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

[AnneGuedes]

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?

One rule is enough, Carana, and it must be in the human rights. The suspect has the right to know what's going on.

[AnneGuedes]

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 Mat not find the window and shutter open?
6. Why was there no sign of a break in?

Yes. About 5, I would say "why did Mat not find the curtains open ?", as it was the most obvious for the eyes.

[Carana]

One rule is enough, Carana, and it must be in the human rights. The suspect has the right to know what's going on.

Oh, sorry. I thought you had all the relevant CPP Articles available.

[AnneGuedes]

I do have, Carana, they're on line !

[Carana]

I do have, Carana, they're on line !

Then could you post them, please? Then we'd all have the same information.

[AnneGuedes]

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.

What sort of evidence do you have that access to  "vodafone reminders" were refused to the Public Prosecutor 1) by a judge and 2) by a court ?

[Carana]

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?

The child that JT said she saw may not have been Madeleine. The child that the Smiths said that they'd seen hasn't been identified, either.

One, both, none of them may have been her.

[Carana]

What sort of evidence do you have that access to  "vodafone reminders" were refused to the Public Prosecutor 1) by a judge and 2) by a court ?

Only that a few armchair detectives actually rang up the number to check. The number to ring has changed as has already been pointed out on a different thread.

Who said that vodafone reminders were not accesible to the prosecutor? The reasons for excluding them from any evidence would surely best be known to himself?

Back to the topic: what is in the CPP that would have excluded a posteriori acceptance of the van saga if JT had positively identified Murat?

What would have prevented the PJ from requesting authorisation prior to that event?

[sadie]

The child that JT said she saw may not have been Madeleine. The child that the Smiths said that they'd seen hasn't been identified, either.

One, both, none of them may have been her.

Have you read JT's statement where she describes the detail around the bottom of the pyjamas.
And why did he rush off almost running with his head averted?

Why has no-one come forward to say it was them?  Most decent people (parents) would have done that.

Why, as an presumably experienced parent, (if he wasn't bundleman) did he carry his child in such an awkward way ... as she would soon get VERY heavy carrying that way?

Where was he coming from?  Not the OC nannies/ evening creche place  for certian and he hadn't come far.  That's for sure cos very soon carrying that way the child would have get very very heavy and he would have shifted the weeight to a more normal carrying position. 

In the close vicinity there are only the two blocks of Ocean Club and a couple of houses.  Nearly 300 yards away, there are the Estrela apartments.

Surely a father would not carry his child on a blustery coolish evening in such an uncovered state for any distance?  Nothing at all on her feet

Dont know where I read it, but Jane Tanner was feeling the cold and wearing Russells thick top as she went to and fro.


I think there are a lot of pointers there, Carana, to that little girl being Madeleine

[faithlilly]

Have you read JT's statement where she describes the detail around the bottom of the pyjamas.
And why did he rush off almost running with his head averted?

Why has no-one come forward to say it was them?  Most decent people (parents) would have done that.

Why, as an presumably experienced parent, (if he wasn't bundleman) did he carry his child in such an awkward way ... as she would soon get VERY heavy carrying that way?

Where was he coming from?  Not the OC nannies/ evening creche place  for certian and he hadn't come far.  That's for sure cos very soon carrying that way the child would have get very very heavy and he would have shifted the weeight to a more normal carrying position. 

In the close vicinity there are only the two blocks of Ocean Club and a couple of houses.  Nearly 300 yards away, there are the Estrela apartments.

Surely a father would not carry his child on a blustery coolish evening in such an uncovered state for any distance?  Nothing at all on her feet

Dont know where I read it, but Jane Tanner was feeling the cold and wearing Russells thick top as she went to and fro.


I think there are a lot of pointers there, Carana, to that little girl being Madeleine

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

[Carana]

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

Have you found anything to substantiate the notion that any of the early witnesses had actually read a written translation in a language that they understood prior to signing the Portuguese text'

[Carana]

Have you read JT's statement where she describes the detail around the bottom of the pyjamas.
And why did he rush off almost running with his head averted?

Why has no-one come forward to say it was them?  Most decent people (parents) would have done that.

Why, as an presumably experienced parent, (if he wasn't bundleman) did he carry his child in such an awkward way ... as she would soon get VERY heavy carrying that way?

Where was he coming from?  Not the OC nannies/ evening creche place  for certian and he hadn't come far.  That's for sure cos very soon carrying that way the child would have get very very heavy and he would have shifted the weeight to a more normal carrying position. 

In the close vicinity there are only the two blocks of Ocean Club and a couple of houses.  Nearly 300 yards away, there are the Estrela apartments.

Surely a father would not carry his child on a blustery coolish evening in such an uncovered state for any distance?  Nothing at all on her feet

Dont know where I read it, but Jane Tanner was feeling the cold and wearing Russells thick top as she went to and fro.


I think there are a lot of pointers there, Carana, to that little girl being Madeleine

JT or the Smiths may well have seen Madeleine being carried away. However, that doesn't seem to be cast in iron.

There could be many reasons why an innocent person may not have come forward... People may have been appalled at the prospect of finding themselves in Murat's position. Or the person may have been innocent of taking her, but could have been avoiding detection for a totally different issue.

My point is not to exclude others.

[Benice]

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

So why didn't that person come forward then Anne.   After all, it would not only be  his word he would be asking the PJ to believe  - there would also be witnesses at the place he was coming from -  and at the place he was going to   - who could corroborate his account  - also sight of the actual child whom he was carrying would be evidence of his innocent presence near to 5A.         So no credible reason at all for him to be wary of going to the police IMO.   Exactly the same can be said about the man the Smiths saw.

[John]

So why didn't that person come forward then Anne.   After all, it would not only be  his word he would be asking the PJ to believe  - there would also be witnesses at the place he was coming from -  and at the place he was going to   - who could corroborate his account  - also sight of the actual child whom he was carrying would be evidence of his innocent presence near to 5A.         So no credible reason at all for him to be wary of going to the police IMO.   Exactly the same can be said about the man the Smiths saw.

I agree with this post and the one before by Sadie.  The fact that both men were acting suspiciously, were dressed strangely and never came forward suggests an involvement.

[Benice]

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

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.