Crecheman's identity finally revealed

[faithlilly]

When Tannerman appeared kosher, it placed the snatching of Madeleine to around 9.15. Once that was blown away, the window of opportunity widened to include another 40 minutes or so.

Did a Tannerman ever appear kosher?  The PJ didn’t believe he was the abductor and even the McCanns own PIs thought he was irrelevant.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Did a Tannerman ever appear kosher?  The PJ didn’t believe he was the abductor and even the McCanns own PIs thought he was irrelevant.

Can we have a cite for the McCanns PIs thinking he was irrelevant please?  I’d like to know upon what basis they arrived at this conclusion.

[faithlilly]

Can we have a cite for the McCanns PIs thinking he was irrelevant please?  I’d like to know upon what basis they arrived at this conclusion.

The PIs believed the fund resources should have been focused on Smithman. They felt Tanner was an unreliable witness

[Brietta]

It is a bit strange I agree.  If Dr Totman was resident in Block 4 and was returning from the night creche located above OC Reception then why was he walking from west to east past Block 5 and not the other way round?

Until that question is answered Jane Tanner's witness statement remains as the only clear sighting of a man leaving the vicinity of apartment 5a carrying a child.

She at least has been very clear on this and consistent in stating what she saw and when she saw it. 

Rather than changing anything from that in supposition to make it fit with other timescales, in my opinion, that is the benchmark for theories and not the other way around.

In my opinion 'Tannerman' remains very much in the frame for as long as Dr Totman's direction of travel is unexplained.

[jassi]

I think you are flogging a dead horse as regards Tannerman.

[Brietta]

I think you are flogging a dead horse as regards Tannerman.

Maybe so ... but why should you think so?  Have you worked out why Dr Totman was walking the path Tannerman did?

[jassi]

Maybe so ... but why should you think so?  Have you worked out why Dr Totman was walking the path Tannerman did?

Why should I ?  I'm more interested in why his name has suddenly appeared in the press after so long.

[Eleanor]

I think you are flogging a dead horse as regards Tannerman.

You might think so.  Some of us don't.

[G-Unit]

I think you are flogging a dead horse as regards Tannerman.

Can we call him Totmanman now?

The interesting question imo is who 'outed' him and why? If he'd wanted publicity he could have spoken to the press at any time since 2007, as so many did.

The article accuses;

Why did cops investigating Madeleine McCann’s disappearance waste four years on ‘Tannerman’ lead?

Which cops and which four years? The PJ spent very little time on the sighting and OG had existed for only two and a half years when they changed their focus to Smithman.

In my opinion the article is aimed at discrediting the Met. Why would the Sun, which has always supported the McCanns, want to discredit the only people who are 'searching for Madeleine'?

[Alice Purjorick]

Until that question is answered Jane Tanner's witness statement remains as the only clear sighting of a man leaving the vicinity of apartment 5a carrying a child.

She at least has been very clear on this and consistent in stating what she saw and when she saw it. 

Rather than changing anything from that in supposition to make it fit with other timescales, in my opinion, that is the benchmark for theories and not the other way around.

In my opinion 'Tannerman' remains very much in the frame for as long as Dr Totman's direction of travel is unexplained.

Is the direction Dr Totman was travelling in stated anywhere, quite unequivocally, in any document of standing ?

[Eleanor]

Can we call him Totmanman now?

The interesting question imo is who 'outed' him and why? If he'd wanted publicity he could have spoken to the press at any time since 2007, as so many did.

The article accuses;

Why did cops investigating Madeleine McCann’s disappearance waste four years on ‘Tannerman’ lead?

Which cops and which four years? The PJ spent very little time on the sighting and OG had existed for only two and a half years when they changed their focus to Smithman.

In my opinion the article is aimed at discrediting the Met. Why would the Sun, which has always supported the McCanns, want to discredit the only people who are 'searching for Madeleine'?

I think that Totman will probably do.

You couldn't make it up.

[Brietta]

Why should I ?  I'm more interested in why his name has suddenly appeared in the press after so long.

What I find strange is that Dr Totman didn't appear to have been interviewed at the time by the PJ as a parent using the creche that evening and perhaps walking home carrying his child.

Paolo Reis mentions him in his blog sometime in May 2009 ... but only in relation to yet another conspiracy theory doing the rounds at the time.
Snip
"Another link between the W****** or W********** and Wiltshire is the fact that they made dinner bookings at the Tapas Bar with Dr Julian Totman who is also from Salisbury in Wiltshire." P. Reis

So why Dr Totman had apparently dropped off the official radar but remained pinging in the blogosphere, albeit of apparently little interest, is a bit of a mystery.
Making one hope that this time round Operation Grange managed to reach all the other loose ends just like him to progress the investigation into Madeleine's case even further, which is exactly what I think they did.

[Mr Gray]

I don't see any of this as being of any real importance... What is important is, what Grange are investigating and we don't know

[Brietta]

Can we call him Totmanman now?

The interesting question imo is who 'outed' him and why? If he'd wanted publicity he could have spoken to the press at any time since 2007, as so many did.

The article accuses;

Why did cops investigating Madeleine McCann’s disappearance waste four years on ‘Tannerman’ lead?

Which cops and which four years? The PJ spent very little time on the sighting and OG had existed for only two and a half years when they changed their focus to Smithman.

In my opinion the article is aimed at discrediting the Met. Why would the Sun, which has always supported the McCanns, want to discredit the only people who are 'searching for Madeleine'?

Snip
In October 2007 the McCanns put out a sketch of the Tannerman but Mr Totman had already told the Guarda Nacional Republicana in May that it was probably him but they kept looking for the suspect.

It was only in 2011 after Scotland Yard took over the investigation that Det Chief Insp Andy Redwood, who led the probe from Britain, described a 'moment of revelation' when they became 'almost certain this sighting [Tannerman] is not the abductor.'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Julian Totman's wife Rachel, who lives with her husband in the West Country, has revealed that police had never contacted them.

She told The Sun: 'My husband had told the local police it could be him but we didn't hear anything for years.

'We always thought it was Julian who was seen by Jane Tanner. But the national police who investigated didn't get back to us and we don't know if our information was ever passed on.'   

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5698933/Madeleine-McCann-police-spent-four-years-trying-ID-man-GP-said-him.html#ixzz5EzgG4cGA


Dr Totman apparently "outed" himself in May 2007 ... the fact that apparently nothing came of the information he imparted at that time is a question for the investigators of that time to answer.

[G-Unit]

I don't see any of this as being of any real importance... What is important is, what Grange are investigating and we don't know

No we don't, but it seems some people want them to stop. The so-called 'sceptics' have been accused of trying to discredit/stop OG, but they have never had the ear of the MSM, so who is driving this agenda?