Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: John on November 10, 2015, 03:43:48 PM
Title: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: John on November 10, 2015, 03:43:48 PM
This is a topic which has intrigued since Redwood had his 'revelation moment'.
Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Tannerman was the name given to the man seen by Jane Tanner at about 9.15pm on the evening that Madeleine McCann disappeared. This man walked across the road in front of her and was carrying a young child laid across his arms. The artist iimpression depicted below (right image) was created by Portuguese police following interviews with Mss Tanner.
(https://i.imgur.com/C0rdRrn.jpg)
'Revelation moment': Police revealed a major breakthrough when a British father (left image) came forward to reveal he was the man who for six years had been considered the prime suspect in the Madeleine McCann case
During a live BBC Crimewatch presentation, Met officer DCI Andy Redwood who was leading the investigation into the disappearance revealed confirmed it had ruled out the man previously seen near the McCanns’ Portuguese apartment.
"A British father considered the prime suspect in the Madeleine McCann kidnapping for six years blew open the case after coming forward to police with his child's distinctive frilly pyjamas.
The mystery man's involvement was ruled out after detectives realised he was taking his own two-year-old daughter home from a crèche and had not snatched Maddie.
He even agreed to be pictured in the clothes he wore in Praia da Luz, on May 3, 2007, to prove he was the man in the police sketch previously seen as key to cracking the case.
His two-year-old's pink pyjamas, which were described by one of the McCann's closest friends, were also brought to Scotland Yard to help prove his innocence."
why is there no record of this man in the files then?
He never made a statement? He made a statement in the UK and it wasn't passed on? The PJ saw his statement saying he collected his child and walked 'near' G5A, but they looked at the location of the night creche and the location of his apartment and decided he wasn't going to be walking where Tanner saw him?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 10, 2015, 11:16:18 PM
He never made a statement? He made a statement in the UK and it wasn't passed on? The PJ saw his statement saying he collected his child and walked 'near' G5A, but they looked at the location of the night creche and the location of his apartment and decided he wasn't going to be walking where Tanner saw him?
So you thinking it's perfectly possible that the PJ found this individual, investigated him and discarded him as a suspect all without mentioning him in the files, nor any mention of having found him in Amaral's book? OK, if you want to think that, that's absolutely fine.,... &%+((£
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 10, 2015, 11:18:11 PM
He never made a statement? He made a statement in the UK and it wasn't passed on? The PJ saw his statement saying he collected his child and walked 'near' G5A, but they looked at the location of the night creche and the location of his apartment and decided he wasn't going to be walking where Tanner saw him?
I go for number 2.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 10, 2015, 11:23:30 PM
If he'd already been found and dismissed then why did it take until 2013 for Andy Redwood's "revelation moment"?. I know you all think he's a bit slow on the uptake but that's ridiculous!
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 10, 2015, 11:26:57 PM
So you thinking it's perfectly possible that the PJ found this individual, investigated him and discarded him as a suspect all without mentioning him in the files, nor any mention of having found him in Amaral's book? OK, if you want to think that, that's absolutely fine.,... &%+((£
If he responded to 'Crimestoppers' that information was kept secret at UK request.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 10, 2015, 11:30:45 PM
If he'd already been found and dismissed then why did it take until 2013 for Andy Redwood's "revelation moment"?. I know you all think he's a bit slow on the uptake but that's ridiculous!
Why do think it is a simple task? A significant task if you have access to the information, impossible if you don't know the information exists.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 10, 2015, 11:38:27 PM
If he'd already been found and dismissed then why did it take until 2013 for Andy Redwood's "revelation moment"?. I know you all think he's a bit slow on the uptake but that's ridiculous!
There was a lot of rubbish information to review, so it would take time. Or;
Redwood didn't understand the layout of the ocean Club and didn't realise the bloke had followed a very strange route?
Redwood did know the layout of the Ocean Club but was determined to get rid of the Tanner sighting because he preferred the Smith sighting?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 10, 2015, 11:42:41 PM
Jane Tanner's sighting appears to have been ignored by the initial investigation.
Martin Smith's sighting appears to have been ignored until his totally erroneous revelation moment.
Is this an example of disregarding what evidence there was to follow the theory preferred by Mr Amaral?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 10, 2015, 11:44:30 PM
Did no-one think to check out the night crèche register ... elementary my dear Watson ...
That is the first thing I thought when Andy Redwood said that Jane's man had come forward.
Amaral knew Jane had seen a man carrying a child, he would have had the list of parents whose children would have been at the crèche that night, so why didn't he check the list with the parents? he could then have found the man carrying the child at the start.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 11, 2015, 11:39:53 AM
I'm happy to, but you are intent on reading between the lines and discussing it on an internet forum, so all the while you continue to do so, I will challenge your assumpitons.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 11, 2015, 11:43:05 AM
How do you know there isn't/ Have you read them all?
If the PJ had found and eliminated the man from their enquiries then why didn't they say so at the time, seeing as Tannerman was a key suspect? &%+((£ C'mon Alice, think - 'your side' doesn't even believe he exists, so how could he have been in the PJ Files, eh?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 11, 2015, 11:48:17 AM
If the PJ had found and eliminated the man from their enquiries then why didn't they say so at the time, seeing as Tannerman was a key suspect? &%+((£ C'mon Alice, think - 'your side' doesn't even believe he exists, so how could he have been in the PJ Files, eh?
I take that as a "I haven't read all the files so I don't really know".
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 11, 2015, 11:51:15 AM
That is the first thing I thought when Andy Redwood said that Jane's man had come forward.
Amaral knew Jane had seen a man carrying a child, he would have had the list of parents whose children would have been at the crèche that night, so why didn't he check the list with the parents? he could then have found the man carrying the child at the start.
Without knowing the identity of the man we are somewhat into speculation.
The main arrival and departure dates were Thursday and Saturday.
A Thursday arrival with the child in the crèche the same night is possible, but unlikely.
That suggests, but does not prove, that Crècheman arrived the same day the McCanns did, and flew out on Saturday 5 May 2007.
A look at the records shows no systematic check on holiday-makers - the focus was on staff.
So, if the PJ ever got the crèche records, what they had was 8 families, 11 children, and Tannerman walking in a direction that fitted none of these. (Since it did not fit with the crèche.) Most likely, all 8 families were out of the country by this time.
They were up to their necks in checks on locals, the gardener, the busker, the OC staff. I cannot see why they should have prioritised Tannerman, in these circumstances. By the time the initial storm blew over, Smithman had arrived, in a place that had nothing to do with the crèche.
The question is how did SY gets its hands on crèche records that were 6 years old?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 11, 2015, 12:27:46 PM
That is the first thing I thought when Andy Redwood said that Jane's man had come forward.
Amaral knew Jane had seen a man carrying a child, he would have had the list of parents whose children would have been at the crèche that night, so why didn't he check the list with the parents? he could then have found the man carrying the child at the start.
There's nothing in the files at all relating to the night creche except the nanny's statements. No attendance records, no list of who used it, nothing. If something was handed to the PJ it never reached the files.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 11, 2015, 12:31:50 PM
Without knowing the identity of the man we are somewhat into speculation.
The main arrival and departure dates were Thursday and Saturday.
A Thursday arrival with the child in the crèche the same night is possible, but unlikely.
That suggests, but does not prove, that Crècheman arrived the same day the McCanns did, and flew out on Saturday 5 May 2007.
A look at the records shows no systematic check on holiday-makers - the focus was on staff.
So, if the PJ ever got the crèche records, what they had was 8 families, 11 children, and Tannerman walking in a direction that fitted none of these. (Since it did not fit with the crèche.) Most likely, all 8 families were out of the country by this time.
They were up to their necks in checks on locals, the gardener, the busker, the OC staff. I cannot see why they should have prioritised Tannerman, in these circumstances. By the time the initial storm blew over, Smithman had arrived, in a place that had nothing to do with the crèche.
The question is how did SY gets its hands on crèche records that were 6 years old?
Rebelo was seen walking the route as described by Jane Tanner when he took over... so he was obviously covering all the bases.
Given that a child was missing and a man was seen walking away from the place of the disappearance carrying one around what might have been the relevant time ... I think it is rather an incompetent police force who would not be ripping up the cobbles to determine who he was ~ where he had been ~ and where he was going.
Jane Tanner gave them the information after their arrival ... why wasn't it prioritised for action?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Eleanor on November 11, 2015, 01:03:28 PM
Whichever way you look at it, Crecheman was coming from the wrong direction.
I don't know why The Jane Tanner Sighting was deemed to be incorrect, although it has been accepted by Scotland Yard that Jane Tanner saw someone carrying a child.
Perhaps it is a simple as Andy Redwood not knowing as much about Praia da Luz as we all do.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 11, 2015, 01:37:18 PM
I don't need to have read all the files to work that one out Alice. Use your noodle.
"My side" as you called it earlier is hardly a cohesive unit with one overarching homogeneous opinion.
JT says she saw a man carrying a child. Early doors the GNR believed her to be an unreliable witness. I would take it on face value she saw a man as I have no basis for another opinion. Which way the man was traveling or what he was carrying and what he looked like are up for debate as that was the point where the GNR started to wonder about witness reliability; 6/6 vision on some items and acute myopia on others. There is nothing to suggest the Portuguese did not follow up the lead. I thought I had read somewhere the guy had contacted the Leicestershire police on his return......... dunno. It begs the question how SY located the guy and why he retained six year old clothing belonging to his child......dunno that either. According the archiving report the Portuguese police considered: 1.abduction, for sexual exploration(sic) or other (e.g, later adoption, child trafficking, organ trafficking), without homicide; 2. abduction, followed by homicide with (or without) hiding of the corpse; 3. accidental death, with later hiding of the corpse; 4 as a remote hypothesis, the possibility of the minor leaving the apartment by her own means was explored – that would be highly unlikely physically – and after, because of an accident or by a third person intervention, she would have disappeared. Whatever; one by incompetence and one by supersleuthing, if you will, two different police forces arrived at the same conclusion with respect to "Tannerman". Back on yer 'eads!
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: John on November 11, 2015, 02:55:33 PM
Except anyone coming from he night crèche would tend to be going in the opposite direction to the JT statement.
This is something which has never been explained. Redwood made a critical error in not explaining why this guy was going the wrong way if he was returning from the night crèche, could he have wrongly assumed like many do that the night crèche was in the same place as the day crèche ie beside the tennis courts?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: jassi on November 11, 2015, 03:01:42 PM
Could he simply have mistaken his route in the dark? As we don't know his identity, we can't possibly know his destination.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: John on November 11, 2015, 03:06:50 PM
Could he simply have mistaken his route in the dark? As we don't know his identity, we can't possibly know his destination.
I don't see that being the case jassi, the streets were all reasonably well lit. This guy was quite a distance from the night crèche carrying a scantily clad young child in what we know was a chilly windy evening. Surely SY didn't confuse the day crèche for the night crèche? Their refusal to explain this anomaly is concerning to say the least imo.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Anna on November 11, 2015, 03:11:57 PM
If Crecheman gave a statement, which said that he was going in the other direction, then he was obviously mistaken or the man seen by JT, was not him. SY would be able to work out his route from the crèche to his apartment, to rectify this. Surely? Shame that it was not explained in more detail.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 11, 2015, 03:22:15 PM
"My side" as you called it earlier is hardly a cohesive unit with one overarching homogeneous opinion.
JT says she saw a man carrying a child. Early doors the GNR believed her to be an unreliable witness. I would take it on face value she saw a man as I have no basis for another opinion. Which way the man was traveling or what he was carrying and what he looked like are up for debate as that was the point where the GNR started to wonder about witness reliability; 6/6 vision on some items and acute myopia on others. There is nothing to suggest the Portuguese did not follow up the lead. I thought I had read somewhere the guy had contacted the Leicestershire police on his return......... dunno. It begs the question how SY located the guy and why he retained six year old clothing belonging to his child......dunno that either. According the archiving report the Portuguese police considered: 1.abduction, for sexual exploration(sic) or other (e.g, later adoption, child trafficking, organ trafficking), without homicide; 2. abduction, followed by homicide with (or without) hiding of the corpse; 3. accidental death, with later hiding of the corpse; 4 as a remote hypothesis, the possibility of the minor leaving the apartment by her own means was explored – that would be highly unlikely physically – and after, because of an accident or by a third person intervention, she would have disappeared. Whatever; one by incompetence and one by supersleuthing, if you will, two different police forces arrived at the same conclusion with respect to "Tannerman". Back on yer 'eads!
Yes there is. A complete absence of evidence in the files that they made any attempt to ID him, apart from some cockamamie set up with a van, a witness and Murat, with no statement being taken from that witness, despite her alleged positive ID'ing of Murat. As has already been pointed out the police apparently made no attempt to trace any of the parents with children at the crèche that night, which would have been the logical first port of call for any one trying to id and eliminate a man carrying a sleeping child, no matter which direction he was walking in. The conclusion arrived at by the PJ re: Tannerman was that JT was an unreliable witness at best, and a devious liar at worst - this is not the conclusion arrived at by the Met, unless you have evidence to the contrary?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 11, 2015, 03:23:32 PM
I don't see that being the case jassi, the streets were all reasonably well lit. This guy was quite a distance from the night crèche carrying a scantily clad young child in what we know was a chilly windy evening. Surely SY didn't confuse the day crèche for the night crèche? Their refusal to explain this anomaly is concerning to say the least imo.
What refusal to explain? Who has asked them to explain this anomaly?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: John on November 11, 2015, 03:33:07 PM
What refusal to explain? Who has asked them to explain this anomaly?
He is well aware of it. Maybe Mss Wall will be more forthcoming?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Anna on November 11, 2015, 03:37:02 PM
Hopefully someone will explain crecheman, John. My thoughts on this guy....
Why was Tannerman (explained as being Crecheman) going in the wrong direction?......................Because he was tannerman(seen by JT) and not Crecheman. Just my honest opinion of course, on this rather strange puzzle.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 11, 2015, 03:37:30 PM
Hopefully someone will explain crecheman, John. My thoughts on this guy....
Why was Tannerman (explained as being Crecheman) going in the wrong direction?......................Because he was tannerman(seen by JT) and not Crecheman. Just my honest opinion of course, on this rather strange puzzle.
Do you think they were two different men Anna?
Could the clue be in the difference between the pyjama bottoms?
His face was not seen by JT, so how could they be identical? Did crecheman not have a blanket?
Because they both had dark hair, a dark top, beige trousers, dark shoes, a child carried in outstretched arms, a child dressed in pinky white PJs. Refer to the photo of in the opening post.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Anna on November 11, 2015, 04:08:47 PM
Because they both had dark hair, a dark top, beige trousers, dark shoes, a child carried in outstretched arms, a child dressed in pinky white PJs. Refer to the photo of in the opening post.
I have looked at the photos, Alfred and I am not convinced. How many men on holiday would be wearing beige Chinos and a dark jacket on a cold evening? Little girls wear pink pyjamas and why the blanket?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: John on November 11, 2015, 04:10:38 PM
Jane Tanner was adamant that the child she saw being carried had frilly bottomed pj's just like Madeleine yet the tourist who came forward six years after the event produced pj's which did not have frilly bottoms.
So who's kidding who or was Mss Tanner mistaken?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 11, 2015, 04:12:30 PM
DEC 2013
The unnamed dad – spotted in the Praia da Luz resort by McCann family friend Jane Tanner at 9.15pm – was among a number of British witnesses who completed questionnaires for Leicestershire police six years ago.
He is understood to have provided a detailed description of his movements on the night, including the fact he had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished.
Jane Tanner was adamant that the child she saw being carried had frilly bottomed pj's just like Madeleine yet the tourist who came forward six years after the event produced pj's which did not have frilly bottoms.
So who's kidding who or was Mss Tanner mistaken?
Those PJ bottoms a remarkably similar looking to the ones in the artist's impression, frilly cuffs notwithstanding. How adamant was JT about the frills anyway? Was she claiming to be 100% certain?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 11, 2015, 04:15:55 PM
What none of you seem capable of understanding is that JT did not take a photograph of this man, nor note his appearance in close detail at the time, as she didn't give this man much thought as her passed her by that evening, so why anyone would expect her recollection to be 100% accurate is beyond me.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 11, 2015, 04:17:53 PM
What none of you seem capable of understanding is that JT did not take a photograph of this man, nor note his appearance in close detail at the time, as she didn't give this man much thought as her passed her by that evening, so why anyone would expect her recollection to be 100% accurate is beyond me.
If she thought for one second it could've been Madeleine should would have said so at the table on her return. That didn't happen!
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Anna on November 11, 2015, 04:33:02 PM
If she thought for one second it could've been Madeleine should would have said so at the table on her return. That didn't happen!
At that stage she just thought it was a dad carrying a child. She would have looked pretty daft if she alerted to every dad carrying a female child in pink pyjamas, whilst on holiday....Don't you think?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: John on November 11, 2015, 04:36:40 PM
What none of you seem capable of understanding is that JT did not take a photograph of this man, nor note his appearance in close detail at the time, as she didn't give this man much thought as her passed her by that evening, so why anyone would expect her recollection to be 100% accurate is beyond me.
The frilly bottoms could not have been invented, this was one detail she was sure of.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: jassi on November 11, 2015, 04:38:04 PM
At that stage she just thought it was a dad carrying a child. She would have looked pretty daft if she alerted to every dad carrying a female child in pink pyjamas, whilst on holiday....Don't you think?
Do you think she had seen many that week ? Indeed had any of them during their various checks?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 11, 2015, 04:39:36 PM
Yes there is. A complete absence of evidence in the files that they made any attempt to ID him, apart from some cockamamie set up with a van, a witness and Murat, with no statement being taken from that witness, despite her alleged positive ID'ing of Murat. As has already been pointed out the police apparently made no attempt to trace any of the parents with children at the crèche that night, which would have been the logical first port of call for any one trying to id and eliminate a man carrying a sleeping child, no matter which direction he was walking in. The conclusion arrived at by the PJ re: Tannerman was that JT was an unreliable witness at best, and a devious liar at worst - this is not the conclusion arrived at by the Met, unless you have evidence to the contrary?
Back to my earlier post unless you have read all of the files, which is an impossibility I would suggest, you cannot know.
The conclusion that The PJ and The MPS came to was that Tannerman was not the abductor. That's the only conclusion that is relevant. What anyone thought of Jane Tanner is not a conclusion but an observation.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 11, 2015, 04:42:40 PM
Do you think she had seen many that week ? Indeed had any of them during their various checks?
I have no idea, jassi. However I would have thought that it would not be seen as unusual if they did. Just my opinion of course. How many tourists were worried about a man pushing a buggy at 9-9.30pm? Children have to be transported from A to B.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 11, 2015, 04:48:28 PM
Do you think she had seen many that week ? Indeed had any of them during their various checks?
I think it was a fairly usual occurrence in Luz for parents to carry children home from the night crèche. The staff kept blankets for borrowing should the evening be chilly.
Even if she had never seen a parent doing so ... Jane Tanner would have been aware of the existence of the crèche and the fact that children would be collected around that time.
The reasons given for even noticing as much about the man as she did ... were not suspicions he was a kidnapper ... but likened to personal experience at home with her own children.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 11, 2015, 04:51:40 PM
Whichever way you look at it, Crecheman was coming from the wrong direction.
I don't know why The Jane Tanner Sighting was deemed to be incorrect, although it has been accepted by Scotland Yard that Jane Tanner saw someone carrying a child.
Perhaps it is a simple as Andy Redwood not knowing as much about Praia da Luz as we all do.
One would hope that the SIO of the case under the wing of "probably the best police force in the world" would have at least have read up a bit and "walked the job" by that stage. I would just love to see evidence that he hadn't (that's irony).
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 11, 2015, 05:22:19 PM
The frilly bottoms could not have been invented, this was one detail she was sure of.
Not 100% sure, and not even adamant:
And I don’t know whether this made it into my statement, but there was, and this is the thing that convinces me it was her, there was, erm, sort of the pyjamas were, there was some sort of, I thought it was a turn-up, but some sort of design on the bottom of the pyjamas. And I did say it in my first statement and in my second statement I can remember saying it again and, erm, the translator in there, because I said ‘I don’t know whether this made it into my first statement or not’, but the translator sort of went ‘Oh yes, I can remember you going like this’, because I was moving my hands up, but I was sort of talking about something at the bottom of the pyjamas. Because, from my own point of view, and I think, you know, ‘Oh was I trying to’, I can think that I would think ‘Oh maybe a little girl would be wearing pink pyjamas’, so, you know, if you were subconsciously putting things in your head, I can think pink pyjamas, yes, but I wouldn’t think of some detail around the bottom of the pyjamas as a specific thing to, to mention”.
4078 “And when you noticed the detail was it in any colour?”
Reply “I don’t, I didn’t know, I thought there was sort of a pink flowery bit on, bit on it, but, no, I mean, the actual frill itself or turn-up, as I thought it was, I couldn’t think of the colour, but I thought there was pink sort of flowery and sort of like liney bits on the bottom, so”.
4078 “And, overall, what colour would you say the pyjama bottoms were?”
Reply “Erm, I can’t, I can’t remember, I mean, I, I can’t remember, well I can’t remember now, but I think they were sort of whitey but with this, with this pattern on, but then some pink. That’s, that’s what I thought at the time. It’s harder because now I know what the pyjamas were so I can’t”.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 11, 2015, 05:24:31 PM
Back to my earlier post unless you have read all of the files, which is an impossibility I would suggest, you cannot know.
The conclusion that The PJ and The MPS came to was that Tannerman was not the abductor. That's the only conclusion that is relevant. What anyone thought of Jane Tanner is not a conclusion but an observation.
Semantics. The PJ concluded that Jane Tanner was a fantasist or liar and so her witness statement could be ignored or at least viewed with suspicion. The Met concluded that the man JT said she saw actually existed and he turned out to be an innocent father carrying his child.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 11, 2015, 05:27:50 PM
Did the Met themselves say that Crecheman was bringing his child back from the crèche, or was that just how the papers reported it?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 11, 2015, 05:34:58 PM
Which one though, Brietta. Crecheman or Tannerman?
And, who do you think got their directions wrong....JT or crecheman (who is supposed to be Tannerman)
Confusing or what?
I think Jane Tanner may well have seen Madeleine being carried away from the apartment ... and until there is a definitive proof to the contrary ... I will probably continue to do so.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 11, 2015, 05:38:54 PM
Which one though, Brietta. Crecheman or Tannerman?
And, who do you think got their directions wrong....JT or crecheman (who is supposed to be Tannerman)
Confusing or what?
I think Jane Tanner got her observation exactly right, Anna.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 11, 2015, 05:53:26 PM
I would like to hear more about this notion that Andy Redwood should somehow be answerable to his critics on the internet - John? Would you care to shed more light on your earlier comments on this matter please?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 11, 2015, 06:01:15 PM
Did the Met themselves say that Crecheman was bringing his child back from the crèche, or was that just how the papers reported it?
The parents of the children who were at the creche that night were interviewed and one couple thought that it might have been them…………… The man who remembered what kind of clothing he and his child were wearing.
From 21.40 on video
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 11, 2015, 06:06:09 PM
Anyone who believes that the Met has pretended to have found a holidaymaker to eliminate JT's sighting, deliberately in order to focus on Smithman, could they please explain why Redwood took time in his interview to simultaneously place emphasis on the pre-planned abduction theory, and the sightings of men seen lurking around the apartment, if his actual aim was to somehow spook the McCanns into revealing all? How does that work then? Why did he talk about pre-planned abduction, when instead he could have talked about the Smithman sighting as a panicked man, possibly a holiday maker, desperate to relieve himself of a recently deceased body, wouldn't that have made more sense if what you think is correct?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24528530
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 11, 2015, 06:08:48 PM
The parents of the children who were at the creche that night were interviewed and one couple thought that it might have been them…………… The man who remembered what kind of clothing he and his child were wearing.
From 21.50 on video
Thanks Anna.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 11, 2015, 06:41:13 PM
Anyone who believes that the Met has pretended to have found a holidaymaker to eliminate JT's sighting, deliberately in order to focus on Smithman, could they please explain why Redwood took time in his interview to simultaneously place emphasis on the pre-planned abduction theory, and the sightings of men seen lurking around the apartment, if his actual aim was to somehow spook the McCanns into revealing all? How does that work then? Why did he talk about pre-planned abduction, when instead he could have talked about the Smithman sighting as a panicked man, possibly a holiday maker, desperate to relieve himself of a recently deceased body, wouldn't that have made more sense if what you think is correct?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24528530
I would have no reason to subscribe to that theory. DCI Redwood did however place emphasis on finding out who another man, sighted carrying a child toward the beach, was [Smithman?] at the beginning of the video. With regard to the video it seems the interviewer was trying to lead DCI Redwood down the planned abduction and "surveillance" lines without too much success. DCI Redwood hardly introduced the possibility with alacrity as a potential he wished to discuss at length with the interviewer. Since then people have been interviewed and so on with no significant result we are aware of.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 11, 2015, 06:57:25 PM
I would have no reason to subscribe to that theory. DCI Redwood did however place emphasis on finding out who another man, sighted carrying a child toward the beach, was [Smithman?] at the beginning of the video. With regard to the video it seems the interviewer was trying to lead DCI Redwood down the planned abduction and "surveillance" lines without too much success. DCI Redwood hardly introduced the possibility with alacrity as a potential he wished to discuss at length with the interviewer. Since then people have been interviewed and so on with no significant result we are aware of.
Why did he introduce the subject of people seen lurking around the apartment then?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 11, 2015, 07:04:23 PM
When asked whether he believed the family was being watched, he said: "The physical evidence demonstrates to us that there are people, unexplained people, possibly doing just that.
"By the way the witnesses have described them ... lurking around in the very close proximity from where Madeleine was taken."
He said that one reading of the evidence indicated the abduction had "all the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction that would undoubtedly have involved reconnaissance". http://news.sky.com/story/1154733/madeleine-mccann-kidnap-was-pre-planned
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 11, 2015, 07:05:11 PM
Rebelo was seen walking the route as described by Jane Tanner when he took over... so he was obviously covering all the bases.
Given that a child was missing and a man was seen walking away from the place of the disappearance carrying one around what might have been the relevant time ... I think it is rather an incompetent police force who would not be ripping up the cobbles to determine who he was ~ where he had been ~ and where he was going.
Jane Tanner gave them the information after their arrival ... why wasn't it prioritised for action?
If the info flow was as JT says, then my personal priority would have been getting the dogs taken in that direction (police) and getting the guys in the Tapas group to hunt in that direction. Neither happened.
If JT really thought this was suspicious, should she not have fed this information to the MW search to get them to focus on that direction? That did not appear to happen either.
When JT's info DID get through, there was zero to connect it to the OC night crèche. So I cannot see how the PJ should have figured out such a connection, at that time.
I did not follow the case at the time, so I may well be wrong about this, but here goes. The description of JT's man was published on 25 May 2007. Not the sketch of JT's man, which came out later, but just a description.
How were the PJ supposed to connect an unidentified man, heading in totally the wrong direction, with the OC crèche?
Not, should this have been followed up, because that is blindingly obvious. Rather, how should the PJ have concluded that Tannerman might be a wandering Crècheman? That's the bit I cannot see.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 11, 2015, 07:07:12 PM
If the info flow was as JT says, then my personal priority would have been getting the dogs taken in that direction (police) and getting the guys in the Tapas group to hunt in that direction. Neither happened.
If JT really thought this was suspicious, should she not have fed this information to the MW search to get them to focus on that direction? That did not appear to happen either.
When JT's info DID get through, there was zero to connect it to the OC night crèche. So I cannot see how the PJ should have figured out such a connection, at that time.
I did not follow the case at the time, so I may well be wrong about this, but here goes. The description of JT's man was published on 25 May 2007. Not the sketch of JT's man, which came out later, but just a description.
How were the PJ supposed to connect an unidentified man, heading in totally the wrong direction, with the OC crèche?
Not, should this have been followed up, because that is blindingly obvious. Rather, how should the PJ have concluded that Tannerman might be a wandering Crècheman? That's the bit I cannot see.
It's fairly simple - who, apart from a child abductor, would have cause to be carrying a child around in pjs at 9.15pm at night? That leads to a very obvious answer...
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 11, 2015, 07:25:23 PM
Yes there is. A complete absence of evidence in the files that they made any attempt to ID him, apart from some cockamamie set up with a van, a witness and Murat, with no statement being taken from that witness, despite her alleged positive ID'ing of Murat. As has already been pointed out the police apparently made no attempt to trace any of the parents with children at the crèche that night, which would have been the logical first port of call for any one trying to id and eliminate a man carrying a sleeping child, no matter which direction he was walking in. The conclusion arrived at by the PJ re: Tannerman was that JT was an unreliable witness at best, and a devious liar at worst - this is not the conclusion arrived at by the Met, unless you have evidence to the contrary?
If you believe that the PJ knew that a night crèche operated in the OC within the first few days then you are working with an understanding of Luz/Ocean Club that simply did not exist.
If the records are correct, the Portimão PJ may have visited Luz re some burglaries, a possible sexual assault in 2005, and a beach rape around 1998. What did that tell them about an OC night crèche? Nowt.
The bulk of the OC staff appear to have given statements to 11 PJ officers drafted in from Lisbon.
How much does a PJ officer from Lisbon know about a night crèche in Luz?
I have now lived here for about 3.5 years. The one and only reason I know about the night crèche is the Madeleine case. The crèche is NOT the talk of the town.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 11, 2015, 07:38:10 PM
Did the Met themselves say that Crecheman was bringing his child back from the crèche, or was that just how the papers reported it?
Crimewatch 2013 transcript.
21:42 The Ocean Club night crèche One of the things that we picked up very quickly was the fact that there was a night crèche. It was operating from the main Ocean Club reception. 8 families had left 11 children in there, and one particular family we spoke to gave us information that was really interesting and exciting.
In fact I would say it was a revelation moment. Having discussed with them what they were doing on the night, they believed that they could be the Tanner sighting.
22:12 Crèche dad 1 The British father had collected his two-year-old daughter from the crèche. He had been walking near the McCanns apartment: This is the actual photograph taken by Metropolitan Police officers of the man dressed in the kind of clothes he wore on holiday. This image was compared to the artist's impression.
It is uncannily similar, and we know the pyjamas that their child was wearing. And that again is uncannily similar.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 11, 2015, 07:47:16 PM
It's fairly simple - who, apart from a child abductor, would have cause to be carrying a child around in pjs at 9.15pm at night? That leads to a very obvious answer...
No it doesn't.
The obvious answer is Smithman was taking his child home from where he had spent the evening. No crèche involved. As the whether this is correct or not ...
Tannerman heading the wrong way. Quite probably totally innocent also, just a poor fit for Crècheman.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 11, 2015, 08:19:11 PM
Why did he introduce the subject of people seen lurking around the apartment then?
He says why on the video. It could be they were suspects or people who might have useful information. Thus far they have not been arrested that we are aware of.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 11, 2015, 08:47:16 PM
If you believe that the PJ knew that a night crèche operated in the OC within the first few days then you are working with an understanding of Luz/Ocean Club that simply did not exist.
If the records are correct, the Portimão PJ may have visited Luz re some burglaries, a possible sexual assault in 2005, and a beach rape around 1998. What did that tell them about an OC night crèche? Nowt.
The bulk of the OC staff appear to have given statements to 11 PJ officers drafted in from Lisbon.
How much does a PJ officer from Lisbon know about a night crèche in Luz?
I have now lived here for about 3.5 years. The one and only reason I know about the night crèche is the Madeleine case. The crèche is NOT the talk of the town.
Sorry, I was under the impression that police officers investigating a serious crime make it their business to find out everything and anything that may be relevant to solving that crime, not wait for people to tell them about it. Why wouldn't police operating in and around holiday destinations have some inkling about holidaymakers using creche facilities? It's hardly a new fangled concept is it? Why did it not occur to them to ask the question of themselves and those around them: "why would a man be carrying a sleeping child through the streets at night in this area" and discover that, actually it was a fairly common occurence in and around the OC because of that creche? Why do you keep making excuses for the police in Portugal?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 11, 2015, 08:48:09 PM
He says why on the video. It could be they were suspects or people who might have useful information. Thus far they have not been arrested that we are aware of.
I refer you to post #80
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 11, 2015, 10:32:40 PM
Yeah I read that. Sky News' interpretation of the video of DCI Redwood you posted earlier?. Lets look again and highlight different words.
When asked whether he believed the family was being watched, he said: "The physical evidence demonstrates to us that there are people, unexplained people, possibly doing just that.
"By the way the witnesses have described them ... lurking around in the very close proximity from where Madeleine was taken."
He said that one reading of the evidence indicated the abduction had "all the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction that would undoubtedly have involved reconnaissance". So? What else were they possibly doing? Which witnesses? What other readings are there? the implication being there are others. Do you think this Sky News report is a definitive MPS statement?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 11, 2015, 10:51:36 PM
Yeah I read that. Sky News' interpretation of the video of DCI Redwood you posted earlier?. Lets look again and highlight different words.
When asked whether he believed the family was being watched, he said: "The physical evidence demonstrates to us that there are people, unexplained people, possibly doing just that.
"By the way the witnesses have described them ... lurking around in the very close proximity from where Madeleine was taken."
He said that one reading of the evidence indicated the abduction had "all the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction that would undoubtedly have involved reconnaissance". So? What else were they possibly doing? Which witnesses? What other readings are there? the implication being there are others. Do you think this Sky News report is a definitive MPS statement?
Andy Redwood would be very foolish to state definitively that Madeleine was definitely abducted and these individuals were definitely involved, however what we can glean from his words, even through the Sky spin machine, is that the Met were taking very seriously indeed the theory that Madeleine was taken in a pre-planned abduction, and they announced that they were pursuing this theory at the same time as the "greased" (to use your favoured terminology) Tannerman. This takes me back to the point I made earlier. See above.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 11, 2015, 11:11:47 PM
Andy Redwood would be very foolish to state definitively that Madeleine was definitely abducted and these individuals were definitely involved, however what we can glean from his words, even through the Sky spin machine, is that the Met were taking very seriously indeed the theory that Madeleine was taken in a pre-planned abduction, and they announced that they were pursuing this theory at the same time as the "greased" *(to use your favoured terminology) Tannerman. This takes me back to the point I made earlier. See above.
It was an option among others. To ignore it would have been slapdash. Even the PJ covered more than one possibility. We can now look at it with two years hindsight. Has that option delivered suspects or arrests? So what next?
* "Fragged" is my favoured term but I will be accused of being "Stuckey II" if I don't ring the changes with "greased" "creamed" and "spread".
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 12, 2015, 07:35:55 AM
Sorry, I was under the impression that police officers investigating a serious crime make it their business to find out everything and anything that may be relevant to solving that crime, not wait for people to tell them about it. Why wouldn't police operating in and around holiday destinations have some inkling about holidaymakers using creche facilities? It's hardly a new fangled concept is it? Why did it not occur to them to ask the question of themselves and those around them: "why would a man be carrying a sleeping child through the streets at night in this area" and discover that, actually it was a fairly common occurence in and around the OC because of that creche? Why do you keep making excuses for the police in Portugal?
I don't keep making excuses for anyone, I simply prefer reality.
Why did Redwood dig up central Luz? The bit he dug up is an integral part of the one-way system. Both Rua 25 de Abril and the seemingly meaningless road across the mound are essential to traffic flow. Presumably Redwood looked at Streetview and thought they were minor.
Why did Redwood not twig that 3 nannies in the search put Godfrey Barrington Norton and his Escort van on top of the mound that night. Well, that would be because he wouldn't understand that there are 2 places in Luz that people camp. One is on the flat and can be ruled out as the nanny said the van was on a hill. The hill people camp on (motorhomes, not tents) is the mound that SY dug up.
So Redwood did not understand the Luz traffic system or where folks camp. Did this make him look a tw..? To people who understand both, the answer is a definite yes. So here is the unapologetic but realistic answer. Redwood did not understand Luz therefore he could not reach this conclusion.
So, is Redwood a tw.. for not getting boots on ground to actually understand Luz? I have my own opinion on that. Please feel free to make up your own mind.
Is Nicola Wall a tw.. for not getting boots on ground? I have my own opinion on that. Please feel free to make up your own mind.
Here's another thought. The nanny in question could not identify where the hill was. So ... why not? After all, Luz is a very compact place. From memory she had been out here for about a month. Surely by then she should have known where the hill was in Luz? That would have tied up everything nicely. But she didn't, according to her statement. Why not? 1) She would have been on foot (no car). She would have had little familiarity with the 1-way system and no need to drive on either 25 de Abril or the road through the mound. 2) The one and only reason I can think of why she might have gone near there is to go to a small take-away. It is the one that says Kebab/Pizza in Streetview, though it has been through at least 2 changes since 2007. She would not have seen the mound even if she did go there.
So the nanny had no reason to know where the hill was, and unsurprisingly, she did not know where the hill was.
Nor did the PJ.
Nor did Redwood.
So, let's turn to Amaral. He makes Luz 'closed' early in the evening of 3 May 2007. This is important, as if Luz was closed, then obviously Smithman could wander at will. My own take is that around 70 commercial establishments were open in Luz AT SMITHMAN TIME i.e. 10pm. With this info, Smithman is totally innocent, or EXTREMELY lucky, or he has a very good knowledge of Luz.
If you really believe the PJ should have mapped Luz to an extent that they knew there was a crèche before those 8 families went home to wherever, try answering the following.
1) I believe that there was at least one other organisation offering sports holidays in Luz at the time. I have not followed up on this as I can't see the relevance. But is the OC crèche the only one that was operating that night, or should we be considering more?
2) Smithman hardly fits with the OC crèche, so we have more to explain than the OC crèche.
3) How about a test of Luz in another factor that is important? How many commercial establishments in Luz ran large screen TVs on 3 May? I am sifting through this because I believe it is relevant to cracking the telephone traffic that evening. And that info has to go to OG before it shuts down because once it does, there is no way to access the data. Should the PJ have established this, when they got the phone data?
It is 8.5 years on and there is still a lot that needs to be mapped, so lets have a splash of reality rather that simplistic PJ-bashing. No one has covered themselves in glory on this one.
My question is still how SY got its hands on a crèche register after 6 years, when said register is not in the PJ files. I am having trouble believing this actually happened.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 12, 2015, 08:03:32 AM
I don't keep making excuses for anyone, I simply prefer reality.
Why did Redwood dig up central Luz? The bit he dug up is an integral part of the one-way system. Both Rua 25 de Abril and the seemingly meaningless road across the mound are essential to traffic flow. Presumably Redwood looked at Streetview and thought they were minor.
Why did Redwood not twig that 3 nannies in the search put Godfrey Barrington Norton and his Escort van on top of the mound that night. Well, that would be because he wouldn't understand that there are 2 places in Luz that people camp. One is on the flat and can be ruled out as the nanny said the van was on a hill. The hill people camp on (motorhomes, not tents) is the mound that SY dug up.
So Redwood did not understand the Luz traffic system or where folks camp. Did this make him look a tw..? To people who understand both, the answer is a definite yes. So here is the unapologetic but realistic answer. Redwood did not understand Luz therefore he could not reach this conclusion.
So, is Redwood a tw.. for not getting boots on ground to actually understand Luz? I have my own opinion on that. Please feel free to make up your own mind.
Is Nicola Wall a tw.. for not getting boots on ground? I have my own opinion on that. Please feel free to make up your own mind.
Here's another thought. The nanny in question could not identify where the hill was. So ... why not? After all, Luz is a very compact place. From memory she had been out here for about a month. Surely by then she should have known where the hill was in Luz? That would have tied up everything nicely. But she didn't, according to her statement. Why not? 1) She would have been on foot (no car). She would have had little familiarity with the 1-way system and no need to drive on either 25 de Abril or the road through the mound. 2) The one and only reason I can think of why she might have gone near there is to go to a small take-away. It is the one that says Kebab/Pizza in Streetview, though it has been through at least 2 changes since 2007. She would not have seen the mound even if she did go there.
So the nanny had no reason to know where the hill was, and unsurprisingly, she did not know where the hill was.
Nor did the PJ.
Nor did Redwood.
So, let's turn to Amaral. He makes Luz 'closed' early in the evening of 3 May 2007. This is important, as if Luz was closed, then obviously Smithman could wander at will. My own take is that around 70 commercial establishments were open in Luz AT SMITHMAN TIME i.e. 10pm. With this info, Smithman is totally innocent, or EXTREMELY lucky, or he has a very good knowledge of Luz.
If you really believe the PJ should have mapped Luz to an extent that they knew there was a crèche before those 8 families went home to wherever, try answering the following.
1) I believe that there was at least one other organisation offering sports holidays in Luz at the time. I have not followed up on this as I can't see the relevance. But is the OC crèche the only one that was operating that night, or should we be considering more?
2) Smithman hardly fits with the OC crèche, so we have more to explain than the OC crèche.
3) How about a test of Luz in another factor that is important? How many commercial establishments in Luz ran large screen TVs on 3 May? I am sifting through this because I believe it is relevant to cracking the telephone traffic that evening. And that info has to go to OG before it shuts down because once it does, there is no way to access the data. Should the PJ have established this, when they got the phone data?
It is 8.5 years on and there is still a lot that needs to be mapped, so lets have a splash of reality rather that simplistic PJ-bashing. No one has covered themselves in glory on this one.
My question is still how SY got its hands on a crèche register after 6 years, when said register is not in the PJ files. I am having trouble believing this actually happened.
Where did I suggest that the PJ should have established who was using the night creche BEFORE the users went home? Anytime during their botched investigation would have been good, that's - what? - 18 months? As for your questions, don't you think the PJ should have found out the answers to them too? And as for your repeated use of the T word in you questions concerning Redwood and Wall - well, I'm surprised at you, frankly. I thought you were better than that!
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 12, 2015, 09:33:43 AM
Where did I suggest that the PJ should have established who was using the night creche BEFORE the users went home? Anytime during their botched investigation would have been good, that's - what? - 18 months? As for your questions, don't you think the PJ should have found out the answers to them too? And as for your repeated use of the T word in you questions concerning Redwood and Wall - well, I'm surprised at you, frankly. I thought you were better than that!
Leicestershire Police were busy in the Uk on the PJ's behalf. Their investigation included correspondence from Crimestoppers and house to house questionnaires. Either one of those could have included details of who used the night creche. What we don't know is how that information was dealt with. Did LP look at this evidence and highlight the ones they considered important or did they simply pass all of it to the PJ unread? Either way someone saying he collected his child from the creche wouldn't have been identified as being the same person who was seen walking towards the creche. https://leics.police.uk/media/uploads/library/file/op-task-publication-strategy.pdf
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 12, 2015, 10:27:09 AM
Where did I suggest that the PJ should have established who was using the night creche BEFORE the users went home? Anytime during their botched investigation would have been good, that's - what? - 18 months? As for your questions, don't you think the PJ should have found out the answers to them too? And as for your repeated use of the T word in you questions concerning Redwood and Wall - well, I'm surprised at you, frankly. I thought you were better than that!
If OG hasn't, why bash the PJ?
By the way, where I come from, if you change the a in the T word to an i or an o it means exactly the same. It means 'not particularly intelligent' and nothing more.
'botched investigation' Is OG's investigation botched because it did something 'dumber' than the PJ managed?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 12, 2015, 11:18:26 AM
By the way, where I come from, if you change the a in the T word to an i or an o it means exactly the same. It means 'not particularly intelligent' and nothing more.
'botched investigation' Is OG's investigation botched because it did something 'dumber' than the PJ managed?
What do you mean "If OG hasn't"? OG found and eliminated the key suspect! Basically what you seem to be saying is: The PJ shouldn't have been expected to ask themselves or anyone else in PdL during the course of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance what reasons a man could legitimately have for walking through PdL that night carrying a child, in order to eliminate him from the enquiry. I disagree.
PS: If you'd written 'twit' your word would have passed the word censor.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 12, 2015, 11:47:12 AM
What do you mean "If OG hasn't"? OG found and eliminated the key suspect! Basically what you seem to be saying is: The PJ shouldn't have been expected to ask themselves or anyone else in PdL during the course of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance what reasons a man could legitimately have for walking through PdL that night carrying a child, in order to eliminate him from the enquiry. I disagree.
PS: If you'd written 'twit' your word would have passed the word censor.
OG hasn't. That is why the title of the thread is ...
Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
So where was Smithman going?
Thank you for the PS. It reminds me of the true story that the RSPBS had an auto censor that allowed the word 'hen' for a female bird, but it cut out the word for a male bird.
Ah, the good old days!
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 12, 2015, 11:49:01 AM
OG hasn't. That is why the title of the thread is ...
Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
So where was Smithman going?
Thank you for the PS. It reminds me of the true story that the RSPBS had an auto censor that allowed the word 'hen' for a female bird, but it cut out the word for a male bird.
Ah, the good old days!
So, is it your opinion that OG have failed to identify Tannerman? This thread has nothing to do with Smithman, so let's keep on topic.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 12, 2015, 12:03:14 PM
What do you mean "If OG hasn't"? OG found and eliminated the key suspect! Basically what you seem to be saying is: The PJ shouldn't have been expected to ask themselves or anyone else in PdL during the course of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance what reasons a man could legitimately have for walking through PdL that night carrying a child, in order to eliminate him from the enquiry. I disagree.
PS: If you'd written 'twit' your word would have passed the word censor.
Really? Given the ruling document in the case is the archiving process, where a crime could not be identified, it is a bit of a nonsense to suggest there could have been a key suspect for an unidentified crime.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 12, 2015, 12:10:20 PM
Really? Given the ruling document in the case is the archiving process, where a crime could not be identified, it is a bit of a nonsense to suggest there could have been a key suspect for an unidentified crime.
it isn't nonsense...its a key suspect for a suspected crime
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 12, 2015, 12:13:03 PM
Really? Given the ruling document in the case is the archiving process, where a crime could not be identified, it is a bit of a nonsense to suggest there could have been a key suspect for an unidentified crime.
So Tannerman was not a key suspect. OK my mistake. What was he then? Smithman not a key suspect either then I guess.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: John on November 12, 2015, 12:30:38 PM
Another way of looking at this whole mystery is to ask the question, what are the chances of two men fitting the same description clad in similar clothing carrying a barefoot young child also similarly clad, in the exact same way at exactly 9.15pm on 3rd May 2007?
There was a similar situation in the Luke Mitchell murder of Jodi Jones case where two identically dressed youths were claimed to have occupied the same space at exactly the same time on an almost deserted road. Not likely imo.
DCI Redwood was of the opinion that Tanner did not see an abductor which if true means that Jane Tanner was mistaken about the frilly bottoms.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: John on November 12, 2015, 12:43:01 PM
I would like to hear more about this notion that Andy Redwood should somehow be answerable to his critics on the internet - John? Would you care to shed more light on your earlier comments on this matter please?
It's very simple, Mr Redwood should have explained why his crècheman was walking in the wrong direction had he been returning from the night crèche.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Anna on November 12, 2015, 12:51:16 PM
Another way of looking at this whole mystery is to ask the question, what are the chances of two men fitting the same description clad in similar clothing carrying a barefoot young child also similarly clad, in the exact same way at exactly 9.15pm on 3rd May 2007?
There was a similar situation in the Luke Mitchell murder of Jodi Jones case where two identically dressed youths were claimed to have occupied the same space at exactly the same time on an almost deserted road. Not likely imo.
DCI Redwood was of the opinion that Tanner did not see an abductor which if true means that Jane Tanner was mistaken about the frilly bottoms.
Who said that he wore exactly the same clothes (as many tourists, I must add) or that it was at exactly 9.15?
I am not sure what times the creche operated at night, but it seems a bit early to be collecting a child, unless he was taking her there of course.
We have no statement from Crecheman .but apparently as parents of one of the 11 children in the creche that night, those parents thought that it was possibly them. That is according to the crime watch video already posted on here.
How could he remember exactly what he and the child was wearing that night?
Please correct me if I remembered anything incorrectly.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 12, 2015, 12:56:36 PM
Another way of looking at this whole mystery is to ask the question, what are the chances of two men fitting the same description clad in similar clothing carrying a barefoot young child also similarly clad, in the exact same way at exactly 9.15pm on 3rd May 2007?
There was a similar situation in the Luke Mitchell murder of Jodi Jones case where two identically dressed youths were claimed to have occupied the same space at exactly the same time on an almost deserted road. Not likely imo.
DCI Redwood was of the opinion that Tanner did not see an abductor which if true means that Jane Tanner was mistaken about the frilly bottoms.
I spoke to a friend who was walking in the direction of his home.
A few minutes later I drove past him and wondered why he was walking in the direction he was.
A few minutes after that, I passed him as he was approaching his garden gate.
The guy I had passed after speaking to my friend was dressed in identical clothing, had the same receding hair and was wearing the same style thick rimmed glasses. I would unhesitatingly have identified the stranger as him had I not seen him entering his property.
So it does happen ... and my recent experience proved to me that eye witness testimony can be unreliable even if one knows a person very well.
Even before misidentifying my friend, one of the things which has impressed me about Jane Tanner's sighting was the vagueness of it and her refusal to put an identity to a person whose features she had not seen.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: John on November 12, 2015, 12:59:17 PM
Who said that he wore exactly the same clothes (as many tourists, I must add) or that it was at exactly 9.15?
I am not sure what times the creche operated at night, but it seems a bit early to be collecting a child, unless he was taking her there of course.
We have no statement from Crecheman .but apparently as parents of one of the 11 children in the creche that night, those parents thought that it was possibly them. That is according to the crime watch video already posted on here.
How could he remember exactly what he and the child was wearing that night?
Please correct me if I remembered anything incorrectly.
In his Crimewatch interview Redwood refers to the pj's as being "uncannily similar". But they weren't if Jane's description is correct.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: John on November 12, 2015, 01:01:50 PM
I spoke to a friend who was walking in the direction of his home.
A few minutes later I drove past him and wondered why he was walking in the direction he was.
A few minutes after that, I passed him as he was approaching his garden gate.
The guy I had passed after speaking to my friend was dressed in identical clothing, had the same receding hair and was wearing the same style thick rimmed glasses. I would unhesitatingly have identified the stranger as him had I not seen him entering his property.
So it does happen ... and my recent experience proved to me that eye witness testimony can be unreliable even if one knows a person very well.
Even before misidentifying my friend, one of the things which has impressed me about Jane Tanner's sighting was the vagueness of it and her refusal to put an identity to a person whose features she had not seen.
Oh I agree, it does happen but on the night a three-year-old just happened to disappear?
With so many people wandering around the block how did any potential abductor ever have a window of opportunity?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Anna on November 12, 2015, 01:09:01 PM
Apart from the fact that a child disappeared that night, it makes no difference to the dressed alike tourists walking about that night, or in fact any night. I have seen photos of some the tapas group wearing very similar outfits......That's what people wear on holiday. JT did not see a face.
ETA Crecheman's times were approx. There was a window at this time 9.15pm. as it was known that Gerry had just checked. It would not be known that Gerry had stopped to talk to Jez or that JT child was sick.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 12, 2015, 01:16:05 PM
I don't keep making excuses for anyone, I simply prefer reality.
Why did Redwood dig up central Luz? The bit he dug up is an integral part of the one-way system. Both Rua 25 de Abril and the seemingly meaningless road across the mound are essential to traffic flow. Presumably Redwood looked at Streetview and thought they were minor.
Why did Redwood not twig that 3 nannies in the search put Godfrey Barrington Norton and his Escort van on top of the mound that night. Well, that would be because he wouldn't understand that there are 2 places in Luz that people camp. One is on the flat and can be ruled out as the nanny said the van was on a hill. The hill people camp on (motorhomes, not tents) is the mound that SY dug up.
So Redwood did not understand the Luz traffic system or where folks camp. Did this make him look a tw..? To people who understand both, the answer is a definite yes. So here is the unapologetic but realistic answer. Redwood did not understand Luz therefore he could not reach this conclusion.
So, is Redwood a tw.. for not getting boots on ground to actually understand Luz? I have my own opinion on that. Please feel free to make up your own mind.
Is Nicola Wall a tw.. for not getting boots on ground? I have my own opinion on that. Please feel free to make up your own mind.
Here's another thought. The nanny in question could not identify where the hill was. So ... why not? After all, Luz is a very compact place. From memory she had been out here for about a month. Surely by then she should have known where the hill was in Luz? That would have tied up everything nicely. But she didn't, according to her statement. Why not? 1) She would have been on foot (no car). She would have had little familiarity with the 1-way system and no need to drive on either 25 de Abril or the road through the mound. 2) The one and only reason I can think of why she might have gone near there is to go to a small take-away. It is the one that says Kebab/Pizza in Streetview, though it has been through at least 2 changes since 2007. She would not have seen the mound even if she did go there.
So the nanny had no reason to know where the hill was, and unsurprisingly, she did not know where the hill was.
Nor did the PJ.
Nor did Redwood.
So, let's turn to Amaral. He makes Luz 'closed' early in the evening of 3 May 2007. This is important, as if Luz was closed, then obviously Smithman could wander at will. My own take is that around 70 commercial establishments were open in Luz AT SMITHMAN TIME i.e. 10pm. With this info, Smithman is totally innocent, or EXTREMELY lucky, or he has a very good knowledge of Luz.
If you really believe the PJ should have mapped Luz to an extent that they knew there was a crèche before those 8 families went home to wherever, try answering the following.
1) I believe that there was at least one other organisation offering sports holidays in Luz at the time. I have not followed up on this as I can't see the relevance. But is the OC crèche the only one that was operating that night, or should we be considering more?
2) Smithman hardly fits with the OC crèche, so we have more to explain than the OC crèche.
3) How about a test of Luz in another factor that is important? How many commercial establishments in Luz ran large screen TVs on 3 May? I am sifting through this because I believe it is relevant to cracking the telephone traffic that evening. And that info has to go to OG before it shuts down because once it does, there is no way to access the data. Should the PJ have established this, when they got the phone data?
It is 8.5 years on and there is still a lot that needs to be mapped, so lets have a splash of reality rather that simplistic PJ-bashing. No one has covered themselves in glory on this one.
My question is still how SY got its hands on a crèche register after 6 years, when said register is not in the PJ files. I am having trouble believing this actually happened.
Barrington Godfrey Norton - The dogs should have examined his van and apartment 1 of Vila King Palm to completely eliminate him. Anybody discovered outdoors alone is a lead that needs completely eliminating.
When asked how he found out about the disappearance, he mentioned that at about 01.00 of 4th May when he was asleep at the usual place (camping site near the beach), he noticed flashing blue lights, immediately presuming that they came from a police car. At about 01.30 he was approached by OC staff, telling him that at about 22.00 the girl in question had disappeared from the resort.
He remembers that at about 07.30 on 4th May he was approached at the same site by GNR officers who carried out a search of his vehicle, but did not find anything unusual.
On this date, I state that in the current process, that from information provided by the OC resort, it was possible to establish that, in accordance with the statements by Barrington Godfrey Norton, a Canadian couple had stayed at the resort during the period between 23-04-2007 and 06-05-2007.
With relation to their identities, they were L**** E*** V***** and S*** P*** V****.
It should be mentioned that during that period, both of them stayed in apartment 1 of Vila King Palm in P da L.
8th May 2007
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 12, 2015, 01:29:34 PM
Another way of looking at this whole mystery is to ask the question, what are the chances of two men fitting the same description clad in similar clothing carrying a barefoot young child also similarly clad, in the exact same way at exactly 9.15pm on 3rd May 2007?
There was a similar situation in the Luke Mitchell murder of Jodi Jones case where two identically dressed youths were claimed to have occupied the same space at exactly the same time on an almost deserted road. Not likely imo.
DCI Redwood was of the opinion that Tanner did not see an abductor which if true means that Jane Tanner was mistaken about the frilly bottoms.
I posted a direct quote from Jane Tanner in which she categorically does not say "frilly bottoms" with any great certainty.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 12, 2015, 01:34:06 PM
Oh I agree, it does happen but on the night a three-year-old just happened to disappear?
With so many people wandering around the block how did any potential abductor ever have a window of opportunity?
The Smith sighting was not reported for a fortnight after the event and seems to have been given as much attention as Jane Tanner's was. Although in my opinion Jane's sighting, paces from the McCann apartment was one which should have been given saturation response immediately the localised search did not produce a result on what might have been a wandered child.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 12, 2015, 01:53:01 PM
I posted a direct quote from Jane Tanner in which she categorically does not say "frilly bottoms" with any great certainty.
"The artists impression was created by Portuguese police following interviews with Ms Tanner". Complete with frilly bottoms (see opening post). So at some point she remembered they were frilly.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 12, 2015, 01:57:49 PM
"The artists impression was created by Portuguese police following interviews with Ms Tanner". Complete with frilly bottoms (see opening post). So at some point she remembered they were frilly.
She said there was some design on the bottom, maybe a cuff or frills - he had to draw something!
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 12, 2015, 01:58:19 PM
"The artists impression was created by Portuguese police following interviews with Ms Tanner". Complete with frilly bottoms (see opening post). So at some point she remembered they were frilly.
Nope ... I think the one to which you refer is 'eggman'.
Artist's impression of suspected abductor of Madeleine McCann, known as the Tanner image or Tanner report Source The source is Kate McCann, Madeleine: Our Daughter's Disappearance and the Continuing Search for Her, Transworld Publishers, 2011, between pages 352 and 353.
The copyright holder is Madeleine's Fund, which commissioned and published the image in 2008.
It was created by a forensic artist working for the Fund and is based on a description given by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns, who saw a man carrying a child at 21:15 hours on the night of the disappearance. She saw the man very close to the McCanns' apartment, 45 minutes before the alarm was raised. The image has no commercial value and has been widely published and discussed.
The Tanner image has become an iconic representation of the investigation into her disappearance. An innocent man stepped forward to say he was probably the man in the image, although it is not known when this happened. Scotland Yard detectives photographed the man in the same clothes and pose as on the night of the disappearance; the clothes his daughter was wearing also matched Tanner's description of the child she had seen.
The image is therefore discussed now as a possible mistake that may have been made, which led detectives in the wrong direction for several years and gave them a false timeline. See here for an example of the coverage about the image. Also an article here about this image's relationship to another one of a possible suspect. Discussion in the Wikipedia article here and here. The lead investigator for Scotland Yard described their decision to rule the image a red herring as a "revelation moment": "DCI Redwood said it was a 'revelation moment' when police discovered that the man seen by McCanns' friend Jane Tanner at 9.15pm was almost certainly an innocent British holiday-maker collecting his two-year-old daughter from a nearby creche." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Artist%27s_impression,_Madeleine_McCann_disappearance.jpg
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 12, 2015, 02:08:18 PM
She said there was some design on the bottom, maybe a cuff or frills - he had to draw something!
So your postulation is she signed off on something she knew wasn't particularly accurate but coincidentally bore a remarkable resemblance to "yer actual" ? So really the artists impression is little more than GISS?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 12, 2015, 02:31:32 PM
Nope ... I think the one to which you refer is 'eggman'.
Artist's impression of suspected abductor of Madeleine McCann, known as the Tanner image or Tanner report Source The source is Kate McCann, Madeleine: Our Daughter's Disappearance and the Continuing Search for Her, Transworld Publishers, 2011, between pages 352 and 353.
The copyright holder is Madeleine's Fund, which commissioned and published the image in 2008.
It was created by a forensic artist working for the Fund and is based on a description given by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns, who saw a man carrying a child at 21:15 hours on the night of the disappearance. She saw the man very close to the McCanns' apartment, 45 minutes before the alarm was raised. The image has no commercial value and has been widely published and discussed.
The Tanner image has become an iconic representation of the investigation into her disappearance. An innocent man stepped forward to say he was probably the man in the image, although it is not known when this happened. Scotland Yard detectives photographed the man in the same clothes and pose as on the night of the disappearance; the clothes his daughter was wearing also matched Tanner's description of the child she had seen.
The image is therefore discussed now as a possible mistake that may have been made, which led detectives in the wrong direction for several years and gave them a false timeline. See here for an example of the coverage about the image. Also an article here about this image's relationship to another one of a possible suspect. Discussion in the Wikipedia article here and here. The lead investigator for Scotland Yard described their decision to rule the image a red herring as a "revelation moment": "DCI Redwood said it was a 'revelation moment' when police discovered that the man seen by McCanns' friend Jane Tanner at 9.15pm was almost certainly an innocent British holiday-maker collecting his two-year-old daughter from a nearby creche." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Artist%27s_impression,_Madeleine_McCann_disappearance.jpg
I was only going by the comment at the top of the opening post. I must admit I was of the opinion that the most popular one was the Melissa Little, commissioned by Brian Kennedy in 2008, version. I wonder why the one the cops did from JT's description, early doors, wasn't used ? A bit of Gilbert and Sullivan creeping in maybe?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 12, 2015, 02:59:46 PM
So your postulation is she signed off on something she knew wasn't particularly accurate but coincidentally bore a remarkable resemblance to "yer actual" ? So really the artists impression is little more than GISS?
What is GISS? As it happens that artist's impression was uncannily accurate, as you can see from the opening post. So - apart from one minor detail almost spot on!
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 12, 2015, 03:18:28 PM
What is GISS? As it happens that artist's impression was uncannily accurate, as you can see from the opening post. So - apart from one minor detail almost spot on!
You really should get out more 8(0(* General Indication of Size and Shape. Popular with combat aircrew and wild life lovers.
If the scuttlebutt is true that pic ought to be uncannily accurate because its a commissioned job.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 12, 2015, 03:41:20 PM
I was only going by the comment at the top of the opening post. I must admit I was of the opinion that the most popular one was the Melissa Little, commissioned by Brian Kennedy in 2008, version. I wonder why the one the cops did from JT's description, early doors, wasn't used ? A bit of Gilbert and Sullivan creeping in maybe?
Barrington Godfrey Norton - The dogs should have examined his van and apartment 1 of Vila King Palm to completely eliminate him. Anybody discovered outdoors alone is a lead that needs completely eliminating.
When asked how he found out about the disappearance, he mentioned that at about 01.00 of 4th May when he was asleep at the usual place (camping site near the beach), he noticed flashing blue lights, immediately presuming that they came from a police car. At about 01.30 he was approached by OC staff, telling him that at about 22.00 the girl in question had disappeared from the resort.
He remembers that at about 07.30 on 4th May he was approached at the same site by GNR officers who carried out a search of his vehicle, but did not find anything unusual.
On this date, I state that in the current process, that from information provided by the OC resort, it was possible to establish that, in accordance with the statements by Barrington Godfrey Norton, a Canadian couple had stayed at the resort during the period between 23-04-2007 and 06-05-2007.
With relation to their identities, they were L**** E*** V***** and S*** P*** V****.
It should be mentioned that during that period, both of them stayed in apartment 1 of Vila King Palm in P da L.
8th May 2007
'pologies for getting his name the wrong way round.
Now role play BGN. You are in your Escort van on top of the mound. You are asleep, in your van. It went really dark that night around the time of the Tanner sighting, so 3 or 4 hours akip.
Somewhere down below you there are flashing blue lights. Take your pick as to which road.
Would flashing blue lights wake you up?
Anyway, the nanny makes it a bit earlier, from memory. BGN was awake, reading a book, and drinking a beer.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 12, 2015, 04:20:34 PM
What a startling recovery of recall faculties she must have had in 14 months or so. From "blimey how should I know wot 'e looked like" to "check the detail in this recollection innit amazin' man". However if one reads the depositions of the two GNR officers first on the scene........................ "This sighting did not seem to him to be very credible, because when he asked her about the physical characteristics of the individual, she said it was very dark, however she saw the pyjamas clearly".
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 12, 2015, 05:13:53 PM
'pologies for getting his name the wrong way round.
Now role play BGN. You are in your Escort van on top of the mound. You are asleep, in your van. It went really dark that night around the time of the Tanner sighting, so 3 or 4 hours akip.
Somewhere down below you there are flashing blue lights. Take your pick as to which road.
Would flashing blue lights wake you up?
Anyway, the nanny makes it a bit earlier, from memory. BGN was awake, reading a book, and drinking a beer.
Robert Murat mentioned sirens ... perhaps that is what alerted BGN to look out and see the lights.
I'm not sure exactly who was eliminated from the inquiry whether Barrington Godfrey Norton or the obviously younger man whose detailed description was supplied by two witnesses.
Perhaps an episode requiring just a little more scrutiny than was afforded to it.
That he could identify the individual via a picture or seeing him in person. He states that he saw this individual on more than one occasion on the road that gives access to Praia da Luz, and also next to the pharmacy located on rua Helena do Nascimento Baptista in Praia da Luz. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LANCE_PURSER.htm
--- The deponent is not sure if he would recognise him again in the event that they should meet. --- Based on the above description image likeness [e-fit] #18/2007 is attached. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DEREK_FLACK.htm
Direct speech –Gonçalo Amaral, former coordinator of the process
“Description without value”
Correio da Manhã – Why did you never reveal these two photofits?
Gonçalo Amaral – We didn’t divulge those photos because we cannot go on revealing photofit after photofit. Even more so because we identified the person and it was a musician who was perfectly known in the area. It made no sense.
But were the testimonies by Derek Flack and Lance Purser credible?
There is the testimony from two English persons who reportedly saw a suspect in the surroundings of the Ocean Club.
That person was identified by us.
The description by one of them ends up being of no value, because at a certain point he says he could not identify him if he saw him. source: Correio da Manhã, 07.08.2008, paper edition
What a startling recovery of recall faculties she must have had in 14 months or so. From "blimey how should I know wot 'e looked like" to "check the detail in this recollection innit amazin' man". However if one reads the depositions of the two GNR officers first on the scene........................ "This sighting did not seem to him to be very credible, because when he asked her about the physical characteristics of the individual, she said it was very dark, however she saw the pyjamas clearly".
There is the difference.
Jane Tanner could not describe facial features she had not seen.
It seems whoever was taking a note of her description might not have expended a great deal of time or the sensitivity expected to work with and get the best from a highly traumatised witness who believed she had witnessed the abduction of a small child.
What qualified the GNR soldiers to make the observation you have quoted?
It rather sums up the on the spot value judgements prevalent from start to finish in Madeleine's disappearance ... and explains so much about the reasons the investigation slammed into a brick wall in the early stages.
Perhaps if more witness statements had been treated with more professionalism the case might have progressed to a conclusion.
Jane Tanner wasn't just a passer by ... she was an eye witness.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 12, 2015, 05:27:59 PM
Jane Tanner could not describe facial features she had not seen.
It seems whoever was taking a note of her description might not have expended a great deal of time or the sensitivity expected to work with and get the best from a highly traumatised witness who believed she had witnessed the abduction of a small child.
What qualified the GNR soldiers to make the observation you have quoted?
It rather sums up the on the spot value judgements prevalent from start to finish in Madeleine's disappearance ... and explains so much about the reasons the investigation slammed into a brick wall in the early stages.
Perhaps if more witness statements had been treated with more professionalism the case might have progressed to a conclusion.
Jane Tanner wasn't just a passer by ... she was an eye witness.
and of what value has she been ?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 12, 2015, 05:31:24 PM
You really should get out more 8(0(* General Indication of Size and Shape. Popular with combat aircrew and wild life lovers.
If the scuttlebutt is true that pic ought to be uncannily accurate because its a commissioned job.
no idea what point you're trying to make. Incidentally, I get out plenty thanks.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 12, 2015, 06:11:54 PM
So - these are the options re: JT's sighting
1) She saw a man who was innocently carrying his child home 2) She saw the abductor carrying off Madeleine McCann 3) She saw no one and made the whole thing up (under instruction) and the Met are lying to us.
Any other options?
What do we get if we apply the principle of Occam's Razor to the above options? Can we eliminate any of the above?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 12, 2015, 06:13:48 PM
1) She saw a man who was innocently carrying his child home 2) She saw the abductor carrying off Madeleine McCann 3) She saw no one and made the whole thing up (under instruction) and the Met are lying to us.
Any other options?
Ah, the 'abductor' 8(*(
Nice.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 12, 2015, 06:24:36 PM
Jane Tanner could not describe facial features she had not seen.
It seems whoever was taking a note of her description might not have expended a great deal of time or the sensitivity expected to work with and get the best from a highly traumatised witness who believed she had witnessed the abduction of a small child.
What qualified the GNR soldiers to make the observation you have quoted?
It rather sums up the on the spot value judgements prevalent from start to finish in Madeleine's disappearance ... and explains so much about the reasons the investigation slammed into a brick wall in the early stages.
Perhaps if more witness statements had been treated with more professionalism the case might have progressed to a conclusion.
Jane Tanner wasn't just a passer by ... she was an eye witness.
According to Officer da Costa Jane Tanner could give no idea about the guys physical characteristics at all. OK so you think that Officers Roque and da Costa were grunts from the Pioneer Corps....that says quite a lot about you and your arguments. It seems and perhaps ? If wishes were horses beggars would ride. In the final analysis it matters not. "Tannerman the Abductor" was creamed by DCI Andy.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 12, 2015, 06:27:07 PM
According to Officer da Costa Jane Tanner could give no idea about the guys physical characteristics at all. OK so you think that Officers Roque and da Costa were grunts from the Pioneer Corps....that says quite a lot about you and your arguments. It seems and perhaps ? If wishes were horses beggars would ride. In the final analysis it matters not. "Tannerman the Abductor" was creamed by DCI Andy.
Is that the same Officer Da Costa who claimed he'd been reliably informed that the Tapas goup were all swingers but couldn't divulge his "sauces"?, or a different one?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 12, 2015, 06:46:18 PM
Is that the same Officer Da Costa who claimed he'd been reliably informed that the Tapas goup were all swingers but couldn't divulge his "sauces"?, or a different one?
You tell me and/or post a reliable link. Reliable being the operative word.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 12, 2015, 06:47:20 PM
1) She saw a man who was innocently carrying his child home 2) She saw the abductor carrying off Madeleine McCann 3) She saw no one and made the whole thing up (under instruction) and the Met are lying to us.
Any other options?
What do we get if we apply the principle of Occam's Razor to the above options? Can we eliminate any of the above?
I thought I replied to this. maybe the mods didn't like it or pressed the wrong key hey ho 'ere we go again. There are only two options. She saw a guy carrying a child. She made it up.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 12, 2015, 07:00:13 PM
I thought I replied to this. maybe the mods didn't like it or pressed the wrong key hey ho 'ere we go again. There are only two options. She saw a guy carrying a child. She made it up.
No, there are three options, as I've already observed.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 12, 2015, 07:17:27 PM
According to Officer da Costa Jane Tanner could give no idea about the guys physical characteristics at all. OK so you think that Officers Roque and da Costa were grunts from the Pioneer Corps....that says quite a lot about you and your arguments. It seems and perhaps ? If wishes were horses beggars would ride. In the final analysis it matters not. "Tannerman the Abductor" was creamed by DCI Andy.
It would be really great if you would refrain from misquoting my posts to give your interpretation of what I have said ... "Officers Roque and da Costa were grunts from the Pioneer Corps" are your words entirely ... not mine. If it reflects your opinion that is for you ... but do not attribute it to me, thank you.
For close on eight years Jane Tanner had to live with belief that she had witnessed Madeleine McCann's abduction.
She was subject to vilification and all sorts of vicious innuendo and allegation throughout that period.
The DCI was nearly certain that the man she saw was not the abductor ... so we shall see what transpires ... but it is great that at last it is recognised by those who accused her of lying ... that she indeed did see what she saw.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 12, 2015, 07:54:02 PM
It would be really great if you would refrain from misquoting my posts to give your interpretation of what I have said ... "Officers Roque and da Costa were grunts from the Pioneer Corps" are your words entirely ... not mine. If it reflects your opinion that is for you ... but do not attribute it to me, thank you.
For close on eight years Jane Tanner had to live with belief that she had witnessed Madeleine McCann's abduction.
She was subject to vilification and all sorts of vicious innuendo and allegation throughout that period.
The DCI was nearly certain that the man she saw was not the abductor ... so we shall see what transpires ... but it is great that at last it is recognised by those who accused her of lying ... that she indeed did see what she saw.
'...belief she had witnessed Madeleine McCann's abduction..' ?
How do you know that ?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 12, 2015, 08:33:44 PM
Nowhere does he say that JT had no idea of the physical characteristics, she just said it was very dark but she got a clear view of the pj's. You have put words in his mouth.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 12, 2015, 10:25:02 PM
It would be really great if you would refrain from misquoting my posts to give your interpretation of what I have said ... "Officers Roque and da Costa were grunts from the Pioneer Corps" are your words entirely ... not mine. If it reflects your opinion that is for you ... but do not attribute it to me, thank you.
For close on eight years Jane Tanner had to live with belief that she had witnessed Madeleine McCann's abduction.
She was subject to vilification and all sorts of vicious innuendo and allegation throughout that period.
The DCI was nearly certain that the man she saw was not the abductor ... so we shall see what transpires ... but it is great that at last it is recognised by those who accused her of lying ... that she indeed did see what she saw.
It wasn't misquoting I was interpreting. It is difficult to work out what you mean a lot the time other than by the way you write you appear to have a prejudice against anything that does not toe the McCann line or is not called Brietta.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 12, 2015, 10:29:19 PM
Possibly a guilty father, but not answering for Alice
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: mercury on November 13, 2015, 12:54:41 AM
And what happened wth tanners two statements 1) i only saw the legs/pyjama bottoms versus 2) i didnt see the top fully but thought it was pink versus
Tanner in Panorama, thanks so much to alfie, said she only saw the feet and pyjama bottoms
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pegasus on November 13, 2015, 01:26:19 AM
I worked out who IMO Mr Redwood's crecheman was and even if that's correct and if somehow he ended up approaching that junction from the west he should to get home logically have turned right not gone straight east. But that's assuming he was heading straight home, so IMO it's possible he was maybe lost or maybe walking own 2yr old to sleep IMO.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: mercury on November 13, 2015, 03:31:24 AM
I worked out who IMO Mr Redwood's crecheman was and even if that's correct and if somehow he ended up approaching that junction from the west he should to get home logically have turned right not gone straight east. But that's assuming he was heading straight home, so IMO it's possible he was maybe lost or maybe walking own 2yr old to sleep IMO.
A holidaymaker on the pre last night of their hol cant be lost....in a tiny resort!! And who meanders and walks their child to sleep when its cold and with woosh gusts that blow curtains open from closed to open
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 13, 2015, 07:58:23 AM
You said it had to be an innocent father or an abductor. So a childless uncle carrying home his niece on behalf of his brother/sister is neither of your options. QED. I won't bother with anymore.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 13, 2015, 01:09:19 PM
You said it had to be an innocent father or an abductor. So a childless uncle carrying home his niece on behalf of his brother/sister is neither of your options. QED. I won't bother with anymore.
OFGS. Good.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Anna on November 13, 2015, 01:28:16 PM
Hope the BBC's reliable enough for you - probably not as kosher as some anonymous "sceptic" blog, but it's the best I could find 8(0(*
Shame he (GNR Costa) forgot to mention pyjamas etc on this his first statement…… but not to worry, as he remembered on his statement on 17th October, 5 months later. It has to be the same chap as he was on patrol when he got the call and met Gerry in reception.
Part 1: The GNR arrive - Quoted in The Sun, 20 November 2007 Jane Tanner - Praia da Luz, 03 May 2007, 23.15pm
"Then, at around 11.15, two policemen arrived and I told them. Later CID arrived. They did this thing called a cognitive technique, where they put you back in the moment, and it was then that I remembered the pyjamas."
…………………..
- 1st witness statement from the PJ files, 07 May 2007
Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa (GNR Patrol) - Praia da Luz, 03 May 2007
'States that other details that may be relevant to the investigation concerns that they were directed to a citizen, of British nationality, who made up the group of tourists together with the family, name of Jane Tanner, and who detected the presence of a suspicious movement of an individual in the immediate area above identified, in the discourse of which was seen transporting a child of an early age.'
…………………….
No mention of pyjamas
……………………………….. (note: 2nd witness statement was based around Robert Murat) …………………….
- 3rd witness statement from the PJ files, 17 October 2007
Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa (GNR Patrol) - Praia da Luz, 03 May 2007
'After the search of the interior, his colleague went to check the area around the apartments and the Tapas Bar, while the witness remained next to the apartment, just outside it. At that moment a female individual, he did not know whether she was a member of the group of friends, who was in the neighbouring apartment, said that she saw an individual carrying a child, running, and that because of the pyjamas she was wearing it could have been Madeleine. It was in these circumstances that abduction began to be talked about. He made a report about this situation and sent it to the police.
This sighting did not seem to him to be very credible, because when he asked her about the physical characteristics of the individual, she said it was very dark, however she saw the pyjamas clearly.' http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 13, 2015, 03:05:04 PM
At a certain point the deponent translated a statement from one of the ladies of the English group, the lady she indicated as being dark-skinned. This lady said to the police officers, and the deponent translated, that she had seen a man walking [passing] in the street, possibly with a child in his arms. The deponent thought this strange because she was convinced that when she had seen the man the lady was positioned in an area that had no line of sight to the area where she would have seen the man. She doesn't know exactly where the lady was positioned when she saw the man pass, but she knows that she indicated having seen him passing in the road that was in front of the bedroom window where Madeleine had been, walking in the direction of the road of the road that then goes to the Baptista supermarket. --- Questioned as to the clothing the members of the English group had worn that night she states that she only recalls that Fiona wore a green blouse, that Gerry wore a dark shirt and that Fiona's husband wore plain trousers, cream, she thinks.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 13, 2015, 06:17:27 PM
In order to satisfy the pedants I have re-worded the 3 options regarding Jane Tanner's sighting as follows:
1) She saw a man who was innocently carrying a child and who was doing so for perfectly legitimate and innocent reasons 2) She saw the abductor carrying off Madeleine McCann 3) She made the whole thing up (under instruction) and the Met are lying to us.
Any other options?
What do we get if we apply the principle of Occam's Razor to the above options? Can we eliminate any of the above?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ferryman on November 13, 2015, 06:30:27 PM
In order to satisfy the pedants I have re-worded the 3 options regarding Jane Tanner's sighting as follows:
1) She saw a man who was innocently carrying a child and who was doing so for perfectly legitimate and innocent reasons 2) She saw the abductor carrying off Madeleine McCann 3) She made the whole thing up (under instruction) and the Met are lying to us.
Any other options?
What do we get if we apply the principle of Occam's Razor to the above options? Can we eliminate any of the above?
This is the explanation from the findmadeleine site of continued display of the efit.
These two pictures show a man carrying a child away from the family's apartment. This sighting was seen by a witness at 21:15 on the evening of Thursday, May 3rd, 2007.
Based or more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE on 0207 321 9251 (0044 207 321 9251 from outside the UK) or Operation.Grange@met.pnn.police.uk and/or the Find Madeleine team on +44 845 838 4699 or investigation
@findmadeleine.com.
So 3 is out
Either of the other 2 are possible.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 13, 2015, 06:50:13 PM
This is the explanation from the findmadeleine site of continued display of the efit.
These two pictures show a man carrying a child away from the family's apartment. This sighting was seen by a witness at 21:15 on the evening of Thursday, May 3rd, 2007.
Based or more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE on 0207 321 9251 (0044 207 321 9251 from outside the UK) or Operation.Grange@met.pnn.police.uk and/or the Find Madeleine team on +44 845 838 4699 or investigation
@findmadeleine.com.
So 3 is out
Either of the other 2 are possible.
Your quote doesn't rule out number 3, because FindMadeleine could be lying too of course!
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 13, 2015, 07:08:37 PM
In order to satisfy the pedants I have re-worded the 3 options regarding Jane Tanner's sighting as follows:
1) She saw a man who was innocently carrying a child and who was doing so for perfectly legitimate and innocent reasons 2) She saw the abductor carrying off Madeleine McCann 3) She made the whole thing up (under instruction) and the Met are lying to us.
Any other options?
What do we get if we apply the principle of Occam's Razor to the above options? Can we eliminate any of the above?
How about 4) She was mistaken about the time or day?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 13, 2015, 07:11:47 PM
How about 4) She was mistaken about the time or day?
Unlikely that she was mistaken about the day, as it happened only a few hours earlier before she mentioned to the others. How many times did she say she walked up that stretch of pavement by 5a that evening?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 13, 2015, 07:41:34 PM
Unlikely that she was mistaken about the day, as it happened only a few hours earlier before she mentioned to the others. How many times did she say she walked up that stretch of pavement by 5a that evening?
The Ocean Club was full of forgetful people though. Gerald forgot which door he'd used and on which side of the road he spoke to Jeremy Wilkins. David Payne couldn't remember seeing someone dressed only in a towel. Cat Baker forgot Madeleine's father was at high tea. Russell forgot to sign his daughter out of the creche and forgot that he or Matthew offered to check the McCann children at 9.30pm.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 13, 2015, 07:56:16 PM
The Ocean Club was full of forgetful people though. Gerald forgot which door he'd used and on which side of the road he spoke to Jeremy Wilkins. David Payne couldn't remember seeing someone dressed only in a towel. Cat Baker forgot Madeleine's father was at high tea. Russell forgot to sign his daughter out of the creche and forgot that he or Matthew offered to check the McCann children at 9.30pm.
could we please try and stay on topic?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 13, 2015, 08:03:27 PM
i was answering your question about Jane Tanner's possible forgetfulness, with examples. 8)-)))
examples of Jane Tanner's forgetfulness?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: misty on November 13, 2015, 08:20:19 PM
Everyone seems to assume that Crecheman walked up the hill from the crèche carrying his daughter. Is it not possible he was given a lift up by someone & dropped off just outside Block 5? That would lend some credence to the carrying method which, as G-Unit said before, was not consistent with an easy method over some distance uphill.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 13, 2015, 08:35:36 PM
In order to satisfy the pedants I have re-worded the 3 options regarding Jane Tanner's sighting as follows:
1) She saw a man who was innocently carrying a child and who was doing so for perfectly legitimate and innocent reasons 2) She saw the abductor carrying off Madeleine McCann 3) She made the whole thing up (under instruction) and the Met are lying to us.
Any other options?
What do we get if we apply the principle of Occam's Razor to the above options? Can we eliminate any of the above?
The pedantry was not particularly about the phrasing of Option 1 although you did drop yourself in it with the original wording. Option 2 is mere supposition which we know from DCI Redwood has been eliminated. So there remain 2 Options. 1 She saw a man carrying a child. 2 She made the story up. But if you insist the guy could have been an abductor in the light of the archiving report and DCI Redwood's comment, let the good times roll.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 13, 2015, 08:48:26 PM
The pedantry was not particularly about the phrasing of Option 1 although you did drop yourself in it with the original wording. Option 2 is mere supposition which we know from DCI Redwood has been eliminated. So there remain 2 Options. 1 She saw a man carrying a child. 2 She made the story up. But if you insist the guy could have been an abductor in the light of the archiving report and DCI Redwood's comment, let the good times roll.
Lets start again. 4 Options. One of these must be correct.
1) she saw a father carrying his child home, as the Met have stated. 2) she saw an abductor carrying away Madeleine McCann, and the Met are wrong 3) she is lying but then so too are the Met 4) she was mistaken about the time and day she saw the man, but then so too is the man who came forward about the day and time he was carrying the child.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 13, 2015, 08:59:17 PM
What we know is Jane saw the father and his 2 year old daughter at about the correct time. I'm not sure where she saw him because there's no way she passed Gerry and Jes on the same pavement without being noticed - a quiet deserted street in her noisy flip flops lol. He came forward in 2007 and LP had his file. Ask LP what they did with it and the Gaspar ones for so long.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 13, 2015, 09:01:42 PM
Everyone seems to assume that Crecheman walked up the hill from the crèche carrying his daughter. Is it not possible he was given a lift up by someone & dropped off just outside Block 5? That would lend some credence to the carrying method which, as G-Unit said before, was not consistent with an easy method over some distance uphill.
Which route would a car take though? Bearing in mind that the Main Reception, where the night creche was, is on a one-way street. Therefore the car would approach Block 5 from the direction which Tannerman was walking towards.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: jassi on November 13, 2015, 09:08:52 PM
What we know is Jane saw the father and his 2 year old daughter at about the correct time. I'm not sure where she saw him because there's no way she passed Gerry and Jes on the same pavement without being noticed - a quiet deserted street in her noisy flip flops lol. He came forward in 2007 and LP had his file. Ask LP what they did with it and the Gaspar ones for so long. I would if I was SY.
Do you think they really want to know?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 13, 2015, 09:15:08 PM
What we know is Jane saw the father and his 2 year old daughter at about the correct time. I'm not sure where she saw him because there's no way she passed Gerry and Jes on the same pavement without being noticed - a quiet deserted street in her noisy flip flops lol. He came forward in 2007 and LP had his file. Ask LP what they did with it and the Gaspar ones for so long.
it would be fascinating to see the original Gaspar statement before it had been translated first into Portuguese then back into English...it would be interesting to see how much it had changed after a double translation
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 13, 2015, 09:16:41 PM
The pedantry was not particularly about the phrasing of Option 1 although you did drop yourself in it with the original wording. Option 2 is mere supposition which we know from DCI Redwood has been eliminated. So there remain 2 Options. 1 She saw a man carrying a child. 2 She made the story up. But if you insist the guy could have been an abductor in the light of the archiving report and DCI Redwood's comment, let the good times roll.
the guy Tanner saw could still have been the abductor.....
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 13, 2015, 09:21:08 PM
What abductor ?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 13, 2015, 09:21:38 PM
Quite simply as Redwood has said if you listen to exactly what he says...the man tanner saw may well have been the innocent parent...but Redwood has never stated he definitely is....
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 13, 2015, 09:36:43 PM
Quite simply as Redwood has said if you listen to exactly what he says...the man tanner saw may well have been the innocent parent...but Redwood has never stated he definitely is....
Sceptic logic dictates that as Andy Redwood is "Yesterday's Man" we can disregard everything he has ever said regarding this case so everything is currently up for grabs, including the identity of the man seen by. Jt.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 13, 2015, 09:37:43 PM
Quite simply as Redwood has said if you listen to exactly what he says...the man tanner saw may well have been the innocent parent...but Redwood has never stated he definitely is....
Which leaves the option that Jane Tanner saw Madeleine being carried away ... kidnapped ... abducted ... stolen ...
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 13, 2015, 09:39:51 PM
Sceptic logic dictates that as Andy Redwood is "Yesterday's Man" we can disregard everything he has ever said regarding this case so everything is currently up for grabs, including the identity of the man seen by. Jt.
At it again Alf? iirc one person called Redwood "yesterdays man" ...how you can make some brass necked quantum leap, as usual, to asserting thats what every sceptic thinks about Redwood, let alone feeling you have licence to extrapolate and create your interprative spin of what else that description means, is quite beyond me, only you know, isn't it about time you told the board?
&%+((£
You need to realise there are more than 50 shades of grey ie thats many, beyond your "one, but its black anyway"
@)(++(*
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 13, 2015, 09:49:07 PM
If there was a trial presumably it would take place in Portugal? (Which I cant see happening though) If so,
There is no precedent there for admitting or not admitting blood/cadaver dog evidence...as a PJ spokesman told a press conference back in 2007 the PJ had never used or even heard of these types of dogs
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 13, 2015, 10:01:45 PM
If there was a trial presumably it would take place in Portugal? (Which I cant see happening though) If so,
There is no precedent there for admitting or not admitting blood/cadaver dog evidence...as a PJ spokesman told a press conference back in 2007 the PJ had never used or even heard of these types of dogs
so what was the fool amaral doing making conclusions re the alerts when he knew b****r all about them
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 13, 2015, 10:03:24 PM
Everyone seems to assume that Crecheman walked up the hill from the crèche carrying his daughter. Is it not possible he was given a lift up by someone & dropped off just outside Block 5? That would lend some credence to the carrying method which, as G-Unit said before, was not consistent with an easy method over some distance uphill.
None of the 8 children from block 5 were in evening creche that night (if they had been we would certainly not be here discussing a disappearance). However IMO there was at least one child from block 4 in evening creche possibly more.. IMO crecheman could have walked back chatting from creche to block 4 with another parent who was staying in block 4, then continued to his own accommodation.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 13, 2015, 10:07:40 PM
So is that of the man who claimed he was carrying a child near G5A. Do you think there were two of them? If not, he's the one she saw.
I'm reporting what Redwood said...Tannerman has not 100% been ruled out..I don't think anything....there could have been another man carrying a child..who knows for sure
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 13, 2015, 10:11:41 PM
Let's not forget either Redwood is out of the picture.
DCI Redwood said: 'Our focus in terms of understanding what happened on the night of May 3 has now given us a shift of emphasis. We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460669/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapping-innocent-British-father-mistaken-key-suspect.html#ixzz3rPTGdC72 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 13, 2015, 10:14:18 PM
DCI Redwood said: 'Our focus in terms of understanding what happened on the night of May 3 has now given us a shift of emphasis. We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460669/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapping-innocent-British-father-mistaken-key-suspect.html#ixzz3rPTGdC72 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I.e. They haven't a clue about what went on, as I have said from the start.
and if the man has been interviewed and has an alibi, you are chasing a dead duck.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 13, 2015, 10:15:34 PM
Quite simply as Redwood has said if you listen to exactly what he says...the man tanner saw may well have been the innocent parent...but Redwood has never stated he definitely is....
Yeah I know all that. Now explain it properly.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 13, 2015, 10:22:06 PM
Lets start again. 4 Options. One of these must be correct.
1) she saw a father carrying his child home, as the Met have stated. Probably 2) she saw an abductor carrying away Madeleine McCann, and the Met are wrong. No 3) she is lying but then so too are the Met. Possibly 4) she was mistaken about the time and day she saw the man, but then so too is the man who came forward about the day and time he was carrying the child. No
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 13, 2015, 10:28:15 PM
Let me put it to you in a simpler fashion... a floor standing lamp is stolen from your home. A neighbour passes a man just outside your drive striding up the road carrying a floor standing lamp. Got the picture?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 13, 2015, 10:38:03 PM
Let me put it to you in a simpler fashion... a floor standing lamp is stolen from your home. A neighbour passes a man just outside your drive striding up the road carrying a floor standing lamp. Got the picture?
Wow.
So any man carrying a child is an abductor ?
Pull the other one.
That would be laughed out of court.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way
Post by: mercury on November 13, 2015, 10:39:23 PM
Let me put it to you in a simpler fashion... a floor standing lamp is stolen from your home. A neighbour passes a man just outside your drive striding up the road carrying a floor standing lamp. Got the picture?
Except it was a normal occurrence to see men carrying lamps in the area on a daily basis, so not quite as clear cut
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: misty on November 13, 2015, 10:41:46 PM
Which route would a car take though? Bearing in mind that the Main Reception, where the night creche was, is on a one-way street. Therefore the car would approach Block 5 from the direction which Tannerman was walking towards.
Was it a one-way street in May 2007, do you know? There were 2 phases of road works which converted some of the roads into one-way systems, starting in Feb 2007. http://www.luz-info.com/ The ambitious, but welcomed major project of works programmed during 2007 / 2008 was pretty much completed. It was scheduled in two phases, Phase 1 - February 15th to July 15th ( 2007 ) completed pretty much on time. It has resulted in a considerable improvement to the centre of town. Phase 2 commenced September 15th ( 2007 ) and as of August 2008 pretty much completed. The project encompassed major road improvements and extensions to the one way system ( done ). Also, improved tourist facilities such as wider pavements ( done ) and additional green spaces, namely the area of waste ground by the church ( yet to be done, but was rumoured to be started during 2011. However, this failed to materialise in 2011 / 2012, mainly for economic reasons. Renovation and Water system improvements were also also included. It did have some impact on tourism during the summer months of 2007 as various roads were closed, dug up, re-routed ( they are all completed ). Pavements have been replaced and widened. There was also the inevitable dust element whilst the works were in progress. Fortunately there was a break between phases for the peak of the tourist season. Whilst the works were a necessary 'evil' they have only made Praia da Luz, The Algarve, Portugal even more enjoyable for both the residents and visitors alike. Update 2012. Most everything building wise has ( understandingly ) been put on hold over the last 12 months and unlikely to change in the near future.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way
Post by: Mr Gray on November 13, 2015, 10:46:19 PM
None of the 8 children from block 5 were in evening creche that night (if they had been we would certainly not be here discussing a disappearance). However IMO there was at least one child from block 4 in evening creche possibly more.. IMO crecheman could have walked back chatting from creche to block 4 with another parent who was staying in block 4, then continued to his own accommodation.
Heading east past Block 6, do you happen to know the name/numbering sequence of the next block with the open ascending walkways?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 13, 2015, 10:58:48 PM
any man carrying a child is a potential abductor and needs to be eliminated
Yes but a clever abductor doesn't openly carry away from the crime scene and be seen near to it crossing the road they all used to check like Tannerman. That doesn't make any sense nor Jane saying nowt on her return to the table if she thought for one second thought it may have been Madeleine - child she saw was too small! Smithman was first seen a good distance away from it. Smarty pants had to find a way not to be seen with the child at the crime scene and there's a solution and it leads to an earlier move away.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 13, 2015, 11:27:08 PM
Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way? « Reply #218 on: Today at 10:27:07 PM » Quote Quote from: Alfred R Jones on Today at 08:48:26 PM Lets start again. 4 Options. One of these must be correct.
1) she saw a father carrying his child home, as the Met have stated. Probably 2) she saw an abductor carrying away Madeleine McCann, and the Met are wrong. No 3) she is lying but then so too are the Met. Possibly 4) she was mistaken about the time and day she saw the man, but then so too is the man who came forward about the day and time he was carrying the child. No
Why do you think it more likely that the Met are lying than that they are wrong?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 14, 2015, 06:08:11 AM
None of the 8 children from block 5 were in evening creche that night (if they had been we would certainly not be here discussing a disappearance). However IMO there was at least one child from block 4 in evening creche possibly more.. IMO crecheman could have walked back chatting from creche to block 4 with another parent who was staying in block 4, then continued to his own accommodation.
So two people walked up the road, unseen by Matthew, the Paynes ,the Carpenters, the Moyes or Gerald. They turned left to Block 4, stood chatting in the cold wind, then Tannerman returned in the direction of Block 6. He didn't continue to his own accommodation he backtracked. In that event chatting would have taken place where they parted ways, on the corner of either Block 5 or Block 6 imo.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 14, 2015, 07:55:34 AM
Everyone seems to assume that Crecheman walked up the hill from the crèche carrying his daughter. Is it not possible he was given a lift up by someone & dropped off just outside Block 5? That would lend some credence to the carrying method which, as G-Unit said before, was not consistent with an easy method over some distance uphill.
Now you need a route for a car that is consistent with getting to block 5
and which does not pass block 6, the direction in which the man was heading.
Or you need a more complex explanation, such as, he went past his home because he was chatting to the driver and it was so interesting that he decided to finish the conversation.
And the driver is a bit of a complication. We need a driver who went from the OC night crèche (or nearby) to block 5, and who offered Crècheman a lift. Let's see - someone who took a child out of the crèche at the same time? Being on holiday but with a car? And who knew Crècheman enough to know he resided in the vicinity. And who never came forward for years? And who does not appear to be used by SY to verify Crècheman?
It's all getting a bit complex and improbable.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 14, 2015, 08:31:46 AM
What we know is Jane saw the father and his 2 year old daughter at about the correct time. I'm not sure where she saw him because there's no way she passed Gerry and Jes on the same pavement without being noticed - a quiet deserted street in her noisy flip flops lol. He came forward in 2007 and LP had his file. Ask LP what they did with it and the Gaspar ones for so long.
I don't think he came forward, in 2007 or otherwise.
DCI Redwood, Crimewatch 2013 21:42 The Ocean Club night crèche "One of the things that we picked up very quickly was the fact that there was a night crèche. It was operating from the main Ocean Club reception. 8 families had left 11 children in there, and one particular family we spoke to gave us information that was really interesting and exciting.
In fact I would say it was a revelation moment. Having discussed with them what they were doing on the night, they believed that they could be the Tanner sighting."
I'm beginning to wonder if they were trawling through everyone on the arrivals list with children that might have been in the crèche, and asking them if they might fit Tannerman. If it happened in 2012-2013, it leaves a lot of room for memory evolution.
Is there any source for 2007?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: mercury on November 14, 2015, 08:32:18 AM
Well put SIL. The two holidaymakers with a two yr old girl resided in G3 and G4 and one other in block O (dont know where that one is) So where was Crecheman walking to? if JT/Met are correct
PS
SIL According to this Crecheman gave his movements to UK police in 2007
Was it a one-way street in May 2007, do you know? There were 2 phases of road works which converted some of the roads into one-way systems, starting in Feb 2007. http://www.luz-info.com/ The ambitious, but welcomed major project of works programmed during 2007 / 2008 was pretty much completed. It was scheduled in two phases, Phase 1 - February 15th to July 15th ( 2007 ) completed pretty much on time. It has resulted in a considerable improvement to the centre of town. Phase 2 commenced September 15th ( 2007 ) and as of August 2008 pretty much completed. The project encompassed major road improvements and extensions to the one way system ( done ). Also, improved tourist facilities such as wider pavements ( done ) and additional green spaces, namely the area of waste ground by the church ( yet to be done, but was rumoured to be started during 2011. However, this failed to materialise in 2011 / 2012, mainly for economic reasons. Renovation and Water system improvements were also also included. It did have some impact on tourism during the summer months of 2007 as various roads were closed, dug up, re-routed ( they are all completed ). Pavements have been replaced and widened. There was also the inevitable dust element whilst the works were in progress. Fortunately there was a break between phases for the peak of the tourist season. Whilst the works were a necessary 'evil' they have only made Praia da Luz, The Algarve, Portugal even more enjoyable for both the residents and visitors alike. Update 2012. Most everything building wise has ( understandingly ) been put on hold over the last 12 months and unlikely to change in the near future.
I have maps from pre-2007 that show Direita as a one way street, in the direction it currently runs. (West to East.)
At some time, presumably years ago, it formed the main route from Burgau in the west, down 25 de Abril, then east on Direita to Lagos, and I'm pretty sure it was 2-way back in those days. That would have got the chop around the time the Ocean Club was built.
However, as you have twigged, there were diversions in place. As the whole of the area around the church was being dug up in phase 1, it would have made sense to turn Direita and Teixeira into 2 way streets for that phase. But was it?
From memory, a photo has been posted in this forum of traffic going the 'wrong' way on Direita. From memory, the poster was Heriberto.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Benice on November 14, 2015, 09:17:29 AM
It's reasonable to assume that when SY interviewed Crecheman, they established why he was walking in the direction he was. Whatever the reason, it's obvious SY accepted what he said as credible - otherwise they would not have told us that they are almost certain he was the man JT saw.
There was no reason why SY should go into precise details of his movements. There is only so much time available in a TV prog - so they concentrated on the main message they wanted to get across to the public - which was that this new evidence changed and extended the timescale in which an abduction could have taken place.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 14, 2015, 09:26:21 AM
Heading east past Block 6, do you happen to know the name/numbering sequence of the next block with the open ascending walkways?
That's block 1. That seems strange but the OC map confirms it.
The apartments are lettered, rather than numbered, and this runs from east to west, as per block 5 and block 4.
So apt 1A is ground floor on the extreme east of the block. It goes up to something like 1Z at the top west, but the number plaques are a bit unclear there, so take 1Z as an approximation.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 14, 2015, 09:37:36 AM
So Tanners sighting is evidence...admissible in court...but the dog's alert are not...that's an interesting fact isn't it
Yes, shows you peculiarities of the law. It allows someone to give evidence who may have a poor memory, who may be influenced or who may lie outright but doesn't allow evidence from a highly trained animal with no interest in the case.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on November 14, 2015, 11:47:50 AM
Yes, shows you peculiarities of the law. It allows someone to give evidence who may have a poor memory, who may be influenced or who may lie outright but doesn't allow evidence from a highly trained animal with no interest in the case.
Yes in deed Slats.
The othr interesting thing about the 'abductor' (tannerman) is sheJT could barely recognise him or Maddie the next day or following months BUT,but on the Oprah show Kate said Jane identified the pyjamas and held up the ones very similar to what Maddie was wearing. Ohhhh Dear...
Now unless they were on a money cruise to gain sympathy from them rich mericans, they had no need to go and plead a case'to find Maddie' in the USA? was she sighted over there as well?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 14, 2015, 11:55:25 AM
that assumes I have not explained it properly...I have
You haven't. Your post said: "Quite simply as Redwood has said if you listen to exactly what he says...the man tanner saw may well have been the innocent parent...but Redwood has never stated he definitely is...." Which as a bald statement allowing for DCI Redwood's oddball syntax is perfectly true. You have failed to think it through beyond that point taking into consideration other points that DCI Redwood expressed.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 14, 2015, 01:52:59 PM
Well put SIL. The two holidaymakers with a two yr old girl resided in G3 and G4 and one other in block O (dont know where that one is) So where was Crecheman walking to? if JT/Met are correct
PS
SIL According to this Crecheman gave his movements to UK police in 2007
Not sure what Redwood was trying to say when he said the new revelation was "exciting"
Thanks for the link.
Some things are becoming clearer, but some are getting murkier.
Let me see. The Mirror, two months after Crimewatch 2013, ran a story about bungling police for 6 years. Now 6 years rules out SY. That leaves LP and PJ.
Did LP acquire this info and fail to pass it on? Do we have any other info about LP running a questionnaire? Do we have any idea why LP info did not enter the PJ Files (Actually, I think there might be something about info they did not want published, but SY had its mitts on other non-published info from the start of OG.)
Here's the Mirror - "The unnamed dad – spotted in the Praia da Luz resort by McCann family friend Jane Tanner at 9.15pm – was among a number of British witnesses who completed questionnaires for Leicestershire police six years ago.
He is understood to have provided a detailed description of his movements on the night, including the fact he had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished."
'The unnamed Dad' - OK, the mirror could be washing sources and saying Dad was not named in Crimewatch etc., which is true. Perhaps the Mirror had zoomed in?
'He is understood to have'. This is the point at which I come to the conclusion that the Mirror does not know who the unnamed Dad is, nor has either party contacted the other.
Did LP send out questionnaires to all OC guests, or all UK OC guests, in 2007? Were they liaising or investigating?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 14, 2015, 04:00:12 PM
All the Brits went home so it was LP who got in contact with them in the UK to fill in questionnaires. Crecheman is Britisth obviously who probably returned home on SAT 5 May. LP then pass important details onto the PJ which didn't happen according to the Mirror article (a man carrying a child by that apartment) just like the Gaspar statements.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 14, 2015, 04:01:49 PM
Some things are becoming clearer, but some are getting murkier.
Let me see. The Mirror, two months after Crimewatch 2013, ran a story about bungling police for 6 years. Now 6 years rules out SY. That leaves LP and PJ.
Did LP acquire this info and fail to pass it on? Do we have any other info about LP running a questionnaire? Do we have any idea why LP info did not enter the PJ Files (Actually, I think there might be something about info they did not want published, but SY had its mitts on other non-published info from the start of OG.)
Here's the Mirror - "The unnamed dad – spotted in the Praia da Luz resort by McCann family friend Jane Tanner at 9.15pm – was among a number of British witnesses who completed questionnaires for Leicestershire police six years ago.
He is understood to have provided a detailed description of his movements on the night, including the fact he had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished."
'The unnamed Dad' - OK, the mirror could be washing sources and saying Dad was not named in Crimewatch etc., which is true. Perhaps the Mirror had zoomed in?
'He is understood to have'. This is the point at which I come to the conclusion that the Mirror does not know who the unnamed Dad is, nor has either party contacted the other.
Did LP send out questionnaires to all OC guests, or all UK OC guests, in 2007? Were they liaising or investigating?
According to LP they were investigating. Operation Task was the name of their operation and they were investigating (taking witness statements and dealing with house to house questionnaires come under this heading) and liaising amongst other tasks. https://leics.police.uk/media/uploads/library/file/op-task-publication-strategy.pdf
Certain items were kept secret at the request of the UK police, including anything from Crimestoppers. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LAWYERS_UK_POLICE.htm
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 14, 2015, 04:08:24 PM
If the PJ could have cleared Tannerman in 2007 with that info then all eyes would be on Smithman.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 14, 2015, 04:53:11 PM
If the PJ could have cleared Tannerman in 2007 with that info then all eyes would be on Smithman.
The three Smiths made their statements on 26th May 2007 ... what kept the PJ from investigating it in the interevening months between then and Martin Smith's mistaken identification recorded on 20th September 2007?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ferryman on November 14, 2015, 05:25:16 PM
Some things are becoming clearer, but some are getting murkier.
Let me see. The Mirror, two months after Crimewatch 2013, ran a story about bungling police for 6 years. Now 6 years rules out SY. That leaves LP and PJ.
Did LP acquire this info and fail to pass it on? Do we have any other info about LP running a questionnaire? Do we have any idea why LP info did not enter the PJ Files (Actually, I think there might be something about info they did not want published, but SY had its mitts on other non-published info from the start of OG.)
Here's the Mirror - "The unnamed dad – spotted in the Praia da Luz resort by McCann family friend Jane Tanner at 9.15pm – was among a number of British witnesses who completed questionnaires for Leicestershire police six years ago.
He is understood to have provided a detailed description of his movements on the night, including the fact he had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished."
'The unnamed Dad' - OK, the mirror could be washing sources and saying Dad was not named in Crimewatch etc., which is true. Perhaps the Mirror had zoomed in?
'He is understood to have'. This is the point at which I come to the conclusion that the Mirror does not know who the unnamed Dad is, nor has either party contacted the other.
Did LP send out questionnaires to all OC guests, or all UK OC guests, in 2007? Were they liaising or investigating?
How many more times?
There was no bungling.
The original story was run by The Times so-called insight team who screwed up.
Martin Smith and (we now now know) his wife, who produced the other e-fit, produced them after the end of January 2008.
Before then, Martin Smith was certain he'd seen Gerry and so of course refused to produce an efit (he says so in his statement to the Irish Garida police at that date).
Almost certainly, the Smiths produced their efits after the case was shelved in August 2008, and they became convinced that he had been mistaken to suppose the man was Gerry.
Seeing as the Smiths might well have witnessed Madeleine's abduction (unlike any other sighting, before anyone starts) those efits could only, ever, be released into the public domain in the context of a live and ongoing police enquiry, and Scotland Yard chose the moment of the Crimewatch programme to release them.
Repeat.
No bungling.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 14, 2015, 06:04:19 PM
The three Smiths made their statements on 26th May 2007 ... what kept the PJ from investigating it in the interevening months between then and Martin Smith's mistaken identification recorded on 20th September 2007?
Who said it was mistaken identity? I haven't heard SY come out with a statement saying MS is wrong. They have released no names for the prime suspect yet.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 14, 2015, 06:06:26 PM
Who said it was mistaken identity? I haven't heard SY come out with a statement saying MS is wrong. They have released no names for the prime suspect yet.
Really? How about Redwood's statement that the McCanns are not suspects, is that not good enough for you?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ferryman on November 14, 2015, 06:14:22 PM
Why was The Times (who originally ran the story) successfully sued by the McCanns?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 14, 2015, 06:51:52 PM
The original story was run by The Times so-called insight team who screwed up.
Martin Smith and (we now now know) his wife, who produced the other e-fit, produced them after the end of January 2008.
Before then, Martin Smith was certain he'd seen Gerry and so of course refused to produce an efit (he says so in his statement to the Irish Garida police at that date).
Almost certainly, the Smiths produced their efits after the case was shelved in August 2008, and they became convinced that he had been mistaken to suppose the man was Gerry.
Seeing as the Smiths might well have witnessed Madeleine's abduction (unlike any other sighting, before anyone starts) those efits could only, ever, be released into the public domain in the context of a live and ongoing police enquiry, and Scotland Yard chose the moment of the Crimewatch programme to release them.
Repeat.
No bungling.
Do we have a signed statement from Mr. Smith. ?
and verified.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 14, 2015, 07:00:13 PM
Why was The Times (who originally ran the story) successfully sued by the McCanns?
Did they actually sue them? And I dont understand why you are banging on about the Times and the Smithman efits when the topic of the discussion was Crecheman
?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 14, 2015, 07:30:59 PM
Did they actually sue them? And I dont understand why you are banging on about the Times and the Smithman efits when the topic of the discussion was Crecheman
?
Hmmm...
Quote
the Sunday Times still felt able to print an indefensible front page story last year and then force us to instruct lawyers – and even to start court proceedings – before it behaved reasonably
So possibly not, just the threat.
P.S.
Quote
Also cited by the McCanns in their complaint were comments posted by readers below the online version of the article, which was pulled down by News UK just under two weeks after publication
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: mercury on November 14, 2015, 08:35:30 PM
Thanks Sarti, thought as much I would comment further but its all been said before
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: misty on November 14, 2015, 10:10:10 PM
I have maps from pre-2007 that show Direita as a one way street, in the direction it currently runs. (West to East.)
At some time, presumably years ago, it formed the main route from Burgau in the west, down 25 de Abril, then east on Direita to Lagos, and I'm pretty sure it was 2-way back in those days. That would have got the chop around the time the Ocean Club was built.
However, as you have twigged, there were diversions in place. As the whole of the area around the church was being dug up in phase 1, it would have made sense to turn Direita and Teixeira into 2 way streets for that phase. But was it?
From memory, a photo has been posted in this forum of traffic going the 'wrong' way on Direita. From memory, the poster was Heriberto.
Thanks for that, Shining, & the info on Block 1. It is therefore feasible if a temporary 2 way system was in force on Direta, the car lift from the crèche up the hill then left turn & drop-off could have happened. Perhaps the holiday-maker father had been out with his parents/family who resided in the area.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 14, 2015, 10:30:03 PM
Indeed but your question was about half of it. To make it easy: JT did not see an abductor and The MPS were not wrong.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or perhaps I should simplify for you: 1) you rule out the Met being wrong 2) you don't rule out the idea that the Met are lying to us. here is my question again: Why do you think it more likely that the Met are lying than that they are wrong?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 14, 2015, 10:43:30 PM
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or perhaps I should simplify for you: 1) you rule out the Met being wrong 2) you don't rule out the idea that the Met are lying to us. here is my question again: Why do you think it more likely that the Met are lying than that they are wrong?
I understood the first time thanks.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 14, 2015, 11:14:36 PM
Thanks for that, Shining, & the info on Block 1. It is therefore feasible if a temporary 2 way system was in force on Direta, the car lift from the crèche up the hill then left turn & drop-off could have happened. Perhaps the holiday-maker father had been out with his parents/family who resided in the area.
Firstly you need to show there was a two way system, then explain why the car turned left instead of right, then explain how his wife/partner got home from this family night out. Did they make the poor woman walk?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: misty on November 14, 2015, 11:24:38 PM
Firstly you need to show there was a two way system, then explain why the car turned left instead of right, then explain how his wife/partner got home from this family night out. Did they make the poor woman walk?
I have asked about the 2-way system & it appears a possibility at the time. Why did the car turn left - because the driver was heading that way & it was difficult to turn outside Block 6? I don't know - it's just an alternative scenario to the guy mazing all the way from the crèche. His wife may have already crossed the road at the junction seconds before JT saw the man - perhaps he was talking as he lifted his daughter out of the car. We only know what JT saw there - a man with a child - not what she didn't see.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: mercury on November 14, 2015, 11:29:31 PM
all speculation though still and not fact based which is what this forum tries to promote...
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: misty on November 14, 2015, 11:38:53 PM
JT sighting was quite early for someone to collect a child from evening creche?
It was just 45 mins earlier than the time the Smiths said they headed for their apartment and around an hour before the last child was collected from OC crèche.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pegasus on November 15, 2015, 12:48:02 AM
G is not a block it is an area with several blocks like G4 G5(T9) G6 etc (edited)
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 15, 2015, 01:01:07 AM
Firstly you need to show there was a two way system, then explain why the car turned left instead of right, then explain how his wife/partner got home from this family night out. Did they make the poor woman walk?
First, I need to show there was a two way system. Then one heck of a lot of small-but-important things change.
Without going off-topic, one example is that if Madeleine woke and wandered and headed for OC 24 hours reception via Teixeira/Direita, she was walking on a 2-way street that was unfamiliar to drivers and extremely cramped.
It impacts other theories as well.
So, who would know what diversions were put in place in phase 1?
The locals who lived through it might remember. Assuming I can get one to discuss, rather than simply getting an earful of McCann bashing.
How about the McCanns and the Paynes? Since they did not do the London flight, they hired their own transport from Faro. Which route did that take to the OC 24hr reception? And on the night of the 3rd May, which route did Gerry, friend (forgotten who) and Sylvia B plus the GNR take from OC reception to apt 5A? If Direita was 2-way the direct route was west on Direita then turn north.
Now, how does one go about discussing this with the McCanns, as I can discuss but not investigate.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 15, 2015, 04:51:31 AM
It was just 45 mins earlier than the time the Smiths said they headed for their apartment and around an hour before the last child was collected from OC crèche.
The last child was collected from the creche later than that. There were still children there when the missing child procedure was begun at 10.20pm.
After this, the "missing child procedure" was initiated, which consists of an organised search, spread over different areas of the complex. The witness immediately helped in the searches, whilst her colleague Charlotte remained at the crêche, looking after the other children that were there and waiting for the arrival of the last parents, after which she also began searching. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JACQUELINE_WILLIAMS.htm
She indicates that on May 3rd 2007, at around 10.20pm, she was informed by her colleague Amy T. that Madeleine McCann had disappeared. At that, she immediately launched the "missing child" procedure. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LYNSAY-JAYNE.htm http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JACQUELINE_WILLIAMS.htm
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 15, 2015, 08:58:03 AM
There is a clearer map of the OC somewhere, but this one answers your question.
Was the night creche open only to Mark Warner guests? I found two Mark Warner guests with two year old daughters. They were staying in G30 and G46 respectively. Are these two apartments in the area opposite the Tapas entrance?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 15, 2015, 10:02:19 AM
Was the night creche open only to Mark Warner guests? I found two Mark Warner guests with two year old daughters. They were staying in G30 and G46 respectively. Are these two apartments in the area opposite the Tapas entrance?
I doubt the night crèche was only open to MW guests. The OC had only recently been taken over by MW. The previous operator(s) presumably still could use it. Though the truth is, I don't know.
Check my little map. G30 has its front entrance directly opposite the Tapas entrance. Maybe 25 yards away?
G46 is the next street down. Check Google Earth. If that doesn't have a shortcut to the east to OC 24 hrs I owe you a drink if you ever ship up in Luz. It's maybe 100 yards on foot to the OC, so not likely to be Tannerman.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Anna on November 15, 2015, 12:37:30 PM
JT sighting was quite early for someone to collect a child from evening creche?
Did somebody get the timing wrong? More men dressed alike with similar child= Smithman
If JT had got her sighting and check at 9.15 with the return to relieve Russ 9.35/40 ish confused, then it would fit in with Smithman sighting at 10pm (who was also dressed the same and carrying a child) She must have been concerned about her sick child around that time.
Crecheman was collecting his child earlier than most. I wonder why, or was it just an approx timing and his clothes just a rough idea of what he may have worn?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: jassi on November 15, 2015, 12:54:39 PM
Did somebody get the timing wrong? More men dressed alike with similar child= Smithman
If JT had got her sighting and check at 9.15 with the return to relieve Russ 9.35/40 ish confused, then it would fit in with Smithman sighting at 10pm (who was also dressed the same and carrying a child) She must have been concerned about her sick child around that time.
Crecheman was collecting his child earlier than most. I wonder why, or was it just an approx timing and his clothes just a rough idea of what he may have worn?
I've wondered about this, but if so, then how could she have seen Gerry & Jez?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 15, 2015, 12:58:11 PM
then you decide not to answer the question by deflecting, your usual tactic.
When a question is predicated on two erroneous assumptions it is best to let it remain unanswered.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Anna on November 15, 2015, 01:01:12 PM
She would still have seen them on her 9.15 check, jassi. There was such a short gap between the check rushing back to eat he meal in hurried fashion and then back to relieve Russ. It is just a thought, but possible?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: jassi on November 15, 2015, 01:13:17 PM
She would still have seen them on her 9.15 check, jassi. There was such a short gap between the check rushing back to eat he meal in hurried fashion and then back to relieve Russ. It is just a thought, but possible?
That would mean she had got the timing of both events confused. Not a very reliable witness in that case.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 15, 2015, 01:14:37 PM
She would still have seen them on her 9.15 check, jassi. There was such a short gap between the check rushing back to eat he meal in hurried fashion and then back to relieve Russ. It is just a thought, but possible?
I am afraid we just don't know enough about the witnesses to put an appropriate level of credence on what they say. Only the police have the necessary details and observations of the witnesses.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Anna on November 15, 2015, 01:29:37 PM
That would mean she had got the timing of both events confused. Not a very reliable witness in that case.
Sorry I don't understand jassi. Why would the times change? She went up that road twice...........9.15 ish and 9.35/40 ish. It was the time of the sighting that I was referring too, when I said that she possibly got it wrong.
However she seemed pretty sure, just as I was sure that my son visited at 9am,when another person was here. I was proved wrong, because it was after she left, that he visited. We all get confused sometimes. Or is it just me? @)(++(*
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Anna on November 15, 2015, 01:35:00 PM
I am afraid we just don't know enough about the witnesses to put an appropriate level of credence on what they say. Only the police have the necessary details and observations of the witnesses.
True, Slarti. However I don't think that getting confused about a time, means that she told an untruth. The mind can play tricks on ones memory when the person is stressed. IMO
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: jassi on November 15, 2015, 01:49:35 PM
Sorry I don't understand jassi. Why would the times change? She went up that road twice...........9.15 ish and 9.35/40 ish. It was the time of the sighting that I was referring too, when I said that she possibly got it wrong.
However she seemed pretty sure, just as I was sure that my son visited at 9am,when another person was here. I was proved wrong, because it was after she left, that he visited. We all get confused sometimes. Or is it just me? @)(++(*
I think we all get confused.
Her comings and goings certainly confuse me.
She goes up the road at 9.15 ish Unclear why she went or what time she returns, but obviously before Russell leaves with Matt at about 9.30 ish. Then Jane leave again, almost on the heels of Russell , although I thought that it was only when Matt returned did she learn that Russel had stayed in apartment with sick child.
I would like to see that sequence re-enacted - must have been like a Benny Hill sketch @)(++(*
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Eleanor on November 15, 2015, 01:57:41 PM
It is all quite simple to me. Jane Tanner saw the abduction at approximately 9.15pm. The abductor then had to lurk for a short while for the pick up to be arranged.
I don't know why Andy Redwood suggested otherwise, unless he was trying to shorten the time. But there is no doubt that the man who was carrying his child from the Creche was not coming from the right direction, or even going in the right direction.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 15, 2015, 02:01:13 PM
I doubt the night crèche was only open to MW guests. The OC had only recently been taken over by MW. The previous operator(s) presumably still could use it. Though the truth is, I don't know.
Check my little map. G30 has its front entrance directly opposite the Tapas entrance. Maybe 25 yards away?
G46 is the next street down. Check Google Earth. If that doesn't have a shortcut to the east to OC 24 hrs I owe you a drink if you ever ship up in Luz. It's maybe 100 yards on foot to the OC, so not likely to be Tannerman.
Neither of them would be expected to be walking across the top of the road if they were returning from the creche. I also have no idea whether other guests used the children's facilities. The only guests using the Tapas restaurant were Mark Warner. The only guests using the Lobster Minis club were Mark Warner. The only guests playing tennis in the Tapas area seemed to be Mark Warner.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Anna on November 15, 2015, 02:08:50 PM
She goes up the road at 9.15 ish Unclear why she went or what time she returns, but obviously before Russell leaves with Matt at about 9.30 ish. Then Jane leave again, almost on the heels of Russell , although I thought that it was only when Matt returned did she learn that Russel had stayed in apartment with sick child.
I would like to see that sequence re-enacted - must have been like a Benny Hill sketch @)(++(*
I think all was well when she checked at 9.10/15. They were checking frequently, because a child had been poorly, IIRC.
Russ stayed with the sick child at 9.30 and Matt informed JT. She ate her dinner and left to relieve Russ around 9.35/40 Not much of a gap there. As you say. The movement between 9PM and 9.45 was a bit of a heavy traffic period.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 15, 2015, 02:12:22 PM
Jane Tanner saw what she saw when she saw it of that there is no doubt.
The man was carrying a barefooted child and was walking briskly away from the apartment from where it was going to be discovered three quarters of an hour later that Madeleine McCann had disappeared.
It doesn't take rocket science to work that one out.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Anna on November 15, 2015, 02:20:03 PM
It is all quite simple to me. Jane Tanner saw the abduction at approximately 9.15pm. The abductor then had to lurk for a short while for the pick up to be arranged.
I don't know why Andy Redwood suggested otherwise, unless he was trying to shorten the time. But there is no doubt that the man who was carrying his child from the Creche was not coming from the right direction, or even going in the right direction.
My thoughts too, Eleanor. However at what time was the sighting of Tannerman is what I am now thinking. If it was 9.40 it could still be Smithman.
On the other hand, (like you) I believed in the possibility of a bungled plan where the vehicle driver took fright and left the culprit where he was seen by JT. He might even had got into a vehicle parked nearby. Where does that leave Crecheman(walking in the wrong direction) and Smithman sighted 40 minutes after JT sighting?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Anna on November 15, 2015, 02:24:03 PM
Jane Tanner saw what she saw when she saw it of that there is no doubt.
The man was carrying a barefooted child and was walking briskly away from the apartment from where it was going to be discovered three quarters of an hour later that Madeleine McCann had disappeared.
It doesn't take rocket science to work that one out.
So you think that this person and crecheman were both wandering about with barefoot children at 9.15? Or do you now believe that she saw crecheman?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 15, 2015, 02:30:23 PM
So you think that this person and crecheman were both wandering about with barefoot children at 9.15? Or do you now believe that she saw crecheman?
Add Smithman and that's three men wandering about PDL with a barefooted Madeleine look-a-like. Is that in any way credible ?
It is interesting though how supporters cherry pick Redwood's statements to suit. When he says that the McCanns are not suspects, it's written in stone. When he eliminates the Tanner sighting as the abductor there's doubt. Why is that ?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Eleanor on November 15, 2015, 02:52:31 PM
My thoughts too, Eleanor. However at what time was the sighting of Tannerman is what I am now thinking. If it was 9.40 it could still be Smithman.
On the other hand, (like you) I believed in the possibility of a bungled plan where the vehicle driver took fright and left the culprit where he was seen by JT. He might even had got into a vehicle parked nearby. Where does that leave Crecheman(walking in the wrong direction) and Smithman sighted 40 minutes after JT sighting?
If the child was to be taken off by sea then a time for pick up had to be arranged, since none of them at the time of abduction could have been sure that it would have been done. The abductor then had to let the recipient know that it had been accomplished. And the abductor would not have wanted to be hanging around on the beach waiting for a small boat to arrive from a larger boat. Possibly something like 20 minutes to half an hour. Hence Smithman seeming to be in a bit of a hurry as he headed towards the beach.
This was a planned abduction, and almost certainly not by a Paedophile. Paedophiles don't go to these lengths. But someone who wanted a well nurtured child would.
This has been my opinion for at least the last seven years.
I don't think that Crecheman ever figured in this, and I don't think that Andy Redwood ever said definitively that he did.
I am now pretty sure that Scotland Yard know what happened. But they were never going to tell the likes of us.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 15, 2015, 02:54:15 PM
Jane Tanner saw what she saw when she saw it of that there is no doubt.
The man was carrying a barefooted child and was walking briskly away from the apartment from where it was going to be discovered three quarters of an hour later that Madeleine McCann had disappeared.
It doesn't take rocket science to work that one out.
It has been worked out. He has been found.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: faithlilly on November 15, 2015, 02:58:57 PM
If the child was to be taken off by sea then a time for pick up had to be arranged, since none of them at the time of abduction could have been sure that it would have been done. The abductor then had to let the recipient know that it had been accomplished. And the abductor would not have wanted to be hanging around on the beach waiting for a small boat to arrive from a larger boat. Possibly something like 20 minutes to half an hour. Hence Smithman seeming to be in a bit of a hurry as he headed towards the beach.
This was a planned abduction, and almost certainly not by a Paedophile. Paedophiles don't go to these lengths. But someone who wanted a well nurtured child would.
This has been my opinion for at least the last seven years.
I don't think that Crecheman ever figured in this, and I don't think that Andy Redwood ever said definitively that he did.
I am now pretty sure that Scotland Yard know what happened. But they were never going to tell the likes of us.
And its laudable that you imagine the best case scenario for the child, however it's not really realistic, is it ?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 15, 2015, 03:01:55 PM
Add Smithman and that's three men wandering about PDL with a barefooted Madeleine look-a-like. Is that in any way credible ?
It is interesting though how supporters cherry pick Redwood's statements to suit. When he says that the McCanns are not suspects, it's written in stone. When he eliminates the Tanner sighting as the abductor there's doubt. Why is that ?
Well perhaps it's because Redwood can be certain that he and the rest of Operation Grange are not treating the McCanns as supects, whilst by his own admission he cannot be certain that the man seen by JT was not the abductor?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: faithlilly on November 15, 2015, 03:10:39 PM
Well perhaps it's because Redwood can be certain that he and the rest of Operation Grange are not treating the McCanns as supects, whilst by his own admission he cannot be certain that the man seen by JT was not the abductor?
Did he say that ? Perhaps you can provide a cite ?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Eleanor on November 15, 2015, 03:35:24 PM
And its laudable that you imagine the best case scenario for the child, however it's not really realistic, is it ?
Faith, I can't be asked to consider whatever you think any longer. I have done everything that I can think of within the bounds of logistics and common sense before I decided. Most Mccann Supporters have.
If you wish to think that I am being unrealistic then I can only fear for your mindset. The problem is yours, and yours, and yours.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 15, 2015, 03:37:24 PM
Did he say that ? Perhaps you can provide a cite ?
Are you seriously asking me for a cite for Redwood saying that the McCanns are not suspects? How many times do you need a cite for that before you accept it as fact?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 15, 2015, 03:45:56 PM
Redwood "almost certain" the the man seen by JT was not the abductor, however not 100% certain, unlike his 100% certainty that the McCanns are not suspects.
True, Slarti. However I don't think that getting confused about a time, means that she told an untruth. The mind can play tricks on ones memory when the person is stressed. IMO
Stressed, tired and emotional.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 15, 2015, 04:16:10 PM
Redwood may not have said definitely that he had eliminated Tannerman, but he certainly wasn't asking anyone to find him. The only sighting he was interested in was Smithman. We can fantacize, but I don't think Operation Grange are interested in the Tanner sighting at all, or they would have left it open.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 15, 2015, 04:31:39 PM
Redwood may not have said definitely that he had eliminated Tannerman, but he certainly wasn't asking anyone to find him. The only sighting he was interested in was Smithman. We can fantacize, but I don't think Operation Grange are interested in the Tanner sighting at all, or they would have left it open.
It is difficult to work out what he did say with the "believeds" and "almost certain that is not now actually the cases". What he didn't say was that the man JT saw was an abductor but that "he was believed to have been"[by whom?] Check video. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24528530
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 15, 2015, 04:36:57 PM
It is difficult to work out what he did say with the "believeds" and "almost certain that is not now actually the cases". What he didn't say was that the man JT saw was an abductor but that "he was believed to have been"[by whom?] Check video. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24528530
There's nothing whatsoever difficult to work out about what he said, unless you're a bear with a very little brain.
Which bit couldn't you work out Alice? Perhaps I can help.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Eleanor on November 15, 2015, 04:59:02 PM
Andy Redwood never said that Crecheman was this person walking around with a child. But make of it what you may. I don't really care. You will all have at it for your own contention, whatever that might be.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 15, 2015, 05:15:32 PM
Redwood "almost certain" the the man seen by JT was not the abductor, however not 100% certain, unlike his 100% certainty that the McCanns are not suspects.
Are you seriously asking me for a cite for Redwood saying that the McCanns are not suspects? How many times do you need a cite for that before you accept it as fact?
Neither of them would be expected to be walking across the top of the road if they were returning from the creche. I also have no idea whether other guests used the children's facilities. The only guests using the Tapas restaurant were Mark Warner. The only guests using the Lobster Minis club were Mark Warner. The only guests playing tennis in the Tapas area seemed to be Mark Warner.
That sounds like a check via Wayback on what Thomas Cook was advertising before May 2007. It won't answer why he was going the wrong way. It should answer your questions above, though.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 15, 2015, 06:51:53 PM
Good. Now as you are supposedly a highly respected mod, why don't you set a good example and get this thread back on topic, instead of trying to score childish points against one of your forum members?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 15, 2015, 07:14:53 PM
Tannerman……the man Jane Tanner thinks she saw and for 6 years assumed to be the abductor although there was no evidence of abduction at the time and place.
Crecheman…….he thinks, and Andy Redwood is almost certain that he is the man Jane Tanner thinks she saw.
Given Jane Tanner saw someone who definitely wasn’t the abductor and possibly was not Crecheman either because DCI Andy was not sure, then who was he?
We know where Jane was in time and space, pretty much, from her testimony. So to satisfy both sides ,abductor or no abductor, for either eventuality there would be two identical geezers carrying identical "saucepanlids" occupying the same time and space.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 15, 2015, 07:48:49 PM
Tannerman……the man Jane Tanner thinks she saw and for 6 years assumed to be the abductor although there was no evidence of abduction at the time and place.
Crecheman…….he thinks, and Andy Redwood is almost certain that he is the man Jane Tanner thinks she saw. Given Jane Tanner saw someone who definitely wasn’t the abductor and possibly was not Crecheman either because DCI Andy was not sure, then who was he?
We know where Jane was in time and space, pretty much, from her testimony. So to satisfy both sides ,abductor or no abductor, for either eventuality there would be two identical geezers carrying identical "saucepanlids" occupying the same time and space.
Sez who?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 15, 2015, 08:00:38 PM
Well Alfred, without an abductor, where are the Mccanns ? 8)-)))
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pegasus on November 15, 2015, 08:12:03 PM
Surprised none of you have thought of this. Why would someone be walking towards evening creche carrying their child, when it's too late to be delivering child to creche, but during period for collection from creche? It's not rocket science.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Admin on November 15, 2015, 08:22:47 PM
Surprised none of you have thought of this. Why would someone be walking towards evening creche carrying their child, when it's too late to be delivering child to creche, but during period for collection from creche? It's not rocket science.
But this chappie wasn't even walking towards the creche otherwise he would have met Jane Tanner head on?
But this chappie wasn't even walking towards the creche otherwise he would have met Jane Tanner head on?
From that T junction to go to evening creche IMO you can walk east along Rua Silva past the fronts of blocks G6 and G1 then cut diagonally across G1 carpark and turn right down a footpath to creche it's just as quick as the shortcut you're thinking of
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 15, 2015, 08:41:34 PM
Good. Now as you are supposedly a highly respected mod, why don't you set a good example and get this thread back on topic, instead of trying to score childish points against one of your forum members?
Right I shall get back to modding and removing insulting posts such as...
Quote
There's nothing whatsoever difficult to work out about what he said, unless you're a bear with a very little brain.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 15, 2015, 08:42:50 PM
That sounds like a check via Wayback on what Thomas Cook was advertising before May 2007. It won't answer why he was going the wrong way. It should answer your questions above, though.
Ha ha, if I knew how to use Wayback I would check, but I don't.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 15, 2015, 08:43:43 PM
From that T junction to go to evening creche IMO you can walk east along Rua Silva past the fronts of blocks G6 and G1 then cut diagonally across G1 carpark and turn right down a footpath to creche it's just as quick as the shortcut you're thinking of
Why use a partially unlit and out-of-the-way path with high walls/hedges on both sides for much of it in the dark when you could walk down a fully lit road in reasonable safety?
Assuming for a moment that this chap was going to the creche and not returning from it, why take a scantily clad child with bare feet out on such a cold night in any event?
Didn't Tanner claim he didn't look like a tourist? Don't fellow tourists usually pass the time of day?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 15, 2015, 09:21:34 PM
He said he was 'almost certain' which is a long way away from what you are implying.
Almost certain leaves room for doubt. You asked why the Faithful accepted Redwood's statement about the McCanns not being suspects- that's because he would know with certainty that they aren't. You asked why the Faithful don't all accept that he is right about Crecheman - that is because there is some room for doubt. Almost certain does not equal certain. Hope that's clear now. FWIW, I think he's almost certainly right too, but I can't be sure - can you?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 15, 2015, 09:38:26 PM
Almost certain leaves room for doubt. You asked why the Faithful accepted Redwood's statement about the McCanns not being suspects- that's because he would know with certainty that they aren't. You asked why the Faithful don't all accept that he is right about Crecheman - that is because there is some room for doubt. Almost certain does not equal certain. Hope that's clear now. FWIW, I think he's almost certainly right too, but I can't be sure - can you?
Yet again.
How could Redwood know the mccanns weren't suspects, since the crime is still unknown ?
There is no getting away from that, no matter the deflections.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: mercury on November 15, 2015, 09:44:01 PM
Jane Tanners "sightng" became flakier by the day over the years
And was "used" as "proof" of an abduction when it never was
She saw the feet and bottom of the pyjamas Next we read she saw the pink top .. Never said by her but painted in by people who needed to paint it in
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 15, 2015, 09:48:35 PM
Do you mean her only seeing him for a few seconds but noticing the height of his heels, his swarthy skin, his crumpled trousers and every individual hair in his head etc?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 15, 2015, 09:57:52 PM
Do you mean her only seeing him for a few seconds but noticing the height of his heels, his swarthy skin, his crumpled trousers and every individual hair in his head etc?
Can she leap tall buildings with a single bound ? %#&%%5
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: faithlilly on November 15, 2015, 09:59:46 PM
Almost certain leaves room for doubt. You asked why the Faithful accepted Redwood's statement about the McCanns not being suspects- that's because he would know with certainty that they aren't. You asked why the Faithful don't all accept that he is right about Crecheman - that is because there is some room for doubt. Almost certain does not equal certain. Hope that's clear now. FWIW, I think he's almost certainly right too, but I can't be sure - can you?
And your thoughts on the McCann's own PIs believing Tanner was an unreliable witness and Smithman was the sighting which should be concentrated on ?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 15, 2015, 10:02:32 PM
Can she leap tall buildings with a single bound ? %#&%%5
She swore by all that she held..cant remember the word...holy or sacred....or somethg similar.....that what she said was true, so seems she saw someone
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 15, 2015, 10:16:35 PM
Not really. It would seem Alfie doesn't dismiss totally the fact that Tanner may be an unreliable witness. That's progress, of a sort anyway.
I think it's possible though not highly likely that she misremembered when she actually saw the man with the child, that it may have been later in the evening than she said.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: mercury on November 15, 2015, 10:36:55 PM
Not really. It would seem Alfie doesn't dismiss totally the fact that Tanner may be an unreliable witness. That's progress, of a sort anyway.
Maybe but alf wouldnt even come close to considering the times was right ....if he does he may post...and the 50k paid to the mccanns did nothing to lessen the impact of the truth in that article overall....oops
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: faithlilly on November 15, 2015, 10:45:38 PM
I think it's possible though not highly likely that she misremembered when she actually saw the man with the child, that it may have been later in the evening than she said.
So you do have an opinion and that opinion seems to be that it is possible Tanner was an unreliable witness.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 15, 2015, 11:09:25 PM
All witness statements are unreliable to a certain extent. No one has 100% perfect recall. You may as well disregard everyone's witness statements if you want to play that game.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 16, 2015, 01:32:23 AM
Ha ha, if I knew how to use Wayback I would check, but I don't.
Simple. Get the current website address e.g. http whatever Google wayback. The top hit is the Wayback machine cos everyone uses it. Go to Wayback. Insert your (Thomas Cook) URL into the search box. Wayback comes up with a calendar of times it has copied the site. (The links all 'work' much as if it is a current site.)
You want something a bit before 28 Apr 2007.
I used this on markwarner.co.uk to work out that discounts (the ones DP mentions re booking) were there on the 8 Apr 2007 capture, early booking discount ended 28 Feb 2007, so fitting with statement he made the booking sometime around mid-March 2007-ish.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pegasus on November 16, 2015, 01:49:55 AM
You already have an example of a tourist carrying a child to creche at pick up time http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: misty on November 16, 2015, 02:07:59 AM
You already have an example of a tourist carrying a child to creche at pick up time http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
Bridget O'Donnell, link as above. *snipped* "My phone rang as our food arrived; our baby had woken up. I walked the round trip to collect him from the kiddie club, then back to the restaurant. He kept crying and eventually we left our meal unfinished and walked back again to the club to fetch our sleeping daughter. Jes carried her home in a blanket. The next night we stayed in. It was Thursday, May 3".
Both parents went to the crèche the 2nd time. Baby was presumably in the pushchair. None of the nannies working at the crèche appear to have been asked about parental activity there around 9.15pm on the 3rd. Presumably that would be classed as a leading question, not to be asked of a witness.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pegasus on November 16, 2015, 03:22:48 AM
Bridget O'Donnell, link as above. *snipped* "My phone rang as our food arrived; our baby had woken up. I walked the round trip to collect him from the kiddie club, then back to the restaurant. He kept crying and eventually we left our meal unfinished and walked back again to the club to fetch our sleeping daughter. Jes carried her home in a blanket. The next night we stayed in. It was Thursday, May 3".
Both parents went to the crèche the 2nd time. Baby was presumably in the pushchair. None of the nannies working at the crèche appear to have been asked about parental activity there around 9.15pm on the 3rd. Presumably that would be classed as a leading question, not to be asked of a witness.
Q. why would a parent go towards creche with a child at pick up time? A. to pick up their other child from creche
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 16, 2015, 05:52:52 AM
Simple. Get the current website address e.g. http whatever Google wayback. The top hit is the Wayback machine cos everyone uses it. Go to Wayback. Insert your (Thomas Cook) URL into the search box. Wayback comes up with a calendar of times it has copied the site. (The links all 'work' much as if it is a current site.)
You want something a bit before 28 Apr 2007.
I used this on markwarner.co.uk to work out that discounts (the ones DP mentions re booking) were there on the 8 Apr 2007 capture, early booking discount ended 28 Feb 2007, so fitting with statement he made the booking sometime around mid-March 2007-ish.
I couldn't find anything for 2007, but I found this for 2013;
THOMAS COOK
New, multi-activity kids’ clubs will be rolled out across 55 of Thomas Cook and Airtours’ most popular family hotels this year.
Running between May and October, the clubs offer themed programmes of more than 30 sports and activities. They are age-appropriate and include anything from sing-a-longs and games to water polo and orienteering.
The club is split by age: The Tiddlers, for three to four years; The Shoal, for five to seven years; and The Reef, for eight to 11 years. All offer three two-hour sessions a day (morning, afternoon and evening), six days a week.
The clubs are free, but no meals are provided and kids need to take their own drinks.
Staff must have a minimum of five GCSEs plus GNVQ Level 3 in childcare or Level 2 in sports/activity. Pre-booking isn’t necessary, guests can sign up once in resort. http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2013/02/07/43081/family-holidays-join-the-club.html
Looking at the statements there were two companies involved, both belonging to Mark Warner. Greentrust was created to operate in Portugal and those who previously worked for the Ocean Club seemed to have had their employment transferred to this company. Mark Warner itself seems to have employed the Nannies, so they may have been specifically for Mark Warner Guests.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 16, 2015, 11:27:14 AM
I couldn't find anything for 2007, but I found this for 2013;
THOMAS COOK
New, multi-activity kids’ clubs will be rolled out across 55 of Thomas Cook and Airtours’ most popular family hotels this year.
Running between May and October, the clubs offer themed programmes of more than 30 sports and activities. They are age-appropriate and include anything from sing-a-longs and games to water polo and orienteering.
The club is split by age: The Tiddlers, for three to four years; The Shoal, for five to seven years; and The Reef, for eight to 11 years. All offer three two-hour sessions a day (morning, afternoon and evening), six days a week.
The clubs are free, but no meals are provided and kids need to take their own drinks.
Staff must have a minimum of five GCSEs plus GNVQ Level 3 in childcare or Level 2 in sports/activity. Pre-booking isn’t necessary, guests can sign up once in resort. http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2013/02/07/43081/family-holidays-join-the-club.html
Looking at the statements there were two companies involved, both belonging to Mark Warner. Greentrust was created to operate in Portugal and those who previously worked for the Ocean Club seemed to have had their employment transferred to this company. Mark Warner itself seems to have employed the Nannies, so they may have been specifically for Mark Warner Guests.
Right. Wayback does not work for Thomas Cook as Thomas Cook prevents it being picked up by search machines (????).
So here's a review from May 2007 by one R. Hughes at https://www.holidaywatchdog.com/8534-Lagos-Ocean_Club_Apartments-Holiday-Review.html
"The resort was fine, despite worries about the topical media issues; Luz is a pretty, quiet, clean resort. Ocean Club changed our apartment when we were not happy with being placed in the midst of the press.
We travelled with Thomas Cook who, despite my calls to them about my concerns that we were travelling with a foster child and could not be caught by the media, did nothing to ensure that we were not placed near the press.
Also, having booked and paid for an air conditioned car via Thomas Cook, we were given one without air con and told we would have to pay another up-grade and sort it out back in England (still not resolved). The TC rep was polite but did little to get the problem resolved.
The children's club seemed to revolve around junk food games and were a little irregular; however we were there just before half term so not so many kids about.
When dealing with Thomas Cook, be prepared for long waits on 0870 numbers." Holiday details: May 2007, Self Catering, booked with Thomas Cook"
Thus TC appears to have been SC but the kids could go in the children's club. Night crèche??????
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 16, 2015, 12:04:05 PM
21:00 - a couple of British holidaymakers collected their children from the night creche at the OC main 24hr reception. The father walks on ahead with one child in his arms back towards block 4 and 5.
(http://s27.postimg.org/5xleqdrlf/crecheman.jpg)
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 16, 2015, 02:41:44 PM
She swore by all that she held..cant remember the word...holy or sacred....or somethg similar.....that what she said was true, so seems she saw someone
I am warming to the idea of DCI Andy not able to be 100% certain of Crecheman being the man Jane T. saw. Both Crecheman and DCI Andy are both pretty well convinced that he [Crecheman] was in the right place at the right time for Jane T. to have seen him, then of course to fit the description he would have been carrying his child across his arms and be clad in a similar manner. DCI Andy is not 100% sure he was the man Jane T. saw [like he is only "almost certain"]. Jane T., however is 100% certain she saw someone. So working on the assumptions that Jane T. didn’t see Crecheman because DCI Andy can only be “almost certain” and Jane T. is 100% certain she saw someone because she said so in her statements, then she saw someone else occupying the same space and time as Crecheman, also carrying a child in a bit of a cack handed fashion. That one seemingly was walking in one direction and one in the opposite suggests the two men nearly bumped into one another. Does anyone have a rational explanation for this set up that does not rely on two identical blokes with identical kids held in identical ways being at the same road junction at the same time no matter which way they were facing or what they had been up to.? Cue sketch of “The Double Take Brothers”
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 16, 2015, 03:22:46 PM
I am warming to the idea of DCI Andy not able to be 100% certain of Crecheman being the man Jane T. saw. Both Crecheman and DCI Andy are both pretty well convinced that he [Crecheman] was in the right place at the right time for Jane T. to have seen him, then of course to fit the description he would have been carrying his child across his arms and be clad in a similar manner. DCI Andy is not 100% sure he was the man Jane T. saw [like he is only "almost certain"]. Jane T., however is 100% certain she saw someone. So working on the assumptions that Jane T. didn’t see Crecheman because DCI Andy can only be “almost certain” and Jane T. is 100% certain she saw someone because she said so in her statements, then she saw someone else occupying the same space and time as Crecheman, also carrying a child in a bit of a cack handed fashion. That one seemingly was walking in one direction and one in the opposite suggests the two men nearly bumped into one another. Does anyone have a rational explanation for this set up that does not rely on two identical blokes with identical kids held in identical ways being at the same road junction at the same time no matter which way they were facing or what they had been up to.? Cue sketch of “The Double Take Brothers”
The man seen by Jane Tanner carrying a child a child in close proximity to the apartment from which Madeleine McCann vanished... an event she reported to the Portuguese police at the earliest opportunity ... has never been categorically eliminated as Madeleine's abductor.
If he was collecting his child from the night crèche ... why weren't the PJ able to rule him out of the inquiry in 2007?
What a lot of time that would have saved.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 16, 2015, 03:24:05 PM
The man seen by Jane Tanner carrying a child a child in close proximity to the apartment from which Madeleine McCann vanished... an event she reported to the Portuguese police at the earliest opportunity ... has never been categorically eliminated as Madeleine's abductor.
If he was collecting his child from the night crèche ... why weren't the PJ able to rule him out of the inquiry in 2007?
What a lot of time that would have saved.
Ahtne word abductor.
Mantra, pure mantra.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 16, 2015, 03:26:27 PM
I am warming to the idea of DCI Andy not able to be 100% certain of Crecheman being the man Jane T. saw. Both Crecheman and DCI Andy are both pretty well convinced that he [Crecheman] was in the right place at the right time for Jane T. to have seen him, then of course to fit the description he would have been carrying his child across his arms and be clad in a similar manner. DCI Andy is not 100% sure he was the man Jane T. saw [like he is only "almost certain"]. Jane T., however is 100% certain she saw someone. So working on the assumptions that Jane T. didn’t see Crecheman because DCI Andy can only be “almost certain” and Jane T. is 100% certain she saw someone because she said so in her statements, then she saw someone else occupying the same space and time as Crecheman, also carrying a child in a bit of a cack handed fashion. That one seemingly was walking in one direction and one in the opposite suggests the two men nearly bumped into one another. Does anyone have a rational explanation for this set up that does not rely on two identical blokes with identical kids held in identical ways being at the same road junction at the same time no matter which way they were facing or what they had been up to.? Cue sketch of “The Double Take Brothers”
Did Redwood specify the direction Crecheman was walking in? Is there any possibility at all in your mind that they could actually be the same man? Would this then answer your questions, without the need to make it into a comedy sketch?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 16, 2015, 03:41:35 PM
The man seen by Jane Tanner carrying a child a child in close proximity to the apartment from which Madeleine McCann vanished... an event she reported to the Portuguese police at the earliest opportunity ... has never been categorically eliminated as Madeleine's abductor.
If he was collecting his child from the night crèche ... why weren't the PJ able to rule him out of the inquiry in 2007?
What a lot of time that would have saved.
So you have no rational explanation and have failed to appreciate the point; or you do appreciate the point and are deflecting as the case may be. If the narratives and assumptions made by "the supporters" are to stack up there have of necessity to be two similarly clad men men carrying a child in a similar manner both ensembles occupying the same time and space. Once that has been established chat about abductors, creches directions of travel and who was ruled out by whom and who wasted most time whilst it may be fun, is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 16, 2015, 03:49:43 PM
So you have no rational explanation and have failed to appreciate the point; or you do appreciate the point and are deflecting as the case may be. If the narratives and assumptions made by "the supporters" are to stack up there have of necessity to be two similarly clad men men carrying a child in a similar manner both ensembles occupying the same time and space. Once that has been established chat about abductors, creches directions of travel and who was ruled out by whom and who wasted most time whilst it may be fun, is irrelevant.
Oh I see - I was to assume the guise of "The Supporters" before answering. My mistake. Perhaps "The Supporters" are barking up the wrong tree and there is actually only one man, the man who came forward, who also happens to be the man seen by JT? Have "The Supporters" made the claim that there were two men occupying the same time and space walking in opposite directions so as to narrowly avoid collision? If so, then I will bow out of the discussion and let "The Supporters" respond.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: jassi on November 16, 2015, 03:57:47 PM
So you have no rational explanation and have failed to appreciate the point; or you do appreciate the point and are deflecting as the case may be. If the narratives and assumptions made by "the supporters" are to stack up there have of necessity to be two similarly clad men men carrying a child in a similar manner both ensembles occupying the same time and space. Once that has been established chat about abductors, creches directions of travel and who was ruled out by whom and who wasted most time whilst it may be fun, is irrelevant.
Indeed. Either Crechman is Tannerman, or there must have been two similarly dressed men each carrying a very similar child through the same streets at about the same time.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 16, 2015, 04:04:26 PM
Did Redwood specify the direction Crecheman was walking in? Is there any possibility at all in your mind that they could actually be the same man? Would this then answer your questions, without the need to make it into a comedy sketch?
My opinion does not matter what I am trying to understand is how "the supporters" think their propositions work with only one man. Given that man cannot simultaneously be Crecheman and Abductorman. We know from J.T's statement she saw someone. We know from DCI Redwood's comments that both he and Crecheman believe Crecheman was in the location at the appropriate time. So if JT didn't see Crecheman bit saw A.N Other then there were two identical geezers down at The Crossroads as it were, at the same time. Jane saw one Jez and Gerry saw neither. So far no one has come up with a good explanation to satisfy the supporters propositions. Personally I would go with the theory that Redwood fragged "Tannerman The Abductor" and by his performance afterwards has discounted him.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 16, 2015, 04:05:47 PM
Indeed. Either Crechman is Tannerman, or there must have been two similarly dressed men each carrying a very similar child through the same streets at about the same time.
It is not the preferred solution though.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 16, 2015, 04:08:39 PM
So you have no rational explanation and have failed to appreciate the point; or you do appreciate the point and are deflecting as the case may be. If the narratives and assumptions made by "the supporters" are to stack up there have of necessity to be two similarly clad men men carrying a child in a similar manner both ensembles occupying the same time and space. Once that has been established chat about abductors, creches directions of travel and who was ruled out by whom and who wasted most time whilst it may be fun, is irrelevant.
Please do try to pay attention.
There is a very serious issue here ... and that is the disappearance of a three year old child.
There is a credible witness who saw a man at the relevant time in the relevant place. How extraordinary that eight + years after the event it is not known if he had taken the long way round from the night creche or if he was carrying Madeleine McCann away from all she knew and loved.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 16, 2015, 04:09:57 PM
Indeed. Either Crechman is Tannerman, or there must have been two similarly dressed men each carrying a very similar child through the same streets at about the same time.
What about the man Mr Smith et al said they had seen?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 16, 2015, 04:26:56 PM
My opinion does not matter what I am trying to understand is how "the supporters" think their propositions work with only man. Given that man cannot simultaneously be Crecheman and Abductorman. We know from J.T's statement she saw someone. We know from DCI Redwood's comments that both he and Crecheman believe Crecheman was in the location at the appropriate time. So if JT didn't see Crecheman bit saw A.N Other then there were two identical geezers down at The Crossroads as it were, at the same time. Jane saw one Jez and Gerry saw neither. So far no one has come up with a good explanation to satisfy the supporters propositions. Personally I would go with the theory that Redwood fragged "Tannerman The Abductor" and by his performance afterwards has discounted him.
If there are "The Supporters" claiming that there are two near identical men heading in opposite directions at 9.15pm, both carrying little girls in pinky white PJs, then they need a word with themselves. Are there any?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 16, 2015, 04:28:24 PM
There is a very serious issue here ... and that is the disappearance of a three year old child.
There is a credible witness who saw a man at the relevant time in the relevant place. How extraordinary that eight + years after the event it is not known if he had taken the long way round from the night creche or if he was carrying Madeleine McCann away from all she knew and loved.
The disappearance of a child is indeed very serious. Operation Grange have investigated and have strongly suggested that Jane Tanner did not see an abductor. It's extraordinary that those who have volubly supported Operation Grange seem not to want to believe what they have said in this instance.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: jassi on November 16, 2015, 04:29:58 PM
I doubt very much if there were three individuals carrying barefoot children around Luz on the night Madeleine vanished. Then who knows?
The least that could have been expected is that the man seen by Jane Tanner should have been checked out and traced at the time. He was obviously coming from somewhere. Was that somewhere apartment 5A ... or was it the night crèche ... or somewhere else entirely?
At the time he was the only concrete clue available. The Smiths did not report their sighting until a fortnight after the event.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: jassi on November 16, 2015, 05:02:23 PM
I doubt very much if there were three individuals carrying barefoot children around Luz on the night Madeleine vanished. Then who knows?
The least that could have been expected is that the man seen by Jane Tanner should have been checked out and traced at the time. He was obviously coming from somewhere. Was that somewhere apartment 5A ... or was it the night crèche ... or somewhere else entirely?
At the time he was the only concrete clue available. The Smiths did not report their sighting until a fortnight after the event.
Nor do I. It would appear, however, that SY have discarded Tannerman & Crechman but are interested in identifying Smithman. But like you, what do I know?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 16, 2015, 05:08:24 PM
... If the narratives and assumptions made by "the supporters" are to stack up there have of necessity to be two similarly clad men men carrying a child in a similar manner both ensembles occupying the same time and space. Once that has been established chat about abductors, creches directions of travel and who was ruled out by whom and who wasted most time whilst it may be fun, is irrelevant.
Not sure about that.
When was the JT sighting first published. 25 May, from memory. I don't know the date the sketch was released, and if someone can update me on that, thanks in advance.
Crècheman appears to have never come forward. He was tracked down by OG. He did not volunteer.
So years after the event he thinks his child might have been in the crèche, and he thinks he might have been walking carrying his child somewhere around 5A. The direction seems vague. The clothes appear to be unremarkable.
We have no reason to assume he can remember the mode he used to carry the child. He was posed as per the JT sketch by OG.
If there were 11 children in the crèche and 8 families, there was a fair bit of carrying or buggying.
Smithman doesn't fit the crèche, so why does Tannerman have to fit the crèche?
Tannerman doesn't seem to be the culprit, based purely on the fact that Madeleine was too heavy to make that carrying method viable for any length of time. But that is hardly written in stone.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 16, 2015, 05:11:24 PM
There is a very serious issue here ... and that is the disappearance of a three year old child.
There is a credible witness who saw a man at the relevant time in the relevant place. How extraordinary that eight + years after the event it is not known if he had taken the long way round from the night creche or if he was carrying Madeleine McCann away from all she knew and loved.
I am paying attention. I didn't say it wasn't serious. I am sure the LP and The MPS know.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 16, 2015, 05:16:46 PM
Oh I see - I was to assume the guise of "The Supporters" before answering. My mistake. Perhaps "The Supporters" are barking up the wrong tree and there is actually only one man, the man who came forward, who also happens to be the man seen by JT? Have "The Supporters" made the claim that there were two men occupying the same time and space walking in opposite directions so as to narrowly avoid collision? If so, then I will bow out of the discussion and let "The Supporters" respond.
You seem to have adopted the mantle of Brietta for 'tis she to whom my post was sent. Prithee Sire to whom would you prefer I now respond?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 16, 2015, 05:21:28 PM
If there are "The Supporters" claiming that there are two near identical men heading in opposite directions at 9.15pm, both carrying little girls in pinky white PJs, then they need a word with themselves. Are there any?
Anyone who has tried to use the "Redwood only said almost certain" ploy fits the group.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 16, 2015, 05:33:55 PM
Nor do I. It would appear, however, that SY have discarded Tannerman & Crechman but are interested in identifying Smithman. But like you, what do I know?
I know nothing ... but I know enough to know that is exactly what my opinion and that of so many others is worth - nothing ... for the simple reason we are not privy ~ nor should we be ~ to all the information available in Madeleine's case.
What I do know is that abductions very often leave no evidence. I know that sometimes the only clue comes from eyewitnesses who occasionally are in the position of being able to thwart the child being taken.
Given that Jane Tanner is an eye witness to a man carrying a child outside the apartment Madeleine McCann disappeared from I find it rather extraordinary that nothing seems to have been done with her evidence.
When she did not finger Robert Murat as the man she had seen ... that seems to have been that ...
Other questioning seems to have been deficient in this regard. Unless the PJ had already eliminated him from the night crèche and knew his identity. It seems they had not, or there certainly is no mention of it in the files if they had.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 16, 2015, 05:36:45 PM
When was the JT sighting first published. 25 May, from memory. I don't know the date the sketch was released, and if someone can update me on that, thanks in advance.
Crècheman appears to have never come forward. He was tracked down by OG. He did not volunteer.
So years after the event he thinks his child might have been in the crèche, and he thinks he might have been walking carrying his child somewhere around 5A. The direction seems vague. The clothes appear to be unremarkable.
We have no reason to assume he can remember the mode he used to carry the child. He was posed as per the JT sketch by OG.
If there were 11 children in the crèche and 8 families, there was a fair bit of carrying or buggying.
Smithman doesn't fit the crèche, so why does Tannerman have to fit the crèche?
Tannerman doesn't seem to be the culprit, based purely on the fact that Madeleine was too heavy to make that carrying method viable for any length of time. But that is hardly written in stone.
1 Mercury posted a link suggesting he had made a "statement" of some sort to Leicestershire Police. 2 Agreed but O.G would likely have asked if it were possible he did. If it wasn't possible then why show it? 3 Tannerman does not have to fit the creche. The problem lies with having two identical "father and child ensembles" in the same place at the same time. ie the road junction by Apt 5A at about 21:10 on 3rd May 2007. 4 Agreed.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 16, 2015, 05:38:28 PM
I doubt very much if there were three individuals carrying barefoot children around Luz on the night Madeleine vanished. Then who knows?
The least that could have been expected is that the man seen by Jane Tanner should have been checked out and traced at the time. He was obviously coming from somewhere. Was that somewhere apartment 5A ... or was it the night crèche ... or somewhere else entirely?
At the time he was the only concrete clue available. The Smiths did not report their sighting until a fortnight after the event.
He left the night creche and took a long route back. Smithman had short hair i.e. they are not the same person and definitely not the person Jane Tanner saw. They are looking for that man now!
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 16, 2015, 05:45:30 PM
He left the night creche and took a long route back. Smithman had short hair i.e. they are not the same person and definitely not the person Jane Tanner saw. They are looking for that man now!
Which leaves us with the man Jane Tanner saw on the 3rd as the probable abductor. That is exactly what I said.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pegasus on November 16, 2015, 06:10:09 PM
"21:00 - a couple of British holidaymakers collected their children from the night creche at the OC main 24hr reception. The father walks on ahead with one child in his arms back towards block 4 and 5."
That is one of the popup labels on the map here http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Madeleine-McCann-appeal-Record-viewer-ratings/story-19935126-detail/story.html Do we know was it that newspaper or was it SY who wrote that caption?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 16, 2015, 06:12:00 PM
So, I fit this group then, despite the fact that I don't believe there were two near identical men carrying kids and colliding with each other?
Then you will be able give that rational explanation where it can all work [Tannerman the Abductor, Innocent Crecheman and DCI "almost certain" Redwood] with only one man in the time and space.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pegasus on November 16, 2015, 06:14:50 PM
It is not rocket science. One parent walks ahead carrying one child, gets almost home, realises OH has the key, so goes back to meet OH and other child.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 16, 2015, 06:18:55 PM
Then you will be able give that rational explanation where it can all work [Tannerman the Abductor, Innocent Crecheman and DCI "almost certain" Redwood] with only one man in the time and space.
A rational explanation is that someone (either Tanner or Crecheman and / or Andy Redwood) is possibly mistaken - about the exact time, the exact date, the exact place, the exact clothes worn, the exact posture, the exact direction, or a combination of two or more of these elements.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 16, 2015, 06:44:57 PM
That is one of the popup labels on the map here http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Madeleine-McCann-appeal-Record-viewer-ratings/story-19935126-detail/story.html Do we know was it that newspaper or was it SY who wrote that caption?
That bit is not in Crimewatch 2013, and the leicestermerury graphic has been knocked up by the paper. Check the pop-up on block 4 and the LMer makes it the Tanner sighting.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 16, 2015, 06:59:30 PM
1 Mercury posted a link suggesting he had made a "statement" of some sort to Leicestershire Police. 2 Agreed but O.G would likely have asked if it were possible he did. If it wasn't possible then why show it? 3 Tannerman does not have to fit the creche. The problem lies with having two identical "father and child ensembles" in the same place at the same time. ie the road junction by Apt 5A at about 21:10 on 3rd May 2007. 4 Agreed.
1. My apologies if I have got this wrong. But if Crècheman did, why didn't the LP press this line of investigation? Man near 5A carrying child, and no mention whatsoever of this in the PJ Files? Should we be bashing both the LP and the PJ?
2. I reviewed Crimewatch 2013 on this point. Redwood appeared to me to be trying to extract the max out of everything else, hence an incentive to say look at things other than Tannerman. That is just IMO.
3. Suppose Tannerman does not fit the crèche and Smithman is innocent. Then we have 10 plus parents carrying around 13 children in Luz that evening. Given that Luz is not large, why shouldn't 2 of those be somewhere near 5A at vaguely the same time?
What is the profile of a holiday-maker, or a local, with a child in the range 2-4 years? I'd put it pretty much of a muchness re height, build, age. Tough to tell them apart with a fleeting glimpse when that glimpse was not thought to be significant.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ferryman on November 16, 2015, 07:27:53 PM
That bit is not in Crimewatch 2013, and the leicestermerury graphic has been knocked up by the paper. Check the pop-up on block 4 and the LMer makes it the Tanner sighting.
Completely off-topic, I know. But I hope I may be permitted to compliment you, particularly as one (I understand) not a native English-speaker, for avoiding the ubiquitous (and redundant!) check-out
8((()*/
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 16, 2015, 07:31:15 PM
A rational explanation is that someone (either Tanner or Crecheman and / or Andy Redwood) is possibly mistaken - about the exact time, the exact date, the exact place, the exact clothes worn, the exact posture, the exact direction, or a combination of two or more of these elements.
So no one knew from nothing ? as one might say. The items I have struck through are not critical to the general principle of how it works. So start from a datum. Take Jane and her testimony as the datum. She knew where she was, what the time was, the date and she knows what she thinks she saw. Space: The Junction of R. Dr Francisco Gentil Martins at R. Dr Agostinho da Silva in Luz Date: 3rd May 2007 Time: 21:15. (confirmed by several people). So your explanation boils down to Andy Redwood and Crecheman are possibly mistaken, but about what? The place ? the date? the time ? something else? Or Jane didn't know A from a bulls foot.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 16, 2015, 08:23:32 PM
So no one knew from nothing ? as one might say. The items I have struck through are not critical to the general principle of how it works. So start from a datum. Take Jane and her testimony as the datum. She knew where she was, what the time was, the date and she knows what she thinks she saw. Space: The Junction of R. Dr Francisco Gentil Martins at R. Dr Agostinho da Silva in Luz Date: 3rd May 2007 Time: 21:15. (confirmed by several people). So your explanation boils down to Andy Redwood and Crecheman are possibly mistaken, but about what? The place ? the date? the time ? something else? Or Jane didn't know A from a bulls foot.
As has already been pointed out several times before, Jane may have seen this man later on her second check but misremembered it as having occurred on her first check. Possibly someone is mistaken about something, we just don't know who about what. Of course a "sceptic" would say not mistaken but something else... Alternatively, Jane saw a man, it was crecheman, heading back in the direction of the creche, that will do me.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 16, 2015, 08:39:00 PM
I presume they would have checked every parent who took a child from the creche that night. That's how they found Tannerman but not Smithman or he too would have been cleared on CW.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 16, 2015, 09:06:02 PM
I presume they would have checked every parent who took a child from the creche that night. That's how they found Tannerman but not Smithman or he too would have been cleared on CW.
Isn't it extraordinary that diligence appears to have been neglected in 2007. How much more beneficial it would have been then.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 16, 2015, 09:11:03 PM
8 families left 11 children in the creche that night. Simple detective work for 30 on OG.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 16, 2015, 09:11:47 PM
8 families left 11 children in the creche that night. Simple detective work for 30 on OG.
Even simpler for the PJ in 2007 when everything was fresh in peoples' mind.
Is there any evidence at all that those eight families were asked their route home on that night, or any evidence they were asked if they might have seen something suspicious? Any who went home the following day or in the days after, were they traced and the local police asked to put the question to them?
You are totally missing the point. Operation Grange should not have had to take these actions as part of a cold case review. This should have been done in 2007 by the original investigation.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 16, 2015, 10:00:06 PM
Even simpler for the PJ in 2007 when everything was fresh in peoples' mind.
Is there any evidence at all that those eight families were asked their route home on that night, or any evidence they were asked if they might have seen something suspicious? Any who went home the following day or in the days after, were they traced and the local police asked to put the question to them?
You are totally missing the point. Operation Grange should not have had to take these actions as part of a cold case review. This should have been done in 2007 by the original investigation.
I think you are missing the point. Crecheman was back in the UK so it was LP who investigated the Brits not the PJ based in Portugal. Crecheman did the LP questionaire saying he was carrying a child close to that apartment and LP didn't send it on to the PJ. 6 years later SY discover it. That's if the Mirror source article is right.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 16, 2015, 10:10:04 PM
I think you are missing the point. Crecheman was back in the UK so it was LP who investigated the Brits not the PJ based in Portugal. Crecheman did the LP questionaire saying he was carrying a child close to that apartment and LP didn't send it on to the PJ. 6 years later SY discover it.
You know this how?
Was his statement missing from the others in the files? Hmmm ... nothing from parents returning from the crèche who may have wandered the wrong way or who may have seen something on their way home is recorded in the files is it?
Makes one wonder if the very simple investigative step of interviewing eight men was actually carried out?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 16, 2015, 10:25:52 PM
I think it's disgraceful that everything is blamed on the PJ. They gave up their days off and their holidays to help with this case and all they ever got for their efforts was criticism.
There are two ways this 'crecheman' could have contacted the police in 2007. He either filled in a questionnaire at the request of Leicestershire police or he responded to Crimestoppers. If he filled in a questionnaire it wasn't brought to the notice of the PJ or it would be in the files. We don't know if he responded to Crimestoppers because the information is secret at the request of the UK police.
There was no way the PJ could have interviewed all the holiday-makers in one day; it was left to the UK police except for those people who approached the PJ before they left Portugal.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 16, 2015, 10:31:45 PM
Was his statement missing from the others in the files? Hmmm ... nothing from parents returning from the crèche who may have wandered the wrong way or who may have seen something on their way home is recorded in the files is it?
Makes one wonder if the very simple investigative step of interviewing eight men was actually carried out?
A British holidaymaker was crecheman so where do you think he went when he left Portugal? He has been cleared Smithman hasn't. LP questioned the Brits back home not the PJ.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 16, 2015, 10:35:37 PM
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pegasus on November 16, 2015, 11:29:28 PM
I think it's disgraceful that everything is blamed on the PJ....(snip)
Agreed. For example is possible that the innocent tourist crecheman phoned that privately set up black hole hotline, and we know the PJ had no way of listening to those calls.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 16, 2015, 11:32:27 PM
Agreed. For example is possible that the innocent tourist crecheman phoned that privately set up black hole hotline, and we know the PJ had no way of listening to those calls.
And what about all the photos that were sent to the ceop email address. Where are they? Do you think the PJ got them?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pegasus on November 16, 2015, 11:49:14 PM
And what about all the photos that were sent to the ceop email address. Where are they? Do you think the PJ got them?
I bet none of them were forwarded to PJ . But let's hope Mr R requisitioned them - (BTW I would find it surprising if no other diners took a photo in the tapas restaurant that night). But back to crecheman, BTW I just had an exceptional stroke of luck researching this, but anyway the scenario I suggest happened is a couple collect two kids from creche at about 9, one is asleep so one parent walks ahead with that one, and OH follows much slower with other who is possibly awake and walking. Before getting home the leading parent realises oh dear OH has the only key, so doubles back. There you have the solution to the wrongdirection riddle Pathfinder.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 16, 2015, 11:56:39 PM
And what about all the photos that were sent to the ceop email address. Where are they? Do you think the PJ got them?
Probably not since I doubt the Portuguese had the appropriate technology to deal with them ... however I am quite certain that should there have been any information gleaned by CEOP it would have been passed on.
**Snip The technology, known as the Child Base, uses image recognition to analyse and compare pictures of online abuse and abusers in a fraction of the time it takes to do so manually. The system can scan and analyse 1,000 images per hour.
Officers believe whoever abducted Madeleine must have been watching children at the complex run by tour operator Mark Warner for some time. They hope by scanning holiday snaps they might be able to match up the perpetrator with their online library of paedophiles. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/22/ukcrime.sandralaville
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: misty on November 17, 2015, 12:14:58 AM
I bet none of them were forwarded to PJ . But let's hope Mr R requisitioned them - (BTW I would find it surprising if no other diners took a photo in the tapas restaurant that night). But back to crecheman, BTW I just had an exceptional stroke of luck researching this, but anyway the scenario I suggest happened is a couple collect two kids from creche at about 9, one is asleep so one parent walks ahead with that one, and OH follows much slower with other who is possibly awake and walking. Before getting home the leading parent realises oh dear OH has the only key, so doubles back. There you have the solution to the wrongdirection riddle Pathfinder.
Didn't the families recorded as having 2 year old girls both only have one child per family?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pegasus on November 17, 2015, 12:23:49 AM
I bet none of them were forwarded to PJ . But let's hope Mr R requisitioned them - (BTW I would find it surprising if no other diners took a photo in the tapas restaurant that night). But back to crecheman, BTW I just had an exceptional stroke of luck researching this, but anyway the scenario I suggest happened is a couple collect two kids from creche at about 9, one is asleep so one parent walks ahead with that one, and OH follows much slower with other who is possibly awake and walking. Before getting home the leading parent realises oh dear OH has the only key, so doubles back. There you have the solution to the wrongdirection riddle Pathfinder.
Possibly because the father was walking ahead. That would probably lead your theory to block 4.
G41 – Bowness, Sandra
G46 – Heselton, Antony John
G4B – Carruthers, Beverley Ann
G4J – Jensen/Wiltshire
G4L – Weinberger, Jeni
G4M – Totman, Julian Edward Bartman
G4N – Naylor
G4-O – O'Donnel, Bridget Mary
Mr A Heselton, Mrs S Heselton, Miss K Heselton(2)...............................Gatwick
Mr J Totman, Mrs R Totman, Master W Totman(4), Miss L Totman(3)
Mr P Weinburger, Mrs J Weinburger, Miss E Weinburger(3), Infant T (11m)
Mr R Naylor, Mrs A Naylor, Miss E Naylor(3), Infant C Naylor(11m)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARRIVALS.htm
Mr M Handy, Mrs G Downie, Miss I Handy(2)
G30
I'm interested in arrivals around the 20th April because of Gail Cooper's photo which was definitely crecheman.
(snip)... Gail Cooper's photo which was definitely crecheman. http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f228/AnnaEsse/Maddie%20suspects/suspect13.jpg
IMO walking-on-beach-in-rain-man is not creche-man. Did the artist work from both descriptions and merge them? if so that is the wrong way to do a artist's impression - and it's no surprise the result was a morphed combination of the two.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 17, 2015, 01:26:58 AM
It's the same clothes.
This is quite interesting.
On the 1st May, Mrs R Totman and Mr J Totman, booked in for 2+1. They have two children age 2 and 3. Could they really have just taken just one child to dinner with them and not the other, or did they also book for 1 friend?
On the 2nd May, Mr M Handy and Mrs G Downie, booked in as 1 + 3. They have one child age 2. Was this booking for 3 adults and 1 child, or possibly 4 adults. If so, who were their 2 friends?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pegasus on November 17, 2015, 01:36:43 AM
The end result is that JT told the complete truth. And the man she saw is a completely innocent dad with his own child. Completely irrelevant to the case.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: misty on November 17, 2015, 01:45:00 AM
So printed guest list incorrectly show age of LT as 3 rather than 2. They were in Block 4, though & I don't buy the story about walking back for the key.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pegasus on November 17, 2015, 01:55:37 AM
Why not? Isn't it the simplest possible explanation?
I think JT may well have recognised him as being a guest at OC. He'd dined at the Tapas, played tennis with Gerry & his son was in the same crèche group as JT's eldest.
ETA Presumably the parents saw each other at high tea for the crèche attendees?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pegasus on November 17, 2015, 04:03:33 AM
I think JT may well have recognised him as being a guest at OC. He'd dined at the Tapas, played tennis with Gerry & his son was in the same crèche group as JT's eldest.
ETA Presumably the parents saw each other at high tea for the crèche attendees?
An opinion of who innocent crecheman is I reached from something completely different. SY correctly do a bit of obscuring and so do I because remember this is an innocent tourist. It may not necessarily be anyone on your list.
One tourist would not instantly recognise every one of the dozens of other MW tourists if seen briefly in dark from side and rear only with no view of face IMO.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: misty on November 18, 2015, 01:00:30 AM
An opinion of who innocent crecheman is I reached from something completely different. SY correctly do a bit of obscuring and so do I because remember this is an innocent tourist. It may not necessarily be anyone on your list.
One tourist would not instantly recognise every one of the dozens of other MW tourists if seen briefly in dark from side and rear only with no view of face IMO.
Are you saying that Crecheman is the father of the mysterious Child M who was listed on the Day Toddler Club records? If so, I give up. What I fail to see is why, given that most of those parents on the MW list appear to have been eminent within the medical field, said father did not bother to follow up the issue for the sake of a fellow professional. Spanish hotlines would not be considered imo. Or American ones. Crecheman had a distinctive head of hair. I think Edgar would have shown JT pictures of all the MW tourists at the resort when they were trying to get an ID.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pegasus on November 18, 2015, 01:32:56 AM
Are you saying that Crecheman is the father of the mysterious Child M who was listed on the Day Toddler Club records? If so, I give up. What I fail to see is why, given that most of those parents on the MW list appear to have been eminent within the medical field, said father did not bother to follow up the issue for the sake of a fellow professional. Spanish hotlines would not be considered imo. Or American ones. Crecheman had a distinctive head of hair. I think Edgar would have shown JT pictures of all the MW tourists at the resort when they were trying to get an ID.
I'm deliberately not giving id because it's a completely innocent tourist Misty and if it was me or you we wouldn't want some amateur horse on a forum posting it. The way SY obscured that pic makes it look like an odd distinctive haircut, but it's not, it's only the obscuring software that makes it look lumpy outline. And I know nothing about any mystery M never heard of it.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: misty on November 18, 2015, 02:03:00 AM
I'm deliberately not giving id because it's a completely innocent tourist Misty and if it was me or you we wouldn't want some amateur horse on a forum posting it. The way SY obscured that pic makes it look like an odd distinctive haircut, but it's not, it's only the obscuring software that makes it look lumpy outline. And I know nothing about any mystery M never heard of it.
I don't expect you to name whoever you believe the man to be. The haircut I was referring to was in JT's photofit, not SY's pic, and bear in mind it was windy that night. SY are not 100% sure Tannerman & Crecheman are one & the same. Maybe JT has indicated such? Please check the crèche records for "M" to see what I referred to.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pegasus on November 18, 2015, 03:07:36 AM
... The haircut I was referring to was in JT's photofit ...
Crecheman's hair was probably shorter than that artist's drawing. See JT rog "the hair was the one thing on that that I wasn’t completely happy about ..."
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 18, 2015, 03:34:14 PM
I don't expect you to name whoever you believe the man to be. The haircut I was referring to was in JT's photofit, not SY's pic, and bear in mind it was windy that night. SY are not 100% sure Tannerman & Crecheman are one & the same. Maybe JT has indicated such? Please check the crèche records for "M" to see what I referred to.
How would JT know?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pegasus on November 18, 2015, 03:56:30 PM
No-one's buying my elementary solution for the reverse direction, but here straight from a rog interview is proof for a small part of it, the fact that only one key per apartment was provided to guests.
"... generally it was difficult because there was, ... we'd ask about more than one key, there was the only one key to the apartment ..."
This one-key set IMO will result in situations where one adult is heading home then suddenly realises "oh dear I just realised so and so has the key so I will reverse direction and go get it from them". At least one family got around this problem in daytime by using a highly technical "M.A.T." system based on EM-radiation-blocking by rubber or coconut but most families didn't so it should be no surprise if a person going from A to B is seen walking in the reverse direction.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pegasus on November 18, 2015, 04:01:45 PM
No assumptions there Slarti Have SY interviewed the T9 in UK? Yes certainly they have. Did SY show JT their crecheman photo? Yes certainly they did. To imagine otherwise would be a big insult to SY's brain cells.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 19, 2015, 08:13:05 AM
No assumptions there Slarti Have SY interviewed the T9 in UK? Yes certainly they have. Did SY show JT their crecheman photo? Yes certainly they did. To imagine otherwise would be a big insult to SY's brain cells.
Hmmm, they would have had to have interviewed vey early in OG before the secrecy. Strange that here are no reports/stories?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 19, 2015, 08:27:26 AM
All those years concentrating on 'crecheman' only to find that he was an innocent tourist. It just goes to show that an investigation is best carried out by those qualified to do it.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 19, 2015, 08:38:40 AM
All those years concentrating on 'crecheman' only to find that he was an innocent tourist. It just goes to show that an investigation is best carried out by those qualified to do it.
I agree...but it looks like the PJ weren't
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 19, 2015, 08:44:40 AM
1 No assumptions there Slarti 2 Have SY interviewed the T9 in UK? Yes certainly they have. 3 Did SY show JT their crecheman photo? Yes certainly they did. 4 To imagine otherwise would be a big insult to SY's brain cells.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support sentences 2 and 3?
If not, they are assumptions i.e. what OG should have done, as opposed to what is known about what OG actually did.
So, can we have some cites?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 19, 2015, 12:07:48 PM
No assumptions there Slarti Have SY interviewed the T9 in UK? Yes certainly they have. Did SY show JT their crecheman photo? Yes certainly they did. To imagine otherwise would be a big insult to SY's brain cells.
I agree with Slarti . All assumptions.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 19, 2015, 01:05:55 PM
My apologies G. So you were just pondering possibilities? What about all the other parents who had children in the crèche......Do you think they all gave statements, or just answered questionnaires' , which IIRC were sent out? I am surprised that they weren't interviewed in Portugal being so close to the investigation. Or were they?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: jassi on November 19, 2015, 01:32:04 PM
My apologies G. So you were just pondering possibilities? What about all the other parents who had children in the crèche......Do you think they all gave statements, or just answered questionnaires' , which IIRC were sent out? I am surprised that they weren't interviewed in Portugal being so close to the investigation. Or were they?
Why? They probably left the country on the Saturday, so not much time in which to do interviews.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 19, 2015, 01:41:04 PM
My apologies G. So you were just pondering possibilities? What about all the other parents who had children in the crèche......Do you think they all gave statements, or just answered questionnaires' , which IIRC were sent out? I am surprised that they weren't interviewed in Portugal being so close to the investigation. Or were they?
The PJ concentrated on interviewing the group on the 4th. On the 5th most of the holiday-makers left. Only those who volunteered information were heard informally in Portugal. Leicestershire police were in charge of interviews and questionnaires in the UK. We don't know how they knew who to approach and we don't know what they did with the results. Some people also rang Crimestoppers the results of which were kept secret at the request of the UK police.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 19, 2015, 03:22:34 PM
The PJ concentrated on interviewing the group on the 4th. On the 5th most of the holiday-makers left. Only those who volunteered information were heard informally in Portugal. Leicestershire police were in charge of interviews and questionnaires in the UK. We don't know how they knew who to approach and we don't know what they did with the results. Some people also rang Crimestoppers the results of which were kept secret at the request of the UK police.
Is there an example of the LP questionnaire?
Is there an idea of what Crimestoppers asked for? I'm pondering if a request was simply that anyone who was in Luz at the time should get in touch with LP.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 19, 2015, 06:29:24 PM
Is there an idea of what Crimestoppers asked for? I'm pondering if a request was simply that anyone who was in Luz at the time should get in touch with LP.
Some 35 tip-offs from callers in Portugal and the UK to a hotline have been passed on to Leicester police, who lead the UK side of the inquiry.
A spokeswoman for Crimestoppers said she could not say whether any of the tip-offs given to it were significant leads, but added that they were all "useful pieces of information". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6641899.stm
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 19, 2015, 08:00:29 PM
It seems information given to crimestoppers was passed to Leicestershire police. We don't know whether they passed it all to the PJ or not.
Well, if they did not, that was an irresponsible thng to do, when are the Mccanns going to sue LP then for hindering the search by being slapdash at best, political and immoral at worst
The questionnaires I imagine had nothing to do with crimestoppers..different issue...but the same principle applies, ALL info should have been passed on
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 19, 2015, 10:25:53 PM
The reasons for discounting the evidence of Jane Tanner are many but include:
a) changes in her accounts, such as changing the direction in which the person she claimed to have seen was walking. http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/open-letter-re-proposed-crimewatch.html?spref=tw
Those who seek "Justice for Madeleine" sometimes have a very deconstructive way of doing things as well as a unique perception of events ... as can be seen from the well supported open letter to the Crime Watch programme which heralded the reopening of Madeleine McCann's case by those actually attempting to get justice for Madeleine.
Excellent. I would add my signature to this letter.
WOW! Excellent letter, I just hope you get a reply from them! (doubt it though) Would you also mind if I share this on our page as we want as many people as possible to view it? (https://www.facebook ** ** **) Thank you very much, I am most impressed with this x
It makes my blood boil that this programme is going ahead.
What is it that gives the author of this complaint against reopening Madeleine's case the notion that Jane Tanner changed her statement about the direction of travel of the man she saw?
I've read her statements and as far as I can see Jane Tanner is an excellent witness to events ... what am I missing?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: mercury on November 19, 2015, 10:53:41 PM
The reasons for discounting the evidence of Jane Tanner are many but include:
a) changes in her accounts, such as changing the direction in which the person she claimed to have seen was walking. http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/open-letter-re-proposed-crimewatch.html?spref=tw
Those who seek "Justice for Madeleine" sometimes have a very deconstructive way of doing things as well as a unique perception of events ... as can be seen from the well supported open letter to the Crime Watch programme which heralded the reopening of Madeleine McCann's case by those actually attempting to get justice for Madeleine.
Excellent. I would add my signature to this letter.
WOW! Excellent letter, I just hope you get a reply from them! (doubt it though) Would you also mind if I share this on our page as we want as many people as possible to view it? (https://www.facebook ** ** **) Thank you very much, I am most impressed with this x
It makes my blood boil that this programme is going ahead.
What is it that gives the author of this complaint against reopening Madeleine's case the notion that Jane Tanner changed her statement about the direction of travel of the man she saw?
I've read her statements and as far as I can see Jane Tanner is an excellent witness to events ... what am I missing?
She never changed her statement about direction but she allowed a false statement to be made in her name in other respects...now WHY would she do THAT??unlesz it was FORCED on her of FORGED FOR her???
Tanner only ever mentioned the feet and bottom of the pyjamas of the child she saw, both in perdinal statements and in panorama in nov 07 , NEVER the TOP...someone saw fit to embellish her recollection in may 07 and say she saw the top and though it was pink! I wonder who that was, dont you?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 19, 2015, 11:02:24 PM
She never changed her statement about direction but she allowed a false statement to be made in her name in other respects...now WHY would she do THAT??unlesz it was FORCED on her of FORGED FOR her???
Tanner only ever mentioned the feet and bottom of the pyjamas of the child she saw, both in perdinal statements and in panorama in nov 07 , NEVER the TOP...someone saw fit to embellish her recollection in may 07 and say she saw the top and though it was pink! I wonder who that was, dont you?
No.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way
Post by: mercury on November 19, 2015, 11:05:08 PM
And by the way if no one here is connected to the people in the case then they cannot assert anything as fact without proper irrefutable evidence
I need to qualify nothing.
You need to temper your syntax and be careful of libelling a witness who did not bow to pressure of any kind at any time.
She refused to ID Robert Murat.
She would not be swayed about where Dr McCann was standing despite his memory differing from hers.
Yet you feel free to state that she "allowed" anyone to alter her statement on her behalf. I really think not. It is particularly ridiculous for you to state ...
" she allowed a false statement to be made in her name in other respects...now WHY would she do THAT??unlesz it was FORCED on her of FORGED FOR her??? "
... you really should reconsider that ... with a view to erasing it because it is such utter nonsense which deviates from the truth.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Lace on November 20, 2015, 08:44:42 AM
I wonder if Tanner man was going the wrong way because he forgot to collect something at the crèche, her blanket for instance?
Why didn't Amaral who would have had the names of the parents with children in the crèche, check out who it could have been?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 20, 2015, 09:28:23 AM
She never changed her statement about direction but she allowed a false statement to be made in her name in other respects...now WHY would she do THAT??unlesz it was FORCED on her of FORGED FOR her???
Tanner only ever mentioned the feet and bottom of the pyjamas of the child she saw, both in perdinal statements and in panorama in nov 07 , NEVER the TOP...someone saw fit to embellish her recollection in may 07 and say she saw the top and though it was pink! I wonder who that was, dont you?
IMO the vague 'pink blob' to indicate the torso of a child was put in by the artist in that picture - because to have shown a blank space there and show only the legs/feet - would have created a completely unnatural impression. and would have simply looked wrong. The artist knew that the child seen was being carried across both arms and so could accurately fill that gap.
JT has never changed her statements imo - other people may have changed them, but she didn't.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Lace on November 20, 2015, 11:11:49 AM
If he was staying in Block 4 why turn back when he's almost home? Better to get her indoors surely?
When do you think the Pj discovered that an evening creche existed? Before or after the holiday-makers left?
There was nothing stopping Amaral getting in touch with the police in the countries where these parents lived to interview them.
Are you telling me that if Amaral thought that one of the parents from the crèche had either killed and hidden Madeleine or abducted her he would just have thought 'oh well too late now they've gone home'. !!!!
Maybe he forgot her bottle, and thought buggar she's going to need that and just turned around and went back.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 20, 2015, 11:42:01 AM
If he was staying in Block 4 why turn back when he's almost home? Better to get her indoors surely?
When do you think the Pj discovered that an evening creche existed? Before or after the holiday-makers left?
Returning to the crèche seems less likely than turning back a bit to get the only key from his wife. Even JT's explanation that he might have been heading to the crèche (to put the child in) seems more likely, though why he waited until 9:15pm to decide he wanted to go out for a while is problematical.
The second question is surely when the PJ read the statements of the child-minders, more or less all of whom mention the childcare services and this particular point. Connecting this with the Tanner sighting would have been, surely, after the holidaymakers departed.
That is the time at which, if no action or importance was attached to these facts, it is fair to criticise the PJ for not adding up 2 and 2.
In mitigation, and without digging deep on this one, there was a tidal flow of information in the early days, none of it computerised within the PJ system, and carried out by large numbers of officers who can be characterised as the LH does not know what the RH is doing. The staff interviews seem to have been conducted by 11 PJ officers drafted in from Lisbon, and I doubt they were aware of much of the significance of what they were doing.
There does not seem to be any mention of night crèche register in the PJ Files, in the sense of the PJ obtaining one. Surely, one must have existed, for sign-in, sign-out and contact method in the event of difficulties.
The information passed from Crimestoppers does not seem sufficient to re-create the register.
LP does not seem to have passed info re Crècheman to the PJ, so the most reasonable assumption is that the LP did not have it.
I doubt OG got its hands on a crèche register years later.
That leaves me with brute force. The number of statements clocked up by OG would allow for the interviewing of every visitor on the OC register, and simply asking those people if they had a child in the crèche that evening.
This allows for DCI Redwood's wobble factor in his "almost certain". If the question was put to the families months or years later - did you use the night crèche on 3 May - I think an awful lot of them could have got the date wrong.
On 3 May there was zero reason to remember using the crèche. On 25 May, when the Tannerman description was made public, there was already room for error. The longer the gap, the less reliable the info.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Lace on November 20, 2015, 12:18:26 PM
Returning to the crèche seems less likely than turning back a bit to get the only key from his wife. Even JT's explanation that he might have been heading to the crèche (to put the child in) seems more likely, though why he waited until 9:15pm to decide he wanted to go out for a while is problematical.
The second question is surely when the PJ read the statements of the child-minders, more or less all of whom mention the childcare services and this particular point. Connecting this with the Tanner sighting would have been, surely, after the holidaymakers departed.
That is the time at which, if no action or importance was attached to these facts, it is fair to criticise the PJ for not adding up 2 and 2.
In mitigation, and without digging deep on this one, there was a tidal flow of information in the early days, none of it computerised within the PJ system, and carried out by large numbers of officers who can be characterised as the LH does not know what the RH is doing. The staff interviews seem to have been conducted by 11 PJ officers drafted in from Lisbon, and I doubt they were aware of much of the significance of what they were doing.
There does not seem to be any mention of night crèche register in the PJ Files, in the sense of the PJ obtaining one. Surely, one must have existed, for sign-in, sign-out and contact method in the event of difficulties.
The information passed from Crimestoppers does not seem sufficient to re-create the register.
LP does not seem to have passed info re Crècheman to the PJ, so the most reasonable assumption is that the LP did not have it.
I doubt OG got its hands on a crèche register years later.
That leaves me with brute force. The number of statements clocked up by OG would allow for the interviewing of every visitor on the OC register, and simply asking those people if they had a child in the crèche that evening.
This allows for DCI Redwood's wobble factor in his "almost certain". If the question was put to the families months or years later - did you use the night crèche on 3 May - I think an awful lot of them could have got the date wrong.
On 3 May there was zero reason to remember using the crèche. On 25 May, when the Tannerman description was made public, there was already room for error. The longer the gap, the less reliable the info.
I don't think Amaral was used to dealing with this sort of case, he didn't interview the neighbours straight away either.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 20, 2015, 12:37:24 PM
I don't think Amaral was used to dealing with this sort of case, he didn't interview the neighbours straight away either.
I don't think anyone was used to dealing with this type of case. I don't really have any reason to believe that if a repeat occurred the case would be handled significantly better.
The point about the neighbours is relevant, and one that can be used in criticism of the PJ team. The ones in residence should have been identified and interviewed, re what they did, what they saw, what they heard, and that should have taken place early in the enquiry.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 20, 2015, 01:46:15 PM
There was nothing stopping Amaral getting in touch with the police in the countries where these parents lived to interview them.
Are you telling me that if Amaral thought that one of the parents from the crèche had either killed and hidden Madeleine or abducted her he would just have thought 'oh well too late now they've gone home'. !!!!
Maybe he forgot her bottle, and thought buggar she's going to need that and just turned around and went back.
Unlike you I prefer not to guess how the investigation was organised. Your assumption that Amaral directed the whole thing and made all the decisions may or may not be correct. It seems clear that LP were in charge of investigations in the UK. Did they investigate at the request of the PJ or did they arrange their own investigations? Did their officers based in Portugal mention the night creche or did they miss it's possible significance also? Unless we know these details how can we crticise?
As crechman's child was said to be a two year old girl, can you verify that there were two year old girls in Block 4? Can you verify that they were in the night creche on 3rd May? If not, then guessing his whereabouts and why are just guesses.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 20, 2015, 02:03:29 PM
The long route would take him around 10 minutes going up the main road (Rua Primeiro de Maio) and towards block 4 first then 5. He left the night creche at 9pm. Jane left the table at 9:10.
(http://s27.postimg.org/5xleqdrlf/crecheman.jpg)
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Anna on November 20, 2015, 04:27:26 PM
The long route would take him around 10 minutes going up the main road (Rua Primeiro de Maio) and towards block 4 first then 5. He left the night creche at 9pm. Jane left the table at 9:10.
(http://s27.postimg.org/5xleqdrlf/crecheman.jpg)
Very interesting, Pathfinder. Do you have a link for that image?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 20, 2015, 05:34:33 PM
Very interesting, Pathfinder. Do you have a link for that image?
Its origin is http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-delighted-response-BBC/story-19935283-detail/story.html Hover over the green circles
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Lace on November 21, 2015, 09:16:49 AM
Unlike you I prefer not to guess how the investigation was organised. Your assumption that Amaral directed the whole thing and made all the decisions may or may not be correct. It seems clear that LP were in charge of investigations in the UK. Did they investigate at the request of the PJ or did they arrange their own investigations? Did their officers based in Portugal mention the night creche or did they miss it's possible significance also? Unless we know these details how can we crticise?
As crechman's child was said to be a two year old girl, can you verify that there were two year old girls in Block 4? Can you verify that they were in the night creche on 3rd May? If not, then guessing his whereabouts and why are just guesses.
Sorry Gu-Unit but the Jane Tanner made a statement about what she saw, Amaral had her sit in a car to watch Robert Murat walk across the road. Are you trying to tell me he didn't know about Tanner man? The first obvious thing to have done was to check the parents in the night crèche in my opinion anyway.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 21, 2015, 11:38:23 AM
Sorry Gu-Unit but the Jane Tanner made a statement about what she saw, Amaral had her sit in a car to watch Robert Murat walk across the road. Are you trying to tell me he didn't know about Tanner man? The first obvious thing to have done was to check the parents in the night crèche in my opinion anyway.
I really think there was no excuse whatsoever that the sighting of the man seen by Jane Tanner wasn't followed through to its conclusion.
If the police on the ground didn't know the layout or procedures in child care at the Ocean Club it was surely their job to find out. I think it was elementary given the fact they had a witness statement saying a child was seen being carried away from the direction of the apartment from which a child had been reported missing.
It seems everyone was too concerned with important issues such as praying Arabs with their bums in the air ... and indications of death because a priest was asked for.
Police are informed about man carrying child ... what happens next?
Immediate thought given to -- who was he? -- where were they coming from? -- where were they going to? -- where are they now?
He was on foot. Therefore he was going to accommodation nearby? -- or he was heading to a parked vehicle? -- or he was being picked up?
There is no evidence any sort of elementary procedure was carried out to verify and rule in or rule out the witness sighting of a man who might have been carrying an abducted child away from her family. Sometimes the only evidence available in an abduction case is that from an eye witness ... yet Jane Tanner's sighting seems to have been largely down played.
I believe it has been said that because the GNR dogs did not follow a scent in the direction taken by the carrier the Tanner sighting lost some weight ... and it seems to have been totally dismissed when it could not be used to connect Robert Murat to the crime.
I think it is one small example of the mismanagement and misunderstanding of the importance of building an evidence based case ... it was such a glaringly obvious elementary diligence to have been missed. If a witness reports a sighting timed around the time a child may have gone missing ... throw everything into finding out who it was.
That way if it was a father who had taken a wrong turning and been eliminated from the inquiry ... we would have known about it from the files.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: jassi on November 21, 2015, 12:07:41 PM
I really think there was no excuse whatsoever that the sighting of the man seen by Jane Tanner wasn't followed through to its conclusion.
If the police on the ground didn't know the layout or procedures in child care at the Ocean Club it was surely their job to find out. I think it was elementary given the fact they had a witness statement saying a child was seen being carried away from the direction of the apartment from which a child had been reported missing.
It seems everyone was too concerned with important issues such as praying Arabs with their bums in the air ... and indications of death because a priest was asked for.
Police are informed about man carrying child ... what happens next?
Immediate thought given to -- who was he? -- where were they coming from? -- where were they going to? -- where are they now?
He was on foot. Therefore he was going to accommodation nearby? -- or he was heading to a parked vehicle? -- or he was being picked up?
There is no evidence any sort of elementary procedure was carried out to verify and rule in or rule out the witness sighting of a man who might have been carrying an abducted child away from her family. Sometimes the only evidence available in an abduction case is that from an eye witness ... yet Jane Tanner's sighting seems to have been largely down played.
I believe it has been said that because the GNR dogs did not follow a scent in the direction taken by the carrier the Tanner sighting lost some weight ... and it seems to have been totally dismissed when it could not be used to connect Robert Murat to the crime.
I think it is one small example of the mismanagement and misunderstanding of the importance of building an evidence based case ... it was such a glaringly obvious elementary diligence to have been missed. If a witness reports a sighting timed around the time a child may have gone missing ... throw everything into finding out who it was.
That way if it was a father who had taken a wrong turning and been eliminated from the inquiry ... we would have known about it from the files.
But surely it has been - by Operation Grange, who seem to have no interest in him.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Anna on November 21, 2015, 12:16:26 PM
Its origin is http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-delighted-response-BBC/story-19935283-detail/story.html Hover over the green circles
Thank you Pegasus and PF.
I was expecting to see info on the route that Crecheman took, as described on the original post.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 21, 2015, 02:11:03 PM
There's only one way from the night creche to get to Block 4 first before Block 5. Can you find a different way?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Anna on November 21, 2015, 02:26:21 PM
But surely it has been - by Operation Grange, who seem to have no interest in him.
Madeleine vanished in 2007.
You seem to think it appropriate that key evidence from an eye witness was not properly investigated until Operation Grange started investigating four years later???
If instead of a child a plasma screen had been removed from a residence and a man seen carrying one just outside the entrance ... don't you think there might very well be a connection between the TV being stolen and the man seen carrying one?
The window of the apartment was reported open. A man was seen carrying a child.
Don't you think it might have been a good idea for law enforcement to have started from there and worked in a radius to find out who that man was ... who the child he carried was ... where he had been ... where he was going to ... what vehicles may have been in the vicinity ... etc
A child was missing.
Why did it have to wait for over four years for anyone to properly investigate the sighting of a man who was seen on the night she went missing ... who was seen right outside the building she went missing from ... who was seen to be carrying a child?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: jassi on November 21, 2015, 02:58:09 PM
You seem to think it appropriate that key evidence from an eye witness was not properly investigated until Operation Grange started investigating four years later???
If instead of a child a plasma screen had been removed from a residence and a man seen carrying one just outside the entrance ... don't you think there might very well be a connection between the TV being stolen and the man seen carrying one?
The window of the apartment was reported open. A man was seen carrying a child.
Don't you think it might have been a good idea for law enforcement to have started from there and worked in a radius to find out who that man was ... who the child he carried was ... where he had been ... where he was going to ... what vehicles may have been in the vicinity ... etc
A child was missing.
Why did it have to wait for over four years for anyone to properly investigate the sighting of a man who was seen on the night she went missing ... who was seen right outside the building she went missing from ... who was seen to be carrying a child?
As it turns out to have been of no apparent value, PJ would only have been wasting their time and resources if they had spent time on this. Nothing has been lost by not doing so as it would have led nowhere.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 21, 2015, 03:15:46 PM
As it turns out to have been of no apparent value, PJ would only have been wasting their time and resources if they had spent time on this. Nothing has been lost by not doing so as it would have led nowhere.
?????? I see. It was OK not to investigate a man who "almost certainly" may or may not have been a kidnapper ... but who has "almost certainly" not been entirely ruled out by SY.
What a pity the DCI didn't tell us from which nearby crèche the "almost certainly innocent British holiday-maker collecting his two-year-old daughter" was collecting her from.
If it was the MW night crèche he was "almost certainly" a bit out of his way if not a little confused ...
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Benice on November 21, 2015, 03:36:50 PM
You seem to think it appropriate that key evidence from an eye witness was not properly investigated until Operation Grange started investigating four years later???
If instead of a child a plasma screen had been removed from a residence and a man seen carrying one just outside the entrance ... don't you think there might very well be a connection between the TV being stolen and the man seen carrying one?
The window of the apartment was reported open. A man was seen carrying a child.
Don't you think it might have been a good idea for law enforcement to have started from there and worked in a radius to find out who that man was ... who the child he carried was ... where he had been ... where he was going to ... what vehicles may have been in the vicinity ... etc
A child was missing.
Why did it have to wait for over four years for anyone to properly investigate the sighting of a man who was seen on the night she went missing ... who was seen right outside the building she went missing from ... who was seen to be carrying a child?
As soon as JT told the PJ about the man she had seen carrying a child, one would have expected them to immediately take her to the place where she saw him and get every detail they could from her about the incident while it was fresh in her memory. But they did no such thing and it was only as a result of Jane's request which she made to them the following night to show them where it happened - that they agreed to go there with her.
Quote from JT rog statement.
4078 “But you told the Police when they came?”
Reply “Yeah, when they arrived Rachael I think went and got the GNR and I told the GNR chap and then when the PJ actually arrived they came and got me to go and talk to the, the PJ”.
4078 “Were you able to then show them sort of in real terms where you had seen the man by actually physically taking them and showing them?”
Reply “No, they didn’t, they didn’t take me, the only time I ever showed them where I saw it is when (inaudible), but the chap on the stairs here again, brought me back in the middle of the night from, erm, erm, from doing the sketch, so this was like the second, the night after, so this was quite late, it was like three o’clock in the morning, erm, after coming, well about three o’clock in the morning after coming back from trying to do the egg with hair sketch, I said to him then. I said ‘Can I show you where I saw this person’, because the Press had all gone by that stage and the rest of the day there’d been obviously quite a lot of Press there, but they’d all gone. So I actually took him then and said, you know, ‘This is where, this is where I saw him’, but at that time in the night all the, all the, you know, I, I honestly can’t remember what I, you know, exactly what I said, but, but I just said I’d seen somebody and they just sort of wrote it down and that was, that was it really”.
Unquote.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 21, 2015, 03:39:20 PM
?????? I see. It was OK not to investigate a man who "almost certainly" may or may not have been a kidnapper ... but who has "almost certainly" not been entirely ruled out by SY.
What a pity the DCI didn't tell us from which nearby crèche the "almost certainly innocent British holiday-maker collecting his two-year-old daughter" was collecting her from.
If it was the MW night crèche he was "almost certainly" a bit out of his way if not a little confused ...
The crèche bit (i.e. which crèche) was covered in the Crimewatch programme, with a graphic showing it was definitely the OC crèche. I haven't checked my transcript, but I'm fairly sure DCI Redwood also referred to it as the OC crèche.
The reason I wondered was because there is a pre-school at the west end of the road, an ideal fit for Tannerman (under school age, carrier not a tourist). But the prog is nailed-on OC crèche.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 21, 2015, 03:42:09 PM
The crèche bit (i.e. which crèche) was covered in the Crimewatch programme, with a graphic showing it was definitely the OC crèche. I haven't checked my transcript, but I'm fairly sure DCI Redwood also referred to it as the OC crèche.
The reason I wondered was because there is a pre-school at the west end of the road, an ideal fit for Tannerman (under school age, carrier not a tourist). But the prog is nailed-on OC crèche.
If the pre-school crèche was open for business into the evenings that would certainly have been a reasonable option for Tannerman to be taking the route he was.
It is also possible he could have been taking a child home a short distance after picking her up from a relative's or from a babysitter's.
I think it was incredibly urgent for the circumstances around his sighting to be ascertained and evaluated.
Reading Benice's post is quite heartbreaking and makes one wonder if but for her insistence Jane Tanner would have ever been asked to demonstrate what she saw where she saw it (so much for the value of 'reconstitions').
Yet again the GNR leave their PJ colleagues standing when it comes to collecting information and disseminating it timeously to best effect.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 21, 2015, 04:42:03 PM
Towards Block 4 and 5 (which were next to each other)
Where does it say that he went to block 4 first?
It could mean that it was necessary to pass 5 where the sighting was reported by JT to get to 4.
However we don’t know which route he took.
That man was walking from Block 4 to block 5 and crossed the road. That's what Tanner saw and SY have found that information to be correct and have cleared him. To get to block 4 first from the night creche you go clockwise not anti. SY have not revealed the reason for him taking a long route back.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 21, 2015, 05:28:09 PM
That man was walking from Block 4 to block 5 and crossed the road. That's what Tanner saw and SY have found that information to be correct and have cleared him. To get to block 4 first from the night creche you go clockwise not anti. SY have not revealed the reason for him taking a long route back.
You cannot determine from where the man came or where he was going to. His route made no sense either way as regards the night crèche. It makes eminent sense when taking into consideration that he might have just exited the car park of block 5 and been heading towards the car park of block 1.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 21, 2015, 05:31:24 PM
If the pre-school crèche was open for business into the evenings that would certainly have been a reasonable option for Tannerman to be taking the route he was.
It is also possible he could have been taking a child home a short distance after picking her up from a relative's or from a babysitter's.
I think it was incredibly urgent for the circumstances around his sighting to be ascertained and evaluated.
Reading Benice's post is quite heartbreaking and makes one wonder if but for her insistence Jane Tanner would have ever been asked to demonstrate what she saw where she saw it (so much for the value of 'reconstitions').
Yet again the GNR leave their PJ colleagues standing when it comes to collecting information and disseminating it timeously to best effect.
Just to be clear, I found no evidence of a pre-school crèche. A pre-school yes, a pre school crèche no.
The primary school at the top of primary school street also fits the bill for a crèche, for both Tannerman and Smithman, but I have found no evidence of a crèche there either.
The possibility of Innocentman carrying a child home from a neighbour etc applies to both Tannerman and Smithman.
But clearly Tannerman should have been high on priorities in the early days.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 21, 2015, 05:49:39 PM
Just to be clear, I found no evidence of a pre-school crèche. A pre-school yes, a pre school crèche no.
The primary school at the top of primary school street also fits the bill for a crèche, for both Tannerman and Smithman, but I have found no evidence of a crèche there either.
The possibility of Innocentman carrying a child home from a neighbour etc applies to both Tannerman and Smithman.
But clearly Tannerman should have been high on priorities in the early days.
I misread your post about a pre-school, Shining.
Since no-one knew about Smithman until a fortnight after the event there was absolutely no reason why Tannerman should not have been a top priority for the investigation.
I think it is incredible that was neglected.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 21, 2015, 07:29:52 PM
I don't know what you're going about. Robert Murat's house was searched because of that sighting. He walked across the road in a reconstruction going towards his place. Tanner picked him out. It's in her Rog - I thought it was (him).
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pegasus on November 22, 2015, 01:00:47 AM
IMO the caption about a 2 parents picking up 2 children then parent 1 and child 1 going ahead was written by that local newspaper. If it's true (and IMO it is) then that, combined with the fact that each family was given only one key, provides the clue for solving the reverse direction.
You can say but obviously parent 1 would take the key so it doesn't work.
So here is an improved version. Parent 1 is going to a shop on way home, so parent 2 expecting to be home 1st has the key, but then goes slower than expected, and parent 1 gets home 1st so has to go towards creche towards parent 2 who has key. That works doesn't it?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 22, 2015, 06:14:33 AM
IMO the caption about a 2 parents picking up 2 children then parent 1 and child 1 going ahead was written by that local newspaper. If it's true (and IMO it is) then that, combined with the fact that each family was given only one key, provides the clue for solving the reverse direction.
You can say but obviously parent 1 would take the key so it doesn't work.
So here is an improved version. Parent 1 is going to a shop on way home, so parent 2 expecting to be home 1st has the key, but then goes slower than expected, and parent 1 gets home 1st so has to go towards creche towards parent 2 who has key. That works doesn't it?
I think your original was better.
There were exactly 2 shops open at 9:15pm on 3 May 2007. An Ali Super on Rua da Praia and an Ali Super beside the church.
I tell a lie. The video rental shop in the commercial centre might have been open.
Basically, there is nothing that fits.
KISS works better.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ferryman on November 22, 2015, 09:43:29 AM
I don't know what you're going about. Robert Murat's house was searched because of that sighting. He walked across the road in a reconstruction going towards his place. Tanner picked him out. It's in her Rog - I thought it was (him).
Jane Tanner did not pick out Robert Murat.
At the exact point that she was about to make the sighting, a car pulled out and blocked her view.
More than that, before the sighting, she and her partner (whose name escapes me) met Robert Murat en route to the vehicle from where Jane would attempt to make the sighting.
It's all in the rogatory
Read it!
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 22, 2015, 10:59:58 AM
That doesn't make any sense. That was a reconstruction with people crossing the road so how are cars getting in the way?
"The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May 3rd." TOTL
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Benice on November 22, 2015, 11:42:41 AM
That doesn't make any sense. That was a reconstruction with people crossing the road so how are cars getting in the way?
"The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May 3rd." TOTL
Amaral wasn't there. Jane Tanner was.
Quote from JTs Rog Statement.
And, erm, then Bob drove me up to where, erm, the rest of the team were to do the surveillance. Erm, so I went off in the back of this like refrigerated, well it was pretending to be a refrigerated, erm, van and took it round to the point on the road and obviously, in hindsight now, I realise they were probably calling Robert MURAT to try and get him to walk across, across the top of the road so that, you know, I could see. But it was a bit odd because there was a car, where we were parked there was a car that moved just at that point that he appeared and then two other people walked by, so I didn’t really, but I didn’t even recognise it as the person I’d been talking to five minutes before, well, you know, half an hour before, so. Erm, and then, erm, then went, I think because it has gone a bit wrong because this car had been there and then tried to set it up elsewhere, but again I couldn’t really see, I couldn’t really see that well and, you know, it didn’t look, it didn’t jog, jog any memories”.
4078 “Now you are left with that mental image in your head about the man carrying the child”. Reply “Umm”.
4078 “And you said, you described his hair quite well. Having seen MURAT then and obviously in the papers since, could you link the two of those?” Reply “I don’t think so. I mean, I don’t, phew, I don’t, I don’t think it, no, there doesn’t, there’s no, but then the person I see in the paper doesn’t really look like my recollection of the person I met on the way to meet Bob SMALL. It’s really annoying because normally I would have probably taken more notice but I was so worried about what I was going to do, because I didn’t know at this point at all, I didn’t really take any notice, but I think it was too short and I remember it being, being long into the neck and not so. Again, I don’t really, when I saw Robert MURAT outside his house he looked quite little to me, but then when you see him on the telly he seems quite bit, so I can’t, again, I don’t think the build, the build was right, I don’t”.
4078 “So you don’t feel, in your heart of hearts”. Reply “No”.
4078 “You don’t feel it was the same person?” Reply “No, I don’t, no”. End quote.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on November 22, 2015, 12:16:47 PM
So to cut a long story short JT did not see an abductor carrying Maddie.
This opens up the infamous time line, well that along with the use of the word 'checking' the children.
If there was an abductor to take Maddie from her bed- he had plenty time! without being seen. perhaps the abductor knew the children were NOT being physically checked? Just trying to help out the abduction theories.
...BUT, that would make the parents even more guilty in the eyes of many 'sceptic' ( guilty of abandonment and facilitating an opportunity for Maddie to disappear). Oh Dear nothing seems to fit.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ferryman on November 22, 2015, 12:33:30 PM
And, erm, then Bob drove me up to where, erm, the rest of the team were to do the surveillance. Erm, so I went off in the back of this like refrigerated, well it was pretending to be a refrigerated, erm, van and took it round to the point on the road and obviously, in hindsight now, I realise they were probably calling Robert MURAT to try and get him to walk across, across the top of the road so that, you know, I could see. But it was a bit odd because there was a car, where we were parked there was a car that moved just at that point that he appeared and then two other people walked by, so I didn’t really, but I didn’t even recognise it as the person I’d been talking to five minutes before, well, you know, half an hour before, so. Erm, and then, erm, then went, I think because it has gone a bit wrong because this car had been there and then tried to set it up elsewhere, but again I couldn’t really see, I couldn’t really see that well and, you know, it didn’t look, it didn’t jog, jog any memories”.
4078 “Now you are left with that mental image in your head about the man carrying the child”. Reply “Umm”.
4078 “And you said, you described his hair quite well. Having seen MURAT then and obviously in the papers since, could you link the two of those?” Reply “I don’t think so. I mean, I don’t, phew, I don’t, I don’t think it, no, there doesn’t, there’s no, but then the person I see in the paper doesn’t really look like my recollection of the person I met on the way to meet Bob SMALL. It’s really annoying because normally I would have probably taken more notice but I was so worried about what I was going to do, because I didn’t know at this point at all, I didn’t really take any notice, but I think it was too short and I remember it being, being long into the neck and not so. Again, I don’t really, when I saw Robert MURAT outside his house he looked quite little to me, but then when you see him on the telly he seems quite bit, so I can’t, again, I don’t think the build, the build was right, I don’t”.
4078 “So you don’t feel, in your heart of hearts”. Reply “No”.
4078 “You don’t feel it was the same person?” Reply “No, I don’t, no”. End quote.
Thank you Benice.
I have just been destroying a few more million of my rapidly atrophying brain-cells trying to find that.
And to be clear, this bit:
...but then the person I see in the paper doesn’t really look like my recollection of the person I met on the way to meet Bob
alludes to an earlier reference in the rogatory where Jane describes (in more detail) actually meeting Robert Murat en route to the van from where Jane would make her (attempted) sighting. They stopped and chatted to him for several minutes.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 22, 2015, 01:25:30 PM
You've really got a problem when the only way in which you can "make your case" ... is to take a quote completely and totally out of context to do so. Nothing new there though .
At no time did Jane Tanner accuse Robert Murat of being the person she saw carrying a child on the 3rd May.
She neither ID him in Portuguese interviews nor did she ID him after passing him outside his villa while on the way to the surveillance exercise involving him.
She did not ID him in her rogatory statement.
If you read it properly ... you will see your selective quote refers to the situation where people said they had seen Robert Murat on the night Madeleine was taken.
It does not refer to the man Jane Tanner saw ... who she very clearly did not identify as Robert Murat.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ferryman on November 22, 2015, 02:03:30 PM
So we are not allowed to air a few home-truths about a certain, free-lance dog handler.
But blatant libel against Jane Tanner goes uncensored.
I see ....
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 22, 2015, 02:08:28 PM
So we are not allowed to air a few home-truths about a certain, free-lance dog handler.
But blatant libel against Jane Tanner goes uncensored.
I see ....
It really shouldn't have to be moderated ... posters should be discerning enough not to post disinformation ... when their error is pointed out they should be adult enough to ammend their post accordingly or perhaps delete it.
Just so there is no mistake ... I will post the section from the five hours of interviews Jane Tanner made containing her remark and the context in which it was made.
**Snip 4078 “I’m just double checking the second statement to see if there’s any further description”. Reply “I think again by then I did actually know what they were, I’d seen a picture of them in the papers, so it’s”. 4078 “Can’t find the specific part in there but I think, obviously it’s covered in the first one anyway, so it’s not particularly relevant to any (inaudible) time, going back to the second one there. Before we move on to then Gerry and Kate’s questions that they want to ask, is there anything else that you want to say in relation to everything we’ve discussed so far”? Reply “Erm I think the only part which, I mean it’s more relevant to everybody else than to me, it’s probably some of the Robert MURAT bits, in terms of erm Rachel, Fi and Russ and into, erm it was sort of how that came about and how they came to give their statements on that, I don’t know whether it’s a good time to talk about that”? 4078 “Yes, yes go on”. Reply “Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards. So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”. 4078 “Right”. Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”. 4078 “No”. Reply “But I just thought it was”. 4078 “Because there had been some dispute as to whether they’ve actually seen him when they’ve said they’ve seen him”. Reply “Yeah I think, I just want to make it clear that from my own point of view, they gave that information as soon as it came onto Sky and asked and you know they were sort of like, oh let’s ring Bob SMALL to see if it’s relevant at this point and at that point, none of us knew that he wasn’t there on you know, that he didn’t say that he was there on the night and”. 4078 “Yes”. Reply “And I, I mean I didn’t myself see him on the night at all but somebody did say to me, who translated for you, was it the lady or the man and it, it was the lady, I said, Sylvie and I hadn’t seen a man but again I don’t know whether that has any relevance that there was somebody else there translating, you know during the night so”. 4078 “Okay, that’s certainly a point worth bringing up when we interview the other people that have seen him there on the night”. Reply “Yeah exactly, I’m not trying to, cos I feel you know, if he’s not involved, the poor chap’s had as much crap as us really, I feel very, you know, he’s not involved but I do think it’s important that”. 4078 “Get to the truth of the matter”? Reply “Get to the truth of the matter and the truth is you know they, when they asked me to ring Bob SMALL to make these statements, we didn’t even know that he’d erm, hadn’t, hadn’t said he was there on the night and they didn’t know that I’d done the surveillance”. 4078 “No”. Reply “Because I took it seriously”. 4078 “So there’s no collaboration between you all”? Reply “No”. 4078 “(Inaudible) completely independent other than that”? Reply “No, I hadn’t even, I mean when I got back, I didn’t even tell Russell what I’d done cos I took very seriously what the Police said in terms of not you know, not telling anybody”. 4078 “Yes”. Reply “So I just thought it was important to say that really”. 4078 “Yes”. Reply “(Inaudible), it’s not trying to build more of a case against him at all, it’s just my involvement in that side”. 4078 “Truth to what happened that night”? Reply “Yeah”. 4078 “It’s, is how they’ve said it, it’s not something you concocted up between you”. Reply “No, it was”. 4078 “And come to a conclusion that that must have been him”? Reply “Yeah”. 4078 “That’s genuinely was something at the time”? Reply “Yeah sort of at the time yeah”. 4078 “Okay. Is there anything else that you need to speak about”? Reply “Erm no I don’t think so, don’t think anything else is”. 4078 “What about your personal opinions Jane”? Reply “Yeah erm, well obviously I, I mean I was almost gonna say this at the very, very end of anything but I just, I’d just really like to say to the Portuguese Police you know, I think there’s been a lot said but from a, you know we’re not a bunch of swingers that went out there for a swinging holiday, I can’t think of anything to be worse to be honest but yeah, we didn’t go out there on a swingers holiday to dump our kids in the kids club while we got pissed and shagged each other you know, that’s not what we did, there’s, there’s one week of the year, the other fifty one weeks of the year, with the kids all the time. In terms of our family, Russell’s, you know every spare moment’s with the kids, Russell doesn’t go off playing golf or go to the football or you know, there’s nothing wrong with that at the weekend, it’s spent with the kids and I just think you know, they’ve obviously got this idea of us and it’s just completely, completely wrong in terms of the way we are and what you know, our motives for being on holiday there and I think just you know, they’ve got to, I think you saw my reaction earlier that you know, I’m telling the truth, you know there’s Kate and Gerry are telling the truth, there’s no way they are involved in any shape or form, you know we saw their reaction on the night, we saw their reaction afterwards, we see their reaction now, they’re not involved and the thing is, there’s somebody out there you know, Madeleine if she’s dead or alive whatever you know, maybe it is too late to find her but there’s somebody out there that’s done this and it’s not Kate and Gerry, it’s not us, you know they can do it again and that is the, you know they’re laughing their socks off, they’ve just got away with this scot free and you know, and I think it’s, the thing is, they are there, then it’s not us and that person is out there and you know, could do it again and as I say it might be, we obviously hope not but it could be too late for Madeleine but a lot of other kids out there that might not be too late for and it’s just and to sit and see, and I know, I can quite understand why that time and effort has to be put into looking down that route and but you know, I can’t say any more but it’s not, well it’s not us, it’s not Kate and Gerry and it’s something happened which to Madeleine that night and none of us are involved and you know, I just don’t know what else we can do to make them believe us and I think that’s the you know, and I think that’s the you know, I think that, and I don’t think there is anything else we could do to believe us but you know, we’re not (inaudible), we were normal people that made a really stupid decision because we were lulled into a false sense of security from previous holidays where baby listening was offered so I don’t know”. 4078 “It’s clear that you”. Reply “And we’ve got to live with that, I’m off again”. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 22, 2015, 02:21:18 PM
It really shouldn't have to be moderated ... posters should be discerning enough not to post disinformation ... when their error is pointed out they should be adult enough to ammend their post accordingly or perhaps delete it.
Just so there is no mistake ... I will post the section from the five hours of interviews Jane Tanner made containing her remark and the context in which it was made.
**Snip 4078 “I’m just double checking the second statement to see if there’s any further description”. Reply “I think again by then I did actually know what they were, I’d seen a picture of them in the papers, so it’s”. 4078 “Can’t find the specific part in there but I think, obviously it’s covered in the first one anyway, so it’s not particularly relevant to any (inaudible) time, going back to the second one there. Before we move on to then Gerry and Kate’s questions that they want to ask, is there anything else that you want to say in relation to everything we’ve discussed so far”? Reply “Erm I think the only part which, I mean it’s more relevant to everybody else than to me, it’s probably some of the Robert MURAT bits, in terms of erm Rachel, Fi and Russ and into, erm it was sort of how that came about and how they came to give their statements on that, I don’t know whether it’s a good time to talk about that”? 4078 “Yes, yes go on”. Reply “Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards. So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”. 4078 “Right”. Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”. 4078 “No”. Reply “But I just thought it was”.[/color] 4078 “Because there had been some dispute as to whether they’ve actually seen him when they’ve said they’ve seen him”. Reply “Yeah I think, I just want to make it clear that from my own point of view, they gave that information as soon as it came onto Sky and asked and you know they were sort of like, oh let’s ring Bob SMALL to see if it’s relevant at this point and at that point, none of us knew that he wasn’t there on you know, that he didn’t say that he was there on the night and”. 4078 “Yes”. Reply “And I, I mean I didn’t myself see him on the night at all but somebody did say to me, who translated for you, was it the lady or the man and it, it was the lady, I said, Sylvie and I hadn’t seen a man but again I don’t know whether that has any relevance that there was somebody else there translating, you know during the night so”. 4078 “Okay, that’s certainly a point worth bringing up when we interview the other people that have seen him there on the night”. Reply “Yeah exactly, I’m not trying to, cos I feel you know, if he’s not involved, the poor chap’s had as much crap as us really, I feel very, you know, he’s not involved but I do think it’s important that”. 4078 “Get to the truth of the matter”? Reply “Get to the truth of the matter and the truth is you know they, when they asked me to ring Bob SMALL to make these statements, we didn’t even know that he’d erm, hadn’t, hadn’t said he was there on the night and they didn’t know that I’d done the surveillance”. 4078 “No”. Reply “Because I took it seriously”. 4078 “So there’s no collaboration between you all”? Reply “No”. 4078 “(Inaudible) completely independent other than that”? Reply “No, I hadn’t even, I mean when I got back, I didn’t even tell Russell what I’d done cos I took very seriously what the Police said in terms of not you know, not telling anybody”. 4078 “Yes”. Reply “So I just thought it was important to say that really”. 4078 “Yes”. Reply “(Inaudible), it’s not trying to build more of a case against him at all, it’s just my involvement in that side”. 4078 “Truth to what happened that night”? Reply “Yeah”. 4078 “It’s, is how they’ve said it, it’s not something you concocted up between you”. Reply “No, it was”. 4078 “And come to a conclusion that that must have been him”? Reply “Yeah”. 4078 “That’s genuinely was something at the time”? Reply “Yeah sort of at the time yeah”. 4078 “Okay. Is there anything else that you need to speak about”? Reply “Erm no I don’t think so, don’t think anything else is”. 4078 “What about your personal opinions Jane”? Reply “Yeah erm, well obviously I, I mean I was almost gonna say this at the very, very end of anything but I just, I’d just really like to say to the Portuguese Police you know, I think there’s been a lot said but from a, you know we’re not a bunch of swingers that went out there for a swinging holiday, I can’t think of anything to be worse to be honest but yeah, we didn’t go out there on a swingers holiday to dump our kids in the kids club while we got pissed and shagged each other you know, that’s not what we did, there’s, there’s one week of the year, the other fifty one weeks of the year, with the kids all the time. In terms of our family, Russell’s, you know every spare moment’s with the kids, Russell doesn’t go off playing golf or go to the football or you know, there’s nothing wrong with that at the weekend, it’s spent with the kids and I just think you know, they’ve obviously got this idea of us and it’s just completely, completely wrong in terms of the way we are and what you know, our motives for being on holiday there and I think just you know, they’ve got to, I think you saw my reaction earlier that you know, I’m telling the truth, you know there’s Kate and Gerry are telling the truth, there’s no way they are involved in any shape or form, you know we saw their reaction on the night, we saw their reaction afterwards, we see their reaction now, they’re not involved and the thing is, there’s somebody out there you know, Madeleine if she’s dead or alive whatever you know, maybe it is too late to find her but there’s somebody out there that’s done this and it’s not Kate and Gerry, it’s not us, you know they can do it again and that is the, you know they’re laughing their socks off, they’ve just got away with this scot free and you know, and I think it’s, the thing is, they are there, then it’s not us and that person is out there and you know, could do it again and as I say it might be, we obviously hope not but it could be too late for Madeleine but a lot of other kids out there that might not be too late for and it’s just and to sit and see, and I know, I can quite understand why that time and effort has to be put into looking down that route and but you know, I can’t say any more but it’s not, well it’s not us, it’s not Kate and Gerry and it’s something happened which to Madeleine that night and none of us are involved and you know, I just don’t know what else we can do to make them believe us and I think that’s the you know, and I think that’s the you know, I think that, and I don’t think there is anything else we could do to believe us but you know, we’re not (inaudible), we were normal people that made a really stupid decision because we were lulled into a false sense of security from previous holidays where baby listening was offered so I don’t know”. 4078 “It’s clear that you”. Reply “And we’ve got to live with that, I’m off again”. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
And if you can work out what all that means "you are better man than I am Gunga Din"
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Anna on November 22, 2015, 03:20:49 PM
It really shouldn't have to be moderated ... posters should be discerning enough not to post disinformation ... when their error is pointed out they should be adult enough to ammend their post accordingly or perhaps delete it.
Just so there is no mistake ... I will post the section from the five hours of interviews Jane Tanner made containing her remark and the context in which it was made.
**Snip 4078 “I’m just double checking the second statement to see if there’s any further description”. Reply “I think again by then I did actually know what they were, I’d seen a picture of them in the papers, so it’s”. 4078 “Can’t find the specific part in there but I think, obviously it’s covered in the first one anyway, so it’s not particularly relevant to any (inaudible) time, going back to the second one there. Before we move on to then Gerry and Kate’s questions that they want to ask, is there anything else that you want to say in relation to everything we’ve discussed so far”? Reply “Erm I think the only part which, I mean it’s more relevant to everybody else than to me, it’s probably some of the Robert MURAT bits, in terms of erm Rachel, Fi and Russ and into, erm it was sort of how that came about and how they came to give their statements on that, I don’t know whether it’s a good time to talk about that”? 4078 “Yes, yes go on”. Reply “Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards. So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”. 4078 “Right”. Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”. 4078 “No”. Reply “But I just thought it was”. 4078 “Because there had been some dispute as to whether they’ve actually seen him when they’ve said they’ve seen him”. Reply “Yeah I think, I just want to make it clear that from my own point of view, they gave that information as soon as it came onto Sky and asked and you know they were sort of like, oh let’s ring Bob SMALL to see if it’s relevant at this point and at that point, none of us knew that he wasn’t there on you know, that he didn’t say that he was there on the night and”. 4078 “Yes”. Reply “And I, I mean I didn’t myself see him on the night at all but somebody did say to me, who translated for you, was it the lady or the man and it, it was the lady, I said, Sylvie and I hadn’t seen a man but again I don’t know whether that has any relevance that there was somebody else there translating, you know during the night so”. 4078 “Okay, that’s certainly a point worth bringing up when we interview the other people that have seen him there on the night”. Reply “Yeah exactly, I’m not trying to, cos I feel you know, if he’s not involved, the poor chap’s had as much crap as us really, I feel very, you know, he’s not involved but I do think it’s important that”. 4078 “Get to the truth of the matter”? Reply “Get to the truth of the matter and the truth is you know they, when they asked me to ring Bob SMALL to make these statements, we didn’t even know that he’d erm, hadn’t, hadn’t said he was there on the night and they didn’t know that I’d done the surveillance”. 4078 “No”. Reply “Because I took it seriously”. 4078 “So there’s no collaboration between you all”? Reply “No”. 4078 “(Inaudible) completely independent other than that”? Reply “No, I hadn’t even, I mean when I got back, I didn’t even tell Russell what I’d done cos I took very seriously what the Police said in terms of not you know, not telling anybody”. 4078 “Yes”. Reply “So I just thought it was important to say that really”. 4078 “Yes”. Reply “(Inaudible), it’s not trying to build more of a case against him at all, it’s just my involvement in that side”. 4078 “Truth to what happened that night”? Reply “Yeah”. 4078 “It’s, is how they’ve said it, it’s not something you concocted up between you”. Reply “No, it was”. 4078 “And come to a conclusion that that must have been him”? Reply “Yeah”. 4078 “That’s genuinely was something at the time”? Reply “Yeah sort of at the time yeah”. 4078 “Okay. Is there anything else that you need to speak about”? Reply “Erm no I don’t think so, don’t think anything else is”. 4078 “What about your personal opinions Jane”? Reply “Yeah erm, well obviously I, I mean I was almost gonna say this at the very, very end of anything but I just, I’d just really like to say to the Portuguese Police you know, I think there’s been a lot said but from a, you know we’re not a bunch of swingers that went out there for a swinging holiday, I can’t think of anything to be worse to be honest but yeah, we didn’t go out there on a swingers holiday to dump our kids in the kids club while we got pissed and shagged each other you know, that’s not what we did, there’s, there’s one week of the year, the other fifty one weeks of the year, with the kids all the time. In terms of our family, Russell’s, you know every spare moment’s with the kids, Russell doesn’t go off playing golf or go to the football or you know, there’s nothing wrong with that at the weekend, it’s spent with the kids and I just think you know, they’ve obviously got this idea of us and it’s just completely, completely wrong in terms of the way we are and what you know, our motives for being on holiday there and I think just you know, they’ve got to, I think you saw my reaction earlier that you know, I’m telling the truth, you know there’s Kate and Gerry are telling the truth, there’s no way they are involved in any shape or form, you know we saw their reaction on the night, we saw their reaction afterwards, we see their reaction now, they’re not involved and the thing is, there’s somebody out there you know, Madeleine if she’s dead or alive whatever you know, maybe it is too late to find her but there’s somebody out there that’s done this and it’s not Kate and Gerry, it’s not us, you know they can do it again and that is the, you know they’re laughing their socks off, they’ve just got away with this scot free and you know, and I think it’s, the thing is, they are there, then it’s not us and that person is out there and you know, could do it again and as I say it might be, we obviously hope not but it could be too late for Madeleine but a lot of other kids out there that might not be too late for and it’s just and to sit and see, and I know, I can quite understand why that time and effort has to be put into looking down that route and but you know, I can’t say any more but it’s not, well it’s not us, it’s not Kate and Gerry and it’s something happened which to Madeleine that night and none of us are involved and you know, I just don’t know what else we can do to make them believe us and I think that’s the you know, and I think that’s the you know, I think that, and I don’t think there is anything else we could do to believe us but you know, we’re not (inaudible), we were normal people that made a really stupid decision because we were lulled into a false sense of security from previous holidays where baby listening was offered so I don’t know”. 4078 “It’s clear that you”. Reply “And we’ve got to live with that, I’m off again”. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
It does seem a bit confusing and it looks to me as if the part .... "but I just thought it was" should have said.."They just thought it was" They were discussing others from the group at that point.
Pathfinder posted a quote from the statement. For this reason, It is not libellous. PF was referring to the reason that Murat's house was searched (which was not due to an identity recognition by JT, which never happened) There are multiple reasons why this occurred and of course it all started with JT sighting, as did everything in the search for an abductor. Starting with .
6th Lori Campbell, Sunday Mirror journalist, reports Robert Murat to Leicestershire police because she was "suspicious about his behaviour". http://www.mccannfiles.com/id90.html.....
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 22, 2015, 03:48:50 PM
Well you would say that wouldn't you? OK your starter for ten, what does it mean?: "I didn't think it was him I just thought it was". Taken at face value no interpolation no "imo what she really meant wozzes", do not pass Go do not collect 200 quid, just what does it mean at face value?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 22, 2015, 04:00:54 PM
Well you would say that wouldn't you? OK your starter for ten, what does it mean?: "I didn't think it was him I just thought it was". Taken at face value no interpolation no "imo what she really meant wozzes", do not pass Go do not collect 200 quid, just what does it mean at face value?
Taken at face value it makes no sense at all, but allowing for the fact that it was a conversation and that pauses for thought by the speaker, and interjections from the person asking the questions can alter the sense of the written words it really is very simple to work out what was being said. Of course, "sceptics" don't make any allowances for this, everything is completely black or white to them, innit?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: faithlilly on November 22, 2015, 04:10:47 PM
Taken at face value it makes no sense at all, but allowing for the fact that it was a conversation and that pauses for thought by the speaker, and interjections from the person asking the questions can alter the sense of the written words it really is very simple to work out what was being said. Of course, "sceptics" don't make any allowances for this, everything is completely black or white to them, innit?
So........?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 22, 2015, 04:15:04 PM
Alice has told me I'm not allowed to give an opinion on what I thought she was saying, so I won't. But she made it plain that she didn't think the man she saw was Robert Murat. We will never know where her next train of thought was leading her, the one that begun "I just thought it was..."
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: faithlilly on November 22, 2015, 05:22:44 PM
Alice has told me I'm not allowed to give an opinion on what I thought she was saying, so I won't. But she made it plain that she didn't think the man she saw was Robert Murat. We will never know where her next train of thought was leading her, the one that begun "I just thought it was..."
Or perhaps that was simply the end of her sentence. As you say, we shall never know.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 22, 2015, 05:27:15 PM
It does seem a bit confusing and it looks to me as if the part .... "but I just thought it was" should have said.."They just thought it was" They were discussing others from the group at that point.
Pathfinder posted a quote from the statement. For this reason, It is not libellous. PF was referring to the reason that Murat's house was searched (which was not due to an identity recognition by JT, which never happened) There are multiple reasons why this occurred and of course it all started with JT sighting, as did everything in the search for an abductor. Starting with .
6th Lori Campbell, Sunday Mirror journalist, reports Robert Murat to Leicestershire police because she was "suspicious about his behaviour". http://www.mccannfiles.com/id90.html.....
The quote was taken out of context and was intended to "prove" that Jane Tanner identified the man she saw as Robert Murat ... which she never did on any occasion.
It reads to me that the discussion relates to the situation regarding those friends who thought they saw Robert Murat outside the apartment on the 3rd and the confusion arising from that.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Anna on November 22, 2015, 05:57:03 PM
The quote was taken out of context and was intended to "prove" that Jane Tanner identified the man she saw as Robert Murat ... which she never did on any occasion.
It reads to me that the discussion relates to the situation regarding those friends who thought they saw Robert Murat outside the apartment on the 3rd and the confusion arising from that.
I agree, Brietta
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 22, 2015, 06:36:17 PM
because she completely contradicts herself in the same short sentence. "I didn't think it was him, I just thought it was". Does that make any sense to you, unless that wasn't the end of her sentence?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 22, 2015, 06:43:23 PM
because she completely contradicts herself in the same short sentence. "I didn't think it was him, I just thought it was". Does that make any sense to you, unless that wasn't the end of her sentence?
That has the ring of truth about it. It was after all a conversation the subject of which was not Tannerman but a Sky News broadcast. You only have to read it to see that.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ferryman on November 22, 2015, 07:02:28 PM
Well you would say that wouldn't you? OK your starter for ten, what does it mean?: "I didn't think it was him I just thought it was". Taken at face value no interpolation no "imo what she really meant wozzes", do not pass Go do not collect 200 quid, just what does it mean at face value?
Selective editing by Levy?
Who (never forget) brought us the rogatory interviews (and how the hell did he get hold of them?); also tried to flog fake photographs to a Sunday paper that he claimed would blow the case apart and land the McCanns in jail:
I don't know what you're going about. Robert Murat's house was searched because of that sighting. He walked across the road in a reconstruction going towards his place. Tanner picked him out. It's in her Rog - I thought it was (him).
A few words taken completely out of context and what IMO is an unfinished sentence - but the typist has put a full stop instead of row of full stops normally used to indicate that. There are many examples of the same mistake (imo) made by the typist doing that. For example:
Reply “I know, the problem is, it’s just getting the Press and the.”
IMO that should have been typed as ''I know, the problem is, it's just getting the Press and the...............'
However, JT makes it quite clear more than once in that statement that she didn't think Murat was the man she saw.
Quote
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”. End quote
IMO that should have been typed as ''But I just thought it was.............'' and as she was talking about her reasons for phoning Bob Small at the time - I think that unfinished comment was going to be in reference to why she thought it was important to do that and was not referring to Murat. To refer to Murat at that point would make no sense in view of her comment immediately before - clearly stating that she didn't think he was the man she saw.
A further quote
4078 “So you don’t feel, in your heart of hearts”. (another example of an unfinished sentence - but ending with a full stop. )
Reply “No”.
4078 “You don’t feel it was the same person?”
Reply “No, I don’t, no”.
End quote.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 22, 2015, 07:25:45 PM
Who (never forget) brought us the rogatory interviews (and how the hell did he get hold of them?); also tried to flog fake photographs to a Sunday paper that he claimed would blow the case apart and land the McCanns in jail:
A few words taken completely out of context and what IMO is an unfinished sentence - but the typist has put a full stop instead of row of full stops normally used to indicate that. There are many examples of the same mistake (imo) made by the typist doing that. For example:
Reply “I know, the problem is, it’s just getting the Press and the.”
IMO that should have been typed as ''I know, the problem is, it's just getting the Press and the...............'
However, JT makes it quite clear more than once in that statement that she didn't think Murat was the man she saw.
Quote
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”. End quote
IMO that should have been typed as ''But I just thought it was.............'' and as she was talking about her reasons for phoning Bob Small at the time - I think that unfinished comment was going to be in reference to why she thought it was important to do that and was not referring to Murat. To refer to Murat at that point would make no sense in view of her comment immediately before - clearly stating that she didn't think he was the man she saw.
A further quote
4078 “So you don’t feel, in your heart of hearts”. (another example of an unfinished sentence - but ending with a full stop. )
Reply “No”.
4078 “You don’t feel it was the same person?”
Reply “No, I don’t, no”.
End quote.
Precisely. 8@??)(
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ferryman on November 22, 2015, 07:56:09 PM
because she completely contradicts herself in the same short sentence. "I didn't think it was him, I just thought it was". Does that make any sense to you, unless that wasn't the end of her sentence?
She contradicts herself elsewhere in her statement so why not here ? Being caught out in a lie often causes the person being questioned to say anything to cover their discomfort.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Benice on November 22, 2015, 08:07:45 PM
She contradicts herself elsewhere in her statement so why not here ? Being caught out in a lie often causes the person being questioned to say anything to cover their discomfort.
The police officer she was talking to didn't appear to have a problem with what she meant. However, it would be much easier for that officer talking face to face with her - than it is for people who are trying to analyse typed ' 'verbatim' sentences - without the benefit of facial expressions, different intonations of speech etc etc.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 22, 2015, 08:27:32 PM
On this occasion, the article. If for 5 years the newspaper could not work out there is an R in tries, I have to shoot the article.
The Telegraph is still running a 'live' story to the effect that the one and only fact we can be sure of was that the police were called at 10:14 (no they weren't as the phone records prove).
Then there is the story, reported by not one but two of Britain's finest, that Madeleine disappeared from block 6, complete with a stock photo of the rear of block 6, to prove this 'fact'.
Should I believe such articles? Or should I think for myself?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 22, 2015, 08:43:24 PM
She contradicts herself elsewhere in her statement so why not here ? Being caught out in a lie often causes the person being questioned to say anything to cover their discomfort.
She wasn't caught out though was she? And perhaps you could give another example of her contradicting herself in the same sentence? Do you not concede that the explanation Benice and I have given to explain this apparently bizarre contradiction is eminently plausible? If not, why not?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ferryman on November 22, 2015, 08:52:05 PM
On this occasion, the article. If for 5 years the newspaper could not work out there is an R in tries, I have to shoot the article.
The Telegraph is still running a 'live' story to the effect that the one and only fact we can be sure of was that the police were called at 10:14 (no they weren't as the phone records prove).
Then there is the story, reported by not one but two of Britain's finest, that Madeleine disappeared from block 6, complete with a stock photo of the rear of block 6, to prove this 'fact'.
Should I believe such articles? Or should I think for myself?
So you dispute that Levy tried to sell non-existent "photographs"?
Why?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 22, 2015, 08:58:34 PM
A few words taken completely out of context and what IMO is an unfinished sentence - but the typist has put a full stop instead of row of full stops normally used to indicate that. There are many examples of the same mistake (imo) made by the typist doing that. For example:
Reply “I know, the problem is, it’s just getting the Press and the.”
IMO that should have been typed as ''I know, the problem is, it's just getting the Press and the...............'
However, JT makes it quite clear more than once in that statement that she didn't think Murat was the man she saw.
Quote
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”. End quote
IMO that should have been typed as ''But I just thought it was.............'' and as she was talking about her reasons for phoning Bob Small at the time - I think that unfinished comment was going to be in reference to why she thought it was important to do that and was not referring to Murat. To refer to Murat at that point would make no sense in view of her comment immediately before - clearly stating that she didn't think he was the man she saw.
A further quote
4078 “So you don’t feel, in your heart of hearts”. (another example of an unfinished sentence - but ending with a full stop. )
Reply “No”.
4078 “You don’t feel it was the same person?”
Reply “No, I don’t, no”.
End quote.
Don't twist that she thought it was Robert Murat on 13 May 2007. That interview was conducted on 8 April 2008. A lot can change by then to what she now believes i.e. it wasn't him.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Benice on November 22, 2015, 09:09:22 PM
Don't twist that she thought it was Robert Murat on 13 May 2007. That interview was conducted on 8 April 2008. A lot can change by then to what she now believes i.e. it wasn't him.
I'm not twisting anything I was speculating on what she might have been about to say - based on her conversation at the time. No different to you specullating as you did in your first post when you added the word 'him'.
You said : I don't know what you're going about. Robert Murat's house was searched because of that sighting. He walked across the road in a reconstruction going towards his place. Tanner picked him out. It's in her Rog - I thought it was (him).. Unquote
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ferryman on November 22, 2015, 10:07:31 PM
Of course, the twister could be Levy.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 22, 2015, 10:16:16 PM
The police officer she was talking to didn't appear to have a problem with what she meant. However, it would be much easier for that officer talking face to face with her - than it is for people who are trying to analyse typed ' 'verbatim' sentences - without the benefit of facial expressions, different intonations of speech etc etc.
I doubt very much if Jane Tanner was "caught out in a lie" during her lengthy interview either ... she strikes me as being a painfully honest person. Not of course that anyone actually accused her of lying ... just that people do to cover their discomfort.
I find it somewhat reprehensible that a demonstrably honest person of integrity such as Jane Tanner is continually traduced simply because she saw a man carrying a child on the night Madeleine was abducted.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ferryman on November 22, 2015, 10:42:53 PM
I doubt very much if Jane Tanner was "caught out in a lie" during her lengthy interview either ... she strikes me as being a painfully honest person. Not of course that anyone actually accused her of lying ... just that people do to cover their discomfort.
I find it somewhat reprehensible that a demonstrably honest person of integrity such as Jane Tanner is continually traduced simply because she saw a man carrying a child on the night Madeleine was abducted.
And at a point when she had not the slightest reason to suspect anything untoward.
If any of us were to be told afterwards that a complete stranger we had been observed on CCTV camera to pass in the street was wanted for some serious crime, how many of us would recall with any accuracy details of the description of the person?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 22, 2015, 11:36:41 PM
And at a point when she had not the slightest reason to suspect anything untoward.
If any of us were to be told afterwards that a complete stranger we had been observed on CCTV camera to pass in the street was wanted for some serious crime, how many of us would recall with any accuracy details of the description of the person?
I most certainly would not.
I think Jane Tanner's power of recall quite extraordinary.
It is what makes the ridicule she was subjected to in some quarters regarding 'egg man' so reprehensible. That was not her fault. She had not seen the man's features so how could she describe what she had not seen?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: mercury on November 23, 2015, 12:02:11 AM
I think Jane Tanner's power of recall quite extraordinary.
It is what makes the ridicule she was subjected to in some quarters regarding 'egg man' so reprehensible. That was not her fault. She had not seen the man's features so how could she describe what she had not seen?
The thing that strikes me most about this is that it is a perfect example of "TOO LITTLE -- TOO LATE"
The first investigation and its coordinator had come and gone. The information which he had at his fingertips on the 4th May 2007 from Jane Tanner in combination with that brought to the investigation by other witnesses described by Leicestershire police as credible had just been ignored and wasted. (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15_VOLUME-XVa_Page_3978.jpg) No member of the public saw a representation like this until the end of 2008 ... yet there are those who labour under the impression the first investigation was not an unmitigated disaster.
The PP slides mention witness statements detailing people who should have been of interest to the initial investigation in 2007 as they certainly were to Scotland Yard in 2013.
Amazing you and I should agree that Jane Tanner's recall was pretty good but probably diverge on the use or lack of use made of it by the initial investigation ... which I think probably rates as an example of sheer incompetence in the use of witness evidence. I wont say - the worst example - because each small piece of the jigsaw which was neglected builds into an ever gaping void and it is difficult to determine which had the worst effect.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 23, 2015, 10:51:59 AM
As Operation Grange are no longer looking for the man seen by Jane Tanner it's all rather irrelevant isn't it?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: faithlilly on November 23, 2015, 11:23:20 AM
The thing that strikes me most about this is that it is a perfect example of "TOO LITTLE -- TOO LATE"
The first investigation and its coordinator had come and gone. The information which he had at his fingertips on the 4th May 2007 from Jane Tanner in combination with that brought to the investigation by other witnesses described by Leicestershire police as credible had just been ignored and wasted. (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15_VOLUME-XVa_Page_3978.jpg) No member of the public saw a representation like this until the end of 2008 ... yet there are those who labour under the impression the first investigation was not an unmitigated disaster.
The PP slides mention witness statements detailing people who should have been of interest to the initial investigation in 2007 as they certainly were to Scotland Yard in 2013.
Amazing you and I should agree that Jane Tanner's recall was pretty good but probably diverge on the use or lack of use made of it by the initial investigation ... which I think probably rates as an example of sheer incompetence in the use of witness evidence. I wont say - the worst example - because each small piece of the jigsaw which was neglected builds into an ever gaping void and it is difficult to determine which had the worst effect.
It would seem that SY and the McCann's own PIs were similarly incompetent as they also all but ruled out Tannerman as a viable abductor. And as for Cooperman, there was absolutely nothing to tie him to Madeleine's disappearance beyond the McCanns desire to muddy the water.
I often wonder what SY truly thought when faced with the absolute nonsense of Cooperman and the Victoria Beckham look-a-like given to them by the McCanns.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 23, 2015, 12:19:58 PM
Gail Cooper and Jane Tanner both saw the same man.
Gail Cooper, from Newark, Notts, said yesterday: "He was a horrible-looking man, really creepy, unkempt and dirty.
"He definitely wasn't Portuguese. He scared me."
One on 22nd April, in which a man was walking on the beach 'not really doing anything'
She said: "He was wandering about on the beach alone even though it was pouring down with rain. There wasn't another soul about. I watched him for a few minutes before I went back to chatting to my friends."
The man in the photo was also wearing light coloured trousers, a dark top and appears to have slightly rounded shoulders.
The following week, the Sunday Express further revealed that at the time the holidaying group were on the beach, on 22nd April 2007, one of Mrs Cooper's friends, Leanda Hodson-Mackey, had taken a photograph of her husband.
Remarkably she had captured "Creepy Man" in the background as he walked alone on the beach during a downpour. The image was said to have been passed to Leicestershire police.
Gail Cooper and Jane Tanner both saw the same man.
Gail Cooper, from Newark, Notts, said yesterday: "He was a horrible-looking man, really creepy, unkempt and dirty.
"He definitely wasn't Portuguese. He scared me."
One on 22nd April, in which a man was walking on the beach 'not really doing anything'
She said: "He was wandering about on the beach alone even though it was pouring down with rain. There wasn't another soul about. I watched him for a few minutes before I went back to chatting to my friends."
The man in the photo was also wearing light coloured trousers, a dark top and appears to have slightly rounded shoulders.
The following week, the Sunday Express further revealed that at the time the holidaying group were on the beach, on 22nd April 2007, one of Mrs Cooper's friends, Leanda Hodson-Mackey, had taken a photograph of her husband.
Remarkably she had captured "Creepy Man" in the background as he walked alone on the beach during a downpour. The image was said to have been passed to Leicestershire police.
As Operation Grange are no longer looking for the man seen by Jane Tanner it's all rather irrelevant isn't it?
Most certainly but there are those in the camp who believe one judges a person by their words not their deeds. The important thing is DCI Andy said only "almost certain". The action of dropping Tannerman like a hot penny then moving swiftly on to the sighting by the Irish family went "straight over their heads and died all alone in desert" as it were. 8(0(*
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 23, 2015, 12:52:01 PM
TBH I really can't believe that anyone with even a modicum of common sense would take any of the above seriously.
The man photographed on the beach on 22 April 2007? (need to check the actual date of photograph from Leanda Hodson-Mackey) has been cleared by SY. Can't you see the similar clothing in photos?
"Scotland Yard said last year they believe the man Ms Tanner saw was another British holidaymaker carrying his child. Officers took photos of the man wearing similar clothes and standing in a similar posed."
3987 to 3989 - Witness statement of Trudy Jane Dawkin 2007.05.27 (English)
We flew from East Midlands Airport on Thursday 19th April 2007 and landed at Faro airport at 0900 hours the same day (19/04/07)
The penthouse had been booked from the 19th April 2007 until 23 April 2007.
My friend Gail Ann COOPER invited myself, my husband Lee DAWKINS dob 17.16.70 my daughter Leada HODSON dob 1/9/77 her partner Stephen MACKEY and their son Hugo HODSON MACKEY to her 50th birthday celebrations at Praia Da Luz, ALGARVE PORTUGAL.
It would seem that SY and the McCann's own PIs were similarly incompetent as they also all but ruled out Tannerman as a viable abductor. And as for Cooperman, there was absolutely nothing to tie him to Madeleine's disappearance beyond the McCanns desire to muddy the water.
I often wonder what SY truly thought when faced with the absolute nonsense of Cooperman and the Victoria Beckham look-a-like given to them by the McCanns.
Probably fell about laughing, like a lot of others, then popped out for a fag, a coffee and a bacon sandwich.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 23, 2015, 01:31:58 PM
Probably fell about laughing, like a lot of others, then popped out for a fag, a coffee and a bacon sandwich.
You may find witnesses and witness statements laughable ... as indeed you seem to do. To suggest that professional law enforcement officers share your wit is execrable.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 23, 2015, 02:06:30 PM
You may find witnesses and witness statements laughable ... as indeed you seem to do. To suggest that professional law enforcement officers share your wit is execrable.
Why?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 23, 2015, 02:20:47 PM
You may find witnesses and witness statements laughable ... as indeed you seem to do. To suggest that professional law enforcement officers share your wit is execrable.
I think you don't know many.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 23, 2015, 02:27:17 PM
On The Sweeney George, Jack and Bill were always popping out for a fag a coffee and bacon sarny. The police officers with whom I have been acquainted were pretty much similar but had yam yam accents rather than mockney. As for falling about laughing just look at the "suspects" lists and the tales surrounding them.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 23, 2015, 02:37:54 PM
On The Sweeney George, Jack and Bill were always popping out for a fag a coffee and bacon sarny. The police officers with whom I have been acquainted were pretty much similar but had yam yam accents rather than mockney. As for falling about laughing just look at the "suspects" lists and the tales surrounding them.
what particularly do you find so amusing about it?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 23, 2015, 02:38:52 PM
On The Sweeney George, Jack and Bill were always popping out for a fag a coffee and bacon sarny. The police officers with whom I have been acquainted were pretty much similar but had yam yam accents rather than mockney. As for falling about laughing just look at the "suspects" lists and the tales surrounding them.
I find nothing remotely "falling about laughing" about the failure of the initial investigation to give appropriate attention to witness statements ... particularly that concerning Tannerman given in the hours following Madeleine's disappearance ... tracing him and the other people seen by witnesses hanging around the apartment when these became known to the investigation.
I am aware there is a 'black humour' prevalent in the direst of situations ... I doubt if mocking witnesses in a missing child case comes into that or anything else for that matter.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 23, 2015, 03:28:34 PM
I find nothing remotely "falling about laughing" about the failure of the initial investigation to give appropriate attention to witness statements ... particularly that concerning Tannerman given in the hours following Madeleine's disappearance ... tracing him and the other people seen by witnesses hanging around the apartment when these became known to the investigation.
I am aware there is a 'black humour' prevalent in the direst of situations ... I doubt if mocking witnesses in a missing child case comes into that or anything else for that matter.
Tannerman turned out to be an irrelevance according to The Met. So maybe the Portuguese were not that daft in coming to the same conclusion seven years earlier.Maybe it was good detective work rather than the incompetence you portray it as? You are turning into Stephen..........a one trick pony.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: misty on November 23, 2015, 03:51:03 PM
Tannerman turned out to be an irrelevance according to The Met. So maybe the Portuguese were not that daft in coming to the same conclusion seven years earlier.Maybe it was good detective work rather than the incompetence you portray it as? You are turning into Stephen..........a one trick pony.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id25.html We have evidence indicating a kidnap - Police chief in Portugal yesterday Sunday Mail By Lynn Mcpherson in Praia da Luz
May 6 2007
Detectives hunting little Maddie say she was snatched from her bed
FEARS that a British girl missing in Portugal had been abducted escalated yesterday as police said they had evidence and a suspect.
Madeleine McCann, three, disappeared from her apartment on the Algarve on Thursday night, while her parents ate at a restaurant 150 yards away. Her Scots dad Gerry and mum Kate had locked sleeping Maddie and twins Amelie and Sean in their bedroom. Last night Faro police chief Guilhermino Encarnacao said: "We have evidence which indicates a kidnap." He said they had a suspect and believed Maddie was alive and within three miles of the resort in Praia da Luz. She had been on holiday at the Mark Warner's Ocean Club with her doctor parents Gerry and Kate and their two-year-old twins. Encarnacao said police had "a profile" for a suspect but declined to give details "to safeguard the child's life". .............................................
The above was reported before RM fell under suspicion by LC & the PJ. Who was that suspect Encarnacao referred to & how was he cleared if he wasn't Crecheman?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 23, 2015, 04:12:54 PM
Tannerman turned out to be an irrelevance according to The Met. So maybe the Portuguese were not that daft in coming to the same conclusion seven years earlier.Maybe it was good detective work rather than the incompetence you portray it as? You are turning into Stephen..........a one trick pony.
The PJ came to the conclusion that Tannerman was an irrelevance based on what good detective work?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: faithlilly on November 23, 2015, 04:55:46 PM
The man photographed on the beach on 22 April 2007? (need to check the actual date of photograph from Leanda Hodson-Mackey) has been cleared by SY. Can't you see the similar clothing in photos?
"Scotland Yard said last year they believe the man Ms Tanner saw was another British holidaymaker carrying his child. Officers took photos of the man wearing similar clothes and standing in a similar posed."
3987 to 3989 - Witness statement of Trudy Jane Dawkin 2007.05.27 (English)
We flew from East Midlands Airport on Thursday 19th April 2007 and landed at Faro airport at 0900 hours the same day (19/04/07)
The penthouse had been booked from the 19th April 2007 until 23 April 2007.
My friend Gail Ann COOPER invited myself, my husband Lee DAWKINS dob 17.16.70 my daughter Leada HODSON dob 1/9/77 her partner Stephen MACKEY and their son Hugo HODSON MACKEY to her 50th birthday celebrations at Praia Da Luz, ALGARVE PORTUGAL.
p.s. looking a weather reports - weekend 20/21 April was rain.
So are you saying that the man seen on the beach ( who Cooper said was the charity collector she had seen earlier) was a holidaymaker using the crèche because he would have to have been for the clothes to be the same ?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 23, 2015, 05:27:39 PM
So are you saying that the man seen on the beach ( who Cooper said was the charity collector she had seen earlier) was a holidaymaker using the crèche because he would have to have been for the clothes to be the same ?
The beach photo evidence clearly shows the same clothes that he was wearing on the night Jane Tanner claimed to have seen him. That man has been found and cleared of any involvement. They are now concentrating on the later sighting - a man with short hair seen by the Smith family i.e. a different person.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: G-Unit on November 23, 2015, 08:20:03 PM
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id25.html We have evidence indicating a kidnap - Police chief in Portugal yesterday Sunday Mail By Lynn Mcpherson in Praia da Luz
May 6 2007
Detectives hunting little Maddie say she was snatched from her bed
FEARS that a British girl missing in Portugal had been abducted escalated yesterday as police said they had evidence and a suspect.
Madeleine McCann, three, disappeared from her apartment on the Algarve on Thursday night, while her parents ate at a restaurant 150 yards away. Her Scots dad Gerry and mum Kate had locked sleeping Maddie and twins Amelie and Sean in their bedroom. Last night Faro police chief Guilhermino Encarnacao said: "We have evidence which indicates a kidnap." He said they had a suspect and believed Maddie was alive and within three miles of the resort in Praia da Luz. She had been on holiday at the Mark Warner's Ocean Club with her doctor parents Gerry and Kate and their two-year-old twins. Encarnacao said police had "a profile" for a suspect but declined to give details "to safeguard the child's life". .............................................
The above was reported before RM fell under suspicion by LC & the PJ. Who was that suspect Encarnacao referred to & how was he cleared if he wasn't Crecheman?
Locked? Tut tut! who said that?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: mercury on November 23, 2015, 08:28:43 PM
The thing that strikes me most about this is that it is a perfect example of "TOO LITTLE -- TOO LATE"
The first investigation and its coordinator had come and gone. The information which he had at his fingertips on the 4th May 2007 from Jane Tanner in combination with that brought to the investigation by other witnesses described by Leicestershire police as credible had just been ignored and wasted. (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15_VOLUME-XVa_Page_3978.jpg) No member of the public saw a representation like this until the end of 2008 ... yet there are those who labour under the impression the first investigation was not an unmitigated disaster.
The PP slides mention witness statements detailing people who should have been of interest to the initial investigation in 2007 as they certainly were to Scotland Yard in 2013.
Amazing you and I should agree that Jane Tanner's recall was pretty good but probably diverge on the use or lack of use made of it by the initial investigation ... which I think probably rates as an example of sheer incompetence in the use of witness evidence. I wont say - the worst example - because each small piece of the jigsaw which was neglected builds into an ever gaping void and it is difficult to determine which had the worst effect.
My post wasn't to give you licence to spin it into an anti police tirade...I simply commented on the fact that you said she did not see the man's face and wondered myself , if she did not, then how could she be 80 per cent certain the face of Goofyman was like the man she had seen....you will have noticed I presume, the whole dog's dinner of a mess that was created by the linkage of Gail Cooper's Goofyman/her man on the beach /Tannerman/Crecheman/Smithman....and that is without including the media's portrayal of Tannerman as Hewlett (and in his case also Goofyman) and Robert Murats wife...oh yes,...even Ariadne with her ball of string would not be able to find her way back or forward with that pile of crud!! It might help if one got hold of one of those logic magazines and draw a table and titled the rows and columns with a "guess who" style - did he have shortish hair or was it collar length, did he have a handle bar moustache? was the man seen on the beach in PDL there for three weeks? Etc etc...you get the picture!
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 23, 2015, 08:35:00 PM
My post wasn't to give you licence to spin it into an anti police tirade...I simply commented on the fact that you said she did not see the man's face and wondered myself , if she did not, then how could she be 80 per cent certain the face of Goofyman was like the man she had seen....you will have noticed I presume, the whole dog's dinner of a mess that was created by the linkage of Gail Cooper's Goofyman/her man on the beach /Tannerman/Crecheman/Smithman....and that is without including the media's portrayal of Tannerman as Hewlett (and in his case also Goofyman) and Robert Murats wife...oh yes,...even Ariadne with her ball of string would not be able to find her way back or forward with that pile of crud!! It might help if one got hold of one of those logic magazines and draw a table and titled the rows and columns with a "guess who" style - did he have shortish hair or was it collar length, did he have a handle bar moustache? was the man seen on the beach in PDL there for three weeks? Etc etc...you get the picture!
From you ... no.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 23, 2015, 08:39:30 PM
Another evasion, not surprised, it has become a pattern from you..fyi everything I posted was fact, your loss and your confirmation you are not interested in them, oh dear poor Brietta, I really would stick to facts if I were you
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 23, 2015, 09:21:40 PM
Another evasion, not surprised, it has become a pattern from you..fyi everything I posted was fact, your loss and your confirmation you are not interested in them, oh dear poor Brietta, I really would stick to facts if I were you
It may have passed you by ... but what I posted was also fact ... if it doesn't meet with your approval or fit with your version of events perhaps you should practice restraint in moderating your tone to merit a response to your complaint.
Until then note I will not be rising to your juvenile goading. If you disagree with my post ... dissect that ... and cut out the "dear poor" claptrap, thanking you in advance.
As I was saying ... excellent that you and I should be in agreement about Jane Tanner's remarkable powers of recall which makes her such an excellent witness.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: mercury on November 23, 2015, 09:39:45 PM
i It may have passed you by ... but what I posted was also fact ... if it doesn't meet with your approval or fit with your version of events perhaps you should practice restraint in moderating your tone to merit a response to your complaint.
Until then note I will not be rising to your juvenile goading. If you disagree with my post ... dissect that ... and cut out the "dear poor" claptrap, thanking you in advance.
As I was saying ... excellent that you and I should be in agreement about Jane Tanner's remarkable powers of recall which makes her such an excellent witness.
Rubbish struck out Yet again evading the facts and ignoring "problems" Tanner never saw his face so she could not have said goofyman was 80 per cent HIM...so ...false...like so much in this case....
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on November 23, 2015, 09:58:53 PM
The thing that strikes me most about this is that it is a perfect example of "TOO LITTLE -- TOO LATE"
The first investigation and its coordinator had come and gone. The information which he had at his fingertips on the 4th May 2007 from Jane Tanner in combination with that brought to the investigation by other witnesses described by Leicestershire police as credible had just been ignored and wasted. (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15_VOLUME-XVa_Page_3978.jpg) No member of the public saw a representation like this until the end of 2008 ... yet there are those who labour under the impression the first investigation was not an unmitigated disaster.
The PP slides mention witness statements detailing people who should have been of interest to the initial investigation in 2007 as they certainly were to Scotland Yard in 2013.
Amazing you and I should agree that Jane Tanner's recall was pretty good but probably diverge on the use or lack of use made of it by the initial investigation ... which I think probably rates as an example of sheer incompetence in the use of witness evidence. I wont say - the worst example - because each small piece of the jigsaw which was neglected builds into an ever gaping void and it is difficult to determine which had the worst effect.
I could give a better example of TOO LITTLE ,TOO LATE...Kate going check on her beautiful daughter whom she left alone.
Looking at the Gail sketch that guy has the most enormous hands ( stranglers hands) shudders.
I can name 20 police officers, 12 doctors who share Alice's humour re the sketches etc.... any advances?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 23, 2015, 10:08:43 PM
Rubbish struck out Yet again evading the facts and ignoring "problems" Tanner never saw his face so she could not have said goofyman was 80 per cent HIM...so ...false...like so much in this case....
Jane Tanner helped make an efit of the man she saw.
Gail Cooper helped make an efit of the man she saw.
You have a problem with that?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: mercury on November 23, 2015, 10:13:12 PM
Where did the sketch come from? With his hands in his pockets? And how remarkably familiar??? With a 30 year old photo of their latest "suspect" who at the time looked like davros from dr who on his death bed
The fact is....Supporters do not have a valid agrument on any questions/challenges to the 'abduction'.
It is all hot air eminating from a media savvy mouth, like a snake from a snake charmers basket; slow and deliberate, swaying from side to side under some kind of other worlde trance; The snake does not know why it is in the basket or why it respondes to the tunes ..."Well, It just does" says the snake charmer! 8**8:/:
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 23, 2015, 10:31:04 PM
Melissa Little made a sketch with Jane Tanner = NO FACE Meliisa Little made a sketch with Cooper = full face Tanner says oh ok its him 80 per cent
Jane Tanner was reasonably content with the artist's work ... with one or two small quibbles about hair length and the child's pj's.
What a useful tool it would have been to have had an image to put into the public domain in the days following Madeleine's abduction.
Had time been devoted to similar painstaking collaboration between artist and witness at that time perhaps something more constructive and useful than a hairy egg might have resulted.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 23, 2015, 10:33:27 PM
Jane Tanner was reasonably content with the artist's work ... with one or two small quibbles about hair length and the child's pj's.
What a useful tool it would have been to have had an image to put into the public domain in the days following Madeleine's abduction.
Had time been devoted to similar painstaking collaboration between artist and witness at that time perhaps something more constructive and useful than a hairy egg might have resulted.
and don't forget she had brilliant vision in a dimly lit street as it got dark.
Magnifique.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: mercury on November 23, 2015, 10:38:07 PM
Jane Tanner was reasonably content with the artist's work ... with one or two small quibbles about hair length and the child's pj's.
What a useful tool it would have been to have had an image to put into the public domain in the days following Madeleine's abduction.
Had time been devoted to similar painstaking collaboration between artist and witness at that time perhaps something more constructive and useful than a hairy egg might have resulted.
Evading the issue again ? Oh why? You had better work really hard before youre labelled as the slippery fish...oh hang on......
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 23, 2015, 10:46:12 PM
The beach photo evidence clearly shows the same clothes that he was wearing on the night Jane Tanner claimed to have seen him. That man has been found and cleared of any involvement. They are now concentrating on the later sighting - a man with short hair seen by the Smith family i.e. a different person.
Yes but the man on the beach was the man who had come to Gail Cooper's door earlier asking for funds for a charity, So as SY have said the man they have identified was a holidaymaker carrying his young daughter home from the crèche and Cooperman, you say, are the same people, then Crecheman must have had an extra long holiday for both Cooper and Tanner to see him weeks apart and to have funded it by masquerading as a bogus charity worker.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 23, 2015, 11:11:40 PM
Yes but the man on the beach was the man who had come to Gail Cooper's door earlier asking for funds for a charity, So as SY have said the man they have identified was a holidaymaker carrying his young daughter home from the crèche and Cooperman, you say, are the same people, then Crecheman must have had an extra long holiday for both Cooper and Tanner to see him weeks apart and to have funded it by masquerading as a bogus charity worker.
As I have observed before it helps to be able to believe half a dozen daft things before breakfast every day !
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: faithlilly on November 23, 2015, 11:13:09 PM
Yes but the man on the beach was the man who had come to Gail Cooper's door earlier asking for funds for a charity, So as SY have said the man they have identified was a holidaymaker carrying his young daughter home from the crèche and Cooperman, you say, are the same people, then Crecheman must have had an extra long holiday for both Cooper and Tanner to see him weeks apart and to have funded it by masquerading as a bogus charity worker.
Or a rebirth of the Marx Brothers...this could have been a set of twins or triplets, you know all taking turns each to turn up and scare folks!
Just trying to make the story fit. Was it helpful?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: faithlilly on November 23, 2015, 11:19:15 PM
Yes but the man on the beach was the man who had come to Gail Cooper's door earlier asking for funds for a charity, So as SY have said the man they have identified was a holidaymaker carrying his young daughter home from the crèche and Cooperman, you say, are the same people, then Crecheman must have had an extra long holiday for both Cooper and Tanner to see him weeks apart and to have funded it by masquerading as a bogus charity worker.
I'm not saying crecheman is the charity collector who came to the door. That is from Gail Cooper and I don't know if that's been properly investigated. She could be mistaken. All I know is the photo evidence of the man on the beach matches crecheman and he's been cleared by SY as the man Jane Tanner saw.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pegasus on November 24, 2015, 02:55:28 AM
Did you notice who wrote that powerpoint thing? It was not written by a police detective. It was not even written by a PI. And it is nonsense, because SY's crecheman was not even in portugal on Apr 22.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: faithlilly on November 24, 2015, 10:53:33 AM
I'm not saying crecheman is the charity collector who came to the door. That is from Gail Cooper and I don't know if that's been properly investigated. She could be mistaken. All I know is the photo evidence of the man on the beach matches crecheman and he's been cleared by SY as the man Jane Tanner saw.
So if Gail Cooper is mistaken, are you saying that she randomly took a picture of some passerby, mistakenly thought it was the charity worker and coincidentally the man identified by SY just happened to have the same attire ?
What are you saying PF ?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 24, 2015, 11:02:33 AM
So if Gail Cooper is mistaken, are you saying that she randomly took a picture of some passerby, mistakenly thought it was the charity worker and coincidentally the man identified by SY just happened to have the same attire ?
What are you saying PF ?
Gail Cooper didn't take the photo. Leanda Hodson-Mackey who was over for her 50th Birthday took the photo of her husband and son and they later noticed him in the background when checking their holiday photos. He was the one she said was wandering alone in the rain which she thought was strange. She saw the charity man up-close two day previous she said. The man on the beach she saw from a distance. Gail Cooper claimed it was the same man but how do we now that is correct. SY no doubt asked crecheman that question when they met him if they properly investigated it.
Today we reveal that one of Mrs Cooper’s friends, Leanda Hodson-Mackey, took a snap of her husband Stephen, 34, and son, then aged two, and the man appeared in the background, walking along the beach during a downpour.
Although his features cannot be clearly made out, there is a rough image which could be enhanced with FBI picture improvement techniques.
She had flown to Luz with a party of 13 family and friends in the week before Madeleine was taken, to celebrate her 50th birthday. Mrs Hodson-Mackey, 34, and her family spent four days at an apartment in the Mark Warner complex with Leanda’s mother Trudy Dawkins, 49, and her husband Lee, 40.
Last night Mrs Dawkins, also from Newark, said: “When we were back home it was on the news that Madeleine had disappeared and we all racked our brains to see if there was anything we could remember which would help the investigation.
“We all remembered this man walking along the beach in the rain, then Gail recalled he later went to her villa.
“Leanda had a throwaway camera. She went through the pictures she had taken and realised the man was in the background in one. Detectives took a statement from her and took away the picture, but we don’t know what happened after that.
My friend Gail Ann COOPER invited myself, my husband Lee DAWKINS dob 17.16.70 my daughter Leada HODSON dob 1/9/77 her partner Stephen MACKEY and their son Hugo HODSON MACKEY to her 50th birthday celebrations at Praia Da Luz, ALGARVE PORTUGAL.
Gail Carried Out ALL THE booking Procedures and informed us we were staying in the PENTHOUSE APARTMENT on the top floor at Praia de luz. The penthouse had been booked from the 19th April 2007 until 23 April 2007.
Gail Cooper didn't take the photo. Leanda Hodson-Mackey who was over for her 50th Birthday took the photo of her husband and son and they later noticed him in the background when checking their holiday photos. He was the one she said was wandering alone in the rain which she thought was strange. She saw the charity man up-close two day previous she said. The man on the beach she saw from a distance. Gail Cooper claimed it was the same man but how do we now that is correct. SY no doubt asked crecheman that question when they met him if they properly investigated it.
Today we reveal that one of Mrs Cooper’s friends, Leanda Hodson-Mackey, took a snap of her husband Stephen, 34, and son, then aged two, and the man appeared in the background, walking along the beach during a downpour.
Although his features cannot be clearly made out, there is a rough image which could be enhanced with FBI picture improvement techniques.
She had flown to Luz with a party of 13 family and friends in the week before Madeleine was taken, to celebrate her 50th birthday. Mrs Hodson-Mackey, 34, and her family spent four days at an apartment in the Mark Warner complex with Leanda’s mother Trudy Dawkins, 49, and her husband Lee, 40.
Last night Mrs Dawkins, also from Newark, said: “When we were back home it was on the news that Madeleine had disappeared and we all racked our brains to see if there was anything we could remember which would help the investigation.
“We all remembered this man walking along the beach in the rain, then Gail recalled he later went to her villa.
“Leanda had a throwaway camera. She went through the pictures she had taken and realised the man was in the background in one. Detectives took a statement from her and took away the picture, but we don’t know what happened after that.
Apologies PF but aren't you doing what the supporters do, linking disperate pieces of information together where there is no link and throwing away the ones that don't suit ?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 24, 2015, 11:25:52 AM
Apologies PF but aren't you doing what the supporters do, linking disperate pieces of information together where there is no link and throwing away the ones that don't suit ?
Seeing a man up-close days earlier and then seeing a man from a distance can't be presumed to be the same person without it being investigated first? Gail Cooper believes that man abducted Madeleine so she could be biased in her opinion and it is her that is later connecting the two separate sightings not me. I said it should be investigated first before accepting Gail Cooper's statement as the truth.
"Mrs Cooper, 53, from Newark, Nottinghamshire, told the Sunday Express last week she believes the same man went on to kidnap Madeleine McCann."
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: faithlilly on November 24, 2015, 11:33:30 AM
Seeing a man up-close days earlier and then seeing a man from a distance can't be presumed to be the same person without it being investigated first? Gail Cooper believes that man abducted Madeleine so she could be biased in her accusations and it is her that is later connecting the two separate sightings not me. I said it should be investigated first so I believe I'm right in saying it.
"Mrs Cooper, 53, from Newark, Nottinghamshire, told the Sunday Express last week she believes the same man went on to kidnap Madeleine McCann."
But it is you who are linking Crecheman and the man in the photograph. Do you believe Cooper's friend took a photo of Crecheman and if so, why do you feel that it's significant ?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 24, 2015, 11:50:45 AM
But it is you who are linking Crecheman and the man in the photograph. Do you believe Cooper's friend took a photo of Crecheman and if so, why do you feel that it's significant ?
Yes I believe that is crecheman in the photo because the clothes are the same and the build. He has been cleared of any involvement but you can't ignore the photo evidence which everyone can see. The jacket is the same and I doubt many are wearing the same around quiet Luz in April.
More importantly any holiday photos that went to ceop the PJ probably didn't receive. What would these show in the background? Maybe roadworks, potential witnesses etc. All holiday photos should be checked by investigators.
"photographs of people who they do not know who were in and around Praia da Luz in the 2 weeks leading up to the 3rd May. The address to upload photographs is: to www.madeleine.ceopupload.com."
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 24, 2015, 12:29:53 PM
Yes I believe that is crecheman in the photo because the clothes are the same and the build. He has been cleared of any involvement but you can't ignore the photo evidence which everyone can see. The jacket is the same and I doubt many are wearing the same around quiet Luz in April.
More importantly any holiday photos that went to ceop the PJ probably didn't receive. What would these show in the background? Maybe roadworks, potential witnesses etc. All holiday photos should be checked by investigators.
"photographs of people who they do not know who were in and around Praia da Luz in the 2 weeks leading up to the 3rd May. The address to upload photographs is: to www.madeleine.ceopupload.com."
It's 20 centigrade and sunny here. Most of the folks at the Habana (webcam) seem to be in shorts and Tshirts. But at least 1 guy is sitting there in a jacket.
I'm not sure what people are supposed to wear on a drizzly day April if jackets and trousers are ruled out.
Did anyone explain why the man hadn't fallen over in the non-photoshopped photo?
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 24, 2015, 12:47:01 PM
It's 20 centigrade and sunny here. Most of the folks at the Habana (webcam) seem to be in shorts and Tshirts. But at least 1 guy is sitting there in a jacket.
I'm not sure what people are supposed to wear on a drizzly day April if jackets and trousers are ruled out.
Did anyone explain why the man hadn't fallen over in the non-photoshopped photo?
According to witnesses it was quiet in Luz so I doubt everyone is walking around wearing the same clothes as crecheman. Not that any of it matters now because he ain't Smithman carrying who the Smiths believe was Madeleine McCann.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: Brietta on November 24, 2015, 02:29:32 PM
Did you notice who wrote that powerpoint thing? It was not written by a police detective. It was not even written by a PI. And it is nonsense, because SY's crecheman was not even in portugal on Apr 22.
I would say it was an excellent exercise in brainstorming for an amateur to have produced. It certainly was a 100% improvement on the non-existent model the PJ failed to produce.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: faithlilly on November 24, 2015, 06:06:16 PM
According to witnesses it was quiet in Luz so I doubt everyone is walking around wearing the same clothes as crecheman. Not that any of it matters now because he ain't Smithman carrying who the Smiths believe was Madeleine McCann.
Too many coincidences for me PF.
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: mercury on November 24, 2015, 09:31:53 PM
Did you notice who wrote that powerpoint thing? It was not written by a police detective. It was not even written by a PI. And it is nonsense, because SY's crecheman was not even in portugal on Apr 22.
Gerry Mccann?
Oh!
Title: Re: Why was Tannerman going the wrong way?
Post by: misty on November 25, 2015, 01:24:58 AM
Gail Cooper didn't take the photo. Leanda Hodson-Mackey who was over for her 50th Birthday took the photo of her husband and son and they later noticed him in the background when checking their holiday photos. He was the one she said was wandering alone in the rain which she thought was strange. She saw the charity man up-close two day previous she said. The man on the beach she saw from a distance. Gail Cooper claimed it was the same man but how do we now that is correct. SY no doubt asked crecheman that question when they met him if they properly investigated it.
Today we reveal that one of Mrs Cooper’s friends, Leanda Hodson-Mackey, took a snap of her husband Stephen, 34, and son, then aged two, and the man appeared in the background, walking along the beach during a downpour.
Although his features cannot be clearly made out, there is a rough image which could be enhanced with FBI picture improvement techniques.
She had flown to Luz with a party of 13 family and friends in the week before Madeleine was taken, to celebrate her 50th birthday. Mrs Hodson-Mackey, 34, and her family spent four days at an apartment in the Mark Warner complex with Leanda’s mother Trudy Dawkins, 49, and her husband Lee, 40.
Last night Mrs Dawkins, also from Newark, said: “When we were back home it was on the news that Madeleine had disappeared and we all racked our brains to see if there was anything we could remember which would help the investigation.
“We all remembered this man walking along the beach in the rain, then Gail recalled he later went to her villa.
“Leanda had a throwaway camera. She went through the pictures she had taken and realised the man was in the background in one. Detectives took a statement from her and took away the picture, but we don’t know what happened after that.
My friend Gail Ann COOPER invited myself, my husband Lee DAWKINS dob 17.16.70 my daughter Leada HODSON dob 1/9/77 her partner Stephen MACKEY and their son Hugo HODSON MACKEY to her 50th birthday celebrations at Praia Da Luz, ALGARVE PORTUGAL.
Gail Carried Out ALL THE booking Procedures and informed us we were staying in the PENTHOUSE APARTMENT on the top floor at Praia de luz. The penthouse had been booked from the 19th April 2007 until 23 April 2007.