McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

ultimaThule wrote:

Dr What wrote:Aren't the facts contained in the official Police files on the case sufficient? The Gaspar statements?
As I say, what is the point of a 'free' Press if it refuses to take difficult issues on?

If an injunction barring the publication or transmission of certain files or documents is in force, anyone found to be in breach of the Order will be held to be in contempt of court.

I don't perceive any great reluctance on the part of the UK press to 'take difficult issues on', but when those issues relate to specific individuals who may have engaged in criminal activities the press in general avoid publishing any material which may subsequently prejudice or prevent a trial in a Court of Law.

I share your frustration but I take consolation from knowing that, when apprehended, the perpetrators of heinous crimes against Madeleine McCann will be unable to claim that the UK media has prejudiced their right to a fair trial.

Injunction understandable. But why go the other way and denigrate GA? That is also prejudicial to a fair trial ie: that guilty parties will be seen to have been maligned according to the way GA and the PJ have been portrayed in the press, thus prejudicing a future jury. There is a real risk that guilty parties may be found innocent because the public have been flooded with biased reportage over many years.

Mirage wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

Dr What wrote:Aren't the facts contained in the official Police files on the case sufficient? The Gaspar statements?
As I say, what is the point of a 'free' Press if it refuses to take difficult issues on?

If an injunction barring the publication or transmission of certain files or documents is in force, anyone found to be in breach of the Order will be held to be in contempt of court.

I don't perceive any great reluctance on the part of the UK press to 'take difficult issues on', but when those issues relate to specific individuals who may have engaged in criminal activities the press in general avoid publishing any material which may subsequently prejudice or prevent a trial in a Court of Law.

I share your frustration but I take consolation from knowing that, when apprehended, the perpetrators of heinous crimes against Madeleine McCann will be unable to claim that the UK media has prejudiced their right to a fair trial.

Injunction understandable. But why go the other way and denigrate GA? That is also prejudicial to a fair trial ie: that guilty parties will be seen to have been maligned according to the way GA and the PJ have been portrayed in the press, thus prejudicing a future jury. There is a real risk that guilty parties may be found innocent because the public have been flooded with biased reportage over many years.

Quite. The UK media have no excuses whatsoever. They have connived in our whole constitution being undermined. I know that sounds a bit melodramatic - but when you think about all the tactics they use, it is almost an understatement.

We live in a free country - I don't think so.

Okeydokey wrote:

Mirage wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

Dr What wrote:Aren't the facts contained in the official Police files on the case sufficient? The Gaspar statements?
As I say, what is the point of a 'free' Press if it refuses to take difficult issues on?

If an injunction barring the publication or transmission of certain files or documents is in force, anyone found to be in breach of the Order will be held to be in contempt of court.

I don't perceive any great reluctance on the part of the UK press to 'take difficult issues on', but when those issues relate to specific individuals who may have engaged in criminal activities the press in general avoid publishing any material which may subsequently prejudice or prevent a trial in a Court of Law.

I share your frustration but I take consolation from knowing that, when apprehended, the perpetrators of heinous crimes against Madeleine McCann will be unable to claim that the UK media has prejudiced their right to a fair trial.

Injunction understandable. But why go the other way and denigrate GA? That is also prejudicial to a fair trial ie: that guilty parties will be seen to have been maligned according to the way GA and the PJ have been portrayed in the press, thus prejudicing a future jury. There is a real risk that guilty parties may be found innocent because the public have been flooded with biased reportage over many years.

Quite. The UK media have no excuses whatsoever. They have connived in our whole constitution being undermined. I know that sounds a bit melodramatic - but when you think about all the tactics they use, it is almost an understatement.

I agree. It appears 'fair game' to destroy GA based on absolutely nothing (well, lies fed to them by the McCann's), yet not a bad word can be said about the McCann's. I just can't get my head around how it ever came to this. The papers should publish the PJ files and allow the public to decide for themselves. They would only be publishing fact. What a sorry mess this is and at the heart of it, the probable death of an innocent 3 year old girl. Shame on then.

I may be being naive, but if I was a newspaper editor looking to boost sales, I would already have signed up GA exclusively & be ready to print the whole lot as soon as the Court Case finishes, anticipating a positive outcome, especially having being seen to be so effectively silenced over the last few years from printing anything other than 'controlled news'.

Surely this is why we are getting so many bullshit stories from TM over the last few weeks to try & pre-empt & damage limit this eventuality, with plenty more TM broadcasts in the pipeline ready to be given to the competition.

The MSM Knee-jerk defence of the McCanns is not unusual. They frequently run articles about foreign police forces daring to accuse upstanding Brits of crimes. As the case develops, the police are accused of incompetence and the whole judicial system is denegrated. Why do they do it? Because their readers like to think of themselves as honest and superior to "Johnny Foreigner". The more vulnerable the accused, the more they ramp it up.

mysterion wrote:The MSM Knee-jerk defence of the McCanns is not unusual. They frequently run articles about foreign police forces daring to accuse upstanding Brits of crimes. As the case develops, the police are accused of incompetence and the whole judicial system is denegrated. Why do they do it? Because their readers like to think of themselves as honest and superior to "Johnny Foreigner". The more vulnerable the accused, the more they ramp it up.

I always find it amusing that the Establishment like to apologise for our Empire days, then proceed exactly as before. Bit like the Catholic confessional - shades of the late, great Dave Allen.

plebgate wrote:We live in a free country - I don't think so.

Precisely and most poignantly over the past 30 yrs. Whilst the laws have been torqued up to protect the rich, famous and powerful, the laws to safeguard an ordinary accused person's rights have been dismantled piecemeal to the extent that they are now barely existent.

Libel laws, super-injunctions, political correctness etc. are entirely confined to the domain of the rich and powerful, tools with which to beat the dissidents with enquiring minds. We witnessed a classic example of this when the Daily Mail accused the so called Eltham 5 of murdering St. Stephen Lawrence whilst challenging them to sue if they were innocent, safe in the knowledge of course that they would never be able to fund a libel action.

Contrast these libel and gagging laws with the CJA(Criminal Justice Act) where peremptory juror challenge has been abolished(except of course in the case of celebrities, the rich and powerful et al, ie. The Maxwell bros. where instead of standing in the dock, they were allowed to sit with their advocates as well as selecting their own jury) Unanimous verdicts introduced whereby a defendant requires at least 4 jurors to give them the benefit of the doubt, as opposed to 1. The abandonment of the so called 'right to silence' whereby guilt inferences can be drawn from a refusal to incriminate oneself. Previous convictions disclosed to jurors and lets have it right, one would have to have 12 pretty discerning people to discount the fact that because a person has committed a criminal offence in the past, it probably means they are guilty of the one they are currently being tried for. Pre trial disclosure of an accused person's defence and lest we forget, the abolishment of the Double Jeopardy ruling which had been in existence since the Magna Carta was signed at Runnymede in 1215. A statute incidentally, that was able to survive the tyrannical reign of the Tudors, but unable to endure the Coach and Horses being driven through the justice system by Nulabor.

Take into account the aforementioned and annex it to the POCA 2002 which reverses the burden of guilt, the erosion of legal aid to the extent whereby it is in the financial interests of criminal lawyers to persuade their clients to accept a guilty plea and it isn't difficult to understand why the CPS, although only requiring a 50% chance of conviction to prosecute, manage to maintain an 83% rate of conviction. The irony of such programmes as 'Banged up abroad' with their hypocritical johnny foreigner injustice insinuations never fails to amaze me, particulay when coming from such an overt Police State as the UK. The McCanns were very fortunate indeed that the 'disappearance' of their daughter didn't occur within the confines of the UK jurisdiction, because far from raising funds from the gullible public to finance their newly found fame, they would undoubtably have been languishing in HM's veritable institutions taking doctrines in day time TV.

I don't know whether others have noticed or for that matter care, but the total disarmament of the British people by Nulabor in 1998 coincided with the further armament of the police. Why, one could be excused for asking, would the gov. consider the further arming of the police necessary when it had disarmed its subjects. Some may state it is a coincidence that since the 1998 Firearms Act, the most draconian legislation ever imposed on the British people has passed through parliament and been entered onto the statute books, others may be a tad more sceptical. My personal opinion is that as long the soaps keep running on time and the proletariat are allowed to continue voting on who is banished from the Big Brother house, the Sun brings them their favourite celebrities on a daily basis, who cares about civil liberties and when the gov. make it mandatory to have CCTV in their bathrooms and toilets, their children micro chipped at birth, etc. etc. etc. so what, every other aspect of their lives is being tracked with their mobile phones, credit cards, CCTV, what difference does it make if they're being spied upon whilst conducting their ablutions.

But of course none of this will ever happen here, after all, we're a democracy and a shining beacon for all those oppressive states with torrid human rights records which Thulma so instructively described to us. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


I understand most of what transpires on this planet, but there are two aspects that totally escape my comprehension. The first being, why are the UK ruling elite going to such extremes to protect a couple of low ranking members of the medical profession. The second being, why do the UK ruling elite so vehemently detest their own people whilst treating them with such utter disdain. Perhaps like Dr. Mengales, they consider them to be a weak and captive audience only worthy of conducting inhumane experiments upon to test their resiliance, if so they've surpassed their remit and accomplished their goal many yrs. ago.

diatribe:
The first being, why are the UK ruling elite going to such extremes to protect a couple of low ranking members of the medical profession.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

You wouldn't have the GMC, local MP, or any of the 'great and good' that 'knew' the trusted and well respected great doctor, Dr Harold Shipman, having a bad word said against him!

Of course, after the truth about him came out, i would seriously think you'd be extremely hard pressed to find a single one of the 'great and good' to having a good word to say about him.

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

Controlling and dominating

During their interviews with him a highly confident Shipman denied all charges.

Detective Chief Inspector Mike Williams said: "He was an arrogant type of individual to deal with. And I don't say that lightly.

"I've listened to the interviews, and he certainly wanted to control and dominate the interview and the officers, at times belittling them. He was treating this as some sort of game, a competition, pitting his, what he considered to be his superior intellect, to those of the officers who were interviewing him."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"self considered superior intellect" (I'm a consultant cardiologist, my wife is a GP) "belittling people" (ask the dogs! Sandra)
"controlling or dominating" (I'm only answering questions i have vetted, not any 'off' official line, or i'll storm out of interview)  "arrogant" (say no more!)"

Does the above 'analysis' remind you of anyone we 'know'?
--------------------------------------

"we're smarter than DCI Andy and his whole 'team', nah, nah, nah, nah, nah"

Tangled Web wrote:

Okeydokey wrote:

Mirage wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

Dr What wrote:Aren't the facts contained in the official Police files on the case sufficient? The Gaspar statements?
As I say, what is the point of a 'free' Press if it refuses to take difficult issues on?

If an injunction barring the publication or transmission of certain files or documents is in force, anyone found to be in breach of the Order will be held to be in contempt of court.

I don't perceive any great reluctance on the part of the UK press to 'take difficult issues on', but when those issues relate to specific individuals who may have engaged in criminal activities the press in general avoid publishing any material which may subsequently prejudice or prevent a trial in a Court of Law.

I share your frustration but I take consolation from knowing that, when apprehended, the perpetrators of heinous crimes against Madeleine McCann will be unable to claim that the UK media has prejudiced their right to a fair trial.

Injunction understandable. But why go the other way and denigrate GA? That is also prejudicial to a fair trial ie: that guilty parties will be seen to have been maligned according to the way GA and the PJ have been portrayed in the press, thus prejudicing a future jury. There is a real risk that guilty parties may be found innocent because the public have been flooded with biased reportage over many years.

Quite. The UK media have no excuses whatsoever. They have connived in our whole constitution being undermined. I know that sounds a bit melodramatic - but when you think about all the tactics they use, it is almost an understatement.

I agree. It appears 'fair game' to destroy GA based on absolutely nothing (well, lies fed to them by the McCann's), yet not a bad word can be said about the McCann's. I just can't get my head around how it ever came to this. The papers should publish the PJ files and allow the public to decide for themselves. They would only be publishing fact. What a sorry mess this is and at the heart of it, the probable death of an innocent 3 year old girl. Shame on then.

I suspect there may well be a court order in place preventing publication of the PJ Files in the UK Media.

plebgate wrote:We live in a free country - I don't think so.

Urmm...urm..definitely NOT.

Perceived as free for some, but not for all.

Also, depends what's one definition of "free".

jeanmonroe wrote:diatribe:
The first being, why are the UK ruling elite going to such extremes to protect a couple of low ranking members of the medical profession.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

You wouldn't have the GMC, local MP, or any of the 'great and good' that 'knew' the trusted and well respected great doctor, Dr Harold Shipman, having a bad word said against him!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"self considered superior intellect" (I'm a consultant cardiologist, my wife is a GP) "belittling people" (ask the dogs! Sandra)
"controlling or dominating" (I'm only answering questions i have vetted, not any 'off' official line, or i'll storm out of interview)  "arrogant" (say no more!)"

Does the above 'analysis' remind you of anyone we 'know'?
--------------------------------------

"we're smarter than DCI Andy and his whole 'team', nah, nah, nah, nah, nah"

I have considered the reason for the cover up is to protect the good name of the BMA, Jean, in fact I did mention this aspect in one of my initial postings. The reason this theory holds a degree of credibility is because it isn't just the McCanns involved, but at least 5 of their friends were also doctors or affiliated to the medical profession.

Had the McCanns been the only doctors involved, there may not have been such a concerted effort to defend their actions, but with circa 7 of them being doctors, it may have been considered necessary to defend accusations of negligence against them. I don't subscribe to their friends calculatingly setting out to cover for the McCanns, I believe they were all initially lying to cover their own asses with respect to the negligence aspect and only later realised they were involved in covering up a murder or manslaughter, that's why none of their accounts configure.

Having stated the aforementioned, Jane Tanner must have realised at an early stage that the McCanns required corroboration of an abduction, hence the fraudulent sighting of a man carrying a child from the direction of the McCann's apt. and the blatant attempt to fit up Robert Murat. I also don't believe Oldfield ever entered that apt. at 9 30pm and saw the twins without seeing Madeleine. He knew he was on safe grounds stating he saw the twins, because they were unharmed and he didn't want to tie himself down to seeing Madeleine at that time, because he didn't know what other evidence might evolve to prove she couldn't have been in the apt. at 9.30pm. It defies all belief that a person would enter an apartment to check on the welfare of 3 children and only be able to account for 2 when they were all purportedly in the same bedroom.

I have 3 GSD's and if I go into the kitchen area where they sleep to check that everything is okay, I don't leave after only noticing two of them and presuming the other one is okay because I can't see him. I'd want to know where the f--k he is. 

aiyoyo wrote:

plebgate wrote:We live in a free country - I don't think so.

Urmm...urm..definitely NOT.

Perceived as free for some, but not for all.

Also, depends what's one definition of "free".

The only images I ever see of smiling faces in the UK are those of celebrities and politicos, that's probably because they've got their hands deep into the pockets of the proletariat.

diatribe wrote:
The only images I ever see of smiling faces in the UK are those of celebrities and politicos, that's probably because they've got their hands deep into the pockets of the proletariat.

This UK citizen likes to think that he has a happy, smiling face.  I won't speak for anyone else, but I'm very much enjoying life and freedom in this country :)

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

diatribe wrote:
The only images I ever see of smiling faces in the UK are those of celebrities and politicos, that's probably because they've got their hands deep into the pockets of the proletariat.

This UK citizen likes to think that he has a happy, smiling face.  I won't speak for anyone else, but I'm very much enjoying life and freedom in this country :)

Is that because you have your hands deep in the pockets of a proletarian ?    

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

  I won't speak for anyone else, but I'm very much enjoying life and freedom in this country :)

You're either a reincarnation of a fugitive from the 'Spanish Inquisition,' or a former inmate from Guantanamo Bay and I claim my £5 prize. 

Okeydokey wrote:
I suspect there may well be a court order in place preventing publication of the PJ Files in the UK Media.

Presumably, you don't think there's a serialisation of the PJ files on a Sun news stand near you on the imminent horizon, then. 

bobbin wrote:
Is that because you have your hands deep in the pockets of a proletarian ?    

Hah no, I'm a wage earner like most people :) I was deeply unhappy back in my 20s (which was some time ago), but then I decided to just do what I find interesting and worthwhile, and I've been happy ever since.    Anyway, this is all a bit off-topic...

Okeydokey wrote:

Tangled Web wrote:

Okeydokey wrote:

Mirage wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

Dr What wrote:Aren't the facts contained in the official Police files on the case sufficient? The Gaspar statements?
As I say, what is the point of a 'free' Press if it refuses to take difficult issues on?

If an injunction barring the publication or transmission of certain files or documents is in force, anyone found to be in breach of the Order will be held to be in contempt of court.

I don't perceive any great reluctance on the part of the UK press to 'take difficult issues on', but when those issues relate to specific individuals who may have engaged in criminal activities the press in general avoid publishing any material which may subsequently prejudice or prevent a trial in a Court of Law.

I share your frustration but I take consolation from knowing that, when apprehended, the perpetrators of heinous crimes against Madeleine McCann will be unable to claim that the UK media has prejudiced their right to a fair trial.

Injunction understandable. But why go the other way and denigrate GA? That is also prejudicial to a fair trial ie: that guilty parties will be seen to have been maligned according to the way GA and the PJ have been portrayed in the press, thus prejudicing a future jury. There is a real risk that guilty parties may be found innocent because the public have been flooded with biased reportage over many years.

Quite. The UK media have no excuses whatsoever. They have connived in our whole constitution being undermined. I know that sounds a bit melodramatic - but when you think about all the tactics they use, it is almost an understatement.

I agree. It appears 'fair game' to destroy GA based on absolutely nothing (well, lies fed to them by the McCann's), yet not a bad word can be said about the McCann's. I just can't get my head around how it ever came to this. The papers should publish the PJ files and allow the public to decide for themselves. They would only be publishing fact. What a sorry mess this is and at the heart of it, the probable death of an innocent 3 year old girl. Shame on then.

I suspect there may well be a court order in place preventing publication of the PJ Files in the UK Media.

Okey, I suspect you may be right.  Would this, do you think, be one of those secret injunctions?

Hi Diatribe

On this forum, I could not give a damn about the 'Lumpen' or the'Elite'.....in fact I don't think I could give a damn at any time.....but I do agree with you about Oldfield and his selective sightings of the McCann children.

I think that he knew something was not right [assuming he was totally innocent in knowing the reason for the scene setting of the 'visits' to the McCann apartment] and he realised that he needed to be vague about seeing all 3 McCann children in order to avoid being entangled in something sinister.

Perhaps the McCanns had hoped that he would have been less 'vague' in his statement, as Payne had been earlier when he also apparently 'visited' the apartment to witness Kate in a towel and 3 children in pyjamas.

Oldfield,I think, is in serious difficulty.

Dr What wrote:Hi Diatribe

On this forum, I could not give a damn about the 'Lumpen' or the'Elite'.....in fact I don't think I could give a damn at any time.....but I do agree with you about Oldfield and his selective sightings of the McCann children.

I think that he knew something was not right [assuming he was totally innocent in knowing the reason for the scene setting of the 'visits' to the McCann apartment] and he realised that he needed to be vague about seeing all 3 McCann children in order to avoid being entangled in something sinister.

Perhaps the McCanns had hoped that he would have been less 'vague' in his statement, as Payne had been earlier when he also apparently 'visited' the apartment to witness Kate in a towel and 3 children in pyjamas.

Oldfield,I think, is in serious difficulty.

Reminds me of the tricky moment in "Madeleine was Here" where Oldfield says he doesn't go into the room. He makes some statement of regret about not doing so and looks very uncomfortable. Even as the recon shows him saying where he stood and looked into the room, the camera doesn't follow his line of vision as you would expect, to show the audience what he could or couldn't see from that vantage point. I noticed McCann standing there by the door looking edgy as hell: mental cogs whirring. He then resolves the awkwardness, telling Oldfield he shouldn't beat himself up over not going into the room as, until "that night" he, (GM), had himself not gone into the room on his checks either.

Also DP in rogatory will not commit to going into the room after reaching the apartment with KM after she raised the alarm. He makes a great hoo hah of saying he went to the threshold of the bedroom but not in. He says from there he saw the twins cots parallel to each other.

Seems to me that no one wanted to say they had been in that room at any cost.

Mirage wrote:

Dr What wrote:Hi Diatribe

On this forum, I could not give a damn about the 'Lumpen' or the'Elite'.....in fact I don't think I could give a damn at any time.....but I do agree with you about Oldfield and his selective sightings of the McCann children.

I think that he knew something was not right [assuming he was totally innocent in knowing the reason for the scene setting of the 'visits' to the McCann apartment] and he realised that he needed to be vague about seeing all 3 McCann children in order to avoid being entangled in something sinister.

Perhaps the McCanns had hoped that he would have been less 'vague' in his statement, as Payne had been earlier when he also apparently 'visited' the apartment to witness Kate in a towel and 3 children in pyjamas.

Oldfield,I think, is in serious difficulty.

Reminds me of the tricky moment in "Madeleine was Here" where Oldfield says he doesn't go into the room. He makes some statement of regret about not doing so and looks very uncomfortable. Even as the recon shows him saying where he stood and looked into the room, the camera doesn't follow his line of vision as you would expect, to show the audience what he could or couldn't see from that vantage point. I noticed McCann standing there by the door looking edgy as hell: mental cogs whirring. He then resolves the awkwardness, telling Oldfield he shouldn't beat himself up over not going into the room as, until "that night" he, (GM), had himself not gone into the room on his checks either.

Also DP in rogatory will not commit to going into the room after reaching the apartment with KM after she raised the alarm. He makes a great hoo hah of saying he went to the threshold of the bedroom but not in. He says from there he saw the twins cots parallel to each other.

Seems to me that no one wanted to say they had been in that room at any cost.

Absolutely! I think the point is though that he isn't really at the "edge" of the door. He is standing outside the doorway. And yet in his rogatory interview he claims to have been able to see the the rise and fall of the twins' breathing - in the semi darkness, through the mesh sides of the cot (there would be no other way to observe them at that angle) and under bed clothes, presumably...

As for GMcC's comments, what father "checks" on his children by not observing them? Doesn't make any sense.

Seems to me no-one wants to have been the last to see Madeleine. Much as they appear to want to help the MCs, in my opinion they draw the line at this point and would prefer to leave 'the last sighting' firmly at Gerry's ajar door.

Dee Coy wrote:Seems to me no-one wants to have been the last to see Madeleine. Much as they appear to want to help the MCs, in my opinion they draw the line at this point and would prefer to leave 'the last sighting' firmly at Gerry's ajar door.

Maybe that is the reason GM won't corroborate Tanner's story of being in the street. The hot potato is being passed on camera and she knows it. Maybe that's why Tanner is crying in the Mockumentary recon, because she knows she has just been manoeuvred into the position that everyone else has studiously avoided - that of being the very last member of the Tapas 9 to see MBM. And for some reason, best known to herself, she cannot argue the point any further and retires hurt.

Mirage wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:Seems to me no-one wants to have been the last to see Madeleine. Much as they appear to want to help the MCs, in my opinion they draw the line at this point and would prefer to leave 'the last sighting' firmly at Gerry's ajar door.

Maybe that is the reason GM insisted he hadn't seen Tanner in the street. Maybe that's also the reason JW insists he never saw Tanner in the street. The hot potato is being passed on camera and she knows it. Maybe that's why Tanner is crying in the Mockumentary recon, because she knows she has just been manoeuvred into the position that everyone else has studiously avoided - that of being the very last member of the Tapas 9 to see MBM. And for some reason, best known to herself, she cannot argue the point any further and retires hurt.

So she must be very relieved then that Andy Redwood has removed 'tannerman'.
She is no longer the last.
It now goes directly back to our Gerry, who had this 'proud father' moment, looking at his daughter lying on top of the covers of the bed.

bobbin wrote:

Mirage wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:Seems to me no-one wants to have been the last to see Madeleine. Much as they appear to want to help the MCs, in my opinion they draw the line at this point and would prefer to leave 'the last sighting' firmly at Gerry's ajar door.

Maybe that is the reason GM insisted he hadn't seen Tanner in the street. Maybe that's also the reason JW insists he never saw Tanner in the street. The hot potato is being passed on camera and she knows it. Maybe that's why Tanner is crying in the Mockumentary recon, because she knows she has just been manoeuvred into the position that everyone else has studiously avoided - that of being the very last member of the Tapas 9 to see MBM. And for some reason, best known to herself, she cannot argue the point any further and retires hurt.

So she must be very relieved then that Andy Redwood has removed 'tannerman'.
She is no longer the last.
It now goes directly back to our Gerry, who had this 'proud father' moment, looking at his daughter lying on top of the covers of the bed.

That is my preferred ending. Checkmate.

Mirage wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:Seems to me no-one wants to have been the last to see Madeleine. Much as they appear to want to help the MCs, in my opinion they draw the line at this point and would prefer to leave 'the last sighting' firmly at Gerry's ajar door.

Maybe that is the reason GM won't corroborate Tanner's story of being in the street. The hot potato is being passed on camera and she knows it. Maybe that's why Tanner is crying in the Mockumentary recon, because she knows she has just been manoeuvred into the position that everyone else has studiously avoided - that of being the very last member of the Tapas 9 to see MBM. And for some reason, best known to herself, she cannot argue the point any further and retires hurt.

Bingo! Once she'd verbally given birth to the idea of Tannerman to the investigators, she couldn't then do a volte-face and deny him. This would be breaking the pact and labelling herself as a foolish and unreliable witness.

But I bet she didn't bargain for a final toss of the potato that Gerry gave her to catch alone. There were 3 people present in the street at the time but both Tanner and her abductor inexplicably and suddenly donned an invisibility cloak to the two other witnesses. What a charmer Gerry is. Bet he's spitting now Andy's come to her rescue, and the blackened and charred spud has finally rolled to a halt at his feet.

All my own wild speculation, needless to add.

Dee Coy wrote:

Mirage wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:Seems to me no-one wants to have been the last to see Madeleine. Much as they appear to want to help the MCs, in my opinion they draw the line at this point and would prefer to leave 'the last sighting' firmly at Gerry's ajar door.

Maybe that is the reason GM won't corroborate Tanner's story of being in the street. The hot potato is being passed on camera and she knows it. Maybe that's why Tanner is crying in the Mockumentary recon, because she knows she has just been manoeuvred into the position that everyone else has studiously avoided - that of being the very last member of the Tapas 9 to see MBM. And for some reason, best known to herself, she cannot argue the point any further and retires hurt.

Bingo! Once she'd verbally given birth to the idea of Tannerman to the investigators,  she couldn't then do a volte-face and deny him. This would be breaking the pact and labelling herself as a foolish and unreliable witness.

But I bet she didn't bargain for a final toss of the potato that Gerry gave her to catch alone. There were 3 people present in the street at the time but both Tanner and her abductor inexplicably and suddenly donned an invisibility cloak to the two other witnesses. What a charmer Gerry is. Bet he's spitting now Andy's come to her rescue, and the blackened and charred spud has finally rolled to a halt at his feet.

All my own wild speculation, needless to add.

I think the potato is still baking hot and has just fallen down his front, inside his trousers.
He's now hopping around in agony, wishing he hadn't missed catching it and lobbing it back at someone else in time.
At least, that's the image of rough justice that would bring a smile to my warped face.

Oh heavenly thought!   

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

Hot potato reaching parts GM never dreamt possible.