Madeleine McCann

[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

[FrankO]

Also, anyone watching all the parents dining together could have tried their luck without knowing how many children each set of parents had. Finding an only child, or two siblings at most, in one of their apartments, would seem to be far preferable to dealing with three, but in the event it wasn't a problem for the abductor because they were so very young and all fast asleep.

Love,

Caz
X

Can't argue with you there, Caz. 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.

All the best,
Frank

[caz]

Quite possibly, Darryll. What struck me while reading up on the case is that after a day or two, the McCanns had adopted a daily, erm, I would say 'system', but for fear of it being overrated I'd better use the word 'routine', which would have been quite plain to any interested person(s) close to the Ocean Club. So, somebody with inside information may very well have been involved.

Also, anyone watching all the parents dining together could have tried their luck without knowing how many children each set of parents had. Finding an only child, or two siblings at most, in one of their apartments, would seem to be far preferable to dealing with three, but in the event it wasn't a problem for the abductor because they were so very young and all fast asleep.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It's not character assassination to suggest the McCanns were the persons involved in the disappearance of their daughter. They accomplished that themselves by their statements and actions around the time of her disappearance. Gerry McCann claimed the Tapas group employed a 'system' they had used before for checking on children. The word 'system' is misleading since it suggests a tried and tested method known to the general public: the Tapas 'system' for checking on unattended children was unheard of before the disappearance and has never surfaced thereafter. It remains unique. It is as much a 'system' as stopping for a picnic on the hard shoulder of a motorway then pleading victimhood when a car crashes into your table. To paraphrase Mr. McCann, 'We would not have done that if we had known a car was going to crash into us. But a senior traffic policeman (un named) told us it was well within the bounds of responsible picnicking.''

Leaving an apartment unlocked is an invitation to any thief or worse. And even a locked patio door is no obstacle to an alert 4 year old child who by instinct watches everything and learns. I've even had a domestic cat which could leap up on door handles and open living room doors. The Tapas 'system' was designed to fail which is why I doubt it was ever employed in the first place. One idiotic bunch of parents I could just about believe: but not four of them engaging in a ludicrous game of musical chairs. The PJ presumably reached a similar conclusion.

However similar to the cases of Luard and Wallace quoted by PI, the respectable image of the Tapas group gave them an advantage. Like Luard they were able to call upon highly influential support, something Wallace lacked. Here is a quote from DK which reveals the class bias surrounding the case, one which assumes all low paid workers are crypto criminals and thus by implication, professionals are persons to be trusted.

'I have always been of the opinion that the answer to Madeline's disappearance is right there at the Ocean Club. IE Someone at the club, whether it was a paying guest in the same apartment block snatched her, or someone who worked there did, like a janitor. But more likely somebody within that complex a waiter or such like, at one of the bars say, was in contact with another person giving info out on who was out where, and at what time. Possibly sharing their inside knowledge in exchange for drugs.'

His first sentence is hard to disagree with.

It does strike me as plausible that whoever took Madeleine had some kind of heads-up that there would be an unattended child in that particular apartment at the time. It's also possible she might still have been alive today if her abductor(s) had known they would find three children there, giving them three times the risk of not getting their chosen victim out without disturbing either her or the younger two. It might not have dawned on an abductor that any parent would leave three under fives on their own, in which case it would have been a stroke of luck to find them all sleeping so soundly.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sunny Delight]

Not that you're saying it's your theory, Jay, but I've always understood that it was the open window to cause her to think she was abducted, although she also searched the appartment before she raised the alarm. Whether one believes her or not is another story, of course.

Exactly. She states quite clearly that the door of the children's bedroom was open a good deal more than she expected but assumed it had been Matt Oldfield when he did his check. As she closed the door over it slammed shut. She opened the door to check the kids and saw Madeleine missing from her bed. She initially thought maybe she had gone into her and Gerrys bed but when she checked she wasn't there either. She stated this was when the first pangs of panic kicked in. She checked other rooms and went back to the children's bedroom and saw the curtains swaying alerting her to the open window. Then all hell broke loose as in a complete panic she sprints to the restaurant screaming Madeleine is missing someone has taken her.

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 via the bedroom door and out the front into the car park. From there take your pick of getaway vehicle, walking to an unknown location via an unknown route or the man seen by the Smiths taking thar route to an unknown location.

[rjpalmer]

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.

[FrankO]

Hence, why Kate jumped to abduction because she knew it was highly unlikely Maddie just woke up.

Not that you're saying it's your theory, Jay, but I've always understood that it was the open window to cause her to think she was abducted, although she also searched the appartment before she raised the alarm. Whether one believes her or not is another story, of course.