Unsolved Madeleine McCann - New Leads Being Reported

[Kurve]

Police had been working for a long time on the theory that the man seen by Jane Tanner was probably Madeleine's abductor with some claiming her account wasn't credible.

On 7th October, 2014, DCI Andy Redwood announced on Crimewatch that as a result of their review, the man seen by Jane Tanner had now come forward and been eliminated as the abductor of Madeleine McCann. They also showed an image of the man, wearing the clothes he'd been wearing that night as he carried his own child home.

Tanner's witness account was described as 'uncannily accurate'.

After this man was eliminated, focus was switched and it changed the timeline.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Imagine, trying to intimidate someone with that nonsense.

Two years building a brief of evidence on Brueckner against fifteen years trying to build one against the McCanns and still at it, going nowhere.

I counsel and advocate that which is sensible. It's not intimidation. You are your own person and can do what you choose. I just hope it never comes back to bite you.

************

You then put up a page linking CB to five unsolved crimes disappearances and murders as though he is the perpetrator and one of those already had someone convicted for the offence and I think he may be POI in only one? The inference becomes defamatory or least possible

You then suggest he is guilty of MM even if they can't prove it. Damn

Why should I care? There is right and wrong. There is sensible and dangerous. When you don't care where the line is it's a problem. Just my view

Do as you please. As an observer it's certainly entertaining to watch and each time I shake my head at risk taking involved

 

[bomberclifford]

Aren't you doing the same thing with your McCann Hypotheticals?

 

[Kurve]

Aren't you doing the same thing with your McCann Hypotheticals?

Of course Angry Red Bull is doing the same thing and which on balance, is far more damaging.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Police had been working for a long time on the theory that the man seen by Jane Tanner was probably Madeleine's abductor with some claiming her account wasn't credible.

On 7th October, 2014, DCI Andy Redwood announced on Crimewatch that as a result of their review, the man seen by Jane Tanner had now come forward and been eliminated as the abductor of Madeleine McCann. They also showed an image of the man, wearing the clothes he'd been wearing that night as he carried his own child home.

Tanner's witness account was described as 'uncannily accurate'.

After this man was eliminated, focus was switched and it changed the timeline.

Aren't you doing the same thing with your McCann Hypotheticals?

No I'm adhering to the PJ conclusions in it's findings which has per Amarale been shown NOT to be defamatory because they reiterate those same findings. Big difference

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Police had been working for a long time on the theory that the man seen by Jane Tanner was probably Madeleine's abductor with some claiming her account wasn't credible.

On 7th October, 2014, DCI Andy Redwood announced on Crimewatch that as a result of their review, the man seen by Jane Tanner had now come forward and been eliminated as the abductor of Madeleine McCann. They also showed an image of the man, wearing the clothes he'd been wearing that night as he carried his own child home.

Tanner's witness account was described as 'uncannily accurate'.

After this man was eliminated, focus was switched and it changed the timeline.

DCI Andy Redwood ruled out the Person in Tanner Sighting. The PJ had ruled them out at the time for different reasons. Redwood then said they consider the sighting several hundreds metres away to be the abductor AND that two tourists at the time have come in and positively identified that person

That sighting of course is the Smith sighting and they were the ones that had identified GM

That's the first time id seen UK positively indicate veracity of the Smith sighting

Thanks Kurve that's positively terrific that UK now saying at 2013 effectively that a GM lookalike was responsible.

So did they have a picture of an abductor that looked like GM? If so why weren't they charged?

Article is daily mail Martin Robinson 15/10/2013

 

[Kurve]

No I'm adhering to the PJ conclusions in it's findings which has per Amarale been shown NOT to be defamatory because they reiterate those same findings. Big difference

The source of any reputational damage was in being named as arguidos. Amarale ultimately won on the issue of freedom of expression.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The source of any reputational damage was in being named as arguidos. Amarale ultimately won on the issue of freedom of expression.

You cant have freedom of expression which damages people where isn't the truth. If you adhere to the PJ findings the damage if any was the investigation and your adherence then the truth. An investigation if itself can't be defamatory because it serves a role

 

[Kurve]

DCI Andy Redwood ruled out the Person in Tanner Sighting. The PJ had ruled them out at the time for difference reasons. Redwood then said they consider the sighting several hundreds metres away to be the abductor AND that two tourists at the time have come in and positively identified that person

That sighting of course is the Smith sighting and they were the ones that had identified GM

That's the first time id seen UK positively indicate veracity of the Smith sighting

You've posted in here that the Tanner sighting wasn't credible.

Can you provide a source for more than one Smith identifying Gerry McCann as the abductor? The eFits they provided look more like the Podesta brothers.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You've posted in here that the Tanner sighting wasn't credible.

Can you provide a source for more than one Smith identifying Gerry McCann as the abductor? The eFits they provided look more like the Podesta brothers.

I've seen a reenactment of the Tanner sighting at the location. I don't know if they intentionally changed the lighting BUT if that's what JT saw the sighting imo is utter rubbish.

 

[Kurve]

I've seen a reenactment of the Tanner sighting at the location. I don't know if they intentionally changed the lighting BUT if that's what JT saw the sighting imo is utter rubbish.

Is that it? You saw a 'reenactment' on TV and decided she was lying based on that?

Even after I've shown you images of the man it was in comparison to her artists impression, you still can't accept she's been proved truthful?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Is that it? You saw a 'reenactment' on TV and decided she was lying based on that?

Even after I've shown you images of the man it was in comparison to her artists impression, you still can't accept she's been proved truthful?

FMD.

UK police ruled out. So too PJ. She had 4 different heights and 4 different hair and complexion was from caucasion to Portuguese. No face picture. Side on at 45 ° angle for 1-2 seconds. Plus reenactment at location in dark where you can't see

The man you say it was was ruled out. What point are you trying to make? Was she accurate? If you wait long enough anyone will fit the role from public. And even if she WAS it's ruled out

 

[Kurve]

UK police ruled out. So too PJ.

Uk police accepted Tanner's sighting as truthful and proved ultimately to be right. She was 'uncannily accurate' in her description.

Why did the PJ rule the sighting out? I'm going to guess you've got the answer out of Amarale's book and that he accuses Tanner of making the sighting up.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I'm extremely interested in that Redwood had two tourists who were there and sighted identify a picture as the person.

There has long been speculation that another pedaphile who looked identical or extremely similar to GM was responsible. A name was put forward now dead I understand. That person was Martin Ney. His picture is very close to GM

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Uk police accepted Tanner's sighting as truthful and proved ultimately to be right. She was 'uncannily accurate' in her description.

Why did the PJ rule the sighting out? I'm going to guess you've got the answer out of Amarale's book and that he accuses Tanner of making the sighting up.

I haven't read Amarales book. I do my own analysis.

On the night The first report by JT was she couldn't describe the person it was too dark. The PJ made a note that sighting wasn't credible. She could however identify the PJs as MM.

You start behind the eight ball with that sighting

 

[Kurve]

I haven't read Amarales book. I do my own analysis.

On the night The first report by JT was she couldn't describe the person it was too dark. The PJ made a note that sighting wasn't credible. She could however identify the PJs as MM.

You start behind the eight ball with that sighting

It would have been a far more efficient investigation had the British man carrying his child back from night creche been identified sooner. No surprise though that the PJ didn't put a bigger effort in to do that and try to rule out it being anybody picking their children up.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

It would have been a far more efficient investigation had the British man carrying his child back from night creche been identified sooner. No surprise though that the PJ didn't put a bigger effort in to do that and try to rule out it being anybody picking their children up.

Any investigation seeks to assess the relevance of witness statements. The fact JT was unable to give any detail about the man who wasn't seen by anyone else on that night rightfully diminishes credibility. There was also always the possibility it simply wasn't an abductor. It was only JT (who couldn't describe the man) but could identify the PJs that drove an abduction.

 

[Kurve]

Any investigation seeks to assess the relevance of witness statements. The fact JT was unable to give any detail about the man who wasn't seen by anyone else on that night rightfully diminishes credibility. There was also always the possibility it simply wasn't an abductor. It was only JT (who couldn't describe the man) but could identify the PJs that drove an abduction.

Please, it's not true she couldn't go on to describe the man she saw. You can see it for yourself.

The only thing missing is facial features.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Please, it's not true she couldn't go on to describe the man she saw. You can see it for yourself.

The only thing missing is facial features.

The description I provided was from PJ Files timeline information on that night. She couldn't give an initial description whatsoever other than she was CERTAIN it was MM PJs. Have a look yourself. The detail came in days following which doesn't inspire confidence

Not that it matters too much because the sighting becomes irrelevant

Don't know about you but for me I think there is great concern when there is no description of the man and you only get PJs when in fact she could only see the legs anyway

Per PJ Timeline at around 23.17

"When asked by the officer his physical characteristics she simply responded by saying...it was very dark and didn't elaborate more but did say she clearly saw the PJs" the officer thought the sighting lacked credibility

.........5'6"....no make that 5'8".....well ish.....maybe 5'9" .....though it might have been 5'7"......no definitely... 5'10"

Yep thanks Jane.

 

[owen87]

In less than 12 months ARB has posted almost as many times as Kurve has in 9 years.

Talk about obsessed.

 

[Kurve]

The description I provided was from PJ Files timeline information on that night. She couldn't give an initial description whatsoever other than she was CERTAIN it was MM PJs. Have a look yourself. The detail came in days following which doesn't inspire confidence

Not that it matters too much because the sighting becomes irrelevant

Don't know about you but for me I think there is great concern when there is no description of the man and you only get PJs when in fact she could only see the legs anyway

Per PJ Timeline at around 23.17

"When asked by the officer his physical characteristics she simply responded by saying...it was very dark and didn't elaborate more but did say she clearly saw the PJs" the officer thought the sighting lacked credibility

.........5'6"....no make that 5'8".....well ish.....maybe 5'9" .....though it might have been 5'7"......no definitely... 5'10"

Yep thanks Jane.

Oh really?

This is Jane Tanner's formal statement, taken not even 24 hours after Madeleine went missing. Who's telling lies?

Personal description:

( * ) Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35-40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back. He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a "duffy" sic type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type. He had a hurried walk. He was carrying a child, who was lying on both his arms, in front of his chest. By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".

(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.

As regards these details, she does not know what Madeleine was wearing at the moment of her disappearance, because she did not talk to anyone about this. As she concerns the man she saw, she only spoke to Gerald about this, not entering into details, and to the police.

When requested, she drew a sketch, which is joined to this statement (9).

When asked, she says she would probably be able to identify the individual she saw, being able to identify him from the side and from his manner of walking.

P.J. POLICE FILES: JANE TANNER'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2008

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Oh really?

This is Jane Tanner's formal statement, taken not even 24 hours after Madeleine went missing. Who's telling lies?

Personal description:

( * ) Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35-40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back. He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a "duffy" sic type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type. He had a hurried walk. He was carrying a child, who was lying on both his arms, in front of his chest. By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".

(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.

As regards these details, she does not know what Madeleine was wearing at the moment of her disappearance, because she did not talk to anyone about this. As she concerns the man she saw, she only spoke to Gerald about this, not entering into details, and to the police.

When requested, she drew a sketch, which is joined to this statement (9).

When asked, she says she would probably be able to identify the individual she saw, being able to identify him from the side and from his manner of walking.

P.J. POLICE FILES: JANE TANNER'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2008

I don't lie. I told you the reference. LOOK it up. That appears to be the formal statement the NEXT day. So how she decide to fill the gaps in 12 hours is quite staggering to my mind amazing. The timeline is discussed the night of 3rd so is PRIOR to the formal statement. Couldn't even tell them what he was wearing that he was hurrying, was dark and the PJs.

PJs timeline information at around the 23.17 mark.

What do I think? I think her statement is BS. It goes from it was too dark to tell to full detail.

 

[Kurve]

I don't lie. I told you the reference. LOOK it up. That appears to be the formal statement the NEXT day. So how she decide to fill the gaps in 12 hours is quite staggering to my mind amazing. The timeline is discussed the night of 3rd so is PRIOR to the formal statement. Couldn't even tell them what he was wearing that he was hurrying, was dark and the PJs.

PJs timeline information at around the 23.17 mark.

What do I think? I think her statement is BS. It goes from it was too dark to tell to full detail.

It's now on you to provide the link.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

It's now on you to provide the link.

It's about 20 pages long. The only way you can find it because it's in time order is to locate the most recent time step. I quoted word for word what was involved and the tine step and description of the title of the document. I've already given the truncated version. I'm not going to pollute the thread with notations about a hundred calls amongst other things.its an impossible full read

 

[Kurve]

It's about 20 pages long. The only way you can find it because it's in time order is to locate the most recent time step. I quoted word for word what was involved and the tine step and description of the title of the document. I've already given the truncated version. I'm not going to pollute the thread with notations about a hundred calls amongst other things.its an impossible full read

If you've quoted word for word what was said, you should be able to find it and link it in here. Provide the link please.