How likely is it that Jane Tanner and the Smiths saw the 'same' man ?

[Luz]

She had to since she had already confided in another member of the tapas group.  To not have mentioned it would have caused even more suspicion.

Back on topic however, I still believe that both sightings of a man carrying a child were pure coincidence.  Whoever lifted Maddie put her in a motor vehicle and cleared off pronto.

She had to because there was a witness that had given a statement to the police, and so they arranged for a leak to be released to a spanish paper, in order to accuse the PJ of leaking, accompanied by a series of interviews where Mrs McCann, heroically confessed to a pretense conversation with little Madeleine.

_________________

Jane Tanner & Smith's sighting of a man: I don't know if any of them saw anyone.
It's natural that they did because in May there's already plenty of people in Praia da Luz apart from tourists and ex-pats that live there all year.

But it doesn't make sense that if Tanner saw someone going  in the direction she appointed, that same person showed up, more than half an hour later, in a totally different direction. They are either 2 different persons or one or both lied about the sightings.

[pathfinder73]

I wonder if Jane used the lanes from the back to the front of the apartment. I can't see how she walked past Gerry and Jez without being noticed. Jez said he was talking to Gerry just above the lane so if Jane went that way she wouldn't have actually went passed them at all. She could've seen Tannerman walking across the road (looking in her north direction) but from a longer distance away.

The other explanation would be that she just passed the apartment when Gerry came out of the back and spotted Jez. She heard voices further behind her and turned around and saw them and turned back and then spotted Tannerman crossing the road. This explanation is less realistic as it would require perfect timing.

[Luz]

For me there is something too deviant about the efforts the McCann made all the time to be recognized as negligent parents.

Not only did Kate McCann apparently disclosed the little talk Madeleine had with her about being left alone with her siblings, but also, Mr. McCann made sure that he divulged to several guests at the Ocean Club how they left the kids alone.

It makes it laughable their apparent "horror" because their arrangements for dinner were written in a book at the reception desk....

They were the first to announce it! What could the purpose be?!!!!!!

[Luz]

I wonder if Jane used the lanes from the back to the front of the apartment. I can't see how she walked past Gerry and Jez without being noticed. Jez said he was talking to Gerry just above the lane so if Jane went that way she wouldn't have actually went passed them at all. She could've seen Tannerman walking across the road (looking in her north direction) but from a longer distance away.

The other explanation would be that she just passed the apartment when Gerry came out of the back and spotted Jez. She heard voices further behind her and turned around and saw them and turned back and then spotted Tannerman crossing the road. This explanation is less realistic as it would require perfect timing.

At first that was the explanation the police found for their depositions.
But as they all changed the testimonies as time went on, it became impossible to take their word for anything - that was the reason why a reconstitution was imperative in order to understand what really happened.

But obviously that was not the McCann's interest.

[AnneGuedes]

It makes it laughable their apparent "horror" because their arrangements for dinner were written in a book at the reception desk....

They were the first to announce it! What could the purpose be?!!!!!!

They weren't written in fact, see the register book in the files ! This is a myth spread by Mrs McCann.
Telling the crying episode as a justification for the open door-window indicates imo that whatever happened to Madeleine happened before dinner.

[pathfinder73]

It's possible Madeleine did go through a window but the window in the parents bedroom on to the veranda where Eddie found the scent then down the back steps to the flower bed.  It does connect wardrobe to out through window. The use of the front door key to enter the apartment gives us the time when Madeleine left the apartment. I was at first puzzled by, "Why would you enter from the front?" but it all makes perfect sense now.

[AnneGuedes]

The use of the front door key to enter the apartment gives us the time when Madeleine left the apartment. I was at first puzzled by this but it all makes perfect sense now.

?

[pathfinder73]

You would only enter from the front of the apartment if that was your nearest entry from where you were coming from.

[AnneGuedes]

But as they all changed the testimonies as time went on, it became impossible to take their word for anything - that was the reason why a reconstitution was imperative in order to understand what really happened.

Yes, this is what the public ignores. It's not only the change between entering North with a key into entering South open, there are many weird discrepancies and lapses of memory in their depositions. This is expected from the group, not from the parents.

[AnneGuedes]

You would only enter from the front of the apartment if that was your nearest entry from where you were coming from.

Not necessarily. Entering through their door-window would have been shorter for the Oldfield. They didn't do it because they couldn't lock it from the outside. Simple.

[pathfinder73]

I'm talking about 5A that was unlocked. There was no need to use the front entrance but it was used and I've explained the reason why. This gives us the time Madeleine left the apartment IMO. Keep close to the dogs and find those big discrepancies and things become clearer.

[Luz]

I'm talking about 5A that was unlocked. There was no need to use the front entrance but it was used and I've explained the reason why.

Of course there was a need to use the front entrance, the only door that could be locked from the outside.
Does anyone believe that a person would leave their 3 children in an unlocked apartment? ...not to mention their belongings, which apparently were not disturbed.

If we read the first deposition Mr. McCann made to the police, he stated to have entered the apartment by the front door using his key, as any normal person would do. Only later did they come out with the veranda doors opened - as if we believed that a scrooge like Gerald McCann would leave his belongings unprotected!

[pathfinder73]

"They left through the balcony door, which they left closed but not locked." (KM)

The patio door was unlocked when they left for the tapas bar. No one needed to come through the front door unless there was a reason for doing so.

[AnneGuedes]

Mr McCann said he (at 9) and his wife (at 10) entered through the door, i.e one you can lock from the outside and from the inside, with his/her key (no way to enter without a key, even it the door isn't locked).
Some hours after Mrs McCann said she entered through the door-window, i.e one you can lock only from the inside, contradicting Mr McCann.
But
Mr McCann had been absurd in his statement : he said he entered through the door with his key, as well as his wife, and later said that Mr Oldfield entered thought the door-window because it was left open...
Mrs McCann can very well have tried to repair the strange statement of her husband.
There's no evidence they left thought the door-window, we only have her/their word for it.

[Luz]

"They left through the balcony door, which they left closed but not locked." (KM)

The patio door was unlocked when they left for the tapas bar. No one needed to come through the front door unless there was a reason for doing so.

I don't believe they did that. It's unreasonable and it only came out after the papers started publishing that the windows couldn't have been "jemmied" as the McCann family first started spreading to the journos.