Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

by aiyoyo 08.12.13 18:03

PeterMac wrote:
mysterion wrote:Tannerman has not been eliminated. He has almost been eliminated according to SY`s quote. The MET only believe they have identified him. Leaves room for the website to keep him and maintain credibility with their supporters around the world especially the ones that haven`t seen CW. If SY were running things TM would be helping them by showing Smithman. If SY were running things TM would be charged with obstructing an investigation by promoting false information about a former suspect and for putting his life in danger.
Almost eliminated.
What a wonderful expression. It could be used in so many ways.
Madeleine is almost still missing, The Fund is almost transparent,

Her parents are almost innocent.
Their private detectives almost got her home.
And, Grange almost solved the case except they weren't sure Tannerman was Crecheman or not...?

by ultimaThule 08.12.13 18:07

PeterMac wrote:Hilariously, the mad woman from Scotland, Hereditary Chief of the Clan McChild-Neglecters, denies that Tannerman / Crecheman is still there ! (I am NOT joking !)
You would think that she could negotiate her own version of McHoly Writ.
But perhaps she really does need professional help.

@PeterMac

Professional help??? Ye gods... they 'really need' locking up < sob > banghead

by bristow 08.12.13 18:21

They seem to be totally contradicting themselves, I remember AR showing us on CW a photograph of the man who had 'come forward' to say he was taking his daughter home from the creche, it showed him sideways on face blurred but they definitely said it was an actual photograph of him showing the clothes he was wearing that night, same with his child's Pyjamas both had been kept.

by SixMillionQuid 08.12.13 19:50

bristow wrote:They seem to be totally contradicting themselves, I remember AR showing us on CW a photograph of the man who had 'come forward' to say he was taking his daughter home from the creche, it showed him sideways on face blurred but they definitely said it was an actual photograph of him showing the clothes he was wearing that night, same with his child's Pyjamas both had been kept.

But Mr Redwood did nothing address certain issues like, which creche was this man coming from, which direction and where was he going, whether Jane Tanner was immediately notified to verifiy this is the man she saw and the pyjamas she saw the child wearing. And more importantly why it took this man six years to come forward.

by Guest 08.12.13 21:15

The 'Grange Team'

Yet another odd choice of words: what is meant here:

1. The AR/SY crowd watching (2)
or
2. The Mec team watching (1)

Anyone got an inkling?

by aiyoyo 08.12.13 21:31

bristow wrote:They seem to be totally contradicting themselves, I remember AR showing us on CW a photograph of the man who had 'come forward' to say he was taking his daughter home from the creche, it showed him sideways on face blurred but they definitely said it was an actual photograph of him showing the clothes he was wearing that night, same with his child's Pyjamas both had been kept.

It would of interest to know where they got those clothing items from just to re-animate Tannerman?
And how much they paid the talent to play the part?

I am almost certain they think they convinced the main players Tannerman was Creche man.
While the odious pair almost certainly did not believe Redwood since they did not remove Tannerman from their site...

by Woburn_exile 08.12.13 22:00

aiyoyo wrote:
bristow wrote:They seem to be totally contradicting themselves, I remember AR showing us on CW a photograph of the man who had 'come forward' to say he was taking his daughter home from the creche, it showed him sideways on face blurred but they definitely said it was an actual photograph of him showing the clothes he was wearing that night, same with his child's Pyjamas both had been kept.
It would of interest to know where they got those clothing items from just to re-animate Tannerman?
And how much they paid the talent to play the part?

I am almost certain they think they convinced the main players Tannerman was Creche man.
While the odious pair almost certainly did not believe Redwood since they did not remove Tannerman from their site...

The "odious pair" as you describe them did not believe Redwood because they had concocted the lie in the first place. They kept it from poor KM until the next day to "spare her the distress". Who believes the bollox ontheir miserable site anyway.
shark

by **PeterMac** 09.12.13 8:38

margaret wrote:
However, l still don't think the mcs are in charge of anything at the moment, apart from their own story.

The big question is Which One ?

by aiyoyo 09.12.13 10:40

The Tannerman one? Almost certainly?

Still on their site! Well, almost disappear for a while, then brought back for Christmas..

They got Tannerman home for Christmas but their PI has yet to deliver Madeleine back for Christmas - Oh the Irony!

by gbwales 09.12.13 14:57

tiny wrote:You seriously don't believe what the fm webmaster said,why on earth would grange ask them to keep it there IF they are
no longer looking for him.

The webmaster's reply doesn't in any way clarify WHO has asked for crecheman/tannerman not to be removed. Perhaps by mentioning Grange in the same sentence they would like us to assume that's who asked, but it doesn't actually say that at all.

by gbwales 09.12.13 14:58

And welcome Jon - very much enjoy following you on Twitter thumbsup

by tiny 09.12.13 15:29

gbwales wrote:

tiny wrote:You seriously don't believe what the fm webmaster said,why on earth would grange ask them to keep it there IF they are
no longer looking for him.

The webmaster's reply doesn't in any way clarify WHO has asked for crecheman/tannerman not to be removed. Perhaps by mentioning Grange in the same sentence they would like us to assume that's who asked, but it doesn't actually say that at all.

perhaps that's what he WANTED us to think,makes it sound more important

by Jontait 09.12.13 16:36

...or it's a classic example of misdirection?

by Guest 09.12.13 17:24

Jontait wrote:...or it's a classic example of misdirection?

***
No ...They would never, now would they? laughat

by **PeterMac** 09.12.13 21:47

Monday 9th DEC
2245 local time (Spain) = 2145 GMT

STILL SHOWING TANNERMAN
and I am Still unable to make a donation to assist in the ongoing 6-year long, intensive, world wide search for Madeleine

How long is it now ? Perhaps we should have one of those counters . . .

by Guest 09.12.13 21:50

You can still pay by direct bank transfer - not to mention cash in brown envelopes to Rothley Towers - if you're feeling distraught, Peter.

by ulyssesoh 10.12.13 1:57

New poster. Maybe this has been noted elsewhere. But in relation to the website, I get an Operation Grange appeal when I go to the homepage, along with all the latest e-fits.

Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman - Page 3 Image12

Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman - Page 3 Image12

by **PeterMac** 10.12.13 8:25

Indeed so, the two e-fits of Gerry.
But now go back to the Home page and you get this, right hand side.

Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman - Page 3 <a href=

Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman - Page 3 1114

" />

Tannerman / Crecheman, which then scolls through to Measleman and then Beckham Barcelona woman.

by Guest 10.12.13 12:14

Bishop Brennan wrote:
margaret wrote:Thanks sallypelt and well done for asking Jon Tait. Wonder WHO told that person 'NOT' to remove tanner man from the site?
You could say that the McCanns have banked everything on Tannerman being the abductor. Right from the start, he was the one displayed in the press / PR conferences / website / media. Gerry even remembers feeling that Tannerman was hiding in the apartment with him. Jane was distraught at having seen the abductor with Maddie. It happened at a time when Gerry was chatting with Jez, and Kate was at the bar.

If Tannerman is not the abductor - and the abduction took place much later, then nobody has an alibi (and Gerry now becomes the last person to see Maddie alive). This is not part of the script which up till now had a very simple narrative. No, without Tannerman we are in uncharted and uncertain waters. The natural reaction from TM would be to hunker down and stick to the original story. Stick hard until you cannot any longer.

And for now - we just have Redwood's statement on Crimewatch - a statement which may well have caught the McCanns completely by surprise. They knew about the efits - but did they know that Tannerman was to be removed on-air from the story? I suspect not.

They (like us) may wonder if "crecheman" really does exist. Perhaps they hope he doesn't. So for now - keep a hold of Tannerman, and tell the webmaster (an employee and possibly a relative) to leave the site unchanged. Makes sense to me.

What was he doing apart from hiding, putting his face on?

by ulyssesoh 10.12.13 15:07

Ah ok I see. It's a curious combination, isn't it? A frontpage from Scotland Yard with the latest efits, the out-of-date efits on the main page, and the latest interview with Kate and Gerry also on the main page, showing the website has been updated since Crimewatch. Why host the SY page and not/remove update the rest while adding the latest YouTube videos?

by Guest 10.12.13 15:29

Reply to PeterMacs message (quoting button out of order, Admin)

What is a Crimewatch STYLE reconstruction? Either it is or it ain't a CW reconstruction. We concluded it was a construct.

Now it has been elevated to Crimewatch style. Dear oh dear, is that net closing!

(See second pink page you posted)

by Cristobell 10.12.13 17:04

I'm with Margaret, your post was a great read btw, I think the revelation that SY have ruled Tannerman out of the investigation has thrown a major spanner in the Team McCann works. Its been their fallback position from the start - their only proof of abduction. For whatever reason they chose not to promote the sighting by the Smith family, and we can only wonder why.

What is happening with Jane Tanner? Should the scenario arise where the whole thing is found to be a hoax, would Jane Tanner be charged with perverting the course of justice? Has she done a deal and agreed with the police that the man she saw was an innocent holidaymaker returning from the creche? The new scenario certainly gets her off the hook. However, if the McCanns once again fall back on Tannerman, a possibility if they don't like what the police are saying, will Jane revert to her original story?

should imagine they are very stressed at the moment, and wondering who they can trust. The Tapas friends were notable by their absence from the Libel trial against Goncalo Amaral, which I thought strange, as they were all in it together. In any event, they produced no credible witnesses, not even a qualified psychiatrist to support their claims for depression. I don't see any way in which they can win their claim for damages based on what has been presented, and I think it may be a sign of their money problems that they even considered pursuing it, especially after the Supreme Court declared the book not libelous.

This farce I think is finally coming to an end. The Crimewatch update didn't give us very much at all, other than they had received 3,000+ phone calls, but they didn't appeal for any more. I suspect there is a rift between the police and the parents now. They did not participate in the Crimewatch reconstruction, and Scotland Yard had to WRITE to the Fund for a copy of the Private Investigator's report. I also believe body language speaks volumes, and the recent CW images of the McCanns with DCI Redwood reveal much hostility - they did not appear on the Update program nor are they appealing for help with their search, or cash.

by **Tony Bennett** 10.12.13 17:19

Cristobell wrote:I'm with Margaret, your post was a great read btw, I think the revelation that SY have ruled Tannerman out of the investigation has thrown a major spanner in the Team McCann works. Its been their fallback position from the start - their only proof of abduction. For whatever reason they chose not to promote the sighting by the Smith family, and we can only wonder why.

REPLY: I have simply lost count of the number of times I've had to correct this very misleading statement.

Smithman WAS promoted as long ago as May 2009 in the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary (the 'Mockumentary) AND AGAIN Smithman occupied five whole pages of Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine' (May 2011) Cristobell, may I politely suggest that you withdraw the suggestion that the McCanns 'chose not to promote Smithman', because, quite clearly, the McCann Team DID

by Guest 10.12.13 17:29

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cristobell wrote:I'm with Margaret, your post was a great read btw, I think the revelation that SY have ruled Tannerman out of the investigation has thrown a major spanner in the Team McCann works. Its been their fallback position from the start - their only proof of abduction. For whatever reason they chose not to promote the sighting by the Smith family, and we can only wonder why.

REPLY: I have simply lost count of the number of times I've had to correct this very misleading statement.

Smithman WAS promoted as long ago as May 2009 in the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary (the 'Mockumentary) AND AGAIN Smithman occupied five whole pages of Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine' (May 2011) Cristobell, may I politely suggest that you withdraw the suggestion that the McCanns 'chose not to promote Smithman', because, quite clearly, the McCann Team DID

Yes, and I have also said that we never had a press conference about such an important witness either..........nor much said about him in interviews, unlike 'Tannerman'. Can you find an interview where he was described etc. Was his e-fit on the website, like tannerman and all the others? So I would agree with Cristobell on this, and I don't believe she should withdraw her statement Tony. Sorry I have to disagree with you on this.

by worriedmum 10.12.13 20:10

I'm trying to get up to speed with this discussion, and it strikes me that if The Sunday Times story about the 'suppression' of the e-fits is correct,(and I have seen nothing contradicting the story), then the idea that the sighting of 'Smithman' has been promoted by the McCanns is surely at odds with this?