Crecheman's identity finally revealed

[faithlilly]

But they haven't said they have found him....

I did once suggest that what would be interesting would be to have a little walk round Luz around 9 to 10..at a, similar time of year.... How common is it to see a man carrying a child

They have said that they are ‘almost certain’ that Crecheman is Tanner’s sighting. Odd choice of words if they are still looking for him. Why appeal for Smithman but not Tannerman ?

[Mr Gray]

They have said that they are ‘almost certain’ that Crecheman is Tanner’s sighting. Odd choice of words if they are still looking for him. Why appeal for Smithman but not Tannerman ?

Almost... Not certain... Seems perfectly  clear

[faithlilly]

Almost... Not certain... Seems perfectly  clear

Yet no appeal......and none since.

[Brietta]

Almost... Not certain... Seems perfectly  clear

Not 'absolutely certain' or even 'certain' but 'almost'.  Certainly an odd choice of expression.

However it proves there was at least one legitimate sighting in the area, albeit walking in entirely the wrong direction, which in my opinion totally exonerates Jane Tanner from the many accusations levelled at her.

[jassi]

I suspect that because of Tanner's poor initial description, OG could not absolutely prove that their man was the man, but as they say are almost certain, hence the phrase.
 Whatever, they appear to have no further interest in him.
If he was the alleged abductor, this would be a gross dereliction of duty. I don't think that to be the case.

[Robittybob1]

Jane's apartment was on the ground floor. What would she have been doing on the first floor balcony?

Still well above ground level.

[Robittybob1]

It is a bit strange I agree.  If Dr Totman was resident in Block 4 and was returning from the night creche located above OC Reception then why was he walking from west to east past Block 5 and not the other way round?

I get what GA is saying too now.  If Jane sees a man walking down the alleyway toward block 4 he would be crossing her visual field from left to right. But I tend to believe Jane.  She has enough detail as to convince me it is not a poor recollection. 

[Robittybob1]

Could she have visited the Payne apartment?

how would she get in?

[jassi]

how would she get in?

Why should she enter when the standard procedure was to listen?

[Robittybob1]

Why should she enter when the standard procedure was to listen?

The point was to get onto a balcony I thought.

[jassi]

The point was to get onto a balcony I thought.

The apartment balcony overlooked the Tapas area. How would that be useful ?
There seems to be a more communal  balcony facing the other direction and overlooking the car park and road area.

[barrier]

Rowley.   "However Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted"

The MPS don't seem to be concerned about how Madeleine left the apartment.

No mention of stranger abduction,just saying.

[barrier]

From the Sun:

<<< But one retired Met Police detective, who visited the resort with The Sun, is convinced Jane Tanner saw the real abductor. Ian Horrocks said the man Ms Tanner saw had been walking from west to east, while Dr Totman would have gone the opposite way. He added: “The police seemingly dismissed this sighting after discovering the account of the British holidaymaker taking his daughter back to their apartment. “I cannot see how it can be totally dismissed.” >>>

I agree, and imo JT saw an abductor at 21:50 approximately.

I have reasons to think so. This reasons include JT sick daugther and ROB interest in preparing timelines that very same night.

Strange how all these ex coppers know what happened but yet the officers on the scene now don't.

[Robittybob1]

Strange how all these ex coppers know what happened but yet the officers on the scene now don't.

Being convinced is different to having proof.

[Carana]

Strange how all these ex coppers know what happened but yet the officers on the scene now don't.

We don't know what they were asked.

If these pundits haven't taken the time to go through the files, their answers might be just "off-the-cuff" ones, paid or not for their "interviews".

What exactly is the experience of all these so-called "experts" that might be relevant to an investigation of a missing child case in a foreign country, and who are presumably not privy to the details of the current investigation in both form (the complex legal issues) and the facts (which may well not be limited to what was made publicly accessible, mostly 10 years ago)?

In the cases - or unfolding events - that I've followed, real experts shut up, or fill in time on networks with a general framework that isn't specific to any particular investigation or unfolding drama.

As to the perfect-parent brigade... a bit like someone in the street claiming to be (insert deity). i have yet to meet one.

IMO.

Correction: "hadn't" should have read "haven't" for clarity.