Is it true the PJ may have "Smithman" on video?

[Robittybob1]

Presumably there would be a link to the booking form in the files that could be checked, as I certainly wouldn't care to solely take the word of a somewhat dubious fourm

I'm not going to just take their word for it, but surely someone else has noted that sheet if it exists.

[misty]

This looks interesting.  Were the Totmans even staying in Block 4G on the 3rd?

"The Totmans, with their two children aged 3 and 2, arrived in Praia da Luz on the 28th April and stayed in Apartment G4M, apparently just for their second week.There is this strange reference at the foot of their booking sheet, which says;

“Please note that activity list will only be showing 2nd week, but guest requires 2 weeks childcare from 28th April”. https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t15166-the-mccann-totman-weinberger-nexus


If that is true the Totmans were not staying in G4M on the 3rd.  This might explain why he was going the wrong way!

How true any of this is a guess.  The facts need verification.  Does anyone know?

Totman's apartment number was recorded as G4M when they dined in the Tapas Bar on 1st May.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_606.jpg    (7pm booking)

[Robittybob1]

Totman's apartment number was recorded as G4M when they dined in the Tapas Bar on 1st May.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_606.jpg    (7pm booking)

Thanks for finding that, but still does no preclude the business arrangement expressed in the note, "“Please note that activity list will only be showing 2nd week, but guest requires 2 weeks childcare from 28th April”.
Could that arrangement be as if they were staying in G4M but in actual fact sleeping elsewhere.

Did anyone check the booking sheets for that statement: “Please note that activity list will only be showing 2nd week, but guest requires 2 weeks childcare from 28th April”?

[misty]

Thanks for finding that, but still does no preclude the business arrangement expressed in the note, "“Please note that activity list will only be showing 2nd week, but guest requires 2 weeks childcare from 28th April”.
Could that arrangement be as if they were staying in G4M but in actual fact sleeping elsewhere.

Did anyone check the booking sheets for that statement: “Please note that activity list will only be showing 2nd week, but guest requires 2 weeks childcare from 28th April”?

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_336.jpg


Maybe they originally only booked one week of childcare but later amended it?

[Robittybob1]

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_336.jpg


Maybe they originally only booked one week of childcare but later amended it?

So why do you say that?  Have I understood the kids ages correctly?  Who the eldest the daughter or the son.  I have a feeling the son was in the group with Madeleine, and the daughter only 2 years age.

[Holly Goodhead]

If JT was wrong, she should have seen Tannerman as she rounded the corner.  If she was corect, then Tannerman was behind her as she rounded the corner.  Out of sight.

I'm not sure what Totman says.  He was pictured in the press as JT described, going from JT's left to her right, with the child's feet towards JT.  Unless one mirror-images the whole lot, then JT got the sighting correct.

Whether it was Totman or not is another issue.

As I understand it JT made this observation as she left the OC reception (near Tapas) and turned left to walk up the road that runs alongside block 5?   During this short walk she observed 'Tannerman' crossing the road in front of her from left to right when if it was Dr Trotman with child collected from creche the logical direction of travel to his apartment would be right to left?

[Eleanor]

As I understand it JT made this observation as she left the OC reception (near Tapas) and turned left to walk up the road that runs alongside block 5?   During this short walk she observed 'Tannerman' crossing the road in front of her from left to right when if it was Dr Trotman with child collected from creche the logical direction of travel to his apartment would be right to left?

This remains a problem with no sensible answers.

[Robittybob1]

As I understand it JT made this observation as she left the OC reception (near Tapas) and turned left to walk up the road that runs alongside block 5?   During this short walk she observed 'Tannerman' crossing the road in front of her from left to right when if it was Dr Totman with child collected from creche the logical direction of travel to his apartment would be right to left?

But now we have information the Totmans were not residing in Block 4 as everyone was believing.  Had he been seeing off his friends and then going to his normal place of residence he may have been leaving Block 4 when seen by Jane.  This makes it possible for Jane and Totman to be correct, but it means he was carrying a 2 year old child at the time.
Which also fits in with Jane's observation for one wouldn't carry a heavier child across one's arms IMO.

[Holly Goodhead]

But now we have information the Totmans were not residing in Block 4 as everyone was believing.  Had he been seeing off his friends and then going to his normal place of residence he may have been leaving Block 4 when seen by Jane.  This makes it possible for Jane and Totman to be correct, but it means he was carrying a 2 year old child at the time.
Which also fits in with Jane's observation for one wouldn't carry a heavier child across one's arms IMO.

Not sure what you mean by seeing off his friends?  I thought he was returning from creche and heading back to his apt?  Which block was he staying in? 

[Holly Goodhead]

This remains a problem with no sensible answers.

But there are some knows?

- JT was leaving OC reception, turned left and was heading up the road towards block 5?

- Dr Totman had collected his child from night creche and was heading towards his apt? 

- Dr T was staying in 1 designated apartment for his use along with his family?

- Is Dr T's wit stat available?  It may be that he/his wife can shed light on the matter?

[Robittybob1]

Not sure what you mean by seeing off his friends?  I thought he was returning from creche and heading back to his apt?  Which block was he staying in?

His friends were the Weinbergers in Block 4.  They may have been out for dinner, and picked up the kids from the creche and may have popped around to the Weinbergers for a while before going home. 

I'm looking for some scenario that gets him going in the right direction.  Right direction = direction she saw Tannerman walking (from the left to the right as she is approaching the "T" intersection.

[Holly Goodhead]

His friends were the Weinbergers in Block 4.  They may have been out for dinner, and picked up the kids from the creche and may have popped around to the Weinbergers for a while before going home. 

I'm looking for some scenario that gets him going in the right direction.  Right direction = direction she saw Tannerman walking (from the left to the right as she is approaching the "T" intersection.

You are assuming then that JT was correct in her recollections?

Surely Dr T/his wife could put an end to all this speculation?

[Robittybob1]

You are assuming then that JT was correct in her recollections?

Surely Dr T/his wife could put an end to all this speculation?

Put it this way, if I was living in England I'd be wanting to speak to the Totmans.  They are probably unaware of the speculation.

It is only in the last 2 days that  I have seen a solution to the"direction" problem.  Prior to that I though Jane might have been lying, but over all I find Jane rather honest so I was struggling with  that thought of her lying.

[Eleanor]

Approaching The Totmans in any way would be extremely foolish.

[The General]

Approaching The Totmans in any way would be extremely foolish.

I agree. Irrespective of the reaction, just leave the people alone. Same goes for the Smiths - leave them be.