How to carry a child.../Unterdenteppichgekehrt

Thank you  

Thanks Annabel....I love the caption under the photo of the laughing McCanns......"On the way to the Bank" 

I don't think this helps much, most people are convinced Tannerman didnt exist so neither does Chrecheman. If Smithman is true then it had to be put across that it was a live child being carried, hence she was carried that way. (just in case he was seen)

Hongkong Phooey wrote:I don't think this helps much, most people are convinced Tannerman didnt exist so neither does Chrecheman.  If Smithman is true then it had to be put across that it was a live child being carried,  hence she was carried that way. (just in case he was seen)

I'm not so sure that Smith's sighting would carry much weight, he did make a statement in Portugal before he returned to Ireland, but it is only when he saw the way that Gerry carried Sean up the steps to the
Plane 3 months later that he remembered that's how the man he saw in PDL carried his child. Suppose it was one of the Dads who had collected his child from the creche, isn't that an easier way to carry a child who is asleep,?

That's exactly what the problem is with Redwoods revelation of Crecheman.

Nobody carries an alive and sleeping child this way.

So firstly, why did Jane Tanner describe her image as such ? Was it because she could not have given a description of the child, looking at the man side on, with a child held close to his chest or was she describing an image in her mind, perhaps one she had actually seen, but in different circumstances ?

Either way, it's another indication that Crecheman as per Redwoods story is a convenient tale to get him out of the picture, IMO. Why he wants the man and child gone is the interesting thing.

If Smithmans child is not alive, unless he was running for help, I think the child would have been carried in that manner anyway. Otherwise any passerby would very likely notice a limp, lifeless child.

mossman wrote:That's exactly what the problem is with Redwoods revelation of Crecheman.

Nobody carries an alive and sleeping child this way.  

So firstly, why did Jane Tanner describe her image as such ?  Was it because she could not have given a description of the child, looking at the man side on, with a child held close to his chest or was she describing an image in her mind, perhaps one she had actually seen, but in different circumstances ?

Either way, it's another indication that Crecheman as per Redwoods story is a convenient tale to get him out of the picture, IMO.  Why he wants the man and child gone is the interesting thing.

If Smithmans child is not alive, unless he was running for help, I think the child would have been carried in that manner anyway.  Otherwise any passerby would very likely notice a limp, lifeless child.

Hi mossman, I have never set much store of the Smith sighting. It's possible Jane Tanner did see someone carrying a child, but how could identificaton be so absolute when it was dark? Similarly Smith's sighting is questionable ....why did Kennedy go to Ireland and meet with Smith ? Why did Mrs Smith decline to make a statement to the Irish Police?

If crecheman was who Jane saw, and he'd been picking his child up from the crèche, he would have crossed the road from right to left, not left to right as Jane says.

wjk wrote:If crecheman was who Jane saw, and he'd been picking his child up from the crèche, he would have crossed the road from right to left, not left to right as Jane says.

Hi wjk, I think Redwood has discounted Jane's Statement which is why he now says there was an hour from 9 til 10 when anybody could have walked into 5a and taken Madeleine. I bet the McCanns didn't like that being made public. 

Do you honestly think OPORTO have any fresh information that will see the McCanns behind Bars??? One assumes that any info has been passed to the Portugese Judiciary and since the charge of guilty of neglect or guilty of neglect causing harm has lapsed what can actually be proved???

Imo, Redwood knows Jane didn't see anyone because she wasn't there. He doesn't want to call her a liar so concocts this story of an innocent father, six years down the line, who has suddenly comes forward to claim it was he who was innocently picking up his child from the crèche. But why would Redwood do that for Jane? Its Redwoods way of getting rid of the sighting but not calling her a liar, imo.
As for what is going on in Portugal, SY seem very keen to get a joint investigation going now, I wonder why? Do they worry that the Portuguese are not towing the line as they did six years ago? Are they worried that Portugal are sick of being pushed around over this case and maybe going to get to the bottom of what really happened? Maybe wishful thinking (again) but I'm willing to sit it out for a bit longer (again)   

wjk wrote:Imo,  Redwood knows Jane didn't see anyone because she wasn't there. He doesn't want to call her a liar  so concocts this story of an innocent father, six years down the line,  who has suddenly comes forward to claim it was he who was innocently picking up his child from the crèche. But why would Redwood do that for Jane? Its Redwoods way of getting rid of the sighting but not calling her a liar, imo.
As for what is going on in Portugal, SY seem very keen to get a joint investigation going now, I wonder why? Do they worry that the Portuguese are not towing the line as they did six years ago? Are they worried that Portugal are sick of being pushed around over this case and maybe going to get to the bottom of what really happened? Maybe wishful thinking (again) but I'm willing to sit it out for a bit longer (again)   

wjk, I have a feeling you are clutching at straws. aren't we all!!!! Let's be perfectly frank.......nothing is going right is it !!! after 2 years SY have come up with nothing, similarly OPORTO (unless the Senior Police are digesting their report) The Libel Trial is taking much longer to reach a conclusion than expected , the McCanns have tried to muscle in, were they granted "assistentes" on 27th November or do they too have to wait until 7th January???

It hasn't got anything to do with the Libel trial Panda.
They wouldn't have been told if they could be "assistentes" on the 27th. That's to do with the reopening of the case in Portugal.
They were hoping to be told if they could speak to the court but they have to wait a bit longer for that now.

wjk wrote:It hasn't got anything to do with the Libel trial Panda.
They wouldn't have been told if they could be "assistentes"  on the 27th. That's to do with the reopening of the case in Portugal.
They were hoping to be told if they could speak to the court but they have to wait a bit longer for that now.

So have we wjk....7th January !!! I don't want to hear any more wjk, I thought I read that the 27th was the date the McCanns would be told, so just what did happen on 27th?

wjk wrote:Imo,  Redwood knows Jane didn't see anyone because she wasn't there. He doesn't want to call her a liar  so concocts this story of an innocent father, six years down the line,  who has suddenly comes forward to claim it was he who was innocently picking up his child from the crèche. But why would Redwood do that for Jane? Its Redwoods way of getting rid of the sighting but not calling her a liar, imo.
As for what is going on in Portugal, SY seem very keen to get a joint investigation going now, I wonder why? Do they worry that the Portuguese are not towing the line as they did six years ago? Are they worried that Portugal are sick of being pushed around over this case and maybe going to get to the bottom of what really happened? Maybe wishful thinking (again) but I'm willing to sit it out for a bit longer (again)   

All Redwood had to say was they had ruled Tannerman out of their enquiries. End of. We are the police, we don't have to go into detail of who/why/where. Instead, we are given photographs as if to prove something. I don't understand that.

He owes Jane Tanner nothing, unless she has changed her statement and as part of that agreement, her man is explained away.

I think the joint investigation is a story jumped on by the press, timed nicely for the libel trial day in Lisbon. I have no doubt there are some discussions with regard to operating together. Leaving history and all else aside, two different forces investigating the same crime, with possible witnesses and suspects in both countries, would require some degree of co-operation between the two. I'm not sure they are going to jump into bed together and cosy up, more of ironing out a lst of who can do what on each others soil. I would imagine it to be quite a complex legal issue and one which would need to be completely researched and agreed prior to arrests being made. It's a hugely important issue, I think.

I'm also willing to sit it out because it has now got to end. This has gone so far down the line, there has to be some sort of closure.

I'm willing to bet there will not be a Kate and Gerry show with Lorraine next May and I think the outcome is finely balanced at 50/50 right now. I'm going to hold out hope for a little longer.

I'm with you, mossman   xx

Questions will be asked in Parliament mossman , too much money has been spent on this investigation and when this bedroom tax has caused such misery Tory backbenchers and the Labour Party will have something to say. I actally wrote to Theresa May about it LOL I'm a doer not a talker. 

Panda wrote:

wjk wrote:It hasn't got anything to do with the Libel trial Panda.
They wouldn't have been told if they could be "assistentes"  on the 27th. That's to do with the reopening of the case in Portugal.
They were hoping to be told if they could speak to the court but they have to wait a bit longer for that now.

So have we wjk....7th January !!! I don't want to hear any more wjk, I thought I read that the 27th was the date the McCanns would be told, so just what did happen on 27th?

Here you go, Panda
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/79nov13/astro_27_11_2013.htm

Those who asked to address the court will be advised before the next date of January 7 2014.

The court which is hearing the libel trial WILL NOT make any decision regarding the 'assistentes' request because it has nothing to do with it!

wjk wrote:Imo,  Redwood knows Jane didn't see anyone because she wasn't there. He doesn't want to call her a liar  so concocts this story of an innocent father, six years down the line,  who has suddenly comes forward to claim it was he who was innocently picking up his child from the crèche. But why would Redwood do that for Jane? Its Redwoods way of getting rid of the sighting but not calling her a liar, imo.
As for what is going on in Portugal, SY seem very keen to get a joint investigation going now, I wonder why? Do they worry that the Portuguese are not towing the line as they did six years ago? Are they worried that Portugal are sick of being pushed around over this case and maybe going to get to the bottom of what really happened? Maybe wishful thinking (again) but I'm willing to sit it out for a bit longer (again)   

that would be a risky proposal wjk. All the PJ has to do is go see which kids were logged in at the night crèche on the 3rd and do the same investigation SY did - which one had a girl about age 3-4 in there that night. If none of those who did say that they walked up by apt 5a around 9 ish, then it could be shown that SY is part of a cover up and that would be risky.

I think they probably did do the work and found someone they thought could have been tanner man (and with enough drink at the table that night, and possibly before - who says Jane started drinking at 830? It was their holiday, they might have been hitting the sauce as early as lunch time and straight on through)  even if she actually saw him a day before or earlier that night or at 830 going the opposite way. They identified a guy who fits the efit who had a kid he carried that night around 9 or near enough....

People can and do shift how they carry kids who are dead to the world - kids even 40 pounds - even ten pounds - get heavy and weigh on you, you shift them around. I think a kid who isn't fast asleep would be carried on your hip or against your chest, facing into you, with their arms round your neck, their bottom supported with your forearm,  as Gerry was doing with Sean. Even in sleep their muscle memory makes them hang on a bit.

As we know if we've ever tried to pick up a child who does not want to be picked up they can just go limp and make it damn hard to lift and carry them. If they can't help because unconscious, dead asleep  or whatnot then the Tanner-man carrying style makes more sense than Smith-fashion.

I don't know why they think the timeline opens up if Jane didn't see Tannerman anyhow.

Gerry left the table, supposedly, at nine, he'd have been indoors by his count for a least a few minutes to pee plus gaze adoringly at the kids he was checking and in no way abandoning for upwards of an hour at a time, so it's at least 910 915 when he gets outside and is waylaid by Jez and spends another ten minutes chatting him up. Unless the abduction went down while Gerry was standing by the gate it still had to be no earlier than 920 ish.

Otherwise, for a 9 PM abduction to have taken place that means Gerry did not do a visual check. In which case, then Maddie could have been taken as early as 835 if the last time they actually SAW the kids was 830 when they left the apt. Earlier, if they didn't check on the way out - as Kate waffles about in her statement.

Putting the timeline back to 9 discredits not only Matt and Jane but Gerry as well... if earlier than 9 the sighting at 950 by Smiths is ridiculous; a planned abduction would not leave you wandering the streets for even five minutes, you'd be into the car parked nearby and gone. I don't get it.

The most interesting part about this blog is not the method of how the child was being carried, but Redwood's statement:
 
"As we observe the movements of the group, which continues up until around twenty-to, quarter-to ten, it brings into sharp focus a second sighting.."
 
Notice the timing in this statement. Redwood is stating that the meal was wrapped up by 2140/2145, which coincides with what most of the independent witnesses have stated. It is only the Tapas group that can place Gerry at the table at 2200. Not a single MW employee can be sure that Gerry was at the table when the meals were served.
 
This is HUGE! Gerry has not been ruled out as Smithman, though he may have been led to believe that he has. He did have the time to carry Madeleine away sometime between 2140 and 2200 and return to the apartment before the official alarm was raised.
 
I do not believe that Redwood made up this crecheman. He likely does in fact exist, and may very well have been taking his daughter to the creche at 2030/2115 rather than picking her up. The children needed to be asleep in the creche, so he may have carried her this way in order to least disturb her slumber on the short trip.
 
I don't think that anyone believes the Tanner sighting anyway. Perhaps it is even true that Tanner has changed her story, and this is Redwoods way of getting her out of it. Or it is also possible that Redwood knows Tanner is lying, but is giving her a free pass by saying that he believes her, but that her sighting is no longer significant as the person whom she saw has been ruled out. The truth is that there is no way that anyone can be sure that the Tanner sighting (if true) and crecheman (if he does in fact exist) are even the same person.

I apologise for posting the link to this dreadful image, but it shows that a deceased child can be carried this way.  Could JT have seen "someone" carrying out M like this?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/11/article-2501471-19594E8400000578-211_964x676.jpg

pipstar1 wrote:I apologise for posting the link to this dreadful image, but it shows that a deceased child can be carried this way.  Could JT have seen "someone" carrying out M like this?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/11/article-2501471-19594E8400000578-211_964x676.jpg

Hi pipstar 1 apparently, according to the Waiters Jane Tanner wasn't even in the Restaurant that night.!!! Redwood actually dismisses Tanners' claim and said that no one had checked on the McCann children between 9 and 10 pm. Leaving plenty of time for an Abductor.

Yes Panda, but "someone" could have been seen carrying M out at some point of time? Do you think that is possible?