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

by **Tony Bennett** 27.04.14 23:26

A. Because when he left his daughter in the creche, he told the staff to get her ready to take home in her pyjamas

B. Because he took her there in her pyjamas

C. Because when he arrived to take her home, he had no pyjamas, and the staff gave him a spare pair

D. There was no 'crecheman', there was no girl. Redwood made this up

E. Some other reason.

There clearly must be a rational explanation for why a man would take a 4-year-old girl home from a creche...

1. Heading in the wroing direction

2. On a cold night (about 13 deg C, 55 deg F)

3. At 9.15pm

4. Without a buggy

5. In her pyjamas with nothing on her feet

6. With no coat, blamket or other covering

7. Not carrying her day clothes back home with him

8. On his own, without a wife, partner or companion.

I am trying to make sense of it.

Does anyone have a clear and logical explanation for this unusual event?

by Guest 28.04.14 0:54

Has anyone actually said the child was at the creche? When my children were little, we always got them ready for bed before we left anywhere. If he was in fact a local, he could gave done the same, driven home and carried the child a few yards from his car to home. Imo, if this guy exists then he has been fingered by our unreliable witness.

by Watching 28.04.14 2:07

Tony Bennett wrote:A. Because when he left his daughter in the creche, he told the staff to get her ready to take home in her pyjamas

B. Because he took her there in her pyjamas

C. Because when he arrived to take her home, he had no pyjamas, and the staff gave him a spare pair

D. There was no 'crecheman', there was no girl. Redwood made this up

E. Some other reason.

There clearly must be a rational explanation for why a man would take a 4-year-old girl home from a creche...

1. Heading in the wroing direction

2. On a cold night (about 13 deg C, 55 deg F)

3. At 9.15pm

4. Without a buggy

5. In her pyjamas with nothing on her feet

6. With no coat, blamket or other covering

7. Not carrying her day clothes back home with him

8. On his own, without a wife, partner or companion.

I am trying to make sense of it.

Does anyone have a clear and logical explanation for this unusual event?

Why? Because Redwood said he was!

More seriously, the only logic which can be applied here is that the guy doesn't exist!

by **tigger** 28.04.14 6:02

Watching wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:A. Because when he left his daughter in the creche, he told the staff to get her ready to take home in her pyjamas

B. Because he took her there in her pyjamas

C. Because when he arrived to take her home, he had no pyjamas, and the staff gave him a spare pair

D. There was no 'crecheman', there was no girl. Redwood made this up

E. Some other reason.

There clearly must be a rational explanation for why a man would take a 4-year-old girl home from a creche...

1. Heading in the wroing direction

2. On a cold night (about 13 deg C, 55 deg F)

3. At 9.15pm

4. Without a buggy

5. In her pyjamas with nothing on her feet

6. With no coat, blamket or other covering

7. Not carrying her day clothes back home with him

8. On his own, without a wife, partner or companion.

I am trying to make sense of it.

Does anyone have a clear and logical explanation for this unusual event?

Why? Because Redwood said he was!

More seriously, the only logic which can be applied here is that the guy doesn't exist!

The most ridiculous part of crecheman? He produced 7 year old pyjamas his daughter wore that night.

Now imo only a man could dream that up, mothers know that the quality and size of pyjamas gives them no more than one or two years' use and then obviously not for the same child as they grow out of them so fast.

Seven year old pyjamas. Produced on demand. Yeah, of course we believe that. splat

by Carrry On Doctor 28.04.14 6:49

The most ridiculous part of crecheman? He produced 7 year old pyjamas his daughter wore that night.

Now imo only a man could dream that up, mothers know that the quality and size of pyjamas gives them no more than one or two years' use and then obviously not for the same child as they grow out of them so fast.

Seven year old pyjamas. Produced on demand. Yeah, of course we believe that.

Totally agree.....he doesn't exist for the reasons given by Tony......so why invent him ?

Is AR smoking them out....and would this particular ploy be an own goal in a courtroom ? or;

Is it justification for the Tanner sighting that aids a whitewash ?

I cannot see a whitewash working in the long term (the truth will out etc..) but it does seem a better fit for crecheman.

IMO of course

by joyce1938 28.04.14 9:11

I am surprised that the childs pajamas were sketched at all ,have no resembalese to the ones maddie was using from M S bottoms pink ? Why would it be that we have seen parents of maddie holding up the type so said is such a mystery still ?Infact that said pyjama set that is supposed to be same as maddies,could look to be more like a fleece set of top and bottoms.Cant see why this could possably be all that interestin g. clothes wise why would chap say he kept pj s for so long ,something is really odd here ,maybe few men were on street that night . also I think its been said his wife was a little way ahead or behind with the other child that had been in cresh ? joyce1938

by **Tony Bennett** 28.04.14 9:20

chilli wrote:Has anyone actually said the child was at the creche? When my children were little, we always got them ready for bed before we left anywhere. If he was in fact a local, he could gave done the same, driven home and carried the child a few yards from his car to home. Imo, if this guy exists then he has been fingered by our unreliable witness.

chilli, I am wondering now if you ever saw the Crimewatch programme on 14 October 2013?

This is a YouTube video of the Crimewatch programme: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

At 21.40 mins to 22.10 mins, DCI Andy Redwood says this:

"One of the things that we picked up on very quickly was that there was a night creche that was operating from the main Oceran Club reception - and 8 families had left 11 children in there, and one particular family we spoke to gave us information that was really interesting and exciting , in fact, I would, I would say, er, it was a revelation moment...when, having discussed with them what they were doing on the night, they themselves believed that they could be the Tanner sighting... "

Incidentally, in relation to Redwood's tale, he speaks of 'they' and 'them', clearly implying that there was a man and the girl's mother (wife or partner), which rather reinforces my point 8: Why was he carrying this child, without a buggy, without warm clothes etc., on his own, without a wife, partner or companion?

I can't agree at all with your scenario of a man driving home in a car, having taken his child in pyjamas to the creche - it seems unlikely in the extreme. Again, if that were true, why isn't he walking the short distance from his car to his home with his wife (or whoever is included in Redwood's references to 'they and them'?).

P.S. I also think that Redwood's use of the word 'exciting' is Freudian

by Tangled Web 28.04.14 9:54

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?

Surely this man must've witnessed SOMETHING?? Yet we are told nothing! thinking

Tangled Web.

by unchained melody 28.04.14 10:05

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?

Surely this man must've witnessed SOMETHING?? Yet we are told nothing!

Tangled Web.

Spot on. Proof it was made up.

by Watching 28.04.14 10:09

Tony Bennett wrote:
chilli wrote:Has anyone actually said the child was at the creche? When my children were little, we always got them ready for bed before we left anywhere. If he was in fact a local, he could gave done the same, driven home and carried the child a few yards from his car to home. Imo, if this guy exists then he has been fingered by our unreliable witness.
chilli, I am wondering now if you ever saw the Crimewatch programme on 14 October 2013?

This is a YouTube video of the Crimewatch programme: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

At 21.40 mins to 22.10 mins, DCI Andy Redwood says this:

"One of the things that we picked up on very quickly was that there was a night creche that was operating from the main Oceran Club reception - and 8 families had left 11 children in there, and one particular family we spoke to gave us information that was really interesting and exciting , in fact, I would, I would say, er, it was a revelation moment...when, having discussed with them what they were doing on the night, they themselves believed that they could be the Tanner sighting... "

Incidentally, in relation to Redwood's tale, he speaks of 'they' and 'them', clearly implying that there was a man and the girl's mother (wife or partner), which rather reinforces my point 8: Why was he carrying this child, without a buggy, without warm clothes etc., on his own, without a wife, partner or companion?

I can't agree at all with your scenario of a man driving home in a car, having taken his child in pyjamas to the creche - it seems unlikely in the extreme. Again, if that were true, why isn't he walking the short distance from his car to his home with his wife (or whoever is included in Redwood's references to 'they and them'?).

P.S. I also think that Redwood's use of the word 'exciting' is Freudian

This might be of interest:

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

Does Crecheman Exist?

In my opinion - NO!

Just as Tannerman was invented for the purpose of the McCann abduction story, Crecheman was I would say invented for the purpose of the Metropolitan Police Investigation!

I suspect Jane Tanner has been having some cosy "talks" with DCI Andy Redwood - 'crecheman' born, perhaps part of a deal done?

I could of course be way off the mark in my thoughts - but the above aside, and keeping it simple -

A child is reported to have been seen by Jane Tanner, the child was wearing only pyjamas, she was being carried by a man on a cold night. There was a creche nearby, used by holidaymakers residing at the Ocean Club.

What would be one of the first things the Portuguese Police would have done when Tanner gave them her statement re this sighting she claims to have had?

The nannies, on duty that night at this creche, none of them, as far as I can determine from the police witness statements available, made any mention of a man, coming to collect (or to drop off) his little girl his daughter, who was supposedly dressed only in pyjamas on this cold night. Nothing on record, nothing in their police witness statements to show that any such man existed.

These nannies were interviewed by police.

These nannies knew the reason why they were being interviewed.

These nannies, if they knew of any person, any male who had either dropped off or picked up his child at around the time Jane Tanner claimed to have seen 'Tannerman' would have surely told police.

And of course there were creche records.

When this child of 'creche man' was in the creche asleep, presumably the child was covered in some way to keep her warm?

A nanny responsible for releasing the child to her dad, would surely have noted, that the dad had not brought along anything with which to keep the child warm, a blanket or some warm clothing for her.

A nanny would have removed this child from the place she lay sleeping in the creche, warm and comfortable, and would for sure have noticed that the man himself was warmly clothed, yet he did not give same consideration to his little girl.

And would not a loving caring father, if for some bizarre reason, had no blanket or clothing for his child, ask to borrow a blanket? Would not the nannies have offered him a blanket? Or would he not have removed his jacket to wrap his child on this cold night? Or, would he not do the most natural thing in the world, wearing the jacket, hold the child close to him wrapped inside his jacket to keep her warm? He would not walk with her on outstretched arms, the child uncovered.

That is utter nonsense!

I really do not believe that a British tourist, took their child to a creche on a cold night in Portugal, and did not think to dress or wrap the child warmly.

Presumably the mother was on holiday too with the dad and the child - I really don't see a mother exposing her 2 year old tot to the elements.

The Portuguese Police Investigation as we can all see was intensive, thorough. Andy Redwood has stated this many times, spoken of the sheer volume of files and records he and his team have had to trawl through - what is it 30,0000 records, some containing many pages? After more than two years of doing so, DCI Andy Redwood has not come across any area that has not been thoroughly investigated by the Portuguese Police Team!

It would seem rather unbelievable then that Andy Redwood's crecheman was missed by them, or by the Leicestershire Police.

And what of the McCann private detectives, and Kate McCann also, who claims to have delved through those files?

Crecheman I believe was created to let Jane Tanner off lightly, a story which would not make her out to be an 'out and out liar' in the eyes of the public, a little reward, something to encourage her to loosen her tongue!

Added to which, a friend of mine did a little digging regarding the subject of creche man.

The following is what she came up with, this is exactly what was said.

'Just out of interest I looked at Tapas booking sheet and none of the diners on it had a child in the night crèche on the 3rd.

Some had no children at all, the rest took their young male children or male babies to have dinner with them as per statements.

Cox party had a 17 month infant but they cancelled and took a takeaway instead.

At 7p.m. Carpenter are booked as 2 adults but according to their statement they took their 3 year old girl and a 4 month old baby with them to Tapas and all left together.

Mrs. Carpenter is the person who thought she heard someone calling out MADELEINE at a time before the alarm was raised when they crossed the road that Tanner flip flopped up to the other side of the complex where their accommodation was.

The McCann party were the only diners at the Tapas bar that evening who had children and didn't take them with them.

Between little boys, baby boys, and Carpenters little girl there were 10 children in the Tapas bar with their parent/s booked at 7p.m-7-30 p.m.

I looked up other guests staying at the ‘resort’ on the 3rd with little girls whose accommodation was on the other side of the road to the main complex.

Parents who would have had to cross the top of the road.

Foster. Girl aged 3 no statement that I can find, left on the 5th, declined the offered child care on booking form but booked mini-club.

Naylor. Girl 3 and baby of 11 months, no statement that I can find, left on the 5th.

Mills. Girl 3. Found their booking but I can't find them on the list of arrivals at resort.

That's it for little girls who were likely to be in the night crèche on the 3rd and were staying on the other side of the complex.

There were lots of other children in the resort who could have been in the night crèche on the 3rd but they were ON McCann's side of the road.

Irwin were two women, no children and Sperrys were an adult couple with no children either.

END

(See 'Hope and Tanner Talk Blog' above)

If crecheman does exist:

He did not eat at the Tapas Restaurant that night.
He did not reside at the side of the road to which he was seen heading
He supposedly had picked his child up from the creche at this time, so was heading back to his holiday accommodation - if so - this guy had LOST HIS BEARINGS - as he was headed in thewrong direction!

And an observation. In the Rogatory interviews the McCann holiday companions were asked if they knew of any person by the name of Irwin.

Note from the Tapas Restaurant bookings shown above for the night of the 3rd May 2007 there was a booking for two females, in the name of IRWIN!

l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
28th December 2013

by Watching 28.04.14 10:17

unchained melody wrote:
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?

Surely this man must've witnessed SOMETHING?? Yet we are told nothing!

Tangled Web.

Spot on. Proof it was made up.

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

by **Tony Bennett** 28.04.14 10:26

Watching wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
chilli wrote:Has anyone actually said the child was at the creche? When my children were little, we always got them ready for bed before we left anywhere. If he was in fact a local, he could gave done the same, driven home and carried the child a few yards from his car to home. Imo, if this guy exists then he has been fingered by our unreliable witness.
chilli, I am wondering now if you ever saw the Crimewatch programme on 14 October 2013?

This is a YouTube video of the Crimewatch programme: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

At 21.40 mins to 22.10 mins, DCI Andy Redwood says this:

"One of the things that we picked up on very quickly was that there was a night creche that was operating from the main Oceran Club reception - and 8 families had left 11 children in there, and one particular family we spoke to gave us information that was really interesting and exciting , in fact, I would, I would say, er, it was a revelation moment...when, having discussed with them what they were doing on the night, they themselves believed that they could be the Tanner sighting... "

Incidentally, in relation to Redwood's tale, he speaks of 'they' and 'them', clearly implying that there was a man and the girl's mother (wife or partner), which rather reinforces my point 8: Why was he carrying this child, without a buggy, without warm clothes etc., on his own, without a wife, partner or companion?

I can't agree at all with your scenario of a man driving home in a car, having taken his child in pyjamas to the creche - it seems unlikely in the extreme. Again, if that were true, why isn't he walking the short distance from his car to his home with his wife (or whoever is included in Redwood's references to 'they and them'?).

P.S. I also think that Redwood's use of the word 'exciting' is Freudian

This might be of interest:

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

Thank you.

I was not aware of these 'L-azzeri' stories - very good!

So 'L-azzeri' is basically making the case that we may have an out-and-out liar in charge of what has been an £8 million-and-rising police investigation that has got precisely nowhere so far.

And Redwood's boss, Hamish Campbell (2011-2013), was the man who oversaw the possible deliberate planting of a tiny piece of firearms residue in Barry Bulsara's coat pocket in the Jill Dando murder case (she was shot dead 15 years ao to this nday, by the way).

by Watching 28.04.14 10:33

Tony Bennett wrote:
Watching wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
chilli wrote:Has anyone actually said the child was at the creche? When my children were little, we always got them ready for bed before we left anywhere. If he was in fact a local, he could gave done the same, driven home and carried the child a few yards from his car to home. Imo, if this guy exists then he has been fingered by our unreliable witness.
chilli, I am wondering now if you ever saw the Crimewatch programme on 14 October 2013?

This is a YouTube video of the Crimewatch programme: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

At 21.40 mins to 22.10 mins, DCI Andy Redwood says this:

"One of the things that we picked up on very quickly was that there was a night creche that was operating from the main Oceran Club reception - and 8 families had left 11 children in there, and one particular family we spoke to gave us information that was really interesting and exciting , in fact, I would, I would say, er, it was a revelation moment...when, having discussed with them what they were doing on the night, they themselves believed that they could be the Tanner sighting... "

Incidentally, in relation to Redwood's tale, he speaks of 'they' and 'them', clearly implying that there was a man and the girl's mother (wife or partner), which rather reinforces my point 8: Why was he carrying this child, without a buggy, without warm clothes etc., on his own, without a wife, partner or companion?

I can't agree at all with your scenario of a man driving home in a car, having taken his child in pyjamas to the creche - it seems unlikely in the extreme. Again, if that were true, why isn't he walking the short distance from his car to his home with his wife (or whoever is included in Redwood's references to 'they and them'?).

P.S. I also think that Redwood's use of the word 'exciting' is Freudian

This might be of interest:

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

I was not aware of these 'L-azzeri' stories - very good!

So 'L-azzeri' is basically making the case that we may have an out-and-out liar in charge of what has been an £8 million-and-rising police investigation that has got precisely nowhere so far.

And Redwood's boss, Hamish Campbell (2011-2013), was the man who oversaw the possible deliberate planting of a tiny piece of firearms residue in Barry Bulsara's coat pocket in the Jill Dando murder case (she was shot dead 15 years ao to this nday, by the way).

"So 'L-azzeri' is basically making the case that we may have an out-and-out liar in charge of what has been an £8 million-and-rising police investigation that has got precisely nowhere so far."

Indeed, and he wouldn't be the first 'in charge' of a police investigation to do so!

by Guest 28.04.14 10:40

Watching wrote:
unchained melody wrote:
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?

Surely this man must've witnessed SOMETHING?? Yet we are told nothing!

Tangled Web.

Spot on. Proof it was made up.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Crecheman could indeed have made a tidy bob or two, giving newspaper reports and being welcomed on a few tripetime tv sofas so either:

he never existed and is the product of a defective sorry detective's mind
he did exist but is no longer alive (aw shucks; not again)
he does exist and doesn't need the money because he is already very rich/has a well paid job
he does exist and is very shy/shuns publicity/lives like Boo Radley/only comes out at night
he has chosen /been told not to reveal himself for a very good reason

by suzyjohnson 28.04.14 20:16

If Jane Tanner's description of crecheman and his child was so accuarte (including their outfits), you would expect that the night creche workers would have recognised the description too.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.04.14 20:33

suzyjohnson wrote:If Jane Tanner's description of crecheman and his child was so accuarte (including their outfits), you would expect that the night creche workers would have recognised the description too.

Although the McCann Team did not put out their faceless artist's sketch by Melissa Little of 'Tannerman' until nearly 6 months after the event

by 1soapy 28.04.14 21:50

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.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.04.14 22:09

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.

How kind and noble of you to join this forum and share with us your most interesting speculations on the lone 'innocent' man with the girl in pyjamas. Much though you are to be congratulated on your imaginative theory, kindly note that one of the Met's finest, DCI Andy Redwood, has already told the nation on the record that this man WAS AT THE CRECHE (with another person who however did not accompany him and his child back home).

If it was, as you entertaininly (if I may say so) suggest, "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", rest assured, DCI Redwood would have told the nation.

by russiandoll 28.04.14 22:47

quote Tony Bennett to a new member, joined today " How kind and noble of you to join this forum and share with us your most interesting speculations on the lone 'innocent' man with the girl in pyjamas. Much though you are to be congratulated on your imaginative theory"

I await 1soapy's response to this needless sarcasm with interest.

by Liz Eagles 28.04.14 22:53

Russiandoll, (btw I love your new avatar), you've been on this forum long enough to know that when Tony takes issue with a new poster it's not without good reason.

by russiandoll 28.04.14 22:58

Aquila,
I understand where you are coming from, but as this is the only post from a member who joined today I do not see how any clue could have been given that 1soapy has joined with anything other than a desire to debate this case.

There are many debates online about the authenticity of crechedad with many people wondering if this man as described by AR exists.
I don't understand why Tony has jumped in so quickly and I find the sarcasm really unpleasant. Tony's post would have lost nothing had he left it out.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.04.14 23:02

aquila wrote:Russiandoll, (btw I love your new avatar), you've been on this forum long enough to know that when Tony takes issue with a new poster it's not without good reason.

russiandoll certainly appears to have a 'blind spot' in that 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 that there could have been a bloke walking outside G5A at 9.15pm on 3 May, on his own, with no buggy, on a cold night and wearing only pyjamas, etc. etc. who was neither the bloke seen by Jane Tanner nor 'the man from the creche'.

Surely we are running out of options to explain who Jane Tanner saw?

If she saw anyone at all, that is

by **Tony Bennett** 28.04.14 23:03

russiandoll wrote:I do not see how any clue could have been given that 1soapy has joined with anything other than a desire to debate this case.

Proving my point

by Guest 28.04.14 23:05

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.

by Guest 28.04.14 23:17

I voted D for Doesn't Exist, but who will the Met produce in the event of a court case?

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

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

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

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

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

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

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

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

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

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

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

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

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

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

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

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

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

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

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

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

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

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

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

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

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

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

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

Log in for more topics