Timeline 1 (as per sticker book above)

8:45. pm

Matt returns 9.00-9.05 - listened at all 3

                               - all shutters down

Jerry 9.10-9.15 in the room + all well

                      ? did he check

9.20/5 - Ella Jane checked 5D sees stranger & child

9.30 - Russ. Ella Matt check all 3

9.35 - Matt check see twins

9.50 - Russ returns

9.55 - Kate realised Madeleine

10pm - Alarm raised

Timeline 2 (as per sticker book above)

8.45pm. all assembled at poolside for food

9.00pm. Matt Oldfield listens at all 3 windows 5A, B, D ALL shutters down

9:15pm Gerry McCann looks at room A ? Door open to bedroom

9:20pm Jane Tanner checks 5D - [sees stranger walking carrying a child]

9.30 Russell O'Brien in 5D. Poorly daughter
  l

9.55pm

10:00pm. Alarm raised after Kate

Gerald

Madeleine's book

Madeleine's parents ripped off both covers, the front and the back, from a book belonging to Madeleine, in order to write on the inside the timing for each person. Russell O'Brien was involved with the drawing up of the timing. The book was seized by the GNR on the night of the disappearance. These covers would be attached to the case file, as elements of the investigation, on September 7th 2007, although seized during the night of 3rd to 4th May. Here are the terms on which the seizure document was based.

Terms of seizure:

At this time, it is considered of interest to the investigation to attach to the present deed, two covers of a child's book, on the inside covers of which is a schedule for supervision, hand-written by one of the McCann couple's group of friends and participant in this deed by name of Russell O'Brien.

---

Extract from Russell O'Brien's rogatory interview:

'But anyway Dave Payne said to, errm... there were two members of the PJ had arrived, there was a guy I remember being almost shaved bald head, quite dark complexion, and a second one who we kind of nicknamed 'baby face', who did our fingerprinting about a week later, errm... and those two were there and Dave was... was saying, you know, 'Shouldn't we', you know, 'Why are we sitting here, shouldn't you be on the radio, shouldn't there be more people here, shouldn't there be...', you know, 'this should be on the radio, it should be on the television' and, errm... I recall 'baby face', or his colleague, saying 'No media', and, you know... and that was full-stop and then turning round to me writing the timeline and saying 'That's what we want', fair enough. Errm... huh, and that's really it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A WOMAN who believes she saw Madeleine McCann being carried away was racked with guilt last night.

 

Thinking the tot was the man's own child, the friend of parents Gerry and Kate made no attempt to stop him.

 

A source said: "The family believe this was Madeleine being taken. The woman feels dreadful guilt that she was the last person to see her and didn't do anything. But the family do not blame her."

 

Yesterday it was claimed child porn was found on the computer of the only suspect in the case, Briton Robert Murat, 33. The witness was on her way to join Gerry and Kate McCann for dinner near their apartment in Praia da Luz at about 9.30pm on May 3 when she saw the suspect.

 

He was hurrying away from the area clasping a child wearing pink pyjamas similar to those worn by Madeleine, then three.

 

The man was white, of medium build, aged 35 to 40 and 5ft 10ins. He wore a blue jacket and beige trousers. Our source said: "The woman thought it was odd but believed it was the man's own child. He was walking urgently, neither running or walking slowly."

 

Dismissing the thought, the witness went on to dinner. Earlier the McCanns had regularly checked Madeleine and twins Sean and Amelie, two, sleeping in their nearby room.

 

But at 10pm Kate, 38, discovered Madeleine was missing and frantically raised the alarm.

 

The friend instantly realised what she had seen and within hours had given a statement and description to the authorities.

 

But astonishingly the significance of her sighting was apparently missed. The source said: "Officers who took the description did not seem interested. They just seemed to have filed it away.

 

"The woman returned to the UK where police said she was the principal witness."

 

Because of Portuguese laws which forbid the release of details of an investigation, the sighting could not be publicised.

 

It was not until Saturday - 22 days after Madeleine vanished - that a description of the suspect was issued after the probable intervention of Chancellor Gordon Brown. Since then it has generated hundreds of calls to police. Already there have been reports of a possible second sighting of a man carrying a child in Praia Da Luz that night.

 

Desperate to have the details released Gerry, 38, had held talks with Mr Brown.

 

The two fathers, both Scots, were said to have had an "instant connection". Mr Brown lost daughter Jennifer Jane who was born prematurely in January 2002.

 

Heart specialist Gerry, of Rothley, Leics, told the Chancellor in detail of the couple's frustrations about the slow-moving Portuguese investigation. In particular, he stressed their concern that their friend's sighting had not been made public.

 

In days the Portuguese authorities had made a remarkable U-turn. Kate, still holding Madeleine's pink Cuddle Cat, yesterday urged the public to come forward.

 

She said: "Was this man seen anywhere else in or near the town with a child, or what appeared to be a child? Which direction was he heading in? Did he have a vehicle?"

 

A spokesman for the McCanns said: "I can confirm that telephone conversations have taken place between Gerry McCann and Chancellor Gordon Brown.

 

"During them, Mr Brown offered both Gerry and Kate his full support in their efforts to find Madeleine, although details of the conversations will remain private.

 

"The talks took place against the background of the Chancellor's earlier offer to help when he met and spoke to other members of the McCann family in the UK."

 

The Treasury refused to confirm that Mr Brown had personally intervened to get the Portuguese police to change their minds.

 

 

MADDIE kidnap witness Jane Tanner yesterday told how she watched the tot being snatched – and insisted she has NO doubt about what she saw.

 

In an exclusive interview with The Sun – her first with any newspaper – Jane forcefully hit back at critics who have suggested she is lying.

 

Amid sobs, she said: "I DID see a man that night carrying away Madeleine.

 

"She WAS abducted."

 

Tears welling in her eyes, she went on: "I wake up to that image ever day. Every day I see him there, striding away, carrying Madeleine and I try desperately to remember more detail, what his face was like.

 

"I think about it over and over again. It’s horrible.

 

"Madeleine was adorable. Every day I hope this is the day we find her."

 

Twisting her Look For Madeleine yellow and green wristbands, Jane, 36, then went into detail about the night of May 3.

 

She told how she and the other members of the so-called Tapas Nine had been leaving the restaurant at the complex in Praia da Luz to check their children.

 

 

It was on one of her visits to see her two daughters that Jane passed Maddie’s dad Gerry, 39. He was returning from seeing his children.

 

Seconds later she saw a man cross from left to right in front of her with a child lolling back in his arms.

 

Jane said: "It wasn’t unusual to see people with children, even at that time of night. But my attention was drawn to him because the child had bare feet.

 

"It was a cold night and I thought that was strange because as a mother I would never have taken my child around at that time without something on their feet or a blanket. All I could see of the child was their legs dangling.

 

"The man was about ten to fifteen feet in front of me and was walking quite quickly and I can remember thinking, 'That’s odd'.

 

"But that was all, nothing to make me scream out to make him stop. I never at that time thought it could be Madeleine. I’d just passed Gerry so I thought his children were all asleep in bed."

 

Jane carried on to her apartment where she found her daughters were fine, so she went back to the tapas bar.

 

About 15 minutes later her partner Dr Russell O’Brien checked and found one of the girls had been sick so he asked a friend to fetch Jane.

 

It was while Jane was there that Maddie’s mum Kate, 39, went to see her children at around 10.05pm – and found the girl missing.

 

Jane said the first she knew was when she looked out of her window and saw the table at the tapas bar was empty. She opened the door and there was commotion.

 

She said: "I saw all our friends outside shouting. I opened the door and one, Rachael, shouted at me, 'Madeleine’ s gone!' As soon as she said that the image of that man carrying the child came into my head and I felt physically sick. A feeling of complete horror washed over me."

 

Minutes later Jane saw Kate. Close to tears, Jane admitted she could not bear to tell her about the man. She said: "At that time it seemed everyone thought Madeleine was hiding.

 

I knew that if I told her about the man it would shatter that. I was also hoping desperately that I’d been wrong. Instead I took another friend, Fiona, to one side and told her.

 

"Then, at around 11.15, two policemen arrived and I told them. Later CID arrived. They did this thing called a cognitive technique, where they put you back in the moment, and it was then that I remembered the pyjamas.

 

"There were pink and white, they were what Madeleine was wearing. I just felt so awful, I felt I could have stopped this from happening. I think of that everyday.

 

"I have to live with it forever, that guilt is never going to go away." It has been reported that the man she saw that night was Robert Murat, the first person named as a suspect. But Jane said she simply does not know.

 

Jane, from Exeter, Devon, said: “He had his face turned away and it was dark.

 

"I’ve done an artist’s impression and want people to look at that and rack their brains as to whether they know him, or if they were on holiday, saw him.

 

"Please just ring the Find Madeleine Spanish hotline."

 

Meanwhile, the Portuguese police plan to question the McCanns' seven friends once more, it was reported today.

 

Portuguese newspaper Jornal de Noticias said the interviews would take place in an attempt to clear up some of the reported contradictions in the friends' statements.

 

The newspaper added that the questioning was expected to take place over the next few days working with English local authorities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tanner has admitted she saw only the 'feet and the bottom of the pyjamas' yet describes a 'pinky aspect' to them. The bottom of these pyjamas are actually white with a tiny floral design and were, as described above, short 'cut-off' style. The only 'pinky aspect' in Madeleine's pyjamas was the top, which in itself was very short sleeved, and which Tanner has admitted she couldn't see.

 

The 'pinky aspect' is an extremely important detail of Tanner's account and it's there for two important reasons. Firstly, it links the sighting to Madeleine by virtue of the pyjamas Madeleine is alleged to have been wearing and secondly, it pinpoints the sighting as that of a girl. That is important as it immediately suppresses any debate that this 'child' could have been a boy. 

 

 

Speaking to RTE's 'Prime Time', in October 2007, Clarence Mitchell said that Madeleine could "easily" have been kidnapped by an abductor who did not leave the trail of a break-in.

 

"There was no evidence of a break-in," said Mr Mitchell reversing the statements made by the McCanns to their closest family and friends in the immediate hours after Madeleine's reported disappearance.

 

"I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape, and to do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily."

 

Mr Mitchell's words overlook the fact that the abductor would have had to, at the very least, open the window and shutter from inside the apartment - using one or other hand in the process. In so doing, they would, like Kate McCann, have left a trace i.e. a fingerprint or two, unless, of course, they were wearing gloves.

 

Close inspection of the Tanner authorised artist's impression, sufficiently detailed as to convey the pattern on the child's pyjamas, reveals that both the subject's hands were bare. No fingerprint means quite simply that this person, whoever he may have been, did not open the bedroom window of 5A between 9.05 (Gerry's visit) and 9.15 (the Tanner sighting).

Was it a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

 

 

"Basically, I'm just an ordinary, straightforward guy who's the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet - if you'll excuse the language."

 

 

 

One thing that is obvious from the CD of evidence released by the Portuguese authorities in July 2008, in what was an inexplicably selective disclosure, is the identification by Miss Jane Tanner of Mr Robert Murat as Madeleine McCann's "abductor". She picked him out in a surveillance exercise on Sunday 13th May 2007 and persisted in her allegation against him and did not withdraw it until her interviews with the Leicestershire Police in April 2008. You have to dig deep into the CD and other sources to pull everything together, but here is what happened and it is incredible.

 

 

In the early hours of Friday 4th May 2007, Miss Tanner approached GNR Officer, Nelson da Costa (statements at folios 417, 1340 and 3285) and told him that she had seen an "individual" running and carrying a "child" who was "clearly" wearing pyjamas. The Officer did not consider the sighting credible because when he asked Miss Tanner to describe the "individual" she was unable to do so: excusing herself because it had been very dark. The Officer wondered, if it had been so dark, how she had been able to "clearly" see the child's pyjamas.

 

A later exchange between Jane Tanner and the GNR Officers was translated by Sylvia Maria Correia Baptisa (an employee of the Ocean Club). Jane Tanner told the GNR, via Miss Baptista, that she had seen a "man" crossing the road, (North of Apartment 5A) possibly carrying a child. Miss Baptista (statements at folios 355,1289 and 1975) found this story "strange", because she was convinced Miss Tanner had not been in a position to see the area concerned.

 

In the late morning of Friday 4th May 2007, Miss Tanner told the PJ in Portimao about seeing a "person" striding "purposefully out" across the top of the road near to Apartment 5A carrying a small child. This alleged sighting took place less than an hour before Madeleine was reported missing at around 10.30pm on Thursday 3rd May 2007. Miss Tanner said the alleged "abductor" was between two and five metres away from her and that she had a clear view of this "person" whom she described as follows:

 

Brown male between 35 and 40, slim, around 1.70m. Very dark hair, thick, long at the neck. (Noticed when the person was seen from the back). He was wearing golden beige cloth trousers (linen type) with a "Duffy" type coat (but not very thick). He was wearing black shoes, of a conventional style and was walking quickly. He was carrying a sleeping child in his arms across his chest. By his manner, the man gave her the impression that he wasn't a tourist.

 

Miss Tanner's statement continues:

 

Concerning the child, who seemed to be asleep, she only saw the legs. The child seemed to be bigger than a baby. It had no shoes on, was dressed in cotton light-coloured pyjamas (perhaps pink or white). It is uncertain, but the interviewee has the feeling that she saw a design on the pyjamas like flowers, but is not certain about it.

 

Concerning these details, the interviewee states not having known what Madeleine was wearing when she disappeared. She has not spoken to anyone about this. Concerning the man, she has only mentioned it to Gerald, but without going into details and with the police.

 

The interviewee has been invited to draw a sketch which we attach to this document. Questioned, she stated probably being able to identify the person that she saw if she saw him in profile and at the place where she saw him.

 

Strangely, in three interviews, she only once refers to seeing a "man". This lack of specificity is disturbing. Why does she consistently refer to the alleged abductor as a "person" and not a "man" and to the "girl" as a "child"?

 

 

If you walk out of your house and fall over a cat, your autonomic memory recall will not lead you to say that you "fell over an animal"; your recollection will be specifically of a "cat" and possibly a "fat black cat with white legs" or a "bloody cat". In forensic linguistics (see the brilliant analysis of the ransom note in the case of JonBenet Ramsey on www.statementanalysis.com) the truth is usually spontaneously recalled from memory to a specific event, object, activity or time and not to a generality: in the present context the noun "person" indicates that the specific image of a man was not accessible in Miss Tanner's memory. It suggests an invention of something that did not happen being contrived from the imagination. The rule is that "truth is from memory but lies are from the imagination". Of course, linguistic analysis proves nothing, but it does raise serious questions about Miss Tanner's credibility.

 

 

Later on 4th May 2007 Miss Tanner was asked for more detail about the "abductor". This resulted in a graphic from the PJ's computers (which is not on the CD) and to the famous "Egg Man" sketch that was based upon it. The "Egg Man" is a frontal view, without glasses or a moustache and short hair at the back of his head but with strands hanging over the front of his face, with a parting. It is nothing like Robert Murat.

Miss Tanner subsequently told the Leicestershire Police that she could not have improved upon the "Egg Man" because the PJ did not have computer software that could draw profiles. This is an implausible excuse and she gave a detailed verbal description that is unlike Mr Murat. The "Egg Man" sketch as well as her verbal description of the "abductor" were not consistent, nothing like Mr Murat, yet this did not prevent her, later on, picking him out as the person she saw on the night of 3rd May 2007.

 

 

In her second statement to the PJ (on 10th May 2007) Miss Tanner said (see the summary translation at folio 3994 of the CD) she "believed it (i.e. the child being carried by the abductor) was a girl and therefore her pyjamas were light coloured (White or pink)". She did not say she had seen pink pyjamas, nor that they had a pattern or frill on the legs. This very significant detail – which precisely matched the clothes that Miss Tanner later learned Madeleine had been wearing - only came much later. Miss Tanner assumed, because the man was carrying a girl, the pyjamas would be pink! But why did she assume it was a girl when she has consistently admitted she did not see the child's upper body, hair or face? This circularity puts us on notice that Miss Tanner's statement is not credible.

 

In her interviews with the Leicestershire Police, in April 2008, Miss Tanner again repeats the circularity of what came first: the actual sighting of pink pyjamas or her imagining this colour because she believed (or assumed) the "child" was a girl:

 

Detective Constable Sophie Ferguson asked:

 

"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?"

 

Miss Tanner responded:

 

"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, (She must know it did not) 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.

 

The bottom line is that Miss Tanner admits that she:

 

Only saw the feet or legs of the child and did not know whether it was a boy or a girl

 

Assumed the "child" was a girl

 

May have imagined seeing pink pyjamas by "subconsciously putting things in your (her) head"

 

But she maintained that she could not possibly have imagined (and therefore must have seen) "some sort of …. turn-up or design" or "detail around the bottom of the pyjamas" that was included in her first and second statement. The problem is that this description was not mentioned in her first statement (made on 4th May 2007) but was critically important because it perfectly described the clothing that Madeleine had been wearing.

 

Miss Tanner claimed not to have known, at the time of making her first statement, what Madeleine had been wearing, because she had "not been in the room" when Kate McCann had given the description of them. Again, in the forensic linguistic field, the use of words such as "therefore", "since", "hence", "as", "so" or "because" put the analyst on notice that the explanation may not be truthful. However, she cannot deny having been told about this detail before 10th May 2007, so its inclusion in her second statement really counts for nothing.

 

The words "because" etc are usually associated with "pseudo denials" such as "I did not take the money, because I did not have the keys to the safe". Truthful denials and truthful assertions are usually totally committed and do not need to be subconsciously supported by words such as "because" or "therefore" etc. "I did not steal the blo*dy car" is more likely to be truthful than "I did not take the car because I cannot drive". Liars often fret that their stories may be disbelieved and subconsciously add unnecessary reinforcement, often introduced with the linking word "because". Miss Tanner uses "because" a lot!

 

 

Miss Tanner (again the summary at Folio 3994) stated "….. I did think it strange that “the child” (not a specific recall to a “girl”) has a blanket/sheet to cover it”. She has since denied that she ever said the girl was covered by a blanket and it is possible that the translated summary statement is erroneous. But that is what it says.

Miss Tanner’s apparent use of the present tense “has”, when relating a past event, is a classic symptom of deception, as is the unspecific noun “child”. Also, the use of the pronoun “it” is not consistent with an accurate focused retrieval from memory: the pronoun “her” would have been more indicative of the truth whereas “it”, when supposedly recalling the sighting of a young girl, is not.

Underplaying the sighting

Both Miss Tanner and her husband – Russell O’Brien – admit that in her early conversations with the PJ about the “abductor” she had “not wanted to believe” or “did not give much importance” to what she had seen and may have, to use Russell O’Brien’s words, “underplayed” the sighting. She says she “avoided mentioning” precisely what she had seen to Mr and Mrs McCann “therefore she didn’t want to increase their suffering” (Folio 3995). Again, the word “therefore” appears. 

We know her explanation is not true because the chronology agreed by the Tapas 9 (including Mr and Mrs McCann)—by tearing pages out of Madeleine’s picture book before the PJ arrived—specifically describes Ms Tanner’s alleged sighting. She did tell them about seeing a “person” with a “child” but she did not tell them about the child’s pink pyjamas, with a design on the trousers. And the possible reason for this omission may have nothing to do with preventing the McCann’s “suffering” but results from the story being embellished after the event to match Madeleine’s clothing.

Questions about procedures

Extreme care has to be taken with applying linguistic analytics to any statements and especially to those that have been translated. What is unacceptable, in both the PJ and Leicestershire Police interviews, is that the English versions (before translation) are not in the CD. Good practice would dictate that the statements should have been first written (or tape recorded) in English or in the witnesses’ native language (so they can properly agree them) and then translated into Portuguese for proceedings in that country. Both versions should have been retained. This does not seem to have happened with any of the statements now in the CD.

It appears that the PJ made the translations of their interviews with the Tapas 9 in real time, while the conversations were taking place, and did not keep a record in English of what, precisely, was being said. Similarly, there is no record in the CD of the English versions of the Leicestershire Police interviews with independent witnesses. The bottom line is that the content of virtually all of the statements in the case could be denied and this may be one of the reasons why the Portuguese prosecutors decided to shelve the case. It is alternatively possible that full transcripts in English of the Tapas 9’s interviews by the PJ are available but they are not to be found in the CD.

Confidence in the sighting

We can measure how confident and concerned Miss Tanner was, at the time, by the reaction of her husband and other searchers. None of them went tracking off in the direction she claims she had seen the “abductor” striding “purposefully out”. In fact, no one (including the Portuguese sniffer dogs) seems to have taken her sighting seriously. This is unsurprising as she did not take it seriously herself!

The fingering of Mr Murat

On 6th May 2007, a female CID Officer in the Leicestershire Constabulary (Folio 307 of the CD) faxed the “Portugal Incident Room” stating that Lori Campbell, a reporter from the Sunday Mirror, had been in contact. The Officer reported: 

“Lori has been speaking to an Interpreter who has been helping the Portuguese authorities with the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance. He has only given his name as “ROR” (sic) and has not given any background information about himself.

Lori has become suspicions of Rob as he has given conflicting accounts to various people and became very concerned when he noticed his photo being taken by the Mirror’s photographer. ROB stated to Lori that he was going through a messy divorce in the UK at the moment and that he had a 3 year old daughter just like Madeleine, who he is separated from at the moment. He made a big show of telephoning his daughter in front of reporters and Lori felt he was being too loud and making a big thing of speaking to his daughter on the phone. The things that ROB has said to Lori have raised her concerns about him.

Could you please call Lori who is still in Portugal to establish further details to identify ROB in order to eliminate him from your enquiries on 07917 XXXXXX”

The Leicestershire Police were impressively quick in forwarding Miss Campbell’s information to the PJ, in stark contrast to the way they handled some other matters. For example, in mid May 2007, Katherine and Arul G***** contacted the UK police. They are both doctors and friends of some of the Tapas 9. They made statements claiming that, while on an earlier holiday with Mr and Mrs McCann and Fiona and David Payne (two of the Tapas 9), Mr Payne, in the presence of Mr McCann, had made disturbing remarks about Madeleine in what might be construed to be a sexual and perverted way. 

These potentially critical statements were not reported to the PJ until many months later and then only after the Portuguese Officers had heard rumours and had specifically asked to see them. Although the statements are indexed in the PJ files, they are not included in the CD. This omission has to be deliberate.

Miss Campbell’s report must have hit the hot buttons, because Mr Murat came under suspicion and the PJ intercepted his telephone (see folios 1017 and 1267), picking up some interesting chats with Martin Brunt of Sky TV (see folios 1675 and 1692) but little else except for a conversation with “Phil” a British Police Officer whom Mr Murat asked about the ways mobile telephone signals could be traced to specific locations. Mr Murat’s interest seemed to be whether such tracking would prove he was at home during the critical hours of Thursday 3rd May 2007 and thus tends to support his innocence. There was nothing from the PJ’s surveillance to implicate Mr Murat. However, things were to change and change very quickly.

The arrival in Luz of Control Risks Group ("CRG")

In the early afternoon of Sunday 13th May 2007, Miss Tanner spoke to “some of the people that Kate and Gerry brought in” (believed to be Control Risks Group (CRG) whose two senior investigators—Kenneth Farrow and Michael Keenan— arrived in Faro on the British Airways flight from Gatwick that morning) and told them about her sighting of “the person”. It is probable (but this is not clear from the CD or from the Leicestershire Police interviews) that she told CRG (as she had earlier told the Portuguese Police) that she could identify the “abductor” if she were to see him in profile and in context. 

The involvement of CRG is important. The company was apparently retained as part of a “crisis management” team by Bell Pottinger on behalf of Mark Warner. Some CRG specialist were probably in Luz before 13th May 2007 but Mr Farrow is the ex-head of the Economic Crime Unit in the City of London Police and Mr Keenan an ex-Superintendent from the Metropolitan Police with specialist fraud and investigative experience. 

Bob Small and the Spanish police

After speaking to “the people that Kate and Gerry brought in”, Miss Tanner received a telephone call from Bob Small (a senior Leicestershire Police Officer, who was assisting the PJ in the Algarve) who told her that the “Spanish Police” wanted to see her! Yes: he did say, according to Miss Tanner, “the Spanish Police”. It is likely, by that time, that covert plans had been made (on some pretext) to induce Mr Murat to walk across the top of the road, north of Apartment 5A, where Miss Tanner said she had seen the “abductor” and was thus the precise context in which she believed she could make an identification. 

Mr Small told Miss Tanner to not to discuss anything with anyone, including her husband. She claims she followed this instruction to the letter: but is it realistic to believe she did not tell him anything: or is she lying on this point? If she is being untruthful, why?

Mr Murat was under suspicion but had not been made an “Arguido”. He been around the Ocean Club a lot from 4th May 2007 onwards and had interpreted the PJ’s interviews with Catriona Baker, Stacey Portz , Leanne Wagstaff and Amy Teirney (Folio 457). It is possible that between 6th May 2007 (when his name was mentioned by Lori Campbell) and 13th May 2007 the news that a local suspect had been identified had reached the ears of the “Tapas 9”. It is even conceivable that they knew the suspect was Mr Murat. Unlike her husband and others of the “Tapas 9”, Miss Tanner had never been introduced to Mr Murat.

The ill judged "pick up"

Arrangements were made for Miss Tanner to be collected by Mr Small and his PJ colleagues in a car park near to Mr Murat’s home: this was probably around 7.30pm on Sunday 13th May 2007 while Dr Amaral waited for news in a meeting room at the Public Ministry, preparing to pounce if Miss Tanner’s identification was “successful”.

Miss Tanner dramatizes that she was “worried sick” that the “Spanish Police” were about to cart her off to destinations unknown and got her husband to walk with her to the rendezvous with Mr Small. If, as she claims, she did not discuss the identification operation with her husband, what precisely did she say to him? What did he think was going on? Who looked after their kids and what did they tell them? It is beyond belief that Russell O’Brien and some of the other “Tapasniks” did not know what was afoot.

Why the police arranged Miss Tanner’s pick up so near to their main suspect’s home was at best foolish and was asking for trouble. On their way to the car park - and just outside his home - Robert Murat (who had met Russell O' Brien on the morning of Friday 4th May 2007) stopped, got out of his green VW van and chatted, showing the couple posters he had made to “Find Madeleine” and generally rattling on about nothing in particular. This was the first time Miss Tanner had been introduced to Mr Murat, but given the events that were about to follow it is amazing she did not cry out “That’s him… that’s the ‘person’ I saw: the abductor”. But she didn’t say a single word.

In April 2008 she told the Leicestershire Police that she was concerned that there “was some strange conspiracy going on” (to abduct her) and that Mr Small had “scared the daylights out of her”. She continued: “But that made me even more suspicious because it was like, so I think at that point, I think I actually spoke to Stewart (Stewart Prior the lead UK Police Investigator in Luz)”. She knows she had spoken to Mr Prior and thus had no reason to believe that she was about to be abducted. Her histrionics in this regard are absurd.

The discussion Miss Tanner had with her husband about the identification charade are very important. He had already met Mr Murat and would be able to identify him and point him out to her. Was it pure coincidence that he accompanied Miss Tanner to the pick up by Mr Small? Was it bad planning that the pick up was just outside Mr Murat’s house? Was it misfortune that they happened to bump into Mr Murat? Or is the whole sequence far more sinister?

Miss Tanner was taken away by Mr Small and the PJ and she says Russell O’Brien wrote down their car registration number, presumably so he could rescue her if the Spanish Police abducted her. Miss Tanner was driven to another location and hidden in the back of an undercover surveillance vehicle (a refrigerated van) which was driven to a position near the side entrance to Apartment 5A, facing north.

The identification of Mr Murat as the abductor

Miss Tanner then, apparently, saw three people walk across the top of the road: but Mr Murat was the first to do so. It is not clear exactly what she told the PJ at the time but, however she would like to spin the story now, it was enough to make them believe Mr Murat was the “abductor”, notwithstanding the fact that he looked nothing like the “Egg Man” or her verbal description. The sighting was reported to Dr Amaral and the Public Ministry and plans made to arrest Mr Murat.

Mr Murat’s home was searched on 14th May 2007. He was made an “Arguido” 15th May 2007 and his face was on every TV screen in Europe, including those at the Ocean Club. 

Welcome corroboration by the "Tapas 3"

A report on Sky News caused Rachel Mampilly to scamper into the Tanner’s apartment saying she recognised Mr Murat from her sighting of him at the Ocean Club on the night of 3rd May 2007. Fiona Payne corroborated this and Russell O’Brien added that he had met Mr Murat, while the search for Madeleine had been taking place on the night and early morning of 3rd and 4th May 2007, and had entered the interpreter’s telephone number into his mobile’s memory at that time. 

Miss Tanner claims that she had not told her friends anything about her outing in the refrigerated van and that their reactions to Mr Murat’s exposure on Sky News were spontaneous. However, in her April 2008 interviews with the Leicestershire Police, Miss Tanner stated that her friends suggested that she should speak to Mr Small about Mr Murat. How did they know she had Mr Small’s contact details if she had not discussed the identification charade with them? Miss Tanner stated:

“Cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before (for/from?) them and you know, they sort of, you know, to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him (Mr Murat) on the way to doing the surveillance as well as, yeh, just for that so it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert Murat had said he wasn’t there on that night”.

Later in the interview, Miss Tanner said:

“…. Get to the truth of the matter and the truth is, you know they, when they asked me to ring Bob Small to make these statements, we didn’t even know that he’d, erm, hadn’t, hadn’t said he was there on the night and they didn’t know that I had done the surveillance………… I mean when I got back, I didn’t even tell Russell what I’d done cos I took everything seriously what the police said in terms of, you know, not telling anyone”

A procedural error or a perversion of the course of justice?

Miss Tanner telephoned Bob Small and relayed her friend’s concerns, but it is not clear whether or not she told him about the compromising, supposedly accidental, encounter with Mr Murat- outside his house – “five minutes” before identifying him as the “abductor”. In most jurisdictions this encounter would have invalidated Miss Tanner’s identification evidence. It would also have raised suspicions that there had been a deliberate plot for her to bump into the prime suspect (accompanied by someone who knew him) so that she would see what he was wearing and, based on such knowledge, identify him as the “abductor” some “five minutes” later. 

Whether this suspicion is true or incorrect, it does not alter the fact that the identification exercise was gross incompetence by all involved. Mr Murat denied being at the Ocean Club on 3rd May 2007, which made his position even more serious because it conflicted with evidence from the “Tapas 3”.

There is nothing in the CD to indicate whether the supposedly accidental encounter was reported to Mr Small, although the subsequent reaction of the Leicestershire Police (in the interview with Miss Tanner in April 2008; see below) suggests that it was. The critical unanswered question is whether or not Mr Small reported the evidentially corrupting incident to the PJ and to the Portuguese judiciary and if he did why they accepted Miss Tanner’s evidence without demur.

Other statements by the Tapas 3

On 15th May 2007, Mr O’Brien, Fiona Payne and Rachael Mampilly made statements to the PJ putting Murat in the Ocean Club late on 3rd May 2007 (folios 1957). Their evidence appears to conflict with that from both Portuguese Police Officers and Mark Warner’s staff (Folio 1330 et seq) who say Mr Murat was not there that night. Activity on his own and his mum’s computers tend to confirm that he was at home, among other things, looking at mild porn sites (Folio 1166)

Statements by Gail Cooper and work by Brian Kennedy

Towards the end of May 2007, Mrs Gail Cooper (Folio 3997 and 3982) gave a statement to the Newark Police claiming that when she had been on holiday “in a villa near Apartment 5A” she was visited by a strange man who said he was collecting money for an orphanage near Espiche. 

On 11th July 2007, a formal confrontation between the Tapas 3 and Mr Murat took place in Portimao. He stuck to his guns: they stuck to theirs' and it became a standoff. In this meeting Miss Tanner was able to get a very good look of Mr Murat and apparently continued to maintain he was the “person” she had seen carrying the “child on 3rd May 2007”, despite the fact he looked nothing like the “Egg Man” The PJ seemed to believe Mr Murat.

At some point, Brian Kennedy, the McCann’s financial backer and double glazing magnate, arranged for Gail Cooper to meet Melissa Little BSc (Hons), PS, FBI Diploma, which resulted in the sketch of “Monster Man” who had a long pointy face, moustache, long hair at the back of his head, but no glasses (Folio 3979). 

Melissa Little's sketches

On 22nd October 2007 (folio 3905) Gerald McCann emailed Robert Small with two sketches both prepared by Melissa Little, one of which (“the second sketch”) became known as “Bundle Man”. The first sketch is similar to “Bundle Man” but it is in black and white and has a nose (“Nose Man”).

But whichever way you look at these pictures it is obvious they are not of Robert Murat and nothing like the “Egg Man”.

The Power Point presentation

On 16th January 2008, Gerald McCann emailed Stuart Prior, Superintendent with the Leicestershire Police, with a PowerPoint presentation (folio 3966) stating “as discussed”. An hour later, Mr Prior forwarded the package to Ricardo Paiva of the PJ asking for instructions and stating, among other things:

The PowerPoint attached (Folio 3968) was completed by the McCanns but the statements were all taken by the UK police

Miss Tanner’s description was taken from the press and from the summary of her statement

There is some urgency around this as we need to decide prior to the Gail Cooper artist’s impression appearing in the UK press

How are you going to deal with the possible press issues?

What are you planning around Mr Kennedy and the private investigation firm?

He concludes: “I will need to get back to the McCanns as he has asked to be updated. How would Paulo (Mr Rebelo) want his conducted and what information I am to provide to them. They are very excited about this potential lead”

 

The Power Point slides highlight the similarity between “Bundle Man” and the “Monster Man”. Mr McCann states:

Miss Tanner spent a full day with Melissa Little, a qualified Police Sketch Artist since 1986 to compile this likeness of the suspect

Melissa met Gail Cooper in a separate session

After spending hours with both witnesses, Melissa Little states “there are many similarities between Miss Tanner’s man and Gail’s”

Miss Tanner believes that there is an 80% likelihood that this is the same man she saw carrying away the child, believed to be Madeleine

Significantly, nowhere in the PowerPoint pack is there any mention of the very precise sighting by the Irish Smith family (who identified Gerald McCann as the likely abductor), nor has there been (as far as can be found in the files) any attempt to follow the Smith’s evidence, except by Mark Harrison the UK Police search expert, (Folios 2224 and 2262) who on all of his search plans marks only two sightings… that of Miss Tanner and that of the Smith family. Mr Harrison obviously takes the Smith sighting seriously.

More on Gail Cooper

On 17th January 2008 Detective Constable 4168 of the Leicestershire Police interviewed Gail Cooper and emailed the Operational Task Force. Mrs Cooper tried to explain the News of the World’s additions and embellishments to her police statements with the phrase; “It never crossed my mind”….. and the Officer reported that she “mentioned a man called Brian Kennedy who was working for the McCanns and …. had sent an artist down to do a sketch of the man she saw at the villa “(Folio 4005).

On 18th January 2008, Stuart Prior emailed Ricardo Paiva about the Gail Cooper statement:

“as discussed. I have given Gerry a brief update just saying that the other descriptions are different to the artist’s impressions completed by Gail and identified by Jane. That the witnesses appeared genuine which indicates a number of charity collectors in the area prior to Madeleine being taken. (This makes Mr Kennedy’s evidence very suspect)

We have not spoken to Jane at all and will not share our files with anybody, except yourselves, unless you request this from us. It appears there were at least three charity collectors if not more in the area in the weeks before Madeleine being taken.

I am told that the artists impression by Gail Cooper is likely to hit the press over the weekend and I will update you on the effects of this next week although we are not involved in this in any way at all”

Later Mr Prior refers to an email from Michael Graham of the Leicestershire Police who reported “I (Mick Graham) have spoken to Charlotte Pennington this morning and she has no additional information to give……….. She has been spoken to by a Private Investigator (Noel Hogan) working on behalf of Metado 3. Charlotte assures me that she has only relayed to him the same information that she has already given to the PJ and to me (as per email dated 7th August 2007). 

On 20th January 2008, the News of the World published a long article on Mrs Cooper’s alleged sighting and printed the full facial and striding out sketch of “Monster Man”. On 21st January 2008, Clarence Mitchell, the McCann’s spokesman held a press conference releasing details of “Monster Man”. 

The News of the World concluded “The sketch by qualified police artist Melissa Little, bears an uncanny resemblance to an earlier picture, based on Miss Tanner's story”. This is unsurprising given both selections had – using considerable artistic licence - been made by the same artist—Melissa Little and paid for by Mr Kennedy to assist the McCanns. Why did Mr Kennedy not get the fragrant Melissa to compile a “purposefully striding out” image of the Smith sighting? And why did Miss Tanner not immediately correct her misidentification of Mr Murat?

Jane Tanner interview with Leicestershire police

In her April 2008 interviews - with Detective Constable Sophie Ferguson of the Leicestershire Police -Miss Tanner admitted that Robert Murat was not the “person” she had seen carrying a “child” on Thursday 3rd May 2007. It is not known what had caused her to change her opinion, especially when at the confrontation in Portimao on 11th July 2007 she had been so confident in her identification of Mr Murat. Possibly, it was that the PJ had shelved the case against Mr and Mrs McCann, making the identification a moot point.

Miss Tanner excused her misidentification of Mr Murat: 

“I wasn’t really taking it in because I was worried sick I was about to be abducted by the people…..”. 

Miss Tanner’s drama is highly implausible, because before she set out on the Identification Charade she had spoken to Stuart Prior, whom she knew to be a Leicestershire Police Officer, to confirm Mr Small’s bonafides. But she continued to excuse her positive, but mistaken, identification of Mr Murat: 

“But it was a bit odd because there was a car, where we were parked, there was a car that moved just at that point that he appeared and then two other people walked by so I didn’t really…… but I didn’t even recognise it as the person I’d been talking to five minutes before. Well you know half an hour before so, erm, then we went, I think because it had gone a bit wrong, because this car had been there and then we tried to set it up elsewhere but again I couldn’t really see, I couldn’t really see that well and you know it didn’t look, it didn’t jog any memories”

Detective Constable Ferguson’s lack of a reaction suggests she was fully aware, but not at all concerned, of Miss Tanner’s supposed accidental encounter with Mr Murat “five minutes” before picking him out as the abductor. It seems that Miss Tanner realised this encounter was “dodgy” and thus changed her reactive description of “five minutes before” to “well, you know, half and hour before”.

However, the Officer tried to get Miss Tanner to benchmark her mental image of the abductor with pictures she had subsequently seen of Mr Murat in the newspapers:

“Now you are left with that mental image in your head about the man carrying the child. And you said, you described his hair quite well. Having seen MURAT then and obviously in the papers since, could you link the two of those?”

Miss Tanner prevaricated and struggled to respond:

 

“I don’t think so. I mean, I don’t, phew, I don’t, I don’t think it, no, there doesn’t, there’s no, but then the person I see in the paper doesn’t really look like my recollection of the person I met on the way to meet Bob SMALL. Its really annoying because normally I would have probably taken more notice but I was so worried about what I was going to do, because I didn’t know at this point at all, I didn’t really take any notice, but I think it was too short and I remember it being, being long into the neck and not so. Again, I don’t really, when I saw Robert MURAT outside his house he looked quite little to me, but then when you see him on the telly he seems quite big, so I can’t, again, I don’t think the build, the build was right, I don’t.”

 

Detective Constable Ferguson: 

“So you don’t feel, in your heart of hearts”

Miss Tanner:

“No”

Detective Constable Ferguson:

“You don’t feel it was the same person?”

Miss Tanner responded:

“No, I don’t, no” and later said: ”I don’t think it was him that I saw. But I just thought that it was”

Miss Tanner’s responses are disturbing for many reasons but perhaps the most worrying is her evasion of Detective Constable Ferguson’s question which called for a comparison of the “abductor” with Mr Murat’s photograph in the newspapers. The request to make the comparison with the papers was irrelevant and insipid. It would have been much more relevant, and potentially revealing , for the Officer to have invited Miss Tanner to compare the “abductor” sighting with her confrontation of Mr Murat in Portimao on 11th July 2007 and then to ask her why she had not corrected her misidentification at that time. Proper questioning would have put Miss Tanner’s false identification to the test.

 

But even probing glaring discrepancies played no part in the Leicestershire Police interviews of the “Tapas 9”. The interviews were superficial and as one Officer explained it they were “just ticking the boxes”. But why?

In any event, Miss Tanner avoided giving an answer to the insipid question that was asked and instead deflected to a comparison of her supposedly accidental meeting with Mr Murat “five minutes” before picking him out with his television appearances. This was not the question she was asked to address.

If she had really seen Mr Murat on the evening of 3rd May 2007, in the course of abducting Madeleine, this would have been, as Detective Constable Ferguson correctly implied, the indelible benchmark in her memory. The fact that, either consciously or more likely subconsciously, Miss Tanner did not, or could not, make such a comparison throws further doubt on her evidence.

Russell O’Brien, who had originally stated he had spoken to Mr Murat at the Ocean Club on the night of 3rd and 4th May 2007 (and had entered his phone number into his mobile handset at that time), changed his story when technical evidence proved that this was incorrect. Mr O’Brien said: 

“Well, I do not wish to change, you know, my original statement. The original kind of statement. But we have, you know, the niggle that unintentionally we have, that have got a time wrong and that it was on the following morning”

So, Mr Murat’s life was destroyed and the Tapasniks have a “niggle” they may have got it wrong! Is Mr Murat unlucky or what? But why, oh why, when his lawyers must know every fact in this article and more, does he not take action (possibly involving the Independent Police Complaints Commission) against the Tapas 9, the LP, PJ and CRG? That is among the biggest questions of all.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is happening?

A number of people have asked me what is happening to the detailed reports, especially relating to a forensic examination of the crèche records, prepared by of one of the investigative firms with which I have been working. The Leicestershire Police has never formally acknowledged receiving the reports and has not responded to emails and telephone calls. They are thus in a position where they could deny ever receiving the reports.

I understand that the reports have not been forwarded to Portugal and that the crèche records have still not been forensically examined. This again raises the possibility of a “cover up” or gross incompetence by the British authorities, including the politicians, Police, Home Office, Foreign Office and Forensic Science Service. 

But the subject will be pursued and all the relevant reports and papers will be handed over – soon... - to the head of the Public Prosecutors Office with a formal request to re-open the investigation based on new evidence which will be presented. So please be patient.

 

It has always been popularly believed that this sketch was produced by the Policia Judiciaria, from Jane Tanner's description, in order to show around the residents of Praia da Luz, in support of a traditional house-to-house enquiry.

 

Whilst it is now clear that the original computer generated image did come from Jane Tanner's description, the widely published 'eggman' sketch was actually drawn by Simon Russell, a half English and half Portuguese man who runs a video store and internet cafe in the town.

 

On Wednesday 09 May 2007, he is reported as saying that a group of four or five plain-clothes police came into his shop, on the Saturday afternoon of 05 May 2007, and asked him if he had seen anything suspicious.

 

After asking him if he had seen anyone accessing suspicious websites, they took him into a back room away from the customers and discreetly showed him the basic image asking him if he recognised the person.

 

The Timesonline confirms that the image produced by the Policia Judiciaria was computer generated - not a hasty sketch on a piece of old paper as Mr Russell's sketch would appear to imply.

 

He said: "They just showed me this outline which apparently gave me the impression that it had high cheekbones and a long face but other than that, no eyes, no nose, no mouth, so I call it an egg, it was an egg with hair."

 

Russell then drew an impression of what he had seen for the press. That is the sketch that was published in the media and has been reproduced here. The original Policia Judiciaria image has never been made public.

 

There are a number of important questions raised by this report:

 

How can we be sure that Russell's sketch bares any resemblance to the image produced by the Policia Judiciaria? What are his memory and drawing skills like? If he'd been shown a picture of the Mona Lisa, would he, in fact, have produced a very similar drawing to this?

 

Why did it take 4 or 5 plain-clothes officers to show one, reportedly 'crude', image? Were they really interested in the sketch or were they there for a completely different reason?

 

Were they more interested in the internet cafe business? If so, why? Did they believe that someone, close to the investigation, had been using the internet to access particular sites? Did they remove any computers to check which websites had been searched - and by whom and when?

 

Did the plain-clothes officers know something already, possibly from CCTV footage? Did they know who had been in the internet cafe but needed to know which computer they had used? Or did they ask Mr Russell if he remembered a specific person using a specific computer to access the internet?

 

Rather than showing Mr Russell the 'eggman' sketch in the back room, did they instead show him pictures of the person they suspected of accessing the internet from his cafe? Did they ask him when he had seen that person last and what computer they had used?

 

It would seem extraordinary that the Policia Judiciaria would tie 4/5 plain-clothes officers up, in one place, on what was ostensibly a routine house-to-house enquiry, asking 'Have you seen this man?'.

 

Were these really Portuguese officers or were they British officers from the Leicestershire police collecting evidence for something they already knew had ocurred? 

 

It was widely reported, at the time, that the inspiration for the sketch was not Jane Tanner, but an incident that happened in the Portuguese resort of Sagres, 18 miles from Praia da Luz.

 

It was here that holidaymaker Nuno Lourenco spotted a man taking photographs, whilst he was sitting at a beach cafe with his wife and two children. He became so concerned that he took a photograph of the man on his mobile phone but partly covered the lens with his thumb by mistake.

 

It was this obscured picture that was believed to have been the inspiration behind the image the Policia Judiciaria produced, that became known infamously as the 'eggman' or the 'egg with hair'.

 

Claus Montex saw the same man. "When the man was challenged he ran off, but he came back a bit later went back to the beach and carried on taking photographs."

 

So, what do reports published at the time tell us about the incident that had apparently inspired such a memorable element of the case?

 

Aside from the usual host of contradictions, perhaps most interestingly, it is reported that the McCanns were on the beach at Sagres that same day, 30 April 2007 - three days before Madeleine's disappearance. It is reported that an eye witness has positively identified them.

 

However, and perhaps unsurprisingly in this case, this is contradicted by one of the reports, the Sunday Herald, which states that the McCanns were on the beach that day but 20 miles away!

 

Another article suggests that Nuno is reported to have identified Madeleine as one of the girls photographed.

 

The sighting by Nuno Lourenco is also linked to the sighting of two men and a woman at the Galp service station, just outside Praia da Luz, with a girl fitting Madeleine's description. Mr Lourenco is reported to have said, after viewing the CCTV footage, that he is 100% certain the two people he saw were two of the three people at the garage.

 

It is also reported that these two people were identified by police as having rented a holiday apartment in the Solimar complex at Burgau, 4 miles along the coast from Praia da Luz. Reports state a blonde woman with shoulder-length hair and a 40-year old man with a middle-parted hair were seen on the balcony of their apartment having breakfast.

 

However, it is also reported that the apartment block mentioned was deserted and neighbours said they knew nothing about it.

 

 

Days before her abduction, a blonde woman was seen with a man who was taking photographs of young blonde girls in the resort of Sagrès, about 20 miles from Praia da Luz.

 

When Nuno Lourenco, the father of one of the girls, aged 4, challenged the photographer, he fled in a car driven by a woman. The car, a grey Renault Clio, was confirmed to have had false numberplates.

 

Mr Lourenco, who is married to a German with whom he also has a two-year-old son, used his mobile phone to take a photograph of the man. This was used as the basis for the first computer-generated sketch of one of the suspected abductors.

 

 

'Holidaymaker Nuno Lourenco, who is from Sagres but now lives in Germany, was sitting at a cafe with his German wife and their two children when he noticed a man taking pictures of his four-year-old blonde daughter and other children.

 

He became so concerned at his behaviour that he took his own picture of the man - who was balding with long hair at the back - on his mobile phone.

 

The picture is believed to have inspired Portuguese detectives to produce their infamous "egg with hair" photofit of a suspect with a blank face and side-parted hair.

 

It was also reported that police have identified two people caught on CCTV at a local petrol station as being a couple renting a holiday apartment in the chocolate-box village of Burgau, four miles along the coast.

 

A blonde woman with shoulder-length hair and a man with middle-parted hair, both about 40, ate breakfast on their terrace of the Solimar.

 

Apartments, according to the Portuguese press. However, the apartment block in question was deserted and neighbours said they knew nothing about it.

 

Other holidaymakers were also interviewed, with two men and a woman being taken away still in their swimsuits from the Mark Warner complex where Madeleine vanished on Thursday last week.

 

The reason for the urgency in not allowing them to get dressed was not clear, but they were not arrested and were being interviewed as witnesses rather than suspects.'

 

*

 

Another part of the report states:

 

'The McCanns are believed to have visited Sagres -which is on the country's southwest tip and effectively the "Land's End" of mainland Europe -on Monday, April 30.

 

A shopkeeper in the town said she remembered them well.

 

She said: "On the road into the town, Kate was holding Madeleine's hand. On the other side of the road was Gerry with a baby buggy.

 

"I remember thinking it odd to see him with a baby buggy because I thought the little girl was too old to need one."

 

She said it was the same day as the stranger taking photographs, although other witnesses said that happened two days later.'

 

- The obvious two questions to this statement are: If this was the McCanns, why were they walking apart on separate sides of the road and where were the twins?

 

 

Maddy’s parents also faced the harrowing task yesterday of scanning CCTV film for a glimpse of their kidnapped daughter.

Footage at a garage in Portugal captured an image of three suspects, including a woman, with a girl who matched Maddy’s description. The camera also caught the car’s British number plate and the registration has been circulated by Interpol and British police.

 

Kate and Gerry McCann were driven at speed from their holiday apartment to a police station in Portimao to help officers examine the tapes after Mrs McCann again went to the local church to pray for her daughter.

Bill Henderson, the British Consul in the Algarve, was seen leaving the police headquarters while Mr and Mrs McCann were still inside.

Two of the three suspects in the CCTV footage that may show the missing girl have been identified by a man who claimed he caught them photographing his own child two weeks ago.

The witness, Portuguese-born Nuno Lourenco who lives in Germany, said the gang attempted to abduct his own young daughter.

 

He told detectives that he saw a man of English appearance photographing his daughter, described as strikingly similar in appearance to Maddy, on April 30 in Sagres, a town just a few miles from the holiday complex where the McCann family was staying. 

The witness, who with his German wife has two children aged two and four, said he chased the man, who fled, jumping into a car with a woman and another man before speeding off. Mr Lourenco is believed to have provided the authorities with a photograph taken on his mobile phone.

The witness has told officers he was “100 per cent certain” they were the same people caught on CCTV with the girl matching Maddy’s description hours after she went missing.

 

The description of the woman also matches that given by a witness who spotted someone acting suspiciously outside Madeleine’s bedroom on the night of her disappearance. The CCTV footage from the garage shows a young girl with a blonde, middle-aged woman and two men. The child apparently wanted to say something, which made staff suspicious.

 

 

The CCTV images are being linked to eyewitness reports of a man and a woman taking photos of young children at a beach not far from Luz in the days before Madeleine was abducted.

OnApril30,three days before Madeleine went missing, a Portuguese holidaymaker, Nuno Lourenco, chased a man he had spotted taking photos of his four-year-old daughter at a beach near Sagres. Lourenco took an obscured mobile phone photo of the man who fled in a car driven by a woman.

The McCann family were on the beach, some 20 miles west of their resort, on the same day - an eerie coincidence that indicates to Portuguese police that this was the co-ordinated kidnapping of a preselected child.

 

 

The McCann family are understood to have visited the resort of Sagres three days before Maddie, four, was taken.

While they were there a Portuguese dad frightened off a man photographing his four-year-old daughter and other blonde kiddies on the beach.

The dad, Numo Lourenco, says Maddie was one of the tots snapped.

Sagres is 15 miles from Praia da Luz, where Maddie was snatched from her bed last week.

Numo tried to snap the mystery man with his mobile phone camera ? but partly covered the lens with his thumb by mistake.

He said the suspect drove off in a grey Renault Clio with British plates.

Later he identified the man from CCTV footage shot at a petrol station near Praia da Luz on the night Maddie vanished.

The security camera filmed two men and a blonde with a child matching Maddie’s description. Their car also had UK plates.

Villagers in Burgau, three miles from Praia da Luz, said two of those in the CCTV footage were a British couple who stayed at the local Solimar apartments ? a man and a blonde woman.

 

 

Detectives are working on the theory that the abductors may have seen Madeleine in Sagres and tracked her back to the family apartment in Praia da Luz, 18 miles away.

A witness, Nuno Lorenco, said he saw a man following his family down the beach and taking "discreet" photographs. He said he challenged the man, who fled with a blonde woman in a Renault Clio.