Did tannerman exist or not?

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.



http://hypocriteandliar.wordpress.com/tag/jeremy-wilkins/

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

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

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

Not if everybody was "really into each other".

I jokingly made a reference to Balu and Berry being a couple the other day (thanks NFWTD by the way - I did know that they had "regular" partners) but at first reading of the case they seem like an inseparable item, joined at the hip. And they had drinks with the Jensen sisters. I always drink with strange women while I'm on holiday with my wife and child too! Like I said before, a whole load of strangers on holiday, all seemingly on first name terms with each other.

And boy did that tennis court take some hammer. They must have got that photo of Maddie all alone during the four nanoseconds of daylight that there wasn't a lesson or match going on.

ChillyHeat wrote:


Almost every person at the place was a suit and boot, a Doctor, TV Producer, etc etc all moneymen......Where are the families that scrimped and scraped to save for a holiday there...
They all seemed to fly in together (not all but you understand). It seems the place was a stage for the week. A bit Sandy Hookish IMHO.

ScallyScouser wrote:Hi All

This has probably been discussed many a time, However i was shocked when i heard it.

Here is link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY

At 10:17 of video listern to what JT says "I would have said something to you because KM said you had been gone along time watching football" ?

Now i am 70/30 on Madeleine being abducted but even i had to re listen a few times to believe what i heard 

Thanks Richie









This is not letting me type in the right box!!

This video:
Same old words and confusion(which is good for them)
"I think,   I think....." (Tanner) 
and then Gerry says the opposite to Tanner about where he was standing.

Deliberately confusing things. There will be no way to figure it out, and they've made sure of it.
Thank you.

Madeleine will be very disappointed.

russiandoll wrote:

 Tennis Player
Slang for a bisexual person.

suep wrote:In my very, very humble opinion, being very,very new to all this, Tannerman never existed and Jane Tanner never walked up that road because if she had done Jes Wilkins would definitely have seen her, as would Gerry. I think its very possible that had Jes not happened along at that very moment Gerry would have made sure those shutters looked like they'd been 'jemmied' open (probably while wearing surgical gloves) and the agreed narrative that was first of all relayed to all the relatives and media back home would have matched the scene found by the police later. All Jane had to do was simply tell her story and there would have been no witnesses to know for sure that she never walked up that road at the salient time. Unfortunately Jes threw a spanner in the works by unexpectedly passing by just as Gerry was checking if anyone was about and there was no opportunity  for Gerry to let Jane know she would actually have to act out her story by walking past them (and who knows what extra complications that could have caused). Gerry had no choice but to acknowledge Jes, since he knew him, and have a brief chat with him, but by doing so he must then have been left with no time to fake the window break in scene because this was clearly not done.

This suggests to me that for some reason things had to happen at that time and it was not possible to somehow regroup and adjust the script. Gerry just had to carry on and hope that when he told the rest of the group at the table he'd bumped into Jes they'd pick up on the implications because Dianne Webster was at that table and I'm pretty sure she wasn't in on the conspiracy so they couldn't discuss it and adjust the script. (By the time the script reached the point where Kate raises the alarm they were sufficiently aware something had gone wrong to find an excuse for Dianne to stay behind at the table, thus giving them their first opportunity to collaborate).

I'm not sure what role Matthew Oldfield was supposed to play at 9.30pm but if this hypothesis I'm purporting here were true then he would have expected to see some damage to those shutters and an open window if he hadn't already picked up on the significance of what Gerry said about bumping into Jes, then once he got to 5A he would certainly have done so. Maybe he tried unsuccessfully to lift them from outside, who knows.

Kate, of course, may still have failed to realise that Gerry hadn't been able to set the scene so when she got to 5A at 10pm and saw that the window and shutter were still intact she opened the window herself leaving her prints on it because unlike Gerry she didn't have any gloves, and attempted to lift the shutter manually from the inside again leaving prints (which were not forensically clear enough for identification). Maybe she even went outside to have a go.What's certain is that later several people who should have been forensically aware enough to know better messed around with those shutters before the police arrived thus ensuring that any prints left by Kate/Matthew were totally smudged.

I'm not sure if this next bit is significant in terms of the why or when of Madeleine's death and I don't want to speculate about that since apart from the evidence that points strongly to the fact of her death (cadaverine) there is no hard evidence of the why and when that I've come across yet.  However, I wonder if anyone else has worried about the bit in Kate's book where she mentions that workmen were coming to the apartment one day to fix the washing machine and the shutters because Gerry had broken those shutters shortly after they arrived. She doesn't, as far as I remember, say exactly which window shutters Gerry broke and she dismisses it jokingly by saying its the 'Gerry touch' implying that an apparently skilled cardiologist used to doing delicate procedures is a heavy handed blunderer. It has niggled me a lot wondering what Gerry was doing interfering with shutters that they were never going to raise anyway. It also niggles me that she even bothered to mention it at all, unless it was the children's bedroom shutters he messed with and broke and Mark Warner has some documentary record of the work done to repair them.

suep wrote:because Dianne Webster was at that table and I'm pretty sure she wasn't in on the conspiracy