Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

by Guest 23.01.14 10:51

To contact Operation Grange AND/OR the Find Madeleine Team .... ???!!!!

by Guest 23.01.14 10:54

Châtelaine wrote:To contact Operation Grange AND/OR the Find Madeleine Team .... ???!!!!

Quite. Investigation@findmadeleine ............................what investigation?? they have said themselves they are not employing PI's now, so who is investigating?

by Garrincha 23.01.14 11:09

I hope this is the best thread to post this. Have been wondering:

Why would GM deny seeing JT when he was chatting with JW?

Why would GM & JT differ over which side of the road GM was when he was chatting with JW?

Is JW on record as to which side of the road he & GM were on when they were chatting?

I can’t figure this out but my gut tells me the answers may be of great significance

All in my opinon only etc

by jeanmonroe 23.01.14 11:53

Garrincha wrote:I hope this is the best thread to post this. Have been wondering:

Why would GM deny seeing JT when he was chatting with JW?

Why would GM & JT differ over which side of the road GM was when he was chatting with JW?

Is JW on record as to which side of the road he & GM were on when they were chatting?

I can’t figure this out but my gut tells me the answers may be of great significance

All in my opinon only etc

I have posted many, many times on this.

Q: "Why did the McCann cross the road"?

A: "to chat with Jez, obviously"

However, JW has NEVER 'contradicted/challenged' McCanns who have 'placed' him NOT crossing the road (in print and on TV) even though, under threat of prosecution, from both UK and Portuguese Law, gave a statement saying HE crossed the road to chat with McCann right outside the gateway to 5A and drew a nice sketch of exactly WHERE he was standing chatting to GM.

You will also be aware that JW, absolutely pivitol, to both JT and GM, as he was in street at the exact time JT 'saw' Madeleine being 'carried off' and GM telling all the others, after his 'check' at the tapas table about his meeting with Jez, did NOT get a 'mention' on the handwritten timelines, of which on the second one GM wrote his name.

(you'd think GM would have remembered chatting to 6' 4" Jez, and included him on the second timeline, he wrote his name on, wouldn't you? But he didn't, i wonder why not? It's as if both Tanner and McCann didn't 'see or chat with' Jez at all)

by sar 23.01.14 12:03

jeanmonroe wrote:
Garrincha wrote:I hope this is the best thread to post this. Have been wondering:

Why would GM deny seeing JT when he was chatting with JW?

Why would GM & JT differ over which side of the road GM was when he was chatting with JW?

Is JW on record as to which side of the road he & GM were on when they were chatting?

I can’t figure this out but my gut tells me the answers may be of great significance

All in my opinon only etc

I have posted many, many times on this.

Q: "Why did the McCann cross the road"?

A: "to chat with Jez, obviously"

However, JW has NEVER 'contradicted/challenged' McCanns who have 'placed' him NOT crossing the road (in print and on TV) even though, under threat of prosecution, from both UK and Portuguese Law, gave a statement saying HE crossed the road to chat with McCann right outside the gateway to 5A and drew a nice sketch of exactly WHERE he was standing chatting to GM.

You will also be aware that JW, absolutely pivitol, to both JT and GM, as he was in street at the exact time JT 'saw' Madeleine being 'carried off' and GM telling all the others, after his 'check' at the tapas table about his meeting with Jez, did NOT get a 'mention' on the handwritten timelines, of which on the second one GM wrote his name.

(you'd think GM would have remembered chatting to 6' 4" Jez, and included him on the second timeline, he wrote his name on, wouldn't you? But he didn't, i wonder why not? It's as if both Tanner and McCann didn't 'see or chat with' Jez at all)

If both GM and JT didn't see JW then JW, if there at all, could have seen something other than described?

Sorry, wrongly attributed "If both GM and JT didn't see JW then JW, if there at all, could have seen something other than described?" to jeanmonroe

by tiny 23.01.14 12:09

jeanmonroe wrote:
Garrincha wrote:I hope this is the best thread to post this. Have been wondering:

Why would GM deny seeing JT when he was chatting with JW?

Why would GM & JT differ over which side of the road GM was when he was chatting with JW?

Is JW on record as to which side of the road he & GM were on when they were chatting?

I can’t figure this out but my gut tells me the answers may be of great significance

All in my opinon only etc

I have posted many, many times on this.

Q: "Why did the McCann cross the road"?

A: "to chat with Jez, obviously"

However, JW has NEVER 'contradicted/challenged' McCanns who have 'placed' him NOT crossing the road (in print and on TV) even though, under threat of prosecution, from both UK and Portuguese Law, gave a statement saying HE crossed the road to chat with McCann right outside the gateway to 5A and drew a nice sketch of exactly WHERE he was standing chatting to GM.

You will also be aware that JW, absolutely pivitol, to both JT and GM, as he was in street at the exact time JT 'saw' Madeleine being 'carried off' and GM telling all the others, after his 'check' at the tapas table about his meeting with Jez, did NOT get a 'mention' on the handwritten timelines, of which on the second one GM wrote his name.

(you'd think GM would have remembered chatting to 6' 4" Jez, and included him on the second timeline, he wrote his name on, wouldn't you? But he didn't, i wonder why not? It's as if both Tanner and McCann didn't 'see or chat with' Jez at all)

I believe JW did talk to Gerry and I did read that JW saw Gerry mucking about with the shutters,but its such a long time ago that I cant remember where I read it

by russiandoll 23.01.14 13:44

e mail to the findmadeleine site [ which asks for suggestions as to how it might be improved ]   :

Following a request for suggestions on how the site could be improved , might I politely suggest that you read closely the update re the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, dated October 2013 on the web site of the Metropolitan Police.

There is a clear statement of priorities, number one being the renewed focus on one particular sighting approx. 10 pm  on the evening of May 3rd 2007.

The earlier sighting [ which had been the focus since the disappearance ]  is mentioned near the end of the statement, a sketch of a man seen at approx. 9.15, with the clear statement THIS MAN HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED.

It might cause less confusion if this sketch and text relating to this discounted sighting was now removed from your website, where it has remained for 3 months.

by aiyoyo 23.01.14 13:46

Châtelaine wrote:To contact Operation Grange AND/OR the Find Madeleine Team .... ???!!!!

You would think that should be disallowed.
It's not right that parents of missing child can ask witnesses to call them?
They are not running the investigation and should not have the right to be selective about info they pass on or not to the Police.
They have been getting away with that for 7 years and yet the MET did nothing about asking them to stop directing people to their site.
Their accounts reflect expenditure to operate and maintain this line when such frivolous spending of donation is not necessary.

by Woofer 23.01.14 14:32

aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:To contact Operation Grange AND/OR the Find Madeleine Team .... ???!!!!

You would think that should be disallowed.
It's not right that parents of missing child can ask witnesses to call them?
They are not running the investigation and should not have the right to be selective about info they pass on or not to the Police.
They have been getting away with that for 7 years and yet the MET did nothing about asking them to stop directing people to their site.
Their accounts reflect expenditure to operate and maintain this line when such frivolous spending of donation is not necessary.

This has been one of the most unbelievable corruptions of justice in this case - since when do the prime suspects get to check-out all the intelligence received, and therefore have the ability to discount it or not before deciding whether to pass it on to SY. I`ve never heard of anything so .... (I can`t even think of a strong enough verb).

In fact when you see what they have written about Tannerman on their website and how they discount SY, it gives me the impression they view SY as little children doing a project and they are the lecturers marking their work.

by aiyoyo 23.01.14 14:45

They gave the impression they're running the show, but they are NOT. They think they are, that's all.

by Woofer 23.01.14 14:52

I agree with a lot RIPM and paradigm67 have said on p.7 of this thread. Yes, I know if a whitewash of the McCanns was on the cards it could have been sorted years ago. I still think the McCanns will be protected but the length of time it is taking can only indicate that this one event that happened in May 2007, has opened up a massive web of depravity for AR which spreads into many layers of society, including maybe royalty. I never did get why the heir to the throne and his wife had to give their backing to the McCs.

CF delete if unsafe.

by Woofer 23.01.14 14:55

aiyoyo wrote:They gave the impression they're running the show, but they are NOT. They think they are, that's all.

I so hope you are right aiyoyo. pray2

by russiandoll 23.01.14 16:12

My reply from the findmadeleine site re the suggestion that they remove Tannerman sketch and text

This info was updated on our Web site last week.

Thank you for the suggestion. :)

Find Madeleine Campaign

let's check shall we. he was still there this morning.

cute little smiley face hey.... is this jokey thing appropriate for an official website for a missing child? NOT imo..

still there so off goes another e mail and the same to Grange

Thank you for your prompt reply. I have checked your site, because you have said it was updated with correct information last week and I read what I quoted in my earlier e mail only this morning.

This is what is on your web site at 4.15 p.m. Thursday January 2014.

Please note that the below contradicts the information posted as an update by the Metropolitan Police , who clearly state as I will show in my next e mail, that THIS MAN HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED. This dates from autumn 2013.

Your website is therefore contradicting that of the police who are in charge of resolving what happened to Madeleine McCann.

I would think that any information re this man would not be worth pursuing in the opinion of Operation Grange and that it will be a waste of time for your campaign team. Is it the case that you do not trust the judgement of DCI Andy Redwood, who is ALMOST CERTAIN that this man WHO HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED is not a man who abducted a child in May 2007 ?

Might I also add that a simple thank you to me for my suggestion would have sufficed. I regard my communication with you to be serious and not the type of message I might post on a social network site. I find a smiley face in your reply rather bizarre, given the serious nature of my communication. I did not suggest that you brighten your layout, but that you posted accurate information.

I appreciate that you are busy so will send you the text of the update from the Metropolitan Police last autumn.

Regards

Unidentified People of Interest to the Inquiry.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Have you seen these men? Do you know who they might be?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]These two pictures show a man carrying a child away from the family's apartment. This sighting was seen by a witness at 21:15 on the evening of Thursday, May 3rd, 2007.
Based or more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE on 0207 321 9251 (0044 207 321 9251 from outside the UK) or [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].uk and/or the Find Madeleine team on +44 845 838 4699 or [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

by Rasputin 23.01.14 16:33

The smiley face is simply another nauseating moment in the show of utter disregard shown for Madeleine.

by **PeterMac** 23.01.14 17:01

I was under the impression that Grange had TIE'd this man. That was what DCI Redwood told the world in the Crimewatch programme
It seems the McCanns are calling you all liars, or incompetents.
Yours
PeterMac

with copy of the site, as above.

by Guest 23.01.14 18:13

"Possible certainty" by Dr. Martin Roberts on McCannfiles, 23rd January.

by Guest 23.01.14 19:42

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts

23 January 2014

POSSIBLE CERTAINTY

Some things are certainly possible, others possibly certain, but let the McCanns loose on a QWERTY keyboard and semantics are certain to be twisted into all manner of extraordinary forms.

"Based on more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment...it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person".

Admittedly this qualification of Scotland Yard's position does not entail illogical extension of an absolute, as in 'certainer' (cf. 'stupider') – just illogical extension.

The Metropolitan police do not now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. They know he does. He came forward to identify himself as such, did he not?

Next, Mills & Boon style authorship is eschewed in favour of something more appropriate to Science Citation Abstracts. 'We cannot be certain' would be clearly personal and rather provocative. 'One cannot be certain' still a tad too familiar perhaps. Best make it completely impersonal, eh Gerry? Hence:

'It is not possible to be certain that...'

Give me a break!

Since it seems a case is to be made here on the strength of uncertainty after all (despite Gerry McCann's repeated insistence hitherto that one 'cannot prove a negative' – another mixed metaphor as it happens), let's evaluate a few more aspects attaching to Madeleine McCann's disappearance, about which it is 'not possible to be certain'.

Adopting the 'guest at the Ocean Club carrying his daughter back home' as our point of departure, who is it he might not have been after all, according to the McCanns? Jane Tanner's sighting of course. And what was Jane certain of having seen, according to her own statements? Answer: A child's legs clad in white pyjama trousers with pinkish spots and a ruched hem. Clearly visible. Clearly certain. What did she definitely not see (or she would surely have said so)? Answer: A large coloured roundel on the right leg identifying the pyjamas as being of the Marks & Spencer 'Eeyore' variety. Jane Tanner did not report seeing it, suggesting she did not see it, despite its being larger and clearer than all of the spots she claimed she did see. It was not there. They were not Eeyore pyjamas. It is therefore 'not possible to be certain that' the child was Madeleine McCann.

Moving on.

Madeleine's abductor (The Find Madeleine website refers to 'abductors', but how do they know?) having entered the apartment via the patio at the rear, must have absconded via the front door in order to traverse Jane Tanner's path (I think we can treat the 'got out of the window fairly easily' line of argument with the contempt it deserves). That's feasible if we suppose that the McCanns left both front and back doors unlocked, which in turn makes one wonder why the Ocean Club even bothered to have keys made. But they did. And they supplied one to temporary occupants. Not a copy of one, nor one per person, but one per apartment; one which Gerry McCann left behind on the kitchen counter when he and Kate exited via the patio door for 'drinkies' on the night of Thursday May 3, 2007. That's what he told Control Risks.

Why should Gerry have considered it important to bring that little detail to anyone's attention? If the front door were unlocked it wouldn't have mattered if a crow bar had been left behind. It wouldn't have been used anyway. Clearly that one simple act of forgetfulness was to furnish the abductor, hypothetically, with a means of exit via the locked front door. (Did the McCanns know he/she/they were coming? Surely not?). But when the McCanns both returned to their apartment, searched and double-searched for their missing daughter, did either of them notice the key in the lock, 'other than where they'd left it'? No. it must still have been on the kitchen counter (or in Kate's pocket, as we'll see in a moment). It had not been used to unlock the front door therefore. The abductor could not have gone out through the locked front door without using a key. If he didn't use the key, then he didn't open that door, and he didn't cross Jane Tanner's path.

Clearly 'it is not possible to be certain that' Madeleine McCann was abducted shortly after 9.00 p.m. Equally 'it is not possible to be certain that' the burglar either waited three-quarters of an hour to leave with his captive, or gained admission to the premises later, and without being seen by any other of the OC guests passing to and from the Tapas bar.

But back to the key.

According to his earliest police statement, Gerry (and Kate) entered their apartment that night through the front door, using the key (it must have been locked therefore). How did they manage to do that with the key left behind on the kitchen counter? Ah yes. Gerry first used it then left it behind just before returning to the Tapas table after 9.00 p.m. And Kate? Well she came in through the patio really (as she stated to police), picked up the key, then went out again and around to the front, where she used said key to enter a second time. Sorted!

To judge from their own depositions, 'it is not possible to be certain that' the McCanns entered their apartment between 8.30 and 10.10 p.m. that night, whether looking for Madeleine or for any other reason.

And so to mid-week (parentheses mine).

"During Gerry's tennis lesson, Madeleine and Ella came to the adjoining court with their Mini Club for a mini-tennis session... Standing there listening intently to Cat's instructions, she (Madeleine) looked so gorgeous in her little T-shirt and shorts, pink hat, ankle socks and new holiday sandals that I ran back to our apartment for my camera to record the occasion. One of my photographs is known around the world now: a smiling Madeleine clutching armfuls of tennis balls".

Thus Kate McCann tells us in her book (madeleine), clearly and unambiguously, exactly where her daughter Madeleine was that Tuesday morning, May 1st. She arrived at the tennis courts, together with Ella O'Brien, during Gerry's tennis lesson, which had started at 10.15. She was not therefore where she should have been at that time – with her kid's club playmates, at the pool.

On Thursday afternoon at about 2.40 p.m. Kate McCann captured the iconic 'last photo' of her daughter dressed in "an outfit I'd bought especially for her holiday: a peach-coloured smock top from Gap and some white broderie-anglaise shorts from Monsoon".

Madeleine was wearing nothing else but a sun hat. She was signed into the crèche by Kate that same afternoon at 2.50 p.m., no doubt following a hurried exodus from the pool area, but unfortunately twenty minutes late for the 'chalk space pictures' activity, which began at 2.30 p.m. Between them the McCanns arranged for Gerry to collect the children later while Kate went off for a run. That is what Kate McCann says in her book. There is no mention whatsoever of any additional visit to the children's playgroups in the meantime.

Since Kate has told us exactly what Madeleine was wearing at 2.40 p.m. we also know what she was not wearing – her swimming costume. So what did she do come 'dive and find' time at the pool from 3.30 to 4.30 p.m., stand and watch?

'It is not possible to be certain that' Madeleine McCann attended at the Ocean Club playgroup during the times referred to above and, by extrapolation, on any other occasion that week.

by russiandoll 23.01.14 20:55

He should not be there of course, and the text should have certainly looked like this if they were determined that he would remain

These two pictures show a man carrying a child away from the family's apartment. This sighting was seen by a witness at 21:15 on the evening of Thursday, May 3rd, 2007.
Based or more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However Kate and Gerry are not certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE

now who do I think is misleading the public, Redwood with his UNEQUIVOCAL DISMISSAL OF TANNERMAN or the McCanns with their attempted clever way with words which still manages to give the game away........WE AND THE YARD ARE [NOT[ AS ONE.

IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE CERTAIN, ASK ANDY.

a sighting was seen ? Who wrote this rubbish ?

by RIPM 23.01.14 21:01

IMO For those who believe SY and Redwood are working against the Macs, where is the evidence? Crimewatch touted as a major breakthrough, by the BBC and SY.

Why was it shown on that particular date, when they had all the information weeks before and Redwood just sat on it to make a TV programme, not to find Madeleine. It was shown because of the libel trial in Portugal. Look at the other major news days since, all coincide with the libel trial dates.

So who is orchestrating this, and more important why, is SY colluding with it, if they are really working for Madeleine.

The major plank of the Macs abduction story has always been JT seeing a man carrying a child away at 21.15, many who have studied the case believe it is total nonsense, but no, SY have officially confirmed it happened exactly as JT said.

How then has she been discredited?.

According to SY her recall is brilliant,unfortunately she identified a totally innocent holidaymaker.

Now, even more of us believe creche man does not exist, a pure figment of Redwoods imagination
We and the Macs know he cannnot produce creche man so there is an impasse.

The Macs can now prove SY have manufactured evidence against them if they should need to. The CPS will conclude under the circumstances, no charges can be laid and the case will be shelved. This will not harm Redwoods career he will be promoted, afterall he was only obeying orders.

Does anyone seriously believe the PJ did not investigate the night creche arrivals and departures. Does anyone seriously believe SY found this man still with the same clothes as 7 years ago.

So what have Redwood and SY said. The Macs and tapas 7 are not persons of interest, and JT is a totally credible witness.

Does anyone who has followed this case find these statements credible?

Even today the Macs are saying, ignore the police, send info direct to us and the Met blindly ignore it.

But why should this be, because the Macs and SY are working together to cover every avenue, no stone will be left unwhitewashed.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 23.01.14 21:07

In that case RIPM, why have an investigation at all? Why whitewash something that doesn't need whitewashing?

by russiandoll 23.01.14 21:12

RIPM can you give a credible evidence- based scenario for what is being whitewashed rather than quietly buried? And at such expense?

So you believe in a tandem cover up of a cover up,,, but appearing as if on different tracks?

BTW I am as unsure as most people about what is going on, but I do believe that the Mcs and SY are not on the same page, different agenda for each and there is strategy as in a game of chess. I understand the cynicism but I have a feeling based on what has been happening that there will be a result.

The police won't be controlled by a pair of ordinary people. So you think they have witnessed an event that needs covering up and have gained protection that way?

by Cristobell 23.01.14 21:24

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:In that case RIPM, why have an investigation at all? Why whitewash something that doesn't need whitewashing?

Totally agree. Why dig it up and present it to the public again and again.

by russiandoll 23.01.14 21:28

I think RIPM is of the opinion that they are doing a whitewash while creating the impression that they are doing the opposite.

I find that arduous and too much trouble....why I believe it would have never got this far and would have been buried.

I am intrigued though by why RIPM thinks they are playing it this way rather than just deciding to let it die a natural death some time ago, it is really interesting to swap very diverse opinions like this !

by Okeydokey 24.01.14 0:44

RIPM wrote:IMO For those who believe SY and Redwood are working against the Macs, where is the evidence? Crimewatch touted as a major breakthrough, by the BBC and SY.

Why was it shown on that particular date, when they had all the information weeks before and Redwood just sat on it to make a TV programme, not to find Madeleine. It was shown because of the libel trial in Portugal. Look at the other major news days since, all coincide with the libel trial dates.

So who is orchestrating this, and more important why, is SY colluding with it, if they are really working for Madeleine.

The major plank of the Macs abduction story has always been JT seeing a man carrying a child away at 21.15, many who have studied the case believe it is total nonsense, but no, SY have officially confirmed it happened exactly as JT said.

How then has she been discredited?.

According to SY her recall is brilliant,unfortunately she identified a totally innocent holidaymaker.

Now, even more of us believe creche man does not exist, a pure figment of Redwoods imagination
We and the Macs know he cannnot produce creche man so there is an impasse.

The Macs can now prove SY have manufactured evidence against them if they should need to. The CPS will conclude under the circumstances, no charges can be laid and the case will be shelved. This will not harm Redwoods career he will be promoted, afterall he was only obeying orders.

Does anyone seriously believe the PJ did not investigate the night creche arrivals and departures. Does anyone seriously believe SY found this man still with the same clothes as 7 years ago.

So what have Redwood and SY said. The Macs and tapas 7 are not persons of interest, and JT is a totally credible witness.

Does anyone who has followed this case find these statements credible?

Even today the Macs are saying, ignore the police, send info direct to us and the Met blindly ignore it.

But why should this be, because the Macs and SY are working together to cover every avenue, no stone will be left unwhitewashed.

I essentially agree.

Some people here are naive about the way things are done in the UK - it's a lot to do with appearance and a lot to do with deniability. We saw that with Saville - where his interests (in general if not in particular) were well known to people in the BBC.

It's only when someone's got a tape recorder in their pocket that it all falls apart as we saw with various Lords who of course weren't selling themselves to the highest bidder.

Redwood has a dual mission - to preserve the essentials of the McCann narrative and to produce a simulacrum of a police investigation...hence all the nonsense repeating lots of things the Portugese police had already investigated.

For me the clincher is getting the "innocent creche guy" to pose carrying the child with arms outstretched. Does anyone seriously believe that's how he was carrying the child? Of course he wasn't - but AR's priority was to preserve the credibility of JT's testimony.

by paradigm67 24.01.14 0:50

I don't think its a case of a whitewash, I think its just very much a case of as long as TM propagate the story, that SY have a public duty to investigate as they were dragged in from the beginning and hogtied from the outset. For them to give in all of a sudden would be suicide. All they can do is to be seen to be 'investigating' every spurious and quite frankly, ridiculous, lead. Make the occasional announcement that there is a new suspect, space the timings out so the eventually they will have nothing left but they will at least be able to say that they have investigated everyone and everything. Gradually they will have to declare that the investigation has no further avenues, conveniently coming up to the 7 year anniversary. I have at no doubt that at that point the whole TM machine will go quiet.

For them to backtrack and come up with the obvious at any time in the future, that the PJ indicated, that anyone who has read the PJ files and read sites like this where everyone is working together would be catastrophic for them. I have no doubt that they know a lot more than they will ever say - that's obvious and is completely applicable in any ongoing investigation. However, their hands and voices and futures are now tied and forfeited. I know that a lot of people will say that there is some sort of cat and mouse game going on but this isn't a TV drama and they would not operate that way, the fallout would be just as disastrous for them as admitting they are wrong.

I know the JT sighting keeps cropping up but isn't that the main reason why the PJ reconstruction never went ahead and TM never took part. To me that reconstruction, with everyone that was there on the night that would have had to simulate their placings according to their statements would have completely destroyed GM and JTs accounts. If that one single 'real' reconstruction had taken place then I don't think that any of us would be here discussing it now.

by paradigm67 24.01.14 1:02

For me the clincher is getting the "innocent creche guy" to pose carrying the child with arms outstretched. Does anyone seriously believe that's how he was carrying the child? Of course he wasn't - but AR's priority was to preserve the credibility of JT's testimony.

Who ever carries a child like that? Hasn't it been proposed before that the description given by JT is a subconscious mental reconstruction of how someone would carry a body and not a living person. I have 3 kids and have on many occasions like any parent have had to carry them when asleep - there is no way that you would carry a sleeping child that way. It would be massively uncomfortable for them and the person carrying them. To anyone that has kids that would have been a stand out factor - not the hair, the clothes, the way they were walking or anything else. Your first thought would have been that carrying a child like that would really not be right. TV shows may show people carrying bodies that way and to me that's where JT got that idea or memory from, not from any real world encounter but from a fictional representation that has been shown. That description was a massive slip up.

by Okeydokey 24.01.14 1:43

paradigm67 wrote:

For me the clincher is getting the "innocent creche guy" to pose carrying the child with arms outstretched. Does anyone seriously believe that's how he was carrying the child? Of course he wasn't - but AR's priority was to preserve the credibility of JT's testimony.

Who ever carries a child like that? Hasn't it been proposed before that the description given by JT is a subconscious mental reconstruction of how someone would carry a body and not a living person. I have 3 kids and have on many occasions like any parent have had to carry them when asleep - there is no way that you would carry a sleeping child that way. It would be massively uncomfortable for them and the person carrying them. To anyone that has kids that would have been a stand out factor - not the hair, the clothes, the way they were walking or anything else. Your first thought would have been that carrying a child like that would really not be right. TV shows may show people carrying bodies that way and to me that's where JT got that idea or memory from, not from any real world encounter but from a fictional representation that has been shown. That description was a massive slip up.

Yeah, but what does JT think..."ooh it's a bit chilly and they haven't got shoes on...that's not good parenting" LOL! It's incredible!! but sadly, AR of Scotland Yard wants us to believe it is credible - he really does, which is why he publicised that photo on the police website. Thanks to sites like this, however, we at least know it's not us who are insane for thinking otherwise! :)

I agree entirely with your analysis - it sounds like something someone under pressure would conjure up and subconsciously mix in images from disaster movies or news items (I am sure a lot of us remember the image after the Oklahoma bombing of a fireman carrying a dead child...just like that).

by Okeydokey 24.01.14 1:46

paradigm67 wrote:I don't think its a case of a whitewash, I think its just very much a case of as long as TM propagate the story, that SY have a public duty to investigate as they were dragged in from the beginning and hogtied from the outset. For them to give in all of a sudden would be suicide. All they can do is to be seen to be 'investigating' every spurious and quite frankly, ridiculous, lead. Make the occasional announcement that there is a new suspect, space the timings out so the eventually they will have nothing left but they will at least be able to say that they have investigated everyone and everything. Gradually they will have to declare that the investigation has no further avenues, conveniently coming up to the 7 year anniversary. I have at no doubt that at that point the whole TM machine will go quiet.

For them to backtrack and come up with the obvious at any time in the future, that the PJ indicated, that anyone who has read the PJ files and read sites like this where everyone is working together would be catastrophic for them. I have no doubt that they know a lot more than they will ever say - that's obvious and is completely applicable in any ongoing investigation. However, their hands and voices and futures are now tied and forfeited. I know that a lot of people will say that there is some sort of cat and mouse game going on but this isn't a TV drama and they would not operate that way, the fallout would be just as disastrous for them as admitting they are wrong.

I know the JT sighting keeps cropping up but isn't that the main reason why the PJ reconstruction never went ahead and TM never took part. To me that reconstruction, with everyone that was there on the night that would have had to simulate their placings according to their statements would have completely destroyed GM and JTs accounts. If that one single 'real' reconstruction had taken place then I don't think that any of us would be here discussing it now.

I think what you just described is known colloquially as a "whitewash".

by loopzdaloop 24.01.14 1:53

It's very interesting here that a narrative is being made that crecheman is made up and Scotland yard are at fault as opposed to the focus being on the source of this (tanner) and why the mccanns wish the public to believe that bundle man exists and that scotlandyard are the ones mistaken.

I feel that this thread has drifted somewhat as the crux of this (and perhaps is the most interesting) is the divide here between Scotland yard and the mccanns on this issue.

The question might be asked, who has more to gain from bundle man existing as opposed to crecheman.
Or who has the most to lose.

Fascinating thread :)

by Bishop Brennan 24.01.14 4:02

Based on the various comments, SY appear to be doing one of three things:

1. Fabricating a whitewash
2. Executing a 'cunning plan' against the McCanns
3. Investigating in a traditional manner, with one arm tied

Of the three, the simplest explanation of all the SY-related information is option 3. The CW programmes x 4; the Met's own website + interactive map; the two ILRs; the innocence of 'tannerman'; the new e-fits and signficance of 'smithman'. They all fit the SY current view: a group of baddies who for some reason (planned or spontaneous) decided to steal Maddie.

Will the theory turn out to be true? Who knows. It's a long shot for sure. But the crucial point in the thread is how the McCanns have reacted to this new post-revelation theory of 'abduction by a group some time after 9;40pm'. Instead of embracing it with renewed hope, they remain strangely loyal to 'Tannerman'.

Surely they cannot believe that SY are wrong and that their theory will fizzle out? For that would mean it wasn't 'tannerman', it wasn't the '3 burglars', or tractorman... it was nobody at all in fact... Which might leave them in a very uncomfortable position.