l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

by **Jill Havern** 05.01.16 9:14

Same Kinda Clothes

Andy Redwood's crechedad.

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

"This is the actual photograph taken by Metropolitan Police Officers of the man dressed in the same kind of clothes he wore on holiday.

This image was compared to the artists impression."

BBC Crimewatch Presenter.

While I was taking a look back this morning at the Crimewatch, Madeleine McCann Special of October 2013, it struck me that I had gotten something wrong.

I had understood that this British dad had posed for the above picture taken by the Metropolitan Police, in the VERY same clothes he had worn on the night Madeleine McCann was reported as a missing person.

I wondered where I had gotten that idea so began checking out news reports from that time, and indeed, it was reported that this guy posed for pictures in the very same clothes he had worn on that night.

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

'He even agreed to be pictured in the clothes he wore in Praia da Luz on 3rd May 2007, to prove he was the man in the police sketch previously seen as key to cracking the case.'

No matter, press cannot be trusted to report accurately - and neither it seems can DCI Andy Redwood/Metropolitan Police.

The lies, deceit, corruption in the Madeleine McCann case is absolutely mind blowing! Everyone involved, from the parents, their buddies, their spokesperson, and many others, have something to hide. Everyone has their own agenda. Not a one has been completely honest.

And the focus is NEVER discovering what happened to Madeleine!

According to the presenter of Crimewatch it was NOT the case at all that this British dad posed in the very clothes he had worn on that night. The British dad has posed for pictures wearing clothes KIND OF LIKE what he wore on that night.

At the time, many, like I did, thought it odd that this guy would have preserved the clothes he had worn on the night Madeleine McCann vanished. Thought it odd too that he would even remember what he had been wearing more than six years previously. What guy does, in fact does anyone? If you asked me what I wore on a particular night years back on holiday, I wouldn't have a clue, unless some special event occurred when on holiday then I might possibly have a vague idea.

But this British dad, crechedad - Did he look at the sketch of the Tannerman sighting when it was released into public domain (when would that have been, how many months AFTER Tanner's sighting, 4/5 months, more?) and at that point thought - well knock me down with a feather - that guy looks like me, the clothes are identical to the ones I wore the night that kid went missing!

Or, did he already believe the person Tanner saw was him WAY BEFORE, months before, the release of the sketch which the McCanns had drawn up?(it was not the police who commissioned this sketch as is reported in some quarters it was McCanns. Funny that too, that they NEVER IMMEDIATELY DID THIS AS SOON AS TANNER GAVE THE DESCRIPTION, BUT THEN, TANNER'S SIGHTING DEVELOPED OVER TIME.)

At what stage did this guy go to the Leicestershire Police in the UK and tell them that he believed he was the person who Jane Tanner had seen carrying a child?

Much as I thought it odd that this guy had preserved the actual clothes he had been wearing on that night, I find it much more odd, that the clothes he is wearing in the above picture were in fact NOT those same clothes.

So were did he get them? Metropolitan Police provide them for him?

Makes it all the more FISHY!

Met were hardly going to supply him with an outfit that did not match the McCanns sketch, a sketch we are told was based on their buddy Jane Tanner's sighting!

Well, now you can knock me down with a feather, because that rather changes an already outrageous story!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The British dad kitted out in the
outfit provided by Metropolitan
Police? Jane Tanner's Tannerman, an
image she developed over many months of a sighting she claimed
to have made of a man with a child, and which was widely discredited, considered a fabrication by police. A sketch
commissioned by McCanns NOT
the police!

Time I think British dad came out of hiding and filled in the general public about a few matters concerning him being crechedad, and BEFORE the McCanns embark on another of their money making schemes. Public deserve to know ABSOLUTELY where McCanns, and police now stand regarding this crechedad nonsense!

Public deserve the truth!

Public need to know when this British dad AND his family:

First believed that he COULD BE the person Jane Tanner claims to have seen on the night of 3rd May 2007.
When he/they first approached Leicestershire Police in this regard?
Did he/they actually remember the clothing he wore on that night, or is it more he believes he was in that spot/location on that night that has made him believe he could be the Tanner sighting?
Why he was in that location, as the creche and his apartment, were not in that area. He was heading in wrong direction.
Was there at any time, between the time he supposedly first reported to Leicestershire Police, and his family's DISCUSSION with Redwood/Metropolitan Police that he ever contacted the police to speak of his belief that he was Tanner's Tannerman?
Why had he kept the pyjamas which it is said, are the very ones his 2 year old daughter wore on that night (and why the hell was she wearing a pair of jim jams that would ALMOST have fitted her father?)
Did he meet with Jane Tanner?
Did Jane Tanner ID him?
Did he meet with the McCanns?
Was he ever interviewed by the Portuguese Police, the police authority who are the lead in the case of the missing Madeleine McCann? (not the UK Metropolitan Police as some may believe is the case)
Why did he go alone to the creche to pick up his child and not together with his wife/partner/
Why on a cold night did he not have his daughter warmly clothed as he himself was?
Where had he and his family dined that evening?
Did he approach Met, or did the Metropolitan Police approach him?
When did he first have any discussion with the Metropolitan Police?
What did HE SEE on that night at the location where he believes Jane Tanner spotted him?
Did he see Tanner?
Did he see Gerry McCann?
Did he see Jez Wilkins?
Did he hear any of the above named, speaking on that quiet street, or Jane Tanner's footsteps?
Did he see anyone else at all on that night at this location?
McCanns keep his image on their website as they say they cannot be sure he is the person Jane Tanner saw - WHY then is HE so sure that he is?
Does he believe that there could have been another guy dressed just like him, carrying a barefooted child, just like he was, the child dressed only in pyjamas, and the other guy CARRYING THE CHILD IN THE EXACT AND UNUSUAL WAY HE WAS?
Did he often carry his child in this way, and did he often wander about dark streets far from his accommodation with a young child not dressed for the elements?
Was it usual for his daughter to not wake up having been taken from the warmth of their home (or this creche) and remain sleeping when out in the cold for a quite lengthy time?
Was his partner happy for their child to be carried through the streets dressed only in pyjamas while he was dressed for the cold night?

And I am sure others out there will have a whole load of other questions they can come up with that they would like to ask of crechedad!

Time for them all to come clean about crechedad!

Crechedad, the guy who had Andy Redwood all gushing with excitement, had Redwood declaring he was ALMOST CERTAIN THIS was Jane Tanner's sighting.

But,

who also had the McCanns rushing to their website to declare that it was NOT POSSIBLE to determine if he was indeed the guy who Jane Tanner saw?

Now here's an idea, WHY DON'T The Metropolitan Police, and the McCanns, to settle their differences - wheel out the British dad (crechedad) and Jane Tanner, ask crechedad to once more don that outfit, recreate the scene as it was that night, get Jane Tanner to take up her position (Gerry and Jez too of course) and ask Jane Tanner if this British guy is the guy that she saw!

Oh, and ask the British guy too if when he crossed the road that night if he looked in Tanner's direction to check for traffic before launching himself and his daughter onto the road?

Dangerous thing to do, not check for traffic before crossing, especially when carrying his young daughter, and as it was a T- junction, the way he would have had to look to check, was in the direction of dear of Jane, Jez and Gerry!

Did Crechedad, stop, look and listen?

Let's hope this new bunch of private detectives will get to the bottom of crechedad, get to meet him!

Wicked webs, none more wicked than in the case of poor little Madeleine McCann!

Wonder who picked up the tab for crechedad's outfit?

l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
4th January 2016

by **Tony Bennett** 05.01.16 10:00

Another excellent article by 'Lazzeri' which, quite clearly, openly accuses the Metropolitan Police of lying.

Her list of questions about 'Crecheman' is excellent - but of course, we can't expect either the Met Police or 'Crecheman' to answer them.

Lazzeri's public questions about Crecheman were of course raised publicly by Richard D Hall in his 2 minute 55 minutes 'Phantoms' film; this is the link for Lizzy HideHo's full length upload of it (one of 22 now circulating on YouTube): [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

For those who want to see how Richard Hall treats both Crecheman and the two 'Smithman' e-fits in 'Phaatoms', go to:

2 hrs 36 minutes, where his analysis begins...

...at 2 hrs 39 minutes there is a brief reference to Crecheman.

Hall's analysis of Crecheman can be found in a three-minute passage beginning at 2 hrs 44 minutes and 50 seconds - well worth a watch.

At the end of his analysis, he asks, somewhat understatedly: "Do you believe Redwood? There is surely room for doubt".

-----

One additional point worth considering is the role of the BBC in this, which is brought out in the commentary by BBC Crimewatch presenter Matthew Amroliwala. Surely the BBC, before putting this Crimewatch programme together, would have asked - as we all would have done - the kinds of questions posed by Hall in his video and by Lazzeri in her recent article. Surely they would have met with Crecheman and talked to him? Or did they simply take all this on trust from Redwood. Looking at the excellent list of questions by Lazzeri, how many of those did the BBC ask?

Here, surely, we have yet more reasons for demanding the fullest possible report from the Met about Operation Grange, if and when they decided to shelve their investigation.

Here again is a link to the petition on the Prime Minister's website which demands this:

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

(1,071 signatures to date)

by joyce1938 05.01.16 10:27

Also I have gone on about it for yonks, that the pyjamas supposedly he kept from daughter was Not the ones that came from Marks and Spencer's like the ones held up for us all to see that police had used also to let us know Maddie was wearing these when she disappeared. Can't believe such a daft mistake could be made, same problem with this clothes from the father. Was this all a falsity to lead astray? Make us sick at times, really what on earth have police been doing for all these years? Maybe one day the pj will open it up once more. JUST NEEDS MORE VITAL EVIDENCE TO BE PROVED. joyce1938

by Guest 05.01.16 11:01

Brilliant post from Lazzeri.

I am completely bamboozled as to what was going on with that Crimewatch programme.

Has Crecheman ever spoken to the PJ? Has his name even been given to them?

You would certainly hope so but I'm betting the answer is no.

Maybe Amaral knows?

by Liz Eagles 05.01.16 11:09

Lazz is without doubt the finest blogger, always on the side of Madeleine McCann, always cutting things to the bone, always in defence of those who are criticized for trying to get to the truth.

Lazz rocks. Really rocks.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.01.16 11:19

BlueBag wrote:Brilliant post from Lazzeri.

Has Crecheman ever spoken to the PJ? Has his name even been given to them?

You would certainly hope so but I'm betting the answer is no.

Maybe Amaral knows?

I am completely bamboozled as to what was going on with that Crimewatch programme.

You would not have been in the least bamboozled if you had figured out on Day One - namely 12 May 2011 - that Operation Grange was only ever an expensive charade, designed purely to influence public perception.

With that understanding of Operation Grange already in my mind long ago, it was the easiest thing in the world to spot:

1. That the acted reconstruction in the BBC Crimewatch McCann Show was a completely false representation of the actual events of that night

2. That all the stuff about the Smithman e-fits was pure guff, and

3. That there was no Crècheman.

The BBC and the Metropolitan Police fulfilled the wishes of the government, Rupert Murdoch and his CEO Rebekah Brooks in producing a porgramme which was a giant hoax on the 6.7 million folk who watched it.

And perverted the course of justice in the process.

( And here's one more that wasn't bamboozled by Redwood and his co-hoaxers at the BBC: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] )

by Guest 05.01.16 12:53

The bamboozling bit is that I don't see how crechman fits the McCann narrative as they almost immediately ignored/dismissed it.

I also am bamboozled by what seems to be obvious fraud by the Met Police.

I expect clever fraud, but this was ridiculous.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.01.16 13:31

BlueBag wrote:The bamboozling bit is that I don't see how crechman fits the McCann narrative as they almost immediately ignored/dismissed it.

REPLY: That's not true at all, Crecheman fits their narrative perfectly, as we've discussed many times on here, namely:

1. It vindicates Jane Tanner's sighting as genuine (Ha! Ha!), and

2. It gives the McCann Team and the Met Police 50 minutes for the abductor (9.10pm to 10.00pm) instead of the 5-minute window that existed when we were led to believe that Tannerman was the abductor. They were all overjoyed about that...'the revelation moment' - and hence the heavy hints that their endgame solution is: 'Abductor was a burglary gone wrong, Madeleine killed by him in panic or error and he then hides her body".

I also am bamboozled by what seems to be obvious fraud by the Met Police.

REPLY: How can anyone possibly be 'bamboozled' by obvious fraud by the Met Police after, for example, all of this:

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

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

Exclusive: Scotland Yard’s rotten core: Police failed to address Met's ‘endemic corruption’
Tom Harper (1st article). Investigations Reporter, Friday 10 January 2014

Corrupt officers were often simply moved out of specialist roles to routine posts, the report suggests

Organised crime infiltrated police ‘at will’, according to secret report. Top-level internal inquiry identified scores of corrupt individuals working for Met

----

Organised criminals were able to infiltrate Scotland Yard “at will” by bribing corrupt officers, according to an explosive report leaked to The Independent. The Metropolitan Police file, written in 2002, found Britain’s biggest force suffered “endemic corruption”...

I expect clever fraud, but this was ridiculous.

REPLY: True, but that travesty of a Crimewatch programme occurred after six-and-a-half years of constant 'conditioning' in the media. You and I might be able to spot that the Crecheman fraud was ridiculous, but against a six-and-a-half year backdrop of media misinformation on the case, Crecheman was slickly presented, Goebbels-like, to a comatose nation

by Guest 05.01.16 16:38

2. It gives the McCann Team and the Met Police 50 minutes for the abductor (9.10pm to 10.00pm) instead of the 5-minute window that existed when we were led to believe that Tannerman was the abductor. They were all overjoyed about that...'the revelation moment' - and hence the heavy hints that their endgame solution is: 'Abductor was a burglary gone wrong, Madeleine killed by him in panic or error and he then hides her body".

But... they haven't done a "oh silly us we were wrong about the JT sighting" have they.

They have in fact persisted with the JT sighting.

Which rubs against what OP are saying.

Hence the head scratching.

REPLY: How can anyone possibly be 'bamboozled' by obvious fraud by the Met Police after, for example, all of this:

I expected them to be a bit more clever. I'm just bamboozled by the fact that it blatantly isn't very clever at all and someone decided to put that in front of millions of viewers.

They really are very thick.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.01.16 17:29

BlueBag wrote:
I expected them to be a bit more clever. I'm just bamboozled by the fact that it blatantly isn't very clever at all and someone decided to put that in front of millions of viewers.

They really are very thick.

@ BlueBag All points duly noted and understood. But...

Let's step back for a moment and look at all the planning involved in the preparation for this excuse for a Crimewatch programme.

1. Someone had to suggest it. This probably took place in late 2012, about nine months before the programme went out.

2. What was in the minds of those who planned it?

3. OK, perhaps we'll never know the answer to that, but can we answer this - was this programme approved by DCI Andy Redwood having a chat one day with the producer and editor of Crimewatch?

4. I doubt it. On the Met Police side, this programme would have had to be authorised from the very top - Bernard Hogan-Howe. And possibly those above him - the Home Secretary, MI5 and other secret service leaders, and probably the Prime Minister would personally be involved or at least notified.

5. On the BBC side, someone far above the producer and editor of BBC Crimewatch would have had to sanction this programme - after all, the BBC admitted it cost over £1 million to make.

6. Who was involved in planning the reconstruction? We can be sure that the McCann Team would be kept informed and surely someone like Clarence Mitchell would have approved the reconstruction script.

7. Martin Smith had to be spoken to twice - once in 2012, once in 2013 - no doubt to make sure he and his family wouldn't upset the apple-cart and cause any problems.

8. A series of allegedly unauthorised Scotland Yard leaks had to be promoted in the press to generate interest in the case ahead of the broadcast.

9. The press had to be carefully briefed ahead of the broadcast, with sexy headlines like 'Breakthrough Moment'.

10. And all of this under the pretence of fooling the public (a) into thinking that Smithman was a real person and a real suspect that could possibly, after six-and-a-half years, be identified by one or more of 6.7 million viewers watching the telly in their lounges.

This wasn't the work of 'thick' people. It was a cunning piece of work produced by a number of very bright minds.

Only when the truth is eventually revealed will they know how very foolish (not thick) they have been, to use their intelligence to produce a programme like that.

by Richard IV 05.01.16 17:57

@ Tony = "4. I doubt it. On the Met Police side, this programme would have had to be authorised from the very top - Bernard Hogan-Howe. And possibly those above him - the Home Secretary, MI5 and other secret service leaders, and probably the Prime Minister would personally be involved or at least notified."

If you truly believe that`s a possibility (I do, and I`m sure most of us do), then it must involve covering up for someone extremely high profile. It`s what we always come back to.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.01.16 18:58

Richard IV wrote:@ Tony = "4. I doubt it. On the Met Police side, this programme would have had to be authorised from the very top - Bernard Hogan-Howe. And possibly those above him - the Home Secretary, MI5 and other secret service leaders, and probably the Prime Minister would personally be involved or at least notified."

If you truly believe that's a possibility (I do, and I'm sure most of us do), then it must involve covering up for someone extremely high profile. It's what we always come back to.

Yes.

Or a group of people involved in something so bad that it must be covered up.

The early involvement of the government's chief media spinner, Clarence Mitchell, AND several elements of the security services, and of course the known connections between the top echelons of both Labour and Conservative parties with the top brass of the Rupert Murdoch empire, all point in exactly the same direction.

And we now know that top men from top PR agency Bell Pottinger were actually in Praia da Luz before the alarm was raised on 3 May

by Richard IV 05.01.16 21:00

Tony Bennett wrote:
Richard IV wrote:@ Tony = "4. I doubt it. On the Met Police side, this programme would have had to be authorised from the very top - Bernard Hogan-Howe. And possibly those above him - the Home Secretary, MI5 and other secret service leaders, and probably the Prime Minister would personally be involved or at least notified."

If you truly believe that's a possibility (I do, and I'm sure most of us do), then it must involve covering up for someone extremely high profile. It's what we always come back to.
Yes.

Or a group of people involved in something so bad that it must be covered up.

The early involvement of the government's chief media spinner, Clarence Mitchell, AND several elements of the security services, and of course the known connections between the top echelons of both Labour and Conservative parties with the top brass of the Rupert Murdoch empire, all point in exactly the same direction.

And we now know that top men from top PR agency Bell Pottinger were actually in Praia da Luz before the alarm was raised on 3 May

No wonder the phone records weren`t released by that Judge Fernando Ribeiro Cardoso. He must be in on it as well plus I cannot find a thing about him (apart from articles about him denying access) on the internet. A look at those phone records would soon clarify who it was that GM was requesting help from and maybe even threatening.

by Guest 05.01.16 22:46

@Tony Bennett wrote: "One additional point worth considering is the role of the BBC in this, which is brought out in the commentary by BBC Crimewatch presenter Matthew Amroliwala."

If I may digress, during the Crimewatch special Madeleine McCann edition, following his little tête-à-tête with DCI Redwood, on location Amroliwala says that the Irish family saw the man coming down the hill and heading towards the beach. This is incorrect - the Smith family merely said they passed the man walking in the opposite direction, as one would expect them to say, not towards the beach. Was this a included to reinforce Charlotte Pennington's claim about a man on the beach in the dark carrying a bundle and loading it on a boat of some description and/or the private detectives Metodo/Oakley International strongly emphasizing a passage to Morocco?

Secondly, if you think about it - DCI Redwood's exciting revelation moment on discovering that Jane Tanner's sighting was ~~fabrication~~ mistaken, makes absolutely no difference to the window of opportunity. Jane Tanner's alleged sighting was within the same time frame as Gerry McCann's last check when he gazed upon his sleeping cherub with admiration - how then can elimination of Tannerman extend the window of opportunity? Gerald saw Madeleine sleeping in her bed around 9:15 pm but according to DCI Redwood the disposal of the Tanner nuance increased the timing for abduction by about one and a quarter hours. Does that imply that Gerry McCann was telling porkies about his last check or that Operation Grange has made a massive faux-pas?

by **Tony Bennett** 06.01.16 0:09

Verdi wrote:@Tony Bennett wrote: "One additional point worth considering is the role of the BBC in this, which is brought out in the commentary by BBC Crimewatch presenter Matthew Amroliwala."

Secondly, if you think about it - DCI Redwood's exciting revelation moment on discovering that Jane Tanner's sighting was ~~fabrication~~ mistaken, makes absolutely no difference to the window of opportunity. Jane Tanner's alleged sighting was within the same time frame as Gerry McCann's last check when he gazed upon his sleeping cherub with admiration - how then can elimination of Tannerman extend the window of opportunity? Gerald saw Madeleine sleeping in her bed around 9:15 pm but according to DCI Redwood the disposal of the Tanner nuance increased the timing for abduction by about one and a quarter hours. Does that imply that Gerry McCann was telling porkies about his last check or that Operation Grange has made a massive faux-pas?

No.

The increase in the time-frame for the abduction was widened to about three quarters of an hour, not an hour and a quarter.

The OFFICIAL NARRATIVE now is:

Tannerman was not Tannerman but Crecheman.

Gerry saw Madeleine alive at around 9.10pm, then left the apartment.

Jane Tanner saw ~~Tannerman~~ oops! Crecheman at about 9.15pm - now irrelevant.

Abductor could have snatched Madeleine any time from just after 9.10 to 10.00 when seen (a-hem!) by the Smiths.

Now that's a 'revelation'.

Redwood's 'Damascus' moment

by Guest 06.01.16 11:53

Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote:@Tony Bennett wrote: "One additional point worth considering is the role of the BBC in this, which is brought out in the commentary by BBC Crimewatch presenter Matthew Amroliwala."

Secondly, if you think about it - DCI Redwood's exciting revelation moment on discovering that Jane Tanner's sighting was ~~fabrication~~ mistaken, makes absolutely no difference to the window of opportunity. Jane Tanner's alleged sighting was within the same time frame as Gerry McCann's last check when he gazed upon his sleeping cherub with admiration - how then can elimination of Tannerman extend the window of opportunity? Gerald saw Madeleine sleeping in her bed around 9:15 pm but according to DCI Redwood the disposal of the Tanner nuance increased the timing for abduction by about one and a quarter hours. Does that imply that Gerry McCann was telling porkies about his last check or that Operation Grange has made a massive faux-pas?
No.

The increase in the time-frame for the abduction was widened to about three quarters of an hour, not an hour and a quarter.

The OFFICIAL NARRATIVE now is:

Tannerman was not Tannerman but Crecheman.

Gerry saw Madeleine alive at around 9.10pm, then left the apartment.

Jane Tanner saw ~~Tannerman~~ oops! Crecheman at about 9.15pm - now irrelevant.

Abductor could have snatched Madeleine any time from just after 9.10 to 10.00 when seen (a-hem!) by the Smiths.

Now that's a 'revelation'.

Redwood's 'Damascus' moment

Goodness me, what a load of rubbish - confusing myself there I think. Sorry about that, must have been having a revelation moment.

I was supposed to be highlighting the audacity of DCI Redwood and his merry men trying to convince the nation (now the world as the video is still up on YouTube) that the world is indeed flat and not round as has been believed for hundreds of years. His entire review/investigation and the 2013 Crimewatch Special is built on the Tapas9 version of events - with no apparent deviation to account for their conflicting stories, bizarre behaviour and evidence/intelligence contained in the PJ files.

During the Crimewatch production, Redwood's uncanny exciting 'now almost certain' revelation moment, he uses the words 'we now know' and/or 'we know' that so and so happened at a specific time but that knowledge only comes from the testimonies of the group - hardly conclusive! The hour and a quarter I mentioned was referring to the time between the McCanns leaving their apartment for dinner and Gerry McCann's alleged proud father moment at around 9:10 pm. That makes GM the last person to have seen a living Madeleine if his story is to be believed, which Redwood is trying to convince the viewers if not himself.

DCI Redwood goes on to say that the focus of the investigation for six years has been on the Tanner sighting but that, as many people are aware, is simply not true. Goncalo Amaral and his team were not taken in by Tanner's alleged sighting, nor were they taken in by the conflicting stories told by the McCanns and their friends. In short, the Crimewatch production was a complete farce - a falsehood, as is Operation Grange, an insult to the average intelligence and a dastardly act of portrayal of a very serious crime. They should be horsewhipped at the very least!

I'll end there before I start confusing myself again. big grin

by Liz Eagles 06.01.16 12:07

Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote:@Tony Bennett wrote: "One additional point worth considering is the role of the BBC in this, which is brought out in the commentary by BBC Crimewatch presenter Matthew Amroliwala."

Secondly, if you think about it - DCI Redwood's exciting revelation moment on discovering that Jane Tanner's sighting was ~~fabrication~~ mistaken, makes absolutely no difference to the window of opportunity. Jane Tanner's alleged sighting was within the same time frame as Gerry McCann's last check when he gazed upon his sleeping cherub with admiration - how then can elimination of Tannerman extend the window of opportunity? Gerald saw Madeleine sleeping in her bed around 9:15 pm but according to DCI Redwood the disposal of the Tanner nuance increased the timing for abduction by about one and a quarter hours. Does that imply that Gerry McCann was telling porkies about his last check or that Operation Grange has made a massive faux-pas?
No.

The increase in the time-frame for the abduction was widened to about three quarters of an hour, not an hour and a quarter.

The OFFICIAL NARRATIVE now is:

Tannerman was not Tannerman but Crecheman.

Gerry saw Madeleine alive at around 9.10pm, then left the apartment.

Jane Tanner saw ~~Tannerman~~ oops! Crecheman at about 9.15pm - now irrelevant.

Abductor could have snatched Madeleine any time from just after 9.10 to 10.00 when seen (a-hem!) by the Smiths.

Now that's a 'revelation'.

Redwood's 'Damascus' moment

Not a mention of Oldfield in the Crimewatch extravaganza - this was Oldfield who was conveniently let off the hook as to being the last person to see Madeleine when he did his kind deed/check of the kids at around 9.30 in the McCann's own extravaganza/reconstruction where Oldfield and GM chew the fat about Oldfield not actually seeing Madeleine but saw the twins.

Nope, not a mention of Oldfield.

Lazz has posted about Oldfield in the past and it's worth a read.

by willowthewisp 06.01.16 12:49

Perhap ,"I nick erm before they know they're nicked" DCI Nicola Wall should seek arrest warrants for the "Previous SIO Hamish Campbell and DCI Andy Redwood, for questioning over their involvement in "Operation Grange" Crimewatch re-enactment October 2013 on the grounds of likely to "Pervert the Course of Justice" within this cover up by nefarious persons and collusion within government departments, MI5/6?
Still want to deny the existence Text messages eh, Gerry or did the Portugal PJ plant them on your phone!?

by Guest 06.01.16 22:27

So this is Jane Tanner, victim of circumstances, caught up in one of the most horrendous episodes of life imaginable - the loss of a child.

Jane Tanner whose only true motive was to assist her friends Kate and Gerry McCann through their worst nightmare - the loss of a child.
Jane Tanner, herself a mother, who must have a degree of understanding of her friends desperation to find their missing child.
Jane Tanner who didn't immediately tell anyone about the sighting for fear of exacerbating the McCanns agony but somehow still managed to include it on the timeline drawn up on the night of the 3rd.
Jane Tanner whose partner Russell O'Brien, ripped off the cover of a missing child's sticker book in order to jot down a timeline.
Jane Tanner who breaks down when accused of being a liar and fantasist.
Jane Tanner who willingly returned to PdL to assist with the production of an unofficial reconstruction direct by her friend Gerald.
Jane Tanner who declined to assist with an official re-enactment proposed by the PJ...

From : Russell O'Brien
Sent : 25th April 2008
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Reply to PJ- 23rd April

Dear Stuart,

Please find attached our reply to Mr Rebelo's letter. Thanks for forwarding this on our continued concerns regarding the re-enactment.

I hope the rest of the interviews went well and thanks for arranging them in such a sensitive manner for us.

Hope you are well,

Yours,

Russell and Jane
--------------------

Attached email from Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner (see previous email)

Dated: 23rd April 2008

Dear Stuart,

Many thanks for your email, and for forwarding the reply from Senhor Rebelo. Also, thanks to you and your colleagues for arranging the re-interviews.

It is somewhat reassuring to see in writing from the PJ that there are "no suspicions over [us] regarding the commission of any criminal acts." However, we heard something similar in the weeks before Kate and Gerry were made arguidos! Additionally, the thrust of the PJ's closed questions during the re-interviews seemed only to focus on Kate and Gerry's culpability, suspicion about our written timeline or who involved the media.

After a year of lies, accusations and intrusion, I am sure that the Mr Rebelo can appreciate our complete revulsion at what Kate and Gerry have been forced to endure. Furthermore, we cannot help but feel that the re-interviews and re-enactment are all too little and far too late.

However, the last thing we would ever want is a standoff between us and the PJ, something that would only delight and benefit the press. Kate and Gerry desperately need the cloud of suspicion over them to be emphatically lifted, andthe PJ need to complete their investigation. We also appreciate the legal obstacles to removing Kate and Gerry's arguido status, but would request that prior to us agreeing to the re-enactment the PJ:

• publicly dispels the damaging and disturbing lies churned out by the Portuguese press regarding alleged changes to statements, re-interviews or alleged lack of co-operation.

• publicly states there are "no suspicions over [us] regarding the commission of any criminal acts." This in no way compromises judicial secrecy.

This in no way compromises judicial secrecy. But without some official intervention on their part, a return for the re-enactment seems little more than a perfect opportunity for the press to speculate and libel us all once again.

We are very keen to help an investigation aiming to establish what's happened to Madeleine, but have no desire to assist one that seeks only to damn our innocent friends. By actively restoring the focus on Madeleine and robustly dispelling the countless speculation, the PJ can expect our continued co- operation.

Yours sincerely,

Russell O'Brien & Jane Tanner
------------------

Email to Stuart Prior from Russell O'Brien (from Jane Tanner's email address)

From : Jane Tanner
Sent : 30th April 2008 11.27 am
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Re-enactment

Dear Stuart,

Thank you for your detailed phone call yesterday evening.

We write regarding Mr Rebelo's request for a decision by noon today. Jane and I agree in principle to participate in the re-enactment. However, given the change in nature of the request, we feel it is necessary to seek additional Legal Advice to advise us on this course of action.

Yours,

Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner
-------------

Email to Stuart Prior from Jane Tanner
From: Jane Tanner
Sent: 10 May 2008 10:05
To: Stuart Prior
Subject: RE: Re-enactment

Dear Stuart,

Thanks for your call last night.

I spoke with Rachel last night who is chasing Brian Spiro for a response to our legal queries. We are hoping to have that today.

Until then we cannot give a definitive answer. Hoever I believe Matt and Rachael cannot do that date, so it may be immaterial anyway!

I would just like like to reiterate what I said last night, in that it is so sad we have to consider so many peripheral issues rather than just doing everything we can do to help find Madeleine.

Thanks and regards.

Jane
----------------

Email to Stuart Prior from Russell O'Brien

From: Russell O'Brien
Sent: 10 May 2008 14:56
To: Stuart Prior
Subject: RE: Re-enactment

Dear Stuart,

Apologies for the late reply.

We gather now that at least Jez Wilkins, Matt and Rach and Dave/Fi are not going/able to make the re-enactment. Given the prosecutor's requirement for all to be in attendance or none at all, and the absolute nature of the planned date, the decision appears to be academic...

I hope you are well.

Best wishes,

Russell & Jane

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

This is the Jane Tanner that DCI Redwood busted a gut to rid her of the embarrassment of her own creation - TANNERMAN!

by Guest 06.01.16 22:31

aquila wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote:@Tony Bennett wrote: "One additional point worth considering is the role of the BBC in this, which is brought out in the commentary by BBC Crimewatch presenter Matthew Amroliwala."

Secondly, if you think about it - DCI Redwood's exciting revelation moment on discovering that Jane Tanner's sighting was ~~fabrication~~ mistaken, makes absolutely no difference to the window of opportunity. Jane Tanner's alleged sighting was within the same time frame as Gerry McCann's last check when he gazed upon his sleeping cherub with admiration - how then can elimination of Tannerman extend the window of opportunity? Gerald saw Madeleine sleeping in her bed around 9:15 pm but according to DCI Redwood the disposal of the Tanner nuance increased the timing for abduction by about one and a quarter hours. Does that imply that Gerry McCann was telling porkies about his last check or that Operation Grange has made a massive faux-pas?
No.

The increase in the time-frame for the abduction was widened to about three quarters of an hour, not an hour and a quarter.

The OFFICIAL NARRATIVE now is:

Tannerman was not Tannerman but Crecheman.

Gerry saw Madeleine alive at around 9.10pm, then left the apartment.

Jane Tanner saw ~~Tannerman~~ oops! Crecheman at about 9.15pm - now irrelevant.

Abductor could have snatched Madeleine any time from just after 9.10 to 10.00 when seen (a-hem!) by the Smiths.

Now that's a 'revelation'.

Redwood's 'Damascus' moment
Not a mention of Oldfield in the Crimewatch extravaganza - this was Oldfield who was conveniently let off the hook as to being the last person to see Madeleine when he did his kind deed/check of the kids at around 9.30 in the McCann's own extravaganza/reconstruction where Oldfield and GM chew the fat about Oldfield not actually seeing Madeleine but saw the twins.

Nope, not a mention of Oldfield.

Lazz has posted about Oldfield in the past and it's worth a read.

Isn't he the one said to have been heard blubbering hysterically during one of the PJ interviews? I trust DCI Redwood has re-interviewed him to clarify his alleged check on the McCann children.

by Liz Eagles 08.01.16 8:39

Lazz is on a roll...

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

There's also another blog entry (Mods - perhaps it needs to be moved to another topic?)

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

by whodunit 08.01.16 18:55

Tony Bennett wrote:
Richard IV wrote:@ Tony = "4. I doubt it. On the Met Police side, this programme would have had to be authorised from the very top - Bernard Hogan-Howe. And possibly those above him - the Home Secretary, MI5 and other secret service leaders, and probably the Prime Minister would personally be involved or at least notified."

If you truly believe that's a possibility (I do, and I'm sure most of us do), then it must involve covering up for someone extremely high profile. It's what we always come back to.
Yes.

Or a group of people involved in something so bad that it must be covered up.

The early involvement of the government's chief media spinner, Clarence Mitchell, AND several elements of the security services, and of course the known connections between the top echelons of both Labour and Conservative parties with the top brass of the Rupert Murdoch empire, all point in exactly the same direction.

And we now know that top men from top PR agency Bell Pottinger were actually in Praia da Luz before the alarm was raised on 3 May

Forgive me if the following isn't suitable for the topic at hand, but Mr. Bennett's comment above reminded me of something I read a few months ago. Feel free to move or delete.

Kakistocracy is defined as “rule by the worst.” Today on the program Dr. Tjeerd Andringa of the University of Groningen joins us to discuss [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of how the kakistocracy uses child abuse to perpetuate their control, both over the victims of that abuse and its perpetrators. We also discuss what the vast majority of decent and moral people can do about this problem.

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

Why is pedophilia such a consistent part of so many political power circles?

[....]

Dr. Tjeerd Andringa: One of the reasons for the intimate association of the power elite with child abuse is that they might use it to maintain their, somewhat hidden, ‘kakistocracy’: government by the worst and most evil people: a highly capable brand of psychopaths if you like. (Even James didn’t know the term kakistocracy ☺).

Psychopathy is only mildly hereditary, so an elite psychopath cannot guarantee that sons or daughters will be just as psychopathic. I expect this entails that they need a steady resupply of ruthless and power hungry individuals who understand the world deeply and pervasively and, as such, are highly capable. Normally deep and pervasive understanding leads to wisdom and a sense of responsibility, humility even. But that is precisely not what that the kakistocracy needs: it needs the same depth and pervasiveness of understanding, but in combination with utter ruthlessness and the capacity to appear respectable.

Enter child abuse. By abusing children you “give” them an attachment disorder by violating or destroying the deep sense of security that is the basis for an open attitude towards learning and discovering. With this trust violated the child’s world changes from a world of opportunities, to a world of potential and actual threats. And often they will search and serve those who can protect them from these threats and in doing so giving their autonomy away for life. And they might even carry it over to their children: stultifying their growth towards autonomy. Aristocrats and priests must have discovered a long time ago that abused children lead to useful adult servants; slaves actually. And while this is despicable to people with a normal moral development, it is a positive thing for psychopaths who see other people as tools anyway.

Yet this does not solve the problem of keeping the kakistocracy supplied with respectable appearing, super high functioning, and completely ruthless psychopaths. Only a small fraction of the population (say 1%) is psychopathic and as such has the benefit of an absence of empathy and a conscience: psychopaths are able to exploit others as if they were tools. Yet the vast majority of them are not particularly evil: they can be ruthless, daring, and callous, but they find mostly norm-abiding ways to be psychopathic: they might be mountaineers, military, ER-doctors, car or insurance salesmen, real-estate brokers, or white-collar criminals. But most are definitely not the high functioning individuals that compare with how the power elite sees themselves and would accept as their peers. So how do you recruit suitable psychopaths in your midst if they do not advertise themselves as such.

Enter child abuse again. If you organize events for the ambitious and capable in which they progressively can show that, notwithstanding their veneer of respectability, they are actually completely ruthless, you have the ideal recruiting grounds for the kakistocracy. Of course blackmail plays a role, but the suitable candidates gladly let themselves to become blackmailable because this gives them access to the inner sanctum of the kakistocracy: they prove themselves worthy members and loyal (due to their blackmailability) and in return they will receive access to power in a way they could never dream of on their own. After a while they become fully accepted at a level that suits their capabilities and they will help to maintain the system that gave them so much opportunities (and can end their respectability at any point in time).

I think that what I have sketched above is a useful framework to understand the dynamics of elite child abuse networks. It is never an incident, it is “just” the kakistocracy maintaining and reinvigorating itself: business as usual. But the few moments the abuse networks become exposed it provides an ideal opportunity to glimpse the kakistocracy at work (and frantically protecting itself).

by Guest 08.01.16 20:44

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]: Why is pedophilia such a consistent part of so many political power circles?

Because they can - children are powerless voiceless and vulnerable. Same in Victorian/Edwardian years, children were subjected to horrendous acts of cruelty both within the home and without - in fact children have been the butt of megalomaniacs and perverts since the dawn of mankind. Nothing changes nor ever will.

by Guest 08.01.16 22:51

aquila wrote:Lazz is on a roll...

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

There's also another blog entry (Mods - perhaps it needs to be moved to another topic?)

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

Just catching up on the latest l-azzeri blogs, this one in particular..

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

"These people, these so called investigators, employed by the McCanns never investigated the disappearance of Madeleine McCann."
----------

When the news broke long ago in The Times, about the McCanns purposely concealing existence of the Smith family e-fits by threatening Exton and Oakley International, my immediate reaction was - the McCanns employing an authentic private investigators outfit to investigate the 'abduction' of their child? I don't think so! Why oh why would they engage the services of bona fide private investigators knowing full well the investigation would instantly zone in on them.

by sar 08.01.16 23:41

whodunit wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Richard IV wrote:@ Tony = "4. I doubt it. On the Met Police side, this programme would have had to be authorised from the very top - Bernard Hogan-Howe. And possibly those above him - the Home Secretary, MI5 and other secret service leaders, and probably the Prime Minister would personally be involved or at least notified."

If you truly believe that's a possibility (I do, and I'm sure most of us do), then it must involve covering up for someone extremely high profile. It's what we always come back to.
Yes.

Or a group of people involved in something so bad that it must be covered up.

The early involvement of the government's chief media spinner, Clarence Mitchell, AND several elements of the security services, and of course the known connections between the top echelons of both Labour and Conservative parties with the top brass of the Rupert Murdoch empire, all point in exactly the same direction.

And we now know that top men from top PR agency Bell Pottinger were actually in Praia da Luz before the alarm was raised on 3 May

Forgive me if the following isn't suitable for the topic at hand, but Mr. Bennett's comment above reminded me of something I read a few months ago. Feel free to move or delete.

Kakistocracy is defined as “rule by the worst.” Today on the program Dr. Tjeerd Andringa of the University of Groningen joins us to discuss [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of how the kakistocracy uses child abuse to perpetuate their control, both over the victims of that abuse and its perpetrators. We also discuss what the vast majority of decent and moral people can do about this problem.

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

Why is pedophilia such a consistent part of so many political power circles?

[....]

Dr. Tjeerd Andringa: One of the reasons for the intimate association of the power elite with child abuse is that they might use it to maintain their, somewhat hidden, ‘kakistocracy’: government by the worst and most evil people: a highly capable brand of psychopaths if you like. (Even James didn’t know the term kakistocracy ☺).

Psychopathy is only mildly hereditary, so an elite psychopath cannot guarantee that sons or daughters will be just as psychopathic. I expect this entails that they need a steady resupply of ruthless and power hungry individuals who understand the world deeply and pervasively and, as such, are highly capable. Normally deep and pervasive understanding leads to wisdom and a sense of responsibility, humility even. But that is precisely not what that the kakistocracy needs: it needs the same depth and pervasiveness of understanding, but in combination with utter ruthlessness and the capacity to appear respectable.

Enter child abuse. By abusing children you “give” them an attachment disorder by violating or destroying the deep sense of security that is the basis for an open attitude towards learning and discovering. With this trust violated the child’s world changes from a world of opportunities, to a world of potential and actual threats. And often they will search and serve those who can protect them from these threats and in doing so giving their autonomy away for life. And they might even carry it over to their children: stultifying their growth towards autonomy. Aristocrats and priests must have discovered a long time ago that abused children lead to useful adult servants; slaves actually. And while this is despicable to people with a normal moral development, it is a positive thing for psychopaths who see other people as tools anyway.

Yet this does not solve the problem of keeping the kakistocracy supplied with respectable appearing, super high functioning, and completely ruthless psychopaths. Only a small fraction of the population (say 1%) is psychopathic and as such has the benefit of an absence of empathy and a conscience: psychopaths are able to exploit others as if they were tools. Yet the vast majority of them are not particularly evil: they can be ruthless, daring, and callous, but they find mostly norm-abiding ways to be psychopathic: they might be mountaineers, military, ER-doctors, car or insurance salesmen, real-estate brokers, or white-collar criminals. But most are definitely not the high functioning individuals that compare with how the power elite sees themselves and would accept as their peers. So how do you recruit suitable psychopaths in your midst if they do not advertise themselves as such.

Enter child abuse again. If you organize events for the ambitious and capable in which they progressively can show that, notwithstanding their veneer of respectability, they are actually completely ruthless, you have the ideal recruiting grounds for the kakistocracy. Of course blackmail plays a role, but the suitable candidates gladly let themselves to become blackmailable because this gives them access to the inner sanctum of the kakistocracy: they prove themselves worthy members and loyal (due to their blackmailability) and in return they will receive access to power in a way they could never dream of on their own. After a while they become fully accepted at a level that suits their capabilities and they will help to maintain the system that gave them so much opportunities (and can end their respectability at any point in time).

I think that what I have sketched above is a useful framework to understand the dynamics of elite child abuse networks. It is never an incident, it is “just” the kakistocracy maintaining and reinvigorating itself: business as usual. But the few moments the abuse networks become exposed it provides an ideal opportunity to glimpse the kakistocracy at work (and frantically protecting itself).

+1 whodunit, if you add in the barbaric historic boarding school system, you get an endless supply of people who have been abused who without any compunction will go out into the world and abuse others. How do you get a nation to abuse the populace of the planet??? Abuse them systematically from the moment they arrive in boarding schools. Its how the British Empire was built.

by Guest 09.01.16 7:53

Posters - stay on topic, please.

A new thread "kakistocracy" has been opened to discuss child abuse.

by kaz 09.01.16 8:37

Just a thought: If 'Smithman' was Gerry McCann , why didn't the dogs find ' the smell of death' on any of HIS clothes? Whoever 'Smithman ' was ( IF HE WAS ) he would have been in contact with the dead body for quite some time. Some of Kate's clothes alerted, so why not his?

by Guest 09.01.16 8:55

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] What dead body? Are you saying that Smithman was carrying a dead child?

by **Tony Bennett** 09.01.16 9:41

Ladyinred wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] What dead body? Are you saying that Smithman was carrying a dead child?

I believe the Smiths in their statements were subtly, but deliberately, suggesting that the child they claimed to have seen was dead - see bits in red below from their statements:

Martin

she was was ‘very white’, her skin was very white, typical of a Brit, and she was ‘in a deep sleep’. She wore ‘light-coloured’ pyjamas, had no cover over her, he can’t remember if she was barefoot or not, but others in her group say she was.

Aoife

she didn’t see the child's face because she was lying vertically against the man’s left shoulder; she appeared to be sleeping; her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the man’s neck; she thinks the child was white; she had no covering; she was wearing light, white or light-pink trousers that ‘may have been pyjamas, made of light material’ and ‘could have been cotton’. She can’t remember if they were patterned as it was dark. She also had ‘a light top, with long sleeves’. She can’t remember seeing any shoes on her feet.

Peter

white skin which looked ‘typically British’, blonde hair, of medium tone (not shiny) . She appeared to be a bit smaller than his niece of the same age. The girl was asleep; her eyelids were closed - he didn’t remember the girl’s clothing very well, but “believes it was light summer clothing, light in colour”. He can’t say if she was covered with a blanket or whether or not she was barefoot. Having now seen various photographs of Madeleine and various TV images, he says that the child being carried by the individual ‘might have been her’. He and all his family are ‘convinced’ that it ‘could have been Madeleine’.

by comperedna 09.01.16 16:01

That is what I thought might have been being suggested when I first read those reports. However deeply asleep a child is they tend to stir when you pick them up and 'hang on' by putting their arms around your neck. It was particularly the 'arms hanging down' that perturbed me. Now, of course, I'm not sure what to think...

l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Not 'thick' - but clever, and foolish

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

L-azzeri lies in the sun

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Same kinda clothes - crechedad compared to tannerman