Crecheman's identity finally revealed

[jassi]

From the Sun:

<<< But one retired Met Police detective, who visited the resort with The Sun, is convinced Jane Tanner saw the real abductor. Ian Horrocks said the man Ms Tanner saw had been walking from west to east, while Dr Totman would have gone the opposite way. He added: “The police seemingly dismissed this sighting after discovering the account of the British holidaymaker taking his daughter back to their apartment. “I cannot see how it can be totally dismissed.” >>>

I agree, and imo JT saw an abductor at 21:50 approximately.

I have reasons to think so. This reasons include JT sick daugther and ROB interest in preparing timelines that very same night.

How do you think she could have come to made such a ghastly mistake that mislead both police and the parents for years?
Or was it a deliberate lie, as she could not possible have seen Gerry & Jez at the later time.

[Robittybob1]

I am not refusing to answer. I have in my previous posts but just in case you missed it.

Taking into account Tanner’s own timings with O’Brien, Wilkins and Webster’s statements it is possible that Gerry’s check was around 9pm and Tanner’s after he had returned.

You say it is possible but that is not actually true.  Otherwise I'd like to see your reasoning.

[Robittybob1]

From the Sun:

<<< But one retired Met Police detective, who visited the resort with The Sun, is convinced Jane Tanner saw the real abductor. Ian Horrocks said the man Ms Tanner saw had been walking from west to east, while Dr Totman would have gone the opposite way. He added: “The police seemingly dismissed this sighting after discovering the account of the British holidaymaker taking his daughter back to their apartment. “I cannot see how it can be totally dismissed.” >>>

I agree, and imo JT saw an abductor at 21:50 approximately.

I have reasons to think so. This reasons include JT sick daugther and ROB interest in preparing timelines that very same night.

Your are on the right track IMO but don't involve Jane.

[Robittybob1]

Rowley.   "However Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted"

The MPS don't seem to be concerned about how Madeleine left the apartment.

[jassi]

Rowley.   "However Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted"

The MPS don't seem to be concerned about how Madeleine left the apartment.

Sorry, don't understand your reply to my quoted post. Could you explain further?

[Robittybob1]

Sorry, don't understand your reply to my quoted post. Could you explain further?

The greater part of my work has been about how Madeleine left the apartment but Mark Rowley seems to dismiss all of it by saying  "however Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted" so no one is going to be charged with perverting the course of justice regarding issues of how MM got out of the apartment IMO.
She got out, but someone has abducted her, according to Rowley.

[jassi]

The greater part of my work has been about how Madeleine left the apartment but Mark Rowley seems to dismiss all of it by saying  "however Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted" so no one is going to be charged with perverting the course of justice regarding issues of how MM got out of the apartment IMO.

I disagree because if the theory is correct, then the whole of the Tapas group would have participated in providing false information that could have hindered the police in that they went along with a falsified time line

[Robittybob1]

I disagree because if the theory is correct, then the whole of the Tapas group would have participated in providing false information that could have hindered the police in that they went along with a falsified time line

I think they've gone past that point.

[ShiningInLuz]

The greater part of my work has been about how Madeleine left the apartment but Mark Rowley seems to dismiss all of it by saying  "however Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted" so no one is going to be charged with perverting the course of justice regarding issues of how MM got out of the apartment IMO.
She got out, but someone has abducted her, according to Rowley.

Without researching the topic of statute of limitations fully, a recent article in CdM (?) said that it was 15 years for murder.  A woman's body was found walled up in an attic, but the date of death was dated to the 1980s.  So no-one was going to get charged with anything, even if she was indeed murdered.

While if Madeleine was murdered around May 2007, the statute of limitations has got about 4 years to run.

And if it was a lesser crime, e.g. body occultation, then it is likely that the statute of limitations ran out years ago.

[Robittybob1]

Without researching the topic of statute of limitations fully, a recent article in CdM (?) said that it was 15 years for murder.  A woman's body was found walled up in an attic, but the date of death was dated to the 1980s.  So no-one was going to get charged with anything, even if she was indeed murdered.

While if Madeleine was murdered around May 2007, the statute of limitations has got about 4 years to run.

And if it was a lesser crime, e.g. body occultation, then it is likely that the statute of limitations ran out years ago.

With what Mark Rowley was saying murder or occultation has no part in the solution as to what happened to Madeleine IMO.

[faithlilly]

I disagree because if the theory is correct, then the whole of the Tapas group would have participated in providing false information that could have hindered the police in that they went along with a falsified time line

I find it surprising the support on here for the eminent criminologist. As you say his theory hinges on all the tapas group being dishonest to a greater or lesser extent, a position sceptics have put forward for years, and yet because his theory doesn’t suggest the McCann’s guilt he is supported.

[Alice Purjorick]

I find it surprising the support on here for the eminent criminologist. As you say his theory hinges on all the tapas group being dishonest to a greater or lesser extent, a position sceptics have put forward for years, and yet because his theory doesn’t suggest the McCann’s guilt he is supported.

Why should you be surprised?
The supporters mostly refer to the T9 by their given names. That reveals a lot.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I am not refusing to answer. I have in my previous posts but just in case you missed it.

Taking into account Tanner’s own timings with O’Brien, Wilkins and Webster’s statements it is possible that Gerry’s check was around 9pm and Tanner’s after he had returned.

That wasn’t the question I asked you and you well know it.  I asked you why JT’s given time of 9.15pm for the sighting is the only part of her statement that you seem ready to believe is truthful?

[Vertigo Swirl]

What do you think of Heri’s  theory VS ?

Pure supposition.

[jassi]

I think they've gone past that point.

They( police) might have gone passed that point as you say, but if true it would show them all (Tapas group) in a very poor light