CMTV Gonçalo Amaral - O Enigma - with English subtitles

[misty]

Can we stop these flights of fancy. Too many posts with no supporting information.

And the supporting information for much of the content of O Enigma is.......?

ETA Please feel free to find all the holes in my theory. When someone can come up with a plausible explanation as to why none of the nannies at the creche recognised Crecheman + child from the description of Tannerman + child in circulation for so many years, I'd be happy to hear it because quite clearly the original investigation never asked the questions.
Crecheman was a MW tourist - yet unrecognised by any of his fellow holidaymakers from the JT description. He went to dinner, then to the creche - still later unrecognised.
The only explanation I can come up with is - Tannerman wasn't Crecheman.

[faithlilly]

Why? Because the Met needed to show the public a valid reason, without compromising the investigation, for the shift of focus, rather than just saying that they were no longer looking for Tannerman because he had actually been identified as MR AA. All attention could then be diverted to the similarly dressed Smithman.

IMO.

The Met didn't have to say anything at all.

[misty]

The Met didn't have to say anything at all.

They did if they didn't want to be inundated with questions as to why they wanted to shift the focus onto Smithman when the matter of the Tanner sighting hadn't been resolved.

[faithlilly]

They did if they didn't want to be inundated with questions as to why they wanted to shift the focus onto Smithman when the matter of the Tanner sighting hadn't been resolved.

Why shift the focus when everything had been going swimmingly for the last four years ? Am I missing something ?

[misty]

Why shift the focus when everything had been going swimmingly for the last four years ? Am I missing something ?

I'm not quite sure what you mean regarding "4 years". Crecheman's statement didn't come to light until the review period & SY spoke to the family. That may have only been in 2013. If they had, in fact, identified Tannerman then there was still the question of the 2nd unidentified man who, as I've posted on another thread, was always going to be Tannerman's get-out-of-jail-free card. IMO.

[faithlilly]

I'm not quite sure what you mean regarding "4 years". Crecheman's statement didn't come to light until the review period & SY spoke to the family. That may have only been in 2013. If they had, in fact, identified Tannerman then there was still the question of the 2nd unidentified man who, as I've posted on another thread, was always going to be Tannerman's get-out-of-jail-free card. IMO.

From one of your previous posts.....'
'Possibly to make people believe that Tannerman was Crecheman, as they have done for 4 years'

If Crecheman had identified Tannerman then that would have been enough to make him an arguido

Not sure what you mean about Crecheman’s statement ? How is it relevant? As far as we know he didn't see anyone and certainly not Tannerman.

[misty]

From one of your previous posts.....'
'Possibly to make people believe that Tannerman was Crecheman, as they have done for 4 years'

If Crecheman had identified Tannerman then that would have been enough to make him an arguido

Not sure what you mean about Crecheman’s statement ? How is it relevant? As far as we know he didn't see anyone and certainly not Tannerman.

I cannot go any further with the reason for not making an arguido of an identified Tannerman without being libellous. You need more evidence than one eye witness statement, as the original investigation proved with several cases of "mistaken identity".

[faithlilly]

I cannot go any further with the reason for not making an arguido of an identified Tannerman without being libellous. You need more evidence than one eye witness statement, as the original investigation proved with several cases of "mistaken identity".

One eye-witness would certainly be enough to make an individual an arguido as questioning them in a way that may implicate them in a criminal offence would be necessary.

Misty, do you really think that if the PJ had an eyewitness that could identify a child abductor, the abductor wouldn't be pulled in for questioning faster than his feet could touch the ground ? To suggest such a thing is simply ridiculous.

Sorry Misty, remind me again what evidence you used while formulating your theory?

[misty]

One eye-witness would certainly be enough to make an individual an arguido as questioning them in a way that may implicate them in a criminal offence would be necessary.

Misty, do you really think that if the PJ had an eyewitness that could identify a child abductor, the abductor wouldn't be pulled in for questioning faster than his feet could touch the ground ? To suggest such a thing is simply ridiculous.

Sorry Misty, remind me again what evidence you used while formulating your theory?

If the eye witness did not see the man with Madeleine, what grounds are there for pulling him in when there is another unidentified man + child who was walking in Luz during the critical period? What if they had already taken a statement from him & he'd been checked out?

[Robittybob1]

If the eye witness did not see the man with Madeleine, what grounds are there for pulling him in when there is another unidentified man + child who was walking in Luz during the critical period? What if they had already taken a statement from him & he'd been checked out?

They are not suppose to lie in their witness statements but what is stopping them?

[barrier]

They are not suppose to lie in their witness statements but what is stopping them?

Say what you like until its under oath,then its a problem.

[barrier]

The abductor that SY keep talking about

Oh! that one,the untraceable one,do they exist one wonders.

[Brietta]

Oh! that one,the untraceable one,do they exist one wonders.

Yup ... the one or more they are spending a lot of time and effort on ... not to mention money, bearing in mind they have presented a case to the suits, and have asked for more to finish what they are doing.

[barrier]

Yup ... the one or more they are spending a lot of time and effort on ... not to mention money, bearing in mind they have presented a case to the suits, and have asked for more to finish what they are doing.

OG remind me of Del boy "this time next year we'll be millionaires.

OG"this time next year we'll find out what happened".

[jassi]

OG remind me of Del boy "this time next year we'll be millionaires.

OG"this time next year we'll find out what happened".

Or like WW1 Generals - 'Just one more push and we'll have them on the run'