Madeleine McCann

[caz]

That brings to mind the notorious case of a British judge who declared that the scantily-clad character of a certain young woman constituted contributory negligence on her part - in other words, an invitation to rape her, which is what duly happened.

Perhaps it reflected the judge's conviction that had he encountered the woman in similar circumstances, he would have been similarly unable to restrain himself.

The criminal - and not the victim - is the guilty party in every case.

Of course, PI, but we don't live in a perfect world, which is why the insurance industry is massive, and does everything it possibly can to refuse claims on the basis of the victim's own careless or negligent behaviour. Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could leave all your precious possessions out in the open, with a virtual invitation to 'Please help yourself', and then make a successful insurance claim when they do a disappearing act?

I don't see any comparison, however, between a scantily-clad person who, by definition, is very clearly not 'inviting' a rapist or murderer to do their worst, and parents who value their own pleasure above their children's safety, and don't think of the consequences until the worst happens. Child abduction is thankfully very rare, even when a parent is not parenting, but there are other far more common dangers to young children when they are left on their own - like fire and water - that can strike at any time and be equally devastating. No insurance premium can cover the loss if you swan off and leave your kids, regardless of whether the 'guilty party' is human, a box of matches or the deep end of a swimming pool. The victim in this case is the lost child.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sunny Delight]

''To my mind someone entered through that bedroom window- yes it could be opened from the outside that has been proven categorically and then left''

Categorically proved by whom? I can see that with a crowbar or jemmy it might be possible to force open shutters but there was absolutely no indication of that in this particular case. None. In addition there was no fingerprint evidence, no evidence from the window ledge outside and no footprints on bedding directly underneath the window to indicate that anyone ever entered through the window.

'However abducted her, if that's what happened, he found at least the 2 little ones sound asleep. Either that or he gave them something to sleep tight'

So this phantom abductor had the foresight to bring medication with him? And had the capacity to wake the children and make them ingest that medication? But, if the Smith sighting is significant, forgot to bring a car with which to abduct his target?

Just out of interest have you ever taken young children on holiday? They be absolutely shattered after playing all day. I took my 3 year to Spain a few years ago and by 8 o'clock he was out cold and I don't even think a bomb would have woken him.

[FrankO]

'However abducted her, if that's what happened, he found at least the 2 little ones sound asleep. Either that or he gave them something to sleep tight'

So this phantom abductor had the foresight to bring medication with him? And had the capacity to wake the children and make them ingest that medication? But, if the Smith sighting is significant, forgot to bring a car with which to abduct his target?

Last Saturday I went to the theatre to see a jazz concert together with a couple and their 6-year old son. It lasted from about 9:15 until 10:45-11 pm. The music was good and quite loud. Maybe about half way through the little one was soundly asleep, just as his mother had predicted. So, if there was an abductor, phantom or otherwise, I think the children were fast asleep rather than that they were drugged in some way.

But, even though I wasn’t very serious about it, if he abductor really wanted to, why couldn’t he have brought drugs with him to get the to sleep tight? And why couldn’t that have been inhalation sedatives or an injection? Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

Furthermore, I never suggested that he brought sleeping drugs with him but left on foot. The thing is that we don’t know what happened exactly and how, either in case there was an abductor or in case Madeleine’s parents covered up her disappearance, and as long as we don’t know, almost anything could have happened. In the end, everybody decides for themselves and it’s quite clear that you’re no fan of either Kate or Gerry McCann.

[Sunny Delight]

Hi RJ

Jane Tanner also said that the person she saw carrying the child was Robert Murat after suspicions against him were first raised . Where as before she acknowledged she couldn't give a recollection of the man's face .

Factor that in and I would imagine why doubts were raised about what she did see . That doesn't mean she was lying of course . But the fact she said the man was Murat [ when he had an alibi ] , would make some people question her story

Here is an extract of her interview to Leicestershire police - ”I don’t think it was him that I saw. But I just thought that it was” A year later.

Makes you wonder if she would have persisted with her sighting being Murat if he hadn't been cleared ?

Regards Darryl

I think Jane Tanner suffered from enormous guilt over her sighting. She really believed she had seen the abduction take place and although she couldn't have known that she was on record as saying she wished she had intervened. Of course we now know that she did see a man carrying a child and this man has been identified as a dad carrying his daughter. Her I.D of Murat may have been a kind of confirmation bias. Here is a man suspected by the Police, who lives in the direction the man she saw was walking and it may have been that she convinced herself it was him. As we all know now witnesses Identifying suspects is not ideal as human nature and memory is far from infallible.

What particularly grates me about many peoples view on the case was that any inconsistency or anomaly was immediately pounced upon as evidence of some sort of cover up. In many ways inconsistency is exactly what one should expect from people when recollecting events that at the time appeared unimportant or insignificant but subsequently have a great deal of importance. People rack their brains, pour over every minute, think to themselves oh I might be wrong on that or 5 mins out. It happens. It's natural.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Yes, I think you're quite right, and I retract part of my suggestion.

For many years, the sighting by the Martin Smith of a man carrying a sleeping child was treated as a continuation of the similar sighting by Jane Tanner, but if Tanner saw the British GP (which is generally accepted by the Met to be the case), than the Smith sighting is still valid because it took place was some 300 or 400 yards towards the ocean, and thus couldn't have been the GP.

True enough.

My general point, however is the same. For years, it was suggested that Jane 'never left the table' (I think a waiter, or a police informant insisted this); that the parents weren't checking on their children as claimed; that Jane 'never mentioning anything about a suspicious man with a child until the McCanns needed a cover story'; etc. etc. The general suggestion in some circles was that she made the whole thing up.

If so, then how did she see the British GP, as seemingly confirmed by the Met investigation? In the end, those who suggested Jane was lying appear to have been wrong.

It makes me think a little of those who make similar accusations against George Hutchinson. There's nothing easier than claiming a witness is lying. It aint necessarily so.

[And I think I must be going senile. I knew a Jane Tapper, hence using that name earlier. Tanner. Jane Tanner].

Hi RJ

Jane Tanner also said that the person she saw carrying the child was Robert Murat after suspicions against him were first raised . Where as before she acknowledged she couldn't give a recollection of the man's face .

Factor that in and I would imagine why doubts were raised about what she did see . That doesn't mean she was lying of course . But the fact she said the man was Murat [ when he had an alibi ] , would make some people question her story

Here is an extract of her interview to Leicestershire police - ”I don’t think it was him that I saw. But I just thought that it was” A year later.

Makes you wonder if she would have persisted with her sighting being Murat if he hadn't been cleared ?

Regards Darryl

[Sunny Delight]

Yes, I think you're quite right, and I retract part of my suggestion.

For many years, the sighting by the Martin Smith of a man carrying a sleeping child was treated as a continuation of the similar sighting by Jane Tanner, but if Tanner saw the British GP (which is generally accepted by the Met to be the case), than the Smith sighting is still valid because it took place was some 300 or 400 yards towards the ocean, and thus couldn't have been the GP.

True enough.

My general point, however is the same. For years, it was suggested that Jane 'never left the table' (I think a waiter, or a police informant insisted this); that the parents weren't checking on their children as claimed; that Jane 'never mentioning anything about a suspicious man with a child until the McCanns needed a cover story'; etc. etc. The general suggestion in some circles was that she made the whole thing up.

If so, then how did she see the British GP, as seemingly confirmed by the Met investigation? In the end, those who suggested Jane was lying appear to have been wrong.

It makes me think a little of those who make similar accusations against George Hutchinson. There's nothing easier than claiming a witness is lying. It aint necessarily so.

[And I think I must be going senile. I knew a Jane Tapper, hence using that name earlier. Tanner. Jane Tanner].

I absolutely agree in regards George Hutchinson. It appears the Police were content he was an honest witness and nothing official has ever been found to discredit that. Funnily enough him being seen by Sarah Lewis or seemingly being seen by her is not unlike the Tanner sighting of the man with the child in many ways.

[rjpalmer]

No I don't believe you are correct. The Jane Tanner sighting has been discounted yes as a father carrying his child. A GP from England with a remarkable likeness to the Tanner description. The MET stated they felt extremely confident that this was not the abductor. The man seen by the Smiths has never been traced, this despite the MET accessing the night creche records. This was how they discovered the man seen by Jane Tanner.

Yes, I think you're quite right, and I retract part of my suggestion.

For many years, the sighting by the Martin Smith of a man carrying a sleeping child was treated as a continuation of the similar sighting by Jane Tanner, but if Tanner saw the British GP (which is generally accepted by the Met to be the case), than the Smith sighting is still valid because it took place was some 300 or 400 yards towards the ocean, and thus couldn't have been the GP.

True enough.

My general point, however is the same. For years, it was suggested that Jane 'never left the table' (I think a waiter, or a police informant insisted this); that the parents weren't checking on their children as claimed; that Jane 'never mentioning anything about a suspicious man with a child until the McCanns needed a cover story'; etc. etc. The general suggestion in some circles was that she made the whole thing up.

If so, then how did she see the British GP, as seemingly confirmed by the Met investigation? In the end, those who suggested Jane was lying appear to have been wrong.

It makes me think a little of those who make similar accusations against George Hutchinson. There's nothing easier than claiming a witness is lying. It aint necessarily so.

[And I think I must be going senile. I knew a Jane Tapper, hence using that name earlier. Tanner. Jane Tanner].

[Abby Normal]

No I don't believe you are correct. The Jane Tanner sighting has been discounted yes as a father carrying his child. A GP from England with a remarkable likeness to the Tanner description. The MET stated they felt extremely confident that this was not the abductor. The man seen by the Smiths has never been traced, this despite the MET accessing the night creche records. This was how they discovered the man seen by Jane Tanner.

There are a number of indicators in regards the man seen by the Smiths which make him an intriguing 'suspect'.

- The child he was carrying was a young girl with blonde hair according to the Smiths between 3-4 years of age.

- The girl was wearing pink pyjamas. She was not covered by a blanket nor a coat despite it being only 10 degrees Celsius or 50 degrees Fahrenheit.

- The man was carrying the child through the street at around 10pm. He was not using a buggy. He has not been found via a search of the night creche records. Where had he come from and where was he going?

- The sighting was at 10pm or so as stated and only around 400 yards from the McCanns apartment. At almost the exact same time Kate found Madeleine missing. To walk such a distance from the apartment would take 5-7 minutes meaning an abduction around 9:50-9:55 pm. The timings match quite well with what we know.

As I say I am not convinced this was not some dad with his daughter but there are some questions around the sighting which are very intriguing.

Yes sunny is correct. The smith sighting could be a genuine sighting of the abductor taking Maddie. The tanner sighting was a man carrying his daughter. He was found and he confirmed.

[Sunny Delight]

The Smith sighting probably isn't significant. Recall that some members of the "Kate McCann Did It" crowd earlier suggested that the man carrying the child in pajamas was an invention created to help the McCanns-- conveniently forgetting or ignoring that the Smiths--an Irish family with no connection to these British tourists--had corroborated her statement. They, too, had seen him.

Yet, after reopening the investigation, Scotland Yard did what Goncalo Amaral failed to do: they traced another group of British tourists who had been at an event several streets to the west. One member of this party stated they he had carried his sleeping child back through that very street that night. The clothes he was wearing were a remarkable match to what Jane Tapper recollected, and Scotland Yard are all but convinced this he is the man that Tapper and the Smiths had seen. This account was, I believe, in the Australian documentary.

It's funny that if Scotland Yard was eager to protect the McCanns, they would have gone to such lengths to discredit the only sighting that supported the intruder theory.

Yet, these same Scotland Yard detectives hold no suspicion against the McCanns. They're just doing good and objective police work---even if it means debunking elements that would have been convenient to their own theories.

To me, this thoroughly undermines any suggestion that there was a conspiracy in the UK--either consciously or unconsciously--to protect the McCanns.

No I don't believe you are correct. The Jane Tanner sighting has been discounted yes as a father carrying his child. A GP from England with a remarkable likeness to the Tanner description. The MET stated they felt extremely confident that this was not the abductor. The man seen by the Smiths has never been traced, this despite the MET accessing the night creche records. This was how they discovered the man seen by Jane Tanner.

There are a number of indicators in regards the man seen by the Smiths which make him an intriguing 'suspect'.

- The child he was carrying was a young girl with blonde hair according to the Smiths between 3-4 years of age.

- The girl was wearing pink pyjamas. She was not covered by a blanket nor a coat despite it being only 10 degrees Celsius or 50 degrees Fahrenheit.

- The man was carrying the child through the street at around 10pm. He was not using a buggy. He has not been found via a search of the night creche records. Where had he come from and where was he going?

- The sighting was at 10pm or so as stated and only around 400 yards from the McCanns apartment. At almost the exact same time Kate found Madeleine missing. To walk such a distance from the apartment would take 5-7 minutes meaning an abduction around 9:50-9:55 pm. The timings match quite well with what we know.

As I say I am not convinced this was not some dad with his daughter but there are some questions around the sighting which are very intriguing.

[Sunny Delight]

And yet the first thing Kate thought, when Madeleine wasn't in her bed, was that someone had taken her. And this was after she had woken up the previous night and cried for her absent Mum. Why was Kate's first thought not that she had most probably woken up again to find herself once more alone with the twins, and this time had come looking for her Mum and Dad?

There must have been strong indications of an intruder, unless Kate had reason to believe the child would not have slept as lightly as she had the previous night.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes the open window was the strong indicator in that moment. I can't speak to what she was thinking at that time but going by their statements they had made an assumption that as the shutters were down on the window outside that they were secure- as in locked. So to find the window opened from the outside surely set alarm bells ringing that someone had forced their way in. If they had forced their way in and Madeleine was missing its a very straightforward connection to make that someone had taken her. A 3 year old(almost 4 year old) would not have had the ability to open the window and shutters themselves. The fall from the window would seriously have injured a toddler as well.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I think the plan is to find a body RJ. I doubt there would be much in the way of forensic material at this point, but you never know. A stray hair of Brückner on the body would pretty much make the case as watertight as it could possibly be.

As you say, they have time to be as meticulous as they want, but I doubt in a million years the German police would risk him ever being released. Hence, they want to find as much evidence as possible for this one and for other murders, too, before they press charges. It's understandable that the McCanns are most likely frustrated that seemingly nothing is happening, but I think the Germans are doing the right thing.

I personally think they will succeed where the Portuguese and British Police failed.

I would like to second that and also express the hope that the body of Louise Kerton is found in Germany, in a case where, unlike that of Madeleine McCann, no investigation was conducted at the outset, the premises where she was living were only very belatedly searched, the case was closed prematurely, and few people know about it.

I have uploaded a short documentary about it on YouTube.

I would mention that the police did find her camera at the house where she had stayed in Germany and which, according to her hosts, she left while still alive.

I imagine Lieutenant Columbo would have attached great importance to the camera that the missing girl supposedly left behind.

[erobitha]

I don't put any stock in the comment "if the Germans had any real evidence against Brückner, they would have charged him already."

He's already cooling his heels in prison and won't be out until 2026. The German prosecutor probably feels he can be as meticulous as he needs to be.

Maybe the investigation against Brückner will fall through, but that remains to be seen.

I think the plan is to find a body RJ. I doubt there would be much in the way of forensic material at this point, but you never know. A stray hair of Brückner on the body would pretty much make the case as watertight as it could possibly be.

As you say, they have time to be as meticulous as they want, but I doubt in a million years the German police would risk him ever being released. Hence, they want to find as much evidence as possible for this one and for other murders, too, before they press charges. It's understandable that the McCanns are most likely frustrated that seemingly nothing is happening, but I think the Germans are doing the right thing.

I personally think they will succeed where the Portuguese and British Police failed.

[rjpalmer]

The Smith sighting probably isn't significant. Recall that some members of the "Kate McCann Did It" crowd earlier suggested that the man carrying the child in pajamas was an invention created to help the McCanns-- conveniently forgetting or ignoring that the Smiths--an Irish family with no connection to these British tourists--had corroborated her statement. They, too, had seen him.

Yet, after reopening the investigation, Scotland Yard did what Goncalo Amaral failed to do: they traced another group of British tourists who had been at an event several streets to the west. One member of this party stated they he had carried his sleeping child back through that very street that night. The clothes he was wearing were a remarkable match to what Jane Tapper recollected, and Scotland Yard are all but convinced this he is the man that Tapper and the Smiths had seen. This account was, I believe, in the Australian documentary.

It's funny that if Scotland Yard was eager to protect the McCanns, they would have gone to such lengths to discredit the only sighting that supported the intruder theory.

Yet, these same Scotland Yard detectives hold no suspicion against the McCanns. They're just doing good and objective police work---even if it means debunking elements that would have been convenient to their own theories.

To me, this thoroughly undermines any suggestion that there was a conspiracy in the UK--either consciously or unconsciously--to protect the McCanns.

[cobalt]

''To my mind someone entered through that bedroom window- yes it could be opened from the outside that has been proven categorically and then left''

Categorically proved by whom? I can see that with a crowbar or jemmy it might be possible to force open shutters but there was absolutely no indication of that in this particular case. None. In addition there was no fingerprint evidence, no evidence from the window ledge outside and no footprints on bedding directly underneath the window to indicate that anyone ever entered through the window.

'However abducted her, if that's what happened, he found at least the 2 little ones sound asleep. Either that or he gave them something to sleep tight'

So this phantom abductor had the foresight to bring medication with him? And had the capacity to wake the children and make them ingest that medication? But, if the Smith sighting is significant, forgot to bring a car with which to abduct his target?

[caz]

I think we can all accept it was awful for all the parents to leave their children alone. The worst fear I would imagine then would have been a fire or someone waking and getting incredibly upset if their parents weren't nearby. However the thought of abduction I don't think would truly have registered as a real threat. In all of criminology has there ever been a case where a sleeping child has been snatched from their holiday apartment whilst asleep? I think the McCann case is unique. But for the grace of God it could have been any one of the party who were allocated that apartment. It just so happened the McCanns were the unlucky ones.

And yet the first thing Kate thought, when Madeleine wasn't in her bed, was that someone had taken her. And this was after she had woken up the previous night and cried for her absent Mum. Why was Kate's first thought not that she had most probably woken up again to find herself once more alone with the twins, and this time had come looking for her Mum and Dad?

There must have been strong indications of an intruder, unless Kate had reason to believe the child would not have slept as lightly as she had the previous night.

Love,

Caz
X