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

[Sherlock Holmes]

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

That's true.

Only took seven years to build a consensus!

[AnneGuedes]

That's true.

Only took seven years to build a consensus!

There was a serious McCanns' implicit opposition. Ref. "Madeleine".

[jassi]

I don't understand that. Could you clarify?

[Sherlock Holmes]

There was a serious McCanns' implicit opposition. Ref. "Madeleine".

A bit too cryptic for me as well, Anne!

[AnneGuedes]

The main complaint of the McCanns concerning the PJ, was the lack of publicity on Tannerman. The British ambassador had to insist. Meanwhile the shutters/window had definitively lost their evidence potentiality. As soon as they were made arguidos, the famous sketch was done, the abductor had a kind of materiality, it was crucial because he was the unique evidence of abduction.
It's obvious that destroying it would affect the McCanns, they weren't not prepared to let him vanish into Innocentman (as proved by the fact that Tannerman is still on the official site).
And SY was aware of it.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The main complaint of the McCanns concerning the PJ, was the lack of publicity on Tannerman. The British ambassador had to insist. Meanwhile the shutters/window had definitively lost their evidence potentiality. As soon as they were made arguidos, the famous sketch was done, the abductor had a kind of materiality, it was crucial because he was the unique evidence of abduction.
It's obvious that destroying it would affect the McCanns, they weren't not prepared to let him vanish into Innocentman (as proved by the fact that Tannerman is still on the official site).
And SY was aware of it.

Even though in many ways this exonerates Ms Tanner?

[AnneGuedes]

If I found a door in my house more open than I had previously remembered it to be.   The last thing I would think was that someone might be standing behind it.

Now you'd better change your mind ! Ah  no, sorry, Tannerman vanished..

[VIXTE]

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.

Or they simply questioned the parents who used creche that night.. something that hasn't been done in 2007.. and should have been done..

There are reports that SY re-questioned or questioned a big number of people..

[jassi]

Or they simply questioned the parents who used creche that night.. something that hasn't been done in 2007.. and should have been done..

There are reports that SY re-questioned or questioned a big number of people..

Could you explain why users of the night creche specifically should have been questioned in 2007? The creche wasn't implicated in Madeleine's disappearance.

[VIXTE]

Could you explain why users of the night creche specifically should have been questioned in 2007? The creche wasn't implicated in Madeleine's disappearance.

Maybe because there was a person seen carrying a child, and this child was believed to be Madeleine?

Shouldn't the have been an interest to identify this man?

[jassi]

Maybe because there was a person seen carrying a child, and this child was believed to be Madeleine?

Shouldn't the have been an interest to identify this man?

But this person was heading in the wrong direction to be a creche user, so why should the PJ think he was?

[Eleanor]

Could you explain why users of the night creche specifically should have been questioned in 2007? The creche wasn't implicated in Madeleine's disappearance.

But parents carrying children could have been.  As it now appears that at least one of them was.

Actually, this failure is a disgrace.  And it never crossed my mind that The PJ hadn't done this.

Two men, TWO, that is, were seen carrying a child at night, but let's not bother to look at the one place they are most likely to have come from if they weren't actually abducting the child.

[jassi]

I think you speak with the wisdom of hindsight.  The PJ didn't know about Smithman until later, by which time many of the holidaymakers had gone home. No police force can do everything simultaneously, they have to prioritise their lines of investigation.

[Lyall]

But parents carrying children could have been.  As it now appears that at least one of them was.

Actually, this failure is a disgrace.  And it never crossed my mind that The PJ hadn't done this.

Two men, TWO, that is, were seen carrying a child at night, but let's not bother to look at the one place they are most likely to have come from if they weren't actually abducting the child.

And now the Met believe they have identified the man does it actually advance them one inch?

In May 2007 whether they believed the witness or not the police were looking for a hopefully alive Madeleine all over the country and world, and not a few feet from the apartment she disappeared from.

You really ought to write that police training manual you know. You have more answers than Jane Tennison!

[Eleanor]

I think you speak with the wisdom of hindsight.  The PJ didn't know about Smithman until later, by which time many of the holidaymakers had gone home. No police force can do everything simultaneously, they have to prioritise their lines of investigation.

Yer, blame the parents.  So much easier than doing a bit of detecting, don't you think?