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

[Robittybob1]

If it has been agreed that Totman is over 6 foot tall and Jane described someone as short as 5 foot 8 inches that puts doubt in my mind that Totman was the person seen by Jane.

The person who was photographed in 2013 by OG doesn't really look like Totman either.  Even though the sketch that Jane drew does look like the person OG photographed.   He had an opportunity to dress like the description of the person that Jane saw as the files had been available for years.

Nothing has convinced me we are any closer to solving this situation.  It is time everyone presented facts to the public to assess rather than to second guess.

[Brietta]

If it has been agreed that Totman is over 6 foot tall and Jane described someone as short as 5 foot 8 inches that puts doubt in my mind that Totman was the person seen by Jane.

The person who was photographed in 2013 by OG doesn't really look like Totman either.  Even though the sketch that Jane drew does look like the person OG photographed.   He had an opportunity to dress like the description of the person that Jane saw as the files had been available for years.

Nothing has convinced me we are any closer to solving this situation.  It is time everyone presented facts to the public to assess rather than to second guess.

I agree with your post up until where think the public should be given the facts.  In my opinion the public inclusive of witnesses are just not equipped to assess anything about an active criminal case.

We pay the police and latterly we have been paying for the investigation of a crime ... so why flush that down the drain for want of patience?

It is easy for us to get sucked into thinking that we are the public and we are the voice of public opinion.  We are not!  The majority of people in the real world have no idea we exist and would probably think us rather loopy if they did.

I wouldn't breathe a word that might jeopardise Madeleine's case reaching a conclusion and if that entails having to wonder about Dr Totman's direction of travel ... I can wait.

[John]

The only excuse I've read so far that being he went home with his daughter and then went out again, is the only one so far that could make Totman walk across the intersection from the left to the right from Jane's perspective.

Its a very odd way to carry a child no matter where he was going.  Any ideas?

[John]

With a change of pyjamas as well for Tanner should have recalled the orange bits on the Totman's kept pyjamas.
I personally found the fact that Totman kept those pyjamas one of the oddest things in this case.  Did he know that presentation of those pyjamas were going to be crucial in solving the McCann case 11 or more years later?

Interesting point Robbie.

[John]

If he had been talking to the tapas group and they had told him about Tanner’s sighting wouldn’t he, and they, have put two and two together and conclude that he may have been the man she saw ? Why didn’t they approach Tanner and put this to her ? Further as she would have been aware of Totman from watching the men play tennis why didn’t she recognise him as her sighting ?

The Tanner sighting and the covert van operation which followed was all about putting Murat in the frame so at that point in time the police weren't looking for an innocent child-carrying tourist. It didn't help the situation when some of the tapas group insisted that Murat had been hanging around outside block 5 on the evening that Madeleine disappeared. 

[John]

If it has been agreed that Totman is over 6 foot tall and Jane described someone as short as 5 foot 8 inches that puts doubt in my mind that Totman was the person seen by Jane.

The person who was photographed in 2013 by OG doesn't really look like Totman either.  Even though the sketch that Jane drew does look like the person OG photographed.   He had an opportunity to dress like the description of the person that Jane saw as the files had been available for years.

Nothing has convinced me we are any closer to solving this situation.  It is time everyone presented facts to the public to assess rather than to second guess.

His facial features aside, she is bound to have encountered him and his child on other occasions wearing the same jacket. I wonder if Jane Tanner now believes that it was Dr Totman she saw that night?

[Robittybob1]

His facial features aside, she is bound to have encountered him and his child on other occasions wearing the same jacket. I wonder if Jane Tanner now believes that it was Dr Totman she saw that night?

That's what I'm finding so frustrating.  It is obviously an innocent part of the night but no one wants to talks openly about it.
Did Mr Totman talk to OG in 2013?  Surely that should be able to be cleared up.  I noticed his wife never mentioned anything about talking to OG in the past or am I mistaken about that?

This seems to be a direct quote from Mrs Totman “We always thought it was Julian who was seen by Jane Tanner."  https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-detectives-spent-four-12495545
Well does that mean she wasn't there either, so she is guessing too!  Where was she at the time?  Had she gone back to the apartment earlier?

She also says in the interview "His wife Rachel told The Sun: "My husband had told the local police it could be him but we didn’t hear anything for years.

“When the police finally realised the significance it was too late to really help."

What does she mean "too late to help"?  It was supposed to be a revelation moment.

Was it someone else wearing Totman style clothing in the photo?

[Robittybob1]

In another paper it says "Julian Totman was carrying his daughter back from a creche when he was seen by one of the so-called “Tapas Seven” dining with Kate and Gerry McCann in Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007." https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/701047/madeleine-mccann-missing-investigation-parents-tannerman-police-tapas-7

What I notice about that is it says "when he was seen".  Does that mean he was aware of someone seeing him?

In the latest news the Totmans don't mention OG talking to them or OG actually confirming it was Totman that was photographed, so who puts them in the same frame in the article?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/


Who is actually making the connection between Totman and Tannerman in the following bit?

"The Portuguese probe was concluded in July 2008 and it was not until 2011 — when then-Home Secretary Theresa May ordered the Met carry out a review — that the Totmans’ account was finally taken seriously.

Det Chief Insp Andy Redwood described it as a “moment of revelation”.

[barrier]

In another paper it says "Julian Totman was carrying his daughter back from a creche when he was seen by one of the so-called “Tapas Seven” dining with Kate and Gerry McCann in Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007." https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/701047/madeleine-mccann-missing-investigation-parents-tannerman-police-tapas-7

What I notice about that is it says "when he was seen".  Does that mean he was aware of someone seeing him?

In the latest news the Totmans don't mention OG talking to them or OG actually confirming it was Totman that was photographed, so who puts them in the same frame in the article?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/


Who is actually making the connection between Totman and Tannerman in the following bit?

"The Portuguese probe was concluded in July 2008 and it was not until 2011 — when then-Home Secretary Theresa May ordered the Met carry out a review — that the Totmans’ account was finally taken seriously.

Det Chief Insp Andy Redwood described it as a “moment of revelation”.

Bolded bits Rob,you've already sussed it out.

[Brietta]

Bolded bits Rob,you've already sussed it out.

I'm afraid you've lost me there.

What do we actually know for sure about Dr Totman in relation to his holiday in Luz.

• he was accompanied by his wife and children
• a leisure activity was playing tennis
• he dined in the tapas restaurant on at least one occasion
• he was resident in apartment block 4
• on May 3rd 2007 he carried his two year old daughter home from the night creche
• presumably wrapped in a blanket because one was included in the photo with the clothing his daughter wore that night
• if he was the man witnessed by Jane Tanner ... he was walking in away from his residence, not toward it
• he gave this information to the police while still on holiday

Have I missed anything?
As far as I know ... these are the facts ... anything else is speculation.

[slartibartfast]

I'm afraid you've lost me there.

What do we actually know for sure about Dr Totman in relation to his holiday in Luz.

• he was accompanied by his wife and children
• a leisure activity was playing tennis
• he dined in the tapas restaurant on at least one occasion
• he was resident in apartment block 4
• on May 3rd 2007 he carried his two year old daughter home from the night creche
• presumably wrapped in a blanket because one was included in the photo with the clothing his daughter wore that night
• if he was the man witnessed by Jane Tanner ... he was walking in away from his residence, not toward it
• he gave this information to the police while still on holiday

Have I missed anything?
As far as I know ... these are the facts ... anything else is speculation.

We don’t know what information he gave to the police.

[Brietta]

We don’t know what information he gave to the police.

But we do know what information DCI Redwood imparted to us through the medium of National television and press releases.

[jassi]

If we take Redwood's words at face value, then Tannerman was an enormous red herring. However there was a certain amount of ambiguity in what he said, even though he had moved the time window of interest

[Brietta]

If we take Redwood's words at face value, then Tannerman was an enormous red herring. However there was a certain amount of ambiguity in what he said, even though he had moved the time window of interest

With apologies for the photo which obviously relates to something else (don't know if John might have a more appropriate image) ... it is the only one which I could find in which the relationship between Block 5 housing the McCanns et al and Block 4 housing Dr Totman et al is clearly delineated.

Jane Tanner's route from the tapas to block 5 is outlined in yellow and marked with a 2 and the corner where she witnessed the man passing is under the notification and familiar to us all.

On a homeward journey from the night creche ... why would Dr Totman be following the route from block 4 and marked 3 on this illustration to cross Jane's path at that point and to continue briskly across the junction and out of the frame of this image?

[G-Unit]

Maybe he realised he'd dropped the blanket and hurried back to find it?