-
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/
By Mike Sullivan, Crime Editor
6th May 2018, 10:25 pmUpdated: 6th May 2018, 10:47 pm
COPS spent four years trying to identify a man seen carrying a child on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared — despite a GP saying it was probably him.
Julian Totman walked near the McCanns’ apartment holding his two-year-old girl after getting her from a creche at the resort in Praia da Luz.
But Portuguese officers continued to pursue the line of inquiry triggered by Jane Tanner, a friend of Kate and Gerry McCann.
She said she saw a dark-haired man wearing a brown jacket, dark shoes and tan trousers carrying a child in pink and white pyjamas.
As well as matching much of the physical description of “Tannerman”, Dr Totman also wore the same clothes.
He was interviewed by the Guarda Nacional Republicana soon after Maddie, three, vanished in May 2007, but his wife Rachel said: “My husband had told the local police it could be him but we didn’t hear anything for years.
“We always thought it was Julian who was seen by Jane Tanner.
"But the national police who investigated didn’t get back to us and we don’t know if our information was ever passed on.”
Ms Tanner was one of the so-called Tapas Seven — the friends and family members dining with the McCanns at the time Maddie disappeared.
She was on her way to check on her kids at 9.15pm when she saw the man near Kate and Gerry’s apartment.
Gerry was nearby with pal Jeremy Wilkins having just looked in on Maddie and her younger twin siblings Sean and Amelie.
Kate then discovered their eldest child was missing when she went to check again at 10pm.
Ms Tanner later defied police orders to not comment publicly on what she saw.
She said: “I think it’s important that people know what I saw because I believe Madeleine was abducted.’’
And with Portuguese laws prohibiting the release of photofits of suspects, the McCanns put out an artist’s sketch of “Tannerman” in October 2007.
But efforts by the Totmans, who live in the South West, to point out the importance of Julian’s movements fell on deaf ears.
They were never contacted by Leicestershire police, whose officers were responsible at the time for collating all UK inquiries.
The force also failed to follow up on information from Paul and Julia Weinberger, pals of the Totmans, who said they had seen a pock-faced man hanging around the McCanns’ aparment twice that week.
The Portuguese probe was concluded in July 2008 and it was not until 2011 — when then-Home Secretary Theresa May ordered the Met carry out a review — that the Totmans’ account was finally taken seriously.
Det Chief Insp Andy Redwood described it as a “moment of revelation”.
He said: “We are almost certain now this sighting [Tannerman] is not the abductor.”
The Met probe then dramatically shifted focus to a sighting by Irishman Martin Smith at 10pm of a man — dubbed “Smithman” — carrying a child down a hill away from the Ocean Club.
They also appealed for information over a spate of burglaries at the resort in the period leading up to Maddie’s disappearance 11 years ago last week.
The British police investigation has now been scaled down and is likely to be shelved in October.
But one retired Met Police detective, who visited the resort with The Sun, is convinced Jane Tanner saw the real abductor.
==================================================================
If anyone thinks Dr. Totman was Tannerman..........
473
-
This is from Jane Tanner’s rogatory interview.
‘
“No, but the best thing that could happen to me, apart from Madeleine being found, is somebody coming up and saying ‘That was me’, you know, ‘That was me walking across there’, because, you know, you know, I don’t want that to be Madeleine, but, you know, there’s no, but I’m convinced that was and, you know, people have got to, so I don’t know what I can do to make them believe that. I’m sorry”.
Yet when someone did come forward and say it was them we hear nothing from Tanner.
When Redwood revealed his ‘revelation moment’ why no comment from Tanner expressing her heartfelt relief that she was not to blame for letting the abductor get away ?
-
I found that pic of Dr. Totman a while ago at the following link when looking for the possible identity of crecheman.
http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/resources/images/4462029.jpg?display=1&htype=407&type=responsive-gallery
That pic of him unidentified is still on McCanns official site. That BS is history. About time they were informed.
Miss Lucy Totman was the 2 year old child. Madeleine was nearly 4 so it's no surprise that Jane Tanner didn't think it was her at the time.
(https://image.ibb.co/gBVxin/drtotman.jpg)
-
I found that pic of Dr. Totman a while ago at the following link when looking for the possible identity of crecheman.
http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/resources/images/4462029.jpg?display=1&htype=407&type=responsive-gallery
That pic of him unidentified is still on McCanns official site. That BS is history. About time they were informed.
Miss Lucy Totman was the 2 year old child. Madeleine was nearly 4 so it's no surprise that Jane Tanner didn't think it was her at the time.
(https://image.ibb.co/gBVxin/drtotman.jpg)
Would you say Dr. Totman's height & build tallied with Jane's description?
-
So the Leicestershire police sat on the info for how many years?
-
It would seem that the PJs conclusion all those years ago that Tannerman was not involved was the correct one. Who'd have thought it ?
-
Interesting that the story says he was interviewed by the GNR. Firstly it isn’t the GNR’s job and secondly there is no mention in the GNR statements.
-
So many questions come to mind.
Where was he going? Not back to his apartment unless he's saying Jane Tanner got his direction wrong.
If the Totmans 'always thought' he was the man seen by Jane why did they make no real efforts to tell the authorities?
Did Leicestershire Police not send the Totmans a questionnaire?
Redwood didn't name Crecheman. Why are they allowing themselves to be identified now?
-
Is it the same Julian?
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
-
Interesting that the story says he was interviewed by the GNR. Firstly it isn’t the GNR’s job and secondly there is no mention in the GNR statements.
The Totmans had both signed up for tennis lessons, so must have known the McCanns. They were booked to stay until 11th May. The McCanns were moved into the same block as them. Their daughter was in the same creche group as the twins. It seems strange imo that they didn't attempt to share their thoughts with anyone at that time.
-
The Totmans had both signed up for tennis lessons, so must have known the McCanns. They were booked to stay until 11th May. The McCanns were moved into the same block as them. Their daughter was in the same creche group as the twins. It seems strange imo that they didn't attempt to share their thoughts with anyone at that time.
He was interviewed by the Guarda Nacional Republicana soon after Maddie, three, vanished in May 2007, but his wife Rachel said: “My husband had told the local police it could be him but we didn’t hear anything for years.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/
-
Does this mean we can now discard the theory that crecheman was invented by the Met for Crimewatch to send a signal to the McCanns that they were onto them?
-
This is from Jane Tanner’s rogatory interview.
‘
“No, but the best thing that could happen to me, apart from Madeleine being found, is somebody coming up and saying ‘That was me’, you know, ‘That was me walking across there’, because, you know, you know, I don’t want that to be Madeleine, but, you know, there’s no, but I’m convinced that was and, you know, people have got to, so I don’t know what I can do to make them believe that. I’m sorry”.
Yet when someone did come forward and say it was them we hear nothing from Tanner.
When Redwood revealed his ‘revelation moment’ why no comment from Tanner expressing her heartfelt relief that she was not to blame for letting the abductor get away ?
Why do you believe that any of the McCanns’ friends should issue public statements about any aspect of the case years after the event? Who amongst the general public has a clue who she is, or cares whether she feels relieved or not about this detail?
-
He was interviewed by the Guarda Nacional Republicana soon after Maddie, three, vanished in May 2007, but his wife Rachel said: “My husband had told the local police it could be him but we didn’t hear anything for years.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/
I find it possible that not everything noted by the GNR was handed to the PJ or somehow wasn't noted by the PJ. Some early media reports stated that they'd (informally, presumably) questioned hundreds of people, but there don't seem to be that many in the files.
Their instruction may have been to concentrate on whether anyone saw anything suspicious... If Crecheman had said that it might have been him carrying his own child, then, no, he hadn't seen anything suspicious (although there are some reports in the files with people actually stating that they hadn't) and for some reason, Amaral soon decided that Jane wasn't "reliable".
-
I find it possible that not everything noted by the GNR was handed to the PJ or somehow wasn't noted by the PJ. Some early media reports stated that they'd (informally, presumably) questioned hundreds of people, but there don't seem to be that many in the files.
Their instruction may have been to concentrate on whether anyone saw anything suspicious... If Crecheman had said that it might have been him carrying his own child, then, no, he hadn't seen anything suspicious (although there are some reports in the files with people actually stating that they hadn't) and for some reason, Amaral soon decided that Jane wasn't "reliable".
Much would depend on who translated any conversation between the Totmans & the GNR.
It doesn't explain why information provided to LP wasn't acted upon. Presumably it was also forwarded to Portugal.
How many more times do we have to hear this same story of people having come forward but their information not acted upon by the PJ?
It's a pity the PJ never published all the efits they had at the time as most of them could probably have been identified & ruled out,
-
He was interviewed by the Guarda Nacional Republicana soon after Maddie, three, vanished in May 2007, but his wife Rachel said: “My husband had told the local police it could be him but we didn’t hear anything for years.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/
What 'could have been him'? When was Jane Tanner's sighting made known?
-
Why do you believe that any of the McCanns’ friends should issue public statements about any aspect of the case years after the event? Who amongst the general public has a clue who she is, or cares whether she feels relieved or not about this detail?
I believe Tanner was in two of the McCann documentaries, the first Panorama and Madeleine Was here so she is certainly higher profile than any of the other Tapas group. It’s odd that no journalists have approached her for a quote.
-
Much would depend on who translated any conversation between the Totmans & the GNR.
It doesn't explain why information provided to LP wasn't acted upon. Presumably it was also forwarded to Portugal.
How many more times do we have to hear this same story of people having come forward but their information not acted upon by the PJ?
It's a pity the PJ never published all the efits they had at the time as most of them could probably have been identified & ruled out,
True. On the other hand, I wouldn't take the Sun as gospel.
-
The abduction theory is crumbling even further as Tanner confirmed as mistaken. @)(++(*
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/nintchdbpict000403900432.jpg)
Would the real Tannerman/Innocentman please stand up!
GP Julian Totman always thought he was the man Jane Tanner saw, but cops ignored his information.
-
I found that pic of Dr. Totman a while ago at the following link when looking for the possible identity of crecheman.
http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/resources/images/4462029.jpg?display=1&htype=407&type=responsive-gallery
That pic of him unidentified is still on McCanns official site. That BS is history. About time they were informed.
Miss Lucy Totman was the 2 year old child. Madeleine was nearly 4 so it's no surprise that Jane Tanner didn't think it was her at the time.
(https://image.ibb.co/gBVxin/drtotman.jpg)
I bet Robert Murat is really chuffed at this revelation given that Tanner and her tapas 7 cronies put him in the limelight.
-
Does this mean we can now discard the theory that crecheman was invented by the Met for Crimewatch to send a signal to the McCanns that they were onto them?
Whos theory was this?
I find it possible that not everything noted by the GNR was handed to the PJ or somehow wasn't noted by the PJ. Some early media reports stated that they'd (informally, presumably) questioned hundreds of people, but there don't seem to be that many in the files.
Their instruction may have been to concentrate on whether anyone saw anything suspicious... If Crecheman had said that it might have been him carrying his own child, then, no, he hadn't seen anything suspicious (although there are some reports in the files with people actually stating that they hadn't) and for some reason, Amaral soon decided that Jane wasn't "reliable".
I agree with the highlighted text in red Carana...
If they gave a statement and were aknowledged and eliminated they wouldn't hear from the police again. why would they?
What we have is a very interesting twist to the mystery.
We have Gerry and Jez stating they did not see JT pass them by neither saw 'abductor' Julian. Was she really there at that time OR did she see the 'abductor' at a different time. Was tannerman actually Smithman? Just asking questions.
-
Whos theory was this?
I agree with the highlighted text in red Carana...
If they gave a statement and were aknowledged and eliminated they wouldn't hear from the police again. why would they?
What we have is a very interesting twist to the mystery.
We have Gerry and Jez stating they did not see JT pass them by neither saw 'abductor' Julian. Was she really there at that time OR did she see the 'abductor' at a different time. Was tannerman actually Smithman? Just asking questions.
Very interesting question MTI. If you are crossing a very quiet road and someone is talking just a little way down that road wouldn’t you instinctively turn your head to the source of that sound ? Did Crècheman see Gerry, Jez or Tanner ?
-
Why do you believe that any of the McCanns’ friends should issue public statements about any aspect of the case years after the event? Who amongst the general public has a clue who she is, or cares whether she feels relieved or not about this detail?
The general public don't have a clue? what really? are you kidding? it has been splashed around the globe many,many thousands of times about this 'abductor'- on the Oprah show it was claimed by the parents' this similar pyjamas MBM was wearing our friend Jane Tanner saw the abductor" hahahahaha yeah no one has a clue at all. if fact the UK public are all so clueless and don't care why are they are asking for the OG to be refused more money?
and what about the supporters all telling anyone who pays any attention that this family are very popular , apart from a few nasty on-line trolls. Hmmm
The truth will out!
-
Very interesting question MTI. If you are crossing a very quiet road and someone is talking just a little way down that road wouldn’t you instinctively turn your head to the source of that sound ? Did Crècheman see Gerry, Jez or Tanner ?
I think they were too far down and behind his sightline to observe.
-
What we have is a very interesting twist to the mystery.
We have Gerry and Jez stating they did not see JT pass them by neither saw 'abductor' Julian. Was she really there at that time OR did she see the 'abductor' at a different time. Was tannerman actually Smithman? Just asking questions.
The time lapse between the sighting at Block 5 and that by the Smiths down town is about 45 minutes which is more than enough time for somebody to walk there with a pushchair. No doubt all will be revealed shortly.
-
I think they were too far down and behind his sightline to observe.
Yes, well I guess it depends on whos' version you believe. In the drama panorama, Jane points to where she passed the men talking near the gate, but Gerry contradicted by saying- no he was on the other side of the road???
He contradicted her in front of the whole camera crew etc...
No wonder they didn't want to do a reconstruction &^^&*
What was all that about anyway? who got it wrong and why?
-
I'd like a statement from the real Mr Totman. Where was the other child? Did they take only one of the kids to the night creche? Which way was he walking and at what time did he pass by the McCann's apartment?
-
The time lapse between the sighting at Block 5 and that by the Smiths down town is about 45 minutes which is more than enough time for somebody to walk there with a pushchair. No doubt all will be revealed shortly.
Didn't the FOI reply to T Bennett confirm that they were not looking into the Smith sighting,with Tannerman having been almost certainly ruled out,Crecheman for some reason is prepared to say who he was and where he was,the burglary gone wrong ruled out,essientially a Portuguse investigation(Hogan Howe),doesn't leave much for OG to do now is there,imo of course.
-
I'd like a statement from the real Mr Totman. Where was the other child? Did they take only one of the kids to the night creche? Which way was he walking and at what time did he pass by the McCann's apartment?
Redwood said he was in the exact same area,not that he passed by 5A.
-
Maybe Tanner is not happy that it is Totman.
-
Redwood said he was in the exact same area,not that he passed by 5A.
Either he did or he didn't but if it was him Jane has to be able to see him at some stage. The two together has to fit somehow.
-
I'd like a statement from the real Mr Totman. Where was the other child? Did they take only one of the kids to the night creche? Which way was he walking and at what time did he pass by the McCann's apartment?
Gunit has already furbished us with very interesting information. Totman family in the same block, booked to play tennis ,and as Barrier asked was the Julian who played tennis with Gerry the same Julian Totman?
What more information do you need?. It would seem some of fathers holidaying, except the tapas parents, were picking up/trying to get children to sleep, caring and looking after their children.
Interesting the Sun mentions that the OG will be wound up in October...
-
I'd like a statement from the real Mr Totman. Where was the other child? Did they take only one of the kids to the night creche? Which way was he walking and at what time did he pass by the McCann's apartment?
Totmans had a booking for 8pm for 2+1 in the Tapas Restaurant, so maybe one child there and one in the crèche?
-
I believe Tanner was in two of the McCann documentaries, the first Panorama and Madeleine Was here so she is certainly higher profile than any of the other Tapas group. It’s odd that no journalists have approached her for a quote.
In your opinion it's odd (you seem to find most things odd about this case, unless I'm very mistaken), but most people really wouldn't give it a millisecond's consideration. IMO she's done very well to keep herself and her utterances away from the gutter press, thereby denying those who enjoy criticising her every thought and deed further material to critique.
-
Much would depend on who translated any conversation between the Totmans & the GNR.
It doesn't explain why information provided to LP wasn't acted upon. Presumably it was also forwarded to Portugal.
How many more times do we have to hear this same story of people having come forward but their information not acted upon by the PJ?
It's a pity the PJ never published all the efits they had at the time as most of them could probably have been identified & ruled out,
It is interesting that you should mention efits, Misty.
A friend of the Totmans who was in occupation of Apartment G4 at the time Madeleine disappeared gave a description to Wiltshire police in May 2007 of a man she had witnessed on two occasions in the area of the McCann apartment.
This was passed to Leicestershire police who were liaising with the PJ and subsequently dropped off the radar.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/FMW/1-Witness_Jeni_Weinburger_small.JPG)
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/CUTTING_EDGE.htm
-
The abduction theory is crumbling even further as Tanner confirmed as mistaken. @)(++(*
On the contrary, it is now confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that JT DID see a man carrying a child in close proximity to Apartment 5A. She has been thoroughly vindicated.
-
I believe Tanner was in two of the McCann documentaries, the first Panorama and Madeleine Was here so she is certainly higher profile than any of the other Tapas group. It’s odd that no journalists have approached her for a quote.
Indeed, and furthermore, as the anniversary was approaching and them told to shut up by OG/SY? is it not strange that this has been revealed now? AND the Sun got hold of it [ok maybe 2,3,4th hand]. I am suddenly opening up to a different way of seeing things.
Kate and Gerry had asked LP to update them with some information. they refused. I just wonder if LP had this information to hand at that time, along with other information which hasn't been disclosed, for obvious reasons.
DiD The [family friend,pal,person in the know,source close to the family] Know about this before it was revealed on TV. Are SY really having cosy chats keeping the family updated on the investigation? hmm I very much doubt it for this reason: If they know the 'abductor' JT pointed out was someone who knew them and was identified way back as being the 'tannerman' they would not have continued to pursue this as a given. OR would they?
-
In your opinion it's odd (you seem to find most things odd about this case, unless I'm very mistaken), but most people really wouldn't give it a millisecond's consideration. IMO she's done very well to keep herself and her utterances away from the gutter press, thereby denying those who enjoy criticising her every thought and deed further material to critique.
lol JT has been called out. no wonder they all kept quiet.
Should I remind you that your 'vulnerable' parents used the SUN gutter press, for the loving mother to reveal her 'truth' book. revealing amongst other things ,the imagined state of her daughters genitalia,(being torn)and her lack of sexual intimacy with her husband due to her daughter being 'abducted'.
Oh perhaps you forgot about that? juicy, meaty, sex talk... just the way the SUN likes it.
OMG so sickening.
The discussion at my work that day on this being reported was :sheer horror, shock, disgust and disbelief.
The revelation of Tannerman quite a turn up for the 'anniversary'- hmm
-
On the contrary, it is now confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that JT DID see a man carrying a child in close proximity to Apartment 5A. She has been thoroughly vindicated.
Jane Tanner did NOT see an abductor as she claimed. She has NOT been vindicated at all. They all mislead the police, with theyr 'timeline' and visions, and finger pointing and IMO this should be addressed.
No wonder the PJ didn't follow the abduction theory.Will Amaral receive an apology?
Where does OG stand on this now are they 'looking' for an abductor?
-
I think they were too far down and behind his sightline to observe.
Not true.
-
Jane Tanner did NOT see an abductor as she claimed. She has NOT been vindicated at all. They all mislead the police, with theyr 'timeline' and visions, and finger pointing and IMO this should be addressed.
No wonder the PJ didn't follow the abduction theory.Will Amaral receive an apology?
Where does OG stand on this now are they 'looking' for an abductor?
Jane Tanner saw a man whose identity she did not know, carrying a child in his arms in close proximity to Apartment 5A on the night Madeleine went missing. We now know this was a genuine sighting. In her shoes, would you have told the police, believing he may have been the person who took Madeleine or would you have kept quiet because it might just have been a dad carrying his own child home from the creche?
Of course she has been vindicated! She said she saw a man carrying a child, she DID see a man carrying a child, and her description was pretty accurate. The only thing she could not have known at the time she told the police what she had seen was whether or not this man was relevant to the investigation.
-
Jane Tanner saw a man whose identity she did not know, carrying a child in his arms in close proximity to Apartment 5A on the night Madeleine went missing. We now know this was a genuine sighting. In her shoes, would you have told the police, believing he may have been the person who took Madeleine or would you have kept quiet because it might just have been a dad carrying his own child home from the creche?
Of course she has been vindicated! She said she saw a man carrying a child, she DID see a man carrying a child, and her description was pretty accurate. The only thing she could not have known at the time she told the police what she had seen was whether or not this man was relevant to the investigation.
The Tapas booking sheet gives the apartment number:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS_BOOKING.htm
It looks like G4M.
Isn't that the block further along from 5A?
-
Jane Tanner saw a man whose identity she did not know, carrying a child in his arms in close proximity to Apartment 5A on the night Madeleine went missing. We now know this was a genuine sighting. In her shoes, would you have told the police, believing he may have been the person who took Madeleine or would you have kept quiet because it might just have been a dad carrying his own child home from the creche?
Of course she has been vindicated! She said she saw a man carrying a child, she DID see a man carrying a child, and her description was pretty accurate. The only thing she could not have known at the time she told the police what she had seen was whether or not this man was relevant to the investigation.
The pertinent question is was Gerry in the vicinity at the time ?
-
The pertinent question is was Gerry in the vicinity at the time ?
She was right about seeing Totman, he said he was the right man at the right place at the right time, Jez puts Gerry outside the apartment within the same time frame, so where else do you think Gerry might have been?
-
lol JT has been called out. no wonder they all kept quiet.
Should I remind you that your 'vulnerable' parents used the SUN gutter press, for the loving mother to reveal her 'truth' book. revealing amongst other things ,the imagined state of her daughters genitalia,(being torn)and her lack of sexual intimacy with her husband due to her daughter being 'abducted'.
Oh perhaps you forgot about that? juicy, meaty, sex talk... just the way the SUN likes it.
OMG so sickening.
The discussion at my work that day on this being reported was :sheer horror, shock, disgust and disbelief.
The revelation of Tannerman quite a turn up for the 'anniversary'- hmm
Your post is IMO a disgrace, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Jane Tanner talking to the media about her own feelings about anything. Jane has been completely vindicated and does not need to crow about it to the Sun, the Mirror or any other publication IMO. Good for her.
-
She was right about seeing Totman, he said he was the right man at the right place at the right time, Jez puts Gerry outside the apartment within the same time frame, so where else do you think Gerry might have been?
Wilkins can’t give a more precise timeframe than thirty minutes. At the time of Tanner’s sighting it is possible Gerry was already back at the table.
Alternative timeframe......9pm Gerry does check. Meets Jez. Back at table by 9.05-9.10pm.
9.15pm Tanner sees Chrecheman.
-
Your post is IMO a disgrace, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Jane Tanner talking to the media about her own feelings about anything. Jane has been completely vindicated and does not need to crow about it to the Sun, the Mirror or any other publication IMO. Good for her.
Who said anything about crowing. A simple, sympathetic human interest story relaying her relief that she didn’t let Madeleine’s abductor slip through her fingers would be appropriate.
But not even a ‘ Miss Tanner was unavailable for comment’.
As to Tanner’s vindication, it was her along with the parents who sent the police forces involved in the case on a wild goose chase and wasted untold money and man hours. By pushing Tannerman as they did they could have let the real ( alleged) abductor slip through the net. Hasn’t that occurred to you ?
-
Who said anything about crowing. A simple, sympathetic human interest story relaying her relief that she didn’t let Madeleine’s abductor slip through her fingers would be appropriate.
But not even a ‘ Miss Tanner was unavailable for comment’.
As to Tanner’s vindication, it was her along with the parents who sent the police forces involved in the case on a wild goose chase and wasted untold money and man hours. By pushing Tannerman as they did they could have let the real ( alleged) abductor slip through the net. Hasn’t that occurred to you ?
Has it not occurred to you that as they had no idea as to the identity of the man seen carrying a small girl away from the very close proximity of Madeleine's apartment on the night she vanished, that they had very good grounds to suspect the sighting might be valid, or do you think they should have known in advance that it wasn't an abductor?
-
Wilkins can’t give a more precise timeframe than thirty minutes. At the time of Tanner’s sighting it is possible Gerry was already back at the table.
Alternative timeframe......9pm Gerry does check. Meets Jez. Back at table by 9.05-9.10pm.
9.15pm Tanner sees Chrecheman.
Sure make up any timeline you want to suit your theories, and pick and choose whose testimony you want to believe, it's no skin off my nose. How does your timeline fit in with everyone else's testimony though? For example, what time did Jez's wife say in her Guardian article that he got back to their apartment?
-
Sure make up any timeline you want to suit your theories, and pick and choose whose testimony you want to believe, it's no skin off my nose. How does your timeline fit in with everyone else's testimony though? For example, what time did Jez's wife say in her Guardian article that he got back to their apartment?
O’Donnell says 9.30 so that doesn’t help.
-
Has it not occurred to you that as they had no idea as to the identity of the man seen carrying a small girl away from the very close proximity of Madeleine's apartment on the night she vanished, that they had very good grounds to suspect the sighting might be valid, or do you think they should have known in advance that it wasn't an abductor?
There was two sightings that night, Smithman and Tannerman. Why did the McCanns push Tannerman and all but ignore Smithman ? Why did they push Tannerman when they had a much clearer description of Smithman ?
-
There was two sightings that night, Smithman and Tannerman. Why did the McCanns push Tannerman and all but ignore Smithman ? Why did they push Tannerman when they had a much clearer description of Smithman ?
Maybe it would have been completely distracting.
-
There was two sightings that night, Smithman and Tannerman. Why did the McCanns push Tannerman and all but ignore Smithman ? Why did they push Tannerman when they had a much clearer description of Smithman ?
Tannerman's description was pretty clear too as we now know. There is nothing to suggest that the Smithman's sighting was in any way accurate, the e-fits were compiled using information from individuals who at the time claimed not to get a good look at the man's face, and we now know that the Met are not pursuing that lead either, so....
-
O’Donnell says 9.30 so that doesn’t help.
So by your timeline what was Jez doing for half an hour then?
-
Tannerman's description was pretty clear too as we now know. There is nothing to suggest that the Smithman's sighting was in any way accurate, the e-fits were compiled using information from individuals who at the time claimed not to get a good look at the man's face, and we now know that the Met are not pursuing that lead either, so....
Do we? Have you a cite for that ?
-
The Tapas booking sheet gives the apartment number:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS_BOOKING.htm
It looks like G4M.
Isn't that the block further along from 5A?
It's the block joined onto 5, yes. The McCanns were moved to G4G after their daughter's disappearance. The Totman's were in G4M and their 'pals' the Weinburgers were in G4L.
There's no statements from either family in the PJ files, but Mrs Weinburger told her story to Edgar and Cowley at some point, I believe.
-
It's the block joined onto 5, yes. The McCanns were moved to G4G after their daughter's disappearance. The Totman's were in G4M and their 'pals' the Weinburgers were in G4L.
There's no statements from either family in the PJ files, but Mrs Weinburger told her story to Edgar and Cowley at some point, I believe.
Thanks.
Just found a clear map as well:
http://luzoceanclub.com/content/uploads/LUZ-OCEAN-CLUB-MAP.pdf
So, providing I'm understanding this correctly, the Totman direction is completely opposite to the direction claimed by JT.
Plus, if JT was fairly close to the top of the road she would have been following Totman when she rounded the corner, which should have been pretty obvious to her.
Totman clearly believes he was in the area at around 9:15 otherwise he would not have believed JT had seen him. It is not mentioned whether Totman saw JT or anyone else.
With Totman (and the Moyes) returning to their apartment it looks, in my opinion, highly unlikely that MBM could have been abducted from the apartment at that time, because of all the witnesses in the area.
-
So by your timeline what was Jez doing for half an hour then?
No idea but probably the same as he was doing from 8.45 to 9.15pm as per the Tapas timeline.
-
Tannerman's description was pretty clear too as we now know. There is nothing to suggest that the Smithman's sighting was in any way accurate, the e-fits were compiled using information from individuals who at the time claimed not to get a good look at the man's face, and we now know that the Met are not pursuing that lead either, so....
Tannerman didn’t have a face, Smithman did and there was even an efit of that face, commissioned by the McCanns themselves.
As to the Met not pursuing the Smithman lead now, they certainly were in 2013. Perhaps they’re not now pursuing the lead because they have been given information that has identified him ?
-
Doing a selective bit of precis-ing:
But Portuguese officers continued to pursue the line of inquiry triggered by Jane Tanner, a friend of Kate and Gerry McCann.
She said she saw a dark-haired man wearing a brown jacket, dark shoes and tan trousers carrying a child in pink and white pyjamas.
Ms Tanner was one of the so-called Tapas Seven — the friends and family members dining with the McCanns at the time Maddie disappeared.
She was on her way to check on her kids at 9.15pm when she saw the man near Kate and Gerry’s apartment.
Ms Tanner later defied police orders to not comment publicly on what she saw.
She said: “I think it’s important that people know what I saw because I believe Madeleine was abducted.’’
And with Portuguese laws prohibiting the release of photofits of suspects, the McCanns put out an artist’s sketch of “Tannerman” in October 2007.
Det Chief Insp Andy Redwood described it as a “moment of revelation”.
He said: “We are almost certain now this sighting [Tannerman] is not the abductor.”
Just what is this story trying to tell us?
-
No idea but probably the same as he was doing from 8.45 to 9.15pm as per the Tapas timeline.
According to Jez Wilkins he was on his way back to his apartment when he met Gerry, his baby having fallen asleep and therefore no longer needing to be settled by walking the streets - how long would that have taken from the point at which he was conversing with Gerry? Not 30 minutes surely?
-
Tannerman didn’t have a face, Smithman did and there was even an efit of that face, commissioned by the McCanns themselves.
As to the Met not pursuing the Smithman lead now, they certainly were in 2013. Perhaps they’re not now pursuing the lead because they have been given information that has identified him ?
If they had been given any information which identified a suspect then they would have wanted to question that person as an arguido don't you agree?
-
According to Jez Wilkins he was on his way back to his apartment when he met Gerry, his baby having fallen asleep and therefore no longer needing to be settled by walking the streets - how long would that have taken from the point at which he was conversing with Gerry? Not 30 minutes surely?
Q. Relative to the time I met Gerry McCann on the Thursday night of May 3, 2007;
As stated in my original deposition, I believe that I left the apartment around 20h30. I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15. I am aware of the importance of this hour and am also aware that the media announced our meeting time as 21h05. Even if this were correct, I have no idea from where such information originated. It is not possible to give you a more exact time.
It also would not have taken him 15 minutes to walk a few yards so someone’s timings are out.
-
If they had been given any information which identified a suspect then they would have wanted to question that person as an arguido don't you agree?
In the context of your post, who is 'they'? The smithman suspect may not be in Portugal.
-
Maybe he went once more round the block, though one would expect him to remember that and mention it if that had been the case.
-
Your post is IMO a disgrace, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Jane Tanner talking to the media about her own feelings about anything. Jane has been completely vindicated and does not need to crow about it to the Sun, the Mirror or any other publication IMO. Good for her.
Thank you for sharing your opinion. My post is so on thread-I was adding to your comment that why should JT talk to the gutter press. It must have thrown you that the McCanns used the gutter press on many occasions. oh should we sweep that under the carpet.
You have also been called out as you find the word disgraceful to describe my post, but not to condemn the actual author of those words .
JT Could have said sorry got it wrong AGAIN...
-
Q. Relative to the time I met Gerry McCann on the Thursday night of May 3, 2007;
As stated in my original deposition, I believe that I left the apartment around 20h30. I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15. I am aware of the importance of this hour and am also aware that the media announced our meeting time as 21h05. Even if this were correct, I have no idea from where such information originated. It is not possible to give you a more exact time.
It also would not have taken him 15 minutes to walk a few yards so someone’s timings are out.
His child was asleep by the time he met Gerry so there was no need for him to go round the houses for 30 more minutes if it was 9pm when he had his encounter. This strongly suggests that in his 30 minute window that he gives, it was closer to 9.15 than 8.45, not only that but Gerry and Kate had only just left the apartment at 8.30pm, so it's unlikely either would have got up to do a check until at least 30 minutes had passed. Given all these factors I think it's reasonable to assume Gerry and Jez were engaged in conversation sometime between 9.05 and 9.15, all timings (including JT's and Doctor Totman's imprecise because no one was setting their watches at any given moment).
-
Who said anything about crowing. A simple, sympathetic human interest story relaying her relief that she didn’t let Madeleine’s abductor slip through her fingers would be appropriate.
But not even a ‘ Miss Tanner was unavailable for comment’.
As to Tanner’s vindication, it was her along with the parents who sent the police forces involved in the case on a wild goose chase and wasted untold money and man hours. By pushing Tannerman as they did they could have let the real ( alleged) abductor slip through the net. Hasn’t that occurred to you ?
Excellent post Faith.
has anyone from the supporters club agreed?.. do we expect a reply? *&^^&
-
Thank you for sharing your opinion. My post is so on thread-I was adding to your comment that why should JT talk to the gutter press. It must have thrown you that the McCanns used the gutter press on many occasions. oh should we sweep that under the carpet.
You have also been called out as you find the word disgraceful to describe my post, but not to condemn the actual author of those words .
JT Could have said sorry got it wrong AGAIN...
JT has nothing to apologise for - unless you can explain why you think she should have known in advance that her sighting was of Dr Totman carrying his child home? Also, you seem to be of the opinion that whatever the McCanns do has a bearing on what JT does - "they speak to the red tops therefore it must follow she would speak to the red tops" - can you explain the logic behind your thinking?
-
Q. Relative to the time I met Gerry McCann on the Thursday night of May 3, 2007;
As stated in my original deposition, I believe that I left the apartment around 20h30. I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15. I am aware of the importance of this hour and am also aware that the media announced our meeting time as 21h05. Even if this were correct, I have no idea from where such information originated. It is not possible to give you a more exact time.
It also would not have taken him 15 minutes to walk a few yards so someone’s timings are out.
in bold... interesting someone trying to pin a time to him.. one could be forgiven for thinking someone needing a witness at a certain time would have a hand in this time invention &^^&* Now let me think... *%87
-
JT has nothing to apologise for - unless you can explain why you think she should have known in advance that her sighting was of Dr Totman carrying his child home? Also, you seem to be of the opinion that whatever the McCanns do has a bearing on what JT does - "they speak to the red tops therefore it must follow she would speak to the red tops" - can you explain the logic behind your thinking?
JT made a claim she saw an abductor! Snet all and sundry on a wild goose chase... She didn't. time to move on from that revelation. It is your logical thinking that stipulates she should not follow her friends choice of gutter press. I never buy them so no need for me to bother myself and I don't explanations on demand. My posts are quite transparent.
IMO the TAPAS have a lot to answer for. Their silence is a mark of solidarity to the parents 'abduction from window theory' but offer NOTHING for a little girl who suffered god knows what.
-
JT made a claim she saw an abductor! Snet all and sundry on a wild goose chase... She didn't. time to move on from that revelation. It is your logical thinking that stipulates she should not follow her friends choice of gutter press. I never buy them so no need for me to bother myself and I don't explanations on demand. My posts are quite transparent.
IMO the TAPAS have a lot to answer for. Their silence is a mark of solidarity to the parents 'abduction from window theory' but offer NOTHING for a little girl who suffered god knows what.
JT correctly stated she saw a man carrying a child in close proximity to the apartment where Madeleine went missing. What, in the circumstances, do you think she should have done - kept quiet? Say "I saw a man carrying a child away from the direction of Apartment 5a but please don't follow it up, it's bound to be nothing relevant". Over to you.
-
JT correctly stated she saw a man carrying a child in close proximity to the apartment where Madeleine went missing. What, in the circumstances, do you think she should have done - kept quiet? Say "I saw a man carrying a child away from the direction of Apartment 5a but please don't follow it up, it's bound to be nothing relevant". Over to you.
Oh that is what happened, she thought it was, then knew it was. told Kate...
because I am sure you recall previous posts where I wondered why Kate knew right away MBM was 'abducted' but didn't scream from the balcony or call the police right away and wasted time 'looking' for her around the apartment. it was a bit later JT mentioned she saw....'The Abductor'. And this is what we have been getting chucked at us for all this time.
-
Oh that is what happened, she thought it was, then knew it was. told Kate...
because I am sure you recall previous posts where I wondered why Kate knew right away MBM was 'abducted' but didn't scream from the balcony or call the police right away and wasted time 'looking' for her around the apartment. it was a bit later JT mentioned she saw....'The Abductor'. And this is what we have been getting chucked at us for all this time.
So desperate for it to be true because it 'proved' an abduction - IMO
-
Tannerman didn’t have a face, Smithman did and there was even an efit of that face, commissioned by the McCanns themselves.
As to the Met not pursuing the Smithman lead now, they certainly were in 2013. Perhaps they’re not now pursuing the lead because they have been given information that has identified him ?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10379047/Madeleine-McCann-two-callers-name-man-in-e-fit-pictures.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-mccann-inquiry/uk-police-explore-new-line-of-investigation-over-missing-mccann-idUSBRE99C03320131013
-
His child was asleep by the time he met Gerry so there was no need for him to go round the houses for 30 more minutes if it was 9pm when he had his encounter. This strongly suggests that in his 30 minute window that he gives, it was closer to 9.15 than 8.45, not only that but Gerry and Kate had only just left the apartment at 8.30pm, so it's unlikely either would have got up to do a check until at least 30 minutes had passed. Given all these factors I think it's reasonable to assume Gerry and Jez were engaged in conversation sometime between 9.05 and 9.15, all timings (including JT's and Doctor Totman's imprecise because no one was setting their watches at any given moment).
And if O’Donnell’s timing is out ? After all she had no reason to be watching the clock.
-
So desperate for it to be true because it 'proved' an abduction - IMO
Indeed so much so that her memory improved each time- to seeing white Pyjamas to seeing pink with details...on a dark night etc etc... and the time line did change DRAMATICALLY.
-
His child was asleep by the time he met Gerry so there was no need for him to go round the houses for 30 more minutes if it was 9pm when he had his encounter. This strongly suggests that in his 30 minute window that he gives, it was closer to 9.15 than 8.45, not only that but Gerry and Kate had only just left the apartment at 8.30pm, so it's unlikely either would have got up to do a check until at least 30 minutes had passed. Given all these factors I think it's reasonable to assume Gerry and Jez were engaged in conversation sometime between 9.05 and 9.15, all timings (including JT's and Doctor Totman's imprecise because no one was setting their watches at any given moment).
Reasonable assumptions.... is that what you are using to convince the unconvinced that everyone is wrong apart from the McCanns? Sticking to facts would be better appreciated.
-
Let's hope it's not just more fake news like the woman in purple. I do wonder when they call Jeni Weinburger Julia.
-
Doing a selective bit of precis-ing:
But Portuguese officers continued to pursue the line of inquiry triggered by Jane Tanner, a friend of Kate and Gerry McCann.
She said she saw a dark-haired man wearing a brown jacket, dark shoes and tan trousers carrying a child in pink and white pyjamas.
Ms Tanner was one of the so-called Tapas Seven — the friends and family members dining with the McCanns at the time Maddie disappeared.
She was on her way to check on her kids at 9.15pm when she saw the man near Kate and Gerry’s apartment.
Ms Tanner later defied police orders to not comment publicly on what she saw.
She said: “I think it’s important that people know what I saw because I believe Madeleine was abducted.’’
And with Portuguese laws prohibiting the release of photofits of suspects, the McCanns put out an artist’s sketch of “Tannerman” in October 2007.
Det Chief Insp Andy Redwood described it as a “moment of revelation”.
He said: “We are almost certain now this sighting [Tannerman] is not the abductor.”
Just what is this story trying to tell us?
Are we seeing the undermining of Tanner as a witness ? Is this the inevitable throwing under the bus of Tanner ?
-
Are we seeing the undermining of Tanner as a witness ? Is this the inevitable throwing under the bus of Tanner ?
The options are;
Totman was going towards the creche, in which case he needs to explain why.
Totman was returning from the creche, in which case Jane Tanner needs to explain why she said he was going the other way.
-
She was right about seeing Totman, he said he was the right man at the right place at the right time, Jez puts Gerry outside the apartment within the same time frame, so where else do you think Gerry might have been?
Tanner put two and two together and came up with a false scenario. Her mistaken identification of an abductor has wasted thousands of police hours looking for a ghost. It also destroyed Murat's life and reputation. Maybe he will sue her now?
-
Wilkins can’t give a more precise timeframe than thirty minutes. At the time of Tanner’s sighting it is possible Gerry was already back at the table.
Alternative timeframe......9pm Gerry does check. Meets Jez. Back at table by 9.05-9.10pm.
9.15pm Tanner sees Chrecheman.
Amaral was convinced that Tanner saw the man from her balcony and not as she walked up the street.
-
Tanner put two and two together and came up with a false scenario. Her mistaken identification of an abductor has wasted thousands of police hours looking for a ghost. It also destroyed Murat's life and reputation. Maybe he will sue her now?
I wonder if Tanner’s been offered immunity?
-
What strikes me most about this latest revelation is the number of people wandering around the streets bordering block 5 yet nobody actually saw Maddie.
-
What strikes me most about this latest revelation is the number of people wandering around the streets bordering block 5 yet nobody actually saw Maddie.
More is less.
-
Amaral was convinced that Tanner saw the man from her balcony and not as she walked up the street.
The balcony of Jane's apartment was at the rear of the property, so there would have been no view from there of Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva.
-
Gunit has already furbished us with very interesting information. Totman family in the same block, booked to play tennis ,and as Barrier asked was the Julian who played tennis with Gerry the same Julian Totman?
What more information do you need?. It would seem some of fathers holidaying, except the tapas parents, were picking up/trying to get children to sleep, caring and looking after their children.
Interesting the Sun mentions that the OG will be wound up in October...
They didn't answer the questions I raised.
-
What strikes me most about this latest revelation is the number of people wandering around the streets bordering block 5 yet nobody actually saw Maddie.
How many people could see the front door of 5A from the street without turning to look?
Jane thought she saw Madeleine being carried away to the east. If Dr. Totman walked east with his child, nobody saw him walking back again to Block 4.
-
Totmans had a booking for 8pm for 2+1 in the Tapas Restaurant, so maybe one child there and one in the crèche?
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_606_small.jpg) That was for the Tuesday but it is still possible that was the pattern so he may have been taking the child to somewhere else rather than "home" for we don't know where the rest of the family was at the time.
-
And if O’Donnell’s timing is out ? After all she had no reason to be watching the clock.
We may as well abandon all timelines then and just believe whatever suits, ok?
-
Tanner put two and two together and came up with a false scenario. Her mistaken identification of an abductor has wasted thousands of police hours looking for a ghost. It also destroyed Murat's life and reputation. Maybe he will sue her now?
I cannot believe what I am reading, frankly. Perhaps you can tell me what you would have done if you’d seen a man walking away from apartment 5a on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, kept it to yourself? On what grounds can Murat sue JT based on this latest information?
-
Indeed so much so that her memory improved each time- to seeing white Pyjamas to seeing pink with details...on a dark night etc etc... and the time line did change DRAMATICALLY.
Studies on memory have shown these things can happen to many people. Could we say the same about the Smiths?
-
We may as well abandon all timelines then and just believe whatever suits, ok?
Not sure what you mean. Wilkins gives the timeframe of his chat with Gerry between 8.45 and 9.15pm so it is possible that the chat was earlier.
-
Not sure what you mean. Wilkins gives the timeframe of his chat with Gerry between 8.45 and 9.15pm so it is possible that the chat was earlier.
And I gave a reasoned reply as to why I thought it was likely to be later in that timeframe than earlier, Russell O’Brien also puts Gerry leaving the tapas table at around 9pm but if you choose to disbelieve all the witness statements that don’t fit your theory then you can make it work.
-
JT has nothing to apologise for - unless you can explain why you think she should have known in advance that her sighting was of Dr Totman carrying his child home? Also, you seem to be of the opinion that whatever the McCanns do has a bearing on what JT does - "they speak to the red tops therefore it must follow she would speak to the red tops" - can you explain the logic behind your thinking?
If Totman was going home he would have been walking in the opposite direction. He was walking away from home rather than towards his apartment according to Jane.
-
Not sure what you mean. Wilkins gives the timeframe of his chat with Gerry between 8.45 and 9.15pm so it is possible that the chat was earlier.
Only if he was talking to himself. To chat with Gerry it had to be while Gerry was up near the apartment.
-
What strikes me most about this latest revelation is the number of people wandering around the streets bordering block 5 yet nobody actually saw Maddie.
IMO and in my theory an abductor did.
-
The balcony of Jane's apartment was at the rear of the property, so there would have been no view from there of Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva.
OK but if this was the case (from the balcony) at least the man could be crossing her visual field in the right direction. What I have noted is that we don't always know what we are seeing but we alawys know in what direction it crossed our visual field.
Jane describes someone moving from the left to the right (fixed) so whereabouts could she have been to see that happen? If Tannerman was walking from the left to the right and Jane was in her apartment, Tannerman would have had to come out of the patio side of the McCann's apartment (it is possible climb over the garden fence). I find it hard to think Jane was that confused as to where she was at the time.
-
OK but if this was the case (from the balcony) at least the man could be crossing her visual field in the right direction. What I have noted is that we don't always know what we are seeing but we alawys know in what direction it crossed our visual field.
Jane describes someone moving from the left to the right (fixed) so whereabouts could she have been to see that happen? If Tannerman was walking from the left to the right and Jane was in her apartment, Tannerman would have had to come out of the patio side of the McCann's apartment (it is possible climb over the garden fence). I find it hard to think Jane was that confused as to where she was at the time.
Amaral places Jane at the front of her apartment in O Enigma & shows Tannerman walking from East to West.
Jane's diagram of 4/5/07 & the subsequent reconstruction for TV later that year could not be clearer & more different.
-
And I gave a reasoned reply as to why I thought it was likely to be later in that timeframe than earlier, Russell O’Brien also puts Gerry leaving the tapas table at around 9pm but if you choose to disbelieve all the witness statements that don’t fit your theory then you can make it work.
O’Brien adds weight to my alternative timeframe.
Alternative timeframe......9pm Gerry does check. Meets Jez. Back at table by 9.05-9.10pm.
9.15pm Tanner sees Chrecheman.
-
Thanks.
Just found a clear map as well:
http://luzoceanclub.com/content/uploads/LUZ-OCEAN-CLUB-MAP.pdf
So, providing I'm understanding this correctly, the Totman direction is completely opposite to the direction claimed by JT.
Plus, if JT was fairly close to the top of the road she would have been following Totman when she rounded the corner, which should have been pretty obvious to her.
Totman clearly believes he was in the area at around 9:15 otherwise he would not have believed JT had seen him. It is not mentioned whether Totman saw JT or anyone else.
With Totman (and the Moyes) returning to their apartment it looks, in my opinion, highly unlikely that MBM could have been abducted from the apartment at that time, because of all the witnesses in the area.
That is why I say we need a statement from Totman saying where he was actually going. I could imagine that he had already been home and was going out again, maybe to a friends place close by carrying the little girl. If it was him, but we should have that from his own words.
-
O’Brien adds weight to my alternative timeframe.
Alternative timeframe......9pm Gerry does check. Meets Jez. Back at table by 9.05-9.10pm.
9.15pm Tanner sees Chrecheman.
What are the words from ROB statement the support your contention "O’Brien adds weight to my alternative timeframe"?
-
Indeed so much so that her memory improved each time- to seeing white Pyjamas to seeing pink with details...on a dark night etc etc... and the time line did change DRAMATICALLY.
Where is the proof the timeline changed dramatically.
-
And I gave a reasoned reply as to why I thought it was likely to be later in that timeframe than earlier, Russell O’Brien also puts Gerry leaving the tapas table at around 9pm but if you choose to disbelieve all the witness statements that don’t fit your theory then you can make it work.
Russell O’Brien puts Gerry as leaving at around 9pm ( from your post )
From Dianne Webster’s May 11th statement.
‘- That night she judges to have arrived at the restaurant close to 21:00, in the company of the PAYNE couple.
- That, at that time, the whole group were at the restaurant. The witness did not recall, but thinks that perhaps Gerald and MATT had not been in the restaurant along with the other members of the group. ‘
So that’s two of the group that place Gerry away from the table around 9.
And also from Dianne Webster.
‘She clarifies that the practice was for each couple to check their own children, it not being usual for anyone to check the children of other couples.’
So IMO potentially Gerry and not Matt could have checked his children at 9.30.
This IMO would explain why Gerry was behaving normally while chatting with Wilkins. If the disappearance was discovered at 9.30 IMO it would also explain the earlier searching as described by several witnesses.
-
That is why I say we need a statement from Totman saying where he was actually going. I could imagine that he had already been home and was going out again, maybe to a friends place close by carrying the little girl. If it was him, but we should have that from his own words.
There is the Crimewatch transcript - not as good as a full statement, but this is it:
===
22 10
AMROLIWALA
The British father had collected his two-year-old daughter from the crèche. He had been walking near the McCanns’ apartment.
PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN
This is the actual photograph taken by Metropolitan Police Officers of the man dressed in the kind of clothes he wore on holiday. This image was compared to the artist’s impression [based on Jane Tanner’s statement].
===
The strong probability is that he was returning to the apartment, but nothing is absolutely certain.
-
Russell O’Brien puts Gerry as leaving at around 9pm ( from your post )
From Dianne Webster’s May 11th statement.
‘- That night she judges to have arrived at the restaurant close to 21:00, in the company of the PAYNE couple.
- That, at that time, the whole group were at the restaurant. The witness did not recall, but thinks that perhaps Gerald and MATT had not been in the restaurant along with the other members of the group. ‘
So that’s two of the group that place Gerry away from the table around 9.
And also from Dianne Webster.
‘She clarifies that the practice was for each couple to check their own children, it not being usual for anyone to check the children of other couples.’
So IMO potentially Gerry and not Matt could have checked his children at 9.30.
This IMO would explain why Gerry was behaving normally while chatting with Wilkins. If the disappearance was discovered at 9.30 IMO it would also explain the earlier searching as described by several witnesses.
And potentially JT saw the man at 9.05 or 9.10, not 9.15, when she walked past Gerry and Jez, or is her time of 9.15 for the sighting the only part of her “unreliable” statement you choose to believe?
-
And potentially JT saw the man at 9.05 or 9.10, not 9.15, when she walked past Gerry and Jez, or is her time of 9.15 for the sighting the only part of her “unreliable” statement you choose to believe?
Don’t you believe her ?
-
Don’t you believe her ?
You don’t and that’s the point. You don’t seem to think she is being truthful about seeing Gerry at the same time as the man carrying the child, yet you seem certain it was 9.15pm when this (non) event occurred. Why is that?
-
McCanns set off for the Tapas around 20:30
JT set off for the Tapas around 20:30
JW talked to GM at or after 20:45
-
You don’t and that’s the point. You don’t seem to think she is being truthful about seeing Gerry at the same time as the man carrying the child, yet you seem certain it was 9.15pm when this (non) event occurred. Why is that?
I asked did you believe her statement ?
-
I asked did you believe her statement ?
And If you look back at my first post of the day I asked you a question which you answered with a question. When you have answered it, I will give my reply.
-
And If you look back at my first post of the day I asked you a question which you answered with a question. When you have answered it, I will give my reply.
From your first post of the day it would appear you don’t believe Tanner’s own timings. Why ?
-
Where is the proof the timeline changed dramatically.
When Tannerman appeared kosher, it placed the snatching of Madeleine to around 9.15. Once that was blown away, the window of opportunity widened to include another 40 minutes or so.
-
From your first post of the day it would appear you don’t believe Tanner’s own timings. Why ?
And still you refuse to answer. As I said before, you have my word that I will give you a full and frank reply to your question, once you do the courtesy of replying to the question that I asked you first. I think that’s fair isn’t it?
-
When Tannerman appeared kosher, it placed the snatching of Madeleine to around 9.15. Once that was blown away, the window of opportunity widened to include another 40 minutes or so.
OK so that wasn't Jane's doing. I sort of get what MTI was meaning now.
-
Good luck.
-
And still you refuse to answer. As I said before, you have my word that I will give you a full and frank reply to your question, once you do the courtesy of replying to the question that I asked you first. I think that’s fair isn’t it?
I am not refusing to answer. I have in my previous posts but just in case you missed it.
Taking into account Tanner’s own timings with O’Brien, Wilkins and Webster’s statements it is possible that Gerry’s check was around 9pm and Tanner’s after he had returned.
-
From the Sun:
<<< But one retired Met Police detective, who visited the resort with The Sun, is convinced Jane Tanner saw the real abductor. Ian Horrocks said the man Ms Tanner saw had been walking from west to east, while Dr Totman would have gone the opposite way. He added: “The police seemingly dismissed this sighting after discovering the account of the British holidaymaker taking his daughter back to their apartment. “I cannot see how it can be totally dismissed.” >>>
I agree, and imo JT saw an abductor at 21:50 approximately.
I have reasons to think so. This reasons include JT sick daugther and ROB interest in preparing timelines that very same night.
-
From the Sun:
<<< But one retired Met Police detective, who visited the resort with The Sun, is convinced Jane Tanner saw the real abductor. Ian Horrocks said the man Ms Tanner saw had been walking from west to east, while Dr Totman would have gone the opposite way. He added: “The police seemingly dismissed this sighting after discovering the account of the British holidaymaker taking his daughter back to their apartment. “I cannot see how it can be totally dismissed.” >>>
I agree, and imo JT saw an abductor at 21:50 approximately.
I have reasons to think so. This reasons include JT sick daugther and ROB interest in preparing timelines that very same night.
Yet Tanner has never claimed she saw her sighting at 9.50pm. Please explain your conclusions ?
-
From the Sun:
<<< But one retired Met Police detective, who visited the resort with The Sun, is convinced Jane Tanner saw the real abductor. Ian Horrocks said the man Ms Tanner saw had been walking from west to east, while Dr Totman would have gone the opposite way. He added: “The police seemingly dismissed this sighting after discovering the account of the British holidaymaker taking his daughter back to their apartment. “I cannot see how it can be totally dismissed.” >>>
I agree, and imo JT saw an abductor at 21:50 approximately.
I have reasons to think so. This reasons include JT sick daugther and ROB interest in preparing timelines that very same night.
How do you think she could have come to made such a ghastly mistake that mislead both police and the parents for years?
Or was it a deliberate lie, as she could not possible have seen Gerry & Jez at the later time.
-
I am not refusing to answer. I have in my previous posts but just in case you missed it.
Taking into account Tanner’s own timings with O’Brien, Wilkins and Webster’s statements it is possible that Gerry’s check was around 9pm and Tanner’s after he had returned.
You say it is possible but that is not actually true. Otherwise I'd like to see your reasoning.
-
From the Sun:
<<< But one retired Met Police detective, who visited the resort with The Sun, is convinced Jane Tanner saw the real abductor. Ian Horrocks said the man Ms Tanner saw had been walking from west to east, while Dr Totman would have gone the opposite way. He added: “The police seemingly dismissed this sighting after discovering the account of the British holidaymaker taking his daughter back to their apartment. “I cannot see how it can be totally dismissed.” >>>
I agree, and imo JT saw an abductor at 21:50 approximately.
I have reasons to think so. This reasons include JT sick daugther and ROB interest in preparing timelines that very same night.
Your are on the right track IMO but don't involve Jane.
-
Rowley. "However Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted"
The MPS don't seem to be concerned about how Madeleine left the apartment.
-
Rowley. "However Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted"
The MPS don't seem to be concerned about how Madeleine left the apartment.
Sorry, don't understand your reply to my quoted post. Could you explain further?
-
Sorry, don't understand your reply to my quoted post. Could you explain further?
The greater part of my work has been about how Madeleine left the apartment but Mark Rowley seems to dismiss all of it by saying "however Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted" so no one is going to be charged with perverting the course of justice regarding issues of how MM got out of the apartment IMO.
She got out, but someone has abducted her, according to Rowley.
-
The greater part of my work has been about how Madeleine left the apartment but Mark Rowley seems to dismiss all of it by saying "however Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted" so no one is going to be charged with perverting the course of justice regarding issues of how MM got out of the apartment IMO.
I disagree because if the theory is correct, then the whole of the Tapas group would have participated in providing false information that could have hindered the police in that they went along with a falsified time line
-
I disagree because if the theory is correct, then the whole of the Tapas group would have participated in providing false information that could have hindered the police in that they went along with a falsified time line
I think they've gone past that point.
-
The greater part of my work has been about how Madeleine left the apartment but Mark Rowley seems to dismiss all of it by saying "however Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted" so no one is going to be charged with perverting the course of justice regarding issues of how MM got out of the apartment IMO.
She got out, but someone has abducted her, according to Rowley.
Without researching the topic of statute of limitations fully, a recent article in CdM (?) said that it was 15 years for murder. A woman's body was found walled up in an attic, but the date of death was dated to the 1980s. So no-one was going to get charged with anything, even if she was indeed murdered.
While if Madeleine was murdered around May 2007, the statute of limitations has got about 4 years to run.
And if it was a lesser crime, e.g. body occultation, then it is likely that the statute of limitations ran out years ago.
-
Without researching the topic of statute of limitations fully, a recent article in CdM (?) said that it was 15 years for murder. A woman's body was found walled up in an attic, but the date of death was dated to the 1980s. So no-one was going to get charged with anything, even if she was indeed murdered.
While if Madeleine was murdered around May 2007, the statute of limitations has got about 4 years to run.
And if it was a lesser crime, e.g. body occultation, then it is likely that the statute of limitations ran out years ago.
With what Mark Rowley was saying murder or occultation has no part in the solution as to what happened to Madeleine IMO.
-
I disagree because if the theory is correct, then the whole of the Tapas group would have participated in providing false information that could have hindered the police in that they went along with a falsified time line
I find it surprising the support on here for the eminent criminologist. As you say his theory hinges on all the tapas group being dishonest to a greater or lesser extent, a position sceptics have put forward for years, and yet because his theory doesn’t suggest the McCann’s guilt he is supported.
-
I find it surprising the support on here for the eminent criminologist. As you say his theory hinges on all the tapas group being dishonest to a greater or lesser extent, a position sceptics have put forward for years, and yet because his theory doesn’t suggest the McCann’s guilt he is supported.
Why should you be surprised?
The supporters mostly refer to the T9 by their given names. That reveals a lot.
-
I am not refusing to answer. I have in my previous posts but just in case you missed it.
Taking into account Tanner’s own timings with O’Brien, Wilkins and Webster’s statements it is possible that Gerry’s check was around 9pm and Tanner’s after he had returned.
That wasn’t the question I asked you and you well know it. I asked you why JT’s given time of 9.15pm for the sighting is the only part of her statement that you seem ready to believe is truthful?
-
What do you think of Heri’s theory VS ?
Pure supposition.
-
I think they've gone past that point.
They( police) might have gone passed that point as you say, but if true it would show them all (Tapas group) in a very poor light
-
That wasn’t the question I asked you and you well know it. I asked you why JT’s given time of 9.15pm for the sighting is the only part of her statement that you seem ready to believe is truthful?
I have been explained it. There is other testimony that throws her recollection into doubt.
Your turn.
-
Pure supposition.
I notice you are not questioning his reasoning. Why is that ?
-
Libellous posts removed, please do not repeat.
-
With what Mark Rowley was saying murder or occultation has no part in the solution as to what happened to Madeleine IMO.
That appears to make Madeleine alive.
Which she may or may not be.
I put as much trust in the utterances of AC Rowley as I do in the utterances of DCI Redwood. *&^^&
-
That appears to make Madeleine alive.
Which she may or may not be.
I put as much trust in the utterances of AC Rowley as I do in the utterances of DCI Redwood. *&^^&
I'll trump your Redwood and Rowley with Hogan-Howe, who said it was a murder investigation
-
The balcony of Jane's apartment was at the rear of the property, so there would have been no view from there of Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva.
There is also a public balcony at the front, possibily that is the vantage point he was referring to.
-
I disagree because if the theory is correct, then the whole of the Tapas group would have participated in providing false information that could have hindered the police in that they went along with a falsified time line
Maybe they did to save their own sorry asses?
-
Maybe they did to save their own sorry asses?
Strong motivation for selfish people.
Greater honesty from the beginning might have led to a resolution many years ago. IMO
-
I have been explained it. There is other testimony that throws her recollection into doubt.
Your turn.
Again, despite the fact that you claim JT's recollection has been thrown into doubt, you refuse to say why you are adamant she was correct about the time she saw the man carrying the child. I guess I won't get a straight answer, no matter how many times I ask. As for me, I do not think JT is a dishonest witness, but I do believe there is a smallish margin of error on the timings of not just her statements, but everyone's. I believe her when she says she walked past Gerry and Jez and saw the man with child immeditely thereafter, I think if she saw this man much later as Heriberto states then the man himself Totman would have said "it couldn't have been me, as I walked past earlier that evening". That's what I think. Full and frank disclosure of my thoughts on the matter.
-
I notice you are not questioning his reasoning. Why is that ?
I have answered - see above.
-
There is also a public balcony at the front, possibily that is the vantage point he was referring to.
Jane's apartment was on the ground floor. What would she have been doing on the first floor balcony?
-
I think it is entirely possible that Jane Tanner saw an abductor at 9.15, and that he had to stay in hiding while waiting for a meeting to hand over the child at around 10pm.
I cannot see how Mr Totman was the man Jane Tanner saw when he was coming from entirely the wrong direction.
We simply do not know enough about Mr Totman's statement. Although Andy Redwood's possible conclusions do suggest that Mr. Totman walked by much later.
-
I think it is entirely possible that Jane Tanner saw an abductor at 9.15, and that he had to stay in hiding while waiting for a meeting to hand over the child at around 10pm.
I cannot see how Mr Totman was the man Jane Tanner saw when he was coming from entirely the wrong direction.
We simply do not know enough about Mr Totman's statement. Although Andy Redwood's possible conclusions do suggest that Mr. Totman walked by much later.
It is a bit strange I agree. If Dr Totman was resident in Block 4 and was returning from the night creche located above OC Reception then why was he walking from west to east past Block 5 and not the other way round?
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3R29Icg2XPQ/VMoZNYqWsKI/AAAAAAAAKOA/lpdfnOY5IVI/s1600/Ocean%2BClub%2Bleaflet.jpg)
-
That appears to make Madeleine alive.
Which she may or may not be.
I put as much trust in the utterances of AC Rowley as I do in the utterances of DCI Redwood. *&^^&
How much trust do you put in the utterances of amaral... I put far more trust in the, statements by the two UK officers
-
Jane's apartment was on the ground floor. What would she have been doing on the first floor balcony?
Could she have visited the Payne apartment?
-
How much trust do you put in the utterances of amaral... I put far more trust in the, statements by the two UK officers
Aye, that may be so but they weren't there and Amaral was.
-
Aye, that may be so but they weren't there and Amaral was.
True... But I have my very good reasons
-
so in other words certian people have been saying for years and years this father was the could be abductor and he wasnt? not that it is news we knew he wasnt the so callled abductor years ago
-
Could she have visited the Payne apartment?
Doing the rounds maybe?
-
There us still no definitive proof that JT did not see the alleged abductor....
-
There us still no definitive proof that JT did not see the alleged abductor....
And you don't think there's a clue in OG not looking for Tannerman anymore ?
-
And you don't think there's a clue in OG not looking for Tannerman anymore ?
I don't think OG are telling us who they are looking for.... Apart from not the McCann's of course
-
There us still no definitive proof that JT did not see the alleged abductor....
By all logic and commonsense the probability of an abductor matching the exact description of Dr Totman and his daughter must be extremely slim. It is beginning to look more and more likely that she was lifted from the street.
-
I don't think OG are telling us who they are looking for.... Apart from not the McCann's of course
You must agree that it’s a very strange way of looking for someone by telling the public you’ve already found them
-
It is a bit strange I agree. If Dr Totman was resident in Block 4 and was returning from the night creche located above OC Reception then why was he walking from west to east past Block 5 and not the other way round?
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3R29Icg2XPQ/VMoZNYqWsKI/AAAAAAAAKOA/lpdfnOY5IVI/s1600/Ocean%2BClub%2Bleaflet.jpg)
There are potentially details that weren't considered necessary to state in Rowley's short explanation to the media, as the focus was to get witnesses to come forward re the Smithman sighting, not to satisfy the curiosity of armchair sleuths, after all. Presumably. IMO:
For example, had they dined or gone for a drink at around that time? If so, was he carrying his child to the place? Had something been forgotten upon going back?
-
Pure supposition.
I can't see anything that back up that theory, either.
-
You must agree that it’s a very strange way of looking for someone by telling the public you’ve already found them
But they haven't said they have found him....
I did once suggest that what would be interesting would be to have a little walk round Luz around 9 to 10..at a, similar time of year.... How common is it to see a man carrying a child
-
But they haven't said they have found him....
I did once suggest that what would be interesting would be to have a little walk round Luz around 9 to 10..at a, similar time of year.... How common is it to see a man carrying a child
How many children were sleeping in the creche that night? I seem to remember 11, but may be wrong. Each would need to be collected by parents the majority of whom were likely to be staying in the near vicinity and unlikely to have cars, I would say that it can't be that uncommon a sight really.
-
They( police) might have gone passed that point as you say, but if true it would show them all (Tapas group) in a very poor light
Prank theory shows them in a poor light. But not involved in the actual abduction which is the crux of this case as far as Rowley is concerned. He is saying let's not focus on how she got out but she is outside somehow and is abducted.
-
Prank theory shows them in a poor light. But not involved in the actual abduction which is the crux of this case as far as Rowley is concerned. He is saying let's not focus on how she got out but she is outside somehow and is abducted.
Like everything else, Rowley's view is only a theory - no proof.
-
But they haven't said they have found him....
I did once suggest that what would be interesting would be to have a little walk round Luz around 9 to 10..at a, similar time of year.... How common is it to see a man carrying a child
They have said that they are ‘almost certain’ that Crecheman is Tanner’s sighting. Odd choice of words if they are still looking for him. Why appeal for Smithman but not Tannerman ?
-
They have said that they are ‘almost certain’ that Crecheman is Tanner’s sighting. Odd choice of words if they are still looking for him. Why appeal for Smithman but not Tannerman ?
Almost... Not certain... Seems perfectly clear
-
Almost... Not certain... Seems perfectly clear
Yet no appeal......and none since.
-
Almost... Not certain... Seems perfectly clear
Not 'absolutely certain' or even 'certain' but 'almost'. Certainly an odd choice of expression.
However it proves there was at least one legitimate sighting in the area, albeit walking in entirely the wrong direction, which in my opinion totally exonerates Jane Tanner from the many accusations levelled at her.
-
I suspect that because of Tanner's poor initial description, OG could not absolutely prove that their man was the man, but as they say are almost certain, hence the phrase.
Whatever, they appear to have no further interest in him.
If he was the alleged abductor, this would be a gross dereliction of duty. I don't think that to be the case.
-
Jane's apartment was on the ground floor. What would she have been doing on the first floor balcony?
Still well above ground level.
-
It is a bit strange I agree. If Dr Totman was resident in Block 4 and was returning from the night creche located above OC Reception then why was he walking from west to east past Block 5 and not the other way round?
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3R29Icg2XPQ/VMoZNYqWsKI/AAAAAAAAKOA/lpdfnOY5IVI/s1600/Ocean%2BClub%2Bleaflet.jpg)
I get what GA is saying too now. If Jane sees a man walking down the alleyway toward block 4 he would be crossing her visual field from left to right. But I tend to believe Jane. She has enough detail as to convince me it is not a poor recollection.
-
Could she have visited the Payne apartment?
how would she get in?
-
how would she get in?
Why should she enter when the standard procedure was to listen?
-
Why should she enter when the standard procedure was to listen?
The point was to get onto a balcony I thought.
-
The point was to get onto a balcony I thought.
The apartment balcony overlooked the Tapas area. How would that be useful ?
There seems to be a more communal balcony facing the other direction and overlooking the car park and road area.
-
Rowley. "However Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted"
The MPS don't seem to be concerned about how Madeleine left the apartment.
No mention of stranger abduction,just saying.
-
From the Sun:
<<< But one retired Met Police detective, who visited the resort with The Sun, is convinced Jane Tanner saw the real abductor. Ian Horrocks said the man Ms Tanner saw had been walking from west to east, while Dr Totman would have gone the opposite way. He added: “The police seemingly dismissed this sighting after discovering the account of the British holidaymaker taking his daughter back to their apartment. “I cannot see how it can be totally dismissed.” >>>
I agree, and imo JT saw an abductor at 21:50 approximately.
I have reasons to think so. This reasons include JT sick daugther and ROB interest in preparing timelines that very same night.
Strange how all these ex coppers know what happened but yet the officers on the scene now don't.
-
Strange how all these ex coppers know what happened but yet the officers on the scene now don't.
Being convinced is different to having proof.
-
Strange how all these ex coppers know what happened but yet the officers on the scene now don't.
We don't know what they were asked.
If these pundits haven't taken the time to go through the files, their answers might be just "off-the-cuff" ones, paid or not for their "interviews".
What exactly is the experience of all these so-called "experts" that might be relevant to an investigation of a missing child case in a foreign country, and who are presumably not privy to the details of the current investigation in both form (the complex legal issues) and the facts (which may well not be limited to what was made publicly accessible, mostly 10 years ago)?
In the cases - or unfolding events - that I've followed, real experts shut up, or fill in time on networks with a general framework that isn't specific to any particular investigation or unfolding drama.
As to the perfect-parent brigade... a bit like someone in the street claiming to be (insert deity). i have yet to meet one.
IMO.
Correction: "hadn't" should have read "haven't" for clarity.
-
When Tannerman appeared kosher, it placed the snatching of Madeleine to around 9.15. Once that was blown away, the window of opportunity widened to include another 40 minutes or so.
Did a Tannerman ever appear kosher? The PJ didn’t believe he was the abductor and even the McCanns own PIs thought he was irrelevant.
-
Did a Tannerman ever appear kosher? The PJ didn’t believe he was the abductor and even the McCanns own PIs thought he was irrelevant.
Can we have a cite for the McCanns PIs thinking he was irrelevant please? I’d like to know upon what basis they arrived at this conclusion.
-
Can we have a cite for the McCanns PIs thinking he was irrelevant please? I’d like to know upon what basis they arrived at this conclusion.
The PIs believed the fund resources should have been focused on Smithman. They felt Tanner was an unreliable witness
-
It is a bit strange I agree. If Dr Totman was resident in Block 4 and was returning from the night creche located above OC Reception then why was he walking from west to east past Block 5 and not the other way round?
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3R29Icg2XPQ/VMoZNYqWsKI/AAAAAAAAKOA/lpdfnOY5IVI/s1600/Ocean%2BClub%2Bleaflet.jpg)
Until that question is answered Jane Tanner's witness statement remains as the only clear sighting of a man leaving the vicinity of apartment 5a carrying a child.
She at least has been very clear on this and consistent in stating what she saw and when she saw it.
Rather than changing anything from that in supposition to make it fit with other timescales, in my opinion, that is the benchmark for theories and not the other way around.
In my opinion 'Tannerman' remains very much in the frame for as long as Dr Totman's direction of travel is unexplained.
-
I think you are flogging a dead horse as regards Tannerman.
-
I think you are flogging a dead horse as regards Tannerman.
Maybe so ... but why should you think so? Have you worked out why Dr Totman was walking the path Tannerman did?
-
Maybe so ... but why should you think so? Have you worked out why Dr Totman was walking the path Tannerman did?
Why should I ? I'm more interested in why his name has suddenly appeared in the press after so long.
-
I think you are flogging a dead horse as regards Tannerman.
You might think so. Some of us don't.
-
I think you are flogging a dead horse as regards Tannerman.
Can we call him Totmanman now?
The interesting question imo is who 'outed' him and why? If he'd wanted publicity he could have spoken to the press at any time since 2007, as so many did.
The article accuses;
Why did cops investigating Madeleine McCann’s disappearance waste four years on ‘Tannerman’ lead?
Which cops and which four years? The PJ spent very little time on the sighting and OG had existed for only two and a half years when they changed their focus to Smithman.
In my opinion the article is aimed at discrediting the Met. Why would the Sun, which has always supported the McCanns, want to discredit the only people who are 'searching for Madeleine'?
-
Until that question is answered Jane Tanner's witness statement remains as the only clear sighting of a man leaving the vicinity of apartment 5a carrying a child.
She at least has been very clear on this and consistent in stating what she saw and when she saw it.
Rather than changing anything from that in supposition to make it fit with other timescales, in my opinion, that is the benchmark for theories and not the other way around.
In my opinion 'Tannerman' remains very much in the frame for as long as Dr Totman's direction of travel is unexplained.
Is the direction Dr Totman was travelling in stated anywhere, quite unequivocally, in any document of standing ?
-
Can we call him Totmanman now?
The interesting question imo is who 'outed' him and why? If he'd wanted publicity he could have spoken to the press at any time since 2007, as so many did.
The article accuses;
Why did cops investigating Madeleine McCann’s disappearance waste four years on ‘Tannerman’ lead?
Which cops and which four years? The PJ spent very little time on the sighting and OG had existed for only two and a half years when they changed their focus to Smithman.
In my opinion the article is aimed at discrediting the Met. Why would the Sun, which has always supported the McCanns, want to discredit the only people who are 'searching for Madeleine'?
I think that Totman will probably do.
You couldn't make it up.
-
Why should I ? I'm more interested in why his name has suddenly appeared in the press after so long.
What I find strange is that Dr Totman didn't appear to have been interviewed at the time by the PJ as a parent using the creche that evening and perhaps walking home carrying his child.
Paolo Reis mentions him in his blog sometime in May 2009 ... but only in relation to yet another conspiracy theory doing the rounds at the time.
Snip
"Another link between the W****** or W********** and Wiltshire is the fact that they made dinner bookings at the Tapas Bar with Dr Julian Totman who is also from Salisbury in Wiltshire." P. Reis
So why Dr Totman had apparently dropped off the official radar but remained pinging in the blogosphere, albeit of apparently little interest, is a bit of a mystery.
Making one hope that this time round Operation Grange managed to reach all the other loose ends just like him to progress the investigation into Madeleine's case even further, which is exactly what I think they did.
-
I don't see any of this as being of any real importance... What is important is, what Grange are investigating and we don't know
-
Can we call him Totmanman now?
The interesting question imo is who 'outed' him and why? If he'd wanted publicity he could have spoken to the press at any time since 2007, as so many did.
The article accuses;
Why did cops investigating Madeleine McCann’s disappearance waste four years on ‘Tannerman’ lead?
Which cops and which four years? The PJ spent very little time on the sighting and OG had existed for only two and a half years when they changed their focus to Smithman.
In my opinion the article is aimed at discrediting the Met. Why would the Sun, which has always supported the McCanns, want to discredit the only people who are 'searching for Madeleine'?
Snip
In October 2007 the McCanns put out a sketch of the Tannerman but Mr Totman had already told the Guarda Nacional Republicana in May that it was probably him but they kept looking for the suspect.
It was only in 2011 after Scotland Yard took over the investigation that Det Chief Insp Andy Redwood, who led the probe from Britain, described a 'moment of revelation' when they became 'almost certain this sighting [Tannerman] is not the abductor.'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Julian Totman's wife Rachel, who lives with her husband in the West Country, has revealed that police had never contacted them.
She told The Sun: 'My husband had told the local police it could be him but we didn't hear anything for years.
'We always thought it was Julian who was seen by Jane Tanner. But the national police who investigated didn't get back to us and we don't know if our information was ever passed on.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5698933/Madeleine-McCann-police-spent-four-years-trying-ID-man-GP-said-him.html#ixzz5EzgG4cGA
Dr Totman apparently "outed" himself in May 2007 ... the fact that apparently nothing came of the information he imparted at that time is a question for the investigators of that time to answer.
-
I don't see any of this as being of any real importance... What is important is, what Grange are investigating and we don't know
No we don't, but it seems some people want them to stop. The so-called 'sceptics' have been accused of trying to discredit/stop OG, but they have never had the ear of the MSM, so who is driving this agenda?
-
The PIs believed the fund resources should have been focused on Smithman. They felt Tanner was an unreliable witness
Cite?
-
Cite?
From the McCanns and the Conman.
Tim Craig-Harvey: My understanding is that it was felt that she wasn't as credible a witness as we had hoped. Witnesses will give evidence thinking that that is what they saw or understood at the time which is quite often inaccurate. And so Jane Tanner having said “This is the guy that I saw”, it may just have been that she so wanted to help that she fooled herself.
-
No we don't, but it seems some people want them to stop. The so-called 'sceptics' have been accused of trying to discredit/stop OG, but they have never had the ear of the MSM, so who is driving this agenda?
All of The McCann Supporters that I know of are perfectly happy with the investigation, and understand why we are not being told. What has MSM got to do with this? They don't know either.
-
From the McCanns and the Conman.
Tim Craig-Harvey: My understanding is that it was felt that she wasn't as credible a witness as we had hoped. Witnesses will give evidence thinking that that is what they saw or understood at the time which is quite often inaccurate. And so Jane Tanner having said “This is the guy that I saw”, it may just have been that she so wanted to help that she fooled herself.
Not sure who Tim Craig-Harvey is but it turns out they were all wrong as JT has been vindicated. She DID see a man carrying a child in the vicinity on the night Madeleine went missing and was not therefore fooling herself.
-
No we don't, but it seems some people want them to stop. The so-called 'sceptics' have been accused of trying to discredit/stop OG, but they have never had the ear of the MSM, so who is driving this agenda?
What agenda?
-
No we don't, but it seems some people want them to stop. The so-called 'sceptics' have been accused of trying to discredit/stop OG, but they have never had the ear of the MSM, so who is driving this agenda?
Sceptics have no influence to direct anything afaiaac..
I dont see any agenda.... The press just, want a good story... That's the only driving force
-
What agenda?
Snap
-
Not sure who Tim Craig-Harvey is but it turns out they were all wrong as JT has been vindicated. She DID see a man carrying a child in the vicinity on the night Madeleine went missing and was not therefore fooling herself.
You asked for a cite and you were given one.
Isn’t it strange Totman doesn’t mention seeing either Tanner, Gerry was Wilkins, especially if Gerry was on the opposite side of the road from the apartment as he claimed.
-
Snip
In October 2007 the McCanns put out a sketch of the Tannerman but Mr Totman had already told the Guarda Nacional Republicana in May that it was probably him but they kept looking for the suspect.
It was only in 2011 after Scotland Yard took over the investigation that Det Chief Insp Andy Redwood, who led the probe from Britain, described a 'moment of revelation' when they became 'almost certain this sighting [Tannerman] is not the abductor.'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Julian Totman's wife Rachel, who lives with her husband in the West Country, has revealed that police had never contacted them.
She told The Sun: 'My husband had told the local police it could be him but we didn't hear anything for years.
'We always thought it was Julian who was seen by Jane Tanner. But the national police who investigated didn't get back to us and we don't know if our information was ever passed on.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5698933/Madeleine-McCann-police-spent-four-years-trying-ID-man-GP-said-him.html#ixzz5EzgG4cGA
Dr Totman apparently "outed" himself in May 2007 ... the fact that apparently nothing came of the information he imparted at that time is a question for the investigators of that time to answer.
Accusing the GNR is easy to do but hard to prove. If the Totmans thought they had relevant information there were many ways for them to contact the investigators. The PJ were in block 6, and people who weren't OC guests managed to find them, like Derek Flack.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DEREK_FLACK.htm
Many many phone numbers were advertised which the Totmans could have rung. They could have contacted their home police force as Carole Tranmer did.
I telephoned the Windsor police and told them, more or less, what I had told him and to my family. They told me that they would give me a number to call the Leicester police.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAROL_TRANMER.htm
The Totmans did nothing until tracked down, apparently, by OG 4 or 5 years later. If they thought he was the man seen by Jane Tanner they have to accept that they didn't do enough in my opinion. .
-
You asked for a cite and you were given one.
Isn’t it strange Totman doesn’t mention seeing either Tanner, Gerry was Wilkins, especially if Gerry was on the opposite side of the road from the apartment as he claimed.
I'm sure there'll be a perfectly innocent explanation.
-
You asked for a cite and you were given one.
Isn’t it strange Totman doesn’t mention seeing either Tanner, Gerry was Wilkins, especially if Gerry was on the opposite side of the road from the apartment as he claimed.
Thank you for your cite, it's kind of you to provide it, though I don't think it necessarily proves the private investigation believed Tannerman to be irrelevant and had dismissed it entirely, especially as the cite seems to come from a third party and his understanding rather than from the horse's mouth as it were.
As JT did not mention Tannerman looking down the hill in her direction I don't think it's hugely strange that Totman didn't mention seeing any of the protagonists you mention.
-
Would he not want to check for traffic before crossing the road ?
-
Accusing the GNR is easy to do but hard to prove. If the Totmans thought they had relevant information there were many ways for them to contact the investigators. The PJ were in block 6, and people who weren't OC guests managed to find them, like Derek Flack.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DEREK_FLACK.htm
Many many phone numbers were advertised which the Totmans could have rung. They could have contacted their home police force as Carole Tranmer did.
I telephoned the Windsor police and told them, more or less, what I had told him and to my family. They told me that they would give me a number to call the Leicester police.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAROL_TRANMER.htm
The Totmans did nothing until tracked down, apparently, by OG 4 or 5 years later. If they thought he was the man seen by Jane Tanner they have to accept that they didn't do enough in my opinion. .
IMO most expat holidaymakers giving information to the GNR would believe that they had spoken to the police and that information would be flagged to the investigating team.
-
Would he not want to check for traffic before crossing the road ?
Did JT say he turned his head in her direction?
-
As Totman is clearly Innocentman, no real damage done.
Pj weren't interested in Tannerman and OG soon lost interest.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS_BOOKING.htm
Having rechecked this, it appears the Totmans were booked in at Tapas for 7pm, 2+1, on Tuesday evening. Presumably this meant their other child was being cared for separately.
There is no booking at the Tapas for the Totmans on Wednesday or Thursday.
This implies eat-in (from supermarket food or a take-away), out in Luz (to one of the many family-friendly options on offer) or the Millennium. None of these sits comfortably with a child in the crèche.
-
You asked for a cite and you were given one.
Isn’t it strange Totman doesn’t mention seeing either Tanner, Gerry was Wilkins, especially if Gerry was on the opposite side of the road from the apartment as he claimed.
Especially as Totman knew Gerry from playing tennis with him.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS_BOOKING.htm
Having rechecked this, it appears the Totmans were booked in at Tapas for 7pm, 2+1, on Tuesday evening. Presumably this meant their other child was being cared for separately.
There is no booking at the Tapas for the Totmans on Wednesday or Thursday.
This implies eat-in (from supermarket food or a take-away), out in Luz (to one of the many family-friendly options on offer) or the Millennium. None of these sits comfortably with a child in the crèche.
They may well have chosen not to take their daughter out and left her at the creche... Simple
-
If the PJ did indeed have knowledge of Dr. Totman's original comments & later ones (in whatever form to LP) did they dismiss him as being Tannerman because he was going in the wrong direction? In the event of all this being in the files, what was really DCI's revelation moment after speaking to the family as surely none of this was new information which would prompt the PJ to reopen their investigation?
-
I must say, I find the Tanner/Totman claims all very weird. Wasn't this Dr Julian Totman supposed to have taken part in the organised tennis activities? He also had children who attended the day and night creches. No doubt he used the restaurant just as the tapas 9 did.
Given all this, surely Tanner would have encountered Totman during the holiday and recognised him on the night Madeleine disappeared?
-
Is all this information from an article in the Sun.... How accurate is it
-
From the McCanns and the Conman.
Tim Craig-Harvey: My understanding is that it was felt that she wasn't as credible a witness as we had hoped. Witnesses will give evidence thinking that that is what they saw or understood at the time which is quite often inaccurate. And so Jane Tanner having said “This is the guy that I saw”, it may just have been that she so wanted to help that she fooled herself.
Could you post the bit preceding that so it's clear who this Tim person was referring to as "he"?
-
If the PJ did indeed have knowledge of Dr. Totman's original comments & later ones (in whatever form to LP) did they dismiss him as being Tannerman because he was going in the wrong direction? In the event of all this being in the files, what was really DCI's revelation moment after speaking to the family as surely none of this was new information which would prompt the PJ to reopen their investigation?
He may not have been going in the wrong direction if he was on his way to the creche to collect his son. One needs to keep an open mind. SY know and that's all that matters. It is important to know if he saw any of the other 3 only metres away when crossing as he would have checked to his right lol.
-
He may not have been going in the wrong direction if he was on his way to the creche to collect his son. One needs to keep an open mind. SY know and that's all that matters. It is important to know if he saw any of the other 3 only metres away when crossing as he would have checked to his right lol.
I don't understand the logic in carrying one sleeping child back to the creche, from where he just collected her, to collect his other child. Where was his wife?
-
Could you post the bit preceding that so it's clear who this Tim person was referring to as "he"?
Tim Craig-Harvey: She was then presented with a photograph of this guy George in the market at which point she broke down and said “That is the guy that I saw carrying the child”. This was a pretty strong indication that the guy who had been seen in Portugal, had an integral role in the disappearance of Madeleine. It was extraordinary to be in the room next door on my own, listening to the conversation, and to be part of her reaction.
-
The PIs believed the fund resources should have been focused on Smithman. They felt Tanner was an unreliable witness
Opinion as fact - you have been asked for a cite. Could be hard to find.
-
Is the direction Dr Totman was travelling in stated anywhere, quite unequivocally, in any document of standing ?
None that I'm aware of.
-
I don't understand the logic in carrying one sleeping child back to the creche, from where he just collected her, to collect your other child. Where was his wife?
Maybe she went ahead to the creche. Maybe he took the child back but she couldn't sleep so he took her back out. There are a number of possibilities with the tapas being so close to their apartment. SY will know what actually happened and what he saw when looking to his right.
-
From the McCanns and the Conman.
Tim Craig-Harvey: My understanding is that it was felt that she wasn't as credible a witness as we had hoped. Witnesses will give evidence thinking that that is what they saw or understood at the time which is quite often inaccurate. And so Jane Tanner having said “This is the guy that I saw”, it may just have been that she so wanted to help that she fooled herself.
And he could be wrong about Jane. On it goes!
-
Maybe she went ahead to the creche. Maybe he took the child back but she couldn't sleep so he took her back out. There are a number of possibilities with the tapas being so close to their apartment. SY will know what actually happened and what he saw when looking to his right.
If he looked right and there was no one there then they will know that he couldn't have been the man JT says she saw. JT can surely not be credited with knowing Julian Totman crossed that street if she was not in the vicinity at the time!
-
If he looked right and there was no one there then they will know that he couldn't have been the man JT says she saw. JT can surely not be credited with knowing Julian Totman crossed that street if she was not in the vicinity at the time!
Jane Tanner could be far away when seeing him and not close. Totman will know if she was close or not like she said.
-
They may well have chosen not to take their daughter out and left her at the creche... Simple
Out where? That was the point of my post.
-
Jane Tanner could be far away when seeing him and not close. Totman will know if she was close or not like she said.
How much further away could she have been and what does it actually matter if she was a few feet further back than she said? She saw him.
-
Out where? That was the point of my post.
Local restaurant... Just because they are child friendly does not mean they took their daughter
-
Local restaurant... Just because they are child friendly does not mean they took their daughter
Which local restaurant? It is the distance and the time to get back to the crèche in an emergency that is important.
-
Which local restaurant? It is the distance and the time to get back to the crèche in an emergency that is important.
I really can't be bothered to look on trip advisor... It's not that important to me
-
I really can't be bothered to look on trip advisor... It's not that important to me
OK. So pure speculation on your part with not an IMO in sight.
-
OK. So pure speculation on your part with not an IMO in sight.
Where would you insert your.. IMO..
Your post is pure, speculation
According to VS there were 11 children in the creche... Where were their parents..
-
Where would you insert your.. IMO..
Your post is pure, speculation
According to VS there were 11 children in the creche... Where were their parents..
I asked about Totman + child, not the others in the crèche.
-
I asked about Totman + child, not the others in the crèche.
You asked where he could be... Possibly in a similar place to the other parents who left their children in the creche... That's why I mention them
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS_BOOKING.htm
Having rechecked this, it appears the Totmans were booked in at Tapas for 7pm, 2+1, on Tuesday evening. Presumably this meant their other child was being cared for separately.
There is no booking at the Tapas for the Totmans on Wednesday or Thursday.
This implies eat-in (from supermarket food or a take-away), out in Luz (to one of the many family-friendly options on offer) or the Millennium. None of these sits comfortably with a child in the crèche.
In your opinion ...the Doctor says his daughter was in the creche... I see no reason to doubt him
-
In your opinion ...the Doctor says his daughter was in the creche... I see no reason to doubt him
I will leave you to believe that a man heading the wrong way fits Totman.
-
I will leave you to believe that a man heading the wrong way fits Totman.
That is rubbish as I've never suggested it
-
Tim Craig-Harvey: She was then presented with a photograph of this guy George in the market at which point she broke down and said “That is the guy that I saw carrying the child”. This was a pretty strong indication that the guy who had been seen in Portugal, had an integral role in the disappearance of Madeleine. It was extraordinary to be in the room next door on my own, listening to the conversation, and to be part of her reaction.
Thanks Faith. On the Powerpoint presentation, it's presented as "Jane Tanner believes that there is an 80% likelihood that this is the same man that she saw carrying away the child, believed to be Madeleine."
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15_VOLUME-XVa_Page_3979.jpg)
But this is in reference to Cooperman...
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15_VOLUME-XVa_Page_3978.jpg)
I have a recollection that she explained that comparison episode somewhere, but I can't lay my hands on it for the moment. It doesn't seem to be in her rog unless I missed it.
Looking at those two impressions, I might also have been tempted to think it could have been the same person (similar hair, clothing style...), but Cooperman doesn't seem to resemble Totman to me.
So... dunno.
-
How much further away could she have been and what does it actually matter if she was a few feet further back than she said? She saw him.
It would be unusual for all 3 witnesses not to see Jane at a close distance don't ya think? Or is that normal to you?
-
It would be unusual for all 3 witnesses not to see Jane at a close distance don't ya think? Or is that normal to you?
It would be even more unusual for JT to have known without being there that a man crossed the street at circa 9.15pm on the evening of 3rd May carrying a child in his arms. Or is that explainable in your opinion?
-
Thanks Faith. On the Powerpoint presentation, it's presented as "Jane Tanner believes that there is an 80% likelihood that this is the same man that she saw carrying away the child, believed to be Madeleine."
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15_VOLUME-XVa_Page_3979.jpg)
But this is in reference to Cooperman...
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15_VOLUME-XVa_Page_3978.jpg)
I have a recollection that she explained that comparison episode somewhere, but I can't lay my hands on it for the moment. It doesn't seem to be in her rog unless I missed it.
Looking at those two impressions, I might also have been tempted to think it could have been the same person (similar hair, clothing style...), but Cooperman doesn't seem to resemble Totman to me.
So... dunno.
Again apart from rather generic clothing there is absolutely nothing to link Cooperman and Madeleine’s disappearance. At one point Tanner identified ‘George’ the market trader as the man she saw. Of course we know it wasn’t.
-
Again apart from rather generic clothing there is absolutely nothing to link Cooperman and Madeleine’s disappearance. At one point Tanner identified ‘George’ the market trader as the man she saw. Of course we know it wasn’t.
Who's George? Is that Cooperman? If so, she didn't say it was definitely him. If she'd simply been faced with those two artists' impressions, from her recollection of a side view of a man, I can understand how she thought that there was a strong resemblance (80%). Right at the other end of the scale would be "I very much doubt it could possibly be him, because...".
That said, as we know, artists' impressions and e-fits can resemble far more than just one person...
-
Again apart from rather generic clothing there is absolutely nothing to link Cooperman and Madeleine’s disappearance. At one point Tanner identified ‘George’ the market trader as the man she saw. Of course we know it wasn’t.
Were they really Police Artist Sketches as per the heading or is the absence of punctuation a deliberate attempt to lead us up the garden path?
Which police force commissioned the sketches do we think?
-
Who's George? Is that Cooperman? If so, she didn't say it was definitely him. If she'd simply been faced with those two artists' impressions, from her recollection of a side view of a man, I can understand how she thought that there was a strong resemblance (80%). Right at the other end of the scale would be "I very much doubt it could possibly be him, because...".
That said, as we know, artists' impressions and e-fits can resemble far more than just one person...
Then why did she identify George as the man she saw ?
Tim Craig-Harvey: She was then presented with a photograph of this guy George in the market at which point she broke down and said “That is the guy that I saw carrying the child”. This was a pretty strong indication that the guy who had been seen in Portugal, had an integral role in the disappearance of Madeleine. It was extraordinary to be in the room next door on my own, listening to the conversation, and to be part of her reaction.
-
Were they really Police Artist Sketches as per the heading or is the absence of punctuation a deliberate attempt to lead us up the garden path?
Which police force commissioned the sketches do we think?
They weren't commissioned by the police, as far as I know. If these articles are correct, they were both done by FBI-accredited artist Melissa Little, commissioned by Metodo 3.
The McCanns' private investigators, Metodo 3, spoke to Cooper last week. They hired artist Melissa Little to draw two images based on the interview. Cooper, from Newark, Nottinghamshire, originally gave police a statement in May.
It was Little who did the early drawings of the faceless man carrying a child in pyjamas based on Tanner's statements.
The drawings, including that of the man walking, wearing a safari jacket and light-coloured trousers, have been passed to the police.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jan/21/world.ukcrime
The sketches, drawn by FBI-acredited artist Melissa Little, shows a sallow, olive-skinned man, with straggly dark hair, protruding teeth and a thick moustache.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576048/Hunt-for-new-Madeleine-McCann-suspect.html
-
Then why did she identify George as the man she saw ?
Tim Craig-Harvey: She was then presented with a photograph of this guy George in the market at which point she broke down and said “That is the guy that I saw carrying the child”. This was a pretty strong indication that the guy who had been seen in Portugal, had an integral role in the disappearance of Madeleine. It was extraordinary to be in the room next door on my own, listening to the conversation, and to be part of her reaction.
Ah, I do have a vague recollection of a photo of a market trader, come to think of it - no doubt from that documentary. However, that's his account. What's hers?
-
Ah, I do have a vague recollection of a photo of a market trader, come to think of it - no doubt from that documentary. However, that's his account. What's hers?
The interview was taped.
Tim Craig-Harvey: We had a device in the room which would pick up what she was saying, and then that conversation was recorded in another room.
Narrator: Kevin Halligen and a colleague conducted the interview. They began by checking details of one of her witness statements.
(Recording of Tanner Interview)
Tim Craig-Harvey: She was then presented with a photograph of this guy George in the market at which point she broke down and said “That is the guy that I saw carrying the child”. This was a pretty strong indication that the guy who had been seen in Portugal, had an integral role in the disappearance of Madeleine. It was extraordinary to be in the room next door on my own, listening to the conversation, and to be part of her reaction.
-
Ah, I do have a vague recollection of a photo of a market trader, come to think of it - no doubt from that documentary. However, that's his account. What's hers?
What was the name of the documentary please?
-
It would be even more unusual for JT to have known without being there that a man crossed the street at circa 9.15pm on the evening of 3rd May carrying a child in his arms. Or is that explainable in your opinion?
I believe Jane Tanner saw Julian Totman but not positioned between him and Gerry/Jez who didn't see her lol.
-
I believe Jane Tanner saw Julian Totman but not positioned between him and Gerry/Jez who didn't see her lol.
I find that sentence difficult to comprehend sorry.
-
What was the name of the documentary please?
McCanns and the Conman is the one Faith is talking about (but I'm not certain that that's where I saw a photo of some guy manning a market stall).
-
McCanns and the Conman is the one Faith is talking about (but I'm not certain that that's where I saw a photo of some guy manning a market stall).
I can hear him telling the story but I can't name the documentary either.
-
I wonder if the PIs got paid by Channel 5? If so, it might have helped them recoup some of their fees / expenses that Halligen walked off with.
-
I can hear him telling the story but I can't name the documentary either.
Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HRCWfPn_k4&t=2160s
-
I find that sentence difficult to comprehend sorry.
Jane couldn't pass Gerry and Jez without being seen (any reconstruction would prove it!) so couldn't have seen Totman at the position where she said.
4078 “Are you conscious of any other movement?”
Reply “It’s, it’s too long now. Erm, no, not really. I mean, I was just walking up, you know, I was like just sort of on a, not on a mission, but I was just like, you know, on the way to, to check, so I didn’t notice anything either side. The only thing I noticed a movement was when somebody walked across at the top”.
Jane could have seen somebody crossing at the top in another position which is a possibility e.g. further away and she didn't need to pass Gerry/Jez to have seen him crossing at the top as she puts it.
-
Then why did she identify George as the man she saw ?
Tim Craig-Harvey: She was then presented with a photograph of this guy George in the market at which point she broke down and said “That is the guy that I saw carrying the child”. This was a pretty strong indication that the guy who had been seen in Portugal, had an integral role in the disappearance of Madeleine. It was extraordinary to be in the room next door on my own, listening to the conversation, and to be part of her reaction.
Transcript: The McCanns and the Conman Channel 5 - 04 June 2014
Narrator: But Jane Tanner’s secret recording did reveal something unexpected. It seeded doubts about Kevin Halligen’s credentials to lead the investigation.
Richard Parton: I actually caught Kevin's voice on tape and also happened to catch him in action. I learned remarkable things about him. And not only did he have no skillsets, he was out of his depth, and honestly, for this person, that should not have been the case.
Narrator: Kevin Halligen’s team was halfway through the publicly funded investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. Questions about Halligens suitability to lead the investigation were emerging and divisions were opening up between him and the team.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/conman_04_06_2014.htm
The pertinent part of the outcome of Jane's interview was the revelation of Halligan's ineptitude as an interviewer which led to questions being raised about his professionalism.
Is it any wonder if his interviewing technique was so bad as to arouse suspicion that the resultant interview was less than textbook satisfactory.
Put simply the man did not know the basics.
Who knows if left to their own devices the Exton team might have been able to deliver the goods?
-
Transcript: The McCanns and the Conman Channel 5 - 04 June 2014
Narrator: But Jane Tanner’s secret recording did reveal something unexpected. It seeded doubts about Kevin Halligen’s credentials to lead the investigation.
Richard Parton: I actually caught Kevin's voice on tape and also happened to catch him in action. I learned remarkable things about him. And not only did he have no skillsets, he was out of his depth, and honestly, for this person, that should not have been the case.
Narrator: Kevin Halligen’s team was halfway through the publicly funded investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. Questions about Halligens suitability to lead the investigation were emerging and divisions were opening up between him and the team.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/conman_04_06_2014.htm
The pertinent part of the outcome of Jane's interview was the revelation of Halligan's ineptitude as an interviewer which led to questions being raised about his professionalism.
Is it any wonder if his interviewing technique was so bad as to arouse suspicion that the resultant interview was less than textbook satisfactory.
Put simply the man did not know the basics.
Who knows if left to their own devices the Exton team might have been able to deliver the goods?
No matter how bad your interview technique is you can’t make someone identify someone they’ve never seen before. It does make you wonder about her alleged identification of Murat.
-
Jane couldn't pass Gerry and Jez without being seen (any reconstruction would prove it!) so couldn't have seen Totman at the position where she said.
4078 “Are you conscious of any other movement?”
Reply “It’s, it’s too long now. Erm, no, not really. I mean, I was just walking up, you know, I was like just sort of on a, not on a mission, but I was just like, you know, on the way to, to check, so I didn’t notice anything either side. The only thing I noticed a movement was when somebody walked across at the top”.
Jane could have seen somebody crossing at the top in another position which is a possibility e.g. further away and she didn't need to pass Gerry/Jez to have seen him crossing at the top as she puts it.
What difference does it make where precisely her position was when she saw him?
-
Until that question is answered Jane Tanner's witness statement remains as the only clear sighting of a man leaving the vicinity of apartment 5a carrying a child.
She at least has been very clear on this and consistent in stating what she saw and when she saw it.
Rather than changing anything from that in supposition to make it fit with other timescales, in my opinion, that is the benchmark for theories and not the other way around.
In my opinion 'Tannerman' remains very much in the frame for as long as Dr Totman's direction of travel is unexplained.
Given its yet to be determined what happened,what frame does Tannerman belong in?
-
What difference does it make where precisely her position was when she saw him?
To get to the truth of what actually happened. Two witnesses never saw Jane (Gerry/Jez) and I would not be surprised if Totman didn't either. Totman could have seen all 3 as Jane herself claims but the newspaper report didn't say that he saw any of them. If you are carrying a child across a road you are going to check right before crossing.
-
To get to the truth of what actually happened. Two witnesses never saw Jane (Gerry/Jez) and I would not be surprised if Totman didn't either. Totman could have seen all 3 as Jane herself claims but the newspaper report didn't say that he saw any of them. If you are carrying a child across a road you are going to check right before crossing.
If Totman had seen Tanner, Wilkins or Gerry then Redwood would not be almost certain that Tannerman was Totman.
-
To get to the truth of what actually happened. Two witnesses never saw Jane (Gerry/Jez) and I would not be surprised if Totman didn't either. Totman could have seen all 3 as Jane herself claims but the newspaper report didn't say that he saw any of them. If you are carrying a child across a road you are going to check right before crossing.
I think relying on what a Sun newspaper article didn't report is probably a mistake, as it is to assume that a man carrying a child is definitely going to check right before crossing. In quiet neighbourhood with little traffic at the busiest of times he may not have felt it necessary to turn his head, but could have relied on peripheral vision or his hearing to alert for any potential oncoming vehicle.
-
What if J Tanner made an honest mistake? and others have made something out the sighting , Redwood seems to suggest so and so does Totman,or his wife does.
-
What if J Tanner made an honest mistake? and others have made something out the sighting , Redwood seems to suggest so and so does Totman,or his wife does.
That is a distinct possibility.
-
Given its yet to be determined what happened,what frame does Tannerman belong in?
In my opinion Tannerman remains very much in the frame as the child carrier seen by Jane Tanner immediately outside the apartment from where it was later discovered that a child was missing.
-
In my opinion Tannerman remains very much in the frame as the child carrier seen by Jane Tanner immediately outside the apartment from where it was later discovered that a child was missing.
Then you on the same page as Redwood and Mr Totmans wife.
-
Then you on the same page as Redwood and Mr Totmans wife.
What is this about Mr Totman's wife?
-
No matter how bad your interview technique is you can’t make someone identify someone they’ve never seen before. It does make you wonder about her alleged identification of Murat.
We have a thread about that alleged ID of Murat. I wish we could watch the rog on that bit, as we only have the transcript to go off. Bearing in mind the context of the officer interrupting Jane, it seems clear to me that she didn't. And it never made sense to me that she wasn't marched off to the police station to sign on the dotted line if she had at the time.
-
We have a thread about that alleged ID of Murat. I wish we could watch the rog on that bit, as we only have the transcript to go off. Bearing in mind the context of the officer interrupting Jane, it seems clear to me that she didn't. And it never made sense to me that she wasn't marched off to the police station to sign on the dotted line if she had at the time.
Was anyone ever asked to sign on the dotted line that they'd seen Murat near 5A on 3/5/07? Plenty signed to say they hadn't.
-
Was anyone ever asked to sign on the dotted line that they'd seen Murat near 5A on 3/5/07? Plenty signed to say they hadn't.
Did we ever catch sight of the questions put to Murat in his arguido interview? Would like to know if he was asked what he was doing carrying a young child away from Apartment 5a, according to Jane Tanner.
-
Did we ever catch sight of the questions put to Murat in his arguido interview? Would like to know if he was asked what he was doing carrying a young child away from Apartment 5a, according to Jane Tanner.
I think this is as close as it got on 14/5/07
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
05-Processo, Volume V, pages 1170-1178 (9 pages)
--- Asked he said he has nothing to do with the disappearance of the child, nor anything about this case.
Jane did not appear to have been requested to attend the confrontation meeting between Murat & the other Tapas 3 who recalled seeing him later that night.
-
To get to the truth of what actually happened. Two witnesses never saw Jane (Gerry/Jez) and I would not be surprised if Totman didn't either. Totman could have seen all 3 as Jane herself claims but the newspaper report didn't say that he saw any of them. If you are carrying a child across a road you are going to check right before crossing.
Yes, but for oncoming vehicle traffic coming up the (lit) right side, I'd have thoght. No one knows whether he noticed people chatting or walking in that street. And unless something unusual caught his attention, I can't think why he would.
-
None of the 3 witnesses saw traffic on that road. It was quiet and deserted. If he looked to his right before stepping off the pavement then he would have seen them being on the same pavement not traffic.
-
To get to the truth of what actually happened. Two witnesses never saw Jane (Gerry/Jez) and I would not be surprised if Totman didn't either. Totman could have seen all 3 as Jane herself claims but the newspaper report didn't say that he saw any of them. If you are carrying a child across a road you are going to check right before crossing.
Where does Jane claim that Totman saw all three of them? I never read that anywhere.
Cite please
-
What is this about Mr Totman's wife?
The very fist post on this thread has a quote attributed to Mrs Totman,some read but don't actually read.
He was interviewed by the Guarda Nacional Republicana soon after Maddie, three, vanished in May 2007, but his wife Rachel said: “My husband had told the local police it could be him but we didn’t hear anything for years.
“We always thought it was Julian who was seen by Jane Tanner.
-
None of the 3 witnesses saw traffic on that road. It was quiet and deserted. If he looked to his right before stepping off the pavement then he would have seen them being on the same pavement not traffic.
Non of the three witness's saw an alleged abductor either,Redwood was satisfied that it was Totman seen,the article on page one of this thread clearly states that the Totmans always thought it was mr Totman seen by J Tanner ,yet some cling to a vestige of hope that they are mistaken,wonder why that is? all opinion of course.
-
None of the 3 witnesses saw traffic on that road. It was quiet and deserted. If he looked to his right before stepping off the pavement then he would have seen them being on the same pavement not traffic.
quiet and deserted is a good explanation for why he did not turn to look down the street IMO.
-
Where does Jane claim that Totman saw all three of them? I never read that anywhere.
Cite please
One way or the other I think that is not what Pathfinder meant.
-
quiet and deserted is a good explanation for why he did not turn to look down the street IMO.
If Gerry was on the other side of the road as he claimed then it would almost certainly have been in Crecheman’s eyeline.
-
If Gerry was on the other side of the road as he claimed then it would almost certainly have been in Crecheman’s eyeline.
It probably wasn't Crecheman, now know as Totman. If it was the abductor he was probably in too much of a hurry. Besides, I expect he had ears.
-
If Gerry was on the other side of the road as he claimed then it would almost certainly have been in Crecheman’s eyeline.
Something for a dedicated amateur sleuth to check out next time they’re in PdL, not that it would prove anything one way or the other.
-
Something for a dedicated amateur sleuth to check out next time they’re in PdL, not that it would prove anything one way or the other.
No need. It’s just common sense really.
Who’d have thought that all that insisting that he was on the other side of the road would work against Gerry in the long run.
-
No need. It’s just common sense really.
Who’d have thought that all that insisting that he was on the other side of the road would work against Gerry in the long run.
I'm a bit confused. Who says he did or didn't see the others?
-
It would be unusual for all 3 witnesses not to see Jane at a close distance don't ya think? Or is that normal to you?
I was there at night. It was not easy for Gerry or Jez NOT to see Jane.
-
I'm a bit confused. Who says he did or didn't see the others?
If he had then Redwood wouldn’t be ‘almost certain’ that Totman was Tannerman. It would be a slam dunk.
-
I was there at night. It was not easy for Gerry or Jez NOT to see Jane.
I was also there and I agree.
-
It would be unusual for all 3 witnesses not to see Jane at a close distance don't ya think? Or is that normal to you?
I think it would be more unusual that Jane knew about the three people without being there herself.
-
I think it would be more unusual that Jane knew about the three people without being there herself.
Had not Gerry said "I have just met Jez", or something like that, when he came back to the table?
She saw the third person, yes, but arround 21:50, imo.
-
Had not Gerry said "I have just met Jez", or something like that, when he came back to the table?
She saw the third person, yes, but arround 21:50, imo.
Why 21.50 ? Why not 21.15 ?
-
Had not Gerry said "I have just met Jez", or something like that, when he came back to the table?
She saw the third person, yes, but arround 21:50, imo.
Jane was not at the table when Gerry returned.
-
Jane was not at the table when Gerry returned.
Are you sure? Why?
-
Are you sure? Why?
She had just passed him on the way to her apartment?
-
She had just passed him on the way to her apartment?
And Gerry (or Jez) saw her passing by?
-
Where does Jane claim that Totman saw all three of them? I never read that anywhere.
Cite please
I said Jane saw all 3 (Gerry, Jez and Totman). Totman should have seen all 3 as well but I doubt that as Gerry and Jez claimed they saw nobody.
-
I said Jane saw all 3 (Gerry, Jez and Totman). Totman should have seen all 3 as well but I doubt that as Gerry and Jez claimed they saw nobody.
Show us Totman's statement and then we can decide ourselves.
-
Show us Totman's statement and then we can decide ourselves.
Don't think there's anything in writing, at least not in the public domain.
-
Don't think there's anything in writing, at least not in the public domain.
Is Julian Totman still around?
-
Is Julian Totman still around?
Around where ? He works as a GP in Salisbury, or surrounding area
-
And Gerry (or Jez) saw her passing by?
Neither man saw her pass by. She said she thought they must see her because they were so close; she would have acknowledged them but Gerry had his back to her ... (she and Jes didn't know each other anyway) ... and that the men were deep in conversation.
-
Neither man saw her pass by. She said she thought they must see her because they were so close; she would have acknowledged them but Gerry had his back to her ... (she and Jes didn't know each other anyway) ... and that the men were deep in conversation.
Yes, but you have to be some night there. It is really hard to believe Gerry and Jez did not see her. And she said Gerry and Jez were in her path, while they said they were in the other side of the street.
-
Yes, but you have to be some night there. It is really hard to believe Gerry and Jez did not see her. And she said Gerry and Jez were in her path, while they said they were in the other side of the street.
The problem is that Gerry seems to have accepted the group timeline which was handed to the PJ on 10th May, but disagreed with what is said when he gave his statement.
Sequence of Events: Thursday 3rd May 2007 - 2030 to 2200
As recalled by:
Gerry McCann - 5A
Kate McCann - 5A
David Payne - 5H (First floor)
Fiona Payne - 5H (First floor)
Dianne Webster - 5H (First floor)
Jane Tanner - 5D
Russell O'Brien - 5D
Matthew Oldfield - 5B
Rachael Oldfield - 5B
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
He crossed the road in JEZ's direction
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
-
Yes, but you have to be some night there. It is really hard to believe Gerry and Jez did not see her. And she said Gerry and Jez were in her path, while they said they were in the other side of the street.
1578 'Yes'.
Reply 'Erm so Gerry went off erm came back a couple of minutes later, erm and then Jane went off at about ten past nine to check on Ella and Evie, erm and you know, and then you know yes she came back and everything was quiet there as well, and I think by, when Jane came back, we were all sitting down, we had our starters and ate that'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Unless I'm misreading it - Rachael Oldfield states JT left after GMcC returned.
-
1578 'Yes'.
Reply 'Erm so Gerry went off erm came back a couple of minutes later, erm and then Jane went off at about ten past nine to check on Ella and Evie, erm and you know, and then you know yes she came back and everything was quiet there as well, and I think by, when Jane came back, we were all sitting down, we had our starters and ate that'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Unless I'm misreading it - Rachael Oldfield states JT left after GMcC returned.
Which is what the first draft timeline also says.
-
Yes, but you have to be some night there. It is really hard to believe Gerry and Jez did not see her. And she said Gerry and Jez were in her path, while they said they were in the other side of the street.
There is total disagreement among the three about who was standing where.
The only agreement is that Gerry and Jes failed to see Jane and they failed to see the man Jane saw whether or not he was Dr Totman.
From memory, Rachael Oldfield, Fiona Payne and Jane Tanner (there may be others?) are in agreement that Gerry left the table after nine shortly followed by Jane and Gerry returned followed by Jane some time later. No-one is certain of exact times.
-
1578 'Yes'.
Reply 'Erm so Gerry went off erm came back a couple of minutes later, erm and then Jane went off at about ten past nine to check on Ella and Evie, erm and you know, and then you know yes she came back and everything was quiet there as well, and I think by, when Jane came back, we were all sitting down, we had our starters and ate that'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Unless I'm misreading it - Rachael Oldfield states JT left after GMcC returned.
01.10.08 1578 'What about Gerry returning''
Reply 'Yeah Gerry had come back sort of, erm well you know before Jane had, you know he'd only been gone a few minutes I think, not very long, erm he said he'd seen, to met J, he'd met Jez on the way back, who was one of the dads and he'd been playing tennis and there was supposed to be a tennis tournament on the Friday and I think they were, they were trying to get teams together and he'd been talking to Jez about the tennis tournament, erm so he'd, yeah stopped and chatted to him on the road and he mentioned that when he got back to the table, erm and then shortly after he got back, Jane got back, erm we had our starters and, and then about twenty five past nine, or half past nine, ... ....
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Or maybe you didn't continue reading on far enough?
-
Rachael says different. See post 302
-
01.10.08 1578 'What about Gerry returning''
Reply 'Yeah Gerry had come back sort of, erm well you know before Jane had, you know he'd only been gone a few minutes I think, not very long, erm he said he'd seen, to met J, he'd met Jez on the way back, who was one of the dads and he'd been playing tennis and there was supposed to be a tennis tournament on the Friday and I think they were, they were trying to get teams together and he'd been talking to Jez about the tennis tournament, erm so he'd, yeah stopped and chatted to him on the road and he mentioned that when he got back to the table, erm and then shortly after he got back, Jane got back, erm we had our starters and, and then about twenty five past nine, or half past nine, ... ....
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Or maybe you didn't continue reading on far enough?
I did, and it is clear to me - RO states JT left after GMcC. An ambiguous later paragraph does not alter that IMO.
-
I did, and it is clear to me - RO states JT left after GMcC. An ambiguous later paragraph does not alter that IMO.
Ambiguous? OK ... but it is worth bearing in mind the ambiguity of it all from initial non-verbatim translated statements to those recorded after the passage of many months.
It is probably why so many "in my opinion" applies to so much which is posted ... or in my opinion really should be although also much neglected in practice.
-
No need. It’s just common sense really.
Who’d have thought that all that insisting that he was on the other side of the road would work against Gerry in the long run.
Has does that make any difference to anything?
-
01.10.08 1578 'What about Gerry returning''
Reply 'Yeah Gerry had come back sort of, erm well you know before Jane had, you know he'd only been gone a few minutes I think, not very long, erm he said he'd seen, to met J, he'd met Jez on the way back, who was one of the dads and he'd been playing tennis and there was supposed to be a tennis tournament on the Friday and I think they were, they were trying to get teams together and he'd been talking to Jez about the tennis tournament, erm so he'd, yeah stopped and chatted to him on the road and he mentioned that when he got back to the table, erm and then shortly after he got back, Jane got back, erm we had our starters and, and then about twenty five past nine, or half past nine, ... ....
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Or maybe you didn't continue reading on far enough?
"you know he'd only been gone a few minutes "
I thought it was mentioned Gerry was away for a lot longer than a few minutes? Didn't someone think he was watching the football? then chatted with Jez?... more than a few minutes I would suggest.
-
Yes, but you have to be some night there. It is really hard to believe Gerry and Jez did not see her. And she said Gerry and Jez were in her path, while they said they were in the other side of the street.
Do you really think it’s impossible for two people in conversation with each other to be in close proximity to a passer-by without really registering them or who it is, or even remembering the minor incident later?
-
Do you really think it’s impossible for two people in conversation with each other to be in close proximity to a passer-by without really registering them or who it is, or even remembering the minor incident later?
Hmmm yeah. bit of a strange one. different story surrounds this particular 'event'
The very idea that a'abductor' jimmied shutters, jumped in ,grabbed .MBM and walked off while her father was just outseide and hear nothing is fantasy .
Then we have Gerry saying he thinks this 'abductor' was in the apartment at the same time as him- well didn't Gerry notice the draft from the jimmied shutters-open window when he had his adroring daughter moment?
all made up as they went along to try and cover the cracks in their stories. IMO.
-
Hmmm yeah. bit of a strange one. different story surrounds this particular 'event'
The very idea that a'abductor' jimmied shutters, jumped in ,grabbed .MBM and walked off while her father was just outseide and hear nothing is fantasy .
Then we have Gerry saying he thinks this 'abductor' was in the apartment at the same time as him- well didn't Gerry notice the draft from the jimmied shutters-open window when he had his adroring daughter moment?
all made up as they went along to try and cover the cracks in their stories. IMO.
And yet we know that it's eminently possible for a man to enter a house, grab a child from her bath and make off with her while her own mother was also in the house at the same time - or was that pure fantasy too, in your opinion?
-
And yet we know that it's eminently possible for a man to enter a house, grab a child from her bath and make off with her while her own mother was also in the house at the same time - or was that pure fantasy too, in your opinion?
Oh well tell me more. This was a planned snatch right? How long did it take to jemmy the shutters and open a window grab a child - clean all the DNA and Not leave any marks on the nice white walls... I recon quite a while but then I am not as much an expert in abduction as you seem to be.
I am assuming you are comparing like for like?
-
Oh well tell me more. This was a planned snatch right? How long did it take to jemmy the shutters and open a window grab a child - clean all the DNA and Not leave any marks on the nice white walls... I recon quite a while but then I am not as much an expert in abduction as you seem to be.
I am assuming you are comparing like for like?
There was an expert on the despatches programme and he suggested a few minutes.. But he is an expert and as you day you are not..and SY think abduction is possible...and of course the y may well ahve left dna but the pj didnt find it
-
Oh well tell me more. This was a planned snatch right? How long did it take to jemmy the shutters and open a window grab a child - clean all the DNA and Not leave any marks on the nice white walls... I recon quite a while but then I am not as much an expert in abduction as you seem to be.
I am assuming you are comparing like for like?
It would really help us to have a civil discussion if you kept facetious remarks to a minimum IMO. You earlier asserted that the notion of entering an apartment and grabbing a child, and walking off with a child with her parent in close proximity was "pure fantasy". I have cited one proven case where that has actually happened and that therefore it is possible for such a scenario to have happened again. Perhaps you can tell me why it is simply not possible to have happened in PdL in 2007, in your opinion?
-
I was thinking about Crecheman. Redwood said he was ‘almost certain’ that Tannerman was Crecheman. Now if Crecheman had said he saw Gerry, Wilkins or/and Tanner Redwood would have been certain he was a Tannerman. so he obviously didn’t. You with me so far?
Now are we to believe that OG are not aware of the implications of Crecheman not seeing any of the group, even though the two men were talking and sound carries at night ?
-
There was an expert on the despatches programme and he suggested a few minutes.. But he is an expert and as you day you are not..and SY think abduction is possible...and of course the y may well ahve left dna but the pj didnt find it
Expert? hahaha ok so this 'abductor he was carrying MBM and a jemmy tool and didn't leave a single scuff mark on a white wall. If you and your expert say so. You do not know what SY think. or if indeed they have changed their minds, and the PJ found NO EVIDENCE of a break in. Thing is they were there so I kinda believe them.
-
It would really help us to have a civil discussion if you kept facetious remarks to a minimum IMO. You earlier asserted that the notion of entering an apartment and grabbing a child, and walking off with a child with her parent in close proximity was "pure fantasy". I have cited one proven case where that has actually happened and that therefore it is possible for such a scenario to have happened again. Perhaps you can tell me why it is simply not possible to have happened in PdL in 2007, in your opinion?
Well here you are again changing what I said and reinventing a version I do not recognise. It would be helpful to discuss what the posts is relaying rather than what you want it to relay.
I do not believe for one minute an 'abductor' jemmying a shutter, opening a window, snatching a child the same as a child being snatched without any of that hassle from say a shopping mall or a park. Totally different. How would that 'abductor' know the child wouldn't wake up screaming,crying- what if he banged his head struggling to get out of the small space carrying a child and a jimmy tool... No believable at all.
-
I was thinking about Crecheman. Redwood said he was ‘almost certain’ that Tannerman was Crecheman. Now if Crecheman had said he saw Gerry, Wilkins or/and Tanner Redwood would have been certain he was a Tannerman. so he obviously didn’t. You with me so far?
Now are we to believe that OG are not aware of the implications of Crecheman not seeing any of the group, even though the two men were talking and sound carries at night ?
Received five by five... 8(0(*
-
I was thinking about Crecheman. Redwood said he was ‘almost certain’ that Tannerman was Crecheman. Now if Crecheman had said he saw Gerry, Wilkins or/and Tanner Redwood would have been certain he was a Tannerman. so he obviously didn’t. You with me so far?
Now are we to believe that OG are not aware of the implications of Crecheman not seeing any of the group, even though the two men were talking and sound carries at night ?
Absolutely with you on this one Faith. I mentioned this many months ago. The person who came forward as 'tannerman' did they say what they saw that night in that street? or hear a conversation, whyu was the child in her bare feet with no cover as it was a cold night 'according to JT.
-
Well here you are again changing what I said and reinventing a version I do not recognise. It would be helpful to discuss what the posts is relaying rather than what you want it to relay.
I do not believe for one minute an 'abductor' jemmying a shutter, opening a window, snatching a child the same as a child being snatched without any of that hassle from say a shopping mall or a park. Totally different. How would that 'abductor' know the child wouldn't wake up screaming,crying- what if he banged his head struggling to get out of the small space carrying a child and a jimmy tool... No believable at all.
I cited a child abducted from a private residence, from her bath, not a shopping mall or a park, so I don’t know why you are talking about those locations. The child who was abducted from the bath was older than Madeleine and wide awake, so the rest of your post is moot.
-
I was thinking about Crecheman. Redwood said he was ‘almost certain’ that Tannerman was Crecheman. Now if Crecheman had said he saw Gerry, Wilkins or/and Tanner Redwood would have been certain he was a Tannerman. so he obviously didn’t. You with me so far?
Now are we to believe that OG are not aware of the implications of Crecheman not seeing any of the group, even though the two men were talking and sound carries at night ?
How did JT know of Totman’s existence if she never saw him?
-
How did JT know of Totman’s existence if she never saw him?
She saw him but not at the same time as Gerry.
-
I cited a child abducted from a private residence, from her bath, not a shopping mall or a park, so I don’t know why you are talking about those locations. The child who was abducted from the bath was older than Madeleine and wide awake, so the rest of your post is moot.
No actually your post is moot and irrelevant. Or are you suggesting MBM was abducted from a bath?
Just to clarify for our interested fellow members, are you suggesting Kate is lying when she claims she knew MBM was abducted as she pointed to the evidence the jimmied -shutter-open window and those whooshing curtains.
OR are you claiming the abductor did all of this and snatched MBM in a few moments under the clear view of JEZ GERRY JT AND Tannerman the good doctor. ?
Your claim that snatching from a bath is the same. It really isn't.
-
No actually your post is moot and irrelevant. Or are you suggesting MBM was abducted from a bath?
Just to clarify for our interested fellow members, are you suggesting Kate is lying when she claims she knew MBM was abducted as she pointed to the evidence the jimmied -shutter-open window and those whooshing curtains.
OR are you claiming the abductor did all of this and snatched MBM in a few moments under the clear view of JEZ GERRY JT AND Tannerman the good doctor. ?
Your claim that snatching from a bath is the same. It really isn't.
Why is snatching from a bath, not the same as snatching from a bed?
-
I said Jane saw all 3 (Gerry, Jez and Totman). Totman should have seen all 3 as well but I doubt that as Gerry and Jez claimed they saw nobody.
Who says he did or he didn't see them? He may have noriced people in the quiet road, but carried on if there was no audble vehicle to watch out for. Or he just blithely carried on in the absence of any vroom-vroom noise coming up the street.
-
She saw him but not at the same time as Gerry.
If she saw him, she would know whether or not he looked down the street in her direction. If he did so and she saw him when Gerry was not there then what would be the point of lying and saying he was there?
-
No actually your post is moot and irrelevant. Or are you suggesting MBM was abducted from a bath?
Just to clarify for our interested fellow members, are you suggesting Kate is lying when she claims she knew MBM was abducted as she pointed to the evidence the jimmied -shutter-open window and those whooshing curtains.
OR are you claiming the abductor did all of this and snatched MBM in a few moments under the clear view of JEZ GERRY JT AND Tannerman the good doctor. ?
Your claim that snatching from a bath is the same. It really isn't.
Why, is it easier to snatch an older child from a bath when a parent is present than a younger chil asleep in her bed when her parent is not present?
-
I was thinking about Crecheman. Redwood said he was ‘almost certain’ that Tannerman was Crecheman. Now if Crecheman had said he saw Gerry, Wilkins or/and Tanner Redwood would have been certain he was a Tannerman. so he obviously didn’t. You with me so far?
Now are we to believe that OG are not aware of the implications of Crecheman not seeing any of the group, even though the two men were talking and sound carries at night ?
DCI Redwood said "We’re almost certain, now, that this sighting is not the abductor.", not that the sighting was an innocent father carrying his child.
Neither OG nor Dr Totman have elaborated beyond the point the Totman family thought they were the Tannerman sighting & the PJ/UK police were told this in 2007.
-
DCI Redwood said "We’re almost certain, now, that this sighting is not the abductor.", not that the sighting was an innocent father carrying his child.
Neither OG nor Dr Totman have elaborated beyond the point the Totman family thought they were the Tannerman sighting & the PJ/UK police were told this in 2007.
Were they?
-
Were they?
From the OP ...
He was interviewed by the Guarda Nacional Republicana soon after Maddie, three, vanished in May 2007, but his wife Rachel said: “My husband had told the local police it could be him but we didn’t hear anything for years.
“We always thought it was Julian who was seen by Jane Tanner.
"But the national police who investigated didn’t get back to us and we don’t know if our information was ever passed on.”
-
Who says he did or he didn't see them? He may have noriced people in the quiet road, but carried on if there was no audble vehicle to watch out for. Or he just blithely carried on in the absence of any vroom-vroom noise coming up the street.
Nothing in the report about them being seen by Totman. Faithlily is correct - if he saw them Redwood could have completely ruled him out.
Totman would have looked to his right before crossing and therefore couldn't miss them. He should be crossing at that location but to think an abductor would cross the street they checked on, in full view under street lights was always fantasyland.
That eliminates Totman/Tannerman moving the bedroom door before Gerry's check. I've always said that the alleged door moves are key to this case.
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
-
Nothing in the report about them being seen by Totman. Faithfully is correct - if he saw them Redwood could have completely ruled him out.
Totman would have looked to his right before crossing and therefore couldn't miss them. He should be crossing at that location but to think an abductor would cross the street they checked on, in full view under street lights was always fantasyland.
That eliminates Totman/Tannerman moving the bedroom door before Gerry's check. I've always said that the alleged door moves are key to this case.
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
If Totman looked doen the street in JT’s direction she would know that he had done so. If Gerry and Jez were not there at the time she would know that he hadn’t seen them, so why lie would they lie about it?
-
Does this case defy logic? I don't think so. The evidence speaks for itself. No way could Jane pass Gerry/Jez at that location. So we have 4 on the same pavement and only Jane saw anyone LOL.
-
Does this case defy logic? I don't think so. The evidence speaks for itself. No way could Jane pass Gerry/Jez at that location. So we have 4 on the same pavement and only Jane saw anyone LOL.
you didn’t address my point.
-
I didn't need to as he would have looked right before crossing. Jane's recollection is sketchy. "It's too long ago now."
-
And Gerry (or Jez) saw her passing by?
That is their problem not her's.
-
From the OP ...
He was interviewed by the Guarda Nacional Republicana soon after Maddie, three, vanished in May 2007, but his wife Rachel said: “My husband had told the local police it could be him but we didn’t hear anything for years.
“We always thought it was Julian who was seen by Jane Tanner.
"But the national police who investigated didn’t get back to us and we don’t know if our information was ever passed on.”
That's the GNR, not the PJ or the UK police as was claimed. My question is why would he tell them he could be Tannerman? Who described the sighting to him? He left PdL on 12th May at the latest and the Smith's statements were made on 26th;
Jane’s description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements
[madeleine]
-
I didn't need to as he would have looked right before crossing. Jane's recollection is sketchy. "It's too long ago now."
Her recollection the night it happened would be alot clearer and if he had looked in her direction she would have known it.
-
Her recollection the night it happened would be alot clearer and if he had looked in her direction she would have known it.
So we have Wilkins and Gerrybwho didn’t see Tanner and Totman who didn’t see Tanner either. A regular invisible woman.
-
So we have Wilkins and Gerrybwho didn’t see Tanner and Totman who didn’t see Tanner either. A regular invisible woman.
Well we know she saw him, so what are you suggesting?
-
Well we know she saw him, so what are you suggesting?
Or what if Totman did see Tanner, that’s why he thought the person Tanner saw was him, but wasn’t certain because he didn’t see Gerry and Wilkins as per Tanner’s sighting ? That would explain the ‘almost certain’ of Redwood too.
And the irony would be complete if the very sighting Gerry was so sure would prove his non-participation in his daughter’s disappearance was actually his undoing.
-
I was thinking about Crecheman. Redwood said he was ‘almost certain’ that Tannerman was Crecheman. Now if Crecheman had said he saw Gerry, Wilkins or/and Tanner Redwood would have been certain he was a Tannerman. so he obviously didn’t. You with me so far?
Now are we to believe that OG are not aware of the implications of Crecheman not seeing any of the group, even though the two men were talking and sound carries at night ?
I'd hope that the Met officer asked him, but this was years later. He may have vaguely noticed people around or simply couldn't remember if he had or hadn't. Unless something unusual had happened that drew his attention, I don't see why it would register.
-
I'd hope that the Met officer asked him, but this was years later. He may have vaguely noticed people around or simply couldn't remember if he had or hadn't. Unless something unusual had happened that drew his attention, I don't see why it would register.
Didn’t he give a statement years before ? If he saw Tanner that would 3xplain why he thought Tanner’s sighting was him.
-
Or what if Totman did see Tanner, that’s why he thought the person Tanner saw was him, but wasn’t certain because he didn’t see Gerry and Wilkins as per Tanner’s sighting ? That would explain the ‘almost certain’ of Redwood too.
And the irony would be complete if the very sighting Gerry was so sure would prove his non-participation in his daughter’s disappearance was actually his undoing.
But it hasn’t proven to be his undoing has it? The Met decided JT’s sighting was of Totman years ago and as far as I’m aware Gerry continues to live the life of a free man.
-
IMO this crecheman malarkey can be seen in two ways,either Tanner saw Totman and didn't get a clear enough view to recognise him,or it wasn't him.
If it wasn't him then have SY made a huge booboo,remember Redwood said that they had identified the person as being there at the exact same area and in the same time,thus enabling them (SY) to move the timeline on,just suppose as it seems some would like to suggest that there was some one else in the exact same area at the same time then SY have wasted years and £millions in missing him/her by moving onto to Smithman and then the supposed burglars.
-
That's the GNR, not the PJ or the UK police as was claimed. My question is why would he tell them he could be Tannerman? Who described the sighting to him? He left PdL on 12th May at the latest and the Smith's statements were made on 26th;
Jane’s description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements
[madeleine]
Perhaps the GNR asked him if he had seen either Jane, Gerry, Jes or a lookalike at the top pf the road as he carried his daughter home?
Bridget O'Donnell describes a visit from the police the following day ~ perhaps Dr Totman who I believe was resident in the same block was interviewed at this time in the same manner Bridget describes. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
-
IMO this crecheman malarkey can be seen in two ways,either Tanner saw Totman and didn't get a clear enough view to recognise him,or it wasn't him.
If it wasn't him then have SY made a huge booboo,remember Redwood said that they had identified the person as being there at the exact same area and in the same time,thus enabling them (SY) to move the timeline on,just suppose as it seems some would like to suggest that there was some one else in the exact same area at the same time then SY have wasted years and £millions in missing him/her by moving onto to Smithman and then the supposed burglars.
I don't think serious investigators would have ignored either the burglaries (particularly the two in block 5) or the assaults on children without at least attempting to find some clarification.
I think any investigation which ignored accounts of men carrying a child at that time would have been remiss. It is worth bearing in mind that nothing happened as far as the Smith sighting for example was concerned throughout the months between it being reported and Mr Smith mistaken identification.
In my opinion if Dr Totman was not identified until Operation Grange identified him, that was not a failing on the part of OG but a failing on the part of the original investigation.
I truly don't get where this idea comes from that police doing their job of tracing criminals ... because in my opinion that is undoubtedly what they are doing ... and hopefully bringing wrongdoers to justice, are somehow 'wasting years' and 'wasting money' in so doing.
Maybe we should save the lot and just disband all the forces of law and order and leave the criminals free rein to get on with it? Isn't that the logical conclusion?
-
I don't think serious investigators would have ignored either the burglaries (particularly the two in block 5) or the assaults on children without at least attempting to find some clarification.
I think any investigation which ignored accounts of men carrying a child at that time would have been remiss. It is worth bearing in mind that nothing happened as far as the Smith sighting for example was concerned throughout the months between it being reported and Mr Smith mistaken identification.
In my opinion if Dr Totman was not identified until Operation Grange identified him, that was not a failing on the part of OG but a failing on the part of the original investigation.
I truly don't get where this idea comes from that police doing their job of tracing criminals ... because in my opinion that is undoubtedly what they are doing ... and hopefully bringing wrongdoers to justice, are somehow 'wasting years' and 'wasting money' in so doing.
Maybe we should save the lot and just disband all the forces of law and order and leave the criminals free rein to get on with it? Isn't that the logical conclusion?
There were not reports of two different men walking around the exact same area at the same time,Redwood clearly is of an opinion and Totman is Tannerman and according to his wife he (Totman) was the one seen by Tanner,therefore those that wish to suggest there was some one else are the ones calling into question the investigation by SY.The first investigation dealt with it,according to the article on which this thread is based Mr Totman was questioned soon after Madeleine was reported missing.
It is those that cannot accept that Tanner never saw an alleged abductor are the ones with an issue with SY.
I agree that the police should be left to get on with it which they have done,elimnating Tannerman,eliminating the alleged burglars,elimniating Smithman,not much left is there?
-
Mr Totman come forward and say something please.
-
There were not reports of two different men walking around the exact same area at the same time,Redwood clearly is of an opinion and Totman is Tannerman and according to his wife he (Totman) was the one seen by Tanner,therefore those that wish to suggest there was some one else are the ones calling into question the investigation by SY.The first investigation dealt with it,according to the article on which this thread is based Mr Totman was questioned soon after Madeleine was reported missing.
It is those that cannot accept that Tanner never saw an alleged abductor are the ones with an issue with SY.
I agree that the police should be left to get on with it which they have done,elimnating Tannerman,eliminating the alleged burglars,elimniating Smithman,not much left is there?
In my opinion all that is left is to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann ... and in my opinion that is precisely what they are working on.
As far as Dr Totman is concerned, I celebrate the fact that he exists and thus exonerates the hideously maligned Jane Tanner from all the rubbish written about her.
In my opinion though there is absolutely no certainty that he is the child carrier witnessed by Jane Tanner ... and bearing in mind the word "almost" I'm not entirely alone in that.
-
Mr Totman come forward and say something please.
Even if he wanted to I doubt he could without prejudicing the active investigation into Madeleine's case ~ not to mention breaking Portuguese law, maybe a concern if he intends to enjoy holidaying there in the future?
-
Even if he wanted to I doubt he could without prejudicing the active investigation into Madeleine's case ~ not to mention breaking Portuguese law, maybe a concern if he intends to enjoy holidaying there in the future?
What it was OK for his wife to say something but not him?
-
What it was OK for his wife to say something but not him?
Maybe she's not too keen on Portuguese holidays?
But there is no evidence at all that she would throw a spanner into the works of an active investigation into the case of a missing child.
-
But it hasn’t proven to be his undoing has it? The Met decided JT’s sighting was of Totman years ago and as far as I’m aware Gerry continues to live the life of a free man.
He does indeed.
-
Any further Libellous Comments and I will be awarding Warning Points.
-
Maybe she's not too keen on Portuguese holidays?
But there is no evidence at all that she would throw a spanner into the works of an active investigation into the case of a missing child.
We are just wanting to know what he would have told the GNR anyway.
-
He does indeed.
So, despite your claim that Gerry is to be undone by claiming he was on one side of the road instead of the other, that really doesn't look likely after all, does it?
-
We are just wanting to know what he would have told the GNR anyway.
LOL ... I sure want to know why he was walking the wrong way if it was him ... but I'm content to wait until the PJ and SY are finished with ... what I fervently hope is their successful ... investigations.
-
LOL ... I sure want to know why he was walking the wrong way if it was him ... but I'm content to wait until the PJ and SY are finished with ... what I fervently hope is their successful ... investigations.
Won't be long now!
-
LOL ... I sure want to know why he was walking the wrong way if it was him ... but I'm content to wait until the PJ and SY are finished with ... what I fervently hope is their successful ... investigations.
How do you define successful in this context ?
-
So, despite your claim that Gerry is to be undone by claiming he was on one side of the road instead of the other, that really doesn't look likely after all, does it?
Many things seem unlikely ( the sinking of the Titanic for instance ) right before they happen.
-
Many things seem unlikely ( the sinking of the Titanic for instance ) right before they happen.
Haha! But Gerry's alleged iceberg in the form of the discovery of Dr Totman as Tannerman was 5 years ago - it's taking a hell of a long time for him to sink...
-
In my opinion all that is left is to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann ... and in my opinion that is precisely what they are working on.
As far as Dr Totman is concerned, I celebrate the fact that he exists and thus exonerates the hideously maligned Jane Tanner from all the rubbish written about her.
In my opinion though there is absolutely no certainty that he is the child carrier witnessed by Jane Tanner ... and bearing in mind the word "almost" I'm not entirely alone in that.
Given that Mr Totnam himself says it was him,given that Redwood says he was there at the exact same area at the time of the sighting J Tanner saw ,who else can it be? there were and are no reports of any one else around at that exact same area,unless of course SY made a big booboo and missed the damned elusive pimpernel.
-
Given that Mr Totnam himself says it was him,given that Redwood says he was there at the exact same area at the time of the sighting J Tanner saw ,who else can it be? there were and are no reports of any one else around at that exact same area,unless of course SY made a big booboo and missed the damned elusive pimpernel.
Excepting that Andy Redwood suggested that the abduction time could have been half an hour later. So two different men.
-
Excepting that Andy Redwood suggested that the abduction time could have been half an hour later. So two different men.
Redwood says in the exact same area of the Tanner sighting, not elsewhere.
-
Redwood says in the exact same area of the Tanner sighting, not elsewhere.
May I have a Cite for that, please.
-
How do you define successful in this context ?
That is defined in The Foundation's articles of association, which is good enough for me 8(0(*. Any other connotation would be personal opinion in my opinion.
2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
2B.1.2 To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to Justice.
-
That is defined in The Foundation's articles of association, which is good enough for me 8(0(*. Any other connotation would be personal opinion in my opinion.
2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
2B.1.2 To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to Justice.
I doubt we will be getting a successful outcome then.
-
May I have a Cite for that, please.
Have a listen of the video.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24528530
-
Have a listen of the video.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24528530
I can't watch The Video here. But underneath The Video it says, "Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood said Madeleine could have been abducted later than first thought." Which is what I said.
The article itself is also interesting.
-
I can't watch The Video here. But underneath The Video it says, "Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood said Madeleine could have been abducted later than first thought." Which is what I said.
The article itself is also interesting.
The threads about crecheman not later,the one seen by Tanner,not the one seen by the Smiths.
-
The threads about crecheman not later,the one seen by Tanner,not the one seen by the Smiths.
Hard to keep the topics totally separate as the players themselves link those three identities. The question becomes are they separate or variations of the same?
-
Hard to keep the topics totally separate as the players themselves link those three identities. The question becomes are they separate or variations of the same?
Separate,unless you've seen Redwood or any one else of his ilk link them.
-
Separate,unless you've seen Redwood or any one else of his ilk link them.
And those very people don't tell us much at all.
-
And those very people don't tell us much at all.
Rightly so.
-
Rightly so.
I think in the future social media could be very effective in solving crime.
-
The story is still on the rounds.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6274030/gerry-mccann-tennis-tannerman-madeleine/
MADDIE TENNIS TWIST Gerry McCann played tennis with ‘Tannerman’ on the day Madeleine went missing
Jane Tanner told police she saw a man carrying a child in pyjamas near the McCanns’ apartment on the night Maddie went missing - but she did not recognise him as Dr Totman
-
The story is still on the rounds.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6274030/gerry-mccann-tennis-tannerman-madeleine/
Are you surprised ?
Why pass over a libel-free McCann story and the opportunity to sell newspapers ?
-
There is total disagreement among the three about who was standing where.
The only agreement is that Gerry and Jes failed to see Jane and they failed to see the man Jane saw whether or not he was Dr Totman.
From memory, Rachael Oldfield, Fiona Payne and Jane Tanner (there may be others?) are in agreement that Gerry left the table after nine shortly followed by Jane and Gerry returned followed by Jane some time later. No-one is certain of exact times.
Yes, of course. But Rachael and Fiona also saw the timelines written by ROB, before being quizzed by the Portuguese police (google "Elizabeth Loftus" to know how false memories could be implanted).
-
... who else can it be? ...
Maybe the alleged abductor?
-
Maybe the alleged abductor?
It probably was. In My Opinion.
-
Maybe the alleged abductor?
There again maybe not,lots of maybe's, nothing definite.
-
It probably was. In My Opinion.
That probably only works if its established that is what happened.
-
If Crecheman was Totman and Jane knew Totman how come she never recognised Totman?
-
If Crecheman was Totman and Jane knew Totman how come she never recognised Totman?
That's for the PJ and SY to fathom.
-
If Crecheman was Totman and Jane knew Totman how come she never recognised Totman?
It wasn't Totman??
-
It wasn't Totman??
OG seem to think there is every possibility it was.
-
It wasn't Totman??
Why have your wife quoted in the papers if its not?
From the opening gambit in this thread.
“We always thought it was Julian who was seen by Jane Tanner.
-
OG seem to think there is every possibility it was.
In Your Opinion.
-
It wasn't Totman??
That is what I was thinking too, yet Jane's sketch does look a lot like Totman IMO. Very confusing.
-
That is what I was thinking too, yet Jane's sketch does look a lot like Totman IMO. Very confusing.
We are all vaguely confused, Rob. Especially as Totman was walking in the wrong direction.
I suspect that Andy Redwood didn't know as much about Praia de Luz as we all do.
-
We are all vaguely confused, Rob. Especially as Totman was walking in the wrong direction.
I suspect that Andy Redwood didn't know as much about Praia de Luz as we all do.
Surely you are not suggesting that Redwood was an incompetent police officer in charge of the investigation ?
-
That is what I was thinking too, yet Jane's sketch does look a lot like Totman IMO. Very confusing.
Redwood moved the timeline on,being almost certain that the Tanner sighting was not an alleged abductor.
Yet for some reason 5 yrs on from this some think he was wrong thus calling into question Operation Grange.
-
We are all vaguely confused, Rob. Especially as Totman was walking in the wrong direction.
I suspect that Andy Redwood didn't know as much about Praia de Luz as we all do.
Cite for direction Totman was walking,Redwood said in the exact same area,no mention of direction,don't assume.
I'll edit that,Redwood didn't mention which way the british holiday maker was walking who we now know to be Mr Totman
-
Surely you are not suggesting that Redwood was an incompetent police officer in charge of the investigation ?
No, I am not.
-
In Your Opinion.
Don’t be silly Eleanor. Redwood did a tour of the TV studios saying it.
-
Cite for direction Totman was walking,Redwood said in the exact same area,no mention of direction,don't assume.
I'll edit that,Redwood didn't mention which way the british holiday maker was walking who we now know to be Mr Totman
Jane Tanner said that she saw a man carrying a child from the direction of Block 4, towards the house of Robert Murat. This has been discussed at great length, so No Cite needed.
We do NOT now know this to be Dr. Totman.
-
Yes, of course. But Rachael and Fiona also saw the timelines written by ROB, before being quizzed by the Portuguese police (google "Elizabeth Loftus" to know how false memories could be implanted).
How do you know Rachael and Fiona saw Russell's written timeline?
Estimated time between 00.30 and 1.00 am Two timelines written by Russel O'Brien on the covers ripped off Madeleine's stickerbook are provided to the GNR officers.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm
-
Don’t be silly Eleanor. Redwood did a tour of the TV studios saying it.
A good try. But Redwood never did say for certain.
-
Jane Tanner said that she saw a man carrying a child from the direction of Block 4, towards the house of Robert Murat. This has been discussed at great length, so No Cite needed.
We do NOT now know this to be Dr. Totman.
From the opening gambit on this thread.
As well as matching much of the physical description of “Tannerman”, Dr Totman also wore the same clothes.
He was interviewed by the Guarda Nacional Republicana soon after Maddie, three, vanished in May 2007, but his wife Rachel said: “My husband had told the local police it could be him but we didn’t hear anything for years.
“We always thought it was Julian who was seen by Jane Tanner.
Redwood: We in the work we have done have been able to indentify a British holiday maker returning to their apartment in the exact same area at the time of the sighting Jane tanner saw.
This lead them to move the focus on,Redwood is clear moved on,Mrs Totman is clear it was her husband,no other sightings were reported in the exact same area,now ask yourself who or what did Mr Totnam see to be so precise about their timings,Redwood never made that up,some one gave him Mr Totmans times.
-
Jane Tanner said that she saw a man carrying a child from the direction of Block 4, towards the house of Robert Murat. This has been discussed at great length, so No Cite needed.
We do NOT now know this to be Dr. Totman.
Murats house was along that direction along with others,not towards his house,world of difference
-
Yes, of course. But Rachael and Fiona also saw the timelines written by ROB, before being quizzed by the Portuguese police (google "Elizabeth Loftus" to know how false memories could be implanted).
If I remember correctly the police approved them working on the timeline. I am in two minds about that. Obviously it was of the greatest importance to establish the when and where and to do it with the utmost urgency. It was the proper course of action to get it all on record while memories were fresh and in my opinion they made a valiant attempt at doing that.
But they did it in the absence of professional advice and at a time when they were caught up in the turmoil of the event.
They were not the only people in Praia da Luz that evening. In my opinion their individual accounts should have been collated with reference to all other individual accounts to take in the overall picture and not their part in it in isolation.
Inadvertently it became in part the catalyst for "inconsistencies" in a situation in which of course there were going to be inconsistencies in individual accounts taking individual viewpoints into consideration.
I think that misinterpretation did immeasurable damage to Madeleine's case when police focused in before focusing out.
Don't know if you are familiar with the phrase ~ 'can't see the wood for the trees' ~ but I think that is what happened.
In my opinion, though, Jane Tanner was isolated from much of that and her account was therefore untainted by collaboration.
The circumstance of her knowledge of what she had witnessed led her in my opinion to remain aloof as she tried to work it out.
Unless someone knows different as soon as the furore of Madeleine's disappearance erupted she immediately recalled the man she had seen carrying the child away.
She recalled the circumstances surrounding that. She made the connection to Madeleine's disappearance. That was prior to the timeline being drawn up and as soon as she could on the arrival of the police she told them what she had seen.
In my opinion that knowledge weighed heavily on her and to her was in context probably of far more importance than the trivia of a timeline to establish when Madeleine's disappearance could have happened.
She knew exactly when.
It would be a reasonable assumption that Jane may have seen Dr Totman in the course of the holiday. She never associated him with the man who passed in front of her on the night Madeleine vanished or made the connection to the possibility the man she saw was a tourist. Quite the reverse.
I remain convinced Jane Tanner's account of the events concerning her is yet to be overturned. In my opinion it is accurate and therefore I believe that man is still to be traced.
-
Jane Tanner said that she saw a man carrying a child from the direction of Block 4, towards the house of Robert Murat. This has been discussed at great length, so No Cite needed.
We do NOT now know this to be Dr. Totman.
Tanner is the only one to mention a direction,all others are asumptions.
-
A good try. But Redwood never did say for certain.
Read my post. I said every possibility.
-
I remain convinced Jane Tanner's account of the events concerning her is yet to be overturned. In my opinion it is accurate and therefore I believe that man is still to be traced.
How do you square the circle of Redwood stating that they identified a British holiday maker in the exact same area at the time of the Tanner sighting if hes not been traced.
-
How do you square the circle of Redwood stating that they identified a British holiday maker in the exact same area at the time of the Tanner sighting if hes not been traced.
Assuming that Trotman was there at the specified time, it is strange that he seems to have seen neither Tanner or Tannerman.
-
Assuming that Trotman was there at the specified time, it is strange that he seems to have seen neither Tanner or Tannerman.
How did you work that out?
-
Assuming that Trotman was there at the specified time, it is strange that he seems to have seen neither Tanner or Tannerman.
Redwood was clear on the exact same time,so the holiday maker belived to be Totnam either looked at his watch or confirmed he saw some one to enable Redwood to be precise.No one else about,time line moved on.
-
Redwood was clear on the exact same time,so the holiday maker belived to be Totnam either looked at his watch or confirmed he saw some one to enable Redwood to be precise.No one else about,time line moved on.
Is that fact or fiction?
-
Is that fact or fiction?
I guess you either believe Redwood or you don't.
-
How do you square the circle of Redwood stating that they identified a British holiday maker in the exact same area at the time of the Tanner sighting if hes not been traced.
In my opinion there is no circle to be squared ~ nor do I share the sentiment of someone in Luz that ...
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/25/17/1EA926DF00000578-4444528-image-a-84_1493137260557.jpg)
It is not in my opinion what DCI Redwood did say which is of interest to me ... it is what he did not say which in my opinion says it all.
-
Redwood was clear on the exact same time,so the holiday maker belived to be Totnam either looked at his watch or confirmed he saw some one to enable Redwood to be precise.No one else about,time line moved on.
Perhaps he saw Tanner but not Gerry/Wilkins and that is why Redwood said almost certain ?
-
Redwood was clear on the exact same time,so the holiday maker believed to be Totnam either looked at his watch or confirmed he saw some one to enable Redwood to be precise.No one else about,time line moved on.
Is that fact or fiction?
I have used the DCI's words "in the exact same area at the time of the sighting",I have used the words quoted to be from Mrs Totnam on the opening gambit of this thread,you decide.
-
From the opening gambit on this thread.
Redwood: We in the work we have done have been able to indentify a British holiday maker returning to their apartment in the exact same area at the time of the sighting Jane tanner saw.
This lead them to move the focus on,Redwood is clear moved on,Mrs Totman is clear it was her husband,no other sightings were reported in the exact same area,now ask yourself who or what did Mr Totnam see to be so precise about their timings,Redwood never made that up,some one gave him Mr Totmans times.
So we now have proof of this? I don't think so.
-
It is not in my opinion what DCI Redwood did say which is of interest to me ... it is what he did not say which in my opinion says it all.
So when Redwood says the McCanns nor their friends are suspects,its of no interest.
-
Assuming that Trotman was there at the specified time, it is strange that he seems to have seen neither Tanner or Tannerman.
...and the two men chatting. IF JT saw the abductor and it wasn't Totman then someone else was in the area walking about at the same time. makes sense. there was three people in that area apparently.
-
Murats house was along that direction along with others,not towards his house,world of difference
Only in the direction of. But it was still in that direction. What was Dr Totman doing in going that way. If indeed it was him?
-
Assuming that Trotman was there at the specified time, it is strange that he seems to have seen neither Tanner or Tannerman.
Did he see Mr and Mrs Moyes? Did Gerry or Jes see Jane? I do not believe we know any more about what Dr Totman may or may not have imparted to the police than we have been told and in an active police investigation my opinion is that is as it should be.
-
Only in the direction of. But it was still in that direction. What was Dr Totman doing in going that way. If indeed it was him?
Perhaps he had gone to get some milk on the way back from the crèche ?
-
So when Redwood says the McCanns nor their friends are suspects,its of no interest.
8**8:/:YEAH...He lied about that as well? Oh No.....
-
Tanner is the only one to mention a direction,all others are asumptions.
So Jane Tanner saw someone walking backwards? Or she lied?
-
Read my post. I said every possibility.
So not absolute.
-
Redwood was clear on the exact same time,so the holiday maker belived to be Totnam either looked at his watch or confirmed he saw some one to enable Redwood to be precise.No one else about,time line moved on.
What exact time? Are you going for 9.15 or 9.45?
-
Only in the direction of. But it was still in that direction. What was Dr Totman doing in going that way. If indeed it was him?
I've no idea along with all else who post here,all I know is that what I post is as close to the truth as I can.
Tanner is the only one to mention a direction,DCI Redwood clearly states british holiday maker at the exact area,DCI redwood also states at the time of the Tanner sighting,Mrs Totnam says they are sure it was Mr Totnam.
From this DCI Redwood states they moved the timeline on to the Smithman sighting.
-
So Jane Tanner saw someone walking backwards? Or she lied?
Rather than be flippant read what I said and then find some evidence of any one else mentioning a direction.
-
Perhaps he saw Tanner but not Gerry/Wilkins and that is why Redwood said almost certain ?
If it please, Your Honour, I am almost certain.
-
Perhaps he saw Tanner but not Gerry/Wilkins and that is why Redwood said almost certain ?
If it please, Your Honour, I am almost certain.
-
Perhaps he had gone to get some milk on the way back from the crèche ?
Carrying a child across his arms? Okay.
-
Redwood was clear on the exact same time,so the holiday maker belived to be Totnam either looked at his watch or confirmed he saw some one to enable Redwood to be precise.No one else about,time line moved on.
What exact time? Are you going for 9.15 or 9.45?
Should of read exact same area at the "time" of the Tanner sighting,which I'm sure you'll know is circa 9:15
-
Carrying a child across his arms? Okay.
Do he or his wife describe how he was carrying his daughter? I don't think they do.
-
Should of read exact same area at the "time" of the Tanner sighting,which I'm sure you'll know is circa 9:15
But Andy Redwood thought it was later, did he not?
-
Do he or his wife describe how he was carrying his daughter? I don't think they do.
Jane Tanner did.
-
Rather than be flippant read what I said and then find some evidence of any one else mentioning a direction.
Until it is explained why Dr Totman was walking in what has been accepted by the forum as entirely the wrong direction for a dad returning from picking up a child from the creche ~ in my opinion ~ he cannot be a contender to be the man carrying a child away from both blocks four and five seen by Jane Tanner.
-
But Andy Redwood thought it was later, did he not?
From the video link I posted to which you have no access,Redwood says it enables them to run the clock from 9:15 to 10pm and its the second sighting of a man walking towards the ocean that was to be their foucus of attention.
-
Until it is explained why Dr Totman was walking in what has been accepted by the forum as entirely the wrong direction for a dad returning from picking up a child from the creche ~ in my opinion ~ he cannot be a contender to be the man carrying a child away from both blocks four and five seen by Jane Tanner.
The "forum" can accept what it likes,doesn't make it right.
Who established that a child was carried from either blocks 4 or 5?
-
Do he or his wife describe how he was carrying his daughter? I don't think they do.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/15/article-2460669-18BF360500000578-24_306x619.jpg)
-
The "forum" can accept what it likes,doesn't make it right.
Who established that a child was carried from either blocks 4 or 5?
Actually my post should have read "from the direction of".
You appear to be of the opinion that Dr Totman was carrying his daughter home from the creche. Can you explain how he could have been the man seen by Jane Tanner since he was walking away from his residence and not towards it at the time in question?
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/15/article-2460669-18BF360500000578-24_306x619.jpg)
That was how Redwood portrayed it, not Trotman.
-
So , it is fair to say there were 5 people in that vicinity at undefined specific precise time and one of those removed MBM from the apartment?
^*&&
-
That was how Redwood portrayed it, not Trotman.
Who do you think that person portrayed standing in the photograph is?
Snip
"Mystery Briton even posed in clothes he wore that night to prove innocence"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460669/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapping-innocent-British-father-mistaken-key-suspect.html#ixzz5FTIZSFxX
-
So , it is fair to say there were 5 people in that vicinity at undefined specific precise time and one of those removed MBM from the apartment?
^*&&
Not really. She could have been removed at a different time by a different person.
-
Not really. She could have been removed at a different time by a different person.
Indeed!... it is ridiculous to say 5 people were in that vicinity and no one saw each other apart from JT seening Gerry and erm an 'abductor'
-
Actually my post should have read "from the direction of".
You appear to be of the opinion that Dr Totman was carrying his daughter home from the creche. Can you explain how he could have been the man seen by Jane Tanner since he was walking away from his residence and not towards it at the time in question?
He was on his way to pick up a pint of milk or to escort his wife home from a friend ?
-
He was on his way to pick up a pint of milk or to escort his wife home from a friend ?
Yes.
Now these are things I would like to know:
why did that family come forward- this makes the JT 'Abductor' claim look like an invention. They are also doctors so...why would they lie?
If this doctor was JTs sighting why did he not see the same person JT saw at that time in that place? It isn't rocket science, but no one has managed to explain this little anomaly away.
-
Yes.
Now these are things I would like to know:
why did that family come forward- this makes the JT 'Abductor' claim look like an invention. They are also doctors so...why would they lie?
If this doctor was JTs sighting why did he not see the same person JT saw at that time in that place? It isn't rocket science, but no one has managed to explain this little anomaly away.
That's because to do so, at least on this forum, you would need to think the unthinkable, speak the unspeakable and be deleted and awarded naughty points within minutes of posting it up -IMO
-
Who do you think that person portrayed standing in the photograph is?
Snip
"Mystery Briton even posed in clothes he wore that night to prove innocence"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460669/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapping-innocent-British-father-mistaken-key-suspect.html#ixzz5FTIZSFxX
Was that Julian Totman being photographed. The pyjamas don't look like they were owned by a doctor to me.
-
Food for thought!
-
Was that Julian Totman being photographed. The pyjamas don't look like they were owned by a doctor to me.
I believe it is Robitty
-
I believe it is Robitty
The photo has been pixcelated to hide the identity but the shadow is real.
-
Murats house was along that direction along with others,not towards his house,world of difference
Was that in JT’s statement or a late embellishment?
-
Was that in JT’s statement or a late embellishment?
Depends on who adds the embellishment, first statement 4/05/2007 makes no mention of Murats.
No mention of Murats place.10/05/2007.
-
Depends on who adds the embellishment, first statement 4/05/2007 makes no mention of Murats.
No mention of Murats place.10/05/2007.
Why do you think Jane Tanner would have mentioned Murat in relation to the man she saw walking in the direction of Casa Liliana?
-
Why do you think Jane Tanner would have mentioned Murat in relation to the man she saw walking in the direction of Casa Liliana?
Unless I am missing something, barrier was pointing out that 'towards Murat's' or 'towards Casa Liliana' have significant connotations, whereas 'heading East', or equivalent, does not. And that Jane Tanner did not dump such significant connotations into her statement.
-
Unless I am missing something, barrier was pointing out that 'towards Murat's' or 'towards Casa Liliana' have significant connotations, whereas 'heading East', or equivalent, does not. And that Jane Tanner did not dump such significant connotations into her statement.
I asked the question through puzzlement as to why Jane Tanner would have mentioned Murat or if you like Murat's.
Barrier raised the issue and could perhaps give an appropriate answer.
Snip
Meanwhile a man appeared ( * ) carrying a child (**), with a hurried walk, it being this detail together with the fact that the child dressed in pyjamas, without being wrapped up in a blanket, that caught her attention. She only managed to see him from the side, with the child in his arms. She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking, having seen this person step off the pavement that borders on the apartment block where they were staying and rapidly cross the road.
The entrance to the apartment building (1) is exactly at the place (street) where the individual appeared from.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
-
I asked the question through puzzlement as to why Jane Tanner would have mentioned Murat or if you like Murat's.
Barrier raised the issue and could perhaps give an appropriate answer.
My answer was in reply to Slarti,simples really.
-
Unless I am missing something, barrier was pointing out that 'towards Murat's' or 'towards Casa Liliana' have significant connotations, whereas 'heading East', or equivalent, does not. And that Jane Tanner did not dump such significant connotations into her statement.
Precisely.
-
I asked the question through puzzlement as to why Jane Tanner would have mentioned Murat or if you like Murat's.
Barrier raised the issue and could perhaps give an appropriate answer.
Snip
Meanwhile a man appeared ( * ) carrying a child (**), with a hurried walk, it being this detail together with the fact that the child dressed in pyjamas, without being wrapped up in a blanket, that caught her attention. She only managed to see him from the side, with the child in his arms. She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking, having seen this person step off the pavement that borders on the apartment block where they were staying and rapidly cross the road.
The entrance to the apartment building (1) is exactly at the place (street) where the individual appeared from.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
The puzzle remains as to why Tanner didn't recognise Dr Totman. After all, he played tennis, walked his child around the campus regularly and dined in the same tapas restaurant where the tapas-9 dined every night? From my own experience of these places in off-peak times, one tends to get to know fellow tourists after a while.
Jane Tanner should have been taken to the crèches in the morning and evening and asked to identify anyone she recognised as having been the man she saw the night Madeleine went missing. I find it very hard to accept that Dr Totman was totally unaware of the search for Tannerman as it has been all over the media and internet for a decade. His reticence to make any noise has resulted in much wasted effort.
-
The puzzle remains as to why Tanner didn't recognise Dr Totman. After all, he played tennis, walked his child around the campus regularly and dined in the same tapas restaurant where the tapas-9 dined every night? From my own experience of these places in off-peak times, one tends to get to know fellow tourists after a while.
Jane Tanner should have been taken to the crèches in the morning and evening and asked to identify anyone she recognised as having been the man she saw the night Madeleine went missing.
Surely that's hindsight.
Police didn't really believe Tanner and even if they had they would have no reason to expect Tannerman to be a guest - why would a guest abduct a child?
-
Surely that's hindsight.
Police didn't really believe Tanner and even if they had they would have no reason to expect Tannerman to be a guest - why would a guest abduct a child?
It was a simple task for police to do but they botched it in favour of pursuing Murat.
-
The puzzle remains as to why Tanner didn't recognise Dr Totman. After all, he played tennis, walked his child around the campus regularly and dined in the same tapas restaurant where the tapas-9 dined every night? From my own experience of these places in off-peak times, one tends to get to know fellow tourists after a while.
I think if the man Jane saw had been Dr Totman she would have recognised him and would have said so. The fact she didn't suggests he was not the man she had seen. That is dependant on if she had known him by sight.
-
Surely that's hindsight.
Police didn't really believe Tanner and even if they had they would have no reason to expect Tannerman to be a guest - why would a guest abduct a child?
You need to ask why didn't the police believe Tanner?
-
You need to ask why didn't the police believe Tanner?
Professional expertise, I would say
-
You need to ask why didn't the police believe Tanner?
Because the police had proof maddie died in the apartment and the parents covered up the, death
-
I asked the question through puzzlement as to why Jane Tanner would have mentioned Murat or if you like Murat's.
Barrier raised the issue and could perhaps give an appropriate answer.
Snip
Meanwhile a man appeared ( * ) carrying a child (**), with a hurried walk, it being this detail together with the fact that the child dressed in pyjamas, without being wrapped up in a blanket, that caught her attention. She only managed to see him from the side, with the child in his arms. She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking, having seen this person step off the pavement that borders on the apartment block where they were staying and rapidly cross the road.
The entrance to the apartment building (1) is exactly at the place (street) where the individual appeared from.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
Barrier did not raise a possible connection to Murat's - that was Eleanor.
Barrier did not raise a possible connection to Casa Liliana - from memory that was you.
Reread the thread from Eleanor's comment. Barrier has been striving today to make clear that he made no such connections.
-
Professional expertise, I would say
Have the PJ found to be accurate over this matter? Going along that bit of road Jane saw Gerry, Jez and possibly Totman so in some way she has ended up being more right than anyone else.
We are just guessing when we say she should have been able to recognise Totman. Maybe it is the other way around "Totman" should have looked around and said hello to Jane.
-
Because the police had proof maddie died in the apartment and the parents covered up the, death
Are you sure about what you say there Davel?
-
Have the PJ found to be accurate over this matter. Going along that bit of road Jane saw Gerry Jez and possibly Totman so in some way she has ended up being more right than anyone else. We are guessing when we say she should have been able to recognise Totman. Maybe it is the other way around "Totman" should have looked around and said hello to Jane.
As no one appears to have proved Tannerman was an abductor it would seem to me that Tanner was anything but correct and PJ were correct in their dismissal of her sighting,an opinion OG also seem to have come to. All IMO, of course.
-
Are you sure about what you say there Davel?
According to amaral it's, true... It's in his book and documentary
-
Jane Tanner said that she saw a man carrying a child from the direction of Block 4, towards the house of Robert Murat. This has been discussed at great length, so No Cite needed.
We do NOT now know this to be Dr. Totman.
The source.
-
As no one appears to have proved Tannerman was an abductor it would seem to me that Tanner was anything but correct and PJ were correct in their dismissal of her sighting,an opinion OG also seem to have come to. All IMO, of course.
I thought the forum had made it clear that it is not Jane saying she saw an abduction in progress. Jane saw a man and OG have agreed with her and say that man was in the end possibly Totman, and no one appears to be pointing the finger at Totman because he says it was his own child that he was carrying.
Although Jane sees Totman apparently going in a direction that does not fit to the story of taking the daughter back from the night creche.
I would like Totman to explain what he was doing at what time and in what direction?
-
I think if the man Jane saw had been Dr Totman she would have recognised him and would have said so. The fact she didn't suggests he was not the man she had seen. That is dependant on if she had known him by sight.
That could very well be the case but surely SY would have checked with her about this? Jane might not have seen his face but she did get a reasonable look at the rest of him and the garments he and the child were wearing.
-
That could very well be the case but surely SY would have checked with her about this? Jane might not have seen his face but she did get a reasonable look at the rest of him and the garments he and the child were wearing.
I think they would have been remiss if they hadn't. She could even have had sight of him which might explain why he was dressed as he was in the press photos confirming his existence.
-
There is no point in doing a reconstruction of Jane passing Gerry and Jez on this pavement without being noticed as the answer is obvious. They need to stop laughing first before seriously considering it @)(++(*
Jane saw Totman in a different way - my first thought is from a much further distance away than she said to not recognise him.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/gerrypdl040409m.jpg)