Blacksmith

I think its excellent, well thought out, and a bit provocative.

Blacksmith's last sentence, is he hinting that Jane Tanner is in hiding?
Has she turned and is now helping the SY investigation?

Thanks fred.......

The Blacksmith Bureau





Friday, 14 February 2014Who Are You Kidding?
eggman1

Do you recognise this man ? Is it you?

(Note the thick, dark, shaggy hair)

You know, as Kate McCann might say, the more we think about the Redwood Crimewatch updating of the Jane Tanner vision the more curious it seems.

Of course it's possible that someone didn't come forward for six years but it takes a lot of swallowing doesn't it?

It's Just a Shot Away

You were in Praia da Luz with your daughter on the night Madeleine McCann vanished. Now that on its own is enough to make anybody keep an eye on the case for the rest of their lives but it isn't just that, is it? His daughter was apparently the same age as the missing child. He knows that he walked within yards of the McCann apartment and its ill-lit, shrubbery-screened car park around the time she vanished. In our experience most people who've had the slightest connection, however peripheral, to a big "incident" can't stop gabbling about it to everybody but this fellow is different.

Blasé?

Peripheral? According to all those ex-Yard experts the abductors were probably concealed there watching and waiting when he passed. Did it really never occur to him that it could have been his child who disappeared, never to be seen again— snatched out of his arms and bundled away after a few blows to his head? Do you think you'd ever be able to put that brush with fate out of your mind?

In fact many people would find that the most dramatic, and potentially scary, incident in their entire lifetime, burnt into their consciousness. But the man whom Mr Redwood "discovered" doesn't turn a hair, doesn't tell his partner or, eventually, his child. Doesn't respond to the uproar later that night, or the appeals. Or his own sense of responsibility. And nor does his family.

Dumb?

He was also, it seems, someone who "hurried" across a road with his infant child in his arms without looking to his right at any time, thus missing not only the possibility of a car killing his daughter but the three adults who were gathered there, only yards away. Really? Or maybe, like every human adult carrying their child, he did look for hazards. Yet he didn't report to the police in either country that he'd seen what could have been an abduction gang complete with a pushchair outside the back of the apartment. Come on!

Dim?

Still, it's not absolutely impossible that he was a bit unobservant and another bit dim. In which case forget all those improbabilities above and ask yourself how he recognised himself six years later not from CCTV, not even from a direct, comprehensive description but from a drawing by a third party of a description by another party, one who has demonstrated numerous times, not least in the printed timeline meeting and her rogatory interview, that she is far more susceptible to atmosphere, her own thoughts and the suggestions of others than to observation. Somehow Jane Tanner, who didn't know the difference between Robert Murat and the unlucky child carrier and, it seems, a hole in the ground, provided a description so brilliant that the person himself recognised the faceless picture in profile.

Including a description of clothes so accurate and comprehensive that the man – who like all the rest of us remembers exactly what he was wearing one evening six years before – recognized them.

Frankly his version doesn't stand up: a discounted sighting yes but this fairy story no. The question is, what else is he saying for his own reasons that doesn't stand up?

Enough to Make One's Hair Stand on End Is Blacksmith suggesting the Guy who came forward was the real abductor?

Excellent Article, I remember in the Panorama recon Jane Tanner saying 'I know what i saw'.!!!!

Tanner was always very nervous wasn't she?

fred wrote:Tanner was always very nervous wasn't she?  

Yes, and didn't she mention it to the Group hours later.? I think she was just trying to help the McCanns prove "abduction"

What do you make of the sentence I highlighted? Didn't the guy come forward complete with pyjamas?

Panda wrote:

fred wrote:Tanner was always very nervous wasn't she?  

Yes, and didn't she mention it to the Group hours later.?  I think she was just trying to help the McCanns prove "abduction"

What do you make of the sentence I highlighted?  Didn't the guy come forward complete with pyjamas?

I'm not sure what BS is alluding to but I find it interesting that his
article begins with Tanner's faceless mug-shot depicting hairline
only, and ends with Kate's hair standing on end!
Is he suggesting that Jane saw Kate carrying Madeleine? This may
explain Kate's cloths having the cadaver scent and may also
explain why Jane was so reluctant to provide a fuller description
of her abductor.
Was Jane and Kate both involved in the disposal? Each having
their roles to play but they have now parted company?

Hi marxman, not sure about that. I think when Redwood discounted Jane's sighting it meant no one checked on the twins from 9 til 10. This meant Gerry was the last to see Madeleine alive , the check at 8.30pm was not visual, just listening at the window which meant Madeleine was not seen for one and a half hours.!!!!! I think Gerry found Madeleine dead and moved her body out of the Apartment until such time as he could carry it in the Tennis bag to a nearby clifftop and throw it over the edge into the Sea. Kate genuinely did not know anything until her 10pm check , what was meant by 'they've taken her' is anyone's guess.

At one time the Portugese Prosecutor went to a Judge asking if there was enough evidence to charge the McCanns, the Judge replied 'show me the body'.

fred wrote:Tanner was always very nervous wasn't she?  

And so she should be!
After saying on Panorama 2007 when asked about how the 'abductor' was carrying child away "I was carrying...."

jeanmonroe wrote:

fred wrote:Tanner was always very nervous wasn't she?  

And so she should be!
After saying on Panorama 2007 when asked about how the 'abductor' was carrying child away "I was carrying...."

Yes, so let me throw this into the mix......What if it was the women,
namely, Jane and Kate, who took on the responsibility of preparing the
child for others to 'take over' and secret her remains?
I was always puzzled by Tanner's inability to provide a sensible description
of her 'abductor' but what if the reason was that she would have had to be
describing a female? (am I being clear?)
Explains her Panorama slip-up, the scented Kate and the farcical egg-man
lacking any facial features.

How does that work though marxman , Kate never left the table from 8pm when the McCanns arrived and 10pm when she checked . I think it more likely that Tanner was asked by the McCanns to say she saw this suspect as she passed Gerry at approx. 21.10 on her way to check on her children.

It was supposedly on this check that she discovered her daughter had been sick and phoned O'Brien who was in the middle of Dinner. The Cook kept his steak warm intil he returned to the table about 10pm to find everyone gone except Fiona's Mother. Other reports say Tanner didn't even appear in the Restaurant at all that night. SY must have read all these statements and seen the discrepancies. Since their remit was to find out what happened to Madeleine, why didn't they call for a reconstruction, the McCanns could hardly refuse , if their friends did it would be because they know they lied, actors could be used to play their parts.

Panda wrote:How does that work though marxman , Kate never left the table from 8pm when the McCanns arrived and 10pm when she checked . I think it more likely that Tanner was asked by the McCanns to say she saw this suspect as she passed Gerry at approx. 21.10 on her way to check on her children.

It was supposedly on this check that she discovered her daughter had been sick and phoned O'Brien who was in the middle of Dinner. The Cook kept his steak warm intil he returned to the table about 10pm to find everyone gone except Fiona's Mother.  Other reports say Tanner didn't even appear in the Restaurant at all that night.  SY must have read all these statements and seen the discrepancies. Since their remit was to find out what happened to Madeleine, why didn't they call for a reconstruction, the McCanns could hardly refuse , if their friends did it would be because they know they lied, actors could be used to play their parts.

Hi Panda, but according to some reports, it was much earlier that a commotion
occurred and Kate eventually set off the alarm much later. "They have taken her"

Disposal may have happened much earlier and the alarm raised at 10pm well after
the act was carried out.

I don't think the timeline is accurate or reliable. Kate and Jane could have been
away, say 9.30 ish, came back, then for Kate to raise the alarm.

Yes, Kate did the 10pm check , ran to the Restaurant and they all followed , standing outside on the Balcony. Mrs Venn heard the commotion, called from her Balcony to ask if the Police had been called and was told they had, althougn the Police Monitor lists the time at 10.40pm.

Panda wrote:Yes, Kate did the 10pm check , ran to the Restaurant and they all followed , standing outside on the Balcony. Mrs Venn heard the commotion, called from her Balcony to ask if the Police had been called and was told they had, althougn the Police Monitor lists the time at 10.40pm.

But some reports indicate a 'search' for a missing child was much earlier
than Kate's distress call at 10pm. Some have it as early as 9.20 pm
people were milling about causing a commotion.

This 40 minutes was crucial to set-up and stage proceedings, which also
illustrates that the tapas timeline is very suspect, that's if the reports
are to be believed.

Was Maddie's disposal prepared by Kate/Jane and passed to the men folk,
ie Gerry to set off to the beach?

Kate then does her alarm at 10 when Gerry has just returned, proclaiming,
"They have taken her"!

Here's a theory marxman which for me has the most credibility. On 3as a long time ago I poster said O'Brien performed a tracheotomy on Madeleine which didn't work....the post was whoosh clunked very quickly .

We know blood spots were found on the wall behind the settee which suggests Madeleine may have been on the settee looking for her parents , leaned over too far and fell ,hitting her head on the wall.
OBrien was called to do a tracheotomy but it was too late , this would have happened before Gerard's 9pm check because he met someone across the road outside his Apartment just after that. No one else was in the McCann Apartment between 8pm and 10pm

Tanner provides the sighting because Russell her Partner had been involved and no attempt had been made to call an Ambulance. I believe the Tapas Waiter who said Tanner was not in the Restaurant that night and called Russell because her daughter was sick.