DCI Redwood was an experienced investigator. Does anyone have any idea therefore why he made himself look anything but when he explained away Tannerman?
1. How likely is it that the man they found still had exactly the same outfit in his wardrobe (and remembered what he was wearing)
2. How likely is it that they still had the pyjamas their child wore that night (and remembered which ones it was wearing)
3. How likely is it that this man picked up his child dressed only in pyjamas from the night creche on a chiily night and instead of rushing it back to the apartment took it for a walk around the town then headed back towards the creche (where had he been?)
1 and 2 could be explained by holiday snaps, plus look-a-like clothes in place of the originals.
3 Is the sticking point. At some point I'll look for guests accommodated E of the sighting with a 2 year old.
However, this bugged me so much I went back to the programme. He had dismissed the T9, and this dismissed the Tanner sighting.
He then went on a wide-spectrum trawl, that covered everything (except sex assaults, and he did that elsewhere).
I concluded that he wanted people to look beyond the T9 and Tannerman, and go back to scratch on the rest. Knock out the T9 and Tannerman and get public response to all other alternatives.
I could be wrong of course. I'm trying to make sense of the four arguidos after the Luz dig, and SY seem to be acting pretty oddly on this too.
