Tanner's Terminator .....the Blacksmith Bureau

Tanner’s Terminator (he just keeps coming back at you) The Blacksmith Bureau

Posted by John Blacksmith
Thursday, 23 January 2014 at 19:51

What we published yesterday was front of house stuff, i.e. taking only publicly released official statements from the latest investigation and then applying simple logic (deductive not inductive, for what it's worth) to determine what those statements couldn't mean.

The usual prizes, of course, for any refutation or challenge (there won't be one) to the deductive conclusion that the targets of nice Mr Redwood are either already behind bars or can only be people who are a) world famous and b) were in Praia da Luz on May 3 2007. And there are very, very few of the latter, aren't there?

Meanwhile there is plenty of suggestive but inconclusive bumping-around going on behind the curtains, the latest manifestation of which is the Find Madeleine site's updated wanted dead-or-alive poster. Despite the official sounding text with its business-like air of authority and pretence of joint police-parents origin there is no reason to believe that any of the three are based on reality rather than imagination and one of them, the farcical Barcelona Baby Buyer, is a complete invention. But then on a McCann site what else would you expect?
Drawing of 'Eggman'

All the rest is imagination – but whose?

A Private Family Fund Says

There is still a lot to say about M/S Tanner and her sighting but we'll leave most of it for the next time while concentrating on the FM message alone. What does it tell us? A lot actually, though not in the way the parents intended. According to the website
"These two pictures show a man carrying a child away from the family's apartment. This sighting was seen by a witness at 21:15 on the evening of Thursday, May 3rd, 2007.

Based or more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE."
Andy Redwood triumphantly called it a "revelatory moment" in a two years plus investigation while the McCann gospel has it that it's a mere "belief" that it "could be" the man who Jane Tanner claimed to have seen. A belief that someone who someone might have seen "could" be someone else (unnamed) seen possibly by the same someone but we can't be sure hardly justifies the use of the word "belief" at all, does it? It certainly doesn't describe Mr Redwood's revelatory exposition. What about Andy's parent-carrying child, can he help? Nope, he doesn't seem to be available and nobody's saying why. Have the parents even met him? Frankly, there's no evidence that nice Mr Redwood has told them any more about him than he's told us.

The Words Have It

Nor is that the only textual clue. Read it again and note that the crucial second sentence in paragraph two is mangled and grossly incorrect English. The McCann couple, as we have observed over the years, are not renowned for their fluent English style but that isn't the reason for this betise: it's a giveaway that the many hands that wrote it are trying to suggest far more than the language can carry and this is the best they agree on. Just like Madeleine really, and probably written by the same people.

Sceptical readers know what the writers want to express with the phrase "it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person": they want readers to assume that they are describing agreed facts, agreed, furthermore and by implication, with Mr. Redwood himself. But the language can't meet the requirements of their sleight of hand and as a result it comes out as not just ungrammatical but literal nonsense: of course "it is possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person"! How on earth could it be impossible?

Possibly This Man Might Not Be Well Completely

"Based or more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE."
Andy Redwood triumphantly called it a "revelatory moment" in a two years plus investigation while the McCann gospel has it that it's a mere "belief" that it "could be" the man who Jane Tanner claimed to have seen. A belief that someone who someone might have seen "could" be someone else (unnamed) seen possibly by the same someone but we can't be sure hardly justifies the use of the word "belief" at all, does it? It certainly doesn't describe Mr Redwood's revelatory exposition. What about Andy's parent-carrying child, can he help? Nope, he doesn't seem to be available and nobody's saying why. Have the parents even met him? Frankly, there's no evidence that nice Mr Redwood has told them any more about him than he's told us."

The Words have it.   

I was under the impression that Redwood stated that the man Jane Tanner claims to have seen actually was a parent carrying a child home from a creche not that he believes it was I sometimes wonder what TM hope to achieve by putting out bilge, misleading statements, stories of sightings etc. Do they really think that they will be able to influence a Scotland Yard / PJ investigation or am I missing something here?

T4two wrote:I was under the impression that Redwood stated that the man Jane Tanner claims to have seen actually was a parent carrying a child home from a creche not that he believes it was I sometimes wonder what TM hope to achieve by putting out bilge, misleading statements, stories of sightings etc. Do they really think that they will be able to influence a Scotland Yard / PJ investigation or am I missing something here?

Morning T4two, Redwood said Tanner's statement has been taken out and this means no one checked on Madeleleine between 9 and 10pm. Is this a case of the Abduction theory having more credibility because now there is an hour for the Abductor to take Madeleine ???

Redwood MUST GO .!!!

Panda wrote:

T4two wrote:I was under the impression that Redwood stated that the man Jane Tanner claims to have seen actually was a parent carrying a child home from a creche not that he believes it was I sometimes wonder what TM hope to achieve by putting out bilge, misleading statements, stories of sightings etc. Do they really think that they will be able to influence a Scotland Yard / PJ investigation or am I missing something here?

Morning T4two, Redwood said Tanner's statement has been taken out and this means no one checked on Madeleleine between 9 and 10pm. Is this a case of the Abduction theory having more credibility because now there is an hour for the Abductor to take Madeleine ???

Redwood MUST GO .!!!

No he didn't.

He said that the person Tanner saw actually does exist, but not as the abductor.

This makes Jane a truth teller - because otherwise how would this person even exist, in sketch, to be matched up with the sighting of Jane?

It says that she DID see someone - SY put the guy, with his face fuzzed out, wearing clothes like the ones he wore that night, fitting exactly into the efit that was created based on Jane's sighting.

Nowhere I can find did SY "take out" Tanner's sighing as SUCH - only that he was the abductor.

This destroys Gerry's alibi for the time of the abduction since Gerry's alibi was this person; if this person is a tourist taking his child home then he's obviously not the abductor and that being the case he doesn't alibi Gerry during the abduction, since the abduction can't be said to have happened at 910 or 915 when Jane saw this chap.

"However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE."

Interesting that the McCanns are refuting Redwood's only revelation in over two years of investigations! Surely this snub can't be going over well with SY. In claiming that Tannerman may not be crecheman, the Mccanns are stating that SY got it wrong, and once again, they know better than everyone else how to conduct a police investigation. As we know, they are already experts on child welfare, cadaver dogs, so why not police investigation?

Unfortunately, the McCanns have dug their hole so deep in that Tannerman is abductorman that they have no choice but to keep to the same script, despite all evidence to the contrary. They must continue to keep the emphasis off of Smithman/Gerryman, which has been their aim from day one. They must also keep the abduction to before 9:30 so that the angles that the doors were allegedly found can be explained away. So many unnecessary details in their statements really limit the possibility for abductorman to exist.

jinvta wrote:"However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE."

Interesting that the McCanns are refuting Redwood's only revelation in over two years of investigations! Surely this snub can't be going over well with SY. In claiming that Tannerman may not be crecheman, the Mccanns are stating that SY got it wrong, and once again, they know better than everyone else how to conduct a police investigation. As we know, they are already experts on child welfare, cadaver dogs, so why not police investigation?

Unfortunately, the McCanns have dug their hole so deep in that Tannerman is abductorman that they have no choice but to keep to the same script, despite all evidence to the contrary. They must continue to keep the emphasis off of Smithman/Gerryman, which has been their aim from day one. They must also keep the abduction to before 9:30 so that the angles that the doors were allegedly found can be explained away. So many unnecessary details in their statements really limit the possibility for abductorman to exist.

Good points. IMO everything the McCs say is said with a possible court case in mind and the need to build a defence. Therefore if the police are saying that your prime witness to abduction did see somebody but that the person she saw was a parent collecting a child from a creche and not an abductor and that they know this because they have located and interviewed that person - then this is destroying your alibi and you must call it into doubt. It's a high risk policy because the police might just come up with that person - unless of course you know that no such person exists and that the police are bluffing, in which case it's a simple matter of calling their bluff. This affair has been played like a game of chess for some years; it's now starting to look more like a game of poker.

T4two wrote:

jinvta wrote:"However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE."

Interesting that the McCanns are refuting Redwood's only revelation in over two years of investigations! Surely this snub can't be going over well with SY. In claiming that Tannerman may not be crecheman, the Mccanns are stating that SY got it wrong, and once again, they know better than everyone else how to conduct a police investigation. As we know, they are already experts on child welfare, cadaver dogs, so why not police investigation?

Unfortunately, the McCanns have dug their hole so deep in that Tannerman is abductorman that they have no choice but to keep to the same script, despite all evidence to the contrary. They must continue to keep the emphasis off of Smithman/Gerryman, which has been their aim from day one. They must also keep the abduction to before 9:30 so that the angles that the doors were allegedly found can be explained away. So many unnecessary details in their statements really limit the possibility for abductorman to exist.

Good points. IMO everything the McCs say is said with a possible court case in mind and the need to build a defence. Therefore if the police are saying that your prime witness to abduction did see somebody but that the person she saw was a parent collecting a child from a creche and not an abductor and that they know this because they have located and interviewed that person - then this is destroying your alibi and you must call it into doubt. It's a high risk policy because the police might just come up with that person - unless of course you know that no such person exists and that the police are bluffing, in which case it's a simple matter of calling their bluff. This affair has been played like a game of chess for some years; it's now starting to look more like a game of poker.

Agree, agree, agree... McCanns have the one sighting that proves the alibi and if this were May 10th 2007 it'd be different, but in the 6 years intervening they've become wedded to this guy. How many times did we see his efit and they even put it in the book, it's the big fish - to use Kate's words, the red herring!

Without Tannerman as abductor they have no alibi and no proof of abduction nor any sighting other than one late enough and like enough to be Gerry and they also must spank SY soundly for shooting down their best defense and the best defense is a good offense as we know.

SY can't be sure... but THEY have a firm belief that Jane saw Maddie being taken at 915 by this guy. Of course someone else stayed inside or was inside post 910 to move the door for Matt to see it different from how Gerry did so that makes two of them bumbling around hiding in plain sight.

Andy Redwood triumphantly called it a "revelatory moment" in a two years plus investigation while the McCann gospel has it that it's a mere "belief" that it "could be" the man who Jane Tanner claimed to have seen. A belief that someone who someone might have seen "could" be someone else (unnamed) seen possibly by the same someone but we can't be sure hardly justifies the use of the word "belief" at all, does it?

Beliefs are funny things. Some people firmly believe in God and some do not. Anything less than that is surely a matter of opinion even with Scotland Yard though I get the feeling they weren't simply OPINING about this person, they found him, interviewed him and had him trot out his and his child's pjs from the night.

If McCanns or their "investigation" or more importantly, their criminal defense attorney -er - legal advisor - knew who that man was they would have demolished this possibility or will do so should it be necessary.

Clarence leaking the "arrests imminent" to seem like it came from the SY investigation also lays groundwork for their ineptitude (SY) should they start barking up the wrong car boot.