Why did Amaral and PJ suspect the McCanns and Murat as being somehow involved?

[Benice]

Ms Tanner refers only to Bob Small, except for the Spanish police and the fear to be abducted herself...

JT mentions the PJ officer who (after she had failed to identify Murat) rang police HQ to see if she needed to sign anything.    To which the reply was obviously 'no'.   

[Carana]

Why not Faith?  It's not unusual for policemen to ask witnesses they have already interviewed not to hesitate to contact them if something comes back to them which they hadn't recalled at the time.                   

I'm not so sure about that.

I'd agree with that in a normal case. But Amaral has never stopped spouting that he'd found Gerry's "change" concerning which door he entered for his check as suspicious. No one has yet been able to point me to where anyone was able to read through a witness statement in their native tongue. I have found no reason why he would lie (particularly in view of the fact that he'd stated that Matt had entered via the patio in the very same initial statement).

Anyone in PdL in potential conflict with the law for a totally different reason could have been strung up as her abductor.

I'm not saying that it isn't odd that no one has come forward... but I could sort of understand why some people may not have come forward if they knew they were innocent.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Ms Tanner didn't see a young girl, Angelo, she saw a couple of calves who could as well belong to a boy.

If the calves had belonged to a boy, the carrier of that boy - e.g. a father carrying his child home from a babysitter - would have nothing to fear in coming forward to the police to be ruled out of the investigation.

But he didn't.

[Lace]

I remember reading that Jane said she mentioned what she thought was a 'turn up' on the bottom of the pyjama's that the child was wearing.

When she was helped to try and remember what she saw by a specialist in this procedure [can't remember what what the specialist would have been called ]   she mentioned this 'turn up' that she saw.

 Apparently,   Madeleine's pyjama's had a ruffle of some sort at the bottom of the legs,   Jane says she thought it was a turn up but it  could well have been a ruffle.

[John]

If the calves had belonged to a boy, the carrier of that boy - e.g. a father carrying his child home from a babysitter - would have nothing to fear in coming forward to the police to be ruled out of the investigation.

But he didn't.

Good point Sherlock!   

[Carana]

If the calves had belonged to a boy, the carrier of that boy - e.g. a father carrying his child home from a babysitter - would have nothing to fear in coming forward to the police to be ruled out of the investigation.

But he didn't.

In theory, I'd agree, except for the reasons I've given. Even carrying a son home could have been an issue if the family weren't all legally there, for example.

[Sherlock Holmes]

In theory, I'd agree, except for the reasons I've given. Even carrying a son home could have been an issue if the family weren't all legally there, for example.

I aqree, Carana, that there are all sorts of good reasons why a person innocent of a particular crime would still not want to present themselves to the police, illegal status being one of them.

Another major reason for keeping quiet, obviously, would be to avoid being dragged into such a sprawling investigation as this one.

The parent / innocent carrier of a male child in this instance would have much less concern about that, however, and therefore on the whole would be significantly less likely to want to avoid presenting himself, other issues in his life notwithstanding.

[Carana]

I aqree, Carana, that there are all sorts of good reasons why a person innocent of a particular crime would still not want to present themselves to the police, illegal status being one of them.

Another major reason for keeping quiet, obviously, would be to avoid being dragged into such a sprawling investigation as this one.

The parent / innocent carrier of a male child in this instance would have much less concern about that, however, and therefore on the whole would be significantly less likely to want to avoid presenting himself, other issues in his life notwithstanding.

Hmmmmm. Even someone who (or whose family members) didn't have EU citizenship?

Again, I find it plausible that one or the other or both sightings could have been of the child.

I simply wouldn't exclude that neither may have been.

Would anything exclude someone having rung Crimestoppers anonymously?

[Angelo222]

There might well be reasons why one man didn't come forward but two or was it the same man??

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hmmmmm. Even someone who (or whose family members) didn't have EU citizenship?

Again, I find it plausible that one or the other or both sightings could have been of the child.

I simply wouldn't exclude that neither may have been.

Would anything exclude someone having rung Crimestoppers anonymously?

Well, if the person was an illegal, that may be a concern. But in terms of likelihood in this case, wouldn't the vast majority of the holidaymakers and local residents be EU citizens?

There are of course instances where police are in such need of information from a particular person that they are lenient on that person in coming forward, with respect to other crimes they may have been involved in. Maybe that's not how things work in Portugal, however...
 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There might well be reasons why one man didn't come forward but two or was it the same man??

Too much of a co-incidence that two different, innocent men would be carrying similar-looking children and in addition to that both have equally strong personal reasons for not coming forward.

[Carana]

Too much of a co-incidence that two different, innocent men would be carrying similar-looking children and in addition to that both have equally strong personal reasons for not coming forward.

Would it? It might be too much of a coincidence, indeed. On the other hand, it was a tourist resort and would attract people trying to find easy job opportunities.

If ever they were the same person, it could still be someone who didn't particularly wish to be identified.

Back to the other perspective, one or both could indeed be the person carrying her.

If only they had had CCTV.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Would it? It might be too much of a coincidence, indeed. On the other hand, it was a tourist resort and would attract people trying to find easy job opportunities.

If ever they were the same person, it could still be someone who didn't particularly wish to be identified.

Back to the other perspective, one or both could indeed be the person carrying her.

If only they had had CCTV.

Most if not all of the people who would be legally eligible for employment would have to be EU citizens. Someone coming from another continent would not be eligible for legal work, or any kind of financial support in lieu of it. A big city would have far more opportunities for cash in hand jobs.

If bundleman was an innocent parent walking with his child, he would most likely have been a legal resident and therefore not concerned about immigration issues.

He may not have wanted to get roped into such a big case right on his doorstep for other reasons, of course...

In the unlikely event of an 'innocent' bundleman being an illegal immigrant living in or near the town, he possibly would have distinguished himself in doing or making inquiries about unofficial work, and may have been noted by locals, especially if he had a young child living with him. Who was that child? Would she have gone to a playgroup/nursery? If she had been with a babysitter that night, doesn't the babysitter remember her father collecting her at that time? Who was the child's mother?...So many questions. Nobody in town, apparently, connected any such hypothetical dots and saw fit to come forward.

Innocent or guilty, it is hard to believe the two sightings are not of the same person. Too many similarities: physical descriptions given by independent witnesses; wandering around at a similar time of night; the fact they were both carrying an uncovered child in the cold night air.

Yes, how different things would have been with those cameras...

[Benice]

.

Innocent or guilty, it is hard to believe the two sightings are not of the same person. Too many similarities: physical descriptions given by independent witnesses; wandering around at a similar time of night; the fact they were both carrying an uncovered child in the cold night air.

Yes, how different things would have been with those cameras...

I agree.  There are just too many similarities in the descriptions IMO  for it to be two different men.  The fact that the child had bare feet, pajamas and no blanket or coat on a chilly night does definitely suggest to me that she had been taken from her bed in haste and not collected from a babysitter who - especially  if that babysitter was someone like her grandmother or another relative - would simply not have allowed that to happen.

       

[sadie]

Ms Tanner didn't see a young girl, Angelo, she saw a couple of calves who could as well belong to a boy.

Generally Anne, I think I could tell the difference between the toes and ankles and calves of a girl against those of a boy.

She also saw the frill at the bottom of the jamies, altho it didn't register as a frill - just a line or a band, IIRC.but as a turn up, thanks Lace