Saturday, February 25, 2012

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Did a Kidnapper Muck with Anything?

Evidence does not have to be in the form of forensic evidence  - DNA, fingerprints, hair, physical damage, etc. -  for a case to be built and for guilt to be proven in a court of law. Although it is very popular today for juries to rely more and more on forensics to come up with a guilty verdict, direct testimony and circumstantial evidence without any forensics at all can still be enough to prove someone's guilt. If thirty people give direct testimony that Joe Smith came into the room with a rifle and gunned down a bunch of people, this would be pretty good evidence even if Joe ran off with the gun and ditched it down a mineshaft.

Likewise, Jane Tanner's eyewitness testimony could be credible if there was not the question of her actually being on the street when and where she said she was (since two other eyewitness accounts state she was not there at all). Add to this, issues over whether the lighting was good enough and the witness close enough for her to have really have seen a man carrying a child, a child in specific clothing, and likely, this testimony would be torn to shreds in court. So let's move to the circumstantial evidence in this case. The McCanns made an effort to build the case for an abductor from circumstantial evidence that did not include forensics of any sort. The theory is that an abductor was hiding in the room while Gerry was checking on the children. This theory is based on the timing of the raised shutters and open window and the ever-changing position of the bedroom door. And, of course, Jane Tanner's sighting. But let's stay with the physical evidence for now.

If all these things can validate a stranger in the room at the very time Gerry is in the apartment, then Jane Tanner's story gets a boost because as soon as Gerry walked out the sliding doors, the abductor would grab Maddie from the bed and run out of the front door, crossing the street just in time for Jane to see him. There is nothing wrong with developing a theory based on such things, if, in the end, these things are supportable in some way and make logical sense when the day is done. It still doesn't mean it is true, but at least it could be a good theory. And, if the direct evidence and circumstantial evidence really holds water, that theory may be good enough to accept as a factual rendition of what indeed did happen and eventually will stand up in a court of law as part of a criminal case. Okay, so can we find evidence to support Jane's 9:15 sighting and the hypothesis that a kidnapper was in the McCann apartment and in the children's room at the same time Gerry was?

IMPORTANT: FIRST STATEMENTS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT STATEMENTS. THERE IS MORE TRUTH IN THEM AND MORE ATTEMPTS TO QUICKLY STAGE (USING SIMPLE LIES) THAN IN LATER INTERVIEWS

May 4, 2007 Gerald McCann Witness Statement 

Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club,using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition. He then went to the toilet, where he remained for a few instants, left the apartment, and then crossed ways with someone with whom he had played tennis, who had a baby buggy, also a British citizen, with whom he had a brief conversation. He then returned to the restaurant.

At around 9.30 pm, his friend MATT (a member of the group) went to his apartment where his own children were, and on his way he went into the deponent's apartment, going in through a sliding glass door at the side of the building, which was always unlocked (so why is Gerry going through the front door?). He went into the room, saw the twins and didn’t even notice if Madeleine was there, as everything was quiet, the shutters closed and the bedroom door half-open as usual. Then MATT went back to the restaurant.

At 10pm, his wife Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment through the door using her key (Why is Kate not going through the sliding door?) and saw right away that the children’s bedroom door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains drawn open. The side door that opens into the living room, which as said earlier, was never locked, was closed.

It is stressed that when one of the members of the group, JANE, went to her apartment to see her children, at around 9.10/9.15 pm, from behind and at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road next to the club, she saw a person carrying a child in pyjamas. JANE will be better able to clarify this situation.

Okay, let's stop here. What we have learned is that Gerry says BOTH he and Kate used a key to enter the apartment through the locked front door. This would be consistent with a locked apartment which would not allow a stranger easy access and increase safety of the children staying alone in an exposed corner apartment. 

Then Gerry immediately states that the sliding door was always left open which invalidates the behavior of going to the front door and using a key. Why? To me, in conjunction with other information, this appears to be an addition to his story which allows Matthew Oldfield to do a check at around 9:30 (even though members of the Tapas group did not do visual checks on each others' children previously).

But, what does Gerry say about the bedroom door? Nothing. He does not point out anything alarming about this door in his interview. And he even states that when Matthew went into the room that the shutters were closed and the door half-open as usual.

Gerry did not see the shutters raised nor the window open nor the door anything but half-open. In fact, everything was normal when he went into the apartment using his key. He saw his children (allegedly) and left because nothing was out of place (allegedly). He chats with Jes, doesn't see Jane, but wants Jane to tell her story of a man with a child she saw from behind and from a hell of a long way off.

Let's go to  Matthew Oldfield's May 4th Witness Statement.


Gerry allegedly went into his apartment and that he checked to make sure that
Madeleine and the twins were sleeping in their bedroom, where it was quite dark. The bedroom door
was half-open. That five minutes later, Gerry came back to the group in the restaurant.
In answer to a question from the inspector, the interviewee does not know if Gerry met anyone while
he was checking the children. He did not mention it.


 At around 9.25pm, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on
the children. He states that the door of the fourth apartment (room?), that was occupied by
Madeleine and the twins, was half-open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to
see the twins in their cots
. That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all
quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping. That the light in question was from an artificial source but
not inside the bedroom, rather from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him
that the shutters of the bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.


Clearly, if the McCanns were fabricating a story, the one thing they can't have happen is for the abductor to have taken Maddie before Gerry checks since Gerry is supposed to have seen the child at around 9:10 pm. So, the room should have to be dark at that time. Interestingly though, at this point, Gerry is not saying the door was anything but in the usual position which is corroborated by Matthew. The usual position seems to be half-open, at least at this point in the renditions.

Note that Matthew says he can see the children quite well (although Gerry could also in the dark as he looked at Madeleine and thought what a lucky man he was although, perhaps, we don't know, if another light from inside the apartment had been turned on and filtered through the door). Remember this until the end of the post. (It is odd though that he can also see an empty bed against the wall and, since he has never been in the apartment before to know where Maddie sleeps, the empty bed does not worry him enough to step in the room and see if Maddie is in the other one).


Now, to Kate McCann's May 4th Statement

At around 10pm, the witness came to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked as already said, and immediately noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.


Later, the witness would learn that a member of the group, Russell's partner Jane, at around 9.15pm, when she went to her own apartment to check on her children, saw from behind and at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road along the club, a long-haired person, she thinks wearing jeans, with a child in his arms, walking very quickly. But she is better able to tell about that herself.

Kate mentions nothing in her statement about Matthew observing more light or a half-open door. Her statement appears to be the only one with a changed door position which would indicate that there was no proof "the abductor" was in the bedroom with Gerry. Furthermore, since Matthew said the door was half-open, then "the abductor" must have flung it the rest of the way open AFTER Matthew left the apartment (if he was ever even there).

You might stop and note that Kate, who gave her interview later in the day, is now entering the sliding door like Matthew, in spite of the fact Gerry says she used her key on the front door like him. One could think Gerry simply forgot how the both of them came into the apartment but it is highly unlikely he would not remember something so important the morning after. It is far more likely, as the hours went on, the story was altered to support the abductor theory. It is not uncommon to see fabrications develop as people attempt to convince someone of a particular story. I am not saying the McCanns and their friends did this, but the radical changes and inconsistencies in their stories are a red flag.

Interestingly, Jane Tanner rendition of her sighting of the man with the child is vastly different from the McCanns on May 4th. It is my belief both of them thought she was going to state that she saw a man going down the road behind her after she turned the corner, not before it, whenever it was she went for her check, if she even did. If you have read any of Jane's interviews, they are far, far longer than anyone else's; Jane has motormouth and simply can not keep it simple. I believe she may have overdone her scenario and, in doing so, added in Jerry and Jes and ended up with a problem of not being seen by Gerry and Jes. Later, as often happens when someone is trying to convince the police and public something happened, the McCanns may have worked to make her story fit because it gives Gerry an alibi at the time "the abductor" is seen.

Of course, then if the Jane saw the abductor while Gerry was talking to Jes, then the abductor had to be in the room with Gerry; hence; the shifting door story evolves.



Some very fascinating things comes from the McCann own documentary, Madeleine was Here (Part One: 00:10-1:30)

I did my check about ten o'clock. I went in through the sliding patio doors and I just stood actually... and thought, oh, all quiet....and to be honest, I might have been tempted to turn around...  I just noticed the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we left it. I went to close it to about here and then as it got to here, it suddenly (Kate slams the door shut) slammed and then as I opened it..... it was then that I thought I would look at the children...at Sean and Amelie in the cots (which she could not have seen in her demonstration because the she has the door nearly closed with just room for her face to peep in at Madeleine)....all of which negates her May 4th statement that she immediately noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open.

And I was looking at Madeleine's bed which was here....and it was dark and I was looking...is that Madeleine or is that the bedding....I couldn't quite make it out.

So it seems to be much, much darker than when Matthew was there or Matthew has far better eyes than Kate or he made up that it was lighter if he was ever even in the room (and it may be impossible at this late stage to reenact the exact lighting circumstances of the night, but it seems the shutters being raised doesn't change the lighting in the room substantially from Kate's view; however, if one argues this point, then it being lighter for Matthew is meaningless as well). Her story is radically different from her original statement and it would seem in an effort to dramatize the event, the facts don't quite jibe.

So, what do the facts prove?  That no abductor could have been in the room until after Matthew was there and Kate's statement about what happened when she came to the apartment has questionable elements. So does Gerry's and so does Matthews and so does Jane's. It is no wonder why the PJ questioned their involvement and that there was ever an abduction. Even if you chalk up all these inconsistencies to bad memories and distraught witnesses, what they have stated hardly offers any support for Jane Tanner's 9:15 sighting or an abductor hiding in the children's bedroom during Gerry's check. The statements and McCann reenactments, in fact, caused the police and others to question their involvement and rightly so.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
 

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

welcome to the dogs dinner called the madeleine mccann case pat, excellent observations as usual

did youvknow there are three versions of how kate found the curtains?

may 4th statement, she found them open
may 10th group tatement, she ran over to the window and opened them
madeleine was here documentary, right at the beginning, she says they were closed when she went into the room and the gust of wind opened them from a closed position to right open

Anonymous said...

Thank you Pat. I look forward to your blog on this subject and I wish you every success for your future.
From the beginning of this case there has been nothing but confusion. My mum used to say Satan is the author of confusion. His cohorts "McCann and Co" are without doubt children of his.

Anonymous said...

Hi Pat,im sure Matthew had done an earlier check(9.05)but only listening against the apartment 5A's closed shutters,so the artificial light entering the childrens bedroom should have raised a red flag to him & as for Kate saying the bedropom door was open wider than they had left it?Gerald & Matthew have claimed to have entered the apartment before her 10 o clock check

Pat Brown fan

l said...

There is something so creepy about Kate's 're-enactment' of the whooshing wind and slamming doors. It's so contrived, and, comes off as though she is trying to persuade the viewer rather give an account of what transpired. I can't explain why I feel this way, it's just my opinion. I think the Mcann's and their friends wanted to generate just enough confusion to create doubt, and, when a reconstruction was needed for clarity, they wouldn't do it; best to keep things muddled. They need to be confronted about the fact that they run away from or attempt to control investigative procedures. They are masters at manipulating the public's perception of them by only committing to soft interviews that cover the sympathetic, human interest aspects of the story without delving too deeply. There is no great mystery here; Gerry and Kate seem like bullies who know exactly what happened. It's pretty obvious their friends know what happened too, but, how on earth all of those people managed to keep quiet is beyond me. They must be worried about facing charges themselves...

Anonymous said...

lol anonymous 1 37 spot on

Anonymous said...

thank you pat,its so good that you went to pdl and can see with new eyes (so too speak)what didnt happen and to make your blog so easy to understand that the so called abduction is all fabrication on the part of the mccanns and tapas 7.
look forward to the next part.

SteelMagnolia said...

Excellent Pat, there is something very strange in the fact Kate would mention in her May 4th statement to the police about the abductor wearing jeans. Tanner in her rogatory has an obsession about jeans and insists she did NOT take any jeans to PDL on that trip, images of her in jeans are from another time and place she INSISTS, maybe at some point we can take a look into that.

http://thesmithsighting.blogspot.com/2012/02/aoife-smith-describing-gerry-mccanns.html

Meanwhile , a description of the pants worn by the man from the Smith sighting, Gerry has a pair just like them it would appear.

Thank-you for your sterling work. xx

Anonymous said...

good observations Pat...it is amazing these people are not behind bars.. amazing
their stories keep changing.. in their documentary it is interesting to see how they describe the smith sighting and the way the child was carried..not at all what the smith said..the child was carried her head resting on the man's shoulder..\

Anonymous said...

I wish more of the British public would search the internet about this case instead of just believing what they read in the gutless British press.

The McCanns and their friends make me mad, all they want is to hear their side of the story - and force everyone else to hear their side of the story. Well, I don't buy it! I won't buy any of their books (published or soon to be published) and I certainly won't donate to their company!

I lost respect for them when they refused the reconstruction.

Justice for Madeleine.

Anonymous said...

good observations pat
These people are liars..it shows. pretty obvious.
one thing i noticed is their way to describe the man who was carrying a child ( the smith sighting) it is not at all what the Smith said.. the child was carried her head resting on the man's shoulder

Anonymous said...

A very strange crime scene, the flapping curtains in the breeze takes such a centre position to the story, as did CUDDLY CAT in the original version.

Just who in their right mind tampers with a crime scene?

OK let's just say you close the window and shutters because the twins are in the room, that is of course if they were ever open

Do you then tuck the curtains behind the bed left and behind the chair right? you know those curtains flapping in the breeze and exactly how were the NET curtains left

The window area consisted of:
shutters
GLASS windows, you know that breakable stuff**
net curtains
Cloth curtains

So back to this rather tidy crime scene person, just a pity they didn't even bother to make the bed from the night before, you know the one under the window, yet found time before the forensic photos to tidy the curtains

Where they ever closed?

Still into the over egged pudding

**in case you are new to the never ending saga, the explanation for the windows i.e. glass stuff, in the article BEYOND THE SMEARS, the cleaners were of the habit of leaving them unlocked!

Dana said...

@ I said - I agree with you. The windows WOOSH statement creeped me out.

About 1:24 "I knew staight away...uh...that she'd been taken ya know" raises eyebrows in an odd expression that almost looks like sarcasm.

Why would a Mother immediately jump to that theory that her child was kidnapped? Maybe Madeleine was in the bathroom, on the floor somewhere asleep, in her parents room asleep and on and on. Red flags abound in this 10 minute video.

Anonymous said...

Very good article Pat. I have a suspicion that Gerry foolishly distorts the truth in an attempt to show himself to be a responsible parent. Why would he walk straight past an unlocked side door to walk right round to the locked front door? Presumably he left by the side door otherwise Jane would've seen him turning the corner and walking towards her at the same time, and in the same place, as she saw the man carrying a child at 9.15.

Incidentally, if Jane saw a man departing with Madeleine at 9.15pm then it gives both her, and her husband, an alibi for the time that either one of them was not with the group from 9.15 until after 10pm.

Anonymous said...

One thing that's not yet been considered. Going out the front door must have been very difficult for the abductor if he was holding Madeleine the way Jane Tanner saw him carrying her.

And just to make life more difficult for himself,it seems he closed the door behind him. Now why did he bother to do that when he didn't bother to close the shutters?

Anonymous said...

In Jane Tanner's 'rogatory' interview with Leicestershire Police in April 2008: re her description of the man with a child she says not jeans, and after help from the interviewing officer and using a wall in the interview suite as a guide estimates the distance was 5-10 metres.

"And sort of the dark, dark clothes and quite billowy, not billowy clothes, but quite baggy, sort of they seemed, not ill fitting but quite baggy clothes, like not jeans, but trousers sort of not Chinos but not Farrahs either, but sort of baggy'ish sort of ill fitting more than. And they're the bits that I remember quite vividly sort of".

"five to ten metres, well probably five, nearer five."

Anonymous said...

Gerry sets off on his check about 9.05-9.10. It takes him 2 mins to walk round to the front door of his apartment - 9.07-9.12. Presumably he would be in the apartment for at least 2 mins to check the children and use the bathroom - 9.09-9.14, then he leaves the flat by the side door.

Gerry now thinks the abductor could have been in the flat already during this time. We know the abductor could not have climbed IN through the window or Gerry would have noticed when he checked the bedroom. Presumably, the abductor would not choose to go OUT through the window carrying a child either.

Therefore, if the man was in the flat already, he must have had an absolute maximum of 6 mins to check both the front (which must have been locked or why open the window?) and side door after Gerry left (Gerry was talking to Jez outside) then to open the window and shutters and to pick up a sleeping child and clamber through the window with her and set off up the road before Jane noticed him at 9.15pm.

Anonymous said...

In fact, further to my previous post, how did Jane and Gerry's abductor get IN to the apartment in the first place? For a start he must have gone in through the side door because either Matt or Gerry would have noticed the window and shutters open prior to 9.15. (And the front door was locked as Gerry used his key to get in).

So, if the abductor used the side door, presumably he must have walked down the road at the side of the McCann apartment. This MUST have been around 8.50, any later and the following people would've noticed him - Matt,the Paynes, Matt again, Gerry, then Gerry and Jeremy (unless the abductor was busy going in through the window whilst G&J were talking).

He would also have been spotted at any time prior to 8.35? by the McCanns; prior to 8.40? by Jane; prior to 8.45? by Matt, Rachel and Russell. Not to mention anyone else returning from the Tapas.

So the abductor must have been in the apartment for around 25 mins before Jane saw him leaving at 9.15?

Anonymous said...

Pat please confirm this - I think I have just seen on a map, an alleyway with access from the patio of the McCann's apartment right round the back of the apartment block to the main road. If an abductor got in through the patio doors (which he must have done unless he had a key to the front door) then surely he would have left, unseen, this way as well? Why would he be climbing out of windows?

Anonymous said...

Watch around minute 1:30+ when Kate says:"and then I just knew she had been taken, you know...".

My question is: is that a non-verbal negation she does with her head immediately afterwards? I mean, could it be construed as such? That was my perception anyway. I saw a dissociation here. At one level she is asserting the child has been taken and at another she negates it as if to say "no! It wasn't like that". What wasn't like that? OK may be I am being obnoxious here. May be it was just a contextual non-verbal expression of disbelief. Sorrow. Whatever. But, it did make me wonder....

Anonymous said...

I just can't understand Jane's attitude. If I had witnessed a child abduction or been part of that holiday I think everything would be so clear in my mind. I would never forget the details of that night, not be going 'sort of, maybe, possibly'. It's almost as though she doesn't really care about Madeleine but does enjoy the drama of it all.

Anonymous said...

In the roggies JT makes it very clear that they, considering their eldest daughter was not in a cot, etc DEADLOCKED the front main door so she couldn't get out

Keep that in mind

If the abduction took place in the time available, i.e. DURING the father's check, yes DURING... hold on to that thought as well, since the father was either in the apartment or standing immediately outside. And afterall, before he had got back to his meal, as seen by JT, the abductor had walked by father in plain view

> Did the abductor enter via the patio, thus ahead of father & was in the apartment with him?

> Did he have a KEY for this well planned abduction, yet forgot to bring his vehicle, decided to open window\shutter to air the apartment and whilst carrying the child, still close the door behind him, yet as stated above, left the window\shutter open

> Is the window entry or exit, is a non starter look at the inside window measure in the forensic photos, add to the greater drop on the outside, and the ridge of the window frame

> Back to the front door, did father actually enter via the front, but for haste, exited and left the patio unlocked? leaving no opportunity for the abductor to enter via the unlocked patio door

> Now dwell on the front main door, probably in any scenario it's probably 75%+ that the child was exited that way

> But if the main front door could freely be exited, did mother when she found the child missing actually go outside to the front area to check? Particularly as she said she knew immediately she had been abducted as high-lighted like a flashing neon sign, SHE WENT THIS WAY, i.e. the window\shutter, then the obvious place to have checked was the front, alley way & car park

Never any mention how the manic mother actually spent time & where she checked, probably the cleaners left that unlocked as well !

Never seen any mention of the patio door & shutter status of the main bedroom, although MO attributes the light source as coming from their room

Anonymous said...

And not for the only time when on camera, KM's 'WHOOSH' is accompanied by a forceful gesture with her arms. Was somebody thrust away from her - 'Whoosh'?
Unpredictable and inadvertent - like 'the wind'?

Anonymous said...

NO WONDER they ALL refused doing a reconstruction!!!
BRAVO Pat, keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

Correct. Who could that be? She did not see a man leaving she saw 'someone', and that someone has a witness statement. She had been listening in to Kate saying that Gerry was late a he was watching the 'footie' and that was true. The game was on at that time and the television was to the sofa and the door open so as to access the game. So she knew. But what Jane did was listen in, as she could not have been the recipient of this to her.

Therefore yet again as in the coffee with the 'abductor' she knows she listens in. She is not part of it. When Kate says of Gerry being long time it has to be to Fiona, not her. So Jane decides to go. And so if Gerry is not outside she will of course enter the flat by the open patio doors as human nature. What she sees has to be of her imagination except for the real situation of the man who had coffee who was crossing and she saw it from the only place possible.

Answer.

The window where the blood was found.

Who cleaned up this substance, and why?

Anonymous said...

SteelMagnolia mentioned the "jeans subject", yes, Tanner going on and on about not having any jeans in that holiday, it's so weird. And, add that to a slip of tongue she made during her Panorama interview when she clearly says "I was carrying...", when she describes what she saw, the asupposed abductor carrying Madeleine.
Here:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071127150242AAqolx9

And here:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id48.html

In McCann Files, in the transcript of the interview, her answer is written like this:
"JANE: Yeah, ...was carrying, sort of, across the body like that."
In the BBC site the transcript fills in the gap and puts "Yeah, HE was carrying..."
Obviously there are doubts about what she said...unfortunately the video is no longer available (I wonder why...?) but I can assure you that back then when it first aired I listene dto it over and over again, and she really says "I was carrying".

Anonymous said...

i dont think the distance from the gate to the top of the road where tannerman was walking is five metres, more like ten, how in the dark at that distance tanner saw the minutest details about the abductor his clothes the height of his heels the fact that his trousers had no creases, and the childs clothes is amazing

Anonymous said...

Would be interesting to know if SY have looked at a reconstruction from statements and what they think!

Two questions I don't know the answers to, would be grateful if anyone could answer them thanks!:-

When will the public find out the outcome of the S.Y. 'review'?

Do they have an open ended budget and time-scale?

Anonymous said...

Thank you for this Pat, very interesting indeed.

No mention of cuddlecat on the shelf now? That was what Kate McCann said originally alerted her that Madeleine had been abducted, but we are now supposed to forget that.

Just like we are supposed to forget the blood and cadaver dogs alerting to death in the holiday apartment and back of the McCanns hire car, and the experiments carried out on how long it takes for cadaver scent to develop before it can be detected by a cadaver dog, which appears to be about one and a half hours before the best cadaver dogs can detect it, and as much as three to four hours for the rest.

This would mean Gerry and his sighting of Madeleine alive and well at 9.05pm, or whatever thereabouts he says it was, does not make sense at all. It also puts paid to Madeleine having died by accident that occurred when Gerry was talking to his friend outside the apartment around that time.

I personally believe that murder should not be ruled out, and that death by whatever means happened earlier than that.

Anonymous said...

SteelMagnolia, Tanner and the subject of jeans...yes, very strange her emphasis on NOT having any jeans in Luz, that the picture of her wearing jeans (in the newspapers?) was from another holiday! And, anyone remembers the BBC Panorama interview? The one where Tanner had a slip of tongue and said, when asked to describe what she saw "...I was carrying..." instead of ..."HE was carrying..."
Watch here:
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2062-jane-tanner-shows-us-how-she-carried-the-child

Kate says the man carrying a child weared jeans (ah, Kate and her tendency to put her foot in her mouth...no wonder Gerry always looks nervous whenever she opens her mouth to talk in interviews!), Jane says SHE was carrying the child and even demonstrates how in that interview, and then in her rogatory she (Tanner) had NO jeans on that holiday! So many strange coincidences in this case...

Kate's words from her police interview on the 4th May 2007:

"Later, the witness would learn that a member of the group, Russell's partner Jane, at around 9.15pm, when she went to her own apartment to check on her children, saw from behind and at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road along the club, a long-haired person, SHE THINKS WEARING JEANS, with a child in his arms, walking very quickly. But she is better able to tell about that herself."

Anonymous said...

You know, it's surprising how easy it has been to believe in even the wildest theories with regard to this case. If, in fact, the Tanner sighting or the Smith sighting WAS actually Madeleine, then, tragically it should not be too difficult to locate her. If anyone did walk away with her on foot, that must mean firstly, that this was NOT a planned abduction by organised criminals and secondly that it was almost certainly a lone abductor. If this was the case then logically there is only so far you can walk carrying a child. In each of these sightings what lies in the direction the man was walking?

Anonymous said...

Pat,

I remember in June 2007 the family of the McCanns (or the McCanns themselves) requested that a particular psychic stop working on this case. At the time I thought it strange as it looked as though he supported the abduction theory. However, looking back at it recently (armed with all the info regarding the dogs findings, the PJ files etc) I can see why they would request it to stop .... and why they would feel uncomfortable (if, of course, they were hiding info). Great emphasis was put on the apartments being searched again - suggesting using dogs, (even mentioned a jogger, haha), amongst other info.

I don't mind if you post this comment or not, I just wanted to point it out to you - could this be the McC's controlling what they don't like.....even as early as one month after the disappearance of their daughter?

Anonymous said...

KM claims:"I knew staight away...uh...that she'd been taken ya know"

Then upon discovering her eldest child has been taken. KM leaves her other two children, alone again, and headed off to the Tapas to tell the others in the group!

zodiaczephyr

Therefore we have:

That very same morning MBM asks her parents where they were when she and her sibling had cried the night before. What did the parents do? They left all three children all just aged 3 and under alone again and they leave a patio door unlocked! Unlocked for any Tom, Dick or Harry to wander in and do whatever they wish!

Then that night the mother claims she knew staight away that her eldest child had been taken and she just leaves her two remaining children alone again in an unlocked flat to go and tell the group!

Let's not forget that in the FP statement she recalls that KM had asked her what she had thought of leaving the door unlocked. Unlocked so MBM could get out and find her parents if she wakes up again and they are not there! Yet KM has be harping on about how MBM couldn't have got out of the flat on her own!

Anonymous said...

Great Pat! You are closer to the TRUTH! All the Tapas 9 are not telling the truth. All this story began in UK where Madeleine was cloned at age 2. Blair and Cameron know all of this, but they can not open their mouth! You have to find the connection between this case, and the Royal family, all reptilians according to David Icke ...

Anonymous said...

February 26, 2012 8:44 AM, wrote:

"I saw a dissociation here. At one level she is asserting the child has been taken and at another she negates it as if to say "no!"

Here in Portugal I've watched many tv shows in which the case was discussed and amongst the guest commentators there were psychologists and behavioral experts who work with the police and they always said that the McCanns words did not match their physical reactions. Their mouth was saying one thing but their bodies, their facial expressions and gestures said the opposite.
No, I don't think you're being obnoxious, you're just feeling what so many of us feel whenever we watch them in interviews, a deep sense of discomfort and disbelief. Many of us can read the signs when someone is not being entirely honest, no need to be an expert, it's just our sixt sense, I suppose...

Anonymous said...

Maybe Jane Tanner could be given a lie detector test, though by now she may have self deluded herself into believing she really did see whatever is the latest version of her story.

Strange how the character she supposedly saw started off wearing jeans and then ended up wearing similar clothing to the man seen in the Smith sighting. What a coincidence, but it certainly gave Gerry McCann an alibi being as how she saw him at the same time as the 'abductor', thus contradicting Mr Smith saying the man looked like Gerry.

Interesting that one of the Smith party states the man carrying the child was wearing light coloured trousers with what he thought were 'buttons'. Then it turns out Gerry has a pair of such light coloured trousers.

As for Jane clearly saying 'I was carrying' perhaps she should be questioned further about that.

Anonymous said...

I suggest the effect of the temperature and the breeze may affect opinions as to the open/shut doors and windows. Air flows from colder (denser) to warmer (rarefied). In the evening the apartment would be warm because of thermal lag, but in May the temperature can drop by about 7 degrees outside, meaning that a breeze would be likely to blow in to the apartment, shutting the bedroom doors if from the window, opening them if from the sliding doors.

Land and sea breezes would be tending to blow out to sea as the earth cools, meaning it would be likely that air would blow in the bedroom window. Some experimentation could prove interesting.

Also, from experience in a neighbouring resort, opening a (double-glazed) window lets in considerable noise, conversation in the narrow streets, traffic, footsteps, so this would happen as well as a change in temperature. Would a child sleep through all that - well maybe...........

Anonymous said...

just a thought, What if Jane Tanner did disturb the removal of maddie from 5a by Gerry and another male? What if Gerry was assisting O'brien, and Jez happened to come by?
This may explain Gerry's keeness to
distract Jez and to ignore Jane.
This may also explain why Jane's sighting was on the poster timeline without Kate being aware?
Jane maybe covering for O'Brien?

Anonymous said...

Jane Tanner's slip of tung that SHE carried the child is interesting. Also how she describes the carrier with long hair etc, almost like a woman. The way the alleged abductor according to Jane Tanner carries the child would be how you may carry a dead or wounded person.

su said...

When you see the implications of Clarence Mitchell's role in this I think there needs to be an inquiry into Ian Huntley - Soham murders.
The Truthseeker website had some interesting perspectives on that case and that man was framed.
Clarence Mitchell is the one I think we should all be looking at right now. He needs to feel the pressure.

Anonymous said...

yes pat,your right about the first statements,there the one's to focus on

Anonymous said...

I am totally mesmerised with this case now. I have been reading everything I can the last few days. How can these people be getting away with this? My own opinion is that there was evidence to show Madeleine had been sexually abused and there is now an organised coverup with very high-level people involved, aided and abetted by the freemasons.

Anonymous said...

Just a thought but prehaps jane and gerry were having an affair and madeleine saw something she shouldnt of.

lilly123 said...

11.41/42 on the video, she clearly stated "i was" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqoj-pfBUnY

lilly123 said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqoj-pfBUnY