Perceptions of Madeleine's Abduction

[sadie]

I don't know what they did but saying the man seen by Jane Tanner was leaving the night creche was a rookie mistake imo. Geography didn't seem to be one of Britain's finest's strong points.

Here you go again.  You seem to be confusing the evidence.


Tannerman as described by Jane Tanner was walking in a direction eastwards, which was the direction that anyone taking Madeleine from the front of 5A would have come from.  After the junction with Rua Dr F G Martins, which Jane was walking up, Tannerman went further along Rua Dr A de Silva

You are talking about Dr Totman who may, or may not, have been seen by Jane. 


Jane recollects her sighting as

1)  being much earlier in the evening than Totman.

2)  She was close to Tannerman, quoted as being only about 5 metres away and she remembered his carrying on, going eastward along Rua Dr A. de Silva.   In order for Totman to enter block 6, he had to change direction and go in a southerly direction along Dr F G Martins rather than carry on along Dr A de Silva.   That is NOT what Jane saw.

3)  Dr Totmans child was wearing bluey coloured pyjamas IIRC, Madeleines were basically creamy white


With the wrong coloured blue Pjays , the wrong direction and the wrong time, I think that Dr. Totman was NOT the man that Jane saw.


Since Dr Totman kindly came forward, how interesting it would be to speak to Jane, and find out what her perceptions are now.

[Eleanor]

Not when he was a serving police officer.

Really?  So he didn't start writing his book on day one?  That was a lie, was it?

And accusing the British Police of protecting The McCanns was a fantasy on his part?

There's a bit of semantics for you.

[jassi]

Really?  So he didn't start writing his book on day one?  That was a lie, was it?

And accusing the British Police of protecting The McCanns was a fantasy on his part?

There's a bit of semantics for you.

I don't know. Was it ?

[G-Unit]

As I said in my post they don’t owe you an explanation therefore you can’t know whether it makes sense or not because you don’t know everything that they know about it.

No I don't, so I can only judge them on what they say. They said a holidaymaker had collected his child from the night creche. They also said he was walking 'near' 5A. So he was either going in the wrong direction or Jane Tanner got his direction of travel wrong and he was moving towards 5A, not away from it.

[Eleanor]

No I don't, so I can only judge them on what they say. They said a holidaymaker had collected his child from the night creche. They also said he was walking 'near' 5A. So he was either going in the wrong direction or Jane Tanner got his direction of travel wrong and he was moving towards 5A, not away from it.

Dear God.  Can You help me?

[Eleanor]

I don't know. Was it ?

Was not that for why he got the sack?  Presuming he actually got the sack.  Maybe he didn't.  Who knows?

[jassi]

Was not that for why he got the sack?  Presuming he actually got the sack.  Maybe he didn't.  Who knows?

I thought he was removed from the case, which is not the same as being sacked.

[Eleanor]

I thought he was removed from the case, which is not the same as being sacked.

Absolutely correct.  Amaral just wasn't up to the task of fitting up the mother of another missing child.

[G-Unit]

Dear God.  Can You help me?

I wouldn't bet on it. 

[Eleanor]

I wouldn't bet on it. 

I would.

[Vertigo Swirl]

No I don't, so I can only judge them on what they say. They said a holidaymaker had collected his child from the night creche. They also said he was walking 'near' 5A. So he was either going in the wrong direction or Jane Tanner got his direction of travel wrong and he was moving towards 5A, not away from it.

But you’ve already decided the Met are incompetent so no need to pretend there may be another explanation now. 

[G-Unit]

But you’ve already decided the Met are incompetent so no need to pretend there may be another explanation now.

Well it was either that or a witness didn't know right from left.

[G-Unit]

Here you go again.  You seem to be confusing the evidence.


Tannerman as described by Jane Tanner was walking in a direction eastwards, which was the direction that anyone taking Madeleine from the front of 5A would have come from.  After the junction with Rua Dr F G Martins, which Jane was walking up, Tannerman went further along Rua Dr A de Silva

You are talking about Dr Totman who may, or may not, have been seen by Jane. 


Jane recollects her sighting as

1)  being much earlier in the evening than Totman.

2)  She was close to Tannerman, quoted as being only about 5 metres away and she remembered his carrying on, going eastward along Rua Dr A. de Silva.   In order for Totman to enter block 6, he had to change direction and go in a southerly direction along Dr F G Martins rather than carry on along  R. Dr A. de Silva.  That is NOT what Jane saw.

3)  Dr Totmans child was wearing bluey coloured pyjamas IIRC, Madeleines were basically creamy white


With the wrong coloured blue Pjays , the wrong direction and the wrong time, I think that Dr. Totman was NOT the man that Jane saw.


Since Dr Totman kindly came forward, how interesting it would be to speak to Jane, and find out what her perceptions are now.

Why would anyone be going to Block 6? If it was Totman he was staying in Block 4, to the west of Block 5.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well it was either that or a witness didn't know right from left.

And there can’t possibly be any other explanation?

[Myster]

Why would anyone be going to Block 6? If it was Totman he was staying in Block 4, to the west of Block 5.

Can we clarify once and for all in which block Dr. Totman was staying - was it 4 or 6?...