Madeleine McCann: Jane Tanner’s eFit, A Spanish Angel And Wearing Pink Pyjamas
MADDY WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE – 70% DON’T BELIEVE McCANNS”
The McCanns are on the TV in Spain. The show is followed by a phone vote. The people vote, at least some of them do; how many, we are not told. One, two, three..? Gerry is a “cardiologist”
Pages 4 and 5: “Police: Parents are hampering probe.” Angel Galan, head of the Spanish National Police’s kidnap, extortion and murder squad says: “There is no real information to indicate that Madeleine could be in Spain although Mr and Mrs McCann might think so. I think the question is why couldn’t she be in France or in the UK? Why does it have to be Spain, Portugal or Morocco?”
“Drawing that could catch her abductor” – an artist’s impression of a man carrying a child in the vicinity of the McCanns holiday complex on May 3. The man is of average height, of average build, with dark hair and with his facial features not filled in. Do you know him?
The artist was commissioned by the McCanns in light of a person their friend Jane Tanner said she saw on the night Madeleine disappeared
THE SUN front page: “PICTURE SENSATION. He took Maddie – MAN SEEN BY McCANNS’ PAL ON FATEFUL NIGHT”
A drawing of a man. The caption: “Hunted…a drawing of man with child in his arms as seen by Jane Tanner”
Page 13: “MADDIE IN ARMS OF SNATCHER. Pyjamas ‘prove it is her’” – The man is 5ft 6. He is 5ft 10 in the Express. He is “slim”. The girl is wearing pink and white pyjamas. The man is in a maroon shirt, camel coloured trousers and black or brown shoes
Says Clarence Mitchell: “We hope this will go a long was to proving the independent eyewitness account that she was taken by someone and the police’s focus on Kate and Gerry as potential suspects is wrong”. See drawing of a man seen by McCanns’ friend
And: “We believe it does show Madeleine in his arms. The description of the pyjamas is accurate enough to believe that is the case.” The McCanns’ friend sees the girl wearing pyjamas like those worn by Madeleine, whom she knows
“GERRY BACK AT WORK” – Gerry McCann is a “cardiologist” – lest we ever forget
DAILY MIRROR front page: “This is the man who took our Madeleine. PARENTS RELEASE SKETCH”
Page 11: “’He was slim with untidy black hair, plastered back. He was hurrying with a child in pink pyjajmaas’” (No songs please)
“’KIDNAPPER’ SEEN BY KATE’S PAL”
Paul Routledge: “All I want to do is put my arms around her and say: ‘there, there’ while she sobs out her grief on my shoulder”
DAILY MAIL front page: “Friends’ fears for ‘increasingly fragile’ Kate”
Pages 8 and 9: “Is Kate at breaking point?” – If she cracks up will the papers like her better? “Friends fear for Maddie’s mother after TV ordeal”
“SPANISH EYES” – The McCanns have launched a private “proxy investigation” in Spain. Under Portuguese law it is illegal to use private detectives while an investigation is ongoing
The mystery man who may have taken her” – Mrs Tanner sees the man. She is later “racked with guilt”
DAILY STAR front page: “MADDIE PARENTS ‘HIDING TRUTH’ – 70 per cent of TV viewers thinks McCanns are lying”
Pages 4 and 5: “BODY LANGUAGE SPECIALIST GIVES HIS VERDICT ON KATE – ‘MUM WOULD BE VERY GOOD POKER PLAYER’.” Robert Phipps watches the interview with Kate McCann on Spanish TV. She is frowning, and expert Phipps says this is indicative of “pain” and stress. Who knew? We do not know if he then voted in the subsequent poll
THE TIMES front page: “Madeleine ‘abductor’” – The white man is of “medium build”
Page 9: “’This is the man who took Madeleine away’” – The Times says the new picture bears “no resemblance to Robert Murat”. The picture has been handed to the McCanns’ detectives who are operating across Europe and North Africa
DAILY TELEGRAPH front page: “Madeleine ‘abductor’” – This is the man Jane Tanner says she saw at 9:15pm on May 3
THE INDEPENDENT and THE GUARDIAN: No Madeleine news today
Posted: 26th, October 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,749) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- susan jones on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- The Real Stig on The Great Cathay Pacific Blocked Toilet Mystery
- SoDak-GhostDog on Interview With Survior Of James Arthur Ray’s Sedona Sweat Lodge
- Katie Norman on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- HOTWATER on Madeleine McCann: The Media Creates A New Maddie Monster And Twists The Facts
October 26th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Why are they doing a poll anyway- they don’t normally care for poeples opininion and I woudn’t trust them anyway. Maybe they want to see if people are starting to be more sympathetic towards the mccanns to see how much more emotional bullshit theyv’e got to work up.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
1275 - Pat Brown - You say in your article “Like heck he isn’t! He is a major suspect in the murder of a woman killed in her Virginia apartment the previous year and had this later victim not survived his assault on her, he would have well been on his way to victim number three.”
(1) He is a major suspect in the murder of a woman killed in her Virginia apartment the previous year.
Innocent til proven guilty. If you can’t get around that basic human right you have no right working in law.
(2) had this later victim not survived - she DID survive so he didn’t kill her.
(3) he would have well been on his way to victim number three. Pure speculation and where are murder victims 1 and 2.
You go on to say “Bullocks! Anyone who would do that once is likely to do it again. Hence,we are looking for a serial killer”.
Maybe, maybe not. Very few people who kill, go on to kill again. That is fact, and being a profiler one you should seriously consider when profiling a suspect.
You then add “Once someone has sex and is no longer a virgin, we call them sexually active. We have no proof they will have sex again, but we acknowledge it is very highly likely.”
Believe me not many people have sex then become celibate, so you are stating a fact of life. Thats a lot different to someone killing once and going on to kill again. If you were correct all murderers would be serial killers.
Sorry but as far as I am concerned you talk bullshit.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Thea. Read the posts. Where is the report or the evidence that there was a 10th person. Where did you get that information?
October 26th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
1282 Peter O
Have you seen the MW blurb regarding their listening service, which they ‘used’ to offer until this happened?
October 26th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Peter O - great post what is the evidence for her last sighting? (given that your theory is true) what is the last absolutely substantiated sighting of her? - I seem to remember some speculation about doctored photo’s which place her about 2:30 pm……?
October 26th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Mars
your right if you are dressed for winter you will be noticed
October 26th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
I’m sure someone has already realised this but will post it anyway. There has been some debate about the Tanner statement and how originally she claimed to have seen the mystery, faceless abductor at 9.30 but now she says it was 9.15.
I assume the change in the timeline is to get around the fact that McCann was talking to his tennis partner in the locality at 9.30 and the tennis partner (and someone else, I believe) said they had no recollection of seeing either Tanner or the faceless abductor. However, if Tanner saw him at 9.15, when presumably mcCann and tennis man weren’t in the vicinity to contradict her (increasingly extraordinary) story, well it has to be true doesn’t it?
October 26th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Rationalist that is Stig’s theory not mine.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Sorry , i’m back. If you don’t know Algarve, i have to tell you, that at the time, they said that Lil Maddie, was ” abducted ” , there were lots of people on the streets ,and windows,Nobody notice nothing suspect.Only Jane saw the man,that first she decribed as Murat , and the new draw,of the#abductor, is impossible, because with those clothes ,in a warm weather, would draw attention to him.Sorry my english
October 26th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
1277 rationalist
James Gorrod, a Solicitor from Exeter is supposedly the 10th person.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
1279. I think it was just convenient for them to be careless thinking nothing will come of it, who would want the kids anyway, children are such a bother etc. etc. etc………really maybe even a pain in the tooush…….
So they think all is well. People steal money and jewels, not children or whatever their illogical logic is. They made a huge mistake and it will cost them dearly but not as much as it has cost poor Maddie, not that much for sure.
I don’t like the McCanns, not at all……..but I think it is possible that they did not hurt or kill Maddie and then dispose of her body….their large egos and contrived attitudes bother me, but that’s not a crime, or is it?
October 26th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
1268 Taybie the Saxon Says:
Edit….
Peter O, is posting to Garth the most efficient way for you to communicate with him, given that you are both sitting opposite each other at the same computer desk?
++++++++++++++++++++
Taybie – I wish I could think of a smart ar*e answer, but it’s late here and I’m too tired….
Please indulge me and re-read the entire post, and the previous post that it referenced.
I find Garth, Stig etc fairly narrow minded at times, or at least often defending very narrow ‘positions’. The point I was trying to make was that this debate about “they left the kids alone, so therefore they must be drug consuming, sex swinging murders” is an irrelevant sideshow and tends to gloss over the ‘fact’ that if the McCann’s are innocent of any involvement in Madeline’s disappearance then they are still complicit in setting up the circumstances that led to the abduction.
As I’ve posted elsewhere on numerous occasions - I believe it’s possible that the whole “leaving the kids on their own” was an elaborate fabrication to draw attention away from some other time when Madeleine may have come to some harm/disappeared. If this were true, and I have no evidence for this, then it also happens to suit the pro-McCann’s that we endlessly debate a link between leaving the children alone and culpability of other more heinous crimes rather than challenging and asking them to prove that ALL of the children were in the apartment, and alive, at the time the McCann’s allege they left them there..
Am I making any sense?
And no…. I don’t sit anywhere near Garth – neither can I prove this to you.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Judge Dread the highest Tottenham have been in recent years was under Jol - how does this implicate on the Mccann case? is it significant?
October 26th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Rationalist I answered your earlier question. Please refer to my comments # 844 and 890 and Judith C’s fine post # 928. I have no further information regarding my theory at this time. When I do I will post.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Muddy
I bet they locked up their wallets in a safe
October 26th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
That bloke in the picture looks a lot like me - (after a bath cos I have wavy hair) hope I’m not implicated, anyway I can prove I haven’t worn that maroon shirt for years
October 26th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
I’m about 500 posts behind I think…trying to find WHO the bloody hell is the 10th man?!! Wanderer HELP? What is the Thea talking about? What invisible 10th person at the tapas bar? Wasn’t that the quiz mistress? Stevo Stig and whoever else? WHO is this new mystery person…where’s the link?
October 26th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
1264 - I think Tottenham will finish in top 10 with Ramos as manager. I also think Lewis Hamilton did win the F1 title given the cheating with the fuel temps. The punishment is automatic disqualification, so why did 3 drivers get away with it?
October 26th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
1166 Judge Dread
It is truly sad some people take information out of context in order to attack them personally. It is sad because it prevents good information from getting to people that could be useful in crime solving and saving lives. The statement I made was:
“Let me introduce you to Bobby Joe Leonard, a serial killer now serving a life sentence in Virginia. Never heard of him? Hmmm, could be there are no books written about him. Most likely he isn’t all that interesting; for that matter, some would say he isn’t even a serial killer because he was only sentenced for kidnapping, rape, and attempted homicide. If you read the few newspaper stories about him, you will only hear about this one crime and it wasn’t even a murder. The accepted definition of a serial killer is a person who kills at least three times with a cooling off period in between his murders. So, Bobby is not really a serial killer, I guess. Like heck he isn’t! He is a major suspect in the murder of a woman killed in her Virginia apartment the previous year and had this later victim not survived his assault on her, he would have well been on his way to victim number three.”
The reason I find the traditional definition so troubling is that police find a girl brutally raped, eviscerated, and murdered in a park. They tell the public it isn’t a serial killer (because no one has been convicted of that crime and no others). So, don’ t worry, you ae safe. Bullocks! Anyone who would do that once is likely to do it again. Hence,we are looking for a serial killer.
Once someone has sex and is no longer a virgin, we call them sexually active. We have no proof they will have sex again, but we acknowledge it is very highly likely. People who crossed the line to rape and murder are serial killers in type and usually, unless they get sick or die, they will go on to the traditional three or more murders.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
I wouldn’t leave my dog in an unlocked hotel room let alone my young child(ren).
October 26th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Evening Taybie.
In response to your post (943) earlier “Gordon Borwn beware - if the Tapas 7 interrogations don’t happen soon, this whole thing is going to stink to high heaven.”
I can get the stench from here already.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Judge Dread I was lead to believe no such child laws exist in Portugal?
October 26th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Ludicrous - another posh word to fool us into thinking that they is more posher than we is!
October 26th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Taybie the Saxon,
Are you saying that Peter O drank all the Ovaltine and left none for Garth so Garth is angry?
October 26th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
1257 - Peter O,
Are you serious? You say
“I think it’s debatable whether there is in fact anything ‘criminal’ in what the McCann’s allegedly did re leaving the children in an unlocked apartment.”
Firstly, it is criminal in Portugal as confirmed by the PJ themselves. Secondly it is not alleged, it is fact. Gerry McCann admitted in a BBC interview.
You go on to say “I don’t think they, any of their supporters or apologists have ever really owned up and said it was wrong”.
Kate McCann did in the interview she gave alone just before the 100th day.
Facts are facts, and with so few around, thats all we have to work with.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
QUOTE
1051
Peter O Says:
October 26th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
933 Garth Says:
Edit….. You think because they left their tots on their own their guilty. End of.
+++++++++++++++++++++
This seems to be a popular area of ‘discussion’ with pro and anti McCann camps?
I doubt anyone in here who doesn’t have some inside track to either those involved in whatever crime(s) may have been committed, or the police doing the investigation, has any real proof of whether Madeleine was abducted or not. Lots of us have opinions/positions on the matter, just no proof either way (SNIPPED).
UNQUOTE
QUESTION FROM ME
Peter O, is posting to Garth the most efficient way for you to communicate with him, given that you are both sitting opposite each other at the same computer desk?
October 26th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Butterfly
it was joke. with you
October 26th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
The worst lies are the ones we tell to ourselves, the reality we refuse to admit. Sorry, that’s the best I can do.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
The McCanns have both acted in a very strange manner from the 1st day when they stood on the platform and told the world that their daughter had gone. I questioned their performance then and I still find every move they make on camera to be “not natural” They appear to have been calculated during the past 6 months, but now I think that the strain of it all is breaking down their relationship with each other and even if their daughter was abducted and they are totally innocent of any involvement - they certainly appear to have SOMETHING to hide and Gerry really does look uneasy alongside of his wife. I would like to bet that in a past life Gerry McCann found it difficult to spell “ludicrous” and had to write it over and over until it automatically came up in every sentence he said
October 26th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
annie
i think Tottenham will finish fifth