Did tannerman exist or not?

by Woburn_exile 11.12.13 0:33

Suppose tannerman existed. He is now ruled out of the enquiry as crecheman. But why did JT wait before telling the PJ and indeed according to the Bewk (or Bewch dependent about how scally yer accent is), try to spare KM the distress by not telling her? this was indeed the WTF WTF WTF F F moment for me. Why we even had his clothing as described by JT on display by the BBC. This confirms the perceived existence of innocent crecheman thus turning the focus upon efit man as I call him, smithman to the rest. According to the PJ JT could not have seen someone in that much detail anyway. Now suppose tannerman did not exist. To come up with a concocted story for the crimewatch investigation as SY did then they must have had confirmation from JT herself so this means to me in my most miserably humble opinion that JT plus possibly her husband have been got at by the Police and have struck a deal to give evidence when key evidence is required. Lying in court or to a police officer under caution is an offence, refusing to answer questions is not.
So question:
What will JT reveal that will clinch the deal in front of a court?
These are just daft miserable thoughts of mine as a cross dressing alcoholic Aspergers syndrome sufferer and all are in my stupid opinion which has never counted for anything of consequence before in my entire life.
tongue

by notlongnow 11.12.13 0:41

Have wondered if SY made up crecheman if it would jepordise a trial.
Guessing if a trial was in Portugal it probably wouldn't

by Jontait 11.12.13 0:46

I've long suspected Tanner as the weakest Tapas link with her story full of holes & discrepancies. Her rogatory would not stand up to any sort of scrutiny & IMO should be the starting point of any investigation. Maybe this is the first fruits of such scrutiny we are seeing?

by Cristobell 11.12.13 0:59

Woburn_exile wrote:Suppose tannerman existed. He is now ruled out of the enquiry as crecheman. But why did JT wait before telling the PJ and indeed according to the Bewk (or Bewch dependent about how scally yer accent is), try to spare KM the distress by not telling her? this was indeed the WTF WTF WTF F F moment for me. Why we even had his clothing as described by JT on display by the BBC. This confirms the perceived existence of innocent crecheman thus turning the focus upon efit man as I call him, smithman to the rest. According to the PJ JT could not have seen someone in that much detail anyway. Now suppose tannerman did not exist. To come up with a concocted story for the crimewatch investigation as SY did then they must have had confirmation from JT herself so this means to me in my most miserably humble opinion that JT plus possibly her husband have been got at by the Police and have struck a deal to give evidence when key evidence is required. Lying in court or to a police officer under caution is an offence, refusing to answer questions is not.
So question:
What will JT reveal that will clinch the deal in front of a court?
These are just daft miserable thoughts of mine as a cross dressing alcoholic Aspergers syndrome sufferer and all are in my stupid opinion which has never counted for anything of consequence before in my entire life.

LOL, of course your opinion counts, hopefully all our opinions do.

You are thinking along similar lines to myself, and I have said much the same thing, ie, has Jane Tanner been got at? I know the word 'almost' has been used in jest, as in, almost ruled out, but it was a strong message, he is ruled out. We can only imagine the bizarre situation where Jane was informed that the man she had seen in such detail all those years ago actually existed.

I have always felt that Jane's sighting was hastily conceived to detract from someone bumping into the Smiths. Like yourself, it is stretching credibility to ask us to believe Kate was not informed of Jane's sighting until the following morning. I have said before I think, that surely to heavens, the least she could have done was pointed the searchers in the right direction when the alarm was raised! This was a woman going to check on her young children that she had left alone in a holiday apartment, close to other apartments that also contained very young, vulnerable children who had been left alone. She says she knew Gerry had just been in to check, but how could she possibly have known that? He was talking to Jez, may have been for some time.

Her sighting was dismissed by the PJ at the outset. Despite that, it became more and more incredible, almost anyone, from any continent would have fitted the bill, and indeed at one time Dave Edgar (the only professional PI) said it may have been a woman. Jane has always sounded as though she would pretty much agree with anything.

Ruling out Jane's sighting as an innocent mistake, gets her off the hook in the event of any possible charges in the future, which could lead us to believe she has broken the pact. However, the fact that Tannerman remains prominent on the OFM website suggests that if/when the going gets tough, he is going to be dragged to the forefront again, in which case, the McCanns will need Jane onside.

by MRNOODLES 11.12.13 1:01

It was my instant opinion at the time, which doesn't amount to much. However my gut feeling when watching it on CW was, that it was BS crecheman had been found and eliminated.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 11.12.13 1:17

I'm certain that Jane has agreed something with Scotland Yard and that 'Crecheman' is a work of fiction to counter-act the original fictional story. It was probably necessary for Jane to avoid future prosecution, and to protect her reputation.

If there is a prosecution, the McCanns would surely not accuse SY of making up Crecheman. Because the only way that they could KNOW that Crecheman was made up, is if they also knew Tannerman was made up. And that would destroy their defence.

by Okeydokey 11.12.13 1:33

A number of issues here:

1. If genuine - why the discrepancies with GMcC's account?

2. If genuine - why did JT not insist on immediately telling the McCanns when she became aware of the "abduction".

3. If genuine - why didn't the Tapas 9 immediately begin searching in the direction of the sighting? Why did they conduct a separated-out search?

by Maria 11.12.13 1:35

Unfortunately Im still thinking a big whitewash. I do hope I'm wrong. SY went back to basics, their job to iron our all lies and inconsistencies in the whole affair, tannerman had to go for there to be an abduction.
Seriously, what man on the planet would come along after 6 years to say it was him. Unless you are right and they have a deal with Tanner, which I hope, but dont believe.

Next they will be straightening out statements, all lies put down to bad translation. Ughhh the list goes on. SY have alot of work cut out for them.

I believe AR distanced himself from them on CW show, which is what any police should do, and I believe he wasnt with them in the update..i believe they have their own peeping toms on forums etc to see reactions(SY), and they change their tactics accordingly, hence him not being with McCanns on the recap.

Im hoping Portugal doesnt fall into any traps, hope it's once bitten twice shy with them

by whatliesbehindthesofa 11.12.13 1:37

Okeydokey wrote:A number of issues here:

1. If genuine - why the discrepancies with GMcC's account?

2. If genuine - why did JT not insist on immediately telling the McCanns when she became aware of the "abduction".

3. If genuine - why didn't the Tapas 9 immediately begin searching in the direction of the sighting? Why did they conduct a separated-out search?

Adding a few more:

4. If genuine - why did JT identify Robert Murat as the abductor?

5. If genuine - why did JT change the description so many times?

6. If genuine - why did the McCanns lie about not hearing about the sighting until the following morning, when it was clearly written on the handwritten timelines?

Quite simply, it never was genuine :)

by Maria 11.12.13 1:38

Tanner told whoever wrote the timeline on Madeleines book, because her sighting is on that timeline, so whoever wrote the two timelines knew about the sighting, i would bet they all knew about it when it was planned. What time was the timeline written at? Was it before thempolice arrived?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 11.12.13 1:47

Maria wrote:Tanner told whoever wrote the timeline on Madeleines book, because her sighting is on that timeline, so whoever wrote the two timelines knew about the sighting, i would bet they all knew about it when it was planned. What time was the timeline written at? Was it before thempolice arrived?

Yes, the police confiscated it when they arrived, which was approx 11pm.

by Woburn_exile 11.12.13 1:59

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:A number of issues here:

1. If genuine - why the discrepancies with GMcC's account?

2. If genuine - why did JT not insist on immediately telling the McCanns when she became aware of the "abduction".

3. If genuine - why didn't the Tapas 9 immediately begin searching in the direction of the sighting? Why did they conduct a separated-out search?

Adding a few more:

4. If genuine - why did JT identify Robert Murat as the abductor?

5. If genuine - why did JT change the description so many times?

r 6. If genuine - why did the McCanns lie about not hearing about the sighting until the following morning, when it was clearly written on the handwritten timelines?

Quite simply, it never was genuine :)

people: none of the timeline, original statements are genuine. But even they they were proven to be lies then that would not be enough to secure a conviction. SY have to keep the spark in the fire until enough "evidence" is required to prosecute the perpetrator of this disappearance. The media who have driven this case from the outset have been very quiet of late, is there something they have been told not to reveal?

by jeanmonroe 11.12.13 3:33

Maria wrote:
"Next they will be straightening out statements, all lies put down to bad translation. Ughhh the list goes on. SY have alot of work cut out for them."
.....................................................................................................

Which would be the case if only the damned 'rogs' weren't recorded in English by the LP!

Still, you may even be right on those 'statements'

Their use of the English language is quite appalling, as they are all supposed to be well educated and English.

I nearly had to hire a translator for the 'rogs' myself at the cost of £100.000!

by Maria 11.12.13 5:54

jeanmonroe wrote:Maria wrote:
"Next they will be straightening out statements, all lies put down to bad translation. Ughhh the list goes on. SY have alot of work cut out for them."
.....................................................................................................

Which would be the case if only the damned 'rogs' weren't recorded in English by the LP!

Still, you may even be right on those 'statements'

Their use of the English language is quite appalling, as they are all supposed to be well educated and English.

I nearly had to hire a translator for the 'rogs' myself at the cost of £100.000!

lol I couldn't afford that much money, maybe I will set up a fund

i think all is quiet because the less we know the less hassle SY will have with emails and phone calls annoying their heads. I feel when it is over we will be told the "abductor" is dead. He probably wont be named either and it will be too late for us to do anything about it. Case closed. Its all a pr stunt, McCanns hate our disbelief in them moree than anything, they cant stand it, they want their names cleared. SY are there to do that, in my opinion.
Heres hoping Portugal is out for justice, i fear they are the only hope left for justice.

by marconi 11.12.13 6:52

My theory is that the Tanner man never existed, which frees Robert Murat of any possible suspicion. I don't believe he has anything to do with the case. I never believed it.
I believe he was extremely curious to follow what was going on, fascinated with the mystery and proud of being part of the happening, by being a translator.
Imagine such a case with international repercussion, happening in such a little village, where nothing ever happens.
I think he felt sad and important at the same time.
He must have learned his lesson: "don't ever help anyone!".

by watendlath 11.12.13 6:55

Woburn_exile

Suppose tannerman existed. He is now ruled out of the enquiry as crecheman.

I don't think it does rule him out.
The photo of Crecheman shows him standing in the same direction as Tannerman was seen walking... giving the impression that he walked across the road in front of 5A, just like Tannerman is said to have done, and in the same direction.

Did tannerman exist or not? Captur10

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.

So if Tannerman is real I think it's highly likeley that Crecheman is not.
Maybe Redwood wanted to test JT's reaction.
And actually, she hasn't reacted, his picture is still up on the site. So she's sticking to her story.

I do agree though that if neither are real, then Redwood and Tanner may have come to some kind of agreement; I think that's a good point.

by marconi 11.12.13 7:00

I also suspect an agreement between Redwood and Tanner. And I hope that it is the case.

by SixMillionQuid 11.12.13 8:04

Redwood hasn't mentioned Crecheman in any of his interviews earlier this year.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id432.html

And this means Crecheman only appeared ahead of the last Crimewatch programme just in time for the liable trial. I wonder what triggered his conscience after six years.

by Jontait 11.12.13 8:52

I think the dismissal of Tannerman as the abductor points strongly to there being no whitewash. Tannerman has been the public image of the abductor for 6.5 years, to dismiss him also dismisses the McCann version of events, as they are intrinsically bound together. Ridding the case of Tannerman forces a re-examination of all key events from 3 May 2007 & casts doubt on the story relayed to the world since then. If a whitewash were being prepared would the McCann version of events not be forced to fit?

by The Rooster 11.12.13 9:09

Both Crecheman and Tannerman are the same illusion. Neither existed. In effect they annihilated one another, just like matter and anti matter. The question is why? The Exile is right a deal has been made with Tanner. It will salt the end game. I wish I could see McCanns face when he found out.

Tanner is in big trouble and with little moral fibre will cough when the crow cries 3 times. She has no other option. So her destiny has been fulfilled, however would the real Escariot please stand up!

by russiandoll 11.12.13 9:15

Agreed. For another topic of course but equally interesting was the whooshing of the Payne visit from the story.

Wonder if the CW programme was the first time the parents had a viewing, something tells me they were not given a courtesy preview.

Explains the facial expressions when the camera cut from AR in his part of the studio to the McCanns chat with Kirsty Young.

by aiyoyo 11.12.13 9:25

Good Morning!

Note to posters:
To write outside the quote box, GO to the Icons Bar in the Post a Reply page, CLICK on the first icon from the right.
That will get you outside the quote box into text mode.

by The Rooster 11.12.13 9:28

McCann put his wife up for auction with no reserve, Payne won the lot and went to collect the goods. He was clearly at 5a for 30 minutes.

Always look toward the opposite of what the McCanns promote the truth lies therein.

by aiyoyo 11.12.13 9:32

100 Marks Paper

Q!) Does Tannerman exist? True/False
   2 Marks

Q2) Does Crecheman exist? True/False
   4 Marks

Q3) In no more than 100 words explain your answer to Q1.
   10 Marks

Q4) In no more than 100 words explain your answer to Q2.
   20 Marks

Q5) In no more than 50 words give your view why Tannerman is not removed from the "OFM" website?
   64 Marks

by Guest 11.12.13 9:38

[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.

This is how I accidentally caused a spat between Chillyheat and Aquila yesterday. One of the few ways I can see Tannerman being real and "findable" is if he was actually a father removing a child from the vicinity of 5A - hence why I asked if anybody knew what Robert Naylor looked like. This was a mistake on my part anyway - the child in question was the daughter of somebody else, a man who has been named (somewhat unwisely, in my opinion) by Kikoratton on Twitter. If this is the guy that SY have found then obviously we're in a whole new ball park as far as the investigation is concerned.