One of the tapas group, Jane Tanner, saw a man carrying a child across the street in front of her on the night that Maddie disappeared. The man was walking eastwards at a brisk pace and did not turn to acknowledge her.
Dr Julian Totman has recently been identified as possibly being this man yet he claims to have been returning from the night creche to his apartment in block 4. If that was the case he would have been walking westwards at a normal pace.
Any thoughts?
yes...we obviously do not have all the information that has led to this conclusion
Which makes me suspicious of the entire revelation. Why haven't SY explained this apparent inconsistency?Because they are not providing a running commentary and do not exist purely to satisfy our curiosity about this case.
Which makes me suspicious of the entire revelation. Why haven't SY explained this apparent inconsistency?
One of the tapas group, Jane Tanner, saw a man carrying a child across the street in front of her on the night that Maddie disappeared. The man was walking eastwards at a brisk pace and did not turn to acknowledge her.The 'best' solution to this conundrum that I have heard of is pure speculation, so caveat emptor. It proposes Totman was walking ahead with one child and his wife was following behind with another. Totman realised his wife had the sole key to their apartment, so he turned back to get it.
Dr Julian Totman has recently been identified as possibly being this man yet he claims to have been returning from the night creche to his apartment in block 4. If that was the case he would have been walking westwards at a normal pace.
Any thoughts?
The 'best' solution to this conundrum that I have heard of is pure speculation, so caveat emptor. It proposes Totman was walking ahead with one child and his wife was following behind with another. Totman realised his wife had the sole key to their apartment, so he turned back to get it.
Note, a weakness in this speculative proposal is that his path was on an unlikely route between block 4 and the crèche.
The 'best' solution to this conundrum that I have heard of is pure speculation, so caveat emptor. It proposes Totman was walking ahead with one child and his wife was following behind with another. Totman realised his wife had the sole key to their apartment, so he turned back to get it.
Note, a weakness in this speculative proposal is that his path was on an unlikely route between block 4 and the crèche.
The 'best' solution to this conundrum that I have heard of is pure speculation, so caveat emptor. It proposes Totman was walking ahead with one child and his wife was following behind with another. Totman realised his wife had the sole key to their apartment, so he turned back to get it.
Note, a weakness in this speculative proposal is that his path was on an unlikely route between block 4 and the crèche.
The best solution... In your opinion
SY can simply ask those involved which they no doubt have done
It really is as simple as that
Oh I’ve no doubt they have.When was the Andy Redwood revelation moment again?
When was the Andy Redwood revelation moment again?
Or he was taking a detour to visit a friend....get a pint of milk....had arranged to meet his wife somewhere beyond his direction of travel ? Loads of options.
It is mere speculation but I think it’s likely Totman saw Tanner on her way back to her apartment and that’s why he thought he was Tanner’s sighting. Perhaps because he didn’t see Gerry or Jez that is where the doubt set in ?
2013. Why ?5 years ago then. If the revelation blew the McCanns version of events out of the water, then what exactly are the Met waiting for, in your opinion?
I think the pint of milk thing is unlikely; I don't think he would have carried a sleeping child with him to do that.
Depending on the camber of the road and the closeness of Jane would he have necessarily seen the two men even if he had registered Jane? Perhaps? if they had been standing where Gerry thought, but not necessarily where Jane and Jes thought. We don't know what he saw, for all we know it may have been all three from the top of the hill. I don't think it really works, though, and as shining has said the weakness lies in the direction of travel for most of the speculation.
On the other hand, there is another way of considering the situation. Perhaps he wasn't actually walking in the wrong direction at all.
He may have followed what we think is the logical route from the creche to his apartment in block four.
He may have walked uphill and through the junction either just before Gerry and Jes met in the street, or he may even have passed them while they chatted. They didn't see Jane, so what else didn't they see? Particularly if he followed the route Jane did.
He may have seen Tannerman walking out from block 5 as he was walking into block four.
I think that works. It is simple and it cuts out much of the need for speculation.
5 years ago then. If the revelation blew the McCanns version of events out of the water, then what exactly are the Met waiting for, in your opinion?
Maybe it helps to review the shortest route from the creche up to Rua Dr. Agostinho da Silva, the road along which Tannerman was spotted. IMO Dr Totman had already passed the junction before Jane walked up the hill & he probably saw someone in the vicinity of Block 5 who wasn't carrying a child at that time.
Pictures courtesy of Shining. (scroll down page).
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/tag/high-tea/
IMO Crecheman's direction of travel was clearly shown in O Enigma when Amaral attempted to morph him into Smithman. Further proof imo that the PJ were fully aware of Dr Totman's belief he was Tannerman.
5 years ago then. If the revelation blew the McCanns version of events out of the water, then what exactly are the Met waiting for, in your opinion?
He obviously didn’t see Gerry and Jez or he, and OG, would have been absolutely positive that he was Tanner’s sighting and, again, having walked down that road myself ( there is no camber in the road ) I think it would have been all but impossible for Totman to have seen Tanner and not Jez and Gerry, as he would have had a clear line of sight.
Because they are not providing a running commentary and do not exist purely to satisfy our curiosity about this case.
Maybe it helps to review the shortest route from the creche up to Rua Dr. Agostinho da Silva, the road along which Tannerman was spotted. IMO Dr Totman had already passed the junction before Jane walked up the hill & he probably saw someone in the vicinity of Block 5 who wasn't carrying a child at that time.
Pictures courtesy of Shining. (scroll down page).
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/tag/high-tea/
IMO Crecheman's direction of travel was clearly shown in O Enigma when Amaral attempted to morph him into Smithman. Further proof imo that the PJ were fully aware of Dr Totman's belief he was Tannerman.
Alternatively, they are trying to pull the proverbial wool over...
I know this has been mentioned before but it was an odd way to carry a young child over such a distance. Didn't he have access to a buggy?
They sure ain't telling us much and rightly so. I am of the opinion they know what they are doing, but all will be revealed in the fullness of time.
SY must know that there are genuine concerns and questions about this yet they have summarily failed to address them. I find that very odd indeed.
SY must know that there are genuine concerns and questions about this yet they have summarily failed to address them. I find that very odd indeed.
I have no idea but it is almost 3 years since Hogan-Howe said OG was following a final lead so maybe they’re simply taking things very, very slowly. After all the main protagonists aren’t going anywhere and Madeleine is IMO beyond saving.I guess they're just waiting for one of them to crack, while they take more golfing holidays to the Algarve at the taxpayers expense...
I guess they're just waiting for one of them to crack, while they take more golfing holidays to the Algarve at the taxpayers expense...
Alternatively, they are trying to pull the proverbial wool over...Literally how much detail have they given us about any aspect of the investigation? And what about the PJ? Why aren't you berating them for not revealing what they've been doing for the last god knows how many years?
Not in the public interest, I would say.
As Tannerman is not in the frame,Totman's movements require no explanation - IMO
Not in the public interest, I would say.
As Tannerman is not in the frame,Totman's movements require no explanation - IMO
There is only one description of a direction of travel,that is from JT,Redwood merely said in the exact same area.
There is only one description of a direction of travel,that is from JT,Redwood merely said in the exact same area.
Hasn't one of our forum members raised an FOI about the direction of Totman travel?
I'm not sure whether or not Tannerman is still in the frame. It remains that the man Jane saw was walking in the opposite direction from the homeward route Dr Totman could have been expected to walk.
Was tannerman ever in a frame or is it wishful thinking on some parts he was.
" Genuine concerns and questions" from whom?
Anyone interested in the Madeleine McCann case. SY are creating a bubble in the case and we all know what happens when that bubble bursts.
Literally how much detail have they given us about any aspect of the investigation? And what about the PJ? Why aren't you berating them for not revealing what they've been doing for the last god knows how many years?
Can you think of any good reason why he should not have been?
Anyone interested in the Madeleine McCann case. SY are creating a bubble in the case and we all know what happens when that bubble bursts.
Why would they respond to questions and concerns from posters on internet forms ?
As far as I can guage most folk show little interest in the investigation.
That my dear chap is exactly what they are hoping for.
If the PJ had been doing any investigating we would have heard about it by now. As for SY, I think their only involvement now is dreaming up some way to explain how they could spend nearly £12 million on a missing child case and still come up empty. No leads, no suspects, no arrests, no comment!
That's a first being called a chap!
I'm sure there will be enough freedom of information requests from a certain quarter to ensure they are held to account.
If the PJ had been doing any investigating we would have heard about it by now. As for SY, I think their only involvement now is dreaming up some way to explain how they could spend nearly £12 million on a missing child case and still come up empty. No leads, no suspects, no arrests, no comment!So are you of the opinion that the PJ are doing nothing at all? Interesting way to conduct an investigation. As for the rest of your comment - you have no idea what leads or what suspects they are pursuing so please don't pretend you do, kindly forgive my impertinence.
So are you of the opinion that the PJ are doing nothing at all? Interesting way to conduct an investigation. As for the rest of your comment - you have no idea what leads or what suspects they are pursuing so please don't pretend you do, kindly forgive my impertinence.
Why doesn't someone from the forum ring him up and get him to explain it?Because it's none of our business for one. For two, it's a bit creepy. And three - once his name was released he was probably inundated with crank calls and letters from "researchers" and "J4M campaigners" so let's not add to the possible harrassment shall we...?
I think the PJ...who have primacy..have..and are doing nothing....they only reopened the investigation to facilitate SY...who are the real investigators in his case.Well that's an interesting take on it I suppose.
Because it's none of our business for one. For two, it's a bit creepy. And three - once his name was released he was probably inundated with crank calls and letters from "researchers" and "J4M campaigners" so let's not add to the possible harrassment shall we...?well it is my business, and we talk about him here. It is our business. Well some investigative journalist could do it on our behalf.
well it is my business, and we talk about him here. It is our business. Well some investigative journalist could do it on our behalf.
He is not on Facebook as Julian Totman.
I think the PJ...who have primacy..have..and are doing nothing....they only reopened the investigation to facilitate SY...who are the real investigators in his case.I wonder why it was felt necessary to remove the first few words of your post? They were hardly controversial or rule breaking.
Of course they could be looking for evidence that rules out an alleged abduction.
It is my business because I have dedicated 2 years now trying to solve the case.its none of your business.....imo you have wasted 2 years...leave it to SY who have the skills and all the information
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/ has an article about Julian and a photo. I'm surprised how much Julian looks like Gerry front on. Could Julian be both Smithman and Tannerman?
Did he carry his daughter past LuzDoc as well?
well it is my business, and we talk about him here. It is our business. Well some investigative journalist could do it on our behalf.
He is not on Facebook as Julian Totman. Hang on something came up when I entered "Julian Tottman"
https://www.facebook.com/julian.totman.9
Dr Totman is not going to jeopardise an active police investigation by handing out information to any Tom, Dick or Harry. He would be wrong to do so and it would be wrong for anyone to ask him to do so.Someone leaked his identity.
So are you of the opinion that the PJ are doing nothing at all? Interesting way to conduct an investigation. As for the rest of your comment - you have no idea what leads or what suspects they are pursuing so please don't pretend you do, kindly forgive my impertinence.
Is there an investigation in Portugal? I would hazard a guess that there isn't.
As to what SY are actually doing to try and find Madeleine, I suspect very little.
Someone leaked his identity.
Apparently.
His name was in the files ~ it wouldn't have taken long for a little digging by an investigative journalist to put two and two together ~ Paulo Reis was almost there in 2009 but like everyone else, his focus was directed elsewhere perhaps sacrificing the 'scoop' of his career http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9475.msg460688#msg460688 no need for 'leaks'.
His name was in the files ~ it wouldn't have taken long for a little digging by an investigative journalist to put two and two together ~ Paulo Reis was almost there in 2009 but like everyone else, his focus was directed elsewhere perhaps sacrificing the 'scoop' of his career http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9475.msg460688#msg460688 no need for 'leaks'.There are lots of names in the files.
There are lots of names in the files.
He was not named for how long after Crimewatch 2013?
Reis named him in 2009.That naming had nothing to do with Tannerman.
Someone leaked his identity.His wife certainly appears willing to speak.
Apparently.
We have been told only what the Met have permitted the media to print. It would have been an easy question for the journalist who spoke to Mrs Totman to confirm the route her husband took back from the creche & why he thought Tannerman could be him. The journalist either didn't ask or Mrs Totman was not forthcoming with the information. IMO.you have to be really up in the case to realise he was walking in the wrong direction according to Jane's account.
Reis named him in 2009.What did he say about Totman? Can you recall?
What did he say about Totman? Can you recall?
That naming had nothing to do with Tannerman.
I didn't say that Reis had made the connection. In fact he barely mentioned him. But he did name him in 2009 and with just a little digging the initial investigation could have found him too way back in May 2007 to be exact.The initial investigation could have found everybody booked into the OC. They had the booking sheets.
The initial investigation could have found everybody booked into the OC. They had the booking sheets.
Is there any relevance to this?
The initial investigation could have found everybody booked into the OC. They had the booking sheets.
Is there any relevance to this?
There's nothing in the files to suggest who 'Crecheman' was, so I think it's unlikely that he was 'found' by a journalist. I think this story is a leak to the Sun, which seems to be the source copied by other newspapers. Why it should be leaked is the question.Isn’t there a quote in the article from his wife though?
Isn’t there a quote in the article from his wife though?She could be the link. She seems willing to talk.
Isn’t there a quote in the article from his wife though?
She could be the link. She seems willing to talk.
Perhaps someone telephoned her with questions and she responded. If so, the Totmans weren't the source of the story. If it came from Scotland Yard it was an unauthorised leak because they kept the man's identity secret for years.Speculation.
Speculation.
Speculation.
In my opinion this article wasn't the work of an investigative journalist, it was a leaked story. You commented that Mrs Totman was quoted. I don't know what you were inferring, but it doesn't mean the story wasn't leaked imo.I was pointing out facts, not speculating, that is all.
An interesting event - a new video from Bogart and its about Totman. He is totally wrong IMO but what he says has brought one firm conclusion from me: Jane Tanner did not see Julian Totman carrying his daughter! https://youtu.be/iB5inXUmrG0If Julian Totman's daughter was wearing those pyjamas with the dark orange bands- Jane did not see the bands therefore I'd say she didn't see his daughter, but Jane's sketch's similarity to Julian Totman is "uncanny". That is my current opinion.
See if you can come to the same conclusion.
Do we know in which direction Dr Totman was walking ? Has anyone done anything but assume a direction. Clearly neither he nor his wife quoted a direction. The Met are silent on the topic.
There could have been a genuine explicable error in Jane Tanners sighting she obviously confused right and left.
cf where Gerry and Jez were standing.
There's nothing in the files to suggest who 'Crecheman' was, so I think it's unlikely that he was 'found' by a journalist. I think this story is a leak to the Sun, which seems to be the source copied by other newspapers. Why it should be leaked is the question.
There's nothing in the files to suggest who 'Crecheman' was, so I think it's unlikely that he was 'found' by a journalist. I think this story is a leak to the Sun, which seems to be the source copied by other newspapers. Why it should be leaked is the question.
Do we know in which direction Dr Totman was walking ? Has anyone done anything but assume a direction. Clearly neither he nor his wife quoted a direction. The Met are silent on the topic.Why does everyone assume Jane was in error? When in the end it is her that makes the two correct observations.
There could have been a genuine explicable error in Jane Tanners sighting she obviously confused right and left.
cf where Gerry and Jez were standing.
Why does everyone assume Jane was in error? When in the end it is her that makes the two correct observations.
1. Gerry and Jez were talking on the road.
2. A person (who ends up dressed like Totman from her sketch) was seen carrying a child in pyjamas uncovered and with nothing on her feet.
Transparently, the relevance is to 'prove' a leak from Operation Grange.
Do they? everyone as in everyone? That seems improbable.Well let's survey the members of the forum. Is there anyone here who believes what Jane Tanner said she observed was correct?
Well let's survey the members of the forum. Is there anyone here who believes what Jane Tanner said she observed was correct?
In particular do they fully believe Jane saw:
1. Gerry and Jez were talking on the road.
2. A person (who ends up dressed like Totman from her sketch) was seen carrying a child in pyjamas uncovered and with nothing on her feet?
3. This person crossed the road walking from the left to the right.
Does any member know of any person of importance in this case that has wholeheartedly endorsed what Jane reported?
I believe Jane saw what she told the PJ.Thanks for responding Misty. I think I understand what you are saying. So even though Bogart thinks the descriptions are different you agree with Redwood that they are similar.
I believe DCI Redwood endorsed Jane's sighting when he spoke of how Crecheman & his daughter's clothing was uncannily similar to that of Tannerman + child. What he didn't say was that the two men were actually one & the same.
Thanks for responding Misty. I think I understand what you are saying. So even though Bogart thinks the descriptions are different you agree with Redwood that they are similar.
I'll have to have another listen and reassess.
Why does everyone assume Jane was in error? When in the end it is her that makes the two correct observations.
1. Gerry and Jez were talking on the road.
2. A person (who ends up dressed like Totman from her sketch) was seen carrying a child in pyjamas uncovered and with nothing on her feet.
Well for starters, the Totman girls pyjamas had no frills and were not whitey. She was carried in a blanket though which would appear to give credibility to the sighting. Bottom line is though, if Tanner saw Totman then she most certainly didn't see any frills.
It still doesn't answer the questions as to why Totman was apparently going the wrong way but more crucially, why didn't Tanner recognise Dr Totman as he too was a guest and dined regularly in the tapas restaurant?
Why does everyone assume Jane was in error? When in the end it is her that makes the two correct observations.
1. Gerry and Jez were talking on the road.
2. A person (who ends up dressed like Totman from her sketch) was seen carrying a child in pyjamas uncovered and with nothing on her feet.
Was Jez part of the men's social tennis that evening? I'll have to look at the statements.
There appears to be a tennis connection for all those she saw.
I believe Jane saw what she told the PJ.
I believe DCI Redwood endorsed Jane's sighting when he spoke of how Crecheman & his daughter's clothing was uncannily similar to that of Tannerman + child. What he didn't say was that the two men were actually one & the same.
Was Jez part of the men's social tennis that evening? I'll have to look at the statements.Jez in his joint statement 05/11/07 makes it clear that he was not involved in the men's social tennis on Thursday evening.
It has crossed my mind that there was some confusion with the layout of Praia da Luz that investigations weren't aware of. Unless Totman took some ridiculously long route home from the night creche he can't have been the man that Jane Tanner saw.The only excuse I've read so far that being he went home with his daughter and then went out again, is the only one so far that could make Totman walk across the intersection from the left to the right from Jane's perspective.
Do we know at what time Totman left the night creche?
Was Jez part of the men's social tennis that evening? I'll have to look at the statements.
The only excuse I've read so far that being he went home with his daughter and then went out again, is the only one so far that could make Totman walk across the intersection from the left to the right from Jane's perspective.
It has crossed my mind that there was some confusion with the layout of Praia da Luz that investigations weren't aware of. Unless Totman took some ridiculously long route home from the night creche he can't have been the man that Jane Tanner saw.
Do we know at what time Totman left the night creche?
If you mean Operation Grange investigators that would be an inexcusable oversight in my opinion.
Which long route are you thinking of?
We have no evidence showing who used the night creche, let alone the times of drop offs and collections.
Not quite as inexcusable an oversight than the Amaral investigation never having investigated it in the first place I would imagine.
Not quite as inexcusable an oversight than the Amaral investigation never having investigated it in the first place I would imagine.
We're not discussing the first investigation though, are we? These are Britain's finest, allegedly, brought in to review that first investigation, find their mistakes and correct them. After two year's work when, presumably, they learned all about it from the files, they seemingly commit an error which every amateur with an interest in the case spots immediately.Those aren't the only two options though are they?
There is always the possibility, of course, that the 'mistake' was deliberate for some reason known only to the investigators.
Those aren't the only two options though are they?
We're not discussing the first investigation though, are we? These are Britain's finest, allegedly, brought in to review that first investigation, find their mistakes and correct them. After two year's work when, presumably, they learned all about it from the files, they seemingly commit an error which every amateur with an interest in the case spots immediately.
There is always the possibility, of course, that the 'mistake' was deliberate for some reason known only to the investigators.
Jane didn't mention frills in her first two statements. In the group timeline the description included 'turn-ups'. The Totman pyjamas looked more like turn-ups than frills. Mind you, she also says that Gerry and Jez were standing 'just up the hill from the gate'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Why ask me? If you have other options in mind just post them.
We are discussing Dr Totman's evidence in the case of a missing child.
This evidence was not investigated until Operation Grange did so. It was given to the Policia Judiciaria investigation coordinated by Amaral in May 2007 shortly after Madeleine's disappearance.
If other material evidence of that calibre was ignored in May 2007 in my opinion it goes a long way to explaining why Madeleine was not found.
And all of the insults thrown at that poor woman, who obviously wasn't lying at all.
We are discussing Dr Totman's evidence in the case of a missing child.
This evidence was not investigated until Operation Grange did so. It was given to the Policia Judiciaria investigation coordinated by Amaral in May 2007 shortly after Madeleine's disappearance.
If other material evidence of that calibre was ignored in May 2007 in my opinion it goes a long way to explaining why Madeleine was not found.
Who said lying?Are you being serious? The woman was accused by many of making the sighting up for years and years. Then when SY revealed their "revelation" moment, some people (mentioning no names for fear of embarrassing them) believed it was SY making up the tourist carrying a child in order to send a signal that they were onto JT and GMcC, and then when it was revealed that the tourist actually did exist, JT was then accused (by the same people) of lying about seeing him at the same time as GMc in order to give the latter an alibi. Do you not really follow the discussions on this forum, out of interest..?
Good job that it turned out to be a false lead and OG turned their attentions elsewhere - or so we are led to believe.
No evidence is 'false'. It may lead the investigation on. It may lead the investigation to follow another path. It may be found relevant. It may be found not to be relevant.
If, after investigation it allowed attention to be turned in another direction that's fine ... but how much better that would have been for Madeleine's case if the evidence given by Dr Totman in 2007 had been analysed then and either dismissed or followed according to other evidence which might have been pertinent.
Of course evidence can be false. People don't always tell the truthBut Jane Tanner was telling the truth, as the existence of Totman proves. Doesn't it?
We are discussing Dr Totman's evidence in the case of a missing child.
This evidence was not investigated until Operation Grange did so. It was given to the Policia Judiciaria investigation coordinated by Amaral in May 2007 shortly after Madeleine's disappearance.
If other material evidence of that calibre was ignored in May 2007 in my opinion it goes a long way to explaining why Madeleine was not found.
But Jane Tanner was telling the truth, as the existence of Totman proves. Doesn't it?
Not as far as it being Madeleine and her abductor. It was a false trail - IMOI think you have misunderstood me. JT said she saw a man carrying a child. She was not to know whether or not it was definitely an abductor but she had grounds to think it might be and was therefore right to tell the police what she saw, or do you think she was wrong to so? So - she wasn't giving false evidence, right?
I think you have misunderstood me. JT said she saw a man carrying a child. She was not to know whether or not it was definitely an abductor but she had grounds to think it might be and was therefore right to tell the police what she saw, or do you think she was wrong to so? So - she wasn't giving false evidence, right?
The tale got embellished with each retelling so what she said might not have been entirely correct - IMOLOL, you just can't bring yourself to say she was giving an honest account can you? What aspect of her "embellished" evidence has been contradicted by The Met or Totman himself?
How do you know Dr Totman's evidence was given to the PJ in May 2007?
Of course evidence can be false. People don't always tell the truth
Are you being serious? The woman was accused by many of making the sighting up for years and years. Then when SY revealed their "revelation" moment, some people (mentioning no names for fear of embarrassing them) believed it was SY making up the tourist carrying a child in order to send a signal that they were onto JT and GMcC, and then when it was revealed that the tourist actually did exist, JT was then accused (by the same people) of lying about seeing him at the same time as GMc in order to give the latter an alibi. Do you not really follow the discussions on this forum, out of interest..?
A question better asked of the GNR and the guy who was supposed to be coordinating all the information coming in to the inquiry.
Snip
Madeleine McCann police spent four years trying to ID man seen carrying baby on night toddler disappeared - despite doctor saying it was him
Julian Totman was carrying his daughter back from a creche on May 3, 2007
He was interviewed by police in Portugal and never heard from them again
But they continued hunt for 'Tannerman' - named after witness Jane Tanner
It was only when the Met took over investigation in 2011 that they found problem
By MARTIN ROBINSON, UK CHIEF REPORTER FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 10:29, 7 May 2018
Snip
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So whichever way you care to look at it ... the 2007 investigation was remiss in the matter of Dr Totman. There is no statement attrributable to him in the files. Why ever not?
His wife said he told the police (the GNR in previous posts). There seems to be no record of that “told”.So what do you conclude from this?
So what do you conclude from this?
IMO as a witness JT was unreliable due to the quality and consistency of her statements. Even supporters have suggested she was 30-45 Minutes out with her sighting.Do you dispute the fact that for many years many sceptics ridiculed the very existence of Tannerman? Yes or no?
It is unlikely an official statement was taken.So a failing on the part of the GNR then.
So a failing on the part of the GNR then.
Do you dispute the fact that for many years many sceptics ridiculed the very existence of Tannerman? Yes or no?
IMO it is outwith their role.
Does the GNR - if it was them, she is quoted as also saying 'local police' - not pass, via the chain of command information in a missing child case to the investigating officers? Why don't you find that extraordinary that they don't according to you?The issue was a formal statement. No such formal statement appears in the Files.
The issue was a formal statement. No such formal statement appears in the Files.
So Totman takes his daughter home, puts her down, picks her up again and goes out again. All before 9.15pm? Hardly likely, is it.With a change of pyjamas as well for Tanner should have recalled the orange bits on the Totman's kept pyjamas.
How do you know Dr Totman's evidence was given to the PJ in May 2007?Didn't Mrs Totman say that in the recent news article?
Not as far as it being Madeleine and her abductor. It was a false trail - IMOBut that was never Jane Tanner who claimed that IMO.
But that was never Jane Tanner who claimed that IMO.
Does the GNR - if it was them, she is quoted as also saying 'local police' - not pass, via the chain of command information in a missing child case to the investigating officers? Why don't you find that extraordinary that they don't according to you?
By November 2007 she was convinced that she had seen the abductor taking Madeleine awayThanks for finding this thread, I hope Slarti will accept it as my cite for people accusing JT.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1177.60 Post 61
Do you dispute the fact that for many years many sceptics ridiculed the very existence of Tannerman? Yes or no?
What we ridiculed was, sorry should be present tense, is the man carrying a child being pushed as the abductor of MBM, growing in detail as time progressed, with no evidence to back it up.So, you knew from day one, even before the Met confirmed they knew Tannerman was just an innocent tourist that there was no way JT could have seen Madeleine’s abductor did you? Could you let me know how you knew this?
There is absolutely no established link between MBM's disappearance and the child carrying man allegedly sighted by Jane Tanner.
Thanks for finding this thread, I hope Slarti will accept it as my cite for people accusing JT.
A 5 year old thread.....
The Sun article quoted is even older - 2007, but by this time Jane was convinced that she had seen Madeleine being abducted, not just seen someone carrying a child.Tangled up in blue or was it orange?
I wonder how she got to that point and if she still feels the same
The Sun article quoted is even older - 2007, but by this time Jane was convinced that she had seen Madeleine being abducted, not just seen someone carrying a child.I wonder the same about Martin Smith, who took months to decide he was 60-80% certain he saw Gerry. Perhaps the longer you have to think about it, the more you manage to convince youself that something is so. But the fact is Jane accurately described the appearance of the man she saw. It remains to be seen if the Smiths were accurate in their descriptions.
I wonder how she got to that point and if she still feels the same
You said GNR in post #129?
Thanks for finding this thread, I hope Slarti will accept it as my cite for people accusing JT.
So, you knew from day one, even before the Met confirmed they knew Tannerman was just an innocent tourist that there was no way JT could have seen Madeleine’s abductor did you? Could you let me know how you knew this?
A question better asked of the GNR and the guy who was supposed to be coordinating all the information coming in to the inquiry.
Snip
Madeleine McCann police spent four years trying to ID man seen carrying baby on night toddler disappeared - despite doctor saying it was him
Julian Totman was carrying his daughter back from a creche on May 3, 2007
He was interviewed by police in Portugal and never heard from them again
But they continued hunt for 'Tannerman' - named after witness Jane Tanner
It was only when the Met took over investigation in 2011 that they found problem
By MARTIN ROBINSON, UK CHIEF REPORTER FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 10:29, 7 May 2018
Snip
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So whichever way you care to look at it ... the 2007 investigation was remiss in the matter of Dr Totman. There is no statement attrributable to him in the files. Why ever not?
You seem to be putting words in my mouth and attempting to deflect from what I did say.Why did you ridicule Jane Tanner’s sighting before it was known that he was a tourist? Do explain.
You said Totman's evidence was given to the PJ in May 2007 (#114). You are unable to provide evidence to support that declaration, whichever way you care to look at it.
Tanner may have seen a man carrying a child but she did not see Gerry and Wilkins at the same time. That is my contention.That wasn’t your original view though was it? You did used to think the Met made up Innocentman to put the willies up the McCanns live on Crimewatch didn’t you?
That wasn’t your original view though was it? You did used to think the Met made up Innocentman to put the willies up the McCanns live on Crimewatch didn’t you?
Well it seems J T own husband - thinks she got it wrong
Artur Rego
Laywer
14.01 – Having been left by their parents, exposed to situations of risk and danger that they, in their young age, wouldn’t be able to protect themselves from, and to confront and to resolve on their own, is considered to be a serious risk and serious and neglectful behaviour from the parents.
14.19 – Second Contradiction: The Sightings
14.29 – The second relevant contradiction is given by Jane Tanner’s deposition, who states she saw the abductor. One cannot understand how Jane Tanner passes Gerald and Jeremiah, and sees a man carrying a child, with both of them failing to see her and the abductor.
14.48 – The only possible explanation for them not seeing her is given by her husband’s deposition, who says that she saw the abductor when she was returning from the apartment, and not when she was going there. It was possible for her to see Jeremiah and Gerald without any of them seeing her, but only if she was coming from the back of the apartment, using the sliding window. In any case, the detailed identification that she gives of a possible abductor is impossible. See with your own eyes.
15.17 – Jane Tanner asserts that she clearly saw, at this distance and with this lack of light, five aspects:
First: she saw a dark-haired man, aged 35 to 40, slender, with dark hair falling down his neck.
Second: that man wore linen trousers colored between beige and golden.
Third: he wore a duffy jacket, but not as thick.
Fourth: he wore black classical shoes.
Fifth: the man walked in a hurry, with a child laying on his outstretched arms, a position that is more likely for a statue than for a person who walks carrying a child.
15.52 – Jane’s statements were the basis for the abduction theory. But for us, and later on, for the English police, they had doubtful value. How was it possible to see so much as such a distance, and under that light? How was it possible for Gerald and Jeremiah not to see Jane, or the abductor?
16.10 - This sighting has another problem: Jane saw the alleged abductor crossing Agostinho da Silva Street, and less than 30 minutes later, the Smith family also sees a man carrying a child, on Escola Primária Street, on the other side of the village, and walking into the opposite direction of the man that Jane had seen.
So yet another two witnesses lying through their teeth? There you go then ;)
That wasn’t your original view though was it? You did used to think the Met made up Innocentman to put the willies up the McCanns live on Crimewatch didn’t you?
Please provide the link. Thankyou
I don’t remember ever having that view. Do you have a cite ?I doubt any such cite was allowed to stay on the forum for long but if you say you never believed that then I stand corrected. It's good to know though that you don't believe Andy Redwood and the Met are playing games with the general public by inventing stuff and putting it on Crimewatch because crazy as it sounds some people actually have suggested it!!
I don't think you can blame the witnesses. They didn't claim to have given any evidence to the PJ, that was you.
Sorry thought i had.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/maddie-truth-of-lie-documentary.html
I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. However ...
You posted
His wife said he told the police (the GNR in previous posts). http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9601.msg465370#msg465370
In the post to which you refer I mentioned GNR based on the following link
"In October 2007 the McCanns put out a sketch of the Tannerman but Mr Totman had already told the Guarda Nacional Republicana in May ... " http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5698933/Madeleine-McCann-police-spent-four-years-trying-ID-man-GP-said-him.html
Being aware that neither she nor the journalist in all probability had any idea about PSP - GNR - PJ, I qualified that with a caveat in a future post.
In fact Mrs Topman is quoted only as referring to "police".
Is that OK for you?
Why did you ridicule Jane Tanner’s sighting before it was known that he was a tourist? Do explain.
Please note ... I have provided a link in which a witness states she and her husband reported their circumstances on the evening of 3rd of May 2007 to the police.
I am of the opinion that your posts are designed to refute what the Totmans have said about reporting the information they held about the night Madeleine disappeared to the police.
Either that is the thrust behind your insistence that the PJ were never given said evidence. Or that the police who were given the information failed to follow protocol and pass it up the line to the ultimate destination of the PJ and the case coordinator.
So what is it you are questioning?
The veracity of the witnesses or the competence of the police?
Who said lying?
I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. However ...
You posted
His wife said he told the police (the GNR in previous posts). http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9601.msg465370#msg465370
In the post to which you refer I mentioned GNR based on the following link
"In October 2007 the McCanns put out a sketch of the Tannerman but Mr Totman had already told the Guarda Nacional Republicana in May ... " http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5698933/Madeleine-McCann-police-spent-four-years-trying-ID-man-GP-said-him.html
Being aware that neither she nor the journalist in all probability had any idea about PSP - GNR - PJ, I qualified that with a caveat in a future post.
In fact Mrs Topman is quoted only as referring to "police".
Is that OK for you?
Another cite for Slarti, from this forum
"LMAO at this "bash amarals detective work" thread.
How can we be sure that SY are not telling porkies about debunking Tanners bundle man?
Seems a bit convenient that this man finally comes forward anonymously in what is the most high profile 'alleged child abduction' case.
Do people seriously still think bundle man exists?
Or are SY perhaps playing Tanner at her own game, knowing that her sighting was a deliberate attempt to divert attention from the real sighting which is provided by independent witnesses, and possibly implicates her friend Gerry".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2645.msg88857#msg88857
You seem very busy searching the archives. Is there some purpose ?Have you been reading the thread, or have you just joined it?
Show me where I said "I ridiculed or even implied ridicule of Jane Tanner's sighting" in my recent post above.
Have you been reading the thread, or have you just joined it?
You seem very busy searching the archives. Is there some purpose ?Yes, I was asked by a moderator to back up my claim with cites, as my first cite was not deemed sufficiently convincing.
Yes, I was asked by a moderator to back up my claim with cites, as my first cite was not deemed sufficiently convincing.
A question better asked of the GNR and the guy who was supposed to be coordinating all the information coming in to the inquiry.
Snip
Madeleine McCann police spent four years trying to ID man seen carrying baby on night toddler disappeared - despite doctor saying it was him
Julian Totman was carrying his daughter back from a creche on May 3, 2007
He was interviewed by police in Portugal and never heard from them again
But they continued hunt for 'Tannerman' - named after witness Jane Tanner
It was only when the Met took over investigation in 2011 that they found problem
By MARTIN ROBINSON, UK CHIEF REPORTER FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 10:29, 7 May 2018
Snip
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So whichever way you care to look at it ... the 2007 investigation was remiss in the matter of Dr Totman. There is no statement attrributable to him in the files. Why ever not?
Where did this text come from please.
Well it seems J T own husband - thinks she got it wrong
Artur Rego
Laywer
14.01 – Having been left by their parents, exposed to situations of risk and danger that they, in their young age, wouldn’t be able to protect themselves from, and to confront and to resolve on their own, is considered to be a serious risk and serious and neglectful behaviour from the parents.
14.19 – Second Contradiction: The Sightings
14.29 – The second relevant contradiction is given by Jane Tanner’s deposition, who states she saw the abductor. One cannot understand how Jane Tanner passes Gerald and Jeremiah, and sees a man carrying a child, with both of them failing to see her and the abductor.
14.48 – The only possible explanation for them not seeing her is given by her husband’s deposition, who says that she saw the abductor when she was returning from the apartment, and not when she was going there. It was possible for her to see Jeremiah and Gerald without any of them seeing her, but only if she was coming from the back of the apartment, using the sliding window. In any case, the detailed identification that she gives of a possible abductor is impossible. See with your own eyes.
15.17 – Jane Tanner asserts that she clearly saw, at this distance and with this lack of light, five aspects:
First: she saw a dark-haired man, aged 35 to 40, slender, with dark hair falling down his neck.
Second: that man wore linen trousers colored between beige and golden.
Third: he wore a duffy jacket, but not as thick.
Fourth: he wore black classical shoes.
Fifth: the man walked in a hurry, with a child laying on his outstretched arms, a position that is more likely for a statue than for a person who walks carrying a child.
15.52 – Jane’s statements were the basis for the abduction theory. But for us, and later on, for the English police, they had doubtful value. How was it possible to see so much as such a distance, and under that light? How was it possible for Gerald and Jeremiah not to see Jane, or the abductor?
16.10 - This sighting has another problem: Jane saw the alleged abductor crossing Agostinho da Silva Street, and less than 30 minutes later, the Smith family also sees a man carrying a child, on Escola Primária Street, on the other side of the village, and walking into the opposite direction of the man that Jane had seen.
“What we ridiculed was, sorry should be present tense, is the man carrying a child being pushed as the abductor of MBM, growing in detail as time progressed, with no evidence to back it up.
There is absolutely no established link between MBM's disappearance and the child carrying man allegedly sighted by Jane Tanner.”
You ridiculed the description of the man in the sighting growing in detail over time, but not the person who reported the sighting, is that really what you are claiming?! That’s laughable, really, isn’t it?
I'm questioning neither. I questioned the veracity of your statement that the Totman's evidence was given to the PJ in May 2007. That statement can't be shown to be true, but you're strangely reluctant to admit it.I think it is fair enough to say some information was given to the PJ even if it wasn't given to them directly but with the hope it will be passed on to them.
You seem very busy searching the archives. Is there some purpose ?I will admit people could have had a different view then to what they believe now. I think our opinions change as more information comes to hand, and even then it may still be wrong.
I would say your inabilty to parse properly is the primary source of amusement.Please put up your full explanation or I will take your comment as a personal dig at VS and delete it.
You chose to take as not sufficiently convincing.???
I would say your inabilty to parse properly is the primary source of amusement.I’d say your inability to answer a straight question with a straight answer is somewhat tiresome but predictable.
I’d say your inability to answer a straight question with a straight answer is somewhat tiresome but predictable.A starting point is here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9601.msg465411#msg465411
Where did this text come from please.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/maddie-truth-of-lie-documentary.html
From my initial reading of that understanding by what appears to be a lawyer is that multiple facts in that quote are entirely wrong.
Have you free access to the outside world?
What are u talking [posting] about - its times like this i feel as if i'm in a nut house
A starting point is here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9601.msg465411#msg465411http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/screenshots/drawingJaneTanner.jpg
As I recall Jane Tanner was willing to do an E-fit of the man she saw but she only saw a side on view and for an E-fit you needed a face on view of the person being drawn. Later an artist drew what she saw but by then the the memory of the child's pyjamas appears to have been affected by false memory syndrome. But despite that the description of the man remained the same.
But then some one seemed to combine Gail Cooper's sketch with Jane's but was that Jane or someone else who drew that.
(https://shininginluz.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/gail-cooper-2.jpg)
I am still trying to work out why Dr Totman thought that telling the GNR anything in any way assisted the enquiry. The GNR didn't have any investigative authority in the McCann case, they only provided traffic and crowd control, a few search boats and a helicopter with the occasional tracker dog or two thrown in. Telling the GNR in no way guaranteed that the information was passed up the line to the PJ detectives, moreover, the absence of any statement in the files evidences the fact that the PJ never received this information imo.
That all said however, how hard would it have been to have talked to guests who were registered at both crèches and ascertain if they were out with their toddlers at around 9.15pm and just happened to walk past block 5?
???
I think it is fair enough to say some information was given to the PJ even if it wasn't given to them directly but with the hope it will be passed on to them.
The disputed text:
What are u talking [posting] about - its times like this i feel as if i'm in a nut house
I just said it was 5 years old.You also described my cite as “fairly weak”which led me to conclude you had rejected it on the grounds that it did not support my contention that JT has been accused of deception for years and years (though why a five year old quote is not permissable in support of that particular contention you never made clear). Anyway, I trust you are now satisfactorily convinced that for many years JT has been accused by some of lying about her sighting of a man with a child. If not don’t hesitate to say so and I will fetch more cites to make my point more strongly.
I think it is fair enough to say some information was given to the PJ even if it wasn't given to them directly but with the hope it will be passed on to them.
The Totmans were booked in for 2 weeks, so plenty of time to approach the authorities again if they were ignored.
At home they could have contacted Crimestoppers, LP or their local police. In October 2007 the Tannerman sketch was released but again they don't seem to have responded.
From the PJ's perspective they did ignore the night creche, but I assume they thought anyone who saw anything interesting would come forward. The job of contacting those who didn't come forward was carried out by LP in the UK.
Bridget O'Donnell - resident in apartment block 4 was interviewed by the police, accompanied by translator Robert Murat.
Snip
Later, there was a knock on our apartment door and we let the two men in. One was a uniformed Portuguese policeman, the other his translator.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Through Murat we answered a few questions and gave our details, which the policeman wrote down on the back of a bit of paper. No notebook.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Totmans were also resident in block 4.
Yes, the Wilkins were in 4O and the Totmans were in 4M. Jez Wilkins managed to find the PJ and speak to them on 4th May;From her account it sounds more like the police found them rather than they went looking for the police.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm
From her account it sounds more like the police found them rather than they went looking for the police.
You would assume the GNR were asking people if they had seen Madeleine.
“Through Murat we answered a few questions and gave our details, which the policeman wrote down on the back of a bit of paper. No notebook. Then he pointed to the photocopied picture of Madeleine on the table. "Is this your daughter?" he asked. "Er, no," we said. "That's the girl you are meant to be searching for." My heart sank for the McCanns.”
“Through Murat we answered a few questions and gave our details, which the policeman wrote down on the back of a bit of paper. No notebook. Then he pointed to the photocopied picture of Madeleine on the table. "Is this your daughter?" he asked. "Er, no," we said. "That's the girl you are meant to be searching for." My heart sank for the McCanns.”
Had you read the link I provided instead of O'Donnell's sugary article you would have discovered that Jwz Wilkins approached the PJ on 4th to tell them about his 'Rasta man'.The PJ officer was Manuel Pinho an Inspector. "Officer responsible: Manuel Pinho, Inspector"
I would be interested to know if the Tanner sighting was known about in May 2007. It wasn't reported by the media as far as I can discover until late 2007.
Had you read the link I provided instead of O'Donnell's sugary article you would have discovered that Jwz Wilkins approached the PJ on 4th to tell them about his 'Rasta man'.That is the nub of the question.
I would be interested to know if the Tanner sighting was known about in May 2007. It wasn't reported by the media as far as I can discover until late 2007.
That is the nub of the question.
If the Totmans stayed for roughly a week after Madeleine disappeared, was there a mechanism by which they could have learned of Tannerman in that time, in order to make their information known to the GNR or PJ?
Had you read the link I provided instead of O'Donnell's sugary article you would have discovered that Jwz Wilkins approached the PJ on 4th to tell them about his 'Rasta man'.if an article is sugary does that mean it should be taken with a pinch of salt?
I would be interested to know if the Tanner sighting was known about in May 2007. It wasn't reported by the media as far as I can discover until late 2007.
It is a key question because Dr Totman needed to know certain details in order to decide that Jane might have seen him;I would think he would almost certainly have known about Jane Tanner’s sighting, if he had been on speaking terms with some of the Tapas group and had stayed on in the resort for days after the disappearance.
That Jane had seen a man.
That her description of that man's clothes matched the clothes Totman wore.
That the time of Jane's sighting matched the time he was out carrying his daughter around.
If those details were known in May 2007 then in my opinion the media would have heard of them.
I would think he would almost certainly have known about Jane Tanner’s sighting, if he had been on speaking terms with some of the Tapas group and had stayed on in the resort for days after the disappearance.
If he had been talking to the tapas group and they had told him about Tanner’s sighting wouldn’t he, and they, have put two and two together and conclude that he may have been the man she saw ? Why didn’t they approach Tanner and put this to her ? Further as she would have been aware of Totman from watching the men play tennis why didn’t she recognise him as her sighting ?
I would think he would almost certainly have known about Jane Tanner’s sighting, if he had been on speaking terms with some of the Tapas group and had stayed on in the resort for days after the disappearance.
If he had been talking to the tapas group and they had told him about Tanner’s sighting wouldn’t he, and they, have put two and two together and conclude that he may have been the man she saw ? Why didn’t they approach Tanner and put this to her ? Further as she would have been aware of Totman from watching the men play tennis why didn’t she recognise him as her sighting ?I presume because she simply didn’t recognise him from her position in the street when she saw him, if indeed she was that familiar with his appearance beforehand. As for your first point, yes I agree you would have thought so and I don’tt have an answer for it, unless of course my speculation is wrong and Totman did not have any contact with the group after the disappearance or perhaps they were all bound by judicial secrecy not to discuss JT’s sighting?
So you think they ignored Judicial Secrecy straight away and talked about the case to other holidaymakers immediately?Yeah, you’re probably right.
The first media reports seem to have surfaced in November 2007;
A close friend of Kate and Gerry McCann has broken ranks to tell for the first time what happened on the night Madeleine McCann vanished.
She defied the Portuguese authorities who have told Mr and Mrs McCann - and those with them on the night Madeleine vanished - not to talk about the case.
It is not yet clear if any action will be taken against Miss Tanner for speaking out.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569668/McCann-friend-saw-Madeleines-abductor.html
I presume because she simply didn’t recognise him from her position in the street when she saw him, if indeed she was that familiar with his appearance beforehand. As for your first point, yes I agree you would have thought so and I don’tt have an answer for it, unless of course my speculation is wrong and Totman did not have any contact with the group after the disappearance or perhaps they were all bound by judicial secrecy not to discuss JT’s sighting?
Wasn’t Totman playing tennis with the tapas men that night while the women watched ? Is it really credible that she saw him, even side on, a couple of hours later and didn’t recognise him? And what of the ‘he didn’t look like a tourist’ and ‘ his clothes looked foreign ‘ ( to paraphrase) ?Either
So to to recap if we are to believe Tanner saw Crecheman at the same time as seeing Gerry/Wilkins we must also believe that a) Gerry/Wilkins failed to notice Tanner walk by them on a narrow pavement and b) Tanner failed to recognise an individual she would have seen playing tennis ( at the very least ) throughout the week.
It is a key question because Dr Totman needed to know certain details in order to decide that Jane might have seen him;Further, that Totman did not make this alleged match known to Kate, Gerry, the T7, or the media, until he was 'found' by OG in 2013.
That Jane had seen a man.
That her description of that man's clothes matched the clothes Totman wore.
That the time of Jane's sighting matched the time he was out carrying his daughter around.
If those details were known in May 2007 then in my opinion the media would have heard of them.
I'll go with c, but won't discuss it as it will no doubt be considered libelous ?{)(**OK, let's go with C until we're told off, receive penalty points on our forum licenses etc.
If he had been talking to the tapas group and they had told him about Tanner’s sighting wouldn’t he, and they, have put two and two together and conclude that he may have been the man she saw ? Why didn’t they approach Tanner and put this to her ? Further as she would have been aware of Totman from watching the men play tennis why didn’t she recognise him as her sighting ?She thought the person wasn't a tourist. Totman was a tourist so Totman is excluded. I wonder if that really holds true. Does the sketch look that non-tourist like?
So you think they ignored Judicial Secrecy straight away and talked about the case to other holidaymakers immediately?But the McCanns were allowed to go to Amsterdam and describe the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing!
The first media reports seem to have surfaced in November 2007;
A close friend of Kate and Gerry McCann has broken ranks to tell for the first time what happened on the night Madeleine McCann vanished.
She defied the Portuguese authorities who have told Mr and Mrs McCann - and those with them on the night Madeleine vanished - not to talk about the case.
It is not yet clear if any action will be taken against Miss Tanner for speaking out.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569668/McCann-friend-saw-Madeleines-abductor.html
OK, let's go with C until we're told off, receive penalty points on our forum licenses etc.
The first question I would pose to those who think it's C is - why? What does she gain from this? (OK that's 2 questions).
The second question I would pose is - having seen the person, and knowing who he was, why would she knowing that there is a) the possibility he saw her and b) even if he didn't see her, would know that it was him she saw at that time and in all likelihood would come forward and tell the police?
The May 3/4 timelines and the first statements which mention Tanner’s sighting don’t mention Tanner seeing Gerry.That's not addressing the questions in my post that you have quoted.
If he had been talking to the tapas group and they had told him about Tanner’s sighting wouldn’t he, and they, have put two and two together and conclude that he may have been the man she saw ? Why didn’t they approach Tanner and put this to her ? Further as she would have been aware of Totman from watching the men play tennis why didn’t she recognise him as her sighting ?
EitherWhat about something even stranger, like it was Mrs Totman seen by Jane. But Jane thought of drawing Mr Totman instead.
a) yes that is exactly what happened
b) Jane Tanner didn't see Totman but another man carrying a child at more or less the same time who happened to look like Totman
c) Jane Tanner saw Totman, knew exactly who he was.
d) Totman was nowhere near the apartment carrying a child that night.
Pick one and we'll take it from there.
At very great risk to her personal liberty and reputation and of her "helpfulness" being uncovered almost straight away, had Totman seen her and/or the police had done their jobs properly and established it was him from the start.
At very great risk to her personal liberty and reputation and of her "helpfulness" being uncovered almost straight away, had Totman seen her and/or the police had done their jobs properly and established it was him from the start.
What about something even stranger, like it was Mrs Totman seen by Jane. But Jane thought of drawing Mr Totman instead.Can anyone see a resemblance between the first sketch and the second?
The first drawing by Jane was "the egg with hair" and that is not Mr Totman IMO.
Why would she be at risk ? Even if Totman had come forward at that time he would simply verify her sighting, as he did later. The only contentious issue is Totman not seeing Gerry and that could be explained away ( as many here are still tryin* to do ).You're saying that she must have surely known the identity of Totman, so how does she explain that one to the police? Totman in any case was walking in the "wrong" direction so how does she explain that to the police? Totman never saw Gerry or Jez apparently - so how does she explain that to the police? You've got to admit it's a highly risky strategy for her to undertake and what's in it for her at the end of the day? At what point in the evening of the 3rd does she tell Gerry what she saw, and how do you think Gerry would broach the subject of using that sighting?
At very great risk to her personal liberty and reputation and of her "helpfulness" being uncovered almost straight away, had Totman seen her and/or the police had done their jobs properly and established it was him from the start.
What about something even stranger, like it was Mrs Totman seen by Jane. But Jane thought of drawing Mr Totman instead.
The first drawing by Jane was "the egg with hair" and that is not Mr Totman IMO.
At very great risk to her personal liberty and reputation and of her "helpfulness" being uncovered almost straight away,She wasn't the only one who didn't want to do a reconstruction though was she? Jez Wilkins didn't want to either for one. What reason do you think he had for not wanting to?
Think that could have been one of the reasons for refusing to do a reconstruction.
She wasn't the only one who didn't want to do a reconstruction though was she? Jez Wilkins didn't want to either for one. What reason do you think he had for not wanting to?
I wonder how tall Dr Totman is?Good question. I'm having my doubts that it was Julian Totman that SY photographed 2013(?). Parting seems to be on the wrong side.
Good question. I'm having my doubts that it was Julian Totman that SY photographed 2013(?). Parting seems to be on the wrong side.
Good question. I'm having my doubts that it was Julian Totman that SY photographed 2013(?). Parting seems to be on the wrong side.
IMO it was Julian Totman in the CW 2013 programme. He is over 6' tall. Image below.
http://www.harcourtmedical.co.uk/Staff.asp?title=Meet%20the%20Doctors&keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=450&width=780 for images of Dr Totman & wife Dr. Rachel Clapton 2018.
You're saying that she must have surely known the identity of Totman, so how does she explain that one to the police? Totman in any case was walking in the "wrong" direction so how does she explain that to the police? Totman never saw Gerry or Jez apparently - so how does she explain that to the police? You've got to admit it's a highly risky strategy for her to undertake and what's in it for her at the end of the day? At what point in the evening of the 3rd does she tell Gerry what she saw, and how do you think Gerry would broach the subject of using that sighting?
Have you free access to the outside world?
VS saidDoes it? Cites for all three then please.
“ You're saying that she must have surely known the identity of Totman, so how does she explain that one to the police? Totman in any case was walking in the "wrong" direction so how does she explain that to the police? Totman never saw Gerry or Jez apparently - so how does she explain that to the police? ”
All of the above seems to have come to pass.
Does it? Cites for all three then please.
The CPS visited Portugal in June 2013. Crimewatch revealed Crecheman in October 2013. Was the CPS visit connected to how Tanner was treated ?How was Tanner treated?
How was Tanner treated?
IMO it is more than likely that Totman is the man Tanner saw. We know that she didn’t recognise him. We know he was ( to our understanding) going in the wrong direction and that he didn’t see Gerry.On what basis do you say IMO it is more than likely that Totman is the man Tanner saw.
VS saidCite please.
“ You're saying that she must have surely known the identity of Totman, so how does she explain that one to the police? Totman in any case was walking in the "wrong" direction so how does she explain that to the police? Totman never saw Gerry or Jez apparently - so how does she explain that to the police? ”
All of the above seems to have come to pass.
If it has been agreed that Totman is over 6 foot tall and Jane described someone as short as 5 foot 8 inches that puts doubt in my mind that Totman was the person seen by Jane.
The person who was photographed in 2013 by OG doesn't really look like Totman either. Even though the sketch that Jane drew does look like the person OG photographed. He had an opportunity to dress like the description of the person that Jane saw as the files had been available for years.
Nothing has convinced me we are any closer to solving this situation. It is time everyone presented facts to the public to assess rather than to second guess.
The only excuse I've read so far that being he went home with his daughter and then went out again, is the only one so far that could make Totman walk across the intersection from the left to the right from Jane's perspective.
With a change of pyjamas as well for Tanner should have recalled the orange bits on the Totman's kept pyjamas.
I personally found the fact that Totman kept those pyjamas one of the oddest things in this case. Did he know that presentation of those pyjamas were going to be crucial in solving the McCann case 11 or more years later?
If he had been talking to the tapas group and they had told him about Tanner’s sighting wouldn’t he, and they, have put two and two together and conclude that he may have been the man she saw ? Why didn’t they approach Tanner and put this to her ? Further as she would have been aware of Totman from watching the men play tennis why didn’t she recognise him as her sighting ?
If it has been agreed that Totman is over 6 foot tall and Jane described someone as short as 5 foot 8 inches that puts doubt in my mind that Totman was the person seen by Jane.
The person who was photographed in 2013 by OG doesn't really look like Totman either. Even though the sketch that Jane drew does look like the person OG photographed. He had an opportunity to dress like the description of the person that Jane saw as the files had been available for years.
Nothing has convinced me we are any closer to solving this situation. It is time everyone presented facts to the public to assess rather than to second guess.
His facial features aside, she is bound to have encountered him and his child on other occasions wearing the same jacket. I wonder if Jane Tanner now believes that it was Dr Totman she saw that night?That's what I'm finding so frustrating. It is obviously an innocent part of the night but no one wants to talks openly about it.
In another paper it says "Julian Totman was carrying his daughter back from a creche when he was seen by one of the so-called “Tapas Seven” dining with Kate and Gerry McCann in Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007." https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/701047/madeleine-mccann-missing-investigation-parents-tannerman-police-tapas-7
What I notice about that is it says "when he was seen". Does that mean he was aware of someone seeing him?
In the latest news the Totmans don't mention OG talking to them or OG actually confirming it was Totman that was photographed, so who puts them in the same frame in the article?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/
Who is actually making the connection between Totman and Tannerman in the following bit?
"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”.
Bolded bits Rob,you've already sussed it out.I'm afraid you've lost me there.
I'm afraid you've lost me there.
What do we actually know for sure about Dr Totman in relation to his holiday in Luz.Have I missed anything?
- he was accompanied by his wife and children
- a leisure activity was playing tennis
- he dined in the tapas restaurant on at least one occasion
- he was resident in apartment block 4
- on May 3rd 2007 he carried his two year old daughter home from the night creche
- presumably wrapped in a blanket because one was included in the photo with the clothing his daughter wore that night
- if he was the man witnessed by Jane Tanner ... he was walking in away from his residence, not toward it
- he gave this information to the police while still on holiday
As far as I know ... these are the facts ... anything else is speculation.
We don’t know what information he gave to the police.But we do know what information DCI Redwood imparted to us through the medium of National television and press releases.
If we take Redwood's words at face value, then Tannerman was an enormous red herring. However there was a certain amount of ambiguity in what he said, even though he had moved the time window of interest
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UXov516NTEc/VMoZ7V8OttI/AAAAAAAAKOY/UfIgIznElUE/s1600/route%2B2.jpg)With apologies for the photo which obviously relates to something else (don't know if John might have a more appropriate image) ... it is the only one which I could find in which the relationship between Block 5 housing the McCanns et al and Block 4 housing Dr Totman et al is clearly delineated.
Jane Tanner's route from the tapas to block 5 is outlined in yellow and marked with a 2 and the corner where she witnessed the man passing is under the notification and familiar to us all.
On a homeward journey from the night creche ... why would Dr Totman be following the route from block 4 and marked 3 on this illustration to cross Jane's path at that point and to continue briskly across the junction and out of the frame of this image?
He was going to a friend’s house.....he was going to pick up his wife.......his wife had discovered that they were all out of nappies and he said he’d collect some on the way back from picking up their daughter ? There’s a myriad of reasons why he may have been walking the wrong way. What is clear however is that Redwood was happy with his explanation.
Whatever the explanation, that does seem to be the crucial point -IMO
Last try...Thank you.
Brietta, you made a statement that Totman “gave this information to the police while still on holiday”.
I said “ we don’t know what information he gave the police”.
You made a statement about the information Redwood gave to the media.
I am asking what the connection is between your claim that Totman gave “this” information to the police while still on Holiday and Redwood’s statements to the media?
If there is no link then I must assume the Redwood comment was a red herring and that you don’t know what information Totman gave while on holiday.
I'm afraid you've lost me there.
What do we actually know for sure about Dr Totman in relation to his holiday in Luz.Have I missed anything?
- he was accompanied by his wife and children
- a leisure activity was playing tennis
- he dined in the tapas restaurant on at least one occasion
- he was resident in apartment block 4
- on May 3rd 2007 he carried his two year old daughter home from the night creche
- presumably wrapped in a blanket because one was included in the photo with the clothing his daughter wore that night
- if he was the man witnessed by Jane Tanner ... he was walking in away from his residence, not toward it
- he gave this information to the police while still on holiday
As far as I know ... these are the facts ... anything else is speculation.
I think we need to clarify this before I start wiping posts. &%^^
Dr Totman claimed to have spoken to police about his movements around blocks 4 and 5 on the night that Madeleine disappeared. What we don't know is what information he imparted, to which police specifically or when exactly. We don't know if the police to whom he spoke felt it relevant to pass it on, certainly there is no evidence that the good doctor was asked to make a statement.
We can only deduce from the above that Dr Totman failed to impart the significance of his information given the claim made by Jane Tanner. If that was the case, the conversation was in all likelihood lost in the deluge of other information which accompanies a missing child case. The only people to whom important information should be passed to about a potential crime in Portugal are the PJ detectives, telling a police guard on the ground is of little use.
To conclude, Dr Totman states that he spoke to the police but that nobody ever got back to him. Given the very wide exposure of this case in the UK and the many theories which have emerged about Tannerman, wouldn't one have thought that the gentleman would have picked up the phone and spoken to someone at OG with the revelation that it was probably him?
Sorry John I didn't see this until now. I must go out so will have to respond later.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UXov516NTEc/VMoZ7V8OttI/AAAAAAAAKOY/UfIgIznElUE/s1600/route%2B2.jpg)With apologies for the photo which obviously relates to something else (don't know if John might have a more appropriate image) ... it is the only one which I could find in which the relationship between Block 5 housing the McCanns et al and Block 4 housing Dr Totman et al is clearly delineated.
Jane Tanner's route from the tapas to block 5 is outlined in yellow and marked with a 2 and the corner where she witnessed the man passing is under the notification and familiar to us all.
On a homeward journey from the night creche ... why would Dr Totman be following the route from block 4 and marked 3 on this illustration to cross Jane's path at that point and to continue briskly across the junction and out of the frame of this image?
Maybe he realised he'd dropped the blanket and hurried back to find it?Are you suggesting he lied about having the child wrapped when Jane saw him, or when he knew someone had seen him, so he took evasive action and walked across the road instead of back tracking toward the creche looking for the blanket?
He was going to a friend’s house.....he was going to pick up his wife.......his wife had discovered that they were all out of nappies and he said he’d collect some on the way back from picking up their daughter ? There’s a myriad of reasons why he may have been walking the wrong way. What is clear however is that Redwood was happy with his explanation.If that required confirming was the alibi confirmed with another person. Creche records, his wife's recollection, who did he visit on the wrong way trip, why carry your daughter when you had already been back? Questions needing to be answered.
Are you suggesting he lied about having the child wrapped when Jane saw him, or when he knew someone had seen him, so he took evasive action and walked across the road instead of back tracking toward the creche looking for the blanket?Did Totman say anything about anything?
Personally I find your suggestion highly unlikely unless the child wasn't awake and having a tantrum.
Did Totman say anything about anything?That is the point, Jane thought "he wasn't a good parent for he hasn't wrapped the child up". So if that happens to be a doctor who hasn't wrapped the child up that becomes even harder to understand.
Wasn't Tannerman a tad unusual, according to Jane, because the child was not wrapped in a blanket?
That is the point, Jane thought "he wasn't a good parent for he hasn't wrapped the child up". So if that happens to be a doctor who hasn't wrapped the child up that becomes even harder to understand.
So far I've only seen quotes from his wife Rachel.
I'm afraid you've lost me there.
Self explanatory, the link was made by the papers,Rob quoted as much,Redwood made no mention of a name.So you think it is just the journalist making the connection. There doesn't seem to be any one actually being quoted. Great.
So you think it is just the journalist making the connection. There doesn't seem to be any one actually being quoted. Great.Thats the sum of it,pure speculation.
Self explanatory, the link was made by the papers,Rob quoted as much,Redwood made no mention of a name.
Brietta: "It wasn't their job to work it out though was it?"
I think it was their duty to come forward.
Brietta: "It wasn't their job to work it out though was it?"
I think it was their duty to come forward.
I can understand Dr Totman going out again with his daughter but not clad in her PJ's with a blanket around her and certainly not being carried like an armful of logs and not at a brisk pace. Something just doesn't add up here imo.
This is a good post as far as getting a better picture of what the Dr would have / would not done.
I also wonder, if the Totmans had told the Police, while on holiday, and they picked up on it along with the tapas 9 stories ,it was these elements which made them believe there was no abduction and no abductor.
If they did tell the police -the police would not get back to them, why would they? they would investigate and use as deemed necessary, or dismiss as irrelevant to the case.
I would guess the police did not believe from the description of JT that Dr T was the man she saw.
Yes, it is a GUESS...
If Totman had made a statement, police would only go back to him if they required clarification. He was only a bit player with a brief walk-on part.
IMO
They did come forward, though. The presence of Tannerman in O Enigma, portrayed walking towards Block 4 instead of towards Block 6, suggests the PJ were aware of what Dr Totman had told them.We think it was Totman. I have not seen actual evidence it was Totman. OK they say they did. But obviously the PJ assumed they were going home so would have been walking in the opposite direction. It is telling that the PJ assume Jane got it wrong but Totman was correct. Without proof.
IMO if the PJ could have ruled out the "unreliable" Jane Tanner sighting with Dr Totman, then they would have. The only problem was, they would then have been left with the incredibly reliable statements of the Smith family and another potential abductor as the focus of their investigation.
If Totman had made a statement, police would only go back to him if they required clarification. He was only a bit player with a brief walk-on part.It is biased opinions like that that got the original investigation sidetracked IMO.
IMO
If I were a jouro I would love to ask them these questions:
1. why did you go to pick up your daughter on a cold windy evening[Kate n Gerry quoting weather] without slippers or a blanket to keep her warm?
2. Do you always carry your child like a bale of hay across your arms?
3. why have you come forward at this time (since we don't have a time for this contact- if there was one to the police).
Just a thought... perhaps they told one of the 'private detectives' thinking they were investigating on behalf of the police?
They did come forward, though. The presence of Tannerman in O Enigma, portrayed walking towards Block 4 instead of towards Block 6, suggests the PJ were aware of what Dr Totman had told them.
IMO if the PJ could have ruled out the "unreliable" Jane Tanner sighting with Dr Totman, then they would have. The only problem was, they would then have been left with the incredibly reliable statements of the Smith family and another potential abductor as the focus of their investigation.
In reality there are four options.
1) I believe A not B.
2) I believe B not A.
3) I believe A and B.
4) I believe neither A nor B.
I see no "toggle" arrangement that means because I disbelieve B I must believe A ?
Would you care to explain what prevents Jane Tanner and The Smiths both having not sighted an abductor?
Neither of the men + associated child have been 100% positively identified as innocent people carrying their own child. Despite PJ appeals in May 2007 which provided a description of the man/his clothing wandering around the streets of Luz at around 9.30pm & the subsequent SY appeal in 2013, the only revelation has been that Dr. Totman was in the vicinity around the relevant time.
Neither have either of these men been shown to be even the teeniest bit guilty of anything.
All true and drops both neatly into the bucket labelled "more evidence required" but does not address the question I posed.
See previous answer. If PJ wanted to build a case against a person based purely on flimsy circumstantial evidence, failing to eliminate 2 potential abductors or innocent fathers would prevent matters getting past any PP.Why isn't the last statement opinion Misty?
The only thing from preventing both sightings from being non-abductors is the PJ failure to identify & investigate.
Why isn't the last statement opinion Misty?
Because it's a fact.Can you explain it briefly please.
Can you explain it briefly please.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/screenshots/drawingJaneTanner.jpghttp://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/screenshots/drawingJaneTanner.jpg Has an incorrect title "Drawings of the man described by Jane Tanner". IMO they are drawings of the man described by Gail Cooper merged with the sketch by Jane Tanner. They are artistic impressions of two men combined into one.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/screenshots/drawingJaneTanner.jpg)
The image on the left is the one done by Gail Cooper but who drew the one on the right?
You can say people thought it had been given to them, or that people believed it was given to them, or that it should have been given to them, but you can't say it was given to them unless it was.It is like posting a letter in the hope it gets to the destination intended.
Yes, the Wilkins were in 4O and the Totmans were in 4M. Jez Wilkins managed to find the PJ and speak to them on 4th May;Was that before or after they visited their apartment? With Jez speaking to Gerry the night before I can see why Gerry is targeted for a visit. but why extend that to the others in the block?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm
“Through Murat we answered a few questions and gave our details, which the policeman wrote down on the back of a bit of paper. No notebook. Then he pointed to the photocopied picture of Madeleine on the table. "Is this your daughter?" he asked. "Er, no," we said. "That's the girl you are meant to be searching for." My heart sank for the McCanns.”That's from an article "https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann"
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/screenshots/drawingJaneTanner.jpg Has an incorrect title "Drawings of the man described by Jane Tanner". IMO they are drawings of the man described by Gail Cooper merged with the sketch by Jane Tanner. They are artistic impressions of two men combined into one.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/screenshots/drawingJaneTanner.jpg Has an incorrect title "Drawings of the man described by Jane Tanner". IMO they are drawings of the man described by Gail Cooper merged with the sketch by Jane Tanner. They are artistic impressions of two men combined into one.
See the sketches in the link below.
Rex Morgan
He is the father of Linda Sims who contacted us to say that were male individuals making collections in Praia da Luz, for a local charity. He was questioned as well as his wife Iris Morgan.
Iris Morgan also made a photo fit and she was shown the photo fit (sketch) made by Gail Cooper. She does not recognise this individual. The photo fit made by her does not correspond to the other photo fit (sketch).
Denise Ashton
She was shown the photo fits (sketches) made by Gail Cooper and did not recognise this person as being the individual in question. A statement will be sent to you on 21st January.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15_VOLUME-XVa_Page_3979.jpg)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/POWERPOINT.htm
Jane Tanner said an 80% chance of this man being Madeleine's abductor but it looks nothing like Julian Totman.
I had never seen this before but I have read that the powerpoint presentations were supplied by the McCanns to the PJ. Is this right?
Jane Tanner said an 80% chance of this man being Madeleine's abductor but it looks nothing like Julian Totman.
I had never seen this before but I have read that the powerpoint presentations were supplied by the McCanns to the PJ. Is this right?
I am not familiar with Jane Tanner's 80% thoughts on this matter. Do you have a cite? Thankyou
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15_VOLUME-XVa_Page_3979.jpg)
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15_VOLUME-XVa_Page_3979.jpg)Thank you.
Jane Tanner believes? Who said that?
The powerpoint compiler?
Jane Tanner believes? Who said that?
From : Nigel Barraclough, LP
To: Ricardo Paiva
Date: 22nd October 2007 11:08
Fw: Sketch
Ricardo,
Artist impressions for you as discussed.
Nigel
From: Bob Small
---------------
To: Nigel Barraclough
Date: 22nd October 2007 10:04
Nige, email of sketch to be forwarded to Ricardo as agreed with new SIO. Regards. Bob.
--------------
From Gerry McCann
Date 22nd October 2007 8:14
To: Bob Small
Subject: Sketch
Bob,
Sketch 1 was the rough outline.
2 (black and white) Jane thinks is very good and 3 (colour) is good. She was not really happy with the face and therefore Melissa decided to leave blank.
Gerry.
OFFICIAL INQUIRY FILES and DOCUMENTS POWERPOINT PRESENTATION COMPILED BY THE MCCANNS
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/POWERPOINT.htm
With the advent of a new broom taking up the reins of the investigation it seems the McCanns remained the chief motivators behind the efforts to locate Madeleine.
They of course had no information regarding Dr Totman.
It is debatable if the Policia Judiciaria under Rebelo had that information either.
So yet another missed opportunity?
As Og seemed satisfied with Totman, it would appear that nothing was missed or lost
Thank you.
Yes ... just a tad too understated to be immediately obvious ... however a direct link is always useful.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/POWERPOINT.htm
Madeleine was missed ... and she was lost. Operation Grange was a very, very long time coming when that fact is taken into consideration.
Are you blind? I provided the link. Look at yourself first before commenting on others.
But the delay does not appear to have altered the outcome - IMO
What Outcome? This far from over.
Are you blind? I provided the link. Look at yourself first before commenting on others.
I have had a week without the internet - but summing up it appears Jane Tanner appears to have said to someone she is 80% certain that the sketch drawn for Gail Cooper is similar to the man she saw passing by the street corner, but that can't be from a front on view but side on aspects of this man only.Glad to have you back ... I thought maybe you were on holiday.
If we have a face that is predominantly frontal view I'd say the estimate must be more the height weight, age, clothing etc things which can be altered in appearance relatively easily.
Glad to have you back ... I thought maybe you were on holiday.
When 'eggman' first made his appearance I think it was as a result of lack of software capable of producing a facial side view at the time.
and at the time'
At a later date when Madeleine's Fund commissioned an FBI trained artist to collaborate with her on producing the efit with which we are all familiar I don't think she felt confident enough to embellish her description beyond what she could recall with certainty.
Perhaps she saw enough in Gail Cooper's description to enable her to recollect memories of her own sighting?