Jane Tanner just couldn't have been there, could she?

I visited the " UK Justice Forum " a few minutes ago and had a glance at the MM thread. I was/am amazed at the general lack of knowledge of the sheeple therein. They are still discussing the subject of the Shutters being opened, the mind boggles.
Whilst there I came across a newspaper article that I hadn't read before in the Daily Express from several months back. And as I hadn't read about it on this forum I have decided to put it here. I should say now, although I have said it before that  Jane Tanner never left the Tapas at 9.15pm. I came to this conclusion after reading Amarals book in which he, in my opinion, states that the  abduction theory stands or falls on JT's statement. Further to this two waiters have stated that she didn't get up from the table, JT and g.mcscam stated they didn't see her. A girl standing on an apartment balcony directly across the road didn't see her and two people standing on the roof top of an apartment directly above 5A didn't see her.
It is the final two above 5A that the DE article is about. I had read about these two previously on this and other MM forums but hadn't been aware that it was printed in a newspaper.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/400796/Mystery-couple-seen-going-into-McCanns-flat-on-night-before-sobbing-Madeleine-disappeared

Hi BelEddie, it appears that SY have discounted Jane Tanners' statement and are working on the basis now that there was a gap between 9pm and 10pm when no one checked on the children , making it easier for an Abductor to come into the Apartment , pick
sleeping Madeleine up from her bed, and go out the front entrance into a waiting car.

This theory is possible, but obviously it was not an abduction for ransom because no one asked for money. If it was to sell Madeleine to some Sheikh, Pedophile ring , a Mother who had lost her child, would they choose a Holiday complex and risk being caught? There are many poor Countries around the World where children can be bought very cheaply , no questions asked.

BelEddie wrote:I visited the " UK Justice Forum " a few minutes ago and had a glance at the MM thread. I was/am amazed at the general lack of knowledge of the sheeple therein. They are still discussing the subject of the Shutters being opened, the mind boggles.
Whilst there I came across a newspaper article that I hadn't read before in the Daily Express from several months back. And as I hadn't read about it on this forum I have decided to put it here. I should say now, although I have said it before that  Jane Tanner never left the Tapas at 9.15pm. I came to this conclusion after reading Amarals book in which he, in my opinion, states that the  abduction theory stands or falls on JT's statement. Further to this two waiters have stated that she didn't get up from the table, JT and g.mcscam stated they didn't see her. A girl standing on an apartment balcony directly across the road didn't see her and two people standing on the roof top of an apartment directly above 5A didn't see her.
It is the final two above 5A that the DE article is about. I had read about these two previously on this and other MM forums but hadn't been aware that it was printed in a newspaper.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/400796/Mystery-couple-seen-going-into-McCanns-flat-on-night-before-sobbing-Madeleine-disappeared

I think most posters there know that the windows/shutters are of no consequence, but there are a few die-hards who like to raise it as being a viable route of entry and exit.

BelEddie wrote:I visited the " UK Justice Forum " a few minutes ago and had a glance at the MM thread. I was/am amazed at the general lack of knowledge of the sheeple therein. They are still discussing the subject of the Shutters being opened, the mind boggles.
Whilst there I came across a newspaper article that I hadn't read before in the Daily Express from several months back. And as I hadn't read about it on this forum I have decided to put it here. I should say now, although I have said it before that  Jane Tanner never left the Tapas at 9.15pm. I came to this conclusion after reading Amarals book in which he, in my opinion, states that the  abduction theory stands or falls on JT's statement. Further to this two waiters have stated that she didn't get up from the table, JT and g.mcscam stated they didn't see her. A girl standing on an apartment balcony directly across the road didn't see her and two people standing on the roof top of an apartment directly above 5A didn't see her.
It is the final two above 5A that the DE article is about. I had read about these two previously on this and other MM forums but hadn't been aware that it was printed in a newspaper.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/400796/Mystery-couple-seen-going-into-McCanns-flat-on-night-before-sobbing-Madeleine-disappeared

Do you or anyone have a 'source' to confirm this ?

I would like to think it's not possible for SY to go into business with the McCanns, telling them it's OKAY that they lied about checking, or even, let's just put that aside for a moment and follow up on sightings - that is so unprofessional and so not how things are done.

SY says Tanner DID see someone, they found the guy and I'm almost wondering how closely they pinpointed Tanner man (innocent tourist going the opposite way to what she claims if he was on his way from the night crèche, but never mind) to the timeline. I mean if you can wave it off that the crèche was on the other side of the complex and he wouldn't have been walking where she said she saw him, why not let her fudge the time as well - maybe she saw someone carrying a child TO the crèche earlier, or saw Stephen Carpenter -

It nags at my mind that perhaps the changed testimony of the "couple" that Clarrie so vigorously denied the existence of, was Tanner and OBrien - we know that Oldfield changed his, for the record, either to make it seem more likely that Tanner had seen the abduction (he claimed he went into the room and saw the kids, all three kids, at 930 then backed out of that to say he just peered in and didn't see Madeleine, which would have meant that she was already taken by the time he checked) or because it was true -he HADN'T visually checked the kids.

Could SY have said, in all the confusion, and the fear of a foreign legal system - you were frightened your own children could be taken from you unfairly and yourselves jailed etc for not checking your kids - perhaps you mis remembered things - we are willing to allow for that and not make you into a bad guy if you think hard now and tell us how it occurred... it is quite obvious that this lot will NOT tell the truth regardless of the effect it has on the investigation, and on Madeleine, if there is any chance of themselves facing any repercussions. So perhaps SY is wise to that and gave them a "pass" -

say Jane broke down and admitted she hadn't left the table til the hue and cry was raised at ten - that would open it up from Gerry's "check" at 910 to ten pm.

The problem I have is that I think this all went down about an hour before they say it did, such that Gerry discovered Madeleine "gone" at 915 ish, maybe he went into the flat AFTER he spoke to Jez rather than before -say he realized after speaking to him that he had to pee and went inside and did find her "gone" - and the calls for Madeleine, Madeleine that Carpenter's wife heard were the actual beginning of the timeline of "finding her gone" whereas some time after ten they officially raised the cry that she's been abducted.

If Sy believed that, they would not be showing around efits of an abductor - they'd be focusing on Gerry and Kate and the T9 that night. Maybe that is why they showed Smith efit at long last - knowing well that this lot is lying and covering up and that innocently they want to show the "abductor" that Smith saw, possibly hoping to scare up some more clues -

Thank you widowan. "SY says Tanner DID see someone,"

That is what Scotland Yard said and that he has been traced and eliminated.

Doesn't matter what 'gir'l on a balcony thinks she didnt see and what 'people' on a roof top think they didnt see (woman says she was having a drink on the balcony at 9.15 and didnt see jezz,gerry or tanner).

Different matter if the two waiters have sworn statements that tanner never left the table,did they do that ? Then Scotland Yard are liars if so.

It's probably in the McCannfiles somewhere , but the American/Portugese Detective hired by CBS to go to PDL said he was told by the Waiters that Tanner didn't go to the Restaurant that night.!!! I did have 5 videos made by the Detective, I'll have a look and see if I still have them.

Maybe this one,if true he needs to speak to SY.

"Jane Tanner gives a very inconsistent story,its not a truthful story and i'm not quite sure why she did it -----She never left the table that night"

Thats what this guy says,but he also says the parents couldnt be involved,not enough time to dispose of the body."Its all about timelines"

Well we dont agree with him on the last bit as there was time,albeit a matter of scampering around in the dark and getting lucky !

Still looking for a firm statement from the waiters ?

Well done Lioned.....that's the one.!! There were 5 in all and Moura says because he speaks Portugese he was able to converse with the Staff who were fed up with the Reporters hanging around every day.

Actually, now that Tanner has been ruled out the McCanns had an hour which I think was used to hide Madeleine's body in the Tennis bag until Gerry could take it out and dispose of it. I ws talking to an English woman a long time ago on a Coach to the Airport and she said the Portugese believe Madeleine was thrown into the Sea...poor little mite. The McCanns had a lot to lose if they had to be tried for neglect causing harm which carried a 10 year sentence.

Panda wrote:Well done Lioned.....that's the one.!! There were 5 in all and Moura says because he speaks Portugese he was able to converse with the Staff who were fed up with the Reporters hanging around every day.

Actually, now that Tanner has been ruled out the McCanns had an hour which I think was used to hide Madeleine's body in the Tennis bag until Gerry could take it out and dispose of it. I ws talking to an English woman a long time ago on a Coach to the Airport and she said the Portugese believe Madeleine was thrown into the Sea...poor little mite. The McCanns had a lot to lose if they had to be tried for neglect causing harm which carried a 10 year sentence.

Could the tennis bag then be transported in the car boot, with the resulting alert?

I don't think the idea is too feasible of the parents carting a corpse around 3 weeks later, it's gruesome, but more over it is risky and they were not into getting caught.

I think things associated with it, maybe - clothes they wore on the night, tennis bag etc.

widowan wrote:

Panda wrote:Well done Lioned.....that's the one.!! There were 5 in all and Moura says because he speaks Portugese he was able to converse with the Staff who were fed up with the Reporters hanging around every day.

Actually, now that Tanner has been ruled out the McCanns had an hour which I think was used to hide Madeleine's body in the Tennis bag until Gerry could take it out and dispose of it. I ws talking to an English woman a long time ago on a Coach to the Airport and she said the Portugese believe Madeleine was thrown into the Sea...poor little mite. The McCanns had a lot to lose if they had to be tried for neglect causing harm which carried a 10 year sentence.

Could the tennis bag then be transported in the car boot, with the resulting alert?

I don't think the idea is too feasible of the parents carting a corpse around 3 weeks later, it's gruesome, but more over it is risky and they were not into getting caught.

I think things associated with it, maybe - clothes they wore on the night, tennis bag etc.

I think they disposed of the body that night which is why they never took part in the search. The dog signalled the Wardrobe, that could be where the body was hidden until Gerry could take it away.

Panda wrote:

widowan wrote:

Panda wrote:Well done Lioned.....that's the one.!! There were 5 in all and Moura says because he speaks Portugese he was able to converse with the Staff who were fed up with the Reporters hanging around every day.

Actually, now that Tanner has been ruled out the McCanns had an hour which I think was used to hide Madeleine's body in the Tennis bag until Gerry could take it out and dispose of it. I ws talking to an English woman a long time ago on a Coach to the Airport and she said the Portugese believe Madeleine was thrown into the Sea...poor little mite. The McCanns had a lot to lose if they had to be tried for neglect causing harm which carried a 10 year sentence.

Could the tennis bag then be transported in the car boot, with the resulting alert?

I don't think the idea is too feasible of the parents carting a corpse around 3 weeks later, it's gruesome, but more over it is risky and they were not into getting caught.

I think things associated with it, maybe - clothes they wore on the night, tennis bag etc.

I think they disposed of the body that night which is why they never took part in the search. The dog signalled the Wardrobe, that could be where the body was hidden until Gerry could take it away.

But the tennis bag was in the wardrobe in the crime scene photos taken later by police, so it was either returned very early that night or did not leave until later. The praying Arab scene the policemen witnessed in the bedroom might have been distraction tactics and perhaps why they stayed in the apartment, to ensure nobody went looking around while they were out.

The obvious thing to use would be a bag, nobody would take any notice of a tourist carting a piece of luggage in a holiday resort.

I don't believe they transported a body in the boot either, more like something used to carry it or clean up an area, was transported to a dump.

Panda wrote:

widowan wrote:

Panda wrote:Well done Lioned.....that's the one.!! There were 5 in all and Moura says because he speaks Portugese he was able to converse with the Staff who were fed up with the Reporters hanging around every day.

Actually, now that Tanner has been ruled out the McCanns had an hour which I think was used to hide Madeleine's body in the Tennis bag until Gerry could take it out and dispose of it. I ws talking to an English woman a long time ago on a Coach to the Airport and she said the Portugese believe Madeleine was thrown into the Sea...poor little mite. The McCanns had a lot to lose if they had to be tried for neglect causing harm which carried a 10 year sentence.

Could the tennis bag then be transported in the car boot, with the resulting alert?

I don't think the idea is too feasible of the parents carting a corpse around 3 weeks later, it's gruesome, but more over it is risky and they were not into getting caught.

I think things associated with it, maybe - clothes they wore on the night, tennis bag etc.

I think they disposed of the body that night which is why they never took part in the search. The dog signalled the Wardrobe, that could be where the body was hidden until Gerry could take it away.

Yes, if you remember Jane Hill of the BBC aske Kate why she didn't search , kate replied "Well we were busy". With all the kerfuffle going on, moving the twins etc, it would appear normal carry a bag with clothes for the next day.

The problem with Jane not being there is that it means that she would be lying. What motive would she have for doing that?

IMO SY know that Tanner lied regarding the sighting. Rather than call her out as a liar and a fantasist, much easier to claim that they have found the man that she saw and he was an innocent tourist. The Tanner sighting was nearly the entire basis for the abduction theory, other than the door shutters and window open, door slamming shut, blowing curtains nonsense.

I would love to hear more about how Mr. Moura came to his conclusion that Tanner never left the table that night.

Yes he was quite positive wasnt he so he must have been told by someone there.So Tanner we know is a liar and then you have to wonder why ?

I'm still gobsmacked that the tabloids haven't tracked down and doorstepped the bloke who Tanner saw! This story just gets more and more unbelievable. Good to know he kept the jim jams. Not as careless as the mcs when they couldn't even keep any stuff of Madeleine's for dna purposes.

We can see through this complete bilge why can't the brains of Britain's finest constabulary?

jay2001 wrote:I'm still gobsmacked that the tabloids haven't tracked down and doorstepped the bloke who Tanner saw!  This story just gets more and more unbelievable.  Good to know he kept the jim jams.  Not as careless as the mcs when they couldn't even keep any stuff of Madeleine's for dna purposes.

We can see through this complete bilge why can't the brains of Britain's finest constabulary?  

Makes you wonder what the team 'rank and file' really think.

jassi wrote:The problem with Jane not being there is that it  means that she would be lying.  What motive would she have for doing that?

It's possible Jane DID see someone carrying a child , but it might have been a Father taking his child home from the Creche. Or, more likely, because she was sure about the pygamas the McCanns asked her to say she saw someone to make it look as if she had witnessed the abductor.

Panda wrote:

jassi wrote:The problem with Jane not being there is that it  means that she would be lying.  What motive would she have for doing that?

It's possible Jane DID see someone carrying a child , but it might have been a Father taking his child home from the Creche. Or, more likely, because she was sure about the pygamas the McCanns asked her to say she saw someone to make it look as if she had witnessed the abductor.

Only if she was on the street at the right time, but it is being suggested that she never left the table.

jassi wrote:

Panda wrote:

jassi wrote:The problem with Jane not being there is that it  means that she would be lying.  What motive would she have for doing that?

It's possible Jane DID see someone carrying a child , but it might have been a Father taking his child home from the Creche. Or, more likely, because she was sure about the pygamas the McCanns asked her to say she saw someone to make it look as if she had witnessed the abductor.

Only if she was on the street at the right time, but it is being suggested that she never left the table.

Ojh yeah, I forgot. Is there anything straightforward about this case????? 

Panda wrote:

jassi wrote:

Panda wrote:

jassi wrote:The problem with Jane not being there is that it  means that she would be lying.  What motive would she have for doing that?

It's possible Jane DID see someone carrying a child , but it might have been a Father taking his child home from the Creche. Or, more likely, because she was sure about the pygamas the McCanns asked her to say she saw someone to make it look as if she had witnessed the abductor.

Only if she was on the street at the right time, but it is being suggested that she never left the table.

Ojh yeah, I forgot. Is there anything straightforward about this case????? 

No. Confusion is the key.

jay2001 wrote:I'm still gobsmacked that the tabloids haven't tracked down and doorstepped the bloke who Tanner saw!  This story just gets more and more unbelievable.  Good to know he kept the jim jams.  Not as careless as the mcs when they couldn't even keep any stuff of Madeleine's for dna purposes.

We can see through this complete bilge why can't the brains of Britain's finest constabulary?  

It occurs to me that none of the other women left the table that night from soup to nuts til Kate left at ten (or whenever) - only Jane had to take a turn. And wouldn't you know it, she sees the abduction as it goes down.   What are the odds

jassi wrote:

Panda wrote:

jassi wrote:

Panda wrote:

jassi wrote:The problem with Jane not being there is that it  means that she would be lying.  What motive would she have for doing that?

It's possible Jane DID see someone carrying a child , but it might have been a Father taking his child home from the Creche. Or, more likely, because she was sure about the pygamas the McCanns asked her to say she saw someone to make it look as if she had witnessed the abductor.

Only if she was on the street at the right time, but it is being suggested that she never left the table.

Ojh yeah, I forgot. Is there anything straightforward about this case????? 

No. Confusion is the key.

The way things are going it will be well into the New Year before the Trial is finished ...what if there is an Appeal.???