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

[Sherlock Holmes]

What I found odd about the man who supposedly came forward is;  are we really supposed to believe that he managed to  remember the detail of his now 8/9 year old daughter's pyjamas and then miraculously pulled them out of an old drawer 6.5 years later for the PJ to photograph?  Also, if this father has such detailed memory of his and his daughter’s clothing on that particular night – then surely he should 100% have recognised himself and his daughter from the media at the time, so why didn’t he come forward?  That aside, surely every male tourist would have packed at least one pair of cream/beige trousers and a darker jumper/jacket for such a holiday- it not as though his outfit was astonishing in how closely it matched - they are pretty standard items…... I felt it was more like `'hey it could have been me and I am sure I could have worn a similar outfit one of the evenings`'.  Additionally, although the man's face was obscured his hair just looked plain peculiar - like he was either in a wig or had a load of gel in it.  Everything just felt contrived and too easy - I just dont buy it.

Maybe the fact that he remembered these details, and managed to produce the pyjamas intact, points to him having been interviewed years ago..?

[Albertini]

The pros really must learn to listen.  Redwood didn't say that Tannerman or bundleman was eliminated from the investigation.  He didn't have to fill in all the gaps for us to be able to read between the lines. 

The British tourist only thought it might have been him, he was in no way certain.  If Redwood was 100% sure of this if would have come across in the show.  All we are left with now is even more questions and uncertainties.

I personally feel that SY are walking a very fine line by promoting a theory on the basis of a maybe or a possibly.

Well initially i couldn't understand the vagueness in Redwood's "might have been him" coupled with the certainty with which he had eliminated him from the inquiry despite the fact that his route should have taken him the other way from where Jane said she saw bundleman.

Also added to that the nagging doubts about Tanner's sighting, what with Gerry & Jez not seeing her nor this man and the incorrect positioning on the street etc.

Having thought about it the only conclusion i can draw which makes sense of all these variables is that Tanner did in fact see this man at some point during the night but not at her 9:10 check and not going across the top of the road then in that direction. 

She was going backwards and forwards during the night to the apartment so I'm now reasonably certain she did see this man, but i don't believe at that time, nor walking in that direction.

Perhaps SY have also spoken with Jane and she "mis-remembered" in her previous statements and was given an opportunity to correct her previous statements.

It's the only conclusion i can draw from these disparate and random elements.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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

Jane Tanner's description of the man and child (at least, the pyjamas of the child) seems to be uncannily similar to the picture released by SY of the man they have eliminated, though, doesn't it?

It seems to me that her description of 'bundleman' was very accurate, despite the fact that she saw him fleetingly in the dark, and would not have been cognisant of his significance for the case at the time she noted him.

It would seem strange for her to have remembered him in the detail she did, yet forget or get confused about the direction he was going in.

Also regarding the direction of walking, she states clearly several times that his hair was 'long to the neck'. Given that she was walking up the left hand side of the road as she walked towards the apartments, and 'bundleman' was supposed to have been crossing the road from the left hand corner, she would indeed have had a view of the back of his head as he walked over the road. This is what she reported.

If he had been walking in the other direction, coming towards apartment 5A, it would have been his face that she would have seen more of as he walked across to the left hand pavement, towards her viewpoint.

These two things - the fact that she was reasonably accurate in the rest of her description of him, and the fact that she describes the back of him rather than his face and front - suggest to me that he was indeed walking in the direction she suggests.

[AnneGuedes]

It would seem strange for her to have remembered him in the detail she did

in the detail ?
Isn't it clear that the lack of face wasn't due to an alleged lack of software ?

[Cariad]

Jane Tanner's description of the man and child (at least, the pyjamas of the child) seems to be uncannily similar to the picture released by SY of the man they have eliminated, though, doesn't it?

It seems to me that her description of 'bundleman' was very accurate, despite the fact that she saw him fleetingly in the dark, and would not have been cognisant of his significance for the case at the time she noted him.

It would seem strange for her to have remembered him in the detail she did, yet forget or get confused about the direction he was going in.

Also regarding the direction of walking, she states clearly several times that his hair was 'long to the neck'. Given that she was walking up the left hand side of the road as she walked towards the apartments, and 'bundleman' was supposed to have been crossing the road from the left hand corner, she would indeed have had a view of the back of his head as he walked over the road. This is what she reported.

If he had been walking in the other direction, coming towards apartment 5A, it would have been his face that she would have seen more of as he walked across to the left hand pavement, towards her viewpoint.

These two things - the fact that she was reasonably accurate in the rest of her description of him, and the fact that she describes the back of him rather than his face and front - suggest to me that he was indeed walking in the direction she suggests.

I have to admit that I'm very impressed with Bundleman's memory! I can't remember which Pj's my son's wore on the 3rd of May 2007, or on their birthdays or Christmases if you'd rather a date that should mean something to me.

Since SY were able to provide a picture of them, I guess they're still being made too.


 

[Benice]

I have to admit that I'm very impressed with Bundleman's memory! I can't remember which Pj's my son's wore on the 3rd of May 2007, or on their birthdays or Christmases if you'd rather a date that should mean something to me.

Since SY were able to provide a picture of them, I guess they're still being made too.

Maybe there were photographs or a video of that holiday showing the little girl in her jimjams.  A holiday is a time when lots of piccies are taken. 

[jassi]

Maybe there were photographs or a video of that holiday showing the little girl in her jimjams.  A holiday is a time when lots of piccies are taken.

In most families, certainly.

[Myster]

I think the photos of the girl's original pyjama pants and top were either provided by the father, or taken by SY.
The orange top looks soiled around the sides and torn along the bottom, (or that could be a belt).





What has still not been satisfactorily answered for me is why ex-bundleman was seen going towards rather than away from the creche. Even Matthew Amroliwala was filmed in PdL walking in the same easterly direction and also distinctly stated that the father had collected his 2 yr. old daughter from the creche (in the SE).

[Victoria]

I think the photos of the girl's original pyjama pants and top were either provided by the father, or taken by SY.
The orange top looks soiled around the sides and torn along the bottom, (or that could be a belt).





What has still not been satisfactorily answered for me is why ex-bundleman was seen going towards rather than away from the creche. Even Matthew Amroliwala was filmed in PdL walking in the same easterly direction and also distinctly stated that the father had collected his 2 yr. old daughter from the creche (in the SE).

Maybe he took a wrong turn and needed to turn around, maybe he fancied a longer walk, maybe Jane got the direction wrong. Doesn't really matter. What matters is that the investigation team have eliminated that lead.

[Cariad]

I think the photos of the girl's original pyjama pants and top[/b] were either provided by the father, or taken by SY.
The orange top looks soiled around the sides and torn along the bottom, (or that could be a belt).

snip....

Well that makes sense. It's jolly lucky that Innocentman kept those ripped and soiled PJ's for 6 years!

[Wonderfulspam]

Well that makes sense. It's jolly lucky that Innocentman kept those ripped and soiled PJ's for 6 years!

Yes, how convenient, if SY didn't photograph these manky 6 year old PJ's recently, then one can only assume the father likes to keep a photographic account of his childrens clothes, a very strange hobby indeed.

[Myster]

Maybe he took a wrong turn and needed to turn around, maybe he fancied a longer walk, maybe Jane got the direction wrong. Doesn't really matter. What matters is that the investigation team have eliminated that lead.

I'm not so sure about Jane Tanner getting his direction wrong, she saw Gerry chatting on the right (and didn't have to cha-cha round them as Pat Brown blogged) and saw the father's right side not left at the top of the road.

Longer walk... with a heavy 2yr. old ?

If Redwood had said exactly where the father was going, say for example to an apartment to the east of 5a, instead of giving a wishy-washy answer then it might have satisfied us inquisitive types, but as it was for consumption by the general public who don't follow the case, I guess it doesn't matter.

[Redblossom]

Well that makes sense. It's jolly lucky that Innocentman kept those ripped and soiled PJ's for 6 years!

The jimjams have been photographed on some laminatae floor, with a white blanket next to them....if he kept them all these years, you never know, some families keep clothes to hand down to younger kids, and made a photo of them for SY why is the blanket included? Jane Tanner said he didnt have one....or is it an old photo, aka like ones you take for ebay to sell your stuff on, odd


sherlock, post 137 thanks.....

[Cariad]

The jimjams have been photographed on some laminatae floor, with a white blanket next to them....if he kept them all these years, you never know, some families keep clothes to hand down to younger kids, and made a photo of them for SY why is the blanket included? Jane Tanner said he didnt have one....or is it an old photo, aka like ones you take for ebay to sell your stuff on, odd


sherlock, post 137 thanks.....

for sale! one pair of ruined girls pajamas size 2/3 years! could possibly be passed of as Bundlemans daughter in a poor light!* Ruffles not included*

[Myster]

Must have gone unsold and relisted thousands of times over six years !