Gerry and Jez chat while Jane walks by. Seconds later she spots Tannerman!

[Brietta]

I give up.  I trust that anyone else reading this exchange understands perfectly well what I'm driving at even if you refuse to.

I think the majority of us know exactly what you are saying and there have been some intelligent posts on this thread.
I have learned a lot from the discussion, particularly from photographs.
So nil desperandum.

[John]

Sorry to put a fly in your ointment but it is by no means confirmed that the man Tanner claims to have seen was another innocent tourist on his way home from the night crèche.

Andy Redwood refuses to come out and state categorically that to be the case.  This I suspect is because the guy isn't sure himself what time he walked past block 5.  Also taking into account the fact that he was not walking away from the night crèche which he fails to explain.  In addition, a two-year-old is much shorter than a four-year-old and does not fit with Tanner's description.

If there is a simple explanation then why not reveal it?

I am very suspicious of this belated attempt to rule Tanner man out, I just don't buy it!

[Alfred R Jones]

Sorry to put a fly in your ointment but it is by no means confirmed that the man Tanner claims to have seen was another innocent tourist on his way home from the night crèche.

Andy Redwood refuses to come out and state categorically that to be the case.  This I suspect is because the guy isn't sure himself what time he walked past block 5.  Also taking into account the fact that he was not walking away from the night crèche which he fails to explain.  In addition, a two-year-old is much shorter than a four-year-old and does not fit with Tanner's description.

If there is a simple explanation then why not reveal it?

I am very suspicious of this belated attempt to rule Tanner man out, I just don't buy it!

Andy Redwood said he is "almost certain", so 'almost certain' that he has been on national television staking his reputation on the FACT that SY has now ruled out the JT sighting as the abductor.  But like I said before, in order for JT to have either been mistaken or lying it would require a certain amount of collusion from SY which, from what you have written above, seems to be what you are suggesting, if not who are you suspicious of?

[John]

Andy Redwood said he is "almost certain", so 'almost certain' that he has been on national television staking his reputation on the FACT that SY has now ruled out the JT sighting as the abductor.  But like I said before, in order for JT to have either been mistaken or lying it would require a certain amount of collusion from SY which, from what you have written above, seems to be what you are suggesting, if not who are you suspicious of?

I am suspicious that Redwood cannot come out and say categorically that it was him. What is he scared of?

[Brietta]

I am suspicious that Redwood cannot come out and say categorically that it was him. What is he scared of?

Probably barking up the wrong tree ... but here goes ...

What if the parent and child who have been eliminated from the inquiry are the ones seen by the Smith family?

What if the Met have a lead on Tannerman ... but don't want him to know that??  We have no idea what they and the PJ are working on, and they ain't going to tell us.

OK ... I'm not very good at conspiracy theories ... so could that be a possibility?

[Alfred R Jones]

I am suspicious that Redwood cannot come out and say categorically that it was him. What is he scared of?

Why do you assume he's scared of anything?  In life there are few 100% certainties and especially not when the memories of others are being relied on to piece together a picture of events that took place days, weeks, months or years ago.  Hence he is only "almost certain" (a phrase incidentally also used by climate scientists when discussing their thoughts on the causes of global warming - "almost certainly man-made", something they cannot prove beyond any doubt but for which they believe there is overwhelming evidence).

[John]

Almost certain in police speak means we think it might be the case but we still just aren't sure.

Either he is or he isn't. Why was he walking the wrong way on a cold night with a scantilly clad two-year-old?  Why did he not come forward to SY years ago when the identification of Tannerman was such a hot topic on the internet?

This guy's child was the same age as the twins so they probably played together in the toddlers day crèche by the tennis courts. As such he would be well aware of Madeleine's disappearance yet it takes nigh on seven years to Id him?

Why is there no statement from him in the files?

[Alfred R Jones]

Almost certain in police speak means we think it might be the case but we still just aren't sure.

Either he is or he isn't. Why was he walking the wrong way on a cold night with a scantilly clad two-year-old?  Why did he not come forward to SY years ago when the identification of Tannerman was such a hot topic on the internet?

This guy's child was the same age as the twins so they probably played together in the toddlers day crèche by the tennis courts. As such he would be well aware of Madeleine's disappearance yet it takes nigh on seven years to Id him?

Why is there no statement from him in the files?

There's no statement from him in the files because he only recently came forward.   Why did it take him so long to come forward?  Who knows?  It rather seems like the police investigation revisited all those parents with kids in the creche that night and perhaps that is the point at which the penny dropped for him / SY (the "revelation moment").  You would have hoped that SY would have established enough detail from this man about his movements that night to enable them to be "almost certain" it was him, information that we are not privy to so are in no position to cast doubt upon it.  What's the alternative?  That SY are completely rubbish at their jobs or part of some unknown conspiracy?

[ferryman]

Perhaps we should accept certain things at face value. Jane Tanner walked up the street without being seen by Gerry or Jez, she saw a man carrying a child across his arms, the man was walking from west to east across her line of sight, The Metropolitan Police Service are "almost certain" they have identified the man. By the same token The Metropolitan Police Service are "almost certain Jane Tanner didn't see a man abducting Madeleine McCann.
So where does that leave us?

With "Smithman" as the most likely candidate as abductor?

And with Jane Tanner vindicated as an honest witness.

[Brietta]

With "Smithman" as the most likely candidate as abductor?

And with Jane Tanner vindicated as an honest witness.

IMO Jane Tanner is not only an honest witness but a very perceptive one.

Now if only the ILORs requested by NSY could be agreed we could perhaps progress the case a bit further.

[Carana]

Sorry to put a fly in your ointment but it is by no means confirmed that the man Tanner claims to have seen was another innocent tourist on his way home from the night crèche.

Andy Redwood refuses to come out and state categorically that to be the case.  This I suspect is because the guy isn't sure himself what time he walked past block 5.  Also taking into account the fact that he was not walking away from the night crèche which he fails to explain.  In addition, a two-year-old is much shorter than a four-year-old and does not fit with Tanner's description.

If there is a simple explanation then why not reveal it?

I am very suspicious of this belated attempt to rule Tanner man out, I just don't buy it!

I don't see the issue.

The Met say they're almost certain because there's no way of actually proving it, but the guy himself thinks it could well have been him (and possibly his partner or creche people have confirmed it as well). If there had been CCTV footage to corroborate, for example, then maybe they could have been 100% certain.

The purpose of providing that information wasn't to satisfy armchair detectives, but to emphasise the shift in time focus to get any potential witnesses to try to remember if they'd seen Smithman, or indeed anyone else who may have been carrying a child nearer to 10pm, perhaps even putting a child in a car or even a boat (I've added that for Sadie ;) ) at around that time. Smithman hasn't yet come forward (or hadn't at that point). 

[Carana]

Probably barking up the wrong tree ... but here goes ...

What if the parent and child who have been eliminated from the inquiry are the ones seen by the Smith family?

What if the Met have a lead on Tannerman ... but don't want him to know that??  We have no idea what they and the PJ are working on, and they ain't going to tell us.

OK ... I'm not very good at conspiracy theories ... so could that be a possibility?

Good try, Brietta. ;) However, I find that somewhat unlikely in a witness appeal.

[Silkywhiskers]

What Redwood actually said was...

"The careful and critical analysis of the timeline has been absolutely key. Primarily, we are focused on the area between 8.30 and 10.00. We know that at 8.30 that was the time that Mr and Mrs McCann went down to the tapas area for their dinner. We know that at around 10pm, that was when Mrs McCann found that Madeleine was missing."

....which allows for the possibility that the children were not actually checked during this period.

It is certain the complicated (and ultimately useless) "checking" regime was only put into place on the final night of the holiday.

The McCanns remain the only members of the Tapas group who left their children alone.

The McCanns NEVER checked anyone elses children, yet apparently expected everyone else to check theirs.

Bizarre....what's most bizarre is that people actually believe this nonsense.

[pegasus]

With "Smithman" as the most likely candidate as abductor?
And with Jane Tanner vindicated as an honest witness.

Your second point I agree with completely.
On your first point, IMO the "revelation" shift forward in time by just 45 minutes and from one open-carrying sighting to another open-carrying sighting, is several revelations short of a solution. Open carrying simply does not happen in these cases IMO.

[pegasus]

IMO Jane Tanner is not only an honest witness but a very perceptive one.

Agreed completely