The Find Madeleine website is updated re Tannerman

[icabodcrane]

I've just noticed that the McCanns have updated their website with regard to  'Tannerman' 

They suggest that Scotland Yard think the man Jane saw  'may'  have been an innocent father  (  rather than repeating Redwood's assertion that he was  'almost certainly'  an innocent father  ) 

They continue by stating that it is not possible  to be certain whether the man Jane saw was the same man the Smiths' saw  ...  and appeal to the public to come forward to identify  Tannerman  (  despite Scotland Yard not having done so as part of their investigation   ) 

The McCanns ask for any information regarding the man Jane saw to be passed to Scotland Yard  ...   or,  alternatively,   to be passed directly to the  'Find Madeleine'  team    (  are they still conducting a parallel investigation then  ?  )

In the context of this thread then,  it appears that the McCanns  STILL assert  that Tannerman and Smithman  may be one and the same     

[icabodcrane]

I've just noticed that the McCanns have updated their website with regard to  'Tannerman' 

They suggest that Scotland Yard think the man Jane saw  'may'  have been an innocent father  (  rather than repeating Redwood's assertion that he was  'almost certainly'  an innocent father  ) 

They continue by stating that it is not possible  to be certain whether the man Jane saw was the same man the Smiths' saw  ...  and appeal to the public to come forward to identify  Tannerman  (  despite Scotland Yard not having done so as part of their investigation   ) 

The McCanns ask for any information regarding the man Jane saw to be passed to Scotland Yard  ...   or,  alternatively,   to be passed directly to the  'Find Madeleine'  team    (  are they still conducting a parallel investigation then  ?  )

In the context of this thread then,  it appears that the McCanns  STILL assert  that Tannerman and Smithman  may be one and the same   

Come to think of it,  this latest up-date on the McCanns official website probably deserves a new thread

Does it mean that the McCanns are questioning the direction Scotland Yard's investigation is taking  ?

Does it mean that they feel Redwood was wrong to dismiss Tannerman as not relvent enough to even ask the public to come forward with information about  ?

Does it mean that the McCanns are interfering in the Yard's investigation in the same way they interfered with the Portuguese investigation  ? 

All relevent questions,  I think 

[sadie]

I've just noticed that the McCanns have updated their website with regard to  'Tannerman' 

They suggest that Scotland Yard think the man Jane saw  'may'  have been an innocent father  (  rather than repeating Redwood's assertion that he was  'almost certainly'  an innocent father  ) 

They continue by stating that it is not possible  to be certain whether the man Jane saw was the same man the Smiths' saw  ...  and appeal to the public to come forward to identify  Tannerman  (  despite Scotland Yard not having done so as part of their investigation   ) 

The McCanns ask for any information regarding the man Jane saw to be passed to Scotland Yard  ...   or,  alternatively,   to be passed directly to the  'Find Madeleine'  team    (  are they still conducting a parallel investigation then  ?  )

In the context of this thread then,  it appears that the McCanns  STILL assert  that Tannerman and Smithman  may be one and the same   

I agree with The Mccanns.

There are a number of possibilities, but amongst these and quite a strong possibility, imo, is that Tannerman may well also be Smithman.

OMO, but pointers

[Benice]

Come to think of it,  this latest up-date on the McCanns official website probably deserves a new thread

Does it mean that the McCanns are questioning the direction Scotland Yard's investigation is taking  ?

Does it mean that they feel Redwood was wrong to dismiss Tannerman as not relvent enough to even ask the public to come forward with information about  ?

Does it mean that the McCanns are interfering in the Yard's investigation in the same way they interfered with the Portuguese investigation  ? 

All relevent questions,  I think

I doubt very much if the McCanns would put anything on their site on this subject without first consulting with SY. imo

[icabodcrane]

I agree with The Mccanns.

There are a number of possibilities, but amongst these and quite a strong possibility, imo, is that Tannerman may well also be Smithman.

OMO, but pointers

You may  think Scotland Yard have got it wrong sadie,  but my questions related to the McCanns   apparently thinking that Scotland Yard have got it wrong

What does that suggest  ?    ...  that  the McCanns and the British police  are not in agreement as to how the investigation should progress  ?
 

Thanks for the new thread Sherlock

[Eleanor]

Only may or may not be.  Nothing definite has been said by anyone.  Not even by Scotland Yard.  And no one can know for certain anyway.

[Eleanor]

You may  think Scotland Yard have got it wrong sadie,  but my questions related to the McCanns   apparently thinking that Scotland Yard have got it wrong

What does that suggest  ?    ...  that  the McCanns and the British police  are not in agreement as to how the investigation should progress  ?
 

Thanks for the new thread Sherlock

Apparently.  Icabod.

The McCanns have no say over the investigation by Scotland Yard.  But this does not mean that they have no right to an opinion.
I believe that the man Jane Tanner saw could have been the abductor.  But since I believe that Madeleine was abducted then it doesn't matter to me who saw whom.  Quite possibly no one saw anyone who was involved.

[sadie]

You may  think Scotland Yard have got it wrong sadie,  but my questions related to the McCanns   apparently thinking that Scotland Yard have got it wrong

What does that suggest  ?    ...  that  the McCanns and the British police  are not in agreement as to how the investigation should progress  ?
 

Thanks for the new thread Sherlock

SY could well be right about a  man picking his child up from the creche.

But I also believe that Jane Tanner is right about bundleman ... and I believe that her sighting was at approx the time she said.  No-one knows for certain who the child was in bundlemans arms but it seems likely that it was Madeleine

Simples.
There could be two men.  It is not rocket science, you know Icabod.

[pathfinder73]

Apparently.  Icabod.

The McCanns have no say over the investigation by Scotland Yard.  But this does not mean that they have no right to an opinion.
I believe that the man Jane Tanner saw could have been the abductor.  But since I believe that Madeleine was abducted then it doesn't matter to me who saw whom.  Quite possibly no one saw anyone who was involved.

I would read the witness statements of the Smiths who saw a man running for his life with a lifeless child. What are you going on about? No one saw nothing my ass. The McCann's won't have any say over SY and too damn right! SY won't stand no nonsense from them especially when the main suspect in this case i.e. Smithman was identified by Martin Smith as possibly being Gerry McCann. This case is turning out to be the biggest laughing stock in the world. It's about time they started putting people in their place and the sooner the better!

[icabodcrane]

SY could well be right about a  man picking his child up from the creche.

But I also believe that Jane Tanner is right about bundleman ... and I believe that her sighting was at approx the time she said.  No-one knows for certain who the child was in bundlemans arms but it seems likely that it was Madeleine

Simples.
There could be two men.  It is not rocket science, you know Icabod.

But Andy Redwood seemed very convinced that the man Jane was not an abductor  ... "almost certainly not"  he said

The McCanns seem to have diminished  that  'almost certainty'   to a mere  'may have been'  on their website

...  and  they ask the public to identify the man   ...   whilst Scotland Yard do not 

That gives the impression that the McCanns and Scotland Yard may not be on the same page at all

[sadie]

But Andy Redwood seemed very convinced that the man Jane was not an abductor  ... "almost certainly not"  he said

The McCanns seem to have diminished  that  'almost certainty'   to a mere  'may have been'  on their website

...  and  they ask the public to identify the man   ...   whilst Scotland Yard do not 

That gives the impression that the McCanns and Scotland Yard may not be on the same page at all

The Mccanns have a wider remit.  They are anxious to keep all options open.  I am too, but i know i could be wrong. 

I trust Jane Tanner completely.  I bet they do too.

There could be two men Icabod.



Am zonked.  Off to bed now.

Nigh Night Icabod.  Nigh Night all.

[Cariad]

But Andy Redwood seemed very convinced that the man Jane was not an abductor  ... "almost certainly not"  he said

The McCanns seem to have diminished  that  'almost certainty'   to a mere  'may have been'  on their website

...  and  they ask the public to identify the man   ...   whilst Scotland Yard do not 

That gives the impression that the McCanns and Scotland Yard may not be on the same page at all

The often quoted 'SY are keeping the Mccanns informed' seems to gout out of the window too, doesn't it?

If they're so well informed, why are they asking the public for information that SY already have?

[icabodcrane]

The often quoted 'SY are keeping the Mccanns informed' seems to gout out of the window too, doesn't it?

If they're so well informed, why are they asking the public for information that SY already have?

I agree that it is possible  ( likely, in fact  )  that the McCanns are not as  'in the loop'   as they suggest 

It's more than that though Cariad,  it's the sense that the McCanns are actually contradicting  Scotland Yard

Take the man the Smith family saw, for instance.  Scotland Yard flagged up the previously suppressed e fits as being of crucial importance to their investigation and made it clear that they considered  the Smiths sighting  as vitally important

The McCanns'  official website,  however,  does not reflect that view at all

They have a  'click  here'  link with the heading  IMPORTANT :  Who are these people  ?  Can you help us identify them  ?

Clicking on the page reveals the three people the McCanns list as  important to identify

They are  :

The man Jane Tanner saw

The spotty man seen around the resort

The Victoria Beckham lookalike from Barcelona

The images of these three people are accompanied by a synopsis of what is known about them

So where is the man Scotland Yard believe is of vital importance   ?

...  relegated to a  'rogue's gallery'  on a different page,  with no accompanying detail  (  not even a mention about where,  when,  and by whom this man was seen  ) 

Such  cursory  treatment of the sighting  Scotland Yard  think is the  most important really is odd 

[Cariad]

What surprises me most is how publicly they've made their... divergence of opinions.

 This is the 'review' that they've been requesting for years and yet now they have it, they don't seem to be over the moon with it.

What has Mr Redwood said or done for the Mccanns to lose faith in his abilities to rule a suspect either in or out?

Considering that an investigation was only open in, what? November? it's early days for the honeymoon to be over already.

My faith in Scotland yard is increasing by the day.

[icabodcrane]

What surprises me most is how publicly they've made their... divergence of opinions.

 This is the 'review' that they've been requesting for years and yet now they have it, they don't seem to be over the moon with it.

What has Mr Redwood said or done for the Mccanns to lose faith in his abilities to rule a suspect either in or out?

Considering that an investigation was only open in, what? November? it's early days for the honeymoon to be over already.

My faith in Scotland yard is increasing by the day.

I wonder what Redwood and the Yard make of the McCanns,  in effect,  briefing against them  ...