Innocentman came forward in 2007!

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm assuming this man was a  British holiday-maker  ?    ( do we know that much at least  ? )
If he was,  then he would have made his identity  (  and connection to the McCann case  )   known to British  police as a first port of call   ...  wouldn't he  ?

Yes, well according to newspaper reports he was British.

Where exactly they are getting their information from I don't know.

And according to Anne's information (see above) he must have been British.

[icabodcrane]

Yes, well according to newspaper reports he was British.

Where exactly they are getting their information from I don't know.

And according to Anne's information (see above) he must have been British.

Well then,  if he presented himself as the man Jane Tanner may have seen,  he would almost certainly have done so to British police  ...  possibly even to the McCanns themselves,  via their much publicised  private investigation line

[AnneGuedes]

This is all very interesting, Anne.

Can you tell me exactly where in the files this information appears?

So just to confirm, you are saying that it is not a case of the paperwork somehow being overlooked, but rather that LC considered Tannerman's information and concluded that he had nothing to offer police?

The PJ couldn't possibly interview all the guests of the OC on the Saturday morning before they left. They had to leave and go on with their life in the UK. If you look into the first volumes of the Files and check the list of guests (not only MW but Thomas Cook), you'll observe that most of them weren't interviewed in Portugal.
It was part of the police cooperation that the LC, as it is said in the article, sent questionnaires to possible witnesses. It is common practice and the PJ would have done it, had those people be able to stay in PDL.
The LC sent also questionnaires to JW and BOD and to Mr and Mrs Payne in particular. Don't ask me why the Payne questionnaires aren't in the PJ Files, I might have an idea but I don't know.
Now, no, there's no PJ file saying that when the questionnaire wasn't relevant, it wasn't sent to the PJ. I just deduce this because there's no questionnaire of a father using the night creche in the PJ Files.
Sometimes the LC recorded statements and didn't forward them to the PJ. Don't ask me why they took 6 months to send the Gaspar statements, I've no idea.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well then,  if he presented himself as the man Jane Tanner may have seen,  he would almost certainly have done so to British police  ...  possibly even to the McCanns themselves,  via their much publicised  private investigation line

Well surely he can't have done that?

Unless he was being willfully ignored - which is another type of accusation altogether.

[AnneGuedes]

Well then,  if he presented himself as the man Jane Tanner may have seen,  he would almost certainly have done so to British police  ...  possibly even to the McCanns themselves,  via their much publicised  private investigation line

DCI Redwood never said afaik that the man stepped forward. I think that SY analysed the questionnaires and found that this man could be Tannerman.
The article above has already be discussed somewhere on the forum.

[Lyall]

I don't think any other national paper repeated Pettifor's story, so maybe all may not have been quite as he claims >@@(*&)

[icabodcrane]

Well surely he can't have done that?

Unless he was being willfully ignored - which is another type of accusation altogether.

I don't know so much

It's not that far beyond the realms of possibility   ...  afterall,  those e fits of the man the Smith family saw were in the McCanns' possession for years,  and have only now seen the light of day 

[Sherlock Holmes]

DCI Redwood never said afaik that the man stepped forward. I think that SY analysed the questionnaires and found that this man could be Tannerman.
The article above has already be discussed somewhere on the forum.

Yes, Lyall has identified the conversation - will probably be pasted on to this thread.

[AnneGuedes]

I don't think any other national paper repeated Pettifor's story, so maybe all may not have been quite as he claims >@@(*&)

It makes sense that this man, after answering to the LC and seeing that Tannerman was still the anti-heroe of the narrative, thought there were two fathers carrying their child in PDL as first helpers do..

[Sherlock Holmes]

The PJ couldn't possibly interview all the guests of the OC on the Saturday morning before they left. They had to leave and go on with their life in the UK. If you look into the first volumes of the Files and check the list of guests (not only MW but Thomas Cook), you'll observe that most of them weren't interviewed in Portugal.
It was part of the police cooperation that the LC, as it is said in the article, sent questionnaires to possible witnesses. It is common practice and the PJ would have done it, had those people be able to stay in PDL.
The LC sent also questionnaires to JW and BOD and to Mr and Mrs Payne in particular. Don't ask me why the Payne questionnaires aren't in the PJ Files, I might have an idea but I don't know.
Now, no, there's no PJ file saying that when the questionnaire wasn't relevant, it wasn't sent to the PJ. I just deduce this because there's no questionnaire of a father using the night creche in the PJ Files.
Sometimes the LC recorded statements and didn't forward them to the PJ. Don't ask me why they took 6 months to send the Gaspar statements, I've no idea.

Thank you very much for this information, Anne.  Magnificent.

Bed - time calls but I will give the files due consideration and get back to you tomorrow!

Good night all . S

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don't think any other national paper repeated Pettifor's story, so maybe all may not have been quite as he claims >@@(*&)

Maybe Tom Pettifor himself would be willing to explain it....

[John]

An interesting article which raises my suspicions even further that Innocentman is not Tannerman.  I find the following paragraph taken from it particularly revealing on two counts...

The unnamed dad – spotted in the Praia da Luz resort by McCann family friend Jane
Tanner at 9.15pm – was among a number of British witnesses who completed questionnaires for Leicestershire police six years ago.

He is understood to have provided a detailed description of his movements on the night, including the fact he had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished.

First off, can I draw readers attention to the fact that Leicestershire Police (LP) were known as Leicestershire Constabulary (LC) in 2007 and only changed their name in 2012.  You can read more about it here.

It says clearly that guests were asked to complete a questionnaire for LP which would have been in English.  Whether or not these questionnaires were ever studied by LP is unanswered.  One assumes that these questionnaires were sent to Portugal and translated by the PJ but why do they not appear in the files?

My main point however is much more significant.  It says in the quote above that this guy had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished.  But remember, the night crèche is not close to the Ocean Club Garden, the block from where Madeleine disappeared.  The night crèche (see plan) is actually some distance away, 275 yds or 250 metres to be precise and not what I would consider close in an urban environment.  Close for me would be the day crèche which was only 70 metres away.

If as he claims, that he picked his daughter up at around the time of the sighting ie 9.15pm, why on earth was he walking from west to east ie towards the night crèche and not from south to north as he would have been had he in fact been coming from the night crèche?

There are too many anomalies with this report to be taken seriously.  Redwood's failure to clarify these matters is worrying!

[VIXTE]

Maybe the journalists got it wrong.. maybe he was taking his child to the creche.

[Sherlock Holmes]

An interesting article which raises my suspicions even further that Innocentman is not Tannerman.  I find the following paragraph taken from it particularly revealing on two counts...

First off, can I draw readers attention to the fact that Leicestershire Police (LP) were known as Leicestershire Constabulary (LC) in 2007 and only changed their name in 2012.  You can read more about it here.

It says clearly that guests were asked to complete a questionnaire for LP which would have been in English.  Whether or not these questionnaires were ever studied by LP is unanswered.  One assumes that these questionnaires were sent to Portugal and translated by the PJ but why do they not appear in the files?

My main point however is much more significant.  It says in the quote above that this guy had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished.  But remember, the night crèche is not close to the Ocean Club Garden, the block from where Madeleine disappeared.  The night crèche (see plan) is actually some distance away, 275 yds or 250 metres to be precise and not what I would consider close in an urban environment.  Close for me would be the day crèche which was only 70 metres away.

If as he claims, that he picked his daughter up at around the time of the sighting ie 9.15pm, why on earth was he walking from west to east ie towards the night crèche and not from south to north as he would have been had he in fact been coming from the night crèche?

There are too many anomalies with this report to be taken seriously.  Redwood's failure to clarify these matters is worrying!

Perhaps one (not very good) detective could make these mistakes - but 30??

[Cariad]

Perhaps one (not very good) detective could make these mistakes - but 30??

Agreed. I'm not claiming the police are infallible, but I find it hard to believe that they don't have very, very good reasons for dismissing Tannerman.