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

[Sherlock Holmes]

But irrespective of whether she made anything up or not before Crimewatch did you believe what she saw was an abductor?

On the basis that Scotland Yard have ruled him out, no.

And there's a logical point here to consider.

Let's say Jane Tanner was making the whole thing up.

We still have to contend with the fact that a man has come forward - both shortly after events, and now, to Scotland Yard - with details of his whereabouts that night, and with the information that he was carrying his young girl.

He was in the vicinity of where Jane Tanner saw him, carrying the child in an odd position ( I am assuming from the fact that he agreed to be photographed by police at that angle for comparative purposes that he believes he was indeed carrying the child in that position for a period of time), child was wearing pink-ish pyjamas, etc. etc.

If Jane Tanner's account was fictitious, or at least highly embellished in order to suit some cover-up or plan, then how do we explain Innocentman's presence?

[Sherlock Holmes]

On a related but separate point, are we to assume that Jane Tanner herself will have been involved in the ruling out of Bundleman from SY's investigation? 

I would assume that her involvement would have been helpful, perhaps necessary, in the circumstances, though I don't know how police operate in this area.

If she was effectively involved in assisting SY in eliminating this person  from the investigation, it would again seem odd that the McCanns appear still to be entertaining the possibility that Innocentman is not so innocent at all.

And if Smithman has been inflated to fill bundleman's old shoes ( in terms of providing the public with an abduction scenario) then why do the McCanns still need to cling to Bundleman?

[Lyall]

On the basis that Scotland Yard have ruled him out, no.

And there's a logical point here to consider.

Let's say Jane Tanner was making the whole thing up.

We still have to contend with the fact that a man has come forward - both shortly after events, and now, to Scotland Yard - with details of his whereabouts that night, and with the information that he was carrying his young girl.

He was in the vicinity of where Jane Tanner saw him, carrying the child in an odd position ( I am assuming from the fact that he agreed to be photographed by police at that angle for comparative purposes that he believes he was indeed carrying the child in that position for a period of time), child was wearing pink-ish pyjamas, etc. etc.

If Jane Tanner's account was fictitious, or at least highly embellished in order to suit some cover-up or plan, then how do we explain Innocentman's presence?

But before he was identified did you believe the person JT saw did take Madeleine?

Few did (even amongst stalwart supporters), so what was said in Crimewatch didn't really make that much difference.

I can't answer your last question (we'll just assume Mr Redwood is happy he could have been/was in that location at 9.15 that night).

[Sherlock Holmes]

But before he was identified did you believe the person JT saw did take Madeleine?

Few did (even amongst stalwart supporters), so what was said in Crimewatch didn't really make that much difference.

I can't answer your last question (we'll just assume Mr Redwood is happy he could have been/was in that location at 9.15 that night).

I did actually believe there was a good chance it could have been the abductor, odd as it was that he chose to walk out onto that open road when Gerry and Jeremy were standing there.

Also found it odd that he didn't put Madeleine straight into a car.

But overall I found it plausible. He was emerging right from the front of the apartment, after all. And I didn't buy any hypothesis regarding Jane making things up. If she was going to do that, presumably at Gerry's behest, Gerry wouldn't have denied seeing her.

[Lyall]

On a related but separate point, are we to assume that Jane Tanner herself will have been involved in the ruling out of Bundleman from SY's investigation? 

I would assume that her involvement would have been helpful, perhaps necessary, in the circumstances, though I don't know how police operate in this area.

If she was effectively involved in assisting SY in eliminating this person  from the investigation, it would again seem odd that the McCanns appear still to be entertaining the possibility that Innocentman is not so innocent at all.

And if Smithman has been inflated to fill bundleman's old shoes ( in terms of providing the public with an abduction scenario) then why do the McCanns still need to cling to Bundleman?

The door angles, SH, that still suggest someone was in the apartment around 9.15. Or that's how they have always been interpreted.

Your other fascinating questions we can only speculate about. But six and a half years after seeing a man whose face she couldn't describe even at the time how could she say definitely yes or definitely no now? She probably said "maybe!".

[Lyall]

I did actually believe there was a good chance it could have been the abductor, odd as it was that he chose to walk out onto that open road when Gerry and Jeremy were standing there.

Also found it odd that he didn't put Madeleine straight into a car.

But overall I found it plausible. He was emerging right from the front of the apartment, after all. And I didn't buy any hypothesis regarding Jane making things up. If she was going to do that, presumably at Gerry's behest, Gerry wouldn't have denied seeing her.

If Wilkins didn't see her then how could Gerry say he did? >@@(*&)

[Sherlock Holmes]

The door angles, SH, that still suggest someone was in the apartment around 9.15. Or that's how they have always been interpreted.

Your other fascinating questions we can only speculate about. But six and a half years after seeing a man whose face she couldn't describe even at the time how could she say definitely yes or definitely no now? She probably said "maybe!".

I am still not sure if I understand the significance of the door angles. There was nothing to record those angles ( a camera in other words) so how can we be sure that the reports are accurate?

If we're not sure about Jane Tanner's testimony, why are the door angles in tablets of stone? As you say, the doors and the bundleman scenario kind of go together.

Regarding Bundleman's face, it was not seen by Jane, because by the time she focussed on him properly - after having noted that he was carrying a child in a strange way- he was well across the road walking away from her, with his back to her. Hence the focus on the long hair at the back. She would not have seen the hair at the back if she had been looking at the face.

[Sherlock Holmes]

If Wilkins didn't see her then how could Gerry say he did? >@@(*&)

That whole scenario is a mystery all right.

I'm actually with Sadie on this point, namely that Jane, as a woman alone walking in the dark, would be hyperconscious of activiy around her - particularly male activity. Gerry and Jeremy however were engrossed in conversation and perhaps simply didn't notice her.

And as I mentioned earlier, if Gerry had been adamant about Jane's reports being correct regarding the timing and sighting of bundleman, and therefore her sighting of Gerry and Jeremy, which she says went together - and he's adamant about quite a few things is our Gerry - he would not have eliminated himself unnecessarily from the scenario at the risk of casting doubt on Jane's testimony. The testimony that formed the backbone of the abduction claim.

[icabodcrane]

That whole scenario is a mystery all right.

I'm actually with Sadie on this point, namely that Jane, as a woman alone walking in the dark, would be hyperconscious of activiy around her - particularly male activity. Gerry and Jeremy however were engrossed in conversation and perhaps simply didn't notice her.

And as I mentioned earlier, if Gerry had been adamant about Jane's reports being correct regarding the timing and sighting of bundleman, and therefore her sighting of Gerry and Jeremy, which she says went together - and he's adamant about quite a few things is our Gerry - he would not have eliminated himself unnecessarily from the scenario at the risk of casting doubt on Jane's testimony. The testimony that formed the backbone of the abduction claim.

Jane Tanner did not see Madeleine being   'abducted' 

Scotland Yard have said so

I don't understand why we are  discussing this issue as if it were  still in question

[Sherlock Holmes]

Jane Tanner did not see Madeleine being   'abducted' 

Scotland Yard have said so

I don't understand why we are  discussing this issue as if it were  still in question

Jane Tanner didn't say so either.

We are discussing it because the McCanns appear to hold some store by the sighting, despite the fact that SY have formally ruled the 'suspect' out.

There must be a reason why the McCanns are holding on to this sighting. Perhaps we can figure that out.

But the bottom line is that they are placing themselves in contradiction to Scotland Yard and that seems odd at best.

[AnneGuedes]

On the issue "who is running the investigation", I found this, original in English, from Paulo Rebelo to Stu(art) Prior, referring to the questioning stream of the TP7 (29 April 2008)
In Portugal, the criminal investigation is conducted by the Policia Judiciaria, under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor's Office. The competence to evaluate the interest and need for the performance of any criminal inquiry acts lies with these two entities, not with the witnesses.
In fact, according to Portuguese law (article 132, section 1, subsection a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), whenever a witness summons is served, the witness is compelled to attend the authorities so that any action mentioned in the summons may take place.

[Sherlock Holmes]

On the issue "who is running the investigation", I found this, original in English, from Paulo Rebelo to Stu(art) Prior, referring to the questioning stream of the TP7 (29 April 2008)
In Portugal, the criminal investigation is conducted by the Policia Judiciaria, under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor's Office. The competence to evaluate the interest and need for the performance of any criminal inquiry acts lies with these two entities, not with the witnesses.
In fact, according to Portuguese law (article 132, section 1, subsection a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), whenever a witness summons is served, the witness is compelled to attend the authorities so that any action mentioned in the summons may take place.

Very interesting, Anne.

I have always maintained that the McCanns' influence upon matters is a lot less profound than they and / or others sometimes give the impression that it is.

They clearly are not running the investigation in any way shape or form - the initial thread title was somewhat facetious in this regard . If they were, Scotland Yard would be saying the same thing as they are.

[AnneGuedes]

If Wilkins didn't see her then how could Gerry say he did? >@@(*&)

This is basic and enough.
Tannerman had the unique function to support the abduction from bed and Jane saying she saw at the same moment the abductor and Gerry was giving Gerry a golden alibi.
DCI Redwood destroyed two precious facts.
The official site attempts to insinuate doubts.

[icabodcrane]

Jane Tanner didn't say so either.

We are discussing it because the McCanns appear to hold some store by the sighting, despite the fact that SY have formally ruled the 'suspect' out.

There must be a reason why the McCanns are holding on to this sighting. Perhaps we can figure that out.

But the bottom line is that they are placing themselves in contradiction to Scotland Yard and that seems odd at best.

I think we should be clear about the discussion we are having here then

Scotland Yard do not believe Jane Tanner saw Madeleine McCann being  'abducted' 

Why are we assuming that the McCanns disagree with that conclusion  ?  (  a conclusion arrived at after three years,  and seven million pounds of tax payers money spent  )

[AnneGuedes]

Very interesting, Anne.

I have always maintained that the McCanns' influence upon matters is a lot less profound than they and / or others sometimes give the impression that it is.

They clearly are not running the investigation in any way shape or form - the initial thread title was somewhat facetious in this regard . If they were, Scotland Yard would be saying the same thing as they are.

I'm not sure you understood what Paulo Rebelo meant, SH ! You better read the whole process that led him to write this.

www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm#p17p4241