It has never been explained why Julian Totman was walking the wrong way?

[Vertigo Swirl]

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..?

[Brietta]

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.

[jassi]

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 truth

[Vertigo Swirl]

Of course evidence can be false. People don't always tell the truth

But Jane Tanner was telling the truth, as the existence of Totman proves.  Doesn't it?

[G-Unit]

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.

How do you know Dr Totman's evidence was given to the PJ in May 2007?

[jassi]

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 - IMO

[Vertigo Swirl]

Not as far as it being Madeleine and her abductor. It was a false trail - IMO

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?

[jassi]

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 - IMO

[Vertigo Swirl]

The tale got embellished with each retelling so what she said might not have been entirely correct - IMO

LOL, 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? 

[Brietta]

How do you know Dr Totman's evidence was given to the PJ in May 2007?

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?

[Brietta]

Of course evidence can be false. People don't always tell the truth

That's why witness evidence has to be looked at and evaluated, don't you think?

[slartibartfast]

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..?

You seem to miss the differences between being mistaken and lying.

[slartibartfast]

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”.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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?

[slartibartfast]

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.