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

[Vertigo Swirl]

Show me where I said "I ridiculed or even implied ridicule of Jane Tanner's sighting" in my recent post above.

“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.”

You ridiculed the description of the man in the sighting growing in detail over time, but not the person who reported the sighting, is that really what you are claiming?! That’s laughable, really, isn’t it?

[jassi]

Have you been reading the thread, or have you just joined it?

I slip in and out as the mood takes me.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You seem very busy searching the archives. Is there some purpose ?

Yes, I was asked by a moderator to back up my claim with cites, as my first cite was not deemed sufficiently convincing.

[slartibartfast]

Yes, I was asked by a moderator to back up my claim with cites, as my first cite was not deemed sufficiently convincing.

You chose to take as not sufficiently convincing.

[barrier]

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?

Mark Rowley 2017.
 There are odd headlines and odd stories in newspapers on a regular basis and most of those are nonsense.
 


 

[Robittybob1]

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.

Where did this text come from please.

https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/maddie-truth-of-lie-documentary.html

From my initial reading of that understanding by what appears to be a lawyer is that multiple facts in that quote are entirely wrong.

[Alice Purjorick]

“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.”

You ridiculed the description of the man in the sighting growing in detail over time, but not the person who reported the sighting, is that really what you are claiming?! That’s laughable, really, isn’t it?

I would say your inabilty to parse properly is the primary source of amusement.

[Robittybob1]

I'm questioning neither. I questioned the veracity of your statement that the Totman's evidence was given to the PJ in May 2007. That statement can't be shown to be true, but you're strangely reluctant to admit it.

I think it is fair enough to say some information was given to the PJ even if it wasn't given to them directly but with the hope it will be passed on to them. 

[Robittybob1]

You seem very busy searching the archives. Is there some purpose ?

I will admit people could have had a different view then to what they believe now.  I think our opinions change as more information comes to hand, and even then it may still be wrong.

[Robittybob1]

I would say your inabilty to parse properly is the primary source of amusement.

Please put up your full explanation or I will take your comment as a personal dig at VS and delete it.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You chose to take as not sufficiently convincing.

???

[Vertigo Swirl]

I would say your inabilty to parse properly is the primary source of amusement.

I’d say your inability to answer a straight question with a straight answer is somewhat tiresome but predictable.

[Robittybob1]

I’d say your inability to answer a straight question with a straight answer is somewhat tiresome but predictable.

A starting point is here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9601.msg465411#msg465411
As I recall Jane Tanner was willing to do an E-fit of the man she saw but she only saw a side on view and for an E-fit you needed a face on view of the person being drawn. Later an artist drew what she saw but by then the the memory of the child's pyjamas appears to have been affected by false memory syndrome.  But despite that the description of the man remained the same. 
But then some one seemed to combine Gail Cooper's sketch with Jane's but was that Jane or someone else who drew that.

[kizzy]

Where did this text come from please.

https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/maddie-truth-of-lie-documentary.html

From my initial reading of that understanding by what appears to be a lawyer is that multiple facts in that quote are entirely wrong.

What are u talking [posting] about - its times like this i feel as if i'm in a nut house

[Robittybob1]

What are u talking [posting] about - its times like this i feel as if i'm in a nut house

Have you free access to the outside world?