Monday, February 27, 2012

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's

The Smith family sighting or the Jane Tanner sighting; which is more likely to be someone carrying off Maddie than the other? Or, could they be, as the McCanns now encourage us to believe, the same man?

Let's start with a question we commonly hear about possible suspect sightings: when someone is spotted near a crime scene who has nothing to do with the crime but never comes forward and says, "That was me," doesn't that prove that the person spotted is indeed the suspect?

Not necessarily. First of all, the sighting may not even be a fact. Jane Tanner's sighting lacks credibility, so is no surprise that some innocent man carrying a child in his outstretched arms hasn't come forward (although Stephen Carpenter, another British vacationer, admitted to crossing the road fifteen minutes later with his wife and children). On the other hand, the Smith family sighting at approximately 9:50-9:55 is very credible since nine witnesses saw the man and they have no connection to the McCanns. So, that no one came forth to admit being that man may be because he is really the one carrying off Maddie.

Secondly, some people just don't want to admit it was them and then have the unpleasant repercussions of having to deal with the police and the media. Look what happened to Murat.

Next, we have the issue of how the child was carried. Dead or alive, the Smith sighting suspect carried the child up against his body in a more normal carry position. The child's arms were hanging down which would be absolutely the case with a dead child (although it is also possible with a live one). Mr. Smith later saw a video of Gerry carrying one of his remaining children and thought the man his family had seen could well be him. The Jane Tanner sighting has the abductor holding a limp child in his outstretched arms. This is an odd way to carry a child any distance as it is awkward and tiring. Also, if the man abducted the child, he would be far smarter to carry the child up against his shoulder where he could duck his head down alongside the child's head and keep his own face somewhat hidden. Carrying the child at waist level leaves one's face exposed and draws attention to the person due to the odd positioning of the child.

And how does it make sense that the abductor would carry the abducted child that way? If he scooped Maddie up from her bed, her head would naturally end up over his right arm and Jane Tanner wouldn't have seen two little feet. And how does the man get out the door and close it behind him with both hands cradling the child? (Not to mention, closing the door when you are in a hurry - since "the abductor" already have left evidence of a break-in with the open window - it is hardly is worth the effort.)

Mr. Smith believes Gerry McCann may be the man he saw on the Rua da Escola. Some say this is an  impossibility because Gerry was dining in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the sighting. Well, he is if you believe some of the statements of the Tapas 9 but there is no independent corroboration by any of the waiters that he was there exactly when Kate sounded the alarm after 10 pm nor can any independent witness put Gerry in the Tapas restaurant for the period of time prior to Kate raising the alarm. So there is nothing to say that this wasn't Gerry that the Smith's saw who then dumped the child he was carrying and returned to take his seat in the Tapas just before Kate showed up.

But, could he have made it to the location of the Smith sighting and back in time? Before I went to Praia da Luz I was told by some the idea was laughable, that the Smith sighting was quite a distance from the Tapas - half a mile is what the McCanns claim in their documentary, Madeleine was Here.

Voice over: It is possible that JT is not the only person who saw Madeleine being carried away by the abductor. 40 minutes after J(T)’s sighting and half (1/2) mile away from the Mc’s apartment a family also saw a man carrying a young girl away from the town.

When I looked at a map before I went to Portugal on Google and put in the locations, I did come up with 800 meters (half-mile) but that was by car and followed a rather circuitous route. the walking route didn't seem that far and, indeed, Google said it would take six minutes.

This is the advantage of going to the location of the crime scene. I walked the route myself from the McCann's apartment and the Smith sighting and it took me exactly five minutes at a moderately fast pace. It took me another minute and a half to reach the beach. So, the time Gerry would need from the time the Smiths would have seen him  and get back to the Tapas bar and include a body drop off is about eight minutes. He could be in his seat before Kate raised the alarm. And that is eight minutes if he didn't run back, in which case, he could be arrive sooner.

And, yes, it does take a bit of time to hide the body, but, in a pinch and a panic, I saw three good places to ditch a corpse in a hurry; a storage shed right by the road only part way to the beach (cutting an extra minute or so off the trip), a large clump of reeds where the road accesses the beach and one could quickly stuff the little body into, and, also at that location, a number of overturned small boats one could temporarily store a body underneath. At this point in time, if one would just trying to lose a dead child, any place might do, including a dumpster of which there were a number of in the area. If the body is later found in any of the those places, it could be suspected that a sex predator dumped his victim there, and, if the body wasn't immediately discovered and one had time to find a better spot to prevent the child being found and an autopsy done, any of these places could be revisited and the body moved in the dark early morning hours. If there was no one out searching, these locations are dead quiet and no one is around; I can testify to since I spent from 3 am to 5 am wandering about Praia da Luz and never ran into anyone.

Which sighting is more likely to be Madeleine McCann? The Smith sighting, clearly, but the McCanns will have none of it unless it is the same man that Jane Tanner saw. I repeat what I stated in my last blog; there is no reason for the McCanns to disqualify the Smith sighting as a stand-alone sighting of the person who took Madeleine unless Gerry does not really have an alibi for 9:50-9:55 pm.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown


Anonymous said...

Brilliant. It is simple and it explains. Keep writing. I hope you will eventually come up with a new profile on the basis of your field work. I look forward to buy a copy from Amazon - unless the Carter-Ruck gag is still in place. I trust they will be wiser than that (...)

Anonymous said...

Jane Tanner's bogus sighting is supposed to be the person (Gerry)as seen by the Smith family; that's the whole point of using the genuine encounter with Jes Wilkins to place the abductor and Gerry in the same place at the same time. Of course it's plainly obvious that Tanner didn't walk by, but desperate times called for desperate measures!

Anonymous said...

Good blog, Pat. I wonder about the Jane Tanner (JT) sighting, I know many dismiss it as pure fabrication but I think it could have happened - but not witnessed at the exact time and location described, which of course provides an alibi. As you say, carrying a child the way JT supposedly witnessed is odd; it is how one might carry a casualty from a disaster, perhaps in a state of panic. Could JT have witnessed the removal of Madeleine and recognised the carrier, but was reluctant to attribute any facial characteristics in her description, hoping that perhaps another witness may 'point the finger' of suspicion at the 'abductor'. I do hope you get to the bottom of all this, for poor Madeleine's sake.

Anonymous said...

Interesting Pat, reading your suggestions of handy places not far from the Smith sighting that could have hidden a small body for a short time, and awaiting later pick up.

I remember reading about a sighting caught in car headlights of a couple with a small child in the early hours of the following morning, who scurried off down a path after being spotted.

Though I am not sure where exactly this was in the area, and how near to where the disappearance took place, coincidentally Kate and Gerry were also up very early that morning, just before it got light, presumably to go do a search, albeit still dark.

The couple caught in the headlights, whoever they were, would have known they were seen, and then Kate says the day following that it was 'a couple' who had taken Madeleine.

Whatever reason could she have had for saying that, but as she didn't answer all those questions asked of her, she most likely would not have answered that either.

Anonymous said...

the carpenters say they left the tapas bar between 9 15 and 9 30 and the wife vaguely remembers someone calling madeleines name

on the smith sighting, one of the group thought the child had long sleeved pyjamas on

if madeleine was wearing short sleeves that couldnt be her, however if GM knew he was spotted he could have changed the pyjama description of what she was wearing that night

Anonymous said...

It could have been one of the other children - as a decoy. Is it true the apartment had none, yes, none of child's DNA?

Anonymous said...

excellent as always, thank you pat

you would think if tanner told the group straight away there would have been a search party in that direction but i dont think there was

the scent dogs also did not find madeleines scent in that direction

SteelMagnolia said...

Sterling work Pat, a very early media report from the Smith family.

Anonymous said...

Jez Wilkins saw Tanner around 8.30 pm

Anonymous said...

An article here from Blogger HIMSELF on the McCanns putting the Smith sighting and Tanner's sighting together and no Pat it just does not work !

Anonymous said...

Too much detail, the Smith sighting could have got them off the hook...BUT too late now guys !

Great work Pat. Thank-you.xx

Anonymous said...

pat you doing some excelent work here,thank you

Anonymous said...

"any of these places could be revisited and the body moved in the dark early morning hours."

Pat, whilst reading the above I was reminded of this news report on the 5th May 07 (remeber this date, the 5th!?):

1st video @ approx 1.59 secs the reporters says:

A possible sighting about 8 hours after M first disappeared just before dawn. A motorist said that his car headlights picked out a couple on the road, they had a child with them and according to him it looked as if they were trying to avoid being seen.

On the 4th of May the social worker YM visited the McCanns to offer help.I find this in her statement very odd:

- During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter.

How would KM know anything about a couple? 9.00 am the next day and she is talking about a couple who have abducted her daughter!

Hmm what time did the McC's go out searching. IIRC KM said on Oprah something like, they couldn't wait until light came so they could get out there.Which imo is bizarre. As a parent myself, I wouldn't be waiting for light I would be out there calling my child's name all night and day until I couldn't look from exhaustion. Unless....?


Anonymous said...

Pat you may also like to take a look at the deleted phone calls for the evening of May 3rd...McCann deleted 4 to Kate and she deleted just the 3 from him which is how the police picked up on them.. one at 23.17 pm

McCann where was he and what was he doing ? These calls may have been frantic telling Kate and warning her that he had been seen by a bunch of Irish folk, one even asked him if the child was sleeping, he could not answer his accent would have given him away and the moment of his return she was to cry ' abduction' otherwise why erase calls ,it makes no sense ?

Your the expert and wait for your opinion and thoughts.Thanks.

Johanna said...

Hi Pat, did you miss the drain outlet just were the reeds are positioned, coming out of the wall on which the benches are placed? A perfect place...

Please do consider a removal just after the alarm was raised. Gerry was away after the alarm and has definitely no alibi for the 10-15 minutes after the alarm. If the encounter with Jez Wilkins thwarted the first attempt at a removal, he had to make sure that he was at the table between Matt's check and the alarm.

Anonymous said...

I think G was supposed to be spotted hurrying through the town carring a child and the witnessess were supposed to broadcast this to the press to validate the abduction theory. Unfortunatly the Smith family reported it only to the police, then went home.I believe the child he was carrying was the younger daughter- hence the release of the very old photo of Madeleine. When the reports of the sighting weren't forthcoming in the press there was a need to validate it from another source- JT. G knew that the family who saw him were orish- M Smith spoke to him so he heard his accent. Hence the appeal to irish holiday makers afterward to send in their holiday photos. It was an attempt to get in contact with the witnesses and have the story validated in the public domain by an independent witness.

Anonymous said...

I am wondering last days after reading McIntyre's theory if two persons, one inside and a second receiving trough the window,is possible. In this case the feets off the girl would be on the left side off the person inside who lifted her,but on the right side off the person who received from outside. Then it could fit with Tanner's description. And another possible point is also that he, the outsider, would have received with outstrreched arms,and then ran right away in the same faiton An idiot? Like you said Pat. Of course an idiot.But maybe it could happened like this? What you think about that Pat?

Anonymous said...

Thanks Pat

Now this post really has given me butterflies, makes me feel a tad uncomfortable

Firstly, the Smith recognition sighting, it always occurred to me to have been an unguarded moment, catching the news and seeing Mr McCann. GAIT! yes the way people move - a STILL (image) never did it for Mr Smith, did it!

My next thought dwells, somewhat on the reason why the McCanns were selling the idea of predatory abductor, as overheard by Mr McK (one of the searchers)that night. No one in the right mind would even utter the word, not within a couple of hours

But ... yes, it certainly sows the seed, that if Madeleine were to be found; IT WAS THE ABUDCTOR WHO DID IT

This gives a reason why, on that very night it was important to cast doubt into the melting pot

Just another somewhat strange observation of the coming down the steps of the plane, do parents really let a childs arms dangle, I always put them around my neck, so even if the child wakes\stirs they got something to hold on to.

Anonymous said...

I think Gerry took her to the beach. Came back,mingled and told O'Brian where to look.Then under cover of the chaotic first searches O'Brian took the body to a dark place near The Millenium. Here he meets Dan the tennis coach who is in his car.Did Dan MEET or DISTURB O'Brian. Read the statement that D.C. Messiah takes. You can piece it together.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting Pat. I believe on the possible route from JT's sighting to the Smith family sighting there are 2 carparks, plus numerous other locations to park a car. Yet we are to believe that this abductor walks around with a child and doesn't appear to have a car! What well-planned abduction would involve walking around with a stolen child...uncovered. I believe Jane might have seen someone, but to believe that she saw as much detail as she says she did is rather surprising to say the least, given that she thought nothing of it at the time. What I also find surprising is that the McCanns seem too willing to believe that sighting at face value. Surely they knew that so much detail was questionable. In fact, have the McCanns ever questioned their friends? Some were away from that table at the very time Madeleine was apparently abducted, without an alibi.

Anonymous said...

Also, if JT's sighting was of a man carrying Madeleine away then the abductor must have been inside the apartment at the same time as Gerry. Going aong with a 'well planned abduction' he'd have gone straight to the children's bedroom. It's doubtful he'd have wandered round the apartment first. On hearing Gerry entering through the patio doors, the abductor must have panicked and would have to hide, but where? The cots were in the way of the wardrobe, hiding behind the cots won't work, they have mesh sides. The abductor would be in a panicked state and breathing heavily. Jane describes black, classic shoes..that presumably would make a noise of the bare tiled floor. Remember the abductor would have had only seconds to scramble to hide on hearing Gerry approach the children's bedroom. Jane describes a man wearing trousers and a jacket....quite bulky to be hiding in, a person hiding in a small space with bulky clothes is going to make some noise. Gerry describes looking in on his children and hovering at the door thinking how beautiful Madeleine was but doesn't remember any noise, any smell or anything that points to someone else in that room. Is it possible the timings have been remembered incorrectly, it would make more sense. It all fits much more easily if Gerry didn't actually enter the apartment and just listened at the door, or if Jane's sighting wasn't at that time, but both together make it really strange. Of course Jane might not have seen Maddie being taken away, we'd know if only Matthew had looked in the room, but he didn't. This case has so many incredible coincidences!

Anonymous said...

It would be very unlikely that the two sightings could possibly be the same man - having been seen by Jane walking quickly away from the McCann's apartment at 9.15 why would anyone who had abducted a child still be walking around Praia da Luz centre forty mins later?

Pat Brown said...

Johanna, I did see the drain and I have a lovely picture of it but I am not sure I am satisfied with the location but it certainly cannot be eliminated as a possible hiding place.

Pat Brown said...

Oh, Johanna, what also bothered me was the need for continued walk through a public area after running into the Smiths. The public access to the beach just to the east of the Smith sighting is far safer to prevent being seen again and has enough places for quick hiding of a body. Remember, at that point in time, if it was Gerry with a body, he would be seriously panicked having just been seen and he would likely not be worrying about finding the perfect place to conceal a body but just a place to get it out of sight for the moment and run back to the restaurant.

Johanna said...

Thank you Pat for your answer. You are of course correct that to follow the initial route would lead close to a restaurant and bar. There are other hiding places closer to the x-road of the sighting. I see you took a picture of the barn/shed as well... What made me go for the pipe mainly was the "praying like an arab" position of GM as soon as police arrived. Why? Dirty pants to hide?

Anonymous said...

''Some say this is an impossibility because Gerry was dining in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the sighting.''

When in a criminal investigation is an alibi provided by DEFAULT. That is to say the T9 give their account of time, according to the T9Timeline, thus, those going up and down to check the children, or staying with sick children are accounted for, WHILST THE REST sit in the Tapas Bar

All eyes are focused in one direction i.e. the checking!

But it does seem impossible always to fit together any scenario to this child's disappearance, other than it happened after MO's check and was sighted by the Smith family

But that leaves flapping in the breeze
the curtains
open windows and shutters
JT's alleged sighting
ambiguities in the statements

Anonymous said...

Surely the Portuguese Police know who was at the Tapas tabel that night and who wasnt and who got up when etc!. Its all on Securoty tape, right?

Josie said...

I don't understand how things such as these that are simple and obvious if you take the time to think about them have been overlooked by the private investigators the McCanns hired. In the Madeleine Was Here documentary the PIs say they are investigating everyone, including the parents, and yet surely if they were they would have come across all of these dubious things. It makes me wonder what on earth they are being paid for.

Anonymous said...

The drains (storm drains that go into the ocean) were searched by the PJ with dogs. As far as I 'm aware they found no trace of Madeleine.
The man the Smiths met could very well have been Gerry, but I don't think it was Madeleine he carried in his arms, too risky, strollong around the streets of Luz with a dead or badly injured child in his arms. Imagine he crossed paths with a police patrol who asked him if everything ws ok, if he needed help or something?! I would put my money on Gerry carrying one of Tanner's daughter, the one that is of about the same age of Madeleine, a decoy, as another poster mentioned.
About the Smiths not having any connection to the McCanns, well, maybe not directly, but they can be acquainted with some influential people who have business in the Algarve and had dealings with the McCanns, a real estate developer (golf courses) by the name of Fagan, who comes from the same part of Ireland of the Smiths, and who in turn knows John Geraghty, one of the McCanns expat "helpers" in Luz.

And, a post left by someone in another blog:

"Anonymous said :Jan 13, 2012 3:32:00 PM
The Smiths are from Drogheda but Gerry Fagan is from Dundrum in County Tipperary.

Some time ago Gerry Fagan was at Dublin airport and whilst waiting for a plane to Portugal he met a man doing exactly the same thing.

Within minutes of the meeting Fagan shook his hand and agreed a million pound property deal in Portugal.

The stranger Fagan met in Dublin airport and whose hand he shook was the McCanns businessman friend from Loughborough - John Geraghty.

Fancy that."

Anonymous said...

Dr Amaral says forensic evidence pointed to previous freezing and not mummification, and the earlier dog/s did lead to an empty apartment along from the holiday apartment, and interest in a fridge inside it.

Also, David Payne, when giving a statement in UK made a reference to the fridge in the McCann's holiday apartment having broken down earlier in the week, but unfortunately the UK interviewer didn't press this further. He also said he would like to give further information about the disappearance of Madeleine which he didn't want included in his statement. ??? Did this information ever reach the PJ since the case was shelved soon afterwards, and the LP had kept the Gaspar statements back for months before sending them to the PJ, only after they had been requested to do so.

If the death had happened earlier in the week then this might have been when there was the use of a fridge/freezer of some kind, and as they were about to return to the UK there would have been no alternative but to stage an abduction at that time, as it was impossible to produce Madeleine for the journey back if she had been dead several days. This would also have given time for any necessary clean up.

Perhaps Payne can supply the information as to what happened to that broken fridge. Was it repaired, or was it ditched? Did Payne help with the repair or disposal in some way?

Anonymous said...

Well I have only recently discovered the site The McCann Files and, after everything that has been said about the supposed mess the PJ made of the investigation, I am very surprised by how well ordered the investigation actually was.

Anonymous said...

I have just had a really disturbing thought - following on from what you were saying about hiding a body - it's only if Madeleine (or her body) is found that the McCann's will ever have any peace from their eternal searching. If you are correct, Pat, that they are already aware of what happened to her, then of course they would want her body to be found as soon as possible wouldn't they?

Anonymous said...

Since it was said to be the men who usually checked on the children, why did Jane Tanner go that night at around 9.10pm, and especially go alone when she said she was a bit scared of the route at night.

Did she really do the check around 9.10pm when she said she saw Gerry and Wilkins. They say they never saw her, and wasn't there also some girl who had gone outside for a fag who said she wasn't there either.

Did Jane only make one trip that night, and that was the one after 9.30pm when Matthew Oldfield returned to the Tapas and told her the child was sick, and her husband had stayed behind to take care of her and wash the sheets. She then went and took over so he could come back for his meal. The waiters had kept a meal back for somebody who did eventually return.

Did she see somebody at that return of approx 9.40pm to 9.45pm, perhaps the back end of a figure carrying something hurrying off into the night, but going in the opposite direction to the one she said she had seen at the earlier time?

Or did she see nobody at all on that trip?

Did she mention doing the earlier checking at just after 9pm and seeing Gerry and Wilkins talking just to make it look like she and her husband were doing regular checks of a few minutes apart. Plus, of course, the so called 'sighting' of the 'abductor' at 9.10pm was handy to give alibis for herself, her husband, and of course, Gerry.

Anonymous said...

Dirty pants to hide!!! Yes Johanna - of course! After all this time someone has finally offered such a simple and obvious explanation for the distraught father's ridiculous pose. Bring this awful pair to justice.

Jud. said...

Two interesting points to take in account,Pat:1)In his first declarations D.Payne said he went with Gerry to the church (id est:to the beach) at about 3.00 AM, because G.was looking for a priest.
2)a friend of the Mccans (Wright I think)came to the beach to buy pizza
and was telling by the girl who attends the pizza stand that her father saw in the dark early hours of the 4 of may a man holding a child crossing the beach.
Thanks for your work,Pat.
With great respect.

Anonymous said...

So many thoughts go through my mind every time I think about this case.
Where is Russell O'Brien these days? I seem to remember an online rumour that he had some sort of nervous breakdown after returning to the UK. Any truth in this?
It's also never far from my mind that the first clain was "abduction" rather than the mre usual suspicion that the child had woken up and wandered off looking for mummy and daddy.
At the end of the day Kate McCann's increasingly drawn and haggard face could be said to be due to grief or guilt but when you consider the millions of £s that have been spent "looking" for Madeleine I would have thought that the least she and her husband could do is to be less aggressive when someone "dares" to imply or suggest that this is not necessarily the case.
People need to open their eyes and minds.... the majority of abductions or killings are not committed by strangers but by family or someone known to the family.
I look forward to reading more from you Pat.

Anonymous said...

If Gerry went to the Church for the 'first' time as he had not been before he went because there were guardians outside during the day who were mostly old men who were tourist information support.

The priest did not live in the Church, he lived elsewhere. John Geraghty is said to have given the keys to Gerry and so he had those keys less than three hours from his daughter aging four when he should have been searching the beach and water. Why did David Payne allow this to happen/

What was so desperate for him to need the sanctuary of the Church? It is the one place you can go to evade police and have sanctuary?

Was there a crypt there by the locked font and upstairs vault of the Bell tower?

They did not know then of any sighting and what had happened before dawn of the 4th, but media Sky News and the network were on their way instigated by them to come as dawn broke, as was Murat who was asked to do so by Stephen Carpenter. And guess what his medical conditions would have made him a perfect suspect for this story to make sense. But this man never came forward to state this fact of who asked this man to interpret.

All the while this child is missing, and yet, she changes from the images below...

She changes to the chocolate box infant of under two years who was not missing. The child above is not as appealing as the one that is an infant who cannot have been missing. Jane had to have seen and described a child smaller than the link above if you measure her long legs and her form. A smaller child of two is suggested by the pants that did not close up to the over knee region.

The pyjamas if worn were not the same as those described by the Smith family. Because that child was not the size I state of that one narrated as a story by Ms Jane Tanner. That is because the leggings she had to have seen in the Tapas Bar belonged to the much smaller child of Stephen and Caroline Carpenter who were the persons who were at this very spot where Jane later said she saw Robert Murat carrying Madeleine.

'Never in a million years did I think that was Madeleine'. First narrative. A narrative is a story. Get the t-shirt. Never in a Millenium did I think that was Madeleine. Millenium - Million. Words can suit her semiotic memory. Millenium - Madeleine?

I rest as the others have said more succinctly than I what has been the greatest deception since Jonbennett. But at least a ransom was introduced. The parents had money though, lots of it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous says earlier of the call heard by Mrs Carpenter of Stevenage. She would not have set off with Stephen and their children to walk to get back at 22.00 hours - 10.00 p.m.

They dined earlier to get home for 9.30 p.m. as they took their children to dine with them as fact.

Therefore going uphill they had to be seen by Gerry and Jeremy and not Jane, but also the departing cars of Nuno and his girlfriend.

That means cancelling out what Jane later embellished to a UK police officer in Leicester.

The time Caroline heard this had to be around 9.40 p.m before they closed the front door by Casa Lilliana. That causes problems.

If a second man had followed them on exactly the same side of the road, at exactly the same time, who had a child of exactly the same age, who carried exactly a child across a road, he was the 'INVISIBLE MAN'.

When Caroline heard this Stephen had to have gone in front to open the door, or vice versa. Not one image has been allowed in the media to compare this man with the one 'finally' drawn by Jane.

Therefore, it can always be said that Jane was not lying earlier before she framed Robert Murat as he was the man she saw. Simple.

The issue is cause a smokescreen. Caroline heard this call that was not a scream, but a call as one would a child who runs off, it is normal to do so. However, this distraction meant that a man had now entered that dark lane coming out to the Church where he was intercepted by a whole family in direct contact with each other in that small confine.

Pat is right to explain what Amaral has stated all along. That this route is the one a man without a car would take. He even searched the empty house right where this sighting was. But by then the Church was a better option, if someone could get the keys?

Anonymous said...

Reply @2.15 EXACTLY only the men checked and here we have the night of May 3rd not only Tanner checking but Kate also, her check just after NINE members of the Smith family had had a good look at Gerry McCann from ALL angles.

The deleted calls may have been McCann calling Kate about his 'disaster' she would have to raise the alarm by herself and earlier than planned while McCann was sitting back at the table to give himself an alibi. Not all the tapasnaks were at the table, Tanner was in her room.

The original plan may have been for the McCanns to invite the entire group back to their apartment at their usual time of ending the evening around 11 pm for a drink then they would ALL have found Maddie missing together.

The tearing of Maddie's sticker book and writing TWO timelines indicate sheer panic !

Anonymous said...

Previously, above ^ knowing who was ACTUALLY in the Tapas dining

No I don't think there is any independent statements that can CLARIFY who was actually sitting in there, other than people missing and meals needing warming up, it goes something like

There was always someone missing or an empty seat. The group theselves, merely point to the T9Timeline to CLARIFY who that missing person was

Therefore those seating in the Tapas does not provide an independent alibi, merely by DEFAULT by subtracting the T9Timeline\check schedule from the seating arrangements

There was NO video in the Tapas reception

In conclusion therefore, no one really knows who, or how many were missing at one time from the table.

Anonymous said...

Hi Pat, Great work.Did you notice the Roman ruins of a bath-house which everyone who visits PDL is aware of?
This Tapas dinner must have been like a scene from 'Blazing Saddles'!Up down, go stay, my turn your turn etc;
I find it unbelievable. And as it was dark and cold I also find it unlikely that any of the women would leave the table and company to do checks alone. Its really a man thing! So Tanner I think didn't leave alone.

Anonymous said...

I didn't know Gerry and Payne went to get the priest, I thought they requested one ....assuming someone else called one. That is very interesting...if true, and Gerry left the apartment - why on earth did he not look for his daughter whilst he was out or preferably INSTEAD of looking for a priest?
It would be interesting to know what time the 2 left and what time the 3 got back to the apartment
Is there anywhere I can read about that info? And the info about the sighting the pizza girl spoke about?


Anonymous said...

Imo, the Smith sighting probably was Gerry McCann. It was nightime and it would not have been unusual to see a dad carrying home his sleeping tot. It's a common sight in holiday resorts and, like the Smiths, most people would have thought little of it at the time - so not really such a daft thing to do. And correct me if I'm wrong but I understand that a member of the Smith family spoke to the man and he didn't reply - I guess the Smiths would've remembered a Scottish accent - but anyway, whoever it was, that person never came forward. The McCanns kicked up a terrific racket over other sightings that were much less credible (and at times ludicrous) but they studiously ignored the Smith sighting until they were virtually forced into acknowledging it. When they finally did so they attempted to change the Smiths decription of the man and tie it in with the Tanner sighting (oddly enough the media didn't publicise the sighting much either).
What I was really surprised to learn from your report, is that the sighting was only a few minutes walk away - much closer than I had imagined - which makes it all the more incredible that it was ignored. Thanks for the info Pat.

Anonymous said...

O'Brien is doing fine in his career in the NHS in Exeter and Plymouth. Gerry McCann's career also is on the up. A frequent key speaker at Cardio-vascular events and leader of prize winning research teams.

Anonymous said...

The Tapas meal was more of a clip out of one of the Carry on films, in particular
Carry up the Khyper

Which brings us on to the subject of anticipated behaviour\s. Those of an individual and those as a group

Much is frequently made of the McCanns behaviour

But what of the group?

IMHO a group would reform. Put the women and children together and allow the men & other spare hands available to search. Care for the children and Mrs McCann. The rest - out looking and dealing with essentials like the police etc.

To some extent this did happen, yet they never got Mrs McCann and the children immediately out of the apartment, particularly when you consider they ALREADY thought Madeleine was the victim of a crime

But the bit I find most strange is they all went to bed. Did they undress? Most would have been lucky to find some rest & peace in a darkened room, fully clothed.

Yet, read the statement from DW - that crowded apartment, yet she wasn't aware that the McCanns had got upand gone out to look, where were the twins?

JW and partner when informed, never even left their apartment!

I don't know about you, but had I been part of that group, there is no way I would have gone to bed that night, or even rested my eyes.

BEHAVIOUR is that strange niggly doubt, time and time again.

Anonymous said...

Suppose Gerry realised something terrible had happened to Madeleine either just before or just after he spoke to Jeremy 9.15. Then he sees Jane on her way back to the tapas 9.20-25 and asks her to get O'brien to help. O'brien (and possibly Oldfield) are on the scene by 9.30 but nothing can be done. Gerry rushes down to the beach at 9.50, O'brien returns to the bar 9.45 leaving Jane to stage a crime scene by 9.55. By 10.00 Gerry is back at the tapas, and Kate goes to check 10.00. Suppose Kate has no idea, at this stage, what has happened, so her reaction is completely genuine.

Suppose once they are all on the roller coaster, and covering for each other, they can't get off? After all, at that time, none of them could have predicted the worldwide response to their daughter's disappearance.

Anonymous said...

Great work again ty Pat. Personally I think the poor girl died unexpectedly earlier that day (but from an accident that occurred earlier in the week?) the sudden death would explain the rushed 'abduction' and hiding of the body IMO! It would be risky for Gerry to dash through the streets towards the beach with a blue tennis bag or similar at that time of night, maybe he thought he would blend more into the background if just seen carrying a child as suggested by JT when she thought nothing unusual of egg abductor man carryng a child at that time of night.Of course hiding a body in a risky location had to be done as it would have to be removed from the apt asap but only under the cover of darkness. Whilst an abduction theory might have explained the body missing from the apt it would still be subject to 2 post mortems if found(any body repatriated to the UK undergoes a second pm) and therefore questions over the cause of death and timing of any accident?

Anonymous said...

Am I right in saying that a member of the PJ and his family also dined in the Tapas bar on the 3rd May, I also wonder are there any members of staff who left their employment at the Ocean Club soon after the 3rd May. Also, was it mentioned that the children had woken and had been heard crying on a few occasions.....I therefore wonder if somone living in the vacinity heard the children and decided to teach The Mccanns a lesson only never expected the attention and were therefore afraid to return her and she is possibly still in Praia da Luz?

Anonymous said...

If Madeleine was abducted, why would the kidnapper if heading for the beach take the longest route, and out in the open for all to see. Planned kidnapping would surely involve a getaway vehical. And the Mccanns and others had not seen any vehicals in the area on the night or had they? And why would a kidnapper choose the quietest of all places, furthest from the border and all other main towns and beaches to kidnap a child from their bed. None of it makes sense. But, who was the man knocking on doors looking for money for the orphanage in the hills in the days prior to Madeleine vanishing?????

Anonymous said...

Are you still in Praia Da Luz Pat?

Anonymous said...

If they were guilty you have to wonder if the police or higher up have decided to leave this well alone (or do a 'review' and go for 'disappearance most likely abduction as the 'verdict') Perhaps there's a thought among them that goes like this; the parents have suffered enough, it wouldn't be in the interests of the remaining children to charge them with anything. They're not a danger to the public. Quite a few would go along with all that.....but then there's the fund.

Jud. said...

Point 1) 04 may 2007/ 04.00 hour.
I know i read also a direct reference from D.P. also, but now is late and i cannot look for it.
Point 2) steelmagnolia.McCann Archives:Madeleine McCann: the rol of Michael Wrigth:The pizza girl.
Good nigth.(Here)

Jud. said...

I think I forget to write in point 1) McCann files.( 04 may 2007...etc)
Sorry and thanks Pat again.

Anonymous said...

I hope Pat,

That you're not being led on a wild goose chase by Johanna. Textusa has debunked completely her theory, using, for example, one of your arguments: why continue into a public area with a corpse in your arms?

I would really love to see where Johanna's drain is. Because the only one I see is the big one, pictured by many, near the restaurant.

Be careful Pat, many are not what they seem to be.

Anonymous said...

I've been waiting to see if there is any more. Is that it?

Anonymous said...

It would have been interesting to know what a blood splatter expert would make of the blood alerted to behind the settee, and also on the walls behind the settee and the curtains in the holiday apartment at the same place. Also, as there was blood found under the tile, if Luminol had been used, what was the extend of the blood before the floor was washed. Hopefully this information already exists in the unreleased File.

Anonymous said...

I knew there was something about Jane Tanner's sighting and finally I think I know what it is. He's a zombie. He looks neither to the left or right, he just walks. Carrying a child in his outstreched arms like .... a zombie. The tapas group think they were being watched during the holiday, not by this man they weren't, he would've been way too conspicuous.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Jud!
Very interesting.

Anonymous said...

pat,thank you,you certainly make one open their eye,s to all possibilities,but i dont believe an abduction and i definatly dont believe jane tanner, and i think you have proved an abduction didnt happen

Anonymous said...

If you search on 'Carrying a dead child' in Google images, 11 of those that come up immediately are in the Tanner position. Subconscious association? Ironically the picture of Gerry carrying the twin down the aircraft steps also comes up!

Anonymous said...

Rex grave, looks very odd for me. Who is the owner who buried the dog so far and signalize the grave with a so evident cross? To who belongs that property? Belongs to a private person or to the municipality?
Did Rex belongs to the owner of the property?

Randie said...

You would get a noticeable smell from bacterial decomposition within six hours at 70 degrees F.

And the bowels void themselves when a person dies.

They were doctors they would know how to clean up bowels.

They would then have 6 hours to carry a child.

imo the smith was Gerry.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Pat for your investigation in PdL. I am wondering if you looked inside the storage building? What is it like inside? Also if you noticed the condition of the plot it stands on, whether there are any holes? And whether any old machinery is there?

Anonymous said...

Dear Pat:
Thank you for your research on the McCann case. I have read your book about it through the ibook store.

Being a physician (located in Germany) I am in some doubts about the following:

1. The discussion about the McCanns "drugging" their children: Calpol is only paracetamol (in Europe we use paracetamol, in the US, you have acetaminophen, one is a prodrug of the other) and it does not sedate. It only lowers fever / relieves pain and is only deadly (by liver failure) after a couple of days. So that can be safely ruled out as a cause of accidental death. Now, sedating children is somehing, which is pretty much inacceptable for a doctor outside of a medical routine. However, I have heard from a colleague of mine giving his children Benadryl on a long-distance flight to sleep, so there seem to be some physicians, who do not see it as strict as I would see it. But even Benadryl, a antihistamine drug is pretty harmless (even over-the-counter in the US) and basically not useful for killing somebody (accidentally). Stronger stuff are the benzodiazepines like Valium and such (lorazepam, etc). However, these usually also do not lead easily to apnea (stopping of breathing) and - if applied to children - these would have pretty much of a hangover (e. g. noticed by people from the creche). Lastly, drugs that are dangerous and causing apneas are barbiturates (not really used a lot anymore, except for anesthesia) and opiates (pain medication) or propofol (Michael Jackson cause of death). Now, this would be pretty hard-core if the McCanns used stuff like that to have their children have a better night's rest I would say. Relatively unlikely as not all of this is applicable as tablets or sirup, etc.

2. This leads me to the second aspect: The proposed accident. Children are quite "flexible" as far as their musculoskeletal system is concerned. They often fall from extreme heights (top bunk bed, head first, fall off a window) without being harmed too much. I do not find it plausible that Maddie fell from a sofa and broke her neck. That would be highly unlikely for an adult let alone a way more flexible child. Alternatively, she would have to be severly drugged (refer to 1) to suffocate on her on vomit. If she had been that drugged, she - as a child - wouldn't have been able to get out of bed in the first place.

3. If I am not mistaken, you do not refer to the cadaver dogs barking at the closet. Did the police search the McCann apartment that night of the 3rd of May anyway? Do the dogs bark at somebody being dead for only 1 or 2 hours (i. e. does the smell of decomposition really start that early)?

4. As educated people, why should the McCanns - if it was an accident - not only stand by that tragedy and say: our child died by and accident. There would not have been real consequences I guess - child neglect is in my view too far stretched (see next point).

5. I guess there are cultural differences about letting children by themselves. Although I would never do this, I know people, who had a babyphone and sat 50 m away from their home (with 3-year olds) in a restaurant. In Europe we become more and more like in the US (driving children to school, safety, etc), but the precautions here may be still "looser" than in the US. Especially considering that the Tapas 9 consented about that issue pretty much.

5. I also find it unlikely as you suggest that 9 adults are able to cover up some crime like this. If the group is so large, somebody should have eventually talked or confided in somebody else.

6. If it was not an abduction (and I also agree on that being very unlikely), then it could also have been a fit of rage (child not sleeping) that led to a forced death? Would make more sense in terms of having to cover it up...

I would be delighted, if you could comment on this.


Guest10 said...

Markus, you seem to come from the position (perhaps assumptions) that, if Madeleine did die and her parents were lying from (or before) May 3 '07, there was an accident or something totally unplanned.

You end your examination of drugs with the opposite conclusion I would make. You think the McCanns would not have given the stronger drugs, when I think that there is no reason to dismiss that. Indeed, coming from the position of years later and all the evidence, these unpredictable people who contradict each other and even what you can guess, seem to me more likely to fetch stronger drugs from their professions.

However, this comes to the point where I disagree most with you, Markus - that you think the McCann's were normally normal people but something went awry that night.

But time is the factor that proves this could not be true, if you assume they did lie on (or before) May 3, and ever since. After 5 years of being in the most prominent public spotlight, with their daughter's name still in the top 10 internet news searches 4 to 5 years on, there is no way they could act on and on if Madeleine's death was a simple accident. It's ludicrous.

More still, recently, with Kate McCann becoming an ambassador for missing children, it's ridiculous to assume there was a simple accident, even a short loss of temper, they lied, set up a fund for millions and millions of pounds, lived off it, made appearances, wrote books, and so on, and so on. It's not in the real world - all of that would not happen after an accident, at least with parents who were not totally mentally deranged in the first place - and then, wouldn't that be a coincidence?

OK, maybe these doctors, well versed with what negligence means in law, could have decided to lie after an accident for a short while. But no, not for 5 years, and not with how things seem now. No-one can lie off the cuff like that, with such assurance, so actually uncaring for the real world, without planning and conferring in advance. That means, if the McCanns were lying - then ALL or MOST or MUCH of the 5 year aftermath was ITSELF PLANNED.

There was no accident. If their daughter died, it may not have been known that that was to happen, but it was thought at least very possible or likely.

Anonymous said...

I've read allot about this case today and IMO I think Maddie either had a tragic accident or was sick while sedated and choked and then found dead by either Gerry or Matthew Oldfield. That would explain why the diner was away so long saying that a child had been sick and was washing sheets...... I don't know any man who would go as far as to wash sheets straight away, maybe leave them rinsed.
I think it was definitely Gerry with Maddie who was seen by the Smiths.
I also believe that Kate is not aware of this and thinks she was abducted and GM is having to go along with this farcical pantomime to avert suspicion away from himself.
I came to this conclusion before I saw this blog and I've never taken much interest in the details of the case before this morning. Is it just too obvious to be true??

Anonymous said...

The church is also just south east of the smith sightings on the way down to the beach!

Anonymous said...

The one place I went being a medical student was the Luz doc that is set on the corner. It is the place you go down this back corridor of the building site. Not the way of the bars. Here coming up were a family and as Pat said yes it does take six of five minutes depending on aspects. If the body is left in the building site prior, it is easy to retrieve and run down the slope which doing that as to a reconstruction in June 2007 as per Colin Sahlke now deceased told me he did, I simple acted as a veteran on exercise. Here we agreed that the corridor least lit was the back way to the town centre to steal something or to hide. This at that time was a case of a hidden child, or a child in hiding or something else. The route to the doctors as a 24 hour service shows at the end on the right. I wondered why no medications were on display as doctors carry their medical bags and one had a serious leg injury needing medical items, that was Jane Tanner's girl. Plus it sees some might have been on Imodium for stomach upsets. Doctors on holiday who are broke and there is as surgery on that very path that Smith man took.

Anonymous said...

Right here is the perfect blog for anyone who hopes to understand this topic.
You realize a whole lot its almost hard to argue with you (not that I actually would want to…HaHa).

You certainly put a fresh spin on a subject that's been discussed for decades.
Excellent stuff, just wonderful!

Anonymous said...

Imo it was supposed to be a 'fake news' story. I suspect the idea was that Madeleine would reappear miraculously at some stage to great fan-fare. The McCanns could bask in the victim role and milk a gullible public. But something went terribly wrong that fateful week. To those 'in the know' about the fake news plan the McCanns and their friends pretended there had been a tragic accident. Imo that is why they were able to garner such high level support. I think it was more than an accident.