Did tannerman exist or not?

tiny wrote:

Tangled Web wrote:IMO Tannerman never existed. IIRC neither GM nor JW saw him, despite being stood talking together (for 30 secs/30 mins) very nearby where JT saw this man? Oddly, they didn't see JT either   

I think Crimewatch was a stunt to get rid of Tannerman.

I feel the same,no tannerman, also no jt,,she was never there on that road when gm and jw were(supposedly,because I have my doubts about this as well as wasn't there a lady on her balconey who said she saw no one at the time)


Having problems writing text outside quote box.

Mrs Fenn was in that night and heard nothing..

aiyoyo wrote:If Tannerman never exit, how can there be a Crecheman?

Is there an ACE amongst the cards?



Fingers crossed. I really don't think there was anybody walking away from 5A that night carrying a blanket that turned into a child.

Madeleine's Fund - 'Leaving No Stone Unturned' is a not-for-profit company which has been established to find Madeleine McCann, support her family and bring her abductors to justice. The Fund is following best practice governance procedures as set out in the Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector. The directors of the company are Brian Kennedy, Michael Linnett, Edward Smethurst, Jon Corner, Kate McCann & Gerry McCann. They have appropriate legal, business and charitable experience. An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability. This should enable the Directors to maintain an appropriate governance distance in the day-to-day operations of the Fund.

Fund Objectives

The full objects of the Fund are:

To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.

"They have appropriate legal, business and charitable experience."

The Fund is following best practice governance procedures as set out in the Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector. [

Tangled Web wrote:

tiny wrote:

Tangled Web wrote:IMO Tannerman never existed. IIRC neither GM nor JW saw him, despite being stood talking together (for 30 secs/30 mins) very nearby where JT saw this man? Oddly, they didn't see JT either   

I think Crimewatch was a stunt to get rid of Tannerman.

I feel the same,no tannerman, also no jt,,she was never there on that road when gm and jw were(supposedly,because I have my doubts about this as well as wasn't there a lady on her balconey who said she saw no one at the time)


Having problems writing text outside quote box.

Mrs Fenn was in that night and heard nothing..

Tangled Web wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:If Tannerman never exit, how can there be a Crecheman?

Is there an ACE amongst the cards?



Fingers crossed. I really don't think there was anybody walking away from 5A that night carrying a blanket that turned into a child.

aiyoyo wrote:

Tangled Web wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:If Tannerman never exit, how can there be a Crecheman?

Is there an ACE amongst the cards?



Fingers crossed. I really don't think there was anybody walking away from 5A that night carrying a blanket that turned into a child.

So the next question has to be is there a Crecheman walking outside 5A ?

aiyoyo wrote:No, you are talking about Tannerman, while I was referring to Crecheman a al Redwood version.

Does Crecheman exist or not?

aiyoyo wrote:No, you are talking about Tannerman, while I was referring to Crecheman a al Redwood version.

Does Crecheman exist or not?

pennylane wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:No, you are talking about Tannerman, while I was referring to Crecheman a al Redwood version.

Does Crecheman exist or not?

I believe Redwood's Crecheman does exist, and he has sod all to do with Tanner's fictional Bundleman!

aiyoyo wrote:

pennylane wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:No, you are talking about Tannerman, while I was referring to Crecheman a al Redwood version.

Does Crecheman exist or not?

I believe Redwood's Crecheman does exist, and he has sod all to do with Tanner's fictional Bundleman!

Sorry, I dont understand.

You're saying Crecheman is real, but Tannerman is fake, yeah?
So, how come a crecheman was found who possessed the same outfit?  

A Crecheman is always possible but wearing the same type of clothes JT described is not possible if JT fabricated the man.
You see the complication in this?

aiyoyo wrote:

pennylane wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:No, you are talking about Tannerman, while I was referring to Crecheman a al Redwood version.

Does Crecheman exist or not?

I believe Redwood's Crecheman does exist, and he has sod all to do with Tanner's fictional Bundleman!

Sorry, I dont understand.

You're saying Crecheman is real, but Tannerman is fake, yeah?
So, how come a crecheman was found who possessed the same outfit?  

A Crecheman is always possible but wearing the same type of clothes JT described is not possible if JT fabricated the man.
You see the complication in this?


I believe Crecheman was invented so SY could tell the whole world they were no longer looking for Tannerman.

Woburn_exile wrote:...the WTF WTF WTF F F moment for me

chilli wrote:Maybe JT saw crecheman but at different time and/or a different place. Remember it's easier to trot out a half truth than a full lie. That could account for the similarity between the two .... well that's if either or both exist.

bobbin wrote:

chilli wrote:Maybe JT saw crecheman but at different time and/or a different place. Remember it's easier to trot out a half truth than a full lie. That could account for the similarity between the two .... well that's if either or both exist.

Yes, good observation.
I am still suspicious of the Jez Wilkins' sighting of a lady, dark hair, Portuguese looking, wearing purple, who turned out to be Jane Tanner, hanging around as if on look out, by 5a at around 8 to 8.30 when he left with his child in the buggy.
Whooshed now, a report floated right at the beginning of this whole charade, that JW had seen Gerry, fiddling by the shutters.
Jane would have been in the car park. Transfer later this scene to Gerry, Jez and Jane all together.
Jane might have seen someone from that different position that became transferred to gate of 5a.
Gerry possibly did meet JW at gate of 5a but why can't he agree with JW and Jane, as to which side of the road they were.
Perhaps the abduction / removal was being managed at that time.
Cadavour odour in garden, put down in a hurry perhaps? because JW was again on the scene.
Why does Gerry again insist that JW accept the encounter and conversation is later than JW was wont to think it was.
Why did Matt Oldfield ? go and knock on JW 's door, tell him Madeleine had gone missing, but didn't ask if he had seen anything whilst he was out and about, and why did he not let him come out, when he offered, to help search when surely all hands on deck were needed.
Philomena definitely was a primed grenade, ready to fire off the 'jimmied shutters' story and indeed, jimmied they were meant to have been, IN MY OPINION OF COURSE.

ChillyHeat wrote: Neither Jeremy Wilkins nor Gerry McCann state they saw Jane Tanner at the same time and place she claimed to be when seeing the abductor. Jeremy Wilkins had inadvertantly stumbled upon Gerry McCann tampering with the shutters to make it look like a break in had occured, or as he later claimed a break out by the abductor as he went out of the window. Both Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins would not only have seen the abductor, they would have also heard him.


Bath time, Jane Tanner’s sighting and Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins meeting are 3 key weaknesses in the McCanns version of events.



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

bobbin wrote:A long way back, we discussed one of the Portuguese police-ladies/ OC rep? who arrived shortly on the 'abduction ?' scene giving a testament that she could not understand how Jane Tanner could have seen the person where she claimed him to be, from the position that she claimed to be in herself.
Then recently, we have seen the map of the night creche centre, relative to the side gate of 5a where Jane was supposed to have seen egg/ bundle/ tannerman.
I have never really been able to get a clear picture here but remember thinking if Jane were in the car park where Jez Wilkins said he'd seen her hanging about earlier that evening, then maybe she might have had view of said road where tannerman was told to the police lady/OC rep to have been.
This was before the confusing spidery design of Jane's to try to pin point the road and walkways, relative to 5a.
I do think that spannerman has become a spanner in the works and was thought up hastily because other things had not gone to plan.
Philomena was all primed to blab her mouth off about the jimmied windows and didn't get told in time to keep her big **** shut.
AR has pulled off something brilliant here, I am beginning to think.
No spannerman means no Jane abductor, only the Smiths can implicate an 'abduction' but Smiths implicate Gerry, who has no alibi for that time.
It certainly does go back to zero when you take out of the equation, the McCann's only premise of abduction, as verified by Jane alibi-ing Gerry who for some IDIOTIC reason, claimed NOT to have seen Jane giving him his one and only alibi.
This has been one of the biggest c**k ups in history.
But if the Portuguese police did not believe in an abduction, it is not unreasonable to think that some at least, UK police will not believe it too.
Now that AR has cunningly announced that spannerman is almost certainly not an abductor, we revert to Smithman with Gerry being implicated, and being the last person to have seen Madeleine in the now/post spannerman expanded time frame.
A rock and a hard place comes to mind here.
I would like to think that our police can know their usual lags so well, that they would be able to think with criminal minds too.
So AR can find that spannerman is not an abductor. The McCann premise of abduction fails unless they acknowledge Smithman who implicates Gerry.
If this were a whitewash, it's going about proving the 'abduction' claim in a very perverse and risky way.

aiyoyo wrote:

pennylane wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:No, you are talking about Tannerman, while I was referring to Crecheman a al Redwood version.

Does Crecheman exist or not?

I believe Redwood's Crecheman does exist, and he has sod all to do with Tanner's fictional Bundleman!

Sorry, I dont understand.

You're saying Crecheman is real, but Tannerman is fake, yeah?
So, how come a crecheman was found who possessed the same outfit?  

A Crecheman is always possible but wearing the same type of clothes JT described is not possible if JT fabricated the man.
You see the complication in this?

bobbin wrote:

chilli wrote:Maybe JT saw crecheman but at different time and/or a different place. Remember it's easier to trot out a half truth than a full lie. That could account for the similarity between the two .... well that's if either or both exist.

Yes, good observation.
I am still suspicious of the Jez Wilkins' sighting of a lady, dark hair, Portuguese looking, wearing purple, who turned out to be Jane Tanner, hanging around as if on look out, by 5a at around 8 to 8.30 when he left with his child in the buggy.
Whooshed now, a report floated right at the beginning of this whole charade, that JW had seen Gerry, fiddling by the shutters.
Jane would have been in the car park. Transfer later this scene to Gerry, Jez and Jane all together.
Jane might have seen someone from that different position that became transferred to gate of 5a.
Gerry possibly did meet JW at gate of 5a but why can't he agree with JW and Jane, as to which side of the road they were.
Perhaps the abduction / removal was being managed at that time.
Cadavour odour in garden, put down in a hurry perhaps? because JW was again on the scene.
Why does Gerry again insist that JW accept the encounter and conversation is later than JW was wont to think it was.
Why did Matt Oldfield ? go and knock on JW 's door, tell him Madeleine had gone missing, but didn't ask if he had seen anything whilst he was out and about, and why did he not let him come out, when he offered, to help search when surely all hands on deck were needed.
Philomena definitely was a primed grenade, ready to fire off the 'jimmied shutters' story and indeed, jimmied they were meant to have been, IN MY OPINION OF COURSE.

ChillyHeat wrote:1am is when they knocked on JWs door and said Gerrys daughter has gone missing....When JW told BoD that Gerrys daughter had gone missing, Im surprised she didnt say Gerry who. It would be a shock moment to recall someone you had only met days earlier.....IMO