Innocent British Father

by Guest 15.10.13 16:27

That's nice for Jane, she's off the hook now, for the time being

But:

Who is this guy with the funny peasant-type blouse split at the side;

Is he really a father picking up his child (can we please see the night creche records of May 3rd 2007 to convince us);
Is he really British?
Is he really innocent? How do we know?

When, where, why did he come forward? Police records please to convince us.

Did anyone confirm his story? Records/evidence please.

Why did he keep a childs' pijama's for 6 years after she'd undoubtedly outgrown them?
Why did he keep that funny jacket for the same time?
Why shoes ditto?

Can we be sure we're told the truth, and were're not presented with a MI5 or SY plant/patsy/fake?

How?

by gbwales 15.10.13 16:32

My understanding of the CW bit about him was that the photo they showed of him side-on was with him dressed in clothes similar to those described.
ie: adapting him to fit the existing image. Most people would have looked similar....
I still think it's a weird way to carry his child though!

by deafoldbat 15.10.13 16:38

So what about the Powerpoint presentation produced in 2008 by the McCanns? Where does this fit into new theory?

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/POWERPOINT.htm

by MRNOODLES 15.10.13 16:43

Portia wrote:That's nice for Jane, she's off the hook now, for the time being

But:

Who is this guy with the funny peasant-type blouse split at the side;

Is he really a father picking up his child (can we please see the night creche records of May 3rd 2007 to convince us);
Is he really British?
Is he really innocent? How do we know?

When, where, why did he come forward? Police records please to convince us.

Did anyone confirm his story? Records/evidence please.

Why did he keep a childs' pijama's for 6 years after she'd undoubtedly outgrown them?
Why did he keep that funny jacket for the same time?
Why shoes ditto?

Can we be sure we're told the truth, and were're not presented with a MI5 or SY plant/patsy/fake?

How?

They made it up, because they knew JT made it up. All in my opinion of course.

by tiny 15.10.13 16:55

MRNOODLES wrote:
Portia wrote:That's nice for Jane, she's off the hook now, for the time being

But:

Who is this guy with the funny peasant-type blouse split at the side;

Is he really a father picking up his child (can we please see the night creche records of May 3rd 2007 to convince us);

Is he really British?

Is he really innocent? How do we know?

When, where, why did he come forward? Police records please to convince us.

Did anyone confirm his story? Records/evidence please.

Why did he keep a childs' pijama's for 6 years after she'd undoubtedly outgrown them?

Why did he keep that funny jacket for the same time?

Why shoes ditto?

Can we be sure we're told the truth, and were're not presented with a MI5 or SY plant/patsy/fake?

How?
They made it up, because they knew JT made it up. All in my opinion of course.

, I don't think jane tanner is of the hook,not by a long chalk,to pervert the course of justice is a serious offence

by ultimaThule 15.10.13 16:58

Should those responsible for Madeleine's disappearance be brought to account in a Court of Law, I suspect we will learn more about the concerned citizen who came forward, albeit 6+ years later, and enabled the British police to revise the all-important timeline and apprehend the perpetrator(s).

Maybe the pyjamas were retained for use by further additions to this man's family, but in matters of serious crime the police are able to source copies of clothing and other items and it could be this is what happened in respect of both the pyjamas and the clothes worn by this father at the time.

by SixMillionQuid 15.10.13 17:01

Just had a thought. The last Crime watch appeal was earlier this year and they did not mention this man carrying his child to the creche. Therefore he must made his appearance to the investigation recently...after six years of maximum publicity

by MRNOODLES 15.10.13 17:02

ultimaThule wrote:Should those responsible for Madeleine's disappearance be brought to account in a Court of Law, I suspect we will learn more about the concerned citizen who came forward, albeit 6+ years later, and enabled the British police to revise the all-important timeline and apprehend the perpetrator(s).

Maybe the pyjamas were retained for use by further additions to this man's family, but in matters of serious crime the police are able to source copies of clothing and other items and it could be this is what happened in respect of both the pyjamas and the clothes worn by this father at the time.

Good job the bloke's hair hadn't altered to much laugh

by ultimaThule 15.10.13 17:08

tiny wrote:, I don't think jane tanner is of the hook,not by a long chalk,to pervert the course of justice is a serious offence

It's not unknown for witnesses to become confused or to be so desirous of aiding the police that they convince themselves they've seen more than they actually did see.

It's also not unknown for material witnesses to serious crimes to be given some consideration by way of pleading to a lesser charge, where applicable, or immunity from prosecution in return for taking the stand.

by ultimaThule 15.10.13 17:10

MRNOODLES wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:Should those responsible for Madeleine's disappearance be brought to account in a Court of Law, I suspect we will learn more about the concerned citizen who came forward, albeit 6+ years later, and enabled the British police to revise the all-important timeline and apprehend the perpetrator(s).

Maybe the pyjamas were retained for use by further additions to this man's family, but in matters of serious crime the police are able to source copies of clothing and other items and it could be this is what happened in respect of both the pyjamas and the clothes worn by this father at the time.
Good job the bloke's hair hadn't altered to much

If he's gone bald in the intervening years, I daresay a wig from the BBC's costume department was commandeered for the faceless photo, Mr Noodles yes

by Seek truth 15.10.13 19:23

This father, who took so long to come forward, (is he going to get away with it?) brought his daughter barefoot in pyjamas from the crèche. So he must have dropped her off in pyjamas at what time? So she played and slept there in her pyjamas with no socks waiting to be picked up.

sarcastic

Was this the only crèche in the area, just wondering what it's called.

by Woofer 15.10.13 19:29

This Creche Man is bugging me as well - mainly because I cannot think of one reason why this man would not have come forward before now.

He must have known a child had been abducted from the complex he was staying at.
He must have known he was in that vicinity at that very time.

Is he deaf, is he simple, is he a hermit, is he blind, does he not have a computer, does he not read a paper, does he not have a television ? There surely cannot be anyone in the world (barring lost Amazonian tribespeople) who have not heard of this case. Perhaps he`s an Inuit and returned to his igloo.

I ain`t buying it.

We`ve all been looking at the Jane Tanner man for 6 years and I bet ALL OF US just assumed that if he was a holiday maker, he would have come forward - BUT HE HADN`T. Unbelievable.

by petunia 15.10.13 19:44

woofer. maybe Jane is has fed up as sy and decided after 6/12 years this has gone on long enough.she has had the pee taken out of her for years maybe she got in touch with Andy and asked for a secret word in his ear.

by Cristobell 15.10.13 20:06

Presumably the PJ have the original creche records. The night babysitters were the same nannies that ran the creche and the kids clubs, this must all be traceable, sleeping babies would be signed in and out.

On that chilly night, we are asked to believe a father collected his child, who was wearing only pyjamas, no slippers, and carried her across his arms in the strange manner described by Jane Tanner. Not only did he fail to provide a blanket for the sleeping child, he also failed to provide any bodily warmth by wrapping his arms around her. As Wendy Murphy would say, I'm not buying it.

by Guest 15.10.13 20:12

Does anyone know where the babysitting place was? Was it at one of the 3 crèches. Surely they would only use one at night as there couldn't have been too many around at that time of year. Everyone said if was very quiet. Bridget O'Donnell and Jez Wilkins used it the night before, when Jez carried his sleeping 3 year old home.

by Daisy 15.10.13 20:16

Cristobell wrote:Presumably the PJ have the original creche records. The night babysitters were the same nannies that ran the creche and the kids clubs, this must all be traceable, sleeping babies would be signed in and out.

On that chilly night, we are asked to believe a father collected his child, who was wearing only pyjamas, no slippers, and carried her across his arms in the strange manner described by Jane Tanner. Not only did he fail to provide a blanket for the sleeping child, he also failed to provide any bodily warmth by wrapping his arms around her. As Wendy Murphy would say, I'm not buying it.

According to Daily Mail article today, he did use a (pink) blanket. There's pictures of it alongside the childs PJ's he kept all this years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460669/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapping-innocent-British-father-mistaken-key-suspect.html

by tasprin 15.10.13 20:18

I'm not buying it either. What parent would bring their child out to a crèche wearing neither slippers or shoes - Even Jane Tanner thought he was a bad parent. Conveniently for the Met he's British, but where the heck has he been for the past six years?

by bobbin 15.10.13 20:20

Cristobell wrote:Presumably the PJ have the original creche records. The night babysitters were the same nannies that ran the creche and the kids clubs, this must all be traceable, sleeping babies would be signed in and out.

On that chilly night, we are asked to believe a father collected his child, who was wearing only pyjamas, no slippers, and carried her across his arms in the strange manner described by Jane Tanner. Not only did he fail to provide a blanket for the sleeping child, he also failed to provide any bodily warmth by wrapping his arms around her. As Wendy Murphy would say, I'm not buying it.

But, the outcome is that the public at large now are being informed of the Smith sighting and the police can focus on all the other possibilities of Madeleine's disappearance.
Always locked down by the McCs insistence that Maddie had been abducted because their friend Jane says so, and even getting Gonçalo Amaral moved off the investigation, to have the 'Tanner egg-man' removed from the equation, is really very beneficial.
Whether Jane whispered in someone's ear, whether the police did check creche sheets and find a man who had carried his child sometime that evening (and Jane's timing could be wrong) there are possibilities that the abductor was actually someone legitimate carrying a child, since 11 children had been in the creche that evening.
This is good news because for the first time in 6.5 years the investigation is free to really address 'other' circumstances.

by tasprin 15.10.13 20:24

Daisy wrote:
Cristobell wrote:Presumably the PJ have the original creche records. The night babysitters were the same nannies that ran the creche and the kids clubs, this must all be traceable, sleeping babies would be signed in and out.

On that chilly night, we are asked to believe a father collected his child, who was wearing only pyjamas, no slippers, and carried her across his arms in the strange manner described by Jane Tanner. Not only did he fail to provide a blanket for the sleeping child, he also failed to provide any bodily warmth by wrapping his arms around her. As Wendy Murphy would say, I'm not buying it.
According to Daily Mail article today, he did use a (pink) blanket. There's pictures of it alongside the childs PJ's he kept all this years.

Not sure how to put the image up but here's the link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460669/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapping-innocent-British-father-mistaken-key-suspect.html

But where is Madeleine's pink blanket? It was on the bed, but seems to have disappeared with her.

by ultimaThule 15.10.13 20:27

candyfloss wrote:Does anyone know where the babysitting place was? Was it at one of the 3 crèches. Surely they would only use one at night as there couldn't have been too many around at that time of year. Everyone said if was very quiet. Bridget O'Donnell and Jez Wilkins used it the night before, when Jez carried his sleeping 3 year old home.

In May 2007 the evening creche was situated in the reception block which facilitates entry to the pool and tapas bar whistling

by bobbin 15.10.13 20:31

ultimaThule wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Does anyone know where the babysitting place was? Was it at one of the 3 crèches. Surely they would only use one at night as there couldn't have been too many around at that time of year. Everyone said if was very quiet. Bridget O'Donnell and Jez Wilkins used it the night before, when Jez carried his sleeping 3 year old home.
In May 2007 the evening creche was situated in the reception block which facilitates entry to the pool and tapas bar

If that's the case, it's not where the reconstruction put it, and how did the man get to the end of the road to be travelling across in front of Jane heading where? not back to the reconstruction creche...I'm confused....

by Guest 15.10.13 20:32

ultimaThule wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Does anyone know where the babysitting place was? Was it at one of the 3 crèches. Surely they would only use one at night as there couldn't have been too many around at that time of year. Everyone said if was very quiet. Bridget O'Donnell and Jez Wilkins used it the night before, when Jez carried his sleeping 3 year old home.
In May 2007 the evening creche was situated in the reception block which facilitates entry to the pool and tapas bar

Thank you ultimaThule, is it possible for a link to this information please. Only Bridget O'Donnell says it was a 10 min walk from their apartment, and the This is Money article also says it was a bit of a jaunt through cobbled streets and apartments.

by Guest 15.10.13 20:32

bobbin wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Does anyone know where the babysitting place was? Was it at one of the 3 crèches. Surely they would only use one at night as there couldn't have been too many around at that time of year. Everyone said if was very quiet. Bridget O'Donnell and Jez Wilkins used it the night before, when Jez carried his sleeping 3 year old home.
In May 2007 the evening creche was situated in the reception block which facilitates entry to the pool and tapas bar
If that's the case, it's not where the reconstruction put it, and how did the man get to the end of the road to be travelling across in front of Jane heading where? not back to the reconstruction creche...I'm confused....

Yes, me too, that is why I was wondering where the evening crèche was.

by Daisy 15.10.13 20:34

tasprin wrote:
Daisy wrote:
Cristobell wrote:Presumably the PJ have the original creche records. The night babysitters were the same nannies that ran the creche and the kids clubs, this must all be traceable, sleeping babies would be signed in and out.

On that chilly night, we are asked to believe a father collected his child, who was wearing only pyjamas, no slippers, and carried her across his arms in the strange manner described by Jane Tanner. Not only did he fail to provide a blanket for the sleeping child, he also failed to provide any bodily warmth by wrapping his arms around her. As Wendy Murphy would say, I'm not buying it.
According to Daily Mail article today, he did use a (pink) blanket. There's pictures of it alongside the childs PJ's he kept all this years.

Not sure how to put the image up but here's the link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460669/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapping-innocent-British-father-mistaken-key-suspect.html
But where is Madeleine's pink blanket? It was on the bed, but seems to have disappeared with her.

Good question Tasprin. Although the pink blanket apparently disappeared after Madeleine

Just noticed this very interesting thread here.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2115-could-the-pink-blanket-help-to-re-open-the-case

by suzyjohnson 15.10.13 20:37

The most likely explanation regarding crecheman is that he had already been spoken too by the PJ at the time and eliminated from the enquiry, and therefore he wouldn't necessarily contact the police again. Perhaps the PJ are giving JT the benefit of the doubt, assuming her sighting to be the same person as crecheman who may have walked along the road five or ten minutes either way of Tanner's sighting. And possibly SY tracked him down again just to confirm the information he had already told the PJ.

It seems a bit of an unnecessary step for SY to produce a picture of him in his similar clothing though.

Either way SY have discounted whoever JT saw, if anyone, as irrelevant to the enquiry, and as Bobbin says everyone can now concentrate on the Smith sighting, without the JT distraction.