The case of Madeleine McCann

[handymanz]

This to my mind is her tripping herself up.  She is attempting to distance herself from any knowledge that the McCanns were at TB every night.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Tranmers only visited PF's apartment on the 29th & the 3rd.
If so, how could they know they go there every night. The visit on the 3rd was well before the McCanns dinner time.

[handymanz]

Of course she couldn't see anyone seated there.  Bearing in mind she is looking downwards/decline.  She describes seeing the roof of the tapas bar.  The interview moves on to other matters.  Then she is asked if she went to the tapas bar and she then states it was not even constructed when she was there in 2007 despite earlier saying she could see the roof.  Can you not see how she trips herself up?  She is clearly attemting to distance herself from knowledge that she knew the McCanns were at the TB every night.

Yes, I can see how she could possibly trip herself up. But it's a matter of interpretation and context. She should have been recalled to answer anomalies picked up in her WS.

[handymanz]

CAT doesn't actually say the Tapas bar wasn't there in 2007 she says it wasn't there in her last visit.

[snow66!]

Have you seen evidence of David's claims?

Well, not as such I suppose, Cutie!

[snow66!]

I thought I explained this previously?  You really need to read her WS carefully and think about it and draw your own conclusions.

As I have said previously I have no idea of the motive.  If it was sadistic/sexual then the body might have been disposed of quickly.  If it was to raise as own then we know for sure CAT returned to the UK on or before 8th May as she was interviewed by Reading police then in conjuction with her 'suspicious man'.  But there's no evidence CT returned.  According to CAT's WS he worked for the EU so he may have remained in Portugal or some other place in the EU with MM potentially. 

Obviously what should have happened at the time is that they were treated as suspects and witnesses being in such close proximity to MM very shortly before she disappeared.  Flight records could be checked along with their phones and bank accounts and a forensic examination of the hire car.  All of this more than likely would have exonerated or implicated them.  Instead CAT interjected herself as a wtness and was treated as such no questions asked.  Afaik CT has never been seen by any investigator.  PF was not interviewed until 20th Aug 2007.

So, surely we can take it that if guilty then both mr & mrs Tranmer were involved?

[handymanz]

So, surely we can take it that if guilty then both mr & mrs Tranmer were involved?

Finally, something we can all agree on LOL.

[snow66!]

Finally, something we can all agree on LOL.

Ha ha! yes, I suppose that goes without saying, handyman!

[Cambridgecutie]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Tranmers only visited PF's apartment on the 29th & the 3rd.
If so, how could they know they go there every night. The visit on the 3rd was well before the McCanns dinner time.

You seem unable/unwilling to draw inferences from text.  Eg:

- According to CAT when she visited PF they all sat on the balcony which has space to seat 6. 
- According to CAT, PF was in her 80's and arthritic.  Those with this condition often have a preference for warmth and the sun as it eases the symptons ie she probably had a preference to sit on the balcony and people watch.
- According to PF she heard MM crying on 1st May for 11/4 hours.  The crying stopped when she heard the parents return through the patio doors.  The patio doors could not be locked from outside so PF would know a) they left the children unsupervised because of the crying and b) the apartment was unlocked by virtue of the parents returning via the patio doors
- According to PF, during the crying incident, she called her friend Edna Glyn to discuss.  Hardly surprising because leaving 3 children under the age of 4 unsupervised in an unlocked apartment is a complete aberration and something you would  likely discuss with others to discuss what you might do.  In this country it would be considered illegal.
- During the Tranmers visits on 30th and 3rd by all accounts they would have witnessed the McCanns and children underneath.  It is highly likely PF discussed the crying incident and the fact they were part of a party, adults dining at TB, children left in apartments etc, etc.  If you read Jez Wilkins statement he states GM was an extrovert and liked to hold court.  I can quite imagine a situation where he was bellowing out to other members of the party in the neighbouring apartments.  The Oldfields were next door to the McCanns, Tanner and O'Brien were next door to the Oldfields (or next door but one) and the Payne's were somewhere above the Oldfields and Tanner/O'Brien.  PF no doubt heard and observed what was going on.

[Cambridgecutie]

Yes, I can see how she could possibly trip herself up. But it's a matter of interpretation and context. She should have been recalled to answer anomalies picked up in her WS.

I don't think it is a matter of interpretation and context.  It was a police interview where CAT was advised it was being recorded.  She was made aware at the beginning of the interview she was considered a witness in the case of the disappearance of MM.  The police were interested in her visit to the Algarve which coincided with the disappearance:

DC1485'The reason for our discussion today, Carole, has to do with the Portuguese investigation regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCANN on Thursday the 3rd of May of 2007. Essentially, the Portuguese police, or the PJ as they are also known, are leading this investigation and have asked us, the Leicestershire police--because the McCANN family are also from Leicestershire--to be the their link in England to the investigation. Do you understand what we have to do'

CT'Mmm, mmm yes.

DC1485'The reason for speaking to you is obviously the same reason we are speaking to the other people who were in Portugal and who know the McCann family. They are all being questioned and their statements recorded on video, as are you. You are not in the minority'everyone's testimony has proceeded in the same way.

CT'Mmm, mmm.

DC1485'And as I have already mentioned, the reason for this meeting is to produce an interview so that the Portuguese authorities can have all the statements that are needed in order to proceed with the investigation and/or conclude the enquiry. This is their decision and we are merely collaborating with them.

CT'Mmm, mmm.

DC1485'They only want us to speak with you so as to elaborate questions or to our interview technique. Short of this, they are trying to see if there is any existing piece of information that may surface.

CT'Mmm, mmm.

DCc1485'Are you okay'

CT'Yes.

DC1485'What I am about to ask you Caroline, is to make an introduction, that you tell me a bit about yourself and how you managed or organised your stay in Portugal during the time of the disappearance


When she interjected herself as a witness during May 2007 she probably felt she was in control.  Now its April 2008 and the heat is on she is effectively being controlled. 

[Cambridgecutie]

CAT doesn't actually say the Tapas bar wasn't there in 2007 she says it wasn't there in her last visit.

And her last visit coincided with the disappearance of MM.  Surely you can understand this from her interview?

DC1485'When you are on the terrace, to which direction are you turned'

CT'We are turned to a beautiful view of the ocean and all the clay roofs of the village, where one can see the pool, the reception area, the pool zone, the tennis courts, and one could see the roof of the Tapas bar.There are trees and bushes between all of this, so when one looks out, there are only roof tops, the small homes and other villas. It is an incredible view.


And then later in the interview

DC1485'Did you go to the Tapas Bar with your aunt'

CT'No, no, no it was not there when I visited the last time, and it is something very recent; I believe that it was built about a year ago and I was there before the Tapas Bar was constructed. I think it was a part of the reception or something similar. We were not there before. It is very new.

- We know for sure the Tapas Bar was there at the time of MM's disappearance which coincided with CAT's last visit to PDL.
- Cat describes seeing the roof of the Tapas Bar from PF's balcony and then later in the interview when asked if she visited the Tapas Bar she states it hadn't been constructed when she last visited.
- Her last visit was when MM disappeared.

To my mind it is obvious she is attempting to distance herself from knowledge that the parents were at the Tapas Bar when MM disappeared.  Whichever way you view it she trips herself up. 

[Cambridgecutie]

Ha ha! yes, I suppose that does without saying, handyman!

It seems likely that both were involved with the abduction but it can't be totally ruled out that one acted alone without knowledge of the other. 

PF's WS states her niece CAT visited on 3rd May.  No mention of husband. Probably PF didn't think it important to state my niece and her husband or she did mention it and it was lost in translation. 

Its possible CAT acted alone or she drove back to her hotel discussed with her husband the fact the children were being left and he went back later and acted alone.  But given her cover up in the police interview over the Tapas Bar it seems likely she was involved either as a perpertrator or covering up for her husband. 

[Cambridgecutie]

Like a lot of things back then the pandemic probably put the kybosh on it.

No.  Other members kept up their contributions throughout the pandemic.  It was something that could be done without direct social contact.  Members/photographers take photos based on a theme and upload to the website for exhibiting and competition. 

[Cambridgecutie]

And handymanz and snow66! I know your inbuilt biases have assumed the abductor was male, and an ugly scary one at that, but I am afraid you are probably wrong.  In all likelihood it is an unremarkable looking, middle class, female.  And I would suggest this is the reason she was able to slip under the radar because as forensic psychologist Mike Berry said there has always been an assumption the abductor is male but what it it is female? 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3460024/madeleine-mccann-nanny-nurse-woman-purple-disappearance-theory/

“There has always also been an assumption that the person who took Maddie is a man. What if it was a woman?

[handymanz]

It seems likely that both were involved with the abduction but it can't be totally ruled out that one acted alone without knowledge of the other. 

PF's WS states her niece CAT visited on 3rd May.  No mention of husband. Probably PF didn't think it important to state my niece and her husband or she did mention it and it was lost in translation. 

Its possible CAT acted alone or she drove back to her hotel discussed with her husband the fact the children were being left and he went back later and acted alone.  But given her cover up in the police interview over the Tapas Bar it seems likely she was involved either as a perpertrator or covering up for her husband.

If she's covering up for her husband, wouldn't it mean that it was hubby Chris who snatched Maddy?

[handymanz]

And her last visit coincided with the disappearance of MM.  Surely you can understand this from her interview?

DC1485'When you are on the terrace, to which direction are you turned'

CT'We are turned to a beautiful view of the ocean and all the clay roofs of the village, where one can see the pool, the reception area, the pool zone, the tennis courts, and one could see the roof of the Tapas bar.There are trees and bushes between all of this, so when one looks out, there are only roof tops, the small homes and other villas. It is an incredible view.


And then later in the interview

DC1485'Did you go to the Tapas Bar with your aunt'

CT'No, no, no it was not there when I visited the last time, and it is something very recent; I believe that it was built about a year ago and I was there before the Tapas Bar was constructed. I think it was a part of the reception or something similar. We were not there before. It is very new.

- We know for sure the Tapas Bar was there at the time of MM's disappearance which coincided with CAT's last visit to PDL.
- Cat describes seeing the roof of the Tapas Bar from PF's balcony and then later in the interview when asked if she visited the Tapas Bar she states it hadn't been constructed when she last visited.
- Her last visit was when MM disappeared.

To my mind it is obvious she is attempting to distance herself from knowledge that the parents were at the Tapas Bar when MM disappeared.  Whichever way you view it she trips herself up.

If as you say she trips herself up. She would be trying to conceal that she has visited the Tapas bar as opposed to saying she didn't know that the Tapas bar was there.

Or the possibility that she saw the roof tops, and it was only after seeing the news coverage that she referred to the roof tops as being the Tapas bar, not realising it had been built.
And when asked "did you go to the Tapas bar with your aunt" was the investigating officer fishing for the possibility of CAT being involved, or hoping she may have remembered something about the guests.

edit: when she says no no no it was not there, she is being very emphatic so maybe she is hiding something.