Author Topic: It has never been explained why Julian Totman was walking the wrong way?  (Read 43470 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Alice Purjorick

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.
There is absolutely no established link between MBM's disappearance and the child carrying man allegedly sighted by Jane Tanner.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline Vertigo Swirl

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.
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?
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline slartibartfast

Thanks for finding this thread, I hope Slarti will accept it as my cite for people accusing JT.

A 5 year old thread.....
« Last Edit: June 06, 2018, 08:39:53 PM by John »
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline jassi

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.
I wonder how she got to that point and if she still feels the same
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline Robittybob1

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 how she got to that point and if she still feels the same
Tangled up in blue or was it orange?
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

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 how she got to that point and if she still feels the same
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.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Brietta

You said GNR in post #129?

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?
« Last Edit: June 06, 2018, 08:41:20 PM by John »
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline faithlilly

Thanks for finding this thread, I hope Slarti will accept it as my cite for people accusing JT.

 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.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2018, 08:41:41 PM by John »
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Alice Purjorick

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?

You seem to be putting words in my mouth and attempting to deflect from what I did say.


"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline G-Unit

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 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.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Vertigo Swirl

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 can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Brietta

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.

So yet another two witnesses lying through their teeth?  There you go then ;)
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Vertigo Swirl

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?
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline kizzy

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.


Offline Brietta


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.

Please provide the link.  Thankyou
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....