...

Honestly, why are folk creating suspicion and mystery where none exists.
Jane Tanner was walking up the left side of the road and she saw Gerry and Jeremy chatting on the right hand side. If I remember correctly from the documentary Gerry was sort of side on while chatting to Jeremy which would mean he had his back to Jane and not notice her OR the man with the child. Jane was in a position where she saw all three men. Plain and simple and no mystery there at all. If anything it is Jane Tanners account that convinces me that Madeleine was indeed abducted by a stranger. It falls into place perfectly.

Anonymous said...

- depending partly on what shoes Jane Tanner was wearing, the men could have HEARD her walk by which would have drawn their attention to looking at her.

It's important to consider sound as well as vision.

Anonymous said...

Jeronimo, one of the waiters at the Tapas saw Gerry searching for his child. He gave two statements with differing times on them, one between 9.30 and 10 and one stating it was between 10.20 and 10.30.

Anonymous said...

Without wishing to sound sexist, but in my experience from camping holidays, its generally just the men that do checks. Nights are usually cold and dark which conjur
fear which females resist but males thrive on. So I don't believe Jane left the table that night. As for Kate, she had to!

Anonymous said...

I know I keep going on about this, but I am trying to work out its significance -

If, as Pat points out, Jane left the tapas bar shortly after Gerry, 'We are talking about a matter of a couple of minutes; therefore, it would be highly unlikely Jane could know if Gerry had popped into the apartment already or not'

Then why on earth would Jane be thinking (about Gerry), 'Oh you’re in trouble, you’ve been long, we think you’ve been watching the footy’'

In view of the timings it doesn't make any sense. I think Jane may have really slipped up here. Just going to compare some other details relevant to this.

Anonymous said...

Pat, something is really troubling me about this and because I've nowhere else suitable to write it, I'm writing it here although I don't know if you are still updating comments on this article -

There has been a lot said about the different timings of events on May 3rd and about people changing their minds and not being sure about this detail or that detail. Together with the reluctance of the tapas group to go to a reconstruction in Portugal, it seems to me that they are remarkably casual about the fact that a young girl may be in daily distress or danger. By changing stories and giving vague answers it demonstrates they no sympathy or compassion for her. Which is very odd - unless of course they already know she is dead.

Anonymous said...

Just found this on the Uk Daily Express website regarding the 195 clues supposedly overlooked by the PJ - 'an elderly British woman living in Praia da Luz saw a Portuguese-looking woman hanging around outside the McCanns’ apartment about an hour before the abduction'. Well if this is so, it is quite incredible she wasn't seen by DP and family on their way to the Tapas at 8.50pm; by Matthew at 9pm; by Gerry and Jez at 9.10pm and by Jane at 9.15pm isn't it. I know I shouldn't be sarcastic but perhaps there is a convenient tree right outside the apartment.

Anonymous said...

Thats what o think too...why check on the children at the SAME time..doesnt make sense!!

MycroftHolmes said...

If Jane Tanner and the others were colluding with Gerry and Kate - at Gerry and Kate's behest - in a cover-up, wouldn't it have been better for Gerry to say that he DID see Jane on the street?

This would have served three important purposes:

1. It would have corroborated Jane's own claim to having been there, giving her more credibility as a witness, and thus, more weight to her claim that she saw the supposed abductor.

2. Jane would serve as another witness to Gerry being in the street at that time, underlining his alibi

3. Most importantly, Jane provides a convenient and much-needed sighting of the supposed abductor. She was the one and only witness to a man carrying a young child that night, and remained so until the Smiths came forward many weeks later.

Jane's testimony, in other words, was extremely helpful to the McCann's. Why would they want to cast doubt on it?

Anonymous said...

Correct assumption. Why were Kate and Gerry sleeping in separate bedrooms? Why had Kate previously told friends and family that dhe couldn't cope with Maddie. Why haven't any of them tsken a loe detector test. Why wasn!t Jane Tanner made to give evidencr under oath! Why do so many parents feel revulsion for the McCamns- because they are guilyy!

Anonymous said...

Regardless of what happened the mcanns are 100% innocent of anything the government and police believe otherwise they would have been arrested by us a long time ago. No matter the lies being told the mcanns and friends will not face questioning or arrest any time soon or thereafter.

Anonymous said...

The government and police are up to their eyeballs covering up for the mccaans. Ss havent even questioned them on leaving two two year olds and a three year old alone in a foreign place for 5 nights in a row¡!!!!!

Anonymous said...

The mcaans and friends are lying in all the statements. It is so obvious to anyone who reads them. The grammar is very interesting. Jt is incredulous. Its all because, yeah that would make sense, using the unspecific term "person" rather than man. This case is so corrupt it defies beleif. The portuguese police should have never handed the forensic dna to the British to deal with. That was a huge mistake. Should have used an independent country like Switzerland. The mcaans and tapas group have been protected from the get go. This makes me firmly believe the incident is covering something else entirely, and its huge. Pat, ithink your going to have to think out of the box on this one. The things i think are important aspects to look at are:- their proffession has something important to do with it. David payne booked and chose and organised the holiday, location. The date is somehow important, its very early in the year for a holiday?? What sort of thing could have happenned for ALL of them to be lying? Why the top brass handling it all in so short a timeline (when she could have just turned up) why the government protection. What happened to Goncale proves to me he was very much on the RIGHT track. Good work Pat!

Pat Brown said...

Anon 9:10

I stand by my profile that the evidence supports an accidental death on May 3rd and a coverup of that incident. No evidence points to any premeditation; the trip was a vacation during which "a disaster" occurred which the McCanns then did their best to survive. Why they have gotten so much help and protection fro the UK government is another matter and I do not have an answer for that.

Anonymous said...

Gerry is on the comare board. UK wants to build more nuclear power stations, he is on the board assessing risk. Lots of ££££s,...….