Can Tannerman sue ?

I presumed crecheman was a poor PC who had to dress up and have a few pics taken.

If he is real and it took 2 and a half years to whittle down a few people leaving a creche the SY investigating has gone down hill.

PeterMac wrote:

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 ?
>
>
>

She might run to Mdm Healy and await obediently for another mcstratagem -- the kind soaked full of NZ baloney blanc to be squeezed out at McSpin festive.

WHY are the Met/SY still allowing the McCanns to portray 'Creche/Tannerman' on their website after they, SY/Met have publicly DISMISSED him as of importance?

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

FIFTY (50) days after DCI Andy Redwood 'eliminated' 'him' as relevent to investigation!

What IF 'somebody saw somebody' dressed in similar clothing, as Creche/Tannerman, in the street, today . tomorrow, next week and 'attacked/tried to arrest' him as the possible 'abductor' of Madeleine McCann?

Are SY/Met/ DCI Redwood going to take responsibility for that assault, they could have obviously 'prevented' by instructing the McCanns to STOP 'promoting' a 'suspect' they have dismissed?

Or is it the case, that SY/Met were TOLD, of a 'possible assault' (worse case scenario, death, like the recent case in Bristol)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
but, ignored the warning, and will 'apologise' AFTER an 'event' with 'we were told this might be a possibility due to our decision to leave a false suspect on our clients website.We'll refer ourselves to the IPCC and lessons will be learn't'

WHY are SY/Met allowing the McCanns to 'display' a 'suspect' and possibly put at risk an 'innocent' man, Christmas shopping with his young, blonde daughter, DCI Redwood has dismissed publicly?

METROPOLITAN POLICE, DCI REDWOOD, AS OF TODAY, 3RD DECEMBER 2013..........................................YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD!

The all new singing and dancing Tannerman equation

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

 

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

aiyoyo wrote:
She might run to Mdm Healy and await obediently for another mcstratagem -- the kind soaked full of NZ baloney blanc to be squeezed out at McSpin festive.  

I am dreading the festive McSpin which kicked off with the tear-jerking piece in the Express about KM, accompanied by the twins and surrounded by a posse of 'friends', having attended the annual turning on of Rothley's Christmas lights at the end of last month.

Will we be asked to put a penny into the hats of poor mothers of missing children everywhere around the world, or requested to bung a few quid into one pizza hat owned by a limited company whose 'donate online' facility continues to be in the process of being updated?

The way I see it, there's these possibilities:

1: only tannerman exists
2: tannerman is a fabrication
3: only crecheman exists
4: crecheman is a fabrication
5: crecheman is tannerman
6: crecheman and tannerman both exist independently

Each scenario changes the story and direction of the investigation. 

If (1) is true, we can eliminate JT as a co-conspirator and liar, that an abduction is possible, and deduce AR has alterior motives. 
If (2) is true, we can deduce JT is a liar and co-conspirator. Given that a lie of this magnitude would point authorities towards a massive waste of time and resources, resulting in a hampered investigation, and loss of valuable search direction, we can eliminate abduction. 
If (3) is true, JT cannot be placed on the road at the stated time. 
If (4) is true, AR has either created him to relieve JT of her lie for some reason, or to trap JT in a panic. 
If (5) is true, JT genuinely did see someone carrying their child and was therefore on the road at the given time
If (6) is true, JT's timeframe is bogus

Only one of these scenarios are possible. No matter which way you look at it, each scenario provides us with a liar... Except for scenario (5) 

and its Either JT or AR

It's not hard to see why SY are going with scenario (5)

I personally  of the opinion JT is cooperating with SY to some extent

Let's face it, it's all baloney.

If he really existed (Redwoodesque), he would have been TIED years ago. I feel sure of this because

a) he would have identified himself as a possibility to either or all of

i) the PJ,
ii)Crimestoppers,
iii) the McCanns' "hotline" or website
iv) one of a whole host of private detectives
v) someone else he knows

b) even if he "didn't bother" getting in touch with anyone himself, he would have been found very quickly by any investigator worth their salt, including

i) the PJ
ii) the numerous PIs employed to trace him (so the McCanns say)
iii) SY

Let's face it, if he was named in the creche records and it was recorded that he collected his daughter at about that time, it wouldn't take a genius to find him.

c) Even IF he failed to identify himself AND everyone investigating the case had been radically lobotomised, then surely somebody else would have named him as a possibility, for example

i) the staff at the creche
ii) a member of his family (if he was in the resort with a child, he was probably also with a wife/partner/family/friends)
iii) someone else he told
iv) another resort worker, local preson, holidaymaker who'd seen him with a child.



Yet we're expected it took 6.5 YEARS to trace, identify, and eliminate. SURE.

If this Redwoodesque man existed, I'll change my name to Biggus Dickus by deed poll.


I find it highly amusing trying to picture Tanner's reaction to SY actually finding the man she says she saw!

Imagine that? Imagine telling a big fat porkie and concocting a sighting of an phantom abductor, only for the Met to go and bloody find and eliminate him!

Lance De Boils wrote: [...] Imagine telling a big fat porkie and concocting a sighting of an phantom abductor, only for the Met to go and bloody find and eliminate him!

***
I feel like that occasionally too

jeanmonroe wrote:WHY are the Met/SY still allowing the McCanns to portray 'Creche/Tannerman' on their website after they, SY/Met have publicly DISMISSED him as of importance?

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

FIFTY (50) days after DCI Andy Redwood 'eliminated' 'him' as relevent to investigation!

What IF 'somebody saw somebody' dressed in similar clothing, as Creche/Tannerman, in the street, today . tomorrow, next week and 'attacked/tried to arrest' him as the possible 'abductor' of Madeleine McCann?

Are SY/Met/ DCI Redwood going to take responsibility for that assault, they could have obviously 'prevented' by instructing the McCanns to STOP 'promoting' a 'suspect' they have dismissed?

Or is it the case, that SY/Met were TOLD, of a 'possible assault' (worse case scenario, death, like the recent case in Bristol)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
but, ignored the warning, and will 'apologise' AFTER an 'event' with 'we were told this might be a possibility due to our decision to leave a false suspect on our clients website.We'll refer ourselves to the IPCC and lessons will be learn't'

WHY are SY/Met allowing the McCanns to 'display' a 'suspect' and possibly put at risk an 'innocent' man, Christmas shopping with his young, blonde daughter, DCI Redwood has dismissed publicly?

METROPOLITAN POLICE, DCI REDWOOD, AS OF TODAY, 3RD DECEMBER 2013..........................................YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD!

Absolutely bang on jeanmonroe. I couldn't agree more. Another example of preferential treatment.

I see the Mcs  keeping that eliminated sighting on their website is tantamount to perverting of course of justice.

I wonder how Jane Tanner is feeling, 6 1/2 years down the line? If I were in her shoes I would be feeling very uneasy indeed.

But hey, she's had plenty of friendly advice from this forum over the years about doing the right thing. It's just a shame she didn't follow it. Especially that marvellous video from HIdeHo appealing to the Tapas 7 to tell the truth.

I remember the captions that came up on that video at the end. Will you be forgiven? Maybe. Better to speak now than wait for your family to find out through the media,. And they will.

Imagine living your life waiting for the dawn arrest. Must spoil Christmas. Stress off the scale. I always comfort myself with that thought when I get mad.

PeterMac wrote:

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 !

HA HA HA, baking is not my forte.
I prefer my port pure, not murky full of fruitcake crumbs ....lol

Tannerman(Creche man) is there as the final safeguard to ensure the Macs are never found guilty of any criminal offence.  If the Macs were charged with anything including fraud, this IMO is how it would go.

Macs defence

DI Redwood can you produce creche man.  No. He has been guaranteed anonymity

Macs defence

You cannot, as he does not, nor his child exist.

Legal argument ensues

DI Redwood admits SY made it up to draw out the Macs and the tapas lot, but with the best possible intentions

Macs defence

So you admit you were lying then and I say to you, you are lying now, your investigation is worthless
My Lord, declare a mis-trial, on the grounds of false evidence and attempting to pervert the course of justice

Judge

"Mr and Mrs McCann you can leave this court without a stain on your character and I wish you well in the search for your daughter"

Tannerman is back as the abductor, as the Macs have said all along, JT is a most 'credible' witness 'again'. The fund can continue.

Redwood realises he has been stitched up by the Macs fund raiser Hyphen-Howe.  H-H covers for his boss who in turn is covering for his old school chum because thats what Eton boys do.  In 12 months Redwood is promoted for doing what he was told. 

The case is dropped, the Macs agree to finally shut up and wind the fund down and Madeleine is quietly forgotten except by a few 'internet nutters'.

Everyone involved has saved face, the case is now closed.
Abduction by a stranger, no further action,

Gerry becomes an MP, Kate the Child Care Czar.

RIPM wrote:Tannerman(Creche man) is there as the final safeguard to ensure the Macs are never found guilty of any criminal offence.  If the Macs were charged with anything including fraud, this IMO is how it would go.

Macs defence

DI Redwood can you produce creche man.  No. He has been guaranteed anonymity

Macs defence

You cannot, as he does not, nor his child exist.

Legal argument ensues

DI Redwood admits SY made it up to draw out the Macs and the tapas lot, but with the best possible intentions

Macs defence

So you admit you were lying then and I say to you, you are lying now, your investigation is worthless
My Lord, declare a mis-trial, on the grounds of false evidence and attempting to pervert the course of justice

Judge

"Mr and Mrs McCann you can leave this court without a stain on your character and I wish you well in the search for your daughter"

Tannerman is back as the abductor, as the Macs have said all along, JT is a most 'credible' witness 'again'. The fund can continue.

Redwood realises he has been stitched up by the Macs fund raiser Hyphen-Howe.  H-H covers for his boss who in turn is covering for his old school chum because thats what Eton boys do.  In 12 months Redwood is promoted for doing what he was told. 

The case is dropped, the Macs agree to finally shut up and wind the fund down and Madeleine is quietly forgotten except by a few 'internet nutters'.

Everyone involved has saved face, the case is now closed.
Abduction by a stranger, no further action,

Gerry becomes an MP, Kate the Child Care Czar.

Unless of course some internet nutter decides to make it a personal crusade to get to a truth.

or redwood has his witness and the prosecution applied to make him a witness of the court, if there would or could be a court case in the uk.

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

but until a witness takes actual stand before the court, you could let him go of as a false lead in the investigation, more easier if you do before the first court hearing, in this case there have been many false leads, so why not one other. it is not as if redwood just had his first day at his job. 

if there is, even with the tiniest chance there is , a real living person behind tannerman, the most interesting thing would be, what he did or did not see at a certain time out there. maybe his partner had filmed him that complete holiday, just because of the thrill of their first holiday together, with a brand new camera, a total fresh family, what even could explain the unhandy position of the child. 

even if tannerman was out there, jane is not in the clear, she has no witness of her actions or the time she said all was happening. she still could had made up her tannerman fantasy . only if redwood's tannerman is willing to state he did see jane at that time that part of her statement will hold. but what if he stated there was no other soul out there, all hanging with the existence of a real tannerman.

the tapas 9 had already given total hopeless witness statements, that also where made completely unbelievable because they make to much changes over time with lots of controverses en in the rest of the known statements. there is no way anyone could make a credible timeline from those.

aiyoyo wrote: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?

What about this scenario? Tannerman is a completely fictitious character, he exists solely to alibi GM and was invented because GM had been seen by the Smiths. Crecheman is also a fictitious character, invented by AR, to support the Tannerman sighting as that suits AR at present.
I think that AR knows Tannerman does not exist but can not show his hand at present so in order to move the timeline forward he has introduced Crecheman. I can't believe that Crecheman is real, this man who can now remember what he was wearing 6 years ago but obviously couldn't recognise himself in photofits at the time. This man who walked, carrying a child, past a crime scene that made global news of a child being abducted, but was somehow oblivious to letting this police know that maybe he was the 'prime suspect'. This is surely impossible. 
So, Crecheman exists because AR does not believe in Tannerman but wants the T9 to think he believes in Tannerman even if they themselves don't really believe in him either. As I said, I think AR can now move the timeline forward, and really try to identify Smithman without the distraction of Tannerman and without appearing not to believe the timeline proposed by the T9. 
So Tannerman and Crecheman are the same fictitious person, both 'real' until the 'real truth' comes out.
I for one think that AR knows exactly what he is doing, I do not believe there will be a whitewash.

Entirely plausible that crecheman is a derivative of tannerman conceded by SY in order to give JT, arguably the most fragile of the T9, an exit strategy. She saves face, able to say 'I really did see someone', while being allowed to begin singing like a canary about some of the suspicious omissions, actions, contrivances that she witnessed but was either too nervous to challenge or too trusting and naive to believe to be insidious. A ple bargain for her public image, as it were.

i can't remember the e-fits/artist impressions of tannerman in the press in my country, or better said, not in the ones i do read.
the new tannerman don't have to be brittish at all, i for myself just got hold of the first friday after madeleine was missing, a day later my holiday started and in france, i had no tv or radio, read no populair press and newspapers like le monde and le figaro are quite short in any news of outside france. outside brittain this case had not made such noise. most cases like these are there for a few days and then there is something new to write about. online papers was not much in 2007 and 2008 as it is now. 

in 2007 the total of internet was not what is now, last week there was on our news that only 75% of europeans has access to internet. there still quite a lot of places in europe where tv is very limited or of bad screen quality. 
not every one could understand english or portugese, so even if this new tannerman was in pdl, it not for sure he notice a lot of all the action, redwood never told us, the nightcreche was the mark warner's or his tannerman was staying in the ocean club, he could had made private reservations. 

then there are a lot op people who don't read newspapers at all or read quite selective. 
there was no typical crime scene on the evening of the 3 of may in pdl. seeing some people on the street near a holiday facility is something quite normal. also a lot of people only mind their own lives. 

knowing what he was wearing could be easily if he was on the typical boring family holiday home video from that day or on a photo in one of those holiday scrab books, that some people make. 

still having clothes in a closet is also not unique, some people do that sort of thing. has the bbc still has that program about making money out of your attic, try to find some episodes en look what people would keep.

we can't project our own habits on other people and decide something can't be true. 

but the new tannerman is for now nothing more than a card in the hands of redwood, it could be a joker, but also the ace, but also a blank.  what leaves for us biting of our nails out of curiosity.

but back on topic, could the new tannerman sue, i don't think so, because libel had to stick to a real person or his direct identity or personal space and as long that's not out, there is no libel. but if his identity will become known, and a paper print old story's in a certain context to this real person, he could hit the bank.

Should a witness, or witnesses, identify any one of the 4 male members of the Tapas 9 as being Smithman then Mr Tanner-Crecheman becomes entirely irrevelant to the case and is unlikely to get a mention in court or elsewhere except, perhaps, in the capacity of any explanatory narrative which may be required.

However, the material fact is that G&K appeared live on the Crimewatch programme which revealed Tannerman had been identified and ruled out of the investigation.  They also appeared live on the German version which promoted the same message and at no time did they raise any objection to the filmed 'reconstruction' or what was said in the studios by Andy Redwood nor, to the best of my knowledge, have they done so since - otherwise I suspect we would have heard of it via the 'family source' if not from their paid spokesperson.   

Under the circumstances, it's unlikely any hypothetical defence would choose to make capital out of this matter as to do so may provoke one or other members of the Tapas 7 to take the stand for an equally hypothetical prosecution, presupposing none of them had previously agreed to testify.

Lance De Boils wrote:Let's face it, it's all baloney.

If he really existed (Redwoodesque), he would have been TIED years ago. I feel sure of this because

a) he would have identified himself as a possibility to either or all of

i) the PJ,
ii)Crimestoppers,
iii) the McCanns' "hotline" or website
iv) one of a whole host of private detectives
v) someone else he knows

b) even if he "didn't bother" getting in touch with anyone himself, he would have been found very quickly by any investigator worth their salt, including

i) the PJ
ii) the numerous PIs employed to trace him (so the McCanns say)
iii) SY

Let's face it, if he was named in the creche records and it was recorded that he collected his daughter at about that time, it wouldn't take a genius to find him.

c) Even IF he failed to identify himself AND everyone investigating the case had been radically lobotomised, then surely somebody else would have named him as a possibility, for example

i) the staff at the creche
ii) a member of his family (if he was in the resort with a child, he was probably also with a wife/partner/family/friends)
iii) someone else he told
iv) another resort worker, local preson, holidaymaker who'd seen him with a child.



Yet we're expected it took 6.5 YEARS to trace, identify, and eliminate. SURE.

If this Redwoodesque man existed, I'll change my name to Biggus Dickus by deed poll.


I find it highly amusing trying to picture Tanner's reaction to SY actually finding the man she says she saw!

Imagine that? Imagine telling a big fat porkie and concocting a sighting of an phantom abductor, only for the Met to go and bloody find and eliminate him!

I suspect you're right, so no risk of changing your name by deed poll even if you're dying to change it HA HA!

How plausible that the Police lighting condition can be same as the night lighting condition when JT saw the man, so how to explain the similar colour outfit wore by the Brit father as appeared in the photo, even granted the man was in possession of such outfit?
JT got the colour of the child's pyjamas wrong so what is the chance of her getting the colour of the man's outfit correct?

Veritas wrote:Entirely plausible that crecheman is a derivative of tannerman conceded by SY in order to give JT, arguably the most fragile of the T9, an exit strategy. She saves face, able to say 'I really did see someone', while being allowed to begin singing like a canary about some of the suspicious omissions, actions, contrivances that she witnessed but was either too nervous to challenge or too trusting and naive to believe to be insidious. A ple bargain for her public image, as it were.

Why do you think Police would want to give JT an exit route? What for?
If they know and can prove she's up to her neck helping the Mcanns pervert the course of justice, then she deserves what's coming, not an exit route.

It's such a complex case that if the Police solved it and found the hard evidence, there will be no need to accept plea bargain from any one of them. I don't believe the Police strategy, whatever that be, is something that will invoke any one of that lying bunch to speak up.
To re-interview them is to rattle the snake. IMV, that wont happen unless the Police already have hard evidence and looking to reinforce it, whether they crack or not makes no difference. If they do and ask for plea bargain so much better.
To give someone an exit route usually mean involving them in interviews and if they should yield under pressure, then maybe plea bargain can be agreed through their lawyer. That's my general understanding, but stand corrected if someone knows better.

IMV, it will be a case of having found hard evidence to take it all the way, or unfortunately not.
Lying has become second skin to this bunch of hardened lairs there's no way Police can get them to crack, it's too late for that anyway.

ultimaThule wrote:Should a witness, or witnesses, identify any one of the 4 male members of the Tapas 9 as being Smithman then Mr Tanner-Crecheman becomes entirely irrevelant to the case and is unlikely to get a mention in court or elsewhere except, perhaps, in the capacity of any explanatory narrative which may be required.

However, the material fact is that G&K appeared live on the Crimewatch programme which revealed Tannerman had been identified and ruled out of the investigation.  They also appeared live on the German version which promoted the same message and at no time did they raise any objection to the filmed 'reconstruction' or what was said in the studios by Andy Redwood nor, to the best of my knowledge, have they done so since - otherwise I suspect we would have heard of it via the 'family source' if not from their paid spokesperson.   

Under the circumstances, it's unlikely any hypothetical defence would choose to make capital out of this matter as to do so may provoke one or other members of the Tapas 7 to take the stand for an equally hypothetical prosecution, presupposing none of them had previously agreed to testify.

I find it interesting that there is more than one version of the British Crimewatch.  On the one I saw Redwood does not eliminate Tannerman from the investigation

 Redwood states "we are almost certain that this sighting is not the abductor".

 Almost certain words any lawyer would love to hear.

  Not definite equals wriggle room.

Tannerman is still waiting in the wings in case he's needed

I have a sneaking suspicion, given the demeanour of K and G on UK CW programme, that just before Andy R went into his section of the studio to discuss the case with Kirsty Young, he had given them their revelation moment, Tannerman  traced and ruled out.
 Either that or the first they knew of the Grange team's revelation moment was when they saw it on the tv screen, just as we viewers did.

 They certainly looked as I would have expected them to look in those cirumstances.

Moved from Thanks to Kitti

But if Crecheman=Tannerman=Cooperman 

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

Then he does exist. 
And can then possibly sue.

I just don't understand how SY can present a photograph of a man 6 years later looking exactly like the one Gail Cooper photographed.

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

Is Crecheman Cooperman? Is Tannerman Cooperman? Is Crecheman Tannerman?
I give up, I think I will need professional help soon...

aiyoyo wrote:

Veritas wrote:Entirely plausible that crecheman is a derivative of tannerman conceded by SY in order to give JT, arguably the most fragile of the T9, an exit strategy. She saves face, able to say 'I really did see someone', while being allowed to begin singing like a canary about some of the suspicious omissions, actions, contrivances that she witnessed but was either too nervous to challenge or too trusting and naive to believe to be insidious. A ple bargain for her public image, as it were.

Why do you think Police would want to give JT an exit route?  What for?
If they know and can prove she's up to her neck helping the Mcanns pervert the course of justice, then she deserves what's coming, not an exit route.

It's such a complex case that if the Police solved it and found the hard evidence, there will be no need to accept plea bargain from any one of them.  I don't believe the Police strategy, whatever that be, is something that will invoke any one of that lying bunch to speak up.
To re-interview them is to rattle the snake. IMV, that wont happen unless the Police already have hard evidence and looking to reinforce it, whether they crack or not makes no difference.  If they do and ask for plea bargain so much better.  
To give someone an exit route usually mean involving them in interviews and if they should yield under pressure, then maybe plea bargain can be agreed through their lawyer. That's my general understanding, but stand corrected if someone knows better.  

IMV, it will be a case of having found hard evidence to take it all the way, or unfortunately not.  
Lying has become second skin to this bunch of hardened lairs there's no way Police can get them to crack, it's too late for that anyway.

Yeah, maybe you're right. 

And maybe after all these years the T9 know their rights and are tough nuts to crack. Maybe if the 'evidence' was all circumstantial you might want to gather as much of it, and any witnesses as possible to strengthen the likelihood of conviction. Or maybe you want to keep pressing because you know that if you went to trial now you could get child endangerment, accidental death and a hasty coverup in the heat of the moment involving shocked friends who are protecting two additional children from separation from their parents, but if you wait a while and pressure crack a few nuts, you might get insights into a far darker attitude giving rise to conspiracy which will dispel all possibility of sympathy from judiciary or public. 

I think SY know where they're going, and COULD go at any time. But this one, for some reason, becomes richer and more rewarding with age. 

I think they've been good cop bad cop with PJ, and have sensed a clear turning moment in the rift between them and TM and have now invited the PJ into the room at the same time. No more good cop, bad cop. Just cop. With, hopefully, the full and significant weight of pan-European legal provision in the investigation and subsequent prosecution.

russiandoll wrote:I have a sneaking suspicion, given the demeanour of K and G on UK CW programme, that just before Andy R went into his section of the studio to discuss the case with Kirsty Young, he had given them their revelation moment, Tannerman  traced and ruled out.
 Either that or the first they knew of the Grange team's revelation moment was when they saw it on the tv screen, just as we viewers did.
 They certainly looked as I would have expected them to look in those cirumstances.

And since then the Paypal / gimme money / donate page has been frozen, and there has been no update, so far as I can see on the website.
Not even Tannerman has been removed.
CM has been ludicrously silent
There have been no further Cocoanut collectors, swarthy Scandinavians with blond hair, nor partridges in Pear Trees.

This is from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]    ( a very helpful resource )

In the last 7 days
Madeleine police hail public’s response to television appeals Yorkshire Post 07:15 Sun, 01 Dec 2013
Germans give hope of clue in search for Madeleine McCann Daily and Sunday Express 04:29 Sun, 01 Dec 2013
Calls for joint task-force in Madeleine McCann case ITV News 14:32 Fri, 29 Nov 2013
Public respond in thousands to McCann appeal ITV News 13:48 Fri, 29 Nov 2013
Madeleine McCann disappearance: British police receive 5,000 new calls NBCNews.com 12:30 Fri, 29 Nov 2013
Madeleine McCann case: UK cops get 5K new calls NBCNews.com 12:15 Fri, 29 Nov 2013
Public thanked for McCann response Banbury Guardian 10:11 Fri, 29 Nov 2013
Police have received 5,000 calls in Madeleine McCann investigatio... Leicester Mercury 10:09 Fri, 29 Nov 2013
Police get thousands of calls over McCann disappearance Irish Examiner 08:28 Fri, 29 Nov 2013
Madeleine McCann disappearance: Public thanked for response after Crimewatch appeal The Independent 00:30 Fri, 29 Nov 2013
Madeleine McCann: Detective's thanks after 5,000 viewers contact police after TV appeals... Mirror.co.uk 23:44 Thu, 28 Nov 2013
'Thousands' more Madeleine calls BBC 23:14 Thu, 28 Nov 2013
Police thank public for Madeleine response ITV News 23:09 Thu, 28 Nov 2013
Bexley mum helps Madeleine McCann case after daughter nearly snatched News Shopper, London 14:23 Thu, 28 Nov 2013
British and Portugese police to merge in hunt for Madeleine McCann Daily and Sunday Express 04:38 Thu, 28 Nov 2013
Madeleine McCann: Portuguese police in Algarve 'no help to hunt' Mirror.co.uk 02:39 Thu, 28 Nov 2013
Madeleine McCann inquiry: police should work together, says Met chief The Guardian 21:18 Wed, 27 Nov 2013
British and Portuguese police 'should join forces' in hunt for missing Madeleine... Daily Mail 20:26 Wed, 27 Nov 2013
Madeleine McCann Investigation 'Should be Reformed' - Britain's Top Police Officer IBTimes.co.uk 18:46 Wed, 27 Nov 2013
British and Portuguese police 'should join forces' in hunt for missing Madeleine... Mirror.co.uk 16:32 Wed, 27 Nov 2013
Madeleine McCann: Met Police want joint inquiry with Portuguese... Leicester Mercury 16:30 Wed, 27 Nov 2013
British And Portuguese Police Should Find Maddy Together The Huffington Post UK 16:28 Wed, 27 Nov 2013
McCann teams 'should become one' SBS 16:16 Wed, 27 Nov 2013
Call for Madeleine police teams to work together ITV News 15:55 Wed, 27 Nov 2013
Call for new Madeleine inquiry team BBC 14:42 Wed, 27 Nov 2013

We haven't heard anymore about the MCs asking for assistante status.
I wonder what happened to that.

dantezebu wrote:We haven't heard anymore about the MCs asking for assistante status.
I wonder what happened to that.

Maybe the McS are already assisting SY/PJ 'with their inquiries'

Into the 'disapperance' of their beautiful daughter, of which, they played no part, but they might know who did 'play' a part.

1. dantezebu
   

We haven't heard anymore about the MCs asking for assistante status.
I wonder what happened to that.

Yes, that seems to be off the menu at the moment. 

As for the silence of the T7: have alook at the rogatory of Diane Webster, near the end - I'm interpreting it that even if they'd wanted to talk,  they couldn't.

tigger wrote:

1. dantezebu
   

We haven't heard anymore about the MCs asking for assistante status.
I wonder what happened to that.

Yes, that seems to be off the menu at the moment. 

As for the silence of the T7: have alook at the rogatory of Diane Webster, near the end - I'm interpreting it that even if they'd wanted to talk,  they couldn't.

Did you mean this?
"You also, when we spoke earlier, expressed a sense of frustration about the fact that you’d all been banned by the Super (inaudible).”
I missed that before  

dantezebu wrote:

tigger wrote:

1. dantezebu
   

We haven't heard anymore about the MCs asking for assistante status.
I wonder what happened to that.

Yes, that seems to be off the menu at the moment. 

As for the silence of the T7: have alook at the rogatory of Diane Webster, near the end - I'm interpreting it that even if they'd wanted to talk,  they couldn't.

Did you mean this?
"You also, when we spoke earlier, expressed a sense of frustration about the fact that you’d all been banned by the Super (inaudible).”
I missed that before  

Vell, you know ze word - you may not say it, you must not even zink it! 
It was Aquila who pointed it out to me.

tigger wrote:

dantezebu wrote:

tigger wrote:

1. dantezebu
   

We haven't heard anymore about the MCs asking for assistante status.
I wonder what happened to that.

Yes, that seems to be off the menu at the moment. 

As for the silence of the T7: have alook at the rogatory of Diane Webster, near the end - I'm interpreting it that even if they'd wanted to talk,  they couldn't.

Did you mean this?
"You also, when we spoke earlier, expressed a sense of frustration about the fact that you’d all been banned by the Super (inaudible).”
I missed that before  

Vell, you know ze word - you may not say it, you must not even zink it! 
It was Aquila who pointed it out to me.

I am trying to work out exactly what this means.  It looks as though it point to gagging by the police (Super intendent(?)).  Any other suggestions?