This is a genuine question, so please, only genuine answers?

Question

Jane Tanner, the woman who "saw" a man carring a child on the night Madeleine went missing said, in the beginning, that she saw a man carrying a "bundle" that MAY have been a child? All the Police reports and subsequent media articles stated that. Police asked if anyone saw someone carrying something that could maybe have been a child?

NOW, Jane Tanner is not only sure it WAS a child, but can describe the blonde hair and even the colour of the pajamas. She can also describe the man, right down to his shoes, even though it was dark.

So, her testimony has gone, in one huge leap, from a "bundle, maybe a child" to a "blonde child wearing pink pajamas" yet this seems to be brushed under the carpet? How is her testimony going to be used? Why are the PJ not homing in on these discrepancies more? And why not one single mention of this in the media? Should Jane Tanners evidence be used, or should it be discounted? Do you believe her "sighting"

Wow, sensible answers, and NO abuse, Thankyou!
I think the man Jane Tanner saw, if anyone, was Jeremy Wilkins , who was walking his 8 month old son at that time. But, whats even odder, is that Jeremy Wilkins ONLY saw Gerry . He says it wouldve been difficult to miss Jane Tanner, If she was there too! And that he never saw ANYONE else, no man, no-one, and if there was a man, he wouldve had to walk right past him, on a narrow path!

Seeing as Jane Tanner couldnt even remember if she was going TO or FROM the Tapas bar when this supposed sighting took place, I wouldnt say her memory was great!

Greensea, Ive got a degree in Psychology too, maybe its that thats making us delve into all the nooks and crannys of this weird case, lol...

Answer 1

Witnesses like this don't help, if it goes to court her whole testimony will collapse under cross examination.

Answer 2

Jane Tanner's witness statement was dragged out into the light on the very same night the McCanns did their first TV interviews.
The quite SENSATIONAL information about the man carrying a bundle - which became a blonde-haired child - was released after the first instance of Gordon Brown's interference in the progress of the investigation.
That interference has since made it impossible for the PJ to do their job independently. As did the second interference last week when Brown again stuck his prime ministerial neb in.
Of course, the man carrying the bundle is 'meant to be understood to be' Madeleine's abductor making off the with child. Hence the child was blonde. Who on earth else would it be? Could there have been a man later on carrying a blonde child as well? I don't think so.
For me, I don't believe in rabbits out of hats.
By the way, Jane Tanner's name has now dropped out of the public domain. References now are to 'a witness' whose name has not been released.
Unlike Montogomery B, I tend to trust journalists and get at information from a variety of their sources, like any sensible person. Articles are not simply 'made up' or embellished to suit a theory.
The people who do that are the criminals and people with things to hide.

Answer 3

What gets me is all of those parents (3 families) all would have left their children, why are they not being charged and thrown in jail like many think the McCanns should.? As for the sighting, like someone else said, under scrutiny that woman could not testify in a way that would have any substance or hold weight. Who is she, Was she party of the party or what, please excuse my ignorance.
Okay I have just read she was part of the party, then where were her child/ren and why had she left the group, is she the one missing that the waiter said was the 'empty' chair for quite some time in the evening. That sure does sound fishy, and I have been oblivious to this bit, probably been too busy defending the McCanns to have thought about the rest of the party! I think she probably did see a bundle initially, but when she was told about the pjamas, had a bit more to her statement. I know how you can see things in the blink of an eye and they don't make sense until later, perhaps this happened.

Answer 4

Don't just look at JT's evidence.The Mcanns also said they were checking EVERY half hour but later said they had not checked for over half an hour at the time the little girl went missing.Again a good lawyer would blow holes in their evidence.The thing that strikes me is that if the little girl who had been taken had been the daughter of a poor single parent and not high profile doctors would the other children have been taken in to care and would the newspapers have crucified her.We should all rightly be concerned about the safety of little Maddie she is an innocent caught up in all this and I for one hope and pray that she is found safe and well but I think the Mcanns conduct should be called into question but I don't think it will be as social services are part of the medical community and the shield is already down and ranks closed.

Answer 5

This came up a while back and, if I remember rightly, Jane Tanner changed her story very quickly. From the first report of her having seen a man with a 'bundle that might have been a child' it was about 24 hrs later that she changed story to 'blonde haired child wearing pink pyjamas'. She then went back to the tapas bar and joined the McCanns without saying a thing about what she had seen This case stinks.

Answer 6

Let's just hope that the police are delving into all these nooks and crannies too. The trouble with all the publicity there's been, anyone who could possibly have seen anything of any importance, probably doesnt even know what they saw any more, what's real and what's been read. It's time that anybody remotely concerned and all in the vicinity should have lie detector tests, starting with the parents.

Answer 7

If anybody was visited by a dead "family member" they were deceived. The dead are dead, what they were seeing were demons acting as a loved one. But can't the dead communicate with the living, and aren't they aware of what the living are doing? "So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep." "His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them." Job 14:12, 21. "Neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun." Ecclesiastes 9:6. Answer: No, the dead cannot contact the living, nor do they know what the living are doing. They are dead. Their thoughts have perished (Psalms 146:4). 9. Jesus called the unconscious state of the dead "sleep" in John 11:11-14. How long will they sleep? "So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more." Job 14:12. "The day of the Lord will come ... in the which the heavens shall pass away." 2 Peter 3:10. Answer: The dead will sleep until the great day of the Lord at the end of the world. In death, humans are totally unconscious with no activity or knowledge of any kind. Do devils really work miracles? "They are the spirits of devils, working miracles." Revelation 16:14. "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." Matthew 24:24. Answer: Yes, indeed! Devils work incredibly convincing miracles (Revelation 13:13, 14). Satan and his angels will appear as angels of light (2 Corinthians 11:14) and, even more shocking, as Christ Himself (Matthew 24:23, 24). The universal feeling will be that Christ and His angels are leading out in a fantastic worldwide revival. The entire emphasis will seem so spiritual and be so supernatural that only God's elect will not be deceived.

Answer 8

Maybe the PJ haven't brushed it under the carpet - we don't know what's going on with their privacy laws. She might be on the back burner for the moment....

I would be more inclined to believe her first statement when it was fresh in her mind - man carrying something. It could have been anything - his washing or his pet yorkie.

I don't believe her 'fresh' detailed sighting of a blonde child in pink pyjamas one bit - she would have recognised Madeleine immediately in that case.

Answer 9

I think what you must consider is that we can only learn at third hand what it says in the statement. You know what newspaper reporters are! If it ain`t good enough, make it good, if it ain`t bad enough, make it bad enough
In any newspaper report we only have the opinion of the person who wrote it, not the opinion of the majority.
Another writer might give a totally different view or slant on it.
Then we must give credit to the police who must carry something 100% to the culmination of the case for fear of being accused of lackadaisical actions.
Then we must consider that the powers that be may not want the perpetrator of the crime to be fully aware of all of the details in case it affects the search.
For all we know, and I`m sure the following is taking place, that a thorough investigation is taking place. They do not disclose everything in such a case.
Let us hope she if found asap.

Answer 10

The witness obviously believes that she saw a man carrying a girl and she was very specific with her description of both the man and the girl.

Now, some other witnesses may have seen something that is not that specific. The police are actually appealing to all witnesses to come forward regardless whether they have seen the actual child or something that resembles a child

Consider this scenario from another witness who saw something that night-

I have actually seen a man that does not match the description carrying something, but since this does not match the description I will not come forward with this information as I will be wasting police time.

I think the description should be more general than specific even though the witness was very specific.

Answer 11

Hmm...very interesting. What I wonder is why would she lie like that unless she was hiding something....so what is she hiding? She obviously knows something. If her story has changed that much then it should not be used at all, she cannot be seen as a reliable witness. Why someone would lie and change their story so much is beyond me when there is a young girl missing. While the police we're listening to her lies it could have given someone the chance to get away with murder - quite literally

EDIT: anne s is so right - she can recognise the colour of the mans shoes but not Maddy - yeah right - me smells a McRat