Crecheman's identity finally revealed

[Vertigo Swirl]

Was anyone ever asked to sign on the dotted line that they'd seen Murat near 5A on 3/5/07? Plenty signed to say they hadn't.

Did we ever catch sight of the questions put to Murat in his arguido interview?  Would like to know if he was asked what he was doing carrying a young child away from Apartment 5a, according to Jane Tanner.

[misty]

Did we ever catch sight of the questions put to Murat in his arguido interview?  Would like to know if he was asked what he was doing carrying a young child away from Apartment 5a, according to Jane Tanner.

I think this is as close as it got on 14/5/07
   
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
05-Processo, Volume V, pages 1170-1178 (9 pages)


--- Asked he said he has nothing to do with the disappearance of the child, nor anything about this case.



Jane did not appear to have been requested to attend the confrontation meeting between Murat & the other Tapas 3 who recalled seeing him later that night.

[Carana]

To get to the truth of what actually happened. Two witnesses never saw Jane (Gerry/Jez) and I would not be surprised if Totman didn't either.  Totman could have seen all 3 as Jane herself claims but the newspaper report didn't say that he saw any of them. If you are carrying a child across a road you are going to check right before crossing.

Yes, but for oncoming vehicle traffic coming up the (lit) right side, I'd have thoght. No one knows whether he noticed people chatting or walking in that street. And unless something unusual caught his attention, I can't think why he would.

[pathfinder73]

None of the 3 witnesses saw traffic on that road. It was quiet and deserted. If he looked to his right before stepping off the pavement then he would have seen them being on the same pavement not traffic.

[sadie]

To get to the truth of what actually happened. Two witnesses never saw Jane (Gerry/Jez) and I would not be surprised if Totman didn't either.  Totman could have seen all 3 as Jane herself claims but the newspaper report didn't say that he saw any of them. If you are carrying a child across a road you are going to check right before crossing.

Where does Jane claim that Totman saw all three of them?  I never read that anywhere.

Cite please

[barrier]

What is this about Mr Totman's wife?

The very fist post on this thread has a quote attributed to Mrs Totman,some read but don't actually read.

He was interviewed by the Guarda Nacional Republicana soon after Maddie, three, vanished in May 2007, but his wife Rachel said: “My husband had told the local police it could be him but we didn’t hear anything for years.

“We always thought it was Julian who was seen by Jane Tanner.

[barrier]

None of the 3 witnesses saw traffic on that road. It was quiet and deserted. If he looked to his right before stepping off the pavement then he would have seen them being on the same pavement not traffic.

Non of the three witness's saw an alleged abductor either,Redwood was satisfied that it was Totman seen,the article on page one of this thread clearly states that the Totmans always thought it was mr Totman seen by J Tanner ,yet some cling to a vestige of hope that they are mistaken,wonder why that is? all opinion of course.

[Vertigo Swirl]

None of the 3 witnesses saw traffic on that road. It was quiet and deserted. If he looked to his right before stepping off the pavement then he would have seen them being on the same pavement not traffic.

quiet and deserted is a good explanation for why he did not turn to look down the street IMO.

[Robittybob1]

Where does Jane claim that Totman saw all three of them?  I never read that anywhere.

Cite please

One way or the other I think that is not what Pathfinder meant.

[faithlilly]

quiet and deserted is a good explanation for why he did not turn to look down the street IMO.

If Gerry was on the other side of the road as he claimed then it would almost certainly have been in Crecheman’s eyeline.

[Eleanor]

If Gerry was on the other side of the road as he claimed then it would almost certainly have been in Crecheman’s eyeline.

It probably wasn't Crecheman, now know as Totman.  If it was the abductor he was probably in too much of a hurry.  Besides, I expect he had ears.

[Vertigo Swirl]

If Gerry was on the other side of the road as he claimed then it would almost certainly have been in Crecheman’s eyeline.

Something for a dedicated amateur sleuth to check out next time they’re in PdL, not that it would prove anything one way or the other. 

[faithlilly]

Something for a dedicated amateur sleuth to check out next time they’re in PdL, not that it would prove anything one way or the other.

No need. It’s just common sense really.

Who’d have thought that all that insisting that he was on the other side of the road would work against Gerry in the long run.

[Carana]

No need. It’s just common sense really.

Who’d have thought that all that insisting that he was on the other side of the road would work against Gerry in the long run.

I'm a bit confused. Who says he did or didn't see the others?

[Heriberto Janosch]

It would be unusual for all 3 witnesses not to see Jane at a close distance don't ya think? Or is that normal to you?

I was there at night. It was not easy for Gerry or Jez NOT to see Jane.