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

[faithlilly]

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?

He was going to a friend’s house.....he was going to pick up his wife.......his wife had discovered that they were all out of nappies and he said he’d collect some on the way back from picking up their daughter ? There’s a myriad of reasons why he may have been walking the wrong way. What is clear however is that Redwood was happy with his explanation.

[jassi]

He was going to a friend’s house.....he was going to pick up his wife.......his wife had discovered that they were all out of nappies and he said he’d collect some on the way back from picking up their daughter ? There’s a myriad of reasons why he may have been walking the wrong way. What is clear however is that Redwood was happy with his explanation.

Whatever the explanation, that does seem to be the crucial point -IMO

[Miss Taken Identity]

Whatever the explanation, that does seem to be the crucial point -IMO

I think it is fair to say, that Jane Tanner did NOT see an abductor carrying MBM. All those added extras to her 'remembered more details about pyjamas etc,'  very revealing, very revealing indeed!

At least two police investigations are testament to that.

[John]

I see the weekend has started early this week. 

Posters are well aware that naughty posts will be removed on sight so no excuses.

Moderators please take note...NO EXCEPTIONS!

[slartibartfast]

Last try...

Brietta, you made a statement that Totman “gave this information to the police while still on holiday”.
I said “ we don’t know what information he gave the police”.
You made a statement about the information Redwood gave to the media.

I am asking what the connection is between your claim that Totman gave “this” information to the police while still on Holiday and Redwood’s statements to the media?

If there is no link then I must assume the Redwood comment was a red herring and that you don’t know what information Totman gave while on holiday.

[Brietta]

Last try...

Brietta, you made a statement that Totman “gave this information to the police while still on holiday”.
I said “ we don’t know what information he gave the police”.
You made a statement about the information Redwood gave to the media.

I am asking what the connection is between your claim that Totman gave “this” information to the police while still on Holiday and Redwood’s statements to the media?

If there is no link then I must assume the Redwood comment was a red herring and that you don’t know what information Totman gave while on holiday.

Thank you.
 ... and how simple was that?  ... and why the song and dance about doing that in the first instance?

Bearing that unnecessary exercise in time wasting in mind, I shall now consider my response and get back to you with it at my earliest convenience.

[John]

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.

I think we need to clarify this before I start wiping posts.   

Dr Totman claimed to have spoken to police about his movements around blocks 4 and 5 on the night that Madeleine disappeared.  What we don't know is what information he imparted, to which police specifically or when exactly.  We don't know if the police to whom he spoke felt it relevant to pass it on, certainly there is no evidence that the good doctor was asked to make a statement.

We can only deduce from the above that Dr Totman failed to impart the significance of his information given the claim made by Jane Tanner.  If that was the case, the conversation was in all likelihood lost in the deluge of other information which accompanies a missing child case. The only people to whom important information should be passed to about a potential crime in Portugal are the PJ detectives, telling a police guard on the ground is of little use.

To conclude, Dr Totman states that he spoke to the police but that nobody ever got back to him.  Given the very wide exposure of this case in the UK and the many theories which have emerged about Tannerman, wouldn't one have thought that the gentleman would have picked up the phone and spoken to someone at OG with the revelation that it was probably him?

[Brietta]

I think we need to clarify this before I start wiping posts.   

Dr Totman claimed to have spoken to police about his movements around blocks 4 and 5 on the night that Madeleine disappeared.  What we don't know is what information he imparted, to which police specifically or when exactly.  We don't know if the police to whom he spoke felt it relevant to pass it on, certainly there is no evidence that the good doctor was asked to make a statement.

We can only deduce from the above that Dr Totman failed to impart the significance of his information given the claim made by Jane Tanner.  If that was the case, the conversation was in all likelihood lost in the deluge of other information which accompanies a missing child case. The only people to whom important information should be passed to about a potential crime in Portugal are the PJ detectives, telling a police guard on the ground is of little use.

To conclude, Dr Totman states that he spoke to the police but that nobody ever got back to him.  Given the very wide exposure of this case in the UK and the many theories which have emerged about Tannerman, wouldn't one have thought that the gentleman would have picked up the phone and spoken to someone at OG with the revelation that it was probably him?

Sorry John I didn't see this until now.  I must go out so will have to respond later.

[John]

Sorry John I didn't see this until now.  I must go out so will have to respond later.

No hurry Brie.

[John]

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?

I can understand Dr Totman going out again with his daughter but not clad in her PJ's with a blanket around her and certainly not being carried like an armful of logs and not at a brisk pace.  Something just doesn't add up here imo.

[Robittybob1]

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

Are you suggesting he lied about having the child wrapped when Jane saw him, or when he knew someone had seen him, so he took evasive action and walked across the road instead of back tracking toward the creche looking for the blanket?

Personally I find your suggestion highly unlikely unless the child wasn't awake and having a tantrum.

[Robittybob1]

He was going to a friend’s house.....he was going to pick up his wife.......his wife had discovered that they were all out of nappies and he said he’d collect some on the way back from picking up their daughter ? There’s a myriad of reasons why he may have been walking the wrong way. What is clear however is that Redwood was happy with his explanation.

If that required confirming was the alibi confirmed with another person.  Creche records, his wife's recollection, who did he visit on the wrong way trip, why carry your daughter when you had already been back?   Questions needing to be answered.
Like if the records showed he picked up the daughter at 9:15 he can't be seen near the Tapas Reataurant at 9:15 PM can he?

[ShiningInLuz]

Are you suggesting he lied about having the child wrapped when Jane saw him, or when he knew someone had seen him, so he took evasive action and walked across the road instead of back tracking toward the creche looking for the blanket?

Personally I find your suggestion highly unlikely unless the child wasn't awake and having a tantrum.

Did Totman say anything about anything?

Wasn't Tannerman a tad unusual, according to Jane, because the child was not wrapped in a blanket?

[Robittybob1]

Did Totman say anything about anything?

Wasn't Tannerman a tad unusual, according to Jane, because the child was not wrapped in a blanket?

That is the point, Jane thought "he wasn't a good parent for he hasn't wrapped the child up".   So if that happens to be a doctor who hasn't wrapped the child up that becomes even harder to understand.
So far I've only seen quotes from his wife Rachel.

[G-Unit]

That is the point, Jane thought "he wasn't a good parent for he hasn't wrapped the child up".   So if that happens to be a doctor who hasn't wrapped the child up that becomes even harder to understand.
So far I've only seen quotes from his wife Rachel.

Rather ironic from a woman who's children are home alone, wasn't it. You seem to be assuming that doctor = good parent. Is there any reason why you think they are better than other parents? I would imagine his wife was the one who answered the phone to the reporter.