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

[ferryman]

No, this kind of unofficial operation, though everybody knows they occur everywhere, is certainly not ratified by the prosecutor, even if emergency justified it.
Those (often ex-convicts) that inform the police as well are unofficial and when they're paid it doesn't appear in the accounts.

... even if emergency justified it.

Nothing justified it ...

[Angelo222]

Witnesses Angelo

In any other crime in the World a golden witness like Jane would be taken seriously.

Other witnesses and events back her up ... and you know that.  It has been gone over several times

Jane Tanner seeing a man carrying a young girl does not necessarily mean..... 1. That it was Madeleine and 2. That he had abducted her.

A small matter of EVIDENCE ??

[AnneGuedes]

So-called leaks from police sources close to the investigation hardly helped, did they?

What didn't help were all the prejudices brandished in defence of a couple who, as history shows, were suspected but never accused. Finding a lost little girl was a strong motive of interest for the Portuguese, giving her parents communion without confession was none.

[Carana]

I'd agree that that the priority was to find the child and a potential suspect who could have taken her.

So far, no problem.

But this van episode wasn't within hours of her disappearance. The police could have cleared it with the prosecutor beforehand.

IF it had proved relevant, the prosecutor could have given his sanction a posteriori, couldn't he? If so, all that would have meant was whether JT's subsequent statement would have been admitted as evidence or not.

And, as Benice pointed out, it's not clear to me, either, whether Bob Small was actually in the van or not. In view of Amaral's point in his book about wanting someone to shadow UK police officers, I tend to think that it was unlikely. However, someone who spoke English was presumably in that van, but it's not clear who that might have been.

[AnneGuedes]

Jane Tanner seeing a man carrying a young girl does not necessarily mean..... 1. That it was Madeleine and 2. That he had abducted her.

A small matter of EVIDENCE ??

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

[ferryman]

What didn't help were all the prejudices brandished in defence of a couple who, as history shows, were suspected but never accused. Finding a lost little girl was a strong motive of interest for the Portuguese, giving her parents communion without confession was none.

What about the prejudices advanced against, such as

swingers? 

Chaplains bar

Drove Madleine dead in the Renault

Seen by the Smiths whisking Madeleine past their noses.

Did any of those help?

[AnneGuedes]

IF it had proved relevant, the prosecutor could have given his sanction a posteriori, couldn't he?

Certainly not. See what happened with the sms ! The judge Frias refused retroactive permission and was confirmed in high court.

[Angelo222]

There was nothing to stop Mr Amaral taking Jane or anyone else for that matter out on a reconnoitre, it wasn't illegal by any means.  An ID parade is something entirely different and is governed by strict rules.

[Angelo222]

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

A boy in pink pyjamas??  How quaint?? 

[AnneGuedes]

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

[AnneGuedes]

A boy in pink pyjamas??  How quaint?? 

Why not, why should pink be the appanage of girls ?
Anyhow the bottom of the pyjamas Madeleine was supposed to have on is white with tiny designs not especially pink.
Don't you remember, Angelo, the little white.. angels (I'm not kidding) !

[Carana]

Certainly not. See what happened with the sms ! The judge Frias refused retroactive permission and was confirmed in high court.

That might have been related to the fact that the "messages" were vodafone reminders... If the substance of the actual voicemails had been totally irrelevant, obviously the judge would have excluded them as evidence out of consideration for privacy.

[Angelo222]

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?

[Carana]

What are these rules in the CPP that would have excluded JT from making a statement if she had, in fact, positively identified Murat during this van operation?

[AnneGuedes]

There was nothing to stop Mr Amaral taking Jane or anyone else for that matter out on a reconnoitre, it wasn't illegal by any means.  An ID parade is something entirely different and is governed by strict rules.

Ms Tanner was the only person to have seen a carrier, except for the Smiths who weren't confronted to Mr Murat since one of the Smiths knew his face and denied it was him.
The van unofficial (= off the record) operation occurred on the 13th and the police raid was launched early morning on the 14th.