Why is there still such a mystery over Innocentman?

[Alfred R Jones]

For the benefit of the enquiry of course.   When it comes to the Madeleine McCann case, BBC Crimewatch has become something of a pantomime recently, a whole lot of mights and maybes and very little else.

What enquiry are you talking about? 

[Mr Moderator]

What enquiry are you talking about?

Is that a trick question Mr Alfred?

[Alfred R Jones]

Is that a trick question Mr Alfred?

No.  There is an investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, the full facts of which are known only to the investigating forces.  The only enquiry going on that I'm aware of is the one taking place on the internet by armchair (ahem) detectives.   Why should the police be divulging more information than they need to to the "enquiry"?

[Alfred R Jones]

I have reintroduced these posts and ask the question as to why is there such a mystery over Innocentman? 

Given that this individual was walking in the wrong direction for someone who had allegedly come from the night creche, is there something Scotland Yard are not telling us?

Yes, quite a lot I should imagine, and that's as it should be unless you think they actually should be providing us with a running commentary on the investigation?

[Angelo222]

Yes, quite a lot I should imagine, and that's as it should be unless you think they actually should be providing us with a running commentary on the investigation?

A good start would be explaining why Innocentman was supposedly seen walking in the wrong direction and not from the creche as claimed.  As others have pointed out, carrying a nearly 4 year old in such a manner could only be achieved over a relatively short distance.  He most certainly did NOT carry that child all the way from Main Reception/Night Creche in such a manner.

[Alfred R Jones]

A good start would be explaining why Innocentman was supposedly seen walking in the wrong direction and not from the creche as claimed.  As others have pointed out, carrying a nearly 4 year old in such a manner could only be achieved over a relatively short distance.

But why do they need to explain it to you or me in the first place?  For what reason?  Simply to satisfy our curiosity?  Or would it actually help find Madeleine McCann, bearing in mind that the Met are satisfied they have grounds to eliminate this man?

[Angelo222]

But why do they need to explain it to you or me in the first place?  For what reason?  Simply to satisfy our curiosity?  Or would it actually help find Madeleine McCann, bearing in mind that the Met are satisfied they have grounds to eliminate this man?

A major flaw has been exposed in Redwood's claim that Innocentman was the person seen by Tanner. It is not helpful to the investigation to have this flaw prevail as it creates doubt as to his other claims.

[Alfred R Jones]

A major flaw has been exposed in Redwood's claim that Innocentman was the person seen by Tanner. It is not helpful to the investigation to have this flaw prevail as it creates doubt as to his other claims.

Only amongst a tiny percentage of the population of the Western World ie: McCann internet "sceptics".

[Angelo222]

Only amongst a tiny percentage of the population of the Western World ie: McCann internet "sceptics".

So its ok to pull the wool over everyone else's eyes so long as nobody is any the wiser?

[Alfred R Jones]

So its ok to pull the wool over everyone else's eyes so long as nobody is any the wiser?

don't be silly.  Is it your view that whilst the investigation is live that the Met should give a running commentary on everything they are doing or have discovered?  Do they owe it to us to keep us informed of every aspect of this case?  Is this what you truly think?

[John]

Scotland Yards claim that Tannerman was probably Innocentman would fit very neatly with the non abduction theory but that still leaves Smithman whom I still consider a red herring.

[pathfinder73]

Scotland Yards claim that Tannerman was probably Innocentman would fit very neatly with the non abduction theory but that still leaves Smithman whom I still consider a red herring.

It was not possible for Tannerman to do it unless you think Jane was his partner who later opened the window before Kate checked. Jane's fingerprints weren't found. Smithman and his partner in crime did it. He had to have a partner to do the impossible 3 door moves and he did it. Clever not really thanks to Matt. More like Easy Peasy!

[faithlilly]

Carana said ... "If the PJ or LP had considered that incident in any way significant, it should have been included as a question for clarification in DP's rogatory interview, which it wasn't."

Neither the PJ nor LP required any clarification ... they had the original statement to hand ... the version that we have seen on the internet was posted there by a very dubious character indeed.

What the Gaspar statements do show is that Rebelo, who took over the investigation on the 9th of October, was in place and interested enough in the statements to have copies requested, along with an analysis of a questionnaire by Payne, around the 24th. This certainly puts paid to supporters contention that Amaral alone considered the McCanns and their friends as people of interest.

[Brietta]

It was not possible for Tannerman to do it unless you think Jane was his partner who later opened the window before Kate checked. Jane's fingerprints weren't found. Smithman and his partner in crime did it. He had to have a partner to do the impossible 3 door moves and he did it. Clever not really thanks to Matt. More like Easy Peasy!

You've lost me yet again ... exactly what is it you have cleared Tannerman of?

[John]

What still strikes me as odd is why Redwood chose to make the Tannerman is Innocentman revelation in such uncertain terms.  Given access to this guy it would have been very easy to establish his exact route and timings and have them corroborated if necessary, it isn't rocket science for heavens sake!