CMTV Gonçalo Amaral - O Enigma - with English subtitles

[faithlilly]

There is no evidence that Crecheman was carrying a barefooted child.

He must have been or SY would not have considered him for Tannerman. Tanner was very insistent about the child not having shoes.

[misty]

He must have been or SY would not have considered him for Tannerman. Tanner was very insistent about the child not having shoes.

That may explain why Tannerman is still featured on the OFM website, as Brietta previously posted. Top policeman do not work on assumptions or "almost certain" because there is room for error.

[faithlilly]

That may explain why Tannerman is still featured on the OFM website, as Brietta previously posted. Top policeman do not work on assumptions or "almost certain" because there is room for error.

I fear Tannerman is still on the OFM website for the same reason you are trying to concoct a scenario that simply has no evidence to sustain it.....without Tannerman there is only Smithman.

[misty]

Did the PJ issue a pic of Tannerman? I thought the only sketch in circulation was the sketch done for the McCanns by the Little woman.

Yes, sorry, you're right about the pic. Here is the first description issued by the PJ
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id30.htm

Part 4: The PJ make the first public appeal, 25 May 2007

Detectives issued a description of a man seen on the night the four-year-old went missing in the resort of Praia Da Luz in the Algarve. Officers said the man was "carrying a child or an object that could have been taken as a child".

The man is said to be white, aged 35-40, 5ft 10in tall, medium build with hair that was short on top. He was wearing a dark jacket, beige or golden long trousers and dark shoes. At a news conference, Ch Insp Olegario de Sousa urged the man or anyone who had seen him to come forward.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[faithlilly]

Yes, sorry, you're right about the pic. Here is the first description issued by the PJ
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id30.htm

Part 4: The PJ make the first public appeal, 25 May 2007

Detectives issued a description of a man seen on the night the four-year-old went missing in the resort of Praia Da Luz in the Algarve. Officers said the man was "carrying a child or an object that could have been taken as a child".

The man is said to be white, aged 35-40, 5ft 10in tall, medium build with hair that was short on top. He was wearing a dark jacket, beige or golden long trousers and dark shoes. At a news conference, Ch Insp Olegario de Sousa urged the man or anyone who had seen him to come forward.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the PJ say beige or golden trousers and Little draws beige or golden trousers. I can't see the problem.

[misty]

I fear Tannerman is still on the OFM website for the same reason you are trying to concoct a scenario that simply has no evidence to sustain it.....without Tannerman there is only Smithman.

I'm not asking you to believe my theory but mine sure is more plausible than coffins & Tannerman walking in the wrong direction as depicted by Amaral in O Enigma.
Turning to Smithman, there is another problem in itself. If Tannerman had been identified after 16th May as Crecheman, all the focus would have been on the Smith sighting. Amaral did not appear to be interested in pursuing that line of inquiry until until such time as MS thought his sighting was Gerry. That, however, could not be proven due to other eye witness evidence.
If Tannerman was taken out of the equation as the abductor (validating Jane's sighting as the truth) after the Smith sighting had been recorded, how would Amaral have gone about finding & identifying him? The PJ didn't have an efit, their law does not allow them to show efits. How were they going to find this unidentified man who would not be recognised again by the Smiths, but was another (perhaps irremovable) obstacle to the parental culpability theory? Would the solution to one problem actually have been the creation of another for the PJ?

[misty]

So the PJ say beige or golden trousers and Little draws beige or golden trousers. I can't see the problem.

If you go back to Jane's statement of 10th May & the summary, both of which preceded the drawing, the colour of the trousers differs. Is it a translation error or why was the colour altered?

[faithlilly]

If you go back to Jane's statement of 10th May & the summary, both of which preceded the drawing, the colour of the trousers differs. Is it a translation error or why was the colour altered?

Corticine is a golden, browny colour so  tallies perfectly with the 'golden beige' of her rogatory statement. The khaki is probably a mistranslation.

[Brietta]

There is no evidence that Crecheman was carrying a barefooted child.

"DCI Redwood said police ruled out the Tanner sighting shortly after learning a night creche had been in operation at the resort.

When they traced families that used it they discovered a dad who had picked up his daughter that night matched the description in the Tanner sighting. He added: “I would say it was a revelation moment.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/1062739/two-name-suspect/


Crecheman was one of a very small contingent of parents who used the night creche on 3 May 2007.

The children whose parents had used the night creche were signed in and they were signed out.
The nannies who knew and looked after the children in the night creche and who helped in the search for Madeleine would have had that information to hand.
That information was available to the initial investigation for cross checking in 2007 ... which is apparently what Scotland Yard did in 2013.

If the initial investigation had exercised that same diligence they would have found that snippet of information way back then.
But from investigators who had no experience of missing children investigation and described:"From the word go, they did not take this crime seriously." http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2017/05/11/madeleine-mccann-olive-press-editor-talks-first-journalist-scene-10th-anniversary-disappearance/   and who also failed to visit residents living in close proximity, for example Moyes and Fenn ~ perhaps such an obvious line of inquiry didn't even suggest itself.

[Brietta]

That may explain why Tannerman is still featured on the OFM website, as Brietta previously posted. Top policeman do not work on assumptions or "almost certain" because there is room for error.

The police know exactly who and where Crecheman is without a doubt.  I think the problem they may have is in locating Tannerman.

[Robittybob1]

The police know exactly who and where Crecheman is without a doubt.  I think the problem they may have is in locating Tannerman.

Tanner person?

[Brietta]

Tanner person?

Nope.  The individual seen by Jane was male so as far as that goes the gender is not an issue. The initial destination and subsequent destinations might answer your question Robitty; but if the police know anything about that they certainly are playing it very close to the chest;  and rightly so.

[Robittybob1]

Nope.  The individual seen by Jane was male so as far as that goes the gender is not an issue. The initial destination and subsequent destinations might answer your question Robitty; but if the police know anything about that they certainly are playing it very close to the chest;  and rightly so.

Ever since Jane described the person she saw as an individual I have stuck to the gender-less term.

[Brietta]

Ever since Jane described the person she saw as an individual I have stuck to the gender-less term.

Jane Tanner is the eye witness and is in absolutely no doubt the person she saw was male. I feel there is really no need to confuse the issue with gender neutral terminology when the witness is in no doubt about what she saw.

[Robittybob1]

Jane Tanner is the eye witness and is in absolutely no doubt the person she saw was male. I feel there is really no need to confuse the issue with gender neutral terminology when the witness is in no doubt about what she saw.

Wasn't there doubts expressed by Goncalo Amaral as to what Jane saw?  I can hardly follow GA as to what he thinks Jane was seeing.