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: icabodcrane on January 27, 2014, 03:26:21 PM
-
I've just noticed that the McCanns have updated their website with regard to 'Tannerman'
They suggest that Scotland Yard think the man Jane saw 'may' have been an innocent father ( rather than repeating Redwood's assertion that he was 'almost certainly' an innocent father )
They continue by stating that it is not possible to be certain whether the man Jane saw was the same man the Smiths' saw ... and appeal to the public to come forward to identify Tannerman ( despite Scotland Yard not having done so as part of their investigation )
The McCanns ask for any information regarding the man Jane saw to be passed to Scotland Yard ... or, alternatively, to be passed directly to the 'Find Madeleine' team ( are they still conducting a parallel investigation then ? )
In the context of this thread then, it appears that the McCanns STILL assert that Tannerman and Smithman may be one and the same
-
I've just noticed that the McCanns have updated their website with regard to 'Tannerman'
They suggest that Scotland Yard think the man Jane saw 'may' have been an innocent father ( rather than repeating Redwood's assertion that he was 'almost certainly' an innocent father )
They continue by stating that it is not possible to be certain whether the man Jane saw was the same man the Smiths' saw ... and appeal to the public to come forward to identify Tannerman ( despite Scotland Yard not having done so as part of their investigation )
The McCanns ask for any information regarding the man Jane saw to be passed to Scotland Yard ... or, alternatively, to be passed directly to the 'Find Madeleine' team ( are they still conducting a parallel investigation then ? )
In the context of this thread then, it appears that the McCanns STILL assert that Tannerman and Smithman may be one and the same
Come to think of it, this latest up-date on the McCanns official website probably deserves a new thread
Does it mean that the McCanns are questioning the direction Scotland Yard's investigation is taking ?
Does it mean that they feel Redwood was wrong to dismiss Tannerman as not relvent enough to even ask the public to come forward with information about ?
Does it mean that the McCanns are interfering in the Yard's investigation in the same way they interfered with the Portuguese investigation ?
All relevent questions, I think
-
I've just noticed that the McCanns have updated their website with regard to 'Tannerman'
They suggest that Scotland Yard think the man Jane saw 'may' have been an innocent father ( rather than repeating Redwood's assertion that he was 'almost certainly' an innocent father )
They continue by stating that it is not possible to be certain whether the man Jane saw was the same man the Smiths' saw ... and appeal to the public to come forward to identify Tannerman ( despite Scotland Yard not having done so as part of their investigation )
The McCanns ask for any information regarding the man Jane saw to be passed to Scotland Yard ... or, alternatively, to be passed directly to the 'Find Madeleine' team ( are they still conducting a parallel investigation then ? )
In the context of this thread then, it appears that the McCanns STILL assert that Tannerman and Smithman may be one and the same
I agree with The Mccanns.
There are a number of possibilities, but amongst these and quite a strong possibility, imo, is that Tannerman may well also be Smithman.
OMO, but pointers
-
Come to think of it, this latest up-date on the McCanns official website probably deserves a new thread
Does it mean that the McCanns are questioning the direction Scotland Yard's investigation is taking ?
Does it mean that they feel Redwood was wrong to dismiss Tannerman as not relvent enough to even ask the public to come forward with information about ?
Does it mean that the McCanns are interfering in the Yard's investigation in the same way they interfered with the Portuguese investigation ?
All relevent questions, I think
I doubt very much if the McCanns would put anything on their site on this subject without first consulting with SY. imo
-
I agree with The Mccanns.
There are a number of possibilities, but amongst these and quite a strong possibility, imo, is that Tannerman may well also be Smithman.
OMO, but pointers
You may think Scotland Yard have got it wrong sadie, but my questions related to the McCanns apparently thinking that Scotland Yard have got it wrong
What does that suggest ? ... that the McCanns and the British police are not in agreement as to how the investigation should progress ?
Thanks for the new thread Sherlock
-
Only may or may not be. Nothing definite has been said by anyone. Not even by Scotland Yard. And no one can know for certain anyway.
-
You may think Scotland Yard have got it wrong sadie, but my questions related to the McCanns apparently thinking that Scotland Yard have got it wrong
What does that suggest ? ... that the McCanns and the British police are not in agreement as to how the investigation should progress ?
Thanks for the new thread Sherlock
Apparently. Icabod.
The McCanns have no say over the investigation by Scotland Yard. But this does not mean that they have no right to an opinion.
I believe that the man Jane Tanner saw could have been the abductor. But since I believe that Madeleine was abducted then it doesn't matter to me who saw whom. Quite possibly no one saw anyone who was involved.
-
You may think Scotland Yard have got it wrong sadie, but my questions related to the McCanns apparently thinking that Scotland Yard have got it wrong
What does that suggest ? ... that the McCanns and the British police are not in agreement as to how the investigation should progress ?
Thanks for the new thread Sherlock
SY could well be right about a man picking his child up from the creche.
But I also believe that Jane Tanner is right about bundleman ... and I believe that her sighting was at approx the time she said. No-one knows for certain who the child was in bundlemans arms but it seems likely that it was Madeleine
Simples.
There could be two men. It is not rocket science, you know Icabod.
-
Apparently. Icabod.
The McCanns have no say over the investigation by Scotland Yard. But this does not mean that they have no right to an opinion.
I believe that the man Jane Tanner saw could have been the abductor. But since I believe that Madeleine was abducted then it doesn't matter to me who saw whom. Quite possibly no one saw anyone who was involved.
I would read the witness statements of the Smiths who saw a man running for his life with a lifeless child. What are you going on about? No one saw nothing my ass. The McCann's won't have any say over SY and too damn right! SY won't stand no nonsense from them especially when the main suspect in this case i.e. Smithman was identified by Martin Smith as possibly being Gerry McCann. This case is turning out to be the biggest laughing stock in the world. It's about time they started putting people in their place and the sooner the better!
-
SY could well be right about a man picking his child up from the creche.
But I also believe that Jane Tanner is right about bundleman ... and I believe that her sighting was at approx the time she said. No-one knows for certain who the child was in bundlemans arms but it seems likely that it was Madeleine
Simples.
There could be two men. It is not rocket science, you know Icabod.
But Andy Redwood seemed very convinced that the man Jane was not an abductor ... "almost certainly not" he said
The McCanns seem to have diminished that 'almost certainty' to a mere 'may have been' on their website
... and they ask the public to identify the man ... whilst Scotland Yard do not
That gives the impression that the McCanns and Scotland Yard may not be on the same page at all
-
But Andy Redwood seemed very convinced that the man Jane was not an abductor ... "almost certainly not" he said
The McCanns seem to have diminished that 'almost certainty' to a mere 'may have been' on their website
... and they ask the public to identify the man ... whilst Scotland Yard do not
That gives the impression that the McCanns and Scotland Yard may not be on the same page at all
The Mccanns have a wider remit. They are anxious to keep all options open. I am too, but i know i could be wrong.
I trust Jane Tanner completely. I bet they do too.
There could be two men Icabod.
Am zonked. Off to bed now.
Nigh Night Icabod. Nigh Night all.
-
But Andy Redwood seemed very convinced that the man Jane was not an abductor ... "almost certainly not" he said
The McCanns seem to have diminished that 'almost certainty' to a mere 'may have been' on their website
... and they ask the public to identify the man ... whilst Scotland Yard do not
That gives the impression that the McCanns and Scotland Yard may not be on the same page at all
The often quoted 'SY are keeping the Mccanns informed' seems to gout out of the window too, doesn't it?
If they're so well informed, why are they asking the public for information that SY already have?
-
The often quoted 'SY are keeping the Mccanns informed' seems to gout out of the window too, doesn't it?
If they're so well informed, why are they asking the public for information that SY already have?
I agree that it is possible ( likely, in fact ) that the McCanns are not as 'in the loop' as they suggest
It's more than that though Cariad, it's the sense that the McCanns are actually contradicting Scotland Yard
Take the man the Smith family saw, for instance. Scotland Yard flagged up the previously suppressed e fits as being of crucial importance to their investigation and made it clear that they considered the Smiths sighting as vitally important
The McCanns' official website, however, does not reflect that view at all
They have a 'click here' link with the heading IMPORTANT : Who are these people ? Can you help us identify them ?
Clicking on the page reveals the three people the McCanns list as important to identify
They are :
The man Jane Tanner saw
The spotty man seen around the resort
The Victoria Beckham lookalike from Barcelona
The images of these three people are accompanied by a synopsis of what is known about them
So where is the man Scotland Yard believe is of vital importance ?
... relegated to a 'rogue's gallery' on a different page, with no accompanying detail ( not even a mention about where, when, and by whom this man was seen )
Such cursory treatment of the sighting Scotland Yard think is the most important really is odd
-
What surprises me most is how publicly they've made their... divergence of opinions.
This is the 'review' that they've been requesting for years and yet now they have it, they don't seem to be over the moon with it.
What has Mr Redwood said or done for the Mccanns to lose faith in his abilities to rule a suspect either in or out?
Considering that an investigation was only open in, what? November? it's early days for the honeymoon to be over already.
My faith in Scotland yard is increasing by the day.
-
What surprises me most is how publicly they've made their... divergence of opinions.
This is the 'review' that they've been requesting for years and yet now they have it, they don't seem to be over the moon with it.
What has Mr Redwood said or done for the Mccanns to lose faith in his abilities to rule a suspect either in or out?
Considering that an investigation was only open in, what? November? it's early days for the honeymoon to be over already.
My faith in Scotland yard is increasing by the day.
I wonder what Redwood and the Yard make of the McCanns, in effect, briefing against them ...
-
Considering that an investigation was only open in, what? November? it's early days for the honeymoon to be over already.
My faith in Scotland yard is increasing by the day.
July it was when they made it an investigation.....ditto re SY!
-
... and neither did they 'suppress' the Efit.
So when did you first see this Efit that the McCanns had for six years ?
-
So when did you first see this Efit that the McCanns had for six years ?
Indeed.
Tannerman still features prominently on their website -
http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
Even though we now KNOW he's not involved.
Why is this?
Where is the write up about the REAL efits?
-
Indeed.
Tannerman still features prominently on their website -
http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
Even though we now KNOW he's not involved.
Why is this?
Where is the write up about the REAL efits?
It really is baffling
The McCann's official website devotes a page to those people who's identification is deemed "IMPORTANT"
Those people are :
The man Jane Tanner saw ( despite Scotland Yard's stated position )
The spotty man
The Victoria Beckam lookalike
Each of their Efits are accompanied by a descriptive passage of where and when they were spotted, and in what way their behaviour was questionable
... and where is the Smith family efit ? ( the one Scotland Yard think is crucial )
Relegated to a general 'Rogues' Gallery' ... with no more than a reference number
Like I say, baffling
-
It really is baffling
The McCann's official website devotes a page to those people who's identification is deemed "IMPORTANT"
Those people are :
The man Jane Tanner saw ( despite Scotland Yard's stated position )
The spotty man
The Victoria Beckam lookalike
Each of their Efits are accompanied by a descriptive passage of where and when they were spotted, and in what way their behaviour was questionable
... and where is the Smith family efit ? ( the one Scotland Yard think is crucial )
Relegated to a general 'Rogues' Gallery' ... with no more than a reference number
Like I say, baffling
Yes, seeing as none of the other rogues were seen ON THE NIGHT by several carrying a approx 4 yr old blonde girl in pyjamas
I posted a video the other day where Jim Gamble (will edit and post it in a sec) was comenting on Crimewatch and he said, because all attention was put onTannerman and 9.15 all these years and NOT on Smithman at 10pm, no one was racking their brains to remember if they had seen him....how much more confirmation does anyone need the sighting was hardly publicised at all bar a few words in lip service by the Mccanns very late in the day to that one..AND thry had the efits since late 2008
And yea, SilkyW, no emphasis put on Smithman on the official MM website at all
Eta
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2653.0
Last video on this thread from around 3.15 on
-
Yes, seeing as none of the other rogues were seen ON THE NIGHT by several carrying a approx 4 yr old blonde girl in pyjamas
I posted a video the other day where Jim Gamble (will edit and post it in a sec) was comenting on Crimewatch and he said, because all attention was put onTannerman and 9.15 all these years and NOT on Smithman at 10pm, no one was racking their brains to remember if they had seen him....how much more confirmation does anyone need the sighting was hardly publicised at all bar a few words in lip service by the Mccanns very late in the day to that one..AND thry had the efits since late 2008
And yea, SilkyW, no emphasis put on Smithman on the official MM website at all
Eta
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2653.0
Last video on this thread from around 3.15 on
And how do Team McCann explain this?
Oh yes, SY is WRONG.
Of course.
-
It is astonishing.
After all these years pressuring for an official investigation, not long after it begins the McCanns make it plain that they do not like the way it is turning.
If they do not agree with SY's lines of inquiry, why not keep that to themselves?
-
It really is baffling
The McCann's official website devotes a page to those people who's identification is deemed "IMPORTANT"
Those people are :
The man Jane Tanner saw ( despite Scotland Yard's stated position )
The spotty man
The Victoria Beckam lookalike
Each of their Efits are accompanied by a descriptive passage of where and when they were spotted, and in what way their behaviour was questionable
... and where is the Smith family efit ? ( the one Scotland Yard think is crucial )
Relegated to a general 'Rogues' Gallery' ... with no more than a reference number
Like I say, baffling
Surely these 'suspects' represent the narrative in which the McCanns find most comfort (relative to all the other possibilities).
Tannerman - their good friend Jane was correct in what they saw; their claims of an abduction are vindicated.
Beckhamwoman: A mother figure is involved, therefore Madeleine is with a warm and loving family.
Spottyman: Assistant to the loving Beckhamwoman.
-
It is astonishing.
After all these years pressuring for an official investigation, not long after it begins the McCanns make it plain that they do not like the way it is turning.
If they do not agree with SY's lines of inquiry, why not keep that to themselves?
Because they are Kate and Gerry.
Publicity loving (unless it's negative), media savvy, they always assume everyone wants to hear their opinion. Blogs and books and interviews confirm that.
Indeed, the British media has traditionally given them a platform to air their displeasures openly, and a sympathetic slant to even their most narcissistic displays.
Like this one.
-
And wasn't the purpose of that Crimewatch episode so that Redwood could announce the 'revelation' that the tanner sighting was an innocent holiday maker? And that they felt it was the Smith sighting that was crucial to the investigation? The McCanns appear to not want to give any credence at all to the Smith sighting. Now why would that be when they profess to 'leave no stone unturned' in the search for their daughter? This fact alone should sound some very loud alarm bells. For how much longer are SY going to keep ignoring it in favour of gypsies/disgruntled ex OC employees/burglars etc etc
-
Tannerman and Crecheman are similar in many ways, the most notable being that they are both complete fabrications!
-
Tannerman and Crecheman are similar in many ways, the most notable being that they are both complete fabrications!
8((()*/
-
I don't see what the problem is. Even if Crecheman is an innocent tourist, he is still part of this case - and any information about him can only be helpful to SY IMO
It could be that someone saw him carrying his child after he left the creche - and so thought nothing more about it at the time. But surely any info no matter how small - which can confirm times and places would be helpful.
Additional info. as a result of the piccie could also mean that SY would be in a position to state with total certainty that Crecheman was the man JT saw instead of being 'almost certain'.
I doubt very much whether the McCanns would put anything on their FB page regarding this - without first discussing it with SY.
-
So when did you first see this Efit that the McCanns had for six years ?
The e-fit was in the possession of both British and Portuguese police for several years before its public release on the crimewatch programme.
-
The e-fit was in the possession of both British and Portuguese police for several years before its public release on the crimewatch programme.
@)(++(*
-
The e-fit was in the possession of both British and Portuguese police for several years before its public release on the crimewatch programme.
I don't think so.
-
Regardless of who was in possession of the e-fits, the point is they SHOULD have been in the public domain. Isn't that the whole purpose of e-fits? To hope the general public recognise them in order for them to be ruled in or out of any enquiry? Anyhow,SY have obviously discovered something that can allow them to rule out Tannerman (hence the "revelation") as a potential abductor and focus on Smithman as they changed the timeline too. I don't believe for one minute that they would do this simply off the back of discovering Tannerman was only MOST LIKELY an innocent holidaymaker!
-
Regardless of who was in possession of the e-fits, the point is they SHOULD have been in the public domain. Isn't that the whole purpose of e-fits? To hope the general public recognise them in order for them to be ruled in or out of any enquiry? Anyhow,SY have obviously discovered something that can allow them to rule out Tannerman (hence the "revelation") as a potential abductor and focus on Smithman as they changed the timeline too. I don't believe for one minute that they would do this simply off the back of discovering Tannerman was only MOST LIKELY an innocent holidaymaker!
The cumulative inference of what the MPS have said so far [on their website not what the press say they said] is that they don't believe the Tannerman/Crecheman combo is relevant, Smithman is of significance and by extension they don't believe the " T7 timeline bollocks". Now who had that thesis as well >@@(*&). Interestinger and interestinger
-
Surely these 'suspects' represent the narrative in which the McCanns find most comfort (relative to all the other possibilities).
Tannerman - their good friend Jane was correct in what they saw; their claims of an abduction are vindicated.
Beckhamwoman: A mother figure is involved, therefore Madeleine is with a warm and loving family.
Spottyman: Assistant to the loving Beckhamwoman.
Are you suggesting that the McCanns conducted their private investions ( largely funded by the public ) and then selectively chose to present only the evidence that supported their own abduction story ? ( and kept the information which contradicted it out of the public domain )
-
And not forgetting,of course,that 'Tannerman' gave GM that all important alibi!
-
Surely these 'suspects' represent the narrative in which the McCanns find most comfort (relative to all the other possibilities).
That is one way of putting it 8)-)))
-
I don't see what the problem is. Even if Crecheman is an innocent tourist, he is still part of this case - and any information about him can only be helpful to SY IMO
It could be that someone saw him carrying his child after he left the creche - and so thought nothing more about it at the time. But surely any info no matter how small - which can confirm times and places would be helpful.
Additional info. as a result of the piccie could also mean that SY would be in a position to state with total certainty that Crecheman was the man JT saw instead of being 'almost certain'.
I doubt very much whether the McCanns would put anything on their FB page regarding this - without first discussing it with SY.
But the question is not why Tannerman is still in the picture. Yes, there is a chance that more information could come in from keeping him in the picture a bit longer.
The question is why the McCanns have substituted SY's official focus (Smithman) with Tannerman. Smithman hardly features on their website; their story there revolves around Tannerman. They even spell out in words of one syllable that they believe SY could be wrong in their focus.
-
Because they are Kate and Gerry.
Publicity loving (unless it's negative), media savvy, they always assume everyone wants to hear their opinion. Blogs and books and interviews confirm that.
Indeed, the British media has traditionally given them a platform to air their displeasures openly, and a sympathetic slant to even their most narcissistic displays.
Like this one.
But the point is Why? Who is advising the McCanns that they openly go against SY when this clearly diminishes their standing rather than the opposite? We would not be sitting here discussing this issue in negative terms if the McCanns had decided it was wiser to present a united front vis-a-vis SY, whether or not they saw eye to eye. Wouldn't the benefits of that outweigh the merits of making their own individual points, however important they believed them to be, thus displaying a rift?
There is the famous adage of the person approaching a green light, who sees a car coming fast towards him from a side road. He has right of way on the green light and is at perfect liberty to sail though the light and ignore the car coming from the side. If he does not break, however, the car coming from the side will smash into him.
There is often a conflict between what is strictly speaking right or what one has the right to do, and what is the sensible course of action to take in the circumstances. This seems to me to be another example of the McCanns exercising their right to do things their way. But at what cost to their relationship with SY and the success of the investigation in general?
-
Are you suggesting that the McCanns conducted their private investions ( largely funded by the public ) and then selectively chose to present only the evidence that supported their own abduction story ? ( and kept the information which contradicted it out of the public domain )
Not really.
I think it's hard to draw from this what the McCanns are trying to do.
Tannerman, Sporrtman, and the Beckam woman do not represent 'evidence' the McCanns may have - as far as we know.
That is why I suggest that the McCanns placing of them at the top of the bill is more wishful thinking than anything else.
-
But the question is not why Tannerman is still in the picture. Yes, there is a chance that more information could come in from keeping him in the picture a bit longer.
The question is why the McCanns have substituted SY's official focus (Smithman) with Tannerman. Smithman hardly features on their website; their story there revolves around Tannerman. They even spell out in words of one syllable that they believe SY could be wrong in their focus.
We can see the papers have also forgotten about those efits (they just got the whole lot out of a PR problem in October imo an episode of CW with absolutely nothing to say)
-
This seems to me to be another example of the McCanns exercising their right to do things their way. But at what cost to their relationship with SY and the success of the investigation in general?
If they knew the truth and knew also that SY will never be able to get it right, wouldn't they proceed this way ?
-
The McCanns and their sausage machine seemingly like to preserve the abduction theory and to muddy the waters elsewhere. Apart from making sure the halos don't slip.The British press seemingly are briefed to toe this line. Where in the British press for example are the reports that where Dr Amaral's book was concerned the McCanns lost two out of three expensive law suits?
The most important two at that.
imo of course @)(++(*
-
Regardless of who was in possession of the e-fits, the point is they SHOULD have been in the public domain. Isn't that the whole purpose of e-fits? To hope the general public recognise them in order for them to be ruled in or out of any enquiry? Anyhow,SY have obviously discovered something that can allow them to rule out Tannerman (hence the "revelation") as a potential abductor and focus on Smithman as they changed the timeline too. I don't believe for one minute that they would do this simply off the back of discovering Tannerman was only MOST LIKELY an innocent holidaymaker!
I used to think so as well. I don't know the details surrounding the fact that the Smithman e-fits weren't made public, nor who actually had them in their possession, when, and in which legal circumstances.
In the Alps murder case, the police had the e-fit shortly after the massacre, but didn't release it for well over a year. The reason was apparently because they wanted to see if they could find the helmet /motorbike, etc., on their own first. The e-fit was released when they had given up.
-
I've just noticed that the McCanns have updated their website with regard to 'Tannerman'
They suggest that Scotland Yard think the man Jane saw 'may' have been an innocent father ( rather than repeating Redwood's assertion that he was 'almost certainly' an innocent father )
They continue by stating that it is not possible to be certain whether the man Jane saw was the same man the Smiths' saw ... and appeal to the public to come forward to identify Tannerman ( despite Scotland Yard not having done so as part of their investigation )
The McCanns ask for any information regarding the man Jane saw to be passed to Scotland Yard ... or, alternatively, to be passed directly to the 'Find Madeleine' team ( are they still conducting a parallel investigation then ? )
In the context of this thread then, it appears that the McCanns STILL assert that Tannerman and Smithman may be one and the same
IMO this is because of the doors being 'moved'.. SY might discount the doors as 'chance' by they still might be puzzled by it..that means that they also don't trust Matthew Oldfield as if during his 'check' Madeleine was already gone it is expected that the window is already left open, meaning that Oldfield would also feel the same draft which Kate described..
-
If they knew the truth and knew also that SY will never be able to get it right, wouldn't they proceed this way ?
Knowing your position on the case I understand your point, Anne, but the fact remains that handling matters this way makes the McCanns look bad in terms of public relations. Truth, innocence and guilt are separate matters from how the McCanns would wish to be perceived.
-
The McCanns and their sausage machine seemingly like to preserve the abduction theory and to muddy the waters elsewhere. Apart from making sure the halos don't slip.The British press seemingly are briefed to toe this line. Where in the British press for example are the reports that where Dr Amaral's book was concerned the McCanns lost two out of three expensive law suits?
The most important two at that.
imo of course @)(++(*
But that's precisely the point. Going against SY publicly makes the McCanns look bad. Why would they bring that on themselves?
-
But that's precisely the point. Going against SY publicly makes the McCanns look bad. Why would they bring that on themselves?
An inability to admit that they might have been wrong ?
-
Knowing your position on the case I understand your point, Anne, but the fact remains that handling matters this way makes the McCanns look bad in terms of public relations. Truth, innocence and guilt are separate matters from how the McCanns would wish to be perceived.
Try to understand them. Tannerman was the only bit of evidence they had and it suited them very well because in the same time Ms Tanner was providing Mr McCann with a golden alibi. All of a sudden this is destroyed by a Crecheman who, fortunately, didn't sound very credible not only on the pyjamas aspect but on local and time topic. Tannerman nevertheless went into smoke.
But it does't stop here.
Tannerman's rival appears to be precisely the man that was possibly identified, being perhaps not Mr McCann but certainly Mr McCann look alike. Of course there had been attempts to shift the alert time forward, after the Smith episode, but many statements show that the alert was earlier, previous to the disappearance.
The McCanns are then, for the moment, a bit trapped on the abductor figure topic, a transitory phase I guess, before the end of this year SY will say they're sorry but..
-
But that's precisely the point. Going against SY publicly makes the McCanns look bad. Why would they bring that on themselves?
Tannerman is their defence if things turn bad for the McCann's - he has to stay on their website being Gerry's crucial alibi. They will argue that Tannerman and Smithman are the same person i.e. the abductor of Madeleine. And remember according to JT she passed Gerry speaking to Jez when she spotted Tannerman/Smithman so Gerry can't be Smithman 8(0(*
-
An inability to admit that they might have been wrong ?
Apparently.
-
Try to understand them. Tannerman was the only bit of evidence they had and it suited them very well because in the same time Ms Tanner was providing Mr McCann with a golden alibi. All of a sudden this is destroyed by a Crecheman who, fortunately, didn't sound very credible not only on the pyjamas aspect but on local and time topic. Tannerman nevertheless went into smoke.
But it does't stop here.
Tannerman's rival appears to be precisely the man that was possibly identified, being perhaps not Mr McCann but certainly Mr McCann look alike. Of course there had been attempts to shift the alert time forward, after the Smith episode, but many statements show that the alert was earlier, previous to the disappearance.
The McCanns are then, for the moment, a bit trapped on the abductor figure topic, a transitory phase I guess, before the end of this year SY will say they're sorry but..
I understand all this from the alibi perspective, but the fact remains that in continuing to suppress the Smithman aspect, the McCanns are making themselves look more suspicious.
If it were true that Smithman had nothing to do with Gerry, surely the McCanns would want him to be found and investigated.
-
But that's precisely the point. Going against SY publicly makes the McCanns look bad. Why would they bring that on themselves?
It is the lesser of two evils.
It was apparent when DCI Redwood fragged Tannerman that Gerry's alibi also kind of like vanished in a puff of green smoke. Much of the sausage machine activity has been an attempt to preserve Tannerman because of that very fact; as others have said. A bit of sideways briefing against The Met. is better than standing in the spotlight yelling look at me no alibi. Even the Macs only like the spotlight on their terms.
-
Tannerman is their defence if things turn bad for the McCann's - he has to stay on their website being Gerry's crucial alibi. They will argue that Tannerman and Smithman are the same person i.e. the abductor of Madeleine. And remember according to JT she passed Gerry speaking to Jez when she spotted Tannerman/Smithman so Gerry can't be Smithman 8(0(*
I see all this but please see my reply to Anne.
-
If the 'alibi' explanation for this is correct, it seems like an odd time for the McCanns to be continually doing things in attempt to establish their innocence.
Scotland Yard have made it clear to the world that the McCanns are not suspects. Isn't this good enough?
So why would the McCanns, in response, then go against SY and focus on another theory that exonerates them?
-
They had many 'investigators' in this case..different police forces, PIs.. and all of them had their 'theories' .. McCanns probably also have their own theory..
-
They had many 'investigators' in this case..different police forces, PIs.. and all of them had their 'theories' .. McCanns probably also have their own theory..
Yes, but why promote it now, just when they finally have SY involved, against what SY are looking at?
-
Threads related to Tannerman
Oldest 1st,
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3239.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1089.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1171.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1127.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1177.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1643.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1745.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1992.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1259.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2650.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2645.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2825.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2709.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3251.0
-
Threads related to Tannerman
Oldest 1st,
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3239.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1089.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1171.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1127.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1177.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1643.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1745.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1992.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1259.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2650.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2645.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2825.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2709.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3251.0
I agree the groundhogdayness does tire one and make one think wth I am still doing here
@)(++(*
-
Threads related to Tannerman
Oldest 1st,
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3239.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1089.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1171.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1127.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1177.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1643.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1745.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1992.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1259.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2650.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2645.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2825.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2709.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3251.0
And what's your point, Wonderfulsenseofhumour?
Surely Tannerman is important from many angles.
-
And what's your point, Wonderfulsenseofhumour?
Surely Tannerman is important from many angles.
No jokes intended SH,
Just thought I'd list them all for their relevance to the topic.
It does seem a bit odd for me to have done it now you mention it though.
I think I might just have had too much to smoke today.
-
Threads on the subject of the Smiths sighting
Oldest 1st
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1426.15
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1231.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1445.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1611.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1764.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2658.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2719.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1754.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3238.0
-
No jokes intended SH,
Just thought I'd list them all for their relevance to the topic.
It does seem a bit odd for me to have done it now you mention it though.
I think I might just have had too much to smoke today.
Whatever makes you feel good, WS
-
Apparently. Icabod.
The McCanns have no say over the investigation by Scotland Yard. But this does not mean that they have no right to an opinion.
I believe that the man Jane Tanner saw could have been the abductor. But since I believe that Madeleine was abducted then it doesn't matter to me who saw whom. Quite possibly no one saw anyone who was involved.
But the McCanns are doing more than merely expressing an opinion, ( although expressing an opinion that contradicts Scotland Yard's might be seen as undermining in itself ) they are actively asking the public to send information to Scotland Yard ... information which the Yard, itself, has not asked for
I think that might reasonably be viewed as interference
-
But the McCanns are doing more than merely expressing an opinion, ( although expressing an opinion that contradicts Scotland Yard's might be seen as undermining in itself ) they are actively asking the public to send information to Scotland Yard ... information which the Yard, itself, has not asked for
I think that might reasonably be viewed as interference
How are they contradicting/underminding/interfering. SY have said they are not 100% certain about crecheman - so unless or until there is absolute certaintly - there has to remain a small element of doubt.
So what harm can it possibly do to leave Tannerman on public view? I'd really like to know.
Do you honestly think that the McCanns would put anything on their web page about the case that they will not have cleared with SY first? Not a chance - IMO.
-
Do you honestly think that the McCanns would put anything on their web page about the case that they will not have cleared with SY first? Not a chance - IMO.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
I agree!
It is naive or wishful thinking (sic) to believe so! Fact remains, the website is not promoting Smithman in any way shape or form in as much detail and visibility as Tannerman, Spottyman and Beckham woman, none of whom SY pinpointed as very important.The only reference to him in any detail is by watching the linked CW video (if you can get it to play). He has just been lumped in together with a bunch of other efits with no details either when Redwood singled this sightng out in particular.Its not hard to make a new page or add him to the suspects page! Which supports the idea these efits are still being suppressed.
For 36k what it cost to set up that website up, (thats just the first year) its pretty poor show.
-
I agree!
It is naive or wishful thinking (sic) to believe so! Fact remains, the website is not promoting Smithman in any way shape or form in as much detail and visibility as Tannerman, Spottyman and Beckham woman, none of whom SY pinpointed as very important.The only reference to him in any detail is by watching the linked CW video (if you can get it to play). He has just been lumped in together with a bunch of other efits with no details either when Redwood singled this sightng out in particular.Its not hard to make a new page or add him to the suspects page! Which supports the idea these efits are still being suppressed.
For 36k what it cost to set up that website up, (thats just the first year) its pretty poor show.
Let alone Kate's book and Gerry's blog - no Smithman appeared on either, ever.
Yes, they are very serious about finding their daughter arent they?
?8)@)-)
-
Let alone Kate's book and Gerry's blog - no Smithman appeared on either, ever.
Yes, they are very serious about finding their daughter arent they?
?8)@)-)
The bizarre thing is their spokesman is said to have said it would have been a "distraction" if they publicised the efits. How can efits of a person seen carryng a blonde young girl in pyjamas on the night in the vicinity be a distraction?? Distraction from what?
!!
-
... Kate's book ... no Smithman ...
Actually Smithman does feature in that book (written by IMO an honest witness).
-
Actually Smithman does feature in that book (written by IMO an honest witness).
Kate says in her book that the man Smith family saw was remarkably similar to the man Jane Tanner saw ... she intimates that they were one and the same
Which begs the question
If Kate thought the Smiths saw the same man as Jane did ... who Kate believed to be the abductor ... why did she keep the efit of his face from the public for five years ?
She and Gerry relentlessly publicised the faceless image of Tannerman ... when they had an efit of what they believed to be his face all along
-
Let alone Kate's book and Gerry's blog - no Smithman appeared on either, ever.Yes, they are very serious about finding their daughter arent they?
?8)@)-)
Completely untrue. There is a full description of the man the Smith family saw on page 371 of Kate's book. The sighting is described as 'crucial'.
-
Completely untrue. There is a full description of the man the Smith family saw on page 371 of Kate's book. The sighting is described as 'crucial'.
Agreed. And to those others who criticise the author for not including the PI efits , why assume she even knew of them?
-
Completely untrue. There is a full description of the man the Smith family saw on page 371 of Kate's book. The sighting is described as 'crucial'.
A 'full description' ?
She had an efit of him for heavens sake ! ... she thought he was the same man Jane saw, didn't she ? ... so she knew what he looked like
And she never said
Why didn't she ?
Why didn't she put that efit in her book ?
-
Agreed. And to those others who criticise the author for not including the PI efits , why assume she even knew of them?
Are you suggesting that, finding that one of the e-fits would give reason to Mr Smith's feeling, the McCanns were spared viewing it by their PR or Mr Kennedy ?
-
Kudos Icabod, well spotted..
Mrs McCann says in some interview (we need Redblossom) that she finds Tannerman looks pretty like Copperman...
-
Maybe something to do with the fact that the PI's were being paid my the McCann's and/or their supporters !
Thats assuming that a commitee (which includes every individual) does the filtering of incoming information?
-
Kate says in her book that the man Smith family saw was remarkably similar to the man Jane Tanner saw ... she intimates that they were one and the same
Which begs the question
If Kate thought the Smiths saw the same man as Jane did ... who Kate believed to be the abductor ... why did she keep the efit of his face from the public for five years ?
She and Gerry relentlessly publicised the faceless image of Tannerman ... when they had an efit of what they believed to be his face all along
Was just about to make the same point - with less eloquence.
-
Posters are again asked to please keep comments appropriate to the topic under discussion. This thread relates to the Find Madeleine website and its links to Tannerman/Innocentman.
-
Mrs McCann says in some interview (we need Redblossom) that she finds Tannerman looks pretty like Copperman...
@ 3.30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV4Ck61Favg&feature=player_embedded
-
@ 3.30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV4Ck61Favg&feature=player_embedded
No wonder GM looks nervous during that conversation. They went a heck of a lot further in January 2008 than they're admitting there.
-
@ 3.30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV4Ck61Favg&feature=player_embedded
Thank you Wonderfulspam ! ROFL ! "He (Cooperman, no body, just a face) is not that different to this man (Tannerman, just a body, no face) !"
About the advantage of having no face when identity is at stake...
-
Thank you Wonderfulspam ! ROFL ! "He (Cooperman, no body, just a face) is not that different to this man (Tannerman, just a body, no face) !"
About the advantage of having no face when identity is at stake...
(http://s3.postimg.org/cyc894noj/Processos_XV3979.jpg)
>@@(*&)
-
No wonder GM looks nervous during that conversation. They went a heck of a lot further in January 2008 than they're admitting there.
What do you mean, Lyall ?
Mr McCann looks exasperated and nervous, yes, as if he was scared of his wife's eventual words.
-
(http://s3.postimg.org/cyc894noj/Processos_XV3979.jpg)
>@@(*&)
Let's hope Innocentman will never see that picture..
-
What do you mean, Lyall ?
Mr McCann looks exasperated and nervous, yes, as if he was scared of his wife's eventual words.
They told Sandra they never claimed the two men were the same, but in January they claimed JT was 80% sure they were (though I don't think she was ever actually quoted saying that herself).
Dodgy.
No wonder that episode isn't mentioned in their book.
-
The public discrediting of Tannerman is extremely important, even though Team McCann would like us all to look the other way.
It is the FIRST time that a lie inaccuracy has been publicly exposed.
History will mark it as The Turning Point in the case....a taste of things to come when the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.
Add in BHH's use of the word "murder" and it seems as though the worst case scenario may well be the correct one - Madeleine never made it out of 5a alive.
-
The public discrediting of Tannerman is extremely important, even though Team McCann would like us all to look the other way.
It is the FIRST time that a lie inaccuracy has been publicly exposed.
History will mark it as The Turning Point in the case....a taste of things to come when the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.
Add in BHH's use of the word "murder" and it seems as though the worst case scenario may well be the correct one - Madeleine never made it out of 5a alive.
I agree that the dismissal by Scotland Yard of the man Jane Tanner saw as not relevant to Madeleine's disappearance was a huge development
The McCanns' entire abduction theory hinged on it ... right down to the bedroom door being opened too wide signifying Tannerman had been there prior to Jane having seen him
Scotland Yard disproved it
-
I agree that the dismissal by Scotland Yard of the man Jane Tanner saw as not relevant to Madeleine's disappearance was a huge development
The McCanns' entire abduction theory hinged on it ... right down to the bedroom door being opened too wide signifying Tannerman had been there prior to Jane having seen him
Scotland Yard disproved it
I can't wait to see Andy's next trick.
Improved DNA testing, perhaps?
-
I can't wait to see Andy's next trick.
Improved DNA testing, perhaps?
It will be the forensic examination of phone data
I believe if this case is solved it will be because of phone records
-
It will be the forensic examination of phone data
I believe if this case is solved it will be because of phone records
I think you might be right, Icabod
-
The Find Madeleine website is still promoting the notion that it was the man whom Jane Tanner saw who took Madeleine that fateful night even though Redwood and Scotland Yard have all but eliminated him. Is there any logic to this?
(http://www.findmadeleine.com/images/witness_accounts_right.png)
This is the man NSY now believe Jane Tanner saw. The ever elusive Innocentman.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r1YqouCBrxQ/UsHmeVhroyI/AAAAAAAABWY/-DsYjhP_Oqo/s1600/Bundleman.jpg)
Jane Tanners photo-fit of man she saw. This man has since come forward to claim it was he Tanner saw.
www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
-
The Find Madeleine website is still promoting the notion that it was the man whom Jane Tanner saw who took Madeleine that fateful night even though Redwood and Scotland Yard have all but eliminated him. Is there any logic to this?
(http://www.findmadeleine.com/images/witness_accounts_right.png)
This is the man NSY now believe Jane Tanner saw. The ever elusive Innocentman.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r1YqouCBrxQ/UsHmeVhroyI/AAAAAAAABWY/-DsYjhP_Oqo/s1600/Bundleman.jpg)
Jane Tanners photo-fit of man she saw. This man has since come forward to claim it was he Tanner saw.
www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
since there are no explanations as to why he was coming from the wrong direction, I must admit that I am not convinced that the man who came forward, is the man seen by JT.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BptNYj_IEAAiy8k.jpg)
Unfortunately, Redwood and SY don't agree about Tannerman but never mind it'll all come out in the wash.
-
What do you mean they don't agree? Redwood & SY?
-
since there are no explanations as to why he was coming from the wrong direction, I must admit that I am not convinced that the man who came forward, is the man seen by JT.
I am inclined to agree Anna. The times are totally different too.
And Matt thought that at his 9.35 check, the room seemed a little lighter. Maybe the shutters were lifted then and Madeleine hadc alraedy gone ?
I seem to remember that crechman came back just before 10pm. Please correct me if I am remembering wrongly. Janes sighting was about 9.20pm
so, wrong direction and wrong time.
Also Jane describes Tannerman as going along R. Dr Agostinho de Silva in an Easterly direction.
But, I think that Crechman turned into the car park at its entrance on R. Francisco Gentil Martins and about 12 metres further south than that road.
Or maybe he could hve approached hia apartment via the back route in, which was from the "little car park" opposite the tapas reception? I dont know for sure if that was possible. Do you know Pegasus?
Tannerman seems an energetic type of bloke, and Crechman seems a much quieter type of bloke
-
I am inclined to agree Anna. The times are totally different too.
And Matt thought that at his 9.35 check, the room seemed a little lighter. Maybe the shutters were lifted then and Madeleine hadc alraedy gone ?
I seem to remember that crechman came back just before 10pm. Please correct me if I am remembering wrongly. Janes sighting was about 9.20pm
so, wrong direction and wrong time.
Also Jane describes Tannerman as going along R. Dr Agostinho de Silva in an Easterly direction.
But, I think that Crechman turned into the car park at its entrance on R. Francisco Gentil Martins and about 12 metres further south than that road.
Or maybe he could hve approached hia apartment via the back route in, which was from the "little car park" opposite the tapas reception? I dont know for sure if that was possible. Do you know Pegasus?
Tannerman seems an energetic type of bloke, and Crechman seems a much quieter type of bloke
It is however a bit worrying that his description is so similar to Smithman. I think everybody takes cream trousers on holiday and it being a chilly night the likelyhood of a jacket is fair. So thats probably all there is too it. Something is still niggling at the back of my mind though and I dont know what it is.
I'm sure that we have missed an important detail &%+((£
I have a splitting headache, so I should retire soon.
-
It is however a bit worrying that his description is so similar to Smithman. I think everybody takes cream trousers on holiday and it being a chilly night the likelyhood of a jacket is fair. So thats probably all there is too it. Something is still niggling at the back of my mind though and I dont know what it is.
I'm sure that we have missed an important detail &%+((£
I have a splitting headache, so I should retire soon.
Have a good rest Anna. Hope you feel better tomorrow.
sadie x
-
I am inclined to agree Anna. The times are totally different too.
And Matt thought that at his 9.35 check, the room seemed a little lighter. Maybe the shutters were lifted then and Madeleine had already gone ?
I seem to remember that crechman came back just before 10pm. Please correct me if I am remembering wrongly. Janes sighting was about 9.20pm
so, wrong direction and wrong time.
Also Jane describes Tannerman as going along R. Dr Agostinho de Silva in an Easterly direction.
But, I think that Crechman turned into the car park at its entrance on R. Francisco Gentil Martins and about 12 metres further south than that road.
Or maybe he could have approached his apartment via the back route in, which was from the "little car park" opposite the tapas reception? I dont know for sure if that was possible. Do you know Pegasus?
Tannerman seems an energetic type of bloke, and Crechman seems a much quieter type of bloke
Good points Sadie, I am inclined to agree, Tannerman would seem to fit with it all but why is Redwood so keen to rule him out?
-
Good points Sadie, I am inclined to agree, Tannerman would seem to fit with it all but why is Redwood so keen to rule him out?
I don't see it as Redwood being "keen" to rule him out. They'd checked the evening creche records (which seemingly hadn't been done before) and had somehow found someone who may well have corresponded to innocent Tannerman. Whether it was him at that time or not (impossible to verify in the absence of CCTV or photos), the point, IMO, was to try to make people refocus on a slightly later time frame.
I doubt that anyone would have any reason to remember anything unusual within a specific half-hour x years later, but they might stumble on an email, SMS, phone call or any other personal reason to recall someone's presence or absence that could lead somewhere, even if it's to eliminate that person.