Tannerman

[Holly Goodhead]

It may have been a common sight but that does not mean that either sighting should have been dismissed on that basis, does it?

Certainly not but DCI Andy Redwood referred to the elimination as "really exciting" and a "revelation moment" allowing the timeline to roll on. 

I don't understand why he would describe it in such terms given the way the night creche operated, plus why would an abductor take a route he may well have come face to face with a member of T9 on, and sorry to bore everyone but the S&R dogs did not scent in that direction. 

It seems from the C4 docu the experts are aware of the fact a child was seen in a man's arms walking away from 5A but forensic scientist, Dave Barclay, said "You then become a tourist don't you that's carrying a child that's sleepy".  So he's saying yes an abductor might do this knowing he could blend in but he's obviously alert to the fact that tourists do carry sleeping child around at night regardless of a night creche.

@ 18 mins in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE

[Brietta]

The most salient fact for me is that either of these sightings have been given the sort of importance they have and shows imo the MET are scratching around. 

PDL is a self-contained resort.  OC guests were on a half-board package staying in accommodation scattered all over the resort.  Dinner was served at either the Millennium or Tapas and guests using such were eligible to leave their children at the night creche of which only one operated meaning parents had a short journey to take and fetch their children to/from it.  It doesn't seem to me any of the families we know about had hire cars and I haven't heard anyone talking of taking a cab from one location to another within PDL therefore parents simply carried their children to and fro so sightings of men (dads) carrying babes in arms was not an unusual sight.

Plus the S&R dogs did not track MM in the direction of Tannerman/Smithman.

A child was missing.  There is no justification for ignoring the fact that a man was seen carrying a child in close proximity to the room she vanished from.
There appears to have been no elimination process to identify dads who may have been out and about carrying their barefoot daughters through the streets of Luz on 3rd May.
Whatever the investigating officers think of evidence or intelligence given ... it is not for them to dismiss it out of hand ... their job is to investigate it and evaluate it in the proper manner.  I really don't think that was carried through in any in-depth or appropriate manner.

[Venturi Swirl]

Certainly not but DCI Andy Redwood referred to the elimination as "really exciting" and a "revelation moment" allowing the timeline to roll on. 

I don't understand why he would describe it in such terms given the way the night creche operated, plus why would an abductor take a route he may well have come face to face with a member of T9 on, and sorry to bore everyone but the S&R dogs did not scent in that direction. 

It seems from the C4 docu the experts are aware of the fact a child was seen in a man's arms walking away from 5A but forensic scientist, Dave Barclay, said "You then become a tourist don't you that's carrying a child that's sleepy".  So he's saying yes an abductor might do this knowing he could blend in but he's obviously alert to the fact that tourists do carry sleeping child around at night regardless of a night creche.

@ 18 mins in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE

Being able to definitively rule out one of the sightings would be viewed as progress by the police so I csn understand their positivity about it and obviously they hoped to shift public focus on the other sighting in the hope that either it led to Madeleine or that it too could be ruled out.  We now they are no longer looking for Smithman so there must be a reason for that, whatever it is must be viewed as progress of sorts.

[Brietta]

Being able to definitively rule out one of the sightings would be viewed as progress by the police so I csn understand their positivity about it and obviously they hoped to shift public focus on the other sighting in the hope that either it led to Madeleine or that it too could be ruled out.  We now they are no longer looking for Smithman so there must be a reason for that, whatever it is must be viewed as progress of sorts.

I agree it is all a process that has to be gone through.  What amazes me is that despite Scotland Yard and the Judicial Police keeping Madeleine's case open that it is speculated that 'nothing is happening'.
In my opinion when all investigative avenues have been exhausted these guys will know that and will however reluctantly admit the fact and move on. Obviously that stage has not yet been reached as far as Madeleine's case is concerned.

[Holly Goodhead]

A child was missing.  There is no justification for ignoring the fact that a man was seen carrying a child in close proximity to the room she vanished from.
There appears to have been no elimination process to identify dads who may have been out and about carrying their barefoot daughters through the streets of Luz on 3rd May.
Whatever the investigating officers think of evidence or intelligence given ... it is not for them to dismiss it out of hand ... their job is to investigate it and evaluate it in the proper manner.  I really don't think that was carried through in any in-depth or appropriate manner.

I agree but this needed to happen in weeks at most not years!

[Brietta]

I agree but this needed to happen in weeks at most not years!

I think it is one of the most distressing aspects of Madeleine's case that so much information was neglected or systematically ignored or misinterpreted.
This started right at the very beginning with not only the dismissal of Jane Tanner's evidence but the absolute public rubbishing she endured as a result of telling what she had seen.  If the man had been traced at the time and eliminated from the inquiry, no big deal.  The big deal is that he wasn't found and his existence, once the Murat villa had been ruled out of the equation, was officially discounted.
In retrospect, I doubt very much if Madeleine's disappearance was handled as it should have been in the first instance which is why it became such an indefensible disaster throughout.  That is typified by 'Tannerman' and the way he was allowed to slip through the net.

[jassi]

I think it is one of the most distressing aspects of Madeleine's case that so much information was neglected or systematically ignored or misinterpreted.
This started right at the very beginning with not only the dismissal of Jane Tanner's evidence but the absolute public rubbishing she endured as a result of telling what she had seen.  If the man had been traced at the time and eliminated from the inquiry, no big deal.  The big deal is that he wasn't found and his existence, once the Murat villa had been ruled out of the equation, was officially discounted.
In retrospect, I doubt very much if Madeleine's disappearance was handled as it should have been in the first instance which is why it became such an indefensible disaster throughout.  That is typified by 'Tannerman' and the way he was allowed to slip through the net.

Which net would this be?

[The General]

A child was missing.  There is no justification for ignoring the fact that a man was seen carrying a child in close proximity to the room she vanished from.
There appears to have been no elimination process to identify dads who may have been out and about carrying their barefoot daughters through the streets of Luz on 3rd May.
Whatever the investigating officers think of evidence or intelligence given ... it is not for them to dismiss it out of hand ... their job is to investigate it and evaluate it in the proper manner.  I really don't think that was carried through in any in-depth or appropriate manner.

You honestly believe that, in the midst of a live missing child search, the investigating officers didn't quickly follow up the most significant sighting to come across their desks up to that point? Why? And why?
Yet they went to extraordinary, demonstrable lengths chasing every available avenue.....except the gift-wrapped one? You've all been poring over the minute detail of the PJ files for over a decade, you know the extent of the investigation - but let's not follow up this most basic lead AT ALL. Let's dismiss it out of hand!

[G-Unit]

You honestly believe that, in the midst of a live missing child search, the investigating officers didn't quickly follow up the most significant sighting to come across their desks up to that point? Why? And why?
Yet they went to extraordinary, demonstrable lengths chasing every available avenue.....except the gift-wrapped one? You've all been poring over the minute detail of the PJ files for over a decade, you know the extent of the investigation - but let's not follow up this most basic lead AT ALL. Let's dismiss it out of hand!

Gift-wrapped indeed. Before the police arrived the crime and the perpetrator had been identified by....a group of holidaymakers every one of whom was connected to the child and her family. Any decent upstanding police force would have accepted what they said without question, wouldn't they?

[Holly Goodhead]

Gift-wrapped indeed. Before the police arrived the crime and the perpetrator had been identified by....a group of holidaymakers every one of whom was connected to the child and her family. Any decent upstanding police force would have accepted what they said without question, wouldn't they?

The police are trained to accept nothing unless of course its different in Portugal.  And I think just above everyone, lay and professional, accept and understand that when small children disappear or come to some harm it is usually at the hands of person(s) known. 

[Mr Gray]

The police are trained to accept nothing unless of course its different in Portugal.  And I think just above everyone, lay and professional, accept and understand that when small children disappear or come to some harm it is usually at the hands of person(s) known.

Perhaps you should send your observations to the Amber Alert taem

[Holly Goodhead]

Perhaps you should send your observations to the Amber Alert taem

Usually as in statistically.

[Mr Gray]

Usually as in statistically.

I wonder what the statistics are for a child reported abducted by two biological parents, with no custody issues

[Robittybob1]

Perhaps you should send your observations to the Amber Alert taem

That is already understood, I believe.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Gift-wrapped indeed. Before the police arrived the crime and the perpetrator had been identified by....a group of holidaymakers every one of whom was connected to the child and her family. Any decent upstanding police force would have accepted what they said without question, wouldn't they?

Yes G, but actually there is a situation which has never been clarified.  Kate said she knew right away her daughter was abducted YET did not phone the police, or run to reception to get them to call the police immediatly as her daughter was abducted. The 'abduction story' came into play when they realised they would have to explain to families and work mates what really happenedand after they 'searched' for a missing child,not an abducted one.