From a poster on Amazon on this issue.............................
' wat.... says:
As I posted last night, Jeremy Wilkins in his statement said
''It was not an unusual sight to see people walking through the site at night with a child in their arms asleep.''
The response to this seems to have been that ''A simple check of the Creche records would show who used it that night and at what time they collected their child. Obviously nothing tallied with the sightings.''
Oh yes?
And where is the evidence for this? There is nothing relating to the register of the evening creche in the files, as far as I can see, presumably because none of the group's children attended it. If anyone else has come across any documents relating to the evening creche, I would appreciate the link.
However - we can determine from the nanny statements that there were three nannies on duty at the creche that evening at the time when Madeleine was found to be missing. I find it difficult to believe that so many staff would be required if the number of people availing themselves of the facility was very small. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that Jez Wilkins' observation is anything other than accurate.
Had checks been made against the evening creche register to see who had collected their children at times approximate to the sightings, I would have expected some indication of this, together perhaps with depositions from those concerned. Certainly we do know that Jane Tanner was never asked to look at photos of any of those using the creche, or participate in any ID parade procedures, so there is no indication that this was ever done.
Of course, there are two other elements to be considered here. The first is that the weekend represented changeover day - many people were leaving to return home, and it's most unlikely there had been time to conduct such investigations. Secondly, the Portuguese police set very little store by Jane Tanner's ''sighting'', nor did they release details for some weeks, in no small part to the fact that she kept amending her version, and I do not believe they regarded her as a credible witness.
Considering that weeks had gone by before details found their way into the public domain which might have led someone to realise they could have been the person she saw , I don't think it's any surprise that people didn't come forward to say ''It might have been me'', especially if they were back home in their own country by then.
One thing we can say with certainty - a number of families used the creche that night. Yet no-one appears to have been asked to come forward to be eliminated, and no-one seems to have volunteered that information. There could be any number of reasons for this, all perfectly innocent.
One other point.
Jane Tanner and her family remained in PdL for several weeks after Madeleine disappeared. To the best of our knowledge, she never saw this person again. She certainly never reported seeing him again, or thinking she had (her non-sighting of Robert Murat apart). It's perfectly possible that she would have had occasion to see a completely innocent local again, and recognise him as the man she saw, yet she didn't. Whilst that does not rule out that it could have been a local person, in a place as small at PdL I personally think it makes it less likely. '
