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

[AnneGuedes]

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

You can see that the Moyses' balcony is smaller than Mrs Fenn's and doesn't allow to see what's going near the patio gate and top of the street.
There's another little balcony but Mrs Moyse tells about the lights and animation at the Tapas.

[pathfinder73]

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

They shouldn't be wasting time on that sighting. IMO the last sighting of Madeleine was witnessed by the Smith family (wearing long sleeves). They should concentrate on this last sighting of Madeleine at 10pm. From the efits released on CW I think they are moving in that direction regardless of what the McCann's think.

[AnneGuedes]

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

Is he still a little bit suspect ?

[Cariad]

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

SY have done this though. They have located Tannerman and made him Innocentman. What further need is there to confirm Innocentman's movements?

Operation Grange has done it.

SY must have bloody good reasons to dismiss him. In an investigation that has so very few leads, I can't imagine they'd remove one without being very, very sure indeed.

Now, as to your other point that Sy are keeping the Mccanns informed, if this is the case (and I'm not denying that it certainly may be) why are the McCanns asking the public for information regarding Innocentman that sy already have?

[AnneGuedes]

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

They shouldn't be wasting time on that sighting. IMO the last sighting of Madeleine was witnessed by the Smith family (wearing long sleeves). They should concentrate on this last sighting of Madeleine at 10pm. From the efits released on CW I think they are moving in that direction regardless of what the McCann's think.

They (not Ms Tanner) have red herringged Tannerman for more than 6 years, it might be a bit tough to say farewell.
I think that SY are giving a desperate chance to Smithman to be an abductor.
The detail of the long sleeves and likely long legs is important.

[AnneGuedes]

We know that the picture of Tannerman is now thought to be an accurate description

Do we know that ? Accurate, the description of a man without a face ?

[Benice]

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.

So tell me Luz - if the McCanns and their friends are guilty then (putting the McCanns to one side for a moment,) what benefit is there for those friends in having the case reinvestigated?    What is in it for them - apart from the possibility that they will be found out - prosecuted - and have their lives ruined - when having already got away with it all they had to do was keep their heads down and wait for the whole case to gradually slip out of the public eye?   

I'm being asked to believe that when they saw the McCanns pushing and pushing for a reinvestigation - they actually approved of the massive danger the McCanns were putting them all in if they were all as guilty as you seem to think they are.

So tell me - What was in it for the Tapas7 to agree to go down that road? 

[AnneGuedes]

Things have moved on and are in the hands of SY.

I pity them.

[Luz]

So tell me Luz - if the McCanns and their friends are guilty then (putting the McCanns to one side for a moment,) what benefit is there for those friends in having the case reinvestigated?    What is in it for them - apart from the possibility that they will be found out - prosecuted - and have their lives ruined - when having already got away with it all they had to do was keep their heads down and wait for the whole case to gradually slip out of the public eye?   

I'm being asked to believe that when they saw the McCanns pushing and pushing for a reinvestigation - they actually approved of the massive danger the McCanns were putting them all in if they were all as guilty as you seem to think they are.

So tell me - What was in it for the Tapas7 to agree to go down that road?

THEY NEVER PUSHED FOR AN INVESTIGATION.

They asked UK for a review.

If they wanted the portuguese investigation to be kept open they could have done that, they didn't.

If they wanted the portuguese investigation to be reopened they could have done it, they didn't.

All they did was going to the Media with requests of a review, and when they finally made the mistake (for them) to write the open letter to Cameron, I bet they never expected it to happen.

[AnneGuedes]

Quote from: Luz on Today at 11:26:48 AM

    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.

Reply from Benice
So tell me Luz - if the McCanns and their friends are guilty then (putting the McCanns to one side for a moment,) what benefit is there for those friends in having the case reinvestigated?    What is in it for them - apart from the possibility that they will be found out - prosecuted - and have their lives ruined - when having already got away with it all they had to do was keep their heads down and wait for the whole case to gradually slip out of the public eye?   

I'm being asked to believe that when they saw the McCanns pushing and pushing for a reinvestigation - they actually approved of the massive danger the McCanns were putting them all in if they were all as guilty as you seem to think they are.

So tell me - What was in it for the Tapas7 to agree to go down that road?


I observe, Benice, that you go on mentioning the TP7 even when nobody speaks of them. Luz doesn't.
Nobody on this forum believes that the TP7 are involved in the Madeleine drama, or informed of what happened.
So what's your point ?

[Lyall]

What do you mean ?

I mean the reputation management still continues and with a review/new investigation comes renewed risk that public use of language that hasn't been carefully considered could potentially inflame public opinion again (not to mention encourage certain newspapers who are likely not reluctant to commence stirring the pot again, if given an excuse).

I'm sure lawyers for all concerned parties have been anxious to avoid this possibility.

[John]

So lets see...assuming for a moment Madeleine was abducted then one or more people had to have entered the apartment and made off with her.   Given the traffic which trod the route between the tapas and the apartments, the movements of Jez and the local girl who was visiting nearby when was there are opportunity to abduct a child?

Who saw the abductor(s)?        Answers on a postcard to DCI Redwood c/o Scotland Yard. cc BBC Crimewatch

[Lyall]

So tell me Luz - if the McCanns and their friends are guilty then (putting the McCanns to one side for a moment,) what benefit is there for those friends in having the case reinvestigated?    What is in it for them - apart from the possibility that they will be found out - prosecuted - and have their lives ruined - when having already got away with it all they had to do was keep their heads down and wait for the whole case to gradually slip out of the public eye?   

I'm being asked to believe that when they saw the McCanns pushing and pushing for a reinvestigation - they actually approved of the massive danger the McCanns were putting them all in if they were all as guilty as you seem to think they are.

So tell me - What was in it for the Tapas7 to agree to go down that road?

How do you know they agreed? They never speak. Five of them have never spoken, and the other two just briefly... years ago.

[Benice]

SY have done this though. They have located Tannerman and made him Innocentman. What further need is there to confirm Innocentman's movements?

Operation Grange has done it.

SY must have bloody good reasons to dismiss him. In an investigation that has so very few leads, I can't imagine they'd remove one without being very, very sure indeed.

Now, as to your other point that Sy are keeping the Mccanns informed, if this is the case (and I'm not denying that it certainly may be) why are the McCanns asking the public for information regarding Innocentman that sy already have?

When I said Tannerman had been eliminated I was jumped on from all directions and told that it was not DEFINITE that the tourist was the man JT saw and that was NOT what SY had said -  and that SY were NOT 100% certain.            If that is the case then any further information regarding this tourist could be helpful to SY to confirm or otherwise their present strong belief that he was the man JT saw.   

Seems sensible enough to me.   






   

[AnneGuedes]

Who saw the abductor(s)?        Answers on a postcard to DCI Redwood c/o Scotland Yard. cc BBC Crimewatch

You'll have observed that DCI Redwood didn't allude to Smithman's modus operandi.
Why ?