Re: Did tannerman exist or not?

by **PeterMac** 11.12.13 10:38

[quote="watendlath"]

Woburn_exile
But Redwood gave no details about where he headed once he left the creche.
It could be that he went off in the opposite direction and never went anywhere near 5A.
Also, the man Jane Tanner claims to have seen was walking in the direction of the creche, not away from it.
So it's unlikely they're the same person.
But it's also unlikely to find two men, dressed in practically the same way, carrying a child, whose description is so similar, in the same peculiar way, in the same area at the same time.

One is reminded of the man who threw himself from the table, threw himself onto his horse, and Galloped off in all directions.
Perhaps the Abductor flew into the room (We remember Kate did a lot of "flying" that night), threw himself out into the car park, and strode off in all directions

by aiyoyo 11.12.13 10:42

What about Crecheman? Did he ride off on a horse into the wilderness ?

by Tangled Web 11.12.13 10:58

IMO Tannerman never existed. IIRC neither GM nor JW saw him, despite being stood talking together (for 30 secs/30 mins) very nearby where JT saw this man? Oddly, they didn't see JT either thinking

I think Crimewatch was a stunt to get rid of Tannerman.

by tiny 11.12.13 11:25

Tangled Web wrote:IMO Tannerman never existed. IIRC neither GM nor JW saw him, despite being stood talking together (for 30 secs/30 mins) very nearby where JT saw this man? Oddly, they didn't see JT either

I think Crimewatch was a stunt to get rid of Tannerman.

I feel the same,no tannerman, also no jt,,she was never there on that road when gm and jw were(supposedly,because I have my doubts about this as well as wasn't there a lady on her balconey who said she saw no one at the time)

by aiyoyo 11.12.13 11:52

If Tannerman never exit, how can there be a Crecheman?

Is there an ACE amongst the cards?

by Tangled Web 11.12.13 11:57

tiny wrote:
Tangled Web wrote:IMO Tannerman never existed. IIRC neither GM nor JW saw him, despite being stood talking together (for 30 secs/30 mins) very nearby where JT saw this man? Oddly, they didn't see JT either

I think Crimewatch was a stunt to get rid of Tannerman.

I feel the same,no tannerman, also no jt,,she was never there on that road when gm and jw were(supposedly,because I have my doubts about this as well as wasn't there a lady on her balconey who said she saw no one at the time)

Having problems writing text outside quote box.

Mrs Fenn was in that night and heard nothing..

by Tangled Web 11.12.13 11:59

aiyoyo wrote:If Tannerman never exit, how can there be a Crecheman?

Is there an ACE amongst the cards?

Fingers crossed. I really don't think there was anybody walking away from 5A that night carrying a blanket that turned into a child.

by aiyoyo 11.12.13 12:22

About the Fund

Madeleine's Fund - 'Leaving No Stone Unturned' is a not-for-profit company which has been established to find Madeleine McCann, support her family and bring her abductors to justice. The Fund is following best practice governance procedures as set out in the Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector. The directors of the company are Brian Kennedy, Michael Linnett, Edward Smethurst, Jon Corner, Kate McCann & Gerry McCann. They have appropriate legal, business and charitable experience. An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability. This should enable the Directors to maintain an appropriate governance distance in the day-to-day operations of the Fund.

Fund Objectives

The full objects of the Fund are:

To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.

Incidentally the above are extracts from the OFM website.

Notice 'support her family' is mentioned repeatedly - under the "About the Fund" and also under the "Fund Objectives".
LET no one be unclear about the purpose of the Fund (hence the explicit repetition).

Of the 6 trustees, 4 of them have vested interest, thus arises conflict of interest and objectivity issue?

"They have appropriate legal, business and charitable experience."

Which of those applies to Kate & Gery to quality them as Directors? I can't see any.

The Fund is following best practice governance procedures as set out in the Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector. [

Since when private limited company comes under Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector?
The pertinent question would be are the rules bent for this particular pte ltd company?
If so, has there been past precedence pre to this one? If not, why is this one given special treatment?

by aiyoyo 11.12.13 12:25

Tangled Web wrote:
tiny wrote:
Tangled Web wrote:IMO Tannerman never existed. IIRC neither GM nor JW saw him, despite being stood talking together (for 30 secs/30 mins) very nearby where JT saw this man? Oddly, they didn't see JT either

I think Crimewatch was a stunt to get rid of Tannerman.

I feel the same,no tannerman, also no jt,,she was never there on that road when gm and jw were(supposedly,because I have my doubts about this as well as wasn't there a lady on her balconey who said she saw no one at the time)

Having problems writing text outside quote box.

Mrs Fenn was in that night and heard nothing..

Tiny, from the icons bar on top of Post a Reply page, click on the !st icon on the extreme right, and that will take you outside the quote box.

by aiyoyo 11.12.13 12:28

Tangled Web wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:If Tannerman never exit, how can there be a Crecheman?

Is there an ACE amongst the cards?

Fingers crossed. I really don't think there was anybody walking away from 5A that night carrying a blanket that turned into a child.

So the next question has to be is there a Crecheman walking outside 5A ?

by tiny 11.12.13 13:32

thank you,aiyoyo

by Tangled Web 11.12.13 13:56

aiyoyo wrote:
Tangled Web wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:If Tannerman never exit, how can there be a Crecheman?

Is there an ACE amongst the cards?

Fingers crossed. I really don't think there was anybody walking away from 5A that night carrying a blanket that turned into a child.

So the next question has to be is there a Crecheman walking outside 5A ?

At the time JT was walking by, I don't believe there was a Crecheman. Out of three people, supposedly stood in close proxemity to each other on a dark, quiet side road, JT was the only one who 'saw' this person and the details of what she saw changed considerably over time. I think if she'd have seen anyone, then GM and/or JW would surely have seen them too. That's if GM and JW were actually there to start with of course! Round and round we go!

by aiyoyo 11.12.13 14:03

No, you are talking about Tannerman, while I was referring to Crecheman a al Redwood version.

Does Crecheman exist or not?

by Tangled Web 11.12.13 14:13

aiyoyo wrote:No, you are talking about Tannerman, while I was referring to Crecheman a al Redwood version.

Does Crecheman exist or not?

Sorry, I misunderstood.

No, I don't think Crecheman exists either.

by pennylane 11.12.13 14:18

aiyoyo wrote:No, you are talking about Tannerman, while I was referring to Crecheman a al Redwood version.

Does Crecheman exist or not?

I believe Redwood's Crecheman does exist, and he has sod all to do with Tanner's fictional Bundleman!

by aiyoyo 11.12.13 14:55

pennylane wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:No, you are talking about Tannerman, while I was referring to Crecheman a al Redwood version.

Does Crecheman exist or not?

I believe Redwood's Crecheman does exist, and he has sod all to do with Tanner's fictional Bundleman!

Sorry, I dont understand.

You're saying Crecheman is real, but Tannerman is fake, yeah?
So, how come a crecheman was found who possessed the same outfit?

A Crecheman is always possible but wearing the same type of clothes JT described is not possible if JT fabricated the man.
You see the complication in this?

by pennylane 11.12.13 16:18

aiyoyo wrote:
pennylane wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:No, you are talking about Tannerman, while I was referring to Crecheman a al Redwood version.

Does Crecheman exist or not?

I believe Redwood's Crecheman does exist, and he has sod all to do with Tanner's fictional Bundleman!

Sorry, I dont understand.

You're saying Crecheman is real, but Tannerman is fake, yeah?
So, how come a crecheman was found who possessed the same outfit?

A Crecheman is always possible but wearing the same type of clothes JT described is not possible if JT fabricated the man.
You see the complication in this?

Oh I think Redwood hustled up some dude that sort of fit the description, and then went about morphing the two here and there until he could make his pathetic claim that they were one and the same. Redwood never said Crecheman walked across the top of the road, only that he went in the McCanns direction, which made me think the man did exist, but he couldn't stretch the truth any further without getting into hot water?

by Tangled Web 11.12.13 16:31

aiyoyo wrote:
pennylane wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:No, you are talking about Tannerman, while I was referring to Crecheman a al Redwood version.

Does Crecheman exist or not?

I believe Redwood's Crecheman does exist, and he has sod all to do with Tanner's fictional Bundleman!

Sorry, I dont understand.

You're saying Crecheman is real, but Tannerman is fake, yeah?
So, how come a crecheman was found who possessed the same outfit?

A Crecheman is always possible but wearing the same type of clothes JT described is not possible if JT fabricated the man.
You see the complication in this?

I believe Crecheman was invented so SY could tell the whole world they were no longer looking for Tannerman.

by ProfessorPPlum 11.12.13 16:51

Woburn_exile wrote:...the WTF WTF WTF F F moment for me

Yes, that's a good way of putting it :-)

by bobbin 11.12.13 18:01

A long way back, we discussed one of the Portuguese police-ladies/ OC rep? who arrived shortly on the 'abduction ?' scene giving a testament that she could not understand how Jane Tanner could have seen the person where she claimed him to be, from the position that she claimed to be in herself.
Then recently, we have seen the map of the night creche centre, relative to the side gate of 5a where Jane was supposed to have seen egg/ bundle/ tannerman.
I have never really been able to get a clear picture here but remember thinking if Jane were in the car park where Jez Wilkins said he'd seen her hanging about earlier that evening, then maybe she might have had view of said road where tannerman was told to the police lady/OC rep to have been.
This was before the confusing spidery design of Jane's to try to pin point the road and walkways, relative to 5a.
I do think that spannerman has become a spanner in the works and was thought up hastily because other things had not gone to plan.
Philomena was all primed to blab her mouth off about the jimmied windows and didn't get told in time to keep her big **** shut.
AR has pulled off something brilliant here, I am beginning to think.
No spannerman means no Jane abductor, only the Smiths can implicate an 'abduction' but Smiths implicate Gerry, who has no alibi for that time.
It certainly does go back to zero when you take out of the equation, the McCann's only premise of abduction, as verified by Jane alibi-ing Gerry who for some IDIOTIC reason, claimed NOT to have seen Jane giving him his one and only alibi.
This has been one of the biggest c**k ups in history.
But if the Portuguese police did not believe in an abduction, it is not unreasonable to think that some at least, UK police will not believe it too.
Now that AR has cunningly announced that spannerman is almost certainly not an abductor, we revert to Smithman with Gerry being implicated, and being the last person to have seen Madeleine in the now/post spannerman expanded time frame.
A rock and a hard place comes to mind here.
I would like to think that our police can know their usual lags so well, that they would be able to think with criminal minds too.
So AR can find that spannerman is not an abductor. The McCann premise of abduction fails unless they acknowledge Smithman who implicates Gerry.
If this were a whitewash, it's going about proving the 'abduction' claim in a very perverse and risky way.

by Guest 11.12.13 18:12

Maybe JT saw crecheman but at different time and/or a different place. Remember it's easier to trot out a half truth than a full lie. That could account for the similarity between the two .... well that's if either or both exist.

by bobbin 11.12.13 18:34

chilli wrote:Maybe JT saw crecheman but at different time and/or a different place. Remember it's easier to trot out a half truth than a full lie. That could account for the similarity between the two .... well that's if either or both exist.

Yes, good observation.
I am still suspicious of the Jez Wilkins' sighting of a lady, dark hair, Portuguese looking, wearing purple, who turned out to be Jane Tanner, hanging around as if on look out, by 5a at around 8 to 8.30 when he left with his child in the buggy.
Whooshed now, a report floated right at the beginning of this whole charade, that JW had seen Gerry, fiddling by the shutters.
Jane would have been in the car park. Transfer later this scene to Gerry, Jez and Jane all together.
Jane might have seen someone from that different position that became transferred to gate of 5a.
Gerry possibly did meet JW at gate of 5a but why can't he agree with JW and Jane, as to which side of the road they were.
Perhaps the abduction / removal was being managed at that time.
Cadavour odour in garden, put down in a hurry perhaps? because JW was again on the scene.
Why does Gerry again insist that JW accept the encounter and conversation is later than JW was wont to think it was.
Why did Matt Oldfield ? go and knock on JW 's door, tell him Madeleine had gone missing, but didn't ask if he had seen anything whilst he was out and about, and why did he not let him come out, when he offered, to help search when surely all hands on deck were needed.
Philomena definitely was a primed grenade, ready to fire off the 'jimmied shutters' story and indeed, jimmied they were meant to have been, IN MY OPINION OF COURSE.

by Guest 11.12.13 19:18

Bobbin, I tend to agree, that possibly "family" was told what to say immediately after the "event" became known. That's a worrying thought.

by tiny 11.12.13 19:24

bobbin wrote:
chilli wrote:Maybe JT saw crecheman but at different time and/or a different place. Remember it's easier to trot out a half truth than a full lie. That could account for the similarity between the two .... well that's if either or both exist.
Yes, good observation.
I am still suspicious of the Jez Wilkins' sighting of a lady, dark hair, Portuguese looking, wearing purple, who turned out to be Jane Tanner, hanging around as if on look out, by 5a at around 8 to 8.30 when he left with his child in the buggy.
Whooshed now, a report floated right at the beginning of this whole charade, that JW had seen Gerry, fiddling by the shutters.
Jane would have been in the car park. Transfer later this scene to Gerry, Jez and Jane all together.
Jane might have seen someone from that different position that became transferred to gate of 5a.
Gerry possibly did meet JW at gate of 5a but why can't he agree with JW and Jane, as to which side of the road they were.
Perhaps the abduction / removal was being managed at that time.
Cadavour odour in garden, put down in a hurry perhaps? because JW was again on the scene.
Why does Gerry again insist that JW accept the encounter and conversation is later than JW was wont to think it was.
Why did Matt Oldfield ? go and knock on JW 's door, tell him Madeleine had gone missing, but didn't ask if he had seen anything whilst he was out and about, and why did he not let him come out, when he offered, to help search when surely all hands on deck were needed.
Philomena definitely was a primed grenade, ready to fire off the 'jimmied shutters' story and indeed, jimmied they were meant to have been, IN MY OPINION OF COURSE.

yes I also remember this and have been looking for ,now I know why I didn't find it

by chillyheat 11.12.13 19:34

Neither Jeremy Wilkins nor Gerry McCann state they saw Jane Tanner at the same time and place she claimed to be when seeing the abductor. Jeremy Wilkins had inadvertantly stumbled upon Gerry McCann tampering with the shutters to make it look like a break in had occured, or as he later claimed a break out by the abductor as he went out of the window. Both Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins would not only have seen the abductor, they would have also heard him.

Bath time, Jane Tanner’s sighting and Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins meeting are 3 key weaknesses in the McCanns version of events.

http://hypocriteandliar.wordpress.com/tag/jeremy-wilkins/

Log in for more topics