SY claim the man Tanner saw had collected his child from the night creche ?

[sadie]

He was there on Friday, on Saturday, he had a little child too, everybody knew a man had been seen carrying a child and he said nothing ?
Ah and how did he explain the child had almost nothing on and was barefoot ? At the creche, Iirc they lend a blanket.

I agree, why didn't he come forward?  Do you definitely know that he didn't return home on the Friday?    Dont know about the blanket tho, Anne.  Never heard that the creche dished out blankets.

[sadie]

I don't know about burglars - I mean if a 3/4 year old wakes up you would generally leg it because the chances are that they would bellow their head off if you took off.... Anyhow, a good example of what I meant about avoiding anyone with "hair" is that we were almost lead to believe that the guy caught skulking around under the stairs of the apartment with big glasses had closely shaven hair when the witness clearly stated "“He was quite tall and looked sort-of Scandinavian. He had lots of hair, close to his head — like it was glued. It was straight hair. He was about my age now — 45, 46."....  What I really want to know is why SY were so keen to avoid any suspects with anything other than very short/shaven hair.

Dunno whether this is likely or not, but wigs maybe could have been used?

[kmc]

Dunno whether this is likely or not, but wigs maybe could have been used?

Well in my opinion wig or no wig - the e-fit should have included exactly how the man presented.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I've yet to read a credible reason to explain why this man has taken so long to come forward.

That's an assumption, isn't it, sika?

Who says he took six years to come forward? We don't have access to every piece of documentation there is on this case, or knowledge of every interaction the PJ and other investigators may or may not have had with witnesses and suspects.

It is possible this man did come forward earlier on in the investigation, and for whatever reason, perhaps oversight, perhaps suppression - and there have been hefty doses of both of in this case  - the disclosure that he came forward is only now being made.

[Sherlock Holmes]

He may not have come forward.  It seems more likely to me that SY traced all the parents who left their children at the creche that night and contacted them.

Makes sense

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don't want to agree with this cause I don't want to believe that the world works like that.

I can't come up with another sensible explanation though. Either I have to believe that the facts are being twisted by sy and the Beeb, or some guy wandered around with his child across his arms in a really uncomfortable position in the wrong direction at just the right time, then waited for 6 years before mentioning it.

That's an assumption, though.

Just because SY did not divulge any of their reasons for ruling out this suspect from their investigation on Crimewatch, doesn't mean those reasons aren't good enough.

Information is lacking to us ( information as to what this man was doing and why, and therefore why it is that SY ruled him out as a suspect). But that does not mean information is lacking to SY.

Nowhere in the programme did SY or anyone else go into investigative details in any depth. It wasn't the purpose of the programme. We cannot draw anything from the fact that those details were not divulged about the quality of the investigation behind the scenes.

[drummer]

Reply    “But, you know, it’s just the frustration of not being believed on this, it’s”.
4078    “Yeah (inaudible)”.
Reply    “No, but the best thing that could happen to me, apart from Madeleine being found, is somebody coming up and saying ‘That was me’, you know, ‘That was me walking across there’, because, you know, you know, I don’t want that to be Madeleine, but, you know, there’s no, but I’m convinced that was and, you know, people have got to, so I don’t know what I can do to make them believe that.  I’m sorry”.
4078    “Don’t worry.  Take a moment”.
Reply    “But, you know, I think it’s, I do, I’m not the sort of person that would make this up, I don’t want any limelight, you know, you’ve only got to look, ask people that know me, I’m not”.
4078    “You wish you hadn’t seen it?”
Reply    “I just, yeah, I do, I wish I hadn’t.  As I say, I wish I’d made Russell go at that point.  I really wish I hadn’t seen this.  But, you know, they have to, and, as I say, apart from Madeleine being found, the best thing that could happen to me is somebody coming and saying ‘No, you’re wrong Jane that wasn’t them, that was me carrying my child’, that is what, you know, I dream of happening, after Madeleine being found, you know”.



JT has been accused of lying for six years, she has been treated disgustingly. Reading the part of her rogatory interview above she must've felt so angry/frustrated at not being believed. Did Amaral not check who used the crèche facilities that night? Does anyone know if it is mentioned in the files.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Reply    “But, you know, it’s just the frustration of not being believed on this, it’s”.
4078    “Yeah (inaudible)”.
Reply    “No, but the best thing that could happen to me, apart from Madeleine being found, is somebody coming up and saying ‘That was me’, you know, ‘That was me walking across there’, because, you know, you know, I don’t want that to be Madeleine, but, you know, there’s no, but I’m convinced that was and, you know, people have got to, so I don’t know what I can do to make them believe that.  I’m sorry”.
4078    “Don’t worry.  Take a moment”.
Reply    “But, you know, I think it’s, I do, I’m not the sort of person that would make this up, I don’t want any limelight, you know, you’ve only got to look, ask people that know me, I’m not”.
4078    “You wish you hadn’t seen it?”
Reply    “I just, yeah, I do, I wish I hadn’t.  As I say, I wish I’d made Russell go at that point.  I really wish I hadn’t seen this.  But, you know, they have to, and, as I say, apart from Madeleine being found, the best thing that could happen to me is somebody coming and saying ‘No, you’re wrong Jane that wasn’t them, that was me carrying my child’, that is what, you know, I dream of happening, after Madeleine being found, you know”.



JT has been accused of lying for six years, she has been treated disgustingly. Reading the part of her rogatory interview above she must've felt so angry/frustrated at not being believed. Did Amaral not check who used the crèche facilities that night? Does anyone know if it is mentioned in the files.

I also find it fascinating drummer that the descriptions given by Jane Tanner of both the man she saw and the child (more specifically, the pyjamas on the child) he was carrying were, in the words of DCI Redwood 'uncannily similar' to the person interviewed and photographed by SY, and the pyjamas that were also pictured in the programme.

Jane Tanner gave these descriptions from a distance, in the dark, on vacation in an unfamiliar place, of someone who had no significance for her when she glimpsed him - as we have discussed here at length - and despite all of these factors, her description was very good.

Not only does it appear that she saw someone; her account of that person was astonishingly accurate.

Ironically, that accuracy has enabled a potential suspect  - the prime suspect until now - to rule himself out of the investigation.

 

[Chinagirl]

I have long had a pretty low opinion of Amaral's detecting skills, but now my contempt for him has reached a new height.  When faced with a "who dunnit" crime, basic police procedure is to first eliminate those who couldn't have done it before starting to focus on who may have been involved.

Had he followed this procedure Jane Tanner's bundleman should have been eliminated within the first 24 to 48 hours, but instead it has taken another, proper police force to contact everyone who had children in the crèche that night, and thus able to discount the person Jane saw and whom she, the McCanns and others have thought for six years was the abductor.

This is a glaring, shameful error on the part of Amaral, his team and his superiors.  Little wonder, now, why he wanted the libel trial heard in camera.

[drummer]

Yes SH Jane was very accurate in her description. Something else I have been pondering, obviously Ocean Club is not the only accomodation in PDL for tourists, hotels, villas, private rentals etc. How do we know that the person who is now known to be JT's sighting was returning from the crèche at MW. Are there any other crèche's in the area? I have no  knowledge of the area so it's just a thought. Did Crimewatch state it was the MW crèche?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes SH Jane was very accurate in her description. Something else I have been pondering, obviously Ocean Club is not the only accomodation in PDL for tourists, hotels, villas, private rentals etc. How do we know that the person who is now known to be JT's sighting was returning from the crèche at MW. Are there any other crèche's in the area? I have no  knowledge of the area so it's just a thought. Did Crimewatch state it was the MW crèche?

I think they stated that it was the Ocean Club creche, near the main entrance to the club.

[drummer]

Thanks SH I wasn't sure.

[Victoria]

Reply    “But, you know, it’s just the frustration of not being believed on this, it’s”.
4078    “Yeah (inaudible)”.
Reply    “No, but the best thing that could happen to me, apart from Madeleine being found, is somebody coming up and saying ‘That was me’, you know, ‘That was me walking across there’, because, you know, you know, I don’t want that to be Madeleine, but, you know, there’s no, but I’m convinced that was and, you know, people have got to, so I don’t know what I can do to make them believe that.  I’m sorry”.
4078    “Don’t worry.  Take a moment”.
Reply    “But, you know, I think it’s, I do, I’m not the sort of person that would make this up, I don’t want any limelight, you know, you’ve only got to look, ask people that know me, I’m not”.
4078    “You wish you hadn’t seen it?”
Reply    “I just, yeah, I do, I wish I hadn’t.  As I say, I wish I’d made Russell go at that point.  I really wish I hadn’t seen this.  But, you know, they have to, and, as I say, apart from Madeleine being found, the best thing that could happen to me is somebody coming and saying ‘No, you’re wrong Jane that wasn’t them, that was me carrying my child’, that is what, you know, I dream of happening, after Madeleine being found, you know”.



JT has been accused of lying for six years, she has been treated disgustingly. Reading the part of her rogatory interview above she must've felt so angry/frustrated at not being believed. Did Amaral not check who used the crèche facilities that night? Does anyone know if it is mentioned in the files.

That is heartbreaking to read. She has been accused of lying for six years, and even worse than that has been riddled with the guilt of believing she was in a position to stop the abductor. And a basic bit of police work could have ended that back in 2007.

[Chinagirl]

That is heartbreaking to read. She has been accused of lying for six years, and even worse than that has been riddled with the guilt of believing she was in a position to stop the abductor. And a basic bit of police work could have ended that back in 2007.

Quite.  My underlining.

[Mr Gray]

I have long had a pretty low opinion of Amaral's detecting skills, but now my contempt for him has reached a new height.  When faced with a "who dunnit" crime, basic police procedure is to first eliminate those who couldn't have done it before starting to focus on who may have been involved.

Had he followed this procedure Jane Tanner's bundleman should have been eliminated within the first 24 to 48 hours, but instead it has taken another, proper police force to contact everyone who had children in the crèche that night, and thus able to discount the person Jane saw and whom she, the McCanns and others have thought for six years was the abductor.

This is a glaring, shameful error on the part of Amaral, his team and his superiors.  Little wonder, now, why he wanted the libel trial heard in camera.