Lying in the Sun

Tannerman Reborn

Tannerman Reborn...

Redwood's Rerverlayshun...



“They themselves believed they could be the Tanner Sighting!”


Amazing and incredulous things in life can happen, good things and bad things, wonderful amazing events, sad tragic events which on hearing them at times, when related appear so incredulous that we find ourselves questioning the likelihood of it ever having taken place  – telling ourselves ‘that’s just not possible.’


Sometimes it will transpire we are right.  Sometimes wrong.


Madeleine McCanns alleged abduction her disappearance comes under the category of sad, tragic and incredulous!


Not incredulous because it is not entirely possible for a child to be removed from an apartment – incredulous because the stories told by her parents and their holiday companions quite simply do not add up, they have not been truthful with police – it is this which makes Madeleine having been abducted – an incredulous tale! 


Once more in the words of the now retired British Detective John Stalker, speaking of the McCanns and their holiday companions – ‘they are hiding something!’


Of course they are!    And until what is their secret is discovered/made known, the inconsistencies (and they are not minor inconsistencies as some would have the public believe) it will remain pretty much nigh on impossible to believe their tale


(And for the benefit of the ‘none so blind as those who will not see’ brigade – the highly respected ex detective John Stalker is not a troll person, vile in nature, far from it!)


The public unwittingly through donating to their Fund – has aided this deception, helped them hide the truth, given them the financial means to suppress the truth of matters, the financial means to waltz around doing as they do taking expensive legal actions against others.


Hence we now have a libel action against a retired Portuguese detective who for a time led the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance.


An honest and decent man who got too close to their secret, making it uncomfortable for them…and others? 


So he has to be made pay for their actions and wrongdoings.  He has to suffer, that is Kate McCanns wish!   She has stated in her book 'Madeleine' in interviews that she wants him to feel pain, she wants him to disappear!


This is where some of the funding has been spent, on legal actions against others, the McCanns way of making people suffer, feel pain, and more importantly DISAPPEAR – but it also has to be noted the McCanns lost in previous actions against Dr Goncalo Amaral, which must have cost the Fund, made up of donations by the public, not the McCanns personally, the Fund £hundreds thousands.  And not forgetting the vast sums lost to dodgy detectives!


What we also have in the true style of the UK press their cowardly actions is a blitz of untrue stories regarding Dr Goncalo Amaral – but that is what we have come to expect of the press.


What also comes as no surprise is the million and one stories, of the poor parents – from reporters too cowardly to tell it like it is.


Add to that the ‘timing’ of these stories – right bang in the middle of a libel trial taking place in Lisbon, a trial which is going badly for the McCanns, as their witnesses, members of their family have not been truthful in their testimonies – intentionally so, or just repeating as they said that which Kate and Gerry McCann told them to be the truth?


What is peculiar in this case is that any witness (not in the libel case specifically but any witness at all who gave a statement to the police both in UK or Portugal) which the McCanns felt not in their favour has been deemed a lie by them.


The elderly lady who lived above the McCann holiday apartment being but one!   She heard a child crying, the crying from the McCann holiday apartment.  It lasted for more than an hour, the child calling out for her daddy.


The McCanns stated this was not possible.


Yet we are to believe the McCann tale where they tell us Madeleine told them she and her baby brother cried the evening prior to her disappearance.


Why, is it possible for the child to have cried on this night, and not on the night the elderly Mrs Fenn heard the child’s cries?


It would seem that the only statements we are to believe are the ones they and their companions have given…funny that!


Seems the McCanns would like to bury some witness revelations.


There are however some revelations that the McCanns are happy for us to know of…or are they?


That rather depends on Andy Redwood’s game – whether he is laying a trap for the twosome and their companions or whether his intention is to ignore the findings of the Portuguese Police, the Leicestershire Police in the UK and of course the dodgy tale told by the group which makes no sense whatsoever!


Redwood’s Rerverlayshuns?


Well what he revealed to the public on Crimewatch is that a mystery British family their identity which will also remain a mystery to us all, revealed to Redwood that they or rather, Mr Mystery Man, might actually be Tannerman,  and I quote Redwood:


They themselves believed they could be the Tanner Sighting!”


Just another of those incredulities that this case has thrown up?


Odd I have to say that Redwood does not state clearly and categorically that this man was Tannerman, but that he tells us that the man ‘could be’ and more interestingly is that he had to ‘re-assure’ us, if not of this man’s existence, but of his likelihood of being Tannerman by saying of the family  – ‘they themselves believed they could be the Tanner sighting.’


Like most, what Andy Redwood is playing at I am not entirely sure.

What I am sure of is that until he addresses and makes public the reasons why the group have been dishonest in their accounts of that night, I for one cannot believe their tale of abduction.


Gerry McCann changed his story, and not a mention of this on Crimewatch?


Martin Smith the Irish man who saw the man carrying a child, said it was Gerry McCann he saw of this he is almost sure.


Yet Andy Redwood made no mention of this either on Crimewatch.  He did however include that the little girl being carried could have been Madeleine!


So many questions Andy Redwood left unanswered:


The crèche I have been reliably informed by a reader to the site was open in the evening from 7.15 p.m. until 11.00 p.m.


‘Tannerman Re-Born 2013’ was seen at 9:15 pm by Jane Tanner.

If he dropped his daughter at the crèche at its earliest opening time of 7:15 p.m. and had later collected her, and was out on the streets again walking 'home' carrying her in that strange fashion by 9:15 p.m. it really didn't allow for much time to go out and eat - begs too some other rather pertinent questions:-


  • What time did he, his wife/partner drop the child off at crèche?


Presumably they did not cover the child, dress her in warm clothing on this cold night when taking her to the crèche, as it would seem she had no warm clothing, no footwear, and no blanket covering her on the return journey?


How odd, that parents, would take their 2 year old child out dressed only in pyjamas, nothing more!  Especially so when their apartment was NOT close to the creche!


  • Where did they go to eat?


  • Where exactly was their apartment?


Clearly it was some distance away from the crèche, according to the direction he was headed when seen by Jane Tanner.

Quite far away from crèche in fact.

  • So where was their apartment?

  • From wherever they ate, whichever restaurant/bar, what was his route back to the crèche?

  • What route did his partner (their other family members if there were any) take when returning to their apartment?

  • Did his partner leave the restaurant/bar at the same time as the man?


  • Did his partner/family stay longer at the restaurant returning home later in the evening?

If so, same question -

  • What route was taken, and did they see anything?


I ask, as this man, his partner, or any other family members may have witnessed something/someone/the McCanns their companions?

  • Did he see or hear anything?

  • He must have passed the car park where the front door and windows of the McCann apartment are located, did he see anyone?

  • Did he hear Tanner her flip flops banging on the cobbles?

  • Did he hear McCann and Jez talking? 

Sound carries at night when quiet, surely this man heard something?  Seems impossible that he wouldn't have.

We couldn't ask Tannerman Mark 1 2007 what he seen or heard, but Redwood must have been able to ask Tannerman Reborn, 2013 such questions.

It would be difficult to believe he did not hear or see Tanner, Jez or McCann.

‘Tannerman Mark1 2007’ we were told was walking hurriedly.  He did so we were led to believe because he was a man having just ‘stolen a child’ from her bed (we must never forget, that it was from her bed, according to the McCanns) and he was in a bit of a rush to get away!  Hmm


‘Tannerman Reborn 2013’ is the same man, just not now, considered a suspect, not now the man who carried Madeleine off, that is, according to Andy Redwood.  But that does not change the speed at which he moved.  

  •  So why was Tannerman Reborn rushing?


  • Did he not look before crossing the road to check for vehicular traffic before launching himself, and his little daughter into the middle of the road?


  • Surely a caring father would have carefully checked?   And if he did, he must surely then have seen Tanner, Jez and McCann?


We are not now thinking of him as an abductor intent only on looking straight ahead getting the job done, heading to and reaching where he had to be and quickly!


We now have a loving father (albeit a bit of a clown who didn’t cover up his child to keep her warm, with an equally stoopid uncaring partner who didn’t bother to see to it that the child was kept warm on her way TO THE CRECHE) who doesn't have to stride along at a galloping pace, but does need to pay attention to any dangers, like traffic...)


And of course the more obvious questions left unanswered by Redwood:-


  • Why would any parent carry a two year old child on a cold night wearing only pyjamas through the streets of a holiday resort to place the child in a crèche for a very short time – then return, and once more carry the child through the streets later that same night, the night now very much colder, very much darker without bothering to ensure the child was kept warm by a blanket or warm clothing?


  • Why would this father not have wrapped his child in the warm jacket that he was wearing?


  • This father was not simply popping out of one building and into another carrying the child, and even then, a parent would have wrapped the child warmly.  A parent would have wanted their child when in the crèche to be wrapped in a blanket belonging to them surely?


Which begs another question –


  • Was this child already sleeping when taken TO the crèche?

  • Did the mother and father deposit her there?

  • Did they just carry her there, a sleeping child dressed only in pyjamas?

Hard to believe any parent would do this!

  • Did this child sleep throughout her time spent at the crèche that night?

If so, one would have to assume the staff at the creche covered the child to keep her warm as she slept, that they did not just dump the little ones on top of a bed or a chair to sleep until their parents called back for them, Yes?

  • So when her father called for her, the child would have been taken from her warm sleeping place, taken from under whatever bedclothes she slept, to be carried in the cold night air by her daddy – and the air and the sudden drop in temperature as she was taken into the cold night air did NOT wake her?

Must have been something in the air that night as the McCann twins didn’t wake either on the night of 3rd May 2007 (and they normally did) and they too were taken out in the cold night!  And Madeleine didn’t waken either when she was carried off it would seem.

Four children we are to believe, out in the cold in pyjamas, the McCann twins, Madeleine (if she was the Smith sighting) and Tannerman Reborn's child, and not a one stirred!

Jane Tanner said it was a cold night, and if I recall correctly she borrowed  a fleece jacket belonging to her partner she was so cold.

Tannerman Reborn, his daughter – What if she was awake when taken to the crèche in the evening:-

  • Would her parents not have put footwear on her for this purpose, clothes, so that she could walk/play if she wanted to?

  • Did they have a buggie with them on holiday?

Most unusual for parents with a child so young not to take a buggie on holiday with them, it is the norm in fact, and it would have been normal for parents intending to walk the distance these parents had to, to get to the creche to put their child in a buggie to transport her, especially a sleeping child, where the child could be made comfortable and be covered with warm blanket.

  • If this child was awake on arriving at the night creche and remained awake playing around for a while - why would her parents not have her wear some form of footwear, sandals, slippers, soft shoes, or were they happy for her to run around barefooted? 


Andy's, Tannerman Reborn Story is like the McCann stories, just not credible!

Eleven families Redwood said left their children in the creche that evening.

  • What time did these families leave their children/call back to collect them?  

  • Was it normal for children to be dropped off in cold dark nights dressed only in pyjamas?

  • Did this family have any other children?

If so, 

  • Why were they not at the creche?  Older children perhaps, not ready to sleep so early?

So many questions Redwood has left unanswered or rather just did not bother to explain in his new version of Tannerman.

To simply say he has found someone, some father, who didn't bother to wrap his child warmly on a cold night, who also just happened to be passing the apartment where the McCann family stayed during their holiday, and who carried a child, a little girl - TWO YEARS younger than Madeleine (how could Tanner have mistaken a child so young for Madeleine?) who was wearing only pyjamas similar to those which Jane Tanner described - simply incredulous!

Apart from anything else, a little two year old does not have such long legs that they would dangle over the arm of her dad, allowing Tanner to see the pyjama legs, be able to describe them.   Simply nonsense!

Redwood is up to something but just what exactly?   For sure he cannot possibly think that anyone has swallowed his Daddy and Daughter Story - Tannerman Reborn!

I see too for the purpose of Crimewatch, Redwood chose to go with Gerry McCanns SECOND version of what happened that night.

Which of Kate McCanns versions he used I will need to check as there are so many!

That fact that Redwood has allowed the little drama put together for Crimewatch which is untruthful with much detail omitted, to go out to British public, arouses suspicion...  

It is impossible for Redwood and the Met to not see that the stories by the group are dishonest in content, so either Redwood is flushing them out, or he is whitewashing - let us hope it is not the latter.

As for Madeleine's disappearance having all the hallmarks of a planned abduction, I would have to say Redwood is having a laugh on that one - and laugh he may just have done when the cameras stopped rolling, like he did in his last interviews - like the McCanns did in Madeleine One Year On.

Good to know they all find their 'performances for the public' so amusing once they think they are out of camera shot and their microphones turned off!

Who plans to take a child from an apartment and then walks through the streets without concealing the child in any way...Not anyone who planned it!

Lest we forget, if the McCanns are not responsible for having this child removed from the apartment, they have by their dishonest accounts given to police, hindered the investigation to find this child, their accounts given to both Portuguese Police and Leicestershire Police, the changing of Gerry McCanns story in particular where he changes not only his but Kate McCanns version of what happened on that night and their continual and persistent changing of detail in the various Crime Watch Style productions in a bid to mislead the public as witnessed again in this latest, series, is nothing short of criminal!

Why I ask would innocent persons do that?

I'm with retired British detective John Stalker on this one - they are hiding something!

The questions now everyone needs answered - At what point during the last six years did our mystery British father and his partner begin to believe -'they could be the Tanner Sighting?'

And do the McCanns know who this family is, have they been told, or is Redwood playing them with both the Tannerman Sighting and the Smith Sighting?

Redwood, his revelations, are they intended so that the McCanns their companions can dig themselves out of a hole, or dig a hole big enough to take them all?

Disposing of Tanner's sighting can work both ways, equally Smith sighting can too, so it all  rather depends on the response by the public and how the group react to it Redwood just watching and waiting?
23rd October 2013

Website Builder