Innocentman came forward in 2007!

[AnneGuedes]

Thanks Anne for the information. They should have done one starting from the tapas to find her last known outdoor route back to 5A.

They could have done that, but the significant part is that none of them went up to the GA carpark, neither through the inclined plane nor through the steps. They likely didn't want to follow the scent that was there.

[AnneGuedes]

Good evening, icabod. We were discussing this in the early pages of this thread...Anne alludes to their being questionnaires given out by LC to English tourists at the resort but that Bundleman's answers were not forwarded on to Portugal along with some of the other completed questionnaires as LC judged according to his answers that he was not a suspect. (If I understand correctly).

Unless exhibiting interest for the investigation they weren't sent to the PJ (proof is they aren't in the files, as well as the statements of Neil B etc. who were questioned by the LC (I posted evidence of that in the LOR).
In fact those statements/questionnaires belong to the LC, not to the PJ.
We have no idea what is in the LC Files, and we'll likely never know.

[pathfinder73]

They could have done that, but the significant part is that none of them went up to the GA carpark, neither through the inclined plane nor through the steps. They likely didn't want to follow the scent that was there.

Thanks. I will send you a PM about this for possible images before I call it a night. Night all!

[pegasus]

Yes it' strange but there's no way I can believe that SY have made the biggest blunder ever! They must have covered all this extensively about the route he took, the reasons why etc. I don't think Jane saw Smithman if she's telling the truth but I still can't believe Gerry or Jez didn't see her flip-flopping past them.

IMO JT is telling the truth and has been wrongly maligned.

The options why innocentman might walk across the stated T junction eastwards (even though it is certainly not on route home from creche) IMO are:
(A) didn't know roads and got lost
(B) child initially awake so took circuitous route to get child to sleep
(C) walked back from creche chatting with another parent and child and walked with them to entrance of block 4 then headed home (pure speculation).
(D) collected child not from creche but maybe from nanny looking after child at work-provided accomodation (pure speculation).

[Sherlock Holmes]

IMO JT is telling the truth and has been wrongly maligned.

The options why innocentman might walk across the stated T junction eastwards (even though it is certainly not on route home from creche) IMO are:
(A) didn't know roads and got lost
(B) child initially awake so took circuitous route to get child to sleep
(C) walked back from creche chatting with another parent and child and walked with them to entrance of block 4 then headed home (pure speculation).
(D) collected child not from creche but maybe from nanny looking after child at work-provided accomodation (pure speculation).

It must be something like that, Pegasus. It is impossible to imagine that SY overlooked something so obvious as bundleman having been walking in the 'wrong' direction. If we armchair detectives have noted this anomaly, 30 real detectives must have picked up on it.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Unless exhibiting interest for the investigation they weren't sent to the PJ (proof is they aren't in the files, as well as the statements of Neil B etc. who were questioned by the LC (I posted evidence of that in the LOR).
In fact those statements/questionnaires belong to the LC, not to the PJ.
We have no idea what is in the LC Files, and we'll likely never know.

In other words, Leicestershire Police (as they are now called) are responsible for this mistake? Is that what we are saying?

And if LP have bundleman's answers in files from 2007, how come it took Scotland Yard so many months into their inquiry to access and analyse them?

And if what bundleman has been doing all this time, wondering why his sketch was plastered across world media when he had already eliminated himself, is a question needing to be answered, it is also a question what Leicestershire Police, the ones who judged him to be innocent, made of the situation.

Isn't this all very odd?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Unless exhibiting interest for the investigation they weren't sent to the PJ (proof is they aren't in the files, as well as the statements of Neil B etc. who were questioned by the LC (I posted evidence of that in the LOR).
In fact those statements/questionnaires belong to the LC, not to the PJ.
We have no idea what is in the LC Files, and we'll likely never know.

The files are certainly closed for the forseeable future:

http://www.leics.police.uk/media/uploads/library/file/op-task-publication-strategy.pdf

[AnneGuedes]

It must be something like that, Pegasus. It is impossible to imagine that SY overlooked something so obvious as bundleman having been walking in the 'wrong' direction. If we armchair detectives have noted this anomaly, 30 real detectives must have picked up on it.

The first street that a new person knows is Francisco Gentil Martins, it leads to the supermarket (the only one) and to the beaches.
Innocentman had been there for 5 days.. Mr Oldfield, who didn't know the short cut because his child was in the tapas creche, didn't get lost when he went and came back from the main reception.
It is obvious that DCI Redwood, as Lyall says, managed Ms Tanner's reputation. Whoever she saw wasn't Smithman, her sighting has therefore no value for the case, which resolves marvellously the delicate issue of her flip flops and transparency.

[AnneGuedes]

In other words, Leicestershire Police (as they are now called) are responsible for this mistake? Is that what we are saying?

And if LP have bundleman's answers in files from 2007, how come it took Scotland Yard so many months into their inquiry to access and analyse them?

And if what bundleman has been doing all this time, wondering why his sketch was plastered across world media when he had already eliminated himself, is a question needing to be answered, it is also a question what Leicestershire Police, the ones who judged him to be innocent, made of the situation.

Isn't this all very odd?

Imo the ex LC made no mistake. They were mainly trying to know if guests had seen something weird on that night and if guests had been carrying children near the G5. Had lnnocentman matched perfectly Tannerman or be strange, they would have noted.
DCI Redwood took the problem the other way round : instead of trying to find somebody matching Tannerman, he looked for somebody  who had the following characteristics : carrying a child in pyjamas, at night, in PDL, clear pants and dark jacket, dark hair.

[John]

I worked out apartment number of innocentman, not definite but good chance it correct.

Can I ask how you were able to do this pegasus since SY have never released any background information in relation to this guy?

[John]

So now we've got Three fathers walking with shoeless children that night...

Was there a shoe crisis in PdL that week?

And where were the mothers?

That's an interesting point.   I wonder if parents were in the habit of carrying their offspring back from the night crèche without footwear?

DCI Redwood was pretty specific in that Innocentman had come from the night crèche.  He wasn't lost, dilly dallying or coming from some other apartment.  Given that Jane's Tannerman was seen walking in the opposite direction to that of Innocentman.

It would be interesting to know the route that this guy Innocentman took because I for one don't believe him.  There is far too much secrecy about this individual and his movements for my liking.  I think we might have been sold a pup?

[AnneGuedes]

It would be interesting to know the route that this guy Innocentman took because I for one don't believe him. 

You don't believe DCI Redwood ?
Do you know what Innocentman wrote on the questionnaire ?
Why, if for instance he said he walked up FMGentil and saw a lady on the other side of the street who was walking down, wouldn't you believe him ?

[John]

You don't believe DCI Redwood ?
Do you know what Innocentman wrote on the questionnaire ?
Why, if for instance he said he walked up FMGentil and saw a lady on the other side of the street who was walking down, wouldn't you believe him ?

We don't know what Innocentman wrote, that's the problem.  Could it be that his identity is being withheld just in case someone else works these discrepancies out for themself?

[colombosstogey]

Is it set in stone that IM was coming BACK from the creche? Seems early at 9.15. What if he was GOING to the creche. They are open until 11pm at night. Still gives 2 hours to go out and eat etc.

Also I still dont get how JT saw much of anything that night. She was walking along minding her own business a few drinks in her system I expect, sort of looks up, sees someone vaguely in front of her and it registers in her head.

LATER that memory is jogged back and it alongside the first memory is added other impressions, child missing, wearing pink pyjamas....etc.

The JT sighting then turns into bundle man carrying away the child who is wearing pink PJs...

No no no I think its impossible to be that accurate.

In PDL at that time it got dark around 6.30 like here in the UK. By 9.15 you would just have dark and the odd glow off street lamps (which change everything).

WHY if you were not expecting to see anything exciting at 9.15 would you be vigilant to a sighting of such importance?

I would think in your brain, you would be thinking mundane things on such a night...just strolling along thinking what a phaff it was to leave your friends and check on your kids tra la la, blah blah....

BUT NO.....the one night the 3rd May the most remembered night in the land (even as famous now as Christmas 25th December), you see the ONE PERSON carrying away a child ...... because you were being so vigilant....

NAH I dont buy it. Never have, never will.

I believe because the PJ were not interested in this sighting they too knew it was of no interest.

I DONT believe they would have been so ARROGANT not to have kept per-suing it if they had thought  that it was significant. INSTEAD of which they never pushed it. Only the Smith sighting was of importance.

I still personally feel this sighting was bogus I cant believe an abductor would be so bold as to walk the streets by restaurants and cafes etc with a kidnapped child.

The only way it works for me is if its to confuse.

If someone had the key to the apartment they could have taken a child out in minutes, and gone off into the night towards the old lagos road and into a car....not walk straight into PDL....NAH doesnt work for me.

[Mr Moderator]

Is it set in stone that IM was coming BACK from the creche? Seems early at 9.15. What if he was GOING to the creche. They are open until 11pm at night. Still gives 2 hours to go out and eat etc.

Also I still dont get how JT saw much of anything that night. She was walking along minding her own business a few drinks in her system I expect, sort of looks up, sees someone vaguely in front of her and it registers in her head.

LATER that memory is jogged back and it alongside the first memory is added other impressions, child missing, wearing pink pyjamas....etc.

The JT sighting then turns into bundle man carrying away the child who is wearing pink PJs...

No no no I think its impossible to be that accurate.

In PDL at that time it got dark around 6.30 like here in the UK. By 9.15 you would just have dark and the odd glow off street lamps (which change everything).

WHY if you were not expecting to see anything exciting at 9.15 would you be vigilant to a sighting of such importance?

I would think in your brain, you would be thinking mundane things on such a night...just strolling along thinking what a phaff it was to leave your friends and check on your kids tra la la, blah blah....

BUT NO.....the one night the 3rd May the most remembered night in the land (even as famous now as Christmas 25th December), you see the ONE PERSON carrying away a child ...... because you were being so vigilant....

NAH I dont buy it. Never have, never will.

I believe because the PJ were not interested in this sighting they too knew it was of no interest.

I DONT believe they would have been so ARROGANT not to have kept per-suing it if they had thought  that it was significant. INSTEAD of which they never pushed it. Only the Smith sighting was of importance.

I still personally feel this sighting was bogus I cant believe an abductor would be so bold as to walk the streets by restaurants and cafes etc with a kidnapped child.

The only way it works for me is if its to confuse.

If someone had the key to the apartment they could have taken a child out in minutes, and gone off into the night towards the old lagos road and into a car....not walk straight into PDL....NAH doesnt work for me.

I have some sympathy with that view.  A removal straight out into the car park in the darkness by whoever or for whatever purpose.