UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
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 October 20, 2013, 12:15:34 AM
-
When I saw the picture the other evening of the pyjamas that the tourists daughter was wearing I got to wondering how Jane Tanner could possible have misidentified them as having frilly bottoms. Depicted below is the artists impression created in conjunction with Tanner alongside a photograph of the actual clothing the little girl was actually wearing carried by Innocentman on the night she was seen by Tanner. The latter have normal length legs and no frills!
(http://i.imgur.com/MegeQ8j.jpg?1)
Jane Tanner has always denied that she knew what Madeleine was wearing on the night she disappeared. She certainly didn't know that her pyjamas were pink or had frilly bottoms or did she?
Now consider a photograph which I have just come across showing pyjamas identical to those worn by Madeleine. Pink with shortened legs and with frilly bottoms - judge for yourself!
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/mccannspyjamasberlin.jpg)
153
-
There's a whole tome to read on Jane Tanner's pyjama sighting, John... but I've had enough for one night. (http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/9846/6pca.gif)
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html)
-
In her rogatory statement Jane mentions that she thought the pyjama bottoms had some sort of 'turn-up'
As she goes on she mentions the 'frill/turn-up', becoming confused about what she had originally thought
Could it be that she actually remembered seeing the 'cuff' at the bottom of innocent man's child's pyjamas, but convinced herself, in time, that it must have been a frill she saw ( thereby confirming they were Madeleine's pj's ? )
I'm begining to feel very sorry for Jane Tanner, who was under huge pressure
-
I'm begining to feel very sorry for Jane Tanner, who was under huge pressure
I always thought she likely was.
Would you call the orange band at the bottom of the "innocent" pyjama a turn-up ?
I wonder too about the first description Ms Tanner did of Tannerman. Silvia Batista didn't understand how Ms Tanner could spot the man from where she was, the corridor. If Tannerman was heading towards G4, he would more likely be Innocentman coming from the creche.
Back to the pyjamas. Smithman's little girl had a top with long sleeves and I think they all would have noticed she was barefoot if the pants had been short (only Peter Smith's step son remarked the naked feet).
-
Pressure from what quarters icabod, personal or outside influences ?
A bit of both perhaps
-
Looking at the photos above, those eeyore pyjamas have short baggy legs and would probably be above the knees in that carrying position?
-
I always thought she likely was.
Would you call the orange band at the bottom of the "innocent" pyjama a turn-up ?
I wonder too about the first description Ms Tanner did of Tannerman. Silvia Batista didn't understand how Ms Tanner could spot the man from where she was, the corridor.
Assuming that the man Jane saw was the man leaving the creche or even bundleman, just what corridor is Sylvia Batista on about Anne? The sighting was at JT corner, where R.Gentil Martins meets R Agostinha. JT was walking up R Gentio martins and bundleman was walking in an easterly direction along R. Agostinha. No corridors there, are there?
If Tannerman was heading towards G4, he would more likely be Innocentman coming from the creche.
Taking a very round about route up R Maio?
Back to the pyjamas. Smithman's little girl had a top with long sleeves and I think they all would have noticed she was barefoot if the pants had been short (only Peter Smith's step son remarked the naked feet).
Yes, I agree about the long sleeves. That is another reason why I believe that Bundleman stopped off somewhere, probably at the Staff Quarters just up the road from Peter Smiths sighting. This was where the scream was heard coming from. Something warm was added to her clothing, a cardie?
-
Assuming that the man Jane saw was the man leaving the creche or even bundleman, just what corridor is Sylvia Batista on about Anne? The sighting was at JT corner, where R.Gentil Martins meets R Agostinha. JT was walking up R Gentio martins and bundleman was walking in an easterly direction along R. Agostinha. No corridors there, are there?
Taking a very round about route up R Maio?
Yes, I agree about the long sleeves. That is another reason why I believe that Bundleman stopped off somewhere, probably at the Staff Quarters just up the road from Peter Smiths sighting. This was where the scream was heard coming from. Something warm was added to her clothing, a cardie?
There WAS no 'bundleman' ... so no need of a stop-off in the 'staff quarters'
That's what Scotland Yard have told us
Do you think they are wrong ?
-
This lady (Ms Tanner) told the GNR officers, and the deponent (Ms Batista) translated, that she had seen a man crossing the road, possibly carrying a child. The deponent found that situation strange because she was convinced that when she saw this man, the lady was positioned in a spot that has no viewing angle to the location where she had seen the man. She doesn't know exactly where the lady was positioned when she saw the man passing by, but she knows that she indicated that she saw him passing on the street that lies in front of the window to the bedroom where Madeleine was (Agostinho da Silva), walking into the direction of the street that leads to the Baptista supermarket (Francisco Gentil Martins).'
-
Why is there a culture of attempting to "prove" everyone and anyone connected with the Mccanns as liars?
-
Looking at the photos above, those eeyore pyjamas have short baggy legs and would probably be above the knees in that carrying position?
Good reading
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html)
-
How many of us keep PJs for like 6 years belonging to our children?
I love the fact the guy could show the pyjamas after all this time, OR did he show them in 2007/2008 and this was discounted way back then.
Really it just seems an odd thing to place your hands on....
6 years. The child would be about 10 now...I know people have other children but still it does seem very odd to me.
Also i never believed JT could see the frill of PJ. Every night when i am in bed my knees are bent and my stupid PJ bottoms alwasy ride up past my knees lol....
So the bottom of the PJ would not be visible anyway not really, and how come end of April in PDL anyone is walking their children out without a blanket on are you SERIOUS. We are to believe the man is warmly dressed but the child has just a pair of cotton PJ on...
-
Why is there a culture of attempting to "prove" everyone and anyone connected with the Mccanns as liars?
Yes it's very noticeable isnt it. And if they are not liars they are being 'blackmailed' by the McCanns to support them according to some. All very odd.
IMO Silvia Batista has obviously got it wrong as we've all seen plenty of proof that it is perfectly possible for JT to have seen someone crossing the road where she said she did. IIRC No-one else has made that claim.
Ms Batista is the lady who made a second statement months after the 3rd May claiming to have recalled more about that night in the intervening time. That seems at odds with some people's claims that JT 'made up' any later details of her sighting - and could not have simply recalled them.
Didn't Ms Batista also think it was strange that Kate asked for a priest - due to the Portuguese culture that you only ask for a priest to attend if someone has died? I wonder if anyone ever put her right on that.
IIRC correctly this is the lady who also said she saw Robert Murat on the 3rd May and was supposed to be one of the group that attended the 'confrontation meeting' with Murat - but didn't turn up.
(all from memory so am happy to be corrected if necessary).
-
that would make a very good thread bernice
-
Yes it's very noticeable isnt it. And if they are not liars they are being 'blackmailed' by the McCanns to support them according to some. All very odd.
IMO Silvia Batista has obviously got it wrong as we've all seen plenty of proof that it is perfectly possible for JT to have seen someone crossing the road where she said she did. IIRC No-one else has made that claim.
Ms Batista is the lady who made a second statement months after the 3rd May claiming to have recalled more about that night in the intervening time. That seems at odds with some people's claims that JT 'made up' any later details of her sighting - and could not have simply recalled them.
Didn't Ms Batista also think it was strange that Kate asked for a priest - due to the Portuguese culture that you only ask for a priest to attend if someone has died? I wonder if anyone ever put her right on that.
IIRC correctly this is the lady who also said she saw Robert Murat on the 3rd May and was supposed to be one of the group that attended the 'confrontation meeting' with Murat - but didn't turn up.
(all from memory so am happy to be corrected if necessary).
good post 8((()*/
-
It is!
-
How many of us keep PJs for like 6 years belonging to our children?
I love the fact the guy could show the pyjamas after all this time, OR did he show them in 2007/2008 and this was discounted way back then.
Really it just seems an odd thing to place your hands on....
6 years. The child would be about 10 now...I know people have other children but still it does seem very odd to me.
Also i never believed JT could see the frill of PJ. Every night when i am in bed my knees are bent and my stupid PJ bottoms alwasy ride up past my knees lol....
So the bottom of the PJ would not be visible anyway not really, and how come end of April in PDL anyone is walking their children out without a blanket on are you SERIOUS. We are to believe the man is warmly dressed but the child has just a pair of cotton PJ on...
The child didn't a blanket, perhaps.
-
It is a fact that if a person wears pedal-pusher length pj bottoms as per those shown by Kate McCann, if knees are bent it is a law of physics that they will be pulled up the leg.
qed : the bottom part of the pj legs will not look as shown in the artist's impression drawn when described by Ms Tanner. They will be substantially higher up the leg, so much so that they might actually disappear at the knee.
Which suggests if right, Tanner did NOT see Madeleines pyjamas, but did see the man with a two year old with LONG bottoms on to describe any pattern
-
Yes it's very noticeable isnt it. And if they are not liars they are being 'blackmailed' by the McCanns to support them according to some. All very odd.
IMO Silvia Batista has obviously got it wrong as we've all seen plenty of proof that it is perfectly possible for JT to have seen someone crossing the road where she said she did. IIRC No-one else has made that claim.
Ms Batista is the lady who made a second statement months after the 3rd May claiming to have recalled more about that night in the intervening time. That seems at odds with some people's claims that JT 'made up' any later details of her sighting - and could not have simply recalled them.
Didn't Ms Batista also think it was strange that Kate asked for a priest - due to the Portuguese culture that you only ask for a priest to attend if someone has died? I wonder if anyone ever put her right on that.
IIRC correctly this is the lady who also said she saw Robert Murat on the 3rd May and was supposed to be one of the group that attended the 'confrontation meeting' with Murat - but didn't turn up.
(all from memory so am happy to be corrected if necessary).
Silvia Batista was there, she translated, but you, who weren't there, decide that she "got it wrong" !
When will you stop accusing witnesses, Benice ? You have absolutely no evidence to back you insinuations.
Why would you wake up a priest you don't know and who doesn't speak your language in the middle of the night ? You do that when somebody is dying and needs the appropriate ritual.
-
Which suggests if right, Tanner did NOT see Madeleines pyjamas, but did see the man with a two year old with LONG bottoms on to describe any pattern
Or Madeleine didn't have the exhibited pyjamas (see the Vanity Fair interview). Aoife saw long leaves and I really think they all would have noticed the bare feet if the bottom had been a short one.
-
Or Madeleine didn't have the exhibited pyjamas (see the Vanity Fair interview). Aoife saw long leaves and I really think they all would have noticed the bare feet if the bottom had been a short one.
yes very good point...and also what annoys me is that tanner said in statements and tv interviews she only saw a pair of feet and bottom of pyjamas....but by may 10 they all penned a joint statement part of which was this
- The child appeared to be a Caucasian girl about the ages of 3-4.
- She was seen to lie motionless/limp in the man's arms consistent with her sleeping or possibly drugged.
- She did not seem to be wrapped up well for the time of night wearing only pyjamas; the trousers were light coloured with a floral element, possibly with turn-ups. The top was not well seen though there was thought to be another colour involved possibly pink.
- She was not wearing shoes.
Goodnight Anne! hope the police of both countries sort the circus out pdq....oh for anyone reading the cost so far as 5m pound it is now 7.6 and judged to go to 11 in near future
-
Silvia Batista was there, she translated, but you, who weren't there, decide that she "got it wrong" !
When will you stop accusing witnesses, Benice ? You have absolutely no evidence to back you insinuations.
Why would you wake up a priest you don't know and who doesn't speak your language in the middle of the night ? You do that when somebody is dying and needs the appropriate ritual.
Ms Batista was wrong Anne - as we've seen the videos and maps and know that JT would have been able to see a person crossing the road as she stated. Has anyone else apart from S.Batista made that same claim? Did the police officers who JT spoke to that night come to that conclusion that what she said was impossible?
In this country Priests can be called on in times of great despair or anxiety - and not just when someone has died. It's called pastoral care. No-one would think it was strange as S.Batista did. The language barrier would have made no difference - a prayer is a prayer in any language.
Stop telling fibs - I am not 'accusing' anyone of anything or making any insinuations. I am stating facts.
-
Ms Batista was wrong Anne - as we've seen the videos and maps and know that JT would have been able to see a person crossing the road as she stated. Has anyone else apart from S.Batista made that same claim? Did the police officers who JT spoke to that night come to that conclusion that what she said was impossible?
In this country Priests can be called on in times of great despair or anxiety - and not just when someone has died. It's called pastoral care. No-one would think it was strange as S.Batista did. The language barrier would have made no difference - a prayer is a prayer in any language.
Stop telling fibs - I am not 'accusing' anyone of anything or making any insinuations. I am stating facts.
Unfortunately you're not stating facts, Benice, you're insinuating a witness was wrong ! Once more you're spreading a myth.
How can you be sure that Ms Tanner didn't change her story ? Mr McCann discredited her about the side of the street. And now SY has indirectly proved that she invented the colours of the pyjama.
Mrs Batista is an independent witness, she had absolutely no reason to lie.
Pastoral care exists in Portugal as well, but nobody would call an unknown priest just to pronounce prayers in Latin. If prayers could bring back a missing child, that would be known.
-
Unfortunately you're not stating facts, Benice, you're insinuating a witness was wrong ! Once more you're spreading a myth.
How can you be sure that Ms Tanner didn't change her story ? Mr McCann discredited her about the side of the street. And now SY has indirectly proved that she invented the colours of the pyjama.
Mrs Batista is an independent witness, she had absolutely no reason to lie.
Pastoral care exists in Portugal as well, but nobody would call an unknown priest just to pronounce prayers in Latin. If prayers could bring back a missing child, that would be known.
Stop fibbing. I am not and never have spread myths. S. Batista herself says she didn't know exactly where JT was on the street when she saw the man - so how can she be sure of what JT could or couldn't see? JT DID know where she was on the street because SHE was there and S. Batista wasn't.
It's quite obvious from S. Batista's comments that she had no knowledge of the pastoral care which exists in the UK - where it is NOT the case that priests only attend when a death has occurred.
Who mentioned Latiin? Kate would have asked the priest to pray for Madeleine and her safe return. It would be of no consequence what language the priest prayed in.
Quote from S. Batista's statement
She wanted to mention that around 3h00 Madeleine's parents asked for a priest to be present. They didn't explain why they wanted a priest but she (the witness) was amazed, because there were no indications that the little girl was dead and only in these circumstances is usually asked the presence of a priest.
At some point she translated the statement of one of the ladies who belonged to the group and that she describes as a brunette one. This lady said to the GNR elements, and she (the witness) translated, that she had seen a man on the road who might have carried a child.
This situation surprised her because she (the witness) was convinced that when the lady saw the man, the lady was in a place from where she had no angle of vision for the place where she saw the man. She doesn't know exactly what was the position of the lady when she saw the man, but she knows that the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.
-
I am not entirely sure that Scotland Yard are right about this. And they didn't actually state it as a fact. But the I don't have a problem with this man hanging around back lanes for little more than half an hour. He could have been waiting for a pick up connection.
-
Silvia Batista was there, she translated, but you, who weren't there, decide that she "got it wrong" !
When will you stop accusing witnesses, Benice ? You have absolutely no evidence to back you insinuations.
Why would you wake up a priest you don't know and who doesn't speak your language in the middle of the night ? You do that when somebody is dying and needs the appropriate ritual.
Here's the thing, you who also weren't there, and many others, equally not there, have all decided everything the Mccanns, their friends, and anyone supportive of them have all "got it wrong", and endlessly attempt to prove it.
-
Stop fibbing. I am not and never have spread myths. S. Batista herself says she didn't know exactly where JT was on the street when she saw the man - so how can she be sure of what JT could or couldn't see? JT DID know where she was on the street because SHE was there and S. Batista wasn't.
It's quite obvious from S. Batista's comments that she had no knowledge of the pastoral care which exists in the UK - where it is NOT the case that priests only attend when a death has occurred.
Who mentioned Latiin? Kate would have asked the priest to pray for Madeleine and her safe return. It would be of no consequence what language the priest prayed in.
Quote from S. Batista's statement
She wanted to mention that around 3h00 Madeleine's parents asked for a priest to be present. They didn't explain why they wanted a priest but she (the witness) was amazed, because there were no indications that the little girl was dead and only in these circumstances is usually asked the presence of a priest.
At some point she translated the statement of one of the ladies who belonged to the group and that she describes as a brunette one. This lady said to the GNR elements, and she (the witness) translated, that she had seen a man on the road who might have carried a child.
This situation surprised her because she (the witness) was convinced that when the lady saw the man, the lady was in a place from where she had no angle of vision for the place where she saw the man. She doesn't know exactly what was the position of the lady when she saw the man, but she knows that the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.
You are not Ms Tanner and can't know better than Mrs Batista what Ms Tanner said or said not. Affirming that Mrs Batista was wrong and Ms Tanner right is nothing but producing a myth. And repeating it is spreading it.
Ms Tanner has been discredited by Mr McCann and SY. The PJ never believed her story.
Mrs Batista says something important who escaped your attention in your idée fixe to discredit her.
she knows that the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window
This street is not Francisco Gentil Martins.
Since when do people wake up an unknown priest in a foreign language to ask to pray in Latin for a child who would likely be found within hours ? Hadn't Mrs McCann called already her personal UK priest ? Why wasn't it sufficient ?
Mrs Batista wasn't the only one to find the McCann request was inappropriate.
-
You are not Ms Tanner and can't know better than Mrs Batista what Ms Tanner said or said not. Affirming that Mrs Batista was wrong and Ms Tanner right is nothing but producing a myth. And repeating it is spreading it.
Ms Tanner has been discredited by Mr McCann and SY. The PJ never believed her story.
Mrs Batista says something important who escaped your attention in your idée fixe to discredit her.
she knows that the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window
This street is not Francisco Gentil Martins.
Since when do people wake up an unknown priest in a foreign language to ask to pray in Latin for a child who would likely be found within hours ? Hadn't Mrs McCann called already her personal UK priest ? Why wasn't it sufficient ?
Mrs Batista wasn't the only one to find the McCann request was inappropriate.
You are not Jane Tanner either, or S. Batista or Kate McCann and yet you purport to know better than anyone else about them and their actions - but you produce no evidence - and ignore the evidence presented to you. I know of no-one else who claimed that JT could not have seen a man crossing the road where she said she did.
Jane Tanner has been vindicated by SY - as it has been proved she did not lie or fantasize about seeing a man who carried a child. SY were impressed by the accuracy of her description of the man and child she saw, who has now been identified as a tourist.
Amaral believed JT's sighting until his case against Murat failed and he turned his attention to the parents - otherwise he would not have arranged for her to attend the Identify parade with RM. It was only after he decided the parents were complicit and JTs sighting became inconvenient that he decided to deal with that problem by discrediting her as a witness.
Your insistence on ignoring the fact that in this country a priest is NOT called only when a death has occurred, but offers spiritual support on other occasions as part of their Pastoral Care is becoming tedious. What is there NOT to understand about that. S. Batista obviously was not aware and so her comment was based on her ignorance of the situation. You have been made aware and yet apparently refuse to ackowledge it. Inexplicable.
-
You are not Jane Tanner either, or S. Batista or Kate McCann and yet you purport to know better than anyone else about them and their actions - but you produce no evidence - and ignore the evidence presented to you. I know of no-one else who claimed that JT could not have seen a man crossing the road where she said she did.
Jane Tanner has been vindicated by SY - as it has been proved she did not lie or fantasize about seeing a man who carried a child. SY were impressed by the accuracy of her description of the man and child she saw, who has now been identified as a tourist.
Amaral believed JT's sighting until his case against Murat failed and he turned his attention to the parents - otherwise he would not have arranged for her to attend the Identify parade with RM. It was only after he decided the parents were complicit and JTs sighting became inconvenient that he decided to deal with that problem by discrediting her as a witness.
Your insistence on ignoring the fact that in this country a priest is NOT called only when a death has occurred, but offers spiritual support on other occasions as part of their Pastoral Care is becoming tedious. What is there NOT to understand about that. S. Batista obviously was not aware and so her comment was based on her ignorance of the situation. You have been made aware and yet apparently refuse to ackowledge it. Inexplicable.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Just who is Silvia Batista? Maintenance manager. She's was everywhere working on this case. Just about says it all. Yet her word is taken as gospel. Except her seeing Murat on the 3rd May.
-
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Just who is Silvia Batista? Maintenance manager. She's was everywhere working on this case. Just about says it all. Yet her word is taken as gospel. Except her seeing Murat on the 3rd May.
I may be mistaken DCI but was there glimpse of Ms Batista on one of the dog videos?
-
You are not Jane Tanner either, or S. Batista or Kate McCann and yet you purport to know better than anyone else about them and their actions - but you produce no evidence - and ignore the evidence presented to you. I know of no-one else who claimed that JT could not have seen a man crossing the road where she said she did.
Jane Tanner has been vindicated by SY - as it has been proved she did not lie or fantasize about seeing a man who carried a child. SY were impressed by the accuracy of her description of the man and child she saw, who has now been identified as a tourist.
Amaral believed JT's sighting until his case against Murat failed and he turned his attention to the parents - otherwise he would not have arranged for her to attend the Identify parade with RM. It was only after he decided the parents were complicit and JTs sighting became inconvenient that he decided to deal with that problem by discrediting her as a witness.
Your insistence on ignoring the fact that in this country a priest is NOT called only when a death has occurred, but offers spiritual support on other occasions as part of their Pastoral Care is becoming tedious. What is there NOT to understand about that. S. Batista obviously was not aware and so her comment was based on her ignorance of the situation. You have been made aware and yet apparently refuse to ackowledge it. Inexplicable.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
I may be mistaken DCI but was there glimpse of Ms Batista on one of the dog videos?
Yes in apartment 5A, while Grime took the dogs in. 1.10 ses in http://www.mccannfiles.com/id167.html
-
Yes in apartment 5A, while Grime took the dogs in. 1.10 ses in http://www.mccannfiles.com/id167.html
Thanks DCI, much appreciated.
-
Thanks DCI, much appreciated.
And now that's been 'verified' by DCI Rachel, what was the point you were trying to make ?
-
Please note that priest discussion has its own thread.
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2877.msg99151#msg99151
-
Tannerman was probably seen but Jane's testimony wouldn't stand up in a court of law. She couldn't have passed them on the same side of the road before seeing that man and child. Any reconstruction they've had to put them on the other side of the road which is not the way it was according to Jez. Smithman wasn't an innocent father with his unusual behaviour of keeping his head down (better not show his face to eye witnesses), not responding etc. He was in a hurry. A child goes missing without trace - not quite thanks to the Smith family. If Smithman brought Madeleine to a premises then you're looking at a 3rd person being involved. I don't think that was possible so soon after the disappearance. That bin could have been used as a temporary hiding place as he had about 5 minutes to hide her at 9pm. Smithman was planning to retrieve her at 9.30pm not 10pm.
Imagine if they had tried to reconstruct Smithman's movements after the alarm was first raised. That would be a disaster 8)--))
-
Tannerman was probably seen but Jane's testimony wouldn't stand up in a court of law. She couldn't have passed them on the same side of the road before seeing that man and child. Any reconstruction they've had to put them on the other side of the road which is not the way it was according to Jez. Smithman wasn't an innocent father with his unusual behaviour of keeping his head down (better not show his face to eye witnesses), not responding etc. He was in a hurry. A child goes missing without trace - not quite thanks to the Smith family. If Smithman brought Madeleine to a premises then you're looking at a 3rd person being involved. I don't think that was possible so soon after the disappearance. That bin could have been used as a temporary hiding place as he had about 5 minutes to hide her at 9pm. Smithman was planning to retrieve her at 9.30pm not 10pm.
Imagine if they tried to reconstruct Smithman's movements after the alarm is raised. That would be a disaster 8)--))
you're looking at a 3rd person being involved. I don't think that was possible so soon after the disappearance.
That would depend on how much pre planning went into it.
-
I suppose anything is possible. After all, it took Tannerman over six years to decide go come forward.
Apparently even the McCanns aren't sure Innocentman = Tannerman.
I agree with them, certainly for a different reason : the rotten orange pyjama, exhibited by either colour blind or hoping CWatchers are idiots DCI RW, speaks volumes.
-
Apparently even the McCanns aren't sure Innocentman = Tannerman.
I agree with them, certainly for a different reason : the rotten orange pyjama, exhibited by either colour blind or hoping CWatchers are idiots DCI RW, speaks volumes.
Maybe I'm very naive, Anne, but this is Redwood's biggest case; the biggest case any detective could be working on, and I don't think he can afford to knowingly sell the public something that is not properly substantiated.
He may make mistakes, but to take a risk like that does not seem credible given the importance of the case and the people he has to answer to.
-
Maybe I'm very naive, Anne, but this is Redwood's biggest case; the biggest case any detective could be working on, and I don't think he can afford to knowingly sell the public something that is not properly substantiated.
He may make mistakes, but to take a risk like that does not seem credible given the importance of the case and the people he has to answer to.
It's not His case, SH, it's a Portuguese investigation, DCI RW just did a review and now asked the Portuguese to make some interviews for SY.
Besides DCI RW carefully says JT likely saw Innocentman. It's not sold 100%
The UK public has been maintained ignorant by the media who never dared to do the slightest investigative journalism. So Cwatchers can swallow anything.
But you'll admit that somebody who has read the PJ files can't. If DCI RW respected that public (why should he ? His objective is getting sightings, calls etc.), he would have at least indicated on the famous map (of no use) the route taken by Innocentman, don't you think ?
-
Another possibility:
In same photo ( http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/9058/zvk9.jpg ) could the small rectangular structure (to the right of the bins) be a bus shelter? If so then it is possible an innocent father with child gets off bus and walks downhill to their home. The location of bus stops and whether there is a bus arriving at about 10pm might easily be checked.
But why not dress the child properly?
-
But why not dress the child properly?
Yes if it is innocent father and child, then whether he is walking home from a friends place, or from parking his car, or from a busstop. the light clothing of the child and the absence of a blanket is interesting.
-
Maybe I'm very naive, Anne, but this is Redwood's biggest case; the biggest case any detective could be working on, and I don't think he can afford to knowingly sell the public something that is not properly substantiated.
He may make mistakes, but to take a risk like that does not seem credible given the importance of the case and the people he has to answer to.
I agree that it is inconceivable that Redwood would publicly declare that Tanner man was no longer 'a person of interest' ( which is what he effectively did ) unless there was substantive evidence for having done so
... and yet
Redwood did not say that they now knew that Tanner man was not the abductor ... just that he 'almost certainly was not'
What does that mean ? Amost certainly ?
It means they are NOT certain that Tannerman is the innocent father identified
So why didn't Redwood say that ? Why didn't he say that whilst they are 'almost certain' that the man Tanner saw was not abductor, they cannot eliminate him from the investigation all together at this point, and still ask the public to come forward with any information they have regarding it ?
That public appeal on Crimewatch was all rather odd, and posed more questions than it answered
-
I agree that it is inconceivable that Redwood would publicly declare that Tanner man was no longer 'a person of interest' ( which is what he effectively did ) unless there was substantive evidence for having done so
... and yet
Redwood did not say that they now knew that Tanner man was not the abductor ... just that he 'almost certainly was not'
What does that mean ? Amost certainly ?
It means they are NOT certain that Tannerman is the innocent father identified
So why didn't Redwood say that ? Why didn't he say that whilst they are 'almost certain' that the man Tanner saw was not abductor, they cannot eliminate him from the investigation all together at this point, and still ask the public to come forward with any information they have regarding it ?
That public appeal on Crimewatch was all rather odd, and posed more questions than it answered
Unless he thinks there's a tiny possibility that Tannerman and Smithman could be the same man so he hasn't entirely ruled him out. I think Smithman is their main suspect.
-
I agree that it is inconceivable that Redwood would publicly declare that Tanner man was no longer 'a person of interest' ( which is what he effectively did ) unless there was substantive evidence for having done so
... and yet
Redwood did not say that they now knew that Tanner man was not the abductor ... just that he 'almost certainly was not'
What does that mean ? Amost certainly ?
It means they are NOT certain that Tannerman is the innocent father identified
So why didn't Redwood say that ? Why didn't he say that whilst they are 'almost certain' that the man Tanner saw was not abductor, they cannot eliminate him from the investigation all together at this point, and still ask the public to come forward with any information they have regarding it ?
That public appeal on Crimewatch was all rather odd, and posed more questions than it answered
I think at all times he uses the words lawyers have advised him to use, Icabod.
As we know it's a very complicated case, and it still carries the potential for further serious legal action.
-
I think at all times he uses the words lawyers have advised him to use, Icabod.
As we know it's a very complicated case, and it still carries the potential for further serious legal action.
So we are left guessing at what to read between the lines ?
My guess would be that Scotland Yard do ... must ... have a substantive reason for eliminating the Jane Tanner sighting from the investigation ... but it is not that they have definatively identified the person that she saw ( because they have not done so by their own admission )
What other reason there may be for them to have informed the public that the man Jane saw is of no interest to them is beyond my guessing range
-
I think at all times he uses the words lawyers have advised him to use, Icabod.
As we know it's a very complicated case, and it still carries the potential for further serious legal action.
I think that this is the approach.
He has to be very careful to cover himself.
It is a balance, like anything else. He must be pretty convinced that he is correct in eliminating Tannerman. At the same time, he has made mistakes in the past, and knows that he has to be very careful before claiming that he is 100% sure of something.
The elimination of Tannerman is not a minor detail. The entire premise of Crimewatch was that Smithman was now the focus. A big song and dance with trumpets was made about the shifting timeline. (When in reality there's no reason to assume suspects were not in the picture shortly after 9pm just because Tannerman appears to have been innocent). This development (ruling out Tannerman) seems to have shifted their entire focus, and therefore must be based on something solid.
That's why I don't believe, as Anne does, that DCI procured a pair of 'rotten' pjamas from a jumble sale simply to placate an impatient public and give the producers of crimewatch something to do of an evening.
-
I think that this is the approach.
He has to be very careful to cover himself.
It is a balance, like anything else. He must be pretty convinced that he is correct in eliminating Tannerman. At the same time, he has made mistakes in the past, and knows that he has to be very careful before claiming that he is 100% sure of something.
The elimination of Tannerman is not a minor detail. The entire premise of Crimewatch was that Smithman was now the focus. A big song and dance with trumpets was made about the shifting timeline. (When in reality there's no reason to assume suspects were not in the picture shortly after 9pm just because Tannerman appears to have been innocent). This development (ruling out Tannerman) seems to have shifted their entire focus, and therefore must be based on something solid.
That's why I don't believe, as Anne does, that DCI procured a pair of 'rotten' pjamas from a jumble sale simply to placate an impatient public and give the producers of crimewatch something to do of an evening.
Maybe they had no choice but to blow those trumpets about 10pm because without the 9.15 'sighting' they were faced with a Crimewatch and had very little else to show?
Cancelling the show would not have gone down well I imagine. Anywhere.
-
So we are left guessing at what to read between the lines ?
My guess would be that Scotland Yard do ... must ... have a substantive reason for eliminating the Jane Tanner sighting from the investigation ... but it is not that they have definatively identified the person that she saw ( because they have not done so by their own admission )
What other reason there may be for them to have informed the public that the man Jane saw is of no interest to them is beyond my guessing range
Throw the wrong pyjamas into the mix & the plot becomes more obscure.
How can Smithman's child be Madeleine if she was not wearing the short sleeved 'eeyore' jammies that Kate & Gerry claimed she was wearing?
If Smithman is the number one suspect then either police believe the kidnapping pervert changed Maddies jammies during the abduction or they accept Kate & Gerry have not told the truth about what night wear she was dressed in.
-
That's why I don't believe, as Anne does, that DCI procured a pair of 'rotten' pjamas from a jumble sale simply to placate an impatient public and give the producers of crimewatch something to do of an evening.
But I didn't suggest, SH, that DCI RW "procured a pair or rotten pyjamas from a jumble sale" nor that the exhibited ones weren't Innocentman's child's pyjamas !
What I reckon is : those pyjamas are too much or not enough and betray a flimsy and amazing medialike attitude towards the public.
DCI RW seems to be desperate for hints, clues, sightings, anything that will help concluding the abductor vanished without saying what he did with the abducted. Didn't he appear the other day only to thank watchers for their calls, e-mails, etc. ?
DCI RW indeed has no authority to affirm recklessly that Tannerman=Innocentman. Tannerman plausibility was the reason number one why the MP requested the reconstitution that was rejected by the group.
In Portugal not even the PJ could bypass the MP and the (still but not for long) AG Report on such a topic.
-
How can Smithman's child be Madeleine if she was not wearing the short sleeved 'eeyore' jammies that Kate & Gerry claimed she was wearing?
Yes. The same witness who said the little girl was barefoot said she had long sleeves. The others didn't notice.
Btw Mr McCann, on the 10th of May, didn't remember to have described the pyjama Madeleine had on when they spent some time together between tennis and bedtime :
Asked, he relates that he does not recall to have described exactly the type of pyjamas (colour, designs, etc.) that MADELEINE had worn at the time she disappeared
-
The pyjamas are another discrepancy (surprise, surprise). I think they will be more concerned in identifying Smithman first.
-
Yes. The same witness who said the little girl was barefoot said she had long sleeves. The others didn't notice.
Btw Mr McCann, on the 10th of May, didn't remember which pyjama Madeleine had on when they spent some time together between tennis and bedtime :
Asked, he relates that he does not recall to have described exactly the type of pyjamas (colour, designs, etc.) that MADELEINE had worn at the time she disappeared
He certainly appears to suffer rather badly with selective amnesia doesn't he.
Confused over which door he used with or without key, can't remember whether Maddie was in bed or on the thing & doesn't even recall what clothes she was wearing.
Makes one wonder if he was actually there at all & quite surprised at how he even remembers to inhale & exhale.
-
Maybe they had no choice but to blow those trumpets about 10pm because without the 9.15 'sighting' they were faced with a Crimewatch and had very little else to show?
Cancelling the show would not have gone down well I imagine. Anywhere.
Presumably SY were the ones who approached the BBC about doing Crimewatch, rather than the other way around. So it wouldn't be a case of cancelling if they didn't manage to come up with something interesting. They wouldn't have arranged to do the piece in the first place had they not had much material.
And they probably had a great deal of editorial sway. It isn't up to the producers of Crimewatch to decide what SY want to emphasise to the public. They might do a bit of tweaking in helping SY get their message across, but the message is Scotland Yard's.
I find it significant that so many potential suspects/persons of interest/people SY want to interview (men on balconies, someone watching over the wall to the apartment, someone lurking in the stairwell, the people arguing in the street, charity collectors, and so on) were mentioned on the programme in such a short space of time. It all went in a flash.
I tried to put myself in the position of someone who hadn't done much reading on the case while I was watching the programme, and I felt that the physical descriptions of these men, and the significance of the explanations of what they were doing and where they were were presented so quickly and fleetingly that someone unfamiliar with the case would be hard pressed to take much of it in.
Why go to the the trouble of making a programme that millions are going to watch, and gloss over the part where the audience is being asked to think most? I sometimes wonder if they really are interested in any of these people at all, or if that part was just thrown in for some other reason.
All in all it appears that SY consider Smithman to be their major focus - or rather, they have decided to convey this impression to the public. They could have presented things very differently to us, but they haven't. So we presume they have a good reason for this - whatever it may be.
-
But I didn't suggest, SH, that DCI RW "procured a pair or rotten pyjamas from a jumble sale" nor that the exhibited ones weren't Innocentman's child's pyjamas !
What I reckon is : those pyjamas are too much or not enough and betray a flimsy and amazing medialike attitude towards the public.
DCI RW seems to be desperate for hints, clues, sightings, anything that will help concluding the abductor vanished without saying what he did with the abducted. Didn't he appear the other day only to thank watchers for their calls, e-mails, etc. ?
DCI RW indeed has no authority to affirm recklessly that Tannerman=Innocentman. Tannerman plausibility was the reason number one why the MP requested the reconstitution that was rejected by the group.
In Portugal not even the PJ could bypass the MP and the (still but not for long) AG Report on such a topic.
Where's the evidence that he is only interested in hints, clues, sightings? We've had all these for years, from all over the world, and they have come to naught. He is looking to take the investigation as far as he possibly can.
And why doesn't he want to investigate what was done with Madeleine? Where do we see this?
-
It's not His case, SH, it's a Portuguese investigation, DCI RW just did a review and now asked the Portuguese to make some interviews for SY.
Besides DCI RW carefully says JT likely saw Innocentman. It's not sold 100%
The UK public has been maintained ignorant by the media who never dared to do the slightest investigative journalism. So Cwatchers can swallow anything.
But you'll admit that somebody who has read the PJ files can't. If DCI RW respected that public (why should he ? His objective is getting sightings, calls etc.), he would have at least indicated on the famous map (of no use) the route taken by Innocentman, don't you think ?
Don't really see it like this, my Dear Anne.
The case does not 'belong' to DCI Redwood, but he is still leading the British part of the investigation and as such is answerable to the government which has granted him significant funds to carry out his work, the taxpayers who are proving those funds, his higher-ups in Scotland Yard, the McCanns, and also in certain a sense the media who will pull him to pieces if he makes a mistake. That's quite a responsibility.
Of course he has to 'work' with the media, including the makers of crimewatch, but in the circumstances - one of the biggest cases in the world - I cannot believe that style comes before substance. There must be a reason why those pyjamas were shown, and a good one. He's going to get into far too much trouble if there isn't.
Call me naive.
Regarding the brianwashing of the British public by the media, it is true that the standard of British journalism isn't at an all-time high - the British public themselves are normally the first to decry that fact - but that doesn't mean that DCI Redwood doesn't have to do his work.
And as far as the investigation being a Portuguese one goes, there was no Portuguese investigation (not an open one at least) until very recently. What an astonishing co-incidence that the case was re-opened in Portugal around the time that Crimewatch and its sister programmes in other European countries, containing the 'new'timeline and slant, was broadcast - even though we are told that under Portuguese law a case can only be re-opened with new evidence. Flimsy the programme may have been in essence, but on the general situation it seems to have had a strong effect.
So technically we may be able to say that this case is Portuguese, but the reality is that without British money (excuse the lack of diplomacy), SY's formal requests for Portuguese co-operation, the back-up of the British Government, and the constant pushing by the McCanns, there would be little doing.
-
Don't really see it like this, my Dear Anne.
The case does not 'belong' to DCI Redwood, but he is still leading the British part of the investigation and as such is answerable to the government which has granted him significant funds to carry out his work, the taxpayers who are proving those funds, his higher-ups in Scotland Yard, the McCanns, and also in certain a sense the media who will pull him to pieces if he makes a mistake. That's quite a responsibility.
Of course he has to 'work' with the media, including the makers of crimewatch, but in the circumstances - one of the biggest cases in the world - I cannot believe that style comes before substance. There must be a reason why those pyjamas were shown, and a good one. He's going to get into far too much trouble if there isn't.
Call me naive.
Regarding the brianwashing of the British public by the media, it is true that the standard of British journalism isn't at an all-time high - the British public themselves are normally the first to decry that fact - but that doesn't mean that DCI Redwood doesn't have to do his work.
And as far as the investigation being a Portuguese one goes, there was no Portuguese investigation (not an open one at least) until very recently. What an astonishing co-incidence that the case was re-opened in Portugal around the time that Crimewatch and its sister programmes in other European countries, containing the 'new'timeline and slant, was broadcast - even though we are told that under Portuguese law a case can only be re-opened with new evidence. Flimsy the programme may have been in essence, but on the general situation it seems to have had a strong effect.
So technically we may be able to say that this case is Portuguese, but the reality is that without British money (excuse the lack of diplomacy), SY's formal requests for Portuguese co-operation, the back-up of the British Government, and the constant pushing by the McCanns, there would be little doing.
It never passed my mind to think or to call you "naive". I'm certainly more than you and it's a bit like in the story of the scorpion and the frog that Orson Welles loved to tell : that's in my nature !
Imo the PM is the responsible one for this case, he was publicly intimidated by Rebekah Brooks (who knew his fragilities on that topic) and he gave away. The MET head could, it seems, have refused, but he didn't and DCI RW was left with no choice.
About the pyj, the fact DCI RW exhibited them (while he didn't have to), makes me think that he had no idea that a handful of watchers would notice a difference (apart from the group) and find counterproductive to exhibit them.
About the costs of a rogatory mission, the European convention states that they are in charge of the country where the diligences are made. In April 2008, Portugal paid the flight tickets and hotel fees for the PJ officers, but not the costs of the LC.
About why the MP reopened the case, mystery ! Tractorman's function seems to have been just a key, though, according to some infos I've had, the authorities sincerely believed he could be Mr Right. I wonder if the real motive isn't to write down another AG report.
-
It never passed my mind to think or to call you "naive". I'm certainly more than you and it's a bit like in the story of the scorpion and the frog that Orson Welles loved to tell : that's in my nature !
Imo the PM is the responsible one for this case, he was publicly intimidated by Rebekah Brooks (who knew his fragilities on that topic) and he gave away. The MET head could, it seems, have refused, but he didn't and DCI RW was left with no choice.
About the pyj, the fact DCI RW exhibited them (while he didn't have to), makes me think that he had no idea that a handful of watchers would notice a difference (apart from the group) and find counterproductive to exhibit them.
About the costs of a rogatory mission, the European convention states that they are in charge of the country where the diligences are made. In April 2008, Portugal paid the flight tickets and hotel fees for the PJ officers, but not the costs of the LC.
About why the MP reopened the case, mystery ! Tractorman's function seems to have been just a key, though, according to some infos I've had, the authorities sincerely believed he could be Mr Right. I wonder if the real motive isn't to write down another AG report.
Yes, this is surely an interesting and convoluted saga.
But back to the pyjamas again - are they really so different? On a dark night?
-
Yes, this is surely an interesting and convoluted saga.
But back to the pyjamas again - are they really so different? On a dark night?
Can bright blue pyjamas seem white or pink? With or without a street light? I dont know..
-
Yes, this is surely an interesting and convoluted saga.
But back to the pyjamas again - are they really so different? On a dark night?
As different as two pyjamas of about the same size can be... Not so dark, the night, think of the beige, golden, mustard and finally ugly (that colour always makes me laugh !) pants.
-
Can bright blue pyjamas seem white or pink? With or without a street light? I dont know..
Blue with a strong peachy element - as opposed to pink with different colours - in the dark with light from a sodium lamp-- could very possibly look similar. In fact Heriberto says that certain pale colours would probably have looked white under that lamp.
But in any case the main point was that the child was barefoot. This was the significant thing, because it looked so odd. The fact that the feet and part of the calves were bare indicated that pyjamas were probably being worn. The identification of the colour is a lot more subjective and not so relevant.
Redwood seems to be telling us that they eliminated innocent Crecheman partly as a result of learning that the child he was carrying was wearing pyjamas. Crecheman also appears to have agreed to be photographed in the same unusual position he was carrying the child. These are the identifying markers - not the exact colour of the pyjamas involved.
-
Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Why did DCI RW exhibit the pyjamas at all ? Was it a way to let Ms Tanner know that she'd better keep quiet ?
Ms Tanner can have been unconsciously or not influenced by the kind of pyjama the parents referred to.
I would have preferred a justification for the strange long route Innocentman used to come from the creche with straightened arms without a cramp. It sounds a bit made up imo.
-
Blue with a strong peachy element - as opposed to pink with different colours - in the dark with light from a sodium lamp-- could very possibly look similar. In fact Heriberto says that certain pale colours would probably have looked white under that lamp.But in any case the main point was that the child was barefoot. This was the significant thing, because it looked so odd. The fact that the feet and part of the calves were bare indicated that pyjamas were probably being worn. The identification of the colour is a lot more subjective and not so relevant.
Redwood seems to be telling us that they eliminated innocent Crecheman partly as a result of learning that the child he was carrying was wearing pyjamas. Crecheman also appears to have agreed to be photographed in the same unusual position he was carrying the child. These are the identifying markers - not the exact colour of the pyjamas involved.
IIRC Sherlock, Heri said that white would probably look orangey in that light? (from memory so could be wrong)
I agree about the pajamas. It's not as if one pair was described as striped or dead plain or very dark. The descriptions matched more than they didn't match IMO. However, they would have to be identical for some people to accept that Crecheman was the person JT saw - which is asking far too much IMO. Fortunately SY don't have that mindset. From what I remember they were impressed by the closeness of JT's description to the actual jimjams of Crecheman's child. It would also appear that his build, height and hair - were also well described by JT - and maybe his age too?
SY obviously know a great deal more than we were told about this person for them to be able to say that there was compelling evidence to believe that this was the man JT saw, and to eliminate him from the enquiry.
-
IIRC Sherlock, Heri said that white would probably look orangey in that light? (from memory so could be wrong)
I agree about the pajamas. It's not as if one pair was described as striped or dead plain or very dark. The descriptions matched more than they didn't match IMO. However, they would have to be identical for some people to accept that Crecheman was the person JT saw - which is asking far too much IMO. Fortunately SY don't have that mindset. From what I remember they were impressed by the closeness of JT's description to the actual jimjams of Crecheman's child. It would also appear that his build, height and hair - were also well described by JT - and maybe his age too?
SY obviously know a great deal more than we were told about this person for them to be able to say that there was compelling evidence to believe that this was the man JT saw, and to eliminate him from the enquiry.
I agree with you absolutely, Benice. There are a number of similarities and identifying features here; and SY know even more than the ones they have chosen to point out to us.
I got Heri's observation the wrong way round, yes. Now I remember he said the person spotted was probably wearing white trousers, not beige as he was reported to have been wearing. That was his theory anyway.
-
Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Why did DCI RW exhibit the pyjamas at all ? Was it a way to let Ms Tanner know that she'd better keep quiet ?
Ms Tanner can have been unconsciously or not influenced by the kind of pyjama the parents referred to.
I would have preferred a justification for the strange long route Innocentman used to come from the creche with straightened arms without a cramp. It sounds a bit made up imo.
It would be very interesting to know the explanation for this - and we probably will one day.
Meanwhile however, I don't think there's any point in fixating about the pyjamas because they are only one small element in an equation of many with regards to this sighting. They are not enough on their own to prove or disprove anything.
-
Meanwhile however, I don't think there's any point in fixating about the pyjamas because they are only one small element in an equation of many with regards to this sighting. They are not enough on their own to prove or disprove anything.
I've been only mocking the exhibited rotten pyjama, SH, as you surely understood. I'm not the only one.
Tannerman was important for the McCanns, crucial I would say, since he was the only indication of a possible abduction.
The PJ was never convinced by him. I never doubted though that Jane had seen someone (but not where and when she did).
Now if Innocentman stated he carried his child all the way from the creche on top of his arms, then I would be 100% sure that he's the man whom Ms Tanner saw.
You'll admit it's easy to convince me...
Anyhow, like GA, I've always thought that Smithman was the right person, especially because the little girl he carried is so much matching Madeleine.
-
It would be very interesting to know the explanation for this - and we probably will one day.
Meanwhile however, I don't think there's any point in fixating about the pyjamas because they are only one small element in an equation of many with regards to this sighting. They are not enough on their own to prove or disprove anything.
I'm fixated on the pyjamas, not because they were blue and orange, but because they were available 6 years later to be conveniently photographed.
They were very shabby, not in a condition to be kept for a younger child to grow in to. I find the idea of parents hanging on to ruined clothing for more than half a decade bizarre.
Was Innocentman also a hoarder? How lucky would that be for SY!
Adding in the convoluted route home and the strange position he was carrying his child, the story lacks credibility.
It sounds made up. I believe in innocetmen, however, I think the facts have been twisted to fit Tannerman, allowing JT to quietly step back, without losing face.
-
I'm fixated on the pyjamas, not because they were blue and orange, but because they were available 6 years later to be conveniently photographed.
They were very shabby, not in a condition to be kept for a younger child to grow in to. I find the idea of parents hanging on to ruined clothing for more than half a decade bizarre.
Was Innocentman also a hoarder? How lucky would that be for SY!
Adding in the convoluted route home and the strange position he was carrying his child, the story lacks credibility.
It sounds made up. I believe in innocetmen, however, I think the facts have been twisted to fit Tannerman, allowing JT to quietly step back, without losing face.
Twisted what facts? Apart from the fact that SY have identified this man as a tourist who used the creche on 3rd May - and who they believe was the man seen by JT carrying a child wearing the pajamas shown on CW - we haven't been told any of the related details.
Anything else is just speculation imo.
-
Anything else is just speculation imo.
"almost certain" is no speculation, DCI RW said it and it's certainly not equal to "certain".
-
Twisted what facts? Apart from the fact that SY have identified this man as a tourist who used the creche on 3rd May - and who they believe was the man seen by JT carrying a child wearing the pajamas shown on CW - we haven't been told any of the related details.
Anything else is just speculation imo.
This is my feeling too. Very few facts have been given over to us.
We have to assume that that is a result of a decision made by SY - not that there are few facts to be had.
-
Holding up a small pair of pink and flowery pyjamas, Kate McCann described exactly what her eldest daughter was wearing when she was snatched on May 3.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459927/Madeleine-Exhausted-McCanns-Crimewatch-TV-appeal.html
Note the blindingly obvious similarity between Crechemans pyjamas & Madeleine's pyjamas.
-
Picture of a suggested match between crimewatch photo and an earlier photofit
-
I have merged two threads since both are discussing the same subject.
-
When I saw the picture the other evening of the pyjamas that the tourists daughter was wearing I got to wondering how Jane Tanner could possible have misidentified them as having frilly bottoms. Depicted below is the artists impression created in conjunction with Tanner alongside a photograph of the actual clothing the little girl was actually wearing on the night she was seen by Tanner. The latter have normal length legs and no frills!
(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/8428/7bs2.jpg)
Jane Tanner has always denied that she knew what Madeleine was wearing on the night she disappeared. She certainly didn't know that her pyjamas were pink or had frilly bottoms or did she?
Now consider a photograph which I have just come across showing pyjamas identical to those worn by Madeleine. Pink with shortened legs and with frilly bottoms - judge for yourself!
(http://www.algarveresident.com/portugalresident/pix/18846_2.jpg)(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/mccannspyjamasberlin.jpg)
How was miss tanner able to describe a child wearing pyjammas with frilly bottoms when the child wasn't wearing them???
there is no way she could have seen that imo and its not the sort of thing you make up unless you had already seen the child wearing them earlier or been told that was what she was wearing. in fact the child who was supposed to have come from the crèche was wearing full length pjs with an orange band on the bottom of the legs.
-
Picture of a suggested match between crimewatch photo and an earlier photofit
The whte/cream blanket off of Crimewatch is baffling, what is it there for?
Its been suggested that the blue floral pyjamas is what Tanner saw in a light making them in her eyes white or pink
The top has nothing to do with anything.......as Tanner said in personal statements and in tv interviews she only saw a pair of feet/legs and bottom of pyjamas.....THOUGH, after her May 4th statement, she particpiated in a joint tapas 9 statement, typed and handed over to the PJ on May 10th before their next interviews where she is supposed to have said she didnt get a real good look at the top but it mght have been pink!
>@@(*&)
So did she see a top or not?
Let me know if you want want quotes / links for everythng
-
The whte/cream blanket off of Crimewatch is baffling, what is it there for?
Its been suggested that the blue floral pyjamas is what Tanner saw in a light making them in her eyes white or pink
The top has nothing to do with anything.......as Tanner said in personal statements and in tv interviews she only saw a pair of feet/legs and bottom of pyjamas.....THOUGH, after her May 4th statement, she particpiated in a joint tapas 9 statement, typed and handed over to the PJ on May 10th before their next interviews where she is supposed to have said she didnt get a real good look at the top but it mght have been pink!
>@@(*&)
So did she see a top or not?
Did she actually see anything at all?
-
Did she actually see anything at all?
LOL well she swears by everything sacred she did......if she saw innocenttouristman.....as SY think she almost certainly did, it still leaves the problem of him walking in the wrong direction going home from the creche
-
LOL well she swears by everything sacred she did......if she saw innocenttouristman.....as SY think she almost certainly did, it still leaves the problem of him walking in the wrong direction going home from the creche
could it be she saw the abductor but used the description of maddie.
-
could it be she saw the abductor but used the description of maddie.
Hi Mitch, welcome, sorry,I dont understand your question.......lol
-
im sorry I meant to explain that better. I was just thinkin that could it be that she did see the abductor but because she could not see the child properly in a few seconds that she used a description she had heard from the parents or maybe even saw the lttle girl wearing them at another time.
-
im sorry I meant to explain that better. I was just thinkin that could it be that she did see the abductor but because she could not see the child properly in a few seconds that she used a description she had heard from the parents or maybe even saw the lttle girl wearing them at another time.
Surely, if she couldn't see the child clearly, then she couldn't have any certainty that the carrier was an abductor, so why should she pretend that the the child was Madeleine?
-
im sorry I meant to explain that better. I was just thinkin that could it be that she did see the abductor but because she could not see the child properly in a few seconds that she used a description she had heard from the parents or maybe even saw the lttle girl wearing them at another time.
I still dont understand..if she saw madeleines abductor then what does it matter what she was wearing..
where is the proof he was her abductor?
-
Are those pyjama's on the second photo madeleine's or just what the crime watch program used ?
The pyjamas shown on crimewatch alledgedly worn by the child of the innocent man carrying their kid home from the creche are the ones with the orange band in the bottom of the leg! And blue with flowers on the leg.. What Maddie was said to have been wearing is in the photos of her parents holding an identical pair up
-
mitch on December 16, 2013, 07:46:37 PM
im sorry I meant to explain that better. I was just thinkin that could it be that she did see the abductor but because she could not see the child properly in a few seconds that she used a description she had heard from the parents or maybe even saw the lttle girl wearing them at another time.
Redblossom
I still dont understand..if she saw madeleines abductor then what does it matter what she was wearing..
where is the proof he was her abductor?
I understand fairly well (I think). Ms Tanner saw Tannerman but not the child Tannerman was carrying, she saw legs. Convinced that the legs were Madeleine's she mentally put on those legs a pyjama that she had earlier seen on Madeleine or heard of.
-
How was miss tanner able to describe a child wearing pyjammas with frilly bottoms when the child wasn't wearing them???
there is no way she could have seen that imo and its not the sort of thing you make up unless you had already seen the child wearing them earlier or been told that was what she was wearing. in fact the child who was supposed to have come from the crèche was wearing full length pjs with an orange band on the bottom of the legs.
In fact the sketch is close to Innocentchild's pyjama on the legs length topic, but close to Tannerchild's pyjama on the frill topic.
-
Are those pyjama's on the second photo madeleine's or just what the crime watch program used ?
They were supposed to be Madeleine's little sister's ones.. But the little sister, allegedly seeing those pyjamas, said : Madeleine's jammies...
-
In fact the sketch is close to Innocentchild's pyjama on the legs length topic, but close to Tannerchild's pyjama on the frill topic.
Yes that is a good summary IMO.
BTW JT in her statements was not certain it was frills she saw, and she actually mentions turn-ups.
For whom was the artist, who drew the frills, working?
-
Yes that is a good summary IMO.
BTW JT in her statements was not certain it was frills she saw, and she actually mentions turn-ups.
For whom was the artist, who drew the frills, working?
The "artist" was working for Metodo 3, themselves paid partly by Brian Kennedy, partly by Madeleine's Fund. The sketch was released on the 25th of October.
-
The "artist" was working for Metodo 3, themselves paid partly by Brian Kennedy, partly by Madeleine's Fund. The sketch was released on the 25th of October.
Thanks. IMO JT was unsure whether it was frills or turn-ups and I am happy to dig out sources for that if required. I don't think she ever said definitely frills. And she did mention turn-ups.
The elasticated bands on innocent creche dad pyjamas would look like turn-ups.
If the sketch showing frills had been done by the Met or by PJ we could be sure that there was no outside influence on whether the artist went for frills or turn-ups. But M3 and the people paying their fees might have preferred the frills choice?
-
Don't forget the sketch was made following Ms Tanner's indications. I guess the sketch was shown to her before it was released, since the concept was hers.
Turn up or frill, the most impressive is, in Innocentchild's case, the colour of it, imo, contrasting with the rest.
I'm not as sceptic about the pyjama as I am of Innocentman walking from west to east instead of south to north. This, as well as the pyjama, could have been "adjusted" by Ms Tanner, though...
As long as SY is almost certain, I'm certain they're roaming.
-
Word count for detail at base of pyjama legs in JT rogatory:
turn-up = 8
frill = 1
--- possibly with turn-ups
--- a turn-up of some description
--- I thought it was a turn-up
--- with a turn up
--- and the turn up
--- the turn up bit
--- about the turn ups
--- the actual frill itself or turn-up as I thought it was ---
-
Did she actually see anything at all?
I watched the new reconstruction on Portuguese telly and they showed the area. IMHO the only thing she could have seen was someone walking along how she could possibly describe a child and PJs is beyond comprehension.
Actually a guy on Sky when they did a reconstruction they used someone he new and he said even with a telephoto lense he could not recognise him.
Also on Carol Transmers statement she said it got dark around 6.30 so by 9.15 it would be really dark, and street lights give an odd glow and change colours drastically.
I think she saw someone striding along but the rest I believe her brain filled in.
-
Which half of innocent dad kids pyjamas are being called "rotten"?
Please consider that the top was covered by the light pink blanket.
Look, there is a blanket in the Crimewatch photo.
Innocent man kept those three items all these years.
Why would he keep the blanket if its irrelevant?
It's obvious IMO he used the blanket that night.
It looked to JT like a top.
The mantra almost universal across forums to call JT a liar fantasist seems to be unstoppable.
IMO that witness is totally reliable and honest, 100%, no doubt IMO.
-
Which half of innocent dad kids pyjamas are being called "rotten"?
Please consider that the top was covered by the light pink blanket.
Look, there is a blanket in the Crimewatch photo.
Innocent man kept those three items all these years.
Why would he keep the blanket if its irrelevant?
It's obvious IMO he used the blanket that night.
It looked to JT like a top.
The mantra almost universal across forums to call JT a liar fantasist seems to be unstoppable.
IMO that witness is totally reliable and honest, 100%, no doubt IMO.
The blanket in the CW programme was WHITE.....and Tanner never saw any top....well, not in her own words, but those put in her mouth
-
The blanket in the CW programme was WHITE.....and Tanner never saw any top....well, not in her own words, but those put in her mouth
Very true. I do believe Ms Tanner and she didn't say she saw a blanket.. This is even the lack of blanket that shocked her and fixed the carrier's image in her mind.
-
Which half of innocent dad kids pyjamas are being called "rotten"?
IMO that witness is totally reliable and honest, 100%, no doubt IMO.
The whole pyjama has a shabby aspect. You wouldn't have the courage to put it on !
If Ms Tanner is 100%, then DCI RW is ??? 0% ?
-
The blanket in the CW programme was WHITE.....and Tanner never saw any top....well, not in her own words, but those put in her mouth
Looks very light pink to me but I might be wrong.
Easy enough to look at the RGB, although admittedly that may not be a conclusive method.
Disbelieving JT is non-essential to the non-abduction theory IMO,
absolutely non-essential.
In fact its a side-track which prevents reaching the solution IMO.
She stuck to her guns in the mcdocumentary video..
If she is lying, why would she contradict one of the other witnesses who apparantly can't even remember which side of the road it was on?
100% honest, and unjustly maligned on forums IMO.
And there is one other innocent witness who has been a thousandfold mis-accused IMO.
-
If she is lying, why would she contradict one of the other witnesses who apparantly can't even remember which side of the road it was on?
I've seen one witness contradict her... And she didn't protest for long. As well she was alone, the other witness who remembered like her wasn't there.
-
Well there are three witnesses, but surely you must exclude one who cannot remember which side of the road. So you have only two witnesses with adequate memory of the event.
-
She described the pyjamas as having frilly bottons and being of the short legged type, exactly like those worn by Madeleine.
The child Innocentman was carrying was wearing full length pyjama bottoms and the legs did not have frilly bottoms.
So the question is...where did Tanner get her description from??
* Did she see Madeleine previously?
* Was she told what Madeleine was wearing?
* Does she have some special powers?
* Did she make the whole thing up?
-
She described the pyjamas as having frilly bottons and being of the short legged type, exactly like those worn by Madekeine.
The child Innocentman was carrying was wearing full length pyjama bottoms and the legs did not have frilly bottoms.
So the question is...where did Tanner get her description from??
"She described the pyjamas as having frillly bottoms"
In her statements to PJ she describes the pyjamas as having turn-ups.
Eight times in statements to PJ she says turn-ups.
Only once in police statements does she mentions "frills" and that is only in the context (my words) "other people mention frills but I saw turn-ups".
I assure you this witness is reliable IMO.
-
I agree with Pegasus.
She did repeatably describe them as turn ups. I can't find any reason to doubt her on this so would have to say in this respect her description does appear to be credible.
This is true but arouses a question. Why did she let the sketcher draw a frill ?
The pyjama exhibited by the parents in front of TV cameras on the 10th of May 2007 has no turn-up but a frill...
-
This is true but arouses a question. Why did she let the sketcher draw a frill ?
The pyjama exhibited by the parents in front of TV cameras on the 10th of May 2007 has no turn-up but a frill...
I was going to ask the same question.
If the artist got that "wrong", what else might she have got wrong? The hair maybe? I dint recall in any of JTs statements her saying whether the mans hair was straight or wavy/curly, and she definitely didnt say it that long all around,which is what the sketch shows more or less.
Some might say it doesnt matter too much....but what if Tannerman was definitely Innocentman? That might be a reason neither he or anyone who knew him/ his childs pyjamas as worn at the time didnt come forward, ie, wrong hair length and not straight but semi curly, wrong colour and detail of pyjamas......and probably walking in wrong direction
Side by side
http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=45&u=18181963
-
On CW Innocentman has definitively no straight hair at all and not long all around.
Logically, if he ever crossed FGM, he did it in the opposite direction.
The quite different pyjama exhibited as soon as the 10th of May could explain he didn't feel concerned.
The remaining question is the so unusual way of carrying ? If he did carry this way, it's strange that he said nothing at all.
And the blanket ? Was it another "adjusting facts" to say there was none ? Ms Tanner knew certainly that Madeleine had been abducted without a blanket.
Though Ms Tanner was certainly doing it "for the good cause", she obstructed the course of justice.
Imagine the PJ claiming Tannerman was almost certainly not the abductor !
-
This is true but arouses a question. Why did she let the sketcher draw a frill ?
The pyjama exhibited by the parents in front of TV cameras on the 10th of May 2007 has no turn-up but a frill...
I think a more important question might be why the sketcher drew the frill in the first place ... given that it was not the description given to her by Jane Tanner
As to why Jane may have been convinced to let that little detail go, without objecting, it might be useful to recall the conversation she, Gerry, and Dave Edgar had during the reconstruction enacted for the Cutting Edge programme :
Jane "See I think you were about here, cos I think you were standing like that and Joe, Jez, was there, with with his pram pointing down that way. Cos I think if you'd been looking at me if I, cos I would have said something cos I would have said about cos I would have said about Kate cos had been moaning cos you'd been gone a long time watching the football"
( Gerry interrupts at this point )
Gerry "i'm almost certain ( Jane laughs ) that when I came out I came over ( Gerryis crossing the road as he speaks ) and he was here, and I was like that. That's my memory of it, as like Jez is 6' 3 or something and I was looking up, and then turning in when I finished. That's my memory of it"
Jane "Hmm, yeah I mean well, it just "
Edgar interrupts
Dave Edgar "It's like I said there are inconsistancies in every major investigation"
Jane "OK, that's fine"
They proceed with the reconstruction as Gerry remembered it, ignoring Jane's observations regardless of the fact that she was the key witness
That might give us a clue as to why Jane made no objection to the sketch artist misrepresenting her recollection
Jane appears to be an easily manipulated 'people pleaser'
Perhaps the real question is .... what lay behind the clear manipulation ... why was there a need to do that ?
-
If what you say is true Ica then the McCanns have been responsible for misleading the investigation yet again.
One thing is for sure and that is that the description of Madeleine's pyjamas were superimposed on top of those of the child Innocentman was carrying to make it look like Madeleine.
Note the frilly bottomed PJ's
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44198000/jpg/_44198956_sketch_300.jpg)
Sketch based on Jane Tanner sighting.
-
If what you say is true Ica then the McCanns have been responsible for misleading the investigation yet again.
One thing is for sure and that is that the description of Madeleine's pyjamas were superimposed on top of those of the child Innocentman was carrying to make it look like Madeleine.
Note the frilly bottomed PJ's
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44198000/jpg/_44198956_sketch_300.jpg)
Sketch based on Jane Tanner sighting.
Not necessarily. I agree with Icabod's reading of JT as a people pleaser (with the little we can know of her) but it's possible GM was just being GM. He wasn't intentionally trying to mislead anyone, he was just convinced that he was right and has a more forceful personality than JT.
It's also possible that it was intentional though, but what he could gain from being one side of the street or the other, I don't know.
I know that the picture of Tannerman is faceless, but everything about him brings to mind a much younger person than Innocentman.... More than 6 years younger. I suppose that's probably the least of the discrepancies in the descriptions though.
I don't know. Tannermen/Innocentman is a strange one, all in all.
-
Did anyone notice that Kate has accessorised the pyjamas with the frilly-cuffed pink top she is wearing?
Being slightly fashion conscious myself, I am attentive to some of her wardrobe choices.
She really is a good PJ Co-ordinator.
-
snip////
*edit: cariad just beat me to an almost identical post
great minds think alike ?{)(**
-
She really is a good PJ Co-ordinator.
?{)(**
I'm not fashion conscious, but what would one have thought if only the pants had been exhibited in front of the TV cameras ?
-
Bundleman = Fabrication
Crecheman = Fabrication
-
it's possible GM was just being GM. He wasn't intentionally trying to mislead anyone, he was just convinced that he was right and has a more forceful personality than JT.
It's also possible that it was intentional though, but what he could gain from being one side of the street or the other, I don't know.
Mr McCann knew perfectly then where JW had stated he was during the chat.
He knew also where Ms Tanner had. Both JW and Ms Tanner drew sketches.
Mr McCann took advantage of being alone with Ms Tanner to press on her. He had a crucial motive to do it. The AG, if he watched the fictionstruction, must have laughed.
-
I know that the picture of Tannerman is faceless, but everything about him brings to mind a much younger person than Innocentman.... More than 6 years younger.
What do you mean, Cariad ?
-
If I was to interlock my hand with my wrist and hold the child closer to my body then I would not tire as easily. A child the size of Madeleine I would have had to carry as Smithman did.
Does anybody know how old Innocentmans child was at the time?
I thought of that, the child I think was 2. That would be like cradle a child, not carrying it the first helper way.
Ms Tanner's attitude is just submission to authority coupled with, according to her, a victim. It doesn't mean she changed her mind.
-
What do you mean, Cariad ?
http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=45&u=18181963 (With thanks to Redblossem for the link)
It's difficult to describe...
I don't know if its Tannerman's perfectly coiffured hair or perhaps his confident swaggering walk, but he looks... young... whereas Innocentman looks like a middle aged dad.
It's entirely irrelevant anyway I suppose. I'm just musing on it I guess.
-
http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=45&u=18181963 (With thanks to Redblossem for the link)
It's difficult to describe...
I don't know if its Tannerman's perfectly coiffured hair or perhaps his confident swaggering walk, but he looks... young... whereas Innocentman looks like a middle aged dad.
It's entirely irrelevant anyway I suppose. I'm just musing on it I guess.
Both of them look rather young imo. I think Innocentman could be Indian.
-
Both of them look rather young imo. I think Innocentman could be Indian.
There are a few names in the Mark Warner arrivals list with girls of two yrs old...none of them are Indian names but typically English/Irish.....however this arrivals list is only for that week, perhaps Innocent man was there longer? Who knows....
-
There are a few names in the Mark Warner arrivals list with girls of two yrs old...none of them are Indian names but typically English/Irish.....however this arrivals list is only for that week, perhaps Innocent man was there longer? Who knows....
I think I saw an Asiatic name.
-
Yes that was at 10:40 quite a bit later than what they were asking about in all probability. He's never had a rog to say where he was from 10pm onwards in full detail. I'm surprised his arguido interview didn't cover it more fully. But the reconstruction would have covered it 8)-)))
"While the guests and employees of the resort were searching, he went to the main Reception to check whether they had called the Police, and told Kate to wait inside the apartment. After going to the Reception he went back to the apartment where he stayed in the living room and in their bedroom." (GM 7 Sep)
Does that mean 10:40 to you Pegasus?
"Everybody sprinted back to our apartment, except for Dianne, who remained in the Tapas area, and Jane, who was away from the table seeing to her kids. I remember feeling frustrated when David said, ‘Let’s just check the apartment.’ I’d done that, and I knew, I knew, that Madeleine had been abducted. I ran out into the car park, flying from end to end, yelling desperately, ‘Madeleine! Madeleine!’ >@@(*&) It was so cold and so windy. I kept picturing her in her short-sleeved Marks and Spencer Eeyore pyjamas and feeling how chilled she would be. Bizarrely, I found myself thinking it would have been better if she’d been wearing her long-sleeved Barbie ones. >@@(*&) (long sleeved re Smithman - PF) Fear was shearing through my body.
In the children’s room, Gerry lowered the shutter at the open window. Rushing outside, he made the sickening discovery that it could be raised from this side, too, not just from inside as we’d thought. >@@(*&) (So did Dianne only minutes later and then Fiona after her - PF) Gerry, David, Russell and Matt split into pairs and dashed around the adjacent apartment blocks, meeting back at our flat within a couple of minutes. >@@(*&) (Not according to Matt, Russ & DP - Gerry didn't meet up again with them - PF) Just after ten past ten, Gerry asked Matt to run to the Ocean Club’s twenty-four-hour reception to get the staff to call the police. >@@(*&) (Not according to Matt & Fiona - PF) All the screaming and shouting had now alerted other guests and staff that something was amiss and various people were beginning to appear outside the apartment, front and back. I vividly recall sobbing, ‘Not Madeleine, not Madeleine, not Madeleine.’ I was trying so hard to suppress the negative voice in my head tormenting me with the words, ‘She’s gone. She’s gone.’ Even now, when the dark clouds close in on me, I find myself shaking my head manically and repeating over and over again, ‘Not Madeleine, not Madeleine. Please God, not my Madeleine.’
Gerry and I were standing in the living room clutching each other, utterly distraught. I couldn’t help myself, let alone try to soothe Gerry, who was in a state too harrowing for me to bear, howling for his precious little girl. I kept blaming myself – ‘We’ve let her down! We’ve failed her!’ – which increased Fiona’s own distress. ‘You haven’t, Kate. You haven’t,’ she insisted.
By this time the Mark Warner people had rounded up as many of their colleagues as they could, off-duty staff as well as those just finishing their shifts, rousing some of them from their beds. Close to ten-thirty they activated the company’s ‘missing child search protocol’ and mobilized people to comb the complex and its environs. At 10.35 the police had still not arrived, so Gerry asked Matt if he would go back down to the twenty-four-hour reception and find out what was happening. John Hill, the Mark Warner resort manager, came up to the veranda behind our apartment. I remember screaming at him to do something. ‘Where are the police?’ I yelled at him." (Madeleine)
I kept picturing her in her short-sleeved Marks and Spencer Eeyore pyjamas and feeling how chilled she would be. Bizarrely, I found myself thinking it would have been better if she’d been wearing her long-sleeved Barbie ones.
-
Awww Wspam 8(8-))
You hit new levels of LOW if you can snear at that,
Kate need not have worried.
The Smithman abductor changed her jammies for her.
-
Yes it's bonkers isn't it 8-)(--) 8-)(--) 8-)(--) 3 are needed Sadie @)(++(* How can Madeleine be seen wearing long sleeves when her mother is making a big point that she was only wearing short sleeves >@@(*&)
I remember feeling frustrated when David said, ‘Let’s just check the apartment.’ I’d done that, and I knew, I knew, that Madeleine had been abducted. I ran out into the car park, flying from end to end, yelling desperately, ‘Madeleine! Madeleine!’ It was so cold and so windy. I kept picturing her in her short-sleeved Marks and Spencer Eeyore pyjamas and feeling how chilled she would be. Bizarrely, I found myself thinking it would have been better if she’d been wearing her long-sleeved Barbie ones. (long sleeved re Smithman - PF) Fear was shearing through my body.
I knew she had been abducted, my main concern was her arms getting cold. @)(++(*
It's bo****ks isn't it, she has deliberately inserted this fabrication of thoughts to add weight to Tannerman & try to counter the Smiths sighting IMO.
-
Totally agree to put the emphasis onto Tannerman!
-
Yes, as if a mother would write about her concerns regarding the comfort and well-being of her missing child in a book about her disappearance, it's utterly preposterous!
-
Yes, as if a mother would write about her concerns regarding the comfort and well-being of her missing child in a book about her disappearance, it's utterly preposterous!
Especially in a 'Mills and Boon' classic such as this. 8)-)))
-
I would hardly think long sleeves over short would be at the top of the comfort and well being check sheet. Given the circumstances or alleged circumstances none of that really matters. It's like worrying about your choice of swimsuit when you're about to be eaten by a Great White Shark!
You seem to have missed the point completely. Never mind.
-
I would hardly think long sleeves over short would be at the top of the comfort and well being check sheet. Given the circumstances or alleged circumstances none of that really matters. It's like worrying about your choice of swimsuit when you're about to be eaten by a Great White Shark!
That probably describes the syndrome exactly.
My friend wrote off her car on an icy road, it landed on its roof in a field.
She and her passengers ~ her three children and her mother ~ were hanging upside down trapped by their seatbelts.
When the emergency services released them, she collapsed weeping copiously about the turkey she was carrying in the boot for Christmas dinner.
She knew she was being ridiculous but the reaction was outwith her control.
I don’t doubt in times of major stress we may have little control over our thoughts and emotions which obsess on trivia.
Dr McCann describes a similar inexplicable reaction of worry about pyjamas when it is quite obvious the major trauma was the kidnap of her daughter.
-
It's why she starts the sentence descibing her concerns about the pyjamas with the word "bizarrely". It's so obvious what she meant, I can't believe it needs explaining to English speakers.
-
It's why she starts the sentence descibing her concerns about the pyjamas with the word "bizarrely". It's so obvious what she meant, I can't believe it needs explaining to English speakers.
It's either a case of ~ None so blind ...
or the teaching of English needs a radical overhaul.
-
It's why she starts the sentence descibing her concerns about the pyjamas with the word "bizarrely". It's so obvious what she meant, I can't believe it needs explaining to English speakers.
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/crimewatchappeal2.jpg)
Was Madeleine wearing that pyjama top over a white long sleeved top like in the following PDL pic ? >@@(*&)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-x8TMfyIhEmo/UTIuxjDB38I/AAAAAAAA0Xw/f_dCHxWVuMQ/s1600/madeleine-mccann.jpg)
"I kept picturing her in her short-sleeved Marks and Spencer Eeyore pyjamas and feeling how chilled she would be. Bizarrely, I found myself thinking it would have been better if she’d been wearing her long-sleeved Barbie ones."
-
I would estimate that innocenttouristman was a youngish looking 40ish at the time IMO.
A big indication that JT saw innocenttouristman and child is pyjama leg length.
It is quite simple: missingchild's pyjamas ended above knee, innocenttouristchild's pyjamas ended below knee.
-
JT Rog
4078 “If you had have thought that was Madeleine at the time you would have said?”
Reply “Well, yeah, if I’d have thought, yeah, you know, if I’d have seen it was Madeleine you’d have, you know, I’m not going to go ‘Oh there goes Madeleine’, you know, I would have shouted, but. But, yeah, I know the Police think I’m a sympathetic witness and whatever, but I don’t know what I can do to”.
4078 “And what colours?”
Reply “Dark colours, but again it was, I think it was quite dark, so dark, sort of darkish jacket but then a more, a lighter trouser but a horrible colour, again this is, sort of a yellowy dark browny, horrible, but not, not a nice colour trousers, but then I wonder whether that was the lights making them look, making them look more of a sort of a mustard, it wasn’t mustard because that’s too bright, but it was just like a, as I say they weren’t nice, they weren’t the sort of clothes I’d expect somebody on a MARK WARNER holiday to, they was, I can’t think of the material, I tried to describe this before, but sort of a cottony material but baggy”.
4078 “Okay. And his build?”
Reply “Medium, well sort of just normal build. As I say, I think the clothes were quite baggy, so I think they made him look more bigger than he probably was, but. And also he would have been, his shoulders would have been out, you know, sort of. So, I think, erm, yeah, medium’ish, a medium’ish build”.
4078 “Is there anything else about the man that you can remember now?”
Reply “No, I mean, I would be so worried now about things that are put into my, I think the only two things that I’m still absolutely adamant on is a lot of hair, sort of a lot of thick, thick hair and sort of dark and baggy, well not, ill fitting clothes I think is the sort of, you know, sort of is the two things that still, I mean obviously I get this image in my head all the time and they are the two things that are still, are still, are still there”.
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”.
4078 “I know this seems like an obvious question, which I think I know the answer to, because I’ve seen the artist’s impression, did you see the man’s face?”
Reply “No, no, not, no, I mean, just the hair, well not, not that I could remember to give details, give details to”.
4078 “How far away from you were they at the closest point?”
Reply “Phew, as, I mean, it’s hard to, sort of thing, but I think I was sort of halfway, it’s probably sort of five metres, I mean, I’m trying to sort of think in terms of this room, but sort of probably just further than that wall, probably sort of five to ten metres id’ say, if, I don’t know how far it is to there, but”.
4078 “And was there anything about the way he walked or the speed that he was walking that made you think he was about to change direction?”
Reply “No, no, no, he was just sort of, just walking”.
4078 “So you are unable to say where he stopped or?”
Reply “No, he was just walking on that way as I looked and then I’d, I’d sort of went the opposite way, went the opposite way to carry on the check”.
4078 “So you didn’t notice any car headlights or noises from cars?”
Reply “No, no, because I think, you know, if I’d heard sort of a car screech off quickly at that point, I probably would have, would have taken notice I think”.
4078 “And later on did you think it was significant?”
Reply “It was a, yeah, it was sort of came as soon as, as soon as they said that came, buff, straight. As soon as I’d seen it there it was forgotten and then, buff, as soon as Rachael said”.
4078 “And on the route back can you remember seeing anybody?”
Reply “No, I have to say, not, not at all. And Gerry and Jez had gone by that time, so”.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NenUQ14lJ2E/Upj5uK4WryI/AAAAAAAABC8/FV_K9PhLqY4/s1600/madeleine-mccann-missing-4-577x500.jpg)(http://www.allmystery.de/i/t771edd_10f878_Pyjama-Vater-01.jpg)
-
http://www.allmystery.de/i/t771edd_10f878_Pyjama-Vater-01.jpg
These pyjama bottoms are long and extend below the knees.
The eeyore pyjamas are short and finish above the knees.
JT described pyjamas which extended below the knees.
Therefore she saw innocentcrecheman's daughter.
-
http://www.allmystery.de/i/t771edd_10f878_Pyjama-Vater-01.jpg
These pyjama bottoms are long and extend below the knees.
The eeyore pyjamas are short and finish above the knees.
JT described pyjamas which extended below the knees.
Therefore she saw innocentcrecheman's daughter.
Agreed the yard are correct. Tannerman is Crecheman (see my Smithman thread post to match his colour/baggy clothes - source JT rog). Now they're after the real suspect Smithman who was carrying the older child in a different way.
-
"a turn-up of some description"
"I thought it was a turn-up"
"or turn-up, as I thought it was"
"possibly with turn-ups"
Source: JT rog
-
Agreed the yard are correct. Tannerman is Crecheman (see my Smithman thread post to match his colour/baggy clothes - source JT rog). Now they're after the real suspect Smithman who was carrying the older child in a different way.
Agreed on tannerman = yardman.
And agreed the yard are (in their press releases) concentrating on smithman.
However I think they are wrong about smithman - i think he is irrelevant.
IMO smithman = a different innocentdad (not yardman) - shorter hair - and non-english speaking.
-
http://www.allmystery.de/i/t771edd_10f878_Pyjama-Vater-01.jpg
These pyjama bottoms are long and extend below the knees.
The eeyore pyjamas are short and finish above the knees.
JT described pyjamas which extended below the knees.
Therefore she saw innocentcrecheman's daughter.
You may be right pegasus, but did you do the test with your Tshirt that I suggested?
When I did it, it came closer to my ankles than my knees.
-
You may be right pegasus, but did you do the test with your Tshirt that I suggested?
When I did it, it came closer to my ankles than my knees.
Coloured sketch which JT helped to produce = narrow pyjama legs.
SY photo of english tourist's 2-yr-old daughter's pyjamas = narrow pyjama legs.
Eeyore pyjamas (see photos in files or in Berlin press conference) = wide pyjama legs.
Therefore JT saw the 2-yr old.
-
Coloured sketch which JT helped to produce = narrow pyjama legs.
SY photo of english tourist's 2-yr-old daughter's pyjamas = narrow pyjama legs.
Eeyore pyjamas (see photos in files or in Berlin press conference) = wide pyjama legs.
Therefore JT saw the 2-yr old.
With the best will in the world eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. That Jane Tanner was able to recall so much from a fleeting glance in poor light is remarkable. The sketch was carried out after the event when her recall was tainted by information she became aware of in the intervening period, she worried about such in her statement.
I for one would not place too much reliance on the sketch which must only be an impression of what she saw and that was a man carrying a barefoot child possibly wearing pyjamas.
-
With the best will in the world eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. That Jane Tanner was able to recall so much from a fleeting glance in poor light is remarkable. The sketch was carried out after the event when her recall was tainted by information she became aware of in the intervening period, she worried about such in her statement.
I for one would not place too much reliance on the sketch which must only be an impression of what she saw and that was a man carrying a barefoot child possibly wearing pyjamas.
You are very observant Pegasus and your cognitive processes are outstanding, well done youse !
....but as Brietta says, Jane didn't have much of a look and my guess is that as a woman on her own after dark, she would be watching the man rather than the little girl. And she would just get an impression of the girl. When I was younger and in rather good shape, I was followed several times .... and it has made me very nervous of men when I am on my own .... even in daylight in some places. I watch them like a hawk to the exclusion of everything else.
I suspect her main interst / concern would be the man. The girl would be secondary.
As I said before, you could be right, but we dont know for sure.
-
You are very observant Pegasus and your cognitive processes are outstanding, well done youse !
....but as Brietta says, Jane didn't have much of a look and my guess is that as a woman on her own after dark, she would be watching the man rather than the little girl. And she would just get an impression of the girl. When I was younger and in rather good shape, I was followed several times .... and it has made me very nervous of men when I am on my own .... even in daylight in some places. I watch them like a hawk to the exclusion of everything else.
I suspect her main interst / concern would be the man. The girl would be secondary.
As I said before, you could be right, but we dont know for sure.
I agree with that 100%, Sadie.
As a woman and in the circumstances you describe Jane Tanner would have taken in a lot about the man and would have oberved him as closely as time and circumstance would allow.
The child would register only in relation to the man making him appear to be less of a threat.
-
I worked out where I think possibly the innocentdad holiday address was, I might be wrong, but if I'm right then not only is that t junction not on the optimum route home, but also leaving that t junction in an easterly direction is not optimum either.
But I think the most likely scenario is if my 2-yr old was sleeping at evening creche (yes they can sleep there) but woke up when I collected her, I would probably walk around town a bit to get her to sleep.
-
I worked out where I think possibly the innocentdad holiday address was, I might be wrong, but if I'm right then not only is that t junction not on the optimum route home, but also leaving that t junction in an easterly direction is not optimum either.
But I think the most likely scenario is if my 2-yr old was sleeping at evening creche (yes they can sleep there) but woke up when I collected her, I would probably walk around town a bit to get her to sleep.
On a cold gusty evening?
-
On a cold gusty evening?
The 2-year old child JT saw had a blanket over its upper body, and long-sleeved long-legged pyjamas.
It was not too cold or gusty to be outside with a toddler or baby.
Because you already know another dad went circuitously around town to get an 8-month-old boy to sleep that same night, and another couple carried their 3-year old girl and their baby home from Tapas that same night.
-
The 2-year old child JT saw had a blanket over its upper body, and long-sleeved long-legged pyjamas.
It was not too cold or gusty to be outside with a toddler or baby.
Because you already know another dad went circuitously around town to get an 8-month-old boy to sleep that same night, and another couple carried their 3-year old girl and their baby home from Tapas that same night.
With all due respect Pegasus, you are jumping the gun.
We do not KNOW that JT saw a 2 year old being carried. We do NOT KNOW that she saw Crechman ..... in fact the timings are all wrong. He came thru IIRC much much later than JT saw the man.
And logic tells us that he was going in the wrong direction.
Two things there ...... so, we cant assume that she saw Crechman. FULL STOP.
-
The 2-year old child JT saw had a blanket over its upper body, and long-sleeved long-legged pyjamas.
It was not too cold or gusty to be outside with a toddler or baby.
Because you already know another dad went circuitously around town to get an 8-month-old boy to sleep that same night, and another couple carried their 3-year old girl and their baby home from Tapas that same night.
It has now been accepted that Jane Tanner did actually see a man carrying a barefoot child on the night Madeleine McCann vanished from her bed.
That is the issue.
A missing child, Madeleine; a man observed carrying a child yards from where Madeleine vanished. Crèche man? perhaps.
I pass a man in the street who is carrying television; half an hour later my neighbour returns home and discovers his television is missing; did I see my neighbour’s television being stolen? Or did I see an innocent man who had a legitimate reason to be walking in the street carrying a television?
Ever lifted and carried a child wrapped in a blanket?
The child does not start off in a horizontal position, nor a rigid one, the body bends and clothes move.
If the blanket, even a small one was to be of any use it would have to cover not only the upper body but at least the buttock region; pyjama bottoms are elasticated and if the child’s body is recumbent can slip down leading to a frill which started above the knee to end up some distance below.
Why the bare feet?
If you are bothered enough to cover the child with a blanket ... why no socks for the feet? Did the children at the Crèche wear no shoes ... were they carried there ... and back?
IMO the illustration of the pyjamas is an irrelevance.
The only relevant thing here is the man carrying a child and if Jane Tanner believed that child was Madeleine the child was bigger than a two year old.
-
JT saw pyjama trousers legs which at their lower extremities fit tightly around the child's lower legs.
(source: coloured sketch which JT helped to produce).
The eeyore pyjama trouser legs at their lower extremities fit very loosely around the child's lower legs.
(source: photo of pyjamas in files)
-
JT saw pyjama trousers legs which at their lower extremities fit tightly around the child's lower legs.
(source: coloured sketch which JT helped to produce).
The eeyore pyjama trouser legs at their lower extremities fit very loosely around the child's lower legs.
(source: photo of pyjamas in files)
I know Jane collaborated with a highly trained artist to produce the sketch however that was at some remove from the sighting; it was also after she had seen the publicity showing videos an pictures of the the actual pyjamas.
She is on record as suffering agonies because she believed she saw Madeleine being abducted ... yet she did not allow having seen the actual pyjamas to influence her description ... so just as I remain unconvinced about crècheman, I'm unconvinced about the relevance of the pj sketch.
I think the important thing is the fact the child was described as being barefoot.
-
She didn't believe it was Maddy until others got into her head. She is easily influenced by others.
She described the man's clothing, hair and a barefoot child in pyjamas ......The rest was made up dressed as was Maddie on the night, in a later artist sketch.
Why?... because this was thought to be the abductor at the time and possibly is the real guy, even now.
Strange that he is dressed and described very like Smithman. Pity she didn't see his face.
-
With all due respect Pegasus, you are jumping the gun.
We do not KNOW that JT saw a 2 year old being carried. We do NOT KNOW that she saw Crechman ..... in fact the timings are all wrong. He came thru IIRC much much later than JT saw the man.
And logic tells us that he was going in the wrong direction.
Two things there ...... so, we cant assume that she saw Crechman. FULL STOP.
But SY assume she did. Why is that sadie ?
-
If she thought it was possibly her and was concerned about it she would have said something at the table when she returned. That didn't happen. Older than a baby in her first statement is not Maddy but it connects to crecheman's 2 year old and the way she was being carried. An abductor would go away from the tapas not cross the road that leads to it.
-
If she thought it was possibly her and was concerned about it she would have said something at the table when she returned. That didn't happen. Older than a baby in her first statement is not Maddy but it connects to crecheman's 2 year old and the way she was being carried. An abductor would go away from the tapas not cross the road that leads to it.
At the time, pFinder, she didn't even see anything really strange about a man carrying a child. It wasn't until Madeleine went missing, the penny dropped.
-
JT describes the pyjama bottoms she saw, as having long legs, narrow at the end, and banded at the end IMO (not frilled). Also the carrying angle JT saw indicates that she saw a child significantly younger than 47 months. Those four features all indicate that she saw some other child, not the child this case is about who was still in the apartment
-
JT describes the pyjama bottoms she saw, as having long legs, narrow at the end, and banded at the end IMO (not frilled). Also the carrying angle JT saw indicates that she saw a child significantly younger than 47 months. Those four features all indicate that she saw some other child, not the child this case is about who was still in the apartment
I disagree that Jane Tanner's description of the way the man carried the child suggests a much smaller child than Madeleine; Jane Tanner knew Madeleine, I doubt that she would have mistaken the size of the child carried as the suggestion it could not be her did not occur - when she found out Madeleine was missing it was her first thought.
-
I disagree that Jane Tanner's description of the way the man carried the child suggests a much smaller child than Madeleine; Jane Tanner knew Madeleine, I doubt that she would have mistaken the size of the child carried as the suggestion it could not be her did not occur - when she found out Madeleine was missing it was her first thought.
I think JT is a completely honest witness, and right to report what she saw, but as it happens it was not the missing girl she saw.