Re: Innocent British Father

by ultimaThule 01.03.14 22:11

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 suspect they are and have been monitored for some considerable time, canada12. I also suspect there was good reason for the CW programme to be broadcast live from Cardiff rather than London.

The McCanns used the wardship proceedings in an attempt to prise some 11,000 documents out of Leicestershire police. They had to settle for c81 and I very much doubt the returned questionnaires Leics police sent to those MW holidaymakers the PJ were unable to interview were among them, otherwise AR may not have been able to so emphatiically eliminate Tannerman from SY's investigation abeit this fact does not appear to have been conveyed to the lifestyle fund's webmaster.

by aiyoyo 01.03.14 22:41

The Mccanns & friends records too would undoubtedly come under close scrutiny, as is logical.

by canada12 01.03.14 23:10

ultimaThule wrote: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 suspect they are and have been monitored for some considerable time, canada12. I also suspect there was good reason for the CW programme to be broadcast live from Cardiff rather than London.

The McCanns used the wardship proceedings in an attempt to prise some 11,000 documents out of Leicestershire police. They had to settle for c81 and I very much doubt the returned questionnaires Leics police sent to those MW holidaymakers the PJ were unable to interview were among them, otherwise AR may not have been able to so emphatiically eliminate Tannerman from SY's investigation abeit this fact does not appear to have been conveyed to the lifestyle fund's webmaster.

IIRC the only documents they were allowed were the ones relating to people who had initially contacted the McCanns through their hotline, and who the McCanns had then referred on to the police. I think this likely excluded any that had bypassed the McCann hotline and gone straight to the police, or those that had the police had contacted directly. It amazes me that they were even allowed those documents. But who knows whether they were given complete dossiers, or only collections of documents that they knew about anyway.

by marconi 01.03.14 23:53

But where is Madeleine's pink blanket? It was on the bed, but seems to have disappeared with her.[/quote]
============================================================================================================================
Not with her but after she disappeared, The police took pictures of it on her bed, that same night and it vanished later on.

by ultimaThule 01.03.14 23:59

It appears that some members of the public chose to bypass the McCanns' ~~lukewarm~~ 'hot'line and made contact with their solicitors, the somewhat grandiosely titled 'International Family Law Group' which, in common with a number of other new business ventures, came into being on the back of Madeleine's disappearance, canada12.

For reasons which are entirely beyond me but were no doubt in accordance with their clients' instructions, IFLG did not make notes of any conversations the firm engaged in with these callers and, as was told to Mrs Justice Hogg, simply passed their names and contact details on to Leicestershire police.

In effect, the 'documents' or information Leics police agreed to hand over to the McCanns consisted of that which should have already have been known to them if the newly formed group of ambulance chasing solicitors they appointed to act in the wardship proceedings had done their job thoroughly.

The Mccanns & friends records too would undoubtedly come under close scrutiny, as is logical. NSY's remit is to 'investigate the abduction as if it occurred in the UK' and, as the reported abduction occured some 7 years ago with no credible sighting of the child during that time, I have no doubt that the letters MIT visible on the door of AR's team indicate that he is heading a murder investigation in the course of which the McCanns and the Tapas 7, together with any of their known associates who are deemed to be of interest, will be subject to intense scrutiny, aiyoyo.

In short these individuals can expect every aspect of their lives, both before and after the event and up to the present day, to be gone through with a fine tooth comb and, to coin a phrase, no stone will be left unturned in pursuit of the perpetrators of this most heinous of crimes.

The pink blanket doesn't have a part to play in this thread, marconi, but no doubt it is of interest to both NSY and the PJ.

by marconi 02.03.14 0:04

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tiny, my theory is that Tanner told the truth to the Yard, asking them to clean up her name. That was the moment when the creche man was born.

by aiyoyo 02.03.14 9:07

marconi 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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tiny, my theory is that Tanner told the truth to the Yard, asking them to clean up her name. That was the moment when the creche man was born.

There we go again, same old ....same old tripe......

So according to you she told the truth to the Yard and they're still waiting taxpayers money chasing burglars ......bloody marvellous don't you think ....that a bunch of top cops are still trying to crack the mystery despite given the opportunity to crack JT ?

So JT approaches Grange, told them she invented the man, that they should take him out of the equation, and also that they should clear her name by making a public announcement about the elimination, and they did just that - "did as they are told" eh?
They didn't question her why she lied (perverting the course of justice, a punishable crime ) they didn't ask her what happened to Madeleine, what she knows about it, what happened that night or when it happened, or why she covered up for her friends (another serious crime punishable by law) in the mockumentary, no nothing eh? They asked her nothing? Don't they want to solve the crime ?

This is despite her & friends having sued the press and got compensated handsomely for it. All this while she deceived the world and then suddenly out of the blue she decides to tell Yard elite cops she lied in exchange for clearing her name. They complied to her wish by coming up with an elaborated story - man and ageing-clothes complete with a pic of the man - and did nothing else, and there's with no consequences for her or her friends?

Do you think your theory makes sense ?
Give us an idea how you think your theory can apply in the real world? I'm sure people would be interested to hear how you arrived at the theory and how it works.

by Angelique 26.03.14 8:49

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

Not sure this is the correct thread to place this - Admin please move if wrong.

This article has posed a very interesting angle. Did/does Andy not realise that if Crecheman is just a ploy that he may have actually "joined" with TM spin machine?

This Crecheman may at some point have to be produced, speak, confirm etc.

Can a witness be conjured up by investigating Police and not actually produce said witness. Will the investigating Portuguese request information on him - an ILOR?

by Doug D 26.03.14 11:43

Followed up by this one:

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

by bodiddly 27.03.14 17:21

Maybe I am odd but I have never carried a child in that fashion and I have never seen anyone else other than a rescue worker, carry a child like that. Therefore I find it very odd that an apparent father, would carry a healthy sleeping child in this manner.
Maybe JT's (fictional version) was of her last memory of MM being carried by a "rescue person" ie someone within the group who tried to help MM.

by Watching 27.03.14 23:01

bodiddly wrote:Maybe I am odd but I have never carried a child in that fashion and I have never seen anyone else other than a rescue worker, carry a child like that. Therefore I find it very odd that an apparent father, would carry a healthy sleeping child in this manner.
Maybe JT's (fictional version) was of her last memory of MM being carried by a "rescue person" ie someone within the group who tried to help MM.

No, you're not odd not a usual way to carry a child. PeterMac I think it was posted pic of a rescue worker a while back making same point you have. Agree with you both.

by bodiddly 27.03.14 23:36

I missed PM's post ref that. Will check back on this thread. I presume it is here? Thank you

by Angelique 28.03.14 7:38

bodiddly wrote:Maybe I am odd but I have never carried a child in that fashion and I have never seen anyone else other than a rescue worker, carry a child like that. Therefore I find it very odd that an apparent father, would carry a healthy sleeping child in this manner.
Maybe JT's (fictional version) was of her last memory of MM being carried by a "rescue person" ie someone within the group who tried to help MM.

I think that too - I think she used a description of that someone for this purpose.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 28.03.14 9:17

bodiddly wrote:Maybe I am odd but I have never carried a child in that fashion and I have never seen anyone else other than a rescue worker, carry a child like that. Therefore I find it very odd that an apparent father, would carry a healthy sleeping child in this manner.
Maybe JT's (fictional version) was of her last memory of MM being carried by a "rescue person" ie someone within the group who tried to help MM.

In the "Mystery of Madeleine McCann" Panorama special, Tanner slipped and said "I carried...", so I'm fairly certain that she carried Maddie at some point. My theory is that it was to move her dead body from behind the sofa to the parents' bedroom.

On carrying the child, I've carried my children like that occasionally. Only in specific situations. Usually, if one of my children has fallen asleep on the couch, or anywhere that they can lie down, I'll pick them up and keep them in the same position so as not to wake them, and put them gently in bed. Strong as I am though (!), it's the most strenuous way of carrying a person imaginable, so not something you would do over long distances. And I would normally hold them in a much higher position, with the head resting on my shoulder or bicep.

However, the sketches of Tannerman look to me like somebody carrying a dead body. In my opinion, she was describing how she would (and did) carry the body.

Also, Tannerman was carrying Maddie the wrong way around, if he had picked her up out of bed she was supposed to have been in.

All academic really - in my opinion Tannerman is fictional, and Crecheman was possibly in the resort at around the same time with his child but not in the way Tanner described, not in the same location, and not going in the same direction.

by Watching 28.03.14 12:25

bodiddly wrote:I missed PM's post ref that. Will check back on this thread. I presume it is here? Thank you

It was some time back bodiddly and on another thread will try and locate it for you.

by bodiddly 28.03.14 23:24

Thank you Watching and to the above posters for their comments.

It has always been one of the oddest things for me from the beginning. It looks like a man carrying a dead or injured child from a wreckage/fire/ or as GM would say a "disaster".

Completely get the above poster whatsbehindthesofa's theory on JT. Food for thought there.

by **tigger** 29.03.14 8:38

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
bodiddly wrote:Maybe I am odd but I have never carried a child in that fashion and I have never seen anyone else other than a rescue worker, carry a child like that. Therefore I find it very odd that an apparent father, would carry a healthy sleeping child in this manner.
Maybe JT's (fictional version) was of her last memory of MM being carried by a "rescue person" ie someone within the group who tried to help MM.

In the "Mystery of Madeleine McCann" Panorama special, Tanner slipped and said "I carried...", so I'm fairly certain that she carried Maddie at some point. My theory is that it was to move her dead body from behind the sofa to the parents' bedroom.

On carrying the child, I've carried my children like that occasionally. Only in specific situations. Usually, if one of my children has fallen asleep on the couch, or anywhere that they can lie down, I'll pick them up and keep them in the same position so as not to wake them, and put them gently in bed. Strong as I am though (!), it's the most strenuous way of carrying a person imaginable, so not something you would do over long distances. And I would normally hold them in a much higher position, with the head resting on my shoulder or bicep.

However, the sketches of Tannerman look to me like somebody carrying a dead body. In my opinion, she was describing how she would (and did) carry the body.

Also, Tannerman was carrying Maddie the wrong way around, if he had picked her up out of bed she was supposed to have been in.

All academic really - in my opinion Tannerman is fictional, and Crecheman was possibly in the resort at around the same time with his child but not in the way Tanner described, not in the same location, and not going in the same direction.

Add to that that ROB and JT have been helpful over and above what might be expected from them.
Add the bag of clothes - jeans and top? Etc. a find which was published around November 2007. (See timeline and McCannfiles) Add JT being very informative on NOT having taken her jeans on holiday and having to borrow ROB's fleece. Add to that that after the Rothley meeting it emerged they did have a baby monitor with them although their PJ statements were clear, they did not have one.
Perhaps Murat wasn't the only patsy. I feel that ROB and JT were tricked in some way.

Latest topics