Lying in the Sun

Gerry McCann Man


 Gerry McCann Man - 



Tanner Man
-
Creche Man - Smith Man - Gerry McCann Man...  


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyJwns_MTok


The above, the link to the Crime Watch Production which featured the case of Madeleine McCann.


At 23:41 on video we are shown the man seen by the Smith family (Smith Man) ‘Smith Man’ being the man who was seen carrying a child, a little girl fitting Madeleine’s description, and Smith Man fitting Gerry McCanns description,  and again at 23:52 up until 24:10 on video we see Smith Man from different angles.   


Freeze the frame at the above times - Smith Man, is a dead ringer for Gerry McCann.    The likeness is uncanny.   So much so, that one would think it was Gerry McCann in the production, playing the part of Smith Man.

The child Smith Man is carrying, is shown to be wearing a long sleeved top!  
 

 

Maddie a Verdade da Mentira (Maddie the Truth of the Lie) by Goncalo Amaral


AN IRISH FAMILY IN A STATE OF SHOCK.


The McCann couple return to Great Britain after more than four months spent in the Algarve. It's an almost triumphant return. The media coverage is such that you'd think you were witnessing the liberation of hostages held for years in a far-off country. Gerald McCann is shown on television carrying his son, as he descends from the plane. The child's head is against Gerald's left shoulder and his arms dangling by his sides. Gerald walks across the tarmac, still holding his son closely against himself.

In Ireland, the Smiths are watching the BBC news, which is broadcasting the event. For them, it's a shock: that person, they recognise him. That way of carrying his child, that way of walking...It's the man they saw at around 10pm on May 3rd, with a little girl, who seemed to be deeply asleep, in his arms.

This image, brings back with a jolt, that of the man they encountered in the streets of Vila da Luz, on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance. It's as if the scene is repeating itself ....Mr Smith thinking he's hallucinating, sees the same report on other channels, ITV and Sky News. From that moment, he is sure: the man they came across that night was Gerald McCann. Of that there is very little doubt. Upset by the implications of this discovery, he alerts the police and waits to be called back by those in charge of the investigation.

When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of May 3rd in Vila da Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner, "sent," the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who - if he was the guilty party - would have taken this route: leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murat's house, but west in the direction of the beach.

We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary police agrees, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up. But the Smiths were never to come back to Portugal. After my departure, the PJ were to change their minds. They asked the Irish police to proceed with interviewing the witness. That decision was to seriously delay the process since the Smiths were not interviewed until several months later. Meanwhile, rumours were to circulate and people not involved with the investigation would be made aware of the existence of this witness; someone allegedly even sought out contact with the family, without its being known to what end.

 

 The Smith family the witnesses who reported this sighting of a man carrying a little girl, said that the little girl being carried was wearing long sleeved clothing, perhaps a pyjama top.


Madeleine McCann was wearing a
short sleeved pyjama top... that is according to her parents!

Kate McCann from her book 'Madeleine' speaking of her thoughts after she announced to the others in her holiday party that Madeleine was gone.


'It was so cold and so windy.  I kept picturing her in her short-sleeved Marks and Spencer Eeyore pyjamas and feeling how chilled she would be.   Bizarrely, I found myself thinking it would have been better if she'd been wearing her long-sleeved Barbie ones.   Fear was shearing through my body.'


If the eye witnesses (the Smith family) are correct - then this little girl was wearing long-sleeved clothing, and if Kate McCann is telling the truth, and Madeleine was wearing short-sleeved pyjamas then logic tells us this little girl seen by the Smith family and as I stated in a previous blog, was NOT Madeleine McCann.


It pretty much then renders this sighting void too!
 

Logic v Lies?


Did Madeleine even have a pair of Eeyore short-sleeved pyjamas?
 

Was Kate McCann telling the truth as to what type of pyjamas Madeleine was wearing – long/ short sleeved, Eeyore/ Barbie/ stained then washed? 


I guess it all rather depends on what, if anything the McCanns needed to hide!


Kate McCann said that 'bizarrely' she found herself thinking it would have been better if Madeleine had been wearing her long-sleeved Barbie pyjamas?  


(Did she think Madeleine was outside in the cold, or being held by the alleged abductor in a cold place?  Even if she was, long sleeved pyjamas were not going to protect this child from a paedophile which according to the McCanns was what had happened to Madeleine, she had been taken by a paedophile, therefore the child having cold arms, would not one would have thought been her first concern.  Unless of course, the long-sleeved Barbie pyjamas were furry lined throughout, and offered more overall warmth, other than only the extra couple of inches of material for the arms, than the short sleeved Eeyore ones did.)


But what if the child was in fact wearing long-sleeved pyjamas or some other type of long-sleeved top, and that the Smith family did in fact see Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine, wearing a long sleeved top?
 

We only have Kate McCanns word that Madeleine’s top was short-sleeved…and she is not known for being the most reliable or honest source of information, her book ‘Madeleine’ her diary, and her many interviews for magazines, television and radio, all proof of this…
 

Of course the McCanns would naturally have to say Madeleine was wearing pyjamas/nightwear - she was after all taken from her bed, so they tell us…


But if the McCanns are involved in the child’s disappearance - and much points to this being so - and had they in fact decided to remove Madeleine from the apartment, and Gerry McCann was the man carrying the child, and having been seen by the Smith family, the McCanns were hardly going to then say that Madeleine was wearing long sleeved pyjamas.  They would not want any attention drawn to Gerry they would not want anything mentioned which would link him to the Smith sighting, Madeleine’s pyjamas in this circumstance might then ‘require’ to be ‘short-sleeved’ rather than the long-sleeved ones, seen by the Smith family.

Of course one might say that the McCanns would not know what description the Smiths would give of the man and the child they had seen, as they (Smith family) did not come forward immediately for whatever reason, so how could the McCanns possibly have known to give a description of the clothing as something other than what it actually was, to the police on the night of the disappearance, before knowing that the Smith family would come forward.

 

Quite simply, if the man the Smiths saw was McCann - then McCann knew he had been seen, he then knew from that moment on, that the description they (he and his wife Kate McCann) would give to Portuguese Police as to Madeleine's clothing could not be a truthful one – the pyjamas could not be ‘long-sleeved’ they could not match the clothing worn by the child the Smith family had seen, this sighting, this child could not be linked to Gerry McCann.  From that moment on, McCann would know what he had to do with regards the Smith family having seen him. He would in a way have an advantage, being able to plan his/their next move so to speak.


The Smith sighting had at all costs to be played down.  They could not completely ignore it, and didn't,  but they were not for sure about to give it the attention they had given the Tanner sighting!

There would be no press conference, no sketch of the man seen by the Smith family held up by Clarence Mitchell their spokesperson, as had been the case with the Tanner sighting.

No, the Smith sighting would be acknowledged, and acknowledged whenever necessary, but on the whole as it was to be ignored!
 

This is perhaps a good time to go back to what Dr Amaral said of Jane Tanner’s sighting in relation to the Smith sighting coming to light, and knowing too that Mr Smith believed the man he had seen was Gerry McCann:

 

“We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner, “sent” the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family.  Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who – if he was the guilty party – would have taken this route…” 

direction to that taken by the man seen

“Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald”

 

Of course it did - if he was the guilty party!

 

And that I would suggest is why the McCanns not only described Madeleine as wearing short-sleeved pyjamas, having pretty much ignored the Smith sighting, and buried the E.Fits also, so that suspicion would be diverted from Gerry/Gerald McCann!

 

The McCanns hired private detectives, detectives who discovered information regarding the McCanns and their holiday companions which showed their statements to be inconsistent.   Not good when your own detectives are suspicious of you!     These same private detectives it would appear, according to the article in the Sunday Times, November 2013, had E. Fits produced of the man seen by the Smith family.  They presented these to the McCanns, urging them to have the images circulated, have them in the public domain so as to give Madeleine a chance of being found, so that every chance of discovering what became of her was taken not wasted.  So that, no stone would be left unturned- as the McCanns would say!   So that the person seen carrying the child could hopefully be identified!

 

The McCanns should have been ecstatic at the Smith sighting, someone who had seen a man carrying a child fitting their daughter’s description on the night she vanished.   It should have filled them with hope.  The E. Fits they should have been desperate, falling, over each other to ensure that they were seen around the world.   Immediately they should have been posted on the official Find Madeleine Site.

 

That didn’t happen - Instead the McCanns chose to bury them!

 

Had these E.Fits been distributed when the McCanns first obtained them, and not produced FIVE years later by the Metropolitan Police - who had made a request of the McCann legal team it appears, to hand them over - things might have been very different for Madeleine.   It this child is alive, or if she was alive at that time, as the McCanns believe(d) her to be, then the E.Fits, it could be argued may have led to discovering her whereabouts, led to her being found and returned home back with her brother and sister, her grandparents the extended family.

 

It may have led to the perpetrator of the crimes against this child being caught and brought to justice!

 

So why did the McCanns not do this? 

Why did they bury/conceal them?

Why did they do this to their own child, Madeleine?

Why did they do this to her brother and sister?

Why did they do this to their own parents?

 

It rather beggars belief that the parents of a missing child would act in this way – dash the hopes of their own family members that Madeleine may be found, by burying Madeleine’s chances of being found.

 

A missing child - a possible sighting of her, her abductor – an E.Fit produced and given to the parents – and it never saw the light of day – because they her parents chose for it not to!

 

Evidently DCI Andy Redwood and his team of detectives at the Metropolitan Police think differently from Kate and Gerry McCann.  They saw an obvious benefit of releasing the E.Fits.

 

Whether it was so that the public could see it is very possible  that  Gerry McCann is the man who was seen by the Smith family, or for some other reason we have yet to see….

 

By issuing them, he did in effect inform the public that the McCanns had kept these crucial E.Fits buried, and that by doing so they had hindered Madeleine’s chances of being found.

 

Once the E.Fits were out there, people quite naturally would ask questions –

Where had they come from?

Who was the sketch artist?

When EXACTLY had they been put together?

Who EXACTLY had given the descriptions?

Who EXACTLY was present when they were being produced?

How long had the McCanns held on to them, not giving them immediately to Portuguese Police or Police in the UK for distribution/publication/circulation?

 

And the most important question:

 

Why did the McCanns bury them?

 

Why did the McCanns take from this missing child, their daughter Madeleine, a chance of being found, take from their family, their twin children – hope that she would be?

 

Ironically an image from the Official Madeleine Campaign Facebook



For Madeleine hope was never allowed to blossom, it was buried!

 

David Payne, the best friend of Gerry McCann (the man there has been much controversy over with regards rude gestures he is alleged to have made towards Madeleine, made in the presence of her daddy Gerry McCann. Two doctors, colleagues, who had holidayed with the McCanns/Paynes not in Portugal, but at a previous time, gave police witness statements indicating their concerns regarding this fellow.  The police statements are available online, The Gaspar Statements) it seems paid Kate McCann a special visit on the evening Madeleine was reported as missing. 

Why this man would do so is in itself a mystery with different tales being told by the group as to why he was 'needed' at the McCann apartment, indeed, if he ever was there at all!    Why would Kate McCann need him to call round?   Or, why would Gerry McCann ask this man to call round to see his wife?

There are lots of versions for us to choose from.   Well, no McCann tale, has only one!

Payne went of his own accord to visit Kate McCann when Gerry McCann was not at home.


Payne was asked by Gerry McCann to visit his wife.

Payne was at the apartment 30 seconds.

Payne was at the apartment 30 minutes.

Payne was inside the apartment.

Payne stood in the doorway of the patio entrance.

Whatever is the truth, Payne claims to have seen the three McCann children all alive and well...looking like angels...
 

The above image of three little angels dressed in white – is I believe how David Payne described the McCann children, his description of how he thought they looked at the time of his special visit – three little angels sitting dressed in white.
 

The image here shows one little angel separated from the two others… 

Strange how the McCanns when being interviewed, never mention David Payne's visit to see Kate McCann on the night Madeleine vanished?

Kate McCanns book 'Madeleine' was not, as she insists on telling us, written for her children, it was written to counter all of the lies and inconsistencies that had come to light in this case - the case of their missing daughter Madeleine, a case of contradictions - that much is clear!

So did the Smith family see a man who was a dead ringer for Gerry McCann, carrying a little girl fitting the description of Madeleine McCann - but wearing LONG-SLEEVED clothing, and not the short-sleeved top which the McCanns said she was wearing?


What are the chances of another father carrying his child, a man who fits Gerry McCanns description, and a little girl who fits Madeleine's, a child dressed in clothing similar to Madeleine's - but for the length of the sleeves - being out walking around the village at the same time as Kate McCann announced Madeleine was gone?

It is really pretty remote I would say.

I would say too, that Redwood changing that timeline somewhat lands the McCanns and their buddies in the shit!


You see when the Tanner sighting was still on the table, it was always possible that there were two different people seen carrying a child.  The difference in the time of the sightings allowed more for it to be two people than one, as first person sighted would not, some 45 minutes after being first seen, still be walking around town with a child.   So one would naturally assume two individuals, not one.

But with Tannerman out of the way that leaves one person, one sighting. It leaves us with a very specific time of the sighting.  It does not as some may think give a wider opportunity as in the length of time a would-be intruder would have to gain access and remove the child, it rather keeps the 'window of opportunity' tight.  The 'window' has simply been moved by Redwood from just after 9pm to just before 10 pm.

That said, Dr Amaral, from the beginning, stated that the Tanner sighting was not credible, and that if the window and shutter had been open from the time of the supposed Tanner sighting, then it would have been open when Oldfield arrived - open when Tanner and O'Brien did their checks of their own families - they would have seen an open window and shutter.   The fact that they did not - meant as Dr Amaral said, that window and shutter were not opened until after Oldfield left the apartment around 9.35/9.40 pm. (unless of course Oldfield opened it)

Dr Amaral, the Portuguese Police had already,
before DCI Redwood's review concluded that window had to have been opened after Oldfield had been in the apartment, and before Kate McCann arrived.   Therefore the Portuguese Police had already narrowed the 'window of opportunity' to between Oldfield's alleged check and Kate McCann's check.

What Redwood has stated, is not new at all.   He has simply followed the logic of the Portuguese Police, their initial investigation.

We must remember it is the McCanns who plugged Tanner's Sighting
NOT the Portuguese Police.   This sighting, this timeline was a creation of the McCann party, NOT the Portuguese Police!

The Portuguese Police were having none of it!

Dr Amaral knew the window had to have been opened after Oldfield's alleged check.   And the suspicion is backed by the evidence, that is - that it was opened by Kate McCann, her fingerprints being the ONLY ones found on the window.   The prints in a position which indicated she had slid it open I believe!

**For those who say she touched the window when she looked out that night. NO!  The window, she said was already open wide when she arrived at the apartment, slid open as far as it could be, opened from right to left (as Kate McCann said) she had no need to touch the glass.  In fact, to do so she would have had to draw the window closed again, then open it, for her fingerprints to appear where they were found!  McCanns also stated they did not at any time throughout their stay in Portugal, prior to Madeleine being reported as missing, have any cause to touch or open the windows.  The question needing answered is - At what point did she touch that window leaving her prints if it was already open when she arrived?**

We can see that Redwood by announcing what he has on Crime Watch that he is
in agreement with Dr Amaral as to the timeline, as to the dismissal of Tanner's statement - (and that cannot please the McCanns) But is he in agreement that it was Kate McCann who opened that window?

Quite probably
!

Redwood also leaves us with the description of a man seen carrying a child, who quite definitely is not unlike that of Gerry McCann and the child described, most definitely not unlike that of Madeleine McCann.

Pretty much it would seem the persons seen were, if not Gerry McCann and Madeleine McCann, they were Gerry and Madeleine look-a-likes!

There is no more - a swarthy long haired foreigner to blame!   

There are no other sightings.  No one else has come forward to say they saw anyone carrying off a child.

The Smith sighting, Smith Man who quite possibly could be GerryMcCann is all that there is!


Did Redwood play a blinder?   

Still have my doubts about Redwood, not entirely convinced by him, but whatever his motives, he has without question left a great huge doubting question mark above Gerry McCanns head.

He has brought to the attention of the wider public the existence of the Smith family sighting.  Brought to their attention that Mr Smith thought the man he saw was Gerry McCann.    He didn't speak those words, he didn't have to.   Simply by making the public aware of the Smith sighting many took an interest researched this sighting.   And Gerry McCann cannot be happy about that...How could he be?

Perhaps more now, than ever before, people are believing that it is very possible he, Gerry McCann was the one seen carrying Madeleine off!

Dr Amaral is not responsible for this - DCI Andy Redwood is - So should Gerry McCann feel like complaining, he knows where to lodge his complaint, who to sue!


And a little food for thought - Dr  Amaral did not agree the McCann timeline, the Tanner sighting, and now Redwood doesn't either - but had Dr Amaral appeared on UK TV Crime Watch and said EXACTLY this, EXACTLY what Redwood now has when agreeing with Dr Amaral his investigation - the reaction would have been much different.

Where Redwood was hailed some sort of hero for stating the obvious, for stating what the Portuguese Police have said all along, Dr Amaral would not have been.  He would have been mocked, described as a bungling police officer, ridiculed in the UK press and accused by the McCanns of lying hurting their feelings, damaging their so called search.

Funny how the same conclusion by Redwood - hasn't resulted in him being described by the McCanns as some sort of key stone cop.

Makes one wonder what the McCann supporter's are thinking, when they hear DCI  Redwood of the Met state he believes exactly the same as Dr Amaral, the Portuguese Police, or have the not understood, that is what Redwood has done?



If it was not them, Gerry and Madeleine, seen by the Smith family - What are the chances of another father and child who looked just like them being in that area at that time?

What are the chances of someone who looked so like Gerry McCann carrying off Madeleine?   It is of course possible (perhaps one of his buddies could have been mistaken for him) but is it probable?

Yes, Redwood has rather left them in the shit - whether they will come up smelling of roses - yet to be seen!

And not forgetting - Gerry now has to explain how that bedroom door was open at his 9:05 check if Madeleine was not removed from the apartment until just before Kate arrived at 10pm...the alleged abductors most definitely would not have been pottering around the apartment for almost an hour, and knowing too that the McCanns would be coming to check...hmm  

There is of course at least one explanation for the open bedroom door at 9:05 pm  and then again at 9:30 pm (Oldfield's check) - the story of the open bedroom door is not true!

As to Kate McCann stating 'bizarrely she found herself thinking it would be better if Madeleine had been wearing her long-sleeved pyjamas, due the cold and windy night?'

This is McCann responding to the public questioning as to how the bedroom door was blown closed, and McCann responding also to the mystery of Madeleine's pyjamas, as to which type this child was wearing.


(And I still haven't figured out how that first gust of wind, the one which according to Kate McCann, made the bedroom door slam closed, didn't manage to blow the curtains 'whoosh' open?  Not until the second gust did the curtains blow open. Now isn't that odd!  Yet this second gust which blew the curtains wide apart, didn't manage to make the door slam closed? - Definitely one for Columbo!   Does make one think though - if that shutter and window had been up/open before Oldfield's alleged check, and it was a windy night said Kate McCann, chances are that the bedroom door would have been closed then on his arrival, a gust of wind having caused it to slam closed - therefore, not open wide as he claimed)


Her 'cold and windy night comment' to cover the slamming of the door, the wind blowing it closed, allowing also for her to slip in - the 'short sleeved pyjama tale.'  So cold was it she was concerned that Madeleine had short sleeved clothing, and not the protection of the Barbie style long-sleeved pyjamas!


Were either of the pyjamas mentioned, the Eeyore or the Barbie ones, one and the same as the ones which had the mystery stain?



You see, McCann claims Madeleine's pyjamas on the morning of the 3rd May 2007 had a stain on, a stain she felt the need to wash almost immediately, but a stain she had failed to notice when she bathed the child the previous evening when getting the child ready for bed.

Would seem highly unlikely that she would not have noticed the stain the previous evening.

 

She hadn't noticed it when she took it from the clean laundry (one assumes she did take it from the clean laundry) she didn't notice when she pulled the top over the child's head when preparing her for bed, when tucking her in? 

Kate McCann described as seeing, the following morning – a dry stain.   So it didn't happen at breakfast on the morning of the 3rd May 2007.  It had to have been there from at least the previous evening.
 But we know the McCann children were not served tea at bedtime – they were served up milk and cookies before bedtime, that was their usual routine.

(Except of course on the night of the 3rd May 2007.  Kate's 1st version the children had milk and cookies.  2nd version, milk, cookies and crisps, 3rd version, milk cookies, crisps and treats - well it's a Kate McCann tale embellishment the main ingredient.  If asked now, you might find that Kate got out her Mary Berry cook book and rustled up a cake before bedtime, something with lots more sugar than she had already stuffed her kids with before bedtime - hardly what you give your child at bedtime when you want them to sleep, cookies, crisps and treats!)
 

Any mum, would know what drinks were available in the apartment, and within Madeleine’s reach.  Kate McCann would have known.   She would have known also of any other liquids in the apartment which could have caused a stain.  She would know too just by how she found the kitchen, liquid spilled, drinking cup, glass having been used, probably a sticky mess if a three year old had attempted to get something to drink for her and her baby brother who was crying.

 

The simple fact that there was a stain, should have had alarm bells ringing – No not because it meant there had been an unwanted visitor at the apartment on the night of the 2nd but plainly and simply, because for a child to be put to bed with clean unstained pyjamas, and wake in the morning with a stain which looked like a tea stain on them, indicates the child, in the absence of her parents (who were out wining and dining with buddies) had gotten out of bed and had spilt something down her pyjamas whilst trying to get a drink for either herself of her crying siblings?  

 

This tea stain (?) which had to have happened sometime between the child being put to bed and her getting out of bed in the morning,  together with the other tale the McCanns have told about Madeleine telling them, she and her baby brother had been crying on that very night  – the 2nd May 2007 makes it all the more unbelievable, that the McCanns would choose to go out on the night of the 3rd of May 2007 once more leaving their children alone in the unlocked apartment.
 

Kate McCann said that they didn’t even have to think of any dangers, it felt so safe. 

How could that be on the night of 3rd May? 

Her daughter had told her that she and her baby brother had been crying the previous night.   Her daughter had asked her why she did not come when she and her baby brother were crying.  And her daughter appeared for breakfast with stained pyjamas when she had been put to bed with clean pyjamas? 


So how is it possible for Kate and Gerry McCann not to have given any thought, not to have any concerns about leaving their children alone?

Kate McCann discovered a mystery stain on her child’s pyjamas which alone would tell any parent that their child had been in contact with a substance, be that tea or whatever. 

Kate McCann would have known instantly, that if Madeleine was awake and crying, then she would have been out of bed, as both Gerry and Kate McCann have stated many times that is what Madeleine did when she woke of a night – got up from bed and went to look for her parents.  

Stands to reason that this is what she did on the night of the 2nd too, and when she was out of bed that she then spilled something down her pyjama top.
 

But neither of these parents, two doctors, could put two and two together, and see that it therefore was very dangerous to leave their young children alone again, that they might come to harm if they got up and played around with tea, climbing up for a drinking glass to get something for her baby brother perhaps. 

Hardly believable is it?    That, two doctors would not put two and two together. 

Hardly believable that they would not have investigated the ‘stain?’

Hardly believable that they as parents would not recognise immediately what was the stain - after all – as parents – they knew what was available, and within Madeleine’s reach in that apartment.  And as doctors, a stain, identifying it, should not have posed them any problem whatsoever.  

Is it not the strangest of things that a mum would leave her three children in an unlocked holiday apartment, then discovering her little 3 year old daughter has this dark stain on her pyjamas, resembling a tea stain, and she doesn’t investigate how it came to be there? 

Any mum would immediately be concerned that the child had been out of bed, was in the kitchen, where there are numerous dangers, concerned that the child may have climbed up on the kitchen counter to switch on a kettle to make tea. 

Kate and Gerry McCann, parents to three under 4 year old children, just didn’t bother it would seem! 

The ‘crying incident’ just like the ‘tea stained pyjama’ story has been invented, one of Kate's fabrications, told for a reason. 

If there is one thing we have learned about Kate McCann that is, anything she states, is more often than not, a story invented, to cover for a truth, a truth which would land her and her partner Gerry McCann, their buddies in deep and serious trouble.  She doesn't pluck from thin air the story to be told.  There is usually a basis, some element of truth, but something which needs to be counteracted - like the stain on the pyjamas.  There will have been no doubt something about Madeleine's pyjamas (a stain) which if discovered by police she had covered her ass!

McCann said she told the police about this stain as she felt she needed to tell 'everything' as it might have been significant.  It is Kate, it is!    Oddly though, she didn't see the significance in answering the 40 + questions put to her by the police which THEY felt were significant!


So many tales regarding Madeleine's pyjamas, and not just the ones her mother claims she was wearing at the time of being removed from the apartment.
 

I have serious doubts as to Madeleine having been dressed in short-sleeved Eeyore pyjamas, or any style/type of short-sleeved pyjamas/clothing.


Kate McCann plugging the pyjamas plenty - sets alarm bells ringing.  
She is calculating for sure, and if she has felt the need to plug the pyjamas -'short-sleeved' in the way that she has - there is a reason - and not a good one!


Not forgetting Kate McCann on Oprah Winfrey Show stated that Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a child, the child’s arms being bare – (see what Kate did there – bare arms = short-sleeved pyjamas!)

That was not true of course (just one of Kate McCanns little tricks)
...Jane Tanner has never claimed to have seen a bare armed child.

For whatever reason, I would say, Kate McCann wants the world to believe Madeleine was wearing something other than, what she actually was at the time of being removed from the apartment.

I would also say, for her to do so, to want to deceive, mislead, she would have to know who removed the child from the apartment, as she would not invent a pyjama tale to protect a stranger...but she just might to protect persons closer to home, herself included...
 

If Gerry McCann is the guilty party Dr  Amaral is right when he said :- 

  • Jane Tanner’s ‘sighting’ - was used to divert suspicion from Gerry McCann?

I would further add that if Gerry McCann is in fact Smith Man:

 

  • McCanns hiding the E.Fits for FIVE years - was also to divert suspicion, from Gerry McCann?

 

  • The ‘short-sleeved’ pyjama story - another to divert suspicion from Gerry McCann?

 

It is evident also that the Portuguese Police did not from the start believe the Jane Tanner ‘sighting’ to be credible.

 

Andy Redwood of the Metropolitan Police hailed this as a revelation moment, the discovery his discovering that Tanner had not seen Madeleine being carried off, or at least he said he is ‘almost’ certain it wasn’t Madeleine!

He only had to listen to Dr Amaral, the Portuguese Police to have have discovered that Tanner had not seen Madeleine.

 

Do we take from his 'almost' comment,  that the man he produced a picture of which he released to the public, was then only ‘perhaps’ a person Tanner might have seen?

 

For sure the McCanns cannot be happy with Tanner’s sighting being dismissed – Why Gerry McCann rather angrily told Sandra Felgueiras, that his buddy holiday companion, Jane Tanner had almost caught Madeleine’s abductor red handed!

 
And  now we know she didn't!  Or rather, now we know DCI Andy Redwood is in agreement with what Dr Goncalo Amaral has said all along - that the Tanner sighting was not credible!

And for absolute sure McCanns cannot be pleased that the E.Fits which they hid for five years are now ‘out there.’


Even less pleased that the public now know the reason why they were not 'out there' more than five years ago!

 

They often state that it is their belief that Madeleine was taken by paedophiles.

 

Would the innocent parents of a missing child who believed this to be so – hide the E.Fits of a man seen carrying a child who fitted their daughter’s description?  


It's staggering really that they did!

Or would the innocent parents immediately pass them to the police in the hope that the images might help find their little girl?


Dr Amaral it would seem is a very wise man, not the bungling detective that the McCanns would love for us to believe him to be...  He is of course now retired, but he had and still has their "number."

All that remains to be asked:

Was Madeleine dressed in short-sleeved pyjamas?

Is Gerry McCann Man - Smith Man?



l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
12th December 2013


Website Builder