Madeleine McCann: ‘Tapas’ Jane Tanner Says, The Pool Man And Two Father Pachecos
MADDY WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY MIRROR front page: “MADDY: THREE ACCUSED – Investigators think friends may have plotted kidnap”
“Private detectives fear Robert Murat, girlfriend Michaela Walczuch and her estranged husband Luis Antonio were part of an organised ring that snatched the four-year-old”
Oh. Any evidence?
“Pool cleaner Antonio worked at the resort where Maddy vanished and had full access to the complex. He could have spied on her before the plot was hatched”
Murat’s lawyer Francisco Pagarete says: “These allegations are ridiculous”
Page 5: Jane Tanner sees man with a child in his arms.
“He had his face turned away from me, sort of sideways, and it was very dark. I just didn’t see it properly. I wish to God I had. I wake up to that image every day. [Daily Mirror readers empathise.] Every day I seem striding away, carrying Madeleine away. I try desperately to remember more detail, what his face was like. I think about it over and over. It’s horrible,” says Jane Tanner
And Robert Murat… Is it him?
Says Jane Tanner: “I’ve never pointed the finger at Robert Murat. I don’t know if it was him. I would say the man I saw that night was more Mediterranean looking”
It was Lori Campbell, the Mirror’s hack, who pointed the finger at “creepy” Murat
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE – POLICE QUIZ PRIEST AGAIN, Church searched and he is questioned over close links to McCanns”
Portuguese police carried out a detailed search at Our Lady Of Light church in Praia da Luz, including the old cemetery.
The operation was carried out “informally and with maximum discretion” by agents from the Policia Judiciaria. Officers “spent the day” with Father Jose Manuel Pacheco, visiting his home
This is the same Father Pacheco who went missing, who felt “deceived”
Says a friend: “Whenever anybody talks about Madeleine he steers the talk on to other subjects. He has stopped going to all the places he used to go, especially the coffee shops. There are two completely different Pachecos, the one before the McCanns and the one after”
Pages 4 and 5: “Jane Tanner: “I’m haunted by her kidnapper.” Says Jane Tanner: “I DID see a man that night carrying away Madeleine,” says Jane Tanner. “She WAS abducted”
“No DNA on the holiday hire car” – Test on the McCanns’ Renault Scenic find no evidence of the missing girl. These are tests funded by “home improvements tycoon” Brian Kennedy. He supports the McCanns
DAILY STAR front page: “Maddie cops dig up graves – Horror scenes you didn’t see on last night Panorama”
“Police hunting Maddie McCann have secretly searched the church and its graveyard where her parents prayed for her safe return”
Police “think her GP mum Kate and heart consultant dad Gerry disposed of her body to mask their negligence after leaving her while they dined with pals in a nearby tapas bar”
All lines of investigation remain open
Says Clarence Mitchell: “We continue to work very closely with the private investigators. We are encouraged by any developments they feel are significant”
Pages 8 and 9: The Star’s phone poll asks readers to answer “YES” or “NO” to the poser: “SHOULD THE McCANNS BE CHARGED WITH NEGLECT?”
Anorak reader Anthony Bennett says they should be
Jane Tanner: “Snatching haunts me every day.” Says she: “I think we were lulled into a false sense of security by the fact it was very much a family resort and quite quiet at that time”
THE SUN pages 12 and 13: “McCANNS’ PAL TALKS TO THE SUN”
It’s Jane Tanner. It’s an “EXCLUSIVE”. It’s her “first interview with any newspaper”. It most likely took place just before her interviews in the Mirror, Express, Star, after she had spoken to the BBC…
Says “Tapas Jane”: “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’”
DAILY MAIL page 13: “It was dark. I just can’t say for sure who took Madeleine”
Jane Tanner needs some help. So the Mail puts a picture of the “figure” Tanner says she saw carrying Madeleine alongside a shot of Michaela Walczuch walking. Similar?
Note that Wallczuzh is a woman, blonde and not “more Mediterranean looking” than Robert Murat
“WHY WERE THE CHILDREN LEFT?” – “Says Kate McCann’s mother Susan Healy: “I have to say that I’m surprised that Kate and Gerry left their children at all”
THE SCOTSMAN: “Girlfriend of suspect denies Madeleine link”
“Tuck Price, family friend, said that any suggestion Ms Walczuch was involved in the case was ‘ridiculous’, adding: ‘She would deny that 100 per cent’”
Says Mr Price, who has spoken on Mr Murat’s behalf: “Michaela has a daughter, she is a decent woman. The police have known Michaela’s story from day one”
THE TIMES page 33: “McCanns’ friend haunted by glimpse of mystery man”
“Ms Tanner, 34, has told police previously that she did not believe the man was Robert Murat, the first official suspect in the case. But yesterday she claimed that she did not get a good enough look at the abductor’s face to rule him out”
DAILY TELEGRAPH page 13: “Madeleine: McCanns’ friend ‘haunted’ by night”
Jane Tanner: “The woman who says she saw Madeleine McCann being carried away by her abductor has said she is haunted by the images of the man she knows she will never be able to identify”
THE GUARDIAN: “Madeleine witness speaks of ‘guilt’”
Says Jane Tanner: “I would say the man I saw was more local, or Mediterranean-looking, rather than British, or a tourist. He had dark, almost black, long hair and had swarthy skin. He was dressed in that sort of smart casual way European people dress, not the way Brits on holiday dress normally”
THE INDEPENDENT: No Madeleine news today
Posted: 20th, November 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,375) | 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
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:56 am
I see the crazies are here.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
1151
Stevo Says:
November 20th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
1100 thea
“Stevo immaturely posted people’s full names and IP addresses”…
Hmmm….read posting 593 and then tell me I was the one being immature.
*************************************************************************
Yes I was reading all the messages. I was here live when the immature atttacks were in full throttle.
The fact that you are attempting to persuade me that you were justified in revealing the personal info of posters because of an immature comment aimeed at you is ridiculous - like all your other methods of fantasy - puerile and worthless.
And I am foolish to respond to your comments. So this is the last time I will respond to you on these threads. No matter how fervently you try to bait me with your cheap shiny trinkets it won’t happen.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:42 pm
1125
Peter O Says:
November 20th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Thea/Stevo
Re Baby Grace is Madeleine ‘debate’ – Either she will or won’t be. I don’t believe she is, just my opinion based on the complexities in getting a body across the Atlantic and the potential to have to involve yet more people in the cover up. However, none of us actually know for certain that Baby Grace isn’t Madeleine so what’s the issue in just waiting for the official confirmation? Why the need for all the personal insults that have been going on?
The ‘last photo’ – Stevo has never claimed that the last photo is a fake/doctored. He has however demonstrated what can be achieved by someone(s) with the right skills, time and software. I have several times remarked that there is nothing in or about that photograph that can accurately date and time it, not that that means it’s faked/staged.
If this ‘last photo’ is in someway essential to the evidence timeline you would hope that the PJ have employed the relevant expert(s) to verify its authenticity. If they have, then this is not something that has been released/leaked into the public domain. So, Stevo and I may be onto something, but truth be known, none of us actually know. So once again, why not wait until such time as the PJ need to release evidence that confirms or debunks the ‘last photo’?
**************************************************************************************
Thank you Peter O.
I appreciate your comments.
And I am sorry that for whatever reason all of a sudden you are being attacked and labeled. This is what I’ve been saying about the atmosphere on the MM threads. If you do not scream bloody murder; say Tony B will win; make fun of the Mcs; agree M hadd CHARGE or autism; agree MM is BG and of course never ever challenge comments by certain posters - you will be vehemently attacked. Especially if you use logic, reason and are cautious in your theories.
Anyway, I hope you will not be bullied for I welcome you well thought reasoned arguments.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:34 pm
1120
Stevo Says:
November 20th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
1104 Dr. Watson
You’re fine - always have been towards me and others and my comment wasn’t meant for you. It was meant for thea. Until she was proven wrong with a minor piece of information she was fine too. But once someone oversteps the mark and makes things personal - referring to a poster’s family or children then an apology doesn’t fix it for me - at least not in here. We’re all anonymous so why get personal? I’ve never directed comments towards any other poster’s children and if some smart alec says something like “oh well, you’re talking about Madeleine” I can still stand by that and say I’ve not said anything derogatory towards her either. In fact, I would stand up face to face to Gerry or Kate anytime of their choosing and say as much to their face that I despise them for being selfish and causing the demise of their daughter. But…as I say, there’s no need or room for posters in here to make unfounded comments about other poster’s children - people they know nothing about.
In any case, that poster - thea - has never acknowledged or apologised anyway so it’s academic.
********************************
Stevo,
You are a hypocrite.
You posted people’s full names.
And you posted their IP addresses.
There is no reason for me to apologise to you for I never repeated anything which you did not say yourself.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:17 pm
I think EVERYONE has over looked the most important part-
Madeleine is missing. a 4 year old little girl, put your efforts and energy into thinking/helping find madeleine.
i thought we believed in innocent until proven guilty so right now, i am not alone in saying this, is a family who have lost Madeleine, whoever is involved be it closer to home or not, right now these people need our support. Madeleine needs our support
Do not base your thoughts on speculation, Portuguese law and unruly press have corrupted this heart breaking story, and taken the focus from madeleine, they are guiltly of letting her down.
base your thoughts on fact. Madeleine has gone and needs to be found.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:36 am
1362 Hideki Says:
1244 Dr. Watson Says:
“But, anyway, this is how your [Peter o]comments come across, you really provide them [McCann] with the best support, unwittingly, maybe.Mc. are defended by their huge PR machine, dishonest press, politics… Trying to be impartial does not work in this case.”
Peter O is NOT trying to be impartial. He is, rather , trying to APPEAR impartial. You can see my little discussion about this with him on an earlier thread.
His support of the McCanns is consistent throughout his posting. He selects the issues that he wishes to appear impartial about, and uses them in an argument which will inevitably have a pro-McCann ending.
In this way, he has claimed that prosecuting the McCanns for neglect would actually benefit the McCanns. Most recently he claims that no one noticed anything unusual about the twins (re:sedation) AND that doctors would have noticed something other than excessive sleep. Because they did not notice anything other than this, there probably was no sedation. So went his pro-McCann conclusion.
Beware of people like Peter O. You are correct to suspect them as deliberately supporting the McCanns. JMO.
Note to Peter O — looks like I’m not the only one who noticed that your posting always winds up supporting the McConns… maybe your camouflage needs a little more foliage.
+++++++++++++
You type utter nonsense…
Nowhere have I claimed that the twins were not sedated. I made the point that Gerry’s on camera observation in the Panorama program that maybe the twins were sedated, he implied by the ‘evil predator’, was odd precisely because there were umpteen doctors in PDL on May 3rd and 4th. Surely one of them might have spotted the twins were sedated/behaving oddly?
November 21st, 2007 at 10:29 am
1321 AMcCannsupporter
Phew!!!!! just read your comments and agree with you, well said……..wasn”t it Freud who
didn”t like human beings, claiming they were “irrational”? You seem to be a Reporter and this is where we part company. I do not believe the Press have been responsible in their
reporting and this only fuels speculation and the endless scenarios of what really happened
on these posts. I also find it a bit sinister that the “middle class” McCanns have received
support from high profile people, could you imagine Mr.& Mrs Smith , perhaps working class
commanding the same response?
I hope , but doubt ,that we will ever know the truth,.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:26 am
just a thought but has gerry or kate had a colonoscopy or gastroscopy lately??
November 21st, 2007 at 9:23 am
cos not to harp but spiders do wrap their prey up in a bundle dont they? but snakes swallow them whole?
November 21st, 2007 at 9:14 am
hey… in australia we wouldnt put up with all these smoke and mirrors no way mate!! this is all dodgy why are the british so sucked in we would be much more suss!! maybe its all the snakes and spiders we have here …hi gerry!!!
November 21st, 2007 at 9:13 am
1330 Angry GIT
Loved your response to 1321 A McCannsupporter!
November 21st, 2007 at 9:03 am
First time on guys but i am loving brandon flowers..only bcos my girls are killers fans …any way please someone tell me..by the way yes i think the mcmeaties are guilty but how please tell me in the name of the catholic church did they convince the others to help them or at least a couple of the tapas 9 to lie with them ? that i dont get …? shine the light on me?
November 21st, 2007 at 8:18 am
TONNY BENNET lost the action against Mc Canns for child`s neglegect. But only because the English Court havn`t JURISDICTION to know the facts. The alleged facts are committed in a foreigen country.
So, if the Mc Canns will be charges in Portugal for the same facts and if they will be sentenced by the portuguese Portimão Court, I think there are consequences in UK…
November 21st, 2007 at 7:50 am
1244 Dr. Watson Says:
“But, anyway, this is how your [Peter o]comments come across, you really provide them [McCann] with the best support, unwittingly, maybe.Mc. are defended by their huge PR machine, dishonest press, politics… Trying to be impartial does not work in this case.”
Peter O is NOT trying to be impartial. He is, rather , trying to APPEAR impartial. You can see my little discussion about this with him on an earlier thread.
His support of the McCanns is consistent throughout his posting. He selects the issues that he wishes to appear impartial about, and uses them in an argument which will inevitably have a pro-McCann ending.
In this way, he has claimed that prosecuting the McCanns for neglect would actually benefit the McCanns. Most recently he claims that no one noticed anything unusual about the twins (re:sedation) AND that doctors would have noticed something other than excessive sleep. Because they did not notice anything other than this, there probably was no sedation. So went his pro-McCann conclusion.
Beware of people like Peter O. You are correct to suspect them as deliberately supporting the McCanns. JMO.
Note to Peter O — looks like I’m not the only one who noticed that your posting always winds up supporting the McConns… maybe your camouflage needs a little more foliage.
November 21st, 2007 at 7:35 am
426
addedsugar Says:
399 Hideki
“To take this assumption even further…
If JT was one of the persons that allegedly wanted to revise her testimony, she could have been ‘persuaded’ not to do that but - to absolutely cover any such implications - instead act the way she now has.”
Yes, I think that is plausible. Or, as Ade (406) suggests, the Tapas2 are really the Paynes, but Team McCann is letting everyone think it is O’brien and Tanner. If it was JT, and she was “persuaded”, that is an interesting thought: what did it take to persuade her? Indeed, what has it taken to persuade all of these Tapas people to be loyal in the “pact”? Another use for all that money Team McCann has raised?
November 21st, 2007 at 5:54 am
Say Hi - News & Events has a posting: Is Kate afraid of Gerry. I think so!
November 21st, 2007 at 4:08 am
1346- annie- I think you have a really interesting point here, and I think your point much earlier in the day about the possibility it was the priest himself who removed Madeleine is also really interesting! I’m too tired to look through all the posts tonight. I hope the Baby Grace furor has died down. Sheesh.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:02 am
veritablequandary: well, I DID say it. And we sure are ‘morons’ for being lolly-gaggers hanging around this blog while “amccannsupporter” and others are fitfully asleep in their beds. I’m sure there’ll possibly be some vitriolic response (I sense from reading that post that they have used previous name/handles since some of the unquoted meanderings appear plagiarised from earlier - a mark of a shill I suspect). But otherwise - despite it seeming ‘well-written’ - I don’t personally ‘get off’ on posters proselytising on others about their postings, both on this story and others, and coming off with a rather holier-than-thou condemnation. Blogs are blogs and although suffering from some fairly way-out theorizing are exactly what they are: commentaries from people that most of us might never meet, care for, or certainly agree. We don’t have to be ON here and even the administrators/moderators do not really have any read-the-riot-act empowerments to say what gets posted. ‘They’ do highlight -aberrantly in tone - one essential ‘fact’ though: these and other Blogs have created an almost unstoppable force of public comment that may well affect the McCann case. It’s “kinda interesting”; a criminal case ’swayed’ not just by litigators, justice, and authorities (read: supposed ‘evidence’) but by weight of court-of-opinion!! Who says “twelve just men…” is enough?!!! The sun has just dipped over-the-horizon for me (literally, although it’d be a nice metaphor: ‘guess’ where I live…?)
November 21st, 2007 at 3:33 am
1356 mrdbond
well said!
November 21st, 2007 at 3:16 am
amccannsupporter - as someone else pointed out: “what exactly is your point?”
After all your sanctimonious ‘lecturing’ why are you a “..mccannsupporter”? Certainly a condemnation of all and sundry here and on the Net, and supposedly with McCanns as a precedent (which many ‘Net-izens’ would disagree). Of course the immediate riposte is one of ‘TeamMcCann’ brought it on themselves”. Analogizing about Hollywood/Stars/Britney Spears is a bit weak/inane. You say “They have made it all right to say unspeakable things, to air the most shameful thoughts, always to think the worst, and never to give anyone a chance.” TeamMcCann with all it’s ’support’, finances, and possibly other less-than-savoury mechanisms “have no chance (to respond)”? You jest!
“Within 24 hours of her disappearance, Madeleine McCann had become ‘Maddie’, as though we all knew her” Oh dear! You mean Gerry/TeamMcCann didn’t effect that? What are you reading/smoking? As many others here often accuse “you certainly sound like a TeamMcCann paid mole…”. Why don’t you Title yourself “upholder of truth and enlightenment” or some such other diminutive? I’m sure the rest of us morons will just keep crashing-around-in-the-bushes here while you’re off eating crummy cheese and wine and mocking us to your ‘friends’ (maybe even sampling Tapas…)
November 21st, 2007 at 2:48 am
To those of you still awake:
how do things stand?
will truth be found in the next days?
November 21st, 2007 at 2:34 am
Tony Bennett,
fair play to you mate, 100%
November 21st, 2007 at 1:49 am
CSN either you’re off to bed or my Internet isn’t functioning anymore. I have to get up early in the morning (today
) so I say goodnight. Sleep well
November 21st, 2007 at 1:44 am
1351
Can’t say No Says:
November 21st, 2007 at 1:42 am
1350
Totje
Do you know anything about tha German guy (Marco ,i think) ,that is in a Turky jail ?
Thank you
**********
Can’t Say No, I was just checking if my post was “send”. No, I don’t know anything about this guy (as far as I can remember). Why is he in a turkish jail?
November 21st, 2007 at 1:42 am
1350
Totje
Do you know anything about tha German guy (Marco ,i think) ,that is in a Turky jail ?
Thank you
November 21st, 2007 at 1:36 am
Judith C.
It really was bothering me. So I’ve checked and double checked and now I see where I got it wrong. I thought her name was Judith too but in fact it was Julie 789 (she had also very nice postings). Sorry about that, makes it more clear checking is necessary before stating. Let’s close then?
November 21st, 2007 at 1:35 am
if the private investigators do come up with something that they consider to positive and good as far as the Mcs are concerned - because they have been hired by the Mcs I doubt very much if the PJ will take any of their findings into account, which is fairly obvious. I think that the only thing that will make the slightest bit of difference to the investigation as far as these hugely expensive private detectives are concerned is if they actually find Madeleine. It seems that the McCanns are more concerned with the detectives getting them off the hook than actually finding links to Madeleines whereabouts. I was a bit disgusted to read that apparently the information phone line set up was a premium charge line - does anyone know if this is correct ? If it is then I can only assume that it is yet another money making scam
November 21st, 2007 at 1:32 am
Tonny B, can you try again ??
November 21st, 2007 at 1:31 am
hmmm
The promccons are so glad ,that Tony loose
November 21st, 2007 at 1:13 am
Ive been having a little think about this lot, and lets say - just say that the rest of the Tapas lot - excluding G and K knew absolutely nothing and had nothing to do with Madeleines disappearance. IF Tanner woman did see someone taking a kid with pj ’s etc like she said, then there is a possibility that the removal of Madeleine was arranged by GM. That is if G and K had anything to do with it. To be standing chatting at the same time that Tanner saw the bloke carrying the kid is a bit iffy - but if he had been arranged for someone to remove at that time he could well have been occupying Wilson ( is that his name - the tennis chap) whilst the removal took place. He would not imagine that during the time he had been away from the bar, O’B would ask Tanner to go back to their flat as there was a sick child = maybe Tanner did see the removal of Madeleine
November 21st, 2007 at 1:12 am
1321 The truth will come out you know. The Portugese Authorities are not stupid.
Lots of kiddies go missing and their parents are not made suspects. Answer this, if you are genuine, why have the McCanns been made suspects! There is a God you know. The sea gives up its dead. The dead speak from beyond the grave. All will be revealed in time!
I do hope Maddie is found!
Do you?