Tanner says she saw a man walking away from the holiday complex carrying a child at around 9:15 p.m. that evening, the BBC said.
At the time she thought nothing of it, but was now convinced it was Madeleine.
Yeah ok, so either it was your friends’ child or it wasn’t and of course anyone in their right minds would just ignore it?!
Maybe attentions to other headlines are causing alarm and they need another diversion?
And so the plot thickens, what will they come up with next?
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20071116/tuk-uk-britain-girl-fa6b408_2.html
2007-11-16 03:23:38 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Happy Murcia - Well they don't seem capable of the truth do they?
daisy - Seems they are all a law unto themselves!
Mossy - No, she is making things ten times worse, if that's posible..
Kim - I think there are many who would like to ask them a few questions, if given the chance..
Jack H - You have sused them well..
Hi little weed, I don't think they are capable of decency, as their words and actions have proved...
Pat R - Pity the McCann's didn't use this wonderful service!
Nutsters - Let's hope...
john k - thanks!
Helen O - Yeah the multi-changing ID 'Egg Head'...
tgibbyson - She's also said a lot of contradictory things too...
2007-11-16 04:18:02 · update #1
Kerryann - Too true! They obviously think we are as daft as them
2007-11-16 04:21:00 · update #2
anne s - You are right there! They don't deserve respect...
mini - Her lies flow too easily it's scary...
talkTurk - If only! I'm sure her nose is growing!
2007-11-16 05:36:30 · update #3
Thanks everyone for your great answers...
2007-11-17 01:07:48 · update #4
TOO LITTLE,
TOO LATE.
the tapas nine (minus the mccanns, of course ) are now busy saving themselves from being included in the inevitable charge for Neglect.
IT'S ON IT'S WAY.
2007-11-16 04:03:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 2⤋
Isnt it humorous how Clarence denies those thoughts on 'behalf' of the Tapas 7 which begs the questions; a million) because while did Clarence exchange right into a spokesman for the Tapas 7? 2) in case you have been afraid of the McCanns and the equipment around them, could you quite tell Clarence which you have been approximately to spill the beans? 3) Why do you in no way see any of the Tapas 7 come out and say the story is rubbish, rather you get some obscure, relayed message from Clarrie asserting that the thoughts are rubbish.
2016-10-02 12:03:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What if Tanner is NOT lying: What she saw could have been a dead Maddy, not a sleeping child! The man could have been that 'film producer' friend who Gerry claimed to have 'bumped onto', but who was really summoned to remove the corpse, put it on his yacht and get it out of Portugal. Another witness, unrelated to the McClan, had seen a man carrying a child to the harbour, and a British owned yacht leaving its mooring. The yacht and the Brit were never traced. (And we never heard anymore about this!)
Not much difference between this scenario and an abductor scenario, right? Just make sure you don't describe him too well, Jane!
2007-11-16 07:22:56 · answer #3 · answered by starling 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hi Seven...... Good question .So Clarrie has wheeled out Tanner to reiterate her lies.I thought they had a pact of silence and couldn't speak about the case ???? They only speak out when it suits them.
I read somewhere on one link that Tanner saw "bundleman" carrying a child away but she didn't think anything of it at the time because she thought it was GERRY taking Maddy somewhere !!!! Then she later gives the description of a greasy looking chap with collar length hair. When will this circus end and these interfering people let the PJ continue unhindered to find the truth ?
2007-11-16 03:49:05 · answer #4 · answered by little weed 6 · 8⤊ 4⤋
Actually I agree with this. If she is such a good friend and has known them for a long time then surely she would have known that it was Maddie at the time and raised the alarm that she had just seen a man with a child she thought was Maddie, not say later that she knew it was Maddie. Id know my friends child if I saw her. This is what I find hard to comprehend.
For a good friend she isnt doing them any favours is she
2007-11-16 03:30:28 · answer #5 · answered by Mossy Jan 6 · 9⤊ 3⤋
well jane tanner would say that wouldent she
anybody who is a friend or is getting money from these people are obliged to spin for them
there was no evidence of an abduction
if that was my friends child i would know immediately , they must think we are as daft as brushes
2007-11-16 04:17:13 · answer #6 · answered by Karl 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋
the only thing she said differently was that she was at their (tanner's and o'brian's) apartment when kate 'realised' madeleine was gone. other than that nothing new than what has been reported. all spin from team mccann. it's amazing cause janes tanner says she has not said anything before because of portugal's secrecy laws but since she's been called 'a liar' she decided to step up and correct it....hmmm....so isn't jane still in breach of portugal's secrecy law?.
2007-11-16 03:29:49 · answer #7 · answered by daisy 6 · 8⤊ 4⤋
the mcscammies are doing all they can to cover their backs madeline has always come a poor second to them
if they spent as much time looking for their daughter as they do defending themselves they would have my respect
i have no respect and no time for this selfish couple
2007-11-16 04:25:42 · answer #8 · answered by stacey 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
The bull manure is rather thickly strewn around this woman!
2007-11-16 04:34:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
well Christmas is coming so shes got plenty of scope......maybe he'll turn into frosty the snowman or one of sant'as little eleves...........................how does she sleep at night trying to frame an innocent man??? why not come forward and tell us the truth and help put kate and Gerry where they belong...........JAIL
2007-11-16 04:42:06 · answer #10 · answered by talkTurkey 2 · 6⤊ 2⤋