l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun

Bellisa wrote:excellent post mirage.

rainbow-fairy wrote:

I can't access the link

Does Crecheman Exist?



In my opinion - NO!


Just as Tannerman was invented for the purpose of the McCann abduction story, Crecheman was I would say invented for the purpose of the Metropolitan Police Investigation!


I suspect Jane Tanner has been having some cosy "talks" with DCI Andy Redwood - 'crecheman' born, perhaps part of a deal done?


I could of course be way off the mark in my thoughts - but the above aside, and keeping it simple -


A child is reported to have been seen by Jane Tanner, the child was wearing only pyjamas, she was being carried by a man on a cold night. There was a creche nearby, used by holidaymakers residing at the Ocean Club.


What would be one of the first things the Portuguese Police would have done when Tanner gave them her statement re this sighting she claims to have had?


The nannies, on duty that night at this creche, none of them, as far as I can determine from the police witness statements available, made any mention of a man, coming to collect (or to drop off) his little girl his daughter, who was supposedly dressed only in pyjamas on this cold night. Nothing on record, nothing in their police witness statements to show that any such man existed.


These nannies were interviewed by police.


These nannies knew the reason why they were being interviewed.


These nannies, if they knew of any person, any male who had either dropped off or picked up his child at around the time Jane Tanner claimed to have seen 'Tannerman' would have surely told police.

And of course there were creche records.


When this child of 'creche man' was in the creche asleep, presumably the child was covered in some way to keep her warm?


A nanny responsible for releasing the child to her dad, would surely have noted, that the dad had not brought along anything with which to keep the child warm, a blanket or some warm clothing for her.

A nanny would have removed this child from the place she lay sleeping in the creche, warm and comfortable, and would for sure have noticed that the man himself was warmly clothed, yet he did not give same consideration to his little girl.

And would not a loving caring father, if for some bizarre reason, had no blanket or clothing for his child, ask to borrow a blanket? Would not the nannies have offered him a blanket? Or would he not have removed his jacket to wrap his child on this cold night? Or, would he not do the most natural thing in the world, wearing the jacket, hold the child close to him wrapped inside his jacket to keep her warm? He would not walk with her on outstretched arms, the child uncovered.

That is utter nonsense!


I really do not believe that a British tourist, took their child to a creche on a cold night in Portugal, and did not think to dress or wrap the child warmly.


Presumably the mother was on holiday too with the dad and the child - I really don't see a mother exposing her 2 year old tot to the elements.


The Portuguese Police Investigation as we can all see was intensive, thorough. Andy Redwood has stated this many times, spoken of the sheer volume of files and records he and his team have had to trawl through - what is it 30,0000 records, some containing many pages? After more than two years of doing so, DCI Andy Redwood has not come across any area that has not been thoroughly investigated by the Portuguese Police Team!


It would seem rather unbelievable then that Andy Redwood's crecheman was missed by them, or by the Leicestershire Police.


And what of the McCann private detectives, and Kate McCann also, who claims to have delved through those files?


Crecheman I believe was created to let Jane Tanner off lightly, a story which would not make her out to be an 'out and out liar' in the eyes of the public, a little reward, something to encourage her to loosen her tongue!


Added to which, a friend of mine did a little digging regarding the subject of creche man.


The following is what she came up with, this is exactly what was said.


'Just out of interest I looked at Tapas booking sheet and none of the diners on it had a child in the night crèche on the 3rd.

Some had no children at all, the rest took their young male children or male babies to have dinner with them as per statements.

Cox party had a 17 month infant but they cancelled and took a takeaway instead.

At 7p.m. Carpenter are booked as 2 adults but according to their statement they took their 3 year old girl and a 4 month old baby with them to Tapas and all left together.

Mrs. Carpenter is the person who thought she heard someone calling out MADELEINE at a time before the alarm was raised when they crossed the road that Tanner flip flopped up to the other side of the complex where their accommodation was.

The McCann party were the only diners at the Tapas bar that evening who had children and didn't take them with them.

Between little boys, baby boys, and Carpenters little girl there were 10 children in the Tapas bar with their parent/s booked at 7p.m-7-30 p.m.

I looked up other guests staying at the ‘resort’ on the 3rd with little girls whose accommodation was on the other side of the road to the main complex.

Parents who would have had to cross the top of the road.


Foster. Girl aged 3 no statement that I can find, left on the 5th, declined the offered child care on booking form but booked mini-club.


Naylor. Girl 3 and baby of 11 months, no statement that I can find, left on the 5th.


Mills. Girl 3. Found their booking but I can't find them on the list of arrivals at resort.


That's it for little girls who were likely to be in the night crèche on the 3rd and were staying on the other side of the complex.

There were lots of other children in the resort who could have been in the night crèche on the 3rd but they were ON McCann's side of the road.


Irwin were two women, no children and Sperrys were an adult couple with no children either.


END


(See 'Hope and Tanner Talk Blog' above)




If crecheman does exist:

He did not eat at the Tapas Restaurant that night.
He did not reside at the side of the road to which he was seen heading
He supposedly had picked his child up from the creche at this time, so was heading back to his holiday accommodation - if so - this guy had LOST HIS BEARINGS - as he was headed in the wrong direction!



And an observation. In the Rogatory interviews the McCann holiday companions were asked if they knew of any person by the name of Irwin.


Note from the Tapas Restaurant bookings shown above for the night of the 3rd May 2007 there was a booking for two females, in the name of IRWIN!





l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
28th December 2013

Maddie's Fund

The following is taken from the Madeleine Fund.

The Directors of this Fund are

Kate McCann

Gerry McCann

Brian Kennedy - Kate McCanns uncle

Jon Corner - A close friend of the McCanns

Edward Smethurst - The lawyer to another Brian Kennedy a businessman who has backed the McCanns financially.

Michael Linnet (presumably also a friend as the Fund Directors have always in the main consisted of family and friends)

The Fund states that the above persons have appropriate, legal, business, and charitable experience.

For the record - The Madeleine Fund is not a charity.

The objects of the Fund are listed below. One of them being to provide financial assistance to Madeleine's family.

I have always understood that should the objects of the Fund be met, then the balance of monies in the Fund would then be given to a missing person charity or charities, and the Madeleine Fund would cease to be.

If I am reading correctly that is not the case at all.

From the FAQ's Section of the Madeleine Fund site (listed below)

(3) Why is Madeleine's Fund not registered as a Charity?

Because Madeleine's Fund is currently focussed on searching for one child only, Madeleine McCann it cannot register as a charity. However in the future if the objects are fulfilled and subsequently changed to concentrate on multiple similar cases, it may then be possible to acquire charitable status.

So the McCanns if the objects are fulfilled have no intention of closing the Madeleine Fund, it would appear to be their intention to continue with it.

And who might then be the Directors of such a company, surely the family and friends do so now as it is for Madeleine? Are these people, the McCanns included, happy to continue with the Fund and happy not to receive any remuneration for doing so?

The Fund objects clearly would be quite different if such an event as the current objects being fulfilled were achieved and would surely then not include financially assisting the McCanns?

I can see no reason either why the Fund has stated that in such circumstances (objects being fulfilled, and the necessary changes made etc) that it is ONLY a possibility they will be able to achieve charitable status?

As the Madeleine case has been re-opened by the Portuguese Police and the Metropolitan Police in the UK has also a £multi million investigation going on paid for by UK taxpayers, and the McCanns financially I am sure as a family do not require to be maintained by the Fund to help search for their missing daughter, it would be rather nice if they sought now to help others, rather than wait to meet the current objectives, which quite frankly and realistically have little chance of being met - 'her safe return?'

If others being assisted by this Fund is dependent on the objects at present being met, we can forget it as far as I can see.

Rightly or wrongly much controversy surrounds the Madeleine Fund with the public it would appear losing faith in as to how the monies are being spent, to such an extent that there is talk that some are requesting their donations be returned.

The Fund seems to be doing Madeleine, the case of her disappearance more harm than good.

Perhaps in light of two police forces in two separate countries now investigating the disappearance of young Madeleine - not investigating abduction perse - but investigating her disappearance, and at huge cost, it would be a good time for this Fund to be wound up?

The McCanns have over the past six years repeatedly said that the Fund was running out of monies and made appeals for donations, this despite £m's having been donated, some of which was used to not search for Madeleine but in legal costs, and to pay a spokesperson (£70,000 per year) press agencies too, several teams of lawyers also at great cost, private detectives, dodgy, but still needing paid.

How do they propose to continue when the current 'objects' are met, and when dealing with the families of other missing children? How do they propose to then raise funds?

Which private detectives would they use to search for other missing children - would they retain Dave Edgar? Would Clarence Mitchell organise press campaigns to highlight the plight of these other missing persons? What sort of legal team would they require, if any?

Or, is that not the type of assistance the Madeleine Fund would be offering others? Who knows!

Do they plan to 'fund raise' and then simply donate to missing person charities?

Probably they haven't looked that far ahead, and probably they know that the likelihood of the Funds present objects being met are more than remote, so no need to look to a future Fund with new objectives, but to just keep plodding along plugging the present one, after all as Gerry keeps telling us - 'There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed.'

Being apart from her family doesn't count then I take it? We are to believe an almost 4 year old child was torn from her family by a gang of paedophiles, and she has suffered no harm? Missing six years, soon to be seven, with not a trace of her to be found. Not a single clue or lead from the six years of the McCann private investigation financed by the Fund, which is financed in the main by public donations.

And talking of which with Christmas looming, will there be an appeal for funds to search for their daughter, by the McCanns? - (Like the Queens Speech, we have come to expect it. )

Surely not, not with a £multi-million investigation by the Met ongoing, an investigation which David Cameron I believe has stated will be financed for as long as it takes, the monies from his special fund, set aside for this case, this purpose, limitless?

Which raises another question - Why do the McCanns still require the services of such formidable legal teams who require to be paid from the Fund?

Do they still expect, or fear, after more than six years since their daughter vanished, to be arrested at some point, as their 'fighting fund' was set up to finance such an occurrence was it not?

Fund raising - It's a funny old business!


Madeleine's Fund

About the Fund

"Us" and "we" refers to Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited, a not-for-profit company, aka Madeleine's Fund, which has been established to find Madeleine McCann, support her family and bring her abductors to justice. The Fund is following best practice governance procedures as set out in the Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector. The directors of the company are Brian Kennedy, Michael Linnett, Edward Smethurst, Jon Corner, Kate McCann & Gerry McCann. They have appropriate legal, business and charitable experience. An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability. This should enable the Directors to maintain an appropriate governance distance in the day-to-day operations of the Fund.

Fund Objectives

The full objects of the Fund are:

To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.
If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.

Fund Raising

We thank you for your interest in fund raising to support Madeleine's fund. Many donations have resulted from a variety of fund raising events. These have included Car Boot sales, jumble sales, school cake sales, race nights, sponsored runs & cycle events, ‘dress down' days, auctions & ‘cheese & wine' nights.

These events have further highlighted Madeleine's plight as well as bringing many people together to have fun whilst working towards one common goal.

We would be grateful if you are considering fund raising that you do not refer to Madeleine's fund as a registered charity as it is not. If you are embarking on a type fund raising which may carry an element of risk you may wish to consider your position regarding insurance cover. If you require further information please refer to:

http://www.institute-of-fundraising.org.uk/Codes_and_regulation/Codes/codes-directory

FAQs

(1) Who are the main contributors to the fund?

Many members of the general public from across the world have kindly donated to Madeleine's Fund, either by personal donation or fund raising events. In addition to this, over £1 million pounds in libel damages and compensation awarded to Kate and Gerry McCann and their friends has been paid into Madeleine's Fund.

(2) What are the registered details of Madeleine's Fund?

Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales, CRN 6248215. Registered office: 2-6 Cannon Street, London EC4M 6YH.

(3) Why is Madeleine's Fund not registered as a charity?

Because Madeleine's Fund is currently focussed on searching for one child only, Madeleine McCann it cannot register as a charity. However in the future, if the objects of the fund are fulfilled and subsequently changed to concentrate on multiple similar cases, it may then be possible to acquire charitable status.

(4) Can gift aid or tax relief be claimed on my donation to Madeleine's Fund?

No it cannot because these are only available to registered charities.

(5) If Madeleine's Fund isn't a charity who is regulating it?

The directors regulate Madeleine's Fund and they aspire to follow best practice policies and processes used by charities. The directors have reviewed its operation against “Good Governance: A Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector”. This sets out best practice requirements for charities.

The Fund also has:

a Financial Procedures Manual
job descriptions for directors, chair and treasurer
clearly laid out policies and processes for:
payments
expense claims
risk management
whistle blowing
registering conflicts of interest
(6) Who are the directors of Madeleine's Fund?

There are six directors of the Fund. They are:

Brian Kennedy, a retired head teacher;
Edward Smethurst – A Commercial lawyer;
Jon Corner – Director of a media company;
Michael Linett- retired accountant
Kate McCann General Practitioner
Gerry McCann Consultant Cardiologist
(7) What is the money being spent on ?

The majority of the fund money has been and continues to be spent on investigative work to help find Madeleine. Additionally money continues to be spent on the wider 'Awareness Campaign' – reminding people that Madeleine is still missing and to remain vigilant. None of the directors have taken any money from the fund as remuneration.

Anyone who wishes further information with regards to the financial details of Madeleine's Fund and its professional advisors, please refer to the accounts filed at Companies House. Crown Way Maindy Cardiff CF14 3UZ

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



l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com

16th December 2013

Does Crecheman Exist - 2


Let's put it this way.

It is claimed he came forward in 2007.

The description of the person Jane Tanner claims to have seen was issued by Portuguese Police on 25th May 2007.

The launch of the Tannerman sketch was October 2007.

Apart from the fact that the police would have interviewed creche staff in relation to any adult person of this dscription either dropping off or picking up a child wearing only pyjamas on that night, it would seem impossible that this guy IF he came forward and identified himself, did not then, when he saw over the past 6.5 years that his description was still during this time being used as someone who was 'of interest' to the case, a suspect - did not take action to rectify the matter.

If this person was you, and you had approached police to identify yourself - would you really for the next six and a half years sit idly by knowing your description was still out there as the guy suspected of having abducted Madeleine McCann?

No you would not!

And if the Leicestershire Police in the UK did not pay attention to any communication you made in this regard, after having come forward to be eliminated at an earlier date, you would raise merry hell about the situation. You would contact the Find Madeleine Fund also to request that they, the McCanns remove the image. You would contact the police in Portugal to inform them that you were not happy that Leicestershire Police had not acted in this regard, that neither had the McCanns, at the Find Madeleine Fund.

You would seek the assistance of a solicitor if the Leicestershrie Police and the McCanns continued to refuse to remove the image from their site, if they refused to continue misleading the public, if they refused to put you in the clear!

So, no I don't believe crecheman exists.

When others in Portugal were linked to 'sketches' that had been circulated, 'Creepy Man Sketch' for instance - the names (and faces) of these people when identified were made public as were persons more recently - tractorman for example!

Yet, this man, crecheman, his identity remains a secret, there is no clear picture of him?

It is inconceivable that crecheman would have sat back for six and a half years, when a child is missing and allowed an image, which he knew not to be of a person carrying off Madeleine McCann, an image of himself, to remain in the public domain as being the person 'wanted' in connection with the child's disappearance. For him to do so, he then would have been hindering a police investigation, an investigation seeking to discover what became of the child. Would someone who had the integrity to come forward in the first instance do this?

Do we really think that such a person exists?

A person carrying a child dressed only in pyjamas who then became the main suspect in Madeleine McCanns disappearance, who presents himself to the police, as naturally he wanted to help the investigation, and clear up matters, have his image removed from circulation, and not have the police looking for the wrong person as that would not help young Madeleine - yet this same person we are to believe, knowing that his image was still being used as the supposed alleged abductor, sat back and did nothing about it for six and half years?

This guy, his wife/partner, family friends would all have discussed the missing Madeleine case at the time, seeing that they had holidayed there, and particularly so as he had been walking that night carrying his child, and had also come forward made contact with police, it would therefore be a case they would follow avidly with great interest.

Surely they would all wonder why his image had not been removed from circulation as being the prime suspect?

Or, we could say that perhaps he thought the police felt there was someone else who looked just like him, dressed just like him, carrying a child just like his, dressed just like his, who was walking along the street at the very same time he was?

Nope - don't think so. If he was walking around, and he saw a guy looking exactly like he did, carrying a child exactly as he was - the guy would freak! Not something he would forget!

I really don't think Praia da Luz became Pyjama Town on 3rd May 2007, though there are admittedly more pyjama tales in this case than anything else...with the exception of 'door' tales!

Just for talk sake, say this guy did/does exist it would be interesting then to hear what he had to say of that night WHO he may have seen!

Would a father for instance carrying his little daughter just simply step off the pavement and cross the road without first checking for traffic, and if this guy had checked for traffic at the junction where Tanner claims to have seen him then chances are he saw her, chances are he saw Jez and Gerry. Chances are, he saw a whole lot of things, and a whole lot more people bobbing around! More of a witness then, than a suspect!

Nope my money is on Jane Tanner having 'talked.' I just don't think this woman can live the rest of her life, knowing what she does. She knows Gerry McCann for whatever reason placed himself at the other side of the street during his little reconstruction (See McCann Manipulation Blog) and she most likely knows exactly why he did so!

I think Jane Tanner is a source of worry for the McCanns!

I have been looking over some old articles on the McCannfiles (wonderful source of reference) and came across the Crimewatch appeal of June 2007. An interesting read. Not least because they speak of the description of the man supposedly seen by Jane Tanner but because of those short sleeved Eeyore Pyjamas!

The ones held up by Kate McCann are said to have belonged to Amelie, Madeleine's younger sister.

The pyjamas, for the McCanns seem almost to hold greater importance than the missing child, so much has Kate McCann made of them!

Of course when a child goes missing a description of what they were wearing at the time is helpful, but Madeleine we are told was wearing pyjamas, I would not think, if anyone abducted her, that she would remain dressed in her nightwear for very long, a change of clothing would have been made pretty quickly one would think - can't parade a child around in her pj's without being noticed.

So both McCann children had the same pyjamas, not unusual for siblings to want same, to be dressed the same when very young - perhaps my suspicious mind - but I just don't believe Madeleine was wearing short sleeved Eeyore pyjamas on that night, based on the pyjama tales we have heard from Kate McCann which I have spoken about in other blogs - and how convenient that on the night the child vanished she just happened to be wearing a pair of pyjamas that of which the McCanns could produce instantly an identical set.

Now this crecheman his child was wearing a long sleeved pyjama top and pyjama bottoms with great long legs, nothing at all like the pyjamas Kate McCann is holding up. His child was two years old at the time, so tiny little legs, which would not have hung over her dad's arm as portrayed in the sketch, and even if they did, it is clear that her pyjamas could not have been mistaken by any stretch of the imagination as being as Jane Tanner described to police.

Again perhaps my suspicious mind, but it certainly looks like Jane Tanner 'made' the pyjamas which she claims to have seen, fit the description as given by Kate McCann.

In the article I will post up next from McCannfiles, what is interesting in the reporting, and this is June 2007, there seems to be an uncertainty as to whether Jane Tanner actually saw a child being carried, or just saw 'something.'

One might say that she perhaps saw a man, but that he was not carrying a child, that she could have been mistaken.

But, there lies another problem - IF she did see a man, but a man who was not carrying a child - WHERE IN HELL DID CRECHEMAN spring from, bringing with him his old clothes, and a 7 year old set of children's pyjamas?

The guy who didn't notice he was still in the 'frame' that his image was still out there, but yet he could produce every article of clothing from that night, his and his child's?

Some Met magic?

I wonder if Kate McCann can produce those short sleeved, cropped leg Eeyore pyjamas! Either set, the one's she held up, or the ones with the tea stain!

Whichever is the truth regarding crecheman - he must surely have given the McCanns cause for concern this Christmas, taken some of the 'merry and bright' out of it, as whatever way you look at it - Crecheman is bad news for McCanns and their holiday companions - crecheman hasn't brought comfort and joy, that is a cert!


l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
28th December 2013

Does Crecheman Exist - 3

The following two articles relate to Tannerman (now known as crecheman) note Gerry McCann does not speak in a positive way regarding the child supposedly seen by Jane Tanner he says the man was 'probably' carrying a child! I have highlighted in'blue' some points of interest.

To be noted, Gerry McCann states that as far as he is aware no one had come forward at this time to identify themselves as Tannerman.


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id185.html

BBC Crimewatch appeal televised 05 June 2007

Gerry McCann: "For the Crimewatch viewers at home I think this would be a good time now to review all the information."

Kate McCann: "These are virtually identical to the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken. As you can see it's a pink top, errm... with gathered short sleeves and it has a picture of Eeyore on the front. Errr, the bottoms are white with a... a floral design and have an Eeyore, errm... on the bottom of the right leg."

Gerry McCann:

"Around, errr... the time that Madeleine, errr... was found to be missing, shortly before that, there was a suspect, errr... seen walking away from the apartment, errr... with, errm...PROBABLY carrying a child.

"He is approximately 35 years of age, round about 5ft 8, 5ft 9. He had dark hair parted, errr... to one side, he was wearing, errr... dark jacket, errr... slightly longer than a suit jacket, light coloured trousers, which may have been beige or mustard coloured, and dark shoes. Errr... You know it could have been someone innocent, we would certainly be keen that that person comes forward to be eliminated but, you know, we are certainly suspicious of the timing.

"We certainly know that it... it could only take one... one phone call. Errm, someone has a key bit of information and it may be someone close to whoever has Madeleine. It might be the person themselves. They can phone, tell the police where Madeleine is."

Kate McCann: "The majority of people, you know, are really good people and, I think that's been demonstrated by all... all the fantastic support we've had, it's been amazing. Errm, there are a few bad people in the world but also there are a few sad people and I guess I'm hoping that it's someone sad who's just wanted our daughter."

Gerry McCann: "It... it's not too late to hand her over."

Fiona Bruce: (to camera) "It certainly isn't. We so much want to find her, don't we? British police also want anyone who was on holiday at the Ocean Club Resort, Praia da Luz, or the surrounding areas, between the 19th April and the 3rd of May to have a look at their holiday photos and if any members of the public are in the background the police are keen to see them. They have sophisticated equipment which can spot if the same person appears in different photos.

"You can upload your photos to www.madeleine.ceopupload.com and if you have any information that will help the McCanns' appeal please call this dedicated British police number on 0800 0961233 or 0207 1580197, if you're calling from abroad. And police would like to stress this appeal is aimed at anyone who hasn't already contacted them. And if you've seen Madeleine you should inform local police immediately, please don't wait until you get home.


Madeleine: Exhausted McCanns in Crimewatch TV appeal Daily Mail

Last updated at 00:32 05 June 2007

Holding up a small pair of pink and flowery pyjamas, Kate McCann described exactly what her eldest daughter was wearing when she was snatched on May 3.

The poignant description was given as part of BBC1's Crimewatch appeal to help the couple find their little girl.

Looking exhausted, she spoke in detail about the light pink top with capped sleeves and a picture of the cartoon character Eeyore curled up - the words "Sleepy Eeyore" written underneath.

Next she produced white cotton pyjama bottoms, covered with small flowers and another Eeyore motif on the right leg.



The light pink top had a picture of the cartoon character Eeyore on it



But, of course, the pyjamas she was holding so carefully in her lap were not Madeleine's, but those of Madeleine's younger sister, two-year-old Amelie.

Gerry McCann then spoke in detail about the suspect seen carrying what was THOUGHT to be a child on the night Madeleine disappeared.

He said the man was approximately 35 years old, around 5ft 8ins or 5ft 9ins, dark hair parted at the side and slightly longer at the back, a dark jacket slightly longer than a suit, beige trousers and dark shoes.

Asked if he thought the suspect was the man who kidnapped his daughter, he said: "Potentially this could have been someone who could have been picking up a child from a creche or coming back from dinner.


The pyjamas belonged to Madeleine's younger sister, two-year-old Amelie

"But we are certainly suspicious of the timing and that person needs to be eliminated from the investigation.

"The description has been out for 10 days and as far as we know, no one of that description has come forward so that definitely gives it more weight."

Mr McCann urged anyone who had seen such a person in the area around Praia da Luz in the weeks leading up to Madeleine's abduction to come forward.

"They might be able to give a much better facial description than the police have at the minute," he said.

He also urged people to hand in any pictures with strangers in the background, as they might provide a vital clue to finding their daughter.

He said more than 1,000 pictures had already been handed in and were being closely scrutinised. Mrs McCann said the Crimewatch appeal was being made to try and assimilate all the information gathered over the last four weeks.

"Anyone who was in the area around that time, even a few weeks before who hasn't come forward, please do," she said. "Anyone who has photographs, please upload them onto the website.

"If by any chance somebody knows where Madeleine is, we would obviously urge them to come forward."

Mr McCann added: "We certainly know that it could only take one phone call.

"They could tell the police where Madeleine is and that information will be acted upon." Mrs McCann said 60 per cent of the people who visit the Algarve area are British, followed by Germans and the Dutch.

"It is important for us to make people in these countries aware really as many will travel to this area."

She said she thought the sighting of the suspect was significant:

"I think given the situation occurred around the same time that Madeleine was discovered to be missing. I think it has to be considered to be significant or potentially significant."

Near the couple as they spoke was a large pile of post - letters, cards, posters and presents.

Many were from well-wishers, some were from psychics claiming to know where Madeleine is, but all were being treated as potential evidence.

Mr McCann said the last appeal directly to the British public was made two weeks ago, before Portuguese police released the description of the suspect.

"We want to make sure that every single possible bit of information is brought to the police's attention.

"It may be the kind of information which will help us solve this."

Smiling wanly, Mrs McCann looked down at the pyjamas in her lap and added:

"These are virtually identical, but these are little bit smaller because they are Amelie's."




l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
28th December 2013

Jane Jimjams & Crecheman


The following are extracts from the witness statements given by the McCann party and others. They are in reference to the sighting by Jane Tanner and of course the pyjamas!

Tanner's statements/description, shaky at best!

Significant is that the sniffer dogs did not detect the scent of Madeleine, not in the area which Jane Tanner reported to have seen the man carrying the child!

I have highlighted in 'blue' what I consider to be of particular interest.

From McCannfiles

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html



Part 1: The GNR arrive

Jane Tanner - Praia da Luz, 03 May 2007, 23.15pm

"Then, at around 11.15, two policemen arrived and I told them.

Later CID arrived. They did this thing called a cognitive technique, where they put you back in the moment, and it was THEN that I remembered the pyjamas."

- Quoted in The Sun, 20 November 2007


Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa (GNR Patrol) - Praia da Luz, 03 May 2007

'States that other details that may be relevant to the investigation concerns that they were directed to a citizen, of British nationality, who made up the group of tourists together with the family, name of Jane Tanner, and who detected the presence of a suspicious movement of an individual in the immediate area above identified, in the discourse of which was seen transporting a child of an early age.'

- 1st witness statement from the PJ files, 07 May 2007




Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa (GNR Patrol) - Praia da Luz, 03 May 2007

'After the search of the interior, his colleague went to check the area around the apartments and the Tapas Bar, while the witness remained next to the apartment, just outside it. At that moment a female individual, he did not know whether she was a member of the group of friends, who was in the neighbouring apartment, said that she saw an individual carrying a child, running, and that because of the pyjamas she was wearing it could have been Madeleine. It was in these circumstances that abduction began to be talked about. He made a report about this situation and sent it to the police.

This sighting did not seem to him to be very credible, because when he asked her about the physical characteristics of the individual, she said it was very dark, however she saw the pyjamas clearly.'

- 3rd witness statement from the PJ files, 17 October 2007 (note: 2nd witness statement was based around Robert Murat)


Sylvia Batista (Ocean Club Manager/Translator) - Praia da Luz, 03 May 2007

No mention of Tanner's sighting; '... she also was not told of any abnormal situation which happened.'

- 1st witness statement from the PJ files, 07 May 2007


Sylvia Batista (Ocean Club Manager/Translator) - Praia da Luz, 03 May 2007

'At a given moment, the deponent translated the deposition from one of the ladies that belonged to the group of English people, namely one that she indicates as being a brunette. This lady told the GNR officers, and the deponent translated, that she had seen a man crossing the road, POSSIBLY carrying a child. The deponent found that situation strange because she was convinced that when she saw this man, the lady was positioned in a spot that has no viewing angle to the location where she had seen the man. She doesn't know exactly where the lady was positioned when she saw the man passing by, but she knows that she indicated that she saw him passing on the street that lies in front of the window to the bedroom where Madeleine was, walking into the direction of the street that leads to the Baptista supermarket.'

- 3rd witness statement from the PJ files, 26 July 2007 (note: 2nd witness statement was based around Robert Murat)

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



Part 2: The groups first witness statements

Gerry McCann - witness statement 04 May 2007, 11.15am

'It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, JANE, at about 21h10/21h15, when she was going to her apartment, to check on her children, saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, JANE will be able to clarify this situation.'


Jane Tanner - witness statement 04 May 2007, 11.30am

Meanwhile a man appeared* carrying a child**, with a hurried walk, it being this detail together with the fact that the child dressed in pyjamas, without being wrapped up in a blanket, that caught her attention. She only managed to see him from the side, with the child in his arms. She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking, having seen this person step off the pavement that borders on the apartment block where they were staying and rapidly cross the road.

The entrance to the apartment building (1) is exactly at the place (street) where the individual appeared from. After checking on her daughters, she returned to the restaurant. On her way back Gerry was no longer talking in the place where she had seen him. When she arrived at the restaurant Gerry was already there, accompanied by his wife, Kate.

(...)

Personal description:

* Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35 – 40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back (she could only see him from behind). He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a "duffy" type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type. He had a hurried walk. He was carrying a child, who was lying on both his arms, in front of his chest. By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".

** About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.

As regards these details, she did not know what Madeleine was wearing at the moment of her disappearance, because she did NOT talk to anyone about this. As concerns the man she saw, she only spoke to Gerald about this, NOT entering into details, and to the police.

When requested, she drew a sketch, which is joined to this statement.

When asked, she says she would probably be able to identify the individual she saw, being able to identify him from the side and from his manner of walking.


Jane Tanner's map shows how she saw the mystery man carry Madeleine from points 5 to 8 while Gerry McCann was chatting at point 3

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



Part 3: The groups second witness statements

Gerry McCann - witness statement 10 May 2007, 15.20pm

'Only about 01h00 on 4 May 2007 did he learn through Russell that his companion, Jane, at 21h10, could have seen an individual crossing the top of the road with a child in his arms, that may or may not have been his daughter Madeleine. Asked, he relates that he does not recall to have described exactly the type of pyjamas (colour, designs, etc.) that Madeleine had worn at the time she disappeared.

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

Jane Tanner - witness statement 10 May, 16.35pm

'Confronted with the information that the [tracker] dog teams had followed the scent trails in which, purportedly, Madeleine Beth McCann had not passed the intersection where she indicated a man carried a child, she affirmed, immediately, that she was not lying, maintaining the honesty of her initial version. That, indeed, there had passed in front of her a man carrying, in his arms, a barefoot child. At the time she had not paid him much attention because it is common, at the Ocean Club, for children to pass in the arms of their parents between the crèche and their respective homes, when they have collected them from the baby-sitting service. Only it was strange that the child had no cover (blanket) and the way the man walked, rapidly, and how he was dressed, the trousers were slightly wide their entire length, being straight. They (trousers) were as to colour, identical to "corticite" [a type of floor covering], "chino" style. As for the coat it was dark coloured, she was not able to specify what, seeming to be the same material as the trousers, it being a type of "anorak". As for the footwear she relates that she cannot confirm with certainty but [they were] shoes which enabled the man to be fleet-footed.

About the description of the child, she confirmed that it was being carried in his arms, with the legs in her direction and barefoot. She thought that it was a female child because the pyjamas were a light colour (seemingly pink to her). She never saw the hair of the child. She never saw it move nor make any sound, thinking that it was asleep.

Subsequently, she had no doubts that it could have been Madeleine Beth McCann because, through conversations with Fiona Payne in which [Fiona Payne] described the pyjamas that Madeleine Beth McCann had worn that night, which coincided with those she had seen. Questioned why she had not commented to Kate Healy what she had seen that night, namely that she had seen a male individual who carried a child with pink pyjamas, she relates that she always avoided making this comment to the McCanns so as not to torture them more in their suffering.

She swore "by everything most sacred" that what she said is true, namely that she saw an individual with a child in his arms. Confronted, she demonstrated the distance at which the man with the child had passed her, and that was gauged to be about 5 metres.

She accepts that, at that moment, although the event had called her attention, she didn't lay any great stress on it for the reasons already explained.

-------------------
Rachael Oldfield - witness statement 11 May 2007, 11.30am

'Further to that, about 10 minutes after Kate raised the alarm about the disappearance, the deponent was with Jane in the apartment of the latter. While talking, Jane told her that when she came to see their children, and passed Gerald talking to "Jez", she saw a man with a child, supported in his arms, which would not be a baby and could have been more or less the age of Madeleine. Also she said that when she saw the man, it seemed strange because he was walking very fast and had a child wearing pyjamas, without any other piece of clothing. That she questioned her [about it], and Jane said to the deponent that at the time she had said nothing because she knew nothing of the disappearance of Madeleine and she had not seen the face of the child. Asked, says that, initially Jane focused more on the description of the man and, ONLY A FEW DAYS LATER did she make reference to the clothes that the child would have worn, which would be pyjamas, not recalling if [when] she made a comprehensive description of clothing, especially of the colour or design.'

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



Part 4: The PJ make the first public appeal, 25 May 2007

Detectives issued a description of a man seen on the night the four-year-old went missing in the resort of Praia Da Luz in the Algarve. Officers said the man was "carrying a child OR an OBJECT that could have been taken as a child".

The man is said to be white, aged 35-40, 5ft 10in tall, medium build with hair that was short on top. He was wearing a dark jacket, beige or golden long trousers and dark shoes. At a news conference, Ch Insp Olegario de Sousa urged the man or anyone who had seen him to come forward.


END


Collusion, Collusion, Collusion - is what springs to mind. The McCann couple (and others) all very keen to mention the pyjamas that 'Jane saw' but none of them overly eager to describe what 'Jane saw.' Nope - they all refer the police to JANE! Jane according to them would be best person to speak to.

They are all overly keen also to point out that Jane came to the conclusion ALL ON HER OWN that what she saw, the pyjamas she saw were IDENTICAL to those we are told were worn by Madeleine.

And of course Jane would be the best person to speak with, if it was her that saw the man - but it WAS NOT poor old Jane who CAME UP WITH THE DESCRIPTION of those pyjamas - the others quite obviously played their part 'encouraging' her shall we say, to remember the pyjamas, convincing her, they were JUST LIKE MADELEINE'S!

Gerry McCann is very careful to state that he had NOT 'let it out the bag' so to speak, the description of Madeleine's pyjamas re-inforcing that Jane decided it all on her OWN.

It is blatantly obvious also from Gerry McCanns statements an element of self-protection always going on.

McCann I note in all of his statements, body swerves anything which might incriminate him - always he refers police to 'speak to someone else' He is not going to be made responsible for anything, anything at all as far as he can help it.

I think Oldfield discovered this too, to his detriment. Help out McCann, and he'll pay you back by landing you in shit - because he sure in hell has no intention of taking the 'blame.'

Oldfield now is the last person (McCanns aside) in this McCann drama to have been in that apartment, and that, now that the Met and PJ are both working on this case, must be a difficult position to find himself.

HO, HO,HO - Like McCann, I doubt he had a very merry Christmas either.

And at what point in time Jane Tanner decided she could give an accurate description of the 'pyjamas' is questionable!

She claims her 'revelation' moment came when she spoke to the police later that night (the night Madeleine was reported as missing) it was then she was able to remember the detail of the pyjamas!

Before this though she had spoken to Fiona Payne and Rachael Oldfield.

I really don't think these three ladies, Collusion, 1,2,3 - didn't speak of the pyjamas - the description!

Put yourself in Rachael or Fiona's position. A child is missing, your friend's child, taken from her bed the child's mother had told you. Another friend tells you - 'Oh I saw a man carrying off a child wearing only pyjamas.'

The most natural and obvious thing in the world to do in such circumstance is to firstly - make this known to the parents of the missing child and those searching for her, point them in the direction the man was seen walking, ask the parents what clothing the child was wearing, and then question the friend as to what she saw, ask her to describe EXACTLY what she saw, the clothing of the man, the clothing of the child, so that it could be established if this child was dressed as Madeleine was.

They didn't bother!

Rachael Oldfield claims to have questioned Tanner about pyjamas according to her above statement. Yet both Rachael Oldfield and Fiona Payne, just 'let it go' told Jane Tanner - Oh be sure not to forget to mention to police when they arrive.'

Is that how you would react on hearing that your friend's child was missing and another friend has quite possibly seen a man carrying her off?'

Such urgency eh?

Interestingly though, Tanner's memory re the detail of the pyjamas occurred on the night the child disappeared when she spoke with police. Rachael Oldfield said it was a FEW days later before Tanner mentioned this to them?

Some may feel sorry for Jane Tanner, perhaps feel she was the most vulnerable of the group, easiest to manipulate, perhaps sorry too for others in the group, if it is the case they had not realised whatever had become of Madeleine, thinking she had wandered off and had agreed to the timeline, believing she would soon be found - but I don't!

She is an adult, she can speak out. She has a husband who (if not involved in Madeleine's disappearance) to offer support to face up to McCann if that is what is her problem,if that is who she fears!

Little Madeleine Beth McCann is the victim here NOT Kate and Gerry McCann, and each and every one of this group, have lied, told tales, embellished the events of that night with every word they have uttered. All done in support of the McCann couple - certainly not to help Madeleine!

The above excerpts from their statements in relation to : When/Where/and to Whom Tanner spoke to re the pyjamas/description - a perfect example of the protection they have given Kate and Gerry McCann.

McCann said he first became aware of the pyjamas, when Russell O'Brien filled him in at 01:00 hours on 4th May 2007.

Jane speaks of not having spoken to the McCanns in this regard, yet she also states the only person she spoke to was Gerry McCann and the police!

Takes a little careful reading to establish when she is referring to simply relating her tale of seeing a child with pyjamas, and when she is referring to the actual description of the pyjamas, and at which time she spoke of this to the others - the description, the detail.

They all wanted to get their tuppenceworth in regarding the description of the pyjamas as in making sure this was made known to police, but equally they all wanted to distance themselves from being the ones to have to report this 'sighting' to McCanns or the police - despite knowing on that night that 'holding back' was not going to help find Madeleine!

So I cannot feel sorry for them, not even the snivelling Jane Tanner!

They all know what they have done.

Dr Goncalo Amaral knows what they have done - he was spot on when he said that Jane Tanner, to deflect from Gerry McCann, had to 'send' the alleged abductor off in the direction which she did!

And it is the direction which is now coming into question once more. It was questioned when it was Tannerman - questioned more now that he has morphed into Crecheman!

DCI Andy Redwood too knows what they have done.

And they know he knows!

The pyjamas DCI Redwood showed as being those worn by Crecheman's child NOTHING LIKE MADELEINE'S!

If there is one single thing which proves this group, and Jane Tanner, colluded and lied re the pyjamas it is THOSE PYJAMAS WORN BY CRECHEMAN'S CHILD being produced by DCI Andy Redwood!

Tannerman being ditched, and the introduction of 'crecheman and the pyjamas' - leaving McCann with no option but to go along with DCI Redwood (none of the usual crap he would normally come up with when such 'revelations' were announced by Dr Amaral the Portuguese Police) must have McCann feeling pretty much that he has 'lost control' and that won't make him a happy bunny! Not a nice guy to be around when he is not getting it all his own way I would imagine!

There is no way McCanns are happy at Tannerman being ditched and Smithman now being the focus! But they have made such a fuss about the Portuguese not doing their job properly, that it would take a British effort to solve the case - they can hardly now begin complaining about the findings and conclusions of DCI Andy Redwood and the Met Officers - even though they are the VERY SAME as those of Dr Goncalo Amaral and the Portuguese Officers!

A situation which I have to admit brings huge satisfaction!



l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
29th December 2013

Châtelaine wrote:It's a theory from way back to the beginning, that JT said she saw the "abductor", who was not GM, because she saw him at the same time and not ROB, because he was in their apartment, thus giving BOTH of them an alibi ...

Tangled Web wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:It's a theory from way back to the beginning, that JT said she saw the "abductor", who was not GM, because she saw him at the same time and not ROB, because he was in their apartment, thus giving BOTH of them an alibi ...

Which obviously raises the question, why would GM and ROB need an alibi in the first place???