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

[AnneGuedes]

Remember too that Mrs Susan Moyes who had the apartment above Mrs Fenn's was on her balcony enjoying a glass of wine at 9.15 on 3rd May and she did not mention seeing or hearing GW, GM, JT or anyone carring a child despite having one of the best views in the area  Here is her radio interview:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/stoke/radiostoke/click_of_the_day/archive/2007/jul_sep.shtml

Will play through RealPlayer

I think she could have seen them only if they had been on the other side of the street, unless perhaps she'd lean over her balcony.

[Luz]

So why did they spend so much time and effort trying to get the the case re-investigated?

Hardly the sane actions of a 9 guilty people - who apparently have got clean away with a terrible crime against a child is it?

The whole idea is preposterous IMO - unless one is prepared to toss all semblance of common sense and logic out of the window first - or unless one is a '[ censored word ]' of the highest order.

That is an old one that doesn't buy anymore. Everyone knows that the McCann, as arguidos, had the legal right to request the case to remain open within a 21 days period after it's archiving was published. And furthermore, they could request for its reopening at any time just by giving a new fact/evidence (for instance offering to do the reconstitution). They chose to keep it archived and play the trick with the UK PM. But I bet they never expected that it backfired at them with the NSY review (although I have no faith in it).

The McCann played the media by constantly saying that nobody was investigating, and that was giving fruits in terms of the Fund. I wonder if they are as comfortable now financially as they were before Mr. Cameron corresponded to their appeals? :-)   

It is indeed preposterous that those people smear the image of parents of real abducted children. I find it incomprehensible that such confessed negligence, illegal behaviour (obstruction of justice), fraud,...can be exalted and praised by a corrupted Media and a bunch of internet trolls.

[AnneGuedes]

I think once you consider the secret activities of lawyers in recent years you can understand more. I'm sure we only see the tip of the communication iceberg.

All is definitely not as it appears, and it's the private involvement of lawyers behind the public face of this investigation that explains a lot I think.

What do you mean ?

[AnneGuedes]

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.

I don't see that they nearly contradict.
Had DCI Redwood been more convincing (showing Innocentman's route, indicating the time, two crucial data), you could say they "contradict".

[colombosstogey]

The ARROGANCE of people who interfere in the investigation from the start.

IF my child had been abducted I would leave it to the police to do their jobs.

And before you go on about it blah blah blah AMARAL blah blah....they are doing the same with Scotland Yard too.

What the hell has it got to do with them. They are not detectives. They are the ones IMHO who caused all the problems in the first place, turned the disappearance into a media circus, and if anyone is to blame for the child not being found its THEM.

They made it too hot to handle the child if she was taken by a stranger.

Tanner Sighting WAS NEVER taken seriously by the PJ from the beginning. Anyone who followed the case from day one knew it was BOGUS.

Sick to death of it now. They need to stand down, and let the GREAT SCOTLAND YARD do the job, which is costing US a fortune.....makes my blood boil lol....

[Benice]

Who said all nine ?

Meanwhile covering up the truth to protect the careers would be a reason for some.

If you believe that then surely that would be an even stronger reason for them to NOT to want a re-opening of the case?  They have all resumed their careers - so why would they want to re-introduce that risk to their careers which a reinvestigation would incur?

If the McCanns friends are guilty of being accessories to a heinous crime, and have got away with it  - then what do they have to gain by having the case re-examined by SY?    The whole idea is nonsensical imo.

[Serendipity]

I think she could have seen them only if they had been on the other side of the street, unless perhaps she'd lean over her balcony.

Guess we really need to know which balcony she was on to work out what she could possibly have seen? I agree it's unlikely she would have seen but  I would have thought she would have at least heard GW/GM chatting given that it was a typically quiet evening. If she was on either of the balconies I would have thought it was possible she would have seen either JT and/or the man she says she saw carrying a child.



Edited to add that Mrs Moyes was in the apartment above Mrs Fenn's

[John]

Could someone clarify the location of the night crèche?  Was it located beside the tennis courts or down at main reception?

[Luz]

I don't see that they nearly contradict.
Had DCI Redwood been more convincing (showing Innocentman's route, indicating the time, two crucial data), you could say they "contradict".

I'm with you there, Anne.

The presumed Redwood version presented in that "%&#!" CW show was ridiculous. Even I, that don't believe Tanner's sighting one bit, felt offended by the clumsiness with which they tried to re-write the already faulty script of an abduction.

Nevertheless, what the McCann are doing is just being themselves, after begging for the police intervention they do everything to mess up, so they keep on top of everything. We can only guess the coffers are running low and a new begging campaign for funds is imminent. To do that they have to present the need to pursue a different course from the official one. Nice strategy.

[pathfinder73]

Remember too that Mrs Susan Moyes who had the apartment above Mrs Fenn's was on her balcony enjoying a glass of wine at 9.15 on 3rd May and she did not mention seeing or hearing GW, GM, JT or anyone carring a child despite having one of the best views in the area  Here is her radio interview:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/stoke/radiostoke/click_of_the_day/archive/2007/jul_sep.shtml

Will play through RealPlayer

That's why the Timeline is crucial. JT said she left the tapas at 9.10 so she would've spotted that man at 9.12 at the latest. She said when she returned a few minutes later after her check Gerry and Jez were no longer there and when she returned to the tapas Gerry was present at the table.

If they were still talking outside at 9.15 I think Susan Moyes may have heard them. MO said when he returned at 9pm from checking at the shutters Gerry got up and left the tapas straight away. So the crucial time here is 9-9.12pm. Jez said they were only chatting for 3 minutes maybe a little more. So there's a good 7  minutes before he started talking to Jez unaccounted for when he first left the tapas bar. That time period is crucial.

9.25-9.45pm is a crucial time period as that's how long Russell was away from the tapas. A reconstruction would have concentrated on these checks to find out what people were doing in that time away from the tapas.

[AnneGuedes]

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.

If DCI Redwood had imposed Innocentman without comment, I could believe that. But he didn't, he exhibited 2 different pyjamas pretending they were amazingly alike. Why did he ridicule himself ?

[AnneGuedes]

If they were still talking outside at 9.15 I think Susan Moyes may have heard them.

She heard voices and laughters at the Tapas, this would have covered a chat near the grade.

[Benice]

The ARROGANCE of people who interfere in the investigation from the start.

IF my child had been abducted I would leave it to the police to do their jobs.

And before you go on about it blah blah blah AMARAL blah blah....they are doing the same with Scotland Yard too.

What the hell has it got to do with them. They are not detectives. They are the ones IMHO who caused all the problems in the first place, turned the disappearance into a media circus, and if anyone is to blame for the child not being found its THEM.

They made it too hot to handle the child if she was taken by a stranger.

Tanner Sighting WAS NEVER taken seriously by the PJ from the beginning. Anyone who followed the case from day one knew it was BOGUS.

Sick to death of it now. They need to stand down, and let the GREAT SCOTLAND YARD do the job, which is costing US a fortune.....makes my blood boil lol....

You opinion that the McCanns are interfering is based on pure speculation.   SY are doing their job and are keeping the McCanns updated.  There is no evidence to say otherwise - only speculation from people who IMO never stop looking for sticks to beat the McCanns with.

We know that the picture of Tannerman is now thought to be an accurate description of someone else i.e. an innocent tourist.       So IMO  it makes sense to leave it on the site, as if someone thinks they saw that person and comes forward - they could possible confirm that innocent person's movements, or at least some of them on that night - which could add strength to the belief that he was almost certainly the man JT saw -  in addition to his own testamony and the creche records. IMO.

To remove it would also remove the possibility of further helpful info being obtained about the movements of 'Innocentman' IMO

[AnneGuedes]

Could someone clarify the location of the night crèche?  Was it located beside the tennis courts or down at main reception?

On top of main reception

[pathfinder73]

She heard voices and laughters at the Tapas, this would have covered a chat near the grade.

Thanks Anne.