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

[sadie]

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 

[sadie]

Tanner did not include the detail around the bottom of the pyjamas until her second statement and therefore of no evidential value.

I wouldn't read too much into that Faith cos all the first statements were very short and lacking in detail. 

Which ever statement it came in, it is very valuable information ... and is a substantiial indicator that bundleman WAS carrying Madeleine

[sadie]

If it was Madeleine and it is a big "if" then there are questions which must be asked.

1. Who was carrying her?
2. Where was he going?
3. What was her state of health?
4. Did the parents know?
5. Why did Gerry intercept Jez just as carrier was traversing the top of the road?
6. Was Tanners trip and sighting an unfortunate fluke?
7. Why did Mat not find the window and shutter open?
8. Why was there no sign of a break in?
9. Why did Gerry say he used the front door?


Why are there so many unanswered questions if it was a simple abduction?

I am tired and I am only going to answer one of these questions atm

1) When he looked into the room he said, IIRC, that the door was already open about 50*
This is a photograph of the bedroom taken with the door wide open. 



Had he stood at that spot:

1) would he have been able to see the twins?

2) Could he see the window? 


Also despite someone (was it Faith?) stating that Matt took the long way round back to 5A from his apartment ... and why didn't he see the shutters up etc. ... he did not. 

At about 9.30 pm Matt and Russell each checked their own children and intended to check the MCCann children together, so Matt went to Russells apartment to meet up for the return journey.  One of his children was ill and so Russell stayed there, but he let Matt out via the patio door at the back.  Matt took the short alleyway route to 5A

This is part of his statement

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm

To this end, he took the quickest route between ROB's apartment and the side garden gate entrance to the rear patio of the McCann residence, to which he gained access through the glass sliding door into the apartment lounge. The door was closed but not locked as KM had said it would be.

So without a second thought Angelo, you can scribe number 7 off your list

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

       

A good point about the blanket, Benice, the absence of which seems to me to indicate that, unfortunately, she was in the arms of someone who gave no thought to her welfare at any level. No loving 'adoptive' parents here.

In the cold night air she could have caught a chill, making her more difficult to look after and potentially more difficult to conceal. Not a smart move from that angle either.

The lack of blanket also begs the question as to why bundleman, if he had been indoors at any point between the two sightings, such as the staff quarters as Sadie suggests, did not find something to cover her with for when he took her back outside - if only to render her less less identifiable.

If our sightings had been of a child of indeterminate sex, followed by a child almost fully covered up by a blanket, it would have been a much bigger stretch to say it was the same child. As things stand, there is a great deal to suggest that the same man and child were involved.

Back to my original thesis that bundleman was not the brightest button on the garment....

[Carana]

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...

Jenny Murat seemed to think there could be reasons why someone wouldn't want to go directly to the police...

Seasonal workers? People working on the black? Eastern Europeans? Moroccans? Police reputation? Someone having an affair? Media intrusion?

I'm not so sure that someone carrying a male child would necessarily think to come forward. And not all of the informal GNR interviews appear to be recorded in the files. Would the GNR have recorded a man casually saying that he didn't notice anyone carrying a little girl when he was carrying his son home? Or would the GNR have found it insignificant as the guy didn't have any useful information on the missing little girl?

I'm not so sure that someone carrying a female relative would necessarily have come forward, either. Once Murat had been made arguido, it might have been easy enough to think the PJ had got their man. And then when allegations about the parents and some of the T7 started, it might have been even less incentive to come forward.

[faithlilly]

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.

Tanner only mentioned on turn up in her second interview when there was every possibly there had been collusion between the witnesses and that possible collusion renders her claim of no evidential value.

[DCI]

Tanner only mentioned on turn up in her second interview when there was every possibly there had been collusion between the witnesses and that possible collusion renders her claim of no evidential value.

Really?

Witness Statement

Jane Michelle Tanner

Date 2007-05-04

Time: 11.30

(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.

As regards these details, she does not know what Madeleine was wearing at the moment of her disappearance, because she did not talk to anyone about this. As she concerns the man she saw, she only spoke to Gerald about this, not entering into details, and to the police.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

AUTO examination of witnesses
Date diligence: 2007/05/10 Time: 16h35m
Name: Jane Michelle Tanner

About the description of the child, she confirmed that it was being carried in his arms, with the legs in her direction and barefoot. She thought that it was a female child because the pyjamas were a light colour (seemingly pink to her). She never saw the hair of the child. She never saw it move nor make any sound, thinking that it was asleep.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm

Jane Tanner - Record Of Tape Recorded Interview IV

 

L E I C E S T E R S H I R E C O N S T A B U L A R Y

Form MG15(T)

RECORD OF TAPE RECORDED INTERVIEW Police Exhibit No SVF/108A

Person Interviewed: Jane TANNER Number of Pages 46

Place of Interview: Force Headquarters Enderby Signature of Interviewing

Date of Interview: 08/04/08 Officer producing exhibit

Time Commenced: 1349 hours

 “And then think about the child again, as much as you can see of that child in that split second, and tell me what you saw?”

Reply    “Well, again, I mean, and this is, I think initially I couldn’t really bring, I could only really remember the feet.  But the day after, when we had, they, at the interview, the person that was interviewing was really pushing me to try and, you know, remember any more details, and the one thing that I could really think was, erm, a turn-up of some description.  And I don’t know whether this made it into my statement, but there was, and this is the thing that convinces me it was her, there was, erm, sort of the pyjamas were, there was some sort of, I thought it was a turn-up, but some sort of design on the bottom of the pyjamas.  And I did say it in my first statement and in my second statement I can remember saying it again and, erm, the translator in there, because I said ‘I don’t know whether this made it into my first statement or not’, but the translator sort of went ‘Oh yes, I can remember you going like this’, because I was moving my hands up, but I was sort of talking about something at the bottom of the pyjamas.  Because, from my own point of view, and I think, you know, ‘Oh was I trying to’, 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”.

4078    “And when you noticed the detail was it in any colour?”

Reply    “I don’t, I didn’t know, I thought there was sort of a pink flowery bit on, bit on it, but, no, I mean, the actual frill itself or turn-up, as I thought it was, I couldn’t think of the colour, but I thought there was pink sort of flowery and sort of like liney bits on the bottom, so”.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm

[faithlilly]

Really?

Witness Statement

Jane Michelle Tanner

Date 2007-05-04

Time: 11.30

(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.

As regards these details, she does not know what Madeleine was wearing at the moment of her disappearance, because she did not talk to anyone about this. As she concerns the man she saw, she only spoke to Gerald about this, not entering into details, and to the police.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

AUTO examination of witnesses
Date diligence: 2007/05/10 Time: 16h35m
Name: Jane Michelle Tanner

About the description of the child, she confirmed that it was being carried in his arms, with the legs in her direction and barefoot. She thought that it was a female child because the pyjamas were a light colour (seemingly pink to her). She never saw the hair of the child. She never saw it move nor make any sound, thinking that it was asleep.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm

Jane Tanner - Record Of Tape Recorded Interview IV

 

L E I C E S T E R S H I R E C O N S T A B U L A R Y

Form MG15(T)

RECORD OF TAPE RECORDED INTERVIEW Police Exhibit No SVF/108A

Person Interviewed: Jane TANNER Number of Pages 46

Place of Interview: Force Headquarters Enderby Signature of Interviewing

Date of Interview: 08/04/08 Officer producing exhibit

Time Commenced: 1349 hours

 “And then think about the child again, as much as you can see of that child in that split second, and tell me what you saw?”

Reply    “Well, again, I mean, and this is, I think initially I couldn’t really bring, I could only really remember the feet.  But the day after, when we had, they, at the interview, the person that was interviewing was really pushing me to try and, you know, remember any more details, and the one thing that I could really think was, erm, a turn-up of some description.  And I don’t know whether this made it into my statement, but there was, and this is the thing that convinces me it was her, there was, erm, sort of the pyjamas were, there was some sort of, I thought it was a turn-up, but some sort of design on the bottom of the pyjamas.  And I did say it in my first statement and in my second statement I can remember saying it again and, erm, the translator in there, because I said ‘I don’t know whether this made it into my first statement or not’, but the translator sort of went ‘Oh yes, I can remember you going like this’, because I was moving my hands up, but I was sort of talking about something at the bottom of the pyjamas.  Because, from my own point of view, and I think, you know, ‘Oh was I trying to’, 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”.

4078    “And when you noticed the detail was it in any colour?”

Reply    “I don’t, I didn’t know, I thought there was sort of a pink flowery bit on, bit on it, but, no, I mean, the actual frill itself or turn-up, as I thought it was, I couldn’t think of the colour, but I thought there was pink sort of flowery and sort of like liney bits on the bottom, so”.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm

Your point ?

[DCI]

Your point ?

Tanner only mentioned on turn up in her second interview when there was every possibly there had been collusion between the witnesses and that possible collusion renders her claim of no evidential value.

My point, not in her 1st or 2nd statements.

But she mentioned it in all 3 statements, and it wasn't translated that she had!

[faithlilly]

My point, not in her 1st or 2nd statements.

But she mentioned it in all 3 statements, and it wasn't translated that she had!

We only have her word for that and we all know how she 'misremembers' things, just ask Gerry.

[DCI]

We only have her word for that and we all know how she 'misremembers' things, just ask Gerry.

Like you did, with her statements, you mean?

[faithlilly]

Like you did, with her statements, you mean?

May 4th statement :

'(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.'
'
May 10th statement :

'About the description of the child, she confirmed that it was being carried in his arms, with the legs in her direction and barefoot. She thought that it was a female child because the pyjamas were a light colour (seemingly pink to her). She never saw the hair of the child. She never saw it move nor make any sound, thinking that it was asleep.'


So no turn-up there. In fact the only mention of a turn-up I can find before Tanner's rogatory statement is in the collaborative timeline handed into the PJ on the 10th of May :

' She did not seem to be wrapped up well for the time of night wearing only pyjamas; the trousers were lightly coloured with a floral element, possibly with turn-ups '


As the McCanns helped compile this timeline the turn-up claim has no evidential value as Tanner could have gleaned the information from them.

[faithlilly]

Really?

Witness Statement

Jane Michelle Tanner

Date 2007-05-04

Time: 11.30

(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.

As regards these details, she does not know what Madeleine was wearing at the moment of her disappearance, because she did not talk to anyone about this. As she concerns the man she saw, she only spoke to Gerald about this, not entering into details, and to the police.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

AUTO examination of witnesses
Date diligence: 2007/05/10 Time: 16h35m
Name: Jane Michelle Tanner

About the description of the child, she confirmed that it was being carried in his arms, with the legs in her direction and barefoot. She thought that it was a female child because the pyjamas were a light colour (seemingly pink to her). She never saw the hair of the child. She never saw it move nor make any sound, thinking that it was asleep.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm

Jane Tanner - Record Of Tape Recorded Interview IV

 

L E I C E S T E R S H I R E C O N S T A B U L A R Y

Form MG15(T)

RECORD OF TAPE RECORDED INTERVIEW Police Exhibit No SVF/108A

Person Interviewed: Jane TANNER Number of Pages 46

Place of Interview: Force Headquarters Enderby Signature of Interviewing

Date of Interview: 08/04/08 Officer producing exhibit

Time Commenced: 1349 hours

 “And then think about the child again, as much as you can see of that child in that split second, and tell me what you saw?”

Reply    “Well, again, I mean, and this is, I think initially I couldn’t really bring, I could only really remember the feet.  But the day after, when we had, they, at the interview, the person that was interviewing was really pushing me to try and, you know, remember any more details, and the one thing that I could really think was, erm, a turn-up of some description.  And I don’t know whether this made it into my statement, but there was, and this is the thing that convinces me it was her, there was, erm, sort of the pyjamas were, there was some sort of, I thought it was a turn-up, but some sort of design on the bottom of the pyjamas.  And I did say it in my first statement and in my second statement I can remember saying it again and, erm, the translator in there, because I said ‘I don’t know whether this made it into my first statement or not’, but the translator sort of went ‘Oh yes, I can remember you going like this’, because I was moving my hands up, but I was sort of talking about something at the bottom of the pyjamas.  Because, from my own point of view, and I think, you know, ‘Oh was I trying to’, 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”.

4078    “And when you noticed the detail was it in any colour?”

Reply    “I don’t, I didn’t know, I thought there was sort of a pink flowery bit on, bit on it, but, no, I mean, the actual frill itself or turn-up, as I thought it was, I couldn’t think of the colour, but I thought there was pink sort of flowery and sort of like liney bits on the bottom, so”.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm

I stand corrected DCI. She didn't mention the turn-up in her second interview either. It was only a year later, in her rogatory interview, that the detail that convinced Tanner that it was Madeleine being carried actually made it into one of her statements.

I wonder if that was one of the things discussed at their Rothley meeting ?

[Carana]

It would have been so much easier if all of these statements had been recorded verbatim.

[faithlilly]

It would have been so much easier if all of these statements had been recorded verbatim.

Tanner signed the statements as a true record of what she said. If something as significant as she later claimed the turn-up was was left out she would have said at the time.