The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Innocent British Father

Page 3 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by Daisy on 16.10.13 13:35



what I don't get, is why 'innocent creche Dad' produced a (rather large) pink blanket? Jane Tanner was adamant that the child she saw being carried wasn't wrapped up. And if creche Dad did use this blanket then she couldn't possibly see what Pyjama's the child was wearing.

____________________
“Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.”   

Unknown


“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.” 

Friedrich Nietzsche

Daisy

Posts : 1245
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-15
Location : Yorkshire, England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by StraightThinking on 17.10.13 8:38

AR implied on CW that, as Bundleman had been "identified", an abduction couldn't have happened around that time

That isn't true. The "identification" of Bundleman just indicates that he wasn't an abductor. A genuine abductor could have been heading off in the other direction, unseen by all (including JT). So it doesn't close that particular time slot after all. Why say that it does?

StraightThinking

Posts : 180
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by bobbin on 17.10.13 8:48

@StraightThinking wrote:AR implied on CW that, as Bundleman had been "identified", an abduction couldn't have happened around that time

That isn't true. The "identification" of Bundleman just indicates that he wasn't an abductor. A genuine abductor could have been heading off in the other direction, unseen by all (including JT). So it doesn't close that particular time slot after all. Why say that it does?
But there is no forensic evidence of a stranger having got into, been inside, or exiting the apartment and the sniffer dogs indicated cadavour odour and Madeleine's blood was found on walls and in tile grouting, so where, how, why, what, when did this mysterious abductor abduct Madeleine.
True, she could have been passed to someone outside, to put into a buggy, a big blue bag, a waiting car boot, but the forensic presence of 'known people only' would have to imply that any 'abduction' 'removal' of Madeleine from 5A would have to have been done by those whose forensic presence was noted, i.e. family, friends.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by StraightThinking on 17.10.13 8:54

deleted

StraightThinking

Posts : 180
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by russiandoll on 17.10.13 9:47

I do not recall AR saying an abduction could not have happened at 9.15, but he did say that the man JT saw was not the abductor.

 He said the timeline widened, did not mention that an abduction could have occurred same time with man unseen by JT due to being out of sight, in a car, walking in other direction. I recall him making ref to careful analysis of the timeline.

 His focus was on that 10pm sighting and I am taking as a given he does not accept that a man would walk around with an abducted child for 45 minutes as he would have had to do if he had taken M around the same time as JT going to do her check.

 No one but Jane has seen a man at 9.15 with a child.  If there was a man walking about with a child as there definitely was acc to AR  [ Smithman], he would have been seen by others between 9.15 and 10 pm. to be unseen he would have needed to go into an empty building or have access to a car..........which he would have used for a getaway out of town, not get out and walk towards the ocean.

 Redwood's man was not going on an escape route with an abducted child, I agree with the expert opinion on the 30 minute Sky Maddie the New Investigation shown Tuesday and interestingly repeated tomorrow at 7.30 pm [ think that's the correct time]
 The route taken by Smithman was not out of town but towards an area where there were empty buildings. Said on the Sky programme.

 Also on that programme, entry to 5a by a man who had done a recce of movements would have been IMMEDIATELY after a check .

 The pre planned abduction [ONE WAY OF READING THE EVIDENCE acc to AR] was dismissed emphatically on that Sky special feature by 2 people with expert opinions.

 It is well worth a watch esp to hear that e fits were stagnating in Private Investigator files for 5 years and not given to police,
 I don't think the we handed them to police who ignored them will wash now the info has come from 2 sources, Sky and Channel 4.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by StraightThinking on 17.10.13 10:25

@russiandoll wrote:I do not recall AR saying an abduction could not have happened at 9.15, but he did say that the man JT saw was not the abductor.
NSY say there is a new timeline but there isn't
The window of opportunity for an abductor, if there was one, is the same as it has always been, it isn't bigger than before
Given the vagueness of the JT "sighting", NSY can't have been concentrating solely on 21.15 as the crucial moment, so a post-21.15 abduction was always an option if that's where they were happy to go
The timeslot has always been the same - from the time she was last seen, to the time she wasn't there any more

StraightThinking

Posts : 180
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by Guest on 17.10.13 11:04

@StraightThinking wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:I do not recall AR saying an abduction could not have happened at 9.15, but he did say that the man JT saw was not the abductor.
NSY say there is a new timeline but there isn't
The window of opportunity for an abductor, if there was one, is the same as it has always been, it isn't bigger than before
Given the vagueness of the JT "sighting", NSY can't have been concentrating solely on 21.15 as the crucial moment, so a post-21.15 abduction was always an option if that's where they were happy to go
The timeslot has always been the same - from the time she was last seen, to the time she wasn't there any more
I think that's correct, StraightThinking. Things are exactly as they were before, except that the man JT says she saw has now been identified as a non-abductor - and presumably Jane supports the identification of "innocent British dad" as the man she saw or it would not have been broadcast. The trouble is that the abduction time slot is - as you say - still the same, still very narrow indeed - and we now have yet another witness. Brit dad was going past the front entrance while Gerry and Jez Wilkins were outside the rear exit and smoking teenager and Jane herself were on the spot across the road as it happened, and not one of them saw anything untoward. This is very unfortunate.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by StraightThinking on 17.10.13 20:16

NSY have made a lot of this identification even though it changes little - the window for an abduction is the same as before, all it does is eliminate one vague sighting in which it was never even remotely proven that M was being taken anyway

So why have they made so much of something so insignificant? Saying it changes the focus of the investigation is wrong because hardly anyone was focussing on it and I doubt NSY were either

Re the fact that this man was walking from left to right when he should have been walking from right to left, I can't believe that this was a simple mistake by AR. The map shows clearly the relative postions of 5a and the night creche and AR is quite capable of seeing that

So why should he come out with something so obviously untrue in a programme watched by 7 million people?

If I were JT, I would contact AR and say no, that can't have been the guy I saw because he was going the wrong way, ie you can't eliminate my sighting after all

But maybe that's what AR is waiting for

And if so, has JT phoned him yet?

StraightThinking

Posts : 180
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by Jaci on 17.10.13 20:36

@Daisy wrote:

what I don't get, is why 'innocent creche Dad' produced a (rather large) pink blanket? Jane Tanner was adamant that the child she saw being carried wasn't wrapped up. And if creche Dad did use this blanket then she couldn't possibly see what Pyjama's the child was wearing.
That is odd! Also the PJ bottoms appear to be blue with an orange band at the bottom of the legs (shown after the above shot in Crimewatch)...nothing like what Jane Tanner described with her 'pinky aspect' or, according to the artist impression, the lace trim at the bottom of the legs. Surely she couldn't have been that mistaken? If the above photo is right then it seems the only way Jane Tanner could have given a description of 'pinky aspect' is if she was told what Madeleine had been wearing?

I'm wondering if SY needed to get rid of Bundleman but the only way to do that without calling Jane Tanner a liar was to create the father? According to the map that was shown on Crimewatch it looked as if the night crèche was to the right of the complex, if so then the father was walking towards it, not away from it. Or did I imagine that part?

I've got a feeling the father doesn't exist, at least until proven otherwise.

Jaci

Posts : 21
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-17

View user profile http://atticshelf.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by sallypelt on 17.10.13 20:40

@Jaci wrote:
@Daisy wrote:

what I don't get, is why 'innocent creche Dad' produced a (rather large) pink blanket? Jane Tanner was adamant that the child she saw being carried wasn't wrapped up. And if creche Dad did use this blanket then she couldn't possibly see what Pyjama's the child was wearing.
That is odd! Also the PJ bottoms appear to be blue with an orange band at the bottom of the legs (shown after the above shot in Crimewatch)...nothing like what Jane Tanner described with her 'pinky aspect' or, according to the artist impression, the lace trim at the bottom of the legs. Surely she couldn't have been that mistaken? If the above photo is right then it seems the only way Jane Tanner could have given a description of 'pinky aspect' is if she was told what Madeleine had been wearing?

I'm wondering if SY needed to get rid of Bundleman but the only way to do that without calling Jane Tanner a liar was to create the father? According to the map that was shown on Crimewatch it looked as if the night crèche was to the right of the complex, if so then the father was walking towards it, not away from it. Or did I imagine that part?

I've got a feeling the father doesn't exist, at least until proven otherwise.
Six and a half years and the pjs are still available. How fantastic is that, hey?

Oh, and the street lights were "orange" so there is no way that colours would have shown up true.

sallypelt

Posts : 3303
Reputation : 522
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by margaret on 17.10.13 20:46

@sallypelt wrote:
@Jaci wrote:
@Daisy wrote:

what I don't get, is why 'innocent creche Dad' produced a (rather large) pink blanket? Jane Tanner was adamant that the child she saw being carried wasn't wrapped up. And if creche Dad did use this blanket then she couldn't possibly see what Pyjama's the child was wearing.
That is odd! Also the PJ bottoms appear to be blue with an orange band at the bottom of the legs (shown after the above shot in Crimewatch)...nothing like what Jane Tanner described with her 'pinky aspect' or, according to the artist impression, the lace trim at the bottom of the legs. Surely she couldn't have been that mistaken? If the above photo is right then it seems the only way Jane Tanner could have given a description of 'pinky aspect' is if she was told what Madeleine had been wearing?

I'm wondering if SY needed to get rid of Bundleman but the only way to do that without calling Jane Tanner a liar was to create the father? According to the map that was shown on Crimewatch it looked as if the night crèche was to the right of the complex, if so then the father was walking towards it, not away from it. Or did I imagine that part?

I've got a feeling the father doesn't exist, at least until proven otherwise.
Six and a half years and the pjs are still available. How fantastic is that, hey?

Oh, and the street lights were "orange" so there is no way that colours would have shown up true.
Not only that but he and the smiths sighting man were dressed very similar, the chances of all this are getting slimmer!

margaret

Posts : 585
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-09-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by StraightThinking on 17.10.13 20:58

@Jaci wrote: According to the map that was shown on Crimewatch it looked as if the night crèche was to the right of the complex, if so then the father was walking towards it, not away from it. Or did I imagine that part?
Indeed, so - as I said earlier on this thread - contrary to CW's claim, the Bundleman sighting hasn't been eliminated and JT should contact NSY to tell them that her sighting is still valid

StraightThinking

Posts : 180
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by galena on 17.10.13 20:59

@StraightThinking wrote:AR implied on CW that, as Bundleman had been "identified", an abduction couldn't have happened around that time

That isn't true. The "identification" of Bundleman just indicates that he wasn't an abductor. A genuine abductor could have been heading off in the other direction, unseen by all (including JT). So it doesn't close that particular time slot after all. Why say that it does?
I agree with you - it's rather strange.  It's not as if Jane's 'bundleman' derailed the investigation in the way, say that Wearside Jack derailed the Yorkshire Ripper investigation. I always got the impression that no-one took it really seriously and even at the time many commented that it could easily have been someone carrying a child back from a crèche. Like you I always considered the actual window of opportunity to be the time between checkups when the children were left on their own and I'm sure the police in both countries thought the same.  Jane really wasn't very convincing and the fact that she did nothing like run after the so-called abductor suggested that she didn't think it was her friend's child he was carrying.

Also in police investigations it's surely normal to follow up more than one line of enquiry.  Surely the sensible thing would be to keep an open mind?

galena

Posts : 286
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by ShuBob on 17.10.13 21:05

@sallypelt wrote:
Six and a half years and the pjs are still available. How fantastic is that, hey?

Oh, and the street lights were "orange" so there is no way that colours would have shown up true.
Nothing odd about that IMO as my kids still have clothes that old they still wear blushing1 

Having said that, Redwood gave little details about this sighting i.e. was the father alone while carrying the child and in what direction. I feel certain if these details are known, right-thinking people will conclude he's not the same as the mythical bundleman. He's not swarthy for a start and looks nothing like Murat.

ShuBob

Posts : 1893
Reputation : 57
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by Jaci on 17.10.13 21:45

@ShuBob wrote:
@sallypelt wrote:
Six and a half years and the pjs are still available. How fantastic is that, hey?

Oh, and the street lights were "orange" so there is no way that colours would have shown up true.
Nothing odd about that IMO as my kids still have clothes that old they still wear blushing1 

Having said that, Redwood gave little details about this sighting i.e. was the father alone while carrying the child and in what direction. I feel certain if these details are known, right-thinking people will conclude he's not the same as the mythical bundleman. He's not swarthy for a start and looks nothing like Murat.
I don't mean to sound as if I'm contradicting you ShuBob, I thought Redwood was implying that Jane Tanner's Bundleman is the supposed father who  has now come forward? 

According to UK Crimewatch, the father had collected his child from the night crèche but also according to UK Crimewatch, that night crèche is on the right of the map which means that Bundleman/Father was walking towards it (according to what Jane Tanner is supposed to have seen) which doesn't make sense.

Not that I believe there ever was a Bundleman (and having a hard time believing a father has come forward) but for clarity does anyone know for sure that the night creche is where Crimewatch says it is? I don't know why but I thought it was in the same area as the day one?

Screen capture:

Jaci

Posts : 21
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-17

View user profile http://atticshelf.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Tannerman/ Crecheman revisited

Post by PeterMac on 28.02.14 12:10

For a long time Tannerman admitted of only two possibilities.
1 Tanner DID see a man, or
2 she did NOT.

The addition of Redwood’s Crecheman admits two more
1 Redwood HAS traced the man, or
2 he has NOT.

And this in turn ought to increase the possibilities to four, 2 x 2, but in fact it leaves only three.
Let us consider the following combinations

Tanner DID see a man and Redwood HAS traced him
Comment :   Extremely unlikely, given the
•  lack of front page story in the Express,
•  lack of even an appeal by the tabloids for him to come forward and give his story,
•  7 years living like a trappist monk,
•  keeping 7 year old pyjamas  
•  total lack of urgency in seeking Smithman
and so on.
The McCanns specifically accuse Redwood of lying on this point, as they continue to show Tannerman on their website as a person to be traced.
Conclusion : Not absolutely impossible, but extremely improbable

Tanner DID see a man and Redwood has NOT traced him
This was surely the perfect scenario not only for the McCanns, but also for Redwood if he wished to perform a whitewash, as it would leave the ‘abduction’  as a unsolved possibility for all time.
But Redwood has chosen NOT to go down this route

Tanner did NOT see a man and Redwood has NOT traced him
This is not logically possible, even by the extraordinary standards of this case. (Though it would also serve to assist a whitewash. Again, Redwood has not gone down this route)

Tanner did NOT see a man and Redwood [says] he HAS traced him
This is the most interesting scenario
Tanner’s protestations that she was telling the truth, even from the first statement, swearing on all things sacred, and subsequently in her rogatory, when analysed show many of the classic signs of fabrication.
We know that none of the investigating teams believed it, Jez Wilkins and indeed Gerry specifically deny even seeing Tanner.

But Redwood went on national television, prime time, in a matter of international importance, and assured the world that he had traced interviewed and eliminated Crecheman, even providing a helpful photo to prove this.
And as above, the McCanns are calling him a liar, by keeping Tannerman on their site as someone to to be traced.

Why would he do this ?
Remember that a DCI would not do this on his own. He would need official approval at fairly high level to mislead the world in this way. And a very good reason for so doing.
What might that reason be ?
The first thing that has happened is that the McCanns have refused to give up Tannerman, even though Redwood offered them Smithman in his place.
Why ?
Surely because without Tannerman there can be no abduction
Smithman, even if he exists, is at best a loving father taking a child home to bed.  The timing of the alleged sighting does not permit any plausible scenario to be developed.  (Plausible in the McCann sense, of course)

Has Redwood, by getting rid of Tannerman, simply flagged up to the entire Team McCann that he is no longer accepting Abduction, even as a working hypothesis?
Is he inviting the Tapas group to tell the truth ?
First to my office gets immunity, the rest get a charge of conspiracy to pervert.

The silence of the Express is deafening.
The main suspect in the most notorious case in the last decade has been found and interviewed, and not one front page had even an invented interview with him ?
Really ?
Were the Editors of the tabloids briefed that this was a ploy ?

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 28.02.14 12:43

Thank you PeterMac for that very well thought out post. I do find the media silence on this 'crecheman' very telling. An interview with that guy, even an invented interview, would sell a lot of newspapers.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by russiandoll on 28.02.14 14:29

Anyone here keep pjs for 6 years, handing them down to various children?  It would have to be multiple new wearers of the pjs given the rate children grow in that length of time. The child who wore them after crechedaughter outgrew them would now have well outgrown them herself, or maybe himself if he did not object to a floral print.
 So used for maybe 2 more children. That pattern would be worn off by now- but we saw pjs with a print that looked very clear to me.
 As for the hygiene issue...I don't care how well they washed, it would be like giving one child another child's underwear. 

UNBELIEVABLE.
 
 It is a tricky business though inventing a person, the defence would be up in arms in a court.

 Depending on what the prosecution put forward however as a reason why it had to be done, SY might not get their wrist slapped.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by ultimaThule on 28.02.14 15:27

It's my understanding that Crecheman 'came forward' in 2007 by responding to one of the questionnaires Leics police, at the request of the PJ, sent to those MW guests who returned to the UK on 5 May and whose scheduled departure prevented the PJ from interviewing them before they left. 

With regard to the pyjamas, as it's not unusual for growing families to keep infants/childrens' clothing in the event of further expansion and it's common practice for clothing manufacturers to retain samples of lines they have produced, I don't see anything particularly odd about these particular jammies being available after a period of six years.   

While well washed but stained nightwear worn by one child may be seen as being akin to giving used underwear to another, I don't find handing down clean and unstained clothing of any description objectionable, albeit I personally would not give used knickers/underpants or socks and other footwear to another child.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by tiny on 28.02.14 16:51

I think redwood got tanner out of a sticky situation,there was no crechman and no pj,s, imo,but why he did this I have no idea.

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by aiyoyo on 28.02.14 17:09

@ PeterMac
The silence of the Express is deafening.
The main suspect in the most notorious case in the last decade has been found and interviewed, and not one front page had even an invented interview with him ?
Really ?
Were the Editors of the tabloids briefed that this was a ploy ?

Personally I think it would be too risky for Police to brief tabloids, and then having to trust they will remain silence.
If it was a ploy, and there's a need to brief the tabloids to stop them digging around, possibly the chiefs of the tabloids were briefed to leave the chap alone excusing it to his privacy, or excusing it to avoidance of jeopardising future trial since (I'm speculating here) he might be called as witness or used in identification parade.

Speaking on the back of your background, is it possible that their lawyer might ask for details of this man, and the Police might have to substantiate their claiT?

It is indeed odd that the dead Tractorman and his wife were plastered all over front pages, yet identity of Tannerman remains a mystery.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by diatribe on 28.02.14 17:30

@PeterMac wrote:


First to my office gets immunity, the rest get a charge of conspiracy to pervert.


Where's Bertie Smalls when you need him, Peter big grin

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by spirals on 28.02.14 17:40

@russiandoll wrote:Anyone here keep pjs for 6 years, handing them down to various children?  It would have to be multiple new wearers of the pjs given the rate children grow in that length of time. The child who wore them after crechedaughter outgrew them would now have well outgrown them herself, or maybe himself if he did not object to a floral print.
 So used for maybe 2 more children. That pattern would be worn off by now- but we saw pjs with a print that looked very clear to me.
 As for the hygiene issue...I don't care how well they washed, it would be like giving one child another child's underwear. 

UNBELIEVABLE.
 
 It is a tricky business though inventing a person, the defence would be up in arms in a court.

 Depending on what the prosecution put forward however as a reason why it had to be done, SY might not get their wrist slapped.

To give the opposite perspective, my oldest is now almost 10 and her brother now wears pajamas that she had when she was 2 - so almost 8 years. They are still wearable and I'm actually amazed by how well they've lasted! They are now a bit faded but lovely and soft. And not at  all unhygienic, I promise.

However, I could not tell you which pajamas she was wearing on a certain night of a certain holiday in 2007, no way.

spirals

Posts : 10
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by PeterMac on 28.02.14 22:15

@tiny wrote:I think redwood got tanner out of a sticky situation,there was no crechman and no pj,s, imo,but why he did this I have no idea.
But my point is this.
By getting Tanner out of a "sticky situation", he has put the McCanns in an impossibly Sticky one, which they recognise by their refusal to accept what Redwood has told the world.
Why ?
Leaving Tannerman as unidentified would have been perfect for the Mccanns AND for SY if they wished simply to close the whole thing down.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Innocent British Father

Post by Guest on 28.02.14 22:39

I put the post below on another thread earlier tonight, might be better here. A fifth scenario, Tanner didn't see someone but SY have found Crecheman in case he's needed as a witness. As Petunia said on that thread, he probably won't have given interviews if his evidence is needed in court.

Dee Coy wrote:If we don't believe Tannerman exists, then Crecheman also cannot exist if, as Redwood states, Crecheman was seen in the same place, same time, same clothes etc. However, this does pose a problem if at a trial either side decide to call Crecheman as a witness.

What if the police have found someone who could pass for Tannerman in that he was carrying a child that night only NOT in the same place, time etc. Could Jane Tanner have been 'persuaded' to have her memory gently manipulated to admit her sighting may not have been exactly that place, time, etc, her being confused by the stress, drink and panic of the situation? Perhaps she has been pressed to amend the facts of Tannerman so he fits in with the Crecheman SY have found? Can JT have changed her story in order to retain her credibility? Or has she sung like a bird, confessed Tannerman was false, and cooperated with police to create a Crechman who will literally stand up in court?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum