Why is there still such a mystery over Innocentman?

[Alice Purjorick]

So, you think the case has been reset to zero and started from the beginning again do you?

Oh no Brer Fox not that!

I thought The Met had pretty well discounted the person seen by Jane Tanner. You know the usual type of comment "we are nearly certain that we are certain that the person was possibly...." which translated means in effect unless there is a plague of frogs tomorrow we will not be looking any further for this person.
But The Met want to know about two other guys in the e fits who are not the guy carrying a child wearing pyjamas with frilly bits round the ankles/ calves neither is he the spotty geezer with the Charlie Gracie haircut nor the young woman with the Julie Driscoll haircut who feature elsewhere.
Is that about the size of it ?  &%+((£

[Lyall]

He gave us the reason why he said what he said.  Why are you simply unable to take what he said at face value?  Is it because you should never trust a copper? Is it part of the training one receives as a "sceptic", or what?

I think the point of the Crimewatch wasn't so much what was said, it was the publicity it generated. Publicity might generate leads (and/or encourage people to talk), and there's obviously a much greater chance of that the greater the publicity.

He had the efits nobody had seen before. He might simply have wanted to make them the centre of the programme. Just in case it worked.

And it did work, in the sense they did get huge publicity.

[Lyall]

Lyall, you don't think Redwood is a liar, but was simply "being political".  Would it be being "political" to tell us that a man had been identified who fitted with JT's sighting of the 3rd May when the reality of the situation is that no such man had been identified, and the pictures of this man in the papers were all faked for our consumption?

No, I don't know anyone who thinks the whole thing could have been made up.

[Alfred R Jones]

I think the point of the Crimewatch wasn't so much what was said, it was the publicity it generated. Publicity might generate leads (and/or encourage people to talk), and there's obviously a much greater chance of that the greater the publicity.

He had the efits nobody had seen before. He might simply have wanted to make them the centre of the programme. Just in case it worked.

And it did work, in the sense they did get huge publicity.

All well and good but we are supposed to be discussing "why there is still such a mystery over Innocentman" (who I assumed was the man JT saw, but this thread is so all over the place I'm not even sure myself now WHAT we're supposed to be talking about!  )

There was no need for Redwood to dismiss JT's sighting in order to highlight the new e-fits, none whatsoever.  He clearly did so for a reason - now, some people believe that reason was to exert pressure on the McCanns in order to make them crack, and then there's other people who are not given to such idiotic flights of fancy.  Which type of person are you Lyall..? &%+((£

ETA: this was written before I saw your reply above, thanks for that.

[Alfred R Jones]

No, I don't know anyone who thinks the whole thing could have been made up.

Hmm..I think you do, maybe you just don't realise you do....

[Lyall]

All well and good but we are supposed to be discussing "why there is still such a mystery over Innocentman" (who I assumed was the man JT saw, but this thread is so all over the place I'm not even sure myself now WHAT we're supposed to be talking about!  )

There was no need for Redwood to dismiss JT's sighting in order to highlight the new e-fits, none whatsoever.  He clearly did so for a reason - now, some people believe that reason was to exert pressure on the McCanns in order to make them crack, and then there's other people who are not given to such idiotic flights of fancy.  Which type of person are you Lyall..? &%+((£

ETA: this was written before I saw your reply above, thanks for that.

I think they, because of course it wasn't just Redwood involved in it, wanted to make that Crimewatch as dramatic as possible. And they certainly managed that. It didn't matter so much what was said because it's only TV - nothing said was official.

No, I didn't think there was ever a chance Op Grange would go down that path (though of course I'm sure they wouldn't ignore any evidence they may have been given pointing in that direction).

[Alfred R Jones]

I think they, because of course it wasn't just Redwood involved in it, wanted to make that Crimewatch as dramatic as possible. And they certainly managed that. It didn't matter so much what was said because it's only TV - nothing said was official.

No, I didn't think there was ever a chance Op Grange would go down that path (though of course I'm sure they wouldn't ignore any evidence they may have been given pointing in that direction).

I'm not sure what you mean by "it's only TV and nothing said was official" - I think when you have the head of Operation Grange appearing on BBC Crimewatch he is speaking in an official capacity.  If not, then when has he ever said anything "official" in your view?

[Lyall]

I'm not sure what you mean by "it's only TV and nothing said was official" - I think when you have the head of Operation Grange appearing on BBC Crimewatch he is speaking in an official capacity.  If not, then when has he ever said anything "official" in your view?

He hasn't, unless it's also been on their website.

[Alfred R Jones]

He hasn't, unless it's also been on their website.

So if what he says in recorded interviews on (for example) the British Broadcasting Corporation is not official, how would you describe it?  Off the record?  Unofficial?  JUst shooting the breeze?  What?

[Lyall]

So if what he says in recorded interviews on (for example) the British Broadcasting Corporation is not official, how would you describe it?  Off the record?  Unofficial?  JUst shooting the breeze?  What?

It's just media work. But the media work around the appeals is obviously of more importance than chatting with Richard Bilton for Panorama. The appeals TV interviews are backed by the Met's website.

[Alfred R Jones]

It's just media work. But the media work around the appeals is obviously of more importance than chatting with Richard Bilton for Panorama. The appeals TV interviews are backed by the Met's website.

Official media work.  You may choose to think otherwise and that is your choice, however it's very odd in my view that you should choose to see it as somehow devalued because it has been coneyed via the media.