Sunday, April 29, 2012

#McCann : Jane Tanner's exclusive interview with The Sun, 20 November 2007

News International article researched by Tony Bennett.
I've highlighted in red a few passages from this remarkable 'exclusive' Murdoch-owned Sun article, and appended in blue a few observations and comments:

Jane Tanner's exclusive interview with The Sun, 20 November 2007

Published: 20 Nov 2007

MADDIE kidnap witness Jane Tanner yesterday told how she watched the tot being snatched – and insisted she has NO doubt (1) about what she saw.

In an exclusive interview with The Sun – her first with any newspaper – Jane forcefully hit back at critics who have suggested she is lying.

Amid sobs, she said: "I DID see a man that night carrying away Madeleine.

"She WAS abducted."

Tears welling in her eyes, she went on: "I wake up to that image ever day. Every day I see him there, striding away, carrying Madeleine and I try desperately to remember more detail, what his face was like.
"I think about it over and over again. It’s horrible.

"Madeleine was (2) adorable. Every day I hope this is the day we find her."

Twisting her Look For Madeleine yellow and green wristbands, Jane, 36, then went into detail about the night of May 3.

She told how she and the other members of the so-called Tapas Nine had been leaving the restaurant at the complex in Praia da Luz to check their children.


I DID see man abduct Maddie
The Sun

It was on one of her visits to see her two daughters that Jane passed Maddie’s dad Gerry, 39 (3). He was returning from seeing his children.

Seconds later she saw a man cross from left to right in front of her with a child lolling back in his arms.

Jane said: "It wasn’t unusual to see people with children, even at that time of night. But my attention was drawn to him because the child had bare feet.

"It was a cold night and I thought that was strange because as a mother I would never have taken my child around at that time without something on their feet or a blanket. All I could see of the child was their legs dangling.

"The man was about ten to fifteen feet in front of me (4) and was walking quite quickly and I can remember thinking, 'That’s odd'.

"But that was all, nothing to make me scream out to make him stop. I never at that time thought it could be Madeleine. I’d just passed Gerry (3) so I thought his children were all asleep in bed."

Jane carried on to her apartment where she found her daughters were fine, (5) so she went back to the tapas bar.

About 15 minutes later her partner Dr Russell O’Brien checked (5) and found one of the girls had been sick (5) so he asked a friend to fetch Jane.

It was while Jane was there that Maddie’s mum Kate, 39, went to see her children at around 10.05pm – and found the girl missing.

Jane said the first she knew was when she looked out of her window and saw the table at the tapas bar was empty (6). She opened the door and there was commotion.

She said: "I saw all our friends outside shouting. I opened the door and one, Rachael, shouted at me, 'Madeleine’ s gone!' As soon as she said that the image of that man carrying the child came into my head and I felt physically sick. A feeling of complete horror washed over me."

Minutes later Jane saw Kate. Close to tears,
Jane admitted she could not bear to tell her about the man. (7) She said: "At that time it seemed everyone thought Madeleine was hiding. (8)I knew that if I told her about the man it would shatter that. I was also hoping desperately that I’d been wrong. Instead I took another friend, Fiona, to one side and told her. (9)"Then, at around 11.15, two policemen arrived and I told them. Later CID arrived. They did this thing called a cognitive


1. Tanner first of all says 'I try desperately to remember what his face looks like' but later says 'He had his face turned away' (!). Later on, despite his face being 'turned away', she was apparently able to pontificate that 'George Harrison man'/'monster man' looked like the man she had seen (!). Of course, we mustn't forget that at a press conference in September 2009, when the story was the Victoria Beckham-lookalike asking an anonymous British banker for her daughter in downtown Barcelona at 2am, former Chief Inspector Dave Edgar said: "Tanner could have seen a woman".

2. Only four months after Madeleine was reported missing, Tanner uses the past tense about Madeleine.

3. Twice she mentions passing Gerry. Strange...first because Gerry can't remember seeing her down that narrow lane, and second because Gerry was talking to Wilkins but Jane doesn't say anything about her seeing Wilkins. It's as if she hasn't rehearsed very well and has forgotten her lines.

4. 10-15 feet in front. Hmmm. That's about the length of an average-sized bedroom. In just 4-5 paces, she would have bumped into him!

5. If they were 'checking every half-hour', why did Russell O'Brien go to see the girls within 15 minutes of Tanner's visit. And was one of the girls so badly sick that O'Brien had to wash her sheets and pillow-case in the washing-machine AND bath her, even though 15 minutes before, Tanner pronounced the girls 'fine' (one presumes 'fine and sleeping soundly', though she does not say so).

6. Hmmm. So she just 'happened to look' out of the apartment window? She says the Tapas bar table was 'empty'. Yet both Dianne Webster and the waiter maintain that Dianne remained steadfastly at the table after the others rushed off.

7. Yet Russell O'Brien was gaily writing down on a ripped-out cover of Madeleine's Activity Sticker Book: "9.15pm - Jane sees abductor with Madeleine".
technique, where they put you back in the moment, and it was then that I remembered the pyjamas.

"There were pink and white, they were what Madeleine was wearing. (10) I just felt so awful, I felt I could have stopped this from happening. I think of that everyday.

"I have to live with it forever, that guilt is never going to go away."
It has been reported that the man she saw that night was Robert Murat, the first person named as a suspect. But Jane said she simply does not know (11).
Jane, from Exeter, Devon, said: “He had his face turned away (1) and it was dark.

"I’ve done an artist’s impression and want people to look at that and rack their brains as to whether they know him, or if they were on holiday, saw him.

"Please just ring the Find Madeleine Spanish hotline".

8. Come off it, Tanner. Both Dr Gerald McCann and his wife told the media and the police: "We knew instantly that it was an abduction".

9. And we're espected to beleive that Fiona didn't tell Kate either?

10. Did she know what pyjamas Madeleine was wearing? And she didn't actually say the pyjamas were 'white and pink'; she said they 'had a pinkish aspect'. And what happened when the McCanns held up Madeleine's ACTUAL pyjamas. Little Amelie piped up: 'MADDIE'S JAMAS'. Strange too that Amelie referred to her as 'Maddie' when the McCanns insisted she was alweays called 'Madeleine'?

11. Goncalo Amaral is very very clear in his book. On Sunday 13 May, when Madeleine would have been four years old, Jane Tanner 'adamantly' insisted that when Murat walked past the police van she was in that afternoon, that he was the abductor she'd seen 10 days earlier. This Sun interview was the beginning of a concerted effort by the McCann camp to begin to deny that Tanner had ever positively identified Murat. The Sun interview, presumably carried out at least a day or two in advance of publication on 20 November, followed swiftly on the high-level meeting in the Algarve on 13 November, just a week earlier, between double glazing magnate Brian Kennedy and Edward Smethurst, his lawyer and also the McCanns' 'co-ordinating lawyer', official suspect Robert Murat and his lawyer, Francisco Pagarete, and Murat's mother and aunt and uncle.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

#McCann : #Mumsnet's JANE TANNER : The Framing Of Murat - BUT should the story go 'belly up', then it was nothing to do with Gerald McCann was it?

By Dr Martin Roberts
19 January 2010


If lies are two a penny, then a 'tanner' should give you at least a dozen.

Jane Tanner is the invisible woman, able to pass two people standing in an otherwise deserted street without herself being noticed; not even by the one facing her at the time.

Her visual acuity is such that, under sparse artificial lighting, at night, and at a distance of some fifteen feet plus, she was able to resolve at a glance the small pattern on a pair of recumbent child's pyjama trousers (which she could see), as well as suggesting the colour of the matching top (which she could not see), despite the orange cast imposed by street lamps ("I feel, I thought I saw pink pyjamas and I thought I could see colours but I don't know, it was fairly orange so I don't know").
And yet the child was being carried by an adult with seemingly no discernible facial characteristics whatsoever; not even in profile.

However, the official PJ account of Tanner's first witness statement, taken on 4 May, 2007 records that 'when asked, she says she would probably be able to identify the individual she saw, being able to identify him from the side and from his manner of walking.' Hence Jane Tanner managed to extract sufficient information from her encounter to allow her to identify the nocturnal pedestrian she saw crossing the street ahead of her.
She believed it to have been one Robert Murat.
Understandably keen to assure themselves that Jane Tanner would subsequently recognise Robert Murat as the individual she saw on the night of Madeleine McCann's disappearance, Portuguese police execute a modest 'stake out'.
They place Ms Tanner inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being seen herself, and park the vehicle at the very spot where she claims to have been on the night of May 3rd.
As Robert Murat, loosely accompanied by plain clothes police officers, passes up the road in the same way as the party previously spotted by her, Jane Tanner is adamant that it was Robert Murat whom she saw that night. She recognises his gait.Robert Murat, I am sure, would not take offence at anyone remarking on his defining feature, which is not the disposition of his feet.
Owing to an unfortunate motorcycle accident as a young man, he now has only one viable eye. Spectacles are essential and he wears them constantly.
Whilst he has an understandable bias in his eyesight therefore, it is not mirrored in the action of his limbs, which are perfectly normal. Surely someone with night vision so acute they can describe the pattern, cut, and hue of a small area of textile glimpsed at a distance, would have noticed if the child carrier himself wore glasses, even seen from the side.
He didn't. Therefore he was not Robert Murat, whom Tanner recognised simply on the basis of his walking 'purposefully.'
Tanner's memory has the extraordinary characteristic of becoming clearer with time and encouragement.
Cognitively 'induced', she sees the child in pyjamas for what they were, rather than the amorphous textile bundle they might have seemed previously.
It just took that extra stimulus for things to fall into place.
She herself has said that she didn't remember the pyjamas until she was put under a cognitive 'spell' several hours after the original sighting.
On 20 November, 2007 she told The Sun newspaper that "at around 11.15, two policemen arrived and I told them. Later CID arrived. They did this thing called a cognitive technique, where they put you back in the moment, and it was then that I remembered the pyjamas." But what did she tell the two policemen who arrived first?

One of the officers in question was Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa (GNR Patrol), who afterwards reported that '...his colleague went to check the area around the apartments and the Tapas Bar, while the witness remained next to the apartment, just outside it.
At that moment a female individual... who was in the neighbouring apartment, said that she saw an individual carrying a child, running, and that because of the pyjamas she was wearing it could have been Madeleine.

There are already cases on record of psychopaths feigning hypnosis (e.g. Albert Bianchi), so coming forward with the notion of pyjamas (having previously articulated the same), when given a gentle nudge to the psyche by a police inspector, is hardly original.

You know who your friends are with Jane. Or do you? On 8 April 2008 she had the following to say, inter alia, to a detective constable from Leicestershire Police who was interviewing her at the time:

Jane Tanner: "Errr... so, yeah... so, David... so, we said... we decided, oh yeah, we'll go and it'll be nice to see everybody, and we know Kate and Gerry, we'd sort of socialised with them but not as well probably as the other... as the other two couples."

Leicestershire Police: "Mmm..."

JT: "Errr... but they'd been on holiday with David and Fiona before and so... and they've got children the same age as well, you know. Obviously Madeleine's the same age as E***, so a bit of a nice group."

LP: "So you knew them all but you hadn't all been on holiday as a group before?"

JT: "No, we've been with Matt and Rachael and David and Fiona. And David and Fiona had been with Kate and Gerry but we hadn't been, not the eight, or the nine of us including Fi's mum, we hadn't been on holiday before."

A year earlier and the information she disclosed might have been a little different.

'In September 2003, the McCanns and their friends Matthew Oldfield, Rachael Mampilly, Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner spent a week in Umbria in Italy, where they went to attend David and Fiona Payne's wedding.’ (The Forbidden Investigation).

Neither David nor Fiona Payne is Italian.
Hence, six friends found themselves at the wedding of two further friends, and all of them together in a foreign country.
That sounds very much like eight people on holiday to me, and if a trained doctor cannot arrive at 'eight' as the sum of six plus two then something is seriously wrong with our educational system. (o.k., so we know that to be the case, but no one would suspect standards to have sunk quite that low).

This is, by any measure, a shameful catalogue of deliberate falsehoods.
 But if you can tell a man by the company he keeps, as well as acknowledging equality of the sexes, then Jane Tanner was not alone in her mendacity; not by a long chalk.
Gerry and Kate McCanns' duplicity is risibly blatant.
 Matthew Oldfield talks of his activities inside an apartment as though his perspective view were from outside. I
s it any wonder that these were the star players in the McCann inspired documentary 'Madeleine was Here'?

Whether by accident or design, the 'Tanner sighting' has become the maypole around which all the other colourful threads in the McCann fairytale are entwined.
Yet there are more sides to it than a threepenny bit, suggesting that design might have played a role, and that this isn't quite a case of the tail wagging the dog.

Jane Tanner's seemingly coincidental sighting is but one of a medley of events itemised, for the benefit of the PJ in the first instance, by Tapas 7 members.
So scrupulous were they concerning the chronology of the sequence overall, that they saw fit to annotate it twice, with small, and on the face of it insignificant, amendments.
As is the case with so many things, the process itself turns out to be as interesting as the result.

The informational specifics are as follows:

The first list:

8:45 Everyone meets at the pool for dinner

9:00 Matt Oldfield listens at the windows of apts 5A,B,D
ALL blinds are closed

9:15 Gerry McCann goes to the room? bedroom door open

9:20 Jane Tanner checks 5D, sees a stranger carrying a child

9:30 Russell O'Brien in 5D, child is sick

10:00 Alarm given after Kate

The second list:

8:45 Pool

Matt returns 9:00-9:05 - listens at all, the 3 all have closed blinds

Gerry 9:10-9:15 - goes to room? bedroom door open

9:20/5 Jane checks apt 5D. Sees stranger with a child

9:30 Russell and Matt check the three
9:35 Matt sees the twins

9:50 Russell returns

9:55 Kate sees Madeleine is missing

10:00 Alarm

These lists, drawn up at the time the first GNR officers arrived on the scene, each include one entry shared almost verbatim: 'Jane (Tanner) checks apt 5D. Sees a stranger carrying a child.'
The subject of this observation would later experience angst and remorse in equal measure; angst that inhibited her, so we are told, from telling the parents of Madeleine McCann, at the earliest opportunity, that she had personally seen someone who might have carried off their child, and remorse over not having done so until several hours later, once she had recalled the pyjamas; the same pyjamas she had previously mentioned at 11.15 p.m. when she thought her sighting important enough to bring to the attention of the GNR.
So why should she not wish to inform the McCanns, even under duress?
It is clear from her statements to police, both in Portugal and in retrospect, that her 'close encounter of the abduction kind' came as a surprise to Gerry McCann when first he heard mention of it.

Angst, remorse, and a revelation or two

From Jane Tanner's rogatory interview we glean the following:

Jane Tanner: "I didn't want to say to Kate at that point, which might sound odd now, you know, 'Oh, why wouldn't you say straight away to Kate', but, you know, the thought of telling the mother of a child that you might have seen being carried away is, it's too horrible to even say.
So I just said to Fi, errm... you know, 'I think I might have seen somebody a bit odd when I came back to do one of the checks'. And I don't know whether she, I mean, she was just sort of like... I don't know whether she took it in properly, but, errm... and then they just carried on... carried on the searching."

News too sensitive for Kate's ears is therefore confined to Fiona Payne.
Or is it? Way back in time (4 May, 2007) Jane Tanner gave a witness statement to the effect that 'As she (sic) concerns the man she saw, she only spoke to Gerald about this, not entering into details, and to the police.'

So it wasn't Fiona Payne she spoke to after all, but Gerry McCann.
Well, maybe that depends on whether there’s an 'R' in the month.
Jane Tanner's testimonial record is analogous to the lady who confesses adultery twice - once with the neighbour and once with the Rugby club's first XV, as further scrutiny of her Rogatory interview reveals:

LP: "Who else did you speak to?"

JT: "I'm trying to think of the order... it was, sort of like... it was Rachael first, then it was Fi and I can't remember when Russell and Matt came back, they came back at, errm... tut, I don't know whether they came back first or I told them or who else was there, but as soon, the police... when the police came, I know Rachael went straight away to get them to say, so that I could tell the GNR, I think... yeah, the GNR, what I'd seen, but I do'’t know if I told anybody else.
I can't remember when people like Sylvie, who was the translator... I'm not sure when she arrived whether it was before the Police arrived or after the Police arrived or whenever, but..."
LP: "But you told the Police when they came?"

JT: "Yeah, when they arrived, Rachael, I think, went and got the GNR and I told the GNR chap and then when the PJ actually arrived they came and got me to go and talk to the, the PJ".

The actual sequence of disclosure is confirmed much later on in the interview:

"Rachael was the first person I told. And then Fiona and then I think when Russell and Matt or Russell and Dave, whoever it was that came back, I then, then told them."

Like the cuckolded husband, Gerry McCann is conspicuously absent from the roll call. Rachel Oldfield's own witness statement of 11 May, 2007 confirms:

'Further to that, about 10 minutes after Kate raised the alarm about the disappearance, the deponent was with Jane in the apartment of the latter.
While talking, Jane told her that when she came to see their children, and passed Gerald talking to "Jez", she saw a man with a child, supported in his arms, which would not be a baby and could have been more or less the age of Madeleine...
Asked, says that, initially Jane focused more on the description of the man and, only a few days later, did she make reference to the clothes that the child would have worn, which would be pyjamas.

So the world and its neighbour knew about Tanner’s sighting of 'man carrying child' almost from the outset, but 'child with pyjamas' was a later development; unless of course you happened to be GNR patrolman, Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa.

LP: "So when you went into Gerry and Kate's apartment who else was there?"

JT: "Errm... I think there was Russ... I think Russell came with me and there was Sylvie who was the translator."I can't remember which... there was some... there was a PJ chap was sitting on the... by the table. And there was Gerry who was standing by the... the bedroom door."

LP: "And how was Gerry at that point?"

JT: "Oh he was just, well obviously, obviously distraught..."

LP: "And what was Gerry's reaction to what you said?"

JT: "Well I don't even know whether he took it in, I mean, he was just... he was, you know, obviously just standing there looking absolutely horrified, so..."

So, despite Gerry McCann's being in the immediate vicinity as Russell O'Brien writes out the timeline featuring Jane Tanner’s sighting (indeed, as others have established, he was sitting at the table at the time), he appears to have been taken aback by Tanner's personal revelation.
A sympathetic view of this reaction would be that Gerry was alarmed to discover that an opportunity for intervention appeared to have passed them by.
A more quizzical interpretation rests on the supposition that GM actually furnished O'Brien and Oldfield with the details for the timeline, as well as the child's book on which they might write it (the latter is highly likely, the book having been Madeleine's own after all).
Yet there is another possibility.
Gerry McCann's acting skills are, shall we say, noticeably underdeveloped.
He cannot conceal his own discomfort when fielding awkward questions in public, for instance.
Is it likely then that he would have feigned surprise for Jane Tanner's benefit?
If not, and his surprise was therefore genuine, why should he have looked 'horrified?'
Surely if his child had not long been spirited away, his face ought to have conveyed something more akin to relief, possibly even a certain animation, given that someone might be in a position to identify, or at least help identify, his daughter's abductor.

Simply playing devil's advocate and supposing that, whatever else, Madeleine was not abducted, provides an immediate explanation for Gerry's astonishment.
For how can Jane Tanner be in a position to know something about the detail of an event that did not take place?
That someone should come forward with independent validation of a lie must have been unsettling to say the least.
 Even more unsettling for Gerry McCann was Jane Tanner's continued insistence subsequently.
Other commentators have previously pointed out how the McCanns have been careful to disseminate their opinions/claims etc. among close friends, family members and various 'sources', making it the more difficult to lay blame for any misrepresentation at their door; a deliberate dissociation.
Under the circumstances pertaining in the early hours of 4 May, 2007, one might reasonably expect the McCanns to have embraced Jane Tanner's revelation wholeheartedly from the outset.
Yet they appear not to have done so.
Although they each made mention of the Tanner 'sighting' during their respective police interviews, Gerry, rather than elaborate the description advanced by Tanner when given the opportunity, simply referred the police to her for details.
Not a desperately committal attitude really, suggesting that Gerry had not quite immersed himself in Jane Tanner's representation of events.

Whilst this may appear to be stretching a point, or reading too much into the situation, the point is inexorably enlarged by examples of the McCanns' later behaviour toward their star witness and what she had to say. Isolated these may be. Contradictory they are not.

Under interview (and there have been quite several), Jane Tanner's confidence in her story, even if not her degree of accuracy, has been unwavering.
From the outset she was sure she could identify the man she had seen in the darkness (from a distance of 50 metres according to Kate McCann).
Is it not therefore a little odd, to say the least, that the McCanns seem not once to have encouraged the production of a 'visual' for the benefit of all those people they presumed to be searching for their daughter?
That task was left to the Pinkertons.
It was not the McCanns but Spanish detective agency Metodo 3 who commissioned the understandably derided artist's impression of 'Bundleman', fully five months after Madeleine's disappearance.

So much for urgency.
 How about faith in one's friends?
The obvious illustration in this case has to be the documentary, 'Madeleine Was Here', and the reconstruction that wasn't.
Which of us, having seen this production, can forget the confluence of Gerry McCann's and Jane Tanner's 'evidence' - the certitude; the unimpeachable unanimity?
What we recall, as clear as crystal, are the disagreements, the McCann dogma, and the tears that flowed immediately afterwards.
Now what was that all about?
 Without question, Gerry McCann's dissociation from Jane Tanner's story was apparent, even after an interval of two years.
If attention needed to be focussed on the evil abductor crossing the road ahead of all three bystanders (Gerry, Jane and Jes Wilkins), what difference did it make on which side of the road Gerry and his Tennis buddy were standing at the time?
As far as the 'abductor' goes, nothing at all, since one or other of the conversationalists ought to have noticed him, whichever side of the road they were on.
But Jane?
Common sense dictates that, had she passed them on the same side of the street (as she claimed), she must have been nigh on unmissable.
The chances of her not being recognised (or better yet, passing completely unnoticed) are somewhat improved when the parties are physically separated.

So why should Gerry McCann have been so determined to irrigate the seeds of doubt?
Because Jane Tanner's so-called sighting was, and is, a double-edged sword, as keen along one edge as the other.
On the plus side 'Bundleman' represents confirmation of the story.
On the other, his reported presence on the street at exactly the same time as Gerry McCann implies, inevitably, that he must have gained access to apartment 5A before Gerry himself had done so.
He could not have accomplished all he has been credited with otherwise.
That being so, Gerry is faced with little choice but to entertain, albeit in retrospect, the likelihood that the intruder had hidden himself from view once Gerry had followed him inside, and that, as we know, was simply not possible (unless for some reason the intruder was in the process of abducting Madeleine from her parents' bedroom), since Gerry personally visited the children's bedroom, via the lounge, before leaving (he also visited the toilet).
If Matthew Oldfield was able to see the twins breathing through a crack in the door, then Gerry McCann couldn't have missed an adult trying in vain to conceal himself.
Consistently (and conveniently) Gerry McCann fails to notice the abductor both inside and outside the apartment.
Yet at the same time he is loathe to pass up the opportunity of capitalizing upon Tanner's 'evidence'.
So what does he do?
Exactly what he has always done - reap whatever benefit is to be had from favourable observations delegated to others, who then find themselves, knowingly or otherwise, to be the focus of attack should the information turn out to be questionable.

Thus has Jane Tanner been pilloried, even here, for her 'unreliability' as a witness, whilst Gerry has positioned himself strategically, such that he cannot be called upon to offer support.
After all, he cannot even confirm that their paths crossed in the street.
In truth it is not in his interest to do so.
Cynically, he is prepared to accept the credibility that the sighting of an 'abductor' confirms, but should the story go 'belly up', then it was nothing to do with him was it?

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

#McCann : Just Suppose - McCann Used A Sedated Friends Child For His Fabricated Abduction WITNESSES Galore - The Smiths - Imagine McCann's Surprise The Following Day When No One Came Forward !

A POSSIBLE sighting of Madeleine Mccann by a Drogheda family on the night she disappeared could be crucial in a new probe into her disappearence.
Members of the Smith family from Maple Drive revealed to police investigators that they saw a man carrying a young child through the streets of Praia da Luz on the night she went missing, May 3 2007, from her family's apartment on the Algarve.

Their statement is still regarded as being ' totally credible' by sources.

Monday, March 5, 2012

#McCann : Jane Tanner - Her Very First Words On Her Fabricated Abductor

From the statement of Silvia Batista

At a given moment, the deponent translated the deposition from one of the ladies that belonged to the group of English people, namely one that she indicates as being a brunette.

This lady told the GNR officers, and the deponent translated, that she had seen a man crossing the road, possibly carrying a child.
The deponent found that situation strange because she was convinced that when she saw this man, the lady was positioned in a spot that has no viewing angle to the location where she had seen the man.

Jane Tanner LIES and fabricates her way through this entire footage. Let us hope Silvia Batista is called for the libel trial along with Jane Tanner!


Saturday, March 3, 2012

The Invisibile Jane by Unterdenteppichgekehrt

Inspired by Pat Brown's visit to Praia da Luz and the subsequent renewed discussion about the Tanner sighting I revisited my photo selection and some statements from the files again. The core mystery and the only "evidence" for an abduction still remains Jane Tanner's statement of when she encountered eggman aka the abductor.

Part of her statement again:
Questioned about the path she took on the way to her home, she relates that she left the reception at the entrance to the Tapas/pool area and went up the pavement to the corner, having entered the apartment by the front door, which was, as already stated, locked. more

Monday, February 20, 2012

Jane Tanner - Blogged About Her Run At The Marathon ( October 20th 2010)

It's getting me out of bed....
8:11 p.m. on 20th October 2010
Well the fear is working so far, I have been out of bed and on the road before half 6 twice this week. Bit dark but making the most of it before it gets really cold.
Only short runs but with fast intervals. Knee hasn't totally recovered from GNR so taking it steady.
Also the dreams have started already. On Monday night I dreamt that I was at the start in converse trainers with no socks. :-)

Toenail nearly off!
11:16 p.m. on 28th October 2010
The toenail that went black after the GNR is about to fall off. Felt very strange when I went swimming a few days ago..... :-) Yuk!
Only been out once this week so far. But will try and get out tomorrow after hopefully getting Take That tickets - how sad am I?!!!!
At the in laws so will try a new route. Climbed a hill in North Wales today though and knees a bit sore when just nipped upstairs to check kids. My poor knees don't know what is going to hit them!!

59 miles since last Sunday....madness!!
9:22 p.m. on 27th March 2011
I've just realised if you include last Sunday's long run, I've run 59 miles in 8 days!! That is almost the equivalent of running to Bristol! Madness!!!
No wonder today's run was a real effort. I am so glad it is time to taper as I am not sure how much longer I can keep up the will power for these long runs. Or how long the body will hold up!
Ridiculously today was much harder than last week, although last week I had gone to bed at 2am after my friend's 40th and even had one sneaky drink, first in ages! So I now know
what I need to do on the 16th for my pre marathon night plan....none of this going to bed early malarkey! :-) !
Now the long runs are done, fundraising will start with avengeance. I have got a few fundraising events organised for the next few weeks so hopefully I can still reach my target. Thank you to everyone who has already sponsored me.
P.S. Please help with another cause very close to my heart and sign this if you can. It really could make a big difference.

The final de der der....!!
7:50 p.m. on 10th April 2011
In the words of is the final countdown!
This time next week I will be 40 and have run a marathon! (Note the positive thinking!)
Have found the fundraising really hard, probably harder than the training. I hate asking people for money but everyone has been so generous and the target is in sight!
Did the final long one today (yay!) and not thinking about the fact my foot throbs after about 7 miles. Just keep telling myself it is mind over matter but wondering if drugs would help the mind along. :-)
Very excited I'm sure are all my friends by the fact I will soon no longer be a running bore. I'll have to find something else to bore them with.....but at least I can do it after drinking a few beers!!! Which is another thing I will be doing this time next week..... :-)

loadsa love Fi, Dave, Lily and SW xxxx £40.00 (+ £10.00 giftaid)
13.04.11 may the wind be on your back, the sun on your face ... and the lure of all the wine you will deserve to drink afterwards on your mind! Good luck ..all very proud!

Research : Jill Havern Forum


Jane Tanner : Tanner Told Silvia Batista May 3rd, She Saw Someone Who Was POSSIBLY Carrying A Child - As Time Went By Her Abductor Grew Legs, Clothes And Hair

From the statement of Silvia Batista

At a given moment, the deponent translated the deposition from one of the ladies that belonged to the group of English people, namely one that she indicates as being a brunette.

This lady told the GNR officers, and the deponent translated, that she had seen a man crossing the road, possibly carrying a child.
The deponent found that situation strange because she was convinced that when she saw this man, the lady was positioned in a spot that has no viewing angle to the location where she had seen the man.

She doesn’t know exactly where the lady was positioned when she saw the man passing by, but she knows that she indicated that she saw him passing on the street that lies in front of the window to the bedroom where Madeleine was, walking into the direction of the street that leads to the Baptista supermarket.

List of Jane Tanner's sightings:
From McCann files:

5' 10" (25 May 2007)
5' 8" or 5' 9" (05 June 2007)
5' 7" to 5' 11" (09 June 2007)
5' 8" to 5' 10" (26 October 2007)
5' 9" (28 October 2007)
5' 6" (16 November 2007)
'probably 5ft 8in tall, he was taller than me but not 6ft and so between those two' (19 November 2007)


Hair that was short on top (25 May 2007)
Dark hair, parted to one side, slightly longer at the back (05 June 2007)
Dark hair (26 October 2007)
Black hair (28 October 2007)
'Hair.. the one thing that I remember a lot is the hair. He did seem to have quite a lot of dark, reasonably-long-to-the-neck hair' (19 November 2007)

White (25 May 2007)
Caucasian (09 June 2007)
Caucasian with southern European/Mediterranean appearance (26 October 2007)
'More local or Mediterranean looking'/'swarthy skin' (19 November 2007)

Top clothes:
Dark jacket (25 May 2007)
Dark jacket, slightly longer than a suit jacket (05 June 2007)
Wearing a maroon shirt (28 October 2007)
Heavy dark coat (19 November 2007)

Beige or golden long trousers (25 May 2007)
Light coloured trousers which may have been beige or mustard coloured (05 June 2007)
Camel-coloured trousers (28 October 2007)
'He was wearing quite a lot of clothes and that's one thing in hindsight again I think was quite odd because tourists when they're abroad, Brits abroad would always have cropped trousers or shorts or something, and he had a sort of a big heavy jacket and trousers on' (19 November 2007)
'He was dressed in that sort of smart casual way European people dress' (19 November 2007)

Medium (25 May 2007)
Slim (26 October 2007)

Dark shoes (25 May 2007)
Black or brown shoes (28 October 2007)

Carrying child:
'Carrying, sort of, across the body like that. I suppose in hindsight you'd probably think somebody would carry them more against the shoulder.' (19 November 2007)

Child's description:
'I could tell it was a child, and I could see the feet and... feet and the bottom of the pyjamas, and I just thought that child's not got any shoes on because you could see the feet.' (19 November 2007)

Child's clothes:
'the pyjamas had a pinky aspect to them so you presume a girl.'

From McCannfiles:
The Smiths' sighting:

175 to 180 cm tall (5’ 9’’ to 5’ 11’)


Short, brown hair


Top clothes:
A darker top. The man is not dressed like a tourist

Cream or beige trousers, classic cut, of linen or cotton
( Two of the Smiths family said the trousers had buttons. )

Average build, physically fit

Not specified

Carrying child:
Carrying a child, with the head against his left shoulder and the arms hanging down alongside the body

Child's description:
Bare feet, pale skin typical of British and blonde, shoulder-length hair; the girl is about 3-4 years old, about 1 metre tall

Child's clothes:
Light coloured or pink pyjamas

Photos: bed with and without trousers, Gerry in cream trousers.

Research : Jill Havern Forum