How BundleMan Became Real by Pat Brown

Pat Brown's latest (December 30, 2013) "How BundleMan Became Real" can be read at www.patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2013/12/how-bu

http://www.patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/

Good article. Here is the summary:

So, I can only surmise from these ludicrous claims of Redwood and The Mirror that either the man was early ruled out as having nothing to do with the McCann case because he was walking the wrong direction and, therefore, was not the man Tanner claims to have seen, or he doesn't exist at all and is merely a ruse to exonerate Jane Tanner from her claim to have seen the possible kidnapper (which would mean Scotland Yard is attempting to make Tanner an honest woman and bring a level of believability back to the Tapas 9) or it is a ruse to bring the time frame to 10 pm and the sighting of the Smiths which might have been a sighting of Gerry (which would mean Scotland Yard is playing a very clever card game). I wish it was the latter but I am a bit too cynical to harbor such an incredible hope.

What I do know is Sr. Amaral never believed Tanner's story and he always believed that the Smith sighting was likely the real one; how Andy Redwood, Scotland Yard, and the UK media can spin this to the complete opposite is incredible and yet another rewrite of history and we can only hope one day we will have a clear understanding as to the entire motive that lurks behind all of these misrepresentations and manipulations.

For me only this link works: http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.fr/2013/12/how-bundleman-became-real.html


Could it be that Jane T.saw the father, but earlier and going TO the creche, when the street was empty, but placed him later on the street deliberatly to exonerate Gerry McCann? She could have also replaced the orange pyjama with a pink one with frills to match Madeleine's one. A.Redwood was bad at ease in Crimewatch. Is it because he tried to sell a story he knew was partly faulse? And why this attitude? To exonerate J.Tanner ? To focus on the Smith sighting ?

Another point : if the father really existed and went to the L.Police in 2007, why didn't they eliminate the Tanner's sighting which was the center of the search? . Perhaps they knew that it was an hoax and didn't bother. Not very professional if the case, to let this "suspect" be the centre of the enquiry for 6 years.

The British police are playing a very strange game.

I do believe that it is possible that Jane Tanner saw this man at 8:30 pm, as this is when Jez Wilkins noticed her outside of the apartments. The man may have been taking his daughter to the creche at this time as it was open from 7:30 to 11:30 pm. Perhaps it was just an editorial mistake that this man claimed he was taking his daughter home from the creche at 9:15, as given the night creche hours, he could have just as easily been taking her to the creche at this time.

It is a big blunder for Redwood, however, to state this revelation given that the man would have been walking in the wrong direction. He clearly looks like a fool to those who know anything about this case. It would be nice to see the night creche log. Fact of the matter is though, that Amaral and the original investigation team never placed any faith in this sighting, it was only the McCanns and the T9 that continued to insist he was the abductor.

jinvta wrote:I do believe that it is possible that Jane Tanner saw this man at 8:30 pm, as this is when Jez Wilkins noticed her outside of the apartments. The man may have been taking his daughter to the creche at this time as it was open from 7:30 to 11:30 pm. Perhaps it was just an editorial mistake that this man claimed he was taking his daughter home from the creche at 9:15, as given the night creche hours, he could have just as easily been taking her to the creche at this time.

It is a big blunder for Redwood, however, to state this revelation given that the man would have been walking in the wrong direction. He clearly looks like a fool to those who know anything about this case. It would be nice to see the night creche log. Fact of the matter is though, that Amaral and the original investigation team never placed any faith in this sighting, it was only the McCanns and the T9 that continued to insist he was the abductor.

they sure have to wave away a lot of details in order to continue with the idea that Tanner did in fact see this guy and good for her - spot on, what an excellent observer! - see, she's not a liar - and yet not mention that the guy was going the opposite way, so in fact she'd have got one tiny detail wrong. Like the direction. Which completely changes this as far as him being a suspect though she couldn't have known that at the time, interesting that she got that detail wrong...

one other tiny detail, if the direction was right, the time wasn't. Also knocking him out as a suspect and as an alibi for Gerry. COincidence?

OF COURSE there were people carrying kids to and fro; it's a resort with a babysitting service at night. you can't just say it doesn't matter if the witness has the time or the direction wrong, that's understandable because her poor weak mind would have been so deranged from the trauma of the kidnap she just got that bit wrong.

I do think that it is more unlikely that the cops were trying to make HER look CREDIBLE (impossible given the scenario) than that they are opening the timeline carefully to put Gerry back in the frame.

You just can't get anywhere without ruling the parents out and until that has been done it's a fool's errand- and an expensive one - to chase phone calls or other tourists...

widowan wrote:I do think that it is more unlikely that the cops were trying to make HER look CREDIBLE (impossible given the scenario) than that they are opening the timeline carefully to put Gerry back in the frame.

You just can't get anywhere without ruling the parents out and until that has been done it's a fool's errand- and an expensive one - to chase phone calls or other tourists...

Agreed. It is most likely that ruling out Tannerman/bundleman/eggman is to put Gerry back in the frame. Also, Jane's sighting was the only evidence that an abduction ever occurred. There was no physical evidence whatsoever pointing to an abduction.

The McCanns have not cooperated in having themselves ruled out. It is shameful that the Met has spent so much money on this case given the lack of cooperation of the McCanns. One can only hope that they are being clever and are just waiting for the right time to implicate the McCanns.

jinvta wrote:

widowan wrote:I do think that it is more unlikely that the cops were trying to make HER look CREDIBLE (impossible given the scenario) than that they are opening the timeline carefully to put Gerry back in the frame.

You just can't get anywhere without ruling the parents out and until that has been done it's a fool's errand- and an expensive one - to chase phone calls or other tourists...

Agreed. It is most likely that ruling out Tannerman/bundleman/eggman is to put Gerry back in the frame. Also, Jane's sighting was the only evidence that an abduction ever occurred. There was no physical evidence whatsoever pointing to an abduction.

The McCanns have not cooperated in having themselves ruled out. It is shameful that the Met has spent so much money on this case given the lack of cooperation of the McCanns. One can only hope that they are being clever and are just waiting for the right time to implicate the McCanns.

Well, they need phone records now for that timeframe and it stands to reason those of McCanns and their pals would be included in that. So how do they get out of offering those up?

And when the panicky texts start shooting back and forth from Tapas 9 at 935 making it obvious the timeline has been falsified, and the texts reveal whatever they reveal, perhaps SY will be able to get the medical records just to verify that child abuse wasn't a concern before.

widowan wrote:

jinvta wrote:

widowan wrote:I do think that it is more unlikely that the cops were trying to make HER look CREDIBLE (impossible given the scenario) than that they are opening the timeline carefully to put Gerry back in the frame.

You just can't get anywhere without ruling the parents out and until that has been done it's a fool's errand- and an expensive one - to chase phone calls or other tourists...

Agreed. It is most likely that ruling out Tannerman/bundleman/eggman is to put Gerry back in the frame. Also, Jane's sighting was the only evidence that an abduction ever occurred. There was no physical evidence whatsoever pointing to an abduction.

The McCanns have not cooperated in having themselves ruled out. It is shameful that the Met has spent so much money on this case given the lack of cooperation of the McCanns. One can only hope that they are being clever and are just waiting for the right time to implicate the McCanns.

Well, they need phone records now for that timeframe and it stands to reason those of McCanns and their pals would be included in that. So how do they get out of offering those up?

And when the panicky texts start shooting back and forth from Tapas 9 at 935 making it obvious the timeline has been falsified, and the texts reveal whatever they reveal, perhaps SY will be able to get the medical records just to verify that child abuse wasn't a concern before.

One can only hope!