The Find Madeleine website is updated re Tannerman

[Wonderfulspam]

Threads on the subject of the Smiths sighting

Oldest 1st

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1426.15

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1231.0

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1445.0

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1611.0

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1764.0

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2658.0

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2719.0

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1754.0

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3238.0

[Sherlock Holmes]

No jokes intended SH,

Just thought I'd list them all for their relevance to the topic.

It does seem a bit odd for me to have done it now you mention it though.

I think I might just have had too much to smoke today.

Whatever makes you feel good, WS

[icabodcrane]

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.

But the McCanns are doing more than merely expressing an opinion,   (  although expressing an opinion that contradicts Scotland Yard's might be seen as undermining in itself  )  they are actively asking the public to send information to Scotland Yard  ...  information which the Yard, itself,  has not asked for

I think that might reasonably be viewed as interference

[Benice]

But the McCanns are doing more than merely expressing an opinion,   (  although expressing an opinion that contradicts Scotland Yard's might be seen as undermining in itself  )  they are actively asking the public to send information to Scotland Yard  ...  information which the Yard, itself,  has not asked for

I think that might reasonably be viewed as interference

How are they contradicting/underminding/interfering.      SY  have said they are not 100% certain about crecheman - so unless or until there is absolute certaintly  -  there has to remain a small element of doubt.

So what harm can it possibly do to leave Tannerman on public view?  I'd really like to know.

Do you honestly think that the McCanns would put anything on their web page about the case that they will not have cleared with SY first?    Not a chance  - IMO. 

[slartibartfast]

Do you honestly think that the McCanns would put anything on their web page about the case that they will not have cleared with SY first?    Not a chance  - IMO.

 

[Redblossom]

I agree!

It is naive or wishful thinking (sic)  to believe so! Fact  remains, the website is not promoting Smithman in any way shape or form in as much detail and visibility as Tannerman, Spottyman and Beckham woman, none of whom SY pinpointed as very important.The only reference to him in any detail is by watching the linked CW video (if you can get it to play). He has  just been lumped in together with a bunch of other efits with no details either when Redwood singled this sightng out in particular.Its not hard to make a new page or add him to the suspects page! Which supports the idea these efits are still being suppressed.

For 36k what it cost to set up that website up, (thats just the first year) its pretty poor show.

[Silkywhiskers]

I agree!

It is naive or wishful thinking (sic)  to believe so! Fact  remains, the website is not promoting Smithman in any way shape or form in as much detail and visibility as Tannerman, Spottyman and Beckham woman, none of whom SY pinpointed as very important.The only reference to him in any detail is by watching the linked CW video (if you can get it to play). He has  just been lumped in together with a bunch of other efits with no details either when Redwood singled this sightng out in particular.Its not hard to make a new page or add him to the suspects page! Which supports the idea these efits are still being suppressed.

For 36k what it cost to set up that website up, (thats just the first year) its pretty poor show.

Let alone Kate's book and Gerry's blog - no Smithman appeared on either, ever.

Yes, they are very serious about finding their daughter arent they?

 

[Redblossom]

Let alone Kate's book and Gerry's blog - no Smithman appeared on either, ever.

Yes, they are very serious about finding their daughter arent they?

 

The bizarre thing is their spokesman is said to have said it would have been a "distraction" if they publicised the efits. How can efits of a person seen carryng a blonde young girl in pyjamas on the night in the vicinity be a distraction?? Distraction from what?

!!

[pegasus]

... Kate's book ... no Smithman ...

Actually Smithman does feature in that book (written by IMO an honest witness).

[icabodcrane]

Actually Smithman does feature in that book (written by IMO an honest witness).

Kate says in her book that the man Smith family saw was remarkably similar to the man Jane Tanner saw  ...  she intimates that they were one and the same

Which begs the question

If Kate thought the Smiths saw the same man as Jane did  ...  who Kate believed to be the abductor ...  why did she keep the efit of his face from the public for five years   ? 

She and Gerry relentlessly publicised  the faceless image of Tannerman  ...  when they had an efit of what they believed to be his face all along 

 

[Benice]

Let alone Kate's book and Gerry's blog - no Smithman appeared on either, ever.Yes, they are very serious about finding their daughter arent they?

 

Completely untrue.      There is a full description of the man the Smith family saw on page 371 of Kate's book.   The sighting is described as 'crucial'.
 

[pegasus]

Completely untrue.      There is a full description of the man the Smith family saw on page 371 of Kate's book.   The sighting is described as 'crucial'.

Agreed. And to those others who criticise the author for not including the PI efits , why assume she even knew of them?

[icabodcrane]

Completely untrue.      There is a full description of the man the Smith family saw on page 371 of Kate's book.   The sighting is described as 'crucial'.

A  'full description'   ? 

She had an efit of him  for  heavens sake   !   ...  she thought he was the same  man Jane saw,  didn't she  ?  ...  so she knew what he  looked  like 

And she never said

Why didn't she  ? 

Why didn't she put that efit in her book  ? 

[AnneGuedes]

Agreed. And to those others who criticise the author for not including the PI efits , why assume she even knew of them?

Are you suggesting that, finding that one of the e-fits would give reason to Mr Smith's feeling, the McCanns were spared viewing it by their PR or Mr Kennedy ?

[AnneGuedes]

Kudos Icabod, well spotted..

Mrs McCann says in some interview (we need Redblossom) that she finds Tannerman looks pretty like Copperman...