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

[AnneGuedes]

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.

I agree we cannot hypothetico-deduce the quality of the investigation through the CW show.
The number of e-fits and the call for more suspects could be a trick to protect Madeleine as they in fact know who is Mr Right but haven't been able to locate him.
But was it necessary to say Mr Innocent was coming from the creche ? And was it necessary to exhibit a map with flushing flags as if his route was the normal one ? Must people be cheated to react the right way ? Or the less they know the better ?

[Angelo222]

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.

Wasn't it three of the tapas group who pointed the finger at Murat in the first place and since his mums villa was just a short distance along the road where Jane saw bundleman walking...??  2+2=5½

Wasn't it also Kate McCann who insisted that Murat's place be investigated by Krügel too??

[AnneGuedes]

Especially as the police did not take her sighting seriously. It was too contrived and the Tapas tried to use to implicate Robert Murat.

For sure. The PJ were honest, they weren't convinced by the details Ms Tanner was remembering better in the course of time and tried in vain to clarify.
Now SY says pink is blue and orange is lace to spare Ms Tanner to be called a liar. But when they show JT's Bundleman crossing the street they're careful not to pretend it's an actor copying what Mr Innocent did. So who doesn't say the truth ?

[AnneGuedes]

Wasn't it three of the tapas group who pointed the finger at Murat in the first place and since his mums villa was just a short distance along the road where Jane saw bundleman walking...??  2+2=5½

Wasn't it also Kate McCann who insisted that Murat's place be investigated by Krügel too??

Mrs McCann insisted many times that the police shouldn't desist of Murat instead of encouraging the police to re-enact the Smith sighting. Not once they did point to the Smiths who proved to be very ready to help, even though at the time Mr Smith hadn't said the carrier was Gerrylookalike.

[faithlilly]

Quite.  My underlining.

So why didn't any of the McCanns PIs investigate who the man was ?

[DCI]

So why didn't any of the McCanns PIs investigate who the man was ?

They weren't allowed to. As keeps being said, it was a Portuguese investigation.

[jassi]

I seem to recall the pretendy-policeman Mitchell has put out e-fit images  before, so presumably he could have fronted this one as well.

[faithlilly]

They weren't allowed to. As keeps being said, it was a Portuguese investigation.

Absolute nonsense. They contacted many witnesses among them the Smiths and Jez Wilkins. It wouldn't have been hard to find out the names of the parents using the night crèche

[Redblossom]

Absolute nonsense. They contacted many witnesses among them the Smiths and Jez Wilkins. It wouldn't have been hard to find out the names of the parents using the night crèche

Indeed, copying  a post of mine from the other thread

Quote from: DCI on Today at 11:24:34 AM
It wasn't up to the McCann's to publish it. They were still arguido's.

Why didn't the PJ publish it, amaral made more than a meal out of the Smith's, Gerry coming down the plane steps info! According to him the PJ had this description in May 2007 
My reply:
Being arguidos has nothing to do with it, if it were, they wouldnt have put out Tanners sketch in Oct 07

As for not publicising it because it didnt fit in the timeline.......thats plain nonsense..what timeline...they also managed to make a song and a dance about Cooperman and Vicky Beckham  lookalike, someone who was seen a week earlier and someone in a different country in that month, people not there on the night...the smiths were! From everything I am reading it seems either Metodo 3 or Edgar approached the Smiths and then if, as is reported by SY, the efits were done, they were sat on ..its clear the Mccanns never publicised the smith sighting which was an important one, why not??..I wonder when SY got whiff of them, perhaps they sat on them for a while as well, which suggests they are not looking for an alive child, jmo

Anyone know who the fat bald guy is in the efit next to the one with the sunglasses on the crimewatch board? never seen that one before.

[drummer]

But a review of the evidence under the Metropolitan Police's Operation Grange concluded that it was an innocent British holidaymaker carrying his daughter home from a creche.

Scotland Yard detectives discovered around a dozen holidaymakers had been using a free creche at the Mark Warner resort on May 3, 2007, and would have collected their sleeping children - including his two-year-old daughter, who was wearing similar pyjamas - during the evening.

One of those parents was contacted by police and said he may have been the man - and had been wrongly identified as a possible suspect. He agreed to pose for a photograph so his build could be compared to the sketch.

[Angelo222]

The facts.

According to Redwood it was 11 children and 8 parents who used the crèche.  Furthermore it is not proven or by any means certain that it was one of those parents whom Tanner saw, it is simply a possibility so Tanner may well have seen the man carrying Madeleine.

In fact, the man cannot even say where he was on the night and Redwood chose to use the vague expression, near the McCanns apartment.  Surely if Tanner saw this parent then he would have seen her too?  He didn't!!

[AnneGuedes]

It's difficult to imagine how SYman managed to have his child sleeping, half naked, lying on his arms in windy 12°C for about half a mile.

[faithlilly]

The facts.

According to Redwood it was 11 children and 8 parents who used the crèche.  Furthermore it is not proven or by any means certain that it was one of those parents whom Tanner saw, it is simply a possibility so Tanner may well have seen the man carrying Madeleine.

In fact, the man cannot even say where he was on the night and Redwood chose to use the vague expression, near the McCanns apartment.  Surely if Tanner saw this parent then he would have seen her too?  He didn't!!

Good point Angelo.

[Luz]

They weren't allowed to. As keeps being said, it was a Portuguese investigation.

Apparently they did, but kept that information from the PJ. Check 22:36    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/channel-4-news/4od

[Benice]

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.

He didn't because it wasn't necessary for the purpose of the programme.

Just as it wasn't necessary for the 2yr olds pajamas shown in Crimewatch to be a replica of what she wore 6 yrs ago  because no-one is being asked to look for that little girl or the pajamas she wore that night.    They are superfluous to the purpose of the programme.

Many [ censored word] seem to have missed the whole point of what this programme was about.