The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Page 2 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

0% 0% 
[ 0 ]
13% 13% 
[ 6 ]
0% 0% 
[ 0 ]
87% 87% 
[ 39 ]
0% 0% 
[ 0 ]
 
Total Votes : 45

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by russiandoll on 28.04.14 23:18

" she appears not to understand for what possible motive a person might suddenly join this forum, just in order to promote the patently absurd claim   "
   says Tony about me.

 1.   Anyone who joins makes a sudden appearance on the forum.

 2.   There is no way of knowing that this was the motivating factor for joining, or that this would be the only topic 1soapy would comment on.

   I maintain my opinion that your reply to 1soapy would have clearly shown your opinion minus the sarcasm.

 Goodnight.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by diatribe on 28.04.14 23:55

@Tangled Web wrote:If 'crècheman' did indeed exist, where are all of the interviews in the press? They'd have been all over this like a rash! The person we'd spent nearly 7 years looking for in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is identified and nobody wants to speak to him?


Precisely, I did in fact remark upon this aspect when first joining this forum back in Nov. 2013.

I stated something on the lines that he must be a very rich Crecheman, because he's the only person in 7 yrs. who hasn't attempted to cash in on the McCann's meeja circus

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by TheTruthWillOut on 29.04.14 0:02

Andrew77R wrote:
@1soapy wrote:Just wondered if there could be an innocent man who was spotted. A holidaymaker or local just using a friend as a babysitter as he went out for a drink and decided to collect the child himself and not bother with the child's coat as the child was fast asleep in the pyjamas he leaves there (as he knows the family well and/or the child sometimes stays overnight).

This may account for some things (direction of travel, wearing pyjamas, the sighting, possibly the position of the child in a lying position if home is close by and throwing the child over the shoulder might wake it up or the shoulders were aching/hurting for some reason) but it seems a coincidence that the clothes are similar to crecheman (but only if he exists) and that no innocent person(s) have come forward for elimination purposes, though I suppose some people have their reasons.

Stranger things have clearly happened in this case.
Welcome 1soapy.

IMO i think if Redwood and his sidekicks actually used there brains a bit more then the theory you suggested would hold a lot more weight and actually sound more believable and credible.

Instead they come out with the tripe they did which IMO is just not believable or credible at all.

I would love to hear from the P.J in there investigation whether or not said man actually DID come forward. I think not as there wasn't said man.

And I ask myself why. It just doesn't make sense they would be this stupid. I just can't get my head round why they came up with such a ridiculous scenario full of holes.

Even if you knew nothing of this case, the fact they claim this man kept his then 3 year old's pajamas for 6.5 years would make any sane person laugh, never mind all the other stuff that has been pointed out.

You would think with the resources and brains involved, they would've come up with something a bit more plausible if it is a whitewash...
avatar
TheTruthWillOut

Posts : 733
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2011-09-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by diatribe on 29.04.14 0:59

@TheTruthWillOut wrote:


You would think with the resources and brains involved, they would've come up with something a bit more plausible if it is a whitewash...

You wouldn't be surprised if you had read any of the 'verbals' the police attributed to defendants prior to the 1984 PACE(Police and Criminal Evidence Act.) These alleged interviews that were made up by the police in the canteen and signed by an officer above the rank of bottle washer had been admissable in evidence since time immemorial. Ask Petermac.

They may have been puerile and corny, the judges knew they were phoney, but that didn't stop innocent people being lifed off on the basis of them, Bob Maynard, Reg Dudley, Harry Mckenny, Terry Pinfold to name but a few, not to mention Derek Bentley who was hung.

''Who grassed me up, gov, I'll blow their legs orf'' ''Sure I done it, but you'll never get me to admit it'' were classics. This wasn't criminal vernacular, it was police vernacular. The Metropolitan Police make the LAPD appear positively honest by comparison.

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by 1soapy on 29.04.14 3:52

Hi all. Thanks for welcomes. Been following for quite some time and feel I know many of you. Feel well versed in the case generally, in particular the regular topics that arise which I follow much more than daily, but I may miss chunks due to the way I read or follow it, so don’t pounce on me if I suddenly appear ignorant on an issue.

Yes, there are folk who are overly twitchy or highly suspicious about newcomers. This can be justified on occasion but can also be negative and damaging. I would just give everyone the benefit of the doubt if they follow the rules and stick to facts/evidence and sound ideas or refer them to appropriate resources to read up on to save repeating stuff if they ask simplistic or previously answered questions - or ignore them. You won’t go far wrong then. It will save time, ensure your case or response is sound and tested and it will keep the blood pressure down too as well as avoiding conflict!

Russiandoll – Are the varying pics of you? You make miss world look ugly! Thanks for your openness/benefit of the doubt. Actually, I find Tony Bennett to be incredibly patient. He does occasionally use sarcasm or similar, but is always restrained and I’ve never known him angry (and check out his humour, quit wit and humbleness too) but having seen how much he writes and has often put up with in response, I know exactly where he’s coming from. He also addressed this recently, suggesting people consider his contributions in perspective as a whole. I also advise others to bear this in mind if you get the same treatment. I see a direct comparison with famous folk constantly in the media, expected to be smiley, well groomed, polite and friendly at all times. The one occasion they are not or get angry (e.g. deliberately prompted by a 'red top' antagonizer) is the one presented for us all to see. His contributions are immense and you are very lucky to have him along (with many others too). From an outsiders perspective, looking in, being here is a little like being in a space station or train compartment for long periods of time with a group in close proximity and, in spite of occasional mini outpourings, I am amazed that many of you haven’t burst open more often.

I have often wanted to make comments. There is nothing in particular that made me join NOW, so please do not read significance into it. Actual reason below.

I do not believe for a moment that there was a local or holiday person who is as yet unidentified. My motive (for raising said idea and how/why it could have innocently happened) was actually that I felt that there were fairly simple, believable options that had not been considered, which the ProMcCanns (if they were examining this topic) would easily find. That makes this site look short on intellect and big on bias, yet in my view, it is very heavy on intellect. I won’t comment on the other due to the large number of regular little throw ins by many members, though I don’t know how you’d survive without these bits, so I'll let you off!

I must admit that I didn’t know (according to the statements) that crecheman went past app 5A. But thanks to that added bit of detail which I no doubt could have checked up on to be honest (thanks Tony), the case I presented seems all the more unlikely.

I do have a view, very much along the lines of this site.

I must admit though, to not knowing where I stand on the matter of a whitewash or not (thanks to the likes of Tony Bennett and PeterMac and those who align more to one view or the other). I keep getting thrown between the two views - but interestingly and wrongly, not on the evidence but on the persuasiveness of orators.

Yes there’s been many examples of police corruption and at senior level as presented very well. Without huge sackings or the public/media outcry I’d have expected though, suggests they had damage limitation?).

On the other hand, could 3 dozen officers and the possibility of their research files being made available (legitimately or not) to someone in the future really be risked, and what about each of their moral compasses? Perhaps only one or some of the team are in the loop and merely direct the rest to follow leads in certain directions, unaware that they are dead end leads from the start. I just don't know.

I know too little of the way things work to reach a conclusion.

If I may just add this. Hats off to all the research/researchers/time/efforts given here and elsewhere in search of the truth. I’ll feel a huge empty space every time I get on the computer if or when this concludes, though I suspect there will be enough things happening and people involved – connected to the case and what they are up to (on both sides of prison walls) to justify continuance of this website, whatever happens. Did you see me just throw an unnecessary and biased comment in there?!

Intro over, sorry for extra, inextricably linked bits which are responses to some posts. Have addressed a couple of points. Will stay on topic from now on, if, as and when I post.

1soapy

Posts : 126
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-04-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Watching on 29.04.14 4:15

Not wishing to be rude to 1soapy but I too read his/her suggestion re Crecheman and have to say raised an eyebrow.  I did intend to respond but as we often do got caught up reading other items.  Had I done so, my response would have been in similar vein to that of Mr Bennett.   1soapy's lengthy  latest - has served to reinforce my thoughts of earlier.

Watching

Posts : 289
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Watching on 29.04.14 4:51

@1soapy wrote:Hi all. Thanks for welcomes. Been following for quite some time and feel I know many of you. Feel well versed in the case generally, in particular the regular topics that arise which I follow much more than daily, but I may miss chunks due to the way I read or follow it, so don’t pounce on me if I suddenly appear ignorant on an issue.

Yes, there are folk who are overly twitchy or highly suspicious about newcomers. This can be justified on occasion but can also be negative and damaging. I would just give everyone the benefit of the doubt if they follow the rules and stick to facts/evidence and sound ideas or refer them to appropriate resources to read up on to save repeating stuff if they ask simplistic or previously answered questions - or ignore them. You won’t go far wrong then. It will save time, ensure your case or response is sound and tested and it will keep the blood pressure down too as well as avoiding conflict!

Russiandoll – Are the varying pics of you? You make miss world look ugly! Thanks for your openness/benefit of the doubt. Actually, I find Tony Bennett to be incredibly patient. He does occasionally use sarcasm or similar, but is always restrained and I’ve never known him angry (and check out his humour, quit wit and humbleness too) but having seen how much he writes and has often put up with in response, I know exactly where he’s coming from. He also addressed this recently, suggesting people consider his contributions in perspective as a whole. I also advise others to bear this in mind if you get the same treatment. I see a direct comparison with famous folk constantly in the media, expected to be smiley, well groomed, polite and friendly at all times. The one occasion they are not or get angry (e.g. deliberately prompted by a 'red top' antagonizer) is the one presented for us all to see. His contributions are immense and you are very lucky to have him along (with many others too). From an outsiders perspective, looking in, being here is a little like being in a space station or train compartment for long periods of time with a group in close proximity and, in spite of occasional mini outpourings, I am amazed that many of you haven’t burst open more often.

I have often wanted to make comments. There is nothing in particular that made me join NOW, so please do not read significance into it. Actual reason below.

I do not believe for a moment that there was a local or holiday person who is as yet unidentified. My motive (for raising said idea and how/why it could have innocently happened) was actually that I felt that there were fairly simple, believable options that had not been considered, which the ProMcCanns (if they were examining this topic) would easily find. That makes this site look short on intellect and big on bias, yet in my view, it is very heavy on intellect. I won’t comment on the other due to the large number of regular little throw ins by many members, though I don’t know how you’d survive without these bits, so I'll let you off!

I must admit that I didn’t know (according to the statements) that crecheman went past app 5A. But thanks to that added bit of detail which I no doubt could have checked up on to be honest (thanks Tony), the case I presented seems all the more unlikely.

I do have a view, very much along the lines of this site.

I must admit though, to not knowing where I stand on the matter of a whitewash or not (thanks to the likes of Tony Bennett and PeterMac and those who align more to one view or the other). I keep getting thrown between the two views - but interestingly and wrongly, not on the evidence but on the persuasiveness of orators.

Yes there’s been many examples of police corruption and at senior level as presented very well. Without huge sackings or the public/media outcry I’d have expected though, suggests they had damage limitation?).

On the other hand, could 3 dozen officers and the possibility of their research files being made available (legitimately or not) to someone in the future really be risked, and what about each of their moral compasses? Perhaps only one or some of the team are in the loop and merely direct the rest to follow leads in certain directions, unaware that they are dead end leads from the start. I just don't know.

I know too little of the way things work to reach a conclusion.

If I may just add this. Hats off to all the research/researchers/time/efforts given here and elsewhere in search of the truth. I’ll feel a huge empty space every time I get on the computer if or when this concludes, though I suspect there will be enough things happening and people involved – connected to the case and what they are up to (on both sides of prison walls) to justify continuance of this website, whatever happens. Did you see me just throw an unnecessary and biased comment in there?!

Intro over, sorry for extra, inextricably linked bits which are responses to some posts. Have addressed a couple of points. Will stay on topic from now on, if, as and when I post.


"Feel well versed in the case generally, in particular the regular topics that arise which I follow much more than daily"

"I do not believe for a moment that there was a local or holiday person who is as yet unidentified. My motive (for raising said idea and how/why it could have innocently happened) was actually that I felt that there were fairly simple, believable options that had not been considered, which the ProMcCanns (if they were examining this topic) would easily find. That makes this site look short on intellect and big on bias, yet in my view, it is very heavy on intellect. I won’t comment on the other due to the large number of regular little throw ins by many members, though I don’t know how you’d survive without these bits, so I'll let you off!

I must admit that I didn’t know (according to the statements) that crecheman went past app 5A. But thanks to that added bit of detail which I no doubt could have checked up on to be honest (thanks Tony), the case I presented seems all the more unlikely."



----
I

I believe the above serves to justify Mr Bennett's curiosity shall we say in reference to your original comment 1soapy. 

 I fail to understand how you are well versed in the case, as you say, in particular the regular topics -  the sighting by Jane Tanner of a man close to apartment 5A has been the whole crux of the case by Mr & Mrs - therefore for you not to have known the location Tannerman/Crecheman was spotted by her requires the imagination to be stretched a tad too far!
 
That you felt there were fairly simple believable options, not yet considered makes me ponder as to why you did not furnish the forum with at least one of them for discussion?  Not clever!

Should you come across any of these options, no matter your source - whether sourced from a pro McCann as you made reference to, or any other, I for one would be more than happy to hear them.

I do have to add that your first post in reference to Crecheman whilst unbelievable (IMO) your second post by way of explanation for your first, more so!

Watching

Posts : 289
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by 1soapy on 29.04.14 6:04

Hi Watching/others.

And so your verdict upon me in clearer language that can be easily understood please?

1soapy

Posts : 126
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-04-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Seek truth on 29.04.14 7:09

It's like this:

Tanner went back to the restaurant (forgot to tell her friends she saw the man, forgot to tell them to go and check on their children who were alone) maybe she was very hungry.
She then forgot to point which direction he went, after she saw everyone panicking when poor Madeleine was missing.

After some people didn't believe her, 6 years later  Tannerman shows up, an innocent father who also forgot to tell the police.
This man had his child playing all day in pyjamas and bare feet, at that crèche, because her clothes were left at the appartment in the bag he FORGOT?

Seek truth

Posts : 447
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by sami on 29.04.14 7:25

The child wearing pyjamas is actually the one and only aspect of the story that makes sense to me.
I ve stated before I do not believe Redwoods revelation.  However as regards the title of this thread, I would think 90% at least of the kids dropped to that crèche would be wearing night attire.  Much easier to collect them and then put them to bed if they have fallen asleep in crèche.

It's a rubbish story from Redwood and an untruth by Tanner, but the pyjama wearing idea is not the strange part.  You will see lots of young kids in buggies at night on holidays with parents in restaurants.  Often they have night attire on, ready to be placed straight to bed at the end of the evening.

sami

Posts : 965
Reputation : 53
Join date : 2012-04-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Seek truth on 29.04.14 7:37

@sami wrote:The child wearing pyjamas is actually the one and only aspect of the story that makes sense to me.
I ve stated before I do not believe Redwoods revelation.  However as regards the title of this thread, I would think 90% at least of the kids dropped to that crèche would be wearing night attire.  Much easier to collect them and then put them to bed if they have fallen asleep in crèche.

It's a rubbish story from Redwood and an untruth by Tanner, but the pyjama wearing idea is not the strange part.  You will see lots of young kids in buggies at night on holidays with parents in restaurants.  Often they have night attire on, ready to be placed straight to bed at the end of the evening.
Tannerman didn't have a bag with clothes on his back, which means its a crèche where kids play in pyjamas and no shoes.

We're not just talking about kids in pyjama crèches.
The question is where was that girls clothes, and her slippers? Where was her blanket?

Seek truth

Posts : 447
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Nina on 29.04.14 7:38

@sami wrote:The child wearing pyjamas is actually the one and only aspect of the story that makes sense to me.
I ve stated before I do not believe Redwoods revelation.  However as regards the title of this thread, I would think 90% at least of the kids dropped to that crèche would be wearing night attire.  Much easier to collect them and then put them to bed if they have fallen asleep in crèche.

It's a rubbish story from Redwood and an untruth by Tanner, but the pyjama wearing idea is not the strange part.  You will see lots of young kids in buggies at night on holidays with parents in restaurants.  Often they have night attire on, ready to be placed straight to bed at the end of the evening.
I agree Sami. The ones that I have ever seen though, and I have seen many, have a blanket or something over them against the night chill. That is the only difference for me. Both Crecheman and Smithman, if both or either actually exist, were carrying a child without any other covering in the chill of an early May evening.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.
avatar
Nina

Posts : 2861
Reputation : 334
Join date : 2011-06-16
Age : 74

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by joyce1938 on 29.04.14 8:40

I have never read that tannerman walked passed the apartment that the macs family stayed? which tony I think said to 1 soapy ?  Walked across the top of road ,supposedly the wrong direction . now if that is correct  there are a few things that one might not take too much notice of .Yes in all good faith ,there just have been at least one innocent reason for that man to be out at night carrying a child ,the PJ are definite mistake the picture printed on this site ,no where near to what maddie was said to be wearing ,and yes I do remember the photo of macs holding the top up for a photo ,and it was said to be one purchessed for this pic.not one that was being used .  I must say I too almostwanted to post up ,how sure we are this tannerman could be the only one carrying child ,he too may just be muddled up .Did he not say he did go to police not too long after the event ? so its not a case he left it allthese years before it coming from the horses mouth . I ask why if touught interesting ,the PJ didn't take it up ? possibly didn't think it relevant to maddie . Ofcourse I have no better proof than anyone else here .regards to all joyce1938
avatar
joyce1938

Posts : 847
Reputation : 113
Join date : 2010-04-20
Age : 78
Location : england

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by sami on 29.04.14 9:02

@Seek truth wrote:Tannerman didn't have a bag with clothes on his back, which means its a crèche where kids play in pyjamas and no shoes.

We're not just talking about kids in pyjama crèches.
The question is where was that girls clothes, and her slippers? Where was her blanket?


No the question on the thread was why was he carrying her in pyjamas.  He was doing so because, as I said, he dropped her there early in the evening dressed in them to avoid having to do it later that night, after collection, whilst she would most likely be half asleep.  A usual set of circumstances.  I was answering that.

Her clothes would be at home.  There are no slippers, actually she would most likely wear socks, no blanket and no buggy because there was no Tannerman.  For Tanner to be convincing she needed to see pyjamas, know it was a girl and notice something that made her feel uneasy/draw her attention to the man - so bare feet and no blanket.  

Nina, I agree and it is another reason to wonder about Smithman.   Many would use a buggy and blanket or the majority at least a blanket.  That both men spotted that night had no blanket is unusual, particularly when considering the fact no other wandering parents with sleeping children were noticed that night and the fact they were both lone men.

sami

Posts : 965
Reputation : 53
Join date : 2012-04-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Guest on 29.04.14 9:49

If Redwood and Op Granges remit was to 'clear' the Mccann's then surely his 'revelation' moment would be to eliminate Smithman and say that he came forward after all this time. Innocent father coming back from the creche blah blah, looks a bit like Gerry blah hence the suppression of the efits blah but it's 100% not Gerry blah. 

As Petermac stated in another thread. By eliminating Tannerman then this rules the Mccann's back in the frame 100%. If he made Tannerman the priority and main focus then that would give Gerry the alibi that he so clearly wanted. In turn that would direct suspicions away from Gerry but he didn't, why...

He ruled Tannerman out. Emphasised the Smith sighting. Now i don't believe Tannerman ever existed although they could of found someone who around that time who WAS taking his child back from a night creche and TOLD Jane Tanner that THIS WAS the person YOU SAW. Even though IMO she DIDN't see anyone. Therefore getting Jane off the hook with her lies in return for more information about THAT NIGHT.

Maybe Op Grange are playing a very clever game in tightening the net around the Mccann's after all.

Just a thought as desperately trying to think of things that's not going down the 'Whitewash' route..
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Tony Bennett on 29.04.14 10:00

According to the gospel according to DCI Redwood (Revised version, 14 October 2013, op. cit.), there were two instances on the evening of 3 May 2007 when the following were seen, on a coldish night, with the temperature about 13 deg C, 55 deg F):

1. A man

2. About say 25 to 40

3. On his own

4. With no mother, partner, girlfriend or other companion

5. Carrying a child

6. Whose head was on the man's left arm or shoulder

7. He was walking 'purposefully' (Tannerman or crecheman - the same individual according to Redwood) or fast (Smithman)

8. The child was female

9. The child was blond

10. The girl was 'about 4 years old'

11. She was dressed only in pyjamas

12. She had nothing on her feet

13. She had no covering on her to protect her against the cold

14. Her pyjamas were whiteish/pinkish

15. Her pyjamas were patterned in some way  

16. The man had no buggy or pushchair

17. He was not carrying any day clothes back home with him

18. The two lone men were wearing very similar clothing, darkish jacket and lightish trousers.


One 'sighting' was at precisely 9.15pm.

The other was, give or take a few minutes, around 9.55pm to 10.00pm.


I'm not buying either of them.

I believe neither of them ever existed.

They are both fabrications - IMO.

DCI Redwood knows this - IMO.

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14725
Reputation : 2846
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Tony Bennett on 29.04.14 10:10

Andrew77R wrote:
He ruled Tannerman out. Emphasised the Smith sighting. Now i don't believe Tannerman ever existed although they could of found someone who around that time who WAS taking his child back from a night creche and TOLD Jane Tanner that THIS WAS the person YOU SAW. Even though IMO she DIDN't see anyone. Therefore getting Jane off the hook with her lies in return for more information about THAT NIGHT.

REPLY:  In the above sceanrio, you are formally alleging that Jane Tanner committed the very serious offence (punishable by a maximum life sentence in this country) of perverting the course of justice.  Redwood would be duty bound, if such an offence had been committed in England, to refer the matter to the CPS for advice on whether to prosecute her. If you are right, Jane Tanner HAS actually committed this offence in this country - in her rogatory interview - by repeating what you allege is an outright fabrication, moreover concerning the whereabouts of a missing child. 

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14725
Reputation : 2846
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Guest on 29.04.14 10:27

@Tony Bennett wrote:According to the gospel according to DCI Redwood (Revised version, 14 October 2013, op. cit.), there were two instances on the evening of 3 May 2007 when the following were seen, on a coldish night, with the temperature about 13 deg C, 55 deg F):

1. A man

2. About say 25 to 40

3. On his own

4. With no mother, partner, girlfriend or other companion

5. Carrying a child

6. Whose head was on the man's left arm or shoulder

7. He was walking 'purposefully' (Tannerman or crecheman - the same individual according to Redwood) or fast (Smithman)

8. The child was female

9. The child was blond

10. The girl was 'about 4 years old'

11. She was dressed only in pyjamas

12. She had nothing on her feet

13. She had no covering on her to protect her against the cold

14. Her pyjamas were whiteish/pinkish

15. Her pyjamas were patterned in some way  

16. The man had no buggy or pushchair

17. He was not carrying any day clothes back home with him

18. The two lone men were wearing very similar clothing, darkish jacket and lightish trousers.


One 'sighting' was at precisely 9.15pm.

The other was, give or take a few minutes, around 9.55pm to 10.00pm.


I'm not buying either of them.

I believe neither of them ever existed.

They are both fabrications - IMO.

DCI Redwood knows this - IMO.
Seconded!

parapono
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Guest on 29.04.14 10:30

@Tony Bennett wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
He ruled Tannerman out. Emphasised the Smith sighting. Now i don't believe Tannerman ever existed although they could of found someone who around that time who WAS taking his child back from a night creche and TOLD Jane Tanner that THIS WAS the person YOU SAW. Even though IMO she DIDN't see anyone. Therefore getting Jane off the hook with her lies in return for more information about THAT NIGHT.

REPLY:  In the above sceanrio, you are formally alleging that Jane Tanner committed the very serious offence (punishable by a maximum life sentence in this country) of perverting the course of justice.  Redwood would be duty bound, if such an offence had been committed in England, to refer the matter to the CPS for advice on whether to prosecute her. If you are right, Jane Tanner HAS actually committed this offence in this country - in her rogatory interview - by repeating what you allege is an outright fabrication, moreover concerning the whereabouts of a missing child. 
I certainly do think that Jane Tanner is guilty of perverting the course of justice. Along with the rest of the Tapas lot and not to mention god knows how many other people who are connected in some way to Team Mccann.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by AndyB on 29.04.14 10:38

@Tony Bennett wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
He ruled Tannerman out. Emphasised the Smith sighting. Now i don't believe Tannerman ever existed although they could of found someone who around that time who WAS taking his child back from a night creche and TOLD Jane Tanner that THIS WAS the person YOU SAW. Even though IMO she DIDN't see anyone. Therefore getting Jane off the hook with her lies in return for more information about THAT NIGHT.

REPLY:  In the above sceanrio, you are formally alleging that Jane Tanner committed the very serious offence (punishable by a maximum life sentence in this country) of perverting the course of justice.  Redwood would be duty bound, if such an offence had been committed in England, to refer the matter to the CPS for advice on whether to prosecute her. If you are right, Jane Tanner HAS actually committed this offence in this country - in her rogatory interview - by repeating what you allege is an outright fabrication, moreover concerning the whereabouts of a missing child. 
Has she committed an offence though? If there is any justice that has been perverted it is surely Portuguese justice. (I'm not defending her, I'm just asking)

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 54
Location : Consett, County Durham

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by Tony Bennett on 29.04.14 10:45

@AndyB wrote:
Has she committed an offence though? If there is any justice that has been perverted it is surely Portuguese justice. (I'm not defending her, I'm just asking)
Your allegation/claim is that Jane Tanner lied about a missing child by fabricating a 'sighting' of her. That is a very serious offence indeed.

If she did that in this country, yes it would be 'perverting the course of justice'. And your claim is that she did indeed lie to a British police force - Leicestershire Constabulary.

I do not know the law in Portugal, but in most jurisdictions the world over there are severe penalities for lying to police and lying to the courts.

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14725
Reputation : 2846
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by russiandoll on 29.04.14 10:58

1soapy : my avatar has changed for the last time. Sorry for confusion. Apart from the wooden matrioshka doll, the real women are not alike in looks imo, just a group of Russian " dolls ".  Google Russian hats and you get lots of nice photos...

 This last one chosen by my kids who think she is the image of me in my graduation photo [ although I wear a Cossack hat now and then, I graduated in the customary mortar board !]  Sadly, although I am told I have great genes [ did they really mean great jeans? ] I am old enough to be her mother !  big grin

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by russiandoll on 29.04.14 11:01

O/T re Tannerman and crechedad.... but Martin Smith changed his recall re clothing after 6 months. In May 2007, his memory had been the same as Aoife re the clothing worn top half... could not see/ recall what Smithman wore, then 6 months later, Martin remembered

" Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer."

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by AndyB on 29.04.14 11:02

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@AndyB wrote:
Has she committed an offence though? If there is any justice that has been perverted it is surely Portuguese justice. (I'm not defending her, I'm just asking)
Your allegation/claim is that Jane Tanner lied about a missing child by fabricating a 'sighting' of her. That is a very serious offence indeed.

If she did that in this country, yes it would be 'perverting the course of justice'. And your claim is that she did indeed lie to a British police force - Leicestershire Constabulary.

I do not know the law in Portugal, but in most jurisdictions the world over there are severe penalities for lying to police and lying to the courts.
It wasn't actually my allegation or my claim. What I was questioning is whether someone, having lied to the English police about an alleged crime that happened abroad, has committed an offence in English law given that, in this case, the justice that would have been perverted is Portuguese. It seems that the answer is yes, anyone who lies to the police about anything has automatically perverted the course of justice. Am I correct?

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 54
Location : Consett, County Durham

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

Post by russiandoll on 29.04.14 11:03

Andy B... I think that you are almost certainly correct.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum