Author Topic: Another look at Tannerman and those pyjamas.  (Read 39670 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jazzy

Re: Another look at Tannerman and those pyjamas.
« Reply #30 on: November 02, 2013, 03:38:54 PM »
You are not Jane Tanner either, or S. Batista or Kate McCann and yet you purport to know better than anyone else about them and their actions - but you produce no evidence - and ignore the evidence presented to you.      I know of no-one else who claimed that JT could not have seen a man crossing the road where she said she did. 

Jane Tanner has been vindicated by SY - as it has been proved she did not lie or fantasize about seeing a man who carried a child.    SY were impressed by the accuracy of her description of the man and child she saw, who has now been identified as a tourist.

Amaral  believed  JT's sighting until his case against Murat failed and he turned his attention to the parents - otherwise he would not have arranged for her to attend the Identify parade with RM.  It was only after he decided the parents were complicit and JTs sighting became inconvenient that he decided to deal with that problem by discrediting her as a witness.

Your insistence on ignoring the fact that in this country a priest is NOT called only when a death has occurred, but offers spiritual support on other occasions as part of their Pastoral Care is becoming tedious.   What is there NOT to understand about that.      S. Batista obviously was not aware and so her comment was based on her ignorance of the situation.   You have been made aware and yet apparently refuse to ackowledge it.  Inexplicable.

 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(

Offline DCI

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2585
  • Total likes: 6
  • Why are some folks so sick in the head!!!
Re: Another look at Tannerman and those pyjamas.
« Reply #31 on: November 02, 2013, 04:57:41 PM »
I may be mistaken DCI but was there  glimpse of Ms Batista on one of the dog videos?

Yes in apartment 5A, while Grime took the dogs in. 1.10 ses in http://www.mccannfiles.com/id167.html
Kate's 500 Mile Cycle Challenge

https://www.justgiving.com/KateMcCann/

Rachel Granada

  • Guest
Re: Another look at Tannerman and those pyjamas.
« Reply #32 on: November 02, 2013, 05:03:05 PM »
Yes in apartment 5A, while Grime took the dogs in. 1.10 ses in http://www.mccannfiles.com/id167.html

Thanks DCI, much appreciated.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Another look at Tannerman and those pyjamas.
« Reply #33 on: November 02, 2013, 05:12:17 PM »
Thanks DCI, much appreciated.

And now that's been 'verified' by DCI Rachel, what was the point you were trying to make ?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline John

Re: Another look at Tannerman and those pyjamas.
« Reply #34 on: November 02, 2013, 06:40:17 PM »
Please note that priest discussion has its own thread.

www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2877.msg99151#msg99151
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Another look at Tannerman and those pyjamas.
« Reply #35 on: December 11, 2013, 12:54:45 PM »
Tannerman was probably seen but Jane's testimony wouldn't stand up in a court of law. She couldn't have passed them on the same side of the road before seeing that man and child. Any reconstruction they've had to put them on the other side of the road which is not the way it was according to Jez. Smithman wasn't an innocent father with his unusual behaviour of keeping his head down (better not show his face to eye witnesses), not responding etc. He was in a hurry. A child goes missing without trace - not quite thanks to the Smith family. If Smithman brought Madeleine to a premises then you're looking at a 3rd person being involved. I don't think that was possible so soon after the disappearance. That bin could have been used as a temporary hiding place as he had about 5 minutes to hide her at 9pm. Smithman was planning to retrieve her at 9.30pm not 10pm.

Imagine if they had tried to reconstruct Smithman's movements after the alarm was first raised. That would be a disaster  8)--))
« Last Edit: December 11, 2013, 01:04:04 PM by pathfinder73 »
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Online Wonderfulspam

Re: Another look at Tannerman and those pyjamas.
« Reply #36 on: December 11, 2013, 01:02:21 PM »
Tannerman was probably seen but Jane's testimony wouldn't stand up in a court of law. She couldn't have passed them on the same side of the road before seeing that man and child. Any reconstruction they've had to put them on the other side of the road which is not the way it was according to Jez. Smithman wasn't an innocent father with his unusual behaviour of keeping his head down (better not show his face to eye witnesses), not responding etc. He was in a hurry. A child goes missing without trace - not quite thanks to the Smith family. If Smithman brought Madeleine to a premises then you're looking at a 3rd person being involved. I don't think that was possible so soon after the disappearance. That bin could have been used as a temporary hiding place as he had about 5 minutes to hide her at 9pm. Smithman was planning to retrieve her at 9.30pm not 10pm.

Imagine if they tried to reconstruct Smithman's movements after the alarm is raised. That would be a disaster  8)--))

 you're looking at a 3rd person being involved. I don't think that was possible so soon after the disappearance.

That would depend on how much pre planning went into it.
I stand with Putin. Glory to Mother Putin.

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Another look at Tannerman and those pyjamas.
« Reply #37 on: December 11, 2013, 01:50:37 PM »
I suppose anything is possible.  After all, it took Tannerman over six years to decide go come forward.
Apparently even the McCanns aren't sure Innocentman = Tannerman.
I agree with them, certainly for a different reason : the rotten orange pyjama, exhibited by  either colour blind or hoping CWatchers are idiots DCI RW, speaks volumes.

Offline Sherlock Holmes

Re: Another look at Tannerman and those pyjamas.
« Reply #38 on: December 11, 2013, 03:36:47 PM »
Apparently even the McCanns aren't sure Innocentman = Tannerman.
I agree with them, certainly for a different reason : the rotten orange pyjama, exhibited by  either colour blind or hoping CWatchers are idiots DCI RW, speaks volumes.

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.

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Another look at Tannerman and those pyjamas.
« Reply #39 on: December 11, 2013, 04:56:57 PM »
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.
It's not His case, SH, it's a Portuguese investigation, DCI RW just did a review and now asked the Portuguese to make some interviews for SY.
Besides DCI RW carefully says JT likely saw Innocentman. It's not sold 100%
The UK public has been maintained ignorant by the media who never dared to do the slightest investigative journalism. So Cwatchers can swallow anything.
But you'll admit that somebody who has read the PJ files can't. If DCI RW respected that public (why should he ? His objective is getting sightings, calls etc.), he would have at least indicated on the famous map (of no use) the route taken by Innocentman, don't you think ?

Offline Sherlock Holmes

Re: Another look at Tannerman and those pyjamas.
« Reply #40 on: December 12, 2013, 03:31:07 AM »
Another possibility:
In same photo (  http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/9058/zvk9.jpg  ) could the small rectangular structure (to the right of the bins) be a bus shelter? If so then it is possible an innocent father with child gets off bus and walks downhill to their home. The location of bus stops and whether there is a bus arriving at about 10pm might easily be checked.

But why not dress the child properly?

Offline pegasus

Re: Another look at Tannerman and those pyjamas.
« Reply #41 on: December 12, 2013, 02:14:55 PM »
But why not dress the child properly?
Yes if it is innocent father and child, then whether he is walking home from a friends place, or from parking his car, or from a busstop. the light clothing of the child and the absence of a blanket is interesting.

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Another look at Tannerman and those pyjamas.
« Reply #42 on: December 12, 2013, 03:37:49 PM »
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

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Another look at Tannerman and those pyjamas.
« Reply #43 on: December 12, 2013, 03:48:08 PM »
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

Unless he thinks there's a tiny possibility that Tannerman and Smithman could be the same man so he hasn't entirely ruled him out. I think Smithman is their main suspect.
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Lyall

  • Guest
Re: Another look at Tannerman and those pyjamas.
« Reply #44 on: December 12, 2013, 03:54:34 PM »
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

I think at all times he uses the words lawyers have advised him to use, Icabod.

As we know it's a very complicated case, and it still carries the potential for further serious legal action.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2013, 03:58:17 PM by Lyall »