Madeleine McCann

[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.

[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].

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

''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.

[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

[caz]

The parents were secondary victims.

But would they have been secondary victims if Madeleine had accidentally fallen into the swimming pool and drowned, while trying to find them? The result would have been the same: a daughter who would never return home with them. But 100% of the blame would then have been on the parents, not on Madeleine or the water.

Bad things happen and bad people happen. If you leave small children alone, you leave them vulnerable to both.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If it is true that Madeleine said she was crying because her parents had left her and her siblings alone in the apartment, and that Madeleine made no attempt to find them, why would her mother have deduced that when she went missing, she had gone looking for her?

It was Kate, I believe, who admitted to what Madeleine had said, so I see no reason to doubt that it happened, although it does show the parents in a pretty poor light. Any mother being asked by her young daughter why she didn't come when she was crying in the night, would be heartless to risk putting her through the same distress again, let alone the very next night. What if all three had woken up next time and been inconsolable? The fact that Madeleine had not thought to come looking for Mum the first time does not mean she would not have done so the second time. There would be more incentive after getting no response the previous night and telling her Mum about it over breakfast.

Kate's instant reaction - to say that Madeleine had been taken - could have been due to such a stab of guilt over the crying incident that she couldn't process the thought of her becoming distressed again and leaving her bed this time to come and find her Mum. The only alternative I can think of is that Kate or Gerry had taken steps to ensure all three would sleep through, to prevent any further distress, and Kate was therefore sure that something bad must have happened for Madeleine to be missing from her bed.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

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.

That's what I've always suspected about the 'sedated' theory.

When I was fairly young, but older than the McCann's twins, I visited my grandparents who lived out in the middle of the Great Plains. It was August and so hot that I insisted on sleeping in a pup tent in the front yard. That night, one of the loudest thunderstorms in memory rolled through; it sounded like cannons being fired. The whole town was up in arms; I later learned that my teenaged cousin shrieked herself into hysterics, believing the world was coming to an end.

The next morning, I woke up, refreshed. I hadn't heard anything.

[Sunny Delight]

It was Kate, I believe, who admitted to what Madeleine had said, so I see no reason to doubt that it happened, although it does show the parents in a pretty poor light. Any mother being asked by her young daughter why she didn't come when she was crying in the night, would be heartless to risk putting her through the same distress again, let alone the very next night. What if all three had woken up next time and been inconsolable? The fact that Madeleine had not thought to come looking for Mum the first time does not mean she would not have done so the second time. There would be more incentive after getting no response the previous night and telling her Mum about it over breakfast.

Kate's instant reaction - to say that Madeleine had been taken - could have been due to such a stab of guilt over the crying incident that she couldn't process the thought of her becoming distressed again and leaving her bed this time to come and find her Mum. The only alternative I can think of is that Kate or Gerry had taken steps to ensure all three would sleep through, to prevent any further distress, and Kate was therefore sure that something bad must have happened for Madeleine to be missing from her bed.

Love,

Caz
X

Would it not be more likely that an open shutter and window in the bedroom with your child missing would mean you immediately think abduction. And Madeleine had asked why neither parent had come to the room when the babies were crying the night before. For Madeleine to come looking for her parents or mummy would have meant her opening the curtains and sliding open the slide doors and closing them behind her, walking down the steps opening the gate then closing and locking it behind her. Kate would have walked in through that route and noticed nothing unusual. So why would she then think after seeing an open window in her child's bedroom that Madeleine had walked out the back to try and find her?

I can't take the sedation idea seriously. They said they made a mental note about what Madeleine had said. Gerry seems a very cold person to me and although I have no doubt he loved his children leaving them whilst he went for dinner I don't think would have bothered him. Kate I think is different but these are only my perceptions. For myself even the way the McCanns put the kids in a creche all day and went off playing tennis or running just dumbfounds me. When I go on holiday I do it to spend time with my kids- aged 6 and 2. I love playing with them in the pool etc and if they are too tired at night time to go out we just get a takeaway and eat on the balcony. But as my mum used to say to me- everyone raises them differently. Being from Ireland though family is so hugely important and almost everyone I know would not do what the McCanns did. But they paid a heavy heavy price as did their daughter unfortunately.

[erobitha]

“She didn’t scream”

https://7news.com.au/news/madeleine-mccann/madeleine-mccann-didnt-scream-german-suspect-christian-brueckner-told-friend-c-10876240.amp

[Abby Normal]

I agree with sunny and rj young kids and babies can usually sleep through anything especially if they’re really tired. I remember it myself as a child doing it and my kids doing it. However, there are exceptions and Maddie apparently was one as she hadn’t slept through the night before and her mom knew it. Maybe Kate wanted to make sure she didn’t wake up again. I wouldn’t rule out them being sedated at all.

[rjpalmer]

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

Hi Darryl.

It gets worse than that. Later, Tanner became convinced (or at least, '80% convinced') that the shaggy, bearded suspect (some called him 'George Harrison Man') was the man she had seen, even though he looked nothing like Murat.

It shows what the police are up against. Eyewitnesses aren't CCTV footage or taped telephone calls; they are flawed human beings who are suggestable and can be changeable and inconsistent and even self-deceiving.

The same can be said of Martin Smith. I read one of his later interviews. On seeing Gerry McCann disembark from the plane in the UK, carrying one of the twins, he was struck by how much McCann resembled the man he had seen carrying a 'limp' child. Reinterviewed by the police, he was "60-80% certain McCann was the man he had seen that night, even though McCann had been back at the Club, a quarter mile away, surrounded by dozens of witnesses, frantically searching for his daughter.

It's a wonder the police can solve anything. The same witness can be both valuable and muddled. As human beings they are complex, flawed, suggestable.