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

[DCI]

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.

AUTO examination of witnesses
Date diligence: 2007/05/10 Time: 16h35m

No signature

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

[Carana]

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.

You still seem to assume that she signed a statement having read it in her own mother tongue.

[faithlilly]

AUTO examination of witnesses
Date diligence: 2007/05/10 Time: 16h35m

No signature

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

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_932.jpg

[DCI]

You still seem to assume that she signed a statement having read it in her own mother tongue.

Exactly, and it isn't Jane's statement, but someone saying what she is supposed to have said.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

All good points, Carana. But for every reason for not going to the police, there could equally be reasons why a person would. The seriousness of the crime might motivate someone, especially a parent of a young child, to feel morally obligated to give information.

People's situations also change drastically. A person's immigration, work, marital status, personal loyalties etc. - things that would affect a decision to go to the police - can change completely, even within a short period of time. A person who held back at the beginning might feel safe to come forward later on if their personal circumstances changed. Yet in the 7 years since the disappearance, no-one has come forward. Yes, the PJ named their arguidos, but that was a long time ago, since which time the case remains high profile and unsolved.

I also feel that the carrier of a male child would at least consider coming forward, the publicity aspect being such that it is common knowledge that a man was spotted with a child walking past 5A at a particular time, whom the police were obviously looking to identify. Anyone in the town that night would remember exactly where they were and what they were doing, and surely would ask themselves if their movements would have had any bearing on the investigation. I cannot imagine that the GNR would not question or record this type of 'witness' properly - but perhaps I'm giving them too much credit.

This is virtually moot anyhow, because, annoying a witness as Jane Tanner was (um, er, I think, um, sort of, um, well, you know, um....), the bottom line is that her overall description of man and child is sufficiently similar to the Smith description as to be considered corroborated.

[faithlilly]

Exactly, and it isn't Jane's statement, but someone saying what she is supposed to have said.

So are you now admitting that Tanner didn't mention turn-ups on the pyjamas until her rogatory interview and that she did in fact sign her May 10th statement when you had suggested that she hadn't ?

[Angelo222]

Back on topic again, Mr Amaral and his detectives involved in the hunt for Madeleine were pursuing two different lines of enquiry up until the point of his removal from the case.   On the one hand they were investigating a possible abduction while on the other, an accidental death and a cover up.

As time went by however, it was the latter which came into favour and ended with the McCanns and Murat being designated as arguidos.

What was it about Robert Murat which made the PJ and the Press so confident that he was somehow involved?  Was it all down to a terrible misunderstanding?

[Carana]

Back on topic again, Mr Amaral and his detectives involved in the hunt for Madeleine were pursuing two different lines of enquiry up until the point of his removal from the case.   On the one hand they were investigating a possible abduction while on the other, an accidental death and a cover up.

As time went by however, it was the latter which came into favour and ended with the McCanns and Murat being designated as arguidos.

What was it about Robert Murat which made the PJ and the Press so confident that he was somehow involved?  Was it all down to a terrible misunderstanding?

Have you read the files on that?

Murat was made arguido very early on. Lori Campbell seemed to have set the ball rolling by finding him too helpful. I had assumed that she was responsible for the stories in the tabloids, but she may not have been. Anyway, her suspicion leaked and from then on it seemed that he was tabloid fodder and subject to suggestibility issues.

The PJ were right to interview him, in my view, but in an ideal world this could have happened quietly without him being subject to the extent of atrocious media coverage.

Much of this seems to be down to the exaggerated sense of what arguido actually means, the lack of any organised PJ media desk, what may have been a legal loophole in reporting on news involving people from other countries, and all the rest of it.

The bottom line seems to have been that the "Maddie" story was media heaven, selling papers and advertising space without any real news.

[Angelo222]

Clearly there were suspicions from several sources both British and Portuguese very early on that the parents were involved.   The abduction theory was put under considerable strain when the initial forensics revealed that no intruder entered the apartment using the children's bedroom window.

The sighting by Tanner effectively ruled Gerry McCann out as the carrier even though the later evidence by at least two members of the Smith family appeared to throw doubt on this.

Murat was put in the frame by several members of the tapas group even though he was adamant that he didn't leave home the night Madeleine disappeared.  He was followed, his phones were monitored and his involvement with the Russian Malinka was made the subject of much investigation.

[DCI]

Seems very early on and a matter of a mere13 hours it wasn't just the Portuguese who thought the McCanns were involved in Madeleine's disappearance.  The comments about Dr Payne are also most revealing!!

So who else thought the McCanns were involved in Madeleine's disappearance, in that time?
What comments are they, Angelo.
Did you read what Dr Payne's interviewer thought of Katherine Gaspar's statement.

[Angelo222]

So who else thought the McCanns were involved in Madeleine's disappearance, in that time?
What comments are they, Angelo.
Did you read what Dr Payne's interviewer thought of Katherine Gaspar's statement.

Yvonne Martin obviously by her own statements and her interview before PJ Inspector José Monteiro on 13th June 2007 at the Portimao DIC where she identified David Payne as being one of the persons who spoke with her the day after Madeleine disappeared.

Quote: ...she wrote an anonymous letter to the British police, telling them the following: : regarding the various details she observed during her contact with the McCanns it is her opinion that they could be in some way involved in the disappearance of Madeleine.

www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm

[DCI]

Yvonne Martin obviously by her own statements and her interview before PJ Inspector José Monteiro on 13th June 2007 at the Portimao DIC where she identified David Payne as being one of the persons who spoke with her the day after Madeleine disappeared.

Quote: ...she wrote an anonymous letter to the British police, telling them the following: : regarding the various details she observed during her contact with the McCanns it is her opinion that they could be in some way involved in the disappearance of Madeleine.

www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm

Your second quote is from her 14/11/2007 statement, and she doesn't mention this till that date!
Then she or the translator repeats it twice, with variations!

Witness Statement

Date: 2007/11/14
Time: 10H30
Place: DIC Portimao

Name: YVONNE WARREN MARTIN

So she could have known David Payne as a colleague.

She adds that her hypothesis is that she may have come to know him professionally through work, potentially having been colleagues at work or have worked at the same place but she cannot be certain where she met him as she does not remember

She says that about two weeks after Madeleine's disappearance, when the police made an appeal for information about a man, carrying a child, who had been seen in the Luz zone, and whose clothing was described, she wrote an anonymous letter to the British police, telling them the following: : regarding the various details she observed during her contact with the McCanns it is her opinion that they could be in some way involved in the disappearance of Madeleine.

She first found them aggressive and their reaction after she showed Madeleine's parents her credentials, also seemed strange to her. Afterwards she was informed that there were no signs of a break-in in the apartment. Knowing that they are doctors she found it absolutely abnormal that they left their children alone at home. Associating all of this with her professional experience, which tells her that in 99.99 % of missing children cases, the parents or other family members are involved, she felt it was her duty to inform the police of this.

She did this anonymously because she did not want to be bothered by the media. But she also states that according to what she remembers, when she met with Madeleine's parents, David Payne, who was with them, was wearing a dark polo shirt, blue or black coloured, cream coloured long trousers, of linen or cotton, and dark shoes (sandal/slipper type without a back buckle/catch). In her opinion, this clothing matches perfectly with the clothing the Police described the man (carrying the child) to be wearing at the time. All these coincidences made the witness think that the parents and their friends could possibly be involved in the disappearance of the child.
 
She declares that one of her main aims when she wrote the anonymous letter was for the British police to check the paedophile or child abusers registers and whether David Payne was on that list.

[John]

Clearly there were suspicions from several sources both British and Portuguese very early on that the parents were involved.   The abduction theory was put under considerable strain when the initial forensics revealed that no intruder entered the apartment using the children's bedroom window.

The sighting by Tanner effectively ruled Gerry McCann out as the carrier even though the later evidence by at least two members of the Smith family appeared to throw doubt on this.

Murat was put in the frame by several members of the tapas group even though he was adamant that he didn't leave home the night Madeleine disappeared.  He was followed, his phones were monitored and his involvement with the Russian Malinka was made the subject of much investigation.

So let's see what this amounts to.  If Señor Amaral and his colleagues were of the opinion that the carrier seen by Tanner was connected with Madeleine and also of the opinion that the McCanns were somehow complicit in this, then the only conclusion one can come to logically is that the carrier was acting on behalf of the parents.

Having said that however, this is where the entire 'the parents dunnit' scenario falls apart since how could they have possibly arranged this in the short period of time available to them and taking into account they were in a foreign country and didn't know any of the local hoods?

If I recall correctly, even Amaral had difficulty with this point.

[Lyall]

Have you read the files on that?

Murat was made arguido very early on. Lori Campbell seemed to have set the ball rolling by finding him too helpful. I had assumed that she was responsible for the stories in the tabloids, but she may not have been. Anyway, her suspicion leaked and from then on it seemed that he was tabloid fodder and subject to suggestibility issues.

Leaked? She didn't look at all reluctant to be in front of the cameras. Quite the opposite.

[Albertini]

So let's see what this amounts to.  If Señor Amaral and his colleagues were of the opinion that the carrier seen by Tanner was connected with Madeleine and also of the opinion that the McCanns were somehow complicit in this, then the only conclusion one can come to logically is that the carrier was acting on behalf of the parents.

Having said that however, this is where the entire 'the parents dunnit' scenario falls apart since how could they have possibly arranged this in the short period of time available to them and taking into account they were in a foreign country and didn't know any of the local hoods?

If I recall correctly, even Amaral had difficulty with this point.

From reading Amaral's book and the interim report i think the officers were of the view that the Tanner sighting was false.

From memory they did not believe that Tanner could have walked past them without either Gerry or Jez seeing her, or indeed seen the same man Tanner claims to have seen walking across the top of the street.