Why is there still such a mystery over Innocentman?

[Brietta]

Very good point.

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.

[Mr Moderator]

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?

[jassi]

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. They have no idea whether they are coming or going

[Angelo222]

Yes. They have no idea whether they are coming or going

Redwood must think we are all flipping stupid if he thinks for a minute that we are going to take his word for it that this guy was the man Tanner saw.  I agree MM, he has failed to answer those very obvious questions.

[Carana]

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?

Quite possibly. The point of that presumed elimination was to get people to try to recall events in a slightly later time-frame. It wasn't intended to satisfy the public's curiosity as to every detail. For all anyone knows he may have had a car and had parked and carried the child from there, or had been given a lift and walked the final distance, or had stopped off at someone's home on the way...

[Mr Moderator]

Quite possibly. The point of that presumed elimination was to get people to try to recall events in a slightly later time-frame. It wasn't intended to satisfy the public's curiosity as to every detail. For all anyone knows he may have had a car and had parked and carried the child from there, or had been given a lift and walked the final distance, or had stopped off at someone's home on the way...

All the more reason why Redwood should have given more background to this witness.

[misty]

Redwood must think we are all flipping stupid if he thinks for a minute that we are going to take his word for it that this guy was the man Tanner saw.  I agree MM, he has failed to answer those very obvious questions.

If you don't believe that innocentman is the same person JT saw, doesn't it raise the question as to why someone would come forward & identify themselves as wearing similar clothing to Tannerman and carrying a young bare-footed girl with light-coloured pyjamas? How many of them were there wandering around that night?

[Angelo222]

If you don't believe that innocentman is the same person JT saw, doesn't it raise the question as to why someone would come forward & identify themselves as wearing similar clothing to Tannerman and carrying a young bare-footed girl with light-coloured pyjamas? How many of them were there wandering around that night?

Good question and on such a cold night too?  Too many coincidences for me.

[Alfred R Jones]

All the more reason why Redwood should have given more background to this witness.

For whose benefit?

[jassi]

If you don't believe that innocentman is the same person JT saw, doesn't it raise the question as to why someone would come forward & identify themselves as wearing similar clothing to Tannerman and carrying a young bare-footed girl with light-coloured pyjamas? How many of them were there wandering around that night?

You may well ask. It brings to mind that Monty Python sketch where they had about half a dozen Alan Wicker characters wandering about.

[jassi]

For whose benefit?

Us armchair sleuths, of course.

[misty]

You may well ask. It brings to mind that Monty Python sketch where they had about half a dozen Alan Wicker characters wandering about.

You also have to ask yourself why the PJ took no action over either Innocentman's information & the Smithman sighting but continued to
 a)allowed the public to believe in/snigger at "eggman"
 b)pursue only the theory that the parents had concealed their dead daughter's body.

[Alfred R Jones]

Us armchair sleuths, of course.

Of course

[Mr Moderator]

For whose benefit?

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.

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

Well good sir does that not just about summarise this case for the past seven years?