I had a little win at the DM!

I haven't been back to this forum for several months, I read the Jillhaven a couple of times a day.
I visited  this forum today at about 2am and wrote a piece about the fact that the police would/might have a small prob with the man carrying a child at 9.15pm after picking said child up from the creche. The fairly long piece I wrote didn't post for some reason. I then visited the cartoon rag that pretends to be a serious newpaper namely the DM and wrote the following, saying to myself, you're banging your head......
Much to my surprise when I revisited the DM my little piece was on top of the comments. And here it is.


ed, liverpool, 4 hours ago

It was a man picking his child up at 9.15pm, really. The Creche closed at 5.30pm every day.

The MW site states in no uncertain terms that the creche closes at 5.30pm.
Now I hope this gets posted!

I Stand corrected.

There was an evening "babysitting" service at the creche.

Chris wrote:There was an evening "babysitting" service at the creche.

if the mcanns had used it they wouldnt be in this situation now

It was a night crèche specifically for parents wanting to eat. Was it Brigid o Donnell made the comment it was a bit of a pain because your child needed to be asleep, if the child woke the crèche would ring you and you would need to collect them.

mossman wrote:It was a night crèche specifically for parents wanting to eat.  Was it Brigid o Donnell made the comment it was a bit of a pain because your child needed to be asleep, if the child woke the crèche would ring you and you would need to collect them.  

Yes it was.

Thank you Ann-chovey  

The obvious question is where are the sign in sheets for that crèche on that night.

Why is no one (MET) questioning why the father was coming from the wrong direction?
He would have been coming from right to left if he was walking from the night crèche back to the OC.
There is a map on Jills posted by someone who was at the OC in August 07, and he is walking the wrong way!!

wjk wrote:Why is no one (MET)  questioning why the father was coming from the wrong direction?
He would have been coming from right to left if he was walking from the night crèche back to the OC.
There is a map on Jills posted by someone who was at the OC in August 07, and he is walking the wrong way!!

I asked similar last night, but thought I was confused because my sense of direction is awful.

Tanner was very clear that she was shocked that the child was dressed only in pyjamas. The tapas have also told us it was cold that night. So it's hard to understand why this man was taking a longer route, if that's even possible. He would most naturally have taken a direct fast route with the child, I think.

IF Tanner made up the whole thing, she must be scratching her head now that SY has seen what she never saw:haha: 

It's good to see so many "old" posters coming back.

Yes, Kate mentioned in her book (I think) that the evening crèche wasn't convenient because, by the time it opened (7.30 from memory) her children were already asleep.

Of course that doesn't explain her not wanting the "strangers" who looked after them in the day to sit with them in the apartment at night.

mossman wrote:

wjk wrote:Why is no one (MET)  questioning why the father was coming from the wrong direction?
He would have been coming from right to left if he was walking from the night crèche back to the OC.
There is a map on Jills posted by someone who was at the OC in August 07, and he is walking the wrong way!!

I asked similar last night, but thought I was confused because my sense of direction is awful.

Tanner was very clear that she was shocked that the child was dressed only in pyjamas.  The tapas have also told us it was cold that night.  So it's hard to understand why this man was taking a longer route, if that's even possible.  He would most naturally have taken a direct fast route with the child, I think.

IF Tanner made up the whole thing, she must be scratching her head now that SY has seen what she never saw:haha: 

On the JH forum where I conduct the majority of my reading there are comments re the Tapas staff some of who state that JT never left the Tapas that night , apparently she had a hand held child monitor with her. Two independent witnesses, one two floors above the 5A apartment and the other on the opposite side of the road overlooking 5A both state at the applicable/indicated time saw GM and JW ( with pram ) so that is a total of four people who have no recollection of JT exiting the Tapas entrance and proceeding up the road.

With thanks to MoonGoddess on Jill's site.
You can see the night crèche, The blue reception box. And 5A right over to the left, white box with a 5 in it.
Now why would 'Daddy crèche Man' be walking across the top of that road from left to right??
Nah! I'm not buying that!!

wjk wrote:

With thanks to MoonGoddess on Jill's site.
You can see the night crèche, The blue reception box. And 5A right over to the left, white box with a 5 in it.
Now why would 'Daddy crèche Man' be walking across the top of that road from left to right??
Nah! I'm not buying that!!

Redwood didn't even say crecheman walked across the top of the road! He said 'he went in the McCanns direction.....'   Duh!

Also no mention that he actually held his daughter in the same peculiar fashion.   My goodness, they are playing the British public for suckers!

BelEddie wrote:

mossman wrote:

wjk wrote:Why is no one (MET)  questioning why the father was coming from the wrong direction?
He would have been coming from right to left if he was walking from the night crèche back to the OC.
There is a map on Jills posted by someone who was at the OC in August 07, and he is walking the wrong way!!

I asked similar last night, but thought I was confused because my sense of direction is awful.

Tanner was very clear that she was shocked that the child was dressed only in pyjamas.  The tapas have also told us it was cold that night.  So it's hard to understand why this man was taking a longer route, if that's even possible.  He would most naturally have taken a direct fast route with the child, I think.

IF Tanner made up the whole thing, she must be scratching her head now that SY has seen what she never saw:haha: 

On the JH forum where I conduct the majority of my reading there are comments re the Tapas staff some of who state that JT never left the Tapas that night , apparently she had a hand held child monitor with her. Two independent witnesses, one two floors above the 5A apartment and the other on the opposite side of the road overlooking 5A both state at the applicable/indicated time saw GM and JW ( with pram ) so that is a total of four people who have no recollection of JT exiting the Tapas entrance and proceeding up the road.

Hi BelEddie, good to see you posting again.

CBS in America hired a Portugese Private Detective named Moura to go PDL and investigate. There were 5 vieos made of his Report. Because he spoke Portugese he was able to question the Staff and was told that Tanner never left the table that night. Her Partner O'Brien went to tend to a sick daughter and the Gook kept his Steak warm until he returned at 10pm .

wjk wrote:

With thanks to MoonGoddess on Jill's site.
You can see the night crèche, The blue reception box. And 5A right over to the left, white box with a 5 in it.
Now why would 'Daddy crèche Man' be walking across the top of that road from left to right??
Nah! I'm not buying that!!

Edit. Misread the map

I'm not getting where you mean, Chris?
ETA Just read your edit  

wjk wrote:I'm not getting where you mean, Chris?

Nor do I now I have properly looked at the map.

Maybe we have all misjudged Jane, she really did see a bundleman, and was only trying to help. Her initial description was very vague, and the man was carrying "a bundle of clothes that might have been a child." It was only with every telling that the man morphed into Timberland shoes carrying pink and white pyjamas and so on. Was pressure put on Jane to embroider her story, because Bundleman was a convenient distraction from Smithman? I think we all know who it would have been that put the pressure on her. Maybe Jane was duped as well. But she should have said something before now. Maybe she has.

Iris wrote:Maybe we have all misjudged Jane, she really did see a bundleman, and was only trying to help.  Her initial description was very vague, and the man was carrying "a bundle of clothes that might have been a child."  It was only with every telling that the man morphed into Timberland shoes carrying pink and white pyjamas and so on.  Was pressure put on Jane to embroider her story, because Bundleman was a convenient distraction from Smithman?  I think we all know who it would have been that put the pressure on her.  Maybe Jane was duped as well.  But she should have said something before now.  Maybe she has.  

I can find some sympathy for Jane because I think she was trying to help her friends.

Pat Brown also brought up the fact that bundleman/eggman would have been walking in the opposite direction had he been leaving the creche. SY look like complete fools.

It is possible that bundleman/eggman was Steven Carpenter, who was carrying his daughter from the Tapas Bar to his apartment at around 9:15 - 9:30 pm. Also at this time they had crossed MW reception and his wife heard someone yelling "Madeleine" well ahead of the time that Kate raised the alarm.

I believe that, as Moura states, Tanner never left the dinner table that evening. Either she stayed at the table all night, or she did not go to the table until relieved by O'Brien at around 9:30. This timing would be in line with Carpenter and his family walking home from the Taps bar to their apartment. His wife and younger child may have been slightly ahead with a buggy.