In her book Kate McCann asserts that Tannerman and Smithman are the same?

[j.rob]

Kate repeatedly in her book suggests that she thinks the man the Smiths saw is the same man that Jane Tanner saw. Her inference is quite clear: she believes it is likely to be the same man and the man who allegedly abducted Madeleine.

On page 365 she ask 'who is the man Jane Tanner saw carrying a child, very probably Madeleine, away from our apartment?'

At the end of her book Kate lists some 'sightings' and writes: 'there are certainly common characteristics to suggest that some of these sightings, if not all, could be related.'

Her inference is clear.

The twins believe that: 'a naughty man had stolen their sister and now what we must do was find her.'

The McCanns and their friends at every turn do their utmost to promote the idea that Madeleine was abducted from her bed that night  Despite not having a shred of evidence that this is what happened and despite  (allegedly) not having seen what happened or had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.

They promote the theory that the abductor is likely to have been hanging around the resort in the days prior to the alleged abduction.

'This person who stole a little girl out of her bed and away from her family has been anonymous for far too long.'

Indeed.

The bogey-man theory. Believed by many to be not so much bogey as bogus.

One fact is clear: there is no evidence that Madeleine was unexpectedly stolen from her bed that night as part of an abduction that the McCanns and their friends had no prior knowledge of.

Is it true that the evening of the alleged abduction is one of the few evenings when all of the adults in the MCann party dined together? If true, that strikes me as quite a coincidence.

At 9.05 Gerry claims that he saw Madeleine asleep. At 9.30 Matt checks but conveniently does not look inside the apartment, so wouldn't know whether Madeleine was there or not. At 10pm Kate claims that Madeleine isn't in her bed and checks whether she has gone to the parents' bed. On discovering that this too is empty, a 'wave of panic' hits her. She then claims that when she sees the window in the children's room wide open and the shutters raised 'nausea, terror, disbelief, fear. Icy fear. Dear God, no! Please, no!'

'Madeleine has gone. Someone has taken her.'

Jane Tanner conveniently left the table  to check on her children anat around 9.15 and claims that she saw a man carrying a child. Throughout the book, we are left in no doubt that the McCanns and their friends consider Jane Tanner's sighting as being hugely significant.

'There is little doubt in my mind then, nor is there now, that what Jane saw was Madeleine's abductor taking her away.'

I think that is fairly unequivocal.

Kate explains that she is 'grateful' someone had seen something.

You can see why the Portugese detectives didn't find the McCann version of events particularly believable. Sounds like the plot of a very bad 'whodunnit'.

[j.rob]

Slot into Jane Tanner and the McCann's version of events for that evening the Smith sighting. Kate says she made a check of the apartment at 10pm that evening. Having looked around the apartment and finding Madeleine not in it, she then runs out back to the dinner table in what sounds like a blind panic and screaming: 'Madeleine's gone. Someone's taken her!' Presumably this was a few minutes after 10pm as it doesn't sound as though she looked long before making that claim

The man that the Smith's saw, and who Mr Smith thought bore a strong resemblance to Gerry McCann (after he saw him on TV carrying his son) was seen by the Smith family at 10pm. He was walking away from the resort complex and towards the beach. He avoided eye contact with the Smiths and I believe ignored a question asked by Mrs Smith who asked if the child was sleeping.

If we are to make a hypothesis that this was Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine away from the apartment and the resort and towards the beach (and we have a reliable witness who thinks it was Gerry) then we need to look at the relevance of the timing. 10pm (or perhaps 10.05) is the time that Kate McCann raised the alarm. As the Smith sighting coincided closely with the time that the alarm was raised, surely it is vital to establish whether or not Gerry was at the dinner table at 10pm? Since shortly after 10pm all hell appears to have broken loose in the resort, with people running around all over the place, it would have been very chaotic.

The precise timings of the Smith sightings and Kate running out of the apartment screaming must be reasonably easy to establish. The Smiths were a group of nine and they were returning early as some of the group had an early start the next day. Therefore it is likely that they would have had an eye on their watches that evening.

There must be many witnesses to Kate running out of the apartment screaming. Staff at the restaurant, neighbours etc.

If it WAS Gerry carrying Madeleine towards the beach, then a whole new set of questions emerge.

[pathfinder73]

I've always known that the only possible time for an insider to move/hide a body towards the beach in secret from the others was when the group had split up in those first searches. The perfect time to sneak off with nobody suspecting. Why did Smithman walk through the streets? Because he had no choice!

[AnneGuedes]

I've always known that the only possible time for an insider to move/hide a body towards the beach in secret from the others was when the group had split up in those first searches. The perfect time to sneak off with nobody suspecting. Why did Smithman walk through the streets? Because he had no choice!

He could only chose the darkest streets.

[Mr Gray]

1390320564]
Kate repeatedly in her book suggests that she thinks the man the Smiths saw is the same man that Jane Tanner [/color]saw. Her inference is quite clear: she believes it is likely to be the same man and the man who allegedly abducted Madeleine.

On page 365 she ask 'who is the man Jane Tanner saw carrying a child, very probably Madeleine, away from our apartment?'

At the end of her book Kate lists some 'sightings' and writes: 'there are certainly common characteristics to suggest that some of these sightings, if not all, could be related.'

Her inference is clear.

The twins believe that: 'a naughty man had stolen their sister and now what we must do was find her.'

The McCanns and their friends at every turn do their utmost to promote the idea that Madeleine was abducted from her bed that night  Despite not having a shred of evidence that this is what happened and despite  (allegedly) not having seen what happened or had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.

They promote the theory that the abductor is likely to have been hanging around the resort in the days prior to the alleged abduction.

'This person who stole a little girl out of her bed and away from her family has been anonymous for far too long.'

Indeed.

The bogey-man theory. Believed by many to be not so much bogey as bogus.

One fact is clear: there is no evidence that Madeleine was unexpectedly stolen from her bed that night as part of an abduction that the McCanns and their friends had no prior knowledge of.

Is it true that the evening of the alleged abduction is one of the few evenings when all of the adults in the MCann party dined together? If true, that strikes me as quite a coincidence.

At 9.05 Gerry claims that he saw Madeleine asleep. At 9.30 Matt checks but conveniently does not look inside the apartment, so wouldn't know whether Madeleine was there or not. At 10pm Kate claims that Madeleine isn't in her bed and checks whether she has gone to the parents' bed. On discovering that this too is empty, a 'wave of panic' hits her. She then claims that when she sees the window in the children's room wide open and the shutters raised 'nausea, terror, disbelief, fear. Icy fear. Dear God, no! Please, no!'

'Madeleine has gone. Someone has taken her.'

Jane Tanner conveniently left the table  to check on her children anat around 9.15 and claims that she saw a man carrying a child. Throughout the book, we are left in no doubt that the McCanns and their friends consider Jane Tanner's sighting as being hugely significant.

'There is little doubt in my mind then, nor is there now, that what Jane saw was Madeleine's abductor taking her away.'

I think that is fairly unequivocal.

Kate explains that she is 'grateful' someone had seen something.

You can see why the Portugese detectives didn't find the McCann version of events particularly believable. Sounds like the plot of a very bad 'whodunnit'.

 you make this statement and provide no evidence to support it

[pathfinder73]

Who knows why there was a forty-five-minute gap between the two sightings, or where this man might have been in between? I long ago stopped trying to come up with answers because I don’t think I need to. If the child was Madeleine – and in five years, no father has ever come forward to say it was him and his daughter – why would we assume he would be behaving normally or logically? There is nothing normal about stealing a little girl from her bed, so why should his subsequent actions be predictable? The abductor would hardly have been expecting to see Jane walking towards him as he escaped, let alone have anticipated that Gerry would be standing talking round the corner. Whatever plan was in his mind, he might well have been forced by these near misses to change it pretty quickly. (Madeleine)

A man has come forward but he's not Smithman. I wonder why it took so long time to clear this man and why he never came forward earlier. That clever change (contradiction!) on the door position set up Tannerman as being the one and sent everyone spinning round and round lol. Amaral was right to ignore the contradictions of that sighting and to concentrate on the Real McCoy.

[AnneGuedes]

A man has come forward but he's not Smithman. I wonder why it took so long time to clear this man and why he never came forward earlier.

I don't wonder why it took so long time to eject Tannerman as the odd man out. I wonder why it took so long to SY to focus the projectors on Smithman. For a simple reason : Smithman's little girl matched Madeleine perfectly, though her pyjamas didn't fit her parent's description.
Between Tannerman's Eeyore pyjamas and Smithman's blond, white, 3/4 and long sleeve pyjamed girl, is there motive to hesitate ?

[Estuarine]

Why cant anythng ever in this case be clear, only confusing.....


Innocentman looks nothng like Tannerman in the sketch...short wavy dull hair opposed to longer chin length glossy black hair with straighteners used on it!
but I suppose sketches can be embellished!

Innocentman going in wrong direction

Fact remains SY have demolished this sighting as the probable abductor...and must have good reason to do so! And put the focus back as the probable abductor or person of interest squarely on Smithman?whch the the Mccanns have never really promoted, indeed, they are said it would be too expensive to do so, see Tmes article ref suppressed efits for 5 years thread here

is Innocentman Smithman? NO....he would have told police his movements that night, and also his childs pyjamas were nothing like the Smiths description


To answer the OP, yes the Mccanns passed off both sightings as the same man

Oh eta

If all that wasnt confused enough, Jane Tanner is alledged to have said creepy Cooperman mexican moustache man bore an 80 per cent resemblance to the man she saw...how could all three be the same person???
Not to mention the papers touted Hewlett as being the man in these sketches too...and wait for it...the Mail even went as far as suggesting Michaela, Murats now wife as being Tannerman! You couldnt make it up
 

 

Well someone did! If one works on the PJ principal there was no break in then all these dodgy geezers don't matter a rats ass. As I see it they serve only to try to prove the cops wrong. Well it worked sort of the first time so lets jump on the same band wagon again with the Met.

[pathfinder73]

I don't wonder why it took so long time to eject Tannerman as the odd man out. I wonder why it took so long to SY to focus the projectors on Smithman. For a simple reason : Smithman's little girl matched Madeleine perfectly, though her pyjamas didn't fit her parent's description.
Between Tannerman's Eeyore pyjamas and Smithman's blond, white, 3/4 and long sleeve pyjamed girl, is there motive to hesitate ?

It's interesting to compare 1st and 2nd statements. The motive is simple, if you were involved then you know that Smithman was carrying Madeleine away and you would try to suppress him and Tannerman popping up was like striking gold. The discrepancies and pyjamas relate and point towards him while Smithman is sneaking away with it.  MO put a major spanner in the works - the shutters weren't raised or window open when he did his check. That's how they knew Madeleine had been abducted because of the raised shutters and open window but that would mean Madeleine left after 9.30 which would rule Tannerman out as being the abductor. Now they have to try and explain that with an opportunist burglar who magically happened to appear 30 minutes after Tannerman but never entered the apartment via the window. When window evidence points to one person and no glove marks found. There's one interesting thing about the Tannerman sighting and that is the time it happened because Madeleine wasn't in the apartment when MO did his check at 9.30pm IMO.

[AnneGuedes]

The discrepancies and pyjamas relate and point towards him while Smithman is sneaking away with it. 

On the topic of pyjamas, note that little Amelie called the Eeyore ones, supposed to be hers, "Oh ! Maddie's jamies..".
It says it all.
Madeleine had the other, the long sleeves pjs on. I guess the stain story was told in an attempt to make believe that Madeleine would, wanted or whatever use those Eeyore pjs on that night, therefore they had to be stainless.
Does somebody understand why they exhibited the Eeyore ones in Crimestoppers on the 4th of June, i.e one month after the disappearance ?
Did they suppose that the abductor forced Madeleine to keep those pjs on ?

[j.rob]

you make this statement and provide no evidence to support it

Errr...sorry....can you supply evidence to support your statement ......(...what was your statement....exactly.....)

[Sherlock Holmes]

On the topic of pyjamas, note that little Amelie called the Eeyore ones, supposed to be hers, "Oh ! Maddie's jamies..".
It says it all.
Madeleine had the other, the long sleeves pjs on. I guess the stain story was told in an attempt to make believe that Madeleine would, wanted or whatever use those Eeyore pjs on that night, therefore they had to be stainless.
Does somebody understand why they exhibited the Eeyore ones in Crimestoppers on the 4th of June, i.e one month after the disappearance ?
Did they suppose that the abductor forced Madeleine to keep those pjs on ?

Anne, the creativity of your thoughts with regard to those pyjamas never ceases to amaze!

In answer to the question, someone could have seen Madeleine, still in pyjamas, shortly after she disappeared.

Or someone could have seen or found the pyjamas somewhere.
 
It would definitely be worth exhibiting them at that point.

[AnneGuedes]

 
It would definitely be worth exhibiting them at that point.

Creativity ?
It might have been worth exhibiting a copy of the pjs that Madeleine was really wearing. It shouldn't have been very difficult, the PJ managed to buy some pjs in Mothercare or whatever in order to analyse the fibres.
They say the truth comes out of the children's mouths. As kids are spontaneous, it sometimes does. That's how I understand "Oh, Maddie's pyjamas" !

[colombosstogey]

The Smith sighting for me was the most viable.

I have always believed if someone did take the child they did so about 9.45, which would match the Smith sightings....

[Mr Gray]

Errr...sorry....can you supply evidence to support your statement ......(...what was your statement....exactly.....)

You make this statement......Kate repeatedly in her book suggests that she thinks the man the Smiths saw is the same man that Jane Tanner saw...

In the OT you use the much stronger word "ASSERTS"

Where does kate assert they are the same man...she doesn't

BTW assert means to state something confidently and forcefully