Tannerman

[jassi]

Many of the members here comment that DCI Redwood did not mention anyone by name but why would he, or any police officer, bandy about the name of an entirely innocent holidaymaker who at one time many suspected was MM's abductor? 

If 'Smithman' is ever identified imo he will prove to be nothing more than yet another red herring.

The point is that you said he did.

[G-Unit]

Clip from Jane Tanner's rogatory interview and in her own words ...

I think that had got confused in translation because I don’t know what it was in metres and they sort of then transferred that into metres from my statement, so I think it came out actually lower.

 But I think it was sort of like five foot nine, five foot ten, as much as I could, so”.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm

1.7m was written into the typed timeline, typed in English by British members of the group. No translations were required and discussion/explanation was easy. She saw the man and it was up to her to ensure the details were correct. There's a big difference between 5'6" and 5'10".

[barrier]

As DCI Redwood said its almost certain 'Tannerman' and Dr T are one and the same. 

The point is that you said he did.

What Jassi said.

[Holly Goodhead]

The point is that you said he did.

Well I stand corrected 'British holidaymaker'. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Well she said 1.7m on 4th May and in the group's typed timeline;

Description of Man:
- Age 35 to 40.
- 1.7m tal1 approximately with a slim build.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm

I'm examining JT's evidence, not JW's.

But what you seem to have a tendency to do is cherry pick ie you are sceptical about T9 testimony and yet on occasions you seem to want to rely on it if it supports your overall theory?

What I'm saying is that we can look at the testimony from entirely innocent witnesses eg JW and find contradictions and inconsistencies.  There's absolutely no reason for people to have perfect recall over mundane matters that at the time of hearing/seeing held no importance whatsoever.

Or are you suggesting 'Tannerman' and Dr T are not one of the same?  Are you suggesting 'Tannerman' is a figment of JT's imagination and Dr T just happened by at a similar time? 

The chances of Tannerman and Dr T not being one of the same are zero given they share similar physical features, wore the same clothes along with the babe in arms sharing the same physical features/clothes. 

[Brietta]

Logic dictates that if a man carrying a child is witnessed walking from a location from which it is found a child has disappeared that all options are open until  ...

• The child turns up safe and well ... and/or
• The man is traced and both he and the child identified

That diligence was not carried out at the time and place from which Madeleine disappeared.  I find that omission reprehensible and excuses for what I consider the inexcusable such as the GNR dogs' disinterest quite mystifying in their acceptability.

[kmc]

The chances of Tannerman and Dr T not being one of the same are zero given they share similar physical features, wore the same clothes along with the babe in arms sharing the same physical features/clothes.

Suggesting the chances of Tannerman and Totman NOT being the same person as zero,  surely must be conjecture???  One could just as easily argue that the polish couple's physical and clothing descriptions closely match both Tannerman and Jenny Murat's description of the lady in purple.  (From memory, I think she was witnessed days before at Refugio Restaurant as being very slim, in a 'Bordeaux" coloured jacket, beige dress and hair in a pony tail - the only thing off is hair colour, but at that time of night or with the possibility of hair dye I guess hair colour is not a definitive).  You see the truth with e-fits is that there are always a number of people who can be seen to fit a description, but that does not really mean anything.  Neither we nor Redwood can categorically prove who Tannerman/Smithman or Muratlady was.   We simply do not know and as a result can't rule anyone in or out with any degree of certainty.

[Holly Goodhead]

Suggesting the chances of Tannerman and Totman NOT being the same person as zero,  surely must be conjecture???  One could just as easily argue that the polish couple's physical and clothing descriptions closely match both Tannerman and Jenny Murat's description of the lady in purple.  (From memory, I think she was witnessed days before at Refugio Restaurant as being very slim, in a 'Bordeaux" coloured jacket, beige dress and hair in a pony tail - the only thing off is hair colour, but at that time of night or with the possibility of hair dye I guess hair colour is not a definitive).  You see the truth with e-fits is that there are always a number of people who can be seen to fit a description, but that does not really mean anything.  Neither we nor Redwood can categorically prove who Tannerman/Smithman or Muratlady was.   We simply do not know and as a result can't rule anyone in or out with any degree of certainty.

How do you explain the scent dogs did not track in the direction of 'Tannerman' or 'Smithman'?

[kmc]

How do you explain the scent dogs did not track in the direction of 'Tannerman' or 'Smithman'?

Well if there were two of them - my guess is that the dogs could have be following "Muratlady's" scent, especially if she was the one that spent time in the room and carried a child to an open window.  Her scent may well have also been in the room which could have confused the dogs.

[Robittybob1]

How do you explain the scent dogs did not track in the direction of 'Tannerman' or 'Smithman'?

You wouldn't know how Smithman got from the Tapas area to where he was sighted.

[Holly Goodhead]

Well if there were two of them - my guess is that the dogs could have be following "Muratlady's" scent, especially if she was the one that spent time in the room and carried a child to an open window.  Her scent may well have also been in the room which could have confused the dogs.

No.  S&R dogs are given an item that has been in close proximity to the body of the missing person.  They track on the scent of skin grafts that shed at the rate of 40,000 per minute. 

[kmc]

No.  S&R dogs are given an item that has been in close proximity to the body of the missing person.  They track on the scent of skin grafts that shed at the rate of 40,000 per minute.

From memory I think the dogs were given a bath towel or something like that to scent.  Question is whose different scents could have been on that towel - other family members? - or maybe even an abductor used the towel to open the window and shutter - in order not to leave fingerprints.  In truth we no idea, what or whose scents were on that towel and as such, we don't really know who they were tracking....   As for skin grafts shedding every minute - if M was passed through a window - there may have been no shedding until he was half way across the road.

[jassi]

From memory I think the dogs were given a bath towel or something like that to scent.  Question is whose different scents could have been on that towel - other family members? - or maybe even an abductor used the towel to open the window and shutter - in order not to leave fingerprints. In truth we no idea, what or whose scents were on that towel and as such, we don't really know who they were tracking....   As for skin grafts shedding every minute - if M was passed through a window - there may have been no shedding until he was half way across the road.

Quite so - IMO

[Holly Goodhead]

From memory I think the dogs were given a bath towel or something like that to scent.  Question is whose different scents could have been on that towel - other family members? - or maybe even an abductor used the towel to open the window and shutter - in order not to leave fingerprints.  In truth we no idea, what or whose scents were on that towel and as such, we don't really know who they were tracking....   As for skin grafts shedding every minute - if M was passed through a window - there may have been no shedding until he was half way across the road.

Surely you can see how illogical your post is above?  Even if we accept that the S&R dogs were scenting the abductor and not MM they were together and there's no evidence the dogs tracked towards Tannerman or Smithman. 

Skin grafts do not shed on the minute at the rate of 40,000 they shed every picosecond (that's one trillionth of one second). 

[Holly Goodhead]

Quite so - IMO

So whose scent do you think they were tracking?