07 et 08 - Narrations sur Tannerman

Le ravisseur hypothétique #1

Jane a vu la moitié inférieure des jambes, pas la tête (plus en arrière) ni le bras gauche (posé probablement sur le ventre)

 

 

Les jambes de l'enfant descendent trop bas et le retour de la main du porteur implique un très long bras

 

 

Une seule personne, Jane TB, déclara avoir vu cet homme qui devint ravisseur dès qu'elle apprit que MMC avait disparu (une famille vit un père portant un enfant, trois quarts d'heure plus tard). Comme elle n'avait pas mémorisé ses traits, l'homme sans visage, qu'on appela Tannerman, pouvait difficilement se tailler une carrière de ravisseur public numéro un. Toutefois c'est à lui que pendant six ans les médias ont attribué la responsabilité de la disparition d'enfant la plus médiatisée du XXIè siècle. En octobre 2013 un revirement extraordinaire s'opéra qui, de manière encore plus extraordinaire, resta sans effet. Devant des millions de téléspectateurs, en effet, le chef de Operation Grange identifia  Tannerman comme étant un innocent père de famille. Le nom de cet homme qui pendant six ans connut une célébrité imméritée, puisqu'il n'avait commis aucun forfait, resta inconnu jusqu'en 2018 où on n'en sut en fait pas beaucoup plus long. Il n'entrera donc pas dans l'Histoire et croire en son existence sera à jamais un acte de foi.
Depuis le 3 mai 2007 on ne savait de Tannerman que ce que Jane en avait dit. Très vite, elle en parla à plusieurs personnes, mais pas toujours de la même manière.

1. Première confidence - vers 22h
"10 minutes après l'alarme lancée par Kate", Rachael en informe Jane, dans son appartement auprès de sa fille malade. Donc vers 22h00/05. Jane alors lui confie qu'elle a vu un homme s'éloigner de l'immeuble en emportant un enfant. Rachael, qui à son tour en fait part à Fiona, alors revenue du tour du pâté de maisons, n'en dit toutefois rien dans sa première déposition, pourtant pratiquement entièrement faite de ouï-dire. Aucune mention de l'endroit où était le porteur d'enfant ni quand Jane l'a vu.

 2. Nelson Costa  - plus d'une heure plus tard -  l'un des deux gendarmes arrivés les premiers sur les lieux vers 23h
- 07.05.2007

On qui ? nous a dirigés vers une citoyenne britannique appartenant au groupe (des Neuf), Jane TB, qui avait observé tout près du G5 les mouvements suspects d'un individu portant un enfant en bas âge.

- 17.10.2007
Tandis que son collègue parcourait les environs de l'immeuble et alors qu'il se trouvait à l'extérieur de l'appartement 5A,

Une dame, appartenant au groupe ou non, qui venait d'un appartement voisin, lui a dit qu'elle avait vu un individu se hâter, portant un enfant, et que, étant donné le pyjama, il pourrait s'agir de Madeleine. C'est dans ces circonstances qu'on a commencé à parler d'enlèvement. (...) Ce signalement ne lui a pas semblé très crédible, parce que, quand il a demandé à la dame quelles étaient les caractéristiques physiques de l'individu, elle a répondu qu'il faisait très sombre. Toutefois elle avait clairement vu le pyjama.

Si Nelson Costa avait trouvé le signalement plausible, il aurait questionné Jane et aurait averti son collègue et son chef.

3. Sylvia Batista (Ocean Club Manager/Translator)

Dans sa première déposition (07.05), SB parle de la journée du 3 mai et dit qu'on ne lui avait rapporté aucune situation anormale, elle ne mentionne pas le signalement de JT. Ne lui attache-t-elle pas d'importance parce que le gendarme lui-même n'a pas été convaincu ?
Dans sa deuxième déposition (15.05), SB n'est interrogée que sur Robert M.
Elle ne rapporte le signalement de Jane que le 26.07.2007 quand elle dit venir témoigner à nouveau, un certain nombre de détails lui étant revenus à la mémoire. 

À un certain moment (au cours de la nuit du 3 au 4 mai), elle (SB) a traduit la déposition d'une des dames, une brune, qui faisait partie du groupe des Neuf. Cette dame a dit aux gendarmes qu'elle avait vu un homme passer dans la rue, qui portait peut-être un enfant. SB a trouvé cela bizarre parce que, lorsque la dame a vu l'homme, elle était à un endroit où elle n'avait pas l'angle de vision nécessaire pour apercevoir le lieu où elle situait l'homme. Silvia S fait-elle référence à la rue FGM ? ne sait pas exactement où se trouvait la dame quand elle a vu passer l'homme, mais cette dame a dit l'avoir vu passer dans la rue qui se trouve devant la fenêtre de la chambre où était MMC (donc rua Agostinho da Silva), marchant en direction de la rue qui mène au supermarché Baptista (donc en direction du croisement avec la rue Francisco Gentil Martins).

Ce pourrait être le contraire, S comprend que Jane était dans le corridor et qu'elle décrit Tannerman traversant FGM.

4. Les deux premières lignes de temps

 

Ligne de Temps 1 (manuscrite)  - nuit du 3 au 4 mai 2007
Remarque : "Gerry" orthographié "Jerry"  
Rédigée par Russell ? Il dit (rog) que c'est le "brouillon" de l'autre.

20h45
Matt returns 21h00-05 - listened at all 3 - all shutters down
Jerry 21h10-15 in the TV room + all well
? did he check*
21h20/5 - Ella Jane checked** 5D. Sees stranger & child***
21h30**** - Russ. Ella Matt check all 3
21h35 - Matt check (lettres rayées) see twins 
            - 1
21h50 - Russ returns*****
9.55 (entouré) - Kate realises Madeleine******
22h00 (entouré) - Alarm raised

"checked" puis "sees", semble une chronologie, elle fait la ronde avant de voir.

Ligne de Temps 2 (manuscrite)  - nuit du 3 au 4 mai 2007
Remarque : omet MO check 9:30/35  
Rédigée par Matthew ? Mais Russell dit (rog) que c'est lui, la première étant illisible...

20h45 - all assembled at poolside for food
21h00 -  Matt Oldfield listens at all 3 windows 5A, B, D   
ALL (souligné deux fois) shutters down
21:15 - Gerry McCann looks at room A ?* Door open to bedroom.
21h20 (entouré) - Jane Tanner (orthographié avec un seul "n") checks 5D - [sees stranger
walking carrying a child] (encadré)*** 
21h30**** - Russell O'Brien in 5D. And poorly daughter 
Grand trait vertical jusqu'à 
9.55pm
22h00 (entouré) -) Alarm raised after Kate
En bas de page : Gerald.

 

5. Gerald MC
In procès-verbal de Vitor Martins- nuit du 3/4 mai

Vers 21h20, leur amie Jane est passée près de leur appartement, le long du corridor longeant l'immeuble du côté façade (nord), elle a vu un individu portant un enfant qui descendait la rue, mais n'a reconnu ni l'individu ni l'enfant, elle a seulement remarqué que l'homme semblait âgé de 30 ou 40 ans, avait les cheveux châtain foncé et un pantalon clair.

La seule rue que, dans cette version, Jane a pu voir était AdS.

Jane dit (rog) que GMC était là quand elle a parlé de Tannerman à la PJ.

In déposition 1 - 04.05.2007

(GMC) souligne que, alors qu'elle allait à son appartement voir ses enfants, un membre du groupe, JT, a vu de dos, vers 21h10/15 à une cinquantaine de mètres, dans la rue bordant le complexe, un homme portant un enfant en pyjama.

6. Kate MC
In déposition 1 - 04.05.2007

À la suite (de sa déclaration), KMC souligne que vers 21h15, un membre du groupe, JT, compagne de Russell OB, alors qu’elle allait à son appartement voir ses enfants, a vu de dos, à une cinquantaine de mètres dans la rue bordant le complexe, un individu aux cheveux longs, vêtu, lui a-t-il semblé, d'un blue jean, avec un enfant dans ses bras. Il marchait très vite.

On voit que les dépositions des MC sont très similaires. Mais, tandis que GMC ne donne aucun détail sur Tannerman, alors qu'il parle du pyjama de l'enfant, KMC ne dit rien sur l'enfant, mais donne des détails sur Tannerman (blue jean, cheveux longs). Kate est la seule à rapporter un bue jeans (au lieu d'un pantalon clair) comme elle insistera lourdement sur les manches courtes du pyjama de MMC.

7. Jane TB
04.05.2007

(...) Normalement, toutes les 15 minutes, une personne de chaque foyer allait voir si ses enfants dormaient bien. (JT) se souvient que, vers 21h10, Gerald MC a quitté le restaurant pour aller voir ses enfants. Elle est sortie 5 minutes après (donc vers 21h15) pour aller à son appartement voir ses filles. Elle a alors aperçu GMC qui parlait avec un Britannique, JW, (...) Elle savait que GMC avait déjà été dans l'appartement voir ses enfants. Entretemps elle a aperçu un homme qui marchait d'un pas pressé avec un enfant dans les bras, ce détail

Entretemps, un homme est apparu, portant un enfant et marchant rapidement, ce détail, avec le fait que l'enfant était vêtu d'un pyjama sans être enveloppé d'une couverture, étant ce qui avait attiré son attention. (JT) n'a pu le voir que de profil, avec l'enfant dans ses bras. Elle a remarqué la présence de l'individu juste après avoir dépassé GMC et JW qui bavardaient, elle a vu cet homme descendre du trottoir qui borde l'immeuble où ils résidaient et traverser la rue d'un pas pressé. 

L'entrée de l'immeuble est exactement à l'endroit, dans la rue, d'où est apparu l'individu. Après avoir vu ses filles, (JTB) est revenue au restaurant. Sur le chemin du retour, GMC n'était plus là où elle l'avait vu bavarder.

Description de Tannerman :

He wasn't dressed like a tourist...

Individu à peau sombre, mâle, âgé de 34/40 ans, apparence physique mince, environ 1m70. Cheveux très foncés, épais, courts mais tombant sur le cou (elle n'a pu le voir que de dos). Il portait un pantalon dans un tissu genre lin entre beige et doré, et une veste genre "duffy" (mais moins épaisse). Ses souliers étaient noirs, du genre classique. Il marchait d'un pas pressé. Il portait l'enfant couchée sur ses deux bras étendus devant la poitrine. À son acoutrement, JT a pensé que l'individu n'était pas un touriste, car il était bien mis.

De l'enfant qui semblait dormir JT n'a vu que les jambes. L'enfant semblait plus grand qu'un bébé, pieds nus, vêtu d'un pyjama qui semblait de coton, de couleur claire (peut-être blanc ou rose clair). JT n'en est pas sûre, mais elle a la sensation que le pyjama a un motif, peut-être des fleurs, mais elle n'est pas sûre.

Elle ne sait pas comment MMC était habillée quand elle a disparu, car elle n'en a parlé à personne (probablement du pyjama). Elle n'a parlé de Tannerman qu'à GMC et à la police, sans entrer dans les détails.

Questionnée, elle dit pouvoir probablement identifier l'individu qu'elle a vu, de dos et par sa manière de marcher.

JT fait un croquis du signalement, reproduit ci-après, malgré l'interdit, afin de le corriger..

Le point 7, en effet, n'est pas l'entrée de l'immeuble G5 vers les appartements, mais l'entrée de l'appartement G5A. Le trajet de Tannerman est purement spéculatif, Jane TB ne pouvant, du point 4, voir le parking entouré d'un mur et bordé de haut faux-poivriers. L'entrée de ce parking (non indiquée sur le croquis) est très proche du coin de la rue Agostinho da Silva (horizontale en haut) et de la rue Francisco Gentil Martins (verticale au milieu du croquis). Par conséquent, venant de l'appartement 5A, il aurait traversé le parking en diagonale et non en faisant le tour de (?).

8. Dans leurs dépositions du 04.05, RMO, MMO, David WP, DW et Russell TB n'évoquent pas le signalement "Tannerman". Et pourtant ils sont tous au courant, comme le montrent les deux lignes de temps et/ou les dépositions des 10/11 mai. Seule Fiona WP note

Quant à l'épisode avec Jane, celle-ci m'a seulement dit qu'elle avait vu un individu avec un enfant dans les bras, mais ne savait pas si c'était Madeleine.

Où était Jane ? Il est étrange que, étant sur le terrain, elle n'ait pas amené Nelson Costa, Silvia Batista, éventuellement Rachael Fiona, David et Russell à l'endroit où elle se trouvait quand elle avait vu Tannerman, plutôt que faire des descriptions vagues qui ne sont pas compatibles avec l'histoire qu'elle a raconté le lendemain à Portimao. Il aurait été beaucoup plus simple de dire qu'elle venait de dépasser Gerald et Jeremy, un détail qui lui coûtera sa crédibilité aux yeux de la police portugaise. Mais l'idée ne lui est venue que plus tard.. 

Jane a été très économique à propos de Tannerman jusqu'à sa première audition à Portimao le lendemain matin. Comme si elle était incertaine quant à ce qu'elle avait vu. 

La manière de porter l'enfant que Jane a décrite, absolument intenable au-delà de quelques mètres, donne à penser qu'elle n'a pu inventer Tannerman. Elle a vu quelqu'un, mais ce n'était pas Crecheman. Andy Redwood, mesestimant le savoir des internautes, a cru qu'il lui serait facile de leur faire avaler cette couleuvre-là.

9. Gerald MC - 10.05.2007

Ce n’est que vers 1:00, le 4 mai, qu’il a entendu Russell dire que sa compagne, Jane, aurait vu, vers 21:10, un individu traverser le haut de la rue avec un enfant dans les bras qui pourrait ou non avoir été sa fille Madeleine. Questionné, il dit qu'il ne se souvient pas d'avoir décrit exactement le type de pyjama (couleur, motifs, etc.) que Madeleine portait quand elle a disparu.

Russell n'a pas pu dire "le haut de la rue" à ce moment-là, un détail que Jane n'a mentionné ni à Fiona, ni à Rachael ni à la GNR.

10. Jane TB 10.05.2007

... Vers 21h10, GMC a quitté le restaurant pour aller voir ses enfants dans l'appartement. 5 ou 10 minutes après, (JTB) est partie pour aller voir ses filles. C'est alors qu'elle a vu GMC parler avec un Britannique appelé JW qu'ils avaient rencontré pendant ce séjour. Il jouait au tennis avec eux. Elle ne sait pas s'ils l'ont vue, elle n'a essayé de parler avec aucun des deux. Elle les a dépassés en sachant que GMC était déjà allé dans l'appartement voir ses enfants. Elle ne se souvient de la position ni de JW ni de GMC pendant qu'ils conversaient dans la rue, elle a seulement l'impression que l'un était sur le trottoir et l'autre dans la rue, près du premier. JW avait une poussette, (JTB) savait qu'il avait un petit enfant. Questionnée, elle explique que la raison pour laquelle elle était partie, 5 ou 10 minutes après GMC, est qu'elle savait qu'il n'irait qu'à son appartement, elle répète qu'elle allait voir régulièrement ses filles. 

After having quickly eaten the main course she went to the apartment to take the place of her husband so that he could finish his meal. Her husband returned to the restaurant. Some time later, she doesn't know precisely how long, she looked through the lounge window towards the restaurant area, ascertaining, strangely, that there was no-one seated at the table it being that it was still very early for all of them to have already finished the meal. Later she heard voices of KMC and FWP who were in the corridor in front of the bedroom windows and who called, desperately, for Madeleine. When she saw her it was KMC herself who told the deponent that Madeleine had disappeared, not clarifying in what circumstances, continuing her search. The deponent stayed in her apartment because her (elder) daughter was asleep and the smallest was still awake and complaining.
As it was asked of her she relates that she did not go into the MC apartment therefore she does not know the state of the bedroom nor any details of what happened that night. Now, already she had heard many versions or theories of what could have happened, but, for her part, she can only affirm that the man that she saw carrying the child was, in her belief, associated with the disappearance of MMC.

She was then confronted with the fact that when her husband ROB and MO went to check their respective children the window already might have been open and MMC probably no longer in her bed. She clarifies that she cannot answer for them but thinks that MO had not entered the MC children's bedroom, limiting himself to hear that there was no crying and that the twins were in their beds. 
Asked if he couldn't have checked for noise at the bedroom window, as had been done many times, the deponent clarifies that MO had assured the parents that he would go to check the state of the children from inside the house. 
Jane est la seule qui dise cela ! Et elle n'hésite pas à décrire le trajet de Matthew comme si elle avait été là !
For this he went up the pavement to the main entrance of the apartments, entered [his] house and turned to leave, descended the pavement again to the rear entrance of the MC flat, climbed the steps and accessed the lounge through the glass door (that was not locked). Anyway, a better understanding of these details can only be provided by MO himself.

Confronted with the information that the [tracker] dog teams had followed the MMC's scent trail that didn't pass by 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.
Quand Jane est prise en défaut, elle se défend en protestant de sa bonne foi, au lieu de remettre en cause tous les ouï-dire qu'elle vient d'enchaîner. On n'a pas une seconde le sentiment que le sort de MMC lui importe.  
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 on 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.

11. Dans les dépositions du 10/11.05,
Matthew MO n'évoque pas le signalement de Jane et déclare ne pas avoir avoir connaissance de circonstances particulières entourant la disparition.
Russell TB ne parle pas de porteur d'enfant vu par sa compagne. 

Dianne W non plus.

Fiona WP n'a pas fait de seconde déposition (David WP et Kate MC non plus). Dans l'audition rogatoire (10.04.2008), elle raconte qu'en attendant l'arrivée de la police elle était allée vers la cage d'escalier (centrale), croyant que personne n'était allé voir dans les étages :

J'avais commencé à grimper quelques marches quand Jane est sortie (de son appartement) en disant que Rachael avait déjà cherché ou que quelqu'un était là-haut. Jane s'est précipitée et m'a dit, à voix basse, en m'éloignant de la porte de Kate, qu'elle avait vu un homme portant un enfant. Et l'horreur à l'idée de ce qu'elle avait vu était évidente. Et j'ai pris au sérieux ce que cela impliquait, qu'elle pensait avoir pu voir Madeleine. Paniquée j'ai juste dit qu'il fallait le dire à la police, que nous devions dire ce qu'elle avait vu. Je n'ai rien dit à Kate ou à Gerry de ce que Jane m'avait raconté.

12. Rachael Oldfield 11.05.2007

... Environ 10 minutes après l'alarme sur la disparition lancée par Kate, (Rachael) était avec Jane dans l'appartement de cette dernière. Tandis qu'elles parlaient, Jane lui a dit que lorsqu'elle avait fait sa ronde et était passée à côté de Gerald qui parlait avec JW, elle décrit ce qu'elle a su depuis comme si elle l'avait appris alors, elle avait vu un homme avec un enfant, étendu sur ses bras, qui n'était pas un bébé et aurait pu avoir plus ou moins l'âge de Madeleine. (Jane) dit aussi que quand elle avait vu l'homme, il lui avait semblé étrange parce qu'il marchait très vite et portait un enfant en pyjama, sans autre vêtement. Rachael avait questionné Jane et celle-ci avait dit que sur le moment elle n'avait rien dit parce qu'elle ne savait rien de la disparition de Madeleine (sic!) et n'avait pas vu le visage de l'enfant. Questionnée, Rachael dit qu'au début Jane s'était focalisée plus sur la description de l'homme et, seulement quelques jours plus tard, pas selon GMC, avait mentionné le pyjama de l'enfant, elle ne se souvient pas si Jane a fait une description détaillée du pyjama, en particulier de la couleur ou des motifs.

Jane a parlé du pyjama à Nelson Costa, Rachael dit n'importe quoi.

15.05.2007

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.

1. May 3/4 Silvia B. as Jane's interpret (to GNR)

This lady said to the GNR elements, and she (the witness) translated, that she had seen a man on the road who might have carried a child.
This situation surprised her because she (the witness) was convinced that when the lady saw the man, the lady was in a place from where she had no angle of vision for the place where she saw the man. She doesn't know exactly what was the position of the lady when she saw the man, but she knows that the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket. 

Le seul point clair est que Tannerman descendait AdS vers FGM, peut-être alors qu'il passait devant l'entrée du parking, Jane étant ou dans le corridor ou sur le parking.

2. May 3/4 GMC (to Victor Martins)

At about 21.20, their friend Jane passed close to the apartment 5A (in the corridor along the front of the building) she saw an individual carrying a child who passed descending the road (ce doit être AdS), however she did not recognise this individual, nor the child, only having noticed that the individual appeared to be aged between 30 or 40, had dark hair and light coloured trousers.

Cette version n'a pas de sens si Jane n'était pas en train de revenir au restaurant.

3. May 4 Jane

Five minutes later (after GMC left), the witness left to go to her apartment and see whether her daughters were OK. That's when she saw Gerry talking to an Englishman called Jez whom they had got to know during the holidays. They played tennis with him. She passed by them knowing that Gerry had already been in the apartment to check his children. Meanwhile a man appeared carrying a child, with a hurried walk, it being this detail together with the fact that the child was dressed in pyjamas, without being wrapped up in a blanket, that caught her attention. She only managed a side view of him with the child in his arms. She noticed the individual's presence exactly after she passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking, having seen this person step off the pavement along the apartment block where they were staying and rapidly cross the road.The entrance to the apartment building is located in the street where the individual appeared from.

4. May 4 GMC

It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road (arteria, which means a large road and doesn't apply to FGM actually, why didn't the interpret choose the word "road" or "street" ?) bordering the club, the back an individual carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, Jane will be able to clarify this situation.

At least here Tannerman is logically going back home from the creche. 50m is strange.

5. May 4 KMC

(KMC) highlights that a member of the group, Russell's partner Jane, when she went to her apartment to see her children at around 9.15pm, saw at about 50 metres away, in the street bording the complex, the back of a long-haired person, in what she thinks were jeans, with a child in his arms and walking very quickly.

6. Timeline TP9

21:15 - JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed.

As JT continued up the hill towards the junction with Rua A. da Silva, she sees a man carrying a child in his arms crossing left to right from the apartment side continuing east along Rua A. da Silva in the direction of the "Millennium Restaurant." He was on the same side of the road as JT 5-10 metres ahead of her.

7. May 10 GMC

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.

8. May 10 Jane

Five or ten minutes later the deponent left, having gone to her apartment to check that all was well with her girls. At that time she observed GMC talking to an English citizen called Jez that they had met on these holidays. He played tennis with them. She doesn't know if they saw her giving the assurance that, on her part, she did not start a conversation with either of them.
She passed them knowing that GM had already been in the apartment to see the children.

Note that she reiterated the "knowing" which in fact is her protection against any accusation thay she should have alerted then.

11. Premier appel public 25.05.2007

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.

 

13. Jane TB
In Panorama documentary, 'The Mystery of Madeleine McCann' - 19.11.2007

Jane TB - Je pense que les entrées étaient sur le point d'arriver, aussi je me suis dit que j'allais faire une ronde (...) J'ai grimpé la côte, dépassé Gerry qui était en train de parler avec un de ses amis du tennis. Et puis, avoir avoir dépassé Gerry, en haut de la rue j'ai vu quelqu'un traverser, j'étais à une distance raisonnable, cette personne portait un enfant.

 (...)

RB: And just describe that individual to us.

JTB - Il mesurait probablement 1m73, il était plus grand que moi, mais ne mesurait pas 1m83, donc entre les deux. Il était très couvert et c'est une chose qui, à y repenser, était très bizarre parce que les touristes, quand ils sont à l'étranger, les Britanniques à l'étranger ont toujours des pantalons retroussés ou des shorts et il avait une grosse veste lourde et un pantalon et ses cheveux... Je me souviens bien de ses cheveux. Il semblait en avoir beaucoup, châtain foncé, tombant sur la nuque. 

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

JTB - Je pouvais voir que c'était un enfant et je voyais ses pieds et le bas de son pyjama et j'ai pensé que l'enfant n'avait pas de chaussures et la nuit était froide, au Portugal en mai il ne fait pas si chaud que ça, et j'avais un gros blouson et je me souviens de m'être dit que ce père n'était pas un très bon père, il n'avait pas enveloppé l'enfant dans une couverture.

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

JTB - Seulement parce que le pyjama avait un air rose, donc on présume que c'est une fille. Il faisait vraiment tout à fait froid.  

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

JTB - Ouais... il portait l'enfant en travers du corps, comme ça. J'imagine rétrospectivement qu'on penserait probablement que l'on porte davantage les enfants contre l'épaule.

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?

JTB : Un bref moment, mais sur le moment je savais ce que j'avais vu. J'ai donné l'information à la police et à cause du pyjama je suis absolument convaincue que c'est ce que j'ai vu.

(...)

RB : 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?

JTB : Je n'ai pas parlé parce que la police portugaise nous a dit de ne pas parler du tout de l'affaire et... vous savez, depuis le premier jour nous avons fait tout ce que nous pouvions pour les aider dans l'enquête. Je pense que je parle peut-être maintenant parce qu'on m'a traitée de menteuse et de fantaisiste etc. et je sais ce que j'ai vu et je pense qu'il est important que les gens sachent ce que j'ai vu parce que je crois que Madeleine a été enlevée. 

 

14. Jane TB 08.04.2008 

4078: Right, okay. So you have seen Gerry and you have seen Jez?

JTB - Donc cette personne traversait la route et je crois que les trois choses qui m'ont frappée sont les pieds (nus), les vêtements qui étaient un peu inattendus et aussi le fait qu'il marchait tout à fait... il ne courait pas, mais il marchait vers un but. 

(...)

4078 - 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?

JTB : 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.

JTB : 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.

JTB : 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?

JTB : 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.

JTB - 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. 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 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 “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”.

(...)

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.