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

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.

What a busy night it was on the 3rd May in PDL !

All these similarly dressed men trotting around the streets carrying their little blonde daughters in various different ways . None of the children wearing slippers or wrapped in blankets against the cold all in pink/white pyjamas  ( maybe Jane should have lent one of them Russell's fleece !) 

All the bobbing backwards and forwards " checking " on other nights had produced any sightings of a similar vein . So Thursday must have been " let's put our child in the night Crèche tonight " night and Dad will collect them between about 9/10 pm and walk quickly back to our apartment by various routes . 

Eggman , Tannerman , Smithman , Crecheman , Totman , with the " woman in purple " hanging around , directing traffic ? Any self respecting " bungling burglar " would have kept well out of the way .


Monty Python , Benny Hill , what a farce , what a circus , what a pack of lies ! 

Poor Madeleine , not about her , about protecting themselves it always has been .

@ 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.

If Totman was playing tennis with Gerry on the day Madeleine supposedly went missing, surely he would have been interviewed by the Portuguese police, especially as Gerry is one of the two prime suspects. 

If he was interviewed, why didn't he tell the McCanns and the PJ that it was him who Jane Tanner saw?  And where is his statement?

If he wasn't interviewed, why not?  Surely he would have backed up Gerrys' statement that he was playing tennis at certain times of that day?

Not all files (including statements ?) have been released

Polyenne, I'm happy to put that on my list of possibilities, I'd not thought of that.

Marco, how long is your list of possibilities ?!!!

Haha good point! The smaller the conspiracy, the more likely it is to be achieved. So I'm unlikely to believe it was a massive swingers holiday or worse. Something unforeseen happened involving somebody with good connections IMO.

sharonl wrote:If Totman was playing tennis with Gerry on the day Madeleine supposedly went missing, surely he would have been interviewed by the Portuguese police, especially as Gerry is one of the two prime suspects. 

If he was interviewed, why didn't he tell the McCanns and the PJ that it was him who Jane Tanner saw?  And where is his statement?

If he wasn't interviewed, why not?  Surely he would have backed up Gerrys' statement that he was playing tennis at certain times of that day?

I'm sure Totman was interviewed, not just because of the tennis but also because his name would have been on the night creche records. 

The Portuguese police would have known from this that he was a potential witness wandering around PdL at the relevant time.

He was probably discounted as a suspect very quickly, if he collected his daughter at, for example, 9.10 pm, he could hardly have been in appartment 5A at the same time.

For Totman to think he himself was Tannerman, he must have been in the vicinity at 9.15 pm, unless Jane actually saw him later on when she went back round to her appartment so that Russell could return to finish his meal.

Totman may not have recognised himself as Tannerman initially because the Tanner e-fit was not drawn up until weeks later.

But it is surprising he did not contact the McCanns when the e-fit was made public (Or perhaps he did, but no one took any notice of him).

Marco wrote: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?

I wonder if "Smithman" was a failed smoke screen.
If this was all pre planned and someone("abductor") took  of with a girl downtown in hope to be spotted by witnesess to this "abduction" but they didn't expect that someone would mistaken and point finger at GM.

There has been some previous discussion on this forum about Martin Smith and his allleged statement that the man he saw wasn’t Robert Murat.

If this is true then I suspect that, just prior to that particular statement element, MS was either asked directly if he thought it was Murat or he was shown a picture of Murat. It is accepted that he knew Murat in some small way as the Smiths made numerous trips to PdL as they had a holiday home there - so not so surprising.

I still maintain the Smith sighting as credible, with additional credence being given on the basis that he actually returned to PdL, as requested by the PJ, to further corroborate his claim.

Something the McCanns and T7 refuse to do to this day.