The Find Madeleine website is updated re Tannerman

[jassi]

The e-fit was in the possession of both British and Portuguese police for several years before its public release on the crimewatch programme.

I don't think so.

[a.baker]

Regardless of who was in possession of the e-fits, the point is they SHOULD have been in the public domain. Isn't that the whole purpose of e-fits? To hope the general public recognise them in order for them to be ruled in or out of any enquiry? Anyhow,SY have obviously discovered something that can allow them to rule out Tannerman (hence the "revelation") as a potential abductor and focus on Smithman as they changed the timeline too. I don't believe for one minute that they would do this simply off the back of discovering Tannerman was only MOST LIKELY an innocent holidaymaker!

[Estuarine]

Regardless of who was in possession of the e-fits, the point is they SHOULD have been in the public domain. Isn't that the whole purpose of e-fits? To hope the general public recognise them in order for them to be ruled in or out of any enquiry? Anyhow,SY have obviously discovered something that can allow them to rule out Tannerman (hence the "revelation") as a potential abductor and focus on Smithman as they changed the timeline too. I don't believe for one minute that they would do this simply off the back of discovering Tannerman was only MOST LIKELY an innocent holidaymaker!

The cumulative inference of what the MPS have said so far [on their website not what the press say they said] is that they don't believe the Tannerman/Crecheman combo is relevant, Smithman is of significance and by extension they don't believe the " T7 timeline bollocks". Now who had that thesis as well >@@(*&). Interestinger and interestinger

[icabodcrane]

Surely these 'suspects' represent the narrative in which the McCanns find most comfort (relative to all the other possibilities).

Tannerman - their good friend Jane was correct in what they saw; their claims of an abduction are vindicated.
Beckhamwoman: A mother figure is involved, therefore Madeleine is with a warm and loving family.
Spottyman: Assistant to the loving Beckhamwoman.

Are you suggesting that the McCanns conducted their private investions  (  largely funded by the public  )  and then selectively chose to present only the evidence that supported their own abduction story  ?  (  and kept the information which contradicted it out of the public domain  )

[a.baker]

And not forgetting,of course,that 'Tannerman' gave GM that all important alibi!

[Lyall]

Surely these 'suspects' represent the narrative in which the McCanns find most comfort (relative to all the other possibilities).

That is one way of putting it

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don't see what the problem is.      Even if Crecheman is an innocent tourist, he is still part of this case - and any information about him can only be helpful to SY IMO

It could be that someone saw him carrying his child after he left  the creche - and so thought nothing more about it at the time.     But surely any info no matter how small - which can confirm  times and places would be helpful.   

Additional info. as a result of the piccie could also mean that SY would be in a position to state with total certainty that Crecheman was the man JT saw  instead of being 'almost certain'.

I doubt very much whether the McCanns would put anything on their FB page regarding this - without first discussing it with SY.

But the question is not why Tannerman is still in the picture. Yes, there is a chance that more information could come in from keeping him in the picture a bit longer.

The question is why the McCanns have substituted SY's official focus (Smithman) with Tannerman. Smithman hardly features on their website; their story there revolves around Tannerman. They even spell out in words of one syllable that they believe SY could be wrong in their focus.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Because they are Kate and Gerry.

Publicity loving (unless it's negative), media savvy, they always assume everyone wants to hear their opinion.  Blogs and books and interviews confirm that.

Indeed, the British media has traditionally given them a platform to air their displeasures openly, and a sympathetic slant to even their most narcissistic displays.

Like this one.

But the point is Why? Who is advising the McCanns that they openly go against SY when this clearly diminishes their standing rather than the opposite? We would not be sitting here discussing this issue in negative terms if the McCanns had decided it was wiser to present a united front vis-a-vis SY, whether or not they saw eye to eye. Wouldn't the benefits of that outweigh the merits of making their own individual points, however important they believed them to be, thus displaying a rift?

There is the famous adage of the person approaching a green light, who sees a car coming fast towards him from a side road. He has right of way on the green light and is at perfect liberty to sail though the light and ignore the car coming from the side.  If he does not break, however, the car coming from the side will smash into him.

There is often a conflict between what is strictly speaking right or what one has the right to do, and what is the sensible course of action to take in the circumstances. This seems to me to be another example of the McCanns exercising their right to do things their way. But at what cost to their relationship with SY and the success of the investigation in general?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Are you suggesting that the McCanns conducted their private investions  (  largely funded by the public  )  and then selectively chose to present only the evidence that supported their own abduction story  ?  (  and kept the information which contradicted it out of the public domain  )

Not really.

I think it's hard to draw from this what the McCanns are trying to do.

Tannerman, Sporrtman, and the Beckam woman do not represent 'evidence' the McCanns may have - as far as we know.

That is why I suggest that the McCanns placing of them at the top of the bill is more wishful thinking than anything else.

[Lyall]

But the question is not why Tannerman is still in the picture. Yes, there is a chance that more information could come in from keeping him in the picture a bit longer.

The question is why the McCanns have substituted SY's official focus (Smithman) with Tannerman. Smithman hardly features on their website; their story there revolves around Tannerman. They even spell out in words of one syllable that they believe SY could be wrong in their focus.

We can see the papers have also forgotten about those efits (they just got the whole lot out of a PR problem in October imo an episode of CW with absolutely nothing to say)

[AnneGuedes]

 This seems to me to be another example of the McCanns exercising their right to do things their way. But at what cost to their relationship with SY and the success of the investigation in general?

If they knew the truth and knew also that SY will never be able to get it right, wouldn't they proceed this way ?

[Estuarine]

The McCanns and their sausage machine seemingly like to preserve the abduction theory and to muddy the waters elsewhere. Apart from making sure the halos don't slip.The British press seemingly are briefed to toe this line. Where in the British press for example are the reports that where Dr Amaral's book was concerned the McCanns lost two out of three expensive law suits?
The most important two at that.
imo of course 

[Carana]

Regardless of who was in possession of the e-fits, the point is they SHOULD have been in the public domain. Isn't that the whole purpose of e-fits? To hope the general public recognise them in order for them to be ruled in or out of any enquiry? Anyhow,SY have obviously discovered something that can allow them to rule out Tannerman (hence the "revelation") as a potential abductor and focus on Smithman as they changed the timeline too. I don't believe for one minute that they would do this simply off the back of discovering Tannerman was only MOST LIKELY an innocent holidaymaker!

I used to think so as well. I don't know the details surrounding the fact that the Smithman e-fits weren't made public, nor who actually had them in their possession, when, and in which legal circumstances.

In the Alps murder case, the police had the e-fit shortly after the massacre, but didn't release it for well over a year. The reason was apparently because they wanted to see if they could find the helmet /motorbike, etc., on their own first. The e-fit was released when they had given up.

[VIXTE]

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   

IMO this is because of the doors being 'moved'.. SY might discount the doors as 'chance' by they still might be puzzled by it..that means that they also don't trust Matthew Oldfield as if during his 'check' Madeleine was already gone it is expected that the window is already left open, meaning that Oldfield would also feel the same draft which Kate described..

[Sherlock Holmes]

If they knew the truth and knew also that SY will never be able to get it right, wouldn't they proceed this way ?

Knowing your position on the case I understand your point, Anne, but the fact remains that handling matters this way makes the McCanns look bad in terms of public relations. Truth, innocence and guilt are separate matters from how the McCanns would wish to be perceived.