The purpose of this site is for information and a record of Gerry McCann's Blog Archives. As most people will appreciate GM deleted all past blogs from the official website. Hopefully this Archive will be helpful to anyone who is interested in Justice for Madeleine Beth McCann. Many Thanks, Pamalam

Note: This site does not belong to the McCanns. It belongs to Pamalam. If you wish to contact the McCanns directly, please use the contact/email details    

The 'Abductor' & The 'Eggman *


Sketches of Jane Tanner's abductor
The artist's impression of the abductor, released 25 October 2007

Kate and Gerry with Madeleine's pyjamas
The McCanns show the pyjamas Madeleine is alleged to have been wearing, Berlin 06 June 2007


Underlying the whole of the case is the alleged sighting, by Jane Tanner, of a man carrying a child away from the McCanns' apartment on the evening of May 3rd.

Jane Tanner's sighting

Jane Tanner claims to have seen a man, holding a child, walk across this road, from left to right
Jane Tanner claims to have seen a man, holding a child, walk across this road, from left to right

Part 1: The GNR arrive, 03 May 2007
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)

Timeline produced on Madeleine's sticker book, 03/04 May 2007
Timeline produced on Madeleine's sticker book

Maddie's sticker book, with timeline on inside cover
Maddie's sticker book, with timeline on inside cover

Maddie's sticker book, with 2nd timeline on inside cover
Maddie's sticker book, with 2nd timeline on inside cover

Timeline 1 (as per sticker book above)

. pm

Matt returns 9.00-9.05 - listened at all 3
                               - all shutters down

Jerry 9.10-9.15 in the room + all well
                      ? did he check

9.20/5 - Ella Jane checked 5D sees stranger & child

9.30 - Russ. Ella Matt check all 3

9.35 - Matt check see twins

9.50 - Russ returns

9.55 - Kate realised Madeleine

10pm - Alarm raised

Timeline 2 (as per sticker book above)

8.45pm. all assembled at poolside for food

9.00pm. Matt Oldfield listens at all 3 windows 5A, B, D ALL shutters down

9:15pm Gerry McCann looks at room A ? Door open to bedroom

9:20pm Jane Tanner checks 5D - [sees stranger walking carrying a child]

9.30 Russell O'Brien in 5D. Poorly daughter

10:00pm. Alarm raised after Kate


Madeleine's book

Madeleine's parents ripped off both covers, the front and the back, from a book belonging to Madeleine, in order to write on the inside the timing for each person. Russell O'Brien was involved with the drawing up of the timing. The book was seized by the GNR on the night of the disappearance. These covers would be attached to the case file, as elements of the investigation, on September 7th 2007, although seized during the night of 3rd to 4th May. Here are the terms on which the seizure document was based.

Terms of seizure:

At this time, it is considered of interest to the investigation to attach to the present deed, two covers of a child's book, on the inside covers of which is a schedule for supervision, hand-written by one of the McCann couple's group of friends and participant in this deed by name of Russell O'Brien.


Extract from Russell O'Brien's rogatory interview:

'But anyway Dave Payne said to, errm... there were two members of the PJ had arrived, there was a guy I remember being almost shaved bald head, quite dark complexion, and a second one who we kind of nicknamed 'baby face', who did our fingerprinting about a week later, errm... and those two were there and Dave was... was saying, you know, 'Shouldn't we', you know, 'Why are we sitting here, shouldn't you be on the radio, shouldn't there be more people here, shouldn't there be...', you know, 'this should be on the radio, it should be on the television' and, errm... I recall 'baby face', or his colleague, saying 'No media', and, you know... and that was full-stop and then turning round to me writing the timeline and saying 'That's what we want', fair enough. Errm... huh, and that's really it.

Part 2: The groups first witness statements, 04 May 2007
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 she 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.

Sketch of sighting by Jane Tanner


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

Matthew Oldfield - witness statement 04 May 2007, 11.30am

No mention of Tanner's sighting.


Kate McCann - witness statement 04 May 2007, 14.20pm

'Later, the witness would learn that a member of the group, Russell's partner Jane, at around 9.15pm, when she went to her own apartment to check on her children, saw from behind and at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road along the club, a long-haired person, she thinks wearing jeans, with a child in his arms, walking very quickly. But she is better able to tell about that herself.'


David Payne - witness statement 04 May 2007, 14.45pm

No mention of Tanner's sighting.


Fiona Payne - witness statement 04 May 2007, 19.20pm

'As regards the episode with Jane—she [Jane] only told her that she had seen an individual with a child in his arms, not knowing that it was Madeleine.'


Rachael Oldfield - witness statement 04 May 2007, 19.20pm

No mention of Tanner's sighting.


Dianne Webster - witness statement 04 May 2007, 20.45pm

No mention of Tanner's sighting.


Russell O'Brien - witness statement 04 May 2007, 21.45pm

No mention of Tanner's sighting.

Part 3: The groups second witness statements, 10/11 May 2007
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.


Matthew Oldfield - witness statement 10 May, 16.00pm 

No mention of Tanner's sighting; '... a total lack of knowledge about other circumstances which might possibly have surrounded it [the events under investigation].'


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.


Russell O'Brien - witness statement 11 May 2007, 11.20am

No mention of Tanner's sighting.


Dianne Webster - witness statement 11 May 2007, 11.30am

No mention of Tanner's sighting.


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.'


Kate McCann, David Payne and Fiona Payne were not interviewed at this time


Rachael Oldfield - witness statement 15 May 2007, 17.00pm

'She just says that at about 21h15 when Gerry was talking to Jez, Jane saw a man carrying a bare-foot child in pyjamas, crossing the road between blocks 5 and 6. According to Jane she did not see the face of the man carrying the child. She could only tell what she saw.'

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

A friend of Madeleine's parents saw girl being carried away, 27 May 2007
A friend of Madeleine's parents saw girl being carried away Timesonline
David Brown in Praia da Luz
May 27, 2007
A family friend of Gerry and Kate McCann has told police she saw a blonde-haired girl being carried away from an Algarve holiday apartment wrapped in a blanket at the time Madeleine is believed to have been snatched from her room.
The key witness, who is wracked with guilt, was on her way to dinner with Gerry and Kate McCann when she saw the man close to the open window of the bedroom where four-year-old Madeleine had been sleeping. The girl he was carrying was wearing pink pyjamas, the same as Madeleine's.
Her statement, which is the clearest evidence to date about what happened to Madeleine on the night she disappeared 25 days ago, comes as it was revealed that Mr and Mrs McCann are hoping to meet the Pope to discuss the plight of their daughter.
The parents, both strong Catholics, are expected to attend a general audience in Rome on Wednesday. It will be the start of a series of visits the couple are planning to make around Europe to keep Madeleine's case in the public eye in the hope that she may still be found.
Clarence Mitchell, the Foreign Office liaison officer for the family, is helping the McCanns plan the trip. "I can confirm that approaches have been made to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor and to the British ambassador to the Holy See and we are certainly exploring the possibility of Gerry and Kate McCann visiting Rome to meet the Pope in the near future," he said.
The family friend said she had see the man at 9.30pm as she arrived late for dinner with Madeleine's parents and other friends at a tapas restaurant on the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz where they were all staying.
She did not realise the significance until Kate McCann went to check on her children, Madeleine and two-year-old twin brother and sister, Sean and Amelie, 30 minutes later and discovered her elder daughter was missing. Madeleine had been wearing pink and white pyjamas with Eeyore on them.
The friend immediately reported the sighting to police but detectives only released the description after Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister in waiting, intervened with the Portuguese authorities last week.
Despite the three week delay hundreds of people have called police with information since the description was released on Friday night. The man is white, approximately 35 to 40 years old, of medium build and 5ft 10ins tall. He had short hair and was wearing a dark jacket, light beige trousers and dark shoes.
At least one witness has reported seeing a person carrying a child close to the church in Praia da Luz, about 700 metres from the Ocean Club. Mrs McCann and her husband, Gerry, yesterday made one of their regular visits to the Catholic service at the Our Lady of Light church where prayers were said for the safe return of their daughter.
A police source said that the friend who believes she saw Madeleine being carried away was in the group of three British couples and a single woman who had travelled with the McCanns to Portugal. She thought the man's behaviour was unusual but assumed it was a father taking his sleeping daughter home had no reason at the time to think it was suspicious.
"She thought it was odd, but thought it was the man's own child. He was walking urgently, neither running or walking but something in between," said the source.
"It was only when Kate said that Madeleine had gone that she made the connection. She had seen enough to make her believe it was Madeleine and she had described the pyjamas, which were distinguishable."
"She feels guilty that she was the last person to see Madeleine and didn't do anything, but there is no sense of hostility (from the McCanns)," said the police source. "They don't blame the woman, they feel sorry for her. But she feels guilty that she was the last person to see Madeleine."
Mrs McCann and her husband, Gerry, are convinced this was the abductor and were angry at the delay in publicising the description.
"In the view of the parents this sighting was Madeleine was being taken," said the police source. "They have has put a timeline together which they have presented to police and believe this was Madeline. That is why they have never believed she had wandered off."
Mrs McCann discovered her daughter was missing when she entered her ground-floor bedroom at 10pm. It is believed that Madeleine was taken between 9.10pm and 9.15pm.
The rear patio doors to the apartment had been left unlocked to allow easy access for regular checks by the parents in the group. The other parents made entered the apartment after 9.10pm to check that the children were asleep but had not actually gone in to the bedroom to avoid waking them.
Mrs McCann, a locum GP from Rothley in Leicestershire, realised something was wrong when she entered the apartment as an internal door blew shut. She found the window in the bedroom had been opened and its shutter raised. The pink soft toy cat which Madeleine carried with her everywhere was still in the room.
Mr and Mrs McCann, both 38, had grown increasingly frustrated about the failure of the Portuguese police to make a public appeal for sightings of the abductor. When their friend returned home she repeated the statement to Leicester police, which is coordinating the inquiry in Britain and regards her as the "principal witness".
The police source admitted: "The officers who were first given the description just did not seem interested and they just seemed to have filed it away."
Mr McCann, a consultant cardiologist, last week had several telephone conversations with Mr Brown after the Chancellor promised to help the couple. The pair have formed a close bond because Mr Brown's elder son, John, is slightly younger than Madeleine and they both come from Scotland.
British Government officials put pressure on their counterparts in Lisbon for the suspect's description to be released despite the appeal breaching strict Portuguese laws covering the secrecy of police investigations.
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa of the Policia Judiciaria said: "The parents of Madeleine had already asked us to reveal the details that could help with the investigation. The release of the detail was authorised by the public prosecutor".
Mr Sousa said that since the appeal was made the calls from the public "are almost exclusively about the description we have released."
Portuguese police still have only one official suspect, Ralph Murat. His house is less than 100 metres from where Madeleine was snatched and he worked as an official police translator in the investigation into her abduction.
The police source said that detectives had studied computers taken from the villa that Mr Murat, 33, shares with his mother had found evidence of links to websites featuring paedophile pornography and bestiality. However, there was no material linking him to Madeleine's abduction and detectives have been unable to gather enough evidence to arrest him. The source said that Mr Murat has "a very interesting and relevant sexual history."
Mr Murat, an estate agent, insisted yesterday: "It isn't me. But the description is so vague that it won't put me out of the picture. I hope that I will soon be in a position to clear my name."
"It has been almost two weeks since my life was turned upside down by these allegations and I am on tenterhooks about what will happen now they have released this."
Mr McCann has said anyone suspected in the case should be assumed innocent until convicted by a court.
Mr Murat's estranged wife, Dawn, said she had been twice visited by police at her home in Hockering, Norfolk.
Mrs Murat said that officers asked about Mr Murat's state of mind. "They wanted to know if he was under any stress and did I have any fears about him.
"I've had to explain to my little girl why her Daddy is on the TV in our sitting room all day. I'm convinced Robert is innocent. He would never hurt a child."
She said her husband had called her 15 hours after Madeline disappeared and asked to speak to their daughter. After they spoke Dawn said: "Rob told me how much better he felt now that he had heard her voice. He said he knew she was safe."

I saw man carrying Maddie, 28 May 2007
I saw man carrying Maddie Daily Mirror (online article now removed)
McCann friend's guilt at 'not noticing' abduction
Vanessa Allen In Praia Da Luz 
A WOMAN who believes she saw Madeleine McCann being carried away was racked with guilt last night.
Thinking the tot was the man's own child, the friend of parents Gerry and Kate made no attempt to stop him.
A source said: "The family believe this was Madeleine being taken. The woman feels dreadful guilt that she was the last person to see her and didn't do anything. But the family do not blame her."
Yesterday it was claimed child porn was found on the computer of the only suspect in the case, Briton Robert Murat, 33. The witness was on her way to join Gerry and Kate McCann for dinner near their apartment in Praia da Luz at about 9.30pm on May 3 when she saw the suspect.
He was hurrying away from the area clasping a child wearing pink pyjamas similar to those worn by Madeleine, then three.
The man was white, of medium build, aged 35 to 40 and 5ft 10ins. He wore a blue jacket and beige trousers. Our source said: "The woman thought it was odd but believed it was the man's own child. He was walking urgently, neither running or walking slowly."
Dismissing the thought, the witness went on to dinner. Earlier the McCanns had regularly checked Madeleine and twins Sean and Amelie, two, sleeping in their nearby room.
But at 10pm Kate, 38, discovered Madeleine was missing and frantically raised the alarm.
The friend instantly realised what she had seen and within hours had given a statement and description to the authorities.
But astonishingly the significance of her sighting was apparently missed. The source said: "Officers who took the description did not seem interested. They just seemed to have filed it away.
"The woman returned to the UK where police said she was the principal witness."
Because of Portuguese laws which forbid the release of details of an investigation, the sighting could not be publicised.
It was not until Saturday - 22 days after Madeleine vanished - that a description of the suspect was issued after the probable intervention of Chancellor Gordon Brown. Since then it has generated hundreds of calls to police. Already there have been reports of a possible second sighting of a man carrying a child in Praia Da Luz that night.
Desperate to have the details released Gerry, 38, had held talks with Mr Brown.
The two fathers, both Scots, were said to have had an "instant connection". Mr Brown lost daughter Jennifer Jane who was born prematurely in January 2002.
Heart specialist Gerry, of Rothley, Leics, told the Chancellor in detail of the couple's frustrations about the slow-moving Portuguese investigation. In particular, he stressed their concern that their friend's sighting had not been made public.
In days the Portuguese authorities had made a remarkable U-turn. Kate, still holding Madeleine's pink Cuddle Cat, yesterday urged the public to come forward.
She said: "Was this man seen anywhere else in or near the town with a child, or what appeared to be a child? Which direction was he heading in? Did he have a vehicle?"
A spokesman for the McCanns said: "I can confirm that telephone conversations have taken place between Gerry McCann and Chancellor Gordon Brown.
"During them, Mr Brown offered both Gerry and Kate his full support in their efforts to find Madeleine, although details of the conversations will remain private.
"The talks took place against the background of the Chancellor's earlier offer to help when he met and spoke to other members of the McCann family in the UK."
The Treasury refused to confirm that Mr Brown had personally intervened to get the Portuguese police to change their minds.

Part 5: The McCanns' public appeals, 05 June 2007 - 09 June 2007
Part 5: The McCanns' public appeals

BBC Cimewatch appeal - 05 June 2007

Gerry says the 'suspect' was 'probably carrying a child' and was 'Approximately 35 years of age, approximately 1 metre 75. There's a little bit of discrepancy, I think mainly in conversion, I think initial descriptions said 1.70, but went into 5ft 10in. So, I think you can assume round about 5ft 8, 5ft 9, something like that. He had dark hair, parted to one side, slightly longer at the back. And he was wearing a dark jacket, slightly longer than a suit jacket and light coloured trousers which may have been beige or mustard coloured and dark shoes.'


Gerry's blog appeal - 09 June 1007

We have also asked for people to contact their local police if they have seen a man matching the description of the suspect carrying a child seen around the time of Madeleine’s abduction. He is 30-40 years, 1.70-1.80m (5ft 7in - 5ft 11in), caucasian and was wearing a dark jacket, beige or mustard coloured trousers with dark shoes.'

Part 6: The artist's impression is released, 25 October 2007
Part 6: The artist's impression is released

The artist's impression of the man seen by Jane Tanner

Gerry's blog - Release of the artist's impression, 26 October 2007

Referring to Metodo 3:

'They have also released a sketch of an eyewitness who saw a man carrying a small child away from near the apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared. We believe this child was Madeleine. The Portuguese police have released the description of the man previously: he is 35-40 years old, approximately 5ft 8in - 5ft 10in (1.72-1.78m), Caucasian with southern European/Mediterranean appearance, slim build with dark hair.'

'I SAW HIM TAKE MADELEINE', 28 October 2007

Grant Hodgson And Susie Boniface In Praia Da Luz,

EXCLUSIVE THE SEARCH FOR MADELEINE DAY 178 'It was 9.15pm and he looked a bit odd' 'But I never imagined girl was Maddie'

A friend of Kate and Gerry McCann has described for the first time the moment she believes she saw Madeleine being snatched.

Jane Tanner is haunted by the image of a man "striding urgently" away from the McCanns' apartment with a barefooted child slumped in his arms.

She admits thinking he "looked a bit odd" but says she never imagined the youngster he was carrying could be four-year-old Madeleine...until the alarm was raised 45 minutes later that she was missing. And by then it was too late.

Jane was dining with Kate and Gerry on the night Madeleine disappeared. She saw the man when she went to check on her own daughter. It was her description which led to an artist's impression of a man carrying a child released earlier this week. Jane, 36, told a friend: "I never in a million years would have imagined that it was Maddie being carried away.

"The first thing that raced into my head after finding out she was missing was this person I'd seen."

As Kate and Gerry began a frantic hunt for their daughter, horrified Jane twice told police about the dark-haired man she'd seen walking off carrying a child. The first time was at 11.15pm, then again at 3am. She was astonished that detectives failed to release the information to appeal for witnesses for another 22 days.

Jane and partner Russell O'Brien, also 36, from Exeter, Devon, were among seven friends who were holidaying with the McCanns in Praia da Luz. All nine were dining together at a tapas restaurant on the night Madeleine disappeared.

Gerry McCann had gone to check on Madeleine and her twin brother and sister at about 9.05pm. Ten minutes later, Jane left the tapas bar and was on her way back to her apartment to check on her own daughter when she saw the man heading away from the McCanns' apartment, down the hill.

Jane's friend said: "It was about 9.15pm when Jane saw the man. She said that although he looked a bit odd and the child he was carrying had bare feet on a cold night, she never in a million years thought it could have been Maddie. You see a lot of people taking children to and from a nearby creche around there.

"Jane also had just passed Gerry and another man, Jeremy Wilkins, talking in the street, so she assumed that Madeleine had just been checked on.

"Suddenly this man scoots across in front of her with the child, which she thinks is a bit strange because the child was in pyjamas and had no shoes or socks on. He wasn't running, he wasn't walking, but he was striding. It was like an urgent walk.

"Jane knows it was a child from the size of the person being carried. It was obviously a small child. There was no doubt in her mind. There have been reports the child was held in a blanket. But Jane says that is not true."

Jane arrived at her apartment, checked on her daughter and then returned to the tapas bar. Soon after, Jane says that another friend Matthew Oldfield, 37, and her partner Russell headed off to make their checks on the kids. But Jane's daughter had become ill and Matthew came back to fetch her.

On his way back - between 9.30pm and 9.45pm - he stopped and listened at the door of the McCanns' apartment but did not enter.

"Jane finished her meal and went up to the apartment straight away to see her daughter," the friend said. "Around 10 or 15 minutes later, Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone.

"Jane heard shouting outside and came out and saw Matthew's wife Rachel, who told her Maddie was missing.

"The first thing that came into Jane's head was this person she'd seen. She felt complete horror. Kate was screaming 'She's gone, she's gone' and there was a huge panic."

The local civilian police force arrived to carry out door-to-door inquiries, knocking on Jane's door at 11.15pm. "She told police about the man as soon as they arrived in her apartment," the friend said. "She also then told detectives during her interview with them in the early hours of the morning of May 4 and Gerry was present at that interview.

"Jane did feel that her sighting was taken seriously but it was frustrating that the police didn't realise a description of the man immediately."

The height of the man - aged around 35 with black hair, wearing a maroon shirt, camel-coloured trousers and black or brown shoes - was also miscalculated by cops when they converted feet into metres.

Jane says the person she saw was 5ft 9ins rather than 5ft 8ins as previously reported. She is also adamant the child was not wrapped in a blanket.

Jane will be asked to recount what she saw over the coming weeks when she and the other friends are re-interviewed by Portuguese police in the UK.

Last night it emerged that Kate and Gerry might have to wait a YEAR to see police files on them explaining why they are suspects.

Portuguese newspaper 24 Horas reported that prosecutors have applied to judge Pedro Frias to extend the deadline by giving the case "special complexity" status.

The paper said Madeleine's parents were told yesterday they might have to wait until August 2008 to see police papers outlining the case against them. They deny any involvement in her disappearance.

The paper said the request came because Portuguese police are still waiting for full DNA results from a UK lab and the chance to quiz the Tapas Nine - the McCanns and their holiday friends - on British soil. Yesterday it was also reported that detectives are still waiting for the couple's UK phone operators to send a list of their calls the night Madeleine disappeared.

An insider said: "Portuguese police say it is hampering their investigation. But you have to question why they've been so quick to jump on the McCanns when they've yet to see something as basic as their phone records."

Meanwhile Kate and Gerry are having panic buttons installed at home as police step down the round-the-clock vigil outside their house.

The couple have had a constant police guard since arriving back from Portugal seven weeks ago.

Heart specialist Gerry, 39, is returning to work on Thursday. He took twins Sean and Amelie to a park near his home in Rothley, Leics, yesterday.

Tapas Jane: My Guilt For Maddie, 17 November 2007
Tapas Jane: My Guilt For Maddie The Sun

Published: 17 Nov 2007

A FRIEND of the McCanns who believes she saw Madeleine being abducted has admitted being wracked by guilt every day since.

In an emotional interview Jane Tanner, a close friend of Kate and Gerry and one of the Tapas Nine, spoke of her "horrible realisation I had seen the abductor and done nothing".

Jane says her "heart went to her boots" and she has been haunted by the moment ever since.

In a riveting TV special Jane, 36, breaks the silence she has kept for the six-and-a-half months since Maddie, four, went missing from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal.

And she reveals astonishing new detail about the events before the horror - and panic after.

Jane decided to speak out because of the insinuations being made about her.

She said: "I'm talking now because I'm being called a liar and a fantasist. I know what I saw, I know the truth."

The mum of two from Exeter, along with her partner Dr Russell O'Brien, Kate, Gerry and five other friends were dining in the tapas bar of the holiday complex when the horror began to slowly unfold.

All had taken it in turns to make checks on their children.

Putting the events of the evening in context, BBC1's Panorama next Monday reveals that when Gerry made his last check at around 9.05pm his children's bedroom door was open. He closed it. Gerry later became convinced he had closed the door when he and Kate left.


It means the abductor may have been in the apartment already when he made his final check.

Jane went to look in on her daughter around the same time, and as she walked up the path to the apartment saw Gerry talking to another holidaymaker.

It was at that moment that she spotted a man carrying a child.

Jane said she did not realise it was Maddie because she knew Gerry had just checked on her and his twins and believed they must all be tucked up safely in bed.

She only caught a quick glimpse of the man who walked from left to right in front of her.

But she was able to describe the man as swarthy with dark curly hair. She could not see the child's face, only her bare feet dangling down and pink and white pyjamas.

Jane told interviewers: "I never in a million years thought it could have been Madeleine.

"There is a creche nearby and I thought he might be a father picking up his child from there.

"I only saw him for a few seconds. It was very dark."

Last month the McCanns released a picture of the man created by an artist using details provided by their pal.

Jane then went to her apartment to see her daughter who had been sickly for a few days and had been vomiting that night. Jane returned to the tapas bar at around 9.25pm.

She did not mention the man she had seen because she did not realise the significance. Jane's partner Russell then went to make a check at around 9.45pm.

Friend Mathew Oldfield went with him to look in on his children and also offered to go to the McCanns' apartment to check on Maddie and their twins.

Until now it was thought that Mathew just listened at the door, but in the programme it is revealed he actually went in and looked into the bedroom.

But from his vantage point he could only see the twins, not Maddie who was behind the open door. As all was silent he thought things were fine.

Mathew did not know that Gerry had found the door open and closed it around 30 minutes earlier. At the same time, Russell was discovering his daughter had been sick and called to Mathew to ask Jane to return.

Jane got back there around 9.50pm and Russell returned to the tapas bar.

At around 10pm Kate went to check. When she arrived, she found the bedroom door still open.


She stepped into the room and saw the window and shutter were up and Madeleine was missing. Her cuddle cat was on the bed along with the blanket Maddie had been snuggled in.

A source said: "Kate ran round the apartment in total panic checking every wardrobe, under the beds, the bathroom, everywhere.

She then ran screaming to the tapas bar telling her friends 'Madeleine's gone, Madeleine's gone, someone's taken her!' All hell broke loose. Chaos erupted, everyone got up and ran to the apartment."

As Jane heard the news, she realised the child she had seen nearly an hour earlier being carried off was almost certainly Madeleine.

When two cops arrived around 11.15pm Jane told them. She did a more formal interview at around 3am. Gerry was present and it was the moment he learnt Jane had seen an "abductor".

Until then she had not had the opportunity to tell Kate and Gerry. They had been too busy hunting their daughter.

Jane said she felt "total guilt" when she revealed what she had seen. Later she found out Madeleine had been wearing pink and white pyjamas.

Jane said she thought: "Oh my God, I saw him. It was that man."

She wished over and over again that she had seen the girl's face - and stopped the man.

Jane vehemently denied that any of the Tapas Nine lied. She said: "All of us have told the truth. There is no cover up, or lying."

Kate and Gerry, both 39 of Rothley, Leics, could not do the TV interview themselves as they are official suspects. Their spokesman Clarence Mitchell said they were grateful to Jane.

He said: "She felt very strongly that it was important she speak out on behalf of Kate and Gerry. They can't."

The Panorama programme also features a poignant video diary of the McCanns' search for Madeleine - shot in Portugal and Spain by a friend of the couple.

Part 7: Jane Tanner - 'The Mystery of Madeleine McCann', 19 November 2007
Part 7: Jane Tanner - Panorama documentary, 'The Mystery of Madeleine McCann', 19 November 2007

Excerpts from transcript:

Jane Tanner: I think the starters were about to arrive so I thought oh, I'll go and do a check in sort of 20 minutes or so before last check. So I thought I'll go and do a check before the food arrives. So I just walked out of the restaurant, up the hill, I passed Gerry who was talking to one of his tennis friends at the time. And then after I'd past Gerry, at the top of the road I just saw somebody walking across the top of the road I just saw somebody walking across the top of the road so I was a reasonable distance away from them, and that person was carrying a child.

Richard Bilton: You say "a person." Male or female?

JT: Oh a male, a male.

RB: And just describe that individual to us.

JT: He was about probably 5'8 tall, he was taller than me but not 6' and so between those two. He was wearing quite a lot of clothes and that's one thing in hindsight again I think was quite odd because tourists when they're abroad, Brits abroad would always have cropped trousers or shorts or something, and he had a sort of a big heavy jacket and trousers on, and hair.. the one thing that I remember a lot is the hair. He did seem to have quite a lot of dark, reasonably-long-to-the-neck hair.

RB: Describe exactly what he's carrying, what you can see.

JT: Well I could see.. I could tell it was a child, and I could see the feet and... feet and the bottom of the pyjamas, and I just thought that child's not got any shoes on because you could see the feet, and it was quite a cold night in Portugal in May it's not actually that warm, and I'd got a big jumper on, and I can remember thinking oh that parent is not a particularly good parent, they've not wrapped them up.

RB: And could you tell if it was a boy or a girl?

JT: Only because the pyjamas had a pinky aspect to them so you presume a girl. It was actually quite cold.

RB: From your sketch he appears to be carrying the child in a sort of unusual way.

JT: Yeah, ...was carrying, sort of, across the body like that. I suppose in retro... in hindsight you'd probably think somebody would carry them more against the shoulder.

RB: And I have to ask you this. Are you absolutely sure of what you saw? It was a long time ago and it was only for a brief period?

JT: Brief period but at the time I knew what I'd seen. I gave that information to the police and because of the pyjamas I'm absolutely convinced that is what I saw.


RB: (Voice over) Jane Tanner is the only one of the group of friends who has agreed to speak to us. She denies recent reports that both she and her partner want to change their witness statements.

(To Tanner) I heard that you've not yet spoken to the media before and yet you've been much discussed. Why have you chosen to speak now?

JT: Well, I've not spoken because the Portuguese police told us not to talk about the case at all, and.. you know, from day one we've done everything we can to help them with the investigation. I think maybe I'm talking now because I'm being called a liar and a fantasist and all this, and I know what I saw and I think it's important that people know what I saw because I believe Madeleine was abducted.

I DID see man abduct Maddie, 20 November 2007
I DID see man abduct Maddie The Sun
Published: 20 Nov 2007
MADDIE kidnap witness Jane Tanner yesterday told how she watched the tot being snatched – and insisted she has NO doubt about what she saw.
In an exclusive interview with The Sun – her first with any newspaper – Jane forcefully hit back at critics who have suggested she is lying.
Amid sobs, she said: "I DID see a man that night carrying away Madeleine.
"She WAS abducted."
Tears welling in her eyes, she went on: "I wake up to that image ever day. Every day I see him there, striding away, carrying Madeleine and I try desperately to remember more detail, what his face was like.
"I think about it over and over again. It’s horrible.
"Madeleine was adorable. Every day I hope this is the day we find her."
Twisting her Look For Madeleine yellow and green wristbands, Jane, 36, then went into detail about the night of May 3.
She told how she and the other members of the so-called Tapas Nine had been leaving the restaurant at the complex in Praia da Luz to check their children.
It was on one of her visits to see her two daughters that Jane passed Maddie’s dad Gerry, 39. He was returning from seeing his children.
Seconds later she saw a man cross from left to right in front of her with a child lolling back in his arms.
Jane said: "It wasn’t unusual to see people with children, even at that time of night. But my attention was drawn to him because the child had bare feet.
"It was a cold night and I thought that was strange because as a mother I would never have taken my child around at that time without something on their feet or a blanket. All I could see of the child was their legs dangling.
"The man was about ten to fifteen feet in front of me and was walking quite quickly and I can remember thinking, 'That’s odd'.
"But that was all, nothing to make me scream out to make him stop. I never at that time thought it could be Madeleine. I’d just passed Gerry so I thought his children were all asleep in bed."
Jane carried on to her apartment where she found her daughters were fine, so she went back to the tapas bar.
About 15 minutes later her partner Dr Russell O’Brien checked and found one of the girls had been sick so he asked a friend to fetch Jane.
It was while Jane was there that Maddie’s mum Kate, 39, went to see her children at around 10.05pm – and found the girl missing.
Jane said the first she knew was when she looked out of her window and saw the table at the tapas bar was empty. She opened the door and there was commotion.
She said: "I saw all our friends outside shouting. I opened the door and one, Rachael, shouted at me, 'Madeleine’ s gone!' As soon as she said that the image of that man carrying the child came into my head and I felt physically sick. A feeling of complete horror washed over me."
Minutes later Jane saw Kate. Close to tears, Jane admitted she could not bear to tell her about the man. She said: "At that time it seemed everyone thought Madeleine was hiding.
I knew that if I told her about the man it would shatter that. I was also hoping desperately that I’d been wrong. Instead I took another friend, Fiona, to one side and told her.
"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.
"There were pink and white, they were what Madeleine was wearing. I just felt so awful, I felt I could have stopped this from happening. I think of that everyday.
"I have to live with it forever, that guilt is never going to go away." It has been reported that the man she saw that night was Robert Murat, the first person named as a suspect. But Jane said she simply does not know.
Jane, from Exeter, Devon, said: “He had his face turned away and it was dark.
"I’ve done an artist’s impression and want people to look at that and rack their brains as to whether they know him, or if they were on holiday, saw him.
"Please just ring the Find Madeleine Spanish hotline."
Meanwhile, the Portuguese police plan to question the McCanns' seven friends once more, it was reported today.
Portuguese newspaper Jornal de Noticias said the interviews would take place in an attempt to clear up some of the reported contradictions in the friends' statements.
The newspaper added that the questioning was expected to take place over the next few days working with English local authorities.

Part 8: Jane Tanner - Rogatory interview, 08 April 2008
Part 8: Jane Tanner - Rogatory interview, 08 April 2008

Right, okay. So you have seen Gerry and you have seen Jez?

Jane Tanner: So this person, he walked across the road and the things... I think the three things that struck me was the feet, purely for the reason... and that’s the reason I spotted them, the clothes were a bit, not what I'd expect, and also they were walking quite, quite... they looked like they were... they weren't running but it was a purposeful walk, so they were walking quite purposefully.

4078: Where were they, I was going to exactly, but exactly, in as far as you can remember?"

JT: They were sort of... I think I spotted them sort of in the middle, sort of here'ish or, I don't... I mean, I can't say for sure, but sort of, more sort of from that angle and then they were carrying on that way.

4078: And was that... is there another pavement there, on the junction?

JT: No, they were on... there's a junction; this is, sort of, the road and they were walking along the side of the pavement, then I would then walk along.

4078: So they were on the same side that you were about to walk along?

JT: Yeah.

4078: Right. And when you first became aware of this man holding the child; if you can try and picture in your mind, as I am sure you have done over and over again, and start from the top of his head and work your way down and tell me what he looked like?

JT: You see, this is where, now, I'm really... I don't even know whether it's worth doing this, because there's been so much since then. I've had the... when they took me round for the surveillance to look at... and I'm guessing now it's MURAT they wanted me to look at and, you know, all the other bits and bobs, I really don't know, but I think I'd prefer just to stick with what I said in my original statement, in terms of the... because, even... I mean, this is coming back to the sketch, even when I did the sketch, by that stage, you know, things were... were murky. I needed to do that sketch that first night, I mean, they took me in to do the sketch, but they only had, errm... front facing software, so, you know... and at that point I said, you know, is there... can I do... because the clothes and everything was the thing... was the thing that was the most in my mind then and I can remember saying to the chap I met on the stairs earlier, I think it's (inaudible), is it?

4078: Yeah.

JT: Because he took me in the car back, and forth, and I can remember saying to him on the way back: 'Look, is there a way I can do a sketch with clothes, you know, do you have software or any way that I can do a sketch of the clothes or a side... a side view?'. And he sort of said: 'No, we don't have that feasible, you know... feasibility, or availability'. And I said, then: 'Can I do that when I go back to the UK?', you know, because at that point it was in my head and it would have been... and they were the bits that I think would have been recognisable to get down on paper. But at that point it was like: 'Oh no, we can't do that, we don't work in that way'. Which I can understand and you know, now obviously, I think: 'Oh, I should have pushed and really pushed', but at that point you rely on... you don't, you know, you're just in such shock and you just think: 'Okay, that's the way things do', but...

4078: Yeah.

JT: But, I mean, I think... so the things that I'm happy; that are still in my head... that still stick in my head, is the hair and it was longer... it was sort of longish and, errm... I don't know how to (inaudible)... but each... each... almost the hair was long... the bits of hair were long, so it was long into the neck, you know, sort of in... when people have a number one or whatever at the back and it's shaved; not shaved up, but, you know, sort of layered up, this was more long into the neck, so sort of long, each... each individual hair was long, errm... and dark; it was sort of quite dark and glossy, that sticks in my head. And, sort of... the dark... dark clothes and quite billowy; not billowy clothes but quite baggy, sort of... they seemed, errm... not ill fitting but quite baggy clothes, like... not jeans, but trousers, sort of... not Chinos but not Farrahs either but sort of baggy'ish, sort of, ill fitting more than... And they're the bits that I remember quite vividly, sort of.

4078: And what colours?

JT: Dark colours, but again it was... I think, it was quite dark, so dark, sort of darkish jacket but then a more, a lighter trouser but a horrible colour, again this is, sort of a yellowy dark browny, horrible, but not, not a nice colour trousers, but then I wonder whether that was the lights making them look, making them look more of a sort of a mustard, it wasn’t mustard because that’s too bright, but it was just like a, as I say they weren’t nice, they weren’t the sort of clothes I’d expect somebody on a MARK WARNER holiday to, they was, I can’t think of the material, I tried to describe this before, but sort of a cottony material but baggy”.
4078    “You know the artist’s impression that you”.
Reply    “Umm”.
4078    “That has been circulated a lot.  How happy are you with that?”
Reply    “Erm, phew, reasonably, but, I mean, it was the best I could do after that time, I mean, it was more, the hair was the one thing on that that I wasn’t completely happy about but we couldn’t get it any better because it was the sort of, I almost think that might have been slightly too long or just, but on the whole I think the actual sort of style and everything was, was fairly right.  I mean, I tried to do that though from my original description that we wrote down, sort of well afterwards (inaudible) we tried to get all our thoughts down and I tried to do it as much as I could from that, because six months on, as I say, there was, I think the problem is there’d been so much put into my head since then, like doing the surveillance and, you know, looking at people on that and things, it was very hard to, to do it”.
4078    “I must come back and talk about that when we have finished going through everything”.
Reply    “Yeah, that’s fine, yeah”.
4078    “What about the height of the man?”
Reply    “Erm, phew, well, you know, I did it on the, I sort of pointed out where it was on the person that interviewed me originally and, erm, sort of, not six foot but taller than me but sort of not, but not, I’d say I think it was sort of about five foot nine, five foot ten.  But I think that had got confused in translation because I don’t know what it was in metres and they sort of then transferred that into metres from my statement, so I think it came out actually lower.  But I think it was sort of like five foot nine, five foot ten, as much as I could, so”.
4078    “Okay.  And his build?”
Reply    “Medium, well sort of just normal build.  As I say, I think the clothes were quite baggy, so I think they made him look more bigger than he probably was, but.  And also he would have been, his shoulders would have been out, you know, sort of.  So, I think, erm, yeah, medium’ish, a medium’ish build”.
4078    “And you said earlier you thought he was, I can’t remember what word you used, walking, you didn’t say briskly, but”.
Reply    “Purposefully”.
4078    “Purposefully”.
Reply    “Yeah”.
4078    “Did you notice anything else about the way he walked?”
Reply    “Not really, just that it was very, as I say, it did seem quite a very, you know, a purposeful.  And also the way he was carrying was sort of, it’s the way I would pick my children up if I didn’t want to wake them up, you know, if you’re sort of picking them up to put them into another bed or something, it is the way I would pick them up if they were asleep, because it’s, normally you would imagine you would carry them over your shoulder or something.  So, again, in hindsight, that was probably a bit of an odd way to be, you know, be carrying, but”.
4078    “Is there anything else about the man that you can remember now?”
Reply    “No, I mean, I would be so worried now about things that are put into my, I think the only two things that I’m still absolutely adamant on is a lot of hair, sort of a lot of thick, thick hair and sort of dark and baggy, well not, ill fitting clothes I think is the sort of, you know, sort of is the two things that still, I mean obviously I get this image in my head all the time and they are the two things that are still, are still, are still there”.
4078    “And then think about the child again, as much as you can see of that child in that split second, and tell me what you saw?”
Reply    “Well, again, I mean, and this is, I think initially I couldn’t really bring, I could only really remember the feet.  But the day after, when we had, they, at the interview, the person that was interviewing was really pushing me to try and, you know, remember any more details, and the one thing that I could really think was, erm, a turn-up of some description.  And I don’t know whether this made it into my statement, but there was, and this is the thing that convinces me it was her, there was, erm, sort of the pyjamas were, there was some sort of, I thought it was a turn-up, but some sort of design on the bottom of the pyjamas.  And I did say it in my first statement and in my second statement I can remember saying it again and, erm, the translator in there, because I said ‘I don’t know whether this made it into my first statement or not’, but the translator sort of went ‘Oh yes, I can remember you going like this’, because I was moving my hands up, but I was sort of talking about something at the bottom of the pyjamas.  Because, from my own point of view, and I think, you know, ‘Oh was I trying to’, I can think that I would think ‘Oh maybe a little girl would be wearing pink pyjamas’, so, you know, if you were subconsciously putting things in your head, I can think pink pyjamas, yes, but I wouldn’t think of some detail around the bottom of the pyjamas as a specific thing to, to mention”.
4078    “And when you noticed the detail was it in any colour?”
Reply    “I don’t, I didn’t know, I thought there was sort of a pink flowery bit on, bit on it, but, no, I mean, the actual frill itself or turn-up, as I thought it was, I couldn’t think of the colour, but I thought there was pink sort of flowery and sort of like liney bits on the bottom, so”.
4078    “And, overall, what colour would you say the pyjama bottoms were?”
Reply    “Erm, I can’t, I can’t remember, I mean, I, I can’t remember, well I can’t remember now, but I think they were sort of whitey but with this, with this pattern on, but then some pink.  That’s, that’s what I thought at the time.  It’s harder because now I know what the pyjamas were so I can’t”.
4078    “It is very difficult”.
Reply    “I think that is hard for me to actually”.
4078    “Yeah”.
Reply    “To think now because I can, I can see them now”.
4078    “Because you know what actually they would have been if it had have been Madeleine?”
Reply    “Yeah, exactly, yeah, so I can’t really go back to thinking what they were”.
4078    “It is very difficult.  What about the child’s feet then, what can you say about feet, if anything, other than that they were uncovered?”
Reply    “Just that they were uncovered and it looked like they were, you know, they seemed to be asleep.  I mean, they was definitely, you know, they were, as you would imagine if the child was asleep.  But, you know, that’s all, that’s all I can, like I say, it was more just the, the fact they were, you know, you could see them”.
4078    “And the way you have held your hands like that, were the feet side-by-side like that?”
Reply    “Yeah”.
4078    “So the child would have been held on its back?”
Reply    “Yeah”.
4078    “And you say that they were very relaxed as though they were asleep?”
Reply    “Yeah, yeah, they were not, there was no, you know, there was no struggle or any, yeah, they just looked like they were asleep.  So, again, if you’d imagine somebody had been just, you know, taken out of their bed or something you’d imagine they’d be, but, no, they were very, you know, asleep”.
4078    “How long do you think it was that you had them in sight?”
Reply    “Erm, phew, not that, I mean, I did, I think I did go like that after they’d gone, so it probably wasn’t, phew, it’d be seconds, wouldn’t it, it’d be just like, phew, a few seconds and then as I got to the top I think I went like that, which I think is when I noticed more that they were walking quite quick.  But, no, I mean, not, you know, not, not that long at all”.
4078    “I know this seems like an obvious question, which I think I know the answer to, because I’ve seen the artist’s impression, did you see the man’s face?”
Reply    “No, no, not, no, I mean, just the hair, well not, not that I could remember to give details, give details to”.
4078    “How far away from you were they at the closest point?”
Reply    “Phew, as, I mean, it’s hard to, sort of thing, but I think I was sort of halfway, it’s probably sort of five metres, I mean, I’m trying to sort of think in terms of this room, but sort of probably just further than that wall, probably sort of five to ten metres id’ say, if, I don’t know how far it is to there, but”.
4078    “I would say probably about, I am just guessing, but two and a half to three metres?”
Reply    “Yeah, I’d probably say sort of five, five to ten metres, well probably five, nearer five”.
4078    “So about as far away again the other side of the wall as you are from this side?”
Reply    “Yeah, yeah, probably, yeah, sort of, as when I first, when I first saw them”.
4078    “I don’t know why I was looking over there, it’s like I was (inaudible)”.
Reply    “I know.  But, yeah, I’d say probably, and then obviously I was walking as they were walking, so it would have probably, I don’t know whether it would have gone less or, but, I mean, I wasn’t like staring, you know, it was sort of like a”.
4078    “A passing interest, yeah?”
Reply    “Yeah”.
4078    “Right.  Okay.  Are you okay?”
Reply    “Yeah”.
4078    “So the man and the child have moved off down the road towards, do you know where that goes towards?”
Reply    “Erm, well it’s just this road, I think it’s, erm, I’d be here, so they’re walking up here.  Say that’s the top of the road there, so they’re walking along here”.
4078    “And what is that in the direction of, do you know, where does that ultimately go to?”
Reply    “That sort of goes, that goes up to the road, that’s the main road out, well to get out of the town or so to speak.  You sort of go up here and then back and that will take you to, to the crèche”.
4078    “Okay”.
Reply    “And the sort of car park is here.  These bits here are sort of the car parky bit”.
4078    “And when you say you saw them walk down and you might have turned back as well, whereabouts were they at the point where you turned back?”
Reply    “Erm, I’d say probably about there.  They were, well round this bit, they weren’t as far as the car parky bit.  I’m trying to picture that area there.  But they weren’t, they were probably, by that stage, probably about three times that distance or”.
4078    “Yeah”.
Reply    “You know, sort of a bit more than, than that distance away”.
4078    “On the same side of the road?”
Reply    “The same side of the road as, yeah”.
4078    “And was there anything about the way he walked or the speed that he was walking that made you think he was about to change direction?”
Reply    “No, no, no, he was just sort of, just walking”.
4078    “So you are unable to say where he stopped or?”
Reply    “No, he was just walking on that way as I looked and then I’d, I’d sort of went the opposite way, went the opposite way to carry on the check”.
4078    “So thinking then about the last glimpse you had of him, when you turned back and you saw him and you say he was not yet at the car park, he was on the same side of the road.  Are you happy with the way you have described the lighting that there was a kind of an orangy tint?”
Reply    “Yeah, as much as I can remember.  I mean, I don’t, it was, I’m sure it was, it was, it was dark, it was getting, it was fairly, I’m sure it was fairly, phew.  I’m trying to think.  Yeah, I’m sure it was fairly dark by that, it was, the street lights were definitely, I’m sure the street lights were definitely.  I can’t say, but I think it was, I think it was getting fairly dark”.
4078    (inaudible)
Reply    “Yeah, fairly dark.  I’m sure, phew, I might be completely wrong, but”.
4078    “As far as you can say at the moment, that is what you think?”
Reply    “Yeah”.
4078    “And again I am going to ask about cars”.
Reply    “Yeah”.
4078    “Were there any, did you notice any cars around?”
Reply    “There were cars around but, phew, because you’ve often got them, say, sort of down this bit here.  But I can’t remember what they were or I didn’t notice anything that looked odd, you know, no car that seemed to be standing out from anything else, so”.
4078    “No”.
Reply    “No”.
4078    “So you didn’t notice any car headlights or noises from cars?”
Reply    “No, no, because I think, you know, if I’d heard sort of a car screech off quickly at that point, I probably would have, would have taken notice I think”.
4078    “And, what was I going to ask then.  Yeah, if you were, you don’t need to say anything at the moment.  But go back in your own mind and think of what you have just told me again”.
Reply    “Umm”.
4078    “You have just concentrated on the visual aspect of what you saw”.
Reply    “Umm”.
4078    “Go back over it and have a think if you heard anything from the point where you have passed Gerry and Jez to seeing this man, what could you hear?”
Reply    “Phew, I can’t think of anything, there was nothing, no, nothing that comes to mind, there was nothing, as I say, I can’t remember hearing a car or, no, nothing, I mean, it was quite, apart from, as I say, it was very quiet really around there”.
4078    “What about the man and the child, did you hear his footsteps?”
Reply    “No, not that I can remember”.
4078    “Not that you were conscious of?”
Reply    “No, no, not that I’m conscious of, no”.
4078    “Okay.  So you have glimpsed, you know, turned back and see the man disappearing off down the road with the child and, at that time, didn’t really think anything of it other than the child might have cold feet?”
Reply    “Yeah, and just”.
4078    “And later on did you think it was significant?”
Reply    “It was a, yeah, it was sort of came as soon as, as soon as they said that came, buff, straight.  As soon as I’d seen it there it was forgotten and then, buff, as soon as Rachael said”.


Martin Brunt talking about Jane Tanner on 28 November 2007
"When she first spoke to the police she said", "I’m not sure if he was carrying anything." "Yet 6 months on, he was carrying a child, in a very strange way, and the child was wearing the very same pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing."

"The police at the time, off the record told us that they thought Jane Tanner was not a very reliable witness. They were not suggesting that what she was saying was done in malice, but they thought she was changing her story from time to time. That’s why they never issued any appeal around it"

The artists impression
The 'Abductor' according to Jane Tanner

Madeleine's pyjamas

What is so extraordinary about this artist's impression of the man seen by Jane Tanner?
No, it's not that it was drawn by a 'world-renowned' FBI artist who has drawn the man's right arm in a position that is physically impossible to achieve, without dislocation of the elbow.
No, it's the not the fact that the alleged abductor has no face.
No, it's not even that the child's pyjamas seem to have been copied directly from the photograph of the pyjamas Madeleine was alleged to have been wearing when she disappeared. Including the frills.
So what is extraordinary?
Well, first we have to fully understand what this picture represents. It's a picture of the man Kate, Gerry, their families and their friends are convinced took Madeleine from their holiday apartment. Their consistent and unwavering belief is that this is the man who has taken their daughter from her bed.
He was seen by Jane Tanner and she recounted seeing him immediately she heard that Madeleine had disappeared. This picture was drawn after the artist spoke with Tanner. It is therefore not unreasonable to describe this, by the McCanns' own assertions, as the single most important piece of evidence to suggest that Madeleine has been abducted. Indeed, it could be described as the only 'evidence'.
So, bearing in mind the McCanns' oft repeated commitment 'to leave no stone unturned' in the search for their 'special' daughter and with a website being visited by millions worldwide and with well over £1 million sitting in Madeleine's Fund, specifically donated to find their daughter, why did this picture take until October to be commissioned?
That's 175 days. During which time, the McCanns had travelled to Rome, Madrid, Berlin, Amsterdam and Morocco and Gerry had travelled to the USA and the UK twice. They'd had thousands of posters printed, wristbands made and balloons set off. They'd been made 'arguidos', returned to the UK and Gerry had returned to work. During all that time, they'd received levels of press coverage never witnessed, in such a case, before.
But, we are left to conclude, they apparently couldn't find the time, or money, or inclination, to commission the only tangible connection that exists in the search for their 'abducted' daughter. Not until 5 months later.
Now that is extraordinary.
But it isn't the most extraordinary thing because this artist's impression wasn't even commissioned by the McCanns. It was commissioned by Metodo 3, the investigation agency hired by the McCanns to investigate Madeleine's disappearance.
In Gerry's blog of 26 October 2007, the day after the picture was released, and referring to Metodo 3, he wrote the following:
'They have also released a sketch of an eyewitness who saw a man carrying a small child away from near the apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared. We believe this child was Madeleine.'
In 175 days, they have assembled a support team of the finest lawyers and PR people, with no expense spared. A team well beyond the financial capabilities of most people. A team formed specifically to build a defence case for them, in the event that they are ever charged with Madeleine's disappearance. 
Yet, in all that time and with all that money, they would appear to have never once given consideration to the release of a simple drawing, to lead them to the abductor and what should be the most important thing in their world.
Madeleine McCann. Their daughter.

The question of Madeleine's pyjamas
Jane Tanner quoted in The Sun on 20 November 2007:
"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."
"They were pink and white, they were what Madeleine was wearing. I just felt so awful, I felt I could have stopped this from happening. I think of that everyday."

Gerry and Kate hold up pyjamas

Kate and Gerry with Madeleine's pyjamas, in Berlin

These two pictures show Gerry and Kate holding up pyjamas said to be the ones Madeleine was wearing in bed when she disappeared. The McCann's claim these particular pyjamas belong to Amelie, their other daughter, and that they are identical to the pyjamas Madeleine was wearing.
The picture on the left was taken on 04 June 2007 during the Crimewatch programme and the picture on the right was taken at their press conference in Berlin on 06 June 2007.
If you refer back to the picture drawn by the FBI forensic artist at the top of this page, you will see that the bottom of the pyjamas, in that picture and as described by Jane Tanner, come to Madeleine's ankles. By comparing the pyjamas in all these photographs, it is quite clear that the pyjama bottoms shown are not full 'ankle length' but 'cut off' below the knee style.
This would undoubtedly mean - bearing in mind that all pyjama legs 'ride up' when a child is carried - that the pyjama legs would have ridden above the knee, almost certainly making them impossible to see or describe. Especially at night, from distance and when being carried in the position Jane Tanner has described.
Tanner has admitted she saw only the 'feet and the bottom of the pyjamas' yet describes a 'pinky aspect' to them. The bottom of these pyjamas are actually white with a tiny floral design and were, as described above, short 'cut-off' style. The only 'pinky aspect' in Madeleine's pyjamas was the top, which in itself was very short sleeved, and which Tanner has admitted she couldn't see.
The 'pinky aspect' is an extremely important detail of Tanner's account and it's there for two important reasons. Firstly, it links the sighting to Madeleine by virtue of the pyjamas Madeleine is alleged to have been wearing and secondly, it pinpoints the sighting as that of a girl. That is important as it immediately suppresses any debate that this 'child' could have been a boy. 

The gloves are off..., 11 December 2008
The gloves are off...
By Nigel Moore/Martin Roberts
11 December 2008
Speaking to RTE's 'Prime Time', in October 2007, Clarence Mitchell said that Madeleine could "easily" have been kidnapped by an abductor who did not leave the trail of a break-in.
"There was no evidence of a break-in," said Mr Mitchell reversing the statements made by the McCanns to their closest family and friends in the immediate hours after Madeleine's reported disappearance.
"I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape, and to do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily."
Mr Mitchell's words overlook the fact that the abductor would have had to, at the very least, open the window and shutter from inside the apartment - using one or other hand in the process. In so doing, they would, like Kate McCann, have left a trace i.e. a fingerprint or two, unless, of course, they were wearing gloves.
Close inspection of the Tanner authorised artist's impression, sufficiently detailed as to convey the pattern on the child's pyjamas, reveals that both the subject's hands were bare. No fingerprint means quite simply that this person, whoever he may have been, did not open the bedroom window of 5A between 9.05 (Gerry's visit) and 9.15 (the Tanner sighting).

The 'Abductor' according to Jane Tanner

Sketches of Jane Tanner's abductor
The artist's impression of the abductor, released 25 October 2007

The "Niggle" and Strange Tale of Robert Murat, 23 April 2009
The "Niggle" and Strange Tale of Robert Murat Gazeta Digital

Jane Tanner


Was it a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?
PJ Reis and Associates
23 April 2009
"Basically, I'm just an ordinary, straightforward guy who's the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet - if you'll excuse the language."
- Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2008
An incredible story
One thing that is obvious from the CD of evidence released by the Portuguese authorities in July 2008, in what was an inexplicably selective disclosure, is the identification by Miss Jane Tanner of Mr Robert Murat as Madeleine McCann's "abductor". She picked him out in a surveillance exercise on Sunday 13th May 2007 and persisted in her allegation against him and did not withdraw it until her interviews with the Leicestershire Police in April 2008. You have to dig deep into the CD and other sources to pull everything together, but here is what happened and it is incredible.
The supposed sighting of the abductor
In the early hours of Friday 4th May 2007, Miss Tanner approached GNR Officer, Nelson da Costa (statements at folios 417, 1340 and 3285) and told him that she had seen an "individual" running and carrying a "child" who was "clearly" wearing pyjamas. The Officer did not consider the sighting credible because when he asked Miss Tanner to describe the "individual" she was unable to do so: excusing herself because it had been very dark. The Officer wondered, if it had been so dark, how she had been able to "clearly" see the child's pyjamas.
A later exchange between Jane Tanner and the GNR Officers was translated by Sylvia Maria Correia Baptisa (an employee of the Ocean Club). Jane Tanner told the GNR, via Miss Baptista, that she had seen a "man" crossing the road, (North of Apartment 5A) possibly carrying a child. Miss Baptista (statements at folios 355,1289 and 1975) found this story "strange", because she was convinced Miss Tanner had not been in a position to see the area concerned.
In the late morning of Friday 4th May 2007, Miss Tanner told the PJ in Portimao about seeing a "person" striding "purposefully out" across the top of the road near to Apartment 5A carrying a small child. This alleged sighting took place less than an hour before Madeleine was reported missing at around 10.30pm on Thursday 3rd May 2007. Miss Tanner said the alleged "abductor" was between two and five metres away from her and that she had a clear view of this "person" whom she described 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.
Miss Tanner's statement continues:
Concerning the child, who seemed to be asleep, she only saw the legs. The child seemed to be bigger than a baby. It had no shoes on, was dressed in cotton light-coloured pyjamas (perhaps pink or white). It is uncertain, but the interviewee has the feeling that she saw a design on the pyjamas like flowers, but is not certain about it.
Concerning these details, the interviewee states not having known what Madeleine was wearing when she disappeared. She has not spoken to anyone about this. Concerning the man, she has only mentioned it to Gerald, but without going into details and with the police.
The interviewee has been invited to draw a sketch which we attach to this document. Questioned, she stated probably being able to identify the person that she saw if she saw him in profile and at the place where she saw him.
Strangely, in three interviews, she only once refers to seeing a "man". This lack of specificity is disturbing. Why does she consistently refer to the alleged abductor as a "person" and not a "man" and to the "girl" as a "child"?
Forensic linguistics
If you walk out of your house and fall over a cat, your autonomic memory recall will not lead you to say that you "fell over an animal"; your recollection will be specifically of a "cat" and possibly a "fat black cat with white legs" or a "bloody cat". In forensic linguistics (see the brilliant analysis of the ransom note in the case of JonBenet Ramsey on the truth is usually spontaneously recalled from memory to a specific event, object, activity or time and not to a generality: in the present context the noun "person" indicates that the specific image of a man was not accessible in Miss Tanner's memory. It suggests an invention of something that did not happen being contrived from the imagination. The rule is that "truth is from memory but lies are from the imagination". Of course, linguistic analysis proves nothing, but it does raise serious questions about Miss Tanner's credibility.
The 'Egg Man'
Later on 4th May 2007 Miss Tanner was asked for more detail about the "abductor". This resulted in a graphic from the PJ's computers (which is not on the CD) and to the famous "Egg Man" sketch that was based upon it. The "Egg Man" is a frontal view, without glasses or a moustache and short hair at the back of his head but with strands hanging over the front of his face, with a parting. It is nothing like Robert Murat.

The 'Egg Man' and Robert Murat


Miss Tanner subsequently told the Leicestershire Police that she could not have improved upon the "Egg Man" because the PJ did not have computer software that could draw profiles. This is an implausible excuse and she gave a detailed verbal description that is unlike Mr Murat. The "Egg Man" sketch as well as her verbal description of the "abductor" were not consistent, nothing like Mr Murat, yet this did not prevent her, later on, picking him out as the person she saw on the night of 3rd May 2007.
The importance of the words "therefore" and "because"
In her second statement to the PJ (on 10th May 2007) Miss Tanner said (see the summary translation at folio 3994 of the CD) she "believed it (i.e. the child being carried by the abductor) was a girl and therefore her pyjamas were light coloured (White or pink)". She did not say she had seen pink pyjamas, nor that they had a pattern or frill on the legs. This very significant detail – which precisely matched the clothes that Miss Tanner later learned Madeleine had been wearing - only came much later. Miss Tanner assumed, because the man was carrying a girl, the pyjamas would be pink! But why did she assume it was a girl when she has consistently admitted she did not see the child's upper body, hair or face? This circularity puts us on notice that Miss Tanner's statement is not credible.
In her interviews with the Leicestershire Police, in April 2008, Miss Tanner again repeats the circularity of what came first: the actual sighting of pink pyjamas or her imagining this colour because she believed (or assumed) the "child" was a girl:
Detective Constable Sophie Ferguson asked:
"And then think about the child again, as much as you can see of that child in that split second, and tell me what you saw?"
Miss Tanner responded:
"Well, again, I mean, and this is….. I think initially I couldn't really bring, I could only really remember the feet. But the day after, when we had, they, at the interview, the person that was interviewing was really pushing me to try and, you know, remember any more details, and the one thing that I could really think was, erm, a turn-up of some description.
And I don't know whether this made it into my statement, (She must know it did not) but there was, and this is the thing that convinces me it was her, there was, erm, sort of the pyjamas were, there was some sort of, I thought it was a turn-up, but some sort of design on the bottom of the pyjamas.
And I did say it in my first statement and in my second statement . I can remember saying it again and, erm, the translator in there, because I said I don't know whether this made it into my first statement or not, but the translator sort of went 'Oh yes, I can remember you going like this', because I was moving my hands up, but I was sort of talking about something at the bottom of the pyjamas.
Because, from my own point of view, and I think, you know, Oh was I trying to, I can think that I would think 'Oh maybe a little girl would be wearing pink pyjamas', so, you know, if you were subconsciously putting things in your head, I can think pink pyjamas, yes, but I wouldn't think of some detail around the bottom of the pyjamas as a specific thing to, to mention.
The bottom line is that Miss Tanner admits that she:
Only saw the feet or legs of the child and did not know whether it was a boy or a girl
Assumed the "child" was a girl
May have imagined seeing pink pyjamas by "subconsciously putting things in your (her) head"
But she maintained that she could not possibly have imagined (and therefore must have seen) "some sort of …. turn-up or design" or "detail around the bottom of the pyjamas" that was included in her first and second statement. The problem is that this description was not mentioned in her first statement (made on 4th May 2007) but was critically important because it perfectly described the clothing that Madeleine had been wearing.
Miss Tanner claimed not to have known, at the time of making her first statement, what Madeleine had been wearing, because she had "not been in the room" when Kate McCann had given the description of them. Again, in the forensic linguistic field, the use of words such as "therefore", "since", "hence", "as", "so" or "because" put the analyst on notice that the explanation may not be truthful. However, she cannot deny having been told about this detail before 10th May 2007, so its inclusion in her second statement really counts for nothing.
The words "because" etc are usually associated with "pseudo denials" such as "I did not take the money, because I did not have the keys to the safe". Truthful denials and truthful assertions are usually totally committed and do not need to be subconsciously supported by words such as "because" or "therefore" etc. "I did not steal the blo*dy car" is more likely to be truthful than "I did not take the car because I cannot drive". Liars often fret that their stories may be disbelieved and subconsciously add unnecessary reinforcement, often introduced with the linking word "because". Miss Tanner uses "because" a lot!
Inconsistency of tense, nouns and pronouns
Miss Tanner (again the summary at Folio 3994) stated "….. I did think it strange that “the child” (not a specific recall to a “girl”) has a blanket/sheet to cover it”. She has since denied that she ever said the girl was covered by a blanket and it is possible that the translated summary statement is erroneous. But that is what it says.

Miss Tanner’s apparent use of the present tense “has”, when relating a past event, is a classic symptom of deception, as is the unspecific noun “child”. Also, the use of the pronoun “it” is not consistent with an accurate focused retrieval from memory: the pronoun “her” would have been more indicative of the truth whereas “it”, when supposedly recalling the sighting of a young girl, is not.

Underplaying the sighting

Both Miss Tanner and her husband – Russell O’Brien – admit that in her early conversations with the PJ about the “abductor” she had “not wanted to believe” or “did not give much importance” to what she had seen and may have, to use Russell O’Brien’s words, “underplayed” the sighting. She says she “avoided mentioning” precisely what she had seen to Mr and Mrs McCann “therefore she didn’t want to increase their suffering” (Folio 3995). Again, the word “therefore” appears.

We know her explanation is not true because the chronology agreed by the Tapas 9 (including Mr and Mrs McCann)—by tearing pages out of Madeleine’s picture book before the PJ arrived—specifically describes Ms Tanner’s alleged sighting. She did tell them about seeing a “person” with a “child” but she did not tell them about the child’s pink pyjamas, with a design on the trousers. And the possible reason for this omission may have nothing to do with preventing the McCann’s “suffering” but results from the story being embellished after the event to match Madeleine’s clothing.

Questions about procedures

Extreme care has to be taken with applying linguistic analytics to any statements and especially to those that have been translated. What is unacceptable, in both the PJ and Leicestershire Police interviews, is that the English versions (before translation) are not in the CD. Good practice would dictate that the statements should have been first written (or tape recorded) in English or in the witnesses’ native language (so they can properly agree them) and then translated into Portuguese for proceedings in that country. Both versions should have been retained. This does not seem to have happened with any of the statements now in the CD.

It appears that the PJ made the translations of their interviews with the Tapas 9 in real time, while the conversations were taking place, and did not keep a record in English of what, precisely, was being said. Similarly, there is no record in the CD of the English versions of the Leicestershire Police interviews with independent witnesses. The bottom line is that the content of virtually all of the statements in the case could be denied and this may be one of the reasons why the Portuguese prosecutors decided to shelve the case. It is alternatively possible that full transcripts in English of the Tapas 9’s interviews by the PJ are available but they are not to be found in the CD.

Confidence in the sighting

We can measure how confident and concerned Miss Tanner was, at the time, by the reaction of her husband and other searchers. None of them went tracking off in the direction she claims she had seen the “abductor” striding “purposefully out”. In fact, no one (including the Portuguese sniffer dogs) seems to have taken her sighting seriously. This is unsurprising as she did not take it seriously herself!

The fingering of Mr Murat

On 6th May 2007, a female CID Officer in the Leicestershire Constabulary (Folio 307 of the CD) faxed the “Portugal Incident Room” stating that Lori Campbell, a reporter from the Sunday Mirror, had been in contact. The Officer reported:

“Lori has been speaking to an Interpreter who has been helping the Portuguese authorities with the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance. He has only given his name as “ROR” (sic) and has not given any background information about himself.

Lori has become suspicions of Rob as he has given conflicting accounts to various people and became very concerned when he noticed his photo being taken by the Mirror’s photographer. ROB stated to Lori that he was going through a messy divorce in the UK at the moment and that he had a 3 year old daughter just like Madeleine, who he is separated from at the moment. He made a big show of telephoning his daughter in front of reporters and Lori felt he was being too loud and making a big thing of speaking to his daughter on the phone. The things that ROB has said to Lori have raised her concerns about him.

Could you please call Lori who is still in Portugal to establish further details to identify ROB in order to eliminate him from your enquiries on 07917 XXXXXX”

The Leicestershire Police were impressively quick in forwarding Miss Campbell’s information to the PJ, in stark contrast to the way they handled some other matters. For example, in mid May 2007, Katherine and Arul G***** contacted the UK police. They are both doctors and friends of some of the Tapas 9. They made statements claiming that, while on an earlier holiday with Mr and Mrs McCann and Fiona and David Payne (two of the Tapas 9), Mr Payne, in the presence of Mr McCann, had made disturbing remarks about Madeleine in what might be construed to be a sexual and perverted way.

These potentially critical statements were not reported to the PJ until many months later and then only after the Portuguese Officers had heard rumours and had specifically asked to see them. Although the statements are indexed in the PJ files, they are not included in the CD. This omission has to be deliberate.

Miss Campbell’s report must have hit the hot buttons, because Mr Murat came under suspicion and the PJ intercepted his telephone (see folios 1017 and 1267), picking up some interesting chats with Martin Brunt of Sky TV (see folios 1675 and 1692) but little else except for a conversation with “Phil” a British Police Officer whom Mr Murat asked about the ways mobile telephone signals could be traced to specific locations. Mr Murat’s interest seemed to be whether such tracking would prove he was at home during the critical hours of Thursday 3rd May 2007 and thus tends to support his innocence. There was nothing from the PJ’s surveillance to implicate Mr Murat. However, things were to change and change very quickly.

The arrival in Luz of Control Risks Group ("CRG")

In the early afternoon of Sunday 13th May 2007, Miss Tanner spoke to “some of the people that Kate and Gerry brought in” (believed to be Control Risks Group (CRG) whose two senior investigators—Kenneth Farrow and Michael Keenan— arrived in Faro on the British Airways flight from Gatwick that morning) and told them about her sighting of “the person”. It is probable (but this is not clear from the CD or from the Leicestershire Police interviews) that she told CRG (as she had earlier told the Portuguese Police) that she could identify the “abductor” if she were to see him in profile and in context.

The involvement of CRG is important. The company was apparently retained as part of a “crisis management” team by Bell Pottinger on behalf of Mark Warner. Some CRG specialist were probably in Luz before 13th May 2007 but Mr Farrow is the ex-head of the Economic Crime Unit in the City of London Police and Mr Keenan an ex-Superintendent from the Metropolitan Police with specialist fraud and investigative experience.

Bob Small and the Spanish police

After speaking to “the people that Kate and Gerry brought in”, Miss Tanner received a telephone call from Bob Small (a senior Leicestershire Police Officer, who was assisting the PJ in the Algarve) who told her that the “Spanish Police” wanted to see her! Yes: he did say, according to Miss Tanner, “the Spanish Police”. It is likely, by that time, that covert plans had been made (on some pretext) to induce Mr Murat to walk across the top of the road, north of Apartment 5A, where Miss Tanner said she had seen the “abductor” and was thus the precise context in which she believed she could make an identification.

Mr Small told Miss Tanner to not to discuss anything with anyone, including her husband. She claims she followed this instruction to the letter: but is it realistic to believe she did not tell him anything: or is she lying on this point? If she is being untruthful, why?

Mr Murat was under suspicion but had not been made an “Arguido”. He been around the Ocean Club a lot from 4th May 2007 onwards and had interpreted the PJ’s interviews with Catriona Baker, Stacey Portz , Leanne Wagstaff and Amy Teirney (Folio 457). It is possible that between 6th May 2007 (when his name was mentioned by Lori Campbell) and 13th May 2007 the news that a local suspect had been identified had reached the ears of the “Tapas 9”. It is even conceivable that they knew the suspect was Mr Murat. Unlike her husband and others of the “Tapas 9”, Miss Tanner had never been introduced to Mr Murat.

The ill judged "pick up"

Arrangements were made for Miss Tanner to be collected by Mr Small and his PJ colleagues in a car park near to Mr Murat’s home: this was probably around 7.30pm on Sunday 13th May 2007 while Dr Amaral waited for news in a meeting room at the Public Ministry, preparing to pounce if Miss Tanner’s identification was “successful”.

Miss Tanner dramatizes that she was “worried sick” that the “Spanish Police” were about to cart her off to destinations unknown and got her husband to walk with her to the rendezvous with Mr Small. If, as she claims, she did not discuss the identification operation with her husband, what precisely did she say to him? What did he think was going on? Who looked after their kids and what did they tell them? It is beyond belief that Russell O’Brien and some of the other “Tapasniks” did not know what was afoot.

Why the police arranged Miss Tanner’s pick up so near to their main suspect’s home was at best foolish and was asking for trouble. On their way to the car park - and just outside his home - Robert Murat (who had met Russell O' Brien on the morning of Friday 4th May 2007) stopped, got out of his green VW van and chatted, showing the couple posters he had made to “Find Madeleine” and generally rattling on about nothing in particular. This was the first time Miss Tanner had been introduced to Mr Murat, but given the events that were about to follow it is amazing she did not cry out “That’s him… that’s the ‘person’ I saw: the abductor”. But she didn’t say a single word.

In April 2008 she told the Leicestershire Police that she was concerned that there “was some strange conspiracy going on” (to abduct her) and that Mr Small had “scared the daylights out of her”. She continued: “But that made me even more suspicious because it was like, so I think at that point, I think I actually spoke to Stewart (Stewart Prior the lead UK Police Investigator in Luz)”. She knows she had spoken to Mr Prior and thus had no reason to believe that she was about to be abducted. Her histrionics in this regard are absurd.

The discussion Miss Tanner had with her husband about the identification charade are very important. He had already met Mr Murat and would be able to identify him and point him out to her. Was it pure coincidence that he accompanied Miss Tanner to the pick up by Mr Small? Was it bad planning that the pick up was just outside Mr Murat’s house? Was it misfortune that they happened to bump into Mr Murat? Or is the whole sequence far more sinister?

Miss Tanner was taken away by Mr Small and the PJ and she says Russell O’Brien wrote down their car registration number, presumably so he could rescue her if the Spanish Police abducted her. Miss Tanner was driven to another location and hidden in the back of an undercover surveillance vehicle (a refrigerated van) which was driven to a position near the side entrance to Apartment 5A, facing north.

The identification of Mr Murat as the abductor

Miss Tanner then, apparently, saw three people walk across the top of the road: but Mr Murat was the first to do so. It is not clear exactly what she told the PJ at the time but, however she would like to spin the story now, it was enough to make them believe Mr Murat was the “abductor”, notwithstanding the fact that he looked nothing like the “Egg Man” or her verbal description. The sighting was reported to Dr Amaral and the Public Ministry and plans made to arrest Mr Murat.

Mr Murat’s home was searched on 14th May 2007. He was made an “Arguido” 15th May 2007 and his face was on every TV screen in Europe, including those at the Ocean Club.

Welcome corroboration by the "Tapas 3"

A report on Sky News caused Rachel Mampilly to scamper into the Tanner’s apartment saying she recognised Mr Murat from her sighting of him at the Ocean Club on the night of 3rd May 2007. Fiona Payne corroborated this and Russell O’Brien added that he had met Mr Murat, while the search for Madeleine had been taking place on the night and early morning of 3rd and 4th May 2007, and had entered the interpreter’s telephone number into his mobile’s memory at that time.

Miss Tanner claims that she had not told her friends anything about her outing in the refrigerated van and that their reactions to Mr Murat’s exposure on Sky News were spontaneous. However, in her April 2008 interviews with the Leicestershire Police, Miss Tanner stated that her friends suggested that she should speak to Mr Small about Mr Murat. How did they know she had Mr Small’s contact details if she had not discussed the identification charade with them? Miss Tanner stated:

“Cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before (for/from?) them and you know, they sort of, you know, to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him (Mr Murat) on the way to doing the surveillance as well as, yeh, just for that so it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert Murat had said he wasn’t there on that night”.

Later in the interview, Miss Tanner said:

“…. Get to the truth of the matter and the truth is, you know they, when they asked me to ring Bob Small to make these statements, we didn’t even know that he’d, erm, hadn’t, hadn’t said he was there on the night and they didn’t know that I had done the surveillance………… I mean when I got back, I didn’t even tell Russell what I’d done cos I took everything seriously what the police said in terms of, you know, not telling anyone”

A procedural error or a perversion of the course of justice?

Miss Tanner telephoned Bob Small and relayed her friend’s concerns, but it is not clear whether or not she told him about the compromising, supposedly accidental, encounter with Mr Murat- outside his house – “five minutes” before identifying him as the “abductor”. In most jurisdictions this encounter would have invalidated Miss Tanner’s identification evidence. It would also have raised suspicions that there had been a deliberate plot for her to bump into the prime suspect (accompanied by someone who knew him) so that she would see what he was wearing and, based on such knowledge, identify him as the “abductor” some “five minutes” later.

Whether this suspicion is true or incorrect, it does not alter the fact that the identification exercise was gross incompetence by all involved. Mr Murat denied being at the Ocean Club on 3rd May 2007, which made his position even more serious because it conflicted with evidence from the “Tapas 3”.

There is nothing in the CD to indicate whether the supposedly accidental encounter was reported to Mr Small, although the subsequent reaction of the Leicestershire Police (in the interview with Miss Tanner in April 2008; see below) suggests that it was. The critical unanswered question is whether or not Mr Small reported the evidentially corrupting incident to the PJ and to the Portuguese judiciary and if he did why they accepted Miss Tanner’s evidence without demur.

Other statements by the Tapas 3

On 15th May 2007, Mr O’Brien, Fiona Payne and Rachael Mampilly made statements to the PJ putting Murat in the Ocean Club late on 3rd May 2007 (folios 1957). Their evidence appears to conflict with that from both Portuguese Police Officers and Mark Warner’s staff (Folio 1330 et seq) who say Mr Murat was not there that night. Activity on his own and his mum’s computers tend to confirm that he was at home, among other things, looking at mild porn sites (Folio 1166)

Statements by Gail Cooper and work by Brian Kennedy

Towards the end of May 2007, Mrs Gail Cooper (Folio 3997 and 3982) gave a statement to the Newark Police claiming that when she had been on holiday “in a villa near Apartment 5A” she was visited by a strange man who said he was collecting money for an orphanage near Espiche.

On 11th July 2007, a formal confrontation between the Tapas 3 and Mr Murat took place in Portimao. He stuck to his guns: they stuck to theirs' and it became a standoff. In this meeting Miss Tanner was able to get a very good look of Mr Murat and apparently continued to maintain he was the “person” she had seen carrying the “child on 3rd May 2007”, despite the fact he looked nothing like the “Egg Man” The PJ seemed to believe Mr Murat.

At some point, Brian Kennedy, the McCann’s financial backer and double glazing magnate, arranged for Gail Cooper to meet Melissa Little BSc (Hons), PS, FBI Diploma, which resulted in the sketch of “Monster Man” who had a long pointy face, moustache, long hair at the back of his head, but no glasses (Folio 3979).

Melissa Little's sketches

On 22nd October 2007 (folio 3905) Gerald McCann emailed Robert Small with two sketches both prepared by Melissa Little, one of which (“the second sketch”) became known as “Bundle Man”. The first sketch is similar to “Bundle Man” but it is in black and white and has a nose (“Nose Man”).

Artist's sketches


Mr McCann wrote to “Bob” Small as follows: “Sketch 1 was the rough outline…… “She (Miss Tanner) was not really happy with the face and therefore Melissa decided to leave it blank”.

The differences between the two sketches may appear marginal, but they are critical, because the black and white “Nose Man” (see folio 3906) does not wear glasses, nor does he have facial hair! Since Mr Murat cannot see a barn door without his glasses and is never without them, this sketch would appear to rule him out as the “abductor”. Yet no one acted on this gross inconsistency and he remained an Arguido.

No wonder Miss Tanner was “not really happy with the face”, when it totally destroyed her identification of Mr Murat.

Brian Kennedy private investigator?

On 13th January 2008, Brian Kennedy interviewed Albert Schuurmans who is the head of the Roscoe Foundation, based in the Algarve. Mr Schuurmans gave a statement to Mr Kennedy, or to his representatives , claiming (misleadingly, as it happens) that there were no orphanages in Espiche: thus making Mrs Cooper’s sighting potentially very sinister.

At around this time, Gail Cooper discussed her sighting with the British media but added further detail and described seeing “Monster Man” acting suspiciously on a three separate occasions: firstly when he was walking in heavy rain on the beach at Luz, later that day when he called at her apartment claiming to be a charity collector and two days later when she saw him hanging around a children’s outing arranged by Mark Warner. She told the reporters she had found the man “disturbing”. It should be noted that in none of her alleged sightings did she see him “striding purposefully”.

Miss Little prepared a second sketch showing Mrs Cooper’s “Monster Man” striding out and in a very similar pose to that based on Miss Tanner’s most recent recollection. The pose is strange because none of Mrs Cooper’s three sightings saw “Monster Man” “striding purposefully”. It is also significant that Nose Man has no moustache. Miss Little seems to have exercised a high degree of artistic licence.

Artist's sketches

But whichever way you look at these pictures it is obvious they are not of Robert Murat and nothing like the “Egg Man”.

The Power Point presentation

On 16th January 2008, Gerald McCann emailed Stuart Prior, Superintendent with the Leicestershire Police, with a PowerPoint presentation (folio 3966) stating “as discussed”. An hour later, Mr Prior forwarded the package to Ricardo Paiva of the PJ asking for instructions and stating, among other things:

The PowerPoint attached (Folio 3968) was completed by the McCanns but the statements were all taken by the UK police

Miss Tanner’s description was taken from the press and from the summary of her statement

There is some urgency around this as we need to decide prior to the Gail Cooper artist’s impression appearing in the UK press

How are you going to deal with the possible press issues?

What are you planning around Mr Kennedy and the private investigation firm?

He concludes: “I will need to get back to the McCanns as he has asked to be updated. How would Paulo (Mr Rebelo) want his conducted and what information I am to provide to them. They are very excited about this potential lead”
The Power Point slides highlight the similarity between “Bundle Man” and the “Monster Man”. Mr McCann states:

Miss Tanner spent a full day with Melissa Little, a qualified Police Sketch Artist since 1986 to compile this likeness of the suspect

Melissa met Gail Cooper in a separate session

After spending hours with both witnesses, Melissa Little states “there are many similarities between Miss Tanner’s man and Gail’s”

Miss Tanner believes that there is an 80% likelihood that this is the same man she saw carrying away the child, believed to be Madeleine

Significantly, nowhere in the PowerPoint pack is there any mention of the very precise sighting by the Irish Smith family (who identified Gerald McCann as the likely abductor), nor has there been (as far as can be found in the files) any attempt to follow the Smith’s evidence, except by Mark Harrison the UK Police search expert, (Folios 2224 and 2262) who on all of his search plans marks only two sightings… that of Miss Tanner and that of the Smith family. Mr Harrison obviously takes the Smith sighting seriously.

More on Gail Cooper

On 17th January 2008 Detective Constable 4168 of the Leicestershire Police interviewed Gail Cooper and emailed the Operational Task Force. Mrs Cooper tried to explain the News of the World’s additions and embellishments to her police statements with the phrase; “It never crossed my mind”….. and the Officer reported that she “mentioned a man called Brian Kennedy who was working for the McCanns and …. had sent an artist down to do a sketch of the man she saw at the villa “(Folio 4005).

On 18th January 2008, Stuart Prior emailed Ricardo Paiva about the Gail Cooper statement:

“as discussed. I have given Gerry a brief update just saying that the other descriptions are different to the artist’s impressions completed by Gail and identified by Jane. That the witnesses appeared genuine which indicates a number of charity collectors in the area prior to Madeleine being taken. (This makes Mr Kennedy’s evidence very suspect)

We have not spoken to Jane at all and will not share our files with anybody, except yourselves, unless you request this from us. It appears there were at least three charity collectors if not more in the area in the weeks before Madeleine being taken.

I am told that the artists impression by Gail Cooper is likely to hit the press over the weekend and I will update you on the effects of this next week although we are not involved in this in any way at all”

Later Mr Prior refers to an email from Michael Graham of the Leicestershire Police who reported “I (Mick Graham) have spoken to Charlotte Pennington this morning and she has no additional information to give……….. She has been spoken to by a Private Investigator (Noel Hogan) working on behalf of Metado 3. Charlotte assures me that she has only relayed to him the same information that she has already given to the PJ and to me (as per email dated 7th August 2007).

On 20th January 2008, the News of the World published a long article on Mrs Cooper’s alleged sighting and printed the full facial and striding out sketch of “Monster Man”. On 21st January 2008, Clarence Mitchell, the McCann’s spokesman held a press conference releasing details of “Monster Man”.

The News of the World concluded “The sketch by qualified police artist Melissa Little, bears an uncanny resemblance to an earlier picture, based on Miss Tanner's story”. This is unsurprising given both selections had – using considerable artistic licence - been made by the same artist—Melissa Little and paid for by Mr Kennedy to assist the McCanns. Why did Mr Kennedy not get the fragrant Melissa to compile a “purposefully striding out” image of the Smith sighting? And why did Miss Tanner not immediately correct her misidentification of Mr Murat?

Jane Tanner interview with Leicestershire police

In her April 2008 interviews - with Detective Constable Sophie Ferguson of the Leicestershire Police -Miss Tanner admitted that Robert Murat was not the “person” she had seen carrying a “child” on Thursday 3rd May 2007. It is not known what had caused her to change her opinion, especially when at the confrontation in Portimao on 11th July 2007 she had been so confident in her identification of Mr Murat. Possibly, it was that the PJ had shelved the case against Mr and Mrs McCann, making the identification a moot point.

Miss Tanner excused her misidentification of Mr Murat:

“I wasn’t really taking it in because I was worried sick I was about to be abducted by the people…..”.

Miss Tanner’s drama is highly implausible, because before she set out on the Identification Charade she had spoken to Stuart Prior, whom she knew to be a Leicestershire Police Officer, to confirm Mr Small’s bonafides. But she continued to excuse her positive, but mistaken, identification of Mr Murat:

“But it was a bit odd because there was a car, where we were parked, there was a car that moved just at that point that he appeared and then two other people walked by so I didn’t really…… but I didn’t even recognise it as the person I’d been talking to five minutes before. Well you know half an hour before so, erm, then we went, I think because it had gone a bit wrong, because this car had been there and then we tried to set it up elsewhere but again I couldn’t really see, I couldn’t really see that well and you know it didn’t look, it didn’t jog any memories”

Detective Constable Ferguson’s lack of a reaction suggests she was fully aware, but not at all concerned, of Miss Tanner’s supposed accidental encounter with Mr Murat “five minutes” before picking him out as the abductor. It seems that Miss Tanner realised this encounter was “dodgy” and thus changed her reactive description of “five minutes before” to “well, you know, half and hour before”.

However, the Officer tried to get Miss Tanner to benchmark her mental image of the abductor with pictures she had subsequently seen of Mr Murat in the newspapers:

“Now you are left with that mental image in your head about the man carrying the child. And you said, you described his hair quite well. Having seen MURAT then and obviously in the papers since, could you link the two of those?”

Miss Tanner prevaricated and struggled to respond:
“I don’t think so. I mean, I don’t, phew, I don’t, I don’t think it, no, there doesn’t, there’s no, but then the person I see in the paper doesn’t really look like my recollection of the person I met on the way to meet Bob SMALL. Its really annoying because normally I would have probably taken more notice but I was so worried about what I was going to do, because I didn’t know at this point at all, I didn’t really take any notice, but I think it was too short and I remember it being, being long into the neck and not so. Again, I don’t really, when I saw Robert MURAT outside his house he looked quite little to me, but then when you see him on the telly he seems quite big, so I can’t, again, I don’t think the build, the build was right, I don’t.”
Detective Constable Ferguson:

“So you don’t feel, in your heart of hearts”

Miss Tanner:


Detective Constable Ferguson:

“You don’t feel it was the same person?”

Miss Tanner responded:

“No, I don’t, no” and later said: ”I don’t think it was him that I saw. But I just thought that it was”

Miss Tanner’s responses are disturbing for many reasons but perhaps the most worrying is her evasion of Detective Constable Ferguson’s question which called for a comparison of the “abductor” with Mr Murat’s photograph in the newspapers. The request to make the comparison with the papers was irrelevant and insipid. It would have been much more relevant, and potentially revealing , for the Officer to have invited Miss Tanner to compare the “abductor” sighting with her confrontation of Mr Murat in Portimao on 11th July 2007 and then to ask her why she had not corrected her misidentification at that time. Proper questioning would have put Miss Tanner’s false identification to the test.
But even probing glaring discrepancies played no part in the Leicestershire Police interviews of the “Tapas 9”. The interviews were superficial and as one Officer explained it they were “just ticking the boxes”. But why?

In any event, Miss Tanner avoided giving an answer to the insipid question that was asked and instead deflected to a comparison of her supposedly accidental meeting with Mr Murat “five minutes” before picking him out with his television appearances. This was not the question she was asked to address.

If she had really seen Mr Murat on the evening of 3rd May 2007, in the course of abducting Madeleine, this would have been, as Detective Constable Ferguson correctly implied, the indelible benchmark in her memory. The fact that, either consciously or more likely subconsciously, Miss Tanner did not, or could not, make such a comparison throws further doubt on her evidence.

Russell O’Brien, who had originally stated he had spoken to Mr Murat at the Ocean Club on the night of 3rd and 4th May 2007 (and had entered his phone number into his mobile handset at that time), changed his story when technical evidence proved that this was incorrect. Mr O’Brien said:

“Well, I do not wish to change, you know, my original statement. The original kind of statement. But we have, you know, the niggle that unintentionally we have, that have got a time wrong and that it was on the following morning”

So, Mr Murat’s life was destroyed and the Tapasniks have a “niggle” they may have got it wrong! Is Mr Murat unlucky or what? But why, oh why, when his lawyers must know every fact in this article and more, does he not take action (possibly involving the Independent Police Complaints Commission) against the Tapas 9, the LP, PJ and CRG? That is among the biggest questions of all.


What is happening?

A number of people have asked me what is happening to the detailed reports, especially relating to a forensic examination of the crèche records, prepared by of one of the investigative firms with which I have been working. The Leicestershire Police has never formally acknowledged receiving the reports and has not responded to emails and telephone calls. They are thus in a position where they could deny ever receiving the reports.

I understand that the reports have not been forwarded to Portugal and that the crèche records have still not been forensically examined. This again raises the possibility of a “cover up” or gross incompetence by the British authorities, including the politicians, Police, Home Office, Foreign Office and Forensic Science Service.

But the subject will be pursued and all the relevant reports and papers will be handed over – soon... - to the head of the Public Prosecutors Office with a formal request to re-open the investigation based on new evidence which will be presented. So please be patient.
Paulo Reis

The invisibile Jane, 03 March 2012
The invisibile Jane Unterdenteppichgekehrt

By Johanna
Saturday, 3 March 2012

Inspired by Pat Brown's visit to Praia da Luz and the subsequent renewed discussion about the Tanner sighting I revisited my photo selection and some statements from the files again. The core mystery and the only "evidence" for an abduction still remains Jane Tanner's statement of when she encountered eggman aka the abductor.

Part of her statement again:
Questioned about the path she took on the way to her home, she relates that she left the reception at the entrance to the Tapas/pool area and went up the pavement to the corner, having entered the apartment by the front door, which was, as already stated, locked.
Then we have the statement by Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja, the executive chef at the Ocean's Club regarding that evening:
When he arrived there, by vehicle, at around 21:10, he remembers that next to the Tapas reception, he saw a vehicle, dark blue in colour, with Portuguese license plates. Although he cannot be definite, he believes it was a Fiesta or Focus.....After parking his vehicle, he entered through the reception of that restaurant.....
So shortly before Jane saw the abductor, we have 2 cars parked in that road. This is confirmed by the statement of Stephen Carpenter who left the Tapas Bar around the time of the sighting:
Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home.... When I crossed the road outside the MW reception I remember there were cars parked, I remember taking some time to see if I could cross the road because there were cars parked to my left and I was carrying I****. They were about six metres away from me and I calculate that some (inaudible) metres from the back of Gerry's apartment
At 22:00 an employee of the Ocean Club left the carpark of Block 6 and saw only one car left on that road:
After leaving Block 6, they turned right and after left, passing in front of the block occupied by the McCanns. She states that she saw no movement of people, and that in the immediate areas of the blocks she saw no vehicle with the exception of a small car, that appeared to her grey in colour, parked close to the window of the McCann apartment;
So at the time of Jane's vision at 21:15 there would have been one car parked under the McCann's kitchen window and another car closer to the Tapas entrance. Assuming these cars did not park on the curb - which would make Jane's path even narrower - this would roughly be the situation Jane faced after having turned left at the exit of the Tapas Bar:

Constructed image to show what two cars would look like at the time Jane Tanner says she walked past
Click image to enlarge

Is there ANY chance BOTH men would have failed to notice the woman flip-flopping past them on the pavement?

Why did she nor Gerry mention the cars? They could have been used to explain why the men had not seen her had she claimed to have used the other side of the road. But since she did such an exact drawing in her first statement of the way she walked up to the crossing there was no chance to use these cars to their advantage. So it was better not to mention them at all, since even the visually impaired would see that she must have been invisible to pass them. The cars narrow down the path she could have taken and make it impossible not to notice her.

Map of Tanner's sighting
Click image to enlarge

The 'Eggman'

The infamous 'eggman' sketch was reported, at the time, to have been produced from the description of a man seen by Nuno Lourenco on the beach at Sagres.
However, following the release of information from the PJ case files, it is now clear the original computer generated image - from which the 'eggman' sketch was subsequently produced by Simon Russell - did actually come from Jane Tanner's description.
Presumably this information was witheld at the time due to the Portuguese judicial laws of secrecy.

The infamous sketch of an 'egg with hair'
Drawing of 'Eggman'
It has always been popularly believed that this sketch was produced by the Policia Judiciaria, from Jane Tanner's description, in order to show around the residents of Praia da Luz, in support of a traditional house-to-house enquiry.
Whilst it is now clear that the original computer generated image did come from Jane Tanner's description, the widely published 'eggman' sketch was actually drawn by Simon Russell, a half English and half Portuguese man who runs a video store and internet cafe in the town.
On Wednesday 09 May 2007, he is reported as saying that a group of four or five plain-clothes police came into his shop, on the Saturday afternoon of 05 May 2007, and asked him if he had seen anything suspicious.
After asking him if he had seen anyone accessing suspicious websites, they took him into a back room away from the customers and discreetly showed him the basic image asking him if he recognised the person.
The Timesonline confirms that the image produced by the Policia Judiciaria was computer generated - not a hasty sketch on a piece of old paper as Mr Russell's sketch would appear to imply.
He said: "They just showed me this outline which apparently gave me the impression that it had high cheekbones and a long face but other than that, no eyes, no nose, no mouth, so I call it an egg, it was an egg with hair."
Russell then drew an impression of what he had seen for the press. That is the sketch that was published in the media and has been reproduced here. The original Policia Judiciaria image has never been made public.
There are a number of important questions raised by this report:
How can we be sure that Russell's sketch bares any resemblance to the image produced by the Policia Judiciaria? What are his memory and drawing skills like? If he'd been shown a picture of the Mona Lisa, would he, in fact, have produced a very similar drawing to this?
Why did it take 4 or 5 plain-clothes officers to show one, reportedly 'crude', image? Were they really interested in the sketch or were they there for a completely different reason?
Were they more interested in the internet cafe business? If so, why? Did they believe that someone, close to the investigation, had been using the internet to access particular sites? Did they remove any computers to check which websites had been searched - and by whom and when?
Did the plain-clothes officers know something already, possibly from CCTV footage? Did they know who had been in the internet cafe but needed to know which computer they had used? Or did they ask Mr Russell if he remembered a specific person using a specific computer to access the internet?
Rather than showing Mr Russell the 'eggman' sketch in the back room, did they instead show him pictures of the person they suspected of accessing the internet from his cafe? Did they ask him when he had seen that person last and what computer they had used?
It would seem extraordinary that the Policia Judiciaria would tie 4/5 plain-clothes officers up, in one place, on what was ostensibly a routine house-to-house enquiry, asking 'Have you seen this man?'.
Were these really Portuguese officers or were they British officers from the Leicestershire police collecting evidence for something they already knew had ocurred? 
It was widely reported, at the time, that the inspiration for the sketch was not Jane Tanner, but an incident that happened in the Portuguese resort of Sagres, 18 miles from Praia da Luz.
It was here that holidaymaker Nuno Lourenco spotted a man taking photographs, whilst he was sitting at a beach cafe with his wife and two children. He became so concerned that he took a photograph of the man on his mobile phone but partly covered the lens with his thumb by mistake.
It was this obscured picture that was believed to have been the inspiration behind the image the Policia Judiciaria produced, that became known infamously as the 'eggman' or the 'egg with hair'.
Claus Montex saw the same man. "When the man was challenged he ran off, but he came back a bit later went back to the beach and carried on taking photographs."
So, what do reports published at the time tell us about the incident that had apparently inspired such a memorable element of the case?
Aside from the usual host of contradictions, perhaps most interestingly, it is reported that the McCanns were on the beach at Sagres that same day, 30 April 2007 - three days before Madeleine's disappearance. It is reported that an eye witness has positively identified them.
However, and perhaps unsurprisingly in this case, this is contradicted by one of the reports, the Sunday Herald, which states that the McCanns were on the beach that day but 20 miles away!
Another article suggests that Nuno is reported to have identified Madeleine as one of the girls photographed.
The sighting by Nuno Lourenco is also linked to the sighting of two men and a woman at the Galp service station, just outside Praia da Luz, with a girl fitting Madeleine's description. Mr Lourenco is reported to have said, after viewing the CCTV footage, that he is 100% certain the two people he saw were two of the three people at the garage.
It is also reported that these two people were identified by police as having rented a holiday apartment in the Solimar complex at Burgau, 4 miles along the coast from Praia da Luz. Reports state a blonde woman with shoulder-length hair and a 40-year old man with a middle-parted hair were seen on the balcony of their apartment having breakfast.
However, it is also reported that the apartment block mentioned was deserted and neighbours said they knew nothing about it.
Timesonline report, 11 May 2007 (link)
Days before her abduction, a blonde woman was seen with a man who was taking photographs of young blonde girls in the resort of Sagrès, about 20 miles from Praia da Luz.
When Nuno Lourenco, the father of one of the girls, aged 4, challenged the photographer, he fled in a car driven by a woman. The car, a grey Renault Clio, was confirmed to have had false numberplates.
Mr Lourenco, who is married to a German with whom he also has a two-year-old son, used his mobile phone to take a photograph of the man. This was used as the basis for the first computer-generated sketch of one of the suspected abductors.
Daily Mail report, 11 May 2007 (link)
'Holidaymaker Nuno Lourenco, who is from Sagres but now lives in Germany, was sitting at a cafe with his German wife and their two children when he noticed a man taking pictures of his four-year-old blonde daughter and other children.
He became so concerned at his behaviour that he took his own picture of the man - who was balding with long hair at the back - on his mobile phone.
The picture is believed to have inspired Portuguese detectives to produce their infamous "egg with hair" photofit of a suspect with a blank face and side-parted hair.
It was also reported that police have identified two people caught on CCTV at a local petrol station as being a couple renting a holiday apartment in the chocolate-box village of Burgau, four miles along the coast.
A blonde woman with shoulder-length hair and a man with middle-parted hair, both about 40, ate breakfast on their terrace of the Solimar.
Apartments, according to the Portuguese press. However, the apartment block in question was deserted and neighbours said they knew nothing about it.
Other holidaymakers were also interviewed, with two men and a woman being taken away still in their swimsuits from the Mark Warner complex where Madeleine vanished on Thursday last week.
The reason for the urgency in not allowing them to get dressed was not clear, but they were not arrested and were being interviewed as witnesses rather than suspects.'
Another part of the report states:
'The McCanns are believed to have visited Sagres -which is on the country's southwest tip and effectively the "Land's End" of mainland Europe -on Monday, April 30.
A shopkeeper in the town said she remembered them well.
She said: "On the road into the town, Kate was holding Madeleine's hand. On the other side of the road was Gerry with a baby buggy.
"I remember thinking it odd to see him with a baby buggy because I thought the little girl was too old to need one."
She said it was the same day as the stranger taking photographs, although other witnesses said that happened two days later.'
- The obvious two questions to this statement are: If this was the McCanns, why were they walking apart on separate sides of the road and where were the twins?
Daily Express, 11 May 2007 (link)
Maddy’s parents also faced the harrowing task yesterday of scanning CCTV film for a glimpse of their kidnapped daughter.

Footage at a garage in Portugal captured an image of three suspects, including a woman, with a girl who matched Maddy’s description. The camera also caught the car’s British number plate and the registration has been circulated by Interpol and British police.
Kate and Gerry McCann were driven at speed from their holiday apartment to a police station in Portimao to help officers examine the tapes after Mrs McCann again went to the local church to pray for her daughter.

Bill Henderson, the British Consul in the Algarve, was seen leaving the police headquarters while Mr and Mrs McCann were still inside.

Two of the three suspects in the CCTV footage that may show the missing girl have been identified by a man who claimed he caught them photographing his own child two weeks ago.

The witness, Portuguese-born Nuno Lourenco who lives in Germany, said the gang attempted to abduct his own young daughter.
He told detectives that he saw a man of English appearance photographing his daughter, described as strikingly similar in appearance to Maddy, on April 30 in Sagres, a town just a few miles from the holiday complex where the McCann family was staying.

The witness, who with his German wife has two children aged two and four, said he chased the man, who fled, jumping into a car with a woman and another man before speeding off. Mr Lourenco is believed to have provided the authorities with a photograph taken on his mobile phone.

The witness has told officers he was “100 per cent certain” they were the same people caught on CCTV with the girl matching Maddy’s description hours after she went missing.
The description of the woman also matches that given by a witness who spotted someone acting suspiciously outside Madeleine’s bedroom on the night of her disappearance. The CCTV footage from the garage shows a young girl with a blonde, middle-aged woman and two men. The child apparently wanted to say something, which made staff suspicious.
Sunday Herald report, 12 May 2007 (link)
The CCTV images are being linked to eyewitness reports of a man and a woman taking photos of young children at a beach not far from Luz in the days before Madeleine was abducted.

OnApril30,three days before Madeleine went missing, a Portuguese holidaymaker, Nuno Lourenco, chased a man he had spotted taking photos of his four-year-old daughter at a beach near Sagres. Lourenco took an obscured mobile phone photo of the man who fled in a car driven by a woman.

The McCann family were on the beach, some 20 miles west of their resort, on the same day - an eerie coincidence that indicates to Portuguese police that this was the co-ordinated kidnapping of a preselected child.
The Sun report, 12 May 2007 (link)
The McCann family are understood to have visited the resort of Sagres three days before Maddie, four, was taken.

While they were there a Portuguese dad frightened off a man photographing his four-year-old daughter and other blonde kiddies on the beach.

The dad, Numo Lourenco, says Maddie was one of the tots snapped.

Sagres is 15 miles from Praia da Luz, where Maddie was snatched from her bed last week.

Numo tried to snap the mystery man with his mobile phone camera ? but partly covered the lens with his thumb by mistake.

He said the suspect drove off in a grey Renault Clio with British plates.

Later he identified the man from CCTV footage shot at a petrol station near Praia da Luz on the night Maddie vanished.

The security camera filmed two men and a blonde with a child matching Maddie’s description. Their car also had UK plates.

Villagers in Burgau, three miles from Praia da Luz, said two of those in the CCTV footage were a British couple who stayed at the local Solimar apartments ? a man and a blonde woman.
The Telegraph, 12 May 2007 (link)
Detectives are working on the theory that the abductors may have seen Madeleine in Sagres and tracked her back to the family apartment in Praia da Luz, 18 miles away.

A witness, Nuno Lorenco, said he saw a man following his family down the beach and taking "discreet" photographs. He said he challenged the man, who fled with a blonde woman in a Renault Clio.
Khaleej Times, 15 May 2007 (link)
The investigation has suffered a setback however with police ruling out the prime suspects they had been seeking for four days. Detectives had been looking for a blonde woman and two men seen at a motorway service station with a girl similar to Madeleine.

This trio, caught on CCTV, along with a suspected paedophile seen taking pictures of children on a beach, have now been discounted, said Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa. He added that his officers did not have a single suspect in the 11-day-old case.

According to Portuguese newspapers, police sources believe the "key" to the mystery lies with ten witnesses - including the McCanns - who have been questioned over the past week.

Madeleine suspect picture 'like an egg with hair', 09 May 2007
Madeleine suspect picture 'like an egg with hair'
Wednesday, 09 May, 2007
2:36:47 PM
A computer-generated image which police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann refuse to release to the public was described today as "an egg with hair".

Plain-clothes detectives have been touring the Algarve village of Praia da Luz in Portugal after Madeleine's disappearance six days ago asking shopkeepers and locals if they recognise the potential suspect.

Although the image has been shown to individuals, police have refused to release it to the public because of an information black-out on the investigation, citing strict Portuguese laws.

The investigative Policia Judiciaria (PJ) has been criticised over its handling of the case, in part because of the lack of information.

One of those shown the image was Simon Russell, 40, a half-English, half-Portuguese man who runs a video store and internet café in the resort town.

He said today that a group of four or five plain-clothes police came into his shop on Saturday afternoon and asked him if he had seen anything suspicious.

After asking him if he had seen anyone accessing suspicious websites, they took him into a back room away from the customers and discreetly slipped out the crude image asking him if he recognised the person.

He said: "They just showed me this outline which apparently gave me the impression that it had high cheekbones and a long face but other than that, no eyes, no nose, no mouth, so I call it an egg, it was an egg with hair."

He went on: "I have heard that other people who have been interviewed have said that there were clothes involved. The police never asked me about anything to do with clothing.

"All I got was an impression of a head with hair with a side parting.

"I smiled when they showed it to me. What else could anyone do?"

He went on to say that the image was not even recognisable as an e-fit.

"It didn't look like it had been drawn, it didn't look like a photograph, it looked like something that had been created maybe on a computer – but there were no features.

"It was completely different from anything I have seen in the newspapers - there were no features, there were no ears."

There were claims today that the PJ had even held back from showing the image to Portugal's main police force, the PSP.

A PSP source told the Diario de Noticias newspaper that the PJ had failed to disclose the image to the other force until Monday – four days after Madeleine's disappearance.

The source told the newspaper that he felt it was extremely counterproductive to have that portrait and not to pass it to other police forces or even publish it more widely.

"It is time to set aside petty pride and rivalry between police forces," he is quoted as saying.

With thanks to Nigel at McCann Files


Site Policy Sitemap

Contact details

Website created by © Pamalam