1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination 2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º

Jane Tanner Incongruences

Gerry McCann met and talked during ten minutes with Jeremy Wilkins, his neighbour in the tourist complex of Ocean Club, in the night which Madeleine disappeared. The evidence of this man is vital to understand the events of the night of the 3rd of May in the Praia da Luz. According to several newspapers, when questioned by the Judicial Portuguese Police in Portimão, Wilkins defended that Gerry McCann was totally calm, which would not be characteristic of someone covering up his daughter’s death. Wilkins met Gerry about 21h10 of the night in which the child disappeared of the apartment of the Praia da Luz, after Madeleine’s father had allegedly gone to the apartment to check on the three children who were asleep.

Besides being an essential witness in the investigations of this process, the TV producer, 36-year-old Briton, was one of the first ones warning the Portuguese police to disregard the initial theory of kidnapping. It was him who detected mistakes in the testimony of key witness Jane Tanner, 37 years, friend of the McCann’s who had dinner with them; she assured to have seen a man carrying a child wrapped up in a blanket near the house where Maddie's parents were spending holidays. The Portuguese Police started to suspect the declarations made by Jane Tanner thanks to the logical arguments supplied by Wilkins. Jane Tanner’s incongruent statements “lifted more questions than it gave answers” - This places her in the top of the list of persons that the PJ want to question again.

The testimony of the head of factual entertainment for Zig Zag Productions told the Police that he met with Gerry McCann at 21h10 in the main street of Ocean Club, in between the vicinities of the swimming pool and the McCann’s apartment.
The two men, fans of tennis, had already played a few games during their holidays. In their meeting in the street, Wilkins was taking his eight-month-old son for a walk.
The producer assured to have talked with Gerry up to 10 minutes, the same period of time in which Jane Tanner affirms to have walked past the two men on her way back to the apartment to check her own children, and at the same time she stated to have seen a few meters up in the same road a white man carrying something similar to a child wrapped up in a blanket.


Wilkins, told cops he could not recall anyone walking past him. Furthermore in all the time he was there he saw no man carrying a child. The TV producer is convinced he would have seen Jane Tanner pass by. He said: "It was a very narrow path and I think it would have been almost impossible for anyone to walk by without me noticing”.
Gerry and Tanner returned to the restaurant separately shortly afterwards and it was 10 p.m. when Kate decided to check on her children in the apartment.

There is a presence of a third witness which confirms the fact that Gerry McCann was talking to Wilkins, an Irish teenager confirmed she saw the two men talking, for a few minutes, near the McCann’s apartment: “There was only the father of the little girl talking to another man.” She didn’t see Jane Tanner or any man carrying a child either.
The girl wasn't in the list of guests, as their presence at Ocean Club wasn't registered with the management. Father and daughter have been in Portugal, to help the Portuguese Police in the reconstruction of what happened in the night of May 3 and to give a formal statement to Police.

Jane Tanner claimed she saw the two men but that was a later addition to her first statement and continued to guarantee that, at the top of the street, she saw a man with a child in his arms. The entire abduction theory depends on her and yet she left a vomiting child alone in her apartment while she sat drinking with friends at the Tapas Bar (and according to the waiters statements never left the table all night).

Jane’s Tanner statements have changed until now, two times, first account was: The man, looking Caucasian, was wearing beige trousers, black shoes and was covered in a thick jacket. He was slim, his height was 5'7" and with dark short straight hair. According to her words, he was carrying "a child or an object that could have been taken as a child wrapped in a blanket" or “bundle of clothes”. He was going towards the church.

In her second report in BBC Panorama’s documentary she morphed the description of the abductor, from a white man to a 5'8'' tall swarthy Mediterranean looking man with “quite a lot of dark, reasonably-long-to-the-neck hair”; the vagueness description of the bundle was changed to the certainty of a girl in pink pyjamas .

Jane, who socialized with the girl on a daily basis, did not recognize her though she could memorize the details of the alleged kidnapper. He was around 35 - 40 years, brown skinned, wearing beige trousers, a dark coat and black formal shoes (though JT didn’t see his face she was able to get the “abductor’s” age?). The “abductor” this time was heading towards Murat's home.

According to her statement, the child was wearing pink pyjamas, seemed to be asleep and was barefoot. This was the detail that she found the strangest “…and I can remember thinking oh that parent is not a particularly good parent, they've not wrapped them up”.

That night, after Kate discovered the disappearance of her daughter (and after Jane supposedly confirmed with another friend that Maddie was wearing a pyjamas of that colour), Jane Tanner made no mention of it to anyone. “I did not want to worry Kate even further”, she later said.

However as proven here, the lights that illuminate that street are made of sodium, Praia da Luz uses sodium vapour street lamps, which give light only under an orange spectrum as explained more scientifically here.

Street lights are a very special kind of yellow light in that they only produce a very narrow set of colours. So rather than giving out a bit of every colour of the rainbow (as with white light), only yellow-orange wavelengths are given off. The overall outcome if there are no wavelengths of light to reflect back is essentially monochrome. In that orangey tone light, at that distance, she could not have discerned either the pattern or the colour of the pyjamas the child was wearing.

In addition, the pyjama bottoms are white with a tiny pink floral pattern, have 3/4 length, that is almost knee length (as shown in the picture). Therefore if Madeleine was being carried the way Jane Tanner declared the pyjamas would probably go even higher than the knee's line thus making it impossible for Jane Tanner to see the colour of those tiny flowers.

*Note: The Forensic Sketch of Madeleine's probable abductor was commissioned by the McCanns.


Excerpt of the Panorama Documentary for the full transcript go here for the documentary itself go here :

Gerry McCann
Speaking in August
I bumped into one guy I played tennis with in the street when I'd gone in to check, and that was the first time I think of any of the nights that I'd been going up and down that I saw anyone else really - five, six nights, and it was incredibly quiet.

Bilton: They spoke for a few minutes. At this time around 9.15 Jane Tanner thinks about checking on her children.

Jane Tanner
Friend of the McCanns
I think the starters were about to arrive so I thought oh, I'll go and do a check in sort of 20 minutes or so before last check. So I thought I'll go and do a check before the food arrives. So I just walked out of the restaurant, up the hill, I passed Gerry who was talking to one of his tennis friends at the time. And then after I'd past Gerry, at the top of the road I just saw somebody walking across the top of the road so I was a reasonable distance away from them, and that person was carrying a child.

Bilton: You say "a person." Male or female?

Jane Tanner: Oh a male, a male.

Bilton: And just describe that individual to us.

Jane Tanner: He was about probably 5'8 tall, he was taller than me but not 6' and so between those two. 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, and 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.

Bilton: Describe exactly what he's carrying, what you can see.

Jane Tanner: Well I could see.. 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, and it was quite a cold night in Portugal in May it's not actually that warm, and I'd got a big jumper on, and I can remember thinking oh that parent is not a particularly good parent, they've not wrapped them up.

Bilton: And could you tell if it was a boy or a girl?

Jane Tanner: Only because the pyjamas had a pinky aspect to them so you presume a girl. It was actually quite cold.

Bilton: From your sketch he appears to be carrying the child in a sort of unusual way.

Jane Tanner: Yeah, he was carrying sort of across the body like that. I suppose in hindsight you'd probably think somebody would carry them more against the shoulder.

Bilton: And I have to ask you this. Are you absolutely sure of what you saw? It was a long time ago and it was only for a brief period?

Jane Tanner: Brief period but at the time I knew what I'd seen. I gave that information to the police and because of the pyjamas I'm absolutely convinced that is what I saw.


FYEO some webcams in Praia da Luz
praiadaluz
algarve-luzbay



6 comments:

  1. Is there a link to the witness statement of the young Irish girl who saw Gerry talking to Jez Wilkins?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Deposition of T. M. S., aged 12, a resident in Luz, on the 9th of May 2007, 4 p.m.
    Page 800-804, volume III of process 201/07.0GALGS

    "Comes to the process as a witness. Understands the Portuguese Language, as she has been living in Portugal since the age of two months (approximately eleven years ago). Still, an interpreter is present [name withheld].

    Her parents are separated, she initially resided in Monchique, and now in Praia da Luz, since 2005, at the address that is stated above, with her Mother.

    She also mentions that she lived in the apartment where the missing child was staying, that belonged to her Grandmother, who is already deceased. That she didn’t actually reside there, but spent extensive and repeated periods of time there, with her Grandmother and her Mother. The apartment was bought in 1994 and sold in 2002 and therefore she knows it perfectly, both from the inside and from the outside.

    She wishes to clarify. On the 30th of April, Monday, at around 8 a.m. and when she was walking to the bus stop for the school bus that leaves at 8.15, a path that she walks every day when there is school, she noticed the presence of a male individual, at the back of Madeleine’s house, on a little pathway to the apartments that exists there, looking in an ostensive manner at the house’s balcony. This happened when she was walking down the street, on the left side, which was right in front of the balcony, and the distance between them was the width of the road. That when she was walking down she decided to look at the pathway, because as she lived there, she likes to watch the house and the neighbouring garden. She walked with her mother, that she is certain she didn’t see the man, and she was walking two dogs on a leash, which forced them to cross the road, a bit further down. At that moment she saw the man more closely, as they crossed the road, and then lost visual angle when they finished crossing.

    Says that the man didn’t see the deponent, because he was staring at the balcony.

    She presumes that nobody was on Madeleine’s house’s balcony, but she cannot state it beyond doubt.

    After crossing, she caught the bus and went to school and her mother went on the beach to walk the dogs.

    When she returned from school, at around 5.30/5.40 p.m., after leaving the bus, she walked a different path, because the bus has a stop on the street where she lives, and therefore she doesn’t need to walk down to the ‘Ocean Club’. She didn’t see the man again at that time, nor did she see him again until the 2nd of May, Wednesday, after the bank holiday.

    That on that day she didn’t go to school because she was sick with an infection in her right ear. Still, and feeling somewhat better, at around noon she left on her own, as her mother was at work, with the dogs, and went to the ‘Alisuper’ supermarket which is located on a perpendicular to Rua Direita, where she bought chocolates for €3,63. Then she walked to the pharmacy, which is located below the ‘Baptista’ supermarket, on a lateral perspective, where she bought a box of tampons for her ears, to prevent water from getting in, and spent €4,55. Then she went to ‘Baptista’ supermarket to buy cereal bread, because they don’t sell it at ‘Alisuper’. She left the dogs tied at the back entrance of ‘Baptista’ and went in to buy the bread. She paid, left ‘Baptista’, collected the dogs, and walked across the supermarket’s hall to the main entrance, approximately four/five metres, which exits to the street where she had seen the man. She started walking up the street on the left side going up, and saw the man, this time in front of the ‘Ocean Club’s’ reception, once more looking at Madeleine’s house in an ostensive manner, where he stood he could observe, she thinks, the house’s two side windows and part of the balcony. She thinks that he could also be looking at the other residences that are located in the same direction.

    (continues bellow)

    ReplyDelete
  3. (continuation)

    That as she was walking up she walked right in front of the man, and observed him directly, an action that he did not retaliate, because he never looked at the deponent. The distance that she observed him from was the width of the road.

    After walking by the individual, she walked towards her house, through the road to the right, and never looked back to the man, or turned around to observe him better.

    After that day she never saw him again.

    As she said before, she left home at 12 p.m. and returned at 12.35 p.m., which means she crossed with the man at around 12.25/12.28 (the rest of the walk takes about seven minutes).

    On the next day, Thursday (03.05.2007) she walked the same path as on the 30th, at the same time, but didn’t see the man, and never saw him again, as she said before.

    Concerning the individual, she describes him as being: Caucasian race, light skin, so he wasn’t Portuguese, but could be British, according to her criteria. Approximately 180 cm tall, thin complexion, 30/35 years of age. Short hair, like shaved with 1 cm of length and fair, but she isn’t sure if it was blonde because the sun was reflecting, and made perception more difficult. She didn’t see the eyes because he wore dark glasses of black colour, with a structure of mass, a thick frame. He had a large forehead. Nose of normal size, a bit pointy and sharp. Large ears, close against the head. Mouth with thin lips, she didn’t see his teeth. Chin pointing up, which stood out on a face that she describes as sharp. No beard, no moustache, a clean shave. No other special signs, apart from some small pimples on the face as a result of shaving. He looked ugly, even ‘disgusting’.

    The first time that she saw him he was wearing a sports style jacket of thin black leather, with a zipper and several pockets also with similar zippers, in silver. She saw no label or inscription. The jacket was open, therefore she saw a white t-shirt, with a dark blue label near the waist, which she cannot identify very well.

    Trousers, she thinks, of blue jeans, worn out. Sports shoes (trainers) in black and grey, with a wave, maybe ‘Nike’ in a colour that she can’t remember.

    (continues bellow)

    ReplyDelete
  4. (continuation)

    The second time, he wore the same jacket, this time zipped up, because the day was colder than the first one, windy. She didn’t notice the rest of the clothing. She says that on that day he had a pen with a string attached to one of his pockets.

    The first time, he was leaning against the wall against his hands, and the second time, he had his hands in his pockets.

    She never saw him with any photo camera, or any mobile phone, although the second time, he might have a device in his pocket, which she detected by the shape.

    When asked, she says that she saw no vehicle near the man, only a few vehicles, but near the ‘Baptista’.

    When asked she says that she saw Madeleine once, on a day that she cannot indicate, on the balcony where the man was staring at, the first time. She even waved at her because it was a small child, in a caring gesture.

    A map of the area is added, where A is the spot of the first sighting and B the spot for the second one. The ‘Baptista’ supermarket and Madeleine’s apartment.

    She said that she can recognise the man both personally and photographically, and create a photofit.

    Therefore I interrupt the present deposition and show the deponent photographs of individuals with similar characteristics.

    I resume the deposition where it is consigned that the diligence resulted negatively, according to a report that is annexed.

    She didn’t say anything further. The deposition is read and approved, ratified and signed together with the interpreter that assisted.

    The present deposition is written and signed."

    http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic440.html

    ends

    ReplyDelete
  5. e-fit http://i28.tinypic.com/2nbhter.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  6. check the table of contents here http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic2.html

    ReplyDelete

Powered by Blogger.