Innocentman came forward in 2007!

[Anna]

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?

I believe there was already 2 dads One spotted by JT and one spotted by Smith family Without footwear and If the abduction was by another man(burglar or whatever), It is unlikely he put her shoes on, or parked a car close to the apartment, as it might be recognised
I doubt there was a shoe crisis, but it unlikely a Dad collecting a shoeless child asleep at the creche would wake the child to put on footwear
I have already mentioned that it was strange-no Mum was with them

[sadie]

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

It is all so simple, Mr M.

He was going to be picked up by a getaway car.  That car was parked in the little car park opposite the reception to the tapas / garden area.  The pick up was frustrated by two things
1)  Gerry and Jez talking on the alleyway corner next to 5A
2)  Jane Tanner actually witnessing the abductor.

The latter particularily scared the ***t out of the pick up driver and he scarpered leaving bundleman in the lurch.  So bundleman was unexpectedly on his own.


This was all gone over very thoroughly in earlier threads.  Sorry I dont have time, atm, to give reference details.

And it is only my opinion, of course.  But it fits and is a distinct popssibility, especially as the dogs picked up a track to or from that car park going around the block to 5A front door. 

The track stopped at that car park.  This indicates that suspects got into, or came from a car/ van on that carpark.  Tracks do not just vanish into thin air. 

Would be interesting to know what vehicle was parked near where the scent tracks stopped.

[sadie]

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).

Good analysis. 

[Cariad]

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

It's possible to do via the creche records and the passenger lists for MW and TC. It's long and boring work though. When I tried the age of the child hadn't been relesed, so it was every kid between 1 and 5 that I was looking at.

Where did the age 2 come from? Is it offical? cause it would make it a hell of a lot easier.

[Anna]

It is all so simple, Mr M.

He was going to be picked up by a getaway car.  That car was parked in the little car park opposite the reception to the tapas / garden area.  The pick up was frustrated by two things
1)  Gerry and Jez talking on the alleyway corner next to 5A
2)  Jane Tanner actually witnessing the abductor.

The latter particularily scared the ***t out of the pick up driver and he scarpered leaving bundleman in the lurch.  So bundleman was unexpectedly on his own.


This was all gone over very thoroughly in earlier threads.  Sorry I dont have time, atm, to give reference details.

And it is only my opinion, of course.  But it fits and is a distinct popssibility, especially as the dogs picked up a track to or from that car park going around the block to 5A front door. 

The track stopped at that car park.  This indicates that suspects got into, or came from a car/ van on that carpark.  Tracks do not just vanish into thin air. 

Would be interesting to know what vehicle was parked near where the scent tracks stopped.

Very possible that this is what happened Sadie. I still think it could it have been someone else that JT saw and not the man who came forward an innocent Dad.

[sadie]

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.

Are you sure, Anne, that Matt Oldfields child was at the Tapas creche?  I haven't the time to check atm, but I seem to remember checking several months ago and finding the converse; that their child would have been at the main reception creche.  Please correct me, if i am remembering incorrectly.

If I am corredct, then he would have known the route absolutely. 

Even  if his child was not at the Reception creche, there is still a good chance that he knew his way along those alleyways, cos with little kids walking , that route along the alleyways was the obviously safe route [from traffick dangers] when en route to the beach and sea.

Make sense that they would all chose alleyway routes over road routes.

[pathfinder73]

It is all so simple, Mr M.

He was going to be picked up by a getaway car.  That car was parked in the little car park opposite the reception to the tapas / garden area.  The pick up was frustrated by two things
1)  Gerry and Jez talking on the alleyway corner next to 5A
2)  Jane Tanner actually witnessing the abductor.

The latter particularily scared the ***t out of the pick up driver and he scarpered leaving bundleman in the lurch.  So bundleman was unexpectedly on his own.


This was all gone over very thoroughly in earlier threads.  Sorry I dont have time, atm, to give reference details.

And it is only my opinion, of course.  But it fits and is a distinct popssibility, especially as the dogs picked up a track to or from that car park going around the block to 5A front door. 

The track stopped at that car park.  This indicates that suspects got into, or came from a car/ van on that carpark.  Tracks do not just vanish into thin air. 

Would be interesting to know what vehicle was parked near where the scent tracks stopped.

I don't think that's a good place to put a getaway car - straight opposite the tapas bar where they all were. The scent across the road to the car park can be easily explained by the crèche route Madeleine used.



If you follow  that path straight up from the crèche you come out towards Murat's house.

[sadie]

Snipped / -
It's impossible for her to brush past two people on a quiet deserted street without being seen or heard wearing flip flops. I would love to see that reconstruction.

pathfinder

You weren't here in  the early days, so you will not realise that wwe almost 100% proved showed that despite Gerry remembering it differently, Gerry and Jez had their chat on the alleyway corner adjacent to the back garden of 5A.  Because of this alleyway coming out there, there was plenty of space for anyone to pass them.

Atm, I dont have time to reference you but suffice to say that we worked it out from
1)  Jezes hand drawn map, which clearly shows the corner of the alleyway where it met the roadway and at the bottom of 5A garden.
2)  Janes insistence against Gerry that it was in front of that alleyway.  This was shown, I think, in the "Cutting Edge " video, which is in several previous threads
3)  Jezes statement of where he saw Gerry and where they likely met.  Again this confirmed in the alleyway area

I think, after these three points, there was a general consensus amonst forum members that the pavement adjacent to the alleyway was where they were almost certainly chatting ... so easy enough to pass.


We also talked about the flip flops.
I didn't enter into that discussion, but I seem to remember it being stated thta whilst cheap flip flops smacked the ground and made a loud noise, expensive ones were different and did not make that loud noise.  Jane was the partner of a Dr, or consultant, so was not poor.  Quite a good chance that they were expensive flip flops.  But we dont know.

[pathfinder73]

pathfinder

You weren't here in  the early days, so you will not realise that wwe almost 100% proved showed that despite Gerry remembering it differently, Gerry and Jez had their chat on the alleyway corner adjacent to the back garden of 5A.  Because of this alleyway coming out there, there was plenty of space for anyone to pass them.

Atm, I dont have time to reference you but suffice to say that we worked it out from
1)  Jezes hand drawn map, which clearly shows the corner of the alleyway where it met the roadway and at the bottom of 5A garden.
2)  Janes insistence against Gerry that it was in front of that alleyway.  This was shown, I think, in the "Cutting Edge " video, which is in several previous threads
3)  Jezes statement of where he saw Gerry and where they likely met.  Again this confirmed in the alleyway area

I think, after these three points, there was a general consensus amonst forum members that the pavement adjacent to the alleyway was where they were almost certainly chatting ... so easy enough to pass.


We also talked about the flip flops.
I didn't enter into that discussion, but I seem to remember it being stated thta whilst cheap flip flops smacked the ground and made a loud noise, expensive ones were different and did not make that loud noise.  Jane was the partner of a Dr, or consultant, so was not poor.  Quite a good chance that they were expensive flip flops.  But we dont know.

Thanks Sadie. Please explain to me why Jane never took the quicker safer path route back?

[Estuarine]

I get lost in the  minutiae of this case sometimes  and feel the need to refocus on the particular point raised

In this instance,  it is the claim that the man Jane saw on that fateful night  presented  himself to  someone early on   (  six years ago  )   

So who did he present himself  TO 

who has known,  for all this time,  that Jane Tanner did  NOT  see Madeleine being abducted  ?

It's the minutiae, Icabod, that allows the round and round the mulberry bush arguments so beloved by some!
The second highlighted bit: The PJ and the perpetrators. Only one side pushed the abduction theory and of course the more xenophobic press and readers are happy to believe Johnny Foreigner cocked it up because he is a blundering buffoon as briefed. The abduction theory still reigns which ipso fatso (yes I know!) will lead to briefing against The Met; which is happening already........whether that is a smart move or a desperate one remains to seen.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

He may have taken the problem the other way round, but he still got the description of the man from Jane Tanner. So ultimately it all comes back to her.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I believe there was already 2 dads One spotted by JT and one spotted by Smith family Without footwear and If the abduction was by another man(burglar or whatever), It is unlikely he put her shoes on, or parked a car close to the apartment, as it might be recognised
I doubt there was a shoe crisis, but it unlikely a Dad collecting a shoeless child asleep at the creche would wake the child to put on footwear
I have already mentioned that it was strange-no Mum was with them

It is strange about the mums, isn't it?

I often wondered where the mother of the child with Smithman was. Why has she never come forward after all these years - or persuaded Smithman to come forward?

[pathfinder73]

It is strange about the mums, isn't it?

I often wondered where the mother of the child with Smithman was. Why has she never come forward after all these years - or persuaded Smithman to come forward?

Well done you've found the one who was carrying Madeleine last seen going in the direction towards the church. Madeleine didn't just vanish she was last seen by the Smith family.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well done you've found the one who was carrying Madeleine last seen going in the direction towards the church. Madeleine didn't just vanish she was last seen by the Smith family.

Not sure I'm following you, pathfinder...

[AnneGuedes]

He may have taken the problem the other way round, but he still got the description of the man from Jane Tanner. So ultimately it all comes back to her.

For the sake of that poor Ms Tanner, forget about Tannerman. He played no part in taking Madeleine away. Smithman did.