CMTV Gonçalo Amaral - O Enigma - with English subtitles

[Robittybob1]

Why do you think Amaral didn't track down "innocentdad" years before Redwood appeared on the scene?

The reasoning is different.  One is saying Jane was correct she saw someone that the others didn't.
Whereas Amaral seems to imply Jane is making the whole thing up.  That is quite different.

[Robittybob1]

Does it matter?  The main player here is Jane Tanner and who she saw and what she witnessed.  The other two saw nothing and witnessed nothing.

In my opinion what she saw and what she witnessed are of more value to an understanding of events of where Madeleine's father was standing in the street.

What value is there to the investigation in knowledge of the precise position of either man in conversation on the street?  Isn't the value in knowledge of the mobile man with the child at the junction?

But GA was using one part of her testimony against the other.  If she can't remember where the guys were how reliable is she about the man?  But then he is in two minds for he uses her unreliable sighting to help identify Robert Murat.  Maybe if she had "identified" Murat fully she would have been given priority.

[Alice Purjorick]

Does it matter?  The main player here is Jane Tanner and who she saw and what she witnessed.  The other two saw nothing and witnessed nothing.

In my opinion what she saw and what she witnessed are of more value to an understanding of events than where Madeleine's father was standing in the street.

What value is there to the investigation in knowledge of the precise position of either man in conversation on the street?  Isn't the value in knowledge of the mobile man with the child at the junction?

I would say it calls into question reliablity.
On one issue she remembered it incorrectly as stated by one of the protagonists later. Why should one assume the other recollection is correct?

[G-Unit]

Why do you think Amaral didn't track down "innocentdad" years before Redwood appeared on the scene?

How?  I don't think it's ever been claimed that he contacted the PJ.

The PJ didn't have the time to interview all the holidaymakers before they left. Operation Task took on the job of contacting all the UK people present in Luz at the time of the disappearance. Questionnaires were completed by 559 of them. Whether Crechedad was among them we don't know. Neither do we know if all the questionnaires were sent to the PJ. Nor do we know when Crechedad contacted the UK police.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Strategic-debrief-operation-task-2009.pdf

[Brietta]

The reasoning is different.  One is saying Jane was correct she saw someone that the others didn't.
Whereas Amaral seems to imply Jane is making the whole thing up.  That is quite different.

 ... and therein lies one enigma, Robitty.

One investigated and found a man who was walking home carrying his child.  The fact he was findable several years down the line makes one wonder why the original investigation failed that elementary diligence.

The other enigma was, as you say the rubbishing of Jane Tanner's eyewitness evidence.

[Brietta]

But GA was using one part of her testimony against the other.  If she can't remember where the guys were how reliable is she about the man?  But then he is in two minds for he uses her unreliable sighting to help identify Robert Murat.  Maybe if she had "identified" Murat fully she would have been given priority.

She had no doubt at all about where they were standing ~ the same position Jeremy Wilkins indicated ~ and where she was.  Gerry McCann thought they were elsewhere.

[Brietta]

I would say it calls into question reliablity.
On one issue she remembered it incorrectly as stated by one of the protagonists later. Why should one assume the other recollection is correct?

Jane Tanner never deviated from what she saw ... she is the eye witness and no-one else.  Her recollection of events is no doubted etched in her brain. It isn't every day one witness a man carrying a child away from the direction of premises from where it was later discovered a child had vanished.

I think that would make a lasting impression.

[Brietta]

How?  I don't think it's ever been claimed that he contacted the PJ.

The PJ didn't have the time to interview all the holidaymakers before they left. Operation Task took on the job of contacting all the UK people present in Luz at the time of the disappearance. Questionnaires were completed by 559 of them. Whether Crechedad was among them we don't know. Neither do we know if all the questionnaires were sent to the PJ. Nor do we know when Crechedad contacted the UK police.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Strategic-debrief-operation-task-2009.pdf

In other words ... no-one in the Portuguese investigation was curious about who the man carrying a child might be.

[pathfinder73]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/editors-picks/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027

The innocent dad came forward in 2007 to say he was the person seen carrying a child in Portugal at the time the three-year-old vanished.

The unnamed dad – spotted in the Praia da Luz resort by McCann family friend Jane Tanner at 9.15pm – was among a number of British witnesses who completed questionnaires for Leicestershire police six years ago.

He is understood to have provided a detailed description of his movements on the night, including the fact he had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished.

A source said: “He had been clear then that he had picked her up at around the time of the sighting but for whatever reason he was not eliminated as a suspect. The fact the details of the prime suspect have been known all along doesn’t look good.”

[Alice Purjorick]

Jane Tanner never deviated from what she saw ... she is the eye witness and no-one else.  Her recollection of events is no doubted etched in her brain. It isn't every day one witness a man carrying a child away from the direction of premises from where it was later discovered a child had vanished.

I think that would make a lasting impression.

Lasting maybe but proven to be inaccurate.

[Brietta]

Lasting maybe but proven to be inaccurate.

I do not believe there is any evidence of any inaccuracy either in recollection or description as far as Jane Tanner's eye witness account is concerned.

If you know of any, please cite it.

[Robittybob1]

... and therein lies one enigma, Robitty.

One investigated and found a man who was walking home carrying his child.  The fact he was findable several years down the line makes one wonder why the original investigation failed that elementary diligence.

The other enigma was, as you say the rubbishing of Jane Tanner's eyewitness evidence.

I would also question whether crechedad saw Jane that night.  We are talking about a few seconds it took to cross the intersection.  Was he at that intersection, at what time was that, and did he see anyone on the side street?

[Brietta]

I would also question whether crechedad saw Jane that night.

If he was an abductor ... absolutely ... he would have been alert and missed nothing.

If he was a father wending his way homeward ... mibees aye ... mibees naw.  For him looking downhill, figures would have been silhouetted against the light from the tapas area ... but parked vehicles might have blocked his view.  It was chilly ... so he would have been hurrying and Jane's position might have been beyond his peripheral vision .. so I would agree with you there.

[pathfinder73]

I do not believe there is any evidence of any inaccuracy either in recollection or description as far as Jane Tanner's eye witness account is concerned.

If you know of any, please cite it.

Jez was adamant Jane didn't pass him and he was adamant where he was. Jez was facing the side gate so Jane had to pass within feet of his eyeline. He saw Jane dressed in purple when he first ventured out at around 20:30. That is the only time the witness saw Jane that night.

Had Jane turned left onto the path as I believe she could have seen both men and a man crossing the top of the road without any being aware of her. Elementary. There were two routes back so of course the other route is a possibility!

Two witnesses did not see her pass them on a quiet deserted street. That is the important fact that cannot be swept under the carpet. Look at the attempted reconstruction fiasco - you were here Gerry - No I was across the road. What an utter shambles! Do a reconstruction and see the reaction.

Patsy is cleared - one more carrier to go.

"He was adamant that he did not see any one else in the area. When spoken to in reference to Jane Tanner walking by, he again stated that he saw no one." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm

[Robittybob1]

If he was an abductor ... absolutely ... he would have been alert and missed nothing.

If he was a father wending his way homeward ... mibees aye ... mibees naw.  For him looking downhill, figures would have been silhouetted against the light from the tapas area ... but parked vehicles might have blocked his view.  It was chilly ... so he would have been hurrying and Jane's position might have been beyond his peripheral vision .. so I would agree with you there.

If he was the abductor - well would we be listening to what he says?  He wouldn't admit to being there at that time.  I wouldn't so I assume he wouldn't. 
If he was just a dad passing by - the question still remains did he see Jane looking at him?