MADDIE TENNIS TWIST Gerry McCann played tennis with ‘Tannerman’ on the day Madeleine went missing

Has Totman said if he was Crechedad or not?
Not that it really matters (in one sense) given Tanner saw no one, apart from maybe Gerry and Jez.
Come to think of it, no one saw any child-toting "suspect" that night, did they? That includes The Smiths.
I'm more inclined to go with those who reckoned they saw Murat hanging around near the Ocean Club that night.

@Mark Willis - let's hope that Tony's FOIA clears up who is being stated as who in the zoo. 'They' will have to be careful what they say or they are going to end up with 3 or 4 different men all walking around carrying young blonde girls in pyjamas. That's the problem with porky pies - keeping it simple (and believable).

NickE wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Which apartment did he stay in? Do we know?

G4M

Is anyone able to show where that is on a map in relation to 5A?

Jill Havern wrote: No one believes Smithman was an abductor.

No, but several people still maintain that Smithman was Gerry McCann, either carrying Madeleine's body, or, even more bizarrely, another young child, possibly a child of one of the Tapas 7.


Unnecessary comments deleted - Admin

Bluebag:
Is anyone able to show where that is on a map in relation to 5A?

Marco wrote:I've read that Totman told his story to the police in May 2007 and heard nothing more. Do we know which police? If Portuguese then why isn't his statement in the files, and if he made it to the british police did they "lose" it for a while like the gaspar statements because it would have instantly killed off Tanner man?

I think Totman will have been questioned, and ruled out,  by the Portuguese police early in the investigation. After all, there must be a record of the time he collected his daughter from the night creche on 3 rd May. 

The Portuguese are still holding several statements that they haven't released to the public though.

Thanks Suzy I didn't know that there were files not released, I wondered if there were any night creche files etc.
Maybe now that the msm is behind the McCann's (thro fear or favour) it gives them from Matthew oldfields "check" to Kate's visit a longer abduction window that they calculate helps them overall.
Incidentally, speaking of Matthew my hunch is that he was asked to go and check "the kids" and screwed up the plan by not reporting anything wrong (as he didn't see maddies bet empty. My gut tells me nobody knew of any problems in the T7 other than Kate saying that the kids were unsettled the night before. K & G wanted to be together at the table when somebody else raised the alert. Distancing behaviour. Just a thought! Sorry I meant Gerry check...

Marco wrote:Thanks Suzy I didn't know that there were files not released, I wondered if there were any night creche files etc.

The poster didn't say 'there were files not released', the poster said 'the Portuguese are still holding several statements that they haven't released to the public though'.

That aside, I believe too much emphasis is put on documents missing from the PJ files released into the public domain - it's almost as though if the files don't reveal what the reader wishes, then they conclude the documents were held back for a sinister reason.  Not so, there are any number of reasons why particular information is not released for public consumption in any criminal investigation, even in the UK, which doesn't follow the Portuguese judicial secrecy policy.

As regards witness statements specifically, it should be remembered that many interviews were informal and not recorded, therefore they wouldn't be in the PJ files.  In addition, when you consider just how many holiday makers, Ocean Club complex staff, local residents etc. would have been interviewed informally revealing little or nothing to further the investigation again, these wouldn't be included in the investigation documentation.

For information..

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm

skyrocket wrote:@Mark Willis - let's hope that Tony's FOIA clears up who is being stated as who in the zoo. 'They' will have to be careful what they say or they are going to end up with 3 or 4 different men all walking around carrying young blonde girls in pyjamas. That's the problem with porky pies - keeping it simple (and believable).

Yes...it's all getting very convoluted, isn't it? When you try to manufacture "evidence" I feel you're on a hiding to nothing. This case must be an all time winner in that respect. False alibis, created scenarios etc.
Keep it simple? Always. Trouble is the simplest is the truth - and we're have never had that from the Tapas 9 nor are we liable to get any.

Doug D wrote:Bluebag:
Is anyone able to show where that is on a map in relation to 5A?

Thanks!

So if Totman stayed in Block 4 then him being Tannerman carrying a child in that direction makes no sense.



Be interesting to see if the Police confirm Totman as Crecheman.

So Totman was taking his daughter to the Night creche facility at 21.15pm 3 May 2007,just coincidental with an"Allegation of an abduction" on the same night and everyone knew everyone so well,"We were So into One another"quote, except a certain Mother Inlaw,minding the purses at the Tapas Bar?
Let the games begin!

According to Goncal Amaral Jane Tanner's sighting was 'hollow' as the T7 (on lower floors) used the PATIO entrances and did not walk up the road as Jane tried to say...

Not included in the files but certainly something to consider...


McMINUTES: DID Jane Tanner see the 'abductor' or did she use the BACK pathway?

willowthewisp wrote:So Totman was taking his daughter to the Night creche facility at 21.15pm 3 May 2007,just coincidental with an"Allegation of an abduction" on the same night and everyone knew everyone so well,"We were So into One another"quote, except a certain Mother Inlaw,minding the purses at the Tapas Bar?
Let the games begin!

It's like a Monty Python sketch isn't it?  I can just imagine half a dozen men dressed as city gents strutting about the streets of Luz, carrying rag dolls, bumping into each other - the story has really become that farcical.

Tannerman in many guises, Smithman, McCannman, crecheman, Totman .

Thought of the day..

No abduction = no sighting.

It's certainly played it's part on the distraction front.

@ Verdi
"The poster didn't say 'there were files not released', the poster said 'the Portuguese are still holding several statements that they haven't released to the public though'."
I've read and re-read this and don't understand what you are correcting me on, apologies for being dim.

@ Verdi
"As regards witness statements specifically, it should be remembered that many interviews were informal and not recorded, therefore they wouldn't be in the PJ files."
I thought that too, eg Amaral described his meeting with the smiths and his informal recollection of his being honest and a believable lead shines thro in his book, but the formal statements aren't as convincing.

I think it's safe to say that there was never a Tannerman and that Crechedad was a belated invention to save Tanner's blushes. Since no-one believed in Crechedad, Totman had to lend his name to this fictitious figure for credence sake.
 If we accept that Tannerman-Crechedad is an invention, that leaves only one sighting, Smithman. Of course, that sighting was almost an hour later and quite some distance from the 5A apartment. It was also claimed to be Gerry!
I'm surprised Totman didn't pose in the maroon shirt Jane claimed he was wearing! That was a bit of an oversight! Couldn't Grange find him a Puffa-style anorak and mustard-gold trousers - oh wait, they couldn't even send him in the correct direction for the sighting! Silly me!

@phoebe, yes, Tony Bennett posed 60 questions about smithman, all good. The hardest ones are about that person potentially disposing of a body and rushing back and being seen the whole time in the group. If it was "the abductor" he wouldn't run so far through the streets carrying a child.

Marco wrote:@phoebe, yes, Tony Bennett posed 60 questions about smithman, all good. The hardest ones are about that person potentially disposing of a body and rushing back and being seen the whole time in the group. If it was "the abductor" he wouldn't run so far through the streets carrying a child.

@ Marco, Thank you.

To be absolutely fair, not all of my 60 points by any means were strong ones, and a few members here were right to point out that some of them were quite weak.  

However, as I suspect you agree, it is when you consider the whole collection of 60 points, and put them altogether, that the very idea that the Smiths ever saw anyone at all crumbles away - and IMO crumbles away to nothing.

I want to suggest that there are five key alleged facts in this case which IMO are NOT facts at all. Again IMO, these five bogus facts are blinding many people to the truth.

These are the 5 bogus facts IMO:

1. That the Last Photo was taken at about 2.29pm on Thursday 3 May

2. That Madeleine was seen alive by Catriona Baker at about 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May

3. That the Smiths saw anyone at all

4. That Mrs Fenn heard anyone (Madeleine or any other child) crying from 10.30pm to 11.45pm on Tuesday 1 May, and

5. That Nuno Lourenco's claimed near-kidnapping of his daughter by Wojcek Krokowski was genuine.

I suggest that these are the facts in each case:

1.  The Last Photo was taken at about 2.29pm on Sunday 29 April

2.  That Madeleine was NOT seen alive by Catriona Baker at about 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May

3. The Smiths saw no-one (OR, if they did, it was no-one connected with Madeleine's disappearance

4. Mrs Fenn did NOT hear any child crying, and

5. Nuno Lourenco lied about the alleged kidnapping at Sagres.

======== 

If people could accept that the five statements I've just typed above are correct, they would perhaps be far more ready to accept the several strong lines of evidence that point to something very serious having happened to Madeleine on Sunday afternoon or evening.

Hanging on to any one of the bogus facts causes people to make absurd statements.

Within the past few days for example, I have seen this ridiculous statement made on a Madeleine forum: "I agree that Madeleine died four days earlier, but I still believe the Smiths saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine's dead body". This was by someone who cannot let go of her conviction that the Smiths saw Gerry McCann, despite what appears to many now to be overwhelming evidence that he did not. Who on this earth would keep a dead body for four days and then walk down the streets with it, and at the very same time as the abduction cry was being raised?  

I saw someone else say: "I agree Madeleine was already dead for some days, but I think Gerry was carrying another child". This is utter madness! Who, among the Tapas group, or anyone else for that matter, would 'lend' their three-year-old child, clad only in pyjamas, for Gerry McCann to walk through the streets of Praia da Luz, at 10pm on a dark, cold night, at the very time that the alarm was being raised? People have surely completely lost their reason when they come up with crazy ideas like these.

As I've said many times before, in this case so replete with smoke and mirrors, EVERY statement must be carefully examined to see if it has the complete 'ring of truth' about it. Yes, even the statements of Martin, Peter and Aoife Smith and that of Mrs Pamela  Fenn. And if there are legitimate doubts about the truth of any of these four statements, then they must be largely, or wholly, disregarded.

=====

And in addition, we have the problem posed as to how an abduction hoax (which has succeeded for 11 years) could have been executed in under four hours, during which time the Tapas 9 all sat down for dinner at about 8.30pm-8.45pm.

This crucial issue was covered in these two threads:


PLANNING THE ABDUCTION HOAX
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14704-planning-the-abduction-hoax-was-it-done-over-four-days-or-four-hours

MADELEINE COULD NOT HAVE DIED AFTER 5.30pm
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13044-madeleine-mccann-could-not-have-died-from-an-accident-nor-from-anything-else-after-5-30pm-on-thursday-3-may-2007





.

Hi Mr Tony Bennett,ref; different child and what you have stated?

Are you now suggesting that it was impossible for any person's connected to the Tapas Group,to have used a "decoy child" to simulate an Abduction?

You know the PJ files stipulate contain that anything that has supposedly happened needs"Proof" to have happened, until then its a"thesis" you may not agree with it,but it could have taken place,take a look at One set of the Tapas Group?

Do you disagree with Hi De Ho that a  different child was used to simulate Creche records in regard to Madeleine McCann?

Thanks Tony, I agree with 4 of your 5 suggested facts. I know the Fenn testimony has been debated at length but I'm staying on the fence as it's a stretch to assume 3rd parties like her are involved in a conspiracy, and I only detect hostile behaviour from the McCann about her. I would be more inclined to believe she got her date wrong and the episode was earlier in the week which is more easily done than making it up? From a more simplistic view the McCann's were not the perfect couple and parents due to the crying, the kate text messaging, being upset with Jerry over the aerobics staff member with the big boobs, and sleeping on her own. I think they were far from being tranquil and lots was going on behind the scenes.

I too fail to see how one can easily rule out Smithman. I also fail to see how one can rule out a decoy child, after all, if you accept a number of days of complicity by the Tapas 6 (I’m ruling out DW), I suggest any number of events could have been concocted.

Add into the mix the wide window of “searches” mentioned in the witness statements (starting around 9.20pm) and I think it’s hard to place any of the T9 at any particular point at any particular time (hence their scrapbook timeline to “guide” the investigators as to what they’d LIKE them to believe)

It's very hard to prove an unrelated witness like Smith is involved in a conspiracy, especially when he's fingering gm. He's behaved as I would have behaved, kept a low profile and only challenged when people have made assertions about him that aren't true, like claims he was an associate of Murat and correcting the BBC on his view it could have been gm. The problem is that gm walking thro the streets with a young child at or around the time the alarm was raised makes no sense, and perhaps his sighting was unrelated?

Marco - I’ve previously suggested that the original “abduction” time might have been earlier (9.15 or 9.30) but this was scuppered by GM bumping into Jez. Nevertheless, as per the plan, JT claimed to have seen the abductor (even though I don’t believe she was ever on the street at that time - not seen by GM or JW). That “abductor” sighting has always been doubted, as it would be. Regardless of Crecheman or Totman.

Thus a hastily arranged 2nd “abduction” time and sighting needed to be made and thus was the 10pm (approx) shout. Another abductor was needed and this COULD have been GM with a decoy child (sedated). They would have been desperate and reckless at this time so might well have thrown caution to the wind.

Anything is possible and plausible.