Another look at Tannerman and those pyjamas.

[sadie]

http://www.allmystery.de/i/t771edd_10f878_Pyjama-Vater-01.jpg
These pyjama bottoms are long and extend below the knees.
The eeyore pyjamas are short and finish above the knees.
JT described pyjamas which extended below the knees.
Therefore she saw innocentcrecheman's daughter.

You may be right pegasus, but did you do the test with your Tshirt that I suggested?

When I did it, it came closer to my ankles than my knees.

[pegasus]

You may be right pegasus, but did you do the test with your Tshirt that I suggested?

When I did it, it came closer to my ankles than my knees.

Coloured sketch which JT helped to produce = narrow pyjama legs.
SY photo of english tourist's 2-yr-old daughter's pyjamas = narrow pyjama legs.
Eeyore pyjamas (see photos in files or in Berlin press conference) = wide pyjama legs.
Therefore JT saw the 2-yr old.

[Brietta]

Coloured sketch which JT helped to produce = narrow pyjama legs.
SY photo of english tourist's 2-yr-old daughter's pyjamas = narrow pyjama legs.
Eeyore pyjamas (see photos in files or in Berlin press conference) = wide pyjama legs.
Therefore JT saw the 2-yr old.

With the best will in the world eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable.  That Jane Tanner was able to recall so much from a fleeting glance in poor light is remarkable. The sketch was carried out after the event when her recall was tainted by information she became aware of in the intervening period, she worried about such in her statement.

I for one would not place too much reliance on the sketch which must only be an impression of what she saw and that was a man carrying a barefoot child possibly wearing pyjamas.

[sadie]

With the best will in the world eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable.  That Jane Tanner was able to recall so much from a fleeting glance in poor light is remarkable. The sketch was carried out after the event when her recall was tainted by information she became aware of in the intervening period, she worried about such in her statement.

I for one would not place too much reliance on the sketch which must only be an impression of what she saw and that was a man carrying a barefoot child possibly wearing pyjamas.

You are very observant Pegasus and your cognitive processes are outstanding, well done youse !

....but as Brietta says, Jane didn't have much of a look and my guess is that as a woman on her own after dark, she would be watching the man rather than the little girl.  And she would just get an impression of the girl.  When I was younger and in rather good shape, I was followed several times .... and it has made me very nervous of men when I am on my own .... even in daylight in some places.  I watch them like a hawk to the exclusion of everything else.

I suspect her main interst / concern would be the man.  The girl would be secondary.



As I said before, you could be right, but we dont know for sure.

[Brietta]

You are very observant Pegasus and your cognitive processes are outstanding, well done youse !

....but as Brietta says, Jane didn't have much of a look and my guess is that as a woman on her own after dark, she would be watching the man rather than the little girl.  And she would just get an impression of the girl.  When I was younger and in rather good shape, I was followed several times .... and it has made me very nervous of men when I am on my own .... even in daylight in some places.  I watch them like a hawk to the exclusion of everything else.

I suspect her main interst / concern would be the man.  The girl would be secondary.



As I said before, you could be right, but we dont know for sure.

I agree with that 100%, Sadie.

As a woman and in the circumstances you describe Jane Tanner would have taken in a lot about the man and would have oberved him as closely as time and circumstance would allow.
The child would register only in relation to the man making him appear to be less of a threat.

[pegasus]

I worked out where I think possibly the innocentdad holiday address was, I might be wrong, but if I'm right then not only is that t junction not on the optimum route home, but also leaving that t junction in an easterly direction is not optimum either.
But I think the most likely scenario is if my 2-yr old was sleeping at evening creche (yes they can sleep there) but woke up when I collected her, I would probably walk around town a bit to get her to sleep. 

[sadie]

I worked out where I think possibly the innocentdad holiday address was, I might be wrong, but if I'm right then not only is that t junction not on the optimum route home, but also leaving that t junction in an easterly direction is not optimum either.
But I think the most likely scenario is if my 2-yr old was sleeping at evening creche (yes they can sleep there) but woke up when I collected her, I would probably walk around town a bit to get her to sleep.

On a cold gusty evening?

[pegasus]

On a cold gusty evening?

The 2-year old child JT saw had a blanket over its upper body, and long-sleeved long-legged pyjamas.
It was not too cold or gusty to be outside with a toddler or baby.
Because you already know another dad went circuitously around town to get an 8-month-old boy to sleep that same night, and another couple carried their 3-year old girl and their baby home from Tapas that same night.

[sadie]

The 2-year old child JT saw had a blanket over its upper body, and long-sleeved long-legged pyjamas.
It was not too cold or gusty to be outside with a toddler or baby.
Because you already know another dad went circuitously around town to get an 8-month-old boy to sleep that same night, and another couple carried their 3-year old girl and their baby home from Tapas that same night.

With all due respect Pegasus, you are jumping the gun.

We do not KNOW that JT saw a 2 year old being carried.  We do NOT KNOW that she saw Crechman ..... in fact the timings are all wrong.   He came thru IIRC much much later than JT saw the man.

And logic tells us that he was going in the wrong direction.


Two things there ...... so, we cant assume that she saw Crechman.  FULL STOP.

[Brietta]

The 2-year old child JT saw had a blanket over its upper body, and long-sleeved long-legged pyjamas.
It was not too cold or gusty to be outside with a toddler or baby.
Because you already know another dad went circuitously around town to get an 8-month-old boy to sleep that same night, and another couple carried their 3-year old girl and their baby home from Tapas that same night.

It has now been accepted that Jane Tanner did actually see a man carrying a barefoot child on the night Madeleine McCann vanished from her bed. 

That is the issue. 

A missing child, Madeleine; a man observed carrying a child yards from where Madeleine vanished.  Crèche man? perhaps.

I pass a man in the street who is carrying television; half an hour later my neighbour returns home and discovers his television is missing; did I see my neighbour’s television being stolen? Or did I see an innocent man who had a legitimate reason to be walking in the street carrying a television?

Ever lifted and carried a child wrapped in a blanket?

The child does not start off in a horizontal position, nor a rigid one, the body bends and clothes move.
If the blanket, even a small one was to be of any use it would have to cover not only the upper body but at least the buttock region; pyjama bottoms are elasticated and if the child’s body is recumbent can slip down leading to a frill which started above the knee to end up some distance below.

Why the bare feet?

If you are bothered enough to cover the child with a blanket ... why no socks for the feet?  Did the children at the Crèche wear no shoes ... were they carried there ... and back?

IMO the illustration of the pyjamas is an irrelevance.

The only relevant thing here is the man carrying a child and if Jane Tanner believed that child was Madeleine the child was bigger than a two year old.

[pegasus]

JT saw pyjama trousers legs which at their lower extremities fit tightly around the child's lower legs.
(source: coloured sketch which JT helped to produce).

The eeyore pyjama trouser legs at their lower extremities fit very loosely around the child's lower legs.
(source: photo of pyjamas in files)

[Brietta]

JT saw pyjama trousers legs which at their lower extremities fit tightly around the child's lower legs.
(source: coloured sketch which JT helped to produce).

The eeyore pyjama trouser legs at their lower extremities fit very loosely around the child's lower legs.
(source: photo of pyjamas in files)

I know Jane collaborated with a highly trained artist to produce the sketch however that was at some remove from the sighting; it was also after she had seen the publicity showing videos an pictures of the the actual pyjamas.

She is on record as suffering agonies because she believed she saw Madeleine being abducted ... yet she did not allow having seen the actual pyjamas to influence her description ... so just as I remain unconvinced about crècheman, I'm unconvinced about the relevance of the pj sketch.

I think the important thing is the fact the child was described as being barefoot.

[Anna]

She didn't believe it was Maddy until others got into her head. She is easily influenced by others.

She described the man's clothing, hair and a barefoot child in pyjamas ......The rest was made up  dressed as was Maddie on the night, in a later artist sketch.
Why?... because this was thought to be the abductor at the time and possibly is the real guy, even now.
               Strange that he is dressed and described very like Smithman. Pity she didn't see his face.

[faithlilly]

With all due respect Pegasus, you are jumping the gun.

We do not KNOW that JT saw a 2 year old being carried.  We do NOT KNOW that she saw Crechman ..... in fact the timings are all wrong.   He came thru IIRC much much later than JT saw the man.

And logic tells us that he was going in the wrong direction.


Two things there ...... so, we cant assume that she saw Crechman.  FULL STOP.

But SY assume she did. Why is that sadie ?

[pathfinder73]

If she thought it was possibly her and was concerned about it she would have said something at the table when she returned. That didn't happen. Older than a baby in her first statement is not Maddy but it connects to crecheman's 2 year old and the way she was being carried. An abductor would go away from the tapas not cross the road that leads to it.