Can Tannerman sue ?

by **PeterMac** 02.12.13 13:40

Tannerman, wrongly posted on the Find Madeleine website for 6 years as a principle suspect, and in fact named and cross referenced in the book as THE Abductor,
has been Traced, Interviewed and ELIMINATED
(Source: DCI Redwood. ('and surely Redwood is an honourable man . .'))
His name, address and circumstances are known, and a photo of him, albeit with a pixellated face, was released as proof of this.

Despite this the website continues weeks later to post his e-fit picture, and to identify him as a suspect. The book still cross references him as THE Abductor, which DCI Redwood says he is not
('and surely RedWood is an honourable man . .')

Is he not now being defamed in the grossest way, 24 hours a day, across the entire web reading world ?
By the McCanns !

by Guest 02.12.13 13:47

Interesting that a certain pro on twitter said earlier the that it should remain there for now by SY!

by aiyoyo 02.12.13 14:06

But...but...but but..but..but. if they remove him, where would that leave their abduction theory?

Where is the evidence a beast took her away when nothing's seen, heard, no hallmark left behind, no tell tale sign of entry, zilch nothing - where does that leave their story? They convinced themselves they've to have him as possible tangible proof of a possible abduction.

According to Mitchell that is their "real" truth. A "real" truth they've been telling the world for 6-1/2 years.
How to back track now that Redwood disproved their "real" truth is a fallacy without looking ridiculous?
They cant rewrite the script without looking ridiculous.

by **PeterMac** 02.12.13 14:13

You mean they needed "evidence" to claim Abduction ? ? ?
Surely not.
Kate knew. (knew)
That should be enough for anyone.
And remember that Kate knew, knew, that there had been an abduction 24 hours before her best friend bothered to tell her

by aiyoyo 02.12.13 14:21

In answer to the thread, if Redwood's Tannerman exists he could sue for the simple logic that the Mccanns are adamant to show him on their site as the abductor when he is already cleared by the Police.

The question has to be : if there is no Tannerman as told by Tanner, is there a Tennerman as told by Redwood?
Is Tanner's man and Redwood's Tannerman just an imaginative manifestation born out of necessity to fit a purpose?

If so, what would be their respective purpose?

by Guest 02.12.13 14:26

aiyoyo wrote:
The question has to be : if there is no Tannerman as told by Tanner, is there a Tennerman as told by Redwood?
Is Tanner's man and Redwood's Tannerman just an imaginative manifestation born out of necessity to fit a purpose?

If so, what would be their respective purpose?

Now that is a VERY good question.

One of the ways I could justify Tannerman would be if he was the actual father of whoever was filling in for Maddie that week, "kidnapping" his own child back from them either with or without their prior agreement.

by ultimaThule 02.12.13 14:31

It would be a case of defamation if the entirely innocent Mr Crecheman, as we now know him to be, had been wrongly named and shamed as being the mysterious 'abductor', but for so long as his true identity is protected by the nom de plume 'Tannerman', Mr C doesn't have a case in law.

However, should an equally innocent Mr Tannerman have been going about his usual business in the vicinity of 5a on the night in question he may have just cause to issue a writ yes

I love the vastness of the phrase 'entire web reading world' PeterMac but, given the numbers of illiterati who dwell within, that world may be considerably smaller than it may appear to be on first sight big grin

by ultimaThule 02.12.13 14:35

candyfloss wrote:Interesting that a certain pro on twitter said earlier the that it should remain there for now by SY!

Whenever I enter the weird and wonderful realm of twitter I find myself channelling Mandy Rice-Davies and I suspect this is another case of 'well, they would, wouldn't they' big grin

by Lance De Boils 02.12.13 14:43

For libel/slander, the identity of Tannerman would need to have been made known to others outside of the official investigating authorities. As it stands, we have been given no name and not enough clues as to his id.

Without knowing who he is, he might just as well be the "bogey-man".

So no, I don't think libel is possible at this stage.

by aiyoyo 02.12.13 14:56

Isn't that the point?
Why the total secrecy and silence over this man's identity?
Is it comprehensible for Police to keep every aspect of his identity total secret?
Is it normal for jounalist/reporter not to nose out who the man might be?
Is it normal for a father to keep his child outgrown pyjamas for 6 years?
Where has this father been for the last 6 years that he's not heard about the Mccanns case or Tannerman?
Lastly, say if he'd been living in a jungle devoid of news, how did he suddenly learn about Op Grange (that has been ongoing for two years) to have approached Redwood?

by ultimaThule 02.12.13 15:05

It seems to me the material fact is that Tannerman is no more and in his demise he has removed the central plank of the Tapas 9's defence - namely that their whereabouts was accounted for at what they purported to be was the crucial time.

by Pershing36 02.12.13 15:27

Has Redwood actually spoken out and eliminated him?

I read the article in the Mail but have missed him being eliminated by SY.

by ultimaThule 02.12.13 15:29

Pershing36 wrote:Has Redwood actually spoken out and eliminated him?

I read the article in the Mail but have missed him being eliminated by SY.

As I understand it, the elimination of Tannerman was the 'revelation' as foretold by Redwood in the trailers which preceded the UK edition of Crimewatch in October of this year.

by Guest 02.12.13 16:04

aiyoyo wrote:Isn't that the point?
Why the total secrecy and silence over this man's identity?
Is it comprehensible for Police to keep every aspect of his identity total secret?
Is it normal for jounalist/reporter not to nose out who the man might be?
Is it normal for a father to keep his child outgrown pyjamas for 6 years?
Where has this father been for the last 6 years that he's not heard about the Mccanns case or Tannerman?
Lastly, say if he'd been living in a jungle devoid of news, how did he suddenly learn about Op Grange (that has been ongoing for two years) to have approached Redwood?

I thought SY had tracked him down from night creche records?

by aiyoyo 02.12.13 16:22

PeterMac wrote:You mean they needed "evidence" to claim Abduction ? ? ?
Surely not.
Kate knew. (knew)
That should be enough for anyone.
And remember that Kate knew, knew, that there had been an abduction 24 hours before her best friend bothered to tell her

Yes they needed "evidence" to support their baloney.
Without it (Tannerman that is) their abduction theory has no leg to stand on.
It's their 'evidence' for their claim of abduction, nothing to do with crime scene evidence, that's a different matter.

Kate knew[, of course she did. We believe her on this don't we - that she knew ( exactly what happened to Madeleine).
That's why there was and still is no urgency on her part to run after or catch Tannerman, or blame her friend for not telling her earlier, or remove him from their site despite Redwood's proclamation he is creche man.

by Pershing36 02.12.13 17:31

ultimaThule wrote:
Pershing36 wrote:Has Redwood actually spoken out and eliminated him?

I read the article in the Mail but have missed him being eliminated by SY.
As I understand it, the elimination of Tannerman was the 'revelation' as foretold by Redwood in the trailers which preceded the UK edition of Crimewatch in October of this year.

Ok, I just thought I missed something like an announcement.

I fear again it will be put down to interpretation of the Tannerman. To be honest I do not believe for a second the guy who was in the Daily Fail was even there. It would be interesting to find out who found him after 6 years and put him forward.

Unless he was living on Mars I can't believe he missed all of this till recently.

by aiyoyo 02.12.13 18:01

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Isn't that the point?
Why the total secrecy and silence over this man's identity?
Is it comprehensible for Police to keep every aspect of his identity total secret?
Is it normal for jounalist/reporter not to nose out who the man might be?
Is it normal for a father to keep his child outgrown pyjamas for 6 years?
Where has this father been for the last 6 years that he's not heard about the Mccanns case or Tannerman?
Lastly, say if he'd been living in a jungle devoid of news, how did he suddenly learn about Op Grange (that has been ongoing for two years) to have approached Redwood?

I thought SY had tracked him down from night creche records?

You mean MET took 2-1/2 years to track him down despite creche records and resort guest records?

And then what - they told him to bring along the 6-year-old-out-of-date child pyjamas and the outfits he wore that night to the Police Station?
And, did they make him wear that outfit so that they could photograph him for purpose of release to the press?
Was he aware, as in told, his photographed image along with the pyjamas was going onto National Press?
More pertinently, can anyone believe that a man who did not want his identity revealed agreeing to have his pic (albeit pixel form) appeared in the media/press?

Why would a father agree to be subjected to that elaborated process just to prove he was carrying his child home?
Surely his sworn statement should suffice since the legitimacy of him being guest at the resort was tracked down from Creche records.
It makes no sense that any man would let Police subject him to that kind of fussy nonsensical treatment especially since they got to him from records.
Even if he'd approached Redwood out of the blue it still makes no sense that he'd bring those items as he's under no obligation to disprove Tannerman.

Back to topic.
Does Tannerman exist - Tanner vision or Police version?
Is Mccanns blatant defiance of SY because they knew SY is clueless?

by SixMillionQuid 02.12.13 18:15

aiyoyo wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Isn't that the point?
Why the total secrecy and silence over this man's identity?
Is it comprehensible for Police to keep every aspect of his identity total secret?
Is it normal for jounalist/reporter not to nose out who the man might be?
Is it normal for a father to keep his child outgrown pyjamas for 6 years?
Where has this father been for the last 6 years that he's not heard about the Mccanns case or Tannerman?
Lastly, say if he'd been living in a jungle devoid of news, how did he suddenly learn about Op Grange (that has been ongoing for two years) to have approached Redwood?

I thought SY had tracked him down from night creche records?
You mean MET took 2-1/2 years to track him down despite creche records and resort guest records?

And then what - they told him to bring along the 6-year-old-out-of-date child pyjamas and the outfits he wore that night to the Police Station?
And, did they make him wear that outfit so that they could photograph him for purpose of release to the press?
Was he aware, as in told, his photographed image along with the pyjamas was going onto National Press?
More pertinently, can anyone believe that a man who did not want his identity revealed agreeing to have his pic (albeit pixel form) appeared in the media/press?

Why would a father agree to be subjected to that elaborated process just to prove he was carrying his child home?
Surely his sworn statement should suffice since the legitimacy of him being guest at the resort was tracked down from Creche records.
It makes no sense that any man would let Police subject him to that kind of fussy nonsensical treatment especially since they got to him from records.
Even if he'd approached Redwood out of the blue it still makes no sense that he'd bring those items as he's under no obligation to disprove Tannerman.

Back to topic.
Does Tannerman exist - Tanner vision or Police version?
Is Mccanns blatant defiance of SY because they knew SY is clueless?

Having watched the CW program I was under the impression that Redwoods Tannerman appeared out of thin air after six years, for no particular reason, then promptly disappeared into obscurity. I dont recall the SY finding him from any records...he just 'wooshed' and there he is.

by ultimaThule 02.12.13 19:45

My understanding is that, as NSY would have it, expert sleuthing discovered the existence of a night creche 'near' to 5a and making contact with all of the parents/carers who'd used this service on the night in question led to the 'revelation' that the suspect Tannerman was in fact the totally innocent Mr Crecheman, a father who carried his small pyjama-clad small daughter back to their holiday accomodation after collecting her from the facility c9pm and whose path would have put him crossing the road at the time JT spotted him.

Mr Crecheman was able to recall the colour and style of clothes he was wearing at the time which matched the description given by JT, and was also able to recall the colour and style of the pyjamas worn by his daughter which, under street lighting, could have been mistaken for those worn by Madeleine McCann when she was taken from her bed.

It wasn't clear to me whether the pyjamas exhibited on Crimewatch were the actual pyjamas or whether they had been obtained from the manufacturer/charity shop, but so anxious was Mr Crecheman to be of assistance he willingly posed for a police camera wearing clothing similar to that which he'd worn on his MW holiday in May 2007 and, with his face obscured, the sideways shot of him bore an unmistakeable likeness to the man seen by JT who was originally known as 'eggman'.

With regard to this aspect of the investigation, as the Bard would have it, all's well that ends well; JT has been vindicated and Tannerman has been eliminated from the enquiry.

It's no less than a veritable triumph of Andy Redwood's deductive powers and it shows the value of taking a 'draw it back to zero'
approach to the events immediately preceeding Madeleine's disappearance which, from the various statements of the Tapas 9, we now know could not have occurred before c9.50pm.

by russiandoll 03.12.13 8:59

I am intrigued by Pinky's statement, did he really say those memorable words  REAL TRUTH ?

   Can anyone give me an example of an unreal truth? We might be entering Monty Python or League of Gentlemen surreal here, but I am really perplexed.

   I wonder if there is anyone in the UK with the surname Tannerman? How unfortunate if so !

   The revelation of Tannerman is brilliant, whether he is a real truth [ TIED] or not [ an unreal truth] his being identified as crecheman is a huge development.

In my opinion, an unreal Tannerman can only sue for a real libel in an unreal court where he has been identified as a real abductor in a real abduction case.

Don't moan at me, confusion is good, or so I am told.

big grin

by worriedmum 03.12.13 9:34

RD, ''In my opinion, an unreal Tannerman can only sue for a real libel in an unreal court where he has been identified as a real abductor in a real abduction case.''

rotfl

by **tigger** 03.12.13 9:42

worriedmum wrote:RD, ''In my opinion, an unreal Tannerman can only sue for a real libel in an unreal court where he has been identified as a real abductor in a real abduction case.''

A hologram? Could be constructed, appear in court and be awarded damages.

by Guest 03.12.13 9:56

tigger wrote:

A hologram? Could be constructed, appear in court and be awarded damages.

That's like a metaphor for this entire case.

by worriedmum 03.12.13 9:59

I know it's OT but does anyone else get an urge to start making lists of Christmas cake ingredients when they see this e-fit? big grin

(slaps self on wrists)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by aiyoyo 03.12.13 10:14

It might be a real case of TWO wondering sides!

Police wondering whether Tannerman is Real, and Tanner wondering whether Crecheman is Real.

Just imagine Tannerman is unreal but crecheman is real, wouldn't that be really freaky? That must freak out the bunch of real liars!

Who the hell knows what is real truth or what is not the real truth? It's another real mysterious.

For all we know. the only real truth in this may be Tanner real stratagem is matched by Redwood real stratagem.

It's easy to understand why Tanner came up with the stratagem, while Redwood's one if it is that would not be easy to understand by the other side (or would it)?

I

by Guest 03.12.13 10:17

Worried mum: or perhaps a nice spotted dick?

For non UK residents, I rush to add a definition of what that is.

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

by aiyoyo 03.12.13 10:26

Good Grief, who's baking fruitcake for Christmas?

by **PeterMac** 03.12.13 10:52

aiyoyo wrote:

Good Grief, who's baking fruitcake for Christmas?

You should have done it a long time ago, but it will still be OK if you pour enough port into the middle.
Then, like Hancock all those blissful years ago, you can squeeze it out on Boxing Day !

by **PeterMac** 03.12.13 10:58

aiyoyo wrote:
It might be a real case of TWO wondering sides!
Police wondering whether Tannerman is Real, and Tanner wondering whether Crecheman is Real.
Just imagine Tannerman is unreal but crecheman is real, wouldn't that be really freaky? That must freak out the bunch of real liars!
Who the hell knows what is real truth or what is not the real truth? It's another real mysterious.
For all we know. the only real truth in this may be Tanner real stratagem is matched by Redwood real stratagem.
It's easy to understand why Tanner came up with the stratagem, while Redwood's one if it is that would not be easy to understand by the other side (or would it)?

It is a lovely scenario.
Just suppose
1 JT invented Tannerman, but Redwood has said he has found him.
What should she do now ?
2 JT has no idea whether Smithman exists or is an invention
What should she do ?
3 JT has no idea whether Smithman is part of a Redwood strategy to get her to confess to 1 above.
What should she do ?
>
>
>

by Angelique 03.12.13 11:15

No - what is really happening is that Redwood has become contaminated by the "Tanner Hallucinating Syndrome" and has invented one for himself.

It doesn't matter if its a different one i.e. Crecheman as longs as he has one and is part of the team.