Maybe I'm very naive, Anne, but this is Redwood's biggest case; the biggest case any detective could be working on, and I don't think he can afford to knowingly sell the public something that is not properly substantiated.
He may make mistakes, but to take a risk like that does not seem credible given the importance of the case and the people he has to answer to.
I agree that it is inconceivable that Redwood would publicly declare that Tanner man was no longer 'a person of interest' ( which is what he effectively did ) unless there was substantive evidence for having done so
... and yet
Redwood did not say that they now
knew that Tanner man was not the abductor ... just that he 'almost certainly was not'
What does that mean ?
Amost certainly ?
It means they are
NOT certain that Tannerman is the innocent father identified
So why didn't Redwood say that ? Why didn't he say that whilst they are 'almost certain' that the man Tanner saw was not abductor, they cannot eliminate him from the investigation all together at this point, and still ask the public to come forward with any information they have regarding it ?
That public appeal on Crimewatch was all rather odd, and posed more questions than it answered