Author Topic: Tannerman, Crècheman, Innocentman and now TOTman. Could you make it up?  (Read 9248 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Venturi Swirl

Not what my posts says, that's just your twist.
Jane Tanner saw a man who turns out to be Totman.  Totman was on the tennis circuit and so would be known by the Tapas group (according to you).  So if you’re not saying it’s a fact JT knew the id of the man she saw, what are you saying?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline faithlilly

So it’s a fact that Jane Tanner knew the identity of the man she saw now is it?

If this Julian is the same Julian then Tanner would have seen him when she was watching while the men played tennis on the evening of 3rd of May.

From Gerry’.

------ That they bathed the children, the deponent having left at 18H00 for a tennis game only for men, at which were: DAN, tennis instructor; JULIAN, with whom he had played tennis several times; and CURTIS, with whom he had also played.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline jassi

Jane Tanner saw a man who turns out to be Totman.  Totman was on the tennis circuit and so would be known by the Tapas group (according to you).  So if you’re not saying it’s a fact JT knew the id of the man she saw, what are you saying?

I'm saying he would be known to the group.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline Venturi Swirl

I'm saying he would be known to the group.
Jane Tanner included, as she is a member of the group?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline faithlilly

Jane Tanner included, as she is a member of the group?

If she had seen him at the tennis courts on the 3rd she’d certainly know him by sight.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Eleanor

This is getting ridiculous.  I don't know whether to laugh or cry.  He knew The McCanns?  They knew him?  Did he know Madeleine, does anyone think?

Offline faithlilly

This is getting ridiculous.  I don't know whether to laugh or cry.  He knew The McCanns?  They knew him?  Did he know Madeleine, does anyone think?

If he is Julian the tennis player then he certainly knew Gerry. Gerry said as much.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Eleanor

If he is Julian the tennis player then he certainly knew Gerry. Gerry said as much.

Could you supply a Cite for what Gerry said?  Thanks in advance.

Offline Brietta

If Jane Tanner knew Dr Totman she would have recognised him had she seen him passing relatively closely in front of her.

The fact that she did not, suggests to me that the man she did see was Tannerman whoever he may be, and not Dr Totman.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline John

If Jane Tanner knew Dr Totman she would have recognised him had she seen him passing relatively closely in front of her.

The fact that she did not, suggests to me that the man she did see was Tannerman whoever he may be, and not Dr Totman.

I have great sympathy with that suggestion Brietta and especially since he was going the wrong way.  The mystery deepens!
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Eleanor


It is quite obvious to me, IMO, that Totman and Tannerman are not the same person. IMO.

Offline John

It is quite obvious to me, IMO, that Totman and Tannerman are not the same person. IMO.

How anyone could lift a child out of an apartment and get clean away with so many tourists and locals wandering about is definitely a bit of a mystery.  The other element to this is why even risk it?
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline pathfinder73

It is quite obvious to me, IMO, that Totman and Tannerman are not the same person. IMO.

What is obvious is that Totman/Crecheman clothes and child matched Jane's description so you come to the unbelievable conclusion that there was another man/child matching Jane's description at the same time?
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline Brietta

How anyone could lift a child out of an apartment and get clean away with so many tourists and locals wandering about is definitely a bit of a mystery.  The other element to this is why even risk it?

Unless corroborated by other witness statements we know nothing about ... no-one saw Jes Wilkins and son on his perambulations around Luz.  No-one saw Mr and Mrs Moyes returning from the restaurant where they dined, crossing the car park and entering the building.  No-one mentions the woman Mrs Murat saw, indeed no-one mentions Mrs Murat.

Either people in Luz were singularly unobservant or it was really quiet with not too many people out and about at that time.  Madeleine was very tired that night ... maybe other holidaymakers' children were too and most were indoors and dining at home given that we are told it was quite a chilly night.

Why would anyone risk kidnapping a child under any circumstances anyway?  If Tannerman actually was the man who did, the risk paid off for him as when seen Jane assumed he was innocently carrying his own child home and the alarm wasn't raised till some time later.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Brietta

What is obvious is that Totman/Crecheman clothes and child matched Jane's description so you come to the unbelievable conclusion that there was another man/child matching Jane's description at the same time?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9475.msg460800#msg460800

The man seen by Gail Cooper may match ... but definitely on the 3rd of May two other men each carrying a child were observed.  Firstly by Mr McCluskey ... 'McCluskeyman'? and by Mr Smith ... Smithman.

By my count that makes four.  Who knows how many more called in following OG appeals.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....