Innocent British Father

sallypelt wrote:

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.

Not only that but he and the smiths sighting man were dressed very similar, the chances of all this are getting slimmer!

Jaci wrote: 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?

Indeed, so - as I said earlier on this thread - contrary to CW's claim, the Bundleman sighting hasn't been eliminated and JT should contact NSY to tell them that her sighting is still valid

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?

I agree with you - it's rather strange.  It's not as if Jane's 'bundleman' derailed the investigation in the way, say that Wearside Jack derailed the Yorkshire Ripper investigation. I always got the impression that no-one took it really seriously and even at the time many commented that it could easily have been someone carrying a child back from a crèche. Like you I always considered the actual window of opportunity to be the time between checkups when the children were left on their own and I'm sure the police in both countries thought the same.  Jane really wasn't very convincing and the fact that she did nothing like run after the so-called abductor suggested that she didn't think it was her friend's child he was carrying.

Also in police investigations it's surely normal to follow up more than one line of enquiry.  Surely the sensible thing would be to keep an open mind?

sallypelt wrote:
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.

Nothing odd about that IMO as my kids still have clothes that old they still wear  

Having said that, Redwood gave little details about this sighting i.e. was the father alone while carrying the child and in what direction. I feel certain if these details are known, right-thinking people will conclude he's not the same as the mythical bundleman. He's not swarthy for a start and looks nothing like Murat.

ShuBob wrote:

sallypelt wrote:
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.

Nothing odd about that IMO as my kids still have clothes that old they still wear  

Having said that, Redwood gave little details about this sighting i.e. was the father alone while carrying the child and in what direction. I feel certain if these details are known, right-thinking people will conclude he's not the same as the mythical bundleman. He's not swarthy for a start and looks nothing like Murat.

I don't mean to sound as if I'm contradicting you ShuBob, I thought Redwood was implying that Jane Tanner's Bundleman is the supposed father who  has now come forward? 

According to UK Crimewatch, the father had collected his child from the night crèche but also according to UK Crimewatch, that night crèche is on the right of the map which means that Bundleman/Father was walking towards it (according to what Jane Tanner is supposed to have seen) which doesn't make sense.

Not that I believe there ever was a Bundleman (and having a hard time believing a father has come forward) but for clarity does anyone know for sure that the night creche is where Crimewatch says it is? I don't know why but I thought it was in the same area as the day one?

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

For a long time Tannerman admitted of only two possibilities.
1 Tanner DID see a man, or
2 she did NOT.

The addition of Redwood’s Crecheman admits two more
1 Redwood HAS traced the man, or
2 he has NOT.

And this in turn ought to increase the possibilities to four, 2 x 2, but in fact it leaves only three.
Let us consider the following combinations

Tanner DID see a man and Redwood HAS traced him
Comment :   Extremely unlikely, given the
•  lack of front page story in the Express,
•  lack of even an appeal by the tabloids for him to come forward and give his story,
•  7 years living like a trappist monk,
•  keeping 7 year old pyjamas  
•  total lack of urgency in seeking Smithman
and so on.
The McCanns specifically accuse Redwood of lying on this point, as they continue to show Tannerman on their website as a person to be traced.
Conclusion : Not absolutely impossible, but extremely improbable

Tanner DID see a man and Redwood has NOT traced him
This was surely the perfect scenario not only for the McCanns, but also for Redwood if he wished to perform a whitewash, as it would leave the ‘abduction’  as a unsolved possibility for all time.
But Redwood has chosen NOT to go down this route

Tanner did NOT see a man and Redwood has NOT traced him
This is not logically possible, even by the extraordinary standards of this case. (Though it would also serve to assist a whitewash. Again, Redwood has not gone down this route)

Tanner did NOT see a man and Redwood [says] he HAS traced him
This is the most interesting scenario
Tanner’s protestations that she was telling the truth, even from the first statement, swearing on all things sacred, and subsequently in her rogatory, when analysed show many of the classic signs of fabrication.
We know that none of the investigating teams believed it, Jez Wilkins and indeed Gerry specifically deny even seeing Tanner.

But Redwood went on national television, prime time, in a matter of international importance, and assured the world that he had traced interviewed and eliminated Crecheman, even providing a helpful photo to prove this.
And as above, the McCanns are calling him a liar, by keeping Tannerman on their site as someone to to be traced.

Why would he do this ?
Remember that a DCI would not do this on his own. He would need official approval at fairly high level to mislead the world in this way. And a very good reason for so doing.
What might that reason be ?
The first thing that has happened is that the McCanns have refused to give up Tannerman, even though Redwood offered them Smithman in his place.
Why ?
Surely because without Tannerman there can be no abduction
Smithman, even if he exists, is at best a loving father taking a child home to bed.  The timing of the alleged sighting does not permit any plausible scenario to be developed.  (Plausible in the McCann sense, of course)

Has Redwood, by getting rid of Tannerman, simply flagged up to the entire Team McCann that he is no longer accepting Abduction, even as a working hypothesis?
Is he inviting the Tapas group to tell the truth ?
First to my office gets immunity, the rest get a charge of conspiracy to pervert.

The silence of the Express is deafening.
The main suspect in the most notorious case in the last decade has been found and interviewed, and not one front page had even an invented interview with him ?
Really ?
Were the Editors of the tabloids briefed that this was a ploy ?

Thank you PeterMac for that very well thought out post. I do find the media silence on this 'crecheman' very telling. An interview with that guy, even an invented interview, would sell a lot of newspapers.

Anyone here keep pjs for 6 years, handing them down to various children?  It would have to be multiple new wearers of the pjs given the rate children grow in that length of time. The child who wore them after crechedaughter outgrew them would now have well outgrown them herself, or maybe himself if he did not object to a floral print.
 So used for maybe 2 more children. That pattern would be worn off by now- but we saw pjs with a print that looked very clear to me.
 As for the hygiene issue...I don't care how well they washed, it would be like giving one child another child's underwear. 

UNBELIEVABLE.
 
 It is a tricky business though inventing a person, the defence would be up in arms in a court.

 Depending on what the prosecution put forward however as a reason why it had to be done, SY might not get their wrist slapped.

It's my understanding that Crecheman 'came forward' in 2007 by responding to one of the questionnaires Leics police, at the request of the PJ, sent to those MW guests who returned to the UK on 5 May and whose scheduled departure prevented the PJ from interviewing them before they left. 

With regard to the pyjamas, as it's not unusual for growing families to keep infants/childrens' clothing in the event of further expansion and it's common practice for clothing manufacturers to retain samples of lines they have produced, I don't see anything particularly odd about these particular jammies being available after a period of six years.   

While well washed but stained nightwear worn by one child may be seen as being akin to giving used underwear to another, I don't find handing down clean and unstained clothing of any description objectionable, albeit I personally would not give used knickers/underpants or socks and other footwear to another child.

I think redwood got tanner out of a sticky situation,there was no crechman and no pj,s, imo,but why he did this I have no idea.

@ PeterMac
The silence of the Express is deafening.
The main suspect in the most notorious case in the last decade has been found and interviewed, and not one front page had even an invented interview with him ?
Really ?
Were the Editors of the tabloids briefed that this was a ploy ?

Personally I think it would be too risky for Police to brief tabloids, and then having to trust they will remain silence.
If it was a ploy, and there's a need to brief the tabloids to stop them digging around, possibly the chiefs of the tabloids were briefed to leave the chap alone excusing it to his privacy, or excusing it to avoidance of jeopardising future trial since (I'm speculating here) he might be called as witness or used in identification parade.

Speaking on the back of your background, is it possible that their lawyer might ask for details of this man, and the Police might have to substantiate their claiT?

It is indeed odd that the dead Tractorman and his wife were plastered all over front pages, yet identity of Tannerman remains a mystery.

PeterMac wrote:


First to my office gets immunity, the rest get a charge of conspiracy to pervert.

Where's Bertie Smalls when you need him, Peter 

russiandoll wrote:Anyone here keep pjs for 6 years, handing them down to various children?  It would have to be multiple new wearers of the pjs given the rate children grow in that length of time. The child who wore them after crechedaughter outgrew them would now have well outgrown them herself, or maybe himself if he did not object to a floral print.
 So used for maybe 2 more children. That pattern would be worn off by now- but we saw pjs with a print that looked very clear to me.
 As for the hygiene issue...I don't care how well they washed, it would be like giving one child another child's underwear. 

UNBELIEVABLE.
 
 It is a tricky business though inventing a person, the defence would be up in arms in a court.

 Depending on what the prosecution put forward however as a reason why it had to be done, SY might not get their wrist slapped.

To give the opposite perspective, my oldest is now almost 10 and her brother now wears pajamas that she had when she was 2 - so almost 8 years. They are still wearable and I'm actually amazed by how well they've lasted! They are now a bit faded but lovely and soft. And not at  all unhygienic, I promise.

However, I could not tell you which pajamas she was wearing on a certain night of a certain holiday in 2007, no way.

tiny wrote:I think redwood got tanner out of a sticky situation,there was no crechman and no pj,s, imo,but why he did this I have no idea.

But my point is this.
By getting Tanner out of a "sticky situation", he has put the McCanns in an impossibly Sticky one, which they recognise by their refusal to accept what Redwood has told the world.
Why ?
Leaving Tannerman as unidentified would have been perfect for the Mccanns AND for SY if they wished simply to close the whole thing down.

I put the post below on another thread earlier tonight, might be better here. A fifth scenario, Tanner didn't see someone but SY have found Crecheman in case he's needed as a witness. As Petunia said on that thread, he probably won't have given interviews if his evidence is needed in court.

Dee Coy wrote:If we don't believe Tannerman exists, then Crecheman also cannot exist if, as Redwood states, Crecheman was seen in the same place, same time, same clothes etc. However, this does pose a problem if at a trial either side decide to call Crecheman as a witness.

What if the police have found someone who could pass for Tannerman in that he was carrying a child that night only NOT in the same place, time etc. Could Jane Tanner have been 'persuaded' to have her memory gently manipulated to admit her sighting may not have been exactly that place, time, etc, her being confused by the stress, drink and panic of the situation? Perhaps she has been pressed to amend the facts of Tannerman so he fits in with the Crecheman SY have found? Can JT have changed her story in order to retain her credibility? Or has she sung like a bird, confessed Tannerman was false, and cooperated with police to create a Crechman who will literally stand up in court?

All opinions expressed in this post are only theories - In my view, Smithman was GM carrying JT's sedated daughter to elicit a witness for an abduction.

The man carrying the child across both arms outstretched  in front of him was GM carrying a dead child to a nearby house, seen by JT, who told the truth but already knew it was GM.
GM had been interrupted by JW and had to temporarily place the body in the flower beds.

PeterMac wrote:

tiny wrote:I think redwood got tanner out of a sticky situation,there was no crechman and no pj,s, imo,but why he did this I have no idea.

But my point is this.
By getting Tanner out of a "sticky situation", he has put the McCanns in an impossibly Sticky one, which they recognise by their refusal to accept what Redwood has told the world.
Why ?
Leaving Tannerman as unidentified would have been perfect for the Mccanns AND for SY if they wished simply to close the whole thing down.

I wonder how they'd handle that in court, if challenged?

Q: Why do you refuse to believe that the individual Scotland Yard has produced is not the same individual that your friend Jane Tanner witnessed on that night?
A: We believe Scotland Yard invented that individual
Q: Why would you believe that?
A: Err... because ...err.... we know what Jane saw. Even though we know Gerry didn't see Jane. And Jane didn't tell us what she saw for hours and hours as she didn't want to upset us. because they're trying to frame us! Just like the inept and evil Portuguese police!

In my opinion!

Why not just circulate the e-fits if that was the focus and don't mention Tannerman at all if that never not the focus ?
If they believe Tannerman does not exist, why say anything at all, why not say nothing?
Or, if necessary why not just say simply Tannerman had been eliminated without further elaboration.
So the question has to be - why the need to invent Crecheman just to get JT out of a sticky situation when less is more.

I believe I have read that tannerman came forward years ago and said he carried his child . I think it maybe that was kept very quiet ,until the time it was needed  to be used.Jerry wilk. and gmac said they never saw jane walking near them on the night . It seems this will have some effect on some part of truth eventually ,not much of that has been easy to fit so far of other situations . joyce 1938

aiyoyo wrote:
Why not just circulate the e-fits if that was the focus and don't mention Tannerman at all if that never not the focus ?
If they believe Tannerman does not exist, why say anything at all, why not say nothing?
Or, if necessary why not just say simply Tannerman had been eliminated without further elaboration.
So the question has to be - why the need to invent Crecheman just to get JT out of a sticky situation when less is more.

Yes, I find the strangest aspect of all was the need to "show" us the man.  In any police investigation it is surely acceptable for SY to make a statement to confirm they have traced Mr X and following interviews they are now happy to rule him out.  

The charade of showing the public photographs of an un-identifiable man and a pair of pyjamas invites questions and ridicule from the public.  It just comes across as unprofessional and rather childish.

I couldn't agree more Sami.

It's a good thing that Andy Redwood is such an expert at keeping a straight face no matter how ridiculous the things he says.

As has been said before, it's also very strange that the tabloids haven't been falling over themselves to get an exclusive interview with the dear old dad who unwittingly caused so much confusion.

Catching up on posts re Tannerman, each one I read I think, ooh yes that could be an explanation! - only to end up at square one again.

One thing I am sure of: that night of the Mockumentary recon something snapped in JT. You could see it in her eyes and the way she looked at GM in disbelief. It was so obvious he was dismissing her claim as part of some cunning strategy to save his own skin. I believe she realised he had just landed her in a very invidious situation indeed and she began crying. Meanwhile, GM was intent on consolidating his story by physically demonstrating how he had been looking up at a wall (as JW was over six feet) and how he turned to the right to take his leave after their conversation, He was making certain there was NO possibility - recorded for the benefit of cameras - that he could physically have seen JT or Tannerman. There are too many variables for why he did this for me to settle on one, but the riddle and part of its answer lie in that put down of JT I feel sure.

I have no idea what has happened since regarding that denied testimony of hers - denied now by both the MET and GM, let us not forget - because there are liars of different hues involved. Nor do I not know what Redwood might have spun from this situation, and to what purpose, because I no longer trust in the MET to tell the truth either.

Was it a surprise to K & G when Crecheman was put forward on Crimewatch ?

And if so, do we not think that GM would immediately be pestering Andy for details of Crecheman ?  Andy can hardly say no and if he did say no, wouldn`t GM create even more of a hoo-ha.  GM would want to contact the man himself and quizz him.

joyce1938 wrote:I believe I have read that tannerman came forward years ago and said he carried his child . I think it maybe that was kept very quiet ,until the time it was needed  to be used.Jerry wilk. and gmac said they never saw jane walking near them on the night . It seems this will have some effect on some part of truth eventually ,not much of that has been easy to fit so far of other situations . joyce 1938

IF he was eliminated years back why not just say that?
Why the need to mention the 6-year old clothes he brought along?
Was it for the father to convince the Police, or was it for Police to convince the public Tannerman was Crecheman?
Why would Police need to convince the public of that aspect of the matter (which is trivial)  in the first place?

Either he was eliminated or he was not eliminated in the great scheme of things. And, if there's a need to announce that for whatever reason, the when where how is not relevant for the public to know.

The burning question has to be : What is the real purpose for that announcement, and for who in particular that absolutely needs to know?

sami wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:
Why not just circulate the e-fits if that was the focus and don't mention Tannerman at all if that never not the focus ?
If they believe Tannerman does not exist, why say anything at all, why not say nothing?
Or, if necessary why not just say simply Tannerman had been eliminated without further elaboration.
So the question has to be - why the need to invent Crecheman just to get JT out of a sticky situation when less is more.

Yes, I find the strangest aspect of all was the need to "show" us the man.  In any police investigation it is surely acceptable for SY to make a statement to confirm they have traced Mr X and following interviews they are now happy to rule him out.  

The charade of showing the public photographs of an un-identifiable man and a pair of pyjamas invites questions and ridicule from the public.  It just comes across as unprofessional and rather childish.

Yes, I find it rather ODD that MET saw fit to give us detail of something so trivial that serves no interest for public to know.
If that was a ploy mean to fool certain people there's no explainable reason why they need to give elaborate detail.
You would think Police keep their tricks up their sleeves and not reveal them to suspects.

Irrespective whether Tannerman exists or not, whether Grange believe he exists or not, or whether crecheman and his accessories exists or not, if the purpose of the Police is to show he's not their focus, then saying he is ruled out would suffice and that would be normal.

Even say if the idea is to get JT out of the sticky situation, why though is there a need for that (get her out of a situation I mean)?
Again, why the need to give detail when saying X is ruled out would suffice for this purpose.

How credible is it that the night records were not checked by the PJ as part of the original investigation ?  Were these really over looked ?

Redwood almost gave the impression that the night crèche was a big discovery on their part.  We all knew about  it.  Did the man come forward seven years ago to the PJ ?

Every investigation will have oversights and errors, usually only seen with the benefit of hindsight.  Reading the PJ files, to be fair, you are rarely, if ever, left with a feeling they overlooked something so fundamental to that night.  

This piece of information was handled so stangely - remember the trailers advertising the programme in advance, the big build up, the promise of the revelation ? Why ?

PeterMac wrote:

tiny wrote:I think redwood got tanner out of a sticky situation,there was no crechman and no pj,s, imo,but why he did this I have no idea.

But my point is this.
By getting Tanner out of a "sticky situation", he has put the McCanns in an impossibly Sticky one, which they recognise by their refusal to accept what Redwood has told the world.
Why ?
Leaving Tannerman as unidentified would have been perfect for the Mccanns AND for SY if they wished simply to close the whole thing down.

Therefore the possibility that the wish is not to close the whole thing, and eliminating Tannerman is indicative they're not looking at abduction.
That does not explain why Redwood came up with a Crecheman when it suffice just to say the man came forward and was ruled out.
We are in the dark as to what Redwood revelational moment was since it was not stated explicitly but implied.

Woofer wrote:Was it a surprise to K & G when Crecheman was put forward on Crimewatch ?

And if so, do we not think that GM would immediately be pestering Andy for details of Crecheman ?  Andy can hardly say no and if he did say no, wouldn`t GM create even more of a hoo-ha.  GM would want to contact the man himself and quizz him.

No one can realistically hope to ask, let alone pester, Police for anything without being told to F.O. if oversteps the marks.
Police are not obliged to give out operational details
What might happen is, if the case goes to trial, the Mccanns lawyer might want details of this innocent man because the imaginary character of JT is crucial to their abduction thesis.

aiyoyo wrote:

Woofer wrote:Was it a surprise to K & G when Crecheman was put forward on Crimewatch ?

And if so, do we not think that GM would immediately be pestering Andy for details of Crecheman ?  Andy can hardly say no and if he did say no, wouldn`t GM create even more of a hoo-ha.  GM would want to contact the man himself and quizz him.

No one can realistically hope to ask, let alone pester, Police for anything without being told to F.O. if oversteps the marks.
Police are not obliged to give out operational details
What might happen is, if the case goes to trial, the Mccanns lawyer might want details of this innocent man because the imaginary character of JT is crucial to their abduction thesis.  

Yes, one would hope that to be the case  ......  but aren`t SY supposed to be keeping the McCanns posted throughout this investigation - well, that`s what the McCanns would have us believe.  AR has also intimated so.   I can imagine the McCann`s believing that SY are carrying out the investigation for THEM ... as it is THEIR daughter that is missing; that David Cameron is carrying out THEIR wishes and that they should therefore be kept informed of every move.   If they are not, I can well believe that the McCanns would become suspicious of Andy Redwood and his team and become paranoid that things are not going along the path they wish.  If they haven`t been told who Crecheman is, they must be climbing the walls with paranoia.

I think, obviously, Crecheman was surprise to them, going by Kate's complete look of fear when the camera cut to her in an unrehearsed live moment during CW, and also judging by their current assertion on their website that Tannerman and Crecheman must be two different people. If they'd known about that in advance, it wouldn't have taken such a long time for the "new" appeal to help find Tannerman to appear on their website. It would have been ready to go and up there straight after the show.

But as for Kate and Gerry wanting to find out who Crecheman is and talk to him... I don't think they dare employ the same tactics they (IMO) employed years ago when they (IMO) sent their emissaries and legal people around to "lean on" certain individuals who didn't quite fit their version of events.

They wouldn't dare, because they have to know that Crecheman will have been briefed by AR, and if they so much as invited him to tea, it would be reported straight back to SY. I suspect also their phones and other communications are being monitored even more closely now than Kate and Gerry suspected they were in 2007-2008. I wonder if there have been any more of those high-level top secret meetings in local hotel conference rooms in the meantime.