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

[barrier]

I'm afraid you've lost me there.

Self explanatory, the link was made by the papers,Rob quoted as much,Redwood made no mention of a name.

[Robittybob1]

Self explanatory, the link was made by the papers,Rob quoted as much,Redwood made no mention of a name.

So you think it is just the journalist making the connection.  There doesn't seem to be any one actually being quoted.  Great.

[barrier]

So you think it is just the journalist making the connection.  There doesn't seem to be any one actually being quoted.  Great.

Thats the sum of it,pure speculation.

[Brietta]

Self explanatory, the link was made by the papers,Rob quoted as much,Redwood made no mention of a name.

On the presumption that there must still be DVD'S out there containing information we have not seen, the explanation for an investigative journalist getting hold of an individual's details is easily understood.

Paulo Reis "found" Dr Totman and published his name on his blog in 2009 in relation to quite another conspiracy theory all together.

DCI Redwood had this to say about him on the BBC Crimewatch programme:
Snip
One of the things that we picked up very quickly was the fact that there was a night crèche that was operating from the main Ocean Club reception, and 8 families had left eleven children in there and one particular family we spoke to gave us information that was really interesting and exciting. In fact I would say it was a, it was a revelation moment when having discussed with them what they were doing on the night they themselves believed that they could be the Tanner sighting.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Crimewatch.htm

Any enterprising journalist with that information to hand had only to discover
(a) who the eight families were who left their children in the night creche that evening
(b) which of those eight families had a child around Madeleine's age
(c) where those families were housed in relation to apartment 5A

In fact it is such a logical and simple thing to do if seeking information of any kind relating to investigating and gathering evidence when a child goes missing I'm surprised no-one in the PJ thought about doing so at the time.

That they didn't, seems to be borne out by the fact that according to DCI Redwood, " ... one particular family we spoke to ... " suggesting that Scotland Yard had to track and interview the eight families a few years down the line to find out if they knew anything.

Which in fact one of them did and at that time according to the DCI " ... when having discussed with them what they were doing on the night they themselves believed that they could be the Tanner sighting".

It also answers the question as to why the Totmans did not contact anyone with their information between May 2007 and being contacted by SY years down the line ... they just did not know it might might have been relevant.
It wasn't their job to work it out though was it?
It was a police job and it was the police who made the connection years down the line ... unfortunately not the ones with boots on the ground in 2007.

[Robittybob1]

Brietta: "It wasn't their job to work it out though was it?" 

I think it was their duty to come forward.

[Brietta]

Brietta: "It wasn't their job to work it out though was it?" 

I think it was their duty to come forward.

According to the tabloids they had informed the Portuguese police at the time, Robitty.  In my opinion very probably around when Bridget O'Donnell reports being visited by an officer and a translator who in my opinion were carrying out a door to door inquiry minus a notebook.
We know that such visits did happen.
They heard nothing more and probably assumed their statement had no relevance and thought no more about it until they were contacted by Scotland Yard.

Ms Wiltshire and Ms Jensen on the other hand firmly believed they had witnessed something important and kept at it in an attempt to have someone take note.
I believe in the process of insisting on doing their duty, becoming the butt of much derision from some.

[misty]

Brietta: "It wasn't their job to work it out though was it?" 

I think it was their duty to come forward.

They did come forward, though. The presence of Tannerman in O Enigma, portrayed walking towards Block 4 instead of towards Block 6, suggests the PJ were aware of what Dr Totman had told them.
IMO if the PJ could have ruled out the "unreliable" Jane Tanner sighting with Dr Totman, then they would have. The only problem was, they would then have been left with the incredibly reliable statements of the Smith family and another potential abductor as the focus of their investigation.

[Miss Taken Identity]

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.

This is a good post as far as getting a better picture of what the Dr would have / would not done.

I also wonder, if the Totmans had told the Police, while on holiday, and they picked up on it along with the tapas 9 stories ,it was these elements which made them believe there  was no abduction and no abductor.

  If they did tell the police -the police would not get back to them, why would they? they would investigate and  use as deemed necessary, or dismiss as irrelevant to the case.
 
I would guess the police did not believe from the description  of JT that Dr T was the man she saw.

Yes, it is a GUESS...

[jassi]

This is a good post as far as getting a better picture of what the Dr would have / would not done.

I also wonder, if the Totmans had told the Police, while on holiday, and they picked up on it along with the tapas 9 stories ,it was these elements which made them believe there  was no abduction and no abductor.

  If they did tell the police -the police would not get back to them, why would they? they would investigate and  use as deemed necessary, or dismiss as irrelevant to the case.
 
I would guess the police did not believe from the description  of JT that Dr T was the man she saw.

Yes, it is a GUESS...

If Totman had made a statement, police would only go back to him if they required clarification. He was only a bit player with a brief walk-on part.
IMO

[Miss Taken Identity]

If Totman had made a statement, police would only go back to him if they required clarification. He was only a bit player with a brief walk-on part.
IMO

If I were a jouro I would love to ask them these questions:

1. why did you go to pick up your daughter on a cold windy evening[Kate n Gerry quoting weather] without slippers or a blanket to keep her warm?
2. Do you always carry your child like a  bale of hay across your arms?
3. why have you come forward at this time (since we don't have a time for this contact- if there was one to the police).

Just a thought... perhaps they told one of the 'private detectives' thinking they were investigating on behalf of the police?

[Robittybob1]

They did come forward, though. The presence of Tannerman in O Enigma, portrayed walking towards Block 4 instead of towards Block 6, suggests the PJ were aware of what Dr Totman had told them.
IMO if the PJ could have ruled out the "unreliable" Jane Tanner sighting with Dr Totman, then they would have. The only problem was, they would then have been left with the incredibly reliable statements of the Smith family and another potential abductor as the focus of their investigation.

We think it was Totman.  I have not seen actual evidence it was Totman.  OK they say they did. But obviously the PJ assumed they were going home so would have been walking in the opposite direction.  It is telling that the PJ assume Jane got it wrong but Totman was correct.  Without proof. 

What makes this even more ludicrous is the the PJ would have accepted it if Jane had identified Robert Murat crossing the intersection.  Then the man carrying the child and Jane would have been in the respective places where she said they were.

[Robittybob1]

If Totman had made a statement, police would only go back to him if they required clarification. He was only a bit player with a brief walk-on part.
IMO

It is biased opinions like that that got the original investigation sidetracked IMO.

[Robittybob1]

If I were a jouro I would love to ask them these questions:

1. why did you go to pick up your daughter on a cold windy evening[Kate n Gerry quoting weather] without slippers or a blanket to keep her warm?
2. Do you always carry your child like a  bale of hay across your arms?
3. why have you come forward at this time (since we don't have a time for this contact- if there was one to the police).

Just a thought... perhaps they told one of the 'private detectives' thinking they were investigating on behalf of the police?

Rachel Totman seems to indicate Mr Totman spoke to the National Police which I take that to mean the GNR.  To me that seems to be a big mistake.

[Alice Purjorick]

They did come forward, though. The presence of Tannerman in O Enigma, portrayed walking towards Block 4 instead of towards Block 6, suggests the PJ were aware of what Dr Totman had told them.
IMO if the PJ could have ruled out the "unreliable" Jane Tanner sighting with Dr Totman, then they would have. The only problem was, they would then have been left with the incredibly reliable statements of the Smith family and another potential abductor as the focus of their investigation.

In reality there are four options.
1) I believe A not B.
2) I believe B not A.
3) I believe A and B.
4) I believe neither A nor B.

I see no "toggle" arrangement that means because I disbelieve B I must believe A ?
Would you care to explain what prevents Jane Tanner and The Smiths both having not sighted an abductor?

[misty]

In reality there are four options.
1) I believe A not B.
2) I believe B not A.
3) I believe A and B.
4) I believe neither A nor B.

I see no "toggle" arrangement that means because I disbelieve B I must believe A ?
Would you care to explain what prevents Jane Tanner and The Smiths both having not sighted an abductor?

Neither of the men + associated child have been 100% positively identified as innocent people carrying their own child. Despite PJ appeals in May 2007 which provided a description of the man/his clothing wandering around the streets of Luz at around 9.30pm & the subsequent SY appeal in 2013, the only revelation has been that Dr. Totman was in the vicinity around the relevant time.