Kate McCann's unanswered questions.

[G-Unit]

Dr T's child was carried to a different destination to that of Tannermans child.


Dr T had to walk in a southerly direction, down Rua Dr FGM, to access the entrance to his apartment block

Yet, Jane Tanner witnessed Tannerman carry on walking in an easterly direction along Rua Dr A de S.   
This was towards, but probably not to Murats villa.   

Most likely, with Gerry and Jez chatting in the way and also Jane Tanner walking up the hill of Rua Dr FGM towards Tannerman and ?Madeleine?, the pick up vehicle had not arrived.   Because  the driver had taken fright at the thought of passing them and the possibility of being spotted ?


IMO, Tannerman had nowhere to go, he knew that Jane would be following him if he doubled back, so he made a snap decision to carry on in the easterly direction, with the intention of turning right down the first alleyway  - and taking the short circular route via the alleyway to the car park where the pick up vehicle was parked.   See G Earth.
If he had been hiding in the shadows of OC car park waiting to be picked up, Tannerman might even not have known that the pick up / getaway  vehicle had shot off in the opposite direction.


Just my thoughts, but everything fits.  Check it out on Google earth.

Soz, Gunit, but you have got it wrong; Tannerman and Dr T were different people walking in different directions and at different times..



Come on Gunit, how about some more help?  I remember you helped me hone my thoughts last time ... and you are doing well again

Dr T was housed in Block 4, which, imo, was to the west of block 5. I don't think walking down Rua Dr FGM was involved.

Jane's sighting was somewhere around 9:15pm. I'm not sure why you think there were two men moving around at two different times, unless you agree with Heri that Jane mistook the time when she saw the man.

[sadie]

Detour to pick up a bottle of wine ?

As to the way he was carrying the child, there is no way of doing it without the head and hair of the child being in view. The mockumentary showed that clearly.

Sorry Faith, but both your comments are ill thought out.

1.  Detour to pick up a bottle of wine?  Where  from?  You have been there and the only place was the tapas bar [past the restaurant].  He wasn't going in the right direction for that.   Have you ever carried a child the way he was carrying his little one ?   Cos they don't half get very heavy carrying that way … and fancy carrying a child like that and a bottle of wine!   
Nah   , you have got it completely wrong.  Perhaps you are not a parent, faith, so wouldn't know these things.

2.  As for the head and hair of the child always being on view, that is absolute claptrap, sorry.   I couldn't care less what shows in the mockumentary, cos that is just a view taken from a certain angle.  If I remember correctly that angle was from above the child, looking down.  Jane was down hill looking up at the child.  Also the precise angles that the man is to the camera and the exact way that the man is carrying matter

Have you thought that Tannerman may have deliberately hung Madeleines head down to hide the face and hair from Jane.

it is futile using such a mockumentary video to try to  illustrate this particular point.

Come on faith please find something, anything realistic, to illustrate what you are claiming.

[sadie]

Dr T was housed in Block 4, which, imo, was to the west of block 5. I don't think walking down Rua Dr FGM was involved.

Jane's sighting was somewhere around 9:15pm. I'm not sure why you think there were two men moving around at two different times, unless you agree with Heri that Jane mistook the time when she saw the man.

There may have been internet MagicK and it may have been changed now as so much is these days.

But , without checking, I am pretty confident that at the time that DCI Redwood was commenting on Crimewatch, he talked about Dr Totman going back to his apartment in block 6.  This is to the east of block 5.  The entrance to block 6 is on Rua Dr FMG.   The last yards of his walk would have had to be in either a south western or a southern direction depending on how he crossed the road.

Check it on GE., faith.

[G-Unit]

There may have been internet MagicK and it may have been changed now as so much is these days.

But , without checking, I am pretty confident that at the time that DCI Redwood was commenting on Crimewatch, he talked about Dr Totman going back to his apartment in block 6.  This is to the east of block 5.  The entrance to block 6 is on Rua Dr FMG.   The last yards of his walk would have had to be in either a south western or a southern direction depending on how he crossed the road.

Check it on GE., faith.

Don't worry, Sadie, I'm always available to supply the facts for you. Dr T stayed in G4M.



Next to bottom on this list;

[kizzy]

Maybe he thought it was too light outside?

No, it would have been dark at 8.30. 3rd of  May

[Anthro]

Dr Totmans child was carried to a different destination to that of Tannermans child.


Dr T had to walk in a southerly direction, down Rua Dr FGM, to access the entrance to his apartment block

Yet, Jane Tanner witnessed Tannerman carry on walking in an easterly direction along Rua Dr A de S.   
This was towards, but probably not to Murats villa.   

Most likely, with Gerry and Jez chatting in the way and also Jane Tanner walking up the hill of Rua Dr FGM towards Tannerman and ?Madeleine?, the pick up vehicle had not arrived.   Because  the driver had taken fright at the thought of passing them and the possibility of being spotted ?


IMO, Tannerman had nowhere to go, he knew that Jane would be following him if he doubled back, so he made a snap decision to carry on in the easterly direction, with the intention of turning right down the first alleyway  - and taking the short circular route via the alleyway to the car park where the pick up vehicle was parked.   See G Earth.
If he had been hiding in the shadows of OC car park waiting to be picked up, Tannerman might even not have known that the pick up / getaway  vehicle had shot off in the opposite direction.


Just my thoughts, but everything fits.  Check it out on Google earth.

Soz, Gunit, but you have got it wrong; Tannerman and Dr T were different people walking in different directions and at different times..



Come on Gunit, how about some more help?  I remember you helped me hone my thoughts last time ... and you are doing well again

Hi Sadie, despite the fact that Totman was walking towards the creche with his child instead of towards his apartment as stated by Mr Redwood, there is also a shorter route to the night creche as indicated by the orange line, down the road, through block 6’s parking area and around the Palms swimming pool. To me this indicate that Tannerman is not Totman. My opinion.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[sadie]

Don't worry, Sadie, I'm always available to supply the facts for you. Dr T stayed in G4M.



Next to bottom on this list;

Are you sure that you haven't got hold of some more internet MagicK?

The internet Magick where shapes, colours, positions, words, reports etc.can be changes to defeat justice. where facts are seamlessly altered?  The reason to be to spread disinformation

Oh, in that case it is even less likely that Dr Totman could have been the man seen by Jane Tanner.  From the direction that he was walking he certainly wasn't going to the tapas restaurant, and neither was he going to the Tapas bar


ETA
My posts were based upon DCI's Redwoods reports on Crimewatch that Dr Totman was staying in block 6.   If that is wrong then the situation changes. 

However, why would he be taking his little one to that crech at near closing time?

Why would he be carrying his little one to buy a bottle of wine especially on such a cool blustery night?

Why would he be taking his little one from that direction to the tapas Restaurant? 

Clearly both this and the previous question are incorrect because if he was the man that Jane saw, then he wasn't going towards either the Tapas bar or the Tapas Restaurant.  Tannerman was walking in an easterly direction not southerly.

[faithlilly]

Sorry Faith, but both your comments are ill thought out.

1.  Detour to pick up a bottle of wine?  Where  from?  You have been there and the only place was the tapas bar [past the restaurant].  He wasn't going in the right direction for that.   Have you ever carried a child the way he was carrying his little one ?   Cos they don't half get very heavy carrying that way … and fancy carrying a child like that and a bottle of wine!   
Nah   , you have got it completely wrong.  Perhaps you are not a parent, faith, so wouldn't know these things.

2.  As for the head and hair of the child always being on view, that is absolute claptrap, sorry.   I couldn't care less what shows in the mockumentary, cos that is just a view taken from a certain angle.  If I remember correctly that angle was from above the child, looking down.  Jane was down hill looking up at the child.  Also the precise angles that the man is to the camera and the exact way that the man is carrying matter

Have you thought that Tannerman may have deliberately hung Madeleines head down to hide the face and hair from Jane.

it is futile using such a mockumentary video to try to  illustrate this particular point.

Come on faith please find something, anything realistic, to illustrate what you are claiming.

There are a myriad of reasons why Totman would be going the way he was and Redwood and his team had no problem believing that he could carry his child the way he did for some distance.

As to the child’s face and hair being visible you only have to look at the still below from the mockumentary, a still Tanner agreed was accurate with regard to the position of Madeleine, to see this is beyond argument.

https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/MadeleineWasHere2.jpg

[sadie]

Hi Sadie, despite the fact that Totman was walking towards the creche with his child instead of towards his apartment as stated by Mr Redwood, there is also a shorter route to the night creche as indicated by the orange line, down the road, through block 6’s parking area and around the Palms swimming pool. To me this indicate that Tannerman is not Totman. My opinion.

Oh thanks Anthro.

So DCI Redwood got the position of Dr Totmans apartment wrong the, did he?  So, in this instance, it is not a case of Internet Disinformation MagicK after all.

Well if Totman was walking down to the little car park opposite The Tapas reception en route to the crech, he definitely wasn't Tannerman.   He was going South at that stage.   Jane Tanners man was going East towards  the Murat villa

Where would we be without your font of knowledge?  Well spotted

[sadie]

There are a myriad of reasons why Totman would be going the way he was and Redwood and his team had no problem believing that he could carry his child the way he did for some distance.

As to the child’s face and hair being visible you only have to look at the still below from the mockumentary, a still Tanner agreed was accurate with regard to the position of Madeleine, to see this is beyond argument.

https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/MadeleineWasHere2.jpg

With all due respect faith that image is a nonsense re the direction Jane saw Tannerman from.   She was down the hill a little looking up at him and neither was she square to him, she saw him from partly the rear.  Jane was unable to see even his face enough, or at all, because she refused to have it shown in the genuine image approved by herself.

You have to understand that images, especially of faces, change as the head moves relative to the viewer.  The image that you show has no recogniseable face, or hair, that I can see, anyhow.

Was the Mockumentary produced by your side, cos the producers have even substituted a tiny tot in place of a more robust Madeleine.  A two year old instead of a nearly 4 year old.   



This seems to me a deliberate attempt to impose the idea that Jane saw Dr Totman, rather than Tannerman carrying Madeleine.  And that is clearly untrue.  Totmans little one was 2yr old, IIRC.  Please correct me if I am wrong on that.

[G-Unit]

Are you sure that you haven't got hold of some more internet MagicK?

The internet Magick where shapes, colours, positions, words, reports etc.can be changes to defeat justice. where facts are seamlessly altered?  The reason to be to spread disinformation

Oh, in that case it is even less likely that Dr Totman could have been the man seen by Jane Tanner.  From the direction that he was walking he certainly wasn't going to the tapas restaurant, and neither was he going to the Tapas bar

The only disinformation being spread around here is that being spread by you, Sadie.

[Anthro]

The only disinformation being spread around here is that being spread by you, Sadie.

Can you please state what exactly the disinformation is that you suggest Sadie is spreading on the forum?

[G-Unit]

Can you please state what exactly the disinformation is that you suggest Sadie is spreading on the forum?

That Dr T was staying in block 6 and that to reach the entrance to that block the mystery man had to walk south down Rua FGM.

[Anthro]

That Dr T was staying in block 6 and that to reach the entrance to that block the mystery man had to walk south down Rua FGM.

In my opinion you are pedantic. Sadie clearly meant block 4.

[G-Unit]

In my opinion you are pedantic. Sadie clearly meant block 4.

Really? Is that why she said "Dr T had to walk in a southerly direction, down Rua Dr FGM, to access the entrance to his apartment block". That statement applies to neither block 4, where he was staying, or block 6, where he was not staying.

I don't mind speculation, but I do mind when it's supported by 'facts' which are not true.