Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Redblossom on January 22, 2014, 11:30:14 AM
Title: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Redblossom on January 22, 2014, 11:30:14 AM
Whether or not the Smiths went back (and I believe it is in the PF files that they did - they both spent a day giving witness statements) this sighting is vital. It directly contradictions the only piece of 'evidence' the McCanns have ever managed to concoct about a mystery abductor - the Jane Tanner sighting.
The man who the Smiths saw is walking in the opposite direction. In the direction of the beach. He avoids eye contact. He is holding a child that answers the description of Madeleine and who appears 'deeply asleep'. I'm not surprised the McCanns wanted to 'bury' the significance of the Smith sighting. In her book Kate implies it is the same man that Jane Tanner saw which is absurd. Apart from the fact that the description is different, Madeleine's abduction would hardly have chosen to walk around the resort for carrying an abducted child for 45 minutes.
The McCanns really must think that everyone is stupid.
the Mccanns dont thnk the sightng is vital...indeed on their official website they say nothng about it but contnue to promote the Tanner sighting whch SY have said is almost certainly not the abductor
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 22, 2014, 11:50:38 AM
the Mccanns dont thnk the sightng is vital...indeed on their official website they say nothng about it but contnue to promote the Tanner sighting whch SY have said is almost certainly not the abductor
One knows what happens when the keystone is removed..
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Redblossom on January 22, 2014, 12:28:33 PM
One knows what happens when the keystone is removed..
What keystone? millions watched crimewatch and were told by SY this sightng is not relevant to the disappearance, they identified the man, but the Mccanns website are still asking the public if they have seen ths man! Who is running the investigation?
@)(++(*
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Estuarine on January 22, 2014, 01:16:36 PM
What keystone? millions watched crimewatch and were told by SY this sightng is not relevant to the disappearance, they identified the man, but the Mccanns website are still asking the public if they have seen ths man! Who is running the investigation?
@)(++(*
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Estuarine on January 22, 2014, 01:25:40 PM
What keystone? millions watched crimewatch and were told by SY this sightng is not relevant to the disappearance, they identified the man, but the Mccanns website are still asking the public if they have seen ths man! Who is running the investigation?
@)(++(*
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html Seems like the theory is now that there were possibly two men. "Is the front the same as the back". I am getting faint aromas of desperation. Give me strength.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Redblossom on January 22, 2014, 01:33:14 PM
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html Seems like the theory is now that there were possibly two men. "Is the front the same as the back". I am getting faint aromas of desperation. Give me strength.
Thanks, just read the "update"...like 3 months too late..still no emphasis on smthman efits!
So SY saying Tannerman is almost certainly not the abductor has been morphed by the Mccanns into it is not possible to be certain
The McCanns weren't the only ones to neglect the Smith multiple sighting. The UK press ignored it totally in spite of being so keen to catch any information and spin it. Paulo Rebelo followed GA's leads, but not this one. The MP sent the rog letter concerning the Smith to the HO The HO didn't send it back to the MP but forwarded it to the LC The LC put it in the bin. No conspiracy, no ! Though..
Have you found a paper trace of this? If so, could you enlighten me?
Why would the MP have sent a rog to the HO when the Smiths don't live in the UK?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 22, 2014, 02:15:02 PM
What keystone? millions watched crimewatch and were told by SY this sightng is not relevant to the disappearance, they identified the man, but the Mccanns website are still asking the public if they have seen ths man! Who is running the investigation?
@)(++(*
Who is orchestrating everything since the very beginning ? Of course he didn't bring back Madeleine, but the police didn't do better. Therefore on what basis does SY, after 3,5 years pretends to remove the cornerstone of the McCann construction ?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Redblossom on January 22, 2014, 02:27:58 PM
Who is orchestrating everything since the very beginning ? Of course he didn't bring back Madeleine, but the police didn't do better. Therefore on what basis does SY, after 3,5 years pretends to remove the cornerstone of the McCann construction ?
if I was Redwood I would be a bit pi ssed off with them
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 22, 2014, 03:09:37 PM
if I was Redwood I would be a bit pi ssed off with them
DCI Redwood has no time to lose snooping around the McCann productions. He didn't read "Madeleine" and I would be amazed he had a look at "the truth about the lie".
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 22, 2014, 03:15:00 PM
See near the end re Tanner sighting Under "update on previous appeal"
I also noted there is a 20 000 £ reward for info from the police
Wonder what happened to the 2.5 million reward
I wonder how they have the courage to exhibit as "this man" a faceless figure (side by side with a CW actor picture, to give some reality to the picture) with the comment However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 22, 2014, 05:22:05 PM
What keystone? millions watched crimewatch and were told by SY this sightng is not relevant to the disappearance, they identified the man, but the Mccanns website are still asking the public if they have seen ths man! Who is running the investigation?
@)(++(*
I think this is a incredibly important question at the moment and I'm surprised it isn't getting more media attention.
The McCanns are making it very clear that they themselves now have very different ideas about the investigation than Scotland Yard. They are going as far as to contradict Scotland Yard, in fact.
They nonetheless agreed to participate in Crimewatch which promoted a reconstruction that, as far as we can gather, reflects Scotland Yard's understanding of events.
Millions of taxpayers money is being poured into SY headquarters, yet after many years of campaigning and fundraising, of pulling strings in government in order to get a formal UK investigation going, the McCanns are taking public steps that show their complete ambivalece to Scotland Yard's work.
It is absolutely astonishing.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Lyall on January 22, 2014, 05:32:34 PM
I think this is a incredibly important question at the moment and I'm surprised it isn't getting more media attention.
The McCanns are making it very clear that they themselves now have very different ideas about the investigation than Scotland Yard. They are going as far as to contradict Scotland Yard, in fact.
They nonetheless agreed to participate in Crimewatch which promoted a reconstruction that, as far as we can gather, reflects Scotland Yard's understanding of events.
Millions of taxpayers money is being poured into SY headquarters, yet after many years of campaigning and fundraising, of pulling strings in government, the McCanns seem ambivalent to Scotland Yard's work.
It is absolutely astonishing.
Ah but Redwood very wisely did not say they were totally certain they had identified JT's man. He's not daft you know.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Carana on January 22, 2014, 05:37:26 PM
I think this is a incredibly important question at the moment and I'm surprised it isn't getting more media attention.
The McCanns are making it very clear that they themselves now have very different ideas about the investigation than Scotland Yard. They are going as far as to contradict Scotland Yard, in fact.
They nonetheless agreed to participate in Crimewatch which promoted a reconstruction that, as far as we can gather, reflects Scotland Yard's understanding of events.
Millions of taxpayers money is being poured into SY headquarters, yet after many years of campaigning and fundraising, of pulling strings in government, the McCanns seem ambivalent to Scotland Yard's work.
It is absolutely astonishing.
Amaral was on the case from May to October. I haven't yet found any evidence of any ILoR's (rogs) being sent to the Home Office by the MP during the time that he was on the case. Let alone that one may have been sent by mistake to the HO concerning witnesses who were not resident in the UK.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 22, 2014, 05:40:50 PM
Ah but Redwood very wisely did not say they were totally certain they had identified JT's man. He's not daft you know.
The question is not what Redwood is saying - it is what the McCanns are or aren't saying.
And although Redwoods words were that they were 'almost' certain that Tannerman had been eliminated, the reality of the reconstruction, and the the presentation of their being a radical shift in the understanding of the timeline, says something different.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 22, 2014, 05:49:56 PM
The Find Madeleine website currently promotes the theory of Tannerman having absconded with Madeleine at 9.15 - contrary to the new 'timeline' and accompanying shift in focus of Scotland Yard.
The McCanns are making it very clear that they themselves now have very different ideas about the investigation than Scotland Yard. They are going as far as to contradict Scotland Yard, in fact.
They nonetheless agreed to participate in Crimewatch which promoted a reconstruction that, as far as we can gather, reflects Scotland Yard's understanding of events.
Millions of taxpayers money is being poured into SY headquarters, yet after many years of campaigning and fundraising, of pulling strings in government in order to get a formal UK investigation going, the McCanns are taking public steps that show their complete ambivalence to Scotland Yard's work.
What could explain this extraordinary state of affairs?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 22, 2014, 05:50:44 PM
The question is not what Redwood is saying - it is what the McCanns are or aren't saying.
And although Redwoods words were that they were 'almost' certain that Tannerman had been eliminated, the reality of the reconstruction, and the the presentation of their being a radical shift in the understanding of the timeline, says something different.
Certainly. I think Lyall means that DCI Redwood couldn't seem to discredit Ms Tanner, whose sighting was in fact the only clue for more than 6 years, i.e the keystone of the abduction architecture.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Carana on January 22, 2014, 05:53:36 PM
I see the Smithman efits on their site.... Not sure what you mean. http://findmadeleine.com/
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 22, 2014, 05:59:58 PM
Tannerman is still there on the home page, however.....
The question is not what Redwood is saying - it is what the McCanns are or aren't saying.
And although Redwoods words were that they were 'almost' certain that Tannerman had been eliminated, the reality of the reconstruction, and the the presentation of their being a radical shift in the understanding of the timeline, says something different.
It wasn't that radical, SH. They only mentioned two new pieces of information - one that nobody had heard before (possible ID of 9.15 man) and the other that had barely ever been mentioned before (10pm man). Everything else said and shown was the same. I think people may be putting too much emphasis on that one programme when the huge press spin before and after it shows it was coordinated PR by all concerned.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 22, 2014, 06:07:45 PM
They were forced to relativize Tannerman because of all the sarcasms (on this site at least) about their omitting Smithman and then covering up with a Xmas tree. But the comparison between the Fund site and the Met site is meaningful.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Lyall on January 22, 2014, 06:08:48 PM
The Find Madeleine website currently promotes the theory of Tannerman having absconded with Madeleine at 9.15 - contrary to the new 'timeline' and accompanying shift in focus of Scotland Yard.
The McCanns are making it very clear that they themselves now have very different ideas about the investigation than Scotland Yard. They are going as far as to contradict Scotland Yard, in fact.
They nonetheless agreed to participate in Crimewatch which promoted a reconstruction that, as far as we can gather, reflects Scotland Yard's understanding of events.
Millions of taxpayers money is being poured into SY headquarters, yet after many years of campaigning and fundraising, of pulling strings in government in order to get a formal UK investigation going, the McCanns are taking public steps that show their complete ambivalence to Scotland Yard's work.
What could explain this extraordinary state of affairs?
Could the police have done Crimewatch without mentioning 10pm man?
I know other people could have, but could the police? I think not. So how do you suddenly introduce him - and the efits - after all these years of him barely ever being mentioned (including 30 months of him never being mentioned by the Metropolitan Police themselves). I think that's the problem they faced.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 22, 2014, 06:13:46 PM
Could the police have done Crimewatch without mentioning 10pm man?
I know other people could have, but could the police? I think not. So how do you suddenly introduce him - and the efits - after all these years of him barely ever being mentioned (including 30 months of him never being mentioned by the Metropolitan Police themselves). I think that's the problem they faced.
Surely he could have been introduced as another person of interest without promoting the program as an announcement that SY had made a radical revision of the timeline.
Many persons of interest were cited that night - the men on balconies, etc.- who may be just as involved in the disappearance (or not) as Smithman, yet their significance was glossed over very quickly.
Smithman was presented as the main event.
In any case, the question remains as to why Scotland Yard seem to have been promoting him above and beyond the other witnesses, and said they had ruled out Tannerman, while the McCann website still contains an entire page relating to Tannerman as a significant person.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 22, 2014, 06:19:46 PM
They were forced to relativize Tannerman because of all the sarcasms (on this site at least) about their omitting Smithman and then covering up with a Xmas tree. But the comparison between the Fund site and the Met site is meaningful.
Very funny, Anne!
But yes, this is the main point - the Fund site campaigning for funds according to a certain set of ideas (that Scotland Yard have officially ruled out), and public money being syphoned off to Scotland Yard according to something very different.
Two different streams.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: jassi on January 22, 2014, 06:21:13 PM
Surely he could have been introduced as another person of interest without promoting the program as an announcement that SY had made a radical revision of the timeline.
Many persons of interest were cited that night - the men on balconies, etc.- who may be just as involved in the disappearance (or not) as Smithman, yet their significance was glossed over very quickly.
Smithman was presented as the main event.
In any case, the question remains as to why Scotland Yard seem to have been promoting him above and beyond the other witnesses, and said they had ruled out Tannerman, while the McCann website still contains an entire page relating to Tannerman as a significant person.
You should know by now that Gerry always knows best. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 22, 2014, 06:22:50 PM
Surely he could have been introduced as another person of interest without promoting the program as an announcement that SY had made a radical revision of the timeline.
Many persons of interest were cited that night - the men on balconies, etc.- who may be just as involved in the disappearance (or not) as Smithman, yet their significance was glossed over very quickly.
Smithman was presented as the main event.
But they also had to say for the first time that 9.15 man may have been identified, so if you don't then make a great big deal of 10pm man everyone involved is potentially in trouble: the public may have started asking questions about a) what is the point of this investigation when it has achieved nothing?, and b) the McCanns.
Lawyers would not have been at all happy about the second possibility. Doubtless they were aware beforehand about what was going to be said in Crimewatch (it's a big show and the audience was huge. It's potentially trouble if you make a mess of it).
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Lyall on January 22, 2014, 06:36:21 PM
In any case, the question remains as to why Scotland Yard seem to have been promoting him above and beyond the other witnesses, and said they had ruled out Tannerman, while the McCann website still contains an entire page relating to Tannerman as a significant person.
Those door angles mentioned in the statements (and still featured in Crimewatch), SH. How do you explain that if nobody was in the apartment before 9.30?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 22, 2014, 06:38:37 PM
But they also had to say for the first time that 9.15 man may have been identified, so if you don't then make a great big deal of 10pm man everyone involved is potentially in trouble: the public may have started asking questions about a) what is the point of this investigation when it has achieved nothing?, and b) the McCanns.
Lawyers would not have been at all happy about the second possibility. Doubtless they were aware beforehand about what was going to be said in Crimewatch (it's a big show and the audience was huge. It's potentially trouble if you make a mess of it).
Well first of all, DCI Redwood claims that the investigation is 'almost certain' in their ruling out of Tannerman as a suspect.
Personally I think it's semantics to suggest that the use of the word 'almost' indicates any real kind of doubt on the part of DCI Redwood and his team regarding this conclusion. There is always going to be a chance that a mistake has been made; mistakes occur all the time and in any profession. That goes without saying. But in this matter, a man has come forward to identify himself, has been interviewed by SY presumably quite extensively, matches the physical description of the person Jane Tanner saw, and has provided SY with details, unrevealed to us, which indicate to them that this is the man.
How much more certain could SY be, having had the benefit of meeting the person face to face and and speaking to him at length?
This is not the kind of evidence that involves much subjectivity, conjecture, inference , interpretation etc..on the part of investigators, or a piece of evidence such as certain forensics for example that could be inconclusive. This is a flesh and blood person who presumably believes himself to have been that person on that night. How much more evidence do you need?
And why is it so that, having ruled Tannerman out, SY needed to be seen to have a replacement? If there was no equivalent replacement why inflate one into that position? Why not just say that inquiries are ongoing?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Redblossom on January 22, 2014, 06:48:58 PM
One fact remains here.....CW/SY made a big deal about
A) Tannerman NOT being a person of interest/suspected abductor
B) Smithman needs to be found
And the other fact is that the Mccanns website is asking for info in Tannerman still (oh and also spottyman and also ausrtralian vicky beckham lookalie for some odd reason) and is not promoting Smithman or the efit, only in general terms as one amongst many misfits / efits....In some strnge place off the main website
IE promoting one and not promoting the other?..in fact they have basically told SY to get stuffed in terms of well, WE still think Tannerman is possibly the abductor even if you dont. Thats it basically.....
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 22, 2014, 06:49:29 PM
Personally I think it's semantics to suggest that the use of the word 'almost' indicates any real kind of doubt on the part of DCI Redwood and his team regarding this conclusion. There is always going to be a chance that a mistake has been made; mistakes occur all the time and in any profession. That goes without saying. But in this matter, a man has come forward to identify himself, has been interviewed by SY presumably quite extensively, matches the physical description of the person Jane Tanner saw, and has provided SY with details, unrevealed to us, which indicate to them that this is the man.
This man, who might have stepped forward earlier to the LC and was rejected, this time was found. DCI Redwood couldn't eliminate the Tannerabductor as much as the PJ couldn't deny him without accusing Ms Tanner of lying. But, as this abductor required to believe he was hidden behind the door, I guess that DCI Redwood desperately looked for a manner to get rid of him without discrediting Ms Tanner. In fact Ms Tanner might not have seen Innocentman at all, for some reason, but we are invited to forget about Tannerman because this faceless guy leads to nowhere.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Lyall on January 22, 2014, 06:55:24 PM
Well first of all, DCI Redwood claims that the investigation is 'almost certain' in their ruling out of Tannerman as a suspect.
Personally I think it's semantics to suggest that the use of the word 'almost' indicates any real kind of doubt on the part of DCI Redwood and his team regarding this conclusion. There is always going to be a chance that a mistake has been made; mistakes occur all the time and in any profession. That goes without saying. But in this matter, a man has come forward to identify himself, has been interviewed by SY presumably quite extensively, matches the physical description of the person Jane Tanner saw, and has provided SY with details, unrevealed to us, which indicate to them that this is the man.
How much more certain could SY be, having had the benefit of meeting the person face to face and and speaking to him at length?
This is not the kind of evidence that involves much subjectivity, conjecture, inference , interpretation etc..on the part of investigators, or a piece of evidence such as certain forensics for example that could be inconclusive. This is a flesh and blood person who presumably believes himself to have been that person on that night. How much more evidence do you need?
And why is it so that, having ruled Tannerman out, SY needed to be seen to have a replacement? If there was no equivalent replacement why inflate one into that position? Why not just say that inquiries are ongoing?
Why inflate 10pm man? I'm sure the lawyers could answer that one. Because without doing so Crimewatch would have been awfully thin, and that would have been bad for reputation management reasons. I think we can tell from what has been said by witnesses in Lisbon that it is the potential future impact on their children of current books and programmes that concerns them greatly, and for that reason their lawyers will have had an impact on the production of Crimewatch (because it is such a high-profile show and the audience was big).
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Estuarine on January 22, 2014, 06:55:38 PM
Being a "bear of very little brain" I fail to understand what the Met with 30 plus officers (larger than entire homicide and human trafficking departments in some police forces) are doing precisely. Any offence committed against Madeleine McCann was committed in Portugal where clearly the Met have no jurisdiction. The Portuguese police carried out their own review and concluded there were grounds to reopen the case. The case has been reopened and we know not what is happening. Except that the Portuguese Police have "the power". It has been made clear by the Portuguese authorities that the current arrangement is not a joint venture with the Met. The Met are doing their own parallel thing!? whatever that may be. Any potential offence which will come under the Met's jurisdiction will have been committed on British soil whatever that offence may or may not be......... a good feeding ground for speculation maybe.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: John on January 22, 2014, 06:58:54 PM
I have renamed this thread. The original question was who is running the investigation but the issue of tannerman is very much a part of it.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 22, 2014, 06:59:12 PM
Could the police have done Crimewatch without mentioning 10pm man?
I know other people could have, but could the police? I think not. So how do you suddenly introduce him - and the efits - after all these years of him barely ever being mentioned (including 30 months of him never being mentioned by the Metropolitan Police themselves). I think that's the problem they faced.
I think not too. What if an Irish newspaper wondered why the only matching Madeleine child seen being carried around the alarm time had been ignored 1) by the UK media and 2) by SY ?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Redblossom on January 22, 2014, 07:05:50 PM
Lost my post so reposting
One fact remains
SY went on Crimewatch and said Tannerman was not a person of interst/suspect/abductor and that they were looking to find smithman now
official find madeleine site still promotes Tannerman as a possible abductor and nowhere promotes smithman appeal apart from as part of a motley crew of efits with no details or differentiation as to who when and where seen and by who
official site has amended their appeal, like three months later on the have you seen these people page just to say police think they have identified this man but its not certain
and why they are keeping victoria beckham lookalike in there .....as a major bloody suspect LOL
Just copying an earlier post from another thread for links
*************
So SY saying Tannerman is almost certainly not the abductor has been morphed by the Mccanns into it is not possible to be certain
See near the end re Tanner sighting Under "update on previous appeal"
I also noted there is a 20 000 £ reward for info from the police
Wonder what happened to the 2.5 million reward
*********
and the ONLY place you can see smithman is here amongst all the other misfits
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
but go back to homepage and nothing on him
So yes who is running the investigation when the mccanns are asking people on their website to call in to identify Tannerman...and it will cost you. Its an 0845 number.... just as it will cost you to buy posters etc....the millions donated obviousy werent enough to fund this
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 22, 2014, 07:09:24 PM
Why inflate 10pm man? I'm sure the lawyers could answer that one. Because without doing so Crimewatch would have been awfully thin, and that would have been bad for reputation management reasons. I think we can tell from what has been said by witnesses in Lisbon that it is the potential future impact on their children of current books and programmes that concerns them greatly, and for that reason their lawyers will have had an impact on the production of Crimewatch (because it is such a high-profile show and the audience was big).
I understand the logic of what you are saying, Lyall, but if reputation management is the thing that explains Crimewatch, then the apparent decision by the McCanns shortly after the Crimewatch program to present a slightly different gloss on events from Scotland Yard on their website would contradict that, wouldn't it?
Presenting a united front to the public - even if they disagreed about the small print in private - would surely give the McCanns and the investigation more strength.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 22, 2014, 07:12:50 PM
Being a "bear of very little brain" I fail to understand what the Met with 30 plus officers (larger than entire homicide and human trafficking departments in some police forces) are doing precisely. Any offence committed against Madeleine McCann was committed in Portugal where clearly the Met have no jurisdiction. The Portuguese police carried out their own review and concluded there were grounds to reopen the case. The case has been reopened and we know not what is happening. Except that the Portuguese Police have "the power". It has been made clear by the Portuguese authorities that the current arrangement is not a joint venture with the Met. The Met are doing their own parallel thing!? whatever that may be. Any potential offence which will come under the Met's jurisdiction will have been committed on British soil whatever that offence may or may not be......... a good feeding ground for speculation maybe.
Interesting point, Estuarine. You're saying that the Met / SY could be working on persons in England?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 22, 2014, 07:15:19 PM
This man, who might have stepped forward earlier to the LC and was rejected, this time was found. DCI Redwood couldn't eliminate the Tannerabductor as much as the PJ couldn't deny him without accusing Ms Tanner of lying. But, as this abductor required to believe he was hidden behind the door, I guess that DCI Redwood desperately looked for a manner to get rid of him without discrediting Ms Tanner. In fact Ms Tanner might not have seen Innocentman at all, for some reason, but we are invited to forget about Tannerman because this faceless guy leads to nowhere.
I never understood this part. Jane Tanner saw someone. That person may or may not have had anything to do with Madeleine McCann. If he wasn't carrying Madeleine, he was an innocent person carrying a different child. Tanner doesn't have to have been hallucinating...
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 22, 2014, 07:19:03 PM
I never understood this part. Jane Tanner saw someone. That person may or may not have had anything to do with Madeleine McCann. If he wasn't carrying Madeleine, he was an innocent person carrying a different child. Tanner doesn't have to have been hallucinating...
Well, she said she did and in conditions that made the AG request a reconstitution..
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 22, 2014, 07:33:46 PM
Well, she said she did and in conditions that made the AG request a reconstitution..
She said she saw a man carrying a child whom she assumed to be female because of the colour of the pyjamas.
She was not in any way insistant that the child was Madeleine.
Ruling 'Tannerman' out as a suspect does not cast light on her integrity. If anything it reinforces it. The man who presented himself to SY in order to be ruled out of the investigation matches her description very well.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Estuarine on January 22, 2014, 07:44:48 PM
Interesting point, Estuarine. You're saying that the Met / SY could be working on persons in England?
Guess so! Both SY and the Portuguese Police carried out reviews at the same time. The Portuguese Police said nowt and reopened the case. SY deffed out Tannerman who the Portuguese had never believed in from day 1. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the reviews did not deliver any NEW information and leads. They are looking again at something that was already there.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Redblossom on January 22, 2014, 07:46:49 PM
She said she saw a man carrying a child whom she assumed to be female because of the colour of the pyjamas.
She was not in any way insistant that the child was Madeleine.
Ruling 'Tannerman' out as a suspect does not cast light on her integrity. If anything it reinforces it. The man who presented himself to SY in order to be ruled out of the investigation matches her description very well
Ah but the integrity of the mccanns and their chum documentary makers (btw the same as their witness in the libel trial)re very much brought to light.ie as without integrity...when they said in their documentary tanner saw madeleine being abducted.....sad lying lot
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Mr Gray on January 22, 2014, 07:53:57 PM
Guess so! Both SY and the Portuguese Police carried out reviews at the same time. The Portuguese Police said nowt and reopened the case. SY deffed out Tannerman who the Portuguese had never believed in from day 1. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the reviews did not deliver any NEW information and leads. They are looking again at something that was already there.
So what are these letters sent by SY to Portugal asking for co operation for a joint investigation in portugal
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Estuarine on January 22, 2014, 08:04:01 PM
If you let me have a copy of one I will be able to answer.
you can ring SY yourself and ask them for a copy
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Redblossom on January 22, 2014, 08:14:28 PM
Im not a mod but keep on topic lol
The subject is about the mccanns and why they promote a sighting sy have demolished and why they dont promote an appeal SY have done...couldnt make it up LOL
ha ha
Gnite
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 22, 2014, 08:24:16 PM
She said she saw a man carrying a child whom she assumed to be female because of the colour of the pyjamas.
She was not in any way insistant that the child was Madeleine.
Ruling 'Tannerman' out as a suspect does not cast light on her integrity. If anything it reinforces it. The man who presented himself to SY in order to be ruled out of the investigation matches her description very well.
You must be kidding. It might cast light on her compliance, which was never doubted. I don't want to irritate you, SH, but a certain colour screamed in the picture..
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 22, 2014, 08:32:40 PM
Ah but the integrity of the mccanns and their chum documentary makers (btw the same as their witness in the libel trial)re very much brought to light.ie as without integrity...when they said in their documentary tanner saw madeleine being abducted.....sad lying lot
Yes, that's taking it to another level.
But Jane Tanner herself never pressed for that. If she had been sure that it was Madeleine she would probably have said something at the beginning. Definitely worth 'upsetting' the parents for a piece of information like that.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 22, 2014, 08:38:58 PM
You must be kidding. It might cast light on her compliance, which was never doubted. I don't want to irritate you, SH, but a certain colour screamed in the picture..
Not to get too bogged down in the details, but Jane Tanner saw a man of a certain description, walking in a certain place, carrying a young child in a certain way, on a certain night, at a certain time... And lo and behold, a man presents himself to police who believes he was that man and that his actions and descriptions conform to those Jane Tanner described.
No, she couldn't have been making it up!
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 22, 2014, 08:39:45 PM
How could she be sure ? She saw a couple of legs, that's all. Hence the focus on the pyjamas.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 22, 2014, 08:43:26 PM
The subject is about the mccanns and why they promote a sighting sy have demolished and why they dont promote an appeal SY have done...couldnt make it up LOL
ha ha
Gnite
I also find it significant that the McCanns appear to be diverting focus away from the only person or line of inquiry that Scotland Yard have put forward to the public, through Crimewatch and other official channels.
Other ideas/ persons of interest etc. have been ' we are not giving a running commentary'.
The McCanns have every right to see certain things differently from SY and to pursue certain matters as they personally see fit, but to contradict, or nearly contradict, SY's main official thrust, is something quite different.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 22, 2014, 08:44:54 PM
How could she be sure ? She saw a couple of legs, that's all. Hence the focus on the pyjamas.
It wasn't only the legs. It was a man, a strange method of carrying, a time, a place... all these must have been corroborated by the suspect police have now ruled out.
Otherwise, what would make them think it was the same person?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Lyall on January 22, 2014, 08:47:43 PM
Not to get too bogged down in the details, but Jane Tanner saw a man of a certain description, walking in a certain place, carrying a young child in a certain way, on a certain night, at a certain time... And lo and behold, a man presents himself to police who believes he was that man and that his actions and descriptions conform to those Jane Tanner described.
No, she couldn't have been making it up!
She could. How could Redwood know exactly where and when they met? Or if they met at more or less that location but on a different night? How could anyone know for certain?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 22, 2014, 08:49:10 PM
Not to get too bogged down in the details, but Jane Tanner saw a man of a certain description, walking in a certain place, carrying a young child in a certain way, on a certain night, at a certain time... And lo and behold, a man presents himself to police who believes he was that man and that his actions and descriptions conform to those Jane Tanner described.
No, she couldn't have been making it up!
I don't agree (not that I think she "made it up") and the main reason for this is that you omit the presence of 2 other persons at the scene. Hence they were 4. I'd like to know if Mr Innocent saw those 3. If he had, DCI likely would have said it instead of exhibiting what you know. If Ms Tanner's sighting had been plausible at the time and place she claimed, the MP wouldn't have mentioned it as the first motive for a reconstitution.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Lyall on January 22, 2014, 08:54:23 PM
Not to get too bogged down in the details, but Jane Tanner saw a man of a certain description, walking in a certain place, carrying a young child in a certain way, on a certain night, at a certain time... And lo and behold, a man presents himself to police who believes he was that man and that his actions and descriptions conform to those Jane Tanner described.
No, she couldn't have been making it up!
But irrespective of whether she made anything up or not before Crimewatch did you believe what she saw was an abductor?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 22, 2014, 08:55:43 PM
It wasn't only the legs. It was a man, a strange method of carrying, a time, a place... all these must have been corroborated by the suspect police have now ruled out.
Otherwise, what would make them think it was the same person?
Otherwise ? They had to get rid of Tannerman or do you find it plausible that he was hiding behind the children door and then roaming in circles in the PDL streets ? It doesn't mean that Ms Tanner invented him, but according to DCI Redwood whoever she saw couldn't be the abductor, there's absolutely no stat of walking abductors from bed.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 23, 2014, 01:15:39 AM
She could. How could Redwood know exactly where and when they met? Or if they met at more or less that location but on a different night? How could anyone know for certain?
Yes, there is of course a possibility that a mistake has been made. There is a possibility with regard to most things that mistakes could have been made; it goes without saying. SY might not be certain about everything, but the bottom line is that they must be sure of more details than not, or they wouldn't have ruled this person out. Could it have been on a different night? Perhaps. Or perhaps innocent man was only in PdL that night. We don't know.
In the absence of any specific reason for doubting SY's conclusion here, I think we have to assume for the sake of argument that it is correct.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 23, 2014, 01:24:16 AM
I don't agree (not that I think she "made it up") and the main reason for this is that you omit the presence of 2 other persons at the scene. Hence they were 4. I'd like to know if Mr Innocent saw those 3. If he had, DCI likely would have said it instead of exhibiting what you know. If Ms Tanner's sighting had been plausible at the time and place she claimed, the MP wouldn't have mentioned it as the first motive for a reconstitution.
I agree with you Anne that there were a lot of variables there. A complicated scenario on the street. And you raise an important point, namely that Innocentman's depiction of his situation for SY must match not only Jane Tanner's sighting, but the scenario as a whole.
For all we know, Innocentman could well have reported seeing Gerry and Jeremy. He could have referred to any number of details pertaining to that situation. We don't know what those details are. But the point is, he must have given SY reasons and details that matched.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 23, 2014, 01:35:42 AM
But irrespective of whether she made anything up or not before Crimewatch did you believe what she saw was an abductor?
On the basis that Scotland Yard have ruled him out, no.
And there's a logical point here to consider.
Let's say Jane Tanner was making the whole thing up.
We still have to contend with the fact that a man has come forward - both shortly after events, and now, to Scotland Yard - with details of his whereabouts that night, and with the information that he was carrying his young girl.
He was in the vicinity of where Jane Tanner saw him, carrying the child in an odd position ( I am assuming from the fact that he agreed to be photographed by police at that angle for comparative purposes that he believes he was indeed carrying the child in that position for a period of time), child was wearing pink-ish pyjamas, etc. etc.
If Jane Tanner's account was fictitious, or at least highly embellished in order to suit some cover-up or plan, then how do we explain Innocentman's presence?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 23, 2014, 01:45:28 AM
On a related but separate point, are we to assume that Jane Tanner herself will have been involved in the ruling out of Bundleman from SY's investigation?
I would assume that her involvement would have been helpful, perhaps necessary, in the circumstances, though I don't know how police operate in this area.
If she was effectively involved in assisting SY in eliminating this person from the investigation, it would again seem odd that the McCanns appear still to be entertaining the possibility that Innocentman is not so innocent at all.
And if Smithman has been inflated to fill bundleman's old shoes ( in terms of providing the public with an abduction scenario) then why do the McCanns still need to cling to Bundleman?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Lyall on January 23, 2014, 01:55:03 AM
On the basis that Scotland Yard have ruled him out, no.
And there's a logical point here to consider.
Let's say Jane Tanner was making the whole thing up.
We still have to contend with the fact that a man has come forward - both shortly after events, and now, to Scotland Yard - with details of his whereabouts that night, and with the information that he was carrying his young girl.
He was in the vicinity of where Jane Tanner saw him, carrying the child in an odd position ( I am assuming from the fact that he agreed to be photographed by police at that angle for comparative purposes that he believes he was indeed carrying the child in that position for a period of time), child was wearing pink-ish pyjamas, etc. etc.
If Jane Tanner's account was fictitious, or at least highly embellished in order to suit some cover-up or plan, then how do we explain Innocentman's presence?
But before he was identified did you believe the person JT saw did take Madeleine?
Few did (even amongst stalwart supporters), so what was said in Crimewatch didn't really make that much difference.
I can't answer your last question (we'll just assume Mr Redwood is happy he could have been/was in that location at 9.15 that night).
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 23, 2014, 01:59:24 AM
But before he was identified did you believe the person JT saw did take Madeleine?
Few did (even amongst stalwart supporters), so what was said in Crimewatch didn't really make that much difference.
I can't answer your last question (we'll just assume Mr Redwood is happy he could have been/was in that location at 9.15 that night).
I did actually believe there was a good chance it could have been the abductor, odd as it was that he chose to walk out onto that open road when Gerry and Jeremy were standing there.
Also found it odd that he didn't put Madeleine straight into a car.
But overall I found it plausible. He was emerging right from the front of the apartment, after all. And I didn't buy any hypothesis regarding Jane making things up. If she was going to do that, presumably at Gerry's behest, Gerry wouldn't have denied seeing her.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Lyall on January 23, 2014, 02:02:27 AM
On a related but separate point, are we to assume that Jane Tanner herself will have been involved in the ruling out of Bundleman from SY's investigation?
I would assume that her involvement would have been helpful, perhaps necessary, in the circumstances, though I don't know how police operate in this area.
If she was effectively involved in assisting SY in eliminating this person from the investigation, it would again seem odd that the McCanns appear still to be entertaining the possibility that Innocentman is not so innocent at all.
And if Smithman has been inflated to fill bundleman's old shoes ( in terms of providing the public with an abduction scenario) then why do the McCanns still need to cling to Bundleman?
The door angles, SH, that still suggest someone was in the apartment around 9.15. Or that's how they have always been interpreted.
Your other fascinating questions we can only speculate about. But six and a half years after seeing a man whose face she couldn't describe even at the time how could she say definitely yes or definitely no now? She probably said "maybe!".
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Lyall on January 23, 2014, 02:08:00 AM
I did actually believe there was a good chance it could have been the abductor, odd as it was that he chose to walk out onto that open road when Gerry and Jeremy were standing there.
Also found it odd that he didn't put Madeleine straight into a car.
But overall I found it plausible. He was emerging right from the front of the apartment, after all. And I didn't buy any hypothesis regarding Jane making things up. If she was going to do that, presumably at Gerry's behest, Gerry wouldn't have denied seeing her.
If Wilkins didn't see her then how could Gerry say he did? >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 23, 2014, 02:36:33 AM
The door angles, SH, that still suggest someone was in the apartment around 9.15. Or that's how they have always been interpreted.
Your other fascinating questions we can only speculate about. But six and a half years after seeing a man whose face she couldn't describe even at the time how could she say definitely yes or definitely no now? She probably said "maybe!".
I am still not sure if I understand the significance of the door angles. There was nothing to record those angles ( a camera in other words) so how can we be sure that the reports are accurate?
If we're not sure about Jane Tanner's testimony, why are the door angles in tablets of stone? As you say, the doors and the bundleman scenario kind of go together.
Regarding Bundleman's face, it was not seen by Jane, because by the time she focussed on him properly - after having noted that he was carrying a child in a strange way- he was well across the road walking away from her, with his back to her. Hence the focus on the long hair at the back. She would not have seen the hair at the back if she had been looking at the face.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 23, 2014, 02:41:43 AM
If Wilkins didn't see her then how could Gerry say he did? >@@(*&)
That whole scenario is a mystery all right.
I'm actually with Sadie on this point, namely that Jane, as a woman alone walking in the dark, would be hyperconscious of activiy around her - particularly male activity. Gerry and Jeremy however were engrossed in conversation and perhaps simply didn't notice her.
And as I mentioned earlier, if Gerry had been adamant about Jane's reports being correct regarding the timing and sighting of bundleman, and therefore her sighting of Gerry and Jeremy, which she says went together - and he's adamant about quite a few things is our Gerry - he would not have eliminated himself unnecessarily from the scenario at the risk of casting doubt on Jane's testimony. The testimony that formed the backbone of the abduction claim.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: icabodcrane on January 23, 2014, 03:04:18 AM
I'm actually with Sadie on this point, namely that Jane, as a woman alone walking in the dark, would be hyperconscious of activiy around her - particularly male activity. Gerry and Jeremy however were engrossed in conversation and perhaps simply didn't notice her.
And as I mentioned earlier, if Gerry had been adamant about Jane's reports being correct regarding the timing and sighting of bundleman, and therefore her sighting of Gerry and Jeremy, which she says went together - and he's adamant about quite a few things is our Gerry - he would not have eliminated himself unnecessarily from the scenario at the risk of casting doubt on Jane's testimony. The testimony that formed the backbone of the abduction claim.
Jane Tanner did not see Madeleine being 'abducted'
Scotland Yard have said so
I don't understand why we are discussing this issue as if it were still in question
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 23, 2014, 03:09:03 AM
Jane Tanner did not see Madeleine being 'abducted'
Scotland Yard have said so
I don't understand why we are discussing this issue as if it were still in question
Jane Tanner didn't say so either.
We are discussing it because the McCanns appear to hold some store by the sighting, despite the fact that SY have formally ruled the 'suspect' out.
There must be a reason why the McCanns are holding on to this sighting. Perhaps we can figure that out.
But the bottom line is that they are placing themselves in contradiction to Scotland Yard and that seems odd at best.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 03:10:38 AM
On the issue "who is running the investigation", I found this, original in English, from Paulo Rebelo to Stu(art) Prior, referring to the questioning stream of the TP7 (29 April 2008) In Portugal, the criminal investigation is conducted by the Policia Judiciaria, under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor's Office. The competence to evaluate the interest and need for the performance of any criminal inquiry acts lies with these two entities, not with the witnesses. In fact, according to Portuguese law (article 132, section 1, subsection a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), whenever a witness summons is served, the witness is compelled to attend the authorities so that any action mentioned in the summons may take place.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 23, 2014, 03:20:39 AM
On the issue "who is running the investigation", I found this, original in English, from Paulo Rebelo to Stu(art) Prior, referring to the questioning stream of the TP7 (29 April 2008) In Portugal, the criminal investigation is conducted by the Policia Judiciaria, under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor's Office. The competence to evaluate the interest and need for the performance of any criminal inquiry acts lies with these two entities, not with the witnesses. In fact, according to Portuguese law (article 132, section 1, subsection a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), whenever a witness summons is served, the witness is compelled to attend the authorities so that any action mentioned in the summons may take place.
Very interesting, Anne.
I have always maintained that the McCanns' influence upon matters is a lot less profound than they and / or others sometimes give the impression that it is.
They clearly are not running the investigation in any way shape or form - the initial thread title was somewhat facetious in this regard . If they were, Scotland Yard would be saying the same thing as they are.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 03:21:43 AM
If Wilkins didn't see her then how could Gerry say he did? >@@(*&)
This is basic and enough. Tannerman had the unique function to support the abduction from bed and Jane saying she saw at the same moment the abductor and Gerry was giving Gerry a golden alibi. DCI Redwood destroyed two precious facts. The official site attempts to insinuate doubts.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: icabodcrane on January 23, 2014, 03:23:13 AM
We are discussing it because the McCanns appear to hold some store by the sighting, despite the fact that SY have formally ruled the 'suspect' out.
There must be a reason why the McCanns are holding on to this sighting. Perhaps we can figure that out.
But the bottom line is that they are placing themselves in contradiction to Scotland Yard and that seems odd at best.
I think we should be clear about the discussion we are having here then
Scotland Yard do not believe Jane Tanner saw Madeleine McCann being 'abducted'
Why are we assuming that the McCanns disagree with that conclusion ? ( a conclusion arrived at after three years, and seven million pounds of tax payers money spent )
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 03:24:47 AM
I have always maintained that the McCanns' influence upon matters is a lot less profound than they and / or others sometimes give the impression that it is.
They clearly are not running the investigation in any way shape or form - the initial thread title was somewhat facetious in this regard . If they were, Scotland Yard would be saying the same thing as they are.
I'm not sure you understood what Paulo Rebelo meant, SH ! You better read the whole process that led him to write this.
I am still not sure if I understand the significance of the door angles. There was nothing to record those angles ( a camera in other words) so how can we be sure that the reports are accurate?
Mr McCann mainly gave an extreme importance to those angles. The fact is admirable : just because of the door angle, Mr McCann and then Mrs McCann bothered to have a look at their children, the first to be proud and the second to be horrified.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 23, 2014, 03:35:38 AM
She noticed the type, colour and height of his shoes though.. Usually, what you first look at is the face, isn't it ? Or is Ms Tanner a shoe maniac ?
Well perhaps she is.
I think the reason she didn't record the face is that, as Tannerman was walking across the road from the left hand side to the right, from the angle Jane viewed him, and she was on the left hand side of the road, he was therefore walking away from her, as it were. She therefore only would have had a very minimal glimpse of part of his face before he continued across the road.
Now if he had been walking from the right hand side of the road across to the left (Jane's side) he would have been facing her for most of his journey, and presumably she would have had more to say about the face.
I would like to be able to say that perhaps Jane was wrong about the direction. This would take care of the problem of the location of Innocentman's creche in relation to apartment 5A.
But Jane's description, which focuses on the side and back of him, indicates otherwise.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 23, 2014, 03:39:24 AM
Mr McCann mainly gave an extreme importance to those angles. The fact is admirable : just because of the door angle, Mr McCann and then Mrs McCann bothered to have a look at their children, the first to be proud and the second to be horrified.
They did give an importance.
But we still don't have an accurate measure of those angles, or of the exact times that they were noted.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 23, 2014, 03:48:02 AM
@ Anne
And also with regard to Jane Tanner's description of bundleman, let's imagine as a thought experiment that he had been walking right to left across the road (in other words, from the Creche side to apartment 5A).
Jane would be likely to have seen his face much better, and the whole of the front of the body in general. She may have mentioned the colour of a shirt or t-shirt; described a neckline; noted a belt.
Moreover, the famous legs would have been a-dangle from his left arm rather than his right, and the head of the child would have been facing Jane Tanner. She may therefore have noted hair colour or have been able to give a definitive answer as to whether it was a boy or a girl - sans the need for relying on the colour or design of those infamous pyjamas.
Yet if we consider Jane's descriptions, none of these things are mentioned. Her description of bundleman is entirely consistent with him having been walking from left to right across the top of the road.
Therefore her omission of the face from her description makes perfect sense.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Eleanor on January 23, 2014, 05:21:53 AM
I am still not sure about this. The direction from which he was coming just doesn't add up, unless he got lost.
I have no idea why Scotland Yard and the McCanns appear to differ. We don't have enough details about what this man was supposedly doing. And nothing definite has actually been said by Scotland Yard or The McCanns.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: colombosstogey on January 23, 2014, 06:41:20 AM
I think this is a incredibly important question at the moment and I'm surprised it isn't getting more media attention.
The McCanns are making it very clear that they themselves now have very different ideas about the investigation than Scotland Yard. They are going as far as to contradict Scotland Yard, in fact.
They nonetheless agreed to participate in Crimewatch which promoted a reconstruction that, as far as we can gather, reflects Scotland Yard's understanding of events.
Millions of taxpayers money is being poured into SY headquarters, yet after many years of campaigning and fundraising, of pulling strings in government in order to get a formal UK investigation going, the McCanns are taking public steps that show their complete ambivalece to Scotland Yard's work.
It is absolutely astonishing.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHY AMARAL GOT THE BOOT....
Because he was not bowing to their ideas of the ABDUCTION BY PEDOPHILE, and he criticised the british police by saying they were bowing to every whim of the McCanns, now SY are getting the same treatment. Perhaps now they will understand why the child was never found.
The McCanns are interfering far too much in the investigation.
NOW this will promote MORE crap coming in for the police to deal with.
I mean honestly, what are the chances of TWO men walking the same with a child at the same time, one with the back and one with the front.
Jeez they need to leave things alone and let the police do their job.
DONT they realise they and their media circus is probably one of the reasons why the child disappeared without a trace in the first place.
I wonder if SY have seen this?
I dont expect they will be very happy.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Mr Gray on January 23, 2014, 08:25:07 AM
Quite simply Tannerman cannot be 100% ruled out. neither can Victoria or spotty man..therefore must syill promote them...wouldnt want to be accused of supressing the photo fits
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Eleanor on January 23, 2014, 08:30:42 AM
Why should The McCanns not have slightly different ideas? They aren't exactly shouting about it, and neither are Scotland Yard. In fact, nothing definite has been said by either of them. So why should not both options still be open?
So far nothing has been said to explain the difference in direction from the creche. And we are only talking of approximately half an hour. So until I know why that man was coming from the wrong direction I am unlikely to take it as gospel.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: stephen25000 on January 23, 2014, 08:31:03 AM
Quite simply Tannerman cannot be 100% ruled out. neither can Victoria or spotty man..therefore must syill promote them...wouldnt want to be accused of supressing the photo fits
Neither can the accidental death of Madeleine in the apartment.
Try not to forget davel.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: stephen25000 on January 23, 2014, 08:33:52 AM
We must also remember of course, the Mccanns are great detectives as well. 8)-)))
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Mr Gray on January 23, 2014, 09:34:41 AM
I also find it significant that the McCanns appear to be diverting focus away from the only person or line of inquiry that Scotland Yard have put forward to the public, through Crimewatch and other official channels.
Other ideas/ persons of interest etc. have been ' we are not giving a running commentary'.
The McCanns have every right to see certain things differently from SY and to pursue certain matters as they personally see fit, but to contradict, or nearly contradict, SY's main official thrust, is something quite different.
Could this be the start of a new phase, maybe a turning point?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: John on January 23, 2014, 10:04:27 AM
It wasn't only the legs. It was a man, a strange method of carrying, a time, a place... all these must have been corroborated by the suspect police have now ruled out.
Otherwise, what would make them think it was the same person?
Why is it only now, some 6 years later, that this innocent tourist has been identified? Where has he been for 6 years...Mars?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Lyall on January 23, 2014, 10:09:49 AM
I am still not sure if I understand the significance of the door angles. There was nothing to record those angles ( a camera in other words) so how can we be sure that the reports are accurate?
If we're not sure about Jane Tanner's testimony, why are the door angles in tablets of stone? As you say, the doors and the bundleman scenario kind of go together.
Regarding Bundleman's face, it was not seen by Jane, because by the time she focussed on him properly - after having noted that he was carrying a child in a strange way- he was well across the road walking away from her, with his back to her. Hence the focus on the long hair at the back. She would not have seen the hair at the back if she had been looking at the face.
Maybe but it's impossible for her to ID that man now if she never even saw his face then, six years ago. That was my point.
"why are the door angles in tablets of stone?"
I expect they're not, but they were in Crimewatch. Hence the continuing need for a way to explain them (someone must have been in the apartment, before 10pm man).
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Luz on January 23, 2014, 10:15:41 AM
I think this is a incredibly important question at the moment and I'm surprised it isn't getting more media attention.
The McCanns are making it very clear that they themselves now have very different ideas about the investigation than Scotland Yard. They are going as far as to contradict Scotland Yard, in fact.
They nonetheless agreed to participate in Crimewatch which promoted a reconstruction that, as far as we can gather, reflects Scotland Yard's understanding of events.
Millions of taxpayers money is being poured into SY headquarters, yet after many years of campaigning and fundraising, of pulling strings in government in order to get a formal UK investigation going, the McCanns are taking public steps that show their complete ambivalece to Scotland Yard's work.
It is absolutely astonishing.
Finally are you getting there? This is what some of us have been telling ourselves for the last 7 years. The way the McCann invade (pervade) and attempt to twist around the official police investigations has been astonishing since day one. It's incomprehensible if in fact they are/were trying to find their daughter. For me the only explanation is that from the beginning they did everything to avoid the investigation to get to the truth.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: John on January 23, 2014, 10:25:34 AM
I'm actually with Sadie on this point, namely that Jane, as a woman alone walking in the dark, would be hyperconscious of activiy around her - particularly male activity. Gerry and Jeremy however were engrossed in conversation and perhaps simply didn't notice her.
And as I mentioned earlier, if Gerry had been adamant about Jane's reports being correct regarding the timing and sighting of bundleman, and therefore her sighting of Gerry and Jeremy, which she says went together - and he's adamant about quite a few things is our Gerry - he would not have eliminated himself unnecessarily from the scenario at the risk of casting doubt on Jane's testimony. The testimony that formed the backbone of the abduction claim.
Given that Gerry is at odds with Jane and Jez as to even which side of the road they were on whilst chatting can we believe anything?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: John on January 23, 2014, 10:33:02 AM
This is basic and enough. Tannerman had the unique function to support the abduction from bed and Jane saying she saw at the same moment the abductor and Gerry was giving Gerry a golden alibi. DCI Redwood destroyed two precious facts. The official site attempts to insinuate doubts.
Good observation Anne. Redwood has indeed destroyed the only evidence of abduction and Gerry's alibi in one fell swoop! Apologies for the idiom.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Benice on January 23, 2014, 10:56:51 AM
Finally are you getting there? This is what some of us have been telling ourselves for the last 7 years. The way the McCann invade (pervade) and attempt to twist around the official police investigations has been astonishing since day one. It's incomprehensible if in fact they are/were trying to find their daughter. For me the only explanation is that from the beginning they did everything to avoid the investigation to get to the truth.
So why did they spend so much time and effort trying to get the the case re-investigated?
Hardly the sane actions of a 9 guilty people - who apparently have got clean away with a terrible crime against a child is it?
The whole idea is preposterous IMO - unless one is prepared to toss all semblance of common sense and logic out of the window first - or unless one is a '[ censored word ]' of the highest order.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Benice on January 23, 2014, 10:59:20 AM
I think we should be clear about the discussion we are having here then
Scotland Yard do not believe Jane Tanner saw Madeleine McCann being 'abducted'
Why are we assuming that the McCanns disagree with that conclusion ? ( a conclusion arrived at after three years, and seven million pounds of tax payers money spent )
The pink site suddenly put forward the theory that the front and back of Tannerman could be two different people. So although SY deffed out the front end the back end could yet have currency. Oh joy! So we still have a stone yet to be turned over for which we may reasonably request funds.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: John on January 23, 2014, 11:04:58 AM
I am still not sure about this. The direction from which he was coming just doesn't add up, unless he got lost.
I have no idea why Scotland Yard and the McCanns appear to differ. We don't have enough details about what this man was supposedly doing. And nothing definite has actually been said by Scotland Yard or The McCanns.
Why is that Eleanor? Why is SY being so cagey about this character, a man who stayed in the shadows for over 6 years?
If it had been me that night I would be shouting it from the rooftops but not this person. I have a feeling all is not as some would like it to appear. I am sympathetic to the McCanns on this issue, I am not convinced Tannerman was Innocentman at all.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Cariad on January 23, 2014, 11:06:40 AM
The pink site suddenly put forward the theory that the front and back of Tannerman could be two different people. So although SY deffed out the front end the back end could yet have currency. Oh joy! So we still have a stone yet to be turned over for which we may reasonably request funds.
Also, does this imply that teh Mccanns are conducting their own investigation still, running along side that of SY and the PJ?
Are there now three concurrent investigations in to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Eleanor on January 23, 2014, 11:06:55 AM
So why did they spend so much time and effort trying to get the the case re-investigated?
Hardly the sane actions of a 9 guilty people - who apparently have got clean away with a terrible crime against a child is it?
The whole idea is preposterous IMO - unless one is prepared to toss all semblance of common sense and logic out of the window first - or unless one is a '[ censored word ]' of the highest order.
No. Just a deluded patriot who is prepared to defend The PJ at all cost to reason, even when some of them are clearly corrupt.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Lyall on January 23, 2014, 11:08:33 AM
Why is that Eleanor? Why is SY being so cagey about this character, a man who stayed in the shadows for over 6 years?
If it had been me that night I would be shouting it from the rooftops but not this person. I have a feeling all is not as some would like it to appear. I am sympathetic to the McCanns on this issue, I am not convinced Tannerman was Innocentman at all.
I think once you consider the secret activities of lawyers in recent years you can understand more. I'm sure we only see the tip of the communication iceberg.
All is definitely not as it appears, and it's the private involvement of lawyers behind the public face of this investigation that explains a lot I think.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Serendipity on January 23, 2014, 11:10:06 AM
Given that Gerry is at odds with Jane and Jez as to even which side of the road they were on whilst chatting can we believe anything?
Remember too that Mrs Susan Moyes who had the apartment above Mrs Fenn's was on her balcony enjoying a glass of wine at 9.15 on 3rd May and she did not mention seeing or hearing GW, GM, JT or anyone carring a child despite having one of the best views in the area Here is her radio interview:
Why is that Eleanor? Why is SY being so cagey about this character, a man who stayed in the shadows for over 6 years?
If it had been me that night I would be shouting it from the rooftops but not this person. I have a feeling all is not as some would like it to appear. I am sympathetic to the McCanns on this issue, I am not convinced Tannerman was Innocentman at all.
I don't know, John. I an still trying to figure it out. Why did he have to be tracked down? Why didn't he just come forward nearly seven years ago? He could have done this anonymously. And he certainly must have known.
I am reluctant to go down the road of Scotland Yard pulling a blinder, but so far they have offered no real evidence that it was actually he.
I suppose that it might have been something to do with the times of the numerous cell phone calls, but that won't mean all that much. We are only talking about half an hour. So for the moment I am sticking with Tanner Man.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 11:22:08 AM
So why did they spend so much time and effort trying to get the the case re-investigated?
Hardly the sane actions of a 9 guilty people - who apparently have got clean away with a terrible crime against a child is it?
The whole idea is preposterous IMO - unless one is prepared to toss all semblance of common sense and logic out of the window first - or unless one is a '[ censored word ]' of the highest order.
Who said all nine ?
Meanwhile covering up the truth to protect the careers would be a reason for some.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 11:26:31 AM
Remember too that Mrs Susan Moyes who had the apartment above Mrs Fenn's was on her balcony enjoying a glass of wine at 9.15 on 3rd May and she did not mention seeing or hearing GW, GM, JT or anyone carring a child despite having one of the best views in the area Here is her radio interview:
So why did they spend so much time and effort trying to get the the case re-investigated?
Hardly the sane actions of a 9 guilty people - who apparently have got clean away with a terrible crime against a child is it?
The whole idea is preposterous IMO - unless one is prepared to toss all semblance of common sense and logic out of the window first - or unless one is a '[ censored word ]' of the highest order.
That is an old one that doesn't buy anymore. Everyone knows that the McCann, as arguidos, had the legal right to request the case to remain open within a 21 days period after it's archiving was published. And furthermore, they could request for its reopening at any time just by giving a new fact/evidence (for instance offering to do the reconstitution). They chose to keep it archived and play the trick with the UK PM. But I bet they never expected that it backfired at them with the NSY review (although I have no faith in it).
The McCann played the media by constantly saying that nobody was investigating, and that was giving fruits in terms of the Fund. I wonder if they are as comfortable now financially as they were before Mr. Cameron corresponded to their appeals? :-)
It is indeed preposterous that those people smear the image of parents of real abducted children. I find it incomprehensible that such confessed negligence, illegal behaviour (obstruction of justice), fraud,...can be exalted and praised by a corrupted Media and a bunch of internet trolls.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 11:29:44 AM
I think once you consider the secret activities of lawyers in recent years you can understand more. I'm sure we only see the tip of the communication iceberg.
All is definitely not as it appears, and it's the private involvement of lawyers behind the public face of this investigation that explains a lot I think.
What do you mean ?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 11:39:35 AM
The McCanns have every right to see certain things differently from SY and to pursue certain matters as they personally see fit, but to contradict, or nearly contradict, SY's main official thrust, is something quite different.
I don't see that they nearly contradict. Had DCI Redwood been more convincing (showing Innocentman's route, indicating the time, two crucial data), you could say they "contradict".
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: colombosstogey on January 23, 2014, 11:48:24 AM
The ARROGANCE of people who interfere in the investigation from the start.
IF my child had been abducted I would leave it to the police to do their jobs.
And before you go on about it blah blah blah AMARAL blah blah....they are doing the same with Scotland Yard too.
What the hell has it got to do with them. They are not detectives. They are the ones IMHO who caused all the problems in the first place, turned the disappearance into a media circus, and if anyone is to blame for the child not being found its THEM.
They made it too hot to handle the child if she was taken by a stranger.
Tanner Sighting WAS NEVER taken seriously by the PJ from the beginning. Anyone who followed the case from day one knew it was BOGUS.
Sick to death of it now. They need to stand down, and let the GREAT SCOTLAND YARD do the job, which is costing US a fortune.....makes my blood boil lol....
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Benice on January 23, 2014, 11:49:12 AM
Meanwhile covering up the truth to protect the careers would be a reason for some.
If you believe that then surely that would be an even stronger reason for them to NOT to want a re-opening of the case? They have all resumed their careers - so why would they want to re-introduce that risk to their careers which a reinvestigation would incur?
If the McCanns friends are guilty of being accessories to a heinous crime, and have got away with it - then what do they have to gain by having the case re-examined by SY? The whole idea is nonsensical imo.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Serendipity on January 23, 2014, 11:51:25 AM
I think she could have seen them only if they had been on the other side of the street, unless perhaps she'd lean over her balcony.
Guess we really need to know which balcony she was on to work out what she could possibly have seen? I agree it's unlikely she would have seen but I would have thought she would have at least heard GW/GM chatting given that it was a typically quiet evening. If she was on either of the balconies I would have thought it was possible she would have seen either JT and/or the man she says she saw carrying a child.
I don't see that they nearly contradict. Had DCI Redwood been more convincing (showing Innocentman's route, indicating the time, two crucial data), you could say they "contradict".
I'm with you there, Anne.
The presumed Redwood version presented in that "%&#!" CW show was ridiculous. Even I, that don't believe Tanner's sighting one bit, felt offended by the clumsiness with which they tried to re-write the already faulty script of an abduction.
Nevertheless, what the McCann are doing is just being themselves, after begging for the police intervention they do everything to mess up, so they keep on top of everything. We can only guess the coffers are running low and a new begging campaign for funds is imminent. To do that they have to present the need to pursue a different course from the official one. Nice strategy.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 23, 2014, 12:02:59 PM
Remember too that Mrs Susan Moyes who had the apartment above Mrs Fenn's was on her balcony enjoying a glass of wine at 9.15 on 3rd May and she did not mention seeing or hearing GW, GM, JT or anyone carring a child despite having one of the best views in the area Here is her radio interview:
That's why the Timeline is crucial. JT said she left the tapas at 9.10 so she would've spotted that man at 9.12 at the latest. She said when she returned a few minutes later after her check Gerry and Jez were no longer there and when she returned to the tapas Gerry was present at the table.
If they were still talking outside at 9.15 I think Susan Moyes may have heard them. MO said when he returned at 9pm from checking at the shutters Gerry got up and left the tapas straight away. So the crucial time here is 9-9.12pm. Jez said they were only chatting for 3 minutes maybe a little more. So there's a good 7 minutes before he started talking to Jez unaccounted for when he first left the tapas bar. That time period is crucial.
9.25-9.45pm is a crucial time period as that's how long Russell was away from the tapas. A reconstruction would have concentrated on these checks to find out what people were doing in that time away from the tapas.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 12:07:29 PM
For all we know, Innocentman could well have reported seeing Gerry and Jeremy. He could have referred to any number of details pertaining to that situation. We don't know what those details are. But the point is, he must have given SY reasons and details that matched.
If DCI Redwood had imposed Innocentman without comment, I could believe that. But he didn't, he exhibited 2 different pyjamas pretending they were amazingly alike. Why did he ridicule himself ?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 12:11:11 PM
The ARROGANCE of people who interfere in the investigation from the start.
IF my child had been abducted I would leave it to the police to do their jobs.
And before you go on about it blah blah blah AMARAL blah blah....they are doing the same with Scotland Yard too.
What the hell has it got to do with them. They are not detectives. They are the ones IMHO who caused all the problems in the first place, turned the disappearance into a media circus, and if anyone is to blame for the child not being found its THEM.
They made it too hot to handle the child if she was taken by a stranger.
Tanner Sighting WAS NEVER taken seriously by the PJ from the beginning. Anyone who followed the case from day one knew it was BOGUS.
Sick to death of it now. They need to stand down, and let the GREAT SCOTLAND YARD do the job, which is costing US a fortune.....makes my blood boil lol....
You opinion that the McCanns are interfering is based on pure speculation. SY are doing their job and are keeping the McCanns updated. There is no evidence to say otherwise - only speculation from people who IMO never stop looking for sticks to beat the McCanns with.
We know that the picture of Tannerman is now thought to be an accurate description of someone else i.e. an innocent tourist. So IMO it makes sense to leave it on the site, as if someone thinks they saw that person and comes forward - they could possible confirm that innocent person's movements, or at least some of them on that night - which could add strength to the belief that he was almost certainly the man JT saw - in addition to his own testamony and the creche records. IMO.
To remove it would also remove the possibility of further helpful info being obtained about the movements of 'Innocentman' IMO
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 12:14:45 PM
Guess we really need to know which balcony she was on to work out what she could possibly have seen? I agree it's unlikely she would have seen but I would have thought she would have at least heard GW/GM chatting given that it was a typically quiet evening. If she was on either of the balconies I would have thought it was possible she would have seen either JT and/or the man she says she saw carrying a child.
Edited to add that Mrs Moyes was in the apartment above Mrs Fenn's
You can see that the Moyses' balcony is smaller than Mrs Fenn's and doesn't allow to see what's going near the patio gate and top of the street. There's another little balcony but Mrs Moyse tells about the lights and animation at the Tapas.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 23, 2014, 12:23:38 PM
[Tanner Sighting WAS NEVER taken seriously by the PJ from the beginning. Anyone who followed the case from day one knew it was BOGUS. ]
They shouldn't be wasting time on that sighting. IMO the last sighting of Madeleine was witnessed by the Smith family (wearing long sleeves). They should concentrate on this last sighting of Madeleine at 10pm. From the efits released on CW I think they are moving in that direction regardless of what the McCann's think.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 12:24:53 PM
You opinion that the McCanns are interfering is based on pure speculation. SY are doing their job and are keeping the McCanns updated. There is no evidence to say otherwise - only speculation from people who IMO never stop looking for sticks to beat the McCanns with.
We know that the picture of Tannerman is now thought to be an accurate description of someone else i.e. an innocent tourist. So IMO it makes sense to leave it on the site, as if someone thinks they saw that person and comes forward - they could possible confirm that innocent person's movements, or at least some of them on that night - which could add strength to the belief that he was almost certainly the man JT saw - in addition to his own testamony and the creche records. IMO.
To remove it would also remove the possibility of further helpful info being obtained about the movements of 'Innocentman' IMO
SY have done this though. They have located Tannerman and made him Innocentman. What further need is there to confirm Innocentman's movements?
Operation Grange has done it.
SY must have bloody good reasons to dismiss him. In an investigation that has so very few leads, I can't imagine they'd remove one without being very, very sure indeed.
Now, as to your other point that Sy are keeping the Mccanns informed, if this is the case (and I'm not denying that it certainly may be) why are the McCanns asking the public for information regarding Innocentman that sy already have?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 12:31:17 PM
[Tanner Sighting WAS NEVER taken seriously by the PJ from the beginning. Anyone who followed the case from day one knew it was BOGUS. ]
They shouldn't be wasting time on that sighting. IMO the last sighting of Madeleine was witnessed by the Smith family (wearing long sleeves). They should concentrate on this last sighting of Madeleine at 10pm. From the efits released on CW I think they are moving in that direction regardless of what the McCann's think.
They (not Ms Tanner) have red herringged Tannerman for more than 6 years, it might be a bit tough to say farewell. I think that SY are giving a desperate chance to Smithman to be an abductor. The detail of the long sleeves and likely long legs is important.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 12:37:00 PM
That is an old one that doesn't buy anymore. Everyone knows that the McCann, as arguidos, had the legal right to request the case to remain open within a 21 days period after it's archiving was published. And furthermore, they could request for its reopening at any time just by giving a new fact/evidence (for instance offering to do the reconstitution). They chose to keep it archived and play the trick with the UK PM. But I bet they never expected that it backfired at them with the NSY review (although I have no faith in it).
The McCann played the media by constantly saying that nobody was investigating, and that was giving fruits in terms of the Fund. I wonder if they are as comfortable now financially as they were before Mr. Cameron corresponded to their appeals? :-)
It is indeed preposterous that those people smear the image of parents of real abducted children. I find it incomprehensible that such confessed negligence, illegal behaviour (obstruction of justice), fraud,...can be exalted and praised by a corrupted Media and a bunch of internet trolls.
So tell me Luz - if the McCanns and their friends are guilty then (putting the McCanns to one side for a moment,) what benefit is there for those friends in having the case reinvestigated? What is in it for them - apart from the possibility that they will be found out - prosecuted - and have their lives ruined - when having already got away with it all they had to do was keep their heads down and wait for the whole case to gradually slip out of the public eye?
I'm being asked to believe that when they saw the McCanns pushing and pushing for a reinvestigation - they actually approved of the massive danger the McCanns were putting them all in if they were all as guilty as you seem to think they are.
So tell me - What was in it for the Tapas7 to agree to go down that road?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 12:43:49 PM
So tell me Luz - if the McCanns and their friends are guilty then (putting the McCanns to one side for a moment,) what benefit is there for those friends in having the case reinvestigated? What is in it for them - apart from the possibility that they will be found out - prosecuted - and have their lives ruined - when having already got away with it all they had to do was keep their heads down and wait for the whole case to gradually slip out of the public eye?
I'm being asked to believe that when they saw the McCanns pushing and pushing for a reinvestigation - they actually approved of the massive danger the McCanns were putting them all in if they were all as guilty as you seem to think they are.
So tell me - What was in it for the Tapas7 to agree to go down that road?
THEY NEVER PUSHED FOR AN INVESTIGATION.
They asked UK for a review.
If they wanted the portuguese investigation to be kept open they could have done that, they didn't.
If they wanted the portuguese investigation to be reopened they could have done it, they didn't.
All they did was going to the Media with requests of a review, and when they finally made the mistake (for them) to write the open letter to Cameron, I bet they never expected it to happen.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 12:51:48 PM
Quote from: Luz on Today at 11:26:48 AM
That is an old one that doesn't buy anymore. Everyone knows that the McCann, as arguidos, had the legal right to request the case to remain open within a 21 days period after it's archiving was published. And furthermore, they could request for its reopening at any time just by giving a new fact/evidence (for instance offering to do the reconstitution). They chose to keep it archived and play the trick with the UK PM. But I bet they never expected that it backfired at them with the NSY review (although I have no faith in it).
The McCann played the media by constantly saying that nobody was investigating, and that was giving fruits in terms of the Fund. I wonder if they are as comfortable now financially as they were before Mr. Cameron corresponded to their appeals? :-)
It is indeed preposterous that those people smear the image of parents of real abducted children. I find it incomprehensible that such confessed negligence, illegal behaviour (obstruction of justice), fraud,...can be exalted and praised by a corrupted Media and a bunch of internet trolls.
Reply from Benice So tell me Luz - if the McCanns and their friends are guilty then (putting the McCanns to one side for a moment,) what benefit is there for those friends in having the case reinvestigated? What is in it for them - apart from the possibility that they will be found out - prosecuted - and have their lives ruined - when having already got away with it all they had to do was keep their heads down and wait for the whole case to gradually slip out of the public eye?
I'm being asked to believe that when they saw the McCanns pushing and pushing for a reinvestigation - they actually approved of the massive danger the McCanns were putting them all in if they were all as guilty as you seem to think they are.
So tell me - What was in it for the Tapas7 to agree to go down that road?
I observe, Benice, that you go on mentioning the TP7 even when nobody speaks of them. Luz doesn't. Nobody on this forum believes that the TP7 are involved in the Madeleine drama, or informed of what happened. So what's your point ?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Lyall on January 23, 2014, 12:53:09 PM
I mean the reputation management still continues and with a review/new investigation comes renewed risk that public use of language that hasn't been carefully considered could potentially inflame public opinion again (not to mention encourage certain newspapers who are likely not reluctant to commence stirring the pot again, if given an excuse).
I'm sure lawyers for all concerned parties have been anxious to avoid this possibility.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: John on January 23, 2014, 12:53:51 PM
So lets see...assuming for a moment Madeleine was abducted then one or more people had to have entered the apartment and made off with her. Given the traffic which trod the route between the tapas and the apartments, the movements of Jez and the local girl who was visiting nearby when was there are opportunity to abduct a child?
Who saw the abductor(s)? Answers on a postcard to DCI Redwood c/o Scotland Yard. cc BBC Crimewatch
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Lyall on January 23, 2014, 12:55:50 PM
So tell me Luz - if the McCanns and their friends are guilty then (putting the McCanns to one side for a moment,) what benefit is there for those friends in having the case reinvestigated? What is in it for them - apart from the possibility that they will be found out - prosecuted - and have their lives ruined - when having already got away with it all they had to do was keep their heads down and wait for the whole case to gradually slip out of the public eye?
I'm being asked to believe that when they saw the McCanns pushing and pushing for a reinvestigation - they actually approved of the massive danger the McCanns were putting them all in if they were all as guilty as you seem to think they are.
So tell me - What was in it for the Tapas7 to agree to go down that road?
How do you know they agreed? They never speak. Five of them have never spoken, and the other two just briefly... years ago.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Benice on January 23, 2014, 12:59:10 PM
SY have done this though. They have located Tannerman and made him Innocentman. What further need is there to confirm Innocentman's movements?
Operation Grange has done it.
SY must have bloody good reasons to dismiss him. In an investigation that has so very few leads, I can't imagine they'd remove one without being very, very sure indeed.
Now, as to your other point that Sy are keeping the Mccanns informed, if this is the case (and I'm not denying that it certainly may be) why are the McCanns asking the public for information regarding Innocentman that sy already have?
When I said Tannerman had been eliminated I was jumped on from all directions and told that it was not DEFINITE that the tourist was the man JT saw and that was NOT what SY had said - and that SY were NOT 100% certain. If that is the case then any further information regarding this tourist could be helpful to SY to confirm or otherwise their present strong belief that he was the man JT saw.
Seems sensible enough to me.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 01:00:39 PM
When I said Tannerman had been eliminated I was jumped on from all directions and told that it was not DEFINITE that the tourist was the man JT saw and that was NOT what SY had said - and that SY were NOT 100% certain. If that is the case then any further information regarding this tourist could be helpful to SY to confirm or otherwise their present strong belief that he was the man JT saw.
Seems sensible enough to me.
How could they be certain that Ms Tanner, considering she saw a carrier at that time and place, saw Innocentman ? Nobody can, not even Ms Tanner who has a blank on the face topic. What DCI Redwood is certain of, however, is Madeleine wasn't abducted at the time suggested by Ms Tanner. In fact there was no need to suppress Tannerman, DCI Redwood could just put him at the back of the scene and bring Smithman to the front. But he gently killed Tannerman. I feel he'll never resurrect him.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Lyall on January 23, 2014, 01:16:52 PM
How could they be certain that Ms Tanner, considering she saw a carrier at that time and place, saw Innocentman ? Nobody can, not even Ms Tanner who has a blank on the face topic. What DCI Redwood is certain of, however, is Madeleine wasn't abducted at the time suggested by Ms Tanner. In fact there was no need to suppress Tannerman, DCI Redwood could just put him at the back of the scene and bring Smithman to the front. But he gently killed Tannerman. I feel he'll never resurrect him.
The police are "certain"? >@@(*&) I can hear the lawyers from here 8)-)))
(That would indeed be a brave policeman, Anne, if true).
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Benice on January 23, 2014, 01:23:05 PM
THEY NEVER PUSHED FOR AN INVESTIGATION.They asked UK for a review.
If they wanted the portuguese investigation to be kept open they could have done that, they didn't.
If they wanted the portuguese investigation to be reopened they could have done it, they didn't.
All they did was going to the Media with requests of a review, and when they finally made the mistake (for them) to write the open letter to Cameron I bet they never expected it to happen.
Hilarious! So what were they pushing for - and why bother in the first place? They would have to be a couple of nutters to sit down and decide to persistently ask for the case to be looked into again if they were guilty and had got away with it. And so would their friends.
The actions of all nine of them are the complete opposite of what guilty people would do - unless they are all completely insane. Honestly - it really is too barmy for words. IMO.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Lyall on January 23, 2014, 01:28:21 PM
Hilarious! So what were they pushing for - and why bother in the first place? They would have to be a couple of nutters to sit down and decide to persistently ask for the case to be looked into again if they were guilty and had got away with it. And so would their friends.
The actions of all nine of them are the complete opposite of what guilty people would do - unless they are all completely insane. Honestly - it really is too barmy for words. IMO.
Listen to the words spoken by the witnesses in Lisbon, Benice. There is a motive there for wishing to have British police involvement: the history of the case that will one day be read by their children.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: John on January 23, 2014, 01:51:34 PM
Why should The McCanns not have slightly different ideas? They aren't exactly shouting about it, and neither are Scotland Yard. In fact, nothing definite has been said by either of them. So why should not both options still be open?
So far nothing has been said to explain the difference in direction from the creche. And we are only talking of approximately half an hour. So until I know why that man was coming from the wrong direction I am unlikely to take it as gospel.
I asked earlier for confirmation as to where the night crèche was for a very specific reason.
Does anyone think, as I do, that they have made a serious but fundamental error over the claim that Innocentman was returning back from the night crèche? Have they in fact mixed up the day crèche located by the tennis courts with the juniors club located as was the night crèche above main reception?
As has been pointed out on many occasions, the man Tanner saw was coming from the direction of the tennis courts and not from main reception.
Could this whole abductor walking with a child in his arms scenario be a total red herring. Was Madeleine actually bundled into a car in the car park right outside the front door to the apartment?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Luz on January 23, 2014, 02:11:46 PM
I asked earlier for confirmation as to where the night crèche was for a very specific reason.
Does anyone think, as I do, that they have made a serious but fundamental error over the claim that Innocentman was returning back from the night crèche? Have they in fact mixed up the day crèche located by the tennis courts with the juniors club located as was the night crèche above main reception?
As has been pointed out on many occasions, the man Tanner saw was coming from the direction of the tennis courts and not from main reception.
Could this whole abductor walking with a child in his arms scenario be a total red herring. Was Madeleine actually bundled into a car in the car park right outside the front door to the apartment?
No forced entry by the front door, no jemmied window shutters.... Yeahhhhhhh, I guess she could if there were complicites in the family circle
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 02:17:12 PM
I asked earlier for confirmation as to where the night crèche was for a very specific reason.
Does anyone think, as I do, that they have made a serious but fundamental error over the claim that Innocentman was returning back from the night crèche? Have they in fact mixed up the day crèche located by the tennis courts with the juniors club located as was the night crèche above main reception?
As has been pointed out on many occasions, the man Tanner saw was coming from the direction of the tennis courts and not from main reception.
Could this whole abductor walking with a child in his arms scenario be a total red herring. Was Madeleine actually bundled into a car in the car park right outside the front door to the apartment?
No. They can't have made a confusion with the Tapas creche. Innocentman would have only one exit, the secondary reception, and could absolutely not have been coming from Agostinho da Silva.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 23, 2014, 02:25:14 PM
I asked earlier for confirmation as to where the night crèche was for a very specific reason.
Does anyone think, as I do, that they have made a serious but fundamental error over the claim that Innocentman was returning back from the night crèche? Have they in fact mixed up the day crèche located by the tennis courts with the juniors club located as was the night crèche above main reception?
As has been pointed out on many occasions, the man Tanner saw was coming from the direction of the tennis courts and not from main reception.
That's what I originally thought - that he left from the other crèche because the direction in which he was seen walking. It would be interesting to find out more information about crecheman and his movements that night especially in light of those pics of him taken weeks earlier at the beach wearing the same clothes. Where was he staying? How long was in PDL? Why was he silent for so long? Did he pass or see anyone? How old was his child at the time? Where was he living in May 07? Where was he at 10pm? I presume SY would have covered the route he took back from the crèche and everything before effectively clearing him.
The investigation has to move forward to the 10pm sighting as this man has never came forward to clear his name which doesn't surprise me 8)-)))
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 02:27:14 PM
The police are "certain"? >@@(*&) I can hear the lawyers from here 8)-)))
(That would indeed be a brave policeman, Anne, if true).
?{)(** This is the problem with the negation.. Are lawyers grammarians ? What element of the sentence is affected by the negation in "the police is certain that Madeleine wasn't abducted at this time and place" ? "Abducted" ? Or "this time and place" ? I meant "this time and place" and you understood "abducted" ! Funny.. for us and a headache for CR...
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: John on January 23, 2014, 02:41:06 PM
No. They can't have made a confusion with the Tapas creche. Innocentman would have only one exit, the secondary reception, and could absolutely not have been coming from Agostinho da Silva.
But there is a walkway through the Ocean Club Garden block Anne, anyone exiting from the tennis courts don't have to pass the tapas.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Lyall on January 23, 2014, 02:52:15 PM
?{)(** This is the problem with the negation.. Are lawyers grammarians ? What element of the sentence is affected by the negation in "the police is certain that Madeleine wasn't abducted at this time and place" ? "Abducted" ? Or "this time and place" ? I meant "this time and place" and you understood "abducted" ! Funny.. for us and a headache for CR...
I understand Anne, but my head's hurting now: it's getting Kafkaesque 8)--))
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 02:53:34 PM
But there is a walkway through the Ocean Club Garden block Anne, anyone exiting from the tennis courts don't have to pass the tapas.
Where ? The use of the tennis courts is reserved to the guests. There was a magnetic card device in the Tapas reception to check who got in. All guests received a card.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 02:55:06 PM
But there is a walkway through the Ocean Club Garden block Anne, anyone exiting from the tennis courts don't have to pass the tapas.
but Redwood said they spoke to the family about what they were doing on the night and they themselves believe they could be the Tanner sightng...the day creche doesnt come into it timewise at all, see
21.45
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 03:20:20 PM
Why should The McCanns not have slightly different ideas? They aren't exactly shouting about it, and neither are Scotland Yard. In fact, nothing definite has been said by either of them. So why should not both options still be open?
So far nothing has been said to explain the difference in direction from the creche. And we are only talking of approximately half an hour. So until I know why that man was coming from the wrong direction I am unlikely to take it as gospel.
The mcCanns have every right to hold different ideas. If any one of us, God forbid, was in their situation, we would have strong opinions too.
The question is about the wisdom of their contradicting Scotland Yard. Crime watch was all about Smithman, yet there is a full page on the FM website relating to bundleman and other suspects that aren't being mentioned officially at this point.
And it is also about the McCanns' relationship with the public. Crimewatch cost a great deal of money; the McCanns were privileged to be able to showcase the investigation there. But now, without explanation, they appear to be at odds with the program's main thrust.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 04:12:22 PM
The question is about the wisdom of their contradicting Scotland Yard. Crime watch was all about Smithman, yet there is a full page on the FM website relating to bundleman and other suspects that aren't being mentioned officially at this point.
I didn't see the same CW, then, because Smithman's presence didn't eclipse the extincted Tannerman's one. Quid of his modus operandi for instance ? The famous e-fits were mixed up with old, implausible and saturated e-fits in a confusion I find it hard to explain. If I knew that the Yard desperately attempted to save the goat and the cabbage, I might understand better.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Lyall on January 23, 2014, 04:14:50 PM
I didn't see the same CW, then, because Smithman's presence didn't eclipse the extincted Tannerman's one. Quid of his modus operandi for instance ? The famous e-fits were mixed up with old, implausible and saturated e-fits in a confusion I find it hard to explain. If I knew that the Yard desperately attempted to save the goat and the cabbage, I might understand better.
It's not our job to explain it, just to describe it. Imo ?{)(**
If there were an easy, uncontroversial explanation, wouldn't they have provided it?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 23, 2014, 04:22:52 PM
If there were an easy, uncontroversial explanation, wouldn't they have provided it?
I think so. That wouldn't interfere with the investigation after all. And DCI Redwood would have been admired for his sleuth qualities instead of doing the clown with rotten pyjamas.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Estuarine on January 23, 2014, 04:23:40 PM
The mcCanns have every right to hold different ideas. If any one of us, God forbid, was in their situation, we would have strong opinions too.
The question is about the wisdom of their contradicting Scotland Yard. Crime watch was all about Smithman, yet there is a full page on the FM website relating to bundleman and other suspects that aren't being mentioned officially at this point.
And it is also about the McCanns' relationship with the public. Crimewatch cost a great deal of money; the McCanns were privileged to be able to showcase the investigation there. But now, without explanation, they appear to be at odds with the program's main thrust.
Possibly they are playing their only remaining card ? Maybe this is their "Martha and the Vandellas" moment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABbc-O_3_Ac
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on January 23, 2014, 04:37:43 PM
She said she saw a man carrying a child whom she assumed to be female because of the colour of the pyjamas.
She was not in any way insistant that the child was Madeleine.
Ruling 'Tannerman' out as a suspect does not cast light on her integrity. If anything it reinforces it. The man who presented himself to SY in order to be ruled out of the investigation matches her description very well.
There are a great number of references throughout Kate's book that place Jane Tanners sighting as being of vital importance in the disappearance of Madeleine. The inference throughout the book is clear: they believe this was a vital piece of evidence.
This cannot be denied.
Page 77: Kate writes about how Jane had initially assumed that her sighting of the man carrying the sleeping child was innocent. But 'as soon as she heard about Madeleine's disappearance, everything fell into place and she felt sick.'
Now this is an entirely unambiguous statement. It clearly is conveys that Jane Tanner strongly suspects that she saw Madeleine's abductor taking her away. Why else would she 'feel sick?'
Page 84: 'there is little doubt in my mind then, nor is there now, that what Jane saw was Madeleine's abductor taking her away'.
Come on folks - there is no ambiguity there.
Page 97: ''For a start there was Jane's sighting of what was, in all likelihood, Madeleine being carried off.'
Again, this is a very clear statement.
As it now appears that the police have ruled out Jane Tanner's sighting as having any relevance to the enquiry, the focus must therefore be on other people.
I can't help noticing, on page 348 as Kate rages about Amaral with self-righteous indignation, she writes how 'he has been convicted of falsifying statements and has coordinated investigations into the disappearance of two little girls, neither of who mas been found. Why is this man being allowed a platform from which to peddle his absurd and offensive ideas? They say what goes around comes around. For Madeleine's sake, I certainly hope so.'
Well, it is interesting how Kate has latched onto the 'falsified statements'. As I have written elsewhere, having looked quite closely at the Cipriano case in which the mother and uncle of a child were convicted of her abuse, cruelty and murder under a team lead by Amaral, the 'falsified statements' conviction looks pretty much like one of those red herrings that tend to be flung around when there are people who desperately want to discredit someone. Someone who might put guilty people behind bars.
Kate is remarkably foolish in making some kind of association between the disappearance of Madeleine and the Cipriano case in which the mother was found guilty of the child's murder. The Cipriano case was a murder case and by suggesting that it involved 'the disappearance of a little girl who has not been found' she implies it was a wrongful conviction.
Take a look at the Cipriano case - it is excessively sordid, from the perspective of a little girl who was sexually abused, physically assaulted and then murdered. The child's mother and uncle, who were having an incestuous relationship, lied through their teeth to try to evade any responsibility for the child's disappearance. They are not exactly the type of people you would want babysitting your children.
Kate appears to be making the suggestion that the absence of a body in the Cipriano case somehow casts Amaral's team's conviction at doubt. I imagine that child murderers in general don't want to get caught so will go to quite extreme lengths to get rid of the body.
She really should do her research before she starts slinging mud around.
No-one wants to be accused of falsifying statements, do they?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Mr Gray on January 23, 2014, 06:28:08 PM
Possibly they are playing their only remaining card ? Maybe this is their "Martha and the Vandellas" moment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABbc-O_3_Ac
posters have been saying similar things for the last six years.......anyone who thinks the MCCanns were criminally involved in Madddies disappearance is deluded...IMO
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Mr Gray on January 23, 2014, 06:30:45 PM
There are a great number of references throughout Kate's book that place Jane Tanners sighting as being of vital importance in the disappearance of Madeleine. The inference throughout the book is clear: they believe this was a vital piece of evidence.
This cannot be denied.
Page 77: Kate writes about how Jane had initially assumed that her sighting of the man carrying the sleeping child was innocent. But 'as soon as she heard about Madeleine's disappearance, everything fell into place and she felt sick.'
Now this is an entirely unambiguous statement. It clearly is conveys that Jane Tanner strongly suspects that she saw Madeleine's abductor taking her away. Why else would she 'feel sick?'
Page 84: 'there is little doubt in my mind then, nor is there now, that what Jane saw was Madeleine's abductor taking her away'.
Come on folks - there is no ambiguity there.
Page 97: ''For a start there was Jane's sighting of what was, in all likelihood, Madeleine being carried off.'
Again, this is a very clear statement.
As it now appears that the police have ruled out Jane Tanner's sighting as having any relevance to the enquiry, the focus must therefore be on other people.
I can't help noticing, on page 348 as Kate rages about Amaral with self-righteous indignation, she writes how 'he has been convicted of falsifying statements and has coordinated investigations into the disappearance of two little girls, neither of who mas been found. Why is this man being allowed a platform from which to peddle his absurd and offensive ideas? They say what goes around comes around. For Madeleine's sake, I certainly hope so.'
Well, it is interesting how Kate has latched onto the 'falsified statements'. As I have written elsewhere, having looked quite closely at the Cipriano case in which the mother and uncle of a child were convicted of her abuse, cruelty and murder under a team lead by Amaral, the 'falsified statements' conviction looks pretty much like one of those red herrings that tend to be flung around when there are people who desperately want to discredit someone. Someone who might put guilty people behind bars.
Kate is remarkably foolish in making some kind of association between the disappearance of Madeleine and the Cipriano case in which the mother was found guilty of the child's murder. The Cipriano case was a murder case and by suggesting that it involved 'the disappearance of a little girl who has not been found' she implies it was a wrongful conviction.
Take a look at the Cipriano case - it is excessively sordid, from the perspective of a little girl who was sexually abused, physically assaulted and then murdered. The child's mother and uncle, who were having an incestuous relationship, lied through their teeth to try to evade any responsibility for the child's disappearance. They are not exactly the type of people you would want babysitting your children.
Kate appears to be making the suggestion that the absence of a body in the Cipriano case somehow casts Amaral's team's conviction at doubt. I imagine that child murderers in general don't want to get caught so will go to quite extreme lengths to get rid of the body.
She really should do her research before she starts slinging mud around.
No-one wants to be accused of falsifying statements, do they?
Surely in any properly run police force amaral would have been suspended with those charges hanging over him
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Lyall on January 23, 2014, 06:42:27 PM
posters have been saying similar things for the last six years.......anyone who thinks the MCCanns were criminally involved in Madddies disappearance is deluded...IMO
These two things could be separate. Ask Richard Nixon.
Or Danny Collins.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 24, 2014, 01:21:09 AM
I think you have one already, SH, or it was all in Latest News but that article was definitely discussed. I employed some of my best waffle on that one 8)--))
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 24, 2014, 01:28:36 AM
The pink site suddenly put forward the theory that the front and back of Tannerman could be two different people. So although SY deffed out the front end the back end could yet have currency. Oh joy! So we still have a stone yet to be turned over for which we may reasonably request funds.
So now we have a former suspect the front and back of whom could have been two different people (similar to a siamese twin only back to back instead of side-to-side? A sort of human push me - pull you*), replaced by a one-person suspect with two different heads .
@)(++(*
* Perhaps this attribute addresses some of the confusion about direction of walking
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 24, 2014, 01:34:38 AM
I think you have one already, SH, or it was all in Latest News but that article was definitely discussed. I employed some of my best waffle on that one 8)--))
Yes, I do remember the question coming up. (And I'm sure you're being modest with regard to the 'waffle', Lyall!)
To whom was that information given and why didn't they act upon it?
Was that ever worked out?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 24, 2014, 01:39:09 AM
I don't see that they nearly contradict. Had DCI Redwood been more convincing (showing Innocentman's route, indicating the time, two crucial data), you could say they "contradict".
The fact that the McCanns agreed to go along with the Crimewatch program, in which DCI Redwood presented his case, strongly suggests they accepted it at the time.
The fact that DCI Redwood was not convincing enough for some does not alter that fact.
And being 'convincing' was not his aim. His aim was to examine the facts and make a public appeal - not give the public an explanation or justification.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 24, 2014, 01:40:40 AM
So now we have a former suspect the front and back of whom could have been two different people (similar to a siamese twin only back to back instead of side-to-side? A sort of human push me - pull you*), replaced by a one-person suspect with two different heads .
@)(++(*
* Perhaps this attribute addresses some of the confusion about direction of walking
Of course ! Tannocentman was moonwalking..
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 24, 2014, 01:45:50 AM
When I said Tannerman had been eliminated I was jumped on from all directions and told that it was not DEFINITE that the tourist was the man JT saw and that was NOT what SY had said - and that SY were NOT 100% certain. If that is the case then any further information regarding this tourist could be helpful to SY to confirm or otherwise their present strong belief that he was the man JT saw.
Seems sensible enough to me.
If that were the aim, it's a pretty confused way of going about it.
To keep Tannerman in the public eye at the same time as rebranding Smithman as the abductor.
And is this how SY or other police organsations work? Present information to the public that a person is innocent - but keep the question open slightly just in case someone comes forward? Wouldn't that make police look unsure of themselves and possibly incompetent?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 24, 2014, 01:46:07 AM
The fact that the McCanns agreed to go along with the Crimewatch program, in which DCI Redwood presented his case, strongly suggests they accepted it at the time.
The fact that DCI Redwood was not convincing enough for some does not alter that fact.
And being 'convincing' was not his aim. His aim was to examine the facts and make a public appeal - not give the public an explanation or justification.
The McCanns had no choice. They're not the boss, though they likely wouldn't mind. DCI Redwood had the choice to just say Tannerman had been identified and was innocent and that was all. But instead he chose (perhaps to comfort Ms Tanner) to perform a demonstration which was ridiculous, even for people who ignored everything of the case.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Lyall on January 24, 2014, 01:49:41 AM
The McCanns had no choice. They're not the boss, though they likely wouldn't mind. DCI Redwood had the choice to just say Tannerman had been identified and was innocent and that was all. But instead he chose (perhaps to comfort Ms Tanner) to perform a demonstration which was ridiculous, even for people who ignored everything of the case.
Lawyers, Anne. After six years you couldn't just say "oh, by the way we've now identified that man" and leave it at that. It was a reputation management exercise- in this case JT's reputation. Otherwise the watching masses might be screaming at their TV's, "See, I told you: She made it up!"
They had to be very careful with the words they used in that programme.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 24, 2014, 02:03:48 AM
Previous brief discussion was on Page 27 of this thread http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3112.0 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3112.0)
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 24, 2014, 02:09:43 AM
Lawyers, Anne. After six years you couldn't just say "oh, by the way we've now identified that man" and leave it at that. It was a reputation management exercise- in this case JT's reputation. Otherwise the watching masses might be screaming at their TV's, "See, I told you: She made it up!"
They had to be very careful with the words they used in that programme.
Thank you, Lyall, I'm not aware of this, we have no program of that kind in France and in Portugal. But anyhow the masses aren't stupid enough to believe things are alike when DCI Redwood states they are. Or ?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Lyall on January 24, 2014, 02:14:12 AM
Thank you, Lyall, I'm not aware of this, we have no program of that kind in France and in Portugal. But anyhow the masses aren't stupid enough to believe things are alike when DCI Redwood states they are. Or ?
Crimewatch was a big deal, Anne. I think somebody claimed it had the largest ever viewing figures (I can't quite believe that but that's what a paper claimed).
It's on the BBC and they had previously only ever done two programmes on the case. So the third was always going to be very important and what was said in it would have implications. People will remember that Crimewatch.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 24, 2014, 02:23:19 AM
Crimewatch was a big deal, Anne. I think somebody claimed it had the largest ever viewing figures (I can't quite believe that but that's what a paper claimed).
It's on the BBC and they had previously only ever done two programmes on the case. So the third was always going to be very important and what was said in it would have implications. People will remember that Crimewatch.
The best audience ever : 7,3 millions (normally 5 millions). For a cold case and for the matter that was presented, not bad.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 24, 2014, 02:28:27 AM
Previous brief discussion was on Page 27 of this thread http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3112.0 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3112.0)
That's great, Lyall. Thanks so much.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Lyall on January 24, 2014, 02:29:44 AM
The best audience ever : 7,3 millions (normally 5 millions). For a cold case and for the matter that was presented, not bad.
I think that's why they had to go big on 10pm man. If they didn't those 7.3m would have been 8-)(--) Without going large on 10pm man they really had nothing did they.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: icabodcrane on January 24, 2014, 02:31:55 AM
The fact that the McCanns agreed to go along with the Crimewatch program, in which DCI Redwood presented his case, strongly suggests they accepted it at the time.
The fact that DCI Redwood was not convincing enough for some does not alter that fact.
And being 'convincing' was not his aim. His aim was to examine the facts and make a public appeal - not give the public an explanation or justification.
I agree
DCI Redwood told the public that Scotland Yard believe that Jane Tanner almost certainly did not see Madeleine being abducted
The McCanns, appearing on the same TV program, expressed confidence and renewed hope in the progress Scotland Yard have made
The conclusion, therefore, must be that the McCanns accept that the man Jane Tanner saw was not involved in Madeleine's disappearance
So why have they not said so ?
Why have they not expressed frustration and despair that they ( and their hired private detectives ) have spent years looking for the wrong man ?
... and why are they still promoting the Jane Tanner photofit on their official website, asking people to come forward to identify the man ?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 24, 2014, 02:37:21 AM
I think that's why they had to go big on 10pm man. If they didn't those 7.3m would have been 8-)(--) Without going large on 10pm man they really had nothing did they.
Yes, but they bullshitted 10pm man mixing those new e-fits with other oldish ones. It doesn't sound serious. Are they expecting a miracle or just very patient and sure that time slowly and heavily builds indifference ?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on January 24, 2014, 02:44:29 AM
Yes, but they bullshitted 10pm man mixing those new e-fits with other oldish ones. It doesn't sound serious. Are they expecting a miracle or just very patient and sure that time slowly and heavily builds indifference ?
I don't know. Not sure they do either 8)-)))
The programme (35 minutes on this case I think) was mostly meaningless 'reconstruction' and equally pointless interviews. Because they had not much else to say presumably.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: AnneGuedes on January 24, 2014, 03:14:23 AM
The programme (35 minutes on this case I think) was mostly meaningless 'reconstruction' and equally pointless interviews. Because they had not much else to say presumably.
And they'll never have much more... hunting ghost abductors, poor souls !
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Estuarine on January 24, 2014, 02:08:31 PM
If that were the aim, it's a pretty confused way of going about it.
To keep Tannerman in the public eye at the same time as rebranding Smithman as the abductor.
And is this how SY or other police organsations work? Present information to the public that a person is innocent - but keep the question open slightly just in case someone comes forward? Wouldn't that make police look unsure of themselves and possibly incompetent?
Most of this twaddle seems to emanate from one source put about by The Mirror. It seems both the Met and PJ are keeping resolutely schtum on the whole deal.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: John on May 21, 2014, 12:53:22 PM
I have taken this quote from another thread and am responding to it here so as to not go off topic.
Jane Tanner did not see a blanket, John, in her statement she is quite specific about it.
- Meanwhile a man appeared ( * ) carrying a child (**), with a hurried walk, it being this detail together with the fact that the child dressed in pyjamas, without being wrapped up in a blanket, that caught her attention. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
Yet another reason why we should be careful of ignoring/discarding the Tanner sighting. She was adamant that the child was not carried in a blanket yet we know that the much younger child carried by the tourist who came forward was carried in a blanket.
No blanket was missing from Madeleine's bedroom.
(http://i.imgur.com/cfRWveX.jpg?1)
Clothing and blanket associated with the tourists two-year-old child.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Eleanor on May 21, 2014, 11:09:27 PM
I have never been entirely convinced that the man Jane Tanner saw was a holiday maker coming from The Creche. It was the wrong direction for a start. But I would not have expected The McCanns to have a public argument with Scotland Yard about it. It is only supposition, and therefor open to opinion, if nothing else.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: icabodcrane on May 21, 2014, 11:45:57 PM
I have never been entirely convinced that the man Jane Tanner saw was a holiday maker coming from The Creche. It was the wrong direction for a start. But I would not have expected The McCanns to have a public argument with Scotland Yard about it. It is only supposition, and therefor open to opinion, if nothing else.
I disagree
The McCanns are openly questioning the conclusions drawn by Scotland Yard
They ( the McCanns ) have, effectively, publicly expressed their lack of confidence in the British police
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Eleanor on May 22, 2014, 12:09:08 AM
No they haven't. No one knows precisely what Scotland Yard thinks, or what The McCanns think.
But I would like to know what you think about this man coming rom the wrong direction.
Scotland Yard have been working on this case for three years ... and spent millions on their investigation
If they have evidence that 'clears' the man Jane Tanner saw that night ... and they have said that evidence exists ... then I have no reason to reject their conclusions
The issue, here, is why the McCanns are rejecting Scotland Yard's conclusions
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Eleanor on May 22, 2014, 12:31:30 AM
Scotland Yard have been working on this case for three years ... and spent millions on their investigation
If they have evidence that 'clears' the man Jane Tanner saw that night ... and they have said that evidence exists ... then I have no reason to reject their conclusions
The issue, here, is why the McCanns are rejecting Scotland Yard's conclusions
You don't know if The McCanns are rejecting Scotland Yard's conclusion. There could be two men involved here.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: icabodcrane on May 22, 2014, 12:44:17 AM
You don't know if The McCanns are rejecting Scotland Yard's conclusion. There could be two men involved here.
Scotland Yard dismissed the man Jane Tanner saw that night as irrelevant to the investigation
In what way did they do that ? .... by making no request from the public for further information
They are 'satisfied' that the man Jane Tanner saw is insignificant to the extent that they don't want the public to pay any more attention to him because they have already ( almost certainly ) identified him and eliminated him from the enquiry
Yet the McCanns ( on their website ) contradict that guidance from Scotland Yard and continue to ask the public to provide information that might 'identify' the man
In doing that, the McCanns have shown contempt toward Scotland Yard and their investigative skills
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Eleanor on May 22, 2014, 01:00:47 AM
Scotland Yard dismissed the man Jane Tanner saw that night as irrelevant to the investigation
In what way did they do that ? .... by making no request from the public for further information
They are 'satisfied' that the man Jane Tanner saw is insignificant to the extent that they don't want the public to pay any more attention to him because they have already ( almost certainly ) identified him and eliminated him from the enquiry
Yet the McCanns ( on their website ) contradict that guidance from Scotland Yard and continue to ask the public to provide information that might 'identify' the man
In doing that, the McCanns have shown contempt toward Scotland Yard and their investigative skills
So Scotland Yard did not actively dismiss the man Jane Tanner saw. They aren't in a position to do so. And it doesn't really matter anyway. Scotland Yard believe that Madeleine was abducted at around that time.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 22, 2014, 01:44:43 AM
So Scotland Yard did not actively dismiss the man Jane Tanner saw. They aren't in a position to do so. And it doesn't really matter anyway. Scotland Yard believe that Madeleine was abducted at around that time.
They are tracking the same man Amaral was after in 2007. They've got rid of Tannerman just like Amaral did. History seems to be repeating itself.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: pegasus on May 22, 2014, 02:37:37 AM
History repeating itself: May 2007: Just because there was a sighting of a man openly carrying a child at 9.15pm lets assume yes that must be it and the method can only be open carrying. 2013/2014: Huge revelation. Forget 9.15pm. And the revolutionary new focus is: Just because there was a sighting of a man openly carrying a child at 10.00pm let's assume yes that must be it and the method can only be open carrying.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: icabodcrane on May 22, 2014, 02:46:11 AM
History repeating itself: 2007: Just because there was a sighting of a man openly carrying a child at 9.15pm lets assume yes that must be it and the method can only be open carrying. 2014: Huge revelation. Forget 9.15pm. And the revolutionary new focus is: Just because there was a sighting of a man openly carrying a child at 10.00pm let's assume yes that must be it and the method can only be open carrying.
I don't know if it's just me ... but I can't make sense of your posts most of the time
I don't mean to be critical Pegasus, I really don't .... but what does this post mean ?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: pegasus on May 22, 2014, 03:00:28 AM
Openly carrying through the streets is highly unlikely IMO. IMO SY's "revelation" seems to just swap one open-carrying assumption for another.
Exactly. The ...... would have put her in a bag of some kind. Only an abductor would carry Madeleine in full view through the streets. And it was all in the same time frame anyway.d
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: stephen25000 on May 22, 2014, 08:34:02 AM
Exactly. The ....... would have put her in a bag of some kind. Only an abductor would carry Madeleine in full view through the streets. And it was all in the same time frame anyway.
Why would an 'abductor' carry someone through the streets openly where they could be seen and identified ?
You will have to do better than that.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: Eleanor on May 22, 2014, 08:44:00 AM
Why would an 'abductor' carry someone through the streets openly where they could be seen and identified ?
You will have to do better than that.
How else would you expect the abductor to get Madeleine away?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: jassi on May 22, 2014, 03:41:48 PM
I wonder how many people go walking around PDL at 10 at night with their suitcase.
A dead child might not look like a dead child if tastefully arranged to look like a sleeping one, particularly in the dark.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: John on May 22, 2014, 03:48:34 PM
An abductor carrying a child around the streets of Luz for nearly an hour is hard to fathom. He ran the risk of being seen by dozens of people. Far more likely, if there was an abduction, the perp got clean away in a motor vehicle of some sort after having distracted the only GNR patrol out that night.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: jassi on May 22, 2014, 03:52:02 PM
An abductor carrying a child around the streets of Luz for nearly an hour is hard to fathom. He ran the risk of being seen by dozens of people. Far more likely, if there was an abduction, the perp got clean away in a motor vehicle of some sort after having distracted the only GNR patrol out that night.
Do we know if that earlier GNR call out was in fact genuine?
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: John on May 22, 2014, 03:57:59 PM
Do we know if that earlier GNR call out was in fact genuine?
I don't know if it was ever checked out...another piece of the puzzle for our boys in blue to ponder while they watch the PJ contractors dig up Luz in the next few weeks..
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: pegasus on May 26, 2014, 11:01:56 PM
Do we know if that earlier GNR call out was in fact genuine?
IMO the incident in Odiaxere area had been reported to GNR Lagos station by phone either at 20:57 or more likely at 22:29, by a security company (the type of company which monitors alarms at properties, and patrols properties). Even a Professor of Cunning Plans would find it difficult to make of that anything but a completely genuine call-out.
Title: Re: Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?
Post by: John on May 27, 2014, 07:08:36 AM
IMO the incident in Odiaxere area had been reported to GNR Lagos station by phone either at 20:57 or more likely at 22:29, by a security company (the type of company which monitors alarms at properties, and patrols properties). Even a Professor of Cunning Plans would find it difficult to make of that anything but a completely genuine call-out.
None of the GNR officers statements contain details about the Odiáxere callout. The only person who mentions it being the OC receptionist who telephoned them.