The McCann case - What I'd like to see in a reconstruction - Part 1

...............
..................

Well, what would I like to see in a reconstruction of the events of May 3rd 2007, when Madeleine McCann was reported missing, having mysteriously disappeared from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz?

First of all, the child that Jane Tanner reported that she saw being carried by the alleged abductor. The child chosen to take the part would have to be the same height as Madeleine was said to have been at the time: 90cms. I can't quite believe that she was that small, but that's the height that was given out in a description by her parents. So, that's the height the child should be.

Then there's those pyjamas! I doubt that Marks and Spencer has the identical pyjamas still on sale, but the basic style is popular and so should be easy to come across. Kate can let the police know the size, I am sure, although the size Madeleine was wearing is probably a matter of record.

So, the child should be the same height and wearing pyjamas just like these ones.

And she should be carried just as described by Jane Tanner, as seen in the image below, which Jane Tanner verified as a good likeness of the alleged abductor and correct for the way the child was being carried.

But, can someone tell me, just a simple explanation will do, how the pyjamas being held up by Kate and Gerry McCann could end up looking like those in the image verified as accurate by Jane Tanner?

How could baggy, cropped leg pyjamas end up tightly around the ankles? Those pyjamas would ride up to the knees on a child being carried like that.

This is one of the very first inconsistencies that could be shown up in a reconstruction of the events. If Jane Tanner did see a man carrying a child in that manner, wearing pyjamas as shown in the image she accepts as an accurate representation, then it wasn't Madeleine McCann whom she saw.

There could be several explanations for the inconsistency:

1) Jane Tanner didn't see a man carrying a child.

2) She did see a child being carried, but it wasn't Madeleine and under the sodium street lights, she was confused about colour and the pyjamas weren't pink.

3) It was Madeleine and Kate and Gerry lied about what she had been wearing that night.

However, as Jane Tanner slip-slapped her way up the alleyway, in her flip-flops, and apparently passed very close to Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins, neither of the two men saw her.

So, were any of those three lying? Rather seems like it. Who and why? They can't all be telling the truth? And Marks and Spencer's pyjamas are like dogs in a way: they don't lie!

I think there has to be a reconstruction of the events so that this and other inconsistencies can be addressed. This would be the best possible start, in my opinion, to finding out what happened to Madeleine.

Madeleine McCann - Those Pyjamas absolutely fascinate me! Updated.

The McCanns, above, holding up a pair of pyjamas, which they said were identical to the ones Maddie was wearing when she disappeared. Note the shape of the legs and also the general colour of them, which looks to me like white, with a floral pattern. Pink? Not as far as I can make out.

This is a sketch of the abductor carrying a child that was based on one of Jane Tanner's descriptions and which she agreed was accurate.

Those pyjamas have changed somewhat! For a start, do you think, looking at the shape of the garments the McCanns are showing, that the legs would not only come down to the ankles, but be so tight? I don't think so! Those pyjamas are the style that would come just over the knees or to mid-calf and the loose, baggy shape would mean that with a child being carried in the manner shown, the bottoms would ride up the legs. Also, the flowers have gone quite pink!

Here is part of Jane Tanner's comments on the Panorama programme of November 19th 2007.



"JANE: 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.

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

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

So, Jane Tanner could see the feet and the bottom of the pyjamas? How? They would have been at least half-way up the legs, if not right up over the knees according to how the child was allegedly being carried. And pink? No, those pyjama bottoms were white with a floral pattern that doesn't look at all pink.

In Jane Tanner's original statement, she said she had seen, "..a man carrying a bundle that could have been a child." So, if she had seen feet and pyjama bottoms so clearly, how could she not be sure at that time that the bundle was a child? She actually repeats this on the Pamorama programme, in which she also describes the child's feet and pyjamas. Some kind of contradiction there?

"Describing what she witnessed on the fateful evening of May 3, Miss Tanner said: "Never in a million years did I think it could have been Madeleine. But I didn't know then.

"I just saw a person walk along the top of the road with what could have been a child in his arms."

What could have been child in his arms, but with bare feet and wearing pyjamas with a pinky aspect, so you knew it was a girl? Right! Easy to mistake a bundle of laundry or whatever for a child! Since when, though, did a bundle with bare feet poking out of pyjamas, that was obviously a girl, look like anything other than a human being?

Just one of the many puzzling contradictions about this case, but for me, it stands out as one of the most basic questions. How did the "bundleman," become the man carrying a child wearing Maddie's pyjamas? How could Jane Tanner perceive a "pinky," aspect under street lights? How come neither Jez Wilkins nor Gerry McCann saw this man? How come neither of the men saw Jane Tanner, who says she walked right past them on the pavement?

Yes, those pyjamas fascinate me! There is also, of course, the changing description of the abductor himself and what he was wearing!

Update Wednesday May 20th.

Thanks to a comment from Anonymous, I have an article in which John McCann, Gerry's brother, talks about Maddie's pyjamas.

Sydney Morning Herald May 15th 2007

"That was terrible for them," says John McCann, Mr McCann's elder brother, who has also travelled to Portugal to help search for his niece.

"Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: 'Maddy's jammies. Where is Maddy?' But she is too young to understand. And how do you explain? All we know is that Madeleine needs her family. She loves us, we love her. It is time for her to come home."

Now, if your precious child had just disappeared, would you dress another child in her pyjamas? Very strange behaviour. And which pyjamas is he talking about? The Eeyore jammies? A different set of jammies? The McCanns are holding up a set of pyjamas, which are supposed to be "like," the ones Maddie was wearing when she disappeared. I think it was assumed that those belonged to Amélie. If you look at the size of the pyjamas the McCanns are holding up and observe how small Amélie was in May 2007, would those pyjamas have fitted her?

I don't think those pyjamas would have fitted Amélie: too big. So, did Maddie have more than one pair of Eeyore pyjamas? If M&S had sent another pair to the McCanns, that's not them, because you can see by the stretched neck that those have been washed quite a few times. OK, so if they have been washed quite a few times, they must be quite old and therefore would have tripped little Amélie up at the time they were bought.

So, those must be Maddie's pyjamas and if Maddie was wearing pyjamas just like those when she disappeared, then she must have had more than one pair of the exact same pyjamas on holiday. Or what?

Madeleine McCann's pyjamas.

(Click to enlarge images)

On at least one forum today, there is renewed discussion about the pyjamas Madeleine's parents said she was wearing on the evening she disappeared from the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. So, I thought I would briefly revisit the photos of those pyjamas, the sketch of the abductor, which Jane Tanner verified as a likeness and Jane Tanner's statements (or maybe just a couple of them!) about what she saw.

First of all, could the pyjamas pictured on the right, look like those in the image on the left when the child wearing them was being carried, not just in the way shown, but any way? Those pyjamas being held up by Kate and Gerry would surely not reach a child's ankles. They are baggy and look like they'd reach just over the knees, or at their longest, be mid-calf length when a child was standing up, but lying down or being carried, they'd probably slip up over the knees.

Now, let's look at some statements from Jane Tanner:

Times Online May 28th 2007

"I passed a man who was carrying blonde girl in pink pyjamas"

"The vital witness, a close friend of Kate and Gerry McCann, was on her way to join Madeleine’s parents for dinner at the tapas bar when she saw a man with a blonde girl wrapped in a blanket. She was wearing “distinguishable” pink pyjamas, the woman has told police."

"The woman saw the man close to the open window of the bedroom where Madeleine, then 3, had been sleeping with her two-year-old twin brother and sister, Sean and Amelie."

"The woman saw the man at 9.30pm as she arrived late for dinner with Mr and Mrs McCann and other friends at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, where they were staying. She did not realise the significance until Madeleine’s mother went to check on her children 30 minutes later, discovered her daughter was missing and came back in an hysterical state. Madeleine had been wearing pink and white pyjamas."

"The man is white, 35 to 40 years old, of medium build and 5ft 10in. He has short hair and was wearing a dark jacket, light beige trousers and dark shoes."

The Sun October 26th 2007

"A TINY figure wearing pyjamas lies still and quiet in a man’s arms – in an image thought to show the abduction of Madeleine McCann.

Parents Gerry and Kate hope the chilling picture – drawn from an eyewitness account and released last night – will bring them closer to the truth about their daughter.

Swarthy, aged around 35 with black hair curling round his collar, the slim, 5ft 6in suspect was spotted hurrying away from the McCanns’ holiday apartment by Kate and Gerry’s friend Jane Tanner."

"But she did get a good look at his hair and clothing – a maroon shirt, camel coloured trousers and black or brown shoes."

Times Online October 26th 2007

Amazingly, on the same day as the Sun's article, where the abductor's height was given as 5'6", the Times presents this description:

"The man is approximately 35 to 40 years old, of medium build and about 5ft 10in. He has dark collar-length hair and is wearing a dark jacket, light beige trousers and dark shoes. He was allegedly seen by Jane Tanner, one of the McCann family friends, at 9.15pm on May 3. About 45 minutes later Madeleine was reported missing from her bed in Praia da Luz."

It's now 9.15pm when Jane Tanner sees the man carrying a child.

The Mirror 17/11/07

"McCann witness speaks out."

"Jane Tanner, 38, said that as she passed a man carrying a child in their holiday resort: "Never in a million years did I think it could have been Madeleine.

"I just saw a person walk along the top of the road with what could have been a child in his arms."

But marketing executive Jane is now certain that she saw poor Madeleine being carried off in Praia da Luz, Portugal."

This reads, in part, like Jane Tanner's earliest description: "..with what could have been a child in his arms." So, she wasn't even sure initially that it was a child, but she definitely saw "what could have been a child," was wearing Madeleine's pyjamas?

"I'm talking now because I'm being called a liar and a fantasist. I know what I saw.

"I think it's important that people know what I saw because I believe Madeleine was abducted."

"At around 9.15 Jane was walking back to her apartment when she saw a man striding across the road in front of her. In his arms there appeared to be a child, barefooted, wearing pink pyjamas."

From Jane Tanner's interview with the Leicestershire police in april 2008:

"According to Jane Tanner, the man had long hair, quite dark and shiny. He was wearing dark clothes, "not big, but quite baggy."

"Dark colours, but then again it was, I think that it was quite dark, so dark, kind of a dark sort of jacket, but on the other hand, lighter trousers in a horrible colour, again this is, kind of a dark yellowish-brown, horrible, but not, not a good colour for trousers, but on the other hand, I wonder if it was the light that made them appear, made them appear more of a sort of mustard. It wasn't a mustard because it was too light, but it was just like one, as I said they weren't attractive. They weren't the kind of clothes I would expect of someone on holiday at Mark Warner. They were, I can't think of the material. I tried to describe it before, but as some sort of cottony material, but baggy," Tanner states."

During this statement in April 2008, Jane Tanner also seems not too sure about where Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins were standing, but she is sure that she passed by quite close to them:

"I went back up the road and I can't remember exactly, I know this, I know, I think that Gerry thinks he was in a different place from where I think he was standing, but I was quite sure, as I walked back up the road, they were standing, one of them was on the road and the other was just on the edge of the pavement, but I thought that it was at the side of the road where I was walking, but I know that Gerry thinks they were on the other side. But I think they were closer, because as I passed, I nearly went to greet them in some way and I thought at that moment Oh "they're chatting chatting chatting" and I thought, you know, I didn't, I didn't know if they had seen me or not, but I actually went to greet them and I think if they had been so far away I don't know if I would somehow have almost gone to say hello to them," states Jane Tanner admitting that she and Gerry don't agree about where they found themselves."

However, neither Gerry nor Jez actually saw Jane Tanner, however closely she says she passed them.

Ms Tanner does not seem to be a very reliable witness, but the difference between the actual pyjamas shown by Kate and Gerry McCann and those drawn by the forensic artist to Jane Tanner's description, and verified by her as a good likeness, seems to be one of the most significant details of her witness statements. Surely this is a very basic and therefore key detail. Those pyjamas would probably not have been seen by someone with Jane Tanner's view of the person crossing the top of the road, because they would have ridden up over the knees. A very simple detail, based on the design of those pyjamas, but very significant in my opinion.