"Maddie Was Here" - A “Disgusting” Episode of Distorted Evidence

A “Disgusting” Episode of Distorted Evidence.....TUESDAY, 19 MAY 2009 from Paulo Reis

Arthur Cowley and David Edgar
Note Mr Edgar’s body language: “Get me out of here?”

THE INTERESTING WHITEBOARD & “NEW WITNESSES”
Messrs Edgar and Cowley have not named the supposedly new witnesses but screenshots from the Channel 4 programme shows that they are:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The whiteboard lists three supposedly independent sightings on Wednesday 2nd May 2007 implying that “Pimple Man” was lurking for a period of almost 4 hours on that critical day but making himself obvious. This “evidence” is misleading because Mr Flack was not sure whether the date was 2nd or 3rd May 2007. Mr Edgar and Mr Cowley seem to have dramatically improved Mr Flack’s statement by arbitrarily removing his uncertainty and thereby making the suspicions much more dramatic.

It should also be noted that the whiteboard does not refer to the sighting by the Irish family. This is strange when it featured so strongly in the Channel 4 program.
Mr Edgar (frame 16.36 of 47.57 of the Channel 4 program) states that sighting 3 (by Tasmin Sillence) is the most important (besides Jane Tanner’s) “because it links them”. Mr Edgar implies that all of the witnesses saw the same person (ie “Pimple Man”) watching the McCanns’ apartment and states at frame 11.24 that the abduction was “done by an individual on his own: most likely by an individual who has links to Praia da Luz which is why we have focused all of our efforts really on – most of our efforts certainly -on Praia da Luz”. Perhaps Mr Edgar changed his phrasing from “all” to “most” to conceal the restricted scope of his mandate and the fact that he is focused exclusively on an “abduction”. In any event, he confirmed his lone abductor theory in an interview reported by Dominic Herbert in the News of the World published on Sunday 10th May 2009.

BASICS OF THE SIGHTING BY JANE TANNER
Miss Tanner’s initial description of the abductor she supposedly saw carrying a child on the night of 3rd May 2007 was given to the PJ as follows:

“Brown male between 35 and 40, slim, around 1.70m. Very dark hair, thick, long at the neck. (Noticed when the person was seen from the back). He was wearing golden beige cloth trousers (linen type) with a "Duffy" type coat (but not very thick). He was wearing black shoes, of a conventional style and was walking quickly. He was carrying a sleeping child in his arms across his chest. By his manner, the man gave her the impression that he wasn't a tourist.”


Her description has changed significantly over time, to the “Egg Man”, “Monster Man”, “Bundle Man”, “Cooperman” and “Nose Man”. She also picked out Robert Murat as the villain and maintained this allegation until withdrawing it in April 2008 in an interview with the Leicestershire Police. Miss Tanner’s abductor had long hair, short hair, wore glasses, didn’t wear glasses, had a nose or didn’t have a nose, had a moustache or was clean shaven. He strode “purposefully out” or “ambled along”. So it is not at all clear what Miss Tanner’s final position is but she obviously supported the “reconstruction” on the Channel 4 program and the image of the “purposefully striding Bundle Man”:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]Jane Tanner’s Sighting from “Madeleine Was Here”
Note the clothing of “Bundle Man” and the way he is carrying the child

Whoever Jane Tanner saw (if anybody) on the night of 3rd May 2007, he is nothing like “Pimple Man” and thus for her evidence to have any credibility there must have been at least two people involved in Madeleine’s abduction. This conflicts with Mr Edgar’s theory of a lone abductor but supports everyone’s hero – Clarence Mitchell.

ATTENTION TO DETAIL
The Channel 4 program implies that Mr Edgar is not overly distracted by detail. One of the big problems with Jane Tanner’s sighting, and thus her credibility, is that she states that on 3rd May 2007, immediately prior to seeing the “person carrying a child”, she had walked past Gerald McCann and Jez Wilkins, another Ocean Club guest, who were talking on the very narrow pavement immediately adjoining Apartment 5A. She told the Leicestershire Police that, as she walked past them, Gerald McCann must have had his back to her as otherwise she would have caught his eye and would have said something to him. She said the same on the Channel 4 program, adding that she would have chided him, by relaying Kate McCann’s complaint that he had prolonged his check (he left the Tapas Bar at 9.05 and returned at just before 9.20) to watch the “footie”.

Gerald McCann strongly disagreed with Miss Tanner’s evidence and says he was standing, talking to Jez Wilkins on the opposite side of the road and that he did not see Miss Tanner walking by. Jez Wilkins told the PJ that as he was walking home, with his child in a pushchair, he spoke to Gerald McCann and he agreed with Miss Tanner they were on the narrow pavement on the apartment side of the road, but added that he did not see her. The northerly direction that Mr Wilkins was believed to have been headed suggests that during their conversation Gerald McCann would have been facing south and could not have missed seeing Miss Tanner.

Mr Edgar lightly dismissed these significant discrepancies by saying:
“The most important thing, Jane, is not where Jez and Gerry were actually stood because there are inconsistencies in every major investigation. The only thing that matters is that they did not obstruct your view of the man you saw"

This is sloppy work because the inconsistency undermines Miss Tanner’s credibility and raises the question of how she could walk within 18 inches of Gerald McCann, who was most probably facing her, and not even acknowledge him. If she cannot get this simple matter right, why is her sighting of the “abductor” to be believed? Also, the fact that on three occasions she walked within feet of the open shutters and window and did not notice them throws Miss Tanner’s powers of observation into further doubt.

WHY GERALD MCCANN DISAGREES
The obvious conflict of evidence raises the question of why Gerald McCann should disagree with Miss Tanner and Mr Wilkins and be so dogmatic that he was on the side of road opposite to Apartment 5A. To throw light on this, we have to examine the corner into which –slowly but surely - the McCanns and their friends have painted themselves:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]The Window of Opportunity
Red cells indicate doubts about the sequence and inconsistencies

For this sequence to be even marginally credible, the abductor must have kept observation to make sure Gerald had gone from the apartment. Would he risk making a forced entry if Gerald McCann was inside or standing within 30 feet of the rear patio doors? It is more likely he would wait until he knew the coast was clear. This probability would further limit the “abductor’s” window of opportunity.
At one point Gerald McCann, probably realising the improbability of his timetable, suggested the abductor had been hiding in the apartment as he was making his check. He does not appear to have maintained this hypothesis which, given the size of the apartment and the fact he was in it for at least 10 minutes, is incredible.

At best the “abductor” had less than 5 minutes to break into the apartment, snatch Madeleine and make his escape. And if the bedroom door had slammed shut when he opened the shutters and windows (as the laws of physics suggest it would) wouldn’t the sound have been heard by Gerald McCann if he had been standing talking to Jez Wilkins right outside the apartment? And wouldn’t the banging have wakened the twins?

Our forensic advisers believe a proper reconstruction would prove that the bang of the closing bedroom door is unlikely to be missed by anyone in the position Jez Wilkins says (and Jane Tanner corroborates) that he and Gerald McCann were standing. It would have been less audible from the opposite side of the road. Is this the reason Gerald McCann is sticking to his story? Is it because he knows Jane Tanner’s evidence (of passing him within inches and saying nothing) is incredible? Does he wish to leave open the possibility that the abductor entered through the patio doors, while his back was turned talking to Mr Wilkins on the opposite side of the road? Does he want to distance himself from Miss Tanner’s evidence, perhaps suspecting her alleged check at 9.15pm could be disproved by a cctv camera or other evidence? Or is he is being truthful? For the moment we do not know.

-------

Note: jane tanners 'I" was carrying ...and in 'retrospect/hindsight'
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

DEFECTS AND SPIN IN THE INVESTIGATION

Interestingly the white board now describes Jane Tanner’s suspect as a “UK Male”. How the investigation team arrives at this conclusion is a mystery. She has never said this
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]The Whiteboard with lots of “UK Males”

Also, the whiteboard shows Matthew Oldfield’s check as “MO says he checked 5A”. The use of word “says” suggests that even the McCann investigators have their doubts about him. But the main bone of contention with Mr Edgar’s investigation is his obvious dedication to the “abductor” theory and his failure to critically test the McCann’s story. This should have been his starting point. He told Channel 4 that there was no evidence of the McCann’s involvement: oh no? But where is there a shred of evidence that Madeleine was abducted? There is no evidence of the shutters and windows being forced, no marks on the bedding, or tiles, no fingerprints or DNA, no scrapes on the window sill, no footprints: nothing. The only fact is that Kate McCann’s fingerprints were found on the window in a position that showed she had opened it.

--------------

He told Channel 4 that there was no evidence of the McCann’s involvement: oh no?

Places and Items where the EVRD and CSI Dogs Signaled

The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area
being identified.

Rear bedroom of the apartment in the immediate right hand corner by
the door.

Living room, behind sofa.

Veranda outside parent's bedroom.

Garden area directly under veranda.

Cuddle Cat

Clothing belonging to Kate McCann x 2 - Trousers and a Top

Red Children’s T-Shirt

Hired Car – Renault Scenic
When passing a vehicle I now know to be hired and in the possession of the McCann family,
the dog's behaviour changed substantially. This then produced an alert
indication at the lower part of the driver’s door where the dog was biting and
barking. I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from
the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door.

Hired Car – Key Fob

Five apartments were searched using the EVRD.

Ten vehicles were screened in an underground multi storey car park at
Portimao.

The cadaver dogs only alerted to property and items associated with the McCann family.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

THE NEW WITNESS “JW”

There is nothing in the CD released by the PJ to identify the witness “JW” who allegedly saw “Pimple Man” standing lurking (not “ambling along”) around Apartment 5A on Sunday 29th April 2007 at 08.00 and on Wednesday 2nd May 2007 at approximately 15.00. She stated on the Channel 4 program that she would describe the lurker as “very ugly”. This is not the most discrete description as it fails to exclude 90% of the world’s population.

Channel 4 (probably inadvertently because many names and details had been redacted) revealed that “JW”, who has two daughters, was staying at the Ocean Club. The reference to “apartment 1”, on the following screenshot, is not believed to be the actual designation but an indication that earlier in the document two apartments had been referred to (Possibly one occupied by JW and another by her friends)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]Screenshot Relating to “JW”

It appears that in two statements (presumably made to Mr Cowley) JW was not sure whether she had seen “a suspect male ambling along” from a position in her apartment, from another apartment , tennis courts, pool or from the road. The information is further confused in the Channel 4 program because it implies that on two occasions, while she was walking in the street, JW saw “Pimple Man” standing watching Apartment 5A and not “ambling along”. Also the screenshot suggests a sighting by “JW” on 30th April 2007. This did not feature in the Channel 4 program.

Light was thrown on the identity of “JW” in an article in the Sun on 12th May 2009 by Antonella Lazzeri (another McCann close confidante) who stated:
• She is a 36 year old mother of two: one a 3 year old girl
• She rented an apartment 3 doors away from Apartment 5A
• She reported her suspicions to her local police – in Wiltshire – in May 2007

Analysis of the Ocean Club Booking records indicates that “JW” may be Mrs J Weinburger, who travelled to Faro from Belfast on 28th April 2007, and stayed in Apartment “G4” (ie 3 doors away from the McCanns) in Waterside Gardens for seven days with her husband “P Weinburger”, a 3 year old daughter and an 11 month old infant. There is no trace of this family on the UK’s Electoral Roll, and no recorded directorships: this is fairly unusual for a British citizen unless there are security or other reasons for redaction.

However, a “Paul M Weinberger”, who works for Enigma Diagnostics Limited is now based in Porton Down, Wiltshire. This is a private company, founded in 2004 as a joint venture between the UK Government - through the top secret Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down -and the private venture capitalists Porton Capital Technology Fund. Mr Weinberger was previously employed as Director of Business Development for Roche Diagnostics, the world’s largest diagnostic company. Mr Weinberger specialises in “in vitro diagnostics” and is a member of the Executive Committee of the “British In Vitro Diagnostics Association”.

Porton Down is an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Defence and the site is said to be one of the UK’s most sensitive secret government facilities for military research especially related to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (Here we go again!) weapons

It is not certain that Mr Weinberger, of Enigma Diagnostics, is the man who stayed at the Ocean Club in May 2007, but it looks that way. Another link between the Weinbur or Weinbergers and Wiltshire is the fact that they made dinner bookings at the Tapas Bar with Dr Julian Totman who is also from Salisbury in Wiltshire.

Miss Lazzeri reported that JW, on returning from Portugal, in May 2007, informed her local police – based in Wiltshire (and thus a link to Paul M Weinberger in Wiltshire) who advised the Leicestershire police who:

“failed to follow up her lead. It was only when she received an emotional phone call from Maddie’s mum Kate nearly two years later (thus in April or May 2009 possibly to get a bit more spice for the Channel 4 program) that a photofit based on her description was put together…. When Kate asked me to help, I agreed immediately. But the police should have asked 2 years ago. It was only after Kate got in touch that the woman learnt two other witnesses saw an identical man… I can’t believe our three sightings weren’t linked earlier”

The problem is, which “JW” was not told, that the descriptions given to the PJ by the “two other witnesses” were nothing like “Pimple Man” and that their reports had been fully investigated, the suspects identified and eliminated. But failure to act on “JW’s” evidence adds to the Leicestershire Police’s record of tardiness in its delayed handing of the statements of Kate and Arul, photographs of potential suspects: not to mention a recent detailed report on the crèche records. Can any police force be that bad? Or was Leicestershire’s job simply to kill the investigation, possibly on Home Office instructions, whose political intervention – in such cases as Damian Green – are so worrying? And if “JW” attached any importance to her sighting why did she do nothing further about it for 2 years, especially when it might have qualified her for a large reward? And why did Kate McCann leave it until the last moment to call her? The bottom line is that “JW’s” “evidence” justifies very close scrutiny.

THE 12 YEAR OLD SCHOOLGIRL: TASMIN SILLENCE

The next sighting, which Mr Edgar states is the most significant, was made by a 12 year old schoolgirl named Tasmin Sillence. Her evidence is in the CD (Volume III Pages 800 -804) where she describes the person she saw on:
• 30th April 2007 at 08.00am leaning on the wall at the back of Apartment 5A (Point A)
• 2nd May 2007 at 12.25pm standing on the pavement opposite the apartment (Point B)
as:

Caucasian race, light skin so he wasn't Portuguese but could be British according to criteria. Approximately 180cm tall, pale complexion, 30 to 35 years of age. Short hair, light shaved with a 1 cm length and fair but she isn't sure if it was blonde because the sun was reflecting and made perception more difficult. She didn't see the eyes because he wore dark glasses of black colour with the structure of a thick frame. He had a large forehead. Nose of normal size, a bit pointy and sharp. Large ears close to the head. Mouth with thin lips, she didn't see his teeth. Chin pointing up, which stood out on the face that she describes as sharp. No beard, no mustache: a clean shave. No other special signs except from some small pimples on the face as a result on shaving. He looked ugly, even “disgusting”

Miss Sillence said that the first time she had seen the man he had been wearing a sports style jacket of thin black leather, with a zipper and several pockets with similar zippers in silver. The jacket was open and she saw a white t-shirt with a dark blue label near the waist. She thinks he was wearing worn out blue jeans and black and grey sports shoes.

The second time she saw him he wore the same jacket zipped up. He had a pen with a string attached to one of the pockets. In May 2007, the PJ prepared an efit based on Miss Sillence’s description as follows:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]The First edit. Doesn’t look much like Pimple Man: does he?

On 5th August 2008, Sara Nuwar, reporting in the News of the Word, stated that Gail Cooper had come face to face with Madeleine’s suspected kidnapper and, at the request of the McCann’s backer – Brian Kennedy – had produced an efit called “Cooper Man”.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]“Cooperman” Doesn’t look much like “Pimple Man”; does he?

Miss Nuwar continues:
“Two of her sightings were also witnessed by her husband. And we can also reveal that a NEW witness, a 12-year-old girl, has come forward to back up her story.”

For sure there are a lot of 12 year old girls in Praia da Luz, but was this Miss Sillence just trying to be helpful by agreeing to almost anything or is another 12 year old involved in this tragic case?

The PJ followed up Miss Sillence’s sightings which led to the identification of Michael Anthony Green (see Volume III pages 632 to 726. The PJ and Leicestershire Police cleared Mr Green of any involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance. However, all information relating to Mr Green was withdrawn from the CD at the request of the British police, who were concerned, among many other things, that information on British paedophiles should be protected. Don’t you just admire the way the British police protect the vulnerable?

DEREK FLACK AND CHRISTINE DALE

The fourth sighting of the lurking “Pimple Man”, who appeared to be the owner of a white van, was supposedly made by a “couple from Cheshire” who can be tracked in the PJ files as Derek Flack, aged 64, and his partner – Christine Margaret Dale, who at the time lived in Ilford in Essex. (Volume 1 folio 145 and Volume 4 folio 833 et seq). Mr Flack described the man he saw at around 11.30 on 2nd or 3rd May 2007 to the PJ as follows:

.7m tall, dark skinned appearing to be Portuguese, with a one day stubble, with short thick hair that stretched down to collar level at the back and wearing a solid yellow t-shirt. He appeared to be the driver of a white van.

Interestingly Mr Edgar’s whiteboards describe Mr Flack’s suspect as a “UK male” (not, as he said Portuguese) and the sighting he made as being on “2nd May 2007” rather than on “2nd or 3rd May 2007”. The McCann investigators say nothing of the fact that Mr Flack told the PJ he did not believe he could identify the “lurker” if he were to see him again. Again the evidence has been seriously misrepresented.

In an article in the “Daily Mail” on 7th May 2009, Vanessa Allen and Peter Allen, devoted supporters of Mr and Mrs McCann, stated:
“A couple from Cheshire then saw the man on either May 2 or 3 staring at Apartment 5A, and standing near a parked white van. An artist’s impression of the man, commissioned by the “Find Madeleine Fund” shows a dark haired, heavily scarred man (ie “Pimple Man”)

So it appears that the “Pimple Man” sketch was based on the description given by Mr Flack and Ms Dale.

The Channel 4 program also confirmed, probably unintentionally, that the Cheshire couple were in fact Mr Flack and Ms Dale because when referring to sighting 4 they produced the plan attached to Mr Flack’s statement:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]The Plan Attached to Mr Flack’s Statement

The descriptions Mr Flack gave to the PJ in May 2007 resulted in the PJ preparing the following edit:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]Original efit Based on Mr Flack’s Sighting. Doesn’t look much like Pimple Man: does he?

This led to the tracing of Barrington Godfrey Norton (Volume 3 folio 704 and 709) a musician living in Praia da Luz. The PJ and Leicestershire Police cleared him of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance (Volume IV pages 833 and 834)

THE SIGHTING BY THE IRISH SMITH FAMILY

Although there is no mention of it on Mr Edgar’s whiteboard, the Channel 4 program referred to a sighting by the Smith family of a man carrying a small child on the night of 3rd May 2007. The CD issued by the PJ shows that at around 21.50 on the night Madeleine was reported missing, a large family from Drogheda, Ireland -including the father Martin Smith – was walking back to their apartment when they passed a man carrying a child
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]Location of the Smith Sighting

On 26th May 2007 the Smiths gave the following descriptions:
The man was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had a normal complexion, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes and cannot describe the colour or form of the same.

The child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. It was a child of normal complexion, about a meter in height. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not look at her eyes. As she was asleep and her eyelids were closed. She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any other cover or sheet. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet. The individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual’s shoulders to the right of the deponent (ie over the man’s left shoulder). He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position.

Mrs Smith confirmed the above and stated:
She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the individual's neck. She did not look at the child's hands and cannot state the colour of her skin. She believes she was white.

Members of the family returned to Portimao on 26th May 2007 and clarified their evidence – which Dr Gonçalo Amaral, who was then leading the PJ’s investigation, considered very important.

On 9th September 2007, the McCanns returned to the UK and BBC News showed them getting off an Easyjet flight. The Smith family saw the program and, from the way Gerald McCann carried his son with the child’s head over his left shoulder with hands hanging down, recognised him as the person they had seen on the night of 3rd May 2007. On 30th January 2008, Mr Smith made a further statement confirming -with 60-80% certainty – that the man he had seen carrying a child on 3rd May 2007 was Gerald McCann. Mr Smith’s wife corroborated his evidence.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]How Mr McCann carried Sean Jane Tanner’s “Bundle Man”

The McCanns seem to have totally ignored the Smith family’s evidence for the past 18 months, and have never issued a photo fit of the man the Smiths saw. However, Metodo 3, the discredited investigation firm previously retained by the McCanns, spoke to the Smiths and did little but worry them.

When making the supposed “reconstruction”, Channel 4, if it was to maintain even the slightest veil of credibility, had no option but to refer to the Smith sighting. But the way they spun the evidence by suggesting it supported Miss Tanner and cleared Gerald McCann was disgraceful.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]The Smith’s Evidence as Portrayed on Channel 4

It is thus no wonder that the two sightings appear to corroborate each other when Channel 4 used the same child and actor for both, dimmed the Smith scene into almost total darkness with strong back lighting -while improving that for Jane Tanner - and failed to accurately represent the way the family stated the child had been carried or what the man had been wearing. Another example of twisted evidence?

At the time Dr Amaral was dismissed, he was planning to return the Smith family to Portugal to obtain further evidence from them. His successor, Mr Rebelo, failed to do this and to this day the sighting is unresolved. There is nothing in the CD to indicate that Gerald McCann was eliminated as the man the Smith family had seen.

The Smith sighting, which was some 35 minutes later than Jane Tanner’s, was around a mile away from the Ocean Club, to the South and West. It is difficult to imagine that Miss Tanner’s abductor would have turned back, passing the Ocean Club, to be in a position where he was seen by the Smiths. At best, the two sightings, if either took place, are unrelated but the fact that the McCanns now link them, to support Jane Tanner’s evidence is disingenuous.

TOTAL SPIN AND TOTAL BLINDNESS

Anyone would be forgiven for concluding that the Channel 4 program was a cynical and misleading attempt to sway public opinion in favour of the McCanns, against an incompetent Portuguese investigation and to applaud Mr Edgar’s great work and “new witnesses”. The program was pure spin with research conducted in Portugal by none other than my old pal Brendan de Beer and directed, in fact, by Clarence Mitchell! Its object was to promote the story of the McCanns’ innocence and their determination to find Madeleine and, of course, to collect further contributions to the “Find Madeleine Fund”. It was not the “reconstruction” promised.

In fact, the critical sequences involving the American comedy actress – Lisa Donovan – who, at considerable expense, played the part of Kate McCann was cut from the final version of the Channel 4 program because “the representation of what Kate had done on the night that Maddie disappeared was not convincing and raised some doubts”. This is hardly surprising given that Mrs McCann’s story, which is analysed later, is not credible.

Also for the explanation given by the “Tapas 9” to be true:
• At around 9.15pm, just after seeing the “abductor”, Jane Tanner must have walked within feet of the open windows and shutters of Apartment 5A. She did the same when she returned to the Tapas Bar at around 9.20pm
• At around 9.25pm Russell O’Brien and Matthew Oldfield walked within feet of the windows and shutters of Apartment 5A but did not detect that they were open. Mr Oldfield did precisely the same when he returned to the Tapas Bar
• At around 9.55pm, Jane Tanner failed to notice the open windows when she went to “relieve” Russell O’Brien, who was looking after their sick daughter, and he did the same when he returned to the Tapas Bar

Thus on seven occasions, involving three different people, we are supposed to believe that no-one detected that the windows and shutters of Apartment 5A had been forced “wide open” by the “abductor”.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]The Shutters of Apartment 5A. On seven occasions members of the “Tapas 9” walked within feet of these shutters and did not notice that they were open

In none of the interviews with the Leicestershire Police was any of the “Tapas 9” confronted with this glaring oversight and it does not appear to have caused Mr Edgar to fret: strange, don’t you think?

The proposition that “Pimple Man”, was identified by five independent witnesses is an illusion that can only be supported by twisting evidence in a manner reminiscent of the worst of old-time British policing when suspects were “fitted up” with false testimony or “winged” by having words they did not say put into their mouths. Is it a case of spin being taken too far?

KATE SAYS FAR TOO MUCH

The most interesting facts to emerge from “Madeleine Was Here” are the opening shots of Kate McCann describing how she discovered that Madeleine was missing and how she knew “straightaway” that she had been “abducted”. This, and the Oprah Winfrey show, were the first occasions that Mrs McCann provided any detail and reliable sources suggest that Kate McCann’s cameo was a last minute alternative when the sequences filmed of Miss Donovan had to be cut.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Kate McCann:
I did my check at about 10 o’clock, went in through the sliding patio doors, and I just stood actually and I thought all quiet and to be honest I might have been tempted to turn round and I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we'd left it and

Comment
The tone of her voice is spookily rhetorical: permission seeking rather than being confident and assertive. Forensic Linguistic analysis shows that words such as “just”, “actually”, and “to be honest” in historical narratives are usually associated with deception.

What appears to be superfluous information about entering through the patio doors is very important because it pre-empts questions about Kate McCann not seeing the open bedroom windows as she walked past them to enter the apartment through the front door. In his original statement to the PJ, Gerald McCann said that his wife had entered the apartment through the front door.

Forensic Linguists also recognise the importance of thought processes. Liars frequently introduce these, unnecessarily, to give themselves time to think and to avoid commitment. Kate McCann refers to a lot of thought processes, mainly when addressing to topics directly related to the critical events on 3rd May 2007. Under stress, Gerald McCann pulls his right ear lobe

Mrs McCann’s observation that “the door…. was open much further than we’d left it” was supposedly the reason she decided to check further. Yet at the time she had every reason to suppose that Matt Oldfield or Gerald had opened it when they carried out their checks. Thus her thought process is not consistent with the circumstances and are possibly drawn from imagination (usually untruthful), rather than from memory (usually truthful)

Further if the abductor had “jemmied” the shutters, as she, her husband and relatives originally stated, it is most likely that the door would have been blown closed before Kate McCann’s arrival at 10.00pm. Further, how could the curtains be static if the window was open and a wind blowing? Mrs McCann’s story does not stand scrutiny

In his Channel 4 interview, Matthew Oldfield implied that when he did his check at 9.25 (which if Jane Tanner’s evidence is correct was after the shutters had been jemmied, the window opened and Madeleine taken) the bedroom door was wide open (he told the Leicestershire Police it was 45 degrees open) and he could see the twin’s cots from the lounge-hallway area. He says nothing of seeing the curtains flapping wildly, as they must have been if the window was open.

The dynamics of Madeleine’s bedroom are such that if the door was at less than a 90 degree angle the strong draught (from a 17mph north by north-west wind blowing that night) would have blown it closed or caused it to oscillate: if the angle was greater than 90 degrees the door would have been blown open against the wall. But in all cases, it is inconceivable that the curtains would not have been seen flapping wildly during the whole time the window was open.

The bottom line is that if the draught was sufficient to blow the curtains – “whoosh” -when Kate McCann opened the door, they could not have been still when Mr Oldfield made his check or when she first looked into the room.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Kate McCann:
I went to close it to about here and as I got to here it suddenly slammed and as I opened it … it was as I suddenly thought I would look at the children and I saw Sean and Amelie in the cot and then I was looking at Madeleine's bed, which was here, and it was dark and I was looking and I was thinking is that Madeleine or was that the bedding

Comment
“I went to close it” is what is known in forensic linguistics as a “non-action” and is therefore questionable. The change of tense (from past to present) within the same sentence is not consistent with a truthful recall of a past event from memory.

Is it likely that the twins would not have been woken by the slamming door or that Gerald would have heard nothing if he had been standing on the pavement right outside the apartment?

Kate McCann:
I couldn't quite make her out and it sounds really stupid now but at the time I was thinking…. I didn't want to put the light on as I didn't want to wake them and literally as I went back in the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn


Comment
Self deprecating phrases such as “it sounds really stupid” or “I know you won’t believe this” are frequently associated with deception. Again note the switch to the present tense and the superfluous word “literally”. But more important is the phrase “went back in”. According to her statement she had not previously entered the room. Again imagination seems to be playing its part

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Kate McCann:
Were closed….. Whoosh…. A gust of wind just blew them open… Cuddle cat was still there and her blanket was still there and I knew straight away…. She'd been taken…. You know

Comment
When she reconstructs the “whoosh” of the curtains, Mrs McCann is standing outside the room, yet her previous words imply that she was inside the room when this happened. Such discrepancies – between oral communications, body language and proximetrics- are usually a classic sign of deception

Kate on Oprah Winfrey

Kate McCanns’ account of the sequence of events was somewhat different: the important differences are underlined:


Kate: I went at ten and I went into the apartment and there was no crying. I stopped and there was no crying. And then I just noticed that the door was quite open

Oprah: Which door?

Kate: Their bedroom door sorry, and we usually have the door as Gerry said sort of not closed but ajar just so that a little bit of light gets in and it's not too dark in the room so I thought oh Matt must have gone in and left the door open

Oprah: Same thing he thought

Kate: Yeah, so I thought well I'll just close it over again, and as I went to close it over it slammed shut and I thought and it was like sort of you know a draught had caused it to shut so I turned behind me and I thought are the patio doors open and they were closed and I thought well that's strange so then I opened the door thinking I'll open it ajar a bit again and that was when I kind of looked into the room and when I just looked and it was quite dark and I was just looking and looking at Madeleine's bed and I was thinking is that her that I was looking for why isn't Madeleine there?

And then in the end I walked over and thought oh, she's not in bed and then I thought maybe she's wandered through to our bed and that's why the door's open so I went through to our bedroom and she wasn't there and then I kind of see then I'm starting to panic a bit and I ran back into their room and literally as I went back into their room the curtains that were drawn over just "foooosh" flew open and that's when I saw that the shutter was right up and the window was pushed right open. And that was when I just knew that erm someone had taken her.

So I, I mean I ran to the window and I didn't know what I thought was going to see but I ran to the window and then I quickly hmm quickly looked through the wardrobes I had I suppose this temporary thought she was cowering in a wardrobe or something anyway she wasn't there and I just ran out and soon as...

Oprah: was she in a closet, in a closet?

Kate: Yeah just in case, just in case she's hiding or something I don't know and then I just went flying out the backdoor and erm ran to Gerry and just as soon as I saw the table where they were sitting I just started shouting "someone's taken her, Madeleine's gone" you know and erm that's how it all started really but erm

Oprah: Why did you feel immediately, I'd heard that you'd said "They've taken her, they've taken her"

Kate:....I didn't say that I said, said "somebody's taken her Madeleine's gone". Well from the way I found the room it was obvious because a child could not open those shutters and the window


Mrs McCann was not invited to explain why Madeleine’s bed gave the appearance to the PJ that it had not been slept in or why only her fingerprints had been found on the windows.

A Bit More on the Door and Windows

Forensic linguistics prove nothing but Mrs Mc Canns' story is incredible and defies the laws of physics:
• If the window was open how come the door had not slammed before Matthew Oldfield checked and why were the curtains not flapping wildly when they looked into the room?
• How come there is absolutely no evidence of an abductor entering or leaving the room?
• Why are the only fingerprints on the window those of Kate McCann and in a position that indicates she opened it?
• Why did Gerald McCann interfere with the shutters and window immediately he entered the room after Madeleine had been supposedly discovered missing?

Our technical advisers believe it would be impossible to simulate the sequence that Kate McCann and Matthew Oldfield gave of the window being open, the door half open and the curtains still. This is possibly the real reason that the sequences involving Lisa Donovan were cut from the Channel 4 programme and why the the McCanns refused to return to Praia Da Luz to take part in a proper reconstruction.

And if Mr Edgar is such a great cop how come he did not test Mrs McCann’s explanation because it is critical to everything else. It should have been his starting point, followed by an analysis of all of the documentary evidence, including the crèche records.

No One Prepared to Help

In another interesting sequence in the Channel 4 program, Gerald McCann acknowledged that his presence in Praia Da Luz had created hostility among the local population but he questioned how anyone (unless they had a “heart of stone”) could refuse to assist when a little girl’s life is at stake.

He conveniently overlooked the 48 questions, asked by the PJ, that his wife refused to answer including the last one which was:

“Are you aware in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter”.

Her response was

“Yes, if that is what the investigation thinks”

And amazingly no where in the Channel 4 program was there any mention of the reward for Madeleine’s return. Now isn’t that a strange oversight by parents who are desperate, and will leave “no stone unturned”, to get their daughter back?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

@ admin This is a great research article by Paulo Reis and very useful for reminding ourselves of some of the facts. Perhaps it should be filed under Research and Analysis so as to be kept easily accessible to everyone at all times?

Ribisl wrote:@ admin This is a great research article by Paulo Reis and very useful for reminding ourselves of some of the facts. Perhaps it should be filed under Research and Analysis so as to be kept easily accessible to everyone at all times?

Moved as requested.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

candyfloss wrote:

Ribisl wrote:@ admin This is a great research article by Paulo Reis and very useful for reminding ourselves of some of the facts. Perhaps it should be filed under Research and Analysis so as to be kept easily accessible to everyone at all times?

Moved as requested.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Thank you boss

Textusa [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Jane W(B)ond

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Before going on holiday, the blog underwent a meticulous process of debunking the three main independent witnesses who appeared in that priceless testimony which we all call Mockumentary: JW, TS and Derek Flack. The McCanns sponsored and participated in it, meaning they’ve subscribed to it in full.

These three witnesses are the backbone of the “abductor thesis” defended by the couple. They’re the only ones who say they saw a suspicious individual looking suspiciously and obsessively at Apartment 5A in April/May 2007.

There’s one exception to this, as you know, and that is JW’s first sighting. She says she sees a man staring at something that, at least in the near foreseeable future, we’ll never know, but know it wasn't Apartment 5A
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Why is that? Because nowhere has it been shown where did JW thought Pimpleman was staring at, at that particular moment. In fact we don’t know what JW has said in statement besides the following sentences, shown in the Mockumentary, where it's referenced what she said somewhere else:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

“She sees a suspect male, ambling along (...)”
“Not mentioned if she sees him from her ap(...) apartment 1) or from road?”
“Not possible it was from her apartment (...) tennis court or pool?”
“Which daughter is she with – the 3 year old or (...)”

In our post debunking the inexistent PJ Unpublished Files, we at a certain point, based on Pamalam’s commendable work, said that “You also have a set of statements, for which you have a roster that the people were heard by the PJ and which statements don’t appear in the PJ Files:

Euan Crosby OC Beach Manager;
Nathan Daniel Francis Scarll [or Scarf] Waterfront Manager;
Robert Cook Driver/Maintenance;
Stephen Steve] Edward Carruthers Dual Qualified Instructor;
Claire Louise Bennet Dual Qualified Instructor;
Sebastian Bollen Godsmark Dual Qualified Instructor;
Clare Hicks Dual Qualified Instructor;
Lauren Hilder-Darling Dual Qualified Instructor;
Steven Jackson Dual Qualified Instructor;
Elizabeth Miles Ocean Club nanny;
Fraser Calum Nixon [or Nickson] Dual Qualified Instructor;
Mark Shult Ocean Club nanny;
Sarah Jane Tily Ocean Club nanny;
Benjamin Wilkins Dinghy Instructor;
Alice_Louise_Stanley Assistant Instructor;
Chris Unsworth Windsurf Instructor;
Robert Ragone OC Kids Chef;
Jackie McConnel OC nanny.”

Besides the last name, Jackie McConnel, no other person has a first name starting with “J”, and none in the above list have the initials “JW”.

In the same post we also said “Then you have the statements, or "original statements" from a set of VERY interesting people, that are mentioned in the PJ Files but don’t appear in them:

Stephen Carpenter, original statement taken on 17th May 2007 by a UK Police Officer:

Rajinder Balu, rogatory statement refers to “original statements”

Neil Berry, rogatory statement refers to “original statements”

Carolyn Carpenter, rogatory interview not included in DVD.

Carole Tranmer, original interview and identikit not included in DVD (in the interview of Carole Tranmer on 22nd April 2008, as recorded on DVD, reference is made more than once to a statement given by her to Leics police on 8 May 2007, and to an identikit that was created with the assistance of a police officer from Reading)”

Again no “JW”.

Interestingly enough, there’s also no Jenny Weinberger in either of the lists. Quite a coincidence as Mrs Weinberger seems to be a recurrent character in all of this as per our Baloney post.

Yet, the Mockumentary gives us a precious indication. JW hasn’t provided ONE statement, but at least TWO:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It’s very clear: “(Source JW Statement 2)”. It even provides a date, “pril 2007”, which we assume to be April 2007, and must be referring to the date of the events witnessed (as is shown in the Mockumentary) and not to the date of the statement itself, otherwise it would have happened before Maddie disappeared.

A statement is a written testimony either to the media or during the course of an investigation. The first is a public registry and easily accessible to all those interested in it; the latter is obvious reasons not releasable to public scrutiny before a decision has been taken about the case it belongs to.

If it wasn’t for the Mockumentary, we wouldn’t have known know about JW at all and what she had to say about Maddie so, in this context, her two statements are anything but public.

Obviously Dave Edgar had access to them but where did he get them?

To say that JW made her statements directly to him is ridiculous as the Mockumentary, as per its promoters at the time, was about new evidence found within the PJ Files.

Besides, if JW had spoken to Dave Edgar after the process was archived then it would have to have been deemed as “new evidence” so much so that the McCanns found it important enough to decide to include them in the Mockumentary..

Where are these TWO statements? If asked, will Dave tell?

Let me guess, they’re highly secretive. Their content surely will endanger national security.

From what we’ve seen portrayed in the Mockumentary together with the abovementioned parts of JW's sentences from her 2nd statement, there appears no reason to justify, even minimally, such a statement.

Could the big secret they hold be where exactly Pimpleman was staring during JW’s first sighting, that singular piece of information that has been kept hidden from us, but, apparently was enough for JW to find that particular individual to be suspicious?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Or could it be because that JW is a secret agent licensed to lie?

What is important to notice is the real significance of all this. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Dave Edgar, a private investigator hired by the parents of the missing child, had access to evidence that those responsible for the investigation didn't have and nor did all those who had to make decisions about the process.

A decision based on anything less than the full facts is unquestionably a flawed decision.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There is a reference to Jeni Weinberger in this article in the DM 4th March 2010, which was "reporting"(?) on a Maddie sighting in 2008

"The McCanns’ investigators believe the red-haired woman was Yvone Albino, a cleaner from Silves. Another witness, Jeni Weinberger, from Salisbury, Wiltshire, said she saw a woman resembling Mrs Albino outside the McCanns’ apartment in May 2007. "......Didn't the mocumentary says JW saw a man? This at least backs up the JW in the mocumentary as being Jeni Weinberger if her name is reported in the DM article

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

-----

A few observations from this article:

1) The operation began in 2008 after Mrs Godwin, from Widnes, Cheshire, rang the ‘Find Madeleine’ hotline and gave her suspicions to private investigators. - Cheshire again

2) Madeleine’s parents Kate and Gerry continued to employ private detectives in the hope of finding their daughter but these investigators have no legal powers to force suspects to talk to them - Didn't stop brian kennedy. How come he was allowed to talk to all the witnesses? He was just a money backer

3) The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: ‘It’s clear that our investigators have made considerable efforts to follow up leads but without having full access to the files and co-operation from the Portuguese police.’ - How did they know about Jeni Weinberger then?

Seems that Jeni Weinberger lets out a holiday cottage in Glenluce, Dumfries and Galloway (Scotland)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The contact landline number is to Wiltshire too

There are two things that have always struck me about this episode:

Kate seems to be enjoying her little performance enormously - centre of attention as she feels she should always be - and the idiotic conclusion 'no crying' implies that all is well.

The children have become dolls with a crying mechanism. How on earth would you know all is well unless you can see them asleep and breathing?
'Not crying' is the only parameter used to diagnose 'all is well'.

Just a thought: "UK male" probably means "Unknown male".

tigger wrote:There are two things that have always struck me about this episode:

Kate seems to be enjoying her little performance enormously - centre of attention as she feels she should always be - and the idiotic conclusion 'no crying' implies that all is well.

The children have become dolls with a crying mechanism. How on earth would you know all is well unless you can see them asleep and breathing?
'Not crying' is the only parameter used to diagnose 'all is well'.

People in a coma don't cry, people who have a hand over their mouths don't cry, people who are afraid to cry because of the consequences, don't cry, and a dead person doesn't cry. Their cries are over.

Nina wrote:[...]
People in a coma don't cry, people who have a hand over their mouths don't cry, people who are afraid to cry because of the consequences, don't cry, and a dead person doesn't cry. Their cries are over.

***
Oh gosh .. all of this doesn't bear thinking. But it feels ever so right. No crying ... anymore ...

ETA IMO

Wolfgang wrote:Just a thought: "UK male" probably means "Unknown male".

Highly unlikely. Look at it this way, someone who is prepared to put their name 2 years later can only be someone who "helped' out at the time in May 2007

Her description has changed significantly over time, to the “Egg Man”, “Monster Man”, “Bundle Man”, “Cooperman” and “Nose Man”. She also picked out Robert Murat as the villain and maintained this allegation until withdrawing it in April 2008 in an interview with the Leicestershire Police. Miss Tanner’s abductor had long hair, short hair, wore glasses, didn’t wear glasses, had a nose or didn’t have a nose, had a moustache or was clean shaven. He strode “purposefully out” or “ambled along”. So it is not at all clear what Miss Tanner’s final position is but she obviously supported the “reconstruction” on the Channel 4 program and the image of the “purposefully striding Bundle Man”:

fiona payne RI April 2008
'Well the only thing, again it's just a reaction to what's been in the Press sort of doubting Jane's statement, erm, that I would say, I've never been in any, any doubt that what Jane has seen, she has never changed her story to me or to anybody in the group about what she saw on that night from day one and, erm, and I think her bit of evidence is the most convincing, erm, that I've heard out of any of us and the most accurate and the most convincing that I'm convinced that was Madeleine'.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Interview of an employee from the swimming pool bar.

In her interview, this employee states that access is restricted to clients and that this is controlled via the client's card at the entrance. She adds that she has not come across any unauthorised person on the site. She explains that on the day of Madeleine's disappearance, at around 8.30pm, her friend was called following a problem with a lock in an apartment situated close to the "Millenium" restaurant. She went there with her friend. At around 9pm, they went back towards the Club's reception. They passed near the "Tapas" and by the McCann family's apartment. They state that they saw nothing suspicious. They saw no one and no vehicles. Her friend left the premises at around 9.10pm with his service vehicle and she left at 9.15pm in her own car.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

jd wrote:THE SIGHTING BY THE IRISH SMITH FAMILY

Although there is no mention of it on Mr Edgar’s whiteboard, the Channel 4 program referred to a sighting by the Smith family of a man carrying a small child on the night of 3rd May 2007. The CD issued by the PJ shows that at around 21.50 on the night Madeleine was reported missing, a large family from Drogheda, Ireland -including the father Martin Smith – was walking back to their apartment when they passed a man carrying a child
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]Location of the Smith Sighting

On 26th May 2007 the Smiths gave the following descriptions:
The man was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had a normal complexion, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes and cannot describe the colour or form of the same.

The child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. It was a child of normal complexion, about a meter in height. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not look at her eyes. As she was asleep and her eyelids were closed. She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any other cover or sheet. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet. The individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual’s shoulders to the right of the deponent (ie over the man’s left shoulder). He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position.

Mrs Smith confirmed the above and stated:
She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the individual's neck. She did not look at the child's hands and cannot state the colour of her skin. She believes she was white.

Members of the family returned to Portimao on 26th May 2007 and clarified their evidence – which Dr Gonçalo Amaral, who was then leading the PJ’s investigation, considered very important.

On 9th September 2007, the McCanns returned to the UK and BBC News showed them getting off an Easyjet flight. The Smith family saw the program and, from the way Gerald McCann carried his son with the child’s head over his left shoulder with hands hanging down, recognised him as the person they had seen on the night of 3rd May 2007. On 30th January 2008, Mr Smith made a further statement confirming -with 60-80% certainty – that the man he had seen carrying a child on 3rd May 2007 was Gerald McCann. Mr Smith’s wife corroborated his evidence.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]How Mr McCann carried Sean Jane Tanner’s “Bundle Man”

The McCanns seem to have totally ignored the Smith family’s evidence for the past 18 months, and have never issued a photo fit of the man the Smiths saw. However, Metodo 3, the discredited investigation firm previously retained by the McCanns, spoke to the Smiths and did little but worry them.

When making the supposed “reconstruction”, Channel 4, if it was to maintain even the slightest veil of credibility, had no option but to refer to the Smith sighting. But the way they spun the evidence by suggesting it supported Miss Tanner and cleared Gerald McCann was disgraceful.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]The Smith’s Evidence as Portrayed on Channel 4

It is thus no wonder that the two sightings appear to corroborate each other when Channel 4 used the same child and actor for both, dimmed the Smith scene into almost total darkness with strong back lighting -while improving that for Jane Tanner - and failed to accurately represent the way the family stated the child had been carried or what the man had been wearing. Another example of twisted evidence?

At the time Dr Amaral was dismissed, he was planning to return the Smith family to Portugal to obtain further evidence from them. His successor, Mr Rebelo, failed to do this and to this day the sighting is unresolved. There is nothing in the CD to indicate that Gerald McCann was eliminated as the man the Smith family had seen.

The Smith sighting, which was some 35 minutes later than Jane Tanner’s, was around a mile away from the Ocean Club, to the South and West. It is difficult to imagine that Miss Tanner’s abductor would have turned back, passing the Ocean Club, to be in a position where he was seen by the Smiths. At best, the two sightings, if either took place, are unrelated but the fact that the McCanns now link them, to support Jane Tanner’s evidence is disingenuous.

Now the the Smith sighting is the new "Official" story, it is worth reminding of the Team McCanns documentary "Maddie was Here" on Channel 4 in 2009........Baring in mind, that when this documentary was aired, the mccanns knew for a year about Oakley Intl efits and Smith sighting....and not only had they threatened them into silence, they also in this documentary changed the facts to support jane tanners 'sighting'

Certainly not the actions of parents looking for their daughter...quite the opposite

To those new on the facts of the mccanns, there is a detailed analyse of this whole documentary from page 1 of this topic

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I am adding to this post rather late but I'm new to blogging (and the MBM case actually).

I watched the full film on youtube a few days ago - in 5 equal parts.

Apart from the points of interest discussed by other posters, there are several I'd like to add.

Most are included in part 1/5 of the film.

Firstly, at 48 seconds KM states 'I could see Sean and Amelie in the cot' (singular).

Secondly, throughout parts 1 and 5 in particular, there are various shots of the twins, with their faces obscured. Amelie clearly has quite long blond hair. At one point in part 1 she is complaining about, what look like, small plaits and she asks KM to take them out. At this point I wondered whether she might have hair extensions but it is quite obvious from all the other shots that she didn't, during filming anyway. Her hair colour, style and length is important and it's worth clicking through parts 1 and 5 to take a quick look.

Then, start watching part 1 at 5.50 mins as GM arrives home on his bicycle. Note what Amelie is wearing (top half). Now listen to what GM says at 6.12 and then freeze the image at 6.19 just as he says 'potentially she could come back'. What is that all about?! The shot at 6.19 is clearly meant to be continuous with the arrival of GM home - see clothing. Even if it was filmed on a different occasion with a child actress, what would possess the Mc's or the producer/director to use a MBM lookalike (with a short bob hairstyle) when the child is supposed to be Amelie? GM's voice over comment at the instant before the 6.22 shot may or may not be intentional with the image portrayed. Whatever the decision making behind this, the result is in bad taste and it's almost some sort of taunt at the viewer.
Very strange.

Thirdly, at 6.22/6.23 GM then goes on to say: 'that you don't know, and that she's, she's is out there and separated from you.' As he says 'that you don't know', he involuntarily nods his head; as he says 'and separated from you', he shakes his head. Also, just a point about his ear touching (feeling uncomfortable) - when he's back in 5A later in the programme, and he's discussing what he thought when he saw his daughter for the last time, the ear touch happens.

Fourthly, go back to between 6.15 and 6.19 mins in part 1. Sean is playing in a playroom. It is bright daylight and the blind is up (or similar). Now jump forward to 6.28 mins. GM, Amelie and a second unknown child are now in the darkend playroom. I think again it is intended to be a continuation (see clothing). As Sean enters the playroom, Amelie stands infront of him to the right (it looks like she was kneeling down playing with the other child). Sean skirts round the figure to his front left who then appears also to stand. They all then leave the room but you only see GM, Amelie and Sean although there is possibly a glimpse of the other childs head. Now again, if there is a friend visiting, why not just take them out of shot altogether for a minute, or film them and blur their face. Why darken the room and produce a strange sequence with an almost emphemeral child in it - I find it unnerving.

The above has little or no value in terms of working out what might or might not have happened to MBM but I feel it gives a bit of a psychological insight.

Thanks for reading.