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

I also remember early reports of Jane actually seeing the person carrying a child as she was leaving her apartment, not as she was on the way from the Tapas Bar to the apartment. Does anyone else remember this? In this case, she would have only seen the man and child from the back, or very briefly from the side as he turned the corner. Gerry actually said in one of his interviews that Jane saw the man as she left the apartment. Wish that I could find this interview.

So, given that Jez saw Jane outside the apartment at about 8:30 pm, she could have seen someone carrying a child at this time. Perhaps she preferred (or was encouraged by Gerry) to tie her sighting into a check because she was trying not to look irresponsible for not checking on her sick child between 8:30 pm and 9:25 pm when O'Brien left.

It literally makes no sense for her and O'Brien to arrive at the restaurant by 8:45pm, she conducts a check at 9:10pm, returning to the table at 9:15pm, for O'Briend to get up just 10 minutes later to conduct his check. It is even harder to believe that Jane found her daughter safe and sound, while minutes later, O'Brien found the younger daughter vomiting and crying.

jinvta wrote:I also remember early reports of Jane actually seeing the person carrying a child as she was leaving her apartment, not as she was on the way from the Tapas Bar to the apartment. Does anyone else remember this? In this case, she would have only seen the man and child from the back, or very briefly from the side as he turned the corner. Gerry actually said in one of his interviews that Jane saw the man as she left the apartment. Wish that I could find this interview.

So, given that Jez saw Jane outside the apartment at about 8:30 pm, she could have seen someone carrying a child at this time. Perhaps she preferred (or was encouraged by Gerry) to tie her sighting into a check because she was trying not to look irresponsible for not checking on her sick child between 8:30 pm and 9:25 pm when O'Brien left.

It literally makes no sense for her and O'Brien to arrive at the restaurant by 8:45pm, she conducts a check at 9:10pm, returning to the table at 9:15pm, for O'Briend to get up just 10 minutes later to conduct his check. It is even harder to believe that Jane found her daughter safe and sound, while minutes later, O'Brien found the younger daughter vomiting and crying.

Jane's daughter was ill that night and it is on record that he had to leave his steak and the cook kept it warm for him until he returned just as Madeleine was reported missing. Jane would have telephoned Russell on her mobile and he replied on his mobile....so much for the Mitchell statement that they never had their Mobiles with them. I think the Portugese Police should have told the Tapas 9 that a recon was mandatory since their timelines did not tally

they did want the recon, and I would have thought by the time the T9 developed reasons why they could not do it, they were well aware that the reason the PJ wanted it done was to make precisely that point. Just seeing the Crimewatch thing where you see people getting up and down the one time, you think "this is silly." If they had perfect confidence in the safety of the resort and had baby monitors etc there would be no reason for anyone to go and check, apart from mcCanns, - Paynes did not get up to check and OBrien's also had a monitor. Oldfields I don't know, but the primary reason not to do reconstruction was that it would bring up these issues of the timeline in a way where it was made obvious how unlikely and how unaligned they were, A, and B, would then have them all in Portugal where they could be arrested or at least hassled for the lesser offence.

I feel like the lawyers for McCanns had made it plain that it would be unhelpful for any or all of them to agree to return to Portugal and reconstruct the night in question.

I can't recall which ones said they didn't think it would be helpful, but Paynes - as they never left the table and never said they did - would be less important, they could have a couple stand in for them, since they just sat there with the monitor and even the mother in law said she wasn't bothered because it was just some game they were playing (can't recall her exact terminology but obviously if her own grandkids were well sorted, she could have thought the up and down jumping was nonsense, and not worthy of her or her daughter and son in law's attention, since they'd had a plan that was working for them in terms of caring for the 2 little girls asleep in a locked flat with a high end monitor that could catch any sounds -

it's the Oldfields with their non check of Madeleine at 930, as well as the timing - did Matt really go at 9, then again to check McCann flat at 930, after Gerry had JUST returned from there, at his 9-915 check? Doubtful, that's ridiculous)  and OBriens, with their "sighting" and absence from the table, who would be primary interviewees.

Therefore it is likely that Paynes would have said No as they had the least reason to arise suspicion - and the most reason to support the others without arising suspicion, in saying it wouldn't be helpful. they knew they went nowhere, so had little to add, and could safely give the others an "out" to fail to attend the reconstruction - others who DID have a good reason to want to avoid that reconstruction since it'd be obvious that Oldfield had a lot of questions to answer about the state of the door, windows, shutters etc and O'Briens since they said they were back and forth a number of times.

to put it another way, if OBriens said it would not be helpful, the police would think "they don't want to do this because it's going to bring up the sighting by Jane, and the fact that she never left the table" which is suspicious - if Oldifelds said they did not want to reconstruct, you could think that Oldfield's check would be delved into in terms of the state of the flat and why he would be back at 5Am only ten minutes after Gerry returned. That one makes no sense.

One of these, I think Oldfield, owed Gerry some favor.

Who refused to reconstruct?

Rachel Mapilly sent an e-mail to Stuart Prior asking what he thought of a recon. He replied "I don't think any useful purpose would be served". I was so annoyed I wrote to him, he never replied.

The night crehe was open 1730 - 2330. Perhaps the man Jane allegedaly saw carrying a child away from the apartments and in the direction of the creche was actually bringing his daughter to the creche rather than retrieving her from it?

That's feasible but it's hard to believe that, if the man existed, he wouldn't have come forward to be eliminated from the enquiry right at the start.

I don't of course believe that he has only recently been traced.

jinvta wrote:The night crehe was open 1730 - 2330. Perhaps the man Jane allegedaly saw carrying a child away from the apartments and in the direction of the creche was actually bringing his daughter to the creche rather than retrieving her from it?

Good point. It was only 915 - I have a hard time believing this guy did not raise his hand long ago, however look at the people who had nothing to do with it whose lives went to hell in a hand cart after touching this pair and their friends who "knew" that guy was the abductor and put his efit about everywhere - look at Murat - if you had nothing to do with it you might not want to be involved and have your life destroyed and the pro McCann contingent running around "knowing" you had something to do with it, lose your job, your respect, possibly have your child/ren taken from you etc because you were in the wrong place at the right time.