If the man Jane Tanner saw has been identified

[icabodcrane]

...  as an innocent holiday-maker carrying his two year old home from the night creche,  as claimed on Crimewatch by Chief Inspector Andy Redwood last night

...  why is the McCann official website still  (   this morning  )  asking people to come forward if they recognise the sketch they had done of him years ago  ?

It's not as if they havn't had time to up-date ...  the Crimewatch photo-fits are on there as well now,  as is the new reconstruction video 

[sadie]

...  as an innocent holiday-maker carrying his two year old home from the night creche,  as claimed on Crimewatch by Chief Inspector Andy Redwood last night

...  why is the McCann official website still  (   this morning  )  asking people to come forward if they recognise the sketch they had done of him years ago  ?

It's not as if they havn't had time to up-date ...  the Crimewatch photo-fits are on there as well now,  as is the new reconstruction video

As mentioned in my apology, the man may well have walked along where JT was if he took the much longer main road route rather than the maze of alleyways that some of us originally thought of.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2652.0


However that doesn't necessarily exclude Jane Tanners sighting.  Let us remember that

1)  her description of the man and the child was remarkably like the Smiths description.

2)  Also the way that her bundleman carried if correctly portrayed would be near impossible to maintain over a long walk.

Another thing that bothers me, is that according to Anne, IIRC, he was going to apartment 6B.

I think block 6 is the one immediately opposite block 5A garden gate, (where the watcher might have been on a balcony) . 

3)  If that is the case, SY guy wasn't the man Jane saw.  Cos to get into block 6, bundleman/ SY man had to turn south towards Jane and walk a short distance down the road Jane was walking up.
If you refer to GE, you will see that  the entrance to block 6 is in R Francisco Gentil Martins NOT in R. Agostinho de Silva, where bundleman was going. 

Janes sighting man did NOT turn down towards her.  He walked straight on along R Agostinho de Silva..



So three anomolies.  Seems Jane could be right about seeing Madeleine abducted.

Likewise SY probably are right about their man walking in a spot that Jane could have seen him had they been there at the same time ... but maybe they weren't there at the same time ?



Much to early to totally scrap Janes sighting imo.

[jassi]

Are you saying that you think SY are wrong and the man they claim has come forward isn't Bundleman ?

[Wonderfulspam]

As mentioned in my apology, the man may well have walked along where JT was if he took the much longer main road route rather than the maze of alleyways that some of us originally thought of.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2652.0


However that doesn't necessarily exclude Jane Tanners sighting.  Let us remember that

1)  her description of the man and the child was remarkably like the Smiths description.

2)  Also the way that her bundleman carried if correctly portrayed would be near impossible to maintain over a long walk.

Another thing that bothers me, is that according to Anne, IIRC, he was going to apartment 6B.

I think block 6 is the one immediately opposite block 5A garden gate, (where the watcher might have been on a balcony) . 

3)  If that is the case, SY guy wasn't the man Jane saw.  Cos to get into block 6, bundleman/ SY man had to turn south towards Jane and walk a short distance down the road Jane was walking up.
If you refer to GE, you will see that  the entrance to block 6 is in R Francisco Gentil Martins NOT in R. Agostinho de Silva, where bundleman was going. 

Janes sighting man did NOT turn down towards her.  He walked straight on along R Agostinho de Silva..



So three anomolies.  Seems Jane could be right about seeing Madeleine abducted.

Likewise SY probably are right about their man walking in a spot that Jane could have seen him had they been there at the same time ... but maybe they weren't there at the same time ?



Much to early to totally scrap Janes sighting imo.

But SY have, they said it has been debunked.
If your willing to believe Redwood when he says "the McCanns & their friends are not suspects" should it not follow that you believe when he says bundle man is debunked?

[AnneGuedes]

Another thing that bothers me, is that according to Anne, IIRC, he was going to apartment 6B.

I never said so, just that Tannerman was walking in the direction of Murat's villa.
I asked if MW had guests in a building having an entrance in Agostinho da Silva (the Carpenters' one had not).
I also pointed out that we don't know if SYman crossed Gentil Martins as Tannerman and if so if it was at the same point. Claiming "close to the McCann flat" doesn't mean much.
I find it hard to believe SYman, having a little daughter in the creche, kept silent between the 4th and the 10th of May where he could have seen on TV Madeleine's pink and white pjs and deduced he wasn't Tannerman.
I find it also weird that SYman didn't see the group formed by Ms Tanner, Mr McCann, Mr W. and Mr W's pushchair.

[sadie]

I never said so, just that Tannerman was walking in the direction of Murat's villa.
I asked if MW had guests in a building having an entrance in Agostinho da Silva (the Carpenters' one had not).
I also pointed out that we don't know if SYman crossed Gentil Martins as Tannerman and if so if it was at the same point. Claiming "close to the McCann flat" doesn't mean much.
I find it hard to believe SYman, having a little daughter in the creche, kept silent between the 4th and the 10th of May where he could have seen on TV Madeleine's pink and white pjs and deduced he wasn't Tannerman.
I find it also weird that SYman didn't see the group formed by Ms Tanner, Mr McCann, Mr W. and Mr W's pushchair.

I am sorry Anne

I really thought that you had said 6B.  Maybe it was someone else that said it?  Cos I have got it from somewhere.
We dont know what time SYman walked his walk, do we?