How do we know that Tannerman or Smithman was not an employee at the supermarket? What I don't get at the moment is how does all this witness statement taking actually identifies a perpetrator? The PJ could go into the supermarket with a photo of Kate McCann and ask "did you serve this woman?" Did she have her kids with her? The McCanns may have had checkout receipts so the PJ could have some way of double checking truthfulness. It is so close to the apartments if some male or couple even had designs on taking Madeleine they could just about keep an eye on the McCanns from the supermarket. Apparently the PJ considered whether it was possible to spy on the McCanns from the unit next door, not sure which side though. Something to assess when I get there I suppose.
Currently I think all the witness statements are designed just to build a case against the McCanns.
I don't, in fact.
The first round of statements, IMO, was just an attempt at getting some potentially useful information within the shortest time possible in the light of an emergency situation, with officers who may have never had that kind of situation to deal with and, I suspect, whoever they found at short notice available to interpret.
I find that understandable.
What I find less understandable is why some don't make any allowances for potential misunderstandings in that chaotic period.
My impression is that the first statements read like an adaptation of a burglary claim, as opposed to even a semblance of a cognitive interview. And that's not a criticism: AFAIK, there was no missing child protocol and the emergency was to try to find her ASAP.
