The missing blanket

YNG wrote:I wonder how much truth there is in this article and if it is true whether this ' exclusive interview with David Smith was recorded '

' According to reports and confirmed in an article by David Smith, in ‘The Times’ in late December 2007, the McCanns did not bother to talk to Jane Tanner for two whole days about what she claimed to have seen at 9.15pm that night ~ namely a person walking off with a child looking like Madeleine. This is despite the McCanns’ absolute insistence that an abduction had taken place. According to David Smith’s article, which included an exclusive and extended interview with Gerry McCann, he and Jane Tanner did not speak to each other because they were ‘too busy’.

jd wrote:And the Tapas bar had a plastic covering around it to keep it warmer

aquila wrote:do you sweat if you have been drugged?

PeterMac wrote:

tigger wrote:SNIP, lots
It would be interesting to see her early statements on bundle man and whether she said the blanket was pink. Pyjamas pink certainly - but that was later.

The pyjama TOP was pink, the BOTTOMS were white. we know this because the McCanns showed the very pyjamas, or perhaps another identical pair, across the TV channels of the world. And the photo is also clear.
"At the time of her disappearance, she was wearing pyjamas with white bottoms with a floral pattern. The short-sleeved top, mainly pink with a blue-grey pattern bearing the inscription, "EEYORE," an inscription which is also on one of the trouser legs. The pyjamas are "Marks and Spencer" brand.
- Kate McCann in a statement to the Policia Judiciaria 4/5/07"

"Anonymous said...
And Kate said, as she was holding up the pijamas :"These are ACTUALLY the pijamas that Madeleine WAS WEARING when she disappeared" !?!
Watch it in the Mockumentary, in Joana Morais, it's just after the footage of Beckam's appeal."

"That was terrible for them," says John McCann, Mr McCann's elder brother, who has also travelled to Portugal to help search for his niece.
"Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: 'Maddy's jammies. Where is Maddy?' But she is too young to understand. And how do you explain? All we know is that Madeleine needs her family. She loves us, we love her. It is time for her to come home."
Amelie gave the game away that she was given Maddy's pyjamas to wear... ergo Maddy wasn't in them when she was "abducted".

Totally baffling ! - but only if you try to make sense of it, and only if you try to believe that people are telling the truth.

Advocatus wrote:Kate says that the blanket was taken by the abductors, but the PJ took a photograph of it. Then it disappeared.

tigger wrote:Now, the GNR came with the dogs the following day and if both items had been in close proximity to a cadaver, the likelihood is that they disappeared soon after the police left, it's also likely the police told them they'd be back with the dogs.

Stella wrote:

tigger wrote:Now, the GNR came with the dogs the following day and if both items had been in close proximity to a cadaver, the likelihood is that they disappeared soon after the police left, it's also likely the police told them they'd be back with the dogs.

The Portuguese dogs were not cadaver dogs and at that time, the McCann's could not have knowledge of such a dog. If they did, Kate's trousers, blouse, Cuddlecat, basically everything would have gone.

I am more inclined to think that after the boot of the car was inspected in early August 2007 and they had just found out about who Eddie and Keela are and what they do for a living , they realised the signifcance of anything the PJ would then ask them for. By that time they had the best legal councel money could buy and would have been advised not to hand over anything without the right documentation. The Pj only searched their place the once
=================================================================
IIRC the PJ infortunately have the McCanns a courtesy call at some early point saying they would be along latter to do forensics - cue Persil and the constant drone of a washing machine almost worn out from recent activity.
=================================================================


and I think this must have been days before the fibres were found and analysed in the boot. They never got a second opportunity to go back in and look for a blanket.

candyfloss wrote:Most of the articles that mention a blanket are around ~September 2007, so where did this info come from, when clearly in her statement to PJ on 4th May 2007 she says no blanket - and why say without a blanket, why not just a description of what you saw. You wouldn't add what you didn't see.

Jane Tanner's statement to PJ 4th May
The suspicious man.

However, she spotted a man who was going along at a fair speed with a child in his arms with the child in pyjamas without a blanket, which attracted her attention. The interviewee only saw the man from the side with the child in his arms. She noticed this person exactly at the moment when she walked past Gerald and Jez. That person was coming out of the path at the end of the apartment block (1) where they are staying. The man quickly crossed the intersection. The entrance to the building where the apartments are is the exact place where she saw the man. After checking on her children, the interviewee went back to the "tapas." On her way back, Gerald McCann was no longer in the road where she had seen him talking. On her arrival at the restaurant (3) Gerald McCann was with his wife Kate Healy.

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post412.html#p412

justme3 wrote:Does anyone remember this:



FABRICATED: Bag found in PORTUGAL

".......Saturday November 16th Maddie DNA clue in airport bag Traces found on fleece and stained jeans By Dominic Herbert, 03/11/2007 A BAG of clothes containing DNA linked to Madeleine McCann has been found dumped by a road in Portugal. The white carrier bag was discovered in a layby two weeks ago near Faro airport, the News of the World can reveal. Maddie's parents Kate and Gerry McCann have learned the bag contained a blue fleece jacket and a pair of adult jeans with traces of DNA that contained "moderate" links to the missing four-year-old. There was also a SHOWER CURTAIN inside...........

....."Miss Tanner has given a key account of seeing a man carrying a child away from the McCanns' apartment. Both her and Dr O'Brian deny that they have contacted police to change their statements........ Once again JANE TANNER and WHY it is so important to her that you know she did not have JEANS with her when MADELEINE disappeared. She is not asked what clothing she wore on that night, but volunteers the information. And goes on to explain she was wearing one of RUSSELS fleeces. QUOTE I remember I was wearing, because it was cold, I’d got Russell’s big, I’d borrowed one of his, erm, fleeces, so I’d got a big sort of fleece, it probably came down to about here, but then I’d got flip-flops on and cropped trousers, because I’d only got, I didn’t take jeans, I know I didn’t take jeans on holiday, and then. The fabricated article of the bag found along the road to FARO airport and its list of contents are of no importance...just the two items are relevant above the reporter Dominic Herberts name. MADDIE DNA: TRACES FOUND ON FLEECE AND STAINED JEANS...........

tigger wrote:From the rogatory interview McCannfiles.com
Jane Tanner:
And the thing that really struck me was the, erm, the bare feet. And the thought that came into my head was, I’ll say when we’re in Leicester, our children were quite adaptable, and what we used to do is, we used to walk round to Dave and Fi’s house for, erm, the kids, for tea with the kids, the kids would play, we’d put them in a travel cot there and we’d sometimes stay a bit later and then carry the kids home, because it’s only, it’s like the next road. And we’d wrap them in a blanket or whatever, but you could always, their feet would fall, their feet would fall out the bottom and you’d think ‘Oh they’re going to get cold feet’ because they’d always wriggle. So one thing I thought was ‘Oh a bit of a bad parent like us, you know, that kid’s obviously being taken home’ or whatever. And I think that’s all, you know, that’s sort of, erm, I think that’s where the sort of I thought ‘Oh’, and that was the only reason I really clocked it I think. Because at that point I thought it’s a person taking their child either back from the crèche or, you know, just some father carrying their own child, so it didn’t really, you know, and that didn’t. I’m making it sound like it really registered at the time, but it didn’t, that is literally, I thought ‘Oh’”.
Unquote

By now it's april 2008, the Rothley meeting in November must have clarified a few things and possibly by now the blanket question has been addressed. The blanket is now not only related to how parents took their children from the creche at night, we are now going way back into the past in the UK giving a second reason as to why the lack of a blanket bothered her so much.

When I was a toddler, I had a tricycle and my mother told me not to go round the corner, if I did the birds would tell her if I did. Of course I did go round the corner. When I came back I asked her if the birds had told her anything..

tigger wrote:Bumping this up because in another thread here there's a question on the pink blanket.

I've seen an interview with Gonçalo Amaral where he states that the pink blanket is central to the case. Iirc he said something that if and when the blanket is found the case will be solved.

It was in the first photographs taken in 5a. As was the tennis bag.
It was gone in the second set of photographs taken in 5a - I believe only hours later. As was the tennis bag.
The tennis bag was either stolen, had never been there at all or in fact had never existed, according to various explanations from TM.

We hear little about the blanket per se. A pink blanket was given to the first dog handlers, who arrived around 2.00 am on the 4th.
The next set of handlers were not given Maddie's clothes or a blanket but a towel said to have been used by her.

Together with cuddlecat, the pink 'Princess' blanket was absolute proof of abduction. Both vital proof as far as TM is concerned.

It's always been my belief that JT described something she had seen or done (in view of the 'I carried' in the one interview recently discussed).
The way the abductor was said to have carried the child is the way one would carry a dead body, not a live one and it would be likely that a dead body would be wrapped.