UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧

Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: G-Unit on September 12, 2019, 08:13:36 AM

Title: Tannerman
Post by: G-Unit on September 12, 2019, 08:13:36 AM
Early accounts of Jane's sighting are provided by others who spoke to her. Piecing the accounts together, one gets the impression that Jane was either entering or exiting the main entrance of block 5 at the time. The man hasn't reached the junction and she saw him from behind, not from the side.

According to Silvia Batista she translated for Jane Tanner's first contact; with the GNR.

the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm

According to that, the man was in R Dr Agostinho da Silva, walking towards the junction with R Dr Francisco Gentil Martins.

The second mention of Jane's sighting is during Gerry's conversation with the PJ when they arrived.

At about 21.20, their friend Jane passed by the apartment (along the corridor of the main entrance) she saw an individual carrying a child who passed descending the road, however she did not recognise this individual, nor the child, only having noticed that the individual appeared to be aged between 30 or 40, had dark hair and light coloured trousers.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm

Gerry also mentions the sighting in his interview on 4th;

It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, Jane will be able to clarify this situation.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 12, 2019, 08:50:46 AM
Early accounts of Jane's sighting are provided by others who spoke to her. Piecing the accounts together, one gets the impression that Jane was either entering or exiting the main entrance of block 5 at the time. The man hasn't reached the junction and she saw him from behind, not from the side.

According to Silvia Batista she translated for Jane Tanner's first contact; with the GNR.

the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm

According to that, the man was in R Dr Agostinho da Silva, walking towards the junction with R Dr Francisco Gentil Martins.

The second mention of Jane's sighting is during Gerry's conversation with the PJ when they arrived.

At about 21.20, their friend Jane passed by the apartment (along the corridor of the main entrance) she saw an individual carrying a child who passed descending the road, however she did not recognise this individual, nor the child, only having noticed that the individual appeared to be aged between 30 or 40, had dark hair and light coloured trousers.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm

Gerry also mentions the sighting in his interview on 4th;

It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, Jane will be able to clarify this situation.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm

What are your objectives with this thread? 

As DCI Redwood said its almost certain 'Tannerman' and Dr T are one and the same.  The only interesting point for me re this sighting is how did JT pass GM/JW without them noticing if they were stood just outside the gate to 5A?  It seems to me this can only be accounted for if JT took the short route up the back passage or she and JW are incorrect with their recollections and GM is correct placing himself and JW on the opposite side of the road. 

The OC brochure makes clear the night creche is only available to guests using the Millennium and Tapas restaurants.  No one saw Dr T at Tapas on 3rd May so, assuming he was following the rules, he must have been at Millennium which is about a 10 min walk from where he was staying in block 4 with his wife, 2 children and the Weinberg family.  Therefore its possible he was going to Millennium with 1 sleeping child while the other was at the creche.  That's just one reason that springs to mind.  Another is that he may have arrived back leaving the others at Millennium but then realized he didn't have his key so returned. 
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 12, 2019, 09:05:14 AM
The JT diagram attached.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: G-Unit on September 12, 2019, 09:38:39 AM
Some people still think Tannerman could be implicated in an abduction, so it seemed reasonable to examine the evidence closely.

Is it possible to attach the MW brochure please?
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Venturi Swirl on September 12, 2019, 10:33:51 AM
Some people still think Tannerman could be implicated in an abduction, so it seemed reasonable to examine the evidence closely.

Is it possible to attach the MW brochure please?
I look forward to you shedding new light on a subject which has been to death a thousand times before. 
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 12, 2019, 10:34:20 AM
Some people still think Tannerman could be implicated in an abduction, so it seemed reasonable to examine the evidence closely.

Is it possible to attach the MW brochure please?

Misty uploaded the brochure.  The childcare section:

https://web.archive.org/web/20061111225216/http://www.markwarner.co.uk/summer_holidays/portugal/ocean_club/childcare

We offer a ‘dining out service’ (only available for parents using the Millenium and Tapas restaurants). in the crèche on a drop-in basis in the evenings for children aged 4 months to 9 years. For those parents wishing to dine at alternative restaurants in the village, babysitting is available on request at additional charge. Our Indy Club for 14-17 year olds is situated near the Ocean Club Gardens.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 12, 2019, 10:42:14 AM
I look forward to you shedding new light on a subject which has been to death a thousand times before.

I'm utterly amazed the sighting was given the sort of importance many have attached to it based on the fact a night creche was operating in PDL and men walking around with babes in arms was a common theme.  Coupled with the fact the S&R dogs did not scent MM in this direction.   Imo it was a non-starter allowing me to home in on MM's abductor. 
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Venturi Swirl on September 12, 2019, 10:47:06 AM
I'm utterly amazed the sighting was given the sort of importance many have attached to it based on the fact a night creche was operating in PDL and men walking around with babes in arms was a common theme.  Coupled with the fact the S&R dogs did not scent MM in this direction.   Imo it was a non-starter allowing me to home in on MM's abductor.
I'm amazed you're amazed.  A female child allegedly goes missing from an apartment between 9pm and 10pm, and a man is seen carrying away a female child from the direction of the same apartment within the time window, and despite being widely publicised does not apparently come forward to id himself for years.  Why WOULDN'T you give this sighting any importance?
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 12, 2019, 11:22:47 AM
I'm amazed you're amazed.  A female child allegedly goes missing from an apartment between 9pm and 10pm, and a man is seen carrying away a female child from the direction of the same apartment within the time window, and despite being widely publicised does not apparently come forward to id himself for years.  Why WOULDN'T you give this sighting any importance?

Why wouldn't I give the sighting any importance?

- I understand Dr T did come forward in the early days to self-eliminate but investigating authorities both UK and Portugal overlooked?

- A night creche was available catering for holiday makers scattered over the resort.  Men (dads) walking around with babes in arms was a common sight.

- The S&R dogs did not scent MM to the location of 'Tannerman'

There's no reason to see 'Tannerman' than anything other than a red herring. 
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 12, 2019, 11:26:15 AM
Vertigo Swirl can I ask please do you still believe 'Tannerman' might be MM's abductor?
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 12, 2019, 12:57:23 PM
You would have to ask Totman/Tannerman what happened because Tanner is unreliable (that's why others were confused). Passing impossible people and witnessed by Jez Wilkins hanging outside the apartments (woman in purple) at 20:30 on 3 May 2007. Interesting that they brought the woman in purple aka Jane Tanner back into the frame recently.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 12, 2019, 03:49:18 PM
You would have to ask Totman/Tannerman what happened because Tanner is unreliable (that's why others were confused). Passing impossible people and witnessed by Jez Wilkins hanging outside the apartments (woman in purple) at 20:30 on 3 May 2007. Interesting that they brought the woman in purple aka Jane Tanner back into the frame recently.

It seems to me just as many inconsistencies exist in JW's various version of events.  It might have helped if the witnesses were afforded the opportunity of using some sort of interactive map pinpointing their locations rather than trying to work it all out from verbal descriptions which are ambiguous and open to intepretation.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Venturi Swirl on September 12, 2019, 06:14:02 PM
Why wouldn't I give the sighting any importance?

- I understand Dr T did come forward in the early days to self-eliminate but investigating authorities both UK and Portugal overlooked?

- A night creche was available catering for holiday makers scattered over the resort.  Men (dads) walking around with babes in arms was a common sight.

- The S&R dogs did not scent MM to the location of 'Tannerman'

There's no reason to see 'Tannerman' than anything other than a red herring.
Do you have a cite for your first claim?
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: G-Unit on September 12, 2019, 07:56:29 PM
Jane's 4th May statement repeats what was reported previously, except that she is now in R Dr Gentil Martins. She makes contradictory statements here. At first she says she saw him from the side, but when describing him she says she could only see him from behind.

She gives his height as 1.7m or 5ft 6ins. Rather short to be Dr Totman.

One interesting snippet; the 'several' became just the McCann couple in later statements.

When she arrived at the restaurant several members of the group were already there, without their children.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: barrier on September 12, 2019, 08:36:23 PM
What are your objectives with this thread? 

As DCI Redwood said its almost certain 'Tannerman' and Dr T are one and the same.  The only interesting point for me re this sighting is how did JT pass GM/JW without them noticing if they were stood just outside the gate to 5A?  It seems to me this can only be accounted for if JT took the short route up the back passage or she and JW are incorrect with their recollections and GM is correct placing himself and JW on the opposite side of the road. 

The OC brochure makes clear the night creche is only available to guests using the Millennium and Tapas restaurants.  No one saw Dr T at Tapas on 3rd May so, assuming he was following the rules, he must have been at Millennium which is about a 10 min walk from where he was staying in block 4 with his wife, 2 children and the Weinberg family.  Therefore its possible he was going to Millennium with 1 sleeping child while the other was at the creche.  That's just one reason that springs to mind.  Another is that he may have arrived back leaving the others at Millennium but then realized he didn't have his key so returned.

Bolded bit,Redwood said no such thing.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 12, 2019, 10:48:50 PM
Bolded bit,Redwood said no such thing.

Ok lets not split hairs.  DCI Redwood said its almost certain Tannerman and a *British holidaymaker are one and the same.

*British holidaymaker = Dr T.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 12, 2019, 11:07:45 PM
Do you have a cite for your first claim?

Dr T's wife: RT

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 12, 2019, 11:11:37 PM
Jane's 4th May statement repeats what was reported previously, except that she is now in R Dr Gentil Martins. She makes contradictory statements here. At first she says she saw him from the side, but when describing him she says she could only see him from behind.

She gives his height as 1.7m or 5ft 6ins. Rather short to be Dr Totman.

One interesting snippet; the 'several' became just the McCann couple in later statements.

When she arrived at the restaurant several members of the group were already there, without their children.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

I thought she said he was taller than herself 5' 8" but not taller than 6'?

G- Unit if you look at JW's various wit stats/rogs you will also see inconsistencies.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Venturi Swirl on September 12, 2019, 11:31:00 PM
Dr T's wife: RT

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/
Ah, he told the GNR who obviously didn’t pass the info on, the numpties.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: G-Unit on September 13, 2019, 06:27:28 AM
I thought she said he was taller than herself 5' 8" but not taller than 6'?

G- Unit if you look at JW's various wit stats/rogs you will also see inconsistencies.

Well she said 1.7m on 4th May and in the group's typed timeline;

Description of Man:
- Age 35 to 40.
- 1.7m tal1 approximately with a slim build.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm

I'm examining JT's evidence, not JW's.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Venturi Swirl on September 13, 2019, 07:11:03 AM
Well she said 1.7m on 4th May and in the group's typed timeline;

Description of Man:
- Age 35 to 40.
- 1.7m tal1 approximately with a slim build.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm

I'm examining JT's evidence, not JW's.
I bet she didn’t say 1.7 metres, in my experience no one in the UK describes height in metric.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: G-Unit on September 13, 2019, 07:19:36 AM
I bet she didn’t say 1.7 metres, in my experience no one in the UK describes height in metric.

Whoever typed that timeline wrote 1.7m with her agreement. As far as I know only people from the UK were present.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Venturi Swirl on September 13, 2019, 07:26:06 AM
Whoever typed that timeline wrote 1.7m with her agreement. As far as I know only people from the UK were present.
Whoever typed it probably did the mental maths and converted it for her.  I honestly wouldn’t have a clue how tall 1.7 metres is without going on google convert and I bet she wouldn’t either. 
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: G-Unit on September 13, 2019, 07:35:42 AM
Whoever typed it probably did the mental maths and converted it for her.  I honestly wouldn’t have a clue how tall 1.7 metres is without going on google convert and I bet she wouldn’t either.

Is that a meaningful argument? You don't understand meters so no-one else does? The fact remains that is the height given. Twice.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Venturi Swirl on September 13, 2019, 08:28:09 AM
Is that a meaningful argument? You don't understand meters so no-one else does? The fact remains that is the height given. Twice.
I understand that in this country they are spelt “metres”, and I was proffering an opinion, that the British do not refer to their height in metres as a rule.  If you are of a different opinion then that’s fine, I do believe I am correct though. 
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Venturi Swirl on September 13, 2019, 08:29:41 AM
Evidence to support my argument, feel free to present evidence to support the counter argument.

https://www.quora.com/Do-the-British-use-inches
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 13, 2019, 08:31:10 AM
Well she said 1.7m on 4th May and in the group's typed timeline;

Description of Man:
- Age 35 to 40.
- 1.7m tal1 approximately with a slim build.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm

I'm examining JT's evidence, not JW's.
Didn't someone estimate J Totman's height to be well over 6 foot.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Brietta on September 13, 2019, 08:45:35 AM
Is that a meaningful argument? You don't understand meters so no-one else does? The fact remains that is the height given. Twice.
Clip from Jane Tanner's rogatory interview and in her own words ...

I think that had got confused in translation because I don’t know what it was in metres and they sort of then transferred that into metres from my statement, so I think it came out actually lower.

 But I think it was sort of like five foot nine, five foot ten, as much as I could, so”.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: barrier on September 13, 2019, 08:49:27 AM
Ok lets not split hairs.  DCI Redwood said its almost certain Tannerman and a *British holidaymaker are one and the same.

*British holidaymaker = Dr T.

No hairs to split,Redwood never mentioned any one by name,its the press and posters who revel in them that have done so.You can make a leap of faith on the press if you like,remembering Rowleys words

Mark Rowley:There are odd headlines and odd stories in newspapers on a regular basis and most of those are
nonsense.

Redwood said in the video I linked to in another thread

The work that we have done is to identify a british holiday maker who was returning to their apartment through the exactly same area Jane tanner saw which up till this point believed to have been Madeleine abductor.

Adding.

And its that second sighting with a child in his arms that we are now really keen to try and indentify.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 13, 2019, 09:53:37 AM
No hairs to split,Redwood never mentioned any one by name,its the press and posters who revel in them that have done so.You can make a leap of faith on the press if you like,remembering Rowleys words

Mark Rowley:There are odd headlines and odd stories in newspapers on a regular basis and most of those are
nonsense.

Redwood said in the video I linked to in another thread

The work that we have done is to identify a british holiday maker who was returning to their apartment through the exactly same area Jane tanner saw which up till this point believed to have been Madeleine abductor.

Adding.

And its that second sighting with a child in his arms that we are now really keen to try and indentify.

Many of the members here comment that DCI Redwood did not mention anyone by name but why would he, or any police officer, bandy about the name of an entirely innocent holidaymaker who at one time many suspected was MM's abductor? 

If 'Smithman' is ever identified imo he will prove to be nothing more than yet another red herring.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: jassi on September 13, 2019, 10:08:22 AM
Many of the members here comment that DCI Redwood did not mention anyone by name but why would he, or any police officer, bandy about the name of an entirely innocent holidaymaker who at one time many suspected was MM's abductor? 

If 'Smithman' is ever identified imo he will prove to be nothing more than yet another red herring.

The point is that you said he did.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: G-Unit on September 13, 2019, 10:12:49 AM
Clip from Jane Tanner's rogatory interview and in her own words ...

I think that had got confused in translation because I don’t know what it was in metres and they sort of then transferred that into metres from my statement, so I think it came out actually lower.

 But I think it was sort of like five foot nine, five foot ten, as much as I could, so”.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm

1.7m was written into the typed timeline, typed in English by British members of the group. No translations were required and discussion/explanation was easy. She saw the man and it was up to her to ensure the details were correct. There's a big difference between 5'6" and 5'10".
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: barrier on September 13, 2019, 10:14:05 AM


As DCI Redwood said its almost certain 'Tannerman' and Dr T are one and the same. 

The point is that you said he did.

What Jassi said.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 13, 2019, 10:23:09 AM
The point is that you said he did.

Well I stand corrected 'British holidaymaker'. 
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 13, 2019, 10:26:22 AM
Well she said 1.7m on 4th May and in the group's typed timeline;

Description of Man:
- Age 35 to 40.
- 1.7m tal1 approximately with a slim build.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm

I'm examining JT's evidence, not JW's.

But what you seem to have a tendency to do is cherry pick ie you are sceptical about T9 testimony and yet on occasions you seem to want to rely on it if it supports your overall theory?

What I'm saying is that we can look at the testimony from entirely innocent witnesses eg JW and find contradictions and inconsistencies.  There's absolutely no reason for people to have perfect recall over mundane matters that at the time of hearing/seeing held no importance whatsoever.

Or are you suggesting 'Tannerman' and Dr T are not one of the same?  Are you suggesting 'Tannerman' is a figment of JT's imagination and Dr T just happened by at a similar time? 

The chances of Tannerman and Dr T not being one of the same are zero given they share similar physical features, wore the same clothes along with the babe in arms sharing the same physical features/clothes. 
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Brietta on September 13, 2019, 12:28:27 PM
Logic dictates that if a man carrying a child is witnessed walking from a location from which it is found a child has disappeared that all options are open until  ...That diligence was not carried out at the time and place from which Madeleine disappeared.  I find that omission reprehensible and excuses for what I consider the inexcusable such as the GNR dogs' disinterest quite mystifying in their acceptability.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: kmc on September 13, 2019, 12:49:43 PM

The chances of Tannerman and Dr T not being one of the same are zero given they share similar physical features, wore the same clothes along with the babe in arms sharing the same physical features/clothes.

Suggesting the chances of Tannerman and Totman NOT being the same person as zero,  surely must be conjecture???  One could just as easily argue that the polish couple's physical and clothing descriptions closely match both Tannerman and Jenny Murat's description of the lady in purple.  (From memory, I think she was witnessed days before at Refugio Restaurant as being very slim, in a 'Bordeaux" coloured jacket, beige dress and hair in a pony tail - the only thing off is hair colour, but at that time of night or with the possibility of hair dye I guess hair colour is not a definitive).  You see the truth with e-fits is that there are always a number of people who can be seen to fit a description, but that does not really mean anything.  Neither we nor Redwood can categorically prove who Tannerman/Smithman or Muratlady was.   We simply do not know and as a result can't rule anyone in or out with any degree of certainty.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 13, 2019, 12:58:24 PM
Suggesting the chances of Tannerman and Totman NOT being the same person as zero,  surely must be conjecture???  One could just as easily argue that the polish couple's physical and clothing descriptions closely match both Tannerman and Jenny Murat's description of the lady in purple.  (From memory, I think she was witnessed days before at Refugio Restaurant as being very slim, in a 'Bordeaux" coloured jacket, beige dress and hair in a pony tail - the only thing off is hair colour, but at that time of night or with the possibility of hair dye I guess hair colour is not a definitive).  You see the truth with e-fits is that there are always a number of people who can be seen to fit a description, but that does not really mean anything.  Neither we nor Redwood can categorically prove who Tannerman/Smithman or Muratlady was.   We simply do not know and as a result can't rule anyone in or out with any degree of certainty.

How do you explain the scent dogs did not track in the direction of 'Tannerman' or 'Smithman'?
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: kmc on September 13, 2019, 01:02:11 PM
How do you explain the scent dogs did not track in the direction of 'Tannerman' or 'Smithman'?

Well if there were two of them - my guess is that the dogs could have be following "Muratlady's" scent, especially if she was the one that spent time in the room and carried a child to an open window.  Her scent may well have also been in the room which could have confused the dogs.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 13, 2019, 01:05:49 PM
How do you explain the scent dogs did not track in the direction of 'Tannerman' or 'Smithman'?
You wouldn't know how Smithman got from the Tapas area to where he was sighted.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 13, 2019, 01:19:55 PM
Well if there were two of them - my guess is that the dogs could have be following "Muratlady's" scent, especially if she was the one that spent time in the room and carried a child to an open window.  Her scent may well have also been in the room which could have confused the dogs.

No.  S&R dogs are given an item that has been in close proximity to the body of the missing person.  They track on the scent of skin grafts that shed at the rate of 40,000 per minute. 
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: kmc on September 13, 2019, 01:32:16 PM
No.  S&R dogs are given an item that has been in close proximity to the body of the missing person.  They track on the scent of skin grafts that shed at the rate of 40,000 per minute.

From memory I think the dogs were given a bath towel or something like that to scent.  Question is whose different scents could have been on that towel - other family members? - or maybe even an abductor used the towel to open the window and shutter - in order not to leave fingerprints.  In truth we no idea, what or whose scents were on that towel and as such, we don't really know who they were tracking....   As for skin grafts shedding every minute - if M was passed through a window - there may have been no shedding until he was half way across the road.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: jassi on September 13, 2019, 01:35:37 PM
From memory I think the dogs were given a bath towel or something like that to scent.  Question is whose different scents could have been on that towel - other family members? - or maybe even an abductor used the towel to open the window and shutter - in order not to leave fingerprints. In truth we no idea, what or whose scents were on that towel and as such, we don't really know who they were tracking....   As for skin grafts shedding every minute - if M was passed through a window - there may have been no shedding until he was half way across the road.


Quite so - IMO
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 13, 2019, 01:39:25 PM
From memory I think the dogs were given a bath towel or something like that to scent.  Question is whose different scents could have been on that towel - other family members? - or maybe even an abductor used the towel to open the window and shutter - in order not to leave fingerprints.  In truth we no idea, what or whose scents were on that towel and as such, we don't really know who they were tracking....   As for skin grafts shedding every minute - if M was passed through a window - there may have been no shedding until he was half way across the road.

Surely you can see how illogical your post is above?  Even if we accept that the S&R dogs were scenting the abductor and not MM they were together and there's no evidence the dogs tracked towards Tannerman or Smithman. 

Skin grafts do not shed on the minute at the rate of 40,000 they shed every picosecond (that's one trillionth of one second). 
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 13, 2019, 01:41:33 PM

Quite so - IMO

So whose scent do you think they were tracking? 

Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: jassi on September 13, 2019, 01:44:22 PM
So whose scent do you think they were tracking?

I have no idea, but it could be anyone who had recently been in contact with the towel/blanket/whatever.

If some object more personal to Madeleine been used, such as her shoes or underwear, then it would be reasonable to have more trust in the tracker doggy performance - IMO
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: kmc on September 13, 2019, 01:54:36 PM
So whose scent do you think they were tracking?

You obviously think that they were tracking Madeleine's scent but realistically would an abductor carrying a child really think it a good escape plan to loop back through the main resort? If that was the case, they would have been better going out of the patio door.....which I assume you believe that they entered through?   Also, even if Madeleine was on foot, most children in my experience would have grabbed the soft toy or blanket for comfort, and at the very least would have been calling out or crying whilst walking down a pretty dark path - yet the scent makes it all the way to the Tapas car park without anyone hearing or seeing anything.  In my humble opinion, both the open shutters and the dog scent trail make the idea of two abductors more likely, but again I can't be sure as we don't know for sure who the dogs were tracking.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: G-Unit on September 13, 2019, 01:54:54 PM
But what you seem to have a tendency to do is cherry pick ie you are sceptical about T9 testimony and yet on occasions you seem to want to rely on it if it supports your overall theory?

What I'm saying is that we can look at the testimony from entirely innocent witnesses eg JW and find contradictions and inconsistencies.  There's absolutely no reason for people to have perfect recall over mundane matters that at the time of hearing/seeing held no importance whatsoever.

Or are you suggesting 'Tannerman' and Dr T are not one of the same?  Are you suggesting 'Tannerman' is a figment of JT's imagination and Dr T just happened by at a similar time? 

The chances of Tannerman and Dr T not being one of the same are zero given they share similar physical features, wore the same clothes along with the babe in arms sharing the same physical features/clothes.

I'm sceptical of everyone's testimony and have no 'overall theory'. I'm pointing out the inconsistences in Jane's statements because her sighting has been seen as vital. Considering it was a mundane occurance her recall is amazingly detailed, down to the shoes this man was wearing.

Whoever was seen near 5A further explanation is needed as to why he was heading towards the night creche rather than away from it.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: barrier on September 13, 2019, 02:44:52 PM
I'm sceptical of everyone's testimony and have no 'overall theory'. I'm pointing out the inconsistences in Jane's statements because her sighting has been seen as vital. Considering it was a mundane occurance her recall is amazingly detailed, down to the shoes this man was wearing.

Whoever was seen near 5A further explanation is needed as to why he was heading towards the night creche rather than away from it.

I don't think Redwood made direction of travel did he.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: kmc on September 13, 2019, 03:01:32 PM
I'm sceptical of everyone's testimony and have no 'overall theory'. I'm pointing out the inconsistences in Jane's statements because her sighting has been seen as vital. Considering it was a mundane occurance her recall is amazingly detailed, down to the shoes this man was wearing.

Whoever was seen near 5A further explanation is needed as to why he was heading towards the night creche rather than away from it.

Personally, I am not at all surprised that her recall was so amazingly detailed.  If she did witness a man carrying a child between 21.15/21.20 -  approximately 40-45 minutes later she learned that Madeleine was missing - so it would only be natural to think back to that sighting, which would still have been fresh enough to play over in her mind. On top of that we know she could not leave her apartment to search, due to her child being awake - so her mind must have played it over and over during those hours - especially as we know she believed, at that time, that she had witnessed the abduction and done nothing to stop it.  Also, as for the direction of the Tannerman - that particular direction has more than just the night creche available as a possible destination.  Even if Tannerman was Totman - why was he heading for the night creche on his own with only one of his two children at that time of night?   I can't recall but I am pretty sure that one of the night creche workers talked about most of the children having left creche by the time they heard about Madeleine disappearing which must have been just after 22.00...  Seems unlikely someone would walk a sleeping 2 year old child to a night creche at that time of night - only to leave them there for 30mins-hour.  However, if he did do that I would also have imagined that on collecting his child he would have at least joined the search party, especially as Gerry was one of his tennis playing set or that he would have been one of the people who gave a statement about the evening.  Additionally, if he was in fact returning to his apartment - he would have been walking in the opposite direction to Tannerman.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: G-Unit on September 13, 2019, 03:41:38 PM
Crimewatch 2013 21:39

Eight families had left eleven children in the night creche. A British father had collected his two year old daughter from the creche. He had been walking near the McCann's apartment.

So he collected his child but no-one has explained why, if he was the man seen by Jane Tanner, he was heading towards the night creche, not away from it.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Venturi Swirl on September 13, 2019, 06:53:52 PM
1.7m was written into the typed timeline, typed in English by British members of the group. No translations were required and discussion/explanation was easy. She saw the man and it was up to her to ensure the details were correct. There's a big difference between 5'6" and 5'10".
Who typed it up?  It was presented to the PJ by the British FLO.  Do you know if JT had sight of the document after it was typed up?
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Brietta on September 13, 2019, 07:27:44 PM
I'm sceptical of everyone's testimony and have no 'overall theory'. I'm pointing out the inconsistences in Jane's statements because her sighting has been seen as vital. Considering it was a mundane occurance her recall is amazingly detailed, down to the shoes this man was wearing.

Whoever was seen near 5A further explanation is needed as to why he was heading towards the night creche rather than away from it.

What is 'inconsistent' in what Jane Tanner is on record as saying herself.  In my opinion you may well be placing too much reliance on what other people have said she said.

Please give an example using Jane Tanner's own words which supports your opinion of inconsistency.

Jane Tanner has no locus in explaining anything at all regarding the man she saw that was someone else's job and the pity of it is that it wasn't done until 2013.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 14, 2019, 09:50:42 AM
I don't think Redwood made direction of travel did he.

You're right he didn't.  He said:

"Having discussed with them what they were doing that night they themselves believed that they could be the Tanner sighting".

@ 21.20 in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y

Then there's a cut in filming and the narrator then states:

The British father had collected his 2 year old daughter from the creche.

Is that the narrator's own take or has he seen firm evidence that the British father was collecting his 2 year old from the creche at around the time JT saw a man crossing the T-junction near apartment 5A.

If 'Tannerman' and Dr T are one and the same (I think they are) could it be Dr T's party headed off to the Millennium for dinner and he waited in the apartment until his daughter fell asleep before taking her to the creche and then going on to Millennium to join the others?  The point is afaik we are not privy to what Dr T and his family were doing that night to know whether or not he was walking in the wrong direction.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 14, 2019, 10:06:05 AM
You obviously think that they were tracking Madeleine's scent but realistically would an abductor carrying a child really think it a good escape plan to loop back through the main resort? If that was the case, they would have been better going out of the patio door.....which I assume you believe that they entered through?   Also, even if Madeleine was on foot, most children in my experience would have grabbed the soft toy or blanket for comfort, and at the very least would have been calling out or crying whilst walking down a pretty dark path - yet the scent makes it all the way to the Tapas car park without anyone hearing or seeing anything.  In my humble opinion, both the open shutters and the dog scent trail make the idea of two abductors more likely, but again I can't be sure as we don't know for sure who the dogs were tracking.

But many believed 'Tannerman' was MM's abductor so you could just as easily ask would an abductor carrying a child really think it a good escape plan to cross a t-junction close to where T9 were staying hence JT made the observation?  If Tannerman was MM's abductor, I don't believe he was, I would have thought he would have been better walking away in the opposite direction?

I would assume MM was sleeping when she was abducted in much the same way the children seen with Tannerman and Smithman were.

Search and Rescue dogs are used all over the world in all sorts of situations and there's no evidence to suggest they're unreliable.  The items handed to the GNR officers to enable the dogs to sniff MM's scent had been in close proximity to MM's body.  Even if you believe KM wanted to mislead then whose scent were the dogs tracking?  If the twins, KM or GM they would have followed a different trail. 
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 14, 2019, 10:09:31 AM
Personally, I am not at all surprised that her recall was so amazingly detailed.  If she did witness a man carrying a child between 21.15/21.20 -  approximately 40-45 minutes later she learned that Madeleine was missing - so it would only be natural to think back to that sighting, which would still have been fresh enough to play over in her mind. On top of that we know she could not leave her apartment to search, due to her child being awake - so her mind must have played it over and over during those hours - especially as we know she believed, at that time, that she had witnessed the abduction and done nothing to stop it.  Also, as for the direction of the Tannerman - that particular direction has more than just the night creche available as a possible destination.  Even if Tannerman was Totman - why was he heading for the night creche on his own with only one of his two children at that time of night?   I can't recall but I am pretty sure that one of the night creche workers talked about most of the children having left creche by the time they heard about Madeleine disappearing which must have been just after 22.00...  Seems unlikely someone would walk a sleeping 2 year old child to a night creche at that time of night - only to leave them there for 30mins-hour.  However, if he did do that I would also have imagined that on collecting his child he would have at least joined the search party, especially as Gerry was one of his tennis playing set or that he would have been one of the people who gave a statement about the evening.  Additionally, if he was in fact returning to his apartment - he would have been walking in the opposite direction to Tannerman.

I'm not even aware Dr T played tennis let alone played with GM or had any sort of contact with the McCanns?

Afaik we don't have any direct testimony from Dr T and Mrs T?  All we have is second hand accounts from the likes of DCI Andy Redwood and the tabloid papers.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Brietta on September 14, 2019, 10:20:13 AM
But many believed 'Tannerman' was MM's abductor so you could just as easily ask would an abductor carrying a child really think it a good escape plan to cross a t-junction close to where T9 were staying hence JT made the observation?  If Tannerman was MM's abductor, I don't believe he was, I would have thought he would have been better walking away in the opposite direction?

I would assume MM was sleeping when she was abducted in much the same way the children seen with Tannerman and Smithman were.

Search and Rescue dogs are used all over the world in all sorts of situations and there's no evidence to suggest they're unreliable.  The items handed to the GNR officers to enable the dogs to sniff MM's scent had been in close proximity to MM's body.  Even if you believe KM wanted to mislead then whose scent were the dogs tracking?  If the twins, KM or GM they would have followed a different trail.

If an eye witness sees a male carrying a child away from the scene of a kidnapping why is it not made a priority of the investigation to locate that individual and the child to rule them in or out of the equation?

Where is the evidence that was done?

The evidence is it wasn't looked at for nearly seven years after the event.  How do you justify that?
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 14, 2019, 11:04:25 AM
If an eye witness sees a male carrying a child away from the scene of a kidnapping why is it not made a priority of the investigation to locate that individual and the child to rule them in or out of the equation?

Where is the evidence that was done?

The evidence is it wasn't looked at for nearly seven years after the event.  How do you justify that?

I wonder if the sighting would have been given the sort of importance it has if the person carrying the child was female? 

According to the tabloid press Dr T and Mrs T did contact the local police with a view to self-eliminate but it seems it was overlooked.

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.

“When the police finally realised the significance it was too late to really help.

“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.”


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-detectives-spent-four-12495545

A failing by all concerned I would say: Portuguese and UK investigating authorities along with the 4 private detective agencies.  Even KM, at the time her book was published in 2011, was still convinced 'Tannerman' was MM's abductor.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: G-Unit on September 14, 2019, 11:11:58 AM
I'm not even aware Dr T played tennis let alone played with GM or had any sort of contact with the McCanns?

Afaik we don't have any direct testimony from Dr T and Mrs T?  All we have is second hand accounts from the likes of DCI Andy Redwood and the tabloid papers.

Dr T played with Gerry in the men's tennis on 3rd May early evening;

 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.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 14, 2019, 11:16:13 AM
I guess its not unreasonable to ask the question why, if Dr T and Mrs T thought Dr T and 'Tannerman' might be one and the same and that their info was overlooked by GNR why they didn't then take it upon themselves to contact the 'Find Madeleine' site or contact their local police when back in UK?  One good reason they perhaps shied away from doing so was that they didn't want to get caught up in all the mania which I can understand.   
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 14, 2019, 11:18:13 AM
Dr T played with Gerry in the men's tennis on 3rd May early evening;

 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.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

Are Dr T and 'Julian' one and the same? 
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 14, 2019, 11:21:37 AM
Are Dr T and 'Julian' one and the same?

If so and Dr T/Mrs T thought Dr T and 'Tannerman' were one and the same you would think Dr T might have contacted GM to discuss?
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 14, 2019, 11:33:52 AM
I wonder if the sighting would have been given the sort of importance it has if the person carrying the child was female? 

According to the tabloid press Dr T and Mrs T did contact the local police with a view to self-eliminate but it seems it was overlooked.

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.

“When the police finally realised the significance it was too late to really help.

“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.”


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-detectives-spent-four-12495545

A failing by all concerned I would say: Portuguese and UK investigating authorities along with the 4 private detective agencies.  Even KM, at the time her book was published in 2011, was still convinced 'Tannerman' was MM's abductor.

Can we be sure Dr T was interviewed by GNR?  This seems to be the journalist's take?  Mrs T refers to "local police".  Where's "local"?  Local in Portugal or local in UK?
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: G-Unit on September 14, 2019, 11:43:10 AM
If so and Dr T/Mrs T thought Dr T and 'Tannerman' were one and the same you would think Dr T might have contacted GM to discuss?

Particularly as they spent a week in the same block after the disappearance. The Totmans were in G4N, the McCanns in G4G.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 14, 2019, 11:56:35 AM
Particularly as they spent a week in the same block after the disappearance. The Totmans were in G4N, the McCanns in G4G.

So although in the same block some distance apart? 

Maybe they were fearful of getting caught up in it all albeit they were entirely innocent of any involvement. 

Maybe they didn't have much sympathy for the McCanns for monopolizing the tapas bar and leaving their children. 

KM's book refers to someone wanting to book a table at tapas but unable to do so because of the group booking but KM didn't feel too bad about it as the someone was staying another week.  I wonder it this was Dr T/Mrs T?


 
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Brietta on September 14, 2019, 12:13:46 PM
I wonder if the sighting would have been given the sort of importance it has if the person carrying the child was female? 

According to the tabloid press Dr T and Mrs T did contact the local police with a view to self-eliminate but it seems it was overlooked.

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.

“When the police finally realised the significance it was too late to really help.

“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.”


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-detectives-spent-four-12495545

A failing by all concerned I would say: Portuguese and UK investigating authorities along with the 4 private detective agencies.  Even KM, at the time her book was published in 2011, was still convinced 'Tannerman' was MM's abductor.

Occam comes into mind at this juncture.

This was a Portuguese investigation which apparently with undue haste dismissed eye witness testimony in preference for unwarranted speculation.
That was the initial fault and in my opinion one which sent the investigation down entirely the wrong investigative channel.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: G-Unit on September 14, 2019, 12:29:42 PM
So although in the same block some distance apart? 

Maybe they were fearful of getting caught up in it all albeit they were entirely innocent of any involvement. 

Maybe they didn't have much sympathy for the McCanns for monopolizing the tapas bar and leaving their children. 


KM's book refers to someone wanting to book a table at tapas but unable to do so because of the group booking but KM didn't feel too bad about it as the someone was staying another week.  I wonder it this was Dr T/Mrs T?

Maybe they didn't know what Jane Tanner had seen? I'm not sure when that reached the public.

I tried to reserve a table at the Tapas Bar for that night but it was fully booked.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NEIL_BERRY.htm
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 14, 2019, 12:31:33 PM
Occam comes into mind at this juncture.

This was a Portuguese investigation which apparently with undue haste dismissed eye witness testimony in preference for unwarranted speculation.
That was the initial fault and in my opinion one which sent the investigation down entirely the wrong investigative channel.

What eye witness testimony did the Portuguese investigation dismiss with undue haste?

Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Brietta on September 14, 2019, 12:35:33 PM
I guess its not unreasonable to ask the question why, if Dr T and Mrs T thought Dr T and 'Tannerman' might be one and the same and that their info was overlooked by GNR why they didn't then take it upon themselves to contact the 'Find Madeleine' site or contact their local police when back in UK?  One good reason they perhaps shied away from doing so was that they didn't want to get caught up in all the mania which I can understand.   

Sometimes when minds are already firmly made up normal thought processes are not applicable.

Snip
BILTON: Now what follows is the crucial part of the story. The police have told Panorama that the timeline, the chronology of the events of the night of May 3rd, are still at the heart of this investigation. They say that there are many inconsistencies in what the group who were having dinner with the McCaans the so-called 'tapas night' have said in their witness statements.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm


Which leads to information not receiving the attention it deserves or being ignored in its entirety which seems to have happened in a huge way as far as Jane Tanner's witness statement was concerned.

Neither was it known in the public domain the extent to which potential evidence was being mistreated by the Judicial Police whose case it was until Ricardo Paiva testified to it in Amaral's libel trial in 2010.


Snip
"Kate and Gerry have consistently known that potential fresh information was not being properly followed up, if at all.”

The potential new leads date from July 2008 when the case was officially shelved by Portuguese police after they failed to find any evidence of the missing girl.

The confidential dossier contains hundreds of statements that could prove useful in solving the mystery of Madeleine’s disappearance from an Algarve holiday apartment on May 3, 2007.

The McCanns’ legal team became aware of the file during court proceedings as part of a libel trial brought by the couple against the former detective, Goncalo Amaral, who led the initial investigation.

The McCanns’ Portuguese lawyer, Isabel Duarte, accused current Algarve police chief Ricardo Paiva of deliberately ignoring the leads because they did not fit in with the theory that Madeleine’s parents were involved in her disappearance.

Last month he appeared in court as a witness in support of former colleague Mr Amaral, who has written a book alleging that the girl died in the holiday apartment and her parents fabricated a tale of abduction after hiding her body.

"Every piece of information (in the dossier of potential new leads) was treated the same way - Ricardo Paiva writes on it 'this is not relevant to the investigation',
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7215353/Portuguese-police-ignored-Madeleine-McCann-leads.html
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Brietta on September 14, 2019, 12:43:24 PM
What eye witness testimony did the Portuguese investigation dismiss with undue haste?

The only eyewitness reporting a child being carried away from the direction of apartment 5A was disregarded by the Portuguese investigation led by Amaral.

That eye witness is Jane Tanner.

If you think differently please post something in substantiation as I have done in support of what I think.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 14, 2019, 12:50:07 PM
Maybe they didn't know what Jane Tanner had seen? I'm not sure when that reached the public.

I tried to reserve a table at the Tapas Bar for that night but it was fully booked.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NEIL_BERRY.htm

Yeah that's possible.  They probably wanted to keep out of it all.  You can imagine most families were either travelling alone or with one other eg JW/BO and Dr T/Mrs T/Mr W/Mrs W and then you have T9 that were by all accounts loud (especially GM) and possibly seen by others as wanting to take over and flout all convention/rules eg leaving the children alone at night in unsecured accommodation and the block booking for tapas every night.

I can't see where NB makes ref to when he returned home?  If he was only there for 1 week then this isn't the person KM refers to.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 14, 2019, 01:13:37 PM
The only eyewitness reporting a child being carried away from the direction of apartment 5A was disregarded by the Portuguese investigation led by Amaral.

That eye witness is Jane Tanner.

If you think differently please post something in substantiation as I have done in support of what I think.

Amaral disregarded the sighting for good reason: the S&R dogs did not scent in that direction.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: kmc on September 14, 2019, 02:40:46 PM
Amaral disregarded the sighting for good reason: the S&R dogs did not scent in that direction.

Unlike you, even Amaral realised that both the apartment and everything in it was so contaminated by the family and the enormous hoard of searchers and rescuers etc. that he actually sent Gerry back to the UK to get a pillow case and I think a brush, so that scientists could isolate her DNA profile.  If they really could not even isolate her DNA how in heavens name do you think they were able to isolate her scent???   You really expect us to believe that the dogs were rocket scientists who were instructed to ignore other family member's scent?   She was 3 years old - her parents would almost certainly have helped dry her - thus we can be sure there were at least 2 scents on that towel.  Although, more than likely a lot more - as a mother I know when bathing multiple children, you normally end up re-using towels and Kate and Gerry showered after.....so I am pretty certain most of the towels in that bathroom had 5 different scents so S&R dogs were set up to fail.   
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: barrier on September 14, 2019, 03:37:13 PM
It took OG until 2013 to catch up with the PJ and dismiss the Tanner sighting,they'll suss the rest out given the time that the HO offers with its funding.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: G-Unit on September 14, 2019, 05:28:09 PM
Yeah that's possible.  They probably wanted to keep out of it all.  You can imagine most families were either travelling alone or with one other eg JW/BO and Dr T/Mrs T/Mr W/Mrs W and then you have T9 that were by all accounts loud (especially GM) and possibly seen by others as wanting to take over and flout all convention/rules eg leaving the children alone at night in unsecured accommodation and the block booking for tapas every night.

I can't see where NB makes ref to when he returned home?  If he was only there for 1 week then this isn't the person KM refers to.

A Berry stayed 5th-12th May with 2 children, but in a different apartment. It may or may not be the same family.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: G-Unit on September 14, 2019, 05:33:24 PM
Unlike you, even Amaral realised that both the apartment and everything in it was so contaminated by the family and the enormous hoard of searchers and rescuers etc. that he actually sent Gerry back to the UK to get a pillow case and I think a brush, so that scientists could isolate her DNA profile.  If they really could not even isolate her DNA how in heavens name do you think they were able to isolate her scent???   You really expect us to believe that the dogs were rocket scientists who were instructed to ignore other family member's scent?   She was 3 years old - her parents would almost certainly have helped dry her - thus we can be sure there were at least 2 scents on that towel.  Although, more than likely a lot more - as a mother I know when bathing multiple children, you normally end up re-using towels and Kate and Gerry showered after.....so I am pretty certain most of the towels in that bathroom had 5 different scents so S&R dogs were set up to fail.

I don't think the PJ sent Gerry McCann to England, do you have a cite for that?

I agree with you on the uncertain provenance of scent on a bath towel, however.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Brietta on September 14, 2019, 05:43:16 PM
Amaral disregarded the sighting for good reason: the S&R dogs did not scent in that direction.

You are saying in that post that without following through on Jane Tanner's sighting Amaral disregarded evidence despite not having reached a proper conclusion (who? why? where? etc) and despite having nothing else to go on regarding the missing child he was supposed to be looking for?

The GNR dog handlers expressed reservation but even without that Amaral still did not know who it was she saw nor did he make the attempt to do so or that could have been expected to lead to Dr Totman et al.  You seem to suggest in your post that was for the simple reason he did not believe her.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Mr Gray on September 14, 2019, 05:54:01 PM
Amaral disregarded the sighting for good reason: the S&R dogs did not scent in that direction.

You need to remember the facts... Amaral though Maddie died in the, apartment.... Confirmed by the other dogs... That's why he disregarded tannerman
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 14, 2019, 07:46:35 PM
You need to remember the facts... Amaral thought Maddie died in the, apartment.... Confirmed by the other dogs... That's why he disregarded tannerman
Your sequence seems wrong.  Why did he disregard Tannerman?  I think that happened long before the dogs turn up.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Brietta on September 14, 2019, 09:04:18 PM
Your sequence seems wrong.  Why did he disregard Tannerman?  I think that happened long before the dogs turn up.

The dogs being referred to are the GNR dogs which were used initially in the hours and days immediately following Madeleine's disappearance.

Nothing at all to do with Martin Grime and his dogs, Rob.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 15, 2019, 01:09:27 AM
The dogs being referred to are the GNR dogs which were used initially in the hours and days immediately following Madeleine's disappearance.

Nothing at all to do with Martin Grime and his dogs, Rob.
Let's see what Davel has to say.  I don't see how the tracker dogs confirm Madeleine had died in the apartment.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: misty on September 15, 2019, 01:31:06 AM
You are saying in that post that without following through on Jane Tanner's sighting Amaral disregarded evidence despite not having reached a proper conclusion (who? why? where? etc) and despite having nothing else to go on regarding the missing child he was supposed to be looking for?

The GNR dog handlers expressed reservation but even without that Amaral still did not know who it was she saw nor did he make the attempt to do so or that could have been expected to lead to Dr Totman et al.  You seem to suggest in your post that was for the simple reason he did not believe her.

The problem, for Amaral & his team, with believing in Jane's sighting was investigating it properly may have resulted in finding an abductor. This situation was repeated with the Smith family sighting, when not even their timeline was investigated until October 2nd.
I believe Amaral DID know about Dr Totman's own suspicion that he may well have been Tannerman but as the direction of his journey from the night creche to Block 4 did not fit the known facts it was dismissed at the time.
All IMO.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 15, 2019, 08:59:14 PM
The problem, for Amaral & his team, with believing in Jane's sighting was investigating it properly may have resulted in finding an abductor. This situation was repeated with the Smith family sighting, when not even their timeline was investigated until October 2nd.
I believe Amaral DID know about Dr Totman's own suspicion that he may well have been Tannerman but as the direction of his journey from the night creche to Block 4 did not fit the known facts it was dismissed at the time.
All IMO.

Hi Misty.  What do you mean by 'did not fit the known facts'?
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 15, 2019, 09:15:39 PM
Hi Misty.  What do you mean by 'did not fit the known facts'?
Where was Totman going?  Where was Tannerman heading?  Do they fit?
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 15, 2019, 09:41:35 PM
Where was Totman going?  Where was Tannerman heading?  Do they fit?

Afaik we don't know.

DCI Andy Redwood: "Having discussed with them what they were doing on the night..."

We don't know what they were doing on the night, do we?

@ 21.40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y

The narrator fills in the void by telling us that the British father had collected his daughter from the night creche.  We have no testimony from Dr T or DCI Andy Redwood to this effect.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: misty on September 16, 2019, 10:25:21 PM
Hi Misty.  What do you mean by 'did not fit the known facts'?

The known facts were Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a child heading away from Block 5 from west to east.
If Dr Totman was returning from the creche & carrying his daughter he would have almost certainly been heading from east to west. There is no plausible explanation for him to be heading away from Block 4, carrying his barefooted daughter, unaccompanied by his wife & 4yr old son.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: barrier on September 17, 2019, 06:51:49 AM
The known facts were Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a child heading away from Block 5 from west to east.
If Dr Totman was returning from the creche & carrying his daughter he would have almost certainly been heading from east to west. There is no plausible explanation for him to be heading away from Block 4, carrying his barefooted daughter, unaccompanied by his wife & 4yr old son.
The most salient fact is that Redwood and his team intentified who it was,never mentioning who.By doing so the timeline moved forward to smithman.Which clearly indicated whoever it  was saw nothing suspicious at the time of the Tanner sighting.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 17, 2019, 07:53:55 AM
The known facts were Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a child heading away from Block 5 from west to east.
If Dr Totman was returning from the creche & carrying his daughter he would have almost certainly been heading from east to west. There is no plausible explanation for him to be heading away from Block 4, carrying his barefooted daughter, unaccompanied by his wife & 4yr old son.

Thanks misty.  As I pointed out in post 84 DCI Andy Redwood refers to discussing with Dr T/Mrs T what they were doing that evening.  We don't know what they were doing that evening as such much speculation has filled the void.  We don't know that Dr T was returning from the night creche let alone walking in the 'wrong' direction.  Based on the brochure you uploaded OC guests were only eligible for the night creche if dining at either Millennium or Tapas.  So it could be that Dr T's party went ahead to Millennium and he waited in his apartment until his daughter fell asleep before carrying her and leaving her at the night creche.   The Tannerman sighting was clocked at circa 9.15 pm so not particularly late especially when on holiday.  The night creche is open until 11.30pm.  Does anyone have a copy of the night creche records?

I feel pretty confident that DCI Andy Redwood was satisfied not just with the physical likeness and clothes worn of Dr T and his daughter but also direction of travel.  He said "almost certain" as he can't be 100% but I wouldn't mind betting he's 99%. 

I understand Dr T/Mrs T did contact the local police (whether local in Portugal or UK, I don't know) but they were probably deterred from pressing the point or contacting the McCanns direct for fear of getting caught up in all the mania.  They had seen how RM and T9 were treated and were probably fearful Dr T might have been made an arguido despite the fact he was going about his lawful business. 
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 17, 2019, 08:25:58 AM
The most salient fact is that Redwood and his team intentified who it was,never mentioning who.By doing so the timeline moved forward to smithman.Which clearly indicated whoever it  was saw nothing suspicious at the time of the Tanner sighting.

The most salient fact for me is that either of these sightings have been given the sort of importance they have and shows imo the MET are scratching around. 

PDL is a self-contained resort.  OC guests were on a half-board package staying in accommodation scattered all over the resort.  Dinner was served at either the Millennium or Tapas and guests using such were eligible to leave their children at the night creche of which only one operated meaning parents had a short journey to take and fetch their children to/from it.  It doesn't seem to me any of the families we know about had hire cars and I haven't heard anyone talking of taking a cab from one location to another within PDL therefore parents simply carried their children to and fro so sightings of men (dads) carrying babes in arms was not an unusual sight.

Plus the S&R dogs did not track MM in the direction of Tannerman/Smithman. 
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Venturi Swirl on September 17, 2019, 09:05:53 AM
The most salient fact for me is that either of these sightings have been given the sort of importance they have and shows imo the MET are scratching around. 

PDL is a self-contained resort.  OC guests were on a half-board package staying in accommodation scattered all over the resort.  Dinner was served at either the Millennium or Tapas and guests using such were eligible to leave their children at the night creche of which only one operated meaning parents had a short journey to take and fetch their children to/from it.  It doesn't seem to me any of the families we know about had hire cars and I haven't heard anyone talking of taking a cab from one location to another within PDL therefore parents simply carried their children to and fro so sightings of men (dads) carrying babes in arms was not an unusual sight.

Plus the S&R dogs did not track MM in the direction of Tannerman/Smithman.
It may have been a common sight but that does not mean that either sighting should have been dismissed on that basis, does it?
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 17, 2019, 09:29:47 AM
It may have been a common sight but that does not mean that either sighting should have been dismissed on that basis, does it?

Certainly not but DCI Andy Redwood referred to the elimination as "really exciting" and a "revelation moment" allowing the timeline to roll on. 

I don't understand why he would describe it in such terms given the way the night creche operated, plus why would an abductor take a route he may well have come face to face with a member of T9 on, and sorry to bore everyone but the S&R dogs did not scent in that direction. 

It seems from the C4 docu the experts are aware of the fact a child was seen in a man's arms walking away from 5A but forensic scientist, Dave Barclay, said "You then become a tourist don't you that's carrying a child that's sleepy".  So he's saying yes an abductor might do this knowing he could blend in but he's obviously alert to the fact that tourists do carry sleeping child around at night regardless of a night creche.

@ 18 mins in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Brietta on September 17, 2019, 10:05:56 AM
The most salient fact for me is that either of these sightings have been given the sort of importance they have and shows imo the MET are scratching around. 

PDL is a self-contained resort.  OC guests were on a half-board package staying in accommodation scattered all over the resort.  Dinner was served at either the Millennium or Tapas and guests using such were eligible to leave their children at the night creche of which only one operated meaning parents had a short journey to take and fetch their children to/from it.  It doesn't seem to me any of the families we know about had hire cars and I haven't heard anyone talking of taking a cab from one location to another within PDL therefore parents simply carried their children to and fro so sightings of men (dads) carrying babes in arms was not an unusual sight.

Plus the S&R dogs did not track MM in the direction of Tannerman/Smithman.

A child was missing.  There is no justification for ignoring the fact that a man was seen carrying a child in close proximity to the room she vanished from.
There appears to have been no elimination process to identify dads who may have been out and about carrying their barefoot daughters through the streets of Luz on 3rd May.
Whatever the investigating officers think of evidence or intelligence given ... it is not for them to dismiss it out of hand ... their job is to investigate it and evaluate it in the proper manner.  I really don't think that was carried through in any in-depth or appropriate manner.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Venturi Swirl on September 17, 2019, 10:09:31 AM
Certainly not but DCI Andy Redwood referred to the elimination as "really exciting" and a "revelation moment" allowing the timeline to roll on. 

I don't understand why he would describe it in such terms given the way the night creche operated, plus why would an abductor take a route he may well have come face to face with a member of T9 on, and sorry to bore everyone but the S&R dogs did not scent in that direction. 

It seems from the C4 docu the experts are aware of the fact a child was seen in a man's arms walking away from 5A but forensic scientist, Dave Barclay, said "You then become a tourist don't you that's carrying a child that's sleepy".  So he's saying yes an abductor might do this knowing he could blend in but he's obviously alert to the fact that tourists do carry sleeping child around at night regardless of a night creche.

@ 18 mins in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE
Being able to definitively rule out one of the sightings would be viewed as progress by the police so I csn understand their positivity about it and obviously they hoped to shift public focus on the other sighting in the hope that either it led to Madeleine or that it too could be ruled out.  We now they are no longer looking for Smithman so there must be a reason for that, whatever it is must be viewed as progress of sorts.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Brietta on September 17, 2019, 10:23:57 AM
Being able to definitively rule out one of the sightings would be viewed as progress by the police so I csn understand their positivity about it and obviously they hoped to shift public focus on the other sighting in the hope that either it led to Madeleine or that it too could be ruled out.  We now they are no longer looking for Smithman so there must be a reason for that, whatever it is must be viewed as progress of sorts.

I agree it is all a process that has to be gone through.  What amazes me is that despite Scotland Yard and the Judicial Police keeping Madeleine's case open that it is speculated that 'nothing is happening'.
In my opinion when all investigative avenues have been exhausted these guys will know that and will however reluctantly admit the fact and move on. Obviously that stage has not yet been reached as far as Madeleine's case is concerned.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 17, 2019, 10:33:51 AM
A child was missing.  There is no justification for ignoring the fact that a man was seen carrying a child in close proximity to the room she vanished from.
There appears to have been no elimination process to identify dads who may have been out and about carrying their barefoot daughters through the streets of Luz on 3rd May.
Whatever the investigating officers think of evidence or intelligence given ... it is not for them to dismiss it out of hand ... their job is to investigate it and evaluate it in the proper manner.  I really don't think that was carried through in any in-depth or appropriate manner.

I agree but this needed to happen in weeks at most not years!
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Brietta on September 17, 2019, 12:44:25 PM
I agree but this needed to happen in weeks at most not years!

I think it is one of the most distressing aspects of Madeleine's case that so much information was neglected or systematically ignored or misinterpreted.
This started right at the very beginning with not only the dismissal of Jane Tanner's evidence but the absolute public rubbishing she endured as a result of telling what she had seen.  If the man had been traced at the time and eliminated from the inquiry, no big deal.  The big deal is that he wasn't found and his existence, once the Murat villa had been ruled out of the equation, was officially discounted.
In retrospect, I doubt very much if Madeleine's disappearance was handled as it should have been in the first instance which is why it became such an indefensible disaster throughout.  That is typified by 'Tannerman' and the way he was allowed to slip through the net.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: jassi on September 17, 2019, 12:45:56 PM
I think it is one of the most distressing aspects of Madeleine's case that so much information was neglected or systematically ignored or misinterpreted.
This started right at the very beginning with not only the dismissal of Jane Tanner's evidence but the absolute public rubbishing she endured as a result of telling what she had seen.  If the man had been traced at the time and eliminated from the inquiry, no big deal.  The big deal is that he wasn't found and his existence, once the Murat villa had been ruled out of the equation, was officially discounted.
In retrospect, I doubt very much if Madeleine's disappearance was handled as it should have been in the first instance which is why it became such an indefensible disaster throughout.  That is typified by 'Tannerman' and the way he was allowed to slip through the net.


Which net would this be?
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: The General on September 17, 2019, 01:10:07 PM
A child was missing.  There is no justification for ignoring the fact that a man was seen carrying a child in close proximity to the room she vanished from.
There appears to have been no elimination process to identify dads who may have been out and about carrying their barefoot daughters through the streets of Luz on 3rd May.
Whatever the investigating officers think of evidence or intelligence given ... it is not for them to dismiss it out of hand ... their job is to investigate it and evaluate it in the proper manner.  I really don't think that was carried through in any in-depth or appropriate manner.
You honestly believe that, in the midst of a live missing child search, the investigating officers didn't quickly follow up the most significant sighting to come across their desks up to that point? Why? And why?
Yet they went to extraordinary, demonstrable lengths chasing every available avenue.....except the gift-wrapped one? You've all been poring over the minute detail of the PJ files for over a decade, you know the extent of the investigation - but let's not follow up this most basic lead AT ALL. Let's dismiss it out of hand!

Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: G-Unit on September 17, 2019, 01:19:02 PM
You honestly believe that, in the midst of a live missing child search, the investigating officers didn't quickly follow up the most significant sighting to come across their desks up to that point? Why? And why?
Yet they went to extraordinary, demonstrable lengths chasing every available avenue.....except the gift-wrapped one? You've all been poring over the minute detail of the PJ files for over a decade, you know the extent of the investigation - but let's not follow up this most basic lead AT ALL. Let's dismiss it out of hand!

Gift-wrapped indeed. Before the police arrived the crime and the perpetrator had been identified by....a group of holidaymakers every one of whom was connected to the child and her family. Any decent upstanding police force would have accepted what they said without question, wouldn't they?
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 17, 2019, 01:55:34 PM
Gift-wrapped indeed. Before the police arrived the crime and the perpetrator had been identified by....a group of holidaymakers every one of whom was connected to the child and her family. Any decent upstanding police force would have accepted what they said without question, wouldn't they?

The police are trained to accept nothing unless of course its different in Portugal.  And I think just above everyone, lay and professional, accept and understand that when small children disappear or come to some harm it is usually at the hands of person(s) known. 
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Mr Gray on September 17, 2019, 04:33:10 PM
The police are trained to accept nothing unless of course its different in Portugal.  And I think just above everyone, lay and professional, accept and understand that when small children disappear or come to some harm it is usually at the hands of person(s) known.

Perhaps you should send your observations to the Amber Alert taem
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 17, 2019, 05:05:48 PM
Perhaps you should send your observations to the Amber Alert taem

Usually as in statistically.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Mr Gray on September 17, 2019, 05:26:26 PM
Usually as in statistically.
I wonder what the statistics are for a child reported abducted by two biological parents, with no custody issues
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 17, 2019, 06:16:41 PM
Perhaps you should send your observations to the Amber Alert taem
That is already understood, I believe.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on September 17, 2019, 06:48:25 PM
Gift-wrapped indeed. Before the police arrived the crime and the perpetrator had been identified by....a group of holidaymakers every one of whom was connected to the child and her family. Any decent upstanding police force would have accepted what they said without question, wouldn't they?

Yes G, but actually there is a situation which has never been clarified.  Kate said she knew right away her daughter was abducted YET did not phone the police, or run to reception to get them to call the police immediatly as her daughter was abducted. The 'abduction story' came into play when they realised they would have to explain to families and work mates what really happenedand after they 'searched' for a missing child,not an abducted one.
Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: barrier on October 07, 2019, 12:52:24 PM
Taken from a FOI.

https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/metropolitan-police/disclosure_2018/june_2018/information-rights-unit---various-questions-about-operation-grange


Title: Re: Tannerman
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on October 11, 2019, 08:51:04 PM
Taken from a FOI.

https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/metropolitan-police/disclosure_2018/june_2018/information-rights-unit---various-questions-about-operation-grange


Oh Well, that answers the question "are the McCanns suspected of harming their child"- they cannot answer that and they give the reasons why in the FOI.!