CMTV Gonçalo Amaral - O Enigma - with English subtitles

[G-Unit]

So the photograph of the man publicised by SY as the father who had come forward was actually the man seen by the father who had come forward. Have I got that correct?

You sound as confused as I feel. 

[faithlilly]

You sound as confused as I feel. 

I am. Talk about mental gymnastics!

[faithlilly]

 

I don't know how you come up with analyses like these, Misty ... I've never heard of that suggestion before ... and I would never have worked that out for myself.

Certainly a workable solution which ticks all the boxes.

DCI Redwood mentioned the 'family'.  I found that odd because we were conditioned to thinking of a man on his own.

Crechman was therefore going from the creche to his accommodation ... walking in the correct direction unlike Tannerman.

When passing Block 5 ... he got a very good view of an individual or more than one in the vicinity.  Who unbeknown to him were making a move on the apartment in the knowledge that with Gerry's departure there was  window of at least half an hour.

It has been discussed entry and exit would have taken minutes.

The next was Jane witnessing the person or one of the persons seen by crechman carrying a child away.

Explains two such different efits?

Have I got that right?

But the man the efit was based on was seen by the Smiths 45 minutes later than Crecheman.

[sadie]

That does not explain why the PJ apparently failed to look at the people who collected their children from the creche between 9pm & 9.15pm or ask the 3 nannies about them. It was left to OG to discover the information years down the line from the family statement so it is clear no nanny approached OG.

WOW Misty.    Would ever Pegasus be proud of you!

[Brietta]

In my opinion Misty's thoughts are as logical a synopsis as I have seen.  It explains some puzzles.

DCI Redwood's 'revelation' moment which made sense of the timeline was nothing to do with Crecheman being identified as being Tannerman ... it was all to do with Crecheman being Crecheman ... and Tannerman remaining to be Tannerman.

Depending on the destination, a fairly logical route to be followed when exiting the creche carrying a sleeping child would in some circumstances involve passing block five.
I think all sides of the argument have been puzzled about Tannerman's direction of travel. DCI Redwood's announcement did nothing to clarify that.

We know that information emanating from many sources was analysed by Grange personnel: "Officers investigating her disappearance have completed the huge task of bringing together and investigating the massive amount of information held by colleagues in Portugal, the United Kingdom investigation and the private investigators working on behalf of the McCann family."  http://genreith.de/MMcC/doku.php?id=operation_grange

Which in my opinion led the police to expand the investigation in this direction.

The only chance there ever was to locate Madeleine was to widen the net, not too much, just a little ... and to follow the evidence.

It is being done now.
How much better the chance for success would have been had that been done ten years ago.

[Brietta]

WOW Misty.    Would ever Pegasus be proud of you!

I would love Pegasus's take on this.  Pegasus+Misty=sensible problem analysis with never an intemperate or nasty sentiment expressed on either side.

[faithlilly]

In my opinion Misty's thoughts are as logical a synopsis as I have seen.  It explains some puzzles.

DCI Redwood's 'revelation' moment which made sense of the timeline was nothing to do with Crecheman being identified as being Tannerman ... it was all to do with Crecheman being Crecheman ... and Tannerman remaining to be Tannerman.

Depending on the destination, a fairly logical route to be followed when exiting the creche carrying a sleeping child would in some circumstances involve passing block five.
I think all sides of the argument have been puzzled about Tannerman's direction of travel. DCI Redwood's announcement did nothing to clarify that.

We know that information emanating from many sources was analysed by Grange personnel: "Officers investigating her disappearance have completed the huge task of bringing together and investigating the massive amount of information held by colleagues in Portugal, the United Kingdom investigation and the private investigators working on behalf of the McCann family."  http://genreith.de/MMcC/doku.php?id=operation_grange

Which in my opinion led the police to expand the investigation in this direction.

The only chance there ever was to locate Madeleine was to widen the net, not too much, just a little ... and to follow the evidence.

It is being done now.
How much better the chance for success would have been had that been done ten years ago.

There is absolutely nothing to substantiate this theory, other than wishful thinking.

If Crecheman had seen Tannerman why not say that in Crimewatch? Why the 'deflection' ? After all the only explanation Redwood had to give is that they were trying to identify Tannerman. Misty's theory would mean Tannerman would never be identified because the public would think he already had been.

[sadie]

So this confirms Jane Tanners sighting and as such confirms that likely he was the abductor?

Maybe this is a reason why SY dont believe that The Mccanns were involved in Madeleines disappearance?   
And there could be other things that we dont know about


Seems to me that this means that Jane got her timings mixed up.

She saw Gerry and Jez chatting at about 9.15 to 9.20, and she saw Tannerman on her later trip when she went to relieve Russell to go have his dinner.

Aimho

[stephen25000]

So this confirms Jane Tanners sighting and as such confirms that likely he was the abductor?

Maybe this is a reason why SY dont believe that The Mccanns were involved in Madeleines disappearance?   
And there could be other things that we dont know about


Seems to me that this means that Jane got her timings mixed up.

She saw Gerry and Jez chatting at about 9.15 to 9.20, and she saw Tannerman on her later trip when she went to relieve Russell to go have his dinner.

Aimho

Just a reminder Sadie.

Abduction is a theory, and not proven, no matter how many times you type otherwise.

[sadie]

Tanner man was going in an easterly direction when  Jane spotted him.   Was he expecting to be picked up by a  car/van coming up from the Little Car Park opposite the Tapas Reception?  One that failed to turn up when the driver saw Jane witnessing the abductor?   And seeing Jane, the abductor walked on away from her? 

Then dithered a while, or maybe tried to get help from a friend who didn't want him there, before setting out for Rua d'Escola, where a man was seen carrying a little girl by The Smith family?  This links up quite well with the timing of Smithman in Rua D'Escola about

We dont know.  I make no claim to knowing, but it all links up rather well
Mistys theory sounds pretty good to me, but we must wait and see.

AIMHO

[sadie]

Just a reminder Sadie.

Abduction is a theory, and not proven, no matter how many times you type otherwise.

All the main bits of my post carry a question mark, stephen, so I am claiming nothing

It is you that keeps claiming that the Mccanns are to blame ....and sneering at the very idea of an abduction.  Have you forgotten this?

[misty]

So the photograph of the man publicised by SY as the father who had come forward was actually the man seen by the father who had come forward. Have I got that correct?

No. The photograph of the man shown as Crecheman was the innocent holidaymaker carrying his daughter. He had placed himself & his family in the area at the time (note, not actually crossing the junction in the manner JT witnessed). Listen to the video regarding the clothing https://youtu.be/OZ8jmdWlB8Y?t=1330  "dressed in the kind of clothing he wore on holiday".....not specific to the night of the 3rd. "Uncannily similar pyjamas", not almpst identical. The bare feet weren't mentioned.

[misty]

There is absolutely nothing to substantiate this theory, other than wishful thinking.

If Crecheman had seen Tannerman why not say that in Crimewatch? Why the 'deflection' ? After all the only explanation Redwood had to give is that they were trying to identify Tannerman. Misty's theory would mean Tannerman would never be identified because the public would think he already had been.

Crecheman probably didn't know he had seen Tannerman in my theory because the man was probably not carrying a child at that point so there was no need for suspicion. You need a bit more than "I saw a man in/near Block 5 and I could identify him again" - he needed to be seen carrying Madeleine.
Here's a point - if there were 2 people involved, would the abductor(singular) be the person who actually removed Madeleine from the apartment rather than the person who carried her away?

[stephen25000]

Crecheman probably didn't know he had seen Tannerman in my theory because the man was probably not carrying a child at that point so there was no need for suspicion. You need a bit more than "I saw a man in/near Block 5 and I could identify him again" - he needed to be seen carrying Madeleine.
Here's a point - if there were 2 people involved, would the abductor(singular) be the person who actually removed Madeleine from the apartment rather than the person who carried her away?

What abductor ?

[faithlilly]

No. The photograph of the man shown as Crecheman was the innocent holidaymaker carrying his daughter. He had placed himself & his family in the area at the time (note, not actually crossing the junction in the manner JT witnessed). Listen to the video regarding the clothing https://youtu.be/OZ8jmdWlB8Y?t=1330  "dressed in the kind of clothing he wore on holiday".....not specific to the night of the 3rd. "Uncannily similar pyjamas", not almpst identical. The bare feet weren't mentioned.

Surely if SY were still looking for Tannerman they would simply have used Tanner's efit? Why say Tanner's sighting had been ruled out ?