There are a myriad of reasons why Totman would be going the way he was and Redwood and his team had no problem believing that he could carry his child the way he did for some distance.
As to the child’s face and hair being visible you only have to look at the still below from the mockumentary, a still Tanner agreed was accurate with regard to the position of Madeleine, to see this is beyond argument.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/MadeleineWasHere2.jpg
You showed this image claiming that Jane agreed to the position of Madeleine
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/MadeleineWasHere2.jpg
Jane did not see Dr Totman, but she did see Tannerman. The man in the picture is clearly Dr Totman; he is nothing like Tannerman.
Dr Totman was carrying his 2 year old. Madeleine was nearly 4. The child in the image is clearly a 2 year old. and neither the child nor Totman look anything like Janes images.
Jane, an intelligent woman would not, could not, get Totman mixed up with Tannerman. They are totally different.
I notice that rabid skeptic-anti 'Nigel' has plenty to do with this. Everything that I have seen that he has produced always is twisted in some way. He is a master at it IMO. He is trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes that there was no abduction, just Dr Totman.
Strange that all three countries, Germany, Portugal and the UK do not agree with Anti-skeptic Nigel and say that there was an abduction.
How do you account for that Faith?
Re the position of Dr Totman crossing the road, that may well have been the same spot that she saw the moving image of Tannerman walk over and she was agreeing to that - and only that. Why are you trying to obfuscate Faith?