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

[Victoria]

Fabricated evidence, no.
Misled a group of liars via a television programme, possibly.

I don't think you understand. During any trial, the defence would be looking to prove that other lines of enquiry were not properly followed through. The Jane Tanner sighting is another line of enquiry. If the Met could not back up their reasons for eliminating this line of enquiry the CPS would be in trouble. If the Met fabricated their reasons for eliminating a line of enquiry, the case would probably be thrown out.

[Cariad]

Yes, I believe it. 

"But Scotland Yard detectives reviewed the evidence and realised that around a dozen holidaymakers had been using a free creche at the Mark Warner resort, and would have collected their sleeping children during the evening".

Interesting point. Were they sleeping? Were the children in the crèche usually sent there in their night clothes and then settled down to sleep by the childcare workers?

 Does anyone have experiance of these night time crèches to be able to comment on what is usual practice?

[Angelo222]

If they are so sure that bundleman was an innocent British tourist why not set up a re-enactment for him and Tanner.   After all, she nearly bumped into him in the street so she should be able to identify him.



Edited post as mixed up Tanner and Smiths sightings.  Sos

[Sherlock Holmes]

Do you honestly believe for a minute that every parent who had a child at the crèche that night and the staff weren't questioned about their movements?
 
If you ask me someone was holding back  information on purpose.

One of the detectives in a trailer for the programme did make reference, in general terms, to the fact that some people who withhold information at a certain time then feel free to come forward when their circumstances and loyalties change.

It is possible that this could have been a reference to the witness who identified himself as bundleman.

[Redblossom]

Interesting point. Were they sleeping? Were the children in the crèche usually sent there in their night clothes and then settled down to sleep by the childcare workers?

 Does anyone have experiance of these night time crèches to be able to comment on what is usual practice?

Theres statements from a couple of tourists who say they took their child in their pyjamas to the night creche, and stay until they were settled/ready to sleep, Id imagine it was the procedure

In answer to the OP, if seems bizarre that this man was returning from the creche...looks like he would have done an almost 360 degree way around to his flat

I see the reconstruction showed both Gerry and Jez on the right hand side of the road opposie to both Jez and Janes statements and opposite Gerry Mccanns joint group statement
 >@@(*&)

It also showed bundleman carrying the child with her feet to his left, opposite the known sketch/statement

I wonder if Tanner misremembered the direction...what if he was going from right to left, that would explain the route home from the creche and the feet on the other side....just a couple of random thoughts there

[Chinagirl]

Do you honestly believe for a minute that every parent who had a child at the crèche that night and the staff weren't questioned about their movements?
 
If you ask me someone was holding back  information on purpose.

Yes, I do indeed believe that.  Amaral, by his own admission, fixated on the parents from the very next day so it is not difficult to believe that other lines of inquiry were ignored or undertaken half-heartedly.

[Carana]

willl those   who have said for years this man took maddie apologize??

Apologise for what, exactly, Carly? An unidentified man carrying a child appears to have been eliminated.

How about people apologising to Jane Tanner (a named person) for calling her a fantasist and a liar for the past six years?

[C.Edwards]

The convenient:

• Comes forward 6 and a half years "late" ("eh? what missing girl?")
• Happened to be just in the right place at the right time to be seen by tanner
• Happened to be wearing pyjamas allegedly similar to those Madeleine was wearing

The inconvenient (and will be ignored by the rabid)

• Was walking in the wrong direction. If - a huge IF! - he had got lost and was walking the wrong way then the coincidence on the coincidence that he just happened to be back in the right place to be seen by JT at that exact moment is unbelievable mathematically.
• Er... the pyjamas are nowhere near matching
• He was "walking near 5a" according to SY. That's called "being careful what you say" as if he'd walked exactly past where Tanner "saw someone" SY would have reported that, not "walking near".
• 6 and a half years and this person never mentions a word... really?
• For the last 6 and a half years, the McCann supporters have been adamant that JT saw "the abductor". Now what?

Seriously, if this got to court, this explanation (patsy?) would be laughed out of it.

[C.Edwards]

Yes, I do indeed believe that.  Amaral, by his own admission, fixated on the parents from the very next day so it is not difficult to believe that other lines of inquiry were ignored or undertaken half-heartedly.

so you "believe" and have no evidence but, because it's Amaral, you're quite happy to condemn him even so. Got your number. 

[jassi]

The convenient:

• Comes forward 6 and a half years "late" ("eh? what missing girl?")
• Happened to be just in the right place at the right time to be seen by tanner
• Happened to be wearing pyjamas allegedly similar to those Madeleine was wearing

The inconvenient (and will be ignored by the rabid)

• Was walking in the wrong direction. If - a huge IF! - he had got lost and was walking the wrong way then the coincidence on the coincidence that he just happened to be back in the right place to be seen by JT at that exact moment is unbelievable mathematically.
• Er... the pyjamas are nowhere near matching
• He was "walking near 5a" according to SY. That's called "being careful what you say" as if he'd walked exactly past where Tanner "saw someone" SY would have reported that, not "walking near".
• 6 and a half years and this person never mentions a word... really?
• For the last 6 and a half years, the McCann supporters have been adamant that JT saw "the abductor". Now what?

Seriously, if this got to court, this explanation (patsy?) would be laughed out of it.

Indeed, is not the whole McCann abduction story based on the fact that Jane saw the abductor?

[Carana]

The PJ Files can't be bypassed. If Faceless Bundleman is real and if his statement is sufficient to put the events of that night in a quite different perspective, allowing to understand what happened, how it happened and who made it happen, then SY has to present this evidence to the MP in order to reopen the case.

I don't see how eliminating a possible suspect could reopen the investigation.

[C.Edwards]

I don't see how eliminating a possible suspect could reopen the investigation.

You don't?  Eliminating (allegedly) the person that the McCanns believe abducted their daughter (check the historical records for what they've said about bundleman over the years) means the only tenuous sighting is now that person the Smiths saw, whom Mr. Smith is more certain than not was Gerry McCann. 

I'd be concerned if I was in their shoes right now.

[Angelo222]

The convenient:

• Comes forward 6 and a half years "late" ("eh? what missing girl?")
• Happened to be just in the right place at the right time to be seen by tanner
• Happened to be wearing pyjamas allegedly similar to those Madeleine was wearing

The inconvenient (and will be ignored by the rabid)

• Was walking in the wrong direction. If - a huge IF! - he had got lost and was walking the wrong way then the coincidence on the coincidence that he just happened to be back in the right place to be seen by JT at that exact moment is unbelievable mathematically.
• Er... the pyjamas are nowhere near matching
• He was "walking near 5a" according to SY. That's called "being careful what you say" as if he'd walked exactly past where Tanner "saw someone" SY would have reported that, not "walking near".
• 6 and a half years and this person never mentions a word... really?
• For the last 6 and a half years, the McCann supporters have been adamant that JT saw "the abductor". Now what?

Seriously, if this got to court, this explanation (patsy?) would be laughed out of it.

Good post CE.   The major point for me is that Redwood failed to identify EXACTLY where this unnamed British tourist carrying his 2-year-old walked.  Answer is he cannot because it doesn't match Tanners sighting!!

Redwood is being economical with the facts IMO.

[jassi]

Removing a sighting of abductorman certainly weakens the case for there being an abductor.

Given SY's apparent continuing interest in pursuing the abduction theory, I wonder how they will play this.

[Montclair]

I don't see how eliminating a possible suspect could reopen the investigation.

Especially as the police did not give her sighting much credit but, of course, they still investigated it. It was too contrived and the Tapas tried to use to implicate Robert Murat.