terça-feira, 22 de fevereiro de 2011

As testemunhas......." independentes"

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts

16 February 2011


When practising with a purpose, whether as an aspiring body-builder or concert pianist, repetition is the route to success. It even helps us remember things.

Conversely it can help others remember things. That's what advertising campaigns do.

Perhaps that's why the various 'witnesses' to the McCann case thought it such a good thing to do also.

On the other hand they possibly felt obliged to repeat themselves on account of their own unintelligible gibberish, and on the assumption that it would all be clear in the end.

Just have a look at the following 'statement' (as in unfinished sentence) by Jane Tanner, for which shedeserves to be sentenced (indefinitely) - for crimes against the English language. It is not untypical.

"So err but I don't know, I mean I think it was, I'd have been, I was thinking in there I was trying to remember again what you know how dark it was or how you know and it was, I really can't remember, but twilight definitely, it'd had twilighted to dark and err as I say with the pink part of the pyjamas..."

We have already seen (A Payne in the Glass) how David Payne told the same story three times, modifying the details along the way.

Clearly he misunderstood the brief, which was to say the same thing as frequently as possible, not different things at every opportunity.

Jane Tanner though got it right when it mattered. And no, I am not referring to her multi-faceted waffle about her walk up and down the road that night, where exactly Gerry McCann was standing when she passed him, the faceless (yet later recognisable) 'abductor' or the length of his hair. I mean, specifically, the pink pyjamas.

Admittedly I'm going over old ground somewhat, but is it not curious, to say the least, that an eye-witnesses perception of a pair of gent's trousers should be compromised by the orange colour-cast of nearby street lighting, whilst her appreciation of a small pair of trousers he appeared to be carrying should be enhanced by it?

"I don't know, I've often thought quite a bit, purely because the colours seem quite horrible in terms of, I say the trousers are horrible, they didn't, they were quite a nasty err yeah they weren't a nice colour trousers."

Horrible trousers. Nasty colour. What an unpleasant spectacle. What colour was that again, Jane? Oh, you forgot to mention.


4078: "And, overall, what colour would you say the pyjama bottoms were?"

Reply: "Erm, I can't, I can't remember, I mean, I, I can't remember, well I can't remember now, but I think they were sort of whitey but with this, with this pattern on, but then some pink. That’s, that's what I thought at the time."

And just to confirm:

"So I don’t know, 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.”

So, orange illumination notwithstanding, Jane Tanner manages to see pink represented in largely white trousers (the McCann children were 'attired' for the night in predominantly white something or others - maybe even pyjamas - according to David Payne).

Remarkable in itself. But nothing like as remarkable as Ms Tanner's insidious insistence that P.C. 4078 take particular account of what she is telling him.

"I can think that I would think 'Oh maybe a little girl would be wearing pink pyjamas', so, you know, if you were subconsciously putting things in your head, I can think pink pyjamas, yes, but I wouldn't think of some detail around the bottom of the pyjamas as a specific thing to, to mention."

Got that, 4078? The structural detail's unimportant. It's the 'pink' bit you have to remember. Put it into your head subconsciously - pink!

This remark just shouts off the page. If Tanner were considering her own subconscious disposition she would have said so.

As it is she makes a glaring and undeniable distinction between 'you' and 'I,' juxtaposing them within the same sentence.

And if one should feel, whether aggrieved or charitably inclined, the need to defend poor Jane against having made 'a mere slip' once, then can they please be so good as to explain why she should have made it twice!

"and err as I say with the pink part of the pyjamas I've always wondered whether that was a little girl, is it, are you going to plant into your head the pink pyjamas."

You're quite sure you've got that 4078? You will remember the pink pyjamas, won't you?

Oh please!

Almost a year after Madeleine's disappearance (Jane Tanner was interviewed by Leicestershire Police on 8 April, 2008), and the only definitive description of the pyjamas Madeleine was wearing when 'taken' remains that owing to the McCanns.

Not one of the three ostensibly independent witnesses in a position to do so,

albeit in principle (Matthew Oldfield saw everything in the dark except Madeleine), is able to confirm the pink top and conspicuous dormant donkey design characteristic of those Disney 'Eeyore' pyjamas.


Enviar um comentário