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

[Brietta]

JT didn't really know Jez. She says she saw Gerry talking. Both Gerry and Jez say they talked to each other. If Gerry talked to someone else then JT may have seen them. Just a possibility.

The problem with this case is there was too much witness contamination. The timelines were a real negative which may have implanted memories that didn't really exist especially if those involved were in an impressionable state.

To expand, if you are sitting eating dinner with a group of friends and one or more of them leave the table from time to time, if afterwards you are asked to say who left at what time, you would try to estimate it based on what you were eating, how far you had got etc. if however you all got together afterwards and those leaving said rightly or wrongly they left at such and such a time then you are more likely to go with their recollection than your own.

The mind is a very malleable thing.

I think your post does indeed prove that "The mind is a very malleable thing".

It really is far easier to go with statements made at the time than fictionalised ones.

If Jane had been seen by the two men and had briefly acknowledged a greeting ... she might not have seen the man at the junction ... therefore we would not have had a "Tannerman" and we would not have been having this discussion.

Tannerman's existence has been hotly disputed and Jane Tanner called a liar because she saw him in the location at the time which would have made him Madeleine's abductor ... and we couldn't have that since it blew a particular theory apart.

[Brietta]

Because if a tourist recollected walking past at the time JT said she saw Tannerman and id'ed himself to the Met but her actual sighting was 30 minutes later it would have been of a different man.

An excellent point, Alfred.

[faithlilly]

If Jane Tanner accused Gerry McCann of putting her up to making a fake sighting, how exactly would he have come out of things unscathed by (as you put it) putting himself on the other side of the road, a position which would NOT have been corroborated by the only witness to his actual position, Jez?!

If Tanner accused Gerry of putting her up to it he would simply deny it. The conversation would go something like

" As you know officer everyone's been under a lot of pressure since Madeleine's abduction and I'm sure Jane just wanted to help but it still doesn't excuse her trying to put the blame on me for concocting a sighting which helped nobody. Of course I trusted her when she said she had seen the abductor, I mean why wouldn't i. If only I hadn't had my back to the apartment then I would have known she hadn't walked by and myself and my poor wife wouldn't have been spared the hurt this has caused. "

 A high risk strategy but what choice did he have ?

[faithlilly]

Because if a tourist recollected walking past at the time JT said she saw Tannerman and id'ed himself to the Met but her actual sighting was 30 minutes later it would have been of a different man.

So that's three, or is it four, men walking round PDL that night carrying children with pink pyjamas, no shoes and no covering. Is that what you're saying ?

[Alfred R Jones]

If Tanner accused Gerry of putting her up to it he would simply deny it. The conversation would go something like

" As you know officer everyone's been under a lot of pressure since Madeleine's abduction and I'm sure Jane just wanted to help but it still doesn't excuse her trying to put the blame on me for concocting a sighting which helped nobody. Of course I trusted her when she said she had seen the abductor, I mean why wouldn't i. If only I hadn't had my back to the apartment then I would have known she hadn't walked by and myself and my poor wife wouldn't have been spared the hurt this has caused. "

 A high risk strategy but what choice did he have ?

LOL.  You think that would have worked do you?  Child goes missing, one of the father's friends tells police the father asked her to lie by inventing a sighting and an independent witness contradicts father's description of where he was standing....risky?  Suicidal more like!

[Alfred R Jones]

So that's three, or is it four, men walking round PDL that night carrying children with pink pyjamas, no shoes and no covering. Is that what you're saying ?

How do you figure that out?  2 men - one is Crecheman, the other is the abductor.

[faithlilly]

How do you figure that out?  2 men - one is Crecheman, the other is the abductor.

So the abductor is Smithman I take it ? So two men, totally unconnected to each other, both carrying female children with pink pyjamas, no shoes and no warm covering around a very small village at around the same time on a cold May night. Is that what you are asking us to believe ? Really ?

[faithlilly]

LOL.  You think that would have worked do you?  Child goes missing, one of the father's friends tells police the father asked her to lie by inventing a sighting and an independent witness contradicts father's description of where he was standing....risky?  Suicidal more like!

Why wouldn't it ? Gerry was definitely on the street. It was Tanner whose word would be in doubt. Remember with regard to the 'side of the road' issue discrepancies are normal in witness statements. The PJ could have assumed Jez was mistaken.

[Alfred R Jones]

So the abductor is Smithman I take it ? So two men, totally unconnected to each other, both carrying female children with pink pyjamas, no shoes and no warm covering around a very small village at around the same time on a cold May night. Is that what you are asking us to believe ? Really ?

Here are some questions you need to consider:

1) is it normal behaviour for fathers to pick up their sleeping kids from the crèche  in PdL and walk back to their holiday apartment?

If the answer is yes then

2) is it normal behaviour to not wish to wake the child by attempting to put shoes on its feet? 

If the answer is yes then

3) Do we know for certain that Crecheman's daughter was not covered up in some way?  We are not told by the police are we, only that her feet may have been exposed.

If it is not unheard of for children to be collected from crèche in the manner described by the innocent tourist the Met have ID'ed, then why is it such an impossibility that an abductor removing a small girl from her bed would bear some resemblance to the innocent father carrying a child, particularly if that child is small girl (pink pyjamas being de rigueur nightwear of young girls)? 

[jassi]

So the abductor is Smithman I take it ? So two men, totally unconnected to each other, both carrying female children with pink pyjamas, no shoes and no warm covering around a very small village at around the same time on a cold May night. Is that what you are asking us to believe ? Really ?

How can it be the same time if Tanner saw her man at 9.15?

[Brietta]

How do you figure that out?  2 men - one is Crecheman, the other is the abductor.

I think now that crècheman has been identified by SY the hunt is on for the abductor ... I think it is perfectly possible that given the importance attached to getting crècheman out of the equation by DCI Redwood, they know exactly where they are going with this line of inquiry.

Just as crèchman was missed originally ... so was the abductor ... SY have identified one ... so all that remains is the other.

[Alfred R Jones]

Why wouldn't it ? Gerry was definitely on the street. It was Tanner whose word would be in doubt. Remember with regard to the 'side of the road' issue discrepancies are normal in witness statements. The PJ could have assumed Jez was mistaken.

And JT's motive for lying would be...?  It wasn't her kid who went missing.  Suspicion naturally falls on the parents.  An accusation of deceit from a witness against the father, and his statement directly contradicted by another witness would put him in a very bad light indeed.  If you can't see this then I can't help you any further.

[Alfred R Jones]

How can it be the same time if Tanner saw her man at 9.15?

You need to read back. 

[pathfinder73]

I think your post does indeed prove that "The mind is a very malleable thing".

It really is far easier to go with statements made at the time than fictionalised ones.

If Jane had been seen by the two men and had briefly acknowledged a greeting ... she might not have seen the man at the junction ... therefore we would not have had a "Tannerman" and we would not have been having this discussion.

Tannerman's existence has been hotly disputed and Jane Tanner called a liar because she saw him in the location at the time which would have made him Madeleine's abductor ... and we couldn't have that since it blew a particular theory apart.

He is not Madeleine's abductor. He was carrying a younger child and had longer hair. Two people disappeared that night. Madeleine and Smithman. That child matched Madeleine.

"I would have thought if I’d have seen him I would have definitely probably stopped and said ‘Oh you’re in trouble, you’ve been long, we think you’ve been watching the footy’ (JT)

Jane didn't even hear Gerry. That sounds like Smithman the Mute 

[faithlilly]

Here are some questions you need to consider:

1) is it normal behaviour for fathers to pick up their sleeping kids from the crèche  in PdL and walk back to their holiday apartment?

If the answer is yes then

2) is it normal behaviour to not wish to wake the child by attempting to put shoes on its feet? 

If the answer is yes then

3) Do we know for certain that Crecheman's daughter was not covered up in some way?  We are not told by the police are we, only that her feet may have been exposed.

If it is not unheard of for children to be collected from crèche in the manner described by the innocent tourist the Met have ID'ed, then why is it such an impossibility that an abductor removing a small girl from her bed would bear some resemblance to the innocent father carrying a child, particularly if that child is small girl (pink pyjamas being de rigueur nightwear of young girls)?

1. It is not 'normal' to carry a child for any distance in the way Tanner's sighting was allegedly carrying the child.

2. On as cold a night as we are lead to believe it was ( Tanner had a large fleece on we are told ) no it would be abnormal behaviour for not one but two unconnected fathers not to put warm coverings on their childern's feet be that socks, slippers or shoes.

3. Tanner did not see a covering so I would assume if SY are tying the two sightings together Crecheman's child wouldn't have been covered either.

Your final assertion does not take into account my points made above.