The Case, so far...

[SleuthMom]

Could be. Or does it simply mean what was remembered changed as time went on. When a stressful event happens like a little girl goes missing and people wish very much to help then even if they do remember something, what is remembered and its details can easily become skewed and change over time. And yes people can also remember things that were not there in some cases. But it is not a certainty that is what happened in this case. It is only one possibility out of many.

Even without stress memory can be tricky. Try this: Go to a restaurant with a room full of people and, if they let you, take a picture of the room full of people. Now eat your meal and then go out to your car and write down a description of everyone you saw at the moment the pic was snapped and what they wore and what they were eating and if they were carrying anything what it was.

Don't read it back when you are finished just seal it in a dated envelope.
Keep the picture you took sealed up in its own place and do not look at it at all until the end of this whole experimment.

Now repeat the writng and description part, trying to remember every possible new detail you can, in two weeks and again just seal it up in a dated envelope.

Now repeat the writng and description part again in a month from that last description, trying to remember every possible new detail you can, and again just seal it up in a dated envelope.

Now repeat the writng and description part again in two weeks past the last description, trying to remember every possible new detail you can, and again just seal it up in a dated envelope.

Finally sit down and open each envelope in order and see what happened to your memory and description of the events. You may be surprised at the results.

This is the end of the experiment so compare your writings with the picture. How did it go? Did you miss things that showed up in the picture? Were people there you had forgotten? Were people in different places or positions or dressed differently than you had written? Had your descriptions changed over time? Was any discrepency a result of you imagining things?

Let me know how it goes.

Are you paying for the meal at the Restaurant? :dance: Just kidding...

I see what you are saying, but from seeing a man "carrying something" to a man ( now Murratt) carrying a child with pink pajamas and flowers on them is a HUGE difference.

 

[Barnaby]

Are you paying for the meal at the Restaurant? :dance: Just kidding...

I see what you are saying, but from seeing a man "carrying something" to a man ( now Murratt) carrying a child with pink pajamas and flowers on them is a HUGE difference.

Agreed Sleuthmom! Not only did Jane Tanners account change it became more specific not less so with the passing of time!

First a man carrying a bundle wrapped in a blanket that could have been a child & heading towards the supermarket.
Then she actually identified Madeleines pyjamas, where had the blanket that was covering her gone?
Then she changed to saying that it actually was Madeleine.
Then the guy was going towards Murats house!

The thing that I cannot understand is why she has not been hauled back for questioning & indeed made an arguido!

 

[PharmSleuth]

About the bundle-man, in this interview with Gerry and Kate
[FONT=&quot]http://www.operationfindachild.....ews28.html Gerry adds how the hair of bundle-man is parted , hair color [/FONT][FONT=&quot]and his approx. height as well as his clothing/shoes. Wouldn't that have had to be provided by Tanner? That is some very specific stuff to see at night..yet she could not ID Maddie? [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Gerry also had stated that he talked with Jeremy for 10 to 15 minutes while Jeremy strolled back and forth with his child.






[/FONT]

 

[PharmSleuth]

Like others here, I did not think this case was anything other than a kidnapping until I heard Kate and Gerry were named arguidos. Then, when I started to look into the specifics, I was appalled at their behaviors-the jetsetting so soon, the leaving of money boxes around the resort,their continued insistence they are responsible parents.

Leaving the twins in the room while she goes back to the tapas is unbelievable to me.

Also, if Kate noticed cuddle cat on the shelf and that was so odd, why would she remove it. She said after 20 seconds she knew Maddie was kidnapped, so why wouldn't you want to leave cuddle cat to be assessed for fingerprints and why wouldn't you tell the cops this as soon as they arrived.

The cadaver dogs, excess mileage, strange blogging, possible DNA/bodily fluids and having Amelie dress in Maddie's clothes so soon after she went missing just add to my instincts.

Gerry's strange wording of their innocence:Statement 1 http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1455582007
“Kate and I are 100 per cent confident in each other's innocence…” It implies almost the opposite to me. They were not together for a few blocks of time-the 6 to 830 pm timeframe is the one I am most suspicious about. Why not say "We are innocent".

[FONT=&quot]Statement 2: “We have absolute confidence that, when all of the facts are presented, we will be able to demonstrate we played absolutely no part in Madeleine's abduction. " (my bolding) Being able to demonstrate (via lack of evidence) for not playing a role and actually being innocent are 2 different things.

Despite all that, though improbable, but not impossible, I still am open to Maddie wandering off and being a victim of a crime of opportunity, her wandering down to the ocean and drowning, and even being kidnapped. I have ruled out premeditation or intentional murder by the parents. I also think it is improbable that Kate, Gery or O'Brien came upon Maddie in distress and did not take her to the hospital. Unfortunately, the most likely scenario that I believe (and that can change with new reports) is that Kate, Gerry and/or O'Brien came upon an already dead Maddie whether through a fall or oversedation. This seems to be the only way I believe someone could cover up such a thing. Not only would the twins have been removed that night as some have said on this thread, but I think they would have been arrested that night, too, so it wouldn't just be about losing their practice and twins, but losing their freedom...almost immediately
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[calus_3]

"They've taken her" = "Mom, Lacy's missing"

Inappropriately planned and inappropriately premature, given what both of them knew when the statement was made.

Cal

 

[Texana]

I have to disagree that over time, recollection of details gets stronger. What begins to happen is that you just start drawing conclusions...which is what Gerry and Jane Tanner are doing. The door was slightly ajar, so someone must be in the other room. A man was carrying a bundle, wait, that must have been Madeleine.

As a teacher I have had to document many incidents and situations. I learned very early that just relying on memory was not specific enough--"He hit two children during reading" is nothing like "He hit one student on the way to the pencil sharpener and when I corrected him he kicked the desk and then pushed another student." Later I might realize "we had a challenging lesson that morning and he was still feeling frustrated later that day" but that is the difference between remembering details and drawing conclusions.

 

[Barnaby]

About the bundle-man, in this interview with Gerry and Kate
[FONT=&quot]http://www.operationfindachild.....ews28.html Gerry adds how the hair of bundle-man is parted , hair color [/FONT][FONT=&quot]and his approx. height as well as his clothing/shoes. Wouldn't that have had to be provided by Tanner? That is some very specific stuff to see at night..yet she could not ID Maddie? [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[FONT=&quot]Gerry also had stated that he talked with Jeremy for 10 to 15 minutes while Jeremy strolled back and forth with his child.[/FONT]


[/FONT]

Way too specific for me, in fact verging on the ridiculous. Jane Tanner said she saw a man walking briskly away. In order to give details of the hair parting she would have had to meet him face on & could surely have identified madeleine & challenged him or raised the alarm!
I keep saying she should be an arguido!

 

[Morag]

The creche for the little ones was somewhere near the Tapas bar. Not all the MW apartments are in the same small complex where the McCann party stayed. Is it not possible/likely that a dad whose child was at the creche for the evening (so that he and mom could dine out, for example) was carrying his baby cross town to his own apartment?

The dramatic nanny mentions that people were picking up their kids before 10 that evening- maybe he was one of them. Despite Tanner's (apparent) elaboration on what she saw, she could easily have seen a man with a child. The Irish guy also saw a man (definitely not Murat) carrying a child that evening, so it's possible she did also.

As to why Gerry and Wilkens didn't see her or the man- somewhere yesterday I read that she had seen the man at the corner- near the parking lot, and near the windows of the McCann apartment. Gerry and Wilkens were strolling back and forth, chatting as Wilkens soothed his baby., and so could have missed seeing Jane and the man.

I think she told the truth initially, it was meaningless, and PJ could easily have id'd the guy. If her story has changed, we only have various newspaper stories telling us that.

I give Tanner a pass on this; the strangest thing in this story is why a man who had been jogging, playing tennis, etc, is hanging around with a virtual stranger while his (Gerry's) tapas are growing cold and his wine is being drunk by his friends.

I think that Gerry was either trying to get a demeanor witness (he was cool and calm yer honor) or was having to wait for a moment when no one was around so he could enter/leave the apartment or the shared rental car.

 

[Pinkhammer]

How much wine had Tanner consumed before she thought she saw a mystery man carrying a child? This will certainly be one of the prosecutor's first questions to Jane when she gets up on the stand.

 

[Texana]

Morag, you have a good point. Other parents would have been picking up their children around that time.

And Pinkhammer, I think that's one of the first questions Jane Tanner will be asked--if they haven't already asked that once.

 

[teddiebear1955]

hello all,
the more i read on this case the more i believe that Madeline was killed before dinner that night and her body moved totally away from the room.
there was enough time before the dinner ...and all else was staged ...they knew before they went to the bar that night that one of them had to make a dramatic announcement ..... before everyone left from the table to go home....which was kate cus i dont think gerry can get that dramatic...JMO... cuddle cat was put on the shelf,door was unlocked ,window was arranged so that it would look like a kidnapping.....
now where did they take her body ...hmmm i'm not sure yet ...but with all the jet setting going on ...anyone of those bags could have been Madeline ...and all the trips to take other ppl to the airport..geez..... the church is another place that i believe could have held her body for awhile...as all have read alot of things go on with the priest and the church and alot is hiden for along time....if they took her to the church the priest may have helped them hide her ...after all they did get the key to the church !!!!!!! i just really believe she was killed then removed and hiden close by till Gerryand Kate made the cry ...and then she was buried ....jmo...
Kate is strange almost like she is drugged to remain calm...she has to stay calm & cool ...she killed Madeline and Gerry covered it up so both are gulity ...if she breaks both will go to jail and lose the twins. Gerry is controlling and to me another Scott Peterson .....they have themselves believing that madeline was kidnapped cus they have to keep that lie going....but Kate is getting weaker as the months go along...you can see it happening while he is just fine ..its wearing on her more....
....sorry this was long....teddiebear

 

[gord]

How much wine had Tanner consumed before she thought she saw a mystery man carrying a child? This will certainly be one of the prosecutor's first questions to Jane when she gets up on the stand.

well she has already been cast as a at worst a liar and best someone with a vivid imagination - I have seen her being interviewed - i am sure she will do ok if she has to take the stand

 

[CaliKid]

Tanners word doesn't count more than Jeremy Wilkins' word. He was walking his baby son at the same time and the same place Tanner said she saw the "Bundle-man". He did not see anything at all. Neither did Gerry, who was standing there talking to Wilkins some minutes earlier. None of them saw Tanner either, btw.

We discussed over the summer how JT might have seen Jeremy Wilkins out walking with his baby, although you'd think there would be a size difference in the children. Some also wondered if she might have seen Gerry from a distance and didn't recognize him, but then what was he carrying?

The path that these people were walking is very narrow- a sidewalk with a gate, IIRC. It seems it would be impossible to pass each other without actually getting into their faces.

 

[colomom]

hello all,
the more i read on this case the more i believe that Madeline was killed before dinner that night and her body moved totally away from the room.
there was enough time before the dinner ...and all else was staged ...they knew before they went to the bar that night that one of them had to make a dramatic announcement ..... before everyone left from the table to go home....which was kate cus i dont think gerry can get that dramatic...JMO... cuddle cat was put on the shelf,door was unlocked ,window was arranged so that it would look like a kidnapping.....
now where did they take her body ...hmmm i'm not sure yet ...but with all the jet setting going on ...anyone of those bags could have been Madeline ...and all the trips to take other ppl to the airport..geez..... the church is another place that i believe could have held her body for awhile...as all have read alot of things go on with the priest and the church and alot is hiden for along time....if they took her to the church the priest may have helped them hide her ...after all they did get the key to the church !!!!!!! i just really believe she was killed then removed and hiden close by till Gerryand Kate made the cry ...and then she was buried ....jmo...
Kate is strange almost like she is drugged to remain calm...she has to stay calm & cool ...she killed Madeline and Gerry covered it up so both are gulity ...if she breaks both will go to jail and lose the twins. Gerry is controlling and to me another Scott Peterson .....they have themselves believing that madeline was kidnapped cus they have to keep that lie going....but Kate is getting weaker as the months go along...you can see it happening while he is just fine ..its wearing on her more....
....sorry this was long....teddiebear

Hi teddiebear,

Thanks for sharing. I hope you will consider posting your "theory" in the theories thread. You might be suprised how many other people agree with your ideas.

I agree with your impression of Kate also. I have thought for quite awhile that something is "eating" her.

I just hope (and pray) that we find out what!

 

[gord]

We discussed over the summer how JT might have seen Jeremy Wilkins out walking with his baby, although you'd think there would be a size difference in the children. Someone also wondered if she might have seen Gerry from a distance and didn't recognize him, but then what was he carrying?

possible - but if it was gerry with Maddy as I assume you mean - he must have made a very swift disposole - very swift indeed - he was talking with Wilkins at 9.10 or 9.15

 

[CaliKid]

Hi teddiebear,

Thanks for sharing. I hope you will consider posting your "theory" in the theories thread. You might be suprised how many other people agree with your ideas.

I agree with your impression of Kate also. I have thought for quite awhile that someting is "eating" her.

I just hope (and pray) that we find out what!

I do believe this is the biggest reason she is looking so frail. It's possible she wants to unload her guilt, but they have dug themselves into such deep holes it probably looks impossible to her.

 

[Tuba]

But Jane Tanner did see both Jeremy Wilkins &Gerry McCann plus the man rushing toward the Murat villa carrying a child in a blanket. She didn't mistake Gerry for him, she saw both. It is just that she wasn't noticed. What someone sees and reports and the portions of that report each newspaper chooses to repeat in print are undoubtedly the source of much of the variance in her description. Just look at how other facts are edited and changed as they go into the newspapers and Tanner may deserve less suspicious scrutiny!

 

[PharmSleuth]

Tuba,
I had not seen the article that says Jane saw Jeremy Wilkins. What article is that? I would like to try to get the facts straight as well!

 

[Tuba]

I will try to find one of the many articles that related Jane saw Jeremy & post the source here for you. I've been thinking about all of the figures from the tapas party who were looking into the apt. bldg. checking on various children. So many people, so many trips. An abductor was therefore taking an even greater risk and finding less and less opportunity. But if there had been information passed & stalking, that person also had to know he/she had but this one last night to strike. How could the kidnapper bet on himself though? The odds were so high against him slipping in, finding the victim, making his snatch and getting away in the amount of time he had free of observation. Was he high on a drug? Or was he a burglar who didn't expect a child awake? I cannot forget all of the recent burglaries (that preceded Madeleine's disappearance).

 

[Texana]

But Jane Tanner did see both Jeremy Wilkins &Gerry McCann plus the man rushing toward the Murat villa carrying a child in a blanket. She didn't mistake Gerry for him, she saw both. It is just that she wasn't noticed. What someone sees and reports and the portions of that report each newspaper chooses to repeat in print are undoubtedly the source of much of the variance in her description. Just look at how other facts are edited and changed as they go into the newspapers and Tanner may deserve less suspicious scrutiny!

No, Jane says she did NOT see Jeremy Wilkins. Nor did he see her, and he does add in his comments that he feels he would have been able to see anyone else in the passageway around that time because it was so narrow.

I'm not saying Jane is not truthful or purposefully deceptive, only that absent a corroborating second witness, we only know what she says she saw, not actually what she did see.