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

[John]

It is generally accepted that Jane was between 5 and 10 metres from the top of the street when the man carrying the child passed in front of her.

[Cariad]

It is generally accepted that Jane was between 5 and 10 metres from the top of the street when the man carrying the child passed in front of her.

Which man? Innocentman or Sadieman? I'm still picturing a conga line of men carrying children.....

[sadie]

It is generally accepted that Jane was between 5 and 10 metres from the top of the street when the man carrying the child passed in front of her.

I am very happy with 5 - 10 metres.  Ties in with all I have read.

Really close. 


As a woman on her own after dark, I bet she watched him like a hawk

[icabodcrane]

Which man? Innocentman or Sadieman? I'm still picturing a conga line of men carrying children.....

Well,  according to Scotland Yard, Jane Tanner saw an  innocent father carrying his child from the creche  ...  they have identified him

So 'who was standing where' whilst this identified innocent fellow passed by,  is entirely  academic , and  really rather pointless,  isn't it  ? 

[sadie]

Well,  according to Scotland Yard, Jane Tanner saw an  innocent father carrying his child from the creche  ...  they have identified him

So 'who was standing where' whilst this identified innocent fellow passed by,  is entirely  academic , and  really rather pointless,  isn't it  ?

There could well have been more than one man carrying a child as you must know.  Try and open your mind up a bit Icobod.

[Cariad]

Well,  according to Scotland Yard, Jane Tanner saw an  innocent father carrying his child from the creche  ...  they have identified him

So 'who was standing where' whilst this identified innocent fellow passed by,  is entirely  academic , and  really rather pointless,  isn't it  ?

Well, yes. Yes it is. As far as I can work out though, Sadie thinks that Gerry, Jez, Jane, Innocentman and the abductor were all present at the same time.


Edit: I forgot one! Look out Man!

[icabodcrane]

And the police think Jane Tanner saw an innocent father carrying his child home from the creche

You must agree that if Scotland Yard,   after three years investigating, at a cost of six million pounds,  think that Jane Tanner did  NOT  see an abductor,   then they are probably correct, and   we should accept that. Consequently, any  'theories'  should,  properly,  acknowledge that  conclusion drawn by Scotland Yard   ...  do you agree  ?

Or do you think you know more than Scotland Yard  ?

[sadie]

Well, yes. Yes it is. As far as I can work out though, Sadie thinks that Gerry, Jez, Jane, Innocentman and the abductor were all present at the same time.


Edit: I forgot one! Look out Man!

Just shows how befuddled you thinking is.

[sadie]

And the police think Jane Tanner saw an innocent father carrying his child home from the creche

You must agree that if Scotland Yard,   after three years investigating, at a cost of six million pounds,  think that Jane Tanner did  NOT  see an abductor,   then they are probably correct, and   we should accept that. Consequently, any  'theories'  should,  properly,  acknowledge that  conclusion drawn by Scotland Yard   ...  do you agree  ?

Or do you think you know more than Scotland Yard  ?

Of course I dont know more than SY

And I sometimes wonder if they have:

1)  Been tricked by this new man recently released.  Would be easy to produce a phoney list of people using the creche that night and a very convincing one if you had the power and contacts that I believe the group behind this abductor to have

2)  Have put out a bit of disinformation for us to chew over, hoping that someone in forumland has seen someting extra to the information already in and that they will drop it out.



Only wondering, but then I try aqnd consider all angles.

[John]

"As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry’s back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10 – 15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left."

"He noticed the bad street lighting and although it was not completely dark there was enough light to see clearly. He was adamant that he did not see any one else in the area. When spoken to in reference to Jane Tanner walking by, he again stated that he saw no one. He also stated that he did not see or hear anyone to his right."

During the evening of Wednesday 31 October 2007, Jeremy and Bridget were visited at heir home address by DC 1756 and DC 4356 from the Leicestershire OP Task team

Volume XIII p. 3407 - 3409.

LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY
OFFICER’S REPORT

Date: 05/11/07

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

Jane Tanner did not pass Jeremy Wilkins & Gerry on that side of the road IMO. Neither saw her  >@@(*&)

Gerry never saw Jane because he had his back to her.

[icabodcrane]

Of course I dont know more than SY

And I sometimes wonder if they have:

1)  Been tricked by this new man recently released.  Would be easy to produce a phoney list of people using the creche that night and a very convincing one if you had the power and contacts that I believe the group behind this abductor to have

2)  Have put out a bit of disinformation for us to chew over, hoping that someone in forumland has seen someting extra to the information already in and that they will drop it out.



Only wondering, but then I try aqnd consider all angles.

So now the innocent father identified by Scotland Yard  is not an innocent father  at  all  ....   he is a  'phoney'   planted  by the fabulously rich elite bloke that has Madeleine,  in order to throw Scotland Yard of the scent 

[...  moderated ...]

[John]

And the police think Jane Tanner saw an innocent father carrying his child home from the creche

You must agree that if Scotland Yard,   after three years investigating, at a cost of six million pounds,  think that Jane Tanner did  NOT  see an abductor,   then they are probably correct, and   we should accept that. Consequently, any  'theories'  should,  properly,  acknowledge that  conclusion drawn by Scotland Yard   ...  do you agree  ?

Or do you think you know more than Scotland Yard  ?

But the thing is Icabodcrane, Scotland Yard have never said that Tannerman was definitely an innocent tourist.  The words they are choosing to use are could have been, might have been, probably was etc..

They themselves aren't even sure which says it all really.

[Cariad]

But the thing is Icabodcrane, Scotland Yard have never said that Tannerman was definitely an innocent tourist.  The words they are choosing to use are could have been, might have been, probably was etc..

They themselves aren't even sure which says it all really.

I disagree. It was DCI Redwood's 'moment of revelation'. Tannerman has well and truly been debunked.

[jassi]

But the thing is Icabodcrane, Scotland Yard have never said that Tannerman was definitely an innocent tourist.  The words they are choosing to use are could have been, might have been, probably was etc..

They themselves aren't even sure which says it all really.

As they don't appear to be making any effort to find an alternative candidate,  they must be satisfied with their identification.

[icabodcrane]

But the thing is Icabodcrane, Scotland Yard have never said that Tannerman was definitely an innocent tourist.  The words they are choosing to use are could have been, might have been, probably was etc..

They themselves aren't even sure which says it all really.

No John,  those weren't  the words Scotland Yard used 

"Almost certainly"  are the words they used

That's an odds-on bet in my book