Lying in the Sun

The Maddie Men

The Maddie Men


Main Players:

Tannerman   -   Smithman   -   Crecheman   -   Gerry McCannman
  

Tannerman   -  Allegedly seen by Jane Tanner 

Smithman     -  Allegedly seen by Smith family

Crecheman   -  Invented by DCI Andy Redwood as a body double for                             Tannerman (who was invented by Jane Tanner)

Gerry McCannman  -  Allegedly seen
by Martin Smith Snr


Subs:     
                                                                    
                                                                                       
Payneman  -   Oldfieldman  -  O'Brienman - 



Tannerman his story:


Jane Tanner 
the McCanns buddy is the one of the group who stated she saw a man carrying a child on the night Madeleine was reported as missing.  She only saw the bare feet and legs of the child from the knee down, therefore could NOT state whether she saw a little girl or a little boy.  Her story, like that of all of the others in the McCann group picked up pace through time.    Lots of little 'add ons!'   It was not long before she decided the child was a girl, this she decided as she now remembered the child was wearing pyjamas bottoms, pink/white in colour, with a little pattern on the them, and a frill at the ankles.

She had not seen the child’s upper body, not her face, nor the face of the man whom she claimed to have seen.  

Extraordinary, that she was able to see in the dark, all that she claimed, in the dimly lit street, and from the distance she was from this man, who was walking swiftly away from her, not towards her.

Nevertheless Team McCann decided they would have a sketch drawn up based on their buddy Jane Tanner's description - she was able to give a now more detailed description of the man also this snazzy dresser with the long dark locks -  Clarence Mitchell of course organised a press conference - and voila - Tannerman the evil abductor who had stolen Madeleine McCann from her bed was to be introduced to the world.

What was interesting about the image was that the pyjamas 
the McCanns said Madeleine was wearing that night were cropped leg trousers, with a short sleeved pyjama top.

We know too that when a child is being carried, the legs of pyjamas generally ride up.  In the case of Madeleine’s pyjamas which were cropped legs, they could not possibly have been down at her ankles as depicted in the image, unless of course the child was wearing pyjamas which were much too big for her.

The Portuguese Police always doubted Jane Tanner’s statement, doubted/did not believe that she had seen anyone on that night, and with every good reason.

We must never forget this image of Tannerman was not drawn up by the Portuguese Police, but by the McCann's!  Never was it the police who said this was the man responsible for removing Madeleine from the apartment.


Crecheman his story:


DCI Redwood of the Metropolitan Police then decided that this man whom Jane Tanner claimed to have seen, was NOT someone carrying off Madeleine but that it was a man who had collected his little daughter from the night crèche and was walking home back to his vacation accommodation.

A man, who on a cold night did not cover his child in any way to keep her warm, who carried her through the village dressed only in pyjamas, bare feet showing, while he himself was dressed warmly, dressed for the weather conditions.

Even Jane Tanner part of the McCann group of parents who neglected their children, left them alone in holiday apartments night after night, some of the kids when ill as were Jane Tanner’s kids, thought this person this man she claimed to have seen - to be a bad parent, as he had not dressed or wrapped the child warmly!  The irony!

This guy was a British dad according to Andy Redwood – and the Brits know all about cold weather, chances of any British dad carrying their child in such a way?   ZILCH!

This British dad and his partner had, unlike the McCanns, considered the safety of their child.  If we are to believe Redwood, they arranged for their child to be looked after at the night crèche by nannies.  McCanns and their buddies tell us they themselves preferred to abandon their kids on a nightly basis in un/locked holiday apartments.  McCanns stated in televised interview they did NOT see the need for childcare!   Poor Madeleine, Sean and Amelie!

Crecheman, what would be the chances that he and his wife, who quite obviously acted responsibly in arranging childcare for their daughter, would then willy nilly carry the child through the dark cold streets of Praia da Luz, and not ensure the child was warmly dressed on both route to the crèche to be dropped off with the nannies,  and when being later removed from the crèche for the route back home through the cold dark streets?  Why would this responsible dad not wrap his child in a blanket?  Why would the equally responsible mother, not have ensured the child was warmly dressed, wrapped to face the elements?

Perhaps because there was/IS NO Crecheman?

Redwood, stated he was only ‘almost’ certain Crecheman is the man who Tanner claims to have seen?

But let's look at that - 
the possibility, of Redwood being WRONG shall we say.

What IF Crechedad DOES exist, but he is NOT the man Tanner claims to have seen, that is he is NOT Tannerman?  After all, Andy Redwood is ONLY ‘almost’ certain this guy might be who Tanner saw, he is by his own words, not entirely sure! 

We would then have THREE guys walking around Praia da Luz, all similarly dressed, all carrying a barefooted child?

The chances of that, three guys as described above in a quiet resort, out of season, is more than remote?  The chances of two guys walking around as described, just as remote as three guys!

And what are the chances that, one, two or three guys were wandering through the village, and that the little kid that they each carried, on a cold night, were not warmly dressed, removed from the place where they each had been lying sleeping, warm and cosy, and were all little blonde girls who did NOT WAKE when hitting the cold night air, who all remained asleep as they were carried through the streets?

ZILCH!

Could there have been one guy?

Of course that is possible, but with all of the lies and contradictions in the stories told by not only Jane Tanner but the entire group, chances of there being one guy, probably more remote than three guys walking around carrying a child.

Now Andy Redwood, his aim when introducing Crecheman was clearly to rid the tale of Tannerman - leaving Smithman.  

We were under no circumstances to even consider his 'almost' remark.  Just as McCanns wanted the world to accept that Tannerman existed, no questions aked, likewise did DCI Redwood with Crecheman!

But bear in mind, ridding the tale of Tannerman, we are left still with two guys wandering around that village on the same night, dressed if not the same, very similarly, each carrying a child, the children dressed similarly.

More than a little far fetched!

Redwood it would appear could not dismiss Tanner’s sighting absolutely (for reasons best known to him) but simply replaced him in a way, which did not leave Redwood/Met having to declare JaneTanner as being an out and out liar.  

But with Tannerman dealt with (in the eyes of the Metropolitan Police) did that leave this tale an alleged abduction with one man so to speak, not the guy Tanner claims to have seen (Tannerman now known as Crecheman) but the guy the Smith family claim to have seen - Smithman?

It pretty much would!

The trouble with the Smith sighting though is that this guy was supposedly seen some distance from the McCann apartment. 

Do abductors who carefully plan, who had monitored the movements of the parents, remove a child from an apartment, then walk through the village and not conceal the child in any way?

That would seem pretty remote also, no?  Someone who planned would surely have arranged for transport to be waiting directly outside the apartment for a quick getaway.  To PLAN to WALK THROUGH THE VILLAGE AS DESCRIBED, makes no sense!

So did the Smith family see anyone carrying a child that night?

Smithman his story:

On surface no reason to disbelieve the Smith family saw someone carrying a child, especially when the 12 year old daughter of Martin Smith gave a witness statement to that effect.  Why would a young girl lie about such a thing?  She described also the man she saw as wearing a pair of pants matching the description of a pair Gerry McCann was photographed wearing!

In McCann case anything is possible, as it is based on wall to wall lies, but it is rather difficult to conceive that a 12 year old child would lie!

Difficult also, to conceive that any parents would put their child through the ordeal of giving a police witness statement, if she had not seen anyone.

Much as I try though I just cannot imagine any planned abduction would have the abductor walking through the streets of the village, such a distance from the McCann holiday apartment.

Makes not a jot of sense!

And if for instance Madeleine had left the apartment through the unlocked patio door, and some guy happened across her, he would be dealing with a crying child, a distressed child, not a child fast asleep as the child seen by the Smith family appears to have been.

If we are to believe this child the Smith family saw was Madeleine being carried off and not by a stranger abductor, who then would have been the carrier?

A quick look at the E.Fits  -  E. fits which the Met Police said were drawn up and were of the man the Smith family saw.  E.Fits, which we are told, Kate and Gerry McCann, had in their possession, and did not disclose to the public for a number of years.

One cannot imagine that there could be ANY good reason why the parents of a missing child would do this to their missing daughter. Hinder the chances of this precious child being found by acting so abhorrently.

What stopped them posting these E.Fits, on their website immediately on receiving them?  That is what any normal parents of a missing child would do – make sure they were widely seen.

The Smith family too if they were the ones who gave the descriptions which allowed for these E. Fits to be drawn up, one would imagine that as time passed they would have become at the very least curious as to why the McCanns did not use the sketches to help find the child, and questioned this.  They must have wondered why the Tannerman Sketch was the one on their website. 

And when you think about it, there is NO REASON in the world whatsoever why the McCanns could not have posted BOTH images on their website, Tannerman and Smithman – double Madeleine’s chances?

A lot of unanswered question remain about Smithman, if this man was carrying Madeleine, he had wandered quite some distance from the McCann apartment, and down towards an area where there were bars restaurants, where there was every chance he would be seen by persons who patronised same.  Too many risks taken if you ask me, from the moment he entered the apartment (and how did he do that) to when he was seen, risky risky!  

The Smith sighting is a curious one.  On one hand the 12 year old girl having given evidence makes it credible, but on the other, the guy walking through village towards where if he was a local man, would know the likelihood of being seen was high!

GerryMcCannman his story 

Martin Smith Snr claimed quite some time after giving his initial police witness statement, that he now believed the man he saw on that night (known as Smithman) was in fact Gerry McCann, Madeleine's dad - GerryMcCannman!

Question I would have to ask is WHY would Gerry McCann carry his child, injured/dead through the streets, and uncovered, not concealed?

One might say his child had taken ill and he was heading to the clinic, in the off chance it was open for emergencies at that hour of the night, as it was in the direction of the clinic (and the sea) this man, GerryMcCannman was seen heading.

But, Gerry McCann, his wife and 4 other members of their group are medics so why would they have any need to head to a clinic?  They would have been able to determine what form of medical attention Madeleine required if she had become injured when left alone in the apartment, they would have been able to treat her if minor, and know too when to seek urgent hospital attention?

And would not a parent taking a child, a sick child, an injured child to a clinic wrap her warmly?  That is the most natural thing in the world, the first thing a parent would do if a child was injured and about to be taken into the cold night air - (just as Crecheman and his partner would have done with their child when taking her home from evening creche facility)

If McCanns had discovered Madeleine injured but too late to help her, if the child was already ‘gone’ what would they do then?

Would they, decide to conceal her death, and for what reason?

Absolutely this is a possibility! 

A bunch of doctors who had neglected their kids, their careers EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM on the line, so very much they each would have had to lose if they were held DIRECTLY responsible for the child’s death.  They would perhaps lose custody, all of them, of their children, the kids being taken into care.

To stage abduction, perhaps seen by them as the lesser of the two evils?   Did they take their chances going down this route, as owning up immediately would have surely ended in them being charged with the child’s death.

Greater sympathy and support from police, the public, and in general, if there had been an abduction, they would then be able to play the victims (not the missing child but them) people, some would have overlooked the horrible neglect the McCann kids suffered (or that is the horrible neglect the parents have told the world was simply them being responsible parents, yeah right.  McCanns always want it both ways – we left our kids every night, but do not dare say we were irresponsible, selfish, neglectful, placed our children in danger) and concentrated on the big bad abductor story.

Staging abduction it would leave them having to admit that they left the children unattended, but it would also allow them to lay the blame on an UNKNOWN, SCARY, MYSTERIOUS MAN WHO HAD STALKED THEM.

And when the choices faced by them, was to be accused of being indirectly responsible or directly responsible for the death of their child, what we now know of Gerry McCann – boy oh boy we know he would opt to save his own skin!

But still, would he walk through the village carrying a dead child, HIS dead child?  Would he be capable of doing so?

And, if he is capable of such a heinous deed, it still does not explain why the child would not be covered/concealed, for all the obvious reasons, and also covered as a mark of respect to this dead child.

I can see why he would perhaps not conceal the child in a blanket, as to do so would involve taking a blanket belonging to the Ocean Club which he would then have to dispose of, as to take it back to the apartment may result in forensics gleaning something from this?  To not return it also causing a problem if an inventory carried out.

  • I cannot see any abductor having made plans to walk through the village openly carrying a child, and most certainly not in the way that Tanner described, just  does not make sense.
  • I cannot see any abductor having made plans to walk through the town openly carrying a child, and having planned to walk such a distance, increasing his chances of being seen, just does not make sense.
And
  • I cannot see Gerry McCann walking through the village carrying his daughter to dispose of her dead body, and not conceal her in any way.  That does not make any sense either.

So WHO and WHAT did the Smith family witness, assuming their sighting is the truth?

  • Did they see an abductor carrying Madeleine, carrying her openly for all to see, an alive child, a sleeping/drugged child?
  • Did they see Gerry McCann carrying a dead Madeleine, uncovered, carrying her openly for all to see?

Neither scenario seems plausible!

Each, the alleged abductor, and Gerry McCann if planning to dispose of Madeleine in whatever way, neither of them would walk through the village and not conceal the child!

  • The fact remains that Madeleine McCann vanished from the holiday apartment in Portugal.
  • That fact remains that someone removed her from said apartment.
  • That ‘someone’ absolutely did not plan to walk through the village and be seen by others if their intention was to get away with their crime!

Whoever removed this little girl absolutely would have concealed her body, concealed their actions.

Interestingly, no one has come forward in Portugal as being the person seen by the Smith family, no local person was carrying their child around Luz, and no Brit or any other tourist has come forward.

Interestingly the only person to come forward as being someone carrying a child on that night relates to the Tanner sighing, a Brit! 

How convenient is Crechedad?

And if we believe that, the Crecheman story, and believe the Smith family also – we still are left with:

Two guys dressed the same (because if Crecheman and Smithman were one and the same person, good old Crecheman would have told Andy Redwood he was in that location at that time of night, and chances of that are zilch, as it would mean also that he had been wandering around Luz trying to get back to his apartment for almost 45 minutes!)

  • Two little girls dressed the same, in only pyjamas, barefooted.
  • Two little girls who did not wake when taken from their warm beds into the cold night air.
  • Two little girls both carried quite some distance from the points from where they were each removed, one from apartment 5A and one from the crèche.
Something stinks in the State of Denmark, and it ain’t sea bass, rotten meat, or dirty nappies!

DCI Redwood has pulled a fast one – and not on the McCanns!  

I simply cannot see an abductor openly walking through the village carrying this child.

I simply cannot see Gerry McCann openly walking through the village carrying this child.

On that basis I would have to declare, Tannerman, Crecheman, Smithman, and GerryMcCannman 'innocent!'

Well do we really believe there was a Tannerman who became Crecheman, and a Smithman who became GerryMcCannman? - Come on!

I don't rule out Gerry McCann/his buddies removing a dead Madeleine from the apartment for the purpose of disposing of her body - but she would have been concealed, no question in my mind on that one.  And disposed of at a time unrelated to the McCann party timeline.

If they were the ones responsible, do we really think they removed the child just prior to 10 pm, as Andy Redwood suggested, and so close to the time when Kate McCann claims to have carried out a check of her children?  And the group would know she was about to check!

Even an intruder who had carefully monitored the group's movements would not strike at a time when he too would know a 'check' was imminent!  That is the daftest thing I have ever heard.   Striking immediately AFTER a check perhaps, not immediately before!

The lies told in this case point absolutely to the true circumstances of this child's disappearance having been covered up.

The only reason for the group to have lied is if they had something to hide.  To-date NO reason or explanation has been given as to why they have lied.  Why the Metropolitan police have not slotted in the piece of the puzzle that is the parents?

The circumstantial evidence in this case points absolutely to this little girl having died in that apartment, and abductors and burglars don't carry off dead children.

So who removed Madeleine from apartment 5A?

Enter our SUBS?


l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
16th January 2015

Website Builder