In the Panorama interview. When asked how the mystery man was carrying the child, Jane Tanner appears to slip up. She says " I was carrying (not he was carrying) it sort of across the body like this. O'Brien was absent for most of the meal. He claims his daughter was sick and he had to change the sheets yet Mark Warner staff found no evidence to support this ie, dirty or wet sheets. There are reports that the sniffer dogs found the trace of death in another of the apartments, the Tanner/O'Briens had the apartment next door. It is Jane Tanner who has pointed the finger at Murat even though the description she gave police of the mystery man bears no resemblence to him. (she says she remembers that the man had long hair, Murat has his hair cropped) she has changed her statement at least twice.
Do you not find it chilling to hear her say that SHE was carrying the child across her arms. check it out.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DbjXaKHMRas
2007-11-27 19:44:52 · 11 answers · asked by trancebabe 4 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
There is something going on here that only the Tapas lot know about. I never noticed her say that when i watched the panolrama interview. Good on you Trancebabe, that was well spotted.
Deep down I don't think we are ever going to get to the bottome of this. There are too many high falluting people supporting them...though God knows why.....and it seems that they can do no wrong.
Poor Maddie, she is the innocent in all this.
2007-11-27 21:29:20 · answer #1 · answered by elsie1912 4 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I also think it's strange that she says she saw the abductor just after she'd passed Gerry and his tennis friend talking. They were in the same street at the same time - why then did they not see the abductor also? The friend has actually said he did NOT see either Jane Tanner or a possible abductor at this time, yet this was not mentioned on the Panorama programme. And would an abductor have entered the apartment when he must have been able to see Gerry in the street a short distance away?
2007-11-28 07:11:36 · answer #2 · answered by Ella 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There are too many inconsistencies which I believe are being speculated to maintain the media momentum. Most of us have been dragged into this by becoming commentators/voyeurs, supporting one or the other side. In that, the McCanns has achieved their 'primary' objective in maintaining the high profile of their missing child.
Unfortunately, there is only one fact - Madeline is missing. The investigation to date has not highlighted a single shred of evidence of what happened to her; abducted or murdered!
What I find rather bizarre in this case is the amount of publicity, the use of technology, the human resources and the time spent of the case and yet there is a shocking lack of credible evidence to establish as to what actually happened on that fateful day!!
Perhaps I watch too much CSI.
2007-11-28 04:28:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
Tanner and OB are in it along with the McCanns. They are all acting strangely,constantly changing their stories and blaming everyone but themselves. I hope the Pj get closer to the truth when they arrive here today.Good Q Trance. Keep up the good work.
2007-11-28 05:14:47 · answer #4 · answered by little weed 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Very good point. I don't believe this woman at all. The testimony she gives is to emphasise what she wants us to believe. She draws conclusions in an attempt to convince us. I'm not buying it at all. She's lying.
2007-11-28 06:50:56 · answer #5 · answered by jonquilblack 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
People who are not used to speaking to camera mis-speak. It happens. Why are you obsessing about it all this time later?
Also, how do you explain that a respected journalist quit the Panorama McCann programme because he felt it gave too much weight to baseless accusations against the McCanns and their friends: "'We had an investigative team looking into the story for weeks. Our assessment was that the purported DNA evidence was weak and inconclusive, while so far as we could tell the supposedly significant "discrepancies" between the stories told by the McCanns' friends about the night of Madeleine's disappearance amount to very little indeed", and that as a result it "verges on the dishonest"?
He asked "how, without any meaningful evidence, the Portuguese police and the media in Portugal and Britain have been able to convince most people that the couple were involved" - so, how were you convinced? Or is your life so empty that you just need somebody to hate and condemn so you don't feel so worthless?
2007-11-28 04:01:27 · answer #6 · answered by gvih2g2 5 · 5⤊ 9⤋
she is probably describing herself carrying the child, she looks a bit like the drawing
2007-11-28 12:06:30 · answer #7 · answered by gal-next-dr 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Trancebabe, she is a completely normal person giving an interview to a BBC programme being shown to millions, do you think she is a trained actress or news reader? She is bound to have a slip of the tongue etc, she was probably nervous as hell, most people would be.
'Chilling', seriously, what are you on about?
What is so unbelievable about Madeleine being abducted by a paedophile? Do you WANT the parents or their friends to be involved just to justify your daily spiteful rants?
2007-11-28 05:09:27 · answer #8 · answered by thebigkahuna 4 · 1⤊ 6⤋
Quite chilling.
She doesn't make a lot of sense. First saying the man was wearing to many clothes for the weather then saying she had a big jumper on as may in Portugal isn't that warm.
2007-11-28 04:00:05 · answer #9 · answered by Missy H 5 · 12⤊ 3⤋
She has kids. She carries them. She may have also carried Madeleine at one time or another. Whats so chilling, Trancebabe???
She knows there are people, sitting on the edge of their seats, waiting to pounce on any tiny slip she might make...naturally she was nervy at the interview...and in the self-fulfilling prophetic way gave them that slip.
2007-11-28 03:54:05 · answer #10 · answered by Faith 6 · 6⤊ 13⤋