Re: Innocent British Father

by Guest Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:53 pm

Cristobell wrote:Presumably the PJ have the original creche records. The night babysitters were the same nannies that ran the creche and the kids clubs, this must all be traceable, sleeping babies would be signed in and out.

On that chilly night, we are asked to believe a father collected his child, who was wearing only pyjamas, no slippers, and carried her across his arms in the strange manner described by Jane Tanner. Not only did he fail to provide a blanket for the sleeping child, he also failed to provide any bodily warmth by wrapping his arms around her. As Wendy Murphy would say, I'm not buying it.

Also remarkable: Jane in all her initial statements to the PK, from May 4 onwards, stressed that she noticed the man because he was moving at such a high speed;

She even describes his footwear as being suited for speed walking- so no flip-flops presumably

She noticed something very strange: a man almost running with a child, in an untenable position, in which no one ever carries a living child;

AWAY FROM THE NIGHT CRECHE

That's what she witnessed, and signed as a witness, and stood by under interrogation

For six whole years

Till yesterday (says AR/SY, not she herself, mind you)

by Praiaaa Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:54 pm

What utter drivel! (B O'C I mean). Like a sixth former on a creative writing course. And her comment about 'A boy who had been bullied' speaks volumes about her... grrrrr

by Guest Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:56 pm

tasprin wrote:
Daisy wrote:
Cristobell wrote:Presumably the PJ have the original creche records. The night babysitters were the same nannies that ran the creche and the kids clubs, this must all be traceable, sleeping babies would be signed in and out.

On that chilly night, we are asked to believe a father collected his child, who was wearing only pyjamas, no slippers, and carried her across his arms in the strange manner described by Jane Tanner. Not only did he fail to provide a blanket for the sleeping child, he also failed to provide any bodily warmth by wrapping his arms around her. As Wendy Murphy would say, I'm not buying it.
According to Daily Mail article today, he did use a (pink) blanket. There's pictures of it alongside the childs PJ's he kept all this years.

Not sure how to put the image up but here's the link

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
But where is Madeleine's pink blanket? It was on the bed, but seems to have disappeared with her.

and with KHs engagement ring

by Guest Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:58 pm

Praiaaa wrote:My inexpert opinion is that JT came clean after years of sleepless nights, and SY are saving her face as a quid pro quo. If there really had been an innocent father of course he would have come forward, or been eliminated using creche records, and been exonerated (and would never in any case carry a living child in that way). IMO JT has cracked. IMO the Paynes have also cracked, hence their anonymity in the scenes last night.

by Daisy Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:59 pm

Portia wrote:
tasprin wrote:
Daisy wrote:
Cristobell wrote:Presumably the PJ have the original creche records. The night babysitters were the same nannies that ran the creche and the kids clubs, this must all be traceable, sleeping babies would be signed in and out.

On that chilly night, we are asked to believe a father collected his child, who was wearing only pyjamas, no slippers, and carried her across his arms in the strange manner described by Jane Tanner. Not only did he fail to provide a blanket for the sleeping child, he also failed to provide any bodily warmth by wrapping his arms around her. As Wendy Murphy would say, I'm not buying it.
According to Daily Mail article today, he did use a (pink) blanket. There's pictures of it alongside the childs PJ's he kept all this years.

Not sure how to put the image up but here's the link

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
But where is Madeleine's pink blanket? It was on the bed, but seems to have disappeared with her.
and with KHs engagement ring

And a blue sportsbag

by JackieL Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:03 pm

Praiaaa wrote:What utter drivel! (B O'C I mean). Like a sixth former on a creative writing course. And her comment about 'A boy who had been bullied' speaks volumes about her...

I know - I'd forgotten how bitchy she was.

by Woofer Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:06 pm

ultimaThule wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Does anyone know where the babysitting place was? Was it at one of the 3 crèches. Surely they would only use one at night as there couldn't have been too many around at that time of year. Everyone said if was very quiet. Bridget O'Donnell and Jez Wilkins used it the night before, when Jez carried his sleeping 3 year old home.
In May 2007 the evening creche was situated in the reception block which facilitates entry to the pool and tapas bar

Are you sure about that ultimaThule? Because if you look at the map shown on CW (at about 17.40 mins) it was a long way away. I can`t do screen shots - can anyone get a shot of that map?

by russiandoll Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:08 pm

I just saw a re run of the Tanner sighting on a very good 30 min programme about last nights CW and investigation... on Sky, CF has started a thread on it.

Notwithstanding her mistake, she still described pj bottoms.

which she could not have seen because crèche man was seen from 2 angles, rear and side..
in both he had the child's legs over his left arm

as JT walked up the street, his right side was facing her. and you clearly saw her head on the mans right arm.

oops

by ultimaThule Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:49 pm

candyfloss wrote:Does anyone know where the babysitting place was? Was it at one of the 3 crèches. Surely they would only use one at night as there couldn't have been too many around at that time of year. Everyone said if was very quiet. Bridget O'Donnell and Jez Wilkins used it the night before, when Jez carried his sleeping 3 year old home.

AMENDMENT with apologies for providing disinformation earlier: the evening creche facilties were by the Millenium restaurant which is shown on the map 2nd down on this link to the mccannfiles site

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

In the deconstruction last night, a man carrying a child crossed the road ahead of JT from left to right - i.e the opposite direction to that which she claimed bundleman was walking - and, as far I recall, only the child's head was visible.

by russiandoll Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:53 pm

Daisy wrote:
Cristobell wrote:Presumably the PJ have the original creche records. The night babysitters were the same nannies that ran the creche and the kids clubs, this must all be traceable, sleeping babies would be signed in and out.

On that chilly night, we are asked to believe a father collected his child, who was wearing only pyjamas, no slippers, and carried her across his arms in the strange manner described by Jane Tanner. Not only did he fail to provide a blanket for the sleeping child, he also failed to provide any bodily warmth by wrapping his arms around her. As Wendy Murphy would say, I'm not buying it.
According to Daily Mail article today, he did use a (pink) blanket. There's pictures of it alongside the childs PJ's he kept all this years.

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

and CW showed him with what looked like his child wrapped in blanket in the side shot, right side of face to Jane, child's head facing Tanner. She had bloody good eyesight when making her mistake....to see those pjs.

by galena Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:58 pm

Portia wrote:
Praiaaa wrote:My inexpert opinion is that JT came clean after years of sleepless nights, and SY are saving her face as a quid pro quo. If there really had been an innocent father of course he would have come forward, or been eliminated using creche records, and been exonerated (and would never in any case carry a living child in that way). IMO JT has cracked. IMO the Paynes have also cracked, hence their anonymity in the scenes last night.

Or to protect her against possible revenge. She may have provided the sighting innocently enough, perhaps believing that the PJ were trying to frame the parents and not taking the abduction seriously enough. (I read a lot of true crime and it's surprising how many people provide alibis for friends for a similar reason)

by Woofer Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:03 pm

ultimaThule wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Does anyone know where the babysitting place was? Was it at one of the 3 crèches. Surely they would only use one at night as there couldn't have been too many around at that time of year. Everyone said if was very quiet. Bridget O'Donnell and Jez Wilkins used it the night before, when Jez carried his sleeping 3 year old home.
AMENDMENT with apologies for providing disinformation earlier: the evening creche facilties were by the Millenium restaurant which is shown on the map 2nd down on this link to the mccannfiles site

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

In the deconstruction last night, a man carrying a child crossed the road ahead of JT from left to right - i.e the opposite direction to that which she claimed bundleman was walking - and, as far I recall, only the child's head was visible.

That`s not the same as the one shown on Crime Watch. Its on Joanas video at 17.40.

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

by Truthandjustice Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:08 pm

ultimaThule wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Does anyone know where the babysitting place was? Was it at one of the 3 crèches. Surely they would only use one at night as there couldn't have been too many around at that time of year. Everyone said if was very quiet. Bridget O'Donnell and Jez Wilkins used it the night before, when Jez carried his sleeping 3 year old home.
In May 2007 the evening creche was situated in the reception block which facilitates entry to the pool and tapas bar

Not according to the map on CW which showed the creche some distance to the east of 5A (which struck me as odd because the man would have been walking in the opposite direction to JT sighting)

by maebee Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:10 pm

Woofer wrote:This Creche Man is bugging me as well - mainly because I cannot think of one reason why this man would not have come forward before now.

He must have known a child had been abducted from the complex he was staying at.
He must have known he was in that vicinity at that very time.

Is he deaf, is he simple, is he a hermit, is he blind, does he not have a computer, does he not read a paper, does he not have a television ? There surely cannot be anyone in the world (barring lost Amazonian tribespeople) who have not heard of this case. Perhaps he`s an Inuit and returned to his igloo.

I ain`t buying it.

We`ve all been looking at the Jane Tanner man for 6 years and I bet ALL OF US just assumed that if he was a holiday maker, he would have come forward - BUT HE HADN`T. Unbelievable.

Spot on Woofer. As we all know, Creche Man is another figment.

by bodiddly Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:12 pm

Hi newbie here.
Is it possible that Tanner could have used an actual sighting to an advantage and that maybe it is possible to be true, that their really was an innocent British father.
If I was the "innocent British father", maybe I had been screaming from the beginning that it was I who was the so called Tanner sighting! Yet no one wanted to listen? Maybe I informed the MC's at the beginning yet for their own reasons, ignored me. Maybe the media dismissed me as a suspect will sell more newspapers than an "innocent British father". Maybe it was convenient that I remain the Tanner sighting and had no choice but to crawl away.
Anyway if I was that said father, I would remember exactly what I was wearing that day and what my daughter was wearing. I would probably even keep the clothes (though I didn't hear that I heard similar clothes not the actual clothes). Anyway I would keep everything as I would know it would come back to haunt me later.

Still trying to get my head round it all TBH so off to have a really good look round the site.

by Guest Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:14 pm

bodiddly wrote:Hi newbie here.
Is it possible that Tanner could have used an actual sighting to an advantage and that maybe it is possible to be true, that their really was an innocent British father.
If I was the "innocent British father", maybe I had been screaming from the beginning that it was I who was the so called Tanner sighting! Yet no one wanted to listen? Maybe I informed the MC's at the beginning yet for their own reasons, ignored me. Maybe the media dismissed me as a suspect will sell more newspapers than an "innocent British father". Maybe it was convenient that I remain the Tanner sighting and had no choice but to crawl away.
Anyway if I was that said father, I would remember exactly what I was wearing that day and what my daughter was wearing. I would probably even keep the clothes (though I didn't hear that I heard similar clothes not the actual clothes). Anyway I would keep everything as I would know it would come back to haunt me later.

Still trying to get my head round it all TBH so off to have a really good look round the site.

Thats good thinking, and wellcome!

by Shrike Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:18 pm

bobbin wrote:
But, the outcome is that the public at large now are being informed of the Smith sighting and the police can focus on all the other possibilities of Madeleine's disappearance.
Always locked down by the McCs insistence that Maddie had been abducted because their friend Jane says so, and even getting Gonçalo Amaral moved off the investigation, to have the 'Tanner egg-man' removed from the equation, is really very beneficial.
Whether Jane whispered in someone's ear, whether the police did check creche sheets and find a man who had carried his child sometime that evening (and Jane's timing could be wrong) there are possibilities that the abductor was actually someone legitimate carrying a child, since 11 children had been in the creche that evening.
This is good news because for the first time in 6.5 years the investigation is free to really address 'other' circumstances.

Always love your posts Bobbin, the air of optimism they give to all of us. Thank you for that.

I think we have to look at the way AR delivered the "revelation", to me it seemed to be a bit of a joke. He doesn't really care though as long as JT's "evidence" is dismissed (he probably knows she was put up to it and has given her a bit of "feel sorry for you" when creating coldfeetgirlbeingcarriedbyCrecheman) and he can focus on the Smith sighting of BeigeButtonTrouserMan. Then again, he probably doesn't care if he is dismissing it to protect the mccanns abduction fairytale (or maybe he does but has no choice). We are just going to have to see what will unfold, some will be wrong, soe right but all of us angry for different reasons.

by Woofer Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:20 pm

bodiddly wrote:Hi newbie here.
Is it possible that Tanner could have used an actual sighting to an advantage and that maybe it is possible to be true, that their really was an innocent British father.
If I was the "innocent British father", maybe I had been screaming from the beginning that it was I who was the so called Tanner sighting! Yet no one wanted to listen? Maybe I informed the MC's at the beginning yet for their own reasons, ignored me. Maybe the media dismissed me as a suspect will sell more newspapers than an "innocent British father". Maybe it was convenient that I remain the Tanner sighting and had no choice but to crawl away.
Anyway if I was that said father, I would remember exactly what I was wearing that day and what my daughter was wearing. I would probably even keep the clothes (though I didn't hear that I heard similar clothes not the actual clothes). Anyway I would keep everything as I would know it would come back to haunt me later.

Still trying to get my head round it all TBH so off to have a really good look round the site.

Hello Bodiddly and welcome welcome

Its good to have fresh minds.

You could have a point. I can see the McCanns dismissing it but not the PJ. Maybe he just rang the McCann`s number and was fobbed off. I dunno - its doing my head in.

by ultimaThule Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:28 pm

Woofer wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
In the deconstruction last night, a man carrying a child crossed the road ahead of JT from left to right - i.e the opposite direction to that which she claimed bundleman was walking - and, as far I recall, only the child's head was visible.
That`s not the same as the one shown on Crime Watch. Its on Joanas video at 17.40.

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

I haven't watched Joana's video but I've just watched the Crimwatch deconstruction again on Dutch tv and have come to the conclusion I wouldn't make a reliable witness as the guy crossed the road from left to right duh

:

by bodiddly Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:33 pm

Hi Woofer
I am sure I saw a video clip somewhere where GA was quoted as saying he had some evidence he has kept back.

Just a little niggle I have ref the sighting.

by Daisy Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:35 pm

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

what I don't get, is why 'innocent creche Dad' produced a (rather large) pink blanket? Jane Tanner was adamant that the child she saw being carried wasn't wrapped up. And if creche Dad did use this blanket then she couldn't possibly see what Pyjama's the child was wearing.

by StraightThinking Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:38 am

AR implied on CW that, as Bundleman had been "identified", an abduction couldn't have happened around that time

That isn't true. The "identification" of Bundleman just indicates that he wasn't an abductor. A genuine abductor could have been heading off in the other direction, unseen by all (including JT). So it doesn't close that particular time slot after all. Why say that it does?

by bobbin Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:48 am

StraightThinking wrote:AR implied on CW that, as Bundleman had been "identified", an abduction couldn't have happened around that time

That isn't true. The "identification" of Bundleman just indicates that he wasn't an abductor. A genuine abductor could have been heading off in the other direction, unseen by all (including JT). So it doesn't close that particular time slot after all. Why say that it does?

But there is no forensic evidence of a stranger having got into, been inside, or exiting the apartment and the sniffer dogs indicated cadavour odour and Madeleine's blood was found on walls and in tile grouting, so where, how, why, what, when did this mysterious abductor abduct Madeleine.
True, she could have been passed to someone outside, to put into a buggy, a big blue bag, a waiting car boot, but the forensic presence of 'known people only' would have to imply that any 'abduction' 'removal' of Madeleine from 5A would have to have been done by those whose forensic presence was noted, i.e. family, friends.

by StraightThinking Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:54 am

deleted

by russiandoll Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:47 am

I do not recall AR saying an abduction could not have happened at 9.15, but he did say that the man JT saw was not the abductor.

He said the timeline widened, did not mention that an abduction could have occurred same time with man unseen by JT due to being out of sight, in a car, walking in other direction. I recall him making ref to careful analysis of the timeline.

His focus was on that 10pm sighting and I am taking as a given he does not accept that a man would walk around with an abducted child for 45 minutes as he would have had to do if he had taken M around the same time as JT going to do her check.

No one but Jane has seen a man at 9.15 with a child. If there was a man walking about with a child as there definitely was acc to AR [ Smithman], he would have been seen by others between 9.15 and 10 pm. to be unseen he would have needed to go into an empty building or have access to a car..........which he would have used for a getaway out of town, not get out and walk towards the ocean.

Redwood's man was not going on an escape route with an abducted child, I agree with the expert opinion on the 30 minute Sky Maddie the New Investigation shown Tuesday and interestingly repeated tomorrow at 7.30 pm [ think that's the correct time]
The route taken by Smithman was not out of town but towards an area where there were empty buildings. Said on the Sky programme.

Also on that programme, entry to 5a by a man who had done a recce of movements would have been IMMEDIATELY after a check .

The pre planned abduction [ONE WAY OF READING THE EVIDENCE acc to AR] was dismissed emphatically on that Sky special feature by 2 people with expert opinions.

It is well worth a watch esp to hear that e fits were stagnating in Private Investigator files for 5 years and not given to police,
I don't think the we handed them to police who ignored them will wash now the info has come from 2 sources, Sky and Channel 4.

by StraightThinking Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:25 am

russiandoll wrote:I do not recall AR saying an abduction could not have happened at 9.15, but he did say that the man JT saw was not the abductor.

NSY say there is a new timeline but there isn't
The window of opportunity for an abductor, if there was one, is the same as it has always been, it isn't bigger than before
Given the vagueness of the JT "sighting", NSY can't have been concentrating solely on 21.15 as the crucial moment, so a post-21.15 abduction was always an option if that's where they were happy to go
The timeslot has always been the same - from the time she was last seen, to the time she wasn't there any more

by Guest Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:04 am

StraightThinking wrote:
russiandoll wrote:I do not recall AR saying an abduction could not have happened at 9.15, but he did say that the man JT saw was not the abductor.
NSY say there is a new timeline but there isn't
The window of opportunity for an abductor, if there was one, is the same as it has always been, it isn't bigger than before
Given the vagueness of the JT "sighting", NSY can't have been concentrating solely on 21.15 as the crucial moment, so a post-21.15 abduction was always an option if that's where they were happy to go
The timeslot has always been the same - from the time she was last seen, to the time she wasn't there any more

I think that's correct, StraightThinking. Things are exactly as they were before, except that the man JT says she saw has now been identified as a non-abductor - and presumably Jane supports the identification of "innocent British dad" as the man she saw or it would not have been broadcast. The trouble is that the abduction time slot is - as you say - still the same, still very narrow indeed - and we now have yet another witness. Brit dad was going past the front entrance while Gerry and Jez Wilkins were outside the rear exit and smoking teenager and Jane herself were on the spot across the road as it happened, and not one of them saw anything untoward. This is very unfortunate.

by StraightThinking Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:16 pm

NSY have made a lot of this identification even though it changes little - the window for an abduction is the same as before, all it does is eliminate one vague sighting in which it was never even remotely proven that M was being taken anyway

So why have they made so much of something so insignificant? Saying it changes the focus of the investigation is wrong because hardly anyone was focussing on it and I doubt NSY were either

Re the fact that this man was walking from left to right when he should have been walking from right to left, I can't believe that this was a simple mistake by AR. The map shows clearly the relative postions of 5a and the night creche and AR is quite capable of seeing that

So why should he come out with something so obviously untrue in a programme watched by 7 million people?

If I were JT, I would contact AR and say no, that can't have been the guy I saw because he was going the wrong way, ie you can't eliminate my sighting after all

But maybe that's what AR is waiting for

And if so, has JT phoned him yet?

by Jaci Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:36 pm

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

what I don't get, is why 'innocent creche Dad' produced a (rather large) pink blanket? Jane Tanner was adamant that the child she saw being carried wasn't wrapped up. And if creche Dad did use this blanket then she couldn't possibly see what Pyjama's the child was wearing.

That is odd! Also the PJ bottoms appear to be blue with an orange band at the bottom of the legs (shown after the above shot in Crimewatch)...nothing like what Jane Tanner described with her 'pinky aspect' or, according to the artist impression, the lace trim at the bottom of the legs. Surely she couldn't have been that mistaken? If the above photo is right then it seems the only way Jane Tanner could have given a description of 'pinky aspect' is if she was told what Madeleine had been wearing?

I'm wondering if SY needed to get rid of Bundleman but the only way to do that without calling Jane Tanner a liar was to create the father? According to the map that was shown on Crimewatch it looked as if the night crèche was to the right of the complex, if so then the father was walking towards it, not away from it. Or did I imagine that part?

I've got a feeling the father doesn't exist, at least until proven otherwise.

by sallypelt Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:40 pm

Jaci wrote:
Daisy wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

what I don't get, is why 'innocent creche Dad' produced a (rather large) pink blanket? Jane Tanner was adamant that the child she saw being carried wasn't wrapped up. And if creche Dad did use this blanket then she couldn't possibly see what Pyjama's the child was wearing.
That is odd! Also the PJ bottoms appear to be blue with an orange band at the bottom of the legs (shown after the above shot in Crimewatch)...nothing like what Jane Tanner described with her 'pinky aspect' or, according to the artist impression, the lace trim at the bottom of the legs. Surely she couldn't have been that mistaken? If the above photo is right then it seems the only way Jane Tanner could have given a description of 'pinky aspect' is if she was told what Madeleine had been wearing?

I'm wondering if SY needed to get rid of Bundleman but the only way to do that without calling Jane Tanner a liar was to create the father? According to the map that was shown on Crimewatch it looked as if the night crèche was to the right of the complex, if so then the father was walking towards it, not away from it. Or did I imagine that part?

I've got a feeling the father doesn't exist, at least until proven otherwise.

Six and a half years and the pjs are still available. How fantastic is that, hey?

Oh, and the street lights were "orange" so there is no way that colours would have shown up true.

Latest topics