Did the PJ conduct a proper search for evidence at OC?

[Lyall]

9:30's interest was always limited to show regularity of checks' intervals since it could confirm neither Tannerman (open shutters/window) nor Madeleine (empty bed).

True, good point. He didn't really say anything else.

[Benice]

The reaction after CW shows you everything you need to know about how much faith was put in the 9.15 sighting being an abductor, because there barely was any reaction after Redwood's 'revelation moment'. In fact I'd say there was none expressed publicly: the only reaction was - from very few people - incredulity about one sighting being dismissed and immediately replaced by another (10pm).

9.30 is more difficult to demonstrate, I'll give you that.

There is not a scrap of evidence to show that ''few people'' who watched the CW programme believed JT was telling the truth about her sighting.   You cannot possibly know what each and every one of millions of viewers thought.    Wishful thinking doesn't count.


 

[Lyall]

There is not a scrap of evidence to show that ''few people'' who watched the CW programme believed JT was telling the truth about her sighting.   You cannot possibly know what each and every one of millions of viewers thought.    Wishful thinking doesn't count.

Show me any shock that followed Redwood's 'revelation moment'. Even you guys didn't show any.

You're mixing two issues. I'm saying few people thought it was an abductor who was seen: that's not the same as people believing JT hadn't seen anyone (they just didn't think she'd seen someone carrying Madeleine).

[Benice]

Show me any shock that followed Redwood's 'revelation moment'. Even you guys didn't show any.

You're mixing two issues. I'm saying few people thought it was an abductor who was seen: that's not the same as people believing JT hadn't seen anyone (they just didn't think she'd seen someone carrying Madeleine).

You're claiming to know what millions of people think on the ground that there was no enormous reaction.  Why would there be?     IMO most of the general public watched the programme and believed it to portray the current updated position of SY in light of new evidence.       

I wasn't shocked by the 'revelation' - why would I be?    I was very pleased that it exonerated JT who has been called a fantasist and a liar.   The programme proved that she is neither - and confirmed that she HAD seen a man carrying a child - but it now turns out that there is compelling evidence that he was a tourist.   That  must have been very welcome news for  JT - who has said the best news she could ever hear, apart from Madeleine being found  - was that if the man she saw came forward and was not the abductor - and then she could stop beating herself up. 

[VIXTE]

You're claiming to know what millions of people think on the ground that there was no enormous reaction.  Why would there be?     IMO most of the general public watched the programme and believed it to portray the current updated position of SY in light of new evidence.       

I wasn't shocked by the 'revelation' - why would I be?    I was very pleased that it exonerated JT who has been called a fantasist and a liar.   The programme proved that she is neither - and confirmed that she HAD seen a man carrying a child - but it now turns out that there is compelling evidence that he was a tourist.   That  must have been very welcome news for  JT - who has said the best news she could ever hear, apart from Madeleine being found  - was that if the man she saw came forward and was not the abductor - and then she could stop beating herself up.

That is only and only PJs fault.
That man should have been found back in 2007 if they only looked at the creche lists and spoke to these people.

[pegasus]

Is it possible that SY may one day have a further "revelation" that removal was even later?

[VIXTE]

Is it possible that SY may one day have a further "revelation" that removal was even later?

They might have many already.. but it is not their job to tell us that..

They tell us only when they need help from public.

[AnneGuedes]

  I was very pleased that it exonerated JT who has been called a fantasist and a liar.   The programme proved that she is neither - and confirmed that she HAD seen a man carrying a child - but it now turns out that there is compelling evidence that he was a tourist. 

No, the program didn't prove that Ms Tanner had seen the tourist carrying his child or do you consider as a proof the pyjama described by Ms Tanner vs the pyjama of the tourist ?
Why should Ms Tanner be exonerated after all ? Would you say that Mr McCann was exonerated since no abductor was behind the door more open than they left it ?

[colombosstogey]

No, the program didn't prove that Ms Tanner had seen the tourist carrying his child or do you consider as a proof the pyjama described by Ms Tanner vs the pyjama of the tourist ?
Why should Ms Tanner be exonerated after all ? Would you say that Mr McCann was exonerated since no abductor was behind the door more open than they left it ?

AGREED.

I think the sighting was made into something huge by the McCanns and their pink team and simply swamped the investigation. EVERYWHERE you went you saw the image of the ABDUCTOR being held up by pink team.

IF this sighting had been allowed to be dropped (as the PJ did anyway from the very beginning, and I dont believe for one minute this guy only just came forward to SY no way....), and the smith sighting had been pushed we might have had a different outcome who knows.

Sadly all we seem to do is go around and around in circles.......its like ground hog day isnt it?

NOTHING NEW, just the same stuff churned up over and over again.

JT sighting was NEVER taken seriously by the police thats why they didnt bother pushing it.

I think we forget that the investigation was being handled by the PJ and the BRITISH POLICE at the time, not the McCanns......

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, the program didn't prove that Ms Tanner had seen the tourist carrying his child or do you consider as a proof the pyjama described by Ms Tanner vs the pyjama of the tourist ?
Why should Ms Tanner be exonerated after all ? Would you say that Mr McCann was exonerated since no abductor was behind the door more open than they left it ?

The pyjamas were the items that SY used as an example  on Crimewatch of something that had been used in their ruling out of Tannerman as suspect. They were a strong visual for a TV slot.

That does not mean that they were the main or only reason Jane Tanner's person was ruled out. Clearly there were several other details as well - many of which must have been provided by the suspect himself, in order that his account could be matched with that of Jane Tanner.

SY could not and would not rule out a suspect merely on the basis that a pair of pyjamas, barely visible to Ms Tanner, were supposedly similar to those of another young girl that night.

[AnneGuedes]

PJ and SY inspectors having in common to be police officers, they likely shared the reasons to doubt Tannerman's presence behind the door and at the junction, spotted by an invisible witness (consider that his presence on the scene was the first topic for the reconstitution). The PJ couldn't put Tannerman in the bin without a scandal (trying to destroy the one and only evidence of abduction), but SY had the authority to do it, even so it took them more than 2 years.

[Benice]

PJ and SY inspectors having in common to be police officers, they likely shared the reasons to doubt Tannerman's presence behind the door and at the junction, spotted by an invisible witness (consider that his presence on the scene was the first topic for the reconstitution). The PJ couldn't put Tannerman in the bin without a scandal (trying to destroy the one and only evidence of abduction), but SY had the authority to do it, even so it took them more than 2 years.

Amaral was quite happy to believe JT's sighting when he thought she was going to identify Murat as the man she saw.   It was only after she failed to do that, and he had decided to blame the parents that suddenly JT's sighting became inconvenient to his thesis.      His answer to that little problem was to spread lies about her in order to discredit her.    He does it in his book too - yet another example of false claims uncorroborated by the files.

It's clear that SY have always believed JT's sighting.   The only thing which has changed is that the man who they believe she saw is amost certainly an innocent tourist.

[Eleanor]

Yes, Amaral was rather keen on the Tanner Sighting when he thought he could stitch up Robert Murat.

[Sherlock Holmes]

PJ and SY inspectors having in common to be police officers, they likely shared the reasons to doubt Tannerman's presence behind the door and at the junction, spotted by an invisible witness (consider that his presence on the scene was the first topic for the reconstitution). The PJ couldn't put Tannerman in the bin without a scandal (trying to destroy the one and only evidence of abduction), but SY had the authority to do it, even so it took them more than 2 years.

That is a very convoluted explanation for this development...

[AnneGuedes]

That is a very convoluted explanation for this development...

What matters is that neither the PJ, the MP believed nor SY believes that Tannerman abducted. The rest is reputation management.