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

[Estuarine]

So what are these letters sent by SY to Portugal asking for co operation for a joint investigation in portugal

If you let me have a copy of one I will be able to answer.

[Mr Gray]

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

[Redblossom]

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

[AnneGuedes]

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..

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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!

[AnneGuedes]

How could she be sure ? She saw a couple of legs, that's all. Hence the focus on the pyjamas.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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

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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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?

[Lyall]

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?

[AnneGuedes]

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.

[Lyall]

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?

[AnneGuedes]

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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.