Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Châtelaine wrote:I have it from reliable source, that there were indeed files withheld for privacy reasons. E.g. the records of registered paedophile offenders. However, having now read here the latest non-founded speculations, I think it's best I lay my head to rest. Bonne nuit.

ETA wake me up, when there's more than an old UK newspaper article [one] to proof something ...   

Andrew77R wrote:

canada12 wrote:Here's a list of the information not released by the PJ:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Hiya Canada12.

Looked at that. Really don't get it though.

'A list of information not released' but then release snippets of what it is they are not releasing...

For example. Volume 2.

'List of individuals with the practice of sex crimes with minor and adolescents'
'Reference to an individual with the practice of paedophilier'

No wonder that Clarrie and the tabloids are coming up with allsorts then. It's there in black and white to make a reference from.... 

Surely if the P.J didn't want certain info released then they would do exactly that. Not release it and certainly not give a brief outline of what it is they are not releasing?

Or am i missing something here. It is late and all that!!!

diatribe wrote:Firstly, I think that we can safely disregard any sightings or timelines that either the McCanns or the Met. Police are pointing us in the direction of. With respect to  the Tapas group, you have  to put yourself in the position the McCanns possibly found themselves. Hypothetically, you are on holiday with a group of acquaintances and your child dies in circumstances that you can't legitimately explain. You are then faced with the prospect of losing your career, your other children, gaol and the possibility of losing your home if you inform the authorities. In other words, your life as you know it is over.

As a consequence of the aforementioned, you decide to dispose of your child's body and concoct a story that it has been kidnapped, thereby raising the stakes and by default the risks. Would you entrust your liberty, your finances and your career with a group of people, some of whom you barely know, by informing them all of what has transpired whilst enlisting their aid to dispose of the body, or would you merely use them to help you unwittingly without their knowing what exactly had occurred?

diatribe wrote:Firstly, I think that we can safely disregard any sightings or timelines that either the McCanns or the Met. Police are pointing us in the direction of. With respect to  the Tapas group, you have  to put yourself in the position the McCanns possibly found themselves. Hypothetically, you are on holiday with a group of acquaintances and your child dies in circumstances that you can't legitimately explain. You are then faced with the prospect of losing your career, your other children, gaol and the possibility of losing your home if you inform the authorities. In other words, your life as you know it is over.
your child dies in circumstances that you can't legitimately explain. 
As a consequence of the aforementioned, you decide to dispose of your child's body and concoct a story that it has been kidnapped, thereby raising the stakes and by default the risks. Would you entrust your liberty, your finances and your career with a group of people, some of whom you barely know, by informing them all of what has transpired whilst enlisting their aid to dispose of the body, or would you merely use them to help you unwittingly without their knowing what exactly had occurred?

diatribe wrote:Firstly, I think that we can safely disregard any sightings or timelines that either the McCanns or the Met. Police are pointing us in the direction of. With respect to  the Tapas group, you have  to put yourself in the position the McCanns possibly found themselves. Hypothetically, you are on holiday with a group of acquaintances and your child dies in circumstances that you can't legitimately explain. You are then faced with the prospect of losing your career, your other children, gaol and the possibility of losing your home if you inform the authorities. In other words, your life as you know it is over.

As a consequence of the aforementioned, you decide to dispose of your child's body and concoct a story that it has been kidnapped, thereby raising the stakes and by default the risks. Would you entrust your liberty, your finances and your career with a group of people, some of whom you barely know, by informing them all of what has transpired whilst enlisting their aid to dispose of the body, or would you merely use them to help you unwittingly without their knowing what exactly had occurred?

Seek truth wrote:

diatribe wrote:Firstly, I think that we can safely disregard any sightings or timelines that either the McCanns or the Met. Police are pointing us in the direction of. With respect to  the Tapas group, you have  to put yourself in the position the McCanns possibly found themselves. Hypothetically, you are on holiday with a group of acquaintances and your child dies in circumstances that you can't legitimately explain. You are then faced with the prospect of losing your career, your other children, gaol and the possibility of losing your home if you inform the authorities. In other words, your life as you know it is over.

As a consequence of the aforementioned, you decide to dispose of your child's body and concoct a story that it has been kidnapped, thereby raising the stakes and by default the risks. Would you entrust your liberty, your finances and your career with a group of people, some of whom you barely know, by informing them all of what has transpired whilst enlisting their aid to dispose of the body, or would you merely use them to help you unwittingly without their knowing what exactly had occurred?

It's me, the one you said thinks like Hitler! (When I said they should be made to talk)

What a long story makes me  feel sorry for them.

Can't legitimately explain?, So the Intelligent group decide to make things worse for themselves and lie? I 
wouldn't.

Tangled Web wrote:

Seek truth wrote:

diatribe wrote:Firstly, I think that we can safely disregard any sightings or timelines that either the McCanns or the Met. Police are pointing us in the direction of. With respect to  the Tapas group, you have  to put yourself in the position the McCanns possibly found themselves. Hypothetically, you are on holiday with a group of acquaintances and your child dies in circumstances that you can't legitimately explain. You are then faced with the prospect of losing your career, your other children, gaol and the possibility of losing your home if you inform the authorities. In other words, your life as you know it is over.

As a consequence of the aforementioned, you decide to dispose of your child's body and concoct a story that it has been kidnapped, thereby raising the stakes and by default the risks. Would you entrust your liberty, your finances and your career with a group of people, some of whom you barely know, by informing them all of what has transpired whilst enlisting their aid to dispose of the body, or would you merely use them to help you unwittingly without their knowing what exactly had occurred?

It's me, the one you said thinks like Hitler! (When I said they should be made to talk)

What a long story makes me  feel sorry for them.

Can't legitimately explain?, So the Intelligent group decide to make things worse for themselves and lie? I 
wouldn't.

I, too, am struggling to put myself in this 'hypothetical' position the McCanns (possibly) found themselves in. No sane, loving parent could discover their child had died, devise a plan to dispose of their body and carry on the charade for seven years.

Tangled Web.

diatribe wrote:No disrespect, but yu'all appear to be missing my point, which incidentally was, if you had just killed one of your children, would you inform a group of holiday friends and enlist them to help dispose of the body, or would you use them to help you unwittingly without informing them of what had transpired.

My point being that a lot of people, against all the odds, appear to be of the opinion that the former option is the one the McCanns chose . Further, that 7 members of the medical profession with no previous criminal experience agreed to help the McCanns dispose of their daughter's body and have since resisted all the financial rewards on offer for information leading to the recovery of Madeleine. Thereby putting their careers and liberty at peril  for a couple that some of them barely knew, not to mention, being more staunch than a gang of South London bank robbers

diatribe wrote:I think it would be very difficult to prosecute Jane Tanner for attempting to pervert the course of justice in either the UK or Portugal. The reason being it would be a virtual impossibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was lying, particularly in the vein that a senior police officer has now confirmed in the form of Crecheman, that there was a person in the vicinity vaguely resembling her description.

Inspector Redwood would be her main defence witness and what could he say, ''Well actually Crecheman was a fictitious character I invented to mislead the meeja and further ensure the McCanns would never be prosecuted.''

dantezebu wrote:

diatribe wrote:I think it would be very difficult to prosecute Jane Tanner for attempting to pervert the course of justice in either the UK or Portugal. The reason being it would be a virtual impossibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was lying, particularly in the vein that a senior police officer has now confirmed in the form of Crecheman, that there was a person in the vicinity vaguely resembling her description.

Inspector Redwood would be her main defence witness and what could he say, ''Well actually Crecheman was a fictitious character I invented to mislead the meeja and further ensure the McCanns would never be prosecuted.''

Not only did Redwood find a man who was carrying a child home wearing pyjamas, with bare feet, at the correct time in the vicinity of 5a, he found one who was carrying his child in the manner described by JT.
Otherwise why would he produce a photograph of the man with his arms outstretched?
For me that is of more relevance to AR's "revelation moment" than the pyjamas.
I think it has been established that this is a particularly difficult and unusual was to carry a sleeping child, even JT agrees.
And for the MC's to reject this finding by keeping Tannerman on their website speaks volumes about their desperation to keep to the original timeline.

AndyB wrote:
You're assuming that Madeleine was killed by one or other of the McCanns, which I don't necessarily believe, although I agree its a possibility.



If my hypothesis is wrong and their daughter was killed by one of the group, then you would have to form the conclusion that the McCanns are covering up for one of their friends killing their daughter. That really is a bridge too far in the conspiratorial stakes, isn't it. After all, would you cover up for a casual acquaintance who had killed one of your children. 



Leaving that to one side, let's assume you're correct and the T7 were kept in the dark about Madeleine's death. Given that the McCann's were subsequently made arguidos and that the events must have been traumatic for the innocent T7, surely alarm bells would have started ringing. But they don't appear to because, shortly after the McCann's returned to the UK there was the Rothley meeting where the pact of silence was agreed. Why would an entirely innocent T7, who by now must be having at least a few doubts about the veracity of what they've been told, agree to the pact? And why are their rogatories so bad if they're not trying to hide something?

I think all their inconsistent police depositions and subsequent actions are a result of their attempting to protect their own careers whilst avoiding the stigma of child neglect. Their lies were born out of a different agenda to the McCanns, hence all the inconsistencies, some of which are detrimental to the McCann's cause.  If ever there were a more unlikely and unreliable group of people to entrust, you'd have to go a long way to find 'em.

I think the more important question to ask is what on earth is it that would cause such loyalty to people that, like you say, some of them barely knew? Could the reason be related in some way to the need to hide the fact that she died?

Why would a group of doctors on a family holiday with their own children need to hide the fact that one of their group's children died. I'm not sure their actions are born out of loyalty, as previously stated, if anything, their actions have cast more suspicion of guilt on the McCanns than indications of innocence. How can they cover up what they probably don't know, because if they do possess knowledge of what actually transpired to the McCann's daughter, then one would have to believe that the McCanns had needlessly confided personal life destroying  information to a group of casual acquaintances. Who was it who stated, 'I'M NOT BUYING THAT'

diatribe wrote:

AndyB wrote:
You're assuming that Madeleine was killed by one or other of the McCanns, which I don't necessarily believe, although I agree its a possibility.



If my hypothesis is wrong and their daughter was killed by one of the group, then you would have to form the conclusion that the McCanns are covering up for one of their friends killing their daughter. That really is a bridge too far in the conspiratorial stakes, isn't it. After all, would you cover up for a casual acquaintance who had killed one of your children. 



Leaving that to one side, let's assume you're correct and the T7 were kept in the dark about Madeleine's death. Given that the McCann's were subsequently made arguidos and that the events must have been traumatic for the innocent T7, surely alarm bells would have started ringing. But they don't appear to because, shortly after the McCann's returned to the UK there was the Rothley meeting where the pact of silence was agreed. Why would an entirely innocent T7, who by now must be having at least a few doubts about the veracity of what they've been told, agree to the pact? And why are their rogatories so bad if they're not trying to hide something?

I think all their inconsistent police depositions and subsequent actions are a result of their attempting to protect their own careers whilst avoiding the stigma of child neglect. Their lies were born out of a different agenda to the McCanns, hence all the inconsistencies, some of which are detrimental to the McCann's cause.  If ever there were a more unlikely and unreliable group of people to entrust, you'd have to go a long way to find 'em.

I think the more important question to ask is what on earth is it that would cause such loyalty to people that, like you say, some of them barely knew? Could the reason be related in some way to the need to hide the fact that she died?

Why would a group of doctors on a family holiday with their own children need to hide the fact that one of their group's children died. I'm not sure their actions are born out of loyalty, as previously stated, if anything, their actions have cast more suspicion of guilt on the McCanns than indications of innocence. How can they cover up what they probably don't know, because if they do possess knowledge of what actually transpired to the McCann's daughter, then one would have to believe that the McCanns had needlessly confided personal life destroying  information to a group of casual acquaintances. Who was it who stated, 'I'M NOT BUYING THAT'

dantezebu wrote:I agree with most of your reasoning Diatribe. However the one thing that leads to to think that at least one of the T7 may have been involved more than the others is Mrs.Gaspar's statement.

diatribe wrote:

AndyB wrote:
You're assuming that Madeleine was killed by one or other of the McCanns, which I don't necessarily believe, although I agree its a possibility.

If my hypothesis is wrong and their daughter was killed by one of the group, then you would have to form the conclusion that the McCanns are covering up for one of their friends killing their daughter. That really is a bridge too far in the conspiratorial stakes, isn't it. After all, would you cover up for a casual acquaintance who had killed one of your children. 
There is a third, more likely option; that she died as a result of an accident

Leaving that to one side, let's assume you're correct and the T7 were kept in the dark about Madeleine's death. Given that the McCann's were subsequently made arguidos and that the events must have been traumatic for the innocent T7, surely alarm bells would have started ringing. But they don't appear to because, shortly after the McCann's returned to the UK there was the Rothley meeting where the pact of silence was agreed. Why would an entirely innocent T7, who by now must be having at least a few doubts about the veracity of what they've been told, agree to the pact? And why are their rogatories so bad if they're not trying to hide something?

I think all their inconsistent police depositions and subsequent actions are a result of their attempting to protect their own careers whilst avoiding the stigma of child neglect. Their lies were born out of a different agenda to the McCanns, hence all the inconsistencies, some of which are detrimental to the McCann's cause.  If ever there were a more unlikely and unreliable group of people to entrust, you'd have to go a long way to find 'em.
Oh I don't know. They seem to be keeping to the Rothley pact of secrecy

I think the more important question to ask is what on earth is it that would cause such loyalty to people that, like you say, some of them barely knew? Could the reason be related in some way to the need to hide the fact that she died?

Why would a group of doctors on a family holiday with their own children need to hide the fact that one of their group's children died. I'm not sure their actions are born out of loyalty, as previously stated, if anything, their actions have cast more suspicion of guilt on the McCanns than indications of innocence. How can they cover up what they probably don't know, because if they do possess knowledge of what actually transpired to the McCann's daughter, then one would have to believe that the McCanns had needlessly confided personal life destroying  information to a group of casual acquaintances. Who was it who stated, 'I'M NOT BUYING THAT'
At least we agree on what one of the important questions is; Why would a group of doctors on a family holiday with their own children need to hide the fact that one of their group's children died, although I doubt we'll ever agree on the answer   . I don't see a necessity for the McCann's to fess up to the T7 if the T7 were already fully aware of the circumstances of the accident and had, say, helped with the efforts to resuscitate her. By then they're all fully implicated and the Rothley pact makes sense

AndyB wrote:

diatribe wrote:

AndyB wrote:
You're assuming that Madeleine was killed by one or other of the McCanns, which I don't necessarily believe, although I agree its a possibility.

If my hypothesis is wrong and their daughter was killed by one of the group, then you would have to form the conclusion that the McCanns are covering up for one of their friends killing their daughter. That really is a bridge too far in the conspiratorial stakes, isn't it. After all, would you cover up for a casual acquaintance who had killed one of your children. 
There is a third, more likely option; that she died as a result of an accident

Leaving that to one side, let's assume you're correct and the T7 were kept in the dark about Madeleine's death. Given that the McCann's were subsequently made arguidos and that the events must have been traumatic for the innocent T7, surely alarm bells would have started ringing. But they don't appear to because, shortly after the McCann's returned to the UK there was the Rothley meeting where the pact of silence was agreed. Why would an entirely innocent T7, who by now must be having at least a few doubts about the veracity of what they've been told, agree to the pact? And why are their rogatories so bad if they're not trying to hide something?

I think all their inconsistent police depositions and subsequent actions are a result of their attempting to protect their own careers whilst avoiding the stigma of child neglect. Their lies were born out of a different agenda to the McCanns, hence all the inconsistencies, some of which are detrimental to the McCann's cause.  If ever there were a more unlikely and unreliable group of people to entrust, you'd have to go a long way to find 'em.
Oh I don't know. They seem to be keeping to the Rothley pact of secrecy

I think the more important question to ask is what on earth is it that would cause such loyalty to people that, like you say, some of them barely knew? Could the reason be related in some way to the need to hide the fact that she died?

Why would a group of doctors on a family holiday with their own children need to hide the fact that one of their group's children died. I'm not sure their actions are born out of loyalty, as previously stated, if anything, their actions have cast more suspicion of guilt on the McCanns than indications of innocence. How can they cover up what they probably don't know, because if they do possess knowledge of what actually transpired to the McCann's daughter, then one would have to believe that the McCanns had needlessly confided personal life destroying  information to a group of casual acquaintances. Who was it who stated, 'I'M NOT BUYING THAT'
At least we agree on what one of the important questions is; Why would a group of doctors on a family holiday with their own children need to hide the fact that one of their group's children died, although I doubt we'll ever agree on the answer   . I don't see a necessity for the McCann's to fess up to the T7 if the T7 were already fully aware of the circumstances of the accident and had, say, helped with the efforts to resuscitate her. By then they're all fully implicated and the Rothley pact makes sense

I think your points are perfectly valid but they are all predicated on the theory that Madeleine died at the hand of one of her parents, to which, at the moment, I don't subscribe

MarcoG wrote:@diatribe Whether intended as funny I'm not sure, but "an accidental blow to the head" made me laugh for a moment, sir. Of course I understand what you mean, and you're right.

MarcoG wrote:Quote AndyB "There is a third, more likely option; that she died as a result of an accident"
 
How is an accident a more likely option, with all we know, and more importantly, all we don't?
 
For example, nothing to do with this case, if you ever walk past an alleyway, and you see a man holding a severed head while dragging a headless, bloody body to a garbage bin, can you imagine thinking there must have been an unfortunate accident?
 
I can't.

Châtelaine wrote:
***
I repeat one of my older theories [and not the only one ...].
If Madeleine had a fatal ACCIDENT on Wednesday evening May 2, but was not discovered behind the sofa, by her returning late, tipsy, quarreling parents until the next morning, an autopsy would have revealed the actual time of death and they would have been charged with gross neglect. Careers over.

Châtelaine wrote:If Madeleine had a fatal ACCIDENT on Wednesday evening May 2, but was not discovered behind the sofa, by her returning late, tipsy, quarreling parents until the next morning, an autopsy would have revealed the actual time of death and they would have been charged with gross neglect. Careers over.