Is there a divergence of wills? Has Tannerman really been eliminated?

[icabodcrane]

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  ?

[AnneGuedes]

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 ?

[Sherlock Holmes]

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  ?

Thank-you, icabod. A very good way of putting it all.

[Lyall]

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

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.

[AnneGuedes]

I don't know. Not sure they do either

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 !

[Estuarine]

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.

[John]

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.



Clothing and blanket associated with the tourists two-year-old child.

[Eleanor]

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.

[icabodcrane]

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

[Eleanor]

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

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.

[pegasus]

... what you think about this man coming rom the wrong direction.

A possibility: if his child was awake at creche and he walked around to get her to sleep then returned home.

[icabodcrane]

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

[Eleanor]

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.

[icabodcrane]

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

[Eleanor]

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.