Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

by russiandoll 23.01.14 7:33

Interesting to note on their site how the subtle playing with language makes it appear that the Met is the holder of the opinion that there might only be a tiny chance crèche dad is not who they believe he is, but that tiny chance means he should still be in the minds of the public :

Based or more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person,

now believe = until their revelation moment, the Met accepted that Tannerman was the abductor.

it is not possible to be certain : would have been better if they had used absolutely or 100% here, but it still rings true with Andy's saying that he was [only] almost certain, leaving a tiny grain of doubt re crecheman which the Mcs have [ as I am sure Redwood predicted] exploited.

Whilst making it sound as if the Met holds this opinion, the key word HOWEVER shows quite subtly that the first sentence is the Met's belief. The following sentence, beginning with HOWEVER, shows a contradiction by the site of the aforementioned position of the police re Tannerman.
After HOWEVER, the pronoun THEY ref to the police is not used, but the vague " it is not possible to be certain.. "

so a double whammy, defy the police while making the public think that this is the opinion of the police, who have, if the public bother to read the Met web site, IDENTIFIED Tannerman. Not almost identified. Out of the investigation.

Despite this clear statement by the Met, the McCann site still has Tannerman there, with this advice completing the paragraph I quoted above

if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE

Surely Andy would have had a pre CW chat re this with the couple? I wonder what was said.

by AndyB 23.01.14 7:56

Okeydokey wrote:
There's absolutely no reason to be optimistic. Why hasn't he reinterviewed all the Tapas 9 if he is really interested in taking this forward?

How do you know he hasn't?

by Smokeandmirrors 23.01.14 8:05

There have been some really good points raised on this thread - this planting of a seed of doubt regarding Scotland Yard is extremely interesting. The element of control is very much evident, it is saying to the public that despite a multi-million pound review and investigation, the Met are working WITH the McCanns, that the McCanns are playing an important role in the investigation. Now, we all suspect that the so called searching and appealing for info to be sent directly to the mcCanns in the years gone by, is not necessarily because "no-one is actively searching" but rather to have control over every aspect. There was a video clip where the Mc's (Kate I think) responded to an interviewer, saying they were going to look through all leads and information and decide what was important or not - very strange attitude, how the hell would they know what is important? They are not police or investigators.

And we had Gerry talking to Paxo, and when Paxo talked about reaping a media whirlwind, Gerry made yet another strange response, something along the lines of "we had very clear objectives of what WE wanted."

Same as applying for assistant status in Portugal, another attempt to control everything. They have bleated on for years about what they wanted, yet AR on CW dismissing Tannerman was NOT to the Gruesome's liking. They have previously said this was the only sighting they attributed importance to, they withheld e-fits, demanded a report be kept secret as it was critical of them and so on.

Just when anyone appears to be getting closer to an explanation or making any progress they want to shut it down, turn the focus elsewhere.

I just trust in the fact that various police personal, behavioural analysts, etc are viewing this obstructive behaviour for what it is, awkward and time wasting. There is NEVER any statement from the McCanns that has a degree of urgency about it, EVERYTHING they say and do has the air of projecting into the future. One never senses impatience from people who want a child back ASAP, but always a feeling of delay, looking further into the future, obstructing each and every development.

Their often cited lack of an emotional roller coaster regarding sighting is very telling. Anyone who thought their child was out there waiting to be found would be unable to stop themselves grasping at even the slightest possibility with both hands that someone had found her.

They dismiss every potential opportunity out of hand as if it is a huge inconvenience.

by Zoodle 23.01.14 8:12

Mirage wrote:I completely understand the range of sentiments expressed in the last few posts because I go through most of them on a daily basis.

It is very hard after all this time to stomach what is going on and try to keep some faith that there are decent investigators at SY who go home to families and have a conscience and sense of duty. The unreality of the McCanns' manipulative behaviour is troubling for anyone who cares about the world we are passing on to our children and grandchildren. I am in total sympathy with daffodil and often feel I am living in a parallel universe.

The truth is we have a very dark nasty society, of which the McCann case is a daily reminder to those of us who are awake. It is quite evident to me that there is a network of deeply unpleasant sociopathic manipulators who have sprung up in our society and insinuated themselves into positions of influence. This fight is not just about the McCanns. I believe many of us are here because we understand that two crassly hedonistic individuals now represent a threat to democracy and justice in this country.

Hello Mirage,

I have to say I am more of a reader and rarely a poster on this site, but I also have to say how much I agree with the above words.
Whilst I never lose sight of the missing little girl, the damage this does to me as a patriot is immense! My Father fought all the second world war and my grandfathers on both sides of the family fought in the first. I feel sad indeed because they fought for democracy, freedom and fair justice and not for deceipt.

by Rasputin 23.01.14 8:39

Zoodle wrote:
Mirage wrote:I completely understand the range of sentiments expressed in the last few posts because I go through most of them on a daily basis.

It is very hard after all this time to stomach what is going on and try to keep some faith that there are decent investigators at SY who go home to families and have a conscience and sense of duty. The unreality of the McCanns' manipulative behaviour is troubling for anyone who cares about the world we are passing on to our children and grandchildren. I am in total sympathy with daffodil and often feel I am living in a parallel universe.

The truth is we have a very dark nasty society, of which the McCann case is a daily reminder to those of us who are awake. It is quite evident to me that there is a network of deeply unpleasant sociopathic manipulators who have sprung up in our society and insinuated themselves into positions of influence. This fight is not just about the McCanns. I believe many of us are here because we understand that two crassly hedonistic individuals now represent a threat to democracy and justice in this country.

Hello Mirage,

I have to say I am more of a reader and rarely a poster on this site, but I also have to say how much I agree with the above words.
Whilst I never lose sight of the missing little girl, the damage this does to me as a patriot is immense! My Father fought all the second world war and my grandfathers on both sides of the family fought in the first. I feel sad indeed because they fought for democracy, freedom and fair justice and not for deceipt.

I have to say I also found this post moving Mirage , I have 2 young children I want to thrive in a just and honest place ...the UK as it stands right now is neither .

by The Slave 23.01.14 8:48

Mirage wrote:I completely understand the range of sentiments expressed in the last few posts because I go through most of them on a daily basis.

It is very hard after all this time to stomach what is going on and try to keep some faith that there are decent investigators at SY who go home to families and have a conscience and sense of duty. The unreality of the McCanns' manipulative behaviour is troubling for anyone who cares about the world we are passing on to our children and grandchildren. I am in total sympathy with daffodil and often feel I am living in a parallel universe.

The truth is we have a very dark nasty society, of which the McCann case is a daily reminder to those of us who are awake. It is quite evident to me that there is a network of deeply unpleasant sociopathic manipulators who have sprung up in our society and insinuated themselves into positions of influence. This fight is not just about the McCanns. I believe many of us are here because we understand that two crassly hedonistic individuals now represent a threat to democracy and justice in this country.

Spot on. We are living through incredible times. We are being governed by sociopaths.
Lies, lies, and more lies everywhere.I don't like it.
I too think the world is turned upside down.

by tiny 23.01.14 9:05

Is this a case of look here and not over there(libel trial)

by Guest 23.01.14 9:23

Okeydokey wrote:
canada12 wrote:On the other hand, if AR and his team were to solve this and bring about an arrest and trial involving KH, GM and possibly other Tapas 9 members, think what a coup it would be for his career and SY. Regardless of the politics involved. A chance to prove that they are indeed above the grasp of the politicians.

I remain hopefully optimistic.

There's absolutely no reason to be optimistic. Why hasn't he reinterviewed all the Tapas 9 if he is really interested in taking this forward?

Maybe he has, or will. No one is going to tell the world, are they?

But I'm still wondering about DP and Fiona setting up shop together; could it be that they have sung like canaries, or are on AR/SY's shortlist, and they want to protect their financial assets from being seized by 'some injured party' claiming damages for tort/libel?

by canada12 23.01.14 9:56

Portia wrote:

But I'm still wondering about DP and Fiona setting up shop together; could it be that they have sung like canaries, or are on AR/SY's shortlist, and they want to protect their financial assets from being seized by 'some injured party' claiming damages for tort/libel?

Extremely good point!

by watendlath 23.01.14 9:58

If this is a whitewash then what better way could there be of disguising it, making it look real, than having the McCanns at odds with Scotland Yard over their findings?

by Guest 23.01.14 10:01

Portia wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
canada12 wrote:On the other hand, if AR and his team were to solve this and bring about an arrest and trial involving KH, GM and possibly other Tapas 9 members, think what a coup it would be for his career and SY. Regardless of the politics involved. A chance to prove that they are indeed above the grasp of the politicians.

I remain hopefully optimistic.

There's absolutely no reason to be optimistic. Why hasn't he reinterviewed all the Tapas 9 if he is really interested in taking this forward?

Maybe he has, or will. No one is going to tell the world, are they?

But I'm still wondering about DP and Fiona setting up shop together; could it be that they have sung like canaries, or are on AR/SY's shortlist, and they want to protect their financial assets from being seized by 'some injured party' claiming damages for tort/libel?

"Setting up shop together"? Is this a reference to a new development I haven't heard about? Sorry if I'm being dim, but I'm not sure what this means.

Re earlier posts about the McCanns wanting to "keep" Tannerman as a suspect, despite the fact that the Met clearly describe him as "man now identified by Operation Grange" on their website: in the end doesn't it come down to what Jane Tanner says? She is the person who saw him. If she says she's certain that the man she saw is "innocent dad", then it would be very hard to argue against her. The only way to do so, I'd have thought, would be to point out that she was a long way away, it was dark and neither Gerry nor Jez saw her on the street at the same time as them anyway. But these are the very same things that have always made her story doubtful. If she is discredited as a witness, her abductor sighting becomes irrelevant anyway.

It seems highly unlikely that Scotland Yard would have promoted "innocent dad" so heavily on Crimewatch if Jane Tanner hadn't said with some certainty that he was the man she saw – one word from her expressing doubts about him and it would have been all over the newspapers, but this hasn't happened. This suggests to me that Jane Tanner's viewpoint and the McCanns are not entirely as one on this matter.

by **PeterMac** 23.01.14 10:05

see below. Duplicate, sorry

by **PeterMac** 23.01.14 10:14

How is it possible to misinterpret this from Grange ?

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 4 <a href=

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 4 216

" />

Or this from the McCanns
McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 4 <a href=

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 4 312

" />

EITHER DCI Redwood is an out and out liar, and has lied on an important television programme
OR the McCanns . . . .

by russiandoll 23.01.14 10:25

.

There are too many coincidences and Andy, like Kate, does not do coincidences.

by canada12 23.01.14 10:26

To me it looks like a deliberate attempt by the McCanns to get their supporters to ~~harass~~ distract SY with alternate theories and ideas about who Tannerman could be. Thus slowing down the investigation even more. (note: keyword, slow down time, something Kate deliberately mentioned in her Christmas message on the website). If the investigation has to go and follow up more leads then this obviously delays the conclusions - since no stone must be left unturned in this thorough investigation.

by Guest 23.01.14 10:51

To contact Operation Grange AND/OR the Find Madeleine Team .... ???!!!!

by Guest 23.01.14 10:54

Châtelaine wrote:To contact Operation Grange AND/OR the Find Madeleine Team .... ???!!!!

Quite. Investigation@findmadeleine ............................what investigation?? they have said themselves they are not employing PI's now, so who is investigating?

by Garrincha 23.01.14 11:09

I hope this is the best thread to post this. Have been wondering:

Why would GM deny seeing JT when he was chatting with JW?

Why would GM & JT differ over which side of the road GM was when he was chatting with JW?

Is JW on record as to which side of the road he & GM were on when they were chatting?

I can’t figure this out but my gut tells me the answers may be of great significance

All in my opinon only etc

by jeanmonroe 23.01.14 11:53

Garrincha wrote:I hope this is the best thread to post this. Have been wondering:

Why would GM deny seeing JT when he was chatting with JW?

Why would GM & JT differ over which side of the road GM was when he was chatting with JW?

Is JW on record as to which side of the road he & GM were on when they were chatting?

I can’t figure this out but my gut tells me the answers may be of great significance

All in my opinon only etc

I have posted many, many times on this.

Q: "Why did the McCann cross the road"?

A: "to chat with Jez, obviously"

However, JW has NEVER 'contradicted/challenged' McCanns who have 'placed' him NOT crossing the road (in print and on TV) even though, under threat of prosecution, from both UK and Portuguese Law, gave a statement saying HE crossed the road to chat with McCann right outside the gateway to 5A and drew a nice sketch of exactly WHERE he was standing chatting to GM.

You will also be aware that JW, absolutely pivitol, to both JT and GM, as he was in street at the exact time JT 'saw' Madeleine being 'carried off' and GM telling all the others, after his 'check' at the tapas table about his meeting with Jez, did NOT get a 'mention' on the handwritten timelines, of which on the second one GM wrote his name.

(you'd think GM would have remembered chatting to 6' 4" Jez, and included him on the second timeline, he wrote his name on, wouldn't you? But he didn't, i wonder why not? It's as if both Tanner and McCann didn't 'see or chat with' Jez at all)

by sar 23.01.14 12:03

jeanmonroe wrote:
Garrincha wrote:I hope this is the best thread to post this. Have been wondering:

Why would GM deny seeing JT when he was chatting with JW?

Why would GM & JT differ over which side of the road GM was when he was chatting with JW?

Is JW on record as to which side of the road he & GM were on when they were chatting?

I can’t figure this out but my gut tells me the answers may be of great significance

All in my opinon only etc

I have posted many, many times on this.

Q: "Why did the McCann cross the road"?

A: "to chat with Jez, obviously"

However, JW has NEVER 'contradicted/challenged' McCanns who have 'placed' him NOT crossing the road (in print and on TV) even though, under threat of prosecution, from both UK and Portuguese Law, gave a statement saying HE crossed the road to chat with McCann right outside the gateway to 5A and drew a nice sketch of exactly WHERE he was standing chatting to GM.

You will also be aware that JW, absolutely pivitol, to both JT and GM, as he was in street at the exact time JT 'saw' Madeleine being 'carried off' and GM telling all the others, after his 'check' at the tapas table about his meeting with Jez, did NOT get a 'mention' on the handwritten timelines, of which on the second one GM wrote his name.

(you'd think GM would have remembered chatting to 6' 4" Jez, and included him on the second timeline, he wrote his name on, wouldn't you? But he didn't, i wonder why not? It's as if both Tanner and McCann didn't 'see or chat with' Jez at all)

If both GM and JT didn't see JW then JW, if there at all, could have seen something other than described?

Sorry, wrongly attributed "If both GM and JT didn't see JW then JW, if there at all, could have seen something other than described?" to jeanmonroe

by tiny 23.01.14 12:09

jeanmonroe wrote:
Garrincha wrote:I hope this is the best thread to post this. Have been wondering:

Why would GM deny seeing JT when he was chatting with JW?

Why would GM & JT differ over which side of the road GM was when he was chatting with JW?

Is JW on record as to which side of the road he & GM were on when they were chatting?

I can’t figure this out but my gut tells me the answers may be of great significance

All in my opinon only etc

I have posted many, many times on this.

Q: "Why did the McCann cross the road"?

A: "to chat with Jez, obviously"

However, JW has NEVER 'contradicted/challenged' McCanns who have 'placed' him NOT crossing the road (in print and on TV) even though, under threat of prosecution, from both UK and Portuguese Law, gave a statement saying HE crossed the road to chat with McCann right outside the gateway to 5A and drew a nice sketch of exactly WHERE he was standing chatting to GM.

You will also be aware that JW, absolutely pivitol, to both JT and GM, as he was in street at the exact time JT 'saw' Madeleine being 'carried off' and GM telling all the others, after his 'check' at the tapas table about his meeting with Jez, did NOT get a 'mention' on the handwritten timelines, of which on the second one GM wrote his name.

(you'd think GM would have remembered chatting to 6' 4" Jez, and included him on the second timeline, he wrote his name on, wouldn't you? But he didn't, i wonder why not? It's as if both Tanner and McCann didn't 'see or chat with' Jez at all)

I believe JW did talk to Gerry and I did read that JW saw Gerry mucking about with the shutters,but its such a long time ago that I cant remember where I read it

by russiandoll 23.01.14 13:44

e mail to the findmadeleine site [ which asks for suggestions as to how it might be improved ]   :

Following a request for suggestions on how the site could be improved , might I politely suggest that you read closely the update re the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, dated October 2013 on the web site of the Metropolitan Police.

There is a clear statement of priorities, number one being the renewed focus on one particular sighting approx. 10 pm  on the evening of May 3rd 2007.

The earlier sighting [ which had been the focus since the disappearance ]  is mentioned near the end of the statement, a sketch of a man seen at approx. 9.15, with the clear statement THIS MAN HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED.

It might cause less confusion if this sketch and text relating to this discounted sighting was now removed from your website, where it has remained for 3 months.

by aiyoyo 23.01.14 13:46

Châtelaine wrote:To contact Operation Grange AND/OR the Find Madeleine Team .... ???!!!!

You would think that should be disallowed.
It's not right that parents of missing child can ask witnesses to call them?
They are not running the investigation and should not have the right to be selective about info they pass on or not to the Police.
They have been getting away with that for 7 years and yet the MET did nothing about asking them to stop directing people to their site.
Their accounts reflect expenditure to operate and maintain this line when such frivolous spending of donation is not necessary.

by Woofer 23.01.14 14:32

aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:To contact Operation Grange AND/OR the Find Madeleine Team .... ???!!!!

You would think that should be disallowed.
It's not right that parents of missing child can ask witnesses to call them?
They are not running the investigation and should not have the right to be selective about info they pass on or not to the Police.
They have been getting away with that for 7 years and yet the MET did nothing about asking them to stop directing people to their site.
Their accounts reflect expenditure to operate and maintain this line when such frivolous spending of donation is not necessary.

This has been one of the most unbelievable corruptions of justice in this case - since when do the prime suspects get to check-out all the intelligence received, and therefore have the ability to discount it or not before deciding whether to pass it on to SY. I`ve never heard of anything so .... (I can`t even think of a strong enough verb).

In fact when you see what they have written about Tannerman on their website and how they discount SY, it gives me the impression they view SY as little children doing a project and they are the lecturers marking their work.