How is this explained?
She avoided them and turned left and took the pathway back to her apartment.That is possible, and I have considered it but it messes up with seeing the person carrying the child. If you put Jane down the side path can you make sense of the rest of her observations?
It can't be and that is why Gerry, on the timeline they all collaborated on, put himself on one side of the street and in subsequent interviews ( and possibly when the whole why didn't Jane see him question started to be raised) he removed himself to the other side. Even Gerry knew that the scenario as first presented was impossible.If Gerry did indeed shift his evidence from one side of the street to the other, I would be grateful if you could provide a cite of this.
Very easily. Gerry and Jez Wilkins were engrossed in deep conversation and neither saw her.That was the line I was going to explore. "selective attention" brought about by some really important issue involving Jez and Gerry to the point where other details are not registered. But what was happening to bring on that state?
I once walked past my sister, no more than 10 yards away. She was engrossed in deep conversation with a man in a wheelchair and didn't see me.
Happens all the time.
No great mystery.
Faithlilly's nonsense theory has something to do with Gerry realising that there was a possibility that someone might have been watching from a balcony and seen him and Jez talking but not seeing Jane walking by. Faithlilly doesn't seem to ascribe the same concern to Gerry when she tells us he must have carried a corpse through the streets of PdL looking for a convenient bin.When you say innocent do you mean also absolute truthful? Could something have happened which required Gerry's medical knowledge and he just keeps quiet about it using the normal code of doctor patient confidentiality?
NB: I don't think Gerry is guilty. I am not libelling him. I think he is completely innocent.
If Gerry did indeed shift his evidence from one side of the street to the other, I would be grateful if you could provide a cite of this.If you have solutions just tell us.
Because of the way Rua Martins works, I can provide a 'solution' for the non-seeing of Jane on either side of the street.
Therefore I would need something which challenges the evidence. Do you have a cite?
A post from a forum, totally unconnected to this case:
"Recently, it was brought to my attention once again that someone said, "Hi," to me in a store, and I completely ignored them. It's not that I did not recognize them (I do not typically have trouble recognizing someone I know), but I do not even recall seeing this person. It is fairly typical when someone tells me this that I do not remember seeing them or hearing anyone say, "Hello!" or saying my name". http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=212475&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Is the author of this post a liar? Is what he or she described completely impossible? Has something like this never, ever happened to you or anyone you know?
When you say innocent do you mean also absolute truthful? Could something have happened which required Gerry's medical knowledge and he just keeps quiet about it using the normal code of doctor patient confidentiality?I have no idea what you're on about sorry.
This was a deserted street not a busy store looking at other things. Jez had a pram so he should have been aware of his surroundings. He claimed to be and said no Jane. He saw Jane when he left around 8:30.It may have been a deserted street, but actually it wasn't quite, was it? Jez Wilkins was there and it was he who had Gerry's attention and vice versa. Jane Tanner walked by without drawing attention to herself. The person in the forum I quoted above was alone, and even when greeted by name did not register the other person. Will you people ever concede that this is neither impossible nor even out of the ordinary?!
Q. Relative to whether I know Jane Tanner;
Now I know her name, description of the clothes and photos which I have seen in the press. At that time I knew of her as a member of the group but did not know her name. I do not remember having seen her when I spoke with Gerry, but I believe I saw her when I first ventured out. She was stopped on the street in front of one of the group's apartments when I passed her down towards the exit to my apartment. I do not know if it was her apartment or not. I remember that she was wearing the colour purple.
Q. Relative to the passerby/transient:
I can affirm that it was a quiet street and it was very unlikely that someone could have passed by be in this way but this as an assumption and I do not remember anything having happened.
I would say that when I spoke with Gerry it was possible to recognize someone I knew who was passing on foot at the crossing at the top of the hill or to describe approximately someone unknown from that distance.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
He was adamant that he did not see any one else in the area. When spoken to in reference to Jane Tanner walking by, he again stated that he saw no one. He also stated that he did not see or hear anyone to his right. He was aware of the recent picture in the papers re the person with a child wrapped in a blanket and in a males arms allegedly walking across the junction to his right but again stated that he did not see any one.
The conversation with Gerry lasted for about three minutes during which Gerry was chatty and in his normal self. Jeremy then made his way back to his apartment.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
I have no idea what you're on about sorry.You said Gerry is innocent - I take that to mean you think he didn't hide Madeleine's body or something of that nature.
It may have been a deserted street, but actually it wasn't quite, was it? Jez Wilkins was there and it was he who had Gerry's attention and vice versa. Jane Tanner walked by without drawing attention to herself. The person in the forum I quoted above was alone, and even when greeted by name did not register the other person. Will you people ever concede that this is neither impossible nor even out of the ordinary?!
This post clearly implies deceit on the part of Gerry McCann - is it to be permitted to remain on the forum, oh bastion of all that is and is not libel, Slartibartifart?
It asks how they didn't see her, no mention of deceit. Why would that be libel?As the post I was referring to has now been removed it would seem that I have been vindicated.
It may have been a deserted street, but actually it wasn't quite, was it? Jez Wilkins was there and it was he who had Gerry's attention and vice versa. Jane Tanner walked by without drawing attention to herself. The person in the forum I quoted above was alone, and even when greeted by name did not register the other person. Will you people ever concede that this is neither impossible nor even out of the ordinary?!Has anyone said it is impossible?
As the post I was referring to has now been removed it would seem that I have been vindicated.
Has anyone said it is impossible?Yes!
So do you believe Gerry was on the apartment side of the road?I have no firm opinion on the matter.
Yes!
You said Gerry is innocent - I take that to mean you think he didn't hide Madeleine's body or something of that nature.Such as?
His check took a long time and there is no real explanation of what he did during that time. Could there be activities he is holding back (not disclosing) because of a medical code of conduct?
I have no firm opinion on the matter.
Yes!I've read that people say that Jane was lying, but nothing so far that it was impossible.
My explanation is JT turned left and took the pathway route to avoid the men chatting outside 5A gate and saw the man crossing the car park entrance in front of the apartments.Where did the bit in quotation marks come from?
"She saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket."
Such as?Such as something happening between Gerry and Jez. Are you happy that the time he takes for his check is accounted for?
You who has an opinion on everything ?
So by your answer you are at least conceding that Gerry may have 'misremembered'. Am I correct?
It was not possible to escape both men's attention passing them within feet in her flip flops that she had trouble walking in. Boy oh boy - If you tried to reconstruct it you would be the biggest laughing stock. That's why the police didin't believe it and kept questioning this sighting.To me personally I can't understand why the opinions of Silvia Batista were allowed to become evidence. That is terrible policing IMO.
At some point she translated the statement of one of the ladies who belonged to the group and that she describes as a brunette one. This lady said to the GNR elements, and she (the witness) translated, that she had seen a man on the road who might have carried a child.
This situation surprised her because she (the witness) was convinced that when the lady saw the man, the lady was in a place from where she had no angle of vision for the place where she saw the man. She doesn't know exactly what was the position of the lady when she saw the man, but she knows that the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
In my explanation JT turned left and took the pathway route to avoid the men chatting outside 5A gate and saw the man crossing the car park entrance in front of the apartments.
"She saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket."
The bolded part is goading, why you feel the need to keep doing so, only you can know.Even when there are 3 observers do you think it is impossible to work it out? There might be a majority favouring one side, therefore we would say one had problems remembering it.
The answer to your question is that clearly both Gerry and Jez remember things slightly differently, but there is no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong.
Even when there are 3 observers do you think it is impossible to work it out? There might be a majority favouring one side, therefore we would say one had problems remembering it.If you want to go with the majority opinion go with it. I don't really care tbh.
It was not possible to escape both men's attention passing them within feet in her flip flops that she had trouble walking in. Boy oh boy - If you tried to reconstruct it you would be the biggest laughing stock. That's why the police didin't believe it and kept questioning this sighting.There we go - "it was not possible", yet I have just posted an anecdote from another forum which shows that it IS possible to be passed by and greeted by someone you know and not see them. What more can I say?
At some point she translated the statement of one of the ladies who belonged to the group and that she describes as a brunette one. This lady said to the GNR elements, and she (the witness) translated, that she had seen a man on the road who might have carried a child.
This situation surprised her because she (the witness) was convinced that when the lady saw the man, the lady was in a place from where she had no angle of vision for the place where she saw the man. She doesn't know exactly what was the position of the lady when she saw the man, but she knows that the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
In my explanation JT turned left and took the pathway route to avoid the men chatting outside 5A gate and saw the man crossing the car park entrance in front of the apartments.
"She saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket."
This was a deserted street not a busy store looking at other things. Jez had a pram so he should have been aware of his surroundings. He claimed to be and said no Jane. He saw Jane when he left around 8:30.There in my bolded part is the first half of the explanation. To Jez, Jane Tanner was a nobody, so why would he have remembered a nobody passing by?
Q. Relative to whether I know Jane Tanner;
Now I know her name, description of the clothes and photos which I have seen in the press. At that time I knew of her as a member of the group but did not know her name. I do not remember having seen her when I spoke with Gerry, but I believe I saw her when I first ventured out. She was stopped on the street in front of one of the group's apartments when I passed her down towards the exit to my apartment. I do not know if it was her apartment or not. I remember that she was wearing the colour purple.
Q. Relative to the passerby/transient:
I can affirm that it was a quiet street and it was very unlikely that someone could have passed by be in this way but this as an assumption and I do not remember anything having happened.
I would say that when I spoke with Gerry it was possible to recognize someone I knew who was passing on foot at the crossing at the top of the hill or to describe approximately someone unknown from that distance.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
He was adamant that he did not see any one else in the area. When spoken to in reference to Jane Tanner walking by, he again stated that he saw no one. He also stated that he did not see or hear anyone to his right. He was aware of the recent picture in the papers re the person with a child wrapped in a blanket and in a males arms allegedly walking across the junction to his right but again stated that he did not see any one.
The conversation with Gerry lasted for about three minutes during which Gerry was chatty and in his normal self. Jeremy then made his way back to his apartment.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
If you want to go with the majority opinion go with it. I don't really care tbh.True, does it really matter what side of the road someone is chatting on. It hasn't concerned me tbh either.
How is this explained?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness
There in my bolded part is the first half of the explanation. To Jez, Jane Tanner was a nobody, so why would he have remembered a nobody passing by?Look at the timing of the statements - there could be many reasons why Jez wants to discredit Jane Tanner as has Silvia Batista.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindnessThat is what I was hoping to discuss, but what about the causes?
Now someone tell me why it couldn't possibly be explained by this?
8 Possible causesWhich was the likely cause?
8.1 Conspicuity
8.2 Mental workload and working memory
8.3 Expectation
8.4 Capacity
That is what I was hoping to discuss, but what about the causes? Which was the likely cause?The likely cause is that Gerry and Jez were relaxed, talking to each other and not overly bothered by what was going on around them. The last time this topic came up I also mentioned the 14 bottles of wine Gerry had just consumed and was given a warning for libel so I won't do that again... @)(++(*
The likely cause is that Gerry and Jez were relaxed, talking to each other and not overly bothered by what was going on around them. The last time this topic came up I also mentioned the 14 bottles of wine Gerry had just consumed and was given a warning for libel so I won't do that again... @)(++(*Relaxed? Was that in the list above?
Note to Mods: Gerry didn't really drink 14 bottles of wine. It's a joke. It's not libel. Please be lenient with me. &%54%
The likely cause is that Gerry and Jez were relaxed, talking to each other and not overly bothered by what was going on around them. The last time this topic came up I also mentioned the 14 bottles of wine Gerry had just consumed and was given a warning for libel so I won't do that again... @)(++(*
Note to Mods: Gerry didn't really drink 14 bottles of wine. It's a joke. It's not libel. Please be lenient with me. &%54%
Being relaxed from alcohol and Inattentional blindness are totally different states. You are getting confused.That's because I'm totally relaxed and half a bottle of wine down.... %&5%£
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness
Now someone tell me why it couldn't possibly be explained by this?
Two people having inattentional blindness in the same place at the same time ?Why not?
Oh wait it is not the same place is it ?
Why not?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY
More like why.
The set up is Jane says she walked past Jez & Jerry standing having a natter on the sidewalk; they didn't see her.
So to fit that set up both Jez and Gerry have inattentional blindness at the same time.
It is possible. - Gerry wrapped up in his own importance and droning on at length while Jez switched off and glassy-eyed waiting for him to finish.
More like why.As they were both engaged in conversation with each other at the time then that would be a problem to you because...? In any case when they were chatting were they both facing the same way? That would be odd...
The set up is Jane says she walked past Jez & Jerry standing having a natter on the sidewalk; they didn't see her.
So to fit that set up both Jez and Gerry have inattentional blindness at the same time.
In which case he wouldn't have crossed the road to speak to Gerry in the first place, he would have just waved and carried on his way.
It is possible. - Gerry wrapped up in his own importance and droning on at length while Jez switched off and glassy-eyed waiting for him to finish.Quite. Or even vice versa. Jez does not seem to have had a negative word to say about Gerry. I wonder why,..? &%+((£
Yes very good I am sure there are many atypical videos of all sorts of things.What's wrong with asking questions?
How does this explain the Jane Jez and Gerry set up? Words of one syllable will do preferably without asking questions.
Gerry and Jez were having a natter shooting the breeze when Jane walks past quite clear in her own mind the location of people.
Quite. Or even vice versa. Jez does not seem to have had a negative word to say about Gerry. I wonder why,..? &%+((£
Even if Jez thought Gerry was a complete arse, what motivation would he have to say so ?Perhaps a suspicion that he was involved in his daughter's disapppearance? But seriously do you think if you'd just discovered your daughter dead a the bottom of the stairs (for example) that you'd want to stop and bore someone senseless with banal pleasantries? It seems unlikely to me, how about you?
Perhaps a suspicion that he was involved in his daughter's disapppearance? But seriously do you think if you'd just discovered your daughter dead a the bottom of the stairs (for example) that you'd want to stop and bore someone senseless with banal pleasantries? It seems unlikely to me, how about you?
I put it forward as a possibility. You don't have to like it. ?{)(**It's not that I don't like it, it's just that it doesn't seem like the sort of thing a parent in shock, with heart inevitably pounding, adrenalin coursing through veins and a million things racing around in his mind would want or be able to do, ie: appear perfectly normal and relaxed and chatty and wanting to have a prolonged chat about children and babysitters.
More like why.Or did they just agree that they never saw her right then and there!
The set up is Jane says she walked past Jez & Jerry standing having a natter on the sidewalk; they didn't see her.
So to fit that set up both Jez and Gerry have inattentional blindness at the same time.
The bolded part is goading, why you feel the need to keep doing so, only you can know.
The answer to your question is that clearly both Gerry and Jez remember things slightly differently, but there is no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong.
Why not?Why not deliberate inattentional blindness? "Between you and me we didn't see her OK"
Why not deliberate inattentional blindness? "Between you and me we didn't see her OK"
Quite. Or even vice versa. Jez does not seem to have had a negative word to say about Gerry. I wonder why,..? &%+((£In later write-ups Bridget Jez' wife doesn't have that many good things to say about Gerry and Co. More negative than positive IMO.
If they were both looking down the road and talking they wouldn't have seen her.They would have heard her at least. Turned their heads, said something and looked away. It is easy done. Pretended not to see her so they didn't have to speak with her at that time.
There we go - "it was not possible", yet I have just posted an anecdote from another forum which shows that it IS possible to be passed by and greeted by someone you know and not see them. What more can I say?
It is perfectly possible as it happened to me. I was standing at my front garden gate saying goodbye to my grandson who was sitting opposite me in his car parked at the kerb at around 7ft/ 8 ft from me. I was looking at him and he was looking at me. We were talking all the time. As he leaned out to close his door - which was wide open, he dropped his keys. In the few seconds it took him to look down and retrieve his keys a jogger passed between us. I made a comment to grandson - laughing about the jogger's shorts. Grandson said ' What shorts?' He had no idea at all that anyone had just passed between us. I was amazed that he hadn't seen him. But he really hadn't.
We decided to spend the evening in, watching television. Our son was awake and unable to sleep. I decided to take him for a walk in his pram. I left about 8:15 to 8:30 pm. I was pushing the pram around the complex and went to the toilet near the bar. I could not see inside the restaurant. As I got the baby to sleep, I was on my way back to the apartment. I came out at the top road.
I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said you're on walking duty. I said I was staying in and [ censored word ] and cons and what to do with the children.
Following various informal conversations related to the area of research, we were contacted by a British citizen named Jeremy Michael Wilkins, holder of passport no. 205...., owner of mobile phone no. +44788...., living in ....London...He spends his holidays at, "WATERSIDE GARDENS," block G4, about 50 metres from the apartment where the small child was. He told us that yesterday, between 8.30 and 9pm, while he was in the "TAPAS" restaurant, he noted that a person of around 1.70m, with long blond hair, apparently of the "Rasta," style and dressed in green military-style clothes, entered the restaurant. This person did not stay very long.
Why not deliberate inattentional blindness? "Between you and me we didn't see her OK"More nonsense from you.
Yes there is. Jane Tanner says the exactly the same thing as Jez, that's how we know who's recollection is right. You are not a stupid man Alfie, why are you acting like one?More goading from you I see.
In later write-ups Bridget Jez' wife doesn't have that many good things to say about Gerry and Co. More negative than positive IMO.Would you kindly give us some examples?
More goading from you I see.
I don't know who is right but I do know that in a group of 3 people it's possible for two to be wrong and one to right.
Absolute rubbish, and you know it.More rudeness, more goading. Kindly tell me why it is impossible for one person to be right and two to be wrong. Was Jez 100% certain about his position?
This is where you lose the little credibility you have left Alfie.
More rudeness, more goading. Kindly tell me why it is impossible for one person to be right and two to be wrong. Was Jez 100% certain about his position?
BTW with your barmy theory you're in no position to denigrate my credibility.
Tell me Alfie who's evidence do you think the police would give more credibility, Jez/Tanner or Gerry?You tell me. What have they said about it? was Jez certain about his position? Personally I don't think the police in any of the investigations have put nearly as much importance on this position thing than you have. Perhaps you could explain that.
If they were both looking down the road and talking they wouldn't have seen her.
You tell me. What have they said about it? was Jez certain about his position? Personally I don't think the police in any of the investigations have put nearly as much importance on this position thing than you have. Perhaps you could explain that.
They would have both seen her. Jane Tanner was walking on the same pavement so she would have to nearly knock them both out of the way to pass. Why would Gerry cross the road when Jez had to cross it to get back to his apartment.
"I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said you're on walking duty. I said I was staying in and [ censored word ] and cons and what to do with the children." (7 May 2007)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm
Go on Alfie, take a punt?Don't order me to do your bidding, particularly not after your relentless goading and rudeness and refusal to address my questions.
Don't order me to do your bidding, particularly not after your relentless goading and rudeness and refusal to address my questions.
I wasn't ordering you Alfie, simply asking you to use your common sense.You asked me if the police would view JT / Jez statements as more credible than Gerry's. Well I don't know about ALL polcemen but I do know the view of one of them. Goncalo Amaral's view was "Jane Tanner is not credible: she identifies and recognizes different people". So he clearly had little belief in her credibility as a witness.
You asked me if the police would view JT / Jez statements as more credible than Gerry's. Well I don't know about ALL polcemen but I do know the view of one of them. Goncalo Amaral's view was "Jane Tanner is not credible: she identifies and recognizes different people". So he clearly had little belief in her credibility as a witness.
Now how about you answer any of my questions or are you just going to be rude and patronizing in reply instead?
I would expect an investigating police force to have firm opinions on the credibility of witnesses.I'm not disputing that, but I'm being asked to guess what those opinions might be. I can only go by what they have said themselves on the witnesses.
Im afraid people who think it was possible for Tanner to pass Jez and Gerry without being seen haven't witnessed for themselves how narrow the pavement is PF.
They would have heard her at least. Turned their heads, said something and looked away. It is easy done. Pretended not to see her so they didn't have to speak with her at that time.Expensive flip-flops do NOT slap on the ground. Her partner is a consultant, she holds a good position. No shortage of money, so she is unlikely to go to dinner with friends in her rubber beach flip flops. Crikey, the thought of it!
More rudeness, more goading. Kindly tell me why it is impossible for one person to be right and two to be wrong. Was Jez 100% certain about his position?
BTW with your barmy theory you're in no position to denigrate my credibility.
More nonsense from you.Not really we would have to at least consider the possibility of this happening. Deliberate inattentional blindness - "Between you and me we didn't see her OK"
Expensive flip-flops do NOT slap on the ground. Her partner is a consultant, she holds a good position. No shortage of money, so she is unlikely to go to dinner with friends in her rubber beach flip flops. Crikey, the thought of it!OK one way or the other they ignored each other. All I'm exploring are behavioural possibilities. We can't say for certain any one particular event happened. So from being simply out of sight, to inattentional blindness, to deliberately pretending not to see Jane, these are all possibilities.
Expensive flip flops make no more sound than expensive sandals.
She has made it clear that Gerry was not her favourite. Maybe she tried extra hard to go quietly past in her expensive evening so called "flip flops".
jez gave another statement that showed that he and Gerry stood talking on the corner of the alleyway where Jane Tanner indicated very clearly in the Mccann video.
He also drew a map showing that they stood talking on the alleyway corner NOT by the steps up.
This has all been gone over very thoroughly before. The Gerry/Jez chat was NOT at the steps but at the alleyway corner.
The pavement is 2 metres wide at the alleyway and almost 2 metres wide elsewhere on that stretch.
I accidentally posted this on another thread that required a similar responce, so herewith in the correct thread:
it is very easy to see how it could have happened and I haven't even factored in the psychological reasons for missing things as mentioned earlier on, I think, this thread
Here goes:
1) From The Carpenters statements we know that there were a number of vehicles parked to the north of the Tapas Reception
2) We have worked out in previous threads from statements that Gerry was standing on the kerb of the western pavement of Rua Dr Francisco G Martins ... more or less at the entrance to the alleyway that runs between block 5 and the Tapas area. He was looking away from anyone walking up the pavement behind him.
3) Jez was standing in the road close to where it meets the kerb, opposite to Gerry. Little traffic there but for safeties sake with his little one in the pushchair, he presumably tucked in close to a parked vehicle .... blocking a good deal of his vision, left and right
4) Jane passes. Somewhere in the statements (I think) she has made it plain that she doesn't care for Gerry too much. Because Gerry is at the entrance to the alleyway and he is right on the kerb, she circles round him a good metre or so behind and as quietly as is possible*** and quietly continues up the road. It is between street lamps and quite dark.
Jane is not looking her usual attractive self, dressed in an overwhelmingly large, almost certainly dark parka / fleece belonging to Russell who is, I think, about 6'4" tall. She was cold. An amorphous shape and quite possibly with a hood up.
Please correct me if I am wrong on the height of Russell..
She is the partner to Russell, a consultant, and also has a good position herself, so not short of money. *** Her so called flip-flops could be very expensive evening sandals which do not SLAP on the ground, but are like ordinary sandals sound wise. The sound is not extra ordinary in any way.
Gerry has his back to her, he does not notice her.
Jez has a very small window to see her, because of parked vehicles and also Gerrys large frame in front of him ... and is in any case talking lovingly about his little one looking down at him. He doesn't know Jane and frankly there was nothing about her in Russells parka to make him notice her. He doesn't notice her. She doesn't even register in his brain.
About three years ago Heriberto Janosch gave a very good scientific analysis of ones field of vision. It was surprisingly narrow
She was out of Gerrys field of Vision all the time. Out of Jezes almost all the time, hidden by vehicles as she walked up and passed by .... and then completely out of their Field of Vision as she walked on up the hill.
.
Tannerman was beyond either mans 'Field of Vision'
This is just a hypothesis but all the facts except maybe the closeness of the parked cars and the quality of the shoes is in verifyable from various statements. It is entirely feasible
Not really we would have to at least consider the possibility of this happening. Deliberate inattentional blindness - "Between you and me we didn't see her OK"That's called ignoring someone. Why would they connive to pretend they hadn't seen her? It's a ludicrous idea in the circumstances.
I would say plenty of people have deliberately intentionally looked away from people they know.
The pavement is 2 metres wide at the alleyway and almost 2 metres wide elsewhere on that stretch.
I accidentally posted this on another thread that required a similar responce, so herewith in the correct thread:
it is very easy to see how it could have happened and I haven't even factored in the psychological reasons for missing things as mentioned earlier on, I think, this thread
Here goes:
1) From The Carpenters statements we know that there were a number of vehicles parked to the north of the Tapas Reception
2) We have worked out in previous threads from statements that Gerry was standing on the kerb of the western pavement of Rua Dr Francisco G Martins ... more or less at the entrance to the alleyway that runs between block 5 and the Tapas area. He was looking away from anyone walking up the pavement behind him.
3) Jez was standing in the road close to where it meets the kerb, opposite to Gerry. Little traffic there but for safeties sake with his little one in the pushchair, he presumably tucked in close to a parked vehicle .... blocking a good deal of his vision, left and right
4) Jane passes. Somewhere in the statements (I think) she has made it plain that she doesn't care for Gerry too much. Because Gerry is at the entrance to the alleyway and he is right on the kerb, she circles round him a good metre or so behind and as quietly as is possible*** and quietly continues up the road. It is between street lamps and quite dark.
Jane is not looking her usual attractive self, dressed in an overwhelmingly large, almost certainly dark parka / fleece belonging to Russell who is, I think, about 6'4" tall. She was cold. An amorphous shape and quite possibly with a hood up.
Please correct me if I am wrong on the height of Russell..
She is the partner to Russell, a consultant, and also has a good position herself, so not short of money. *** Her so called flip-flops could be very expensive evening sandals which do not SLAP on the ground, but are like ordinary sandals sound wise. The sound is not extra ordinary in any way.
Gerry has his back to her, he does not notice her.
Jez has a very small window to see her, because of parked vehicles and also Gerrys large frame in front of him ... and is in any case talking lovingly about his little one looking down at him. He doesn't know Jane and frankly there was nothing about her in Russells parka to make him notice her. He doesn't notice her. She doesn't even register in his brain.
About three years ago Heriberto Janosch gave a very good scientific analysis of ones field of vision. It was surprisingly narrow
She was out of Gerrys field of Vision all the time. Out of Jezes almost all the time, hidden by vehicles as she walked up and passed by .... and then completely out of their Field of Vision as she walked on up the hill.
.
Tannerman was beyond either mans 'Field of Vision'
This is just a hypothesis but all the facts except maybe the closeness of the parked cars and the quality of the shoes is in verifyable from various statements. It is entirely feasible
Would you kindly give us some examples?It is just a matter of googling Bridget O'donnell Mccann and reading up what she has written about her experiences in PDL. I'll do it later.
jez gave another statement that showed that he and Gerry stood talking on the corner of the alleyway where Jane Tanner indicated very clearly in the Mccann video.
He also drew a map showing that they stood talking on the alleyway corner NOT by the steps up.
This has all been gone over very thoroughly before. The Gerry/Jez chat was NOT at the steps but at the alleyway corner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHYThanks for posting that clip Sadie. It clearly shows that whichever side of the road Gerry had been standing he would have been seen by anyone who happened to be out on the balconies on the apartment at the top of the road, so Faithlilly's mooted motivation for Gerry supposely changing his story can be ruled out. It was a nonsensical motive put forward by Faithlilly even before seeing this clip, but she's going to have to come up with another reason for this supposed collusion and deception.
Watch Jane very plainly indicating where Gerry and Jez were chatting ... on the alleyway corner. She actually walks down to show the exact spot.
@ 10.00 on the video
It is just a matter of googling Bridget O'donnell Mccann and reading up what she has written about her experiences in PDL. I'll do it later.I have already done that and can find nothing negative she has said about Gerry.
I have already done that and can find nothing negative she has said about Gerry.Maybe the articles have been removed from the internet but they were there some months back. You'll be asleep but I'm working so it will be later OK. I'll recheck the net.
They all seemed to have eye problems. Jane didn't see any parked cars, she saw the two men immediately on exiting the Tapas;
4078 “Okay. So when did you first notice Gerry standing there?”
Reply “I would have probably noticed him as soon as I came, I mean, I don’t, this is not, I don’t think that distance is probably as far as that, you come out and he was, they were sort of, so almost, I’d probably say almost straight away.
4078 “Were there any cars around there?”
Reply “Erm, umm, no, I don’t know. I don’t remember. I don’t remember walking past any going up here and I think I would have probably, if there had been I would have realised,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
You asked me if the police would view JT / Jez statements as more credible than Gerry's. Well I don't know about ALL polcemen but I do know the view of one of them. Goncalo Amaral's view was "Jane Tanner is not credible: she identifies and recognizes different people". So he clearly had little belief in her credibility as a witness.
Now how about you answer any of my questions or are you just going to be rude and patronizing in reply instead?
Who do you think a jury would believe?Irelevant faith
Thanks for posting that clip Sadie. It clearly shows that whichever side of the road Gerry had been standing he would have been seen by anyone who happened to be out on the balconies on the apartment at the top of the road, so Faithlilly's mooted motivation for Gerry supposely changing his story can be ruled out. It was a nonsensical motive put forward by Faithlilly even before seeing this clip, but she's going to have to come up with another reason for this supposed collusion and deception.
Further more as part of his statement, he drew this plans to the place where they chatted. It is NOT at the gate, or the steps, but on the ALLEYWAY CORNER.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/9of8-ecf89375_small.gif
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/9of8-ecf89375_small.gif)
Sorry, I dont know how to make it bigger BUT LOOK carefully ROB. You will see the cross that Jez put on the map he drew. It is right by the alleyway, same as Jane said.
Additionally to this he made a seperate statement where he described coming from the eastern side of Rua dr Francisco G Martins by the little car park opposite the Tapas reception and as he did seeing Gerry coming down the stairs thru the gate. Sorry but I haven't the time nor energy to YET AGAIN find this and post it, but it is there and has been witnessed by most on this forum ... even if they are in denial and chose to NOT remember it %&5%£
If they met half way that would be as Jane said and as he located on his map.
That is on the corner of the alleyway
If Jez was by the lane/alley he would have said that and not the stairs / gate.
"I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said you're on walking duty. I said I was staying in and [ censored word ] and cons and what to do with the children." (7 May 2007)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm
And I stand by my theory. The issue is not wether anyone looking from either side of the road could see Jez and Gerry but if they did and didn't see Jane the ' I was standing on the other side of the road and didn't see her gov' defence could be brought into play. It was w risky tactic as he knew both Tanner and Jez would have put the talk on the opposite side of the road but I'm sure he thought he could brazen it out as he did with Tanner in 'Madeleine Was Here'.
As was said in the video clip ... it mattered nothing where on the road the two men were standing ... they were not the witnesses.
The only person in that triad who witnessed anything at all was Jane Tanner.Therefore the only person whose testimony of events on the street that night is of relevance is Jane Tanner. All else is obfuscation and an irrelevance which perhaps had the effect it was designed to have. Particularly when the child carrier was relegated for years and failed to become even a bit player in the narrative for those who prefer that such an individual didn't exist.
- Jane was the person who witnessed a man coming from the direction of block 5, carrying a child
- at the time of her sighting, Jane did not know that later that night Madeleine's mother would find her missing from her bed
How is this explained?
You seem to have a rather bad memory Brietta so let me refresh it for you. Redwood and the McCann's own investigators dismissed Tanner's sighting, Redwood claiming the probable carrier had made himself known to OG so whatever else Edgar was correct about he certainly wasn't right about the importance of Tanner's sighting.
If Jez was by the lane/alley he would have said that and not the stairs / gate.
"I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said you're on walking duty. I said I was staying in and [ censored word ] and cons and what to do with the children." (7 May 2007)
Further more as part of his statement, he drew this plans to the place where they chatted. It is NOT at the gate, or the steps, but on the ALLEYWAY CORNER.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/9of8-ecf89375_small.gif
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/9of8-ecf89375_small.gif)
Sorry, I dont know how to make it bigger BUT LOOK carefully ROB. You will see the cross that Jez put on the map he drew. It is right by the alleyway, same as Jane said.
-snip-
That is on the corner of the alleyway
You could also ask the question as to why Gerry apparently couldn't even recall which side of the road he was on.John
Not a thing wrong with my memory, thank you for your concern.
Jane Tanner is the only person who was on that street on that night who witnessed a child carrier.
Whether that man carrying a little girl away from the direction of the apartment from which a little girl would be later found to have been abducted was the abductor we cannot know.
Or whether that man carrying a barefoot child was traced by Scotland Yard many years after the event and was even the same individual ... we cannot know.
The fact remains ... Jane Tanner saw him.
Therefore however much you may wish to sweep Jane Tanner's sighting out of the way there is absolutely no doubt ... she saw him.
It doesn't matter a jot where the men were standing they neither saw Jane nor the individual carrying a child at the top of the street. She did.
Making Jane Tanner's witness statement the only one that matters.
John
I dont think that you have ever had to experience the trauma of losing a child. I hope that you haven't, but I have
I can tell you that your mind never stops working, day and night. It does cartwheels and it is just like it is being stirred in a big concrete mixer. I don't think that anyone who has experienced such, would have any worries about Gerry getting that simple thing wrong.
Maybe he even started to cross but as both met near the middle it made sense for the pram pusher to carry on walking straight rather than manouvre a 180* turn, or back onto the pavement. We dont know why he got it wrong, but in such circumstances it is a small mistake.
Maybe they did start talking in the middle of the normally very quiet road and a vehicle started to pull out of the little car park opposite the Tapas reception so they backed away onto the western side of the road?
Maybe it was the get-away driver himself? Cos that is where it makes sense that he parked the get-away vehicle.
... and I think that upon seeing Gerry, and maybe Jane witnessing things up the road, he took fright and drove off in a southerly direction.
But none of us know for sure. Maybe SY do know now ?
If you slavishly believe there was an abduction certainly not, however, if you approach the case with an open mind and compare and contrast every piece of evidence especially, crucially, the witness statements.
Well he certainly did not say that in this statement.
25 to 29 Witness statement of Jeremy Wilkins 2008.04.08
05-CARTAS ROGATORIA 5 Pages 25 to 29
[I suggest you use your GE image to help you understand this.]
-snip-
Eventually, I left one road to the other side of the street to the pool complex, between the McCann apartment and the Tapas Bar. In order to visualise this street, I believe it was the street most used by the news agencies and journalists as all the parked cars indicated during the coverage period. [this is the little car park that I often allude to. On the eastern side of Rua Francisco G.M, right opposite the Tapas Reception]
When I left the street, I remember seeing Gerry on the other side of the same. I believe that there was some speculation in the press regarding the circumstances of this encounter. I remember that I crossed the street to talk to Gerry. According to what I remember, Gerry was walking when I spotted him. [Gerry was walking when he saw him] As I mentioned previously, I assumed that he had gone to check on the children and was headed back to the Tapas Bar. [ and Gerry was heading back to the tapas] -snip-
Hardly by the gate and stairs is it Pathfinder?
- Gerry was was walking towards the tapas when Jez saw him .
- He (Jez) was leaving the little car parking area opposite the Tapas reception and he crossed the street to talk with Gerry
Where did they meet?
Think about it Pfinder, would it have been by the stairs and the gate, which Gerry had already left walking .... or would it be half way between where Gerry was and Jez was ... by the alleyway?
Did I hear you admit it would have been at the point half way between them, by the alleyway ? If so, you are getting there
To
And Janes very definite evidence of where it was @ 10.00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY
So as you can see, this statement agrees with his map and with the cutting Edge video recollectiions of Jane Tanner
25 to 29 Witness statement of Jeremy Wilkins 2008.04.08
05-CARTAS ROGATORIA 5 Pages 25 to 29
And I stand by my theory. The issue is not wether anyone looking from either side of the road could see Jez and Gerry but if they did and didn't see Jane the ' I was standing on the other side of the road and didn't see her gov' defence could be brought into play. It was w risky tactic as he knew both Tanner and Jez would have put the talk on the opposite side of the road but I'm sure he thought he could brazen it out as he did with Tanner in 'Madeleine Was Here'.So you're asking us to consider that the police would view JT and Jes as the more reliable witnesses but actually you don't believe JT was even there at the time. That makes sense. Not. It's a completely lame excuse you've come up with and depends on Gerry believing he was under surveillance by someone watching him and Jes unflinchingly for many minutes. If any such mystery person came forward and said I never saw Jane, how would that be any different to Jez Wilkins saying he never saw her either, Jez who would be a witness to where they were actually standing?
But you saw him.
So what does Gerry say? In his first statement it is very brief It certainly doesn't account for the time his check took. Is the talk of going to the WC diversion? It does seem rather trivial and unnecessary detail.
About Jane's sighting Certainly downgrading the view that Jane had.
Second statement:That sounds plausible to me. He isn't saying he didn't see Jane just not with certainty.
Jane said to Gerry what they thought he was doing being so long away in a reconstruction (not the WC) and he quickly moved across the road, avoiding her question and to disagree with her.What question did she ask him then?
Jane said to Gerry what they thought he was doing being so long away in a reconstruction (not the WC) and he quickly moved across the road, avoiding her question and to disagree with her.I've seen that.
Why on earth do you find it strange? What relevance does Matt encountering Bridget O'Donnell have to anything?For some reason Bridget mentions it. If she didn't mention it we wouldn't have known about it. It has relevance because it is mentioned by Bridget. We spend all day worrying about what side of the road Jez and Gerry met on yet there were two meetings between Jez and Matt within hours of Madeleine's disappearance. Did Matt meet up with Jez before he made it home earlier? Was there the third encounter that we don't know about yet, the initial one that makes the next two essential?
Gerry could have said he did see Jane, but he told the truth and said he didn't.You are lucky if you can determine what is the truth. He didn't say he never saw Jane, he just says he wasn't certain.
She said they thought he was watching the football on tv being so long away.Maybe he was having trouble going on the WC. He doesn't say and was Jane really aware that Kate reckoned he was taking a long time. How long after Gerry left the Tapas Restaurant did Jane leave? Did Gerry go immediately back to the table after talking to Jez?
She said they thought he was watching the football on tv being so long away.Would that wake the kids?
Would that wake the kids?
I've seen that.
For some reason Bridget mentions it. If she didn't mention it we wouldn't have known about it. It has relevance because it is mentioned by Bridget. We spend all day worrying about what side of the road Jez and Gerry met on yet there were two meetings between Jez and Matt within hours of Madeleine's disappearance. Did Matt meet up with Jez before he made it home earlier? Was there the third encounter that we don't know about yet, the initial one that makes the next two essential? You are lucky if you can determine what is the truth. He didn't say he never saw Jane, he just says he wasn't certain.
"He isn't saying he didn't see Jane just not with certainty." So I take to mean that he saw someone go past but he wasn't certain who it was, it could have been Jane but he isn't certain. So that is a lot different to not seeing anyone at all.
Maybe he was having trouble going on the WC. He doesn't say and was Jane really aware that Kate reckoned he was taking a long time. How long after Gerry left the Tapas Restaurant did Jane leave? Did Gerry go immediately back to the table after talking to Jez?
It matters not a jot what I believe and it matters not a jot what you believe. I wasn't there. I take it neither were you.
However Jane tanner was there and was witness to events.
Jez and Gerry confirm that they met and had a conversation. How did Jane Tanner know that? She witnessed them having that conversation.
It doesn't matter exactly where on the road the men were standing ... it matters where Jane Tanner was ... it matters what she was able to see from there.
What she saw was a man carrying a child coming from the direction of the apartment block she was approaching to enter and crossing the road in front of her to pass apartment block six. I think the term is ... eye witness.
No other witness reported a child carrier at the relevant time in the relevant area ... if you know of a similar relevant witness statement for comparison purposes, please do not be reluctant to share.
If the man Jane saw had been carrying a portable television and not a barefoot child and the McCanns had subsequently discovered someone had stolen a portable television from their apartmet two and two would have made four.
The point is ... the McCanns found their child missing and if you can't see the significance of Jane Tanner witnessing a man walking away from their apartment block carrying a child at what might have been the relevant time, that is not my problem.
You are missing the point Faith - which is not that I saw him but that my grandson missed him.
Gerry didn't see JT because he had his back to her. Jez did not see her because he may well have been leaning down momentarily to attend to his child in the buggy - or even simply looking down at him just as JT passed.
I don't have to wonder if it's possible that Jez missed JT - I know it is.
Gerry could have said he did see Jane, but he told the truth and said he didn't.
To say he had seen her would have made it even odder that he did not acknowledge her and he also could not be sure if he had been seen by anyone in the other apartments.
So you're asking us to consider that the police would view JT and Jes as the more reliable witnesses but actually you don't believe JT was even there at the time. That makes sense. Not. It's a completely lame excuse you've come up with and depends on Gerry believing he was under surveillance by someone watching him and Jes unflinchingly for many minutes. If any such mystery person came forward and said I never saw Jane, how would that be any different to Jez Wilkins saying he never saw her either, Jez who would be a witness to where they were actually standing?
He could have said he glimpse her out of the corner of his eye when he was talking to Jez, Jane decided not to acknowledge Gerry so I wouldn't see anything strange if he hadn't waved at Jane.
She said they thought he was watching the football on tv being so long away.That's not a question.
Firstly as Jez and Tanner's recollections tally then yes I do believe their evidence would be considered more reliable by the police. Secondly It was a quiet street with no one in it but Jez and Gerry. Anyone sitting on their balcony's attention would be naturally drawn to the talking figures. Thirdly Jez and Gerry's conversation only lasted around three minutes. Fourthly if someone did come forward and say they didn't see Tanner that would be further independent corroboration of Tanner's non- appearance.Come on Faithlilly it's nonsense and you know it. No one is going to deliberately contradict their pre-arranged alibi on the faintest possibility that someone may come forward to contradict you as well, especially when you know that there are already 2 people prepared to contradict your own statement. It makes no sense whatsoever. And if you believe the police would find JT's evidence credible perhaps you can explain why super-sleuth Amaral dismissed her as a not credible witness? Will you give a straight answer? I doubt it!
Firstly as Jez and Tanner's recollections tally then yes I do believe their evidence would be considered more reliable by the police. Secondly It was a quiet street with no one in it but Jez and Gerry. Anyone sitting on their balcony's attention would be naturally drawn to the talking figures. Thirdly Jez and Gerry's conversation only lasted around three minutes. Fourthly if someone did come forward and say they didn't see Tanner that would be further independent corroboration of Tanner's non- appearance.
She said they thought he was watching the football on tv being so long away.
Come on Faithlilly it's nonsense and you know it. No one is going to deliberately contradict their pre-arranged alibi on the faintest possibility that someone may come forward to contradict you as well, especially when you know that there are already 2 people prepared to contradict your own statement. It makes no sense whatsoever. And if you believe the police would find JT's evidence credible perhaps you can explain why super-sleuth Amaral dismissed her as a not credible witness? Will you give a straight answer? I doubt it!
I wasn't aware I wasn't giving you straight answers. They seem pretty straight to me.Did you give a straight answer to this - "And if you believe the police would find JT's evidence credible perhaps you can explain why super-sleuth Amaral dismissed her as a not credible witness?"
Anyhoo ! Tanner's evidence ( about the position of the chat ) is corroborated by Jez, that gives it credibility and as I have said before Rebelo certainly had reservations about Gerry's recollection as is shown by his request for a reconstitution.
I wasn't aware I wasn't giving you straight answers. They seem pretty straight to me.
Anyhoo ! Tanner's evidence ( about the position of the chat ) is corroborated by Jez, that gives it credibility and as I have said before Rebelo certainly had reservations about Gerry's recollection as is shown by his request for a reconstitution.
He could have said he glimpse her out of the corner of his eye when he was talking to Jez, Jane decided not to acknowledge Gerry so I wouldn't see anything strange if he hadn't waved at Jane.exactly and I think Gerry does acknowledge this.
Did you give a straight answer to this - "And if you believe the police would find JT's evidence credible perhaps you can explain why super-sleuth Amaral dismissed her as a not credible witness?"
No.
I rest my case.
Your theory that Gerry had to relocate himself on the off chance some random person on a balcony saw him, despite the fact that he knew there were two people who would give statements that he was standing in a (slightly) different position is a non-starter. Try and come up with another, more plausible reason. Here's one - all three are remembering the event ever so slightly differently from each other as they are 3 independent people who experienced the event from slightly different perspectives - or is that just completely impossible?
Come on Faithlilly it's nonsense and you know it. No one is going to deliberately contradict their pre-arranged alibi on the faintest possibility that someone may come forward to contradict you as well, especially when you know that there are already 2 people prepared to contradict your own statement. It makes no sense whatsoever. And if you believe the police would find JT's evidence credible perhaps you can explain why super-sleuth Amaral dismissed her as a not credible witness? Will you give a straight answer? I doubt it!That is the most libelous statement I've ever read. Pre-arranged alibi! Have you explained that somewhere.
What would be the point of a recon? Gerry would go to where he remembered standing and Jez would go to where he remembered standing. All that would be proved is the fallibility of memory - which is already well known and accepted as a fact of life by experienced police officers - who know that when it comes to witnesses recalling the same event - they will get different versions from different people. Something which they regard as quite normal.
This is why a reconstitution was necessary. From the archiving despatch :I tend to agree for it is the clue to this case. 4 (5?) vital persons in a very small area. JW, GM, JT, Tannerman and a child.
'Reconstitution
1 - The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;'
I tend to agree for it is the clue to this case. 4 (5?) vital persons in a very small area. JW, GM, JT, Tannerman and a child.
There is no evidence to suggest the child is MM.
I think I explained that but just for for you........Tanner's account of the positions of Jez and Gerry was given credibility because Jez verified it. How many more ways can I say it?I agree it doesn't matter at all, so it's of no relevance at all - great, let's move on.
As to your second question. Gerry positioned himself precisely where Jez and Tanner said in the collective timeline handed into the PJ on the 10th of May :
'2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed.'
Remember this timeline was constructed with both Kate and Gerry's input.
It really doesn't matter why he changed his position only that he did despite him knowing that Tanner and Jez would give a different account
That is the most libelous statement I've ever read. Pre-arranged alibi! Have you explained that somewhere.Are you trying to get me into trouble? @)(++(* Faithlilly thinks JT and Gerry cooked up the whole Tannerman sighting between them, then Gerry dobbed her in it (for reasons she can't really explain) by claiming he never saw her - ask her for the details by PM, not me.
I think I explained that but just for for you........Tanner's account of the positions of Jez and Gerry was given credibility because Jez verified it. How many more ways can I say it?Re: the bit in bold - as far as the police are concerned Gerry and Jez both confirm they never saw Jane, so why do you think they would consider the JT / Jez testimony as more credible than the Gerry / Jez testimony? amaral didn't think she was credible as I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring.
As to your second question. Gerry positioned himself precisely where Jez and Tanner said in the collective timeline handed into the PJ on the 10th of May :
'2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed.'
Remember this timeline was constructed with both Kate and Gerry's input.
It really doesn't matter why he changed his position only that he did despite him knowing that Tanner and Jez would give a different account
Well if Tannerman is who SY say he is, that is certainly true.Is it true that Jane said Jez and Jerry were up hill from the gate, if that is the case Jez on his way home was walking away from Gerry when they met. TBH this is the first time I've tried to understand what is going on here and I must admit I'm confused by it all.
Are you trying to get me into trouble? @)(++(* Faithlilly thinks JT and Gerry cooked up the whole Tannerman sighting between them, then Gerry dobbed her in it (for reasons she can't really explain) by claiming he never saw her - ask her for the details by PM, not me.Is it you saying prearranged alibi or her? Now you're saying it is Faithlilly saying this. OK I get it. I don't think I've agreed with her yet on anything.
Is it true that Jane said Jez and Jerry were up hill from the gate, if that is the case Jez on his way home was walking away from Gerry when they met. TBH this is the first time I've tried to understand what is going on here and I must admit I'm confused by it all.Haven't you got it yet? I think Gerry McCann is completely honest and innocent of the crime of hiding a body and engaging in a massive cover up. He did not collude with JT to manufacture an alibi as some people like to think. I am NOT libelling Gerry McCann though no doubt some officious Mod will choose to see it that way.
Is it you saying prearranged alibi or her? Now you're saying it is Faithlilly saying this. OK I get it. I don't think I've agreed with her yet on anything.
This is why a reconstitution was necessary. From the archiving despatch :
'Reconstitution
1 - The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;'
I think I explained that but just for for you........Tanner's account of the positions of Jez and Gerry was given credibility because Jez verified it. How many more ways can I say it?
As to your second question. Gerry positioned himself precisely where Jez and Tanner said in the collective timeline handed into the PJ on the 10th of May :
'2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed.'
Remember this timeline was constructed with both Kate and Gerry's input.
It really doesn't matter why he changed his position only that he did despite him knowing that Tanner and Jez would give a different account
Re: the bit in bold - as far as the police are concerned Gerry and Jez both confirm they never saw Jane, so why do you think they would consider the JT / Jez testimony as more credible than the Gerry / Jez testimony? amaral didn't think she was credible as I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring.
Erm but Jez/Gerry didn't see Tanner. Jez, an independent witness, lends the credibility.Jes, an independent witness lends credibility to JT's positioning of Gerry and also to JT never walking past at all, according to you - but you can't have both, so which is it?!
Perhaps it would aid our discussion if you could post a cite for Amaral's opinion of Tanner?
When this timeline was written Gerry had said he used the front door when checking. That fits with him meeting Jes north of the gate.Why couldn't he? He;s got legs hasn't he? He sees someone up the road as he comes out of the gate and walks up a little way to greet him - what's impossible about that?
Then he changed his mind and said he used the patio door, so he couldn't have been standing north of the gate, could he?
Haven't you got it yet? I think Gerry McCann is completely honest and innocent of the crime of hiding a body and engaging in a massive cover up. He did not collude with JT to manufacture an alibi as some people like to think. I am NOT libelling Gerry McCann though no doubt some officious Mod will choose to see it that way.Thanks Alfie It was just the words "prearranged alibi" that surprised me.
Why couldn't he? He;s got legs hasn't he? He sees someone up the road as he comes out of the gate and walks up a little way to greet him - what's impossible about that?That behaviour would be more often found in someone expecting a visit from that person. If he was expecting Jez to be there and he saw Jez North of the gate Gerry would would rush over to him. They basically had nothing to talk about and without the expectation I think Gerry would have just returned to the table.
Jes, an independent witness lends credibility to JT's positioning of Gerry and also to JT never walking past at all, according to you - but you can't have both, so which is it?!Jane's basic observation of someone carrying a child in outstretched arms across the top of the road has never varied.
ETA: Amaral interview in which he claims JT is not a reliable witness (despite the fact that you claim the police reckoned she was!) http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/17-July8/CORREIO_DA_MANHA_24_07_2008.htm
Jes, an independent witness lends credibility to JT's positioning of Gerry and also to JT never walking past at all, according to you - but you can't have both, so which is it?!Once before when I looked closely at what Jeremy originally wrote in his statement I think he doesn't actually say he didn't see Jane. I'm reluctant to look again but has anyone done that - tried to read Jeremy's handwriting?
.....
That behaviour would be more often found in someone expecting a visit from that person. If he was expecting Jez to be there and he saw Jez North of the gate Gerry would would rush over to him. They basically had nothing to talk about and without the expectation I think Gerry would have just returned to the table.They basically had nothing to talk about according to who? The rest of your post is just silly.
The thing to remember is that many text messages have been deleted from all the phones so if the reason Gerry was expecting a call from Jez it could well have been a text from Jez' phone done by Bridget. So Gerry gets confused about who needs to see him.
They basically had nothing to talk about according to who? The rest of your post is just silly.To each other. What was said in their conversation that would cause them to have inattentional blindness? Basically nothing, so do we rule that out or not?
Once before when I looked closely at what Jeremy originally wrote in his statement I think he doesn't actually say he didn't see Jane. I'm reluctant to look again but has anyone done that - tried to read Jeremy's handwriting? On page 5 of 8I don't know about you but can anyone read that scribble?
At 12:30 pm we went fetch the little boy from the creche as usual. Everyone left the pool at about the same time. I didn't see Jerry or Kate.So where was the girl? He only talks of his son. He is allowed to change his mind and he goes for a walk, does Bridget do the same? We are never told what she does. How can you have a joint statement when the two people are obviously doing different things at a crucial time of the evening? Procedurally wrong in my opinion.
We returned to our apartment. We decided to spend the evening in, watching television. Our son was awake and unable to sleep. I decided to take him for a walk in his pram. I left about 8:15 to 8:30 pm. I was pushing the pram around the complex and went to the toilet near the bar. I could not see inside the restaurant. As I got the baby to sleep, I was on my way back to the apartment. I came out at the top road.
I was on my way back to the apartment. I came out at the top road.Applying Hyatt techniques there are all manner of issues in this statement. It appears Jez doesn't want to admit they know where Gerry's flat is, yet Bridget has told us separately their apartment looked down on the McCann's one. The phrase "pr os and cons and what to do with the children" is also in Bridget's article. That was a conversation Jez had with bridget not with Gerry.
I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said you're on walking duty. I said I was staying in and [ censored word ] and cons and what to do with the children.
He said that as he was staying two weeks XXXXX he was staying one night' (unreadable)
I don't remember anyone else walking around with a child. The conversation lasted for about three (3) to five (5) minutes.
I don't remember anyone else walking around with a child ....Hyatt specifically pointed out it was an error to say what you didn't see. Was he asked about this by the interviewing officers? Was he asked "did you see someone walking around with a child?". Were they prompting answers and hence giving him clues as to what Gerry or Jane had said in their statement? Was there someone else keeping him informed even though he had returned to England?
It's bad enough being asked to consider and take seriously Hyatt's statement analysis without also having Robbitybob's statement analysis to contend with. Have you got the diploma yet Rob? Are you qualified to practice this particular junk science?I don't really think it is junk science. There is definitely something in it. I do have a qualification in auditing so these sorts of errors in what people say are genuine clues to me as well and what I'm saying is a repetition of what I have said months ago but without the backing of Peter Hyatt Can't you see how problematic Jez' statements are?
Jeremy then made his way back to his apartment.
They went to bed about 2300hrs but were waken about 0100hrs by a knock at the door. On answering the door they spoke with the resort manager and a person they knew was a member of the group but they only knew him as Matthew. It was then they found out that Madeleine was missing.
078 'When did you first become aware of what Jane had seen, can you remember''Jane tells Rachel first and Rachel is Matt's wife so I bet my dollar that Rachel told Matt what Jane had told her. He appears to be "distancing himself" in Hyatt's words.
Reply 'No, erm, I think it might, I don't know whether she came on the same night, because I think it sort of, the realisation hit her that she might have seen something, so I think it probably, it may well have been the same night. I don't know whether it was that night or the next day, but I feel fairly sure it would have triggered her memory, but I can't say for definite'.
I went to talk to Jane and said you know, that Madeleine had disappeared and the window was open and the shutter was up, erm and then Jane said to me that when she'd come back to do her check, erm she'd seen somebody carrying a child, walking kind of across the top of the T junction, as she, as she'd been walking up from the, from the Ocean Club, they'd been walking across the top of the road and we kind of said well you know, could have been, not could have been anyone but still sure it couldn't have been Madeleine because Gerry, cos you know if when she was, when she left the table to come up to do her check, Gerry was talking to Jez in the road, erm and so we, you know we had this discussion between ourselves, oh you know, it couldn't have been Madeleine because you know Gerry had only just checked and he was standing in the road and surely he would have seen, or you know surely somebody couldn't have taken her that quickly cos Gerry had literally just come out of the apartment, erm and we kind of you know battered that idea back and forward between us for you know, a couple of minutes, erm but you know, anyway'.
01.19.48 1578 'So what time did Jane tell you this''
Reply 'It must have been about, erm ten past ten or something, quarter past ten I guess'.
Are you trying to get me into trouble? @)(++(* Faithlilly thinks JT and Gerry cooked up the whole Tannerman sighting between them, then Gerry dobbed her in it (for reasons she can't really explain) by claiming he never saw her - ask her for the details by PM, not me.Is that correct Faithlilly? Jane Tanner is talking to Rachel minutes after Kate's alert so when does Gerry have the opportunity to arrange their alibis?
Is that correct Faithlilly? Jane Tanner is talking to Rachel minutes after Kate's alert so when does Gerry have the opportunity to arrange their alibis?To the dyed-in-the-wool Parents Dunnit believer the where, when, how, why doesn't really matter, the only thing that matters are the small discrepancies such as the various statements about precise location of Gerry when he was talking to Jez. It's upon these slight contradictions that a whole conspiracy of body hiding, cover up and fraud can be built, without ever really having to think hard about the means, motive or opportunity to do so.
Jane's basic observation of someone carrying a child in outstretched arms across the top of the road has never varied.
This at the same time as Jez is talking to Gerry makes me think that that person carrying the child was the one whom Gerry was supposed to meet but Jez was in the wrong place at the wrong time so the person carrying the child walks on rather than turning and meeting up with Gerry. The text if it came from Jez' phone makes it sound like the person carrying the child is ....
To the dyed-in-the-wool Parents Dunnit believer the where, when, how, why doesn't really matter, the only thing that matters are the small discrepancies such as the various statements about precise location of Gerry when he was talking to Jez. It's upon these slight contradictions that a whole conspiracy of body hiding, cover up and fraud can be built, without ever really having to think hard about the means, motive or opportunity to do so.I wonder if Faithlilly was able to explain it again.
What? Jez saw Gerry walking downwards towards the OC, if Gerry was going to meet Tanner Man he would have been walking up the road wouldn't he?I'm thinking about the situation where someone uses Jez' phone or their own phone to send a text to Gerry. It might have said "I'll c u at 5A in 5 min." So Gerry has to wait at the apartment till the person turns up. He waits for 15 minutes and no one turns up. He plans to go back to the table thinking he has been stood up. He goes through the gate and sees Jez across the street so he crosses the street to talk to him. But from the conversation it is obvious it wasn't Jez who texted him. And Gerry just goes back to the Tapas restaurant not sure what was going on.
Better than that, if Gerry was going to meet Tanner Man he could have met him in the apartment, as he had just vacated it!!!!
Sorry Robittybob but you are not making sense.
I don't really think it is junk science. There is definitely something in it. I do have a qualification in auditing so these sorts of errors in what people say are genuine clues to me as well and what I'm saying is a repetition of what I have said months ago but without the backing of Peter Hyatt Can't you see how problematic Jez' statements are?
I criticised Hyatt's conclusion in the McCann case for he had only analysed a single interview 4 years after the event. He made a mistake in that aspect. I learned from his techniques all the same.
Q. From which direction Gerry travelling when you met'No friendship there.
From previous conversations had with Gerry, I am of the notion of the usual routine of the group in relation to checking on their children when they were in the Tapas Bar. I also was aware of the location of the McCann apartment. Naturally when I met him that night, I assumed that he had gone to check on the children. I cannot affirm if I saw him exactly leaving the apartment through the passageway, and if he was heading towards the tapas Bar.
When I left the street, I remember seeing Gerry on the other side of the same. I believe that there was some speculation in the press regarding the circumstances of this encounter. I remember that I crossed the street to talk to Gerry. According to what I remember, Gerry was walking when I spotted him. As I mentioned previously, I assumed that he had gone to check on the children and was headed back to the Tapas Bar.
It appeared as though he was jealous of what I was doing, but given that he was with a big group, he felt the obligation to meet with them every night, and the chosen location was the Tapas bar. I believe that there was some sort of agreement with the tapas Bar as they appeared to have a reservation every night and it was impossible for other guests to book at spot there.That was the grudge between them, well part of it.
This is not 4 years but 100 days after the event. Analyse this after a smirk at 23 seconds......"Everything we have done in the last 100 days is focused on the belief that Madeleine was alive when she was abducted". "We're going through that much pain with not having Madeleine with us....." - What about Madeleine's pain? Dining in your garden is there again. That's a starter. "We're just sorry we weren't there at that minute" "I THINK we both want to find Madeleine" WTF!
I've watched it 3 times and still haven't seen the smirk. Anyone who thinks Gerry is sitting there struggling to hide his amusement needs to urgently go to specsavers IMO.
Jeez.
This is not 4 years but 100 days after the event. Analyse this after a smirk at 23 seconds......"Everything we have done in the last 100 days is focused on the belief that Madeleine was alive when she was abducted". "We're going through that much pain with not having Madeleine with us....." - What about Madeleine's pain? Dining in your garden is there again. That's a starter. "We're just sorry we weren't there at that minute" "I THINK we both want to find Madeleine" WTF! "launching a Youtube channel for missing children." Distancing and not one concern about Madeleine is that entire interview!I hear Gerry talking like a scientist, a researcher possibly and looking at things in a fairly logical way, an unemotional way. I see Kate quite frustrated that she is not allowed to talk as much as she would like.
I hear Gerry talking like a scientist, a researcher possibly and looking at things in a fairly logical way, an unemotional way. I see Kate quite frustrated that she is not allowed to talk as much as she would like.
If you cannot see a smirk at 23 seconds then you can't be real. Watch closely this time on a bigger screen no wonder people can pass you without you noticing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZcfFTOti-s
Are you actually being serious? He is in an interview which is being recorded to be shown to the public and he is so amused by it all he gives a smirk? What would he have to gain by doing that? Face it - there is no smirk. Full stop.There there is a smile at the thought of seeing Madeleine alive. Probably just the thought of seeing her again.
No-one has passed me by unnoticed - so something else you've also got completely wrong.
There there is a smile at the thought of seeing Madeleine alive. Probably just the thought of seeing her again.
Any concern for what Madeleine is experiencing and going through? Or is just about themselves?
Any concern for what Madeleine is experiencing and going through? Or is just about themselves?I have seen interviews where she is concerned for Madeleine. Kate by faith believes Madeleine is OK so she doesn't need to feel the same concern. Her faith helps her in that respect.
Are you actually being serious? He is in an interview which is being recorded to be shown to the public and he is so amused by it all he gives a smirk? What would he have to gain by doing that? Face it - there is no smirk. Full stop.
No-one has passed me by unnoticed - so something else you've also got completely wrong.
So when did you see her before ?Gerry smiles not me. I don't smile ever.
They are being asked questions specifically about themselves and are answering them.
Are you kidding me? Madeleine is the victim they can make that clear to all. "I THINK we both want to find her." What would an analyst make of that?She was a noisy kid. Maybe it really is peaceful without her. Was this the clue that was left behind in that home video?
Did you listen to the question being asked when it happened? That is a smirk.Give us the transcription then please.
Jez' rogatory statement:No friendship there.Is there a diagram of where Jez said they were?
Well that can't be down by the gate for he says he had just left the street and needed to cross the road to talk to Gerry. This makes me feel that Gerry left by the front door and walked around the corner and back down the street. So that makes them right up by the intersection. So the assumption Gerry was heading back to Tapas but he could also re-enter his apartment via the side gate and patio door.
Using Hyatt's technique I'd say Jez was jealous of Gerry That was the grudge between them, well part of it.
I'll have to study a diagram of where Jez said they were.
Looks like it's about time for all off topic posts to be sent to that big dustbin in the sky ... please note, the thread topic concerns Gerry and Jez and why they failed to see Jane passing in the street.
Is there a diagram of where Jez said they were?
Yep posted beforeThanks Sadie. Thanks for the diagram and explanation. It has helped.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/9of8-ecf89375_small.gif
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/9of8-ecf89375_small.gif)
Sorry it is so small. I am sure someone knows how to make it bigger.
- Look carefully tho and you will see the very definite cross on the corner of the alleyway. - Exactly in the same position as where Jane very definitely showed it in the Cutting Edge Video
- And as per Jez’ second much longer Rog statement below:
25 to 29 Witness statement of Jeremy Wilkins 2008.04.08
05-CARTAS ROGATORIA 5 Pages 25 to 29
[I suggest you use your GE image to help you understand this.]
-snip-
Eventually, I left one road to the other side of the street to the pool complex, between the McCann apartment and the Tapas Bar. In order to visualise this street, I believe it was the street most used by the news agencies and journalists as all the parked cars indicated during the coverage period. [this is the little car park that I often allude to. On the eastern side of Rua Francisco G.M, right opposite the Tapas Reception]
When I left the street, I remember seeing Gerry on the other side of the same. I believe that there was some speculation in the press regarding the circumstances of this encounter. I remember that I crossed the street to talk to Gerry. According to what I remember, Gerry was walking when I spotted him. [Gerry was walking when he saw him] As I mentioned previously, I assumed that he had gone to check on the children and was headed back to the Tapas Bar. [ and Gerry was heading back to the tapas] -snip-
- Gerry was was walking towards the tapas when Jez saw him .
- He (Jez) was leaving the little car parking area opposite the Tapas reception and he crossed the street to talk with Gerry
- Then Jez' map showing them on the corner of the alleyway.
Hardly by the gate and stairs is it? But exactly by the alleyway corner where the path widens to well over 2 metres.
Very obviously from Jez' testimony they met half way and that is NOT by the gate, it is on the corner of the alleyway, as in the Cutting Edge video
- And then Janes very definite evidence of where it was @ 10.00 on the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY
BTW, this video had blanked out when I looked last night. Also was blanked out in ?Alfies responce
Q. Relative to the visibility and lighting conditions;Somehow I think he was supposed to say "not possible" rather than "possible".
.....
I believe that it would have been possible to see if an individual was near but evidently, the greater the distance, the harder the difficulty in seeing. I would say that when I spoke with Gerry it was possible to recognize someone I knew who was passing on foot at the crossing at the top of the hill or to describe approximately someone unknown from that distance.
Yep posted before
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/9of8-ecf89375_small.gif
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/9of8-ecf89375_small.gif)
Sorry it is so small. I am sure someone knows how to make it bigger.
- Look carefully tho and you will see the very definite cross on the corner of the alleyway. - Exactly in the same position as where Jane very definitely showed it in the Cutting Edge Video
- And as per Jez’ second much longer Rog statement below:
25 to 29 Witness statement of Jeremy Wilkins 2008.04.08
05-CARTAS ROGATORIA 5 Pages 25 to 29
[I suggest you use your GE image to help you understand this.]
-snip-
Eventually, I left one road to the other side of the street to the pool complex, between the McCann apartment and the Tapas Bar. In order to visualise this street, I believe it was the street most used by the news agencies and journalists as all the parked cars indicated during the coverage period. [this is the little car park that I often allude to. On the eastern side of Rua Francisco G.M, right opposite the Tapas Reception]
When I left the street, I remember seeing Gerry on the other side of the same. I believe that there was some speculation in the press regarding the circumstances of this encounter. I remember that I crossed the street to talk to Gerry. According to what I remember, Gerry was walking when I spotted him. [Gerry was walking when he saw him] As I mentioned previously, I assumed that he had gone to check on the children and was headed back to the Tapas Bar. [ and Gerry was heading back to the tapas] -snip-
- Gerry was was walking towards the tapas when Jez saw him .
- He (Jez) was leaving the little car parking area opposite the Tapas reception and he crossed the street to talk with Gerry
- Then Jez' map showing them on the corner of the alleyway.
Hardly by the gate and stairs is it? But exactly by the alleyway corner where the path widens to well over 2 metres.
Very obviously from Jez' testimony they met half way and that is NOT by the gate, it is on the corner of the alleyway, as in the Cutting Edge video
- And then Janes very definite evidence of where it was @ 10.00 on the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY
BTW, this video had blanked out when I looked last night. Also was blanked out in ?Alfies responce
He eventually made his way along Rua Dr Francisco toward the direction of Rua Dr Agostinho. At this time he was walking on the right side of the road passing the Tapas bar area to his left. He noticed the bad street lighting and although it was not completely dark there was enough light to see clearly. As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
He was adamant that he did not see any one else in the area. When spoken to in reference to Jane Tanner walking by, he again stated that he saw no one. He also stated that he did not see or hear anyone to his right. He was aware of the recent picture in the papers re the person with a child wrapped in a blanket and in a males arms allegedly walking across the junction to his right but again stated that he did not see any one.
The conversation with Gerry lasted for about three minutes during which Gerry was chatty and in his normal self. Jeremy then made his way back to his apartment.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
(https://s22.postimg.org/w245riq29/jezmap.jpg)
In his first statement, four days after the event he said;To squirm his way out by making out the entrance to the carpark being what he meant when he said" I came out at the top road" feels like retrofitting a mistake in his original statement into something concocted yet somewhat plausible, but it makes Jane into an unreliable witness. Yet to me every step she takes is accounted for, even the reasons she is persuaded about the colour of Tannerman girl's pyjamas.
''As I got the baby to sleep, I was on my way back to the apartment. I came out at the top road.''
Can R Dr F G Martins be described as 'the top road'? The top of what? I would describe R Dr A da Silva as 'the top road', it's at the top of the hill.
Whether Jane saw Gerry and Jez or Jez and Gerry didn't see Jane and which side of the road they were all on became a bit of an irrelevance in general terms three years since when that nice Mr Redwood of The Yard fragged Tannerman.I'd like to see the night creche records - who this person was that SY say is Tannerman.
So we have Gerry and and Jez having a three minute natter in the street sometime between 2045 and 2115 according to Jez.
Jane sees a geezer carrying a sprog in that time frame who are not AbductorMan and MM according to The Yard because someone else says 'twas he and the Yard checked him out.
Gerry saw MM just before he saw Jez so likely MM remains in the apartment while Jez and Gerry chops.
Sometime 45 to 75 minutes later Kate finds MM misisng from her room.
Last independent siting remains 1730 ish.
The only relevance I can see now is that the precise location would give an indicator to whether Gerry departed through of the front door or back door.
No doubt I will be corrected.... ?{)(**
It seems Jeremy Wilkin's evidence changed over time. It became more and more detailed. I wonder where the toilets actually were;
4th May
8.30-9pm. He was in the Tapas restaurant and saw Rastaman.
7th May
I left about 8:15 to 8:30 pm. I was pushing the pram around the complex and went to the toilet near the bar. I could not see inside the restaurant. As I got the baby to sleep, I was on my way back to the apartment. I came out at the top road.
Several weeks later;
Jeremy received calls from Gerry in relation to gaining permission from him to use his name in a portfolio of evidence being compiled by an organization employed by the McCanns. They were very persistent and made several attempts to contact him both at work and at home. They had no objection to being included but were concerned as to the method being used.
5th November;
He walked around the main area of the resort and eventually ended up in the Tapas bar where he used the toilet facility.
At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
8th April 2008
When I arrived, I headed to the WC near the pool area.
She remembers that at about 21.10 Gerald left the restaurant (3) to go to the apartment to check on the children. Five minutes later, the witness left, to go to her apartment to see whether her daughters were OK. At this moment she saw Gerry talking to an Englishman called Jez whom they had got to know during the holidays. They played tennis with him.
She passed by them knowing that Gerry had already been in the apartment (1) to check his children.
Meanwhile a man appeared ( * ) carrying a child (**), with a hurried walk, it being this detail together with the fact that the child dressed in pyjamas, without being wrapped up in a blanket, that caught her attention. She only managed to see him from the side, with the child in his arms. She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking, having seen this person step off the pavement that borders on the apartment block where they were staying and rapidly cross the road.
The entrance to the apartment building (1) is exactly at the place (street) where the individual appeared from.
After checking on her daughters, she returned to the restaurant. On her way back Gerry was no longer talking in the place where she had seen him.
When she arrived at the restaurant Gerry was already there, accompanied by his wife, Kate.
She left the apartment and went to the Tapas, for dinner, around 20h30.
When she arrived at the restaurant there were already some adult members of the group, namely the McCanns, without their children. They [the children] were supposedly sleeping.
Around 21h00 her husband arrived at the restaurant, Ev, meanwhile, having fallen asleep.
As usual, the Paynes and mother, were late. A few minutes to 21h00 MO left the restaurant and went to the apartment area, saying that he would 'hurry up' the couple that was already late enough. She related that MO, on the way, took the opportunity and looked in on the children's bedrooms. She relates that MO passed the Paynes and DW on the way, but, benefiting from them already being up and on their way [i.e. because he did not have to go all the way up to their apartment], he made a circuit to listen at the homes, detecting nothing abnormal.
They ordered dinner and waited for the starters when, about 21h10, GM left the restaurant having gone to the apartment to see his children. Five or ten minutes later the deponent left, having gone to her apartment to check that all was well with her girls. At that time she observed GM talking to an English citizen called Jez that they had met on these holidays. He played tennis with them. She doesn't know if they saw her giving the assurance that, on her part, she did not start a conversation with either of them.
She passed them knowing that GM had already been in the apartment to see the children.
She doesn't recall the position/orientation of either Jez or GM while they spoke to each other on the street, only having the perception that one was on the pavement and the other was in the road next to the other. Jez had a baby carriage, the deponent knowing that he had a small child.
Prompted, she clarified that the reason she left, following GM only 5/10 minutes later, she relates that she did it because she knew that he would only go to his apartment, reiterating that she checked her daughters regularly.
But, no, so, you know, I’ll go and check at that point. So, timing wise, I mean, I think it was sort of five past, ten past, ten past nine, around, around that sort of time”.
4078 “From what I know from reading statements, Gerry was still absent?”
Reply “He wasn’t there at that point, no, no. So, erm, then I walked, so I just walked out the, erm, the Ocean Club bit and walked, sort of walked up the road. And then Gerry was there, he was talking to Jez WILKINS in the road, well they were sort of, as I went by. So I think I thought then ‘Oh that’s why Jez’, not Jez, ‘That’s why Gerry has been, you know, that’s why he’s longer than we thought’”
4078 “Backtrack a little. How long after Gerry had gone was it before you went to do your check?”
Reply “Well I think it must have been, well it must have been at least five minutes, if not more, because, I say, because he was gone, before I actually left there had been the conversations about him being waylaid. So, I mean, if, I think it must have been sort of five or ten minutes, five or ten minutes after he’d gone. I can’t say for sure, but”.
4078 “Okay. So when did you first notice Gerry standing there?”
Reply “I would have probably noticed him as soon as I came, I mean, I don’t, this is not, I don’t think that distance is probably as far as that, you come out and he was, they were sort of, so almost, I’d probably say almost straight away. Again, I don’t know, but I, I know people are saying I’ve not been on the road, but they were there and I wouldn’t know they were there if I hadn’t walked past, you know, you’ve got to see my frustration in this, and I know Gerry didn’t see me and Jez didn’t see me, but”.
4078 “You were there?”
Reply “They were there and I was there”.
4078 “And you say you almost went to acknowledge them but they were so engrossed in conversation?”
Reply “They were, yeah. I mean, I don’t know whether you’ve met Gerry, but other people have met Gerry, and when Gerry is talking, it’s bit like I said earlier, that he is very focussed, he is a very focussed person. And it doesn’t surprise me he didn’t see me, because if he’s talking he’s very focussed on what he’s doing at that stage. I mean, obviously I don’t know, I don’t know Jez, I hadn’t actually, I hadn’t had any contact with Jez through the week, I didn’t, you know, he wasn’t somebody we chatted to, so, you know, in terms of him recognising me or knowing me, he didn’t know me, so”.
To squirm his way out by making out the entrance to the carpark being what he meant when he said" I came out at the top road" feels like retrofitting a mistake in his original statement into something concocted yet somewhat plausible, but it makes Jane into an unreliable witness. Yet to me every step she takes is accounted for, even the reasons she is persuaded about the colour of Tannerman girl's pyjamas.
Where does Jane say the men were standing? It is about time I looked into that.
I think the first statements are likely to be the most reliable while the events are freshest. I think he went to the Tapas bar then had a wander round and emerged on the top road.By top road do you meant the top of the "T" the Rua Dr ....da Silva. You can only do that by walking up Rua Dr .... Gentil Martins. But where along this Rua did Gerry talk to Jez? OK lets say it was by the lane, does it matter? Yes because from that distance would Gerry or Jez recognise a person crossing the road at the intersection?
I'd like to see the night creche records - who this person was that SY say is Tannerman.
"Probably the finest police in the world" know who he is. Is that not good enough?Not for our purposes it isn't.
Not for our purposes it isn't.
What's this "our" purposes business paleface?I'd better ride off outa here before I get shot up.
As usual, every half hour and as the restaurant was near, the witness or his wife, would check whether the children were all right. In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine. "He then went to the WC" where he remained for a few moments, left, and bumped into a person he had played tennis with and who had a child's push chair, he was also British, he had a short conversation with him, "returning after that to the restaurant."So at that stage Gerry did lie, for he corrects himself in his next statement and tells everyone he entered by the patio door.
It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, Jane will be able to clarify this situation.So he doesn't say it was a man - just an individual. Was it a woman dressed in disguise?
At 21H05 MATHEW returned, the time at which the deponent left the table to go to check how his children were.Matt is a little offended by Gerry doing a check so soon after his check, so he was back before Gerry left.
----- He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings. In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, [then] going to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the blinds, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the lounge."He relates also that JEZ never said to him that he had seen any person given that he was in front." Gerry is saying his back was toward the path so she could have passed without him seeing, but Jez didn't say anything either.
----- He adds that he never entered any other part of the residence [his bedroom or the kitchen] where he was for only two or three minutes, leaving yet again through the rear door that he closed but did not lock. He clarifies that he returned without seeing the children of any other family because he had not been asked to by them.
----- After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw JEZ coming up the street on the opposite pavement bring with him a baby carriage with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction who would come up on the right-hand side [when viewed] from the ascending direction, both having chatted for 3 to 4 minutes, about tennis, holidays and children. While he maintained the conversation with JEZ he saw no-one from the group, nor detected any suspicious individual or vehicle. Because he had been specifically asked, he relates that during this period of time he did not see with certainty JANE pass that location, although it is clear that he was speaking when in front of JEZ, his back to the other pathway on which his apartment is situated. He relates also that JEZ never said to him that he had seen any person given that he was in front.
Thanks Sadie. Thanks for the diagram and explanation. It has helped.
So is he calling the entrance to the small carpark a street? "[this is the little car park that I often allude to. On the eastern side of Rua Francisco G.M, right opposite the Tapas Reception]"
If they were standing there there is no way they would recognise someone crossing the top end of Rua Francisco G.M at night. Somehow I think he was supposed to say "not possible" rather than "possible".
Yep. That little car parking area is actually a street and on early editions of GE it was actually given the same name as the street it branches off = Rua Dr Francisco Gentls MartinI'm enquiring as to why they didn't see Jayne rather than why they didn't see Tannerman.
Agreed. And as Gerry and Jez were facing each other their vivion was at 90* to where Jane and Tannerman were walking, they wouldn't even see them let alone recognise features. .... dont know why people keep going on about it
---- When asked about the time he went to check the children on the night of Madeleine's disappearance, he states remembering that he did it, according to his watch, around 21:04. He remembers that once inside the apartment he thought strange only the fact of the door to the children's room being slightly more open than how the defendant had left it when he and Kate left for dinner. However, he puts the hypothesis of [proposes; suggests] it having been Madeleine opening that door after having woken and having got up, possibly to go to her parents' room. On this occasion the three children were lying in their beds and asleep, he is sure of that. Moreover, he says that with respect to Madeleine she was in the same position in which he had left her at the beginning of the night. Madeleine was lying down on her left side, she was completely uncovered, that is, lying on top of the covers, with the soft toy and the blanket, both pink, next to her head, not knowing if they were placed in the position in which one can see them in the photograph attached to the files.The only aspect of that that I find a bit unusual was that he thought Madeleine might have woken up and moved the door herself. It would seem strange that Madeleine would put herself back to bed in the same position they had left her if that was the case. It is really impossible to tell.
Thus, at around 9pm, her husband went to the apartment to make sure the twins, as well as Madeleine, were OK, then he went back to the restaurant. Her husband said that the children were doing well and that he had bumped into the person with whom he had played tennis, a person who has two children.
A forensic examination of the records of Madeleines attendance at the 'Lobsters' creche on Wednesday 2nd and Thursday 3rd May 2007 is critically important because if they have been falsified, to establish she was there when she was not, this case takes on an entirely new dimension and sets different search parameters.from http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm.
Gerry was the first one to check on the children, this was decided on the spot, close to 9-9:05PM. He got up from the table and entered the apartment through the veranda door. He came back to the table after 10 minutes; he implied that the children were asleep. He'd met a tennis friend by the name of Jez, with whom he had a chat.From that timing he must have returned fairly soon after Jane had gone to do her check.
When you say innocent do you mean also absolute truthful? Could something have happened which required Gerry's medical knowledge and he just keeps quiet about it using the normal code of doctor patient confidentiality?Now that I have looked at all the statements that could have raw facts about the meeting between Jez and Gerry I have no longer any doubt that Gerry did not go to his apartment at 9:04 on a medical mission.
At some point she translated the statement of one of the ladies who belonged to the group and that she describes as a brunette one. This lady said to the GNR elements, and she (the witness) translated, that she had seen a man on the road who might have carried a child.It is possible that Silvia Batista is just confused as to what Jane was saying.
This situation surprised her because she (the witness) was convinced that when the lady saw the man, the lady was in a place from where she had no angle of vision for the place where she saw the man. She doesn't know exactly what was the position of the lady when she saw the man, but she knows that the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.
Quite. Or even vice versa. Jez does not seem to have had a negative word to say about Gerry. I wonder why,..? &%+((£Did you ever find the answer to your question?
Perhaps a suspicion that he was involved in his daughter's disapppearance? But seriously do you think if you'd just discovered your daughter dead a the bottom of the stairs (for example) that you'd want to stop and bore someone senseless with banal pleasantries? It seems unlikely to me, how about you?You can't really say they were buddies the next day or on Saturday when Jez was leaving. There really seems an unexplained tension between the McCanns and Wilkins.
If they were both looking down the road and talking they wouldn't have seen her.Jane struggling up the hill in her flip flops Read her rogatory statement and get it from her side.
That's called ignoring someone. Why would they connive to pretend they hadn't seen her? It's a ludicrous idea in the circumstances.Good question. Maybe both of them were doing something they shouldn't be doing. I'm just not sure that that really works, but if they did, they may not have considered the ramifications if the issue became crucial in the future. At the time it meant very little for nothing had happened other than they had ignored Jane as she walked by so they agreed "let's pretend we didn't see her". Easy.
If you slavishly believe there was an abduction certainly not, however, if you approach the case with an open mind and compare and contrast every piece of evidence especially, crucially, the witness statements.What happens?
Come on Faithlilly it's nonsense and you know it. No one is going to deliberately contradict their pre-arranged alibi on the faintest possibility that someone may come forward to contradict you as well, especially when you know that there are already 2 people prepared to contradict your own statement. It makes no sense whatsoever. And if you believe the police would find JT's evidence credible perhaps you can explain why super-sleuth Amaral dismissed her as a not credible witness? Will you give a straight answer? I doubt it!Amaral was of the opinion the parents hid the body, so a sighting by Jane of an abductor sort of weakens his case, so Jane needed to be made into a non credible witness. He puts words into her mouth she never said.
Shortly after 9 until nearly twenty past is almost 20 minutes. Does anyone believe for a moment that an intruder could hide in such a small apartment completely undetected for so long?Easy if the other person is watching sport on the TV.
The thing is the distance to the corner is now far less than 50 meters as in Gerry's statement. If Jane has to pass by Gerry and Jez and they are north of the gate the distance to the corner is going to be less than 50 meters for the whole distance to the gate according to Kate was 49.5 meters from the Tapas restaurant table!For those who know how to measure distances on Google Earth how far is it from the side gate of Apartment 5A to the corner of the street?
Jane's basic observation of someone carrying a child in outstretched arms across the top of the road has never varied.I no longer think this is a viable option. It is no longer an option. Ignore it.
This at the same time as Jez is talking to Gerry makes me think that that person carrying the child was the one whom Gerry was supposed to meet but Jez was in the wrong place at the wrong time so the person carrying the child walks on rather than turning and meeting up with Gerry. The text if it came from Jez' phone makes it sound like the person carrying the child is ....
She passed by them knowing that Gerry had already been in the apartment (1) to check his children.
Meanwhile a man appeared ( * ) carrying a child (**), with a hurried walk, it being this detail together with the fact that the child dressed in pyjamas, without being wrapped up in a blanket, that caught her attention. She only managed to see him from the side, with the child in his arms. She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking, having seen this person step off the pavement that borders on the apartment block where they were staying and rapidly cross the road.
The entrance to the apartment building (1) is exactly at the place (street) where the individual appeared from.
Amaral was of the opinion the parents hid the body, so a sighting by Jane of an abductor sort of weakens his case, so Jane needed to be made into a non credible witness. He puts words into her mouth she never said.
How do you know tanner saw an abductor ?Just for you I'll amend what I said to keep you happy!
You do realize I presume that hasn't been proved ? 8)-)))
You can't really say they were buddies the next day or on Saturday when Jez was leaving. There really seems an unexplained tension between the McCanns and Wilkins.
Just for you I'll amend what I said to keep you happy!
Amaral was of the opinion the parents hid the body, so a sighting by Jane of a possible abductor sort of weakens his case, so Jane needed to be made into a non credible witness. He puts words into her mouth she never said.
No it doesn't, it became merely suggested another line of inquiry.The case has not been solved yet.
As OG have no interest in Tannerman, it would seem that Amaral was right to discard Tanner's sighting.
The case has not been solved yet.
The case has not been solved yet.
What I'm allowing for is an alternative outcome.
No kidding.
The case has not been solved yet.
In my opinion the Tanner sighting is not an abduction. The child being carried is not Madeleine. But it wasn't creche man either.
I'm enquiring as to why they didn't see Jayne rather than why they didn't see Tannerman.
OK,
I covered the likely reasons in my post « Reply #82 on: November 27, 2016, 10:38:47 PM »
It is fairly long winded so you probably skipped it ... but it is thorough.
It may or may not be correct in its entirety, but the fact that people cannot see beyond certain angles, as specified in Heriberto Janosch’ report is beyond disbelief.
We simply cannot see too wide a vision. If both men were intent on looking down at the toddler in the pushchair, neither would see Jane pass by. In one of his statements, Jez has said that he thinks that the pushchair was at the side of him pointing down the road. Looking at the baby would mean that Jane was simply beyond his line of vision .....
simples.
It wasn't only vision, there was movement and probably sound also.
Movement is registered in vision.
If it was not in the "field of vision" cos they were both looking down at Jez' baby, then no amouint of movement would enable them to see Jane .... simples
Maybe there was a flip flopping sound, but maybe there wasn't. It depends on the quality of the "flip flops"
But I hardly think that Jane would go to dinner in rubber beach flip flops! She is the long term partner of a medical consultant and also has a good position herself .... she could afford some really nice evening "flip flops" ... the silent kind !
Here is what can be seen out of the 'corner of the eye'. The rods which detect movement are very numerous in our peripheral vision, more so than in our macula area, where cones are more numerous.I haven't read the article yet, which I definitely will do. But have you tested this idea out for yourself? Preferably in lighting conditions which approximate to those of Gerry/Jez? (Obviously I can't have done the latter yet due to the time of day.)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.html
(http://www.ssc.education.ed.ac.uk/courses/pictures/visualfield1.gif)
Silent flip flops? A bit of a misnomer then. I have looked, but they all seem to make that noise unless you practice for hours to walk silently.
I haven't read the article yet, which I definitely will do. But have you tested this idea out for yourself? Preferably in lighting conditions which approximate to those of Gerry/Jez? (Obviously I can't have done the latter yet due to the time of day.)
I'm interested because I would estimate my peripheral vision, side to side, to be close to 170. I don't get near the up-field in that diagram, probably as an evolutionary characteristic to stop me getting blinded by the sun. I think I get close to the down-field because I can see the tips of my toes as I walk. But I'm sure my brain is designed to filter that out otherwise I would fall over constantly. Hmm, maybe it is for snake detection? Just thinking out loud.
I need to read the article and I need to emulate the sighting conditions.
Here is what can be seen out of the 'corner of the eye'. The rods which detect movement are very numerous in our peripheral vision, more so than in our macula area, where cones are more numerous.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.html
(http://www.ssc.education.ed.ac.uk/courses/pictures/visualfield1.gif)
Silent flip flops? A bit of a misnomer then. I have looked, but they all seem to make that noise unless you practice for hours to walk silently.
Where do you get that diagram from Gunit?
Cant see it on the website, which doesn't seem to have much of interest in it anyway. A diversionary tactic ?
It doesn't even explain what the radiating lines mean, if anything. It is a nonsense without a key... and who produced it?
Anyone know where Heribertos diagram has gone? Hope it hasn't been wiped.
From memory, I can tell you that his scientific diagram maintained that periferal vision was operative for a considerably narrower field than in your diagram which I am guessing indicates 130*
But even at 130* that elimenates any possibility of seeing Tannerman and Jane as she walked away. Gerry and Jez would need a 180* field of visiion to see them... and they certainly aint got that !!
Here is what can be seen out of the 'corner of the eye'. The rods which detect movement are very numerous in our peripheral vision, more so than in our macula area, where cones are more numerous.In Jane's rogatory interview she does admit struggling to walk in her flip flops.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.html
(http://www.ssc.education.ed.ac.uk/courses/pictures/visualfield1.gif)
Silent flip flops? A bit of a misnomer then. I have looked, but they all seem to make that noise unless you practice for hours to walk silently.
Have just quickly gone thru all Heris posts and an find no diagram of his scientific "Field of vision"
Neither can i find his video /images showing how the shutters could be lifted, the windows slid open and a young child easily lifted out of the window, That seems to have gone
Heri is an expert, an extremely well qualified expert who has studied this case in great depth .........and his 2 most iconic ... and worthwhile postings seem to have been wiped?
WHAT'S GOING ON ? where are they?
Is this the post you are referring to Sadie?Thank you John. I went thru all Heris posts but the images do not show on some of them. Well done for finding it.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1963.msg63132#msg63132
Re: THE FRONT DOOR - WAY IN AND WAY OUT for abductorThanks to Heriberto Janosch.
« Reply #98 on: July 22, 2013, 07:50:42 PM »
Some pics ...
-snip-
And 50º are just the limit of human binocular vision, although the visual field is uneven, it is not uniform and has its maximum definition in its central part.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1963.0;attach=2597;image
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1963.0;attach=2597;image)
Is this the post you are referring to Sadie?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1963.msg63132#msg63132
Thank you John. I went thru all Heris posts but the images do not show on some of them. Well done for finding it.Sadie when both eyes are used the field is the brown lines not the blue lines.
Heriberto Thanks to Heriberto Janosch.
When both eyes are being used, the periferal vision is only 100* [between the two blue lines]. So only 50* in either direction. That is not very great.
Altogether different to your info Gunit.
And it was dark too, so that wouldn't help
Sadie when both eyes are used the field is the brown lines not the blue lines.
Not from what Heri said ... and he is a forensic expert.And I'm the scientist. I'm sure I'm right. Each eye (singly) is restricted by the nose being in the way but when you use both eyes at the same time your brain ignores the bit where each eye is seeing the nose.
Re: THE FRONT DOOR - WAY IN AND WAY OUT for abductorSo 100* total Human binocular vision
« Reply #98 on: July 22, 2013, 07:50:42 PM »
And 50º are just the limit of human binocular vision, although the visual field is uneven, it is not uniform and has its maximum definition in its central part.
I feel I must mention thisDoes it matter?
Gerry Mccann is NOT a heart SURGEON
He IS a Consultant heart PHYSICIAN and as such carries the title Dr rather than Mr.
Something I was reading last week also called him PROFESSOR, but that is the only time that I have come across him called that.
Does it matter?
If it does then he is currently Professor McCann. Source http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/cardiovascular-sciences/people/mccann
What he was in 2007, dunno.
I think the way qualifications work in Portugal, I am entitled to call myself Dr here. Does it matter? Should I look it up and see if I should insist on being called Dr ShiningInLuz?
Does it matter?
If it does then he is currently Professor McCann. Source http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/cardiovascular-sciences/people/mccann
What he was in 2007, dunno.
I think the way qualifications work in Portugal, I am entitled to call myself Dr here. Does it matter? Should I look it up and see if I should insist on being called Dr ShiningInLuz?
Actually it does matter imo as in his book Amaral gives Gerry's occupation as a heart surgeon, used to cutting up people, as the reason why he could remain calm - when others could not. (words to that effect).OK, so what was his occupation in May 2007?
Completely untrue of course but no doubt it had the desired effect on many of his readers.
Actually it does matter imo as in his book Amaral gives Gerry's occupation as a heart surgeon, used to cutting up people, as the reason why he could remain calm - when others could not. (words to that effect).
Completely untrue of course but no doubt it had the desired effect on many of his readers.
OK, so what was his occupation in May 2007?
And had he, or had he not, been a practitioner of surgical cardiology? Or does one get to be a professor without actually practicing what one teaches?
Had he cut people up or not?
Thank you.
Hw will have done a stint in surgery as part of his basic training, but he has never been involved in heart surgery, so No.
He was/is a physician and specialised in imaging of the heart and blood vessels.
There are many medical treatments for heart disease that do not require being under the knife.
The exact context being that one of the English police officers said "Don't forget he's a heart surgeon and he cuts people open before breakfast"
Either he thought that was true - which showed a serious lack of knowledge on his part about a prime suspect because he was using untrue information to help build a case against him - or he knew it wasn't true. In which case why mention it at all - if it was not intended to give his readers the impression that Gerry was a heart surgeon - with the obvious 'message' which the above quote clearly infers?
Does it matter?Are you an engineer, (chartered or similar) ? ..... cos in most European Countries they have the title Dr. but not in the UK.
If it does then he is currently Professor McCann. Source http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/cardiovascular-sciences/people/mccann
What he was in 2007, dunno.
I think the way qualifications work in Portugal, I am entitled to call myself Dr here. Does it matter? Should I look it up and see if I should insist on being called Dr ShiningInLuz?
Are you an engineer, (chartered or similar) ? ..... cos in most European Countries they have the title Dr. but not in the UK.No. I've got a degree, which gains me nowt. I also have a higher-level post-graduate degree (not a PhD) which I think entitles me to Dr. over here. I might be right and I might be wrong. But whichever way it is, it is not going to make my musings on the case more intelligent or more accurate.
The exact context being that one of the English police officers said "Don't forget he's a heart surgeon and he cuts people open before breakfast"
A lot of people seem uninformed about Gerald McCann's job, including UK journalists. All his statement says is 'doctor'. Perhaps Amaral assumed the English policeman knew what he was talking about.
Surely it would have been more pertinent for Amaral as the Lead investigator to know what he was talking about. Once he had decided to use certain information to make a point that was detrimental to a suspect (which is what he did) - then it was his duty as a police officer to be sure of his facts first. Especially in such serious circumstances. It's not as if it would have been a difficult task, all he had to do was ask Gerry.
The discussion he was reporting took place after Gerry McCann surprised everyone by showing no emotional reaction when waiting to be contacted by a suspected kidnapper. It struck them as strange that he seemed unconcerned. The remark made by the policeman was an attempt at explaining why. Correcting the policeman's mistake would have made nonsense of the story, 'Oh, he scans people before breakfast' doesn't quite have the same connotation.
None of that alters the fact that by putting untrue information in his book about Gerry he misleads his readers. People who previously believed that no normal person could calmly do what he was supposed to have done were now given a reason why it was possible in his particular case - because as a surgeon he was used to cutting people up - so disposing of a body would be easy peasy. A good theory, except it was totally untrue. A detail which for some reason Amaral kept from his readers.Does anyone have a date for this incident? The football phone call I mean.
Why Gerry would decide it was a really good idea to display a total lack of concern and behave in a light-hearted manner in a room full of policemen at such a tense time for everyone present is too daft for words. That would make him a simpleton. The whole idea is nonsense IMO.
What I can believe is that a UK policemen probably brought up the subject of football to him to relieve the tension while they were waiting for the phone to ring.
John - are you not happy about exploring whether the chat could have been 15 minutes long?The 15 minute chat time has been discussed on other forums because what seems problematic for Jez is the unaccounted for time delay between when Gerry finishing talking to Jez (using Gerry's timeline from 9:10- 9:15) but Jez does not make it home till 9:30 and he was only staying just a few meters away.
The 15 minute chat time has been discussed on other forums because what seems problematic for Jez is the unaccounted for time delay between when Gerry finishing talking to Jez (using Gerry's timeline from 9:10- 9:15) but Jez does not make it home till 9:30 and he was only staying just a few meters away.
So it has been pointed out by other forums his timeline doesn't ring true so Bridget may have in her dealings with the press inflated the chat time up to 15 minutes to account for this spare time, IMO.
But the truth of it is Jez' alibi can only be corroborated during the 4-5 minute period when he is talking to Gerry. (This alibi is Confirmed by Jane but Jane's confirmation of it is denied by Jez.)
I am uneasy with some of your references to Jeremy Wilkins ... in my opinion you are straying perilously close to libelling an innocent witness.
I am uneasy with some of your references to Jeremy Wilkins ... in my opinion you are straying perilously close to libelling an innocent witness.On what basis do you claim his innocence? Would he not be a potential suspect along with all the others? What would I be accusing him of in any case? As with everyone they are presumed innocent until proven guilty but that is just the law. I'm sure detectives working on a case feel someone is responsible long before it is proven in court.
You know 'tis nothing but a flight of fancy, I know 'tis nothing but a flight of fancy but will others see it that way?What was that about?
I think the use of the word "alibi" puts the handle on it. Unless he wants to claim the use of Latin adverbs is de rigeur in the Land Of The Long White Cloud, m'lady.... 8(0(*
What was that about?
Does a joint statement act as its own corroboration? Who knows the law on that?
This YT by a former DA says that an alibi by a wife or a mother is not a strong alibi. "How to present an "Alibi" defense? A former D.A." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE5EBuubrD4
For example Robert Murat's mother gave Robert an alibi but they still made him an aguido.
Corroborating witness
"For alibi to prosper, it is necessary that the corroboration is credible, the same having been offered preferably by disinterested witnesses.<ref>People vs. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, 16 March 2011</ref" http://wiki.lawcenter.ph/index.php?title=Alibi
So that would mean the other party of a joint statement would not qualify as a "disinterested witness".
I will qualify my previous statements by saying Jez claimed to have an alibi, but it was weak for it was corroborated by his wife in a joint statement.
Does anyone have a date for this incident? The football phone call I mean.
Interesting.Thanks. It is not like that they were asked to give separate statements like all the other husband and wife combinations.
The first contact was 14th June. The communication below may have been refering to the phone call because Paiva is accompanying the couple. If so, it was the end of June or the beginning of July. According to Kate's book he was arrested on 6th July;Very interesting, thank you.
Date: 2007/07/05
Service Information
To: The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation, G. Amaral
From: Ricardo Paiva
Subject: Emails about the whereabouts of Madeleine McCann
I compliance with your instructions, during the course of last week, the undersigned officer went to Praia da Luz to offer support and to accompany the couple Gerry and Kate McCann, parents of missing Madeleine McCann, following various emails received by the couple during the last two weeks coming from Holland, sent from the email address AMSTERDAMVU@gnail.com reporting supposed information about the whereabouts of the girl as well as about the identity and location of the abductors and referring that the author was prepared to provide this information in exchange for a large financial compensation.
The stress and anxiety of the McCann couple was visible and notable with regard to the situation, they replied quickly to the emails, which, from the beginning they believed to be genuine, given the fact that Gerry had lived in Holland and because of this the couple attributed greater importance to the emails, both expressing their conviction that the information in the emails would certainly help them to get their daughter back, even if it where necessary to spend the sum of 2 million euros demanded by the author in exchange for information about Madeleine McCann's whereabouts.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANONYMOUS_CALLS.htm
Very interesting, thank you.
Now my issue is football in July. Is there any? Isn't that the summer break?
Gerry seemed to talk about football a lot. When he wasn't talking about golf, that is.
The 15 minute chat time has been discussed on other forums because what seems problematic for Jez is the unaccounted for time delay between when Gerry finishing talking to Jez (using Gerry's timeline from 9:10- 9:15) but Jez does not make it home till 9:30 and he was only staying just a few meters away.It is not until I had read Russell O'Brien's statements today that things go in Bridget's favour. His timing and order of events is so at odds with the others that questions need to be asked.
So it has been pointed out by other forums his timeline doesn't ring true so Bridget may have in her dealings with the press inflated the chat time up to 15 minutes to account for this spare time, IMO.
But the truth of it is Jez' alibi can only be corroborated during the 4-5 minute period when he is talking to Gerry. (This alibi is Confirmed by Jane but Jane's confirmation of it is denied by Jez.)
Jane could have come back first because she found Gerry chatting with a person who is also a guest in the same place, named Jez. He thinks that Jane only checked their apartment, being worried about ****. Then Gerry came back at around 9.25/9.30 and they started to eat the first course. [as entradas]".
At around 9.35/9.40, taking advantage of the lull [waiting pause] before being served with the first [main] course, the informant left the restaurant with Matthew to check the children. When he got there, his daughter **** was crying. He stayed in her bedroom with her. He supposes that Matthew checked his apartment. Matthew returned to the restaurant five minutes after leaving it. His partner came to take his place in ****'s bedroom around 15 minutes later after finishing dinner.
Does anyone have a date for this incident? The football phone call I mean.What football phone call?
What football phone call?What is a football phone call?
Gerry seemed to talk about football a lot. When he wasn't talking about golf, that is.And my hubby, when he isn't talking about golf, or snooker.
Gerry seemed to talk about football a lot. When he wasn't talking about golf, that is.
What is a football phone call?I thought that they were waiting for a phone call, from someone who was supposedly offering info (for megabucks) as to where Madeleine was .... but it turned out to be a scam.
Yes It was not unusual for Gerry to be talking about football at anytime.
I saw more of Gerry when we were playing sort of football and things. But, yeah, you know, just a normal. I mean, he'd done quite a lot of sports, erm, on a Wednesday night particularly and when we went to the bar after we spent a lot of time talking about sort of, you know, could it have been slightly different could I have been a professional footballer, you know, this is how, I enjoyed it and how far I got and we talked about sort of what I'd done and there was quite a lot in common, erm, in common with that.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Maddy also loved football - happy in her Everton shirt. She probably used Cuddle Cat as a football. Eddie found the precious washed clean toy dumped in a bin at the villa. Oh dear!Had the PJ put it in the bin?
Had the PJ put it in the bin?
No. Martin Grime did that.
I thought Grime put it in the cupboard?
No. Martin Grime did that.
I thought that they were waiting for a phone call, from someone who was supposedly offering info (for megabucks) as to where Madeleine was .... but it turned out to be a scam.You've got it right, Sadie.
Have I got it right or have I got it wromg?
I think it was just suggested that Gerry might have been smiling, relaxed, because maybe a British cop was chatting football to him to help break the tension.
Maddy also loved football - happy in her Everton shirt. She probably used Cuddle Cat as a football. Eddie found the precious washed clean toy dumped in a bin at the villa. Oh dear!Some people would see that as tidied, NOT dumped.
MG didn't do it. Eddie went in to investigate and pulled CC out of the corner. After showing an interest in it, MG hid the toy in the cupboard for a second test.
MG didn't do it. Eddie went in to investigate and pulled CC out of the corner. After showing an interest in it, MG hid the toy in the cupboard for a second test.You can't really tell, can we? Even though from memory I think Cuddle Cat had been very unceremoniously stuffed headfirst in the bin with his hind legs sticking up in the air.
No. Martin Grime did that.How would you ever prove that?
It is quite evident that Jane saw Gerry and Jez talking on the road. If Jez denies that could have happened is he implying that there is a conspiracy involving Jane?
This must be "the concocted alibi theory" that was being discussed a few pages back, that I had never considered before. Now that I read that Russell thinks Jane (husband and wife) may have seen them talking on the way back rather than the way there seems to open up the possibility that Jane's memory is faulty, yet she talked to her friends about it within the hour it happened so it hard to imagine how her memory is faulty.
But if she sees Gerry and Jez on the way back she can't see Tannerman in the same place either. I have no way of dealing with distorted memories like that.
How would you ever prove that?
It could be argued that Jane was never there at that time and that is why Jez didn't see her.So how did Jane get it right that the two were talking on the road outside the apartment?
So how did Jane get it right that the two were talking on the road outside the apartment?
It would all depend on when she said it in relation to when she learned of Gerry's meeting.So you are basically saying she is an out and out liar.
If, for example, she was actually at the table when Gerry returned, he may have mentioned that he had been talking to Jez.
So you are basically saying she is an out and out liar.
I am saying that contradictions in the various statements make the events open to uncertainty and interpretation.But Jane has never varied from the sighting of Gerry and Jez on the way to checking her children and that she saw someone carrying a child across the top of the street. Any variation to that you are calling her a liar.
But Jane has never varied from the sighting of Gerry and Jez on the way to checking her children and that she saw someone carrying a child across the top of the street. Any variation to that you are calling her a liar.
You think what you like ?{)(**No, I'm not allowed to do that either.
Of course you can. Moderators might be heavy handed at times, but they haven't yet morphed into thought Police.Do you mean I can think it, as long as I don't write it. I'm tired Nite all.
So you are basically saying she is an out and out liar.You'll be hard pressed to find a sceptic who doesn't believe JT is a liar quite frankly, despite the fact that she has been thoroughly vindicated by the Met, and despite the fact that there can be no logical explanation for why she would lie about something like this, for a man she barely knew before the start of the holiday.
You can perhaps take your thought behind the wall in the Members area, away from prying eyes.Good idea. I'll make some enquiries with Angelo. Who is the boss around here?
Good idea. I'll make some enquiries with Angelo. Who is the boss around here?
You'll be hard pressed to find a sceptic who doesn't believe JT is a liar quite frankly, despite the fact that she has been thoroughly vindicated by the Met, and despite the fact that there can be no logical explanation for why she would lie about something like this, for a man she barely knew before the start of the holiday.
You are missing the obvious.No, that doesn't work I'm afraid. She didn't make up a man carrying a child because his existence has been confirmed by the Met, unless you're suggesting that they are "romancers" too.
Regardless of whether you like it or not or whether there are cites to back it up some people in life are natural born romancers. Whether Jane Tanner is or is not has never been proven. Were she however it would adequately answer all that you enumerate above.
No, that doesn't work I'm afraid. She didn't make up a man carrying a child because his existence has been confirmed by the Met, unless you're suggesting that they are "romancers" too.
But several of you supporters believe that Tannerman is not Crechman, so is it not possible?Is what not possible? Jane Tanner saw a man, a man came forward to the Met and said he was likely the man she saw, JT has been vindicated - she didn't make up a man.
Is what not possible? Jane Tanner saw a man, a man came forward to the Met and said he was likely the man she saw, JT has been vindicated - she didn't make up a man.
No, that doesn't work I'm afraid. She didn't make up a man carrying a child because his existence has been confirmed by the Met, unless you're suggesting that they are "romancers" too.
Or it is a different man completely from the one allegedly seen by Tanner, as some of you supporters believe.So you think there are two men, one who exists and who came forward to the Met, and one who doesn't exist, who JT made up, and who happens to resemble in most respects the man with child that did come forward, is that your contention?
Sorry old strick it must be my piss poor comprehension or your cack handed way of expressing yourself.OK if you say so. Yeah. It would explain everything. She simply made it up. She's a "romancer." It was pure coincidence that the man she made up also happened to exist and that her invented man resembled in most respects the man that came forward to the Met.
You said:
" there can be no logical explanation for why she would lie about something like this".
I said: "being a natural born romancer would be a reason".
You now choose to widen the limits drag in extraneous matter then say it doesn't work.
I presume such things [romancders] are without your field of experience in the wider sense of the word ?
So you think there are two men, one who exists and who came forward to the Met, and one who doesn't exist, who JT made up, and who happens to resemble in most respects the man with child that did come forward, is that your contention?
Isn't that every bit as believable as Smithman and Tannerman being different people yet wearing practically the same clothes and carrying children who are almost identical to each other?Well we know that that is the case, as there is one man who has come forward (crecheman) and 9 (?) witnesses to the second man - what you are asking us to believe is that by some bizarre coincidence JT invented a man that just so happened to resemble a real life man who came forward to confirm that he walked past Apt 5a at the time she said she saw him, carrying a child in PJs resembling the ones she supposedly invented also.
Well we know that that is the case, as there is one man who has come forward (crecheman) and 9 (?) witnesses to the second man - what you are asking us to believe is that by some bizarre coincidence JT invented a man that just so happened to resemble a real life man who came forward to confirm that he walked past Apt 5a at the time she said she saw him, carrying a child in PJs resembling the ones she supposedly invented also.
John. But you already know that.I thought I knew it but it is Angelo who goes around hacking the threads even though they seemed acceptable to John.
I thought I knew it but it is Angelo who goes around hacking the threads even though they seemed acceptable to John.
So you think there are two men, one who exists and who came forward to the Met, and one who doesn't exist, who JT made up, and who happens to resemble in most respects the man with child that did come forward, is that your contention?That is possible . I don't believe crecheman really fitted the picture properly as yet, so we have SY saying "maybe" instead of "was".
Well we know that that is the case, as there is one man who has come forward (crecheman) and 9 (?) witnesses to the second man - what you are asking us to believe is that by some bizarre coincidence JT invented a man that just so happened to resemble a real life man who came forward to confirm that he walked past Apt 5a at the time she said she saw him, carrying a child in PJs resembling the ones she supposedly invented also.Bizarre coincidence is a good description. How can this be sorted?
Alice has asked us to consider the possibility that JT is a "romancer".
What is a romancer I wonder?
My understanding of the term is to describe someone who is prone to flights of fancy, a storyteller, someone perhaps who cannot help but embroider a story for their own amusement more than any attempt to deliberately deceive. As my comprehension skills are regularly called into question by Alice, perhaps he cold verify precisely what he meant by the term so we can progress the discussion further.
OK if you say so. Yeah. It would explain everything. She simply made it up. She's a "romancer." It was pure coincidence that the man she made up also happened to exist and that her invented man resembled in most respects the man that came forward to the Met.
Of course the fact that a man actually came forward is a completely irrelevant fact that we should dismiss as having no bearing whatsoever on the possibility of JT making the whole thing up.
glad that's sorted then!
I think for their own amusement is a bit restrictive, try to be helpful.Try to be helpful?
Try to be helpful?
But you have failed to sort anything out. Least of all the phrasing of your own questions and what they say.As you don't seem satisfied with anything I write on this forum, nor with my ability to understand anything you write on this forum, perhaps you should just accept that I am an illiterate oaf with nothing worthwhile to say and who understands very little about anything? I'm happy to leave it at that. 8((()*/
It may not be what you meant but that's another story.
Try, "to be helpful" rather than "for their own amusement".Is that part of the definition of "a romancer"? Let's ask the oracle who introduced the word in the first place...
I must say I prefer 'fantasist ?{)(**'If JT is a fantasist, then what do you make of Crecheman?
Another fantasy of course. There's a lot of it about in this case.Right. So that's JT and the Met who are fantasists. Anyone else?
Right. So that's JT and the Met who are fantasists. Anyone else?Can I be included in that elite group?
So many questions, but don't ask Kate, she doesn't like answering questions.We'll try and answer them without her then.
I thought I knew it but it is Angelo who goes around hacking the threads even though they seemed acceptable to John.
You should have realised by now Robbie that this is a fact based forum. Your insistence that two little girls went missing the night Maddie disappeared or that the whole thing started out as a prank are frankly without any basis whatsoever. It's all very well thinking outside the box but there are some theories which could never stand scrutiny.Really do feel we've isolated the crunchy bits that lack explanation. I knew I was out of order. I'm being more careful now.
Really do feel we've isolated the crunchy bits that lack explanation. I knew I was out of order. I'm being more careful now.
I appreciate your intentions were honourable but at least you have aired them.I thank you for that period of grace (to run naked among your guests, (Sadie will understand that one)).
You should have realised by now Robbie that this is a fact based forum. Your insistence that two little girls went missing the night Maddie disappeared or that the whole thing started out as a prank are frankly without any basis whatsoever. It's all very well thinking outside the box but there are some theories which could never stand scrutiny.I will never give up on searching for the evidence for the other girl, and I'm sure some of the others are beginning to see the need for it too, for it is impossible to explain how Amy Tierney ends up in Kate's apartment even before she has signalled an alert if there isn't another incident other than to say she is lying. But when you look at the points she raises it is as if she is assisting Kate in coming to the decision Madeleine has been taken.
Amy most likely saw that the shutter was open because that was the crime scene when the police arrived.Yes that is neither open or closed. Is it partially down or is it part way up? It certainly isn't up enough for a kid to fall out of the window or for a burglar to escape. So this is the result of Gerry's attempt at lowering the shutters or Dianne Webster playing around with the shutters. The worst preserved crime scene they had known.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/04/article-1041216-022B288300000578-704_468x308.jpg)
Any further comments containing accusations of Lying will be deleted In Full.That is rather funny. That is going to make discussions really restricted but I'll try.
Yes that is neither open or closed. Is it partially down or is it part way up? It certainly isn't up enough for a kid to fall out of the window or for a burglar to escape. So this is the result of Gerry's attempt at lowering the shutters or Dianne Webster playing around with the shutters. The worst preserved crime scene they had known.
Yeah I mean I can remember going out there and in fact there was me and somebody else, I don’t know who else there was, to see if it could be raised from, from outside, I didn’t spend too long err trying it.”
I put it to you that the person DW refers to could be Amy Tierney?
No she was at the night creche. But I have found a witness of seeing shutters/window open. Funny I thought Gerry had closed them straight away. What a mess LOL &%+((£
1578 'Did you at any point yourself see the shutters up and the window open''
Reply 'Yes'.
1578 'When was that''
Reply 'When, when Fi and Kate were outside, erm you know standing by the shutters, by the window'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
That is rather funny. That is going to make discussions really restricted but I'll try.
No she was at the night creche. But I have found a witness of seeing shutters/window open. Funny I thought Gerry had closed them straight away. What a mess LOL &%+((£
1578 'Did you at any point yourself see the shutters up and the window open''
Reply 'Yes'.
1578 'When was that''
Reply 'When, when Fi and Kate were outside, erm you know standing by the shutters, by the window'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Not funny at all. Would you not mind that accusation levelled at you? I would say that you are largely mistaken.
No she was at the night creche. But I have found a witness of seeing shutters/window open. Funny I thought Gerry had closed them straight away. What a mess LOL &%+((£You have to get her (Amy Tierney) out of the creche and over to the apartment before the window is closed or the shutters are lowered.
1578 'Did you at any point yourself see the shutters up and the window open''
Reply 'Yes'.
1578 'When was that''
Reply 'When, when Fi and Kate were outside, erm you know standing by the shutters, by the window'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
I wonder what time that was.
Must have been after DW arrived, as before that Fi would be attending to her own children.
DW said she went straight to 5A around 5 minutes after the alarm was raised. She found the shutter down and tried to raise them as seen in the crime scene photos. She said they twisted and therefore got stuck in the position you can see them in. So any raised shutters seen had to be before DW got there according to her testimony.You have to get her (Amy Tierney) out of the creche and over to the apartment before the window is closed or the shutters are lowered.
It sure is a tangle- which IMO is exactly what was intended.Intended by whom, and how did they manage to exert such control over everyone's statements?
It sure is a tangle- which IMO is exactly what was intended.
DW said she went straight to 5A around 5 minutes after the alarm was raised. She found the shutter down and tried to raise them as seen in the crime scene photos. She said they twisted and therefore got stuck in the position you can see them in. So any raised shutters seen had to be before DW got there according to her testimony.
Fiona went for a search round the block then back to 5A at 10.10pm. The shutters were closed then too. Unless they were being raised and lowered all the time it beats me how Amy and Rachael saw them open. Even better, Rachael said she was standing near Fiona when she saw them open.You have to get her (Amy Tierney) out of the creche and over to the apartment before the window is closed or the shutters are lowered. When Amy arrives there is just Kate, Gerry and one other female.
In reply to the question asked, she said that the back door (porta das traseiras) that leads to the parking area was closed, but she doesn't know whether the front door (porta da frente) was locked as when she arrived both the parents and a female friend of theirs whose name she does not know, were there and that is why the door was open.
The parking area is the front door not the back. Amy would have got there around the same time Gerry was talking to Pamela Fenn on the balcony. Kate and Fiona told her to piss off and that's probably being nice to them. This was 10:25 - 10: 30 as Amaral wrote in TOTL. Gerry, Kate and Fiona present.Your times are all out. It is Amy ringing Lyndsay that initiates the missing child procedure and the time for that seems to be 10:17 or thereabouts.
After having searched the apartment and verified that the girl was not there, the outside searches were begun.It was Amy's verification that initiated the outside searches.
She indicates that on May 3rd 2007, at around 10.20pm, she was informed by her colleague Amy T. that Madeleine McCann had disappeared. At that, she immediately launched the "missing child" procedure. This procedure consists of dividing the site into several areas, which are allocated to various of the company's employees to start searching for the missing child.
No she was at the night creche. But I have found a witness of seeing shutters/window open. Funny I thought Gerry had closed them straight away. What a mess LOL &%+((£Did Fiona ever agree with that?
1578 'Did you at any point yourself see the shutters up and the window open''
Reply 'Yes'.
1578 'When was that''
Reply 'When, when Fi and Kate were outside, erm you know standing by the shutters, by the window'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
In Rachael's first two statements she says Kate told her about the open window and shutters. Then it changes in her rog interview. She says she stayed at the bottom of the steps to 5A while Matt and ROB have a quick look in the garden, then she and Matt go to check on Grace.Then;It sounds like Rachel didn't intend to say yes but she did.
Matt went off to search and I went across to Jane's apartment cos she was there with Evie, erm and just told her that Madeleine had gone missing, erm and I must have known at that point that the window was open and the shutter was up, erm cos basically when I told her that and this was in the courtyard,
1578 'What time did you have the conversation with Jane on the, on the evening''
Reply 'On the night, erm I mean it was probably about ten fifteen, twenty past ten, something like that (inaudible)'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Jane agrees;
I think it was Rachael that I saw first because she had run back I think to check that Grace was obviously okay. And then I think Rachael said, you know, she told me what had, you know she said ‘Oh Madeleine’s gone’ or, you know, something along those lines.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
So how did Rachael know about the window and shutters when she hasn't yet spoken to Kate? It seems no-one did actually tell her. Firstly she says Kate and Fiona were standing by the window and she was with them before she went to Jane.
I remember kind of standing near the window with Kate and Fiona,
Or was it Kate, Fiona, Gerry and Dave?
Kate and Fi and you know Dave and Gerry might have come out of the apartment and sort of been standing around there and talking about this, these shutters being up and the window being open,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
So she didn't go straight to see Jane then, she went out of her apartment, turned right out of the courtyard and right again along the walkway towards the McCann apartment first. Although she says she saw them herself when asked a direct question she resorts to vague hearsay when questioned more closely.
1578 'Did you at any point yourself see the shutters up and the window open''
Reply 'Yes'.
1578 'When was that''
Reply 'When, when Fi and Kate were outside, erm you know standing by the shutters, by the window'.
She was never in Madeleine's family apartment.Her second statement
the deponent stayed with [KATE] for most of the time in her [KATE's] apartment.Is that not the same as "Madeleine's family apartment"? So when Amy turned up it could be Kate Gerry and Fiona?
Your times are all out. It is Amy ringing Lyndsay that initiates the missing child procedure and the time for that seems to be 10:17 or thereabouts.It was Amy's verification that initiated the outside searches.
This is confirmed by Lyndsay Johnson http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LYNSAY-JAYNE.htm
We are wondering if the same reason the others didn't see the shutters up and window open is behind the reason Jez and Gerry didn't see Jane. Some sort of blindness that can be overcome with questioning!
Do Gerry and Jez really say they didn't see Jane or are they saying something else altogether?
Do you know where the main reception/night creche is? If Amy was there calling Lyndsay (confirmed by work colleague witnesses like Charlotte Pennington) then she can't be at 5A before that time. Then she goes from there to the apartment so 10:25 - 10:30 is my timeline same as the PJ.
- She advised the aforementioned individual that no one had told them of the disappearance, who she believed by the name given, was Madeleine, also for the reason that Amy contacted via telephone her supervisor, Lyndsay, who informed her that Madeleine had indeed disappeared;
She indicates that on May 3rd 2007, at around 10.20pm, she was informed by her colleague Amy T. that Madeleine McCann had disappeared.
The shutter was open not fully closed. There's a reason for everything so let's leave the fantasy talk out of it. No way did Jane pass Jez within feet without being seen. He remembered seeing her much further away when he first ventured out.So what are you implying from Jez admitting seeing Jane earlier, what has that to do with the incident at 9:15 or thereabouts?
The shutter was open not fully closed. There's a reason for everything so let's leave the fantasy talk out of it. No way did Jane pass Jez within feet without being seen. He remembered seeing her much further away when he first ventured out.It wasn't "fantasy". I actually questioned how we could be talking about shutters being seen up or down on a thread about whether Jez and Gerry saw Jane. I had to go back through the thread and see how the two topics are related.
Amy was working not at 5A when DW was lifting shutters so give it up.You can't prove that "Amy was working not at 5A when DW was lifting shutters". My last proposal was that the 3 people in the apartment when Amy turned up were Gerry, Kate and Fiona. So on that basis Dianne is still (most likely) at the Tapas Restaurant.
On the 3rd of May 2007, around 22H15, the witness was working during "dinner hour", together with her colleagues Jackie and Amy, when an unknown woman came to them indicating that she was a tourist lodged at the complex and asked them if they had heard about a disappearance of a child, whose name she referred to as "Maggie" or "Maddy".
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARLOTTE-PENNINGTON.htm
Here's Jackie's to confirm if you don't believe Charlotte Pennington. Amy was with Jackie and Charlotte. The night creche weren't aware before DW. She was there when Kate raised the alarm. There was no Maggie. Nothing about Amy running from the creche to the apartment.QuoteThat on 3rd May at about 22.05 she was working at the Mini Club, at the "dinner time period" together with colleagues Charlotte and Amy, when a female individual arrived, whose name she does not know, just that she was the mother of a child there (belonging to Toddlers 2), being a guest who was staying at the resort and who left at the end of the week, who told her that a girl called "Maddie" has disappeared, and that the girl's parents needed help in looking for her.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JACQUELINE_WILLIAMS.htm
"That on 3rd May at about 22.05 she was working at the Mini Club, at the "dinner time period" together with colleagues Charlotte and Amy, when a female individual arrived, whose name she does not know, just that she was the mother of a child there (belonging to Toddlers 2), being a guest who was staying at the resort and who left at the end of the week, who told her that a girl called "Maddie" has disappeared, and that the girl's parents needed help in looking for her."
Do you really think Ocean Club Staff would hand children over to people they didn't know? I doubt that very much.
But that name would be an important clue as it would at least eliminate one person. Did Jackie have a similar sort of blindness as to Jez and Gerry not seeing Jane, and similar to Fiona not seeing the window open or the shutters up?
Yet there were others that saw things that others didn't see namely 3 or 4 saw Robert Murat when none of the GNR or PJ saw him in the same area.
Were there other instances of blindness? - Oh yes. Firstly .... ...... not seeing Kate coming out of the shower dressed in a towel to answer the door. Not seeing what she was wearing - blindness.
OK keeping track of who is present and who has gone off the table at the Tapas Restaurant is a bit more problematic so there may or may not be instances of blindness occurring.
Matt nearly had an attack of the dreaded blindness but he had an excuse, he didn't venture far enough into the room to see Madeleine, but he was selectively deaf that night for he could hear the twins but he didn't hear Madeleine, yet he went looking for her in the main bedroom. You go looking for someone and don't find them and say to the parents "all's quiet". It might have been blindness and deafness at the same time. Same condition Jez and Gerry had, that caused them not to hear Jane's footsteps in her flip flops a full 20 seconds at least of that, a very severe case indeed.
The receptionist didn't see Matthew or Gerry asking him to call the police. None of the nannies say they went to 5A during their searches but the T9 said they were there. Kate didn't see the dogs until the morning but she handed over the pink blanket to them at 2.30am. Jane saw no parked cars at 9.15pm, but Steve Carpenter saw them. Jane left the dinner table twice but the Tapas staff only saw men leaving the table. No-one ever saw the Irwins and we still don't know if they turned up for dinner on 3rd.Can you detail what you mean by "None of the nannies say they went to 5A during their searches but the T9 said they were there"?
The receptionist didn't see Matthew or Gerry asking him to call the police. None of the nannies say they went to 5A during their searches but the T9 said they were there. Kate didn't see the dogs until the morning but she handed over the pink blanket to them at 2.30am. Jane saw no parked cars at 9.15pm, but Steve Carpenter saw them. Jane left the dinner table twice but the Tapas staff only saw men leaving the table. No-one ever saw the Irwins and we still don't know if they turned up for dinner on 3rd.Was the receptionist asked if he saw Matthew or Gerry asking him to call the police? Why would Kate have to see the dogs in order to hand over a blanket to the police? Your post above is full of banal observations trying desperately hard to make something out of nothing.
Was the receptionist asked if he saw Matthew or Gerry asking him to call the police? Why would Kate have to see the dogs in order to hand over a blanket to the police? Your post above is full of banal observations trying desperately hard to make something out of nothing.Some of the fault must be placed at the hands of the investigators. A lot of the statements are based on a response to questions put to the interpreter to ask the witness. This worries me when there are interpreters with a conflict of interest for they could modify the question and the answer.
On the night of 3rd May, after having finished work, I planned to meet a group of colleagues at 22.30 to go out. At about 22.17 I received a call from Lyndsey Johnson, the creche Manager, informing me that the girl had gone missing. I met Lyndsey and the Service Manager, Amy Tierney, near to the Tapas Bar and we initiated the 'Mark Warner procedures for the search of a missing child'.
Can you detail what you mean by "None of the nannies say they went to 5A during their searches but the T9 said they were there"?
We have Amy Tierney going to 5A does that not count? Emma and Amy might be thought of as nannies. What are the sentences that make you think this?
by that time there were lots of people milling around, nannies and lots of Mark WARNER staff and people from the village,Blimey, how many nannies do you need before you accept what Jane and Rachel are saying is the truth?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
I think when they realised she was missing, MARK WARNER sort of got everybody searching and I can remember some of the Nannies coming to the door and they took my number, my phone number, my mobile number and said ‘If we hear anything we’ll give you, we’ll let you know’ and that was three of the Nannies.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Jane and Rachael saw nannies at the block, but I haven't seen any nanny specifically saying they went there in their statements except Amy and Charlotte;
The witness states that she participated in the searches, together with her colleague, Amy, searching various areas of the Ocean Club establishment. She also states that she searched the patio area of the residence where Madeleine stayed with her parents and siblings, and during which, she encountered many individuals inside the apartment but was not able to tell if they were complex employees or friends of the couple. She did not enter the residence in question;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARLOTTE-PENNINGTON.htm
Blimey, how many nannies do you need before you accept what Jane and Rachel are saying is the truth?
She also states that she searched the patio area of the residence where Madeleine stayed with her parents and siblings, and during which, she encountered many individuals inside the apartment but was not able to tell if they were complex employees or friends of the couple. She did not enter the residence in question;
Charlotte says"Nannies at the block" (good name for a girl band maybe). Being on the patio counts as "being there" in my book.
"Nannies at the block" (good name for a girl band maybe). Being on the patio counts as "being there" in my book.I fully agree.
"Nannies at the block" (good name for a girl band maybe). Being on the patio counts as "being there" in my book.
We have very different standards, don't we? 'Nannies on the patio' wouldn't be seen by two women who stayed at the other side of block 5 near their front doors. They wouldn't be taking Jane's mobile number or saying 'Hello' to her daughter.We certainly do have very different standards which I am very glad about. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially when I can think of no earthly reason why any of these women would have any reason whatsoever to lie about these particular details. Once again you are making something out of nothing. I know it's a fun way to pass the time, to spot minor discrepancies in statements, but really - to what end?
I can remember some of the Nannies coming to the door and they took my number, my phone number, my mobile number and said ‘If we hear anything we’ll give you, we’ll let you know’ and that was three of the Nannies. And Evie was still up at that time because I can remember them sort of, you know, saying ‘Oh hi Evie’, blah, blah, blah.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Who would know Evie's name? Jacqueline and Leanne are likely candidates because they looked after her and Grace Oldfield at the creche.
It probably wasn't Jacqueline;
she did not participate in any search of the apartment where Madeleine was staying with her parents and siblings, nor in its immediate vicinity.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JACQUELINE_WILLIAMS.htm
Leanne doesn't say.
We certainly do have very different standards which I am very glad about. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially when I can think of no earthly reason why any of these women would have any reason whatsoever to lie about these particular details. Once again you are making something out of nothing. I know it's a fun way to pass the time, to spot minor discrepancies in statements, but really - to what end?I love you Alfie! Leanne Wagstaff ha ha how does the joke go Leanne?
She immediately asked what was happening and was told that a girl had disappeared. At first she thought it was a joke, but then she also began to search. She say that she searched everywhere.This is the second reference in the file to joke or the word I use prank?
I love you Alfie! Leanne Wagstaff ha ha how does the joke go Leanne?This is the second reference in the file to joke or the word I use prank?Erm...OK.... 8()-000(
XXX
Erm...OK.... 8()-000(I'm just joking. But I was thankful to you for just quoting (writing) "Leanne" and I thought who was the nanny Leanne so I read her statement and noted she thought the situation was a "joke". I was wondering how the joke went in her mind.
I'm just joking. But I was thankful to you for just writing "Leanne" and I thought who was the nanny Leanne so I read her statement and noted she thought the situation was a "joke". I was wondering how the joke went in her mind.When did I ever mention Leanne? Have you been to Specsavers recently?
Was she thinking Amy was tricking her? Or was she thinking that the abduction was a joke? Which bit was the joke?
No wonder they wanted to get Robert Murat (the interpreter) off the case! I wonder if Robert Murat gave his business card and asked her privately how the joke could have gone?
When did I ever mention Leanne? Have you been to Specsavers recently?Just waking up .... you quoted G-unit http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7805.msg368381#msg368381
We have very different standards, don't we? 'Nannies on the patio' wouldn't be seen by two women who stayed at the other side of block 5 near their front doors. They wouldn't be taking Jane's mobile number or saying 'Hello' to her daughter.Just from the depth of the conversation I'd say it was Charlotte.
I can remember some of the Nannies coming to the door and they took my number, my phone number, my mobile number and said ‘If we hear anything we’ll give you, we’ll let you know’ and that was three of the Nannies. And Evie was still up at that time because I can remember them sort of, you know, saying ‘Oh hi Evie’, blah, blah, blah.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Who would know Evie's name? Jacqueline and Leanne are likely candidates because they looked after her and Grace Oldfield at the creche.
It probably wasn't Jacqueline;
she did not participate in any search of the apartment where Madeleine was staying with her parents and siblings, nor in its immediate vicinity.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JACQUELINE_WILLIAMS.htm
Leanne doesn't say.
- The witness states that she participated in the searches, together with her colleague, Amy, searching various areas of the Ocean Club establishment. She also states that she searched the patio area of the residence where Madeleine stayed with her parents and siblings, and during which, she encountered many individuals inside the apartment but was not able to tell if they were complex employees or friends of the couple. She did not enter the residence in question;I'd like to think if Amy was there talking to Jane she would have really worked on Jane's sighting.
- She participated in the searches until 01H30 on the 4th of May, 2007, when she returned to her residence;
I was watching a YT video today and I heard Gerry admitting that Jane walked past them while he was talking to Jez. I'll see if I can locate it again. It was "McCanns on Oprah Show May 4th 2009"
But I'll post the location for reference purposes. https://youtu.be/xNI5up44Nho?list=PLYqizoU4WJfAVQhjTGKo5M7JOxTFK9leH&t=789
Kate is looking as if she can't believe what she is hearing! https://youtu.be/xNI5up44Nho?list=PLYqizoU4WJfAVQhjTGKo5M7JOxTFK9leH&t=815
I have watched both those snipsNothing wrong? No I believe it to be the truth but it seems to be a progression on what Gerry originally said. So if Gerry agrees Jane went past while Jez and Gerry were chatting will Jez now make the same concession? Or will he still continue to say Jane was wrong?
... and I am sorry, Rob, but I dont see anything wrong with what Gerry is saying. Even the "across the road" bit, because I think they probably started chatting in the middle of the road when a vehicle pulled out of the little car park opposite the Tapas reception ... causing them to retreat to the west side of Rua Francisco G Martin by the alleyway.
Furthermore I dont agree with you about the way that kate reacted.
Soz.
Nothing wrong? No I believe it to be the truth but it seems to be a progression on what Gerry originally said. So if Gerry agrees Jane went past while Jez and Gerry were chatting will Jez now make the same concession? Or will he still continue to say Jane was wrong?
Jez said he didn't see Jane. Where exactly did he say she was wrong?Well that was the impression I got from what he was saying. I'd have to go back and cover it again, but I had the impression he was saying it was impossible for him to have not seen her.
She told police that she saw a dark-haired man, aged about 35, carrying a child who could have been Maddie's wrapped in a blanket at 9.15pm—when Gerry and Wilkins would still have been chatting.OK he doesn't say Jane Tanner is wrong but it is implied when he says "It was a very narrow path and I think it would have been almost impossible for anyone to walk by without me noticing."
But Wilkins, viewed by police as a completely independent witness, told cops he could not recall anyone walking past him. And in all the time he was there he saw NO MAN carrying a child.
The TV executive is convinced he would have seen Jane Tanner pass by.
He said: "It was a very narrow path and I think it would have been almost impossible for anyone to walk by without me noticing."
And he also believes he would have seen the mystery man and child who would also have been just yards away.
Jez said he didn't see Jane. Where exactly did he say she was wrong?http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic9095.html in that article.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic9095.html in that article.
He said that but he also said "It was a very narrow path and I think it would have been almost impossible for anyone to walk by without me noticing."
Jez Wilkins does not say Jane Tanner 'got it wrong' ... he says he did not see her passing, nor did he see a man carrying a child at the top of the road.
How would Jane have known that Gerry and Jez were standing in the street talking if she hadn't seen them?
He said that but he also said "It was a very narrow path and I think it would have been almost impossible for anyone to walk by without me noticing."
How do you interpret that? That to me is Jez virtually saying it didn't happen.
Jerry and Jez are superfluous to Jane's presence and what she witnessed ... and Jez is absolutely not saying anything other than the fact that he did not see Jane when she passed him.I still think it is more than that for it is reported he says it is virtually impossible for her to pass unnoticed so I don't see how you can say he admits "he did not see Jane when she passed him".
An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends.Was Jez Wilkins' objection one of those "serious inconsistencies" of Jane's sightings?
He said that but he also said "It was a very narrow path and I think it would have been almost impossible for anyone to walk by without me noticing."
How do you interpret that? That to me is Jez virtually saying it didn't happen.
Both Gerry and Jez state they didn't see Jane, but in that Oprah interview Gerry concedes Jane passed by them as they were speaking but Jez seems to persist in denying it.Jez obviously does not understand the restrictions caused by the narrowness of his field of vision.
Jez obviously does not understand the restrictions caused by the narrowness of his field of vision.Well then he should admit it was possible for Jane to go past unnoticed rather than saying it was virtually impossible for him not to notice her.
It is entirely possible that if he were looking down at his little boy in the pushchair, he wouldn't notice someone passing by.
Full stop.
I still think it is more than that for it is reported he says it is virtually impossible for her to pass unnoticed so I don't see how you can say he admits "he did not see Jane when she passed him".
'Virtually impossible' is not the same as ' impossible'. Unless he had eyes in the back of his head it was quite possible that his head was turned away from JT and he was looking elsewhere during the few of seconds it took for her to pass by - and so he missed her. People do not stand with their feet rooted to the spot without moving a muscle when they are chatting to one another - especially when there is a baby present to take their attention.
IMO
And especially if there was a getaway vehicle with its driver dithering about whether it dare come completely out of the little car park ... and drive past them ... past Gerry, the father of Madeleine, + Jez. The car might even have been backing into the car park, manouevering, prior to going off in the opposite direction.
It is not unreasonable to suggest the possibility that the vehicle shunting nearby caused Jez momentarily to look away and at the 'goings on'.
I appreciate this is just supposition, but it is quite possible
.... and it fits very neatly into the theory of a watcher/ director of operations on block 6 balcony. His getting into the pick up vehicle on the little car park (at the back of block 6 and opposite Tapas Reception) and attempting to drive up Rua Francisco G. Martin to pick up Tannerman and Madeleine.
It also fits very well to Jane seeing colour. Did the headlights flash across Tannerman?
At the point where the path meets the alleyway it is over 2 metres wide. That is quite wide.
Only Gerry was on the path and at the kerb, Jez was in the road. Plenty of space behind Gerry.
You can check it on Google Earth . Use the stubby upright rule on the top {command] band to check distances
So you are saying you wouldn't notice if some walked within 30 cm of you in a quiet street.
Either they did miss her or JT lied.I think the theory goes that at some point after the alarm was raised *****, knowing he'd been seen by the Smiths, managed to take **** ****** to one side (with no one noticing) and explaining his predicament along the lines of:
If she lied you have to give a reason why she would agree to do something so immensely dangerous for a couple who, in the scheme of things. meant nothing to her, but an act which - if she agreed to carry out - could ruin her own family's life for ever. Gerry wasn't asking her to lend them a cup of sugar.
What would be the purpose of Gerry asking JT to lie for him if he was going to deny he'd seen her? That makes no sense.
Also when did she and Gerry get together to devise this cunning plan?
It could only have been back at the dinner table after JT returned and before she dashed off again to relieve Russell. That would be quite a bombshell for Gerry to deliver to JT - so how come no-one noticed anything going on between them? Did they even sit next to oneanother?
Or are we supposed to believe that everyone there already knew that Madeleine was dead at that point but that not one of them had the slightest problem in carrying on eating, drinking and exchanging banter as if nothing whatsoever out of the ordinary had happened? By sheer coincidence apparently they all happened to be brilliant actors - and obviously were all so thick they didn't even think anything too serious had happened anyway. Can anyone actually believe that!
IMO
A ) If the others didn't know that Madeleine was dead, there was neither the time nor the opportunity for Gerry to privately take JT to one side and tell her what had happened and then persuade her to lie for him - and he couldn't do it at the table without the others knowing.
OR
B) If the others did know then no-one in their right mind - let alone 7 perfectly normal people (including a grandmother) - would agree to be part of such a heinous crime involving the disposal of a dead child's body. They would all have to be stark raving bonkers to give it even one second's consideration. As far as I know none of them were off their rockers.
The whole idea is utterly preposterous.
JT didn't lie. Gerry didn't see her because he had his back to her, and Jez didn't see her because he was looking in another direction when she passed. They didn't hear her because they were listening to one-another talking.
AIMHO
Either they did miss her or JT lied.
If she lied you have to give a reason why she would agree to do something so immensely dangerous for a couple who, in the scheme of things. meant nothing to her, but an act which - if she agreed to carry out - could ruin her own family's life for ever. Gerry wasn't asking her to lend them a cup of sugar.
What would be the purpose of Gerry asking JT to lie for him if he was going to deny he'd seen her? That makes no sense.
Also when did she and Gerry get together to devise this cunning plan?
It could only have been back at the dinner table after JT returned and before she dashed off again to relieve Russell. That would be quite a bombshell for Gerry to deliver to JT - so how come no-one noticed anything going on between them? Did they even sit next to oneanother?
Or are we supposed to believe that everyone there already knew that Madeleine was dead at that point but that not one of them had the slightest problem in carrying on eating, drinking and exchanging banter as if nothing whatsoever out of the ordinary had happened? By sheer coincidence apparently they all happened to be brilliant actors - and obviously were all so thick they didn't even think anything too serious had happened anyway. Can anyone actually believe that!
IMO
A ) If the others didn't know that Madeleine was dead, there was neither the time nor the opportunity for Gerry to privately take JT to one side and tell her what had happened and then persuade her to lie for him - and he couldn't do it at the table without the others knowing.
OR
B) If the others did know then no-one in their right mind - let alone 7 perfectly normal people (including a grandmother) - would agree to be part of such a heinous crime involving the disposal of a dead child's body. They would all have to be stark raving bonkers to give it even one second's consideration. As far as I know none of them were off their rockers.
The whole idea is utterly preposterous.
JT didn't lie. Gerry didn't see her because he had his back to her, and Jez didn't see her because he was looking in another direction when she passed. They didn't hear her because they were listening to one-another talking.
AIMHO
I think the theory goes that at some point after the alarm was raised *****, knowing he'd been seen by the Smiths, managed to take **** ****** to one side (with no one noticing) and explaining his predicament along the lines of:
"I'm in a spot of bother, you see ********* hasn't really been abducted, she died while we were out so I did the logical thing and disposed of her body in a bin, but in the process I was spotted by nine people so what I need you to do is to invent an abductor, dressed in similar clothes to mine, and pretend you saw him at the same time as you saw me chatting to *** *******, hope you don't mind doing this for me, I'd be ever so grateful, ta".
And then after **** ****** has told all and sundry that she saw an invented abductor, ***** totally lands her in it by claiming he never saw her at all. And the reason he does this is on the off chance someone was out on a balcony watching him and *** ******* intently whilst they were chatting.
You see - it all makes TOTAL sense!
You have to consider that she may have misrembered or conflated different checks or occasions. She may have seen someone with a child and seen Jez and Ger, but not on the same occasion. Doesn't mean she lied or was part of some conspiracy.You see, this is what does make total sense, it's Heri's theory but because it is perceived that he is a supporter he gets wildly ridiculed for it.
It's always easier when you can make up your opponents arguments for them.That is a genuine theory held by someone on this board, I haven't made it up.
You see, this is what does make total sense, it's Heri's theory but because it is perceived that he is a supporter he gets wildly ridiculed for it.
It's why they needed a reconstitution.How would a reconstitution have sorted that out?
You have to consider that she may have misrembered or conflated different checks or occasions. She may have seen someone with a child and seen Jez and Ger, but not on the same occasion. Doesn't mean she lied or was part of some conspiracy.
..... snipOK if that is the case why isn't Jez willing to admit he just didn't see her, rather than saying it is virtually impossible that she got past him?
JT didn't lie. Gerry didn't see her because he had his back to her, and Jez didn't see her because he was looking in another direction when she passed. They didn't hear her because they were listening to one-another talking.
AIMHO
The end result is the same ...The important issue is not what Gerry or Jez did or did not see ... it is what Jane saw.
- Jane still saw Gerry and Jez
- neither Gerry or Jez saw Jane
- Jane saw the man crossing the road in front of her
... coming from the direction of block 5
... carrying a child- shortly after Jane's sighting, Madeleine McCann was found to be missing from her bed in apartment A of block 5
...and still Jane may not have passed them and your list could still stand.Like as if Jane was ahead of Jez and Gerry, she had gone past the apartment side gate before Gerry had come out? Jane had gone on to the road before Jez had come out of the side street and she glimpsed them still talking on the way back??
OK if that is the case why isn't Jez willing to admit he just didn't see her, rather than saying it is virtually impossible that she got past him?
As OG appear to have explained Tannerman away as innocent Crecheman , it would seem to have no importance at all.
I'm sure had he known that in the future every word he uttered was going to be put under a microscope and scrutinised by armchair detectives he might have elaborated more. In the meantime IMO - he is as amazed that he didn't see JT pass by as I was when my grandson didn't see a jogger passing us by - because he was looking in another direction during those precise few moments it took for the jogger to pass us. It happens.I appreciate something quick like that could happen but Jane struggling in her flip flops is harder to imagine that someone could miss that.
Erm, yeah, and I’d got cropped trousers on and just flip-flops, so I can remember sort of walking, I couldn’t walk that quickly because I’d got these silly flip-flops on and I couldn’t walk that, that well in them, so to speak. Erm, and I walked, I was walking up the road and I can’t remember exactly, I know this, I know, I think Gerry thinks he was somewhere different to where I think they were standing, but I was fairly sure, as I walked up the road, they were standing, one of them was in the road and one of them was just on the edge of the pavement, but I thought it was on the side of the road that I was walking, but I know Gerry thinks they were the other side. But I thought they were closer by, because as I walked by, I almost did go to sort of acknowledge them and I thought at that point ‘Oh they were cha cha cha’ and I did think, you know, I didn’t, I didn’t know whether they’d seen me or not, but I did actually go to acknowledge them and I think if they’d have been that far away I don’t know whether I would have sort of almost gone to say hello, but.
4078 “So you have left the Tapas Bar and you have gone up that hill. What is there, is there a pavement and a road there?”
Reply “Yeah, there’s sort of like a pavement which is sort of almost like made up of, it’s not cobbles, but made up of small stones”.
4078 “Not ideal for flip-flop wearers?”
Reply “No, because I do remember, I was almost looking at my, sort of not looking at my feet, but I was sort of padding, because obviously I was trying to get to do the check and get back as quick as possible as well, so I just thought ‘Oh I’ll just go and do the check as quick as possible’ and I did think, I was not struggling to walk in my flip-flips, but, you know, I wasn’t, I wasn’t striding”.
If there was a car it would seem to have been utterly silent and invisible. Similar to Jane, really.If there had been a getaway vehicle coming out of the little car park opposite Tapas reception, the noise could have alerted Gerry and Jez, but more likely the headlights swinging round made them aware that they had to move out of the way for it to come up the hill. Remember vehicles are driven on the right in PT.
If there had been a getaway vehicle coming out of the little car park opposite Tapas reception, the noise could have alerted Gerry and Jez, but more likely the headlights swinging round made them aware that they had to move out of the way for it to come up the hill. Remember vehicles are driven on the right in PT.What they didn't see Jane and the getaway vehicle!
The fact that it suddenly stopped as the driver changed his mind, would have further alerted Jez to the situation. In such a situation Jez would look round to see what was going on.
So you are saying you wouldn't notice if some walked within 30 cm of you in a quiet street.
What they didn't see Jane and the getaway vehicle!Quite possible, both.
I'm sure had he known that in the future every word he uttered was going to be put under a microscope and scrutinised by armchair detectives he might have elaborated more. In the meantime IMO - he is as amazed that he didn't see JT pass by as I was when my grandson didn't see a jogger passing us by - because he was looking in another direction during those precise few moments it took for the jogger to pass us. It happens.
Well Gerrys body is about 50 cm deep. He was on the kerb.
The pavement there is about 230 cm deep.
[Check the width carefully on Google Earth. Zoom in until the pavement is large. Use the stubby upright blue rule (on the command line at the page top) to measure the width in metres] ... you will find that I am right. Let's make Jane wider than she really is, say 2ft = 60cm
Therefore the space taken up on the pavement by Gerry and Janes body widths/depths is no more than 50+60cm = 110cm
Deduct their body widths from the pavement width to give the space between them
230-110 = 120
Therefore the potential distance between the back of Gerry and the side of Jane is 1m 20
That, Slarti is four times the distance you claim...and a decent distance from the man, Gerry, whose back she passed
You wont get it wrong again will you ? 8**8:/: There's a darling ... too much work for an old un, like me, to have to keep doing it.
How come you got it so wrong?
You seem to struggle with this. Over 2m as you originally claimed is just over arms breadth, your assumption that Jane was stuck to the wall and Gerry balanced on the edge is ridiculous. Unless the gap was so narrow that she had the squeeze up to the wall I would expect at least a 20cm gap to the wall. Even using your ever increasing measurements, that would only leave Her an arm's length from Gerry.Bluster wont get you anywhere Slarti.
Try not to get it wrong again.
But you saw the jogger.
Rather unlikely that both individuals taking part in a conversation would fail to see a third individual walk within inches of them, don't you think ?
Bluster wont get you anywhere Slarti.
The carefully measured width of the pavement at that point is 230 centimeters ... approx 30 cm wider than a regular bed is long. That's a big width.
The fact of the matter is that the combined space taken up by Gerry and Janes bodies is less than 110 cm leaving potential clear space of 1m20.between them.
That is approximately 4 feet GAP BETWEEN them.
Now that it has plainly been set out for you, it is downright dishonest to still try and argue otherwise.
Mods, most especially, should not behave like this.... imo
It's not bluster, it's fact. You take measurements from fuzzy satellite photos where you think they were standing then take the best possible scenario from your point of view and try to convince people they were far apart. Doesn't wash. Being a mod does not prevent me debunking your myths.
You missed some of the best bits:Excuses, excuses, excuses.
Not only fuzzy satellite photos and guessing where people are but:
Scale 1:250.
Alot of features covered by foliage.
A cursor that is so tiny the datum points will be a bit hit and miss.
The notion the measurement is accurate to within 20mm ?
I suppose words like "mensuration" and "metrology" are missing from the vocabulary.
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/09/f3/HDBK11402001_Part3.pdf
see section 3 of linked document.
There are lots of pretty sketches and dimensions.
Excuses, excuses, excuses.
Throwing long words in to make yourself sound impressive, are you Alice?
Words not even needed in this particular situation as i suspect you know full well!
Immediately before (whilst the Mccanns were in PdL) the hedges were cut back.
At junction with the alleyway, the footpath actually measures 240 cm, but I erred on the safe side and called it 230cm.
I notice that you prefer to back Slarti who is stating the distance between Jane and Gerry was 30 cm rather than back the truth which was 120cm(+)
In English Imperial measurement this equates to:
1 foot against the potential for 4 feet.
So Slarti is trying to make out that Jane was only one foot behind Gerry as she passed him, whilst in actual fact, Jane had the potential to have been over 4 feet (away) behind him
That is a big difference in a situation like this.
Slarti, Alice, please stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
Excuses, excuses, excuses.
Throwing long words in to make yourself sound impressive, are you Alice?
Words not even needed in this particular situation as i suspect you know full well!
Immediately before (whilst the Mccanns were in PdL) the hedges were cut back.
At junction with the alleyway, the footpath actually measures 240 cm, but I erred on the safe side and called it 230cm.
I notice that you prefer to back Slarti who is stating the distance between Jane and Gerry was 30 cm rather than back the truth which was 120cm(+)
In English Imperial measurement this equates to:
1 foot against the potential for 4 feet.
So Slarti is trying to make out that Jane was only one foot behind Gerry as she passed him, whilst in actual fact, Jane had the potential to have been over 4 feet (away) behind him
That is a big difference in a situation like this.
Slarti, Alice, please stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
I wonder if there's a cite for the hedge trimming?
Plenty of leeway for an individual to pass behind another standing at the kerb,
particularly if the passing point was in line with the entrance to the lane.(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/08_03/McCannsVillaES_468x313.jpg)
Brilliant Brietta .. Thanks ... two birds with one stone ?{)(**Did you work out when that photo was taken?
Freshly cut hedge AND the depth of the pavement on that corner
And also, Gerry, showing how much space he would have taken
The 230/240cm in previous posts is from the kerb to that black line by Gerrys foot. Whilst talking to Jez, Gerry was standing on the kerb. Plenty of space.
Please no more comments about there only being a squeeze of 30 cm (1 Foot) behind Gerry. Please not even in a couple of years time!
Brilliant Brietta .. Thanks ... two birds with one stone ?{)(**
Freshly cut hedge AND the depth of the pavement on that corner
And also, Gerry, showing how much space he would have taken
The 230/240cm in previous posts is from the kerb to that black line by Gerrys foot. Whilst talking to Jez, Gerry was standing on the kerb. Plenty of space.
Please no more comments about there only being a squeeze of 30 cm (1 Foot) behind Gerry. Please not even in a couple of years time!
As long as you have carefully selected your circumstances to allow your theories...
So you are saying you wouldn't notice if some walked within 30 cm of you in a quiet street.
Brilliant Brietta .. Thanks ... two birds with one stone ?{)(**
Freshly cut hedge AND the depth of the pavement on that corner
And also, Gerry, showing how much space he would have taken
The 230/240cm in previous posts is from the kerb to that black line by Gerrys foot. Whilst talking to Jez, Gerry was standing on the kerb. Plenty of space.
Please no more comments about there only being a squeeze of 30 cm (1 Foot) behind Gerry. Please not even in a couple of years time!
I take it there is no cite for the hedges having been trimmed while the McCanns were in residence then. It must be one of those myths that end up being quoted as if they were 'facts'.I haven't looked. No need to with Briettas photo, which is almost certainly very soon after the abduction. Photo taken early in the morning before the press have amassed. See the shadows .
The people on the ground were not convinced that it was possible for Jane to pass the men without being seen, which is one of the reasons they wanted a reconstitution;
The physical, real and effective, proximity between JANE TANNER, GERALD McCANN and JEREMY WILKINS, at the moment when the former passed them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, from our understanding, as unusual that neither GERALD McCANN nor JEREMY WILKINS did not see her, nor the alleged abductor, despite the small dimensions of the space;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
The whole thing rests on where the men were of course. Jane says they were near the path. Jeremy says they were near the gate. Gerry says they were across the road. If Jeremy was correct, the space was indeed small. If Jane was correct the space was the same unless she veered into the entrance to the path in order to get round him and she doesn't say she did that. Imagine this policeman on the kerb;
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Tappas9/FENNL.jpg)
From aerial photos I've seen I would sat the blue arrow is pointing to the wrong place.(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mXbRBcSh0gs/Rlnx6pfs4SI/AAAAAAAAAYQ/jKab3RZLdFE/s400/CrimeScene02.jpg)The resulting image depends on the view point from which the photograph is taken ... I have seen one taken from the pathway looking towards block six with a figure (Jon Corner, I think?) in frame which shows how much space there actually is on the pavement at that particular spot, but can't find it again; perhaps it was in a video.
Maybe this is a project for Shining as I think it could be carried out discretely; every photograph I have seen of this area gives a different idea of perspective ... therefore the only true conclusions must be reached from measurement, as you have done, Sadie.
I take it there is no cite for the hedges having been trimmed while the McCanns were in residence then. It must be one of those myths that end up being quoted as if they were 'facts'.
The people on the ground were not convinced that it was possible for Jane to pass the men without being seen, which is one of the reasons they wanted a reconstitution;
The physical, real and effective, proximity between JANE TANNER, GERALD McCANN and JEREMY WILKINS, at the moment when the former passed them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, from our understanding, as unusual that neither GERALD McCANN nor JEREMY WILKINS did not see her, nor the alleged abductor, despite the small dimensions of the space;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
The whole thing rests on where the men were of course. Jane says they were near the path. Jeremy says they were near the gate. Gerry says they were across the road. If Jeremy was correct, the space was indeed small. If Jane was correct the space was the same unless she veered into the entrance to the path in order to get round him and she doesn't say she did that. Imagine this policeman on the kerb;
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Tappas9/FENNL.jpg)
From aerial photos I've seen I would sat the blue arrow is pointing to the wrong place.
That lane goes to the back gates of apartments B, C, D, E and F
In another thread on this forum we have reached a conclusion that the men were having their conversation very close to the pathway entrance.
Which ties in with Jez's recollection. Particularly as he saw Gerry only after his exit and walking towards reception.
I think information on the positioning of parked vehicles might also have been of relevance ... pity the Policia Judiciaria didn't bother to elicit that information.
However, in my opinion where the men were and what they may or may not have seen is irrelevant. What Jane Tanner saw is the important point ... and she has never deviated from what she saw.
She saw the men in conversation.
She saw a man carrying a barefoot child coming from the direction of apartment block A.
A short while later ... Madeleine McCann was found to be missing from apartment block A.
In another thread on this forum we have reached a conclusion that the men were having their conversation very close to the pathway entrance.
Which ties in with Jez's recollection. Particularly as he saw Gerry only after his exit and walking towards reception.
I think information on the positioning of parked vehicles might also have been of relevance ... pity the Policia Judiciaria didn't bother to elicit that information.
However, in my opinion where the men were and what they may or may not have seen is irrelevant. What Jane Tanner saw is the important point ... and she has never deviated from what she saw.
She saw the men in conversation.
She saw a man carrying a barefoot child coming from the direction of apartment block A.
A short while later ... Madeleine McCann was found to be missing from apartment block A.
Excuses, excuses, excuses.
Throwing long words in to make yourself sound impressive, are you Alice?
Words not even needed in this particular situation as i suspect you know full well!
Immediately before (whilst the Mccanns were in PdL) the hedges were cut back.
At junction with the alleyway, the footpath actually measures 240 cm, but I erred on the safe side and called it 230cm.
I notice that you prefer to back Slarti who is stating the distance between Jane and Gerry was 30 cm rather than back the truth which was 120cm(+)
In English Imperial measurement this equates to:
1 foot against the potential for 4 feet.
So Slarti is trying to make out that Jane was only one foot behind Gerry as she passed him, whilst in actual fact, Jane had the potential to have been over 4 feet (away) behind him
That is a big difference in a situation like this.
Slarti, Alice, please stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
This is what Jez Wilkins says about where he and Gerry were standing :
On the 7th May 2007
"I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said you're on walking duty. I said I was staying in and [ censored word ] and cons and what to do with the children."
On the 5th November 2007
" He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5m to his left"
So I met him near the stairs,, the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks was 5 metres to his left and near to the gate and not as some would have us believe on the corner of pathway.
Not sure why some posters are finding this hard to understand.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mXbRBcSh0gs/Rlnx6pfs4SI/AAAAAAAAAYQ/jKab3RZLdFE/s400/CrimeScene02.jpg)The resulting image depends on the view point from which the photograph is taken ... I have seen one taken from the pathway looking towards block six with a figure (Jon Corner, I think?) in frame which shows how much space there actually is on the pavement at that particular spot, but can't find it again; perhaps it was in a video.
Maybe this is a project for Shining as I think it could be carried out discretely; every photograph I have seen of this area gives a different idea of perspective ... therefore the only true conclusions must be reached from measurement, as you have done, Sadie.
It is rather baffling. If you read the statements there is approximately 2 to 3 metres discrepancy on where Jez and Gerry were and neither option is by the alleyway.
A sense check would be:
looking at the photo with two rozzers in it do we believe the one on the left[rozzer1] could about face and walk north past the other rozzer [rozzer2] without rozzer1 being seen by rozzer2.
In another thread on this forum we have reached a conclusion that the men were having their conversation very close to the pathway entrance.
Which ties in with Jez's recollection. Particularly as he saw Gerry only after his exit and walking towards reception.
I think information on the positioning of parked vehicles might also have been of relevance ... pity the Policia Judiciaria didn't bother to elicit that information.
However, in my opinion where the men were and what they may or may not have seen is irrelevant. What Jane Tanner saw is the important point ... and she has never deviated from what she saw.
She saw the men in conversation.
She saw a man carrying a barefoot child coming from the direction of apartment block A.
A short while later ... Madeleine McCann was found to be missing from apartment block A.
BOTH GERRY AND JEZ were standing in the ROAD. Neither was on the pavement
Jane confirms the actual position on the corner of the pathway in the Cutting Edge Video @10.05 onwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY[/youtube]
Furthermore BOTH Gerry and Jez were standing in the road. Neither was on the pavement at all. After very clearly pointing out where the men stood in the road, see Jane step back up onto the pavement @ 10.11
So there was a potential gap of nearly 2 metres between Gerry and Jane. That is the length of a bed
Time you guys stopped making fools of yourselves in public ... and conceded.
An apology to Kate and Gerry would be fitting.
So you discount witness statements and fall back on YouTube. I think readers can see that your claims are the myth.Why are you continuing to deceive Slarti.
So you discount witness statements and fall back on YouTube. I think readers can see that your claims are the myth.
Why are you continuing to deceive Slarti.
The whole scenario has been gone over and over on here before and each time the conclusion reached that they met on the corner of the pathway.
This conclusion was reached using
1) Janes very clear video statement
2) Jez's other statement where he states he met Gerry between the little car park opposite the Reception and the gateway ... and that Gery was walking towards reception when he first saw him across the road
3) Jez's drawing, showing very clearly that they met on the corner of the pathway/alleyway
What is it about you guys that you need to push disinformation?
Clearly Slartis original words that Jane was within 30 cm of Gerry when she passed are total B.S.
Be man enough ... and admit you were wrong.
You may well have reached the conclusion that the men spoke close to the pathway, but I haven't. It certainly doesn't tie in with all of Jeremy's recollections. His recollection of their position was very clear in November 2007;
He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
What Jane saw is not the subject of this thread, which is focusing on why the men didn't see her.
The forum reached the conclusion ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1249.msg35351#msg35351 ... in accordance with the sketch showing where the action took place.Thanks for the drawing Brietta ... and the backing.(http://i.imgur.com/P2Y0mEh.gif?2-Jez_Wilkins_plan)
What on earth does it add to the event of the third what the men saw or did not see? Merely another quibbling point which takes the focus off the pertinent fact of what Jane witnessed.
There is absolutely no doubt thatThere is absolutely no doubt that
- Jane was in the street
- Jez was in the street
- Gerry was in the street
- Jane in her flip flops heading home ~ Jez and Gerry in animated but static conversation
Ten years down the line I find it amazing something so mundane is considered to be of such importance to some ... when the only important event of that night took place in the McCann apartment and the focus of two separate police investigations involves locating the stranger/s who perpetrated that.
- Jane saw what she saw ~ including the men in conversation ~ including the man carrying the barefoot child walking briskly from the direction of the apartment from which Madeleine disappeared
- the men saw each other, but failed to multi task and take in Jane walking past
BOTH GERRY AND JEZ were standing in the ROAD. Neither was on the pavement
Jane confirms the actual position on the corner of the pathway in the Cutting Edge Video @10.05 onwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY[/youtube]
Furthermore BOTH Gerry and Jez were standing in the road. Neither was on the pavement at all. After very clearly pointing out where the men stood in the road, see Jane step back up onto the pavement @ 10.11
So there was a potential gap of nearly 2 metres between Gerry and Jane. That is the length of a bed
Time you guys stopped making fools of yourselves in public ... and conceded.
An apology to Kate and Gerry would be fitting.
Three witness statements against one in favour of the corner.
Jane, 4th May. No mention of the men's location but she says exactly when she saw the man with the child;
She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking,
So she was around 35 meters, or 110 ft away from him if they were talking by the path entrance.
Jane 10th May.
She doesn't recall the position/orientation of either Jez or GM while they spoke to each other on the street, only having the perception that one was on the pavement and the other was in the road next to the other.
She specifies her distance from the man though;
Confronted, she demonstrated the distance at which the man with the child had passed her, and that was gauged to be about 5 metres.
If Jane was only 5 meters away from the man and she had just passed Jez and Gerry, they were not chatting at the entrance to the pathway, which is 35 meters from the man.
Jane's rog. Now she's even closer to the man;
So, yeah, so I went past them, erm, up to the, and then walking up to the top of the road and then, as I got to the top, this person, somebody walked across the top of the road with, with a child.
Can Jane's testimony be relied on and quoted if her recollection of where she was when she saw the man can change so significantly from 35 meters to 5 meters to being almost next to him?
Absolutely, Sadie, and the natural thing to do was for Gerry to discontinue his walk towards reception and veer towards Jez who was pushing his son in the buggy towards him.
They did not see Jane. So what?
Absolutely, Sadie, and the natural thing to do was for Gerry to discontinue his walk towards reception and veer towards Jez who was pushing his son in the buggy towards him.
They did not see Jane. So what?
Jane, 4th May. No mention of the men's location but she says exactly when she saw the man with the child;
She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking,
So she was around 35 meters, or 110 ft away from him if they were talking by the path entrance.
Jane 10th May.
She doesn't recall the position/orientation of either Jez or GM while they spoke to each other on the street, only having the perception that one was on the pavement and the other was in the road next to the other.
She specifies her distance from the man though;
Confronted, she demonstrated the distance at which the man with the child had passed her, and that was gauged to be about 5 metres.
If Jane was only 5 meters away from the man and she had just passed Jez and Gerry, they were not chatting at the entrance to the pathway, which is 35 meters from the man.
Jane's rog. Now she's even closer to the man;
So, yeah, so I went past them, erm, up to the, and then walking up to the top of the road and then, as I got to the top, this person, somebody walked across the top of the road with, with a child.
Can Jane's testimony be relied on and quoted if her recollection of where she was when she saw the man can change so significantly from 35 meters to 5 meters to being almost next to him?
Rebelo certainly thought it was suspicious as he asked for a reconstitution that clarify exactly whether what Tanner said was possible.
Absolutely, Sadie, and the natural thing to do was for Gerry to discontinue his walk towards reception and veer towards Jez who was pushing his son in the buggy towards him.
They did not see Jane. So what?
Because it seemed inexplicable to the investigators and to one of the witnesses that she could have passed by unobserved?i read what you are saying, but the FACT is that it happened. Jane passed Gerry and Jez chatting in the roadway ... and neither of them saw her.
I can affirm that it was a quiet street and it was very unlikely that someone could have passed by be in this way
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
The measurements are yours ... not the witnesses.
Bear in mind you are calling into question sworn witness statements ... do be careful to keep in mind that the reliability of Jane Tanner's statements are not for for you to call into disrepute.
For all the claims that it isn't important where the protagonists were standing the supporters are falling over themselves to obscure what is clear in the only independent witness's statement.Explain to us why Gerry was safe on one side of the road but not the other, also why he would lie about where he was standing when the person he was talking to would obviously contradict him. Looking forward to this!
I assume Gerry thought he was safe on the other side of the road !
My 35 meter measurement from the top of the street to the corner of the path was courtesy of google, so it's as reliable as any other google measurements quoted on the forum.
The five meter measurement was provided by the witness in her sworn statement. In her final sworn statement she places herself at the top of the street.
I see nothing wrong in pointing out that a witness placed herself in three different locations when she saw the man with the child.
You have quoted from two non verbatim statements in which the witness said nothing but was reported as saying ... so do have a care exactly what words you are putting in the witness's mouth and the implication you put on them.
My 35 meter measurement from the top of the street to the corner of the path was courtesy of google, so it's as reliable as any other google measurements quoted on the forum.
The five meter measurement was provided by the witness in her sworn statement. In her final sworn statement she places herself at the top of the street.
I see nothing wrong in pointing out that a witness placed herself in three different locations when she saw the man with the child.
Explain to us why Gerry was safe on one side of the road but not the other, also why he would lie about where he was standing when the person he was talking to would obviously contradict him. Looking forward to this!
The forum reached the conclusion ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1249.msg35351#msg35351 ... in accordance with the sketch showing where the action took place.(http://i.imgur.com/P2Y0mEh.gif?2-Jez_Wilkins_plan)
What on earth does it add to the event of the third what the men saw or did not see? Merely another quibbling point which takes the focus off the pertinent fact of what Jane witnessed.
There is absolutely no doubt thatThere is absolutely no doubt that
- Jane was in the street
- Jez was in the street
- Gerry was in the street
- Jane in her flip flops heading home ~ Jez and Gerry in animated but static conversation
- Jane saw what she saw ~ including the men in conversation ~ including the man carrying the barefoot child walking briskly from the direction of the apartment from which Madeleine disappeared
- the men saw each other, but failed to multi task and take in Jane walking past
Ten years down the line I find it amazing something so mundane is considered to be of such importance to some ... when the only important event of that night took place in the McCann apartment and the focus of two separate police investigations involves locating the stranger/s who perpetrated that.
Tannerman was supposed to be in the apartment when Gerry was talking to Jez then Jane sees him carrying the child away. Being further away from to where a crime was happening could be beneficial if you want that person to be blamed and it gave Tannerman a better opportunity to get inside undetected if Gerry/Jez are further away from the apartment. "See no evil, hear no evil."What you seem to be saying is that if Gerry was where JT said he was then he would have been able to see and hear an abduction taking place....? &%+((£ So, how many feet (or metres if you prefer) between the two spots and why did Gerry insist he was there, knowing full well that there was a witness to his actual position?
"On this way, if the child carried by the man referred by Jane was Madeleine, then, the eventual abductor (considering the limited time gap between Gerald's exit and the moment when Jane saw him) had to be in the apartment when he went there at 21:05/21:10h; even because Mathew at 21:00 had made a control from the exterior and assured that the shutters from Madeleine's bedroom were closed."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-SEP-07.htm
Cite please for that statement.
Tannerman was supposed to be in the apartment when Gerry was talking to Jez then Jane sees him carrying the child away. Being further away from to where a crime was happening could be beneficial if you want that person to be blamed and it gave Tannerman a better opportunity to get inside undetected if Gerry/Jez are further away from the apartment. "See no evil, hear no evil."If Tannerman was the abductor do we assume it was Tannerman that raised the shutters? So were they raised after Gerry's check? But they weren't raised according to Matt, so who raised the shutters and opened the window.
"On this way, if the child carried by the man referred by Jane was Madeleine, then, the eventual abductor (considering the limited time gap between Gerald's exit and the moment when Jane saw him) had to be in the apartment when he went there at 21:05/21:10h; even because Mathew at 21:00 had made a control from the exterior and assured that the shutters from Madeleine's bedroom were closed."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-SEP-07.htm
Anyone who believes that JT and GMC plotted to deceive needs to explain how they thought they JT & GMC) would get away with it as there was a third party there who clearly was not involved in the plot and who would contradict their evidence. Let's be having the plausible and rational explanation for this please.
Who said they plotted?PF and Faithlilly for two.
I am surprised with your undoubted engineering/architectural skills that no one taught you thatfor maximum accuracy when measuring, the best way was to increase the scale of the map you are measuring as much as you can. In my case I have an extra large screen and at full screen I can measure th actual width of the pavement on that corner, on that map,
-snip-
Any doubts about " How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?" just plot it all out to scale using google maps and good manual on workplace ergonomics......QED.
Google Earth has the disadvantage of operator error when using the cursor and deciding where the true edge of a fuzzy line is. Taking two cursor points each accurate in position to within one millimetre* => potential error of 500 mm in real money with GE's scale of 1:250.
* which is about the best one can hope for.
The normally accepted marking out accuracy on open tolerance under workshop conditions is +/- 0.5 mm.
Mucking about with a fiddling little cursor with fuzzy lines at a scale of 1:250 and a lot guesswork on a vdu +/- 1mm is as good as it will get. Work it out from that.
If Tannerman was the abductor do we assume it was Tannerman that raised the shutters? So were they raised after Gerry's check? But they weren't raised according to Matt, so who raised the shutters and opened the window.
The only logical solution if Tannerman was the abductor is that Matt missed the signs. Just like Jez and Gerry didn't see Jane, Matt didn't notice the window open and the blinds up from either the outside or the inside during his check.
If the abduction occurs after Matt's check it is a totally different situation, and what he saw was correct.
Somewhere Matt states that during his check at about 9.30, he noticed that it was a little brighter than he expected ... so was it the lull before the storm and gusty weather? Had the shutters already been raised, but they were hidden by the curtains?A reconstruction could have determined the change of lighting in the room resulting from raising the shutters. Did Matt miss the signs of the raised shutters? Oh it is "brighter than expected" but do nothing about it!
IMO Tannerman, abductor, raised the shutters and opened the window for reasons I have given in the past couple of days.
Seems that the abduction took place immediately after Gerry left. Did the watcher/ director of abduction signal the all clear from his balcony position opposite as Gerry walked down the steps and turned right towards the restaurant? That seems the most likely IMO.
What you seem to be saying is that if Gerry was where JT said he was then he would have been able to see and hear an abduction taking place....? &%+((£ So, how many feet (or metres if you prefer) between the two spots and why did Gerry insist he was there, knowing full well that there was a witness to his actual position?With entry from the front, by front door or even by Madeleines window, any sound had to travel over a high wall and deflect 90*, then down to Gerry and Jez. The distance was a minimum of 21 metres from Gerry for the front door and a minimum of 28 metres from Gerry to Madeleines window
A reconstruction could have determined the change of lighting in the room resulting from raising the shutters. Did Matt miss the signs of the raised shutters? Oh it is "brighter than expected" but do nothing about it!
A reconstruction could have determined the change of lighting in the room resulting from raising the shutters. Did Matt miss the signs of the raised shutters? Oh it is "brighter than expected" but do nothing about it!Matt had not set the shutters up .. and couldn't be aware of exactly how Gerry and kate might have left them.
I am surprised with your undoubted engineering/architectural skills that no one taught you thatfor maximum accuracy when measuring, the best way was to increase the scale of the map you are measuring as much as you can. In my case I have an extra large screen and at full screen I can measure th actual width of the pavement on that corner, on that map,
as 14 cm.
Bad news for YOU, because I have erred on your side at all times, but now that I have so elarged it, I can see that on the GE measure it is 250cm and NOT the generous to you230240 cm I mentioned before.
So another 10 cm potential gap between Jane and the back of Gerry.
And this was measured on a scale of 1
As for the fuzzy lines, you can measure from the middle of each to the other ...or probably the better method is to measure from the west of the one fuzzy line to the west of the other fuzzy line. Then check by measuring from the east of the one line to the east of the other line.
Compare results and take the average.
I really am surprised that you, with your ?superior knowledge, were not aware of these two techniques for greater accuracy.
OK ... so the width of the pavement by the corner of the alleyway is 2metres50. Gerry is in the road as is Jez. ***
I have volunteered that Jane is 60cm [she will be slimmer than that undobtedly] and have given you extra there. She could have at least 190cm between her and Gerry. That is the lemgth of a bed. It is not 30 cm as Slarti tried to kid us.
And these measurements are assuming that Gerry was in the actual road, as indicated by Jane [in the Cutting Egde Video at 10.05 onwards] but right spot on the edge of the kerb. He might have been a little further into the road giving extra space for Jane to pass by.
Give up and if you are any sort of gentleman apologise to Kate and Gerry for putting about disinformation.
*** That means that I have a scale of 1:18 ... not your rediculous 1:250
[ 250/14 gives you this scale of 1:14 ]. At such a scale, despite fuzzy lines, quite accurate measurements can be taken
Matt had not set the shutters up .. and couldn't be aware of exactly how Gerry and kate might have left them.Was then the biggest mistake made by the McCanns just allowing Matt to do the 9:30 check, for he had no experience of the McCann's apartment. He needed "Checking" training.
He was judging by how his daughters shutters gave in light, imo
Very considerate abductors too, they even closed the doors behind them.They wanted it to look as tho Madeleine had opened the window and gone of her own volition, so no-one would search for an abductor. Or at least to give them more time for the getaway
So what angle is the satellite to the ground at that point?
I am surprised with your undoubted engineering/architectural skills that no one taught you thatfor maximum accuracy when measuring, the best way was to increase the scale of the map you are measuring as much as you can. In my case I have an extra large screen and at full screen I can measure th actual width of the pavement on that corner, on that map,
as 14 cm.
Bad news for YOU, because I have erred on your side at all times, but now that I have so elarged it, I can see that on the GE measure it is 250cm and NOT the generous to you230240 cm I mentioned before.
So another 10 cm potential gap between Jane and the back of Gerry.
And this was measured on a scale of 1:18 ... not 1:250 as you suggested
As for the fuzzy lines, you can measure from the middle of each to the other ...or probably the better method is to measure from the west of the one fuzzy line to the west of the other fuzzy line. Then check by measuring from the east of the one line to the east of the other line.
Compare results and take the average.
I really am surprised that you, with your ?superior knowledge, were not aware of these two techniques for greater accuracy.
OK ... so the width of the pavement by the corner of the alleyway is 2metres50. Gerry is in the road as is Jez. ***
I have volunteered that Jane is 60cm [she will be slimmer than that undobtedly] and have given you extra there. She could have at least 190cm between her and Gerry. That is the lemgth of a bed. It is not 30 cm as Slarti tried to kid us.
And these measurements are assuming that Gerry was in the actual road, as indicated by Jane [in the Cutting Egde Video at 10.05 onwards] but right spot on the edge of the kerb. He might have been a little further into the road giving extra space for Jane to pass by.
Give up and if you are any sort of gentleman apologise to Kate and Gerry for putting about disinformation.
*** That means that I have a scale of 1:18 ... not your rediculous 1:250
[ 250/14 gives you this scale of 1:18 ]. At such a scale, despite fuzzy lines, quite accurate measurements can be taken
1. I was taught; that is why I am picking holes in what you have posted.I see that my response to this has been wiped.
2. Why would I apologise to people I have not maligned?
3. Delineate precisely the disinformation I am spreading?
Lets try to keep posts amiable please ladies. TYHow about the so called gentlemen? Is it ok for them to keep ruthlessly attacking? with disinformation or stuff to confuse?
remembers that Jane commented on having passed Gerry on the road, and that he was talking to another guest in the same locale, named Jez.
..... considerably less intelligent than I thought
(That is quite a compliment isn't it.)
I see that my response to this has been wiped.
Just a precis of my post, cos I have a right of response.
1) I have taught subjects such as this and if your teacher taught you some of the things that you have come out with, then he needs retraining.
2) You have continually tried to make facts seem wrong, to the detriment of the Mccanns, Gerry in particular. That is a form of disinformation. Untruthfulness. Surely your Mummy and Daddy (your words, not mine) taught you to tell the truth ?
You are making statements that you struggle to defend based on the best possible scenario to make your theories work. You are guilty of producing disinformation which does nothing to help find Madeleine because it reinforces a narrative that has been discounted.
We are not on about my theories in this argument.
We are on about your statement that there was only a 30 cm gap between Jane and Gerry,
You have failed miserably to show that ... and what is more I have PROVED that there could have been a nearly 2 metres gap between them.
To fail to agree with the evidence that i have presented shows you to be lacking in something
And i dont think it is understanding of what i have proved,
To say it again:
The gap between Gerry and Jane was potentially up to 190cm NOT 30 cm which you so wrongly claimed.
or in imperial measurements
The gap was potentially over 6 feet not the miserly one foot that you claimed
A six fold inctease on what you claimed.
If you are not about to acknowledge that your size was incorrect and acknowledge the size that i have shown ..... please show YOUR calculations and reasonings for your 30 cm
You cant !
An apology to Kate and especially Gerry would be in order. Why dont you just "Do it"
We are not on about my theories in this argument.
We are on about your statement that there was only a 30 cm gap between Jane and Gerry,
You have failed miserably to show that ... and what is more I have PROVED that there could have been a nearly 2 metres gap between them.
To fail to agree with the evidence that i have presented shows you to be lacking in something
And i dont think it is understanding of what i have proved,
To say it again:
The gap between Gerry and Jane was potentially up to 190cm NOT 30 cm which you so wrongly claimed.
or in imperial measurements
The gap was potentially over 6 feet not the miserly one foot that you claimed
A six fold inctease on what you claimed.
If you are not about to acknowledge that your size was incorrect and acknowledge the size that i have shown ..... please show YOUR calculations and reasonings for your 30 cm
You cant !
An apology to Kate and especially Gerry would be in order. Why dont you just "Do it"
PF and Faithlilly for two.
I have never said JT plotted. I said she used a different route to avoid Gerry. The fact is Jane cannot remember at all what exactly happened. Read on she's confused and cannot remember passing both only seeing them. She either saw the man crossing before turning left onto the pathway or crossing the car park entrance.These are your views "... she's confused and cannot remember passing both only seeing them. She either saw the man crossing before turning left onto the pathway or crossing the car park entrance."
If Tannerman was the abductor do we assume it was Tannerman that raised the shutters? So were they raised after Gerry's check? But they weren't raised according to Matt, so who raised the shutters and opened the window.
The only logical solution if Tannerman was the abductor is that Matt missed the signs. Just like Jez and Gerry didn't see Jane, Matt didn't notice the window open and the blinds up from either the outside or the inside during his check.
If the abduction occurs after Matt's check it is a totally different situation, and what he saw was correct.
Matt's unforeseen check solved the case.Occasionally I see references to the case being solved, but the case here is "the Case is of the open window".
These are your views "... she's confused and cannot remember passing both only seeing them. She either saw the man crossing before turning left onto the pathway or crossing the car park entrance."
In your quoted portion of Jane's rogatory interview you have not made it clear how you came to those views.
We are not on about my theories in this argument.
We are on about your statement that there was only a 30 cm gap between Jane and Gerry,
You have failed miserably to show that ... and what is more I have PROVED that there could have been a nearly 2 metres gap between them.
To fail to agree with the evidence that i have presented shows you to be lacking in something
And i dont think it is understanding of what i have proved,
To say it again:
The gap between Gerry and Jane was potentially up to 190cm NOT 30 cm which you so wrongly claimed.
or in imperial measurements
The gap was potentially over 6 feet not the miserly one foot that you claimed
A six fold inctease on what you claimed.
If you are not about to acknowledge that your size was incorrect and acknowledge the size that i have shown ..... please show YOUR calculations and reasonings for your 30 cm
You cant !
An apology to Kate and especially Gerry would be in order. Why dont you just "Do it"
Most people on a quiet street walk a straight line to their destination. If Jane Tanner did that she would never be 6 feet from the kerb or from anyone standing there in my opinion. If these nannies didn't have buggies they wouldn't move that much closer to the wall.
(http://c7.alamy.com/comp/B0E5C5/apartment-of-the-ocean-club-resort-where-madeleine-mccann-disappeared-B0E5C5.jpg)
I have never said JT plotted. I said she used a different route to avoid Gerry. The fact is Jane cannot remember at all what exactly happened. Read on she's confused and cannot remember passing both only seeing them. She either saw the man crossing before turning left onto the pathway or crossing the car park entrance.Are you claiming JT is so confused that she actually imagined seeing a man carrying a child that night, in the location she said she saw him, or what?
4078 “Okay. So when did you first notice Gerry standing there?”
Reply “I would have probably noticed him as soon as I came, I mean, I don’t, this is not, I don’t think that distance is probably as far as that, you come out and he was, they were sort of, so almost, I’d probably say almost straight away. Again, I don’t know, but I, I know people are saying I’ve not been on the road, but they were there and I wouldn’t know they were there if I hadn’t walked past, you know, you’ve got to see my frustration in this, and I know Gerry didn’t see me and Jez didn’t see me, but”.
4078 “You were there?”
Reply “They were there and I was there”.
4078 “And you say you almost went to acknowledge them but they were so engrossed in conversation?”
Reply “They were, yeah. I mean, I don’t know whether you’ve met Gerry, but other people have met Gerry, and when Gerry is talking, it’s bit like I said earlier, that he is very focussed, he is a very focussed person. And it doesn’t surprise me he didn’t see me, because if he’s talking he’s very focussed on what he’s doing at that stage. I mean, obviously I don’t know, I don’t know Jez, I hadn’t actually, I hadn’t had any contact with Jez through the week, I didn’t, you know, he wasn’t somebody we chatted to, so, you know, in terms of him recognising me or knowing me, he didn’t know me, so”.
4078 “And can you remember, as you past them or thought to acknowledge them, then you noticed they were deep in conversation, can you remember which angle you saw them from, which way they were facing?”
Reply “No, I, phew, again, I would probably guess Gerry’s back was more towards me, because I would have thought if I’d have seen him I would have definitely probably stopped and said ‘Oh you’re in trouble, you’ve been long, we think you’ve been watching the footy’, you know, but. Because I think that’s almost when I went to acknowledge them, that’s almost what went through my head, you know, is to sort of give a bit of abuse about the fact he’d been so long, but. So I would imagine his, maybe his back was to me, but. And, again, in that way, that would make more sense, because I don’t know Jez, so it’s not like I would have gone ‘Oh hi Jez’, you know, that way, so. Yeah, I, I honestly, I can’t remember now which way they were. But I do, I stand by the fact I’m sure they were nearer than right over here”.
4078 “Okay. And did you hear what they were saying?”
Reply “No. No, not really. Not that I can remember”.
4078 “Were there any cars around there?”
Reply “Erm, umm, no, I don’t know. I don’t remember. I don’t remember walking past any going up here and I think I would have probably, if there had been I would have realised, because that would have obscured my view of the person walking, so I can’t think of, I can’t think of any, no”.
4078 “So as you are trying to remember it and you can think of yourself walking up that road and you have gone past Gerry and Jez”.
Reply “Umm”.
4078 “Are you conscious of any other movement?”
Reply “It’s, it’s too long now. Erm, no, not really. I mean, I was just walking up, you know, I was like just sort of on a, not on a mission, but I was just like, you know, on the way to, to check, so I didn’t notice anything either side. The only thing I noticed a movement was when somebody walked across at the top”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
I mean Gerry, the sort of person Gerry is, I could never see us being best buddies because he’s very, we’re very different. I think he’s very err he’s quite forthright and so I don’t think we’d ever be best friends but there’s no problem there or anything like that you know, I feel bad saying that because it makes it sound like there is a problem but there’s not but you know it’s not, whereas Kate I was really, I was getting to know Kate quite well but yeah I think Gerry is sort of like more of a man’s man maybe.”
4078 “Yeah.”
Reply “That sounds terrible, I don’t mean that at all.”
4078 “No.”
Reply “But you know I think out of the two I was probably, I know Kate better than I know Gerry.”
4078 “Right, it was a very specific question I asked anyway, so what you’re saying is his character is the sort of character that you probably wouldn’t naturally have…”
Reply “No I think he’s, we’re probably very different, I think he’s err yeah I’m trying to put it in to words because if I say he, he doesn’t intimidate me in any shape or form but you know what I mean I think he’s probably the person out of the whole group that I would feel least comfortable with, you know, just on, just chatting because we probably haven’t got as much in common.”
4078 “Yeah, but with Kate it was…”
Reply “With Kate it was fine yeah. That sounds terrible to say and it’s not meant to sound like that at all. But it’s just…”
4078 “Well it’s just a question I asked.”
Reply “Yeah and it’s just being honest yeah. I think out of everybody in the group Gerry’s probably the one that I know the least, least well.”
Even if Wilkins was slightly on the road that photograph clearly shows that it would simply not be possible for Tanner to pass him and Gerry without being seen. Further when all the evidence from Tanner and Wilkins proves that they were nowhere near the the pathway leading to the front of the apartments it's very telling that several supporters continue to insist that they were.Any explanation for why Gerry thought he could get away with moving his position to suit when Jez Wilkins was a cast iron witness to where he was actually standing?
Occasionally I see references to the case being solved, but the case here is "the Case is of the open window".
Does this hold? "Matt's unforeseen check solved "the Case is of the open window". I don't really know if I'd bet my shirt on that one.
Any explanation for why Gerry thought he could get away with moving his position to suit when Jez Wilkins was a cast iron witness to where he was actually standing?
Are you claiming JT is so confused that she actually imagined seeing a man carrying a child that night, in the location she said she saw him, or what?
Where do you think Gerry was standing?My opinion on wherehe was standing is totally irrelevant to the question I asked you. Are you able to answer my question or not?
No draughts or sounds when Matt checked - no open window. That rules Tannerman out and puts emphasis on the later Smithman sighting. OG are on the right path. You can check out the private thread for more on moving doors etc.Your theory thread?
Nope wrong again. I said there are two other possibilities:So let me get this straight. You think JT is so confused that she actually saw "You Know Who" carrying his own child away, but believed it happened while "You Know Who" was stood in the road chatting to some other guy?
1. Jane saw the man crossing the road before turning left onto the pathway i.e. she didn't pass Gerry/Jez by the side gate.
2. Jane took the pathway route back to her apartment and saw the man crossing the car park entrance.
Your theory thread?
Any explanation for why Gerry thought he could get away with moving his position to suit when Jez Wilkins was a cast iron witness to where he was actually standing?
My opinion on wherehe was standing is totally irrelevant to the question I asked you. Are you able to answer my question or not?
Of course it's relevant so I will ask again. Where do you think Gerry was standing?No it's not relevant to my question which was: Any explanation for why Gerry thought he could get away with moving his position to suit when Jez Wilkins was a cast iron witness to where he was actually standing?
No it's not relevant to my question which was: Any explanation for why Gerry thought he could get away with moving his position to suit when Jez Wilkins was a cast iron witness to where he was actually standing?
You are deflecting. Try to answer the question, then I will answer yours.
So let me get this straight. You think JT is so confused that she actually saw "You Know Who" carrying his own child away, but believed it happened while "You Know Who" was stood in the road chatting to some other guy?
A retrieval cue is a type of hint that can be used to evoke a memory that has been stored but cannot be recalled. ... When no cues are available, recall is greatly reduced, leading to forgetting and possible memory errors. This is called retrieval failure, or cue-dependent forgetting.Forgetfulness is not what is being mooted by some here. Some here believe Gerry DELIBERATELY re-positioned himself in his statement.
Studies have found that prime or central features of such highly emotional events tend to be accurately recalled, whereas subtle details of the events are not remembered, or are remembered with vague consistency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_errors
The simple answer is failed memory recall brought about by a traumatic and stressful situation.Of course it is, but that's not what some people believe. They have a far more tortuous explanation.
Jane saw crecheman. OG have found him. He is eliminated. Emphasis is now on Smithman. My two other possibilities were in regards to Jane seeing Crecheman and 2 year old child because it was impossible to pass both without being seen/heard.Not a very clear reply. I know exactly what you're suggesting even if you won't admit it, and I would say that it is highly improbable, but then nothing's impossible, not even walking past someone on the pavement and them failing to register your presence.
Jane can't remember anything clearly apart from seeing them.
4078 “What about the man and the child, did you hear his footsteps?”
Reply “No, not that I can remember”.
If you read the McCanns first statements they said Jane saw the man from 30 metres away. That is before turning left onto the path. If she went that way then she may have seen the man crossing the car park entrance when getting to her apartment. So there are two other possibilities than passing Gerry/Jez. That is impossible and she cannot remember passing them. She said she must have. Big difference.
Forgetfulness is not what is being mooted by some here. Some here believe Gerry DELIBERATELY re-positioned himself in his statement.
Some also believe that Jane went up the pathway to her left and didn't pass the men at all which renders the subsequent sighting of Tannerman somewhat impossible.Clearly some people believe JT is either an out and out liar or so off her head she can barely remember her own name. Of course it's not possible that she is simply telling the truth as she saw it, heaven forfend it could be that straight-forward!
Some also believe that Jane went up the pathway to her left and didn't pass the men at all which renders the subsequent sighting of Tannerman somewhat impossible. If you cast your mind back to the TV reconstruction involving Gerry and Jane, they never did quite get round to explaining how Jane managed to pass the two men unseen whilst in such close proximity to them. Instead, the entire discussion wandered off across the road to where Gerry claimed he was stood leaving Tanner in tears.And still no one can come up with any plausible explanation for why Gerry would want to lie about where he was standing that night, or how he hoped to get away with the supposed lie when there was a witness (Jes) to where he was standing.
No it's not relevant to my question which was: Any explanation for why Gerry thought he could get away with moving his position to suit when Jez Wilkins was a cast iron witness to where he was actually standing?
You are deflecting. Try to answer the question, then I will answer yours.
But he did move his position, and stuck to it even though there was evidence to the contrary.I don't have any firm opinion on it. I don't think it's important to establish whether he was ten foot from where he said he was or whether Jes was mistaken. I place as much importance on his position on that road as the police did in the first investigation. Ie: none. I think it is possible that whether he was where he said he was or whether he was where Jes said he was, or whether they were both slightly off and were actually halfway between the two points, that two men chatting and facing each other, in the low light level, with a pram between them, perhaps relaxed, sharing a joke and not mindful of their immediate surroundings could miss a pedestrian passing by. What I do find much more inconceivable is that having pre-arranged an alibi that he could cast it off with such a cavalier attitude on the basis that someone in a flat *might* possibly have seen his actual position, when there was already a cast-iron witness to his actual position ie Jes. So perhaps you could explain that one?
So where do you think Gerry was standing?
Not a very clear reply. I know exactly what you're suggesting even if you won't admit it, and I would say that it is highly improbable, but then nothing's impossible, not even walking past someone on the pavement and them failing to register your presence.
I've made it clear to what I'm suggesting. Jane saw crecheman/child but she didn't pass Gerry/Jez at the gate without being seen/heard. I've offered alternative possibilities to investigate further.
I've made it clear to what I'm suggesting. Jane saw crecheman/child but she didn't pass Gerry/Jez at the gate without being seen/heard. I've offered alternative possibilities to further investigate.She says she did. She was there. You were not. Have you got some sort of scientific evidence that proves your point, that it is physically impossible for her to have passed these two men unseen? If so please feel free to direct us to it.
Gerry and Jez weren't standing by the gate.
I don't have any firm opinion on it. I don't think it's important to establish whether he was ten foot from where he said he was or whether Jes was mistaken. I place as much importance on his position on that road as the police did in the first investigation. Ie: none. I think it is possible that whether he was where he said he was or whether he was where Jes said he was, or whether they were both slightly off and were actually halfway between the two points, that two men chatting and facing each other, in the low light level, with a pram between them, perhaps relaxed, sharing a joke and not mindful of their immediate surroundings could miss a pedestrian passing by. What I do find much more inconceivable is that having pre-arranged an alibi that he could cast it off with such a cavalier attitude on the basis that someone in a flat *might* possibly have seen his actual position, when there was already a cast-iron witness to his actual position ie Jes. So perhaps you could explain that one?
She says she did. She was there. You were not. Have you got some sort of scientific evidence that proves your point, that it is physically impossible for her to have passed these two men unseen? If so please feel free to direct us to it.
I see that my response to this has been wiped.
Just a precis of my post, cos I have a right of response.
1) I have taught subjects such as this and if your teacher taught you some of the things that you have come out with, then he needs retraining.
2) You have continually tried to make facts seem wrong, to the detriment of the Mccanns, Gerry in particular. That is a form of disinformation. Untruthfulness. Surely your Mummy and Daddy (your words, not mine) taught you to tell the truth ?
But that's exactly what Gerry did do, though his reasons are open to interpretation. On the timeline the whole group collaborated on Gerry placed himself firmly on the apartment side of the street yet by his statement on the 10th of May he had changed his position to the opposite side. Why change his position if where he stood wasn't important? Why undermine your most important witness's credibility if there was nothing to be gained?That's the question I'm asking you - what is to be gained from it? Sweet FA, that's what.
"2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed. "
The quote above also proves that Wilkins and Gerry were standing up from the gate and nowhere near the alleyway.
That's the question I'm asking you - what is to be gained from it? Sweet FA, that's what.
Jane may have been there but not even a Hello passing within feet or being noticed by not even one out of two. Get real.Please do not tell me to "get real". Did JT know Jez Wilkins? Were they on speaking terms? JT explains in her statement why she did not make contact with Gerry - he had his back to her and was in deep conversation. I'm waiting for your proof that passing someone unnoticed on a pavement is actually impossible.
It was obviously important to Gerry or else why do it? We can only guess at his motivation.I think you're overstating the importance to Gerry of this minor detail. He is merely defending his own memory of events that night, which is understandable, even if he is mistaken.
I think you're overstating the importance to Gerry of this minor detail. He is merely defending his own memory of events that night, which is understandable, even if he is mistaken.
Understandable? How so? He is undermining his own witness. Why would he do that if it wasn't important to him? If Tannerman really was the abductor why would he seek to cast doubt on his witness's powers of recall, for what, the need to be proved right? Surely he thinks more of his daughter's safety?It's not about undermining another witness, it's about being true to what you remember. What is so difficult to understand?
It's not about undermining another witness, it's about being true to what you remember. What is so difficult to understand?
But that's not what he remembered on the timeline which the whole group collaborated on, was it?And you know it was Gerry and not JT who added that detail do you? How much time did the PJ devote to this issue in Gerry's arguido interview?
And you know it was Gerry and not JT who added that detail do you? How much time did the PJ devote to this issue in Gerry's arguido interview?
I don't have any firm opinion on it. I don't think it's important to establish whether he was ten foot from where he said he was or whether Jes was mistaken. I place as much importance on his position on that road as the police did in the first investigation. Ie: none. I think it is possible that whether he was where he said he was or whether he was where Jes said he was, or whether they were both slightly off and were actually halfway between the two points, that two men chatting and facing each other, in the low light level, with a pram between them, perhaps relaxed, sharing a joke and not mindful of their immediate surroundings could miss a pedestrian passing by. What I do find much more inconceivable is that having pre-arranged an alibi that he could cast it off with such a cavalier attitude on the basis that someone in a flat *might* possibly have seen his actual position, when there was already a cast-iron witness to his actual position ie Jes. So perhaps you could explain that one?
I think the PJ were very interested in the positions of the three people on that street. It was one of the reasobs why they tried to arrange the reconstitution.
Addressing now, and specifically, the question relative to the diligence known as the "reconstitution of the facts" (Article 150º of the Penal Process Code), which was not performed due to the refusal of some of the integral members of the holiday group to return to our country (as documented in the Inquiry), the same would have clarified, duly and in the location of the disappearance, the following extremely important details, amongst others:
The physical, real and effective, proximity between JANE TANNER, GERALD McCANN and JEREMY WILKINS, at the moment when the former passed them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, from our understanding, as unusual that neither GERALD McCANN nor JEREMY WILKINS did not see her, nor the alleged abductor, despite the small dimensions of the space
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
Please do not tell me to "get real". Did JT know Jez Wilkins? Were they on speaking terms? JT explains in her statement why she did not make contact with Gerry - he had his back to her and was in deep conversation. I'm waiting for your proof that passing someone unnoticed on a pavement is actually impossible.
I think the PJ were very interested in the positions of the three people on that street. It was one of the reasobs why they tried to arrange the reconstitution.
Addressing now, and specifically, the question relative to the diligence known as the "reconstitution of the facts" (Article 150º of the Penal Process Code), which was not performed due to the refusal of some of the integral members of the holiday group to return to our country (as documented in the Inquiry), the same would have clarified, duly and in the location of the disappearance, the following extremely important details, amongst others:
The physical, real and effective, proximity between JANE TANNER, GERALD McCANN and JEREMY WILKINS, at the moment when the former passed them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, from our understanding, as unusual that neither GERALD McCANN nor JEREMY WILKINS did not see her, nor the alleged abductor, despite the small dimensions of the space
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
It's not just the side of the street but how they got there. Gerry stated that he saw Wilkins approaching on the opposite side of the road and crossed over to intercept him. Wilkins for his part claims the opposite. That it was he who crossed the road seeing Gerry walking down the footpath and assumed that he had just come out of 5a.
Jez had to cross the road to get back to his apartment. Gerry didn't have to cross as he was going back to the Tapas. Jez saw him appear from the gate and crossed, Gerry's back was facing the gate and Jez was facing him.
I think the PJ were very interested in the positions of the three people on that street. It was one of the reasobs why they tried to arrange the reconstitution.OK fair point well made. I take it back then. The PJ were bothered about it in their first investigation, though not to the extent of ever cross-questioning Gerry about it in his arguido interview, or asking him why he had apparently changed his relative position (not as far as I'm aware anyway).
Addressing now, and specifically, the question relative to the diligence known as the "reconstitution of the facts" (Article 150º of the Penal Process Code), which was not performed due to the refusal of some of the integral members of the holiday group to return to our country (as documented in the Inquiry), the same would have clarified, duly and in the location of the disappearance, the following extremely important details, amongst others:
The physical, real and effective, proximity between JANE TANNER, GERALD McCANN and JEREMY WILKINS, at the moment when the former passed them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, from our understanding, as unusual that neither GERALD McCANN nor JEREMY WILKINS did not see her, nor the alleged abductor, despite the small dimensions of the space
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
Are you really trying to suggest Gerry would not have read the timeline, and corrected anything that was wrong, before it was handed to the police? Really?I expect he read it, and I have no idea why he didn't correct it before it was handed to the police. Maybe he didn't pick up on it, or maybe it didn't occur to him until later that JT had got it wrong. What I don't think he did was decide several days later after handing it to the police that he needed to change his story about where he was standing for nefarious reasons, when he knew full well he had a cast-iron witness who would say he was standing otherwise.
As to the PJ devoting time to this they requested a reconstitution to clarify just this issue. How much more attention do you want?
I think the PJ were very interested in the positions of the three people on that street. It was one of the reasobs why they tried to arrange the reconstitution.
Addressing now, and specifically, the question relative to the diligence known as the "reconstitution of the facts" (Article 150º of the Penal Process Code), which was not performed due to the refusal of some of the integral members of the holiday group to return to our country (as documented in the Inquiry), the same would have clarified, duly and in the location of the disappearance, the following extremely important details, amongst others:
The physical, real and effective, proximity between JANE TANNER, GERALD McCANN and JEREMY WILKINS, at the moment when the former passed them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, from our understanding, as unusual that neither GERALD McCANN nor JEREMY WILKINS did not see her, nor the alleged abductor, despite the small dimensions of the space
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
I expect he read it, and I have no idea why he didn't correct it before it was handed to the police. Maybe he didn't pick up on it, or maybe it didn't occur to him until later that JT had got it wrong. What I don't think he did was decide several days later after handing it to the police that he needed to change his story about where he was standing for nefarious reasons, when he knew full well he had a cast-iron witness who would say he was standing otherwise.It wasn't finished or corrected when the police took the timeline off Russell. Gerry may not have been aware of it.
'Unusual' - does not mean 'impossible'. And from personal experience I can vouch for the fact that it is not impossible.
How could a recon work when Gerry would have gone to where he remembers they stood and Jez would have gone to where he remembers they stood. What would that prove - apart from the fallibility of memory?
Say they both did stand where Jez remembers - in a recon. Gerry has his back to the path and so doesn't see Jane and Jez bends down to attend to his baby just as JT passes and so also doesn't see Jane. Both confirm to the PJ that they didn't see Jane passing.
Would that be accepted by sceptics as final proof that JT was telling the truth ? Of course it wouldn't. Not a chance IMO.
I have no idea how these things are done, so I can't say. It might have been fun watching them both ignoring Jane as she flip flopped past on that quiet street.
Not seeing her is not the same as ignoring her.But you can't tell which it was , not being aware of Jane or ignoring Jane. She even had a conversation prepared in her head, but she didn't butt in.
Jez and Gerry were not standing in silence - they were both talking and therefore their own voices would be the sound that would be registering with them and which would have their attention.
IMO
I expect he read it, and I have no idea why he didn't correct it before it was handed to the police. Maybe he didn't pick up on it, or maybe it didn't occur to him until later that JT had got it wrong. What I don't think he did was decide several days later after handing it to the police that he needed to change his story about where he was standing for nefarious reasons, when he knew full well he had a cast-iron witness who would say he was standing otherwise.
I'm saying nothing more than that IMO Gerry had a genuine belief that he was stood where he said he was stood, contrary to where Jez Wilkins said he was stood, and that he may have been right or he may have been wrong. The reason I have come to this conclusion it that there is no logical, plausible nefarious reason for him to change his relative position, despite your desperate attempts to concoct one.
So are you now saying he was on the other side of the road from the apartment? That both Tanner and Wilkins 'got it wrong' ? That if, as you claim, where he was standing had absolutely no relevance whatsoever, why he chose to change it with all the implications it had with regard to Tanner's credibility?
I'm saying nothing more than that IMO Gerry had a genuine belief that he was stood where he said he was stood, contrary to where Jez Wilkins said he was stood, and that he may have been right or he may have been wrong. The reason I have come to this conclusion it that there is no logical, plausible nefarious reason for him to change his relative position, despite your desperate attempts to concoct one.
Just because you can't think of a reason why Gerry would change the site of his meeting doesn't mean there isn't a reason.Would it make any evidential difference which side of the road it was?
Would it make any evidential difference which side of the road it was?
Just because you can't think of a reason why Gerry would change the site of his meeting doesn't mean there isn't a reason.Name one then.
That would depend.on what?
That would depend.I would really like to know if there was a child in the push chair as Jez claimed. I suppose the amount of lighting would be a factor to consider. Was it darker and more secluded on one side of the street rather than the other. Gerry says he didn't take his cellphone with him to the tapas restaurant. Were there missed calls from Jez that he became aware of once he returned to do his check, that made him anxious enough to march over toward Jez?
Name one then.
I don't need to name one in order to make the point that you could be wrong.Shall we be a bit more open here to try and find a solution to this issue please?
I don't need to name one in order to make the point that you could be wrong.I think considering possible motive helps us to decide what is and what isn't important. We collectively have had the best part of ten years to consider this issue, millions of braincells and thousands of hours have been expended to try and come up with a plausible and logical nefarious explanation for this discrepancy in the 3 witnesses storis and yet despite this no one has yet come up with anything that makes any sense. Therefore one can only conclude that discrepancies can be explained simply as a result of the fallibility of human memory. Occam's Razor innit.
I think considering possible motive helps us to decide what is and what isn't important. We collectively have had the best part of ten years to consider this issue, millions of braincells and thousands of hours have been expended to try and come up with a plausible and logical nefarious explanation for this discrepancy in the 3 witnesses storis and yet despite this no one has yet come up with anything that makes any sense. Therefore one can only conclude that discrepancies can be explained simply as a result of the fallibility of human memory. Occam's Razor innit.It could be one conclusion but I prefer the action of ignoring each other. Jane mentions that she was not getting on that well with Gerry and didn't know Jez. Maybe the feelings were mutual and Gerry didn't want to talk to Jane so they ignored her. Once they ignored her were they going to admit that they had really seen her but were ignoring her? How does one confess to that?
I'm saying nothing more than that IMO Gerry had a genuine belief that he was stood where he said he was stood, contrary to where Jez Wilkins said he was stood, and that he may have been right or he may have been wrong. The reason I have come to this conclusion it that there is no logical, plausible nefarious reason for him to change his relative position, despite your desperate attempts to concoct one.
So what you are really saying is that although two witnesses, one whose credibility may have been very important in the retrieval of his daughter, assured Gerry that he was standing in a completely different position than he remembered he was conceited enough to totally disregard their opinions simply because he couldn't bear to be wrong?No, that's what YOU'RE saying I'm saying. That said, you've yet to provide us with a plausible explanation for your version of events so Gerry being conceited and hating to be proven wrong has far greater plausibility IMO than the convoluted plot-line that you're so fond of.
That Gerry's opinion did undermine Tanner's credibility is undeniable as Rebelo's request for a reconstitution proves.
No, that's what YOU'RE saying I'm saying. That said, you've yet to provide us with a plausible explanation for your version of events so Gerry being conceited and hating to be proven wrong has far greater plausibility IMO than the convoluted plot-line that you're so fond of.
No that's what you're saying. Either he has a 'nefarious' reason to put himself on the other side of the road or he just hates to be wrong.Why do you make out Gerry is wrong whereas I'd say it is most likely Jez that is wrong?
The latter kind of puts a spanner in the claim of the supporters that Gerry would do anything to find her daughter. If his ego wouldn't allow him to be seen to be wrong even if it lead to the dismissal of what could have been the most important piece of evidence in the whole case then he is beyond contempt.
How you can support this man heaven alone knows.
No that's what you're saying. Either he has a 'nefarious' reason to put himself on the other side of the road or he just hates to be wrong.
The latter kind of puts a spanner in the claim of the supporters that Gerry would do anything to find his daughter. If his ego wouldn't allow him to be seen to be wrong even if it lead to the dismissal of what could have been the most important piece of evidence in the whole case then he is beyond contempt.
How you can support this man heaven alone knows.
Why do you make out Gerry is wrong whereas I'd say it is most likely Jez that is wrong?So you think that Gerry was right? Despite Jane being adamant in the Cutting Edge video and Jez being sure that the were near the pathway corner on the western side of the road.
In fact I'm 100% certain that Jez is most likely wrong.
OR
They started on the east side of the road but a vehicle started to come up the road (maybe from the little car park opposite Tapas Reception). This would be on the RHS (East side) as is the norm in PT ... and they moved away to the western side of the road between the parked vehicles.
And both Gerry and Wilkins forgot to mention it?Jez didn't need to. As far as he was concerned most of the chat was on the west side of the road.
Jez didn't need to. As far as he was concerned most of the chat was on the west side of the road.
Gerry remembered going across the road towards the eastern side and that is what stuck in his mind, rather than remembering being on the western side.
simples, Faith.
Nigh night
Yep. Back on ignore.
So you think that Gerry was right? Despite Jane being adamant in the Cutting Edge video and Jez being sure that the were near the pathway corner on the western side of the road.I intend to see if we can resolve this issue. I'll go through Jane's statements and see if there is room for a compromise.
Two people against one. Jez and Jane v Gerry
I orefer that Gerry got it wrong, or that they might have started on the eastern side in the roadway itself, then moved back to the western side to get ouit of the way, as a vehicle came up towards them
She remembers that at about 21.10 Gerald left the restaurant (3) to go to the apartment to check on the children. Five minutes later, the witness left, to go to her apartment to see whether her daughters were OK. At this moment she saw Gerry talking to an Englishman called Jez whom they had got to know during the holidays. They played tennis with him.
She passed by them knowing that Gerry had already been in the apartment (1) to check his children.
Meanwhile a man appeared ( * ) carrying a child (**), with a hurried walk, it being this detail together with the fact that the child dressed in pyjamas, without being wrapped up in a blanket, that caught her attention. She only managed to see him from the side, with the child in his arms. She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking, having seen this person step off the pavement that borders on the apartment block where they were staying and rapidly cross the road.
They ordered dinner and waited for the starters when, about 21h10, GM left the restaurant having gone to the apartment to see his children. Five or ten minutes later the deponent left, having gone to her apartment to check that all was well with her girls. At that time she observed GM talking to an English citizen called Jez that they had met on these holidays. He played tennis with them. She doesn't know if they saw her giving the assurance that, on her part, she did not start a conversation with either of them.
She passed them knowing that GM had already been in the apartment to see the children.
She doesn't recall the position/orientation of either Jez or GM while they spoke to each other on the street, only having the perception that one was on the pavement and the other was in the road next to the other. Jez had a baby carriage, the deponent knowing that he had a small child.
4078 “From what I know from reading statements, Gerry was still absent?”
Reply “He wasn’t there at that point, no, no. So, erm, then I walked, so I just walked out the, erm, the Ocean Club bit and walked, sort of walked up the road. And then Gerry was there, he was talking to Jez WILKINS in the road, well they were sort of, as I went by. So I think I thought then ‘Oh that’s why Jez’, not Jez, ‘That’s why Gerry has been, you know, that’s why he’s longer than we thought’”
4078 “I know you are uncertain because you think Gerry’s recollection is different, but as far as you can remember”.
Reply “Well I think one of them was in the road and I think, I thought it was Jez in the road because he had the pram. And I don’t know which, I can’t remember which way he was facing. No, I mean, I think I remember in my statement I did say, but I can’t remember now which way he was facing. And I thought Gerry was almost like on the edge of the pavement or just, just in the road sort of, but definitely sort of by that, sort of more by this alleyway. I don’t think they were by the apartment gate, I thought they were sort of a bit further down, down the road than that”.
4078 “And when you have gone past Gerry and Jez whereabouts have they been in relation to you?”
Reply “If I’m walking this way, they were sort of”.
4078 “So they were to your right?”
Reply “Yeah”.
4078 “What about other people, what other noises?”
Reply “No, I mean, there was no, apart from Gerry, well apart from Gerry and Jez there was nobody else around.
4078 “Okay. So when did you first notice Gerry standing there?”
Reply “I would have probably noticed him as soon as I came, I mean, I don’t, this is not, I don’t think that distance is probably as far as that, you come out and he was, they were sort of, so almost, I’d probably say almost straight away. Again, I don’t know, but I, I know people are saying I’ve not been on the road, but they were there and I wouldn’t know they were there if I hadn’t walked past, you know, you’ve got to see my frustration in this, and I know Gerry didn’t see me and Jez didn’t see me, but”.
4078 “You were there?”
Reply “They were there and I was there”.
4078 “And you say you almost went to acknowledge them but they were so engrossed in conversation?”
Reply “They were, yeah. I mean, I don’t know whether you’ve met Gerry, but other people have met Gerry, and when Gerry is talking, it’s bit like I said earlier, that he is very focussed, he is a very focussed person. And it doesn’t surprise me he didn’t see me, because if he’s talking he’s very focussed on what he’s doing at that stage. I mean, obviously I don’t know, I don’t know Jez, I hadn’t actually, I hadn’t had any contact with Jez through the week, I didn’t, you know, he wasn’t somebody we chatted to, so, you know, in terms of him recognising me or knowing me, he didn’t know me, so”.
4078 “Tell me from there what happened?”
Reply “So I just carried on walking the opposite way into and then walked through the car park and into our apartment through the back, through the roadside, the roadside door. And, like I say, I just went in, it was all, they were both, I actually went into the room and checked and they were both quiet. And then, as I say, I just walked straight back to the restaurant. I didn’t see anything. I didn’t see them there when I walked back, they weren’t, there was nobody that I spotted and Gerry and Jez had gone by that stage as well, I think they’d gone back into, well Gerry had obviously gone back into the restaurant and I don’t know where Jez had gone, but I didn’t see them again after, after that point”.
4078 “And then we’ve covered who left the table during the meal and why, we’ve covered the fact that Gerry went, how long he was absent for. What did Gerald say when he came back”?
Reply “Erm well I wasn’t actually there when he came back”.
4078 “No you weren’t that’s right”.
Reply “Cos he got back before, so he was back there when I got back”.
4078 “So when you got back then, after having seen him and Jez, was Gerald behaving or acting differently”?
Reply “No not that I noticed no”.
Jane 04 May
Summary of 2nd statement.
Janes rogatory statement:
They were to her right. So that can be anywhere to the right.
One of them on the footpath and one on the road. Sounds more like Gerry's memory of one on the road (Gerry) and Jez on the footpath. If that was on the west side of the road (near side) that would make Gerry facing Jane, and Jez with his back to Jane. If that was on the East side of the road (farside) that would make Jez facing Jane, and Gerry with his back to Jane. (I hope I have designated the East and West correctly.)
Jane knew they were there and so were Gerry and Jez, She was there and they were there. Whereas Jez tries to make out Jane was not there. Wrong again.
Jane didn't see Jez on her return trip which tends to suggest he took the lane back to Block G4. Jane's check didn't take long and she would have seen him on the return trip if he had gone up to the intersection and through the carpark. Gerry was back at the Tapas so Jez and Jerry's talk did not last long so suggestion by Jez and Bridget that the chat continued for 15 minutes was wrong as well.
The most important bit here is that Jane arrived back after Gerry. So when Jez makes out that Jane returned before Gerry, Jez was wrong about that as well.
Jez is wrong on 3 of the points, so the decision goes Gerry's way over all with the conversation more likely on the Eastern side with Gerry's back toward Jane. No matter where the conversation only one would have shared the footpath with Jane and it probably was Gerry closest to Jane for Jane felt like speaking to Gerry not Jez.
I don't think Jez said there was a 15 minute chat or that he commented on Jane's return to the restaurant. Can you provide cites?They have been posted earlier in this thread by me that is why I'm quoting them from memory. If the thread wasn't so long now I'd look for them. They were from non-file sources, e.g articles and interviews with Jez and Bridget post May 2007.
They have been posted earlier in this thread by me that is why I'm quoting them from memory. If the thread wasn't so long now I'd look for them. They were from non-file sources, e.g articles and interviews with Jez and Bridget post May 2007.
Bridget said the conversation lasted up to 15 minutes, and I think it was Jez who suggested Jane passed them on the way back to the restaurant which implies she would arrive back before Gerry.
Now you might not like me quoting Bridget but Jez and Bridget made two joint statements hence they speak for each other.
So what you are really saying is that although two witnesses, one whose credibility may have been very important in the retrieval of his daughter, assured Gerry that he was standing in a completely different position than he remembered he was conceited enough to totally disregard their opinions simply because he couldn't bear to be wrong?
That Gerry's opinion did undermine Tanner's credibility is undeniable as Rebelo's request for a reconstitution proves.
Bridget wasn't there so her opinion counts for nothing. As Jez only saw Jane earlier when he was setting out I can't accept he said he did see her later. No cites no facts, sorry.I swear I have already posted the cites.
.... it was Jez who suggested Jane passed them on the way back to the restaurant which implies she would arrive back before Gerry.
I swear I have already posted the cites.
They made joint statements so they must talk to each other. She is relating something presumably said to her by Jez. OK I don't agree they should have been allowed to have joint statements in the first place, but what has happened can't be changed.
He didn't say he saw her later but suggested Jane must have seen them talking on her way back to the table. (Did I say something different before? No.)
this is the most preposterous piece of reasoning I've read on this board. How does Gerry insisting he was standing on the other side of the street prevent his daughter from being found?!I can't see what difference it made but it gave Amaral and Co. another excuse to disbelieve Jane and keep the blame on Gerry.
/You seem to be making things up.
With thanks to Winnower[/quote]
Man who could clear McCanns
Maddie: The Secret Witness
TV boss holds vital clue to mystery
News of the World
By Dominic Herbert & Ross Hall
16 September 2007
THIS is the secret witness whose bombshell testimony could clear the McCanns.
Pictured here for the first time, Jeremy Wilkins' evidence blows holes in the police theory that Gerry and Kate killed four-year-old Madeleine.
Wilkins — seen outside his north west London home — was the man heart surgeon Gerry McCann, 38, spoke with for up to 15 minutes outside the holiday apartments — moments after checking on his children for the last time.
What the TV producer witnessed makes the statement he gave to police a key piece of evidence in the event of a trial.
A friend of Wilkins told the News of the World: "He is entirely convinced of Kate and Gerry's innocence. He believes they are a decent family caught up in an unimaginable nightmare."
We can reveal Wilkins constantly INSISTED to Portuguese detectives that Gerry was totally calm and unflustered as they chatted—far removed from the behaviour that might be expected of a man covering up the death of his daughter.
But another part of Wilkins' evidence ironically helped shift the police focus AWAY from their original kidnap theory.
For the 36-year-old holidaymaker turned the investigation on its head when he revealed a VITAL FLAW in the statement given by key witness, Jane Tanner (right), who claims she saw a man carrying a child away from the apartment complex.
Based on what he has said, Portuguese sources confirmed that police have doubts about Miss Tanner's evidence.
One said: "Her account has raised more questions than answers. She is high on the list of people we need to speak to again."
Wilkins was refusing to expand on what he has told police. His girlfriend Bridget O'Donnell —who was in Praia da Luz with the producer and their eight-month-old son—said: "We have decided it's not appropriate to talk about what happened."
Wilkins' pal added: "He came back from the holiday totally shell-shocked. He was part of a British crowd which included the McCanns who became friends as they holidayed in Portugal.
"He played tennis with Gerry the day before Madeleine disappeared. He has barely said a word about the whole case. He feels as a potential witness that would be inappropriate."
Wilkins—whose production company Zig Zag has made a string of controversial TV programmes—is likely to be re-interviewed as Portuguese detectives desperately try to build a case against the McCanns.
Some of the seven diners who were at the tapas restaurant with the couple on May 3 have already travelled back to Portugal once before to go over events leading to Madeleine's disappearance.
Next time they may be quizzed in the UK by British police assisting their EU counterparts on the inquiry.
Wilkins' crucial encounter with Gerry took place at 9.10pm on the main street outside the apartments next to the McCanns'—and at the entrance to a narrow alleyway that runs past the back of them.
The two were both tennis fans and had played each other during the course of the holiday.
On the night Maddie disappeared Wilkins was taking his eight-month-old son for a walk.
When he bumped into Gerry the two men chatted for up to 15 minutes before the surgeon returned to the tapas bar.
It was during this period of time that Tanner, 37, another member of the McCanns' party, said she WALKED PAST the two men on her way back to her apartment to check on her youngsters.
She told police that she saw a dark-haired man, aged about 35, carrying a child who could have been Maddie's wrapped in a blanket at 9.15pm—when Gerry and Wilkins would still have been chatting.
But Wilkins, viewed by police as a completely independent witness, told cops he could not recall anyone walking past him. And in all the time he was there he saw NO MAN carrying a child.
The TV executive is convinced he would have seen Jane Tanner pass by.
He said: "It was a very narrow path and I think it would have been almost impossible for anyone to walk by without me noticing."
And he also believes he would have seen the mystery man and child who would also have been just yards away.
Cops asked mum-of-two Tanner—on the holiday with with her partner Dr Russell O'Brien, 36—whether it was possible that the man and child she saw was Wilkins with his son.
Check
But a source told us: "She was adamant that it was not Jeremy Wilkins and his child. She is certain she saw someone else and stands by her account."
Gerry and Tanner returned to the restaurant separately shortly afterwards and it was at 10pm that Kate McCann went to check on the children and found Madeleine gone.
Wilkins' importance in the inquiry has only been highlighted because police are troubled by possible inconsistencies in the McCann friends' statements, including discrepancies in the times various people recall arriving at the restaurant.
The Portuguese police believe the McCanns may have been involved in Madeleine's disappearance and think one may be covering up for the other.
Officers are probing an unlikely "three-hour window of opportunity" between 6pm and 9pm when they suspect Madeleine was killed in the apartment and her body hidden somewhere nearby. Forensic evidence gathered so far including DNA or body fluid samples is thought to be inconclusive.
Portuguese police say they could name more official suspects in the coming weeks.
It is not until I had read Russell O'Brien's statements today that things go in Bridget's favour. His timing and order of events is so at odds with the others that questions need to be asked.Go back to the source and you will see what I mean. I'm still a bit confused as to why I say it was Bridget who also suggests Jane arrives back first.
Why did ROB leave at 9.30, so soon after JT would have returned? Were they checking every 15 minutes?Good question but they can say what they like.
The 15 minute chat time has been discussed on other forums because what seems problematic for Jez is the unaccounted for time delay between when Gerry finishing talking to Jez (using Gerry's timeline from 9:10- 9:15) but Jez does not make it home till 9:30 and he was only staying just a few meters away.At this point a huge amount of material was removed - check the source links .
So it has been pointed out by other forums his timeline doesn't ring true so Bridget may have in her dealings with the press inflated the chat time up to 15 minutes to account for this spare time, IMO.
But the truth of it is Jez' alibi can only be corroborated during the 4-5 minute period when he is talking to Gerry. (This alibi is Confirmed by Jane but Jane's confirmation of it is denied by Jez.)
this is the most preposterous piece of reasoning I've read on this board. How does Gerry insisting he was standing on the other side of the street prevent his daughter from being found?!
Gerry undermines Tanner's claim of being on the street as her recollections don't match with his. The police don't take Tanner's sighting seriously for that reason and don't pursue it with any vigour. Tannerman really is the abductor. You can see how it would happen.And how do you square this with your belief that Gerry and JT concocted the sighting, or your belief that the McCanns were only interested in promoting Tannerman as the abductor?
And all because Gerry's ego wouldn't admit his recollection was wrong
Gerry undermines Tanner's claim of being on the street as her recollections don't match with his. The police don't take Tanner's sighting seriously for that reason and don't pursue it with any vigour. Tannerman really is the abductor. You can see how it would happen.
And all because Gerry's ego wouldn't admit his recollection was wrong
How you came to that conclusion is completely beyond me Faith. I'm gobsmacked.
There is no way anyone with an ego that size could maintain a job which involved working with others and accepting other people's opinions, and no way they could maintain a loving relationship. Gerry seems to have had no trouble doing both.
Don't you find it strange that no-one who actually knows him personally has noticed this mega 'ego' problem - even though one the size you claim would be impossible to miss and would be causing all kinds of conflict wherever Gerry was.
Too daft for words IMO.
AIMHO
So why do you think that he disregarded the recollections of two people in favour of his own? If it was me, and I suspect you'd be the same, if two other witnesses remembered an incident differently to me I'd simply concede that I'd remembered the incident wrongly.
So why do you think that he disregarded the recollections of two people in favour of his own? If it was me, and I suspect you'd be the same, if two other witnesses remembered an incident differently to me I'd simply concede that I'd remembered the incident wrongly.Perhaps you could address my question?
How you came to that conclusion is completely beyond me Faith. I'm gobsmacked.
There is no way anyone with an ego that size could maintain a job which involved working with others and accepting other people's opinions, and no way they could maintain a loving relationship. Gerry seems to have had no trouble doing both.
Don't you find it strange that no-one who actually knows him personally has noticed this mega 'ego' problem - even though one the size you claim would be impossible to miss and would be causing all kinds of conflict wherever Gerry was.
Too daft for words IMO.
AIMHO
So why do you think that he disregarded the recollections of two people in favour of his own? If it was me, and I suspect you'd be the same, if two other witnesses remembered an incident differently to me I'd simply concede that I'd remembered the incident wrongly.
Because that is what he remembered and what he continued to remember. The easy alternative would be for him to lie and say he did see JT - which would have made things a whole lot better for them both.
He is being vilified for not lying.
What if he had changed his mind and agreed that he was wrong - would you have accepted that? Or would you be dissecting every word he said looking for a reason to find fault with him for doing that?
He corrected the statement which claimed he said he went into 5A via the front door. Admittedly we were never given the reason for that correction, but my word - what a meal the sceptics made of that - and still do.
AIMHO
Must go out now.
What do you mean?He has ears.
If they had been plotting together for Jane to say she saw a man with a child, then they would have got their stories worked out wouldn't they? They would both have said they saw each other. When I have said this before, a poster has always said 'well if he saw Jane he should have seen the man with the child' but if Gerry just saw her out of the corner of his eye as she past by then that would have been ok wouldn't it?
Why are people trying to make out Gerry should have seen Jane, it's ridiculous, he was talking to Jez facing away from the pavement.
According to Jeremy Wilkins he was woken up at around 1am on 4th May by John Hill and Matthew Oldfield. Matthew told him that Gerry McCann's daughter had been abducted and Gerry wanted to know if he had seen anything when they met earlier. This happened just before the PJ arrived.
I assume that John Hill was involved because he was in a position to know or to find out which apartment Jeremy was in. So was he in 5A when the subject was raised and then he went to find out the information or was he elsewhere and Matthew went to find him? As neither of the men mention this visit we don't know.
What we do know is that Gerry McCann knew early on that Jeremy Wilkins had seen nothing. He also knew that Jane Tanner had seen something because he told PJ Inspector Vitor Martins, although the story wasn't quite the same as Jane told it the following day;
At about 21.20, their friend Jane passed by the apartment (along the corridor of the main entrance) she saw an individual carrying a child who passed descending the road
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm#p15p3862
This is similar to the story Jane gave to the GNR, according to Silvia;
the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed.
-_______
Gerry maccann was part of the group who signed a group statement delivered to the PJ on 10 May, ergo he WAS on the west side of the road NOT the oppositite side as he said later.
Apparently Gerry didn't notice that bit which was, conveniently you may think, added by Tanner.Who is your source for this piece of information?
Who is your source for this piece of information?
Isn't that what you think? Well it's either that or Gerry changed his mind.......again.So your quoting my speculation on ths forum (which you earlier solicited) as the source of this information are you? Pathetic.
So your quoting my speculation on ths forum (which you earlier solicited) as the source of this information are you? Pathetic.
I'm not quoting it Alfie, I'm making fun of it.Goading in other words. You may find my explanation hysterically funny but it's a whole lot more plausible than your version of events.
According to Jeremy Wilkins he was woken up at around 1am on 4th May by John Hill and Matthew Oldfield. Matthew told him that Gerry McCann's daughter had been abducted and Gerry wanted to know if he had seen anything when they met earlier. This happened just before the PJ arrived.Silvia Batista got that wrong, didn't she?
I assume that John Hill was involved because he was in a position to know or to find out which apartment Jeremy was in. So was he in 5A when the subject was raised and then he went to find out the information or was he elsewhere and Matthew went to find him? As neither of the men mention this visit we don't know.
What we do know is that Gerry McCann knew early on that Jeremy Wilkins had seen nothing. He also knew that Jane Tanner had seen something because he told PJ Inspector Vitor Martins, although the story wasn't quite the same as Jane told it the following day;
At about 21.20, their friend Jane passed by the apartment (along the corridor of the main entrance) she saw an individual carrying a child who passed descending the road
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm#p15p3862
This is similar to the story Jane gave to the GNR, according to Silvia;
the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
Faithlilly, how about you put your brilliant mind to answering this conundrum?
Quote from: Faithlilly on Today at 09:45:15 AM
Gerry undermines Tanner's claim of being on the street as her recollections don't match with his. The police don't take Tanner's sighting seriously for that reason and don't pursue it with any vigour. Tannerman really is the abductor. You can see how it would happen.
And all because Gerry's ego wouldn't admit his recollection was wrong
My reply:
And how do you square this with your belief that Gerry and JT concocted the sighting, or your belief that the McCanns were only interested in promoting Tannerman as the abductor?
Goading in other words. You may find my explanation hysterically funny but it's a whole lot more plausible than your version of events.
Do you really believe that Gerry put his name to the group timeline without checking every last syllable first? Really?Yes, it's perfectly possible. I'm not even sure how or when that three page typed document was written and typed out - by whom? I think it's perfectly possible that as the most important element of JT's contribution was to do with the sighting itself and Gerrys's position on the road of far less significance that such a detail may have been either overlooked or not considered worth the bother of correcting. Please remember: this is me speculating and may not actually represent what actually happened. I am not Gerry McCann.
I thought about this argument and I think they would have used Gerry both ways. If he turned around and agreed with Jane they could have accused him of collusion and if he disagrees they discounted her version. Was there a solution to this? If Jane changed her tune and agreed with Gerry they would have added that to her inconsistency.
In the article I posted the problem lies with Jez as the PJ accepted his version as gospel. From their point of view there was no Jane passing Jez and hence there was no Tannerman. For the given reason Jez hadn't seen either of them.
Easily and I'm sure no one was more surprised than Tanner when Gerry suddenly changed what had been agreed on the timeline collaboration and took himself to the other side of the road in his 10th May interview. If Gerry was on the other side of the road Tannerman could still be promoted as the abductor. All it meant that if it all went pear shaped and Tanner was proven not to be on the street then he wouldn't be covered in the resulting detritus. Of course the PJ saw through the ruse but you can't blame a guy for trying, can you?Firstly - can we have a cite for "the PJ saw through the ruse"? Secondly, you've earlier claimed that Gerry completely destroys JT's credibility thus leading to doubts about the existence of the alleged abductor, an abductor that you also claim he himself has fabricated and really wants everyone to believe in, and he's done this because he thinks he may have been seen, but the reality is he already KNOWS he was seen by Jes Wilkins, so in essence your theory is complete NONSENSE!
Yes, it's perfectly possible. I'm not even sure how or when that three page typed document was written and typed out - by whom? I think it's perfectly possible that as the most important element of JT's contribution was to do with the sighting itself and Gerrys's position on the road of far less significance that such a detail may have been either overlooked or not considered worth the bother of correcting. Please remember: this is me speculating and may not actually represent what actually happened. I am not Gerry McCann.
Gerry undermines Tanner's claim of being on the street as her recollections don't match with his. The police don't take Tanner's sighting seriously for that reason and don't pursue it with any vigour. Tannerman really is the abductor. You can see how it would happen.I think that is possible Faith. Nice to agree with you on something ?{)(**
And all because Gerry's ego wouldn't admit his recollection was wrong
Easily and I'm sure no one was more surprised than Tanner when Gerry suddenly changed what had been agreed on the timeline collaboration and took himself to the other side of the road in his 10th May interview. If Gerry was on the other side of the road Tannerman could still be promoted as the abductor. All it meant that if it all went pear shaped and Tanner was proven not to be on the street then he wouldn't be covered in the resulting detritus. Of course the PJ saw through the ruse but you can't blame a guy for trying, can you?
I think that is possible Faith. Nice to agree with you on something ?{)(**Please remind me where the vehicle came from and how you worked out it was there?
But I dont think it was anything to do with ego .... I think it was what he remembered and he was telling the triuth as far as he was concerned. And possibly they did start talking on the eastern side of the road but when a vehicle appeared they moved out of the carriageway in the easiest way possible, following the line that the pushchair was pointing. To the western side of the road.
How rude. Is that necessary?What did you think it meant?
fill your boots
An invitation to partake with gusto, as in "be my guest," or "help yourself."
Here's one for you to chomp on, fill your boots
What did you think it meant?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fill%20your%20boots
Now this is very indelicateThat's what I thought it meant too, and I was surprised the NZ meaning was not in the dictionary!
.......but in the Midlands, I have heard it to mean have a massive tummy upset in your pants /boots. However as it seems that is not recorded as such on Urban Dictionary, I will remove my comment.
Thanks for bringing it up Rob
Silvia Batista got that wrong, didn't she?
Where Jane saw Tannerman was NOT in front of Madeleines bedroom window.
She saw him crossing Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martin
This is the problem with third party statements, they get things wrong. Verbatim statements are frequently the only ones that are truly accurate.
Fair enough Alfie. If you don't mind making yourself look foolish it would be rude of me to dissuade you. Go on, fill your boots @)(++(*Hmm, I wonder who looks the bigger fool though really? I see you didn't attempt to address this post of mine...
Jane Tanner said in her statements that she was in R Dr F G M and Tannerman appeared at the top of the road. According to two people involved on the night, both Jane and Gerry McCann said she saw him walking along R Dr A da Silva, before he reached the junction with R Dr F G M.Is there any evidence Jane got anything wrong? Any other detail wrong in the first instant. OK she is persuaded about the colour of the pyjamas but what else?
Perhaps those two witnesses got it wrong, perhaps they didn't. If they didn't Jane changed her position from in front of the apartment to walking up R Dr F G M and she moved the man's position from in front of the apartments to the junction.
Jane Tanner said in her statements that she was in R Dr F G M and Tannerman appeared at the top of the road. According to two people involved on the night, both Jane and Gerry McCann said she saw him walking along R Dr A da Silva, before he reached the junction with R Dr F G M.It was Sylvia Baptista who said Jane saw Tannerman walking along in front of 5A before the Jane Tanner corner (junction of R. Dr A de Silva with R Dr FGM). Jane Tanner never said that as far as I am aware.
Perhaps those two witnesses got it wrong, perhaps they didn't. If they didn't Jane changed her position from in front of the apartment to walking up R Dr F G M and she moved the man's position from in front of the apartments to the junction.
Hmm, I wonder who looks the bigger fool though really? I see you didn't attempt to address this post of mine...
"you've earlier claimed that Gerry completely destroys JT's credibility thus leading to doubts about the existence of the alleged abductor, an abductor that you also claim he himself has fabricated and really wants everyone to believe in, and he's done this because he thinks he may have been seen, but the reality is he already KNOWS he was seen by Jes Wilkins, so in essence your theory is complete NONSENSE!"
You theory is basically a long series of highly improbable events taking place in quick succession. Most people on this forum can see that, which is why you don't seem to be receiving much support for it, even from fellow sceptics.
Is there any evidence Jane got anything wrong? Any other detail wrong in the first instant. OK she is persuaded about the colour of the pyjamas but what else?
Come, come Alfie, that he was seen is not precisely the point. It was that he was seen talking and Jane was not seen walking. Two people claiming Tanner wasn't thereIt is you who seems to be missing the point again and again. Your theory about Gerry repositioning himself rests on a concern you think he had about being seen by somebody on a balcony while he was talking to Jez, some mythical person who may never even have existed, who was watching him intently and who never saw JT walk by, but there was no need for Gerry to worry about such a mythical witness because there was already a real actual living breathing witness and that was the person he was talking to, a person who would (and did!) contradict his evidence anyway, so why the need to move his position?
As to highly improbable events you are asking us to believe that Gerry, a obvious control freak, did not check the group timeline to make sure one of the most important sightings of the whole case was described exactly.
It was Sylvia Baptista who said Jane saw Tannerman walking along in front of 5A before the Jane Tanner corner (junction of R. Dr A de Silva with R Dr FGM). Jane Tanner never said that as far as I am aware.
Please could you provide a cite showing that it was Jane rather than Sylvia saying that. TY
And who was the other person to say this please? Apart from Syvia I am not aware of any other third party getting this wrong
It is you who seems to be missing the point again and again. Your theory about Gerry repositioning himself rests on a concern you think he had about being seen by somebody on a balcony while he was talking to Jez, some mythical person who may never even have existed, who was watching him intently and who never saw JT walk by, but there was no need for Gerry to worry about such a mythical witness because there was already a real actual living breathing witness and that was the person he was talking to, a person who would (and did!) contradict his evidence anyway, so why the need to move his position?
If you think your theory is far more plausible than my contention that Gerry either overlooked, or failed to see the importance of changing what to him may have been considered a minor detail of JT's statement (compared to the far more important details of the sighting itself) then that is your problem.
It was a risk admittedly. Having one independent witness not see Jane I suppose he thought he could just about get away with ( in fact he almost has if you and your fellow supporters are anything to go by) but for two independent witnesses not to see her, now that's a completely different kettle of sardines. I know at one point there was a rumour that an Irish girl had been having a crafty cigarette and saw the whole Gerry/Wilkins chat. Not sure when it was but had Gerry got wind of that? I know it turned out not to be true but who knows if he thought it was or was scared of a similar scenario.LOL. The mental contortions you have to perform in order to convince yourself that you are right. Anyone would think it was you that was the enormously arrogant one that couldn't bear to consider the possibility that they might be wrong, never mind Gerry!
You have to remember Gerry was reacting to events at this point, not guiding them.
Her distance from the top of the road when she saw Tannerman kept changing.
The McCanns both said she was 50 meters away from him in their first statements.
Jane, 4th May. No mention of the men's location but she says exactly when she saw the man with the child;
She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking,
So she was around 35 meters, or 110 ft away from him if they were talking by the path entrance.
Jane 10th May.
She doesn't recall the position/orientation of either Jez or GM while they spoke to each other on the street, only having the perception that one was on the pavement and the other was in the road next to the other.
She specifies her distance from the man though;
Confronted, she demonstrated the distance at which the man with the child had passed her, and that was gauged to be about 5 metres.
If Jane was only 5 meters away from the man and she had just passed Jez and Gerry, they were not chatting at the entrance to the pathway, which is 35 meters from the man.
Jane's rog. Now she's even closer to the man;
So, yeah, so I went past them, erm, up to the, and then walking up to the top of the road and then, as I got to the top, this person, somebody walked across the top of the road with, with a child.
Kate's book;
she had seen this man crossing the junction with Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva, ten or fifteen feet in front of her,
walking from left to right.
That's 3-5 meters, a lot less than the 50 meters quoted in Kate's first statement.
Closer distance could be the corridor in front of G5 apartments - Jane saw the man/child passing the car park entrance re SB statement.
Longer distance away - Jane saw them crossing before turning left onto the pathway at the back of G5 apartments.
One thing is for certain - Jane did not pass both chatting by the side gate. A brief 3 minute chat.
"bumped into a person he had played tennis with and who had a child's push chair, he was also British, he had a short conversation with him." GM 4 May 2007
The conversation with Gerry lasted for about three minutes. JW
The watching footy explanation should now stand out. The 15 minute time discrepancy is revealed.
LOL. The mental contortions you have to perform in order to convince yourself that you are right. Anyone would think it was you that was the enormously arrogant one that couldn't bear to consider the possibility that they might be wrong, never mind Gerry!
"Her distance from the top of the road when she saw Tannerman kept changing." Maybe?
The McCanns both said she was 50 meters away from him in their first statements." That could be Gerry's mistake. He didn't listen to Jane.
Jane, 4th May. No mention of the men's location but she says exactly when she saw the man with the child;
She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking," That sounded like bad translation to me.
So she was around 35 meters, or 110 ft away from him if they were talking by the path entrance." Translation problem.
Jane 10th May.
She doesn't recall the position/orientation of either Jez or GM while they spoke to each other on the street, only having the perception that one was on the pavement and the other was in the road next to the other." That is possible.
She specifies her distance from the man though' It would be a guess.
Confronted, she demonstrated the distance at which the man with the child had passed her, and that was gauged to be about 5 metres." Was it estimated and typed correctly?
If Jane was only 5 meters away from the man and she had just passed Jez and Gerry, they were not chatting at the entrance to the pathway, which is 35 meters from the man." Time delay must be included. I though badly expressed by the interpreter
Jane's rog. Now she's even closer to the man;
So, yeah, so I went past them, erm, up to the, and then walking up to the top of the road and then, as I got to the top, this person, somebody walked across the top of the road with, with a child.
Kate's book;
she had seen this man crossing the junction with Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva, ten or fifteen feet in front of her,
walking from left to right.
That's 3-5 meters, a lot less than the 50 meters quoted in Kate's first statement." Jane never spoke to Kate. Gerry told Kate. So it is Gerry's mistake.
I could absolutely be wrong but as I have nothing invested this case it really doesn't matter.Come on, you've invested 10 years of your life in it - you'd be most embarrassed to be proven wrong, and on this matter (as I have demonstrated) I very much feel that you are.
It is you who seems to be missing the point again and again. Your theory about Gerry repositioning himself rests on a concern you think he had about being seen by somebody on a balcony while he was talking to Jez, some mythical person who may never even have existed, who was watching him intently and who never saw JT walk by, but there was no need for Gerry to worry about such a mythical witness because there was already a real actual living breathing witness and that was the person he was talking to, a person who would (and did!) contradict his evidence anyway, so why the need to move his position?
If you think your theory is far more plausible than my contention that Gerry either overlooked, or failed to see the importance of changing what to him may have been considered a minor detail of JT's statement (compared to the far more important details of the sighting itself) then that is your problem.
Come on, you've invested 10 years of your life in it - you'd be most embarrassed to be proven wrong, and on this matter (as I have demonstrated) I very much feel that you are.
Your thoughts on the Irish teenager story? Is it possible that this rumour was circulating before the May 10th interviews ? It was thought that this story was leaked by the PJ. It would be interesting if this was done to force Gerry's hand (mere speculation of course but you quite like speculation, don't you?)
You have identified exactly what was important to Gerry and to Jane; her sighting of a potential 'abductor'. Given the importance of that sighting, making minor changes to Jane's first account may have seemed justifiable to both of them.What would have justified making those changes, bearing in mind there was a witness on the ground to the events?
8((()*/
?>)()<
"A myth" AnneGuedes
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3550.msg134565#msg134565 ?>)()<
Your thoughts on the Irish teenager story? Is it possible that this rumour was circulating before the May 10th interviews ? It was thought that this story was leaked by the PJ. It would be interesting if this was done to force Gerry's hand (mere speculation of course but you quite like speculation, don't you?)No I don't like speculation but have done so in order to answer your questions and keep you happy. If you can find evidence that this story was circulating before 10th May then by all means present it otherwise I'd say you were grasping at straws.
It has all been debunked on a previous thread ... the myth appeared 26th October 2007 from the usual unreliable sources.Could you be so kind as to explain the 26 Oct 2007 date origin please?
I find it extraordinary the some members have such a lack of recall skills that previous discussions in which they have taken part have to be constantly revisited.
However, I suppose it is worth remembering the lengths that were gone to at the time in an effort to discredit Jane Tanner's evidence ... Madeleine's parents ... and deflect from the cigarette butts left behind by person or persons unknown.
Cui bono from that disinformation, I wonder?
It has all been debunked on a previous thread ... the myth appeared 26th October 2007 from the usual unreliable sources.
I find it extraordinary the some members have such a lack of recall skills that previous discussions in which they have taken part have to be constantly revisited.
However, I suppose it is worth remembering the lengths that were gone to at the time in an effort to discredit Jane Tanner's evidence ... Madeleine's parents ... and deflect from the cigarette butts left behind by person or persons unknown.
Cui bono from that disinformation, I wonder?
If, for the sake of argument, Jane did go into her apartment from the pathway rather than by the main door why didn't she exit the same way? Why was she in the corridor outside?
I think you could see the car park entrance when departing from the middle pathway between blocks 4 & 5. The corridor is in front of Madeleine's window and runs along G5 apartments.
"She doesn't know exactly what was the position of the lady when she saw the man, but she knows that the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
In front of Madeleine's window is the car park entrance. So it seems he may have passed there when seen by Jane according to SB.
Could you be so kind as to explain the 26 Oct 2007 date origin please?
The article quoted above implies the story surfaced shortly after Aoife et al did their reconstruction of 26 May 07. Clearly, that does not fit with a pre-10 May 07 date, which I think is Alfie's point.
Was Tannerman, Gerry chatting to Jez, and Jane flip-flopping past the pair in the public domain pre-10 May 07?
And for those less than 100% informed about the case, it is known Aoife was in the Dolphin restaurant many hundreds of metres away. She was not skulking in block 6 having a puff.
What would have justified making those changes, bearing in mind there was a witness on the ground to the events?
As you said, the importance of Jane's sighting. Imagine for a moment that there was a witness on the ground approaching, near or on the corner of that junction at the time of Jane's sighting but he saw nothing. No man, no child, nothing.An imaginary man you mean? Would this man have had a watch on? What was the precise time of JT's sighting then? Is it possible the imaginary man passed by a minute too early?
Thank you for the response, and your suggested reasons for the differences;
Gerry's mistake, bad translations, mistakes in estimating distance, typing errors, poor explanation by an interpreter.
I would like to see any evidence supporting your allegations, by the way.
You seem to be suggesting that Jane's reported distance from the man was consistent in all her statements, but everyone one else misunderstood what she said? How unfortunate is that, to be misunderstood or misrepresented by everyone!
An imaginary man you mean? Would this man have had a watch on? What was the precise time of JT's sighting then? Is it possible the imaginary man passed by a minute too early?
As no-one is able to give precise times or precise locations all possibilities can be considered.An imaginary Tannerman is not really a possibility is it?
As no-one is able to give precise times or precise locations all possibilities can be considered.therefore no need to worry about imaginary men claiming they never saw Tannerman.
therefore no need to worry about imaginary men claiming they never saw Tannerman.The questions are pouring in.
As an aside:
I see my "Series Of Improbable Events" post has been removed. What a shame. Anyone who wishes to discuss this with me further by PM is welcome to do so, I have a copy for reference and am particularly interested in debating it with resident "sceptics". Don't all rush at once, mind. 8(0(*
therefore no need to worry about imaginary men claiming they never saw Tannerman.
As an aside:
I see my "Series Of Improbable Events" post has been removed. What a shame. Anyone who wishes to discuss this with me further by PM is welcome to do so, I have a copy for reference and am particularly interested in debating it with resident "sceptics". Don't all rush at once, mind. 8(0(*
I mind about the removal. But then you are half way to understanding of how important I am.Never mind, I made my point (quite well I thought... 8(>(( )
I mind about the removal. But then you are half way to understanding of how important I am.
It seems improbable doesn't it but from the very beginning Silvia Batista started undermining Jane's sighting that is when the problem started. I propose that Jane saw something that she wasn't supposed to see and the various factions and players have had their reasons to discredit her.
Was Silvia ever the interpreter in any of Jane's statements. How impartial were the interpreters that were otherwise used? We will never know.
I was looking for the post about Gerry needing Jane for his alibi. I have subsequently been thinking getting rid of Jane's sighting could be for Jez' benefit too for he does his best to change the meaning of what Jane saw too.
Jane's sighting once she had admitted it can't easily be retracted for she immediately spoke about it to Rachel, then to Fiona, Russell must have told at some time too, then to Gerry then to Silvia and the PJ in the early hours of the morning 4th May.
She doesn't know that it is going to bring everyone down. But if my hunch is right everyone would have preferred Jane not to have seen Tannerman. If she hadn't seen Tannerman they would be only too happy to have seen Jane go marching by in her flip flops with her perfect timing giving Jez and Gerry the alibi.
Finally everyone is happy as Tannerman has been converted to Crecheman the whole lot can breathe easy again.
Too bad about him going the wrong way! Too bad about him being unnamed. Too bad that the child he was carrying was conscious. Too bad the pyjamas were not the colour Jane saw. Too bad that Crecheman didn't use the blanket he was carrying.
I mind too Eleanor. Alfie spent a long time on that post, time he could have used earning a living. How terribly unfair of you moderators.I spent less time on that post than Smiffy takes sharpening his quills and priming the vitriol before each of his epic diatribes. @)(++(*
I spent less time on that post than Smiffy takes sharpening his quills and priming the vitriol before each of his epic diatribes. @)(++(*
You can tell Alfie 8(0(*Whatever. So, back to the thread topic. You still stand by your belief that Gerry and JT cooked the sighting up in order to give the former an alibi for the Smithman sighting then?
You can tell Alfie 8(0(*
How can any sensible person admire blacksmith who ain't even reached the bottom of his profession
I spent less time on that post than Smiffy takes sharpening his quills and priming the vitriol before each of his epic diatribes. @)(++(*
Apparently Gerry didn't notice that bit which was, conveniently you may think, added by Tanner.
therefore no need to worry about imaginary men claiming they never saw Tannerman.
As an aside:
I see my "Series Of Improbable Events" post has been removed. What a shame. Anyone who wishes to discuss this with me further by PM is welcome to do so, I have a copy for reference and am particularly interested in debating it with resident "sceptics". Don't all rush at once, mind. 8(0(*
As in Smiffy of the Bash Street Kids?If only. At least that Smiffy isn't quite so up his own arse.
Now that has the makings of good thread.
No need at all because the witness was fully occupied and observed when the sighting took place. He failed to see the person who made the sighting and he failed to see what she saw, but so what? So did his companion.I fail to understand what you are driving at. Perhaps you could tell me straight whether or not you believe Gerry and JT were involved in some sort of plot to deceive and why.
How fortunate that Jane wasn't in the passageway in front of Block 5 when she saw Tannerman between 21.15 and 21.20pm, as Gerry reported to Vitor Martins;
At about 21.20, their friend Jane passed by the apartment (along the corridor of the main entrance) she saw an individual carrying a child who passed descending the road,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm
You say Silvia 'undermined Jane's sighting' which suggests intent. You are ignoring the possibility that Silvia had a good reason for being confused by Jane's sighting - that it didn't make sense.You are misrepresenting what Silvia said. Jane never said this and I'd be surprised if Silvia said it either. If she did she was deliberately mistranslating what Jane said just to make Jane look stupid.
At some point she translated the statement of one of the ladies who belonged to the group and that she describes as a brunette one. This lady said to the GNR elements, and she (the witness) translated, that she had seen a man on the road who might have carried a child.
This situation surprised her because she (the witness) was convinced that when the lady saw the man, the lady was in a place from where she had no angle of vision for the place where she saw the man. She doesn't know exactly what was the position of the lady when she saw the man, but she knows that the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
If Jane told the GNR that she saw the man when she was walking up R Dr F G M she wouldn't have been able to see the man if he was in front of Madeleine's bedroom window. She would have seen him only when he reached the junction, as she said later in her statements.
Asked about the way the members of the group were dressed up in that night, she only remembers that Fiona was wearing a green blouse, that Geny was wearing a dark shirtThere are so many errors in that it makes it look comical.
and the husband of Fiona wearing clear pants, beige she thins.
And more she did not say. Read the self as the thought, ratified and will sign
No need at all because the witness was fully occupied and observed when the sighting took place. He failed to see the person who made the sighting and he failed to see what she saw, but so what? So did his companion.You would have to wonder who was feeding Vitor Martins misinformation for there is definitely no statement available to us that would put Jane's sighting of TannerMan as late as 21.20.
How fortunate that Jane wasn't in the passageway in front of Block 5 when she saw Tannerman between 21.15 and 21.20pm, as Gerry reported to Vitor Martins;
At about 21.20, their friend Jane passed by the apartment (along the corridor of the main entrance) she saw an individual carrying a child who passed descending the road,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm
At about 21.20, their friend Jane passed by the apartment (along the corridor of the main entrance) she saw an individual carrying a child who passed descending the road, however she did not recognise this individual, nor the child, only having noticed that the individual appeared to be aged between 30 or 40, had dark hair and light coloured trousers.
I fail to understand what you are driving at. Perhaps you could tell me straight whether or not you believe Gerry and JT were involved in some sort of plot to deceive and why.Will someone do this?
You are misrepresenting what Silvia said. Jane never said this and I'd be surprised if Silvia said it either. If she did she was deliberately mistranslating what Jane said just to make Jane look stupid.I have found another version of Silvia Batista statement http://steelmagnolia-mccannarchives.blogspot.co.nz/2011/06/silvia-batista-33-statements-silvia.html
Well let's see.
Take a passage from that report and see how messed up the translation is. There are so many errors in that it makes it look comical.
On the basis of how the report ends there is no way we can analyse with any degree of certainty what is meant in any part of Silvia's supposed statement.
When questioned about the clothes that the English group members wore that night, she mentions that she only remembers that Fiona wore a green blouse, Gerry wore a dark coloured shirt, and Fiona’s husband wore light-coloured trousers, she thinks cream-coloured.
And she stated nothing further.”
At a given moment, the deponent translated the deposition from one of the ladies that belonged to the group of English people, namely one that she indicates as being a brunette.
This lady told the GNR officers, and the deponent translated, that she had seen a man crossing the road, possibly carrying a child.
The deponent found that situation strange because she was convinced that when she saw this man, the lady was positioned in a spot that has no viewing angle to the location where she had seen the man.
She doesn’t know exactly where the lady was positioned when she saw the man passing by, but she knows that she indicated that she saw him passing on the street that lies in front of the window to the bedroom where Madeleine was, walking into the direction of the street that leads to the Baptista supermarket.
Meanwhile a man appeared ( * ) carrying a child (**), with a hurried walk, it being this detail together with the fact that the child dressed in pyjamas, without being wrapped up in a blanket, that caught her attention. She only managed to see him from the side, with the child in his arms. She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking, having seen this person step off the pavement that borders on the apartment block where they were staying and rapidly cross the road.
The entrance to the apartment building (1) is exactly at the place (street) where the individual appeared from.
The entrance to the apartment building (1) is exactly at the place (street) where the individual appeared from.On the diagram (1) is the entrance to the Ocean Club swimming pool and Tapas Bar and (1) is not the entrance to the car park.
When requested, she drew a sketch, which is joined to this statement (9). There is no reference to (9) on the drawing.
I fail to understand what you are driving at. Perhaps you could tell me straight whether or not you believe Gerry and JT were involved in some sort of plot to deceive and why.
I'm just looking at statements which seem to suggest that it was unclear initially where Jane and the man she saw were located. Jane's various statements continue to be unclear as to her precise location. She's always on R Dr F G M in her statements, but her location on that road changes quite significantly, as do the positions of Jez and Gerry. The typed timeline says Jane returned to the table at 9.20 and her husband goes to check again at 9.25.Who are you talking about?
What people deduce from the statements is up to them, but according to the statements it's possible that her location and that of the man were changed. She may have been moved from the corridor in front of the apartment to R Dr F G M. The man may have been moved from the road in front of Madeleine's bedroom window to the junction. That wasn't a big deal, it was the sighting which was important, not the precise locations of the people involved as people have pointed out.
If that was done, it could have been done to make sure that this important sighting was taken seriously; not with any intention to deceive. There was a problem with the first locations in that a witness was known to have been walking in the vicinity and it was known that he saw nothing.
Please note I am offering one possible explanation as to why the reports differ; there are other possibilities.
I'm just looking at statements which seem to suggest that it was unclear initially where Jane and the man she saw were located. Jane's various statements continue to be unclear as to her precise location. She's always on R Dr F G M in her statements, but her location on that road changes quite significantly, as do the positions of Jez and Gerry. The typed timeline says Jane returned to the table at 9.20 and her husband goes to check again at 9.25.If you could prove they were both looking in the same direction at the same time, and one sees the individual and the other doesn't then I might question Jane's recollection but at the moment someone saying they didn't see the individual means nothing.
What people deduce from the statements is up to them, but according to the statements it's possible that her location and that of the man were changed. She may have been moved from the corridor in front of the apartment to R Dr F G M. The man may have been moved from the road in front of Madeleine's bedroom window to the junction. That wasn't a big deal, it was the sighting which was important, not the precise locations of the people involved as people have pointed out.
If that was done, it could have been done to make sure that this important sighting was taken seriously; not with any intention to deceive. There was a problem with the first locations in that a witness was known to have been walking in the vicinity and it was known that he saw nothing.
Please note I am offering one possible explanation as to why the reports differ; there are other possibilities.
I'm just looking at statements which seem to suggest that it was unclear initially where Jane and the man she saw were located. Jane's various statements continue to be unclear as to her precise location. She's always on R Dr F G M in her statements, but her location on that road changes quite significantly, as do the positions of Jez and Gerry. The typed timeline says Jane returned to the table at 9.20 and her husband goes to check again at 9.25.
What people deduce from the statements is up to them, but according to the statements it's possible that her location and that of the man were changed. She may have been moved from the corridor in front of the apartment to R Dr F G M. The man may have been moved from the road in front of Madeleine's bedroom window to the junction. That wasn't a big deal, it was the sighting which was important, not the precise locations of the people involved as people have pointed out.
If that was done, it could have been done to make sure that this important sighting was taken seriously; not with any intention to deceive. There was a problem with the first locations in that a witness was known to have been walking in the vicinity and it was known that he saw nothing.
Please note I am offering one possible explanation as to why the reports differ; there are other possibilities.
The typed timeline says Jane returned to the table at 9.20 and her husband goes to check again at 9.25.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm is obvioused produce by the PJ.
Without more ado, here is the Tapas 9 timeline, as it appears close to the end of Jane Tanner’s rogatory statement. For clarity, it is not Jane Tanner’s personal recollection, rather it is Leicestershire police checking what they considered was the timeline that the Tapas 9 produced subsequent to Madeleine’s disappearance.
8:25 The McCanns arrive at the Tapas restaurant.
8:40 Jane Tanner arrives.
?:?? Shortly after that the Oldfields arrive.
8:45 Russell O’Brien arrives.
8:57 Matthew Oldfield leaves the table and passes the Paynes and Dianne Webster on their way to the Tapas restaurant then carries out a check of the ground floor apartments (5A, 5B and 5D), returning to the Tapas restaurant at 9:00.
9:05 Gerry goes to do a check on 5A.
9:15 Jane Tanner leaves the restaurant to check, and passes Gerry and Jez Wilkins having a conversation, Then she sights Tannerman.
9:20 Jane Tanner completes her check and returns to the Tapas restaurant. Gerry had returned before her.
9:25 Russell O’Brien and Matthew Oldfield go back to the apartments to check, Russell stays in 5D (re sick child), Matthew checks 5A.
9:35 Matthew Oldfield returns to the Tapas restaurant.
9:40 Jane Tanner returns to 5D to take care of the sick child and let Russell have his dinner.
9:45 Russell O’Brien returns to the Tapas restaurant.
9:55 Rachael Oldfield – last time at Tapas restaurant. ??? (As far as I know, Matthew was doing the Oldfield checks, so what this means at this time is beyond me.)
10:00 Kate McCann goes to check. That’s when everything kicks off.
This is a timeline report by SIL
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/01/24/the-tapas-9-timeline/
This timeline has:
9:15 Jane Tanner leaves the restaurant to check, and passes Gerry and Jez Wilkins having a conversation, Then she sights Tannerman
IMO it's incorrect to quote figures as if they have been proved to be accurate. If they were accurate there would be more 'times' like 9.17 or 9.28 etc etc. and they would not be 'rounded up' in the way they have been to the nearest quarter or five minutes.The times SIL uses comes from the statements, so it isn't made up, and there are times quoted in statements to the minute as well e.g. 10:28 when John Hill is notified, 10:42 when the GNR are rung, and 10:17 when Amy's call goes to Lyndsay.
Normally it wouldn't matter if times were a couple of minutes adrift from the actual times- but in this particular situation it does.
IIRC JT said she left the table 5 or 10 mins after Gerry (from memory)
AIMO
The times SIL uses comes from the statements, so it isn't made up, and there are times quoted in statements to the minute as well e.g. 10:28 when John Hill is notified, 10:42 when the GNR are rung, and 10:17 when Amy's call goes to Lyndsay.
If you could prove they were both looking in the same direction at the same time, and one sees the individual and the other doesn't then I might question Jane's recollection but at the moment someone saying they didn't see the individual means nothing.
The words 'around' and 'about' also come from witness statements. AFAIK the times you give above are from their phones and so are not reliant on memory recall.That could be right or as Gerry says looking at his watch, or the TV. Yes, something else which allows one to synchronise with.
The typed timeline says Jane returned to the table at 9.20 and her husband goes to check again at 9.25.
The fact that a witness saw nothing is not, in itself, significant. It only becomes significant if the witness should have seen something and didn't. That depends not on times but on relative movements. Only those there at the time know if the witness would have been in a location where they should have seen something.You are still relying on the deponent's honesty. Analysis for embedded confessions maybe good enough to show who is lying and who is telling the truth. If a person couldn't see Jane 2- 4 meters away how practical is it to expect him to see another individual at 35 -50 meters away?
You can tell there is something wrong for the numbers on the diagram do not match the statement.On the diagram (1) is the entrance to the Ocean Club swimming pool and Tapas Bar and (1) is not the entrance to the car park.
The Car park is noted as (6) and the car park entrance has no apecific number associated with it. On the schematic of the OC complex (1) are the apartments blocks G4 and G5 in general.
The diagram (Jane's drawing) seems to be an afterthought.
There is no translation of the notes of the legend of the area of concern drawn by Jane Tanner.
I can not find any translation of these lines of the "legenda". "Legenda" translates to "subtitle".
PS: I have asked a Portuguese speaking person to assist me to get a translation of the subtitles.
In Jane's statement it says: "The entrance to the apartment building (1) is exactly at the place (street) where the individual appeared from." The street referred to here is Rua Doutor Agostinho da Silva. (Doutor is translated doctor).
So from that sentence it could just be understood as: "The individual appeared on the street named "Rua Doutor Agostinho Da Silva". This has in other words got nothing to do with with "the entrance to the apartment building" other than the entrance is also along this road. Initially one might think, as I did, Jane is saying she knows that the individual came out of the car park entrance, but it doesn't mean that at all.
But Silvia says, rightfully, it is impossible to see this entrance from where Jane was walking. OK that is correct but it still fits in with what Jane says. The cause of the confusion is entirely due to the poor translation.
The times SIL uses comes from the statements, so it isn't made up, and there are times quoted in statements to the minute as well e.g. 10:28 when John Hill is notified, 10:42 when the GNR are rung, and 10:17 when Amy's call goes to Lyndsay.
Nope. Still there. Despite the fact that there is no cite and it has been stated as a fact.
It may explain SB's statement. Seen in front of Madeleine's window is crossing the car park entrance in the direction that leads to Gentil Martins.As I explained that is poor understanding and poor translation compounding.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
There is not the slightest indication in Jane's statements that that scenario happened. How can you justify changing her statement?
As I explained that is poor understanding and poor translation compounding.
That's not the explanation, it's just one of a number of possible explanations.What other explanations are there where there is factual supporting evidence?
Three people present at the time said she did ... snipThree people? You are implying those that Jane spoke to like Rachel, Fiona and Gerry.
but then I knew that Jane had seen this, had earlier seen this person and she described pyjamas and everything, before she knew what Madeleine actually was wearing, so when that sort of came out then it seemed fairly likely that things had already been done, which I think is partly why it's sort of been easier for me to deal with the 'what ifs' than it is for her, because it seemed like Madeleine had already gone at that point, but at the beginning, when I didn't know, that was awful, when Kate came back and said, she's gone, and they were going, did you see her, and I had to say, well, no, I just made sure everything was alright and that was, that was awful, that moment'.That means Matt didn't know about Jane seeing anyone earlier but felt better about not doing such a thorough check after he had been told.
Three people? You are implying those that Jane spoke to like Rachel, Fiona and Gerry.
Those that don't agree with her Jez, Russell, Silvia. I'm wondering whether Matt backs her up?That means Matt didn't know about Jane seeing anyone earlier but felt better about not doing such a thorough check after he had been told.
But he doesn't mention Jez and Gerry in that paragraph.
No need to puzzle about it. The three people referred to are ... Jane, Jez and Gerry.Now you have really confused me. We'll have to start again.
What other explanations are there where there is factual supporting evidence?
Right back to the subtitles on Jane' diagram that have never been translated.
"Vou tentar traduzir o que está escrito. Please wait. Algumas letras estão difíceis de entender."
"I will try to translate what is written. Please wait. Some words are hard to understand."
"1 - entrada do restaurante " o tapas"
2 - caminho que leva para a frente dos apartamentos
3 - conversa com o gerald e o jez
4 - onde se encontrava a pesogute (e sentido) quando observou um individuo com uma criança no colo;
5 - individuo com a criança ao colo a sair do passeio e atravessar o cruzamento;
6 - parque de estacionamento em frente aos apartamentos;
7 - entrada do predio para os apartamentos;
8 - quando a depoente 4 chegou ao ponto 5 o individuo ja se encontrava neste ponto 8."
These are the phrases in Portuguese.
no item 4 eu nao entendi uma palavra e escrevi do jeito que esta aqui
"In item 4 I did not understand a word and wrote the way it is here" (word for word???)
Now for the translation:
1 - entrance to the restaurant "the tapas"
2 - path leading to the front of the apartments
3 - talk with gerald and jez
4 - where he found the pesogute (and felt) when he observed an individual with a child in his lap;
5 - individual with the child in the lap to leave the walk and cross the intersection;
6 - car park in front of the apartments;
7 - entrance of the building to the apartments;
8 - when the person 4 arrived at point 5, the individual was already at this point 8.
Translator had trouble with the word pesogute
"The word that I (she) did not understand in the item 4 and: DEPOENTE (we all know deponent - a person who makes a deposition or affidavit under oath.)
Can we get a alternative spelling to the word that looks like "pesogute" pesoguin spellcheck gave me this other word "pesoguin" No there is no translation for pesoguin.
The numbers 1-9 used in the text refer to this diagram, with number 9 (circled) being the area shown in Jane's hand-drawn sketch;"Sketch Elaborating Jane Michelle Tanner" Better translation of the title "Sketched by Jane Michelle Tanner"
.....
The sketch drawn by Jane (9) has it's own numbers written on it. They are not referred to in the narrative.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_50.jpg)
I see she puts Jeremy and Gerry north of the path on 4th; later they were shown as being on the corner of it.
To be clear on the in my opinion (thing) it amounts to less than a hill-of-beans in the event that someone accused takes to the law-courts in a libel suit.
OK Rick, see you in The Blue Parrot, mine's a Gimlet. ?>)()<I do believe your venue of choice should be Clive's Cocktail Bar.
We would seem to remain in anticipation of the supporters plot demonstrating precisely how the "Gerry, Jez, Jane interface" worked in practice.How do explain it? And where do you stand?
How do explain it? And where do you stand?
Sorry old stick I can't answer that as my original post has been creamed. I guess it offended the sensibilities of one of Cerberus' heads....................... 8(>((5546 posts later are you still smarting from that blow? I don't want the whole story but just the interface part.
That could be right or as Gerry says looking at his watch, or the TV. Yes, something else which allows one to synchronise with.No way would either Gerry or Jez see Tannerman.
My main objection was using times which are based on someone elses opinion e.g. Jane seeing individual at 9:20 where does that come from?
from G-unit's post above: You are still relying on the deponent's honesty. Analysis for embedded confessions maybe good enough to show who is lying and who is telling the truth. If a person couldn't see Jane 2- 4 meters away how practical is it to expect him to see another individual at 35 -50 meters away?
Off round The Wrekin again without having bottomed out the OP
"How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?"
Even if Wilkins was slightly on the road that photograph clearly shows that it would simply not be possible for Tanner to pass him and Gerry without being seen. Further when all the evidence from Tanner and Wilkins proves that they were nowhere near the the pathway leading to the front of the apartments it's very telling that several supporters continue to insist that they were.
http://c7.alamy.com/comp/B0E5C5/apartment-of-the-ocean-club-resort-where-madeleine-mccann-disappeared-B0E5C5.jpgIt's the Tapas zone reception with block 5 and apartment 5A in the background. It indicates how wide the pavement is, or is not.
The photo that you refer to is NOT a photo of the pavement outside 5A, It is NOT where Jane Tanner passed Gerry and Jez. It is somewhere else.
Why are you using that to prove something that isn’t true ? Such deceit and a whole argument followed on from that deceit. Disgraceful
It's the Tapas zone reception with block 5 and apartment 5A in the background. It indicates how wide the pavement is, or is not.At that point which is not where Gerry and Jez talked and Jane passed by. That photo is below reception and they chatted above reception, where the alleyway is.
"Sketch Elaborating Jane Michelle Tanner" Better translation of the title "Sketched by Jane Michelle Tanner"
This is her first and least adulterated memory of it on the 4th May 2007. The diagram is mentioned in the statement so it definitely becomes part of it, yet the text on the diagram had never before been translated and placed on the internet. (a first for the Miscarriage of justice forum!)
It shows Gerry and Jez talking north of the path but beside the side gate.
You mentioned "later they were shown as being on the corner of it." Was that in a documentary? Where Jane's recollection is being questioned.
At that point which is not where Gerry and Jez talked and Jane passed by. That photo is below reception and they chatted above reception, where the alleyway is.I know precisely what the pavement is like. Yours has expanded from 2m 20 to 2m 60. The one in Luz hasn't.
You have the actual measurements at the pathway on my earlier post . On GE it measured 2m50 or was it 2m60. Check it on GE if youi wish. The pavement in the photo is narrower than where they stood ... considerably narrower.
The pavements in PT are largely cobbled, not paved with 2ft square slabs as is the case mainly in the UK. In the UK pavements tend to be a multiple of 2 feet
But in PT this cobbling enables the width of pavements to vary in width significantly ... and they do vary widely.
The pavement in that photo is not representative of the width of the pavement higher up the road and especially at the alleyway.
I am surprised that as a resident, you haven't noticed that SIL
I know precisely what the pavement is like. Yours has expanded from 2m 20 to 2m 60. The one in Luz hasn't.
Yes mine expanded because to begin with I measured a small scale image
And I bent over backwards to be fair to your side
2m 20 illustrated well that ?Slarti was completely up the shoot when he said 30 cm ... and I would have been content to leave there had it not been for facecious comments from Alice and others.
Then I bit the bullet and did a really thorough job. Expanded the image and measured the fuzzy lines first on the left of each line then on the right of each line ....and took the average. That is the most accurate method of measuring between fuzzy lines
And all Alice and Co managed for their silly comments was a much more accurate measuement that went against them ... an extra half metre *&*%£
Served them right
SIL, I didn't spend a goodly chunk of my life on a huge drawing board, drawing extremely accurate images without being able, if need be, to measure accurately.
Lucky I did, because I have been able to break several myths because of this
And I taught technical drawing too. Haven't you noticed my interest in distances and lengths?
The pavement where Jane passed Gerry and Jez is 2m 6 wide (to within 5 cm). The gap was NOT 30 cm as ?Slarti stated, but potentially about 210 cm.
Full stop.
Go and check my measurements if you like.
Yes mine expanded because to begin with I measured a small scale imageI am not on 'a side' therefore I do not have 'a side'.
And I bent over backwards to be fair to your side
2m 20 illustrated well that ?Slarti was completely up the shoot when he said 30 cm ... and I would have been content to leave there had it not been for facecious comments from Alice and others.
Then I bit the bullet and did a really thorough job. Expanded the image and measured the fuzzy lines first on the left of each line then on the right of each line ....and took the average. That is the most accurate method of measuring between fuzzy lines
And all Alice and Co managed for their silly comments was a much more accurate measuement that went against them ... an extra half metre *&*%£
Served them right
SIL, I didn't spend a goodly chunk of my life on a huge drawing board, drawing extremely accurate images without being able, if need be, to measure accurately.
Lucky I did, because I have been able to break several myths because of this
And I taught technical drawing too. Haven't you noticed my interest in distances and lengths?
The pavement where Jane passed Gerry and Jez is 2m 6 wide (to within 5 cm). The gap was NOT 30 cm as ?Slarti stated, but potentially about 210 cm.
Full stop.
Go and check my measurements if you like.
No way would either Gerry or Jez see Tannerman.You could easily be wrong there Sadie. At some point they may have seen XXXX (Jane but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and let them say they were unsure who it was) and as they were looking at Jane the individual appeared at the top of the road. Could they see that the individual was carrying a child at that distance and lighting???
The lighting was poor, he was too far away and the most important point is that he was at 90* to their line of vision. He was well and truly out of their field of visionn
It is completely unrealistic to even consider that they would haver seen him. Amaral made that mistake didn't he?
The Cutting Edge Video @ 10.08At 10:20 on the same video you get to look back up to the corner from roughly where Jez and Gerry were standing and it would be very easy for them not to see the individual " Tannerman".
http://youtu.be/atfDV7imHHY
Jane is very deliberate and definite about the chat being in the roadway at the alleyway entrance.
It is much easier to remember exact details when someone is physically there rather than just using vague memories.
I am not on 'a side' therefore I do not have 'a side'.
I said nowt about Slartis comments.As you know this whole thing came about by Slartis outrageous disinformation that Jane had a gap of only 30 cm between her and Gerry. You may not have mentioned Slarti by name but the whole thing was about Slartis comment.
I said you have been expanding bit by bit and are now up to 2m 60.
And though it is not relevant, I have an A-level in Technical Drawing. In which I got an A if I remember correctly.
I did it in a single year simply to fill out my studies. It was boring as sh**e because it was sooo easy.
Boil it down, I can measure.
You could easily be wrong there Sadie. At some point they may have seen XXXX (Jane but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and let them say they were unsure who it was) and as they were looking at Jane the individual appeared at the top of the road. Could they see that the individual was carrying a child at that distance and lighting???
5546 posts later are you still smarting from that blow? I don't want the whole story but just the interface part.
Easy... if you read back a few pages.
Why do you say, "and as they were looking at Jane". They didn't even see Jane.Sorry I was supposed to put XXXX in twice XXXX = unknown person passing by.
The man was totally out of their range of vision Rob. No way would they see him.
Jane walks up the road, passing Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins. She sees a man carrying a child. Later she learns that Madeleine is missing. She immediately remembers the man she saw. Was he carrying the child away? I wonder why she didn't immediately seek out Gerry and ask him if he saw the man too?Like you mean at 10:10 or thereabouts on the 3rd? At the early stage she didn't think it could be Madeleine for initially the Pyjamas were not the right colour. It was only on the Saturday after the major discussion with Fiona and seeing a picture of Madeleine's pyjamas in the newspaper that she was persuaded it could be Madeleine.
Jane walks up the road, passing Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins. She sees a man carrying a child. Later she learns that Madeleine is missing. She immediately remembers the man she saw. Was he carrying the child away? I wonder why she didn't immediately seek out Gerry and ask him if he saw the man too?
Indeed. He could have put Tanner's mind at rest at a a stroke.How would Gerry's answer "No I didn't see the person" put Jane's mind at rest. I don't see your logic there.
I have asked that question numerous times. Still waiting for an answer.
Sorry I was supposed to put XXXX in twice XXXX = unknown person passing by.Who is XXXX ? Are you talking about Jane here?
"You could easily be wrong there Sadie. At some point they may have seen XXXX (Jane but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and let them say they were unsure who it was) and as they were looking at XXXX the individual appeared at the top of the road. Could they see that the individual was carrying a child at that distance and lighting???
Jez doesn't say no one passed him by but none that he thought was Jane but remember Jane was wearing Russell's top by then, a different colour than Jez had seen her in earlier.
So he is allowing for himself to be mistaken, well that is how I'm thinking about it, but we have to read his original scribble rather than the retranslated Portuguese statement.
Who is XXXX ? Are you talking about Jane here?We equate XXXX with Jane but they both saw someone but they didn't know it was Jane. Well that is how I read it.
The fact of the matter is that neither saw Jane. They were not watching her walk up the road. They were intent in conversation and could have been looking at Jez' litle boy. We just dont know.
But we do know that they didn't see Jane and were not looking at her as she walked up the street.
We also know that the lighting was poor and that Tannerman never came in either of their fields of vision. No way would they have seen him.
Indeed. He could have put Tanner's mind at rest at a stroke.
I have asked that question numerous times. Still waiting for an answer.
She did speak to him, apparently, but doesn't report what was said.
As she concerns the man she saw, she only spoke to Gerald about this, not entering into details, and to the police.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
Gerry and Rachael, Fiona and Russell.
I assumed that was because he was there when she told the police.There might have been some discussion prior for it was written on ROB's timeline and they were confiscated as soon as the PJ arrived.
I assumed that was because he was there when she told the police.
According to Jane she told the GNR and then, at 3am, the PJ. The PJ Inspector doesn't mention speaking to anyone except Gerry, though.You would wonder why he didn't go and talk to Jane herself. Did Gerry actually tell him 21.20 or is he using the PJ timeline as a reference. What is the date of his recollection? On the 4th of May so Gerry was really separating his check from Jane's sighting right from the start.
The OC services manager introduced him to the missing girls parents, who looked quite tired and anguished, particularly the mother who appeared more upset and was therefore less receptive to conversation, which led the witness to converse only with the girls father.
In conversation with Gerald McCann it was possible to establish the following:
At about 21.20, their friend Jane passed by the apartment (along the corridor of the main entrance) she saw an individual carrying a child who passed descending the road,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm
You would wonder why he didn't go and talk to Jane herself. Did Gerry actually tell him 21.20 or is he using the PJ timeline as a reference. What is the date of his recollection? On the 4th of May so Gerry was really separating his check from Jane's sighting right from the start.
Weird thing about that statement Vitor says "According to the GNR officer, the disappearance would have happened at about 22.40 yesterday, from a room of a ground floor apartment of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, where a family was staying composed of a couple and three small children." 22:40 is about the time the GNR were rung not the time Madeleine was taken. So were the times etc given to him via the interpreter Silvia Batista? Was she changing the times rather than relaying the exact times? I have an issue with a person like Silvia being involved in translations for there is a real conflict of interest present.
According to Jane she told the GNR and then, at 3am, the PJ. The PJ Inspector doesn't mention speaking to anyone except Gerry, though.
The OC services manager introduced him to the missing girls parents, who looked quite tired and anguished, particularly the mother who appeared more upset and was therefore less receptive to conversation, which led the witness to converse only with the girls father.
In conversation with Gerald McCann it was possible to establish the following:
At about 21.20, their friend Jane passed by the apartment (along the corridor of the main entrance) she saw an individual carrying a child who passed descending the road,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm
I'm referring to this passage from Tanner's rogatory statement:
"4078 “Okay. Well tell me about that part then, how did you come to go into Gerry and Kate’s apartment?”
Reply “Well when the GNR people came, so the first lot of Police, the local Police came, erm, I spoke to them and I think that was through the translator, which was, I think she’s called Sylvie, she’s the Head of Housekeeping or something, she was doing the translating at that point. So I’d spoken to the GNR Police and then when the PJ came, they came to get me to talk to them to say, to say what, what I’d seen. And then I can remember the same GNR person saying to me later on in the night ‘Oh have you spoken to the PJ’ and I had by that stage, so”.
4078 “So when you went into Gerry and Kate’s apartment who else was there?”
Reply “Erm, I think there was Russ, I think Russell came with me and there was Sylvie who was the translator. I can’t remember which, there was some, there was a PJ chap was sitting on the, by the table. And there was Gerry who was standing by the, the bedroom door”.
4078 “And how was Gerry at that point?”
Reply “Oh he was just, well obviously, obviously distraught. And I think it was quite hard for me to be saying at that, you know, looking in his face and to be explaining what I’d seen, at that point was quite hard because, you know, Gerry was obviously standing there, I don’t know whether, and you sort of think ‘Oh God, here’s me, if I’d tried to stop them this wouldn’t have happened’ sort of thing. So I think I did feel sort of a bit obviously guilty at that stage even though I didn’t know whether it was anything, but obviously you think ‘Oh bloody hell, what if I’, not stopped it happened potentially”.
She spoke to Gerry because Gerry was there with the police. She didn't seek him out.
I think Gerry may have known before the PJ arrived, because Jane told the GNR.Did Vitor Martins go into the apartment himself? Was he listed as one of the people contaminating the crime scene?
Yet according to Vitor Martins it was Gerry who told him about her sighting, not Jane. Silvia mentions translating Jane's story to the GNR, but not to the PJ.
Did Vitor Martins go into the apartment himself? Was he listed as one of the people contaminating the crime scene?
I think Gerry may have known before the PJ arrived, because Jane told the GNR.So that allows for another level of misunderstanding then doesn't it Jane told Silvia, Silvia told the GNR, the GNR told the PJ, The PJ write it down and it is translated back to us.
Yet according to Vitor Martins it was Gerry who told him about her sighting, not Jane. Silvia mentions translating Jane's story to the GNR, but not to the PJ.
We don't know that he didn't, but if he did speak to Jane he doesn't tell us. He is reporting what Gerry told him, so that time was presumably given to him by Gerry. The timeline written by Russell was given to the GNR at around the time the PJ arrived.
Estimated time between 00.30 and 1.00 am Two timelines written by Russel O'Brien on the covers ripped off Madeleine's stickerbook are provided to the GNR officers.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm
The GNR would obviously brief the PJ when they arrived. The GNR seem to have assumed that the disappearance was reported immediately; they gave the time they were phoned.
I assume Silvia's role was to deal with the police because none of the British managers spoke Portuguese. Perhaps she had fulfilled this role on other occasions. I'm not sure why you think there was a conflict of interest.
She entered the apartment and asked for the passports of all elements of the family, and also photographs of the missing girl. She went with Gerry to the GNR car to hand over the requested documents. She mentions she did this, as well as other tasks, at the request of the GNR Commandant, because she could translate their questions and the missing girl's family's answers.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
Presumably all this haraz is to demonstrate that Jane, Gerry and Jez did not occupy the same space and time?
Presumably all this haraz is to demonstrate that Jane, Gerry and Jez did not occupy the same space and time?I beg your pardon. Jane, Gerry and Jez did occupy the same space (locality) and time.
That could be a rather unpleasant situation.Didn't someone say you were a science teacher?
They wouldn't know their R'se from their elbow. 8)-)))
Presumably all this haraz is to demonstrate that Jane, Gerry and Jez did not occupy the same space and time?Meaning of Haraz. Haraz is an Arabic name for boys that means “protector”, “guardian”. (Google)
Meaning of Haraz. Haraz is an Arabic name for boys that means “protector”, “guardian”. (Google)
Could be it means "troop of horses" as well.The point of the whole exercise is to find Madeleine McCann. If Jane walks past Gerry and Jez and they both don't see her what chance have we got of finding Madeleine?
I might well have said "All this dog a pony show"...............
So what is the point of it then?
The point of the whole exercise is to find Madeleine McCann. If Jane walks past Gerry and Jez and they both don't see her what chance have we got of finding Madeleine?
An eternal pessimist!
Absolutely none at all. She is long gone.
The point of the whole exercise is to find Madeleine McCann. If Jane walks past Gerry and Jez and they both don't see her what chance have we got of finding Madeleine?
Up till now Jane Tanner has been the scapegoat, some might say Gerry is lying but then what do we say about Jez?
Well I find there are inconsistencies in Jez' statements. Do you think the following statement is correct?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
"He eventually made his way along Rua Dr Francisco toward the direction of Rua Dr Agostinho. At this time he was walking on the right side of the road passing the Tapas bar area to his left. He noticed the bad street lighting and although it was not completely dark there was enough light to see clearly."
Is that scientifically correct? Why would he be thinking of these things after being out on the streets for nearly an hour by this stage?
Is it factually true that the right hand side of Rua Dr Francisco has bad street lighting?
An eternal pessimist!
I believe I can state with absolute confidence that no one on this forum is going to find Madeleine McCann.Not even me, even after I have had the premonition of her flying to Portugal to meet her Mum and Dad?
So how does sitting in the comfort of your own sitting room, or wherever, posting about whether or not Silvia Batista had a conflict of interests whilst acting as an interpreter, materially affect any search for Madeleine McCann?It is not something I can say on the forum and get away with it.
In fact how does Silvia Batista's unlikely conflict of interests affect whether Jez and Gerry could or could not see Jane ?
Is this factually true "Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left."
So the distance between the the path and the road to the North was only 15 - 20 meters apart. Sadie can you confirm that on GE please?
Not even me, even after I have had the premonition of her flying to Portugal to meet her Mum and Dad?
Is this factually true "Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left."
So the distance between the the path and the road to the North was only 15 - 20 meters apart. Sadie can you confirm that on GE please?
Not even me, even after I have had the premonition of her flying to Portugal to meet her Mum and Dad?
I beg your pardon. Jane, Gerry and Jez did occupy the same space (locality) and time.
Didn't someone say you were a science teacher?
I do know my R'se from my elbow.Is that another of your cryptic jokes that I can never fathom. Do I "prefer the Ace Ventura version?" I haven't the foggiest notion.
Can you distinguish yours, or do you prefer the Ace Ventura version ? 8(*(
Is that another of your cryptic jokes that I can never fathom. Do I "prefer the Ace Ventura version?" I haven't the foggiest notion.
Clue please?
Look them up.Absolutely hilarious. I wonder if he ever got over that role?
The references are well known. 8(0(*
Have you considered how ridiculous that statement actually is ?It took me by surprise too.
Absolutely hilarious. I wonder if he ever got over that role?
I hope you're not using the Ace Ventura videos for your teaching aids.
That comment confirms what I said earlier. £4%4%You'll get bonus points if you can answer the following questions:
You'll get bonus points if you can answer the following questions:
1. How long was Jez intending to stay in Praia da Luz?
2. Do the Ocean Club records confirm that?
Is this factually true "Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left."
So the distance between the the path and the road to the North was only 15 - 20 meters apart. Sadie can you confirm that on GE please?
Not even me, even after I have had the premonition of her flying to Portugal to meet her Mum and Dad?
It is not something I can say on the forum and get away with it.
I'll ask you a question and you see if you can answer it. How long was Jez intending to stay in Praia da Luz? Do the Ocean Club records confirm that?
Have you ever dealt with a conflict of interest situation? Imagine if there was a conflict of interest and for some reason they needed to separate the conversation between Jez and Gerry from the sighting, how late could Jane's sighting happen? Jane has to be back at the table for Matt and Russell to do their checks, so it can't be after 21.25 and she needs time to walk there and back and check on the kids, so 21.20 is practically as late as possible, but Jez and Gerry have finished the conversation by that stage or haven't they?
When does SY estimate Crecheman to be going past for Jane to see him?
How long was Jez planning to be in PdL?: I haven't a clue.He is bound to get something right if he allows time ranges like this! "The time of the encounter given by Jez is between 20:45 to 21:15." What do these times mean the start times or the period it fell within? Like did it finish before 21:15 or could it have started as late as 21.15?
Have I ever dealt with a conflict of interest situation?: Yes.
Imagine if ................: I don't do imagine ifs except in one of my professional capacities where they tend to be called "What Ifs".
The time of the encounter given by Jez is between 20:45 to 21:15. It's in the files.
How is the time SY estimate Crecheman to be stoatin' around relevant to whether Jez Gerry and Jane occupied the same space and time?.
He is bound to get something right if he allows time ranges like this! "The time of the encounter given by Jez is between 20:45 to 21:15." What do these times mean the start times or the period it fell within? Like did it finish before 21:15 or could it have started as late as 21.15?
Even if he started as late as 21:15 he only talked for 3-4 minutes then went home didn't he, arriving home at 21.30 Well even allowing 5 minutes for getting up the lift, that means he has to account for between 10 - 40 minutes depending on his times, doing something else doesn't he?
If Jane sees Crecheman as SY has determined, Crecheman has to be passing at the same time as Jane, so when was that? Were Gerry and Jez still talking at this time?
The point of the whole exercise is to find Madeleine McCann. If Jane walks past Gerry and Jez and they both don't see her what chance have we got of finding Madeleine?
I expect Crechman saw nothing, like most of the people around that night. The Carpenters left the Tapas complex between 9.15 and 9.30pm. Somehow they failed to see Gerry returning, Jane leaving or returning or Matthew and Russell leaving or returning..http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
I fear it isn't Rob, rather, the person or persons culpable in her disappearance as evidenced by SY's actions over the last few years.Sorry but I don't understand your implication as yet. Do I sense you think they know who is involved, like some websites suggest, but can't do anything about it?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
"Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home, we walked across the MW reception area, crossed the road and a semi circular path to return to the apartment,.."
There is a period after Jane has returned that things like this could happen.
Consider what I say in this posting:http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7805.msg370491#msg370491
"He is bound to get something right if he allows time ranges like this! "The time of the encounter given by Jez is between 20:45 to 21:15." What do these times mean the start times or the period it fell within? Like did it finish before 21:15 or could it have started as late as 21.15?
Even if he started as late as 21:15 he only talked for 3-4 minutes then went home didn't he, arriving home at 21.30 Well even allowing 5 minutes for getting up the lift, that means he has to account for between 10 - 40 minutes depending on his times, doing something else doesn't he?"
If Jane sees Crecheman as SY has determined, Crecheman has to be passing at the same time as Jane, so when was that? Were Gerry and Jez still talking at this time?
Sorry but I don't understand your implication as yet. Do I sense you think they know who is involved, like some websites suggest, but can't do anything about it?
If you can find the person responsible it would be a good starting point.
" It would seem that Mrs Carpenter misheard the voice calling 'Madeleine' because everyone connected with her was at the Tapas at the time."
There is a time when Matt has come back, Jane is having her dinner and Russell is looking after Evie, Jez is walking back to his apartment, Bridget is ....
I don't think you can say where everyone who knew Madeleine by that stage is at the Tapas.
Which name do you mean? The Tapas timeline is fairly well established but even then you couldn't say where each and every person was all of the time.
Why should any of the named people be calling Madeleine's name - unless the evening's timeline is wrong?
Which name do you mean? The Tapas timeline is fairly well established but even then you couldn't say where each and every person was all of the time.
The people you named in the post I replied to.What if someone was aware that Madeleine had wandered and this was just before Kate's check.
The point I was making was that Madeleine wasn't being sought at that time - unless the timeline is wrong.
What if someone was aware that Madeleine had wandered and this was just before Kate's check.
How could that be?There was that caring couple that checked on the kids the night before, how can we be sure they didn't come back?
Is this not just one of those stories made up by the media?Is there any way of finding out? I'll do another Google search tomorrow.
He booked 7 nights and stayed 7 nights.Thank you for that. I must have missed it earlier. OK so this booking for Jez is made Under O'Donnell and Jez' surname is spelt incorrectly "Wilkens" not "Wilkins" and the kids have the same spelling of their surnames too.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_337.jpg
He is bound to get something right if he allows time ranges like this! "The time of the encounter given by Jez is between 20:45 to 21:15." What do these times mean the start times or the period it fell within? Like did it finish before 21:15 or could it have started as late as 21.15?
Even if he started as late as 21:15 he only talked for 3-4 minutes then went home didn't he, arriving home at 21.30 Well even allowing 5 minutes for getting up the lift, that means he has to account for between 10 - 40 minutes depending on his times, doing something else doesn't he?
If Jane sees Crecheman as SY has determined, Crecheman has to be passing at the same time as Jane, so when was that? Were Gerry and Jez still talking at this time?
Jez is an independant witness so what's with the "He is bound to get something right if he allows time ranges like this!" ? . He gives a time slot of 30 minutes into which some other events have to fit. There being, that we are aware of, no other independant witnesses.Well he can't have bumped into Gerry before Gerry went on his check can he? If you say the T9 are not independent witnesses well we are really stuck.
Thank you for that. I must have missed it earlier. OK so this booking for Jez is made Under O'Donnell and Jez' surname is spelt incorrectly "Wilkens" not "Wilkins" and the kids have the same spelling of their surnames too.
O and A Wilkens.
Those list have a print out date of 27 April 07 do you think that is right?
So tell me, what does it matter how long Wilkins was there for ?For I read in his hand written statement implications that he was staying for 2 weeks. So it looks as if he left earlier than expected.
For I read in his hand written statement implications that he was staying for 2 weeks. So it looks as if he left earlier than expected.
But I stand to be corrected on this. Somehow somewhere I got the impression that they had planned to a 2 week holiday.
Well he can't have bumped into Gerry before Gerry went on his check can he? If you say the T9 are not independent witnesses well we are really stuck.
You have to look at that sentence in the context of his full rogatory statement.
They weren't glued to their seats. So what sort of reasons could there be for Gerry not being in the restaurant for Dianne to notice? Matt notices Gerry leaving etc so I doubt that he went with Matt.
Hmmm. Dianne Webster 11th May talking about her arrival at the Tapas around 9 pm;
That, at that time, the whole group were at the restaurant. The witness did not recall, but thinks that perhaps Gerald and MATT had not been in the restaurant along with the other members of the group.
- In this regard, asked specifically whether, on the journey to the restaurant, if they had passed either of the two individuals described in the preceding paragraph, she answered categorically not.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm
Hmmm. Dianne Webster 11th May talking about her arrival at the Tapas around 9 pm;
That, at that time, the whole group were at the restaurant. The witness did not recall, but thinks that perhaps Gerald and MATT had not been in the restaurant along with the other members of the group.
- In this regard, asked specifically whether, on the journey to the restaurant, if they had passed either of the two individuals described in the preceding paragraph, she answered categorically not.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm
I wonder why the above post was edited? One of life's little mysteries I suppose.And it only makes it worse the earlier he claims that he could have been talking to Gerry. Maybe he did spend a lot of time in the vicinity of the apartment, but talking to Gerry in his words only covers a 3-4 minute period.
In their first statements both Dianne and Fiona suggested they arrived before 9pm. If Gerry and Matthew were missing as Dianne suggests then Jeremy Wilkins could have seen Gerry quite early in his 8.45 to 9.15 timeband.
It seems strange if he returned to his apartment at 9.30 that he refused to give a more precise time for their chat because it's obvious that he was pretty close to his apartment if he spoke to Gerry outside 5A then went straight back home.
And it only makes it worse the earlier he claims that he could have been talking to Gerry. Maybe he did spend a lot of time in the vicinity of the apartment, but talking to Gerry in his words only covers a 3-4 minute period.
I always think if Jez was really concerned about Madeleine what was he going to think when Matt and Gerry and then Matt/Russell are seen coming and going from the apartment. His concern levels might have risen through the roof.
Comes from a parent being concerned whether other parents are dealing with child safety adequately. OK it is proactive thinking but Jez appears to disagree with Gerry's method of looking after the children at night. Once he knows those kids are in danger does he do anything to prevent an issue? Does he do a type of neighbourhood watch? IMO he is doing that.
Sorry, where does this 'concern' come from?
Comes from a parent being concerned whether other parents are dealing with child safety adequately. OK it is proactive thinking but Jez appears to disagree with Gerry's method of looking after the children at night. Once he knows those kids are in danger does he do anything to prevent an issue? Does he do a type of neighbourhood watch? IMO he is doing that.
Read his statement in conjunction with the article written by Bridget https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
You will sense they were very concerned.
Hardly a neighbourhood watch. He goes back to his apartment shortly after his intense talk with Gerry and then goes to bedThat is an unsupported alibi. At best it is a weak alibi if we accept it was also covered in a joint statement.
They weren't glued to their seats. So what sort of reasons could there be for Gerry not being in the restaurant for Dianne to notice? Matt notices Gerry leaving etc so I doubt that he went with Matt.
" but thinks that perhaps Gerald and MATT had not been in the restaurant along with the other members of the group." Is hardly a assertion with certainty. Maybe her memory is playing up?
Her testimony is as valid as anyone else's. There's no evidence she had memory problems.Maybe as some have called it a "selective memory issue". It is all opinion in the end for we can't ever determine what someone saw and what they remember.
Hardly a neighbourhood watch. He goes back to his apartment shortly after his intense talk with Gerry and then goes to bedThis bit from Matt's rogatory is interesting:
I wonder why the above post was edited? One of life's little mysteries I suppose.
In their first statements both Dianne and Fiona suggested they arrived before 9pm. If Gerry and Matthew were missing as Dianne suggests then Jeremy Wilkins could have seen Gerry quite early in his 8.45 to 9.15 timeband.
It seems strange if he returned to his apartment at 9.30 that he refused to give a more precise time for their chat because it's obvious that he was pretty close to his apartment if he spoke to Gerry outside 5A then went straight back home.
Can anyone tell me, preferably in words of one syllable, why Jez would need an alibi?One syllable words - OK he needs it due to be ing near the scene of crime.
Was he ever a suspect or charged with anything ?
@Robittybob1 ... please be careful when referring to witnesses that you do not inadvertently overstep the bounds of propriety.Right so the bits about Bridget writing about kidnapped children were off limit. That seemed so off target, I'll drop that. But the cut and paste about "Donal Macintyre did he help out his old friend Jeremy Wilkins by proving 'tongue in cheek' an abduction was impossible...? " was that also removed? Yet that has been on the internet for years. Is that topic off limits too?
Hardly a neighbourhood watch. He goes back to his apartment shortly after his intense talk with Gerry and then goes to bedThis sighting reported via secret sources also sounds more like a neighbourhood watch than a kidnapping attempt to me.
Right so the bits about Bridget writing about kidnapped children were off limit. That seemed so off target, I'll drop that. But the cut and paste about "Donal Macintyre did he help out his old friend Jeremy Wilkins by proving 'tongue in cheek' an abduction was impossible...? " was that also removed? Yet that has been on the internet for years. Is that topic off limits too?
I was wanting to look at the Donal Macintyre thesis again, if I may, but in the thread about "who enters the apartment" for he had this idea that the abductors did a dry run the night before. That must increase the chances of being caught and the chances of their DNA traces being left behind.
Please are any of those topics overstepping the bounds of propriety? For that idea is new for to "overstep the bounds of propriety" what must I do? Any clues please?
1.At the risk of being flaggelated by a mod I think Brietta was driving at "you are approaching being libelous to Mr Wilkins".I'd have no idea how many posts may or may not have been removed, but I do recall saying Wilkins didn't have a strong alibi. Surely that is a fact and no one could ever challenge that. I don't recall saying anything bad about him.
2.Dry run? load of blx discussed here before.
Why don't you do something constructive like looking for the last known nesting place of the Giant Moa ?
We'll have whip round to set you up for it.
I'd have no idea how many posts may or may not have been removed, but I do recall saying Wilkins didn't have a strong alibi. Surely that is a fact and no one could ever challenge that. I don't recall saying anything bad about him.
Jeremy Wilkins and Bridget O'Donnell are witnesses. Please take it no further than that.yes and Jez was one of the persons who was asked to attend the reconstruction.
This sighting reported via secret sources also sounds more like a neighbourhood watch than a kidnapping attempt to me.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/128671/Madeleine-I-know-how-she-was-taken
"In my view too little attention has been paid to what I believe was a key sighting.
A dark-haired woman was observed standing near a street light at a road junction that overlooks apartment 5A. What was she doing in the eerily quiet area, which is not near a bus stop, taxi rank, cafes or shops?
She was seen looking at the apartment as the late evening gloom descended.
Was she also watching to see the movements of Kate and Gerry McCann and their holiday friends, the so-called Tapas Seven? I think so."
This sighting reported via secret sources also sounds more like a neighbourhood watch than a kidnapping attempt to me.If you haven't done so already, I suggest you watch the Crimewatch of Oct 2013 on YT. There is no mention of a dark haired woman or a Nissan being driven erratically.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/128671/Madeleine-I-know-how-she-was-taken
"In my view too little attention has been paid to what I believe was a key sighting.
A dark-haired woman was observed standing near a street light at a road junction that overlooks apartment 5A. What was she doing in the eerily quiet area, which is not near a bus stop, taxi rank, cafes or shops?
She was seen looking at the apartment as the late evening gloom descended.
Was she also watching to see the movements of Kate and Gerry McCann and their holiday friends, the so-called Tapas Seven? I think so."
Jeremy Wilkins and Bridget O'Donnell are witnesses. Please take it no further than that.But, but, but...no one who was there that night has been cleared of involvement have they (according to those who can't come to terms with the description "cleared" being applied to the McCanns)...
But, but, but...no one who was there that night has been cleared of involvement have they (according to those who can't come to terms with the description "cleared" being applied to the McCanns)...
Wilkins and his partner were never arguidos were they?So what?
So what?
So they were never suspected of anything.So they've been cleared then?
Wilkins and his partner were never arguidos were they?The case isn't over yet.
So they've been cleared then?I don't think they have been interviewed properly yet. They should not be allowed to make joint statements. Jez was walking on his own, and Bridget was on her own during the crucial times.
So they've been cleared then?I don't think so. To be cleared you have to be a point of focus first. Jez was tracked down to London on the 7th so he definitely got some interest from the PJ, but then the excuse was that they couldn't properly translate what he was saying! There are definite errors even in his second version of the translated statement and the first versions weren't retranslated to English for us. So until that gets done we are a little in the dark.
So they've been cleared then?
If they were never in the frame how can they be cleared?Because according to some members of this forum everyone who was in PdL that night is a suspect. Jane Tanner was never in the frame but you wouldn't describe her that way would you?
Because according to some members of this forum everyone who was in PdL that night is a suspect. Jane Tanner was never in the frame but you wouldn't describe her that way would you?
Because according to some members of this forum everyone who was in PdL that night is a suspect. Jane Tanner was never in the frame but you wouldn't describe her that way would you?
I don't think she is a suspect, in fact I really appreciate her honesty. To the point where I treat people who take her down as being worthy of suspicion themselves.
Anyone who hasn't viewed the Ch4 TV Cutting Edge production aired on 7 May 2009 called "Madeleine was here" in which Jane and Gerry tried to re-enact what occurred just before the sighting of Tannerman must really watch it because the real Jane was laid emotionally bare for all the world to see. She was made to feel a right plonker if I'm honest when that accolade should have gone elsewhere.
Time stamp 9.03
Jane Tanner, Jeremy Wilkins and Dr Gerald McCann gave significantly contradictory statements about the very moment when Jane Tanner claimed to have seen the abductor at 9.15pm. These were contemptuously dismissed on the TV reconstruction by the McCanns’ then chief private investigator, ex-Detective Inspector Dave Edgar, as ‘inevitable inconsistencies’. Any serious detective would have probed the contradictions, which should have been fully aired on the programm
Jane was re-enacting the moment she saw the person she believed to be Madeleine's abductor. She was in bits about that.
Yet again typing abductor as a fact.I wouldn't want you marking my exam papers, she said "Jane was re-enacting the moment she saw the person she believed to be Madeleine's abductor". It was Jane's belief.
&%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
I wouldn't want you marking my exam papers, she said "Jane was re-enacting the moment she saw the person she believed to be Madeleine's abductor". It was Jane's belief.
Jane was re-enacting the moment she saw the person she believed to be Madeleine's abductor making off with her.
Had she realised that, one shout from her could have prevented a very real tragedy.
She was in bits about that.
Well seems she was wrong if SY are to be believed.Beliefs can be wrong, its Christmas time and Santa is busy delivering presents, and your sentence ends on the word "believed", so that may allow that SY maybe wrong too, I believe.
Well in 2013 "Tannerman The Abductor" was well and truly fragged by The Met and he remains that way until he has somekind of resurrection."Tannerman The Abductor" fragged is no problem to me. Crecheman - unnamed, going the wrong way, has a blanket but not using it. Conscious child not one limp. PJs the wrong colour.
Under the circumstances The Met hold sway.
How do you know that?
"Tannerman The Abductor" fragged is no problem to me. Crecheman - unnamed, going the wrong way, has a blanket but not using it. Conscious child not one limp. PJs the wrong colour.
I'm not convinced it is crechemen. - for some good reasons above.
The Met said they had located a man who they were reasonably convinced was the man Jane Tanner saw.There could have been both. Crecheman could have passed by. What time did they determine he crossed the top of Rua Dr. ... Gentil Martins? Did he even cross the top of Rua Dr. ... Gentil Martins? Did it coincide with Jane's check exactly? I know they've checked he picked up his daughter at sometime, but what time did he cross the road and in what direction was he going? Where was his destination?
Do you believe in this instance The Met are mistaken ?
If after speaking to Gerry, Jez went and fetched his daughter from the night creche, to get a view of someone crossing from left to right crecheman could have come from the creche and gone into the path behind the block G5 leading to block G4. Jane could be higher up Rua ...Gentil Martins looking down toward the Tapas entrance on her return leg of her check. She doesn't actually say this herself but there have been suggestions made by others regarding this scenario. This would make her her sighting nearer 21.20 - 21.25 rather than 21.12 - 21.15 or whatever.There is a hint of this here in this article "Cops asked mum-of-two Tanner—on the holiday with with her partner Dr Russell O'Brien, 36—whether it was possible that the man and child she saw was Wilkins with his son." Or did they mean with his daughter coming home from the creche? His son was in the push chair.
Could Jez get to the creche and pick up a kid and back as quick as that? I doubt it. Maybe he could with the help of Bridget, if she took the pram with the son up the stairs. It would depend on how much assistance he received.
But Wilkins, viewed by police as a completely independent witness, told cops he could not recall anyone walking past him. And in all the time he was there he saw NO MAN carrying a child.
The TV executive is convinced he would have seen Jane Tanner pass by.
He said: "It was a very narrow path and I think it would have been almost impossible for anyone to walk by without me noticing."
And he also believes he would have seen the mystery man and child who would also have been just yards away.
Cops asked mum-of-two Tanner—on the holiday with with her partner Dr Russell O'Brien, 36—whether it was possible that the man and child she saw was Wilkins with his son.
Check
But a source told us: "She was adamant that it was not Jeremy Wilkins and his child. She is certain she saw someone else and stands by her account."
.....It would seem to be unlikely to be Jez if this information is correct. "Crèche Dad, another man wandering with a girl in pyjama that night who reported himself to Leicester Police in 2007 (article from the Mirror on Dec 28 2013 by Tom Pettifor “Madeleine McCann: Bungling police had 'prime suspect' details for SIX YEARS without realising”) carrying his 2 year-old daughter back from the night-crèche around 21.15, re-discovered by Andy Redwood and identified on UK Crimewatch in October 2013 as the man seen by Jane Tanner."
Could Jez get to the creche and pick up a kid and back as quick as that? I doubt it. Maybe he could with the help of Bridget, if she took the pram with the son up the stairs. It would depend on how much assistance he received.
You should know that the long dark haired woman Jenny Murat claims to have seen could be Jane Tanner seen in the same area by Jez when he first ventured out. Jenny said plum top, Jez said Jane was wearing a purple top.At 8:00 PM ? The T9 would all be getting ready to go out at that time wouldn't they?
At 8:00 PM ? The T9 would all be getting ready to go out at that time wouldn't they?
Jez said he left around 8:15. Jenny could be slightly out with her time. The times are very similar so it's not hard to conclude that they probably saw the same person described wearing a purple/plum top in the same area. Unless you believe loads of long dark haired women in purple like Jane are lurking in the same area?Can't rule it out. Lack of information.
Can't rule it out. Lack of information.
I can with the rest of fantasy luzland. When Smithman is revealed then the circus will be leaving town.How likely is that?
Jez said he left around 8:15. Jenny could be slightly out with her time. The times are very similar so it's not hard to conclude that they probably saw the same person described wearing a purple/plum top in the same area. Unless you believe loads of long dark haired women in purple like Jane are lurking in the same area?
When asked about a text from her mobile at 8.30 pm on 3rd Jane said it was to Mrs Gorrod who had invited them to a BBQ the following day to celebrate her husband's birthday. That's why the Gorrod's hire car was included in the dog searches. It wasn't anything like the car seen by Jenny Murat, it was a grey Opel Corsa.Are you saying they had to go outside to get their phones to work?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/James_Gorrod.htm
If Jane had her mobile with her at dinner she could have sent the text from outside the apartments or from the restaurant. If she didn't take her mobile she was in her apartment at 8.30 pm. She could, of course, have gone out and then returned.
Are you saying they had to go outside to get their phones to work?
No. She may have gone out between 8 and 8,30 without her phone, returned, sent the text.Take me step by step and the reason for this please?
Jane left the apartment earlier than Russell. That is confirmed by both. Jane was the first to arrive at the tapas after the McCanns.So she walked on her own and could have stopped to make a cellphone call. And because she was on her own someone thinks it is suspicious for Jane is looking toward Gerry's apartment.
I do not know if this is the proper thread. I have a question:From unnamed sources snuggled deep inside the investigation, they are comfortable informing us, there are two pillow abductors still firmly arguidos! Lol
Up to date, are there still official arguidos? Does anyone here know?
Many thanks and Happy New Year!
I do not know if this is the proper thread. I have a question:I'm sure one of the recent articles that was recently rubbished on this forum as the work of the McCann Misinformation Machine stated that arguido status had been lifted on all arguidos, but don't quote me on that...
Up to date, are there still official arguidos? Does anyone here know?
Many thanks and Happy New Year!
I'm sure one of the recent articles that was recently rubbished on this forum as the work of the McCann Misinformation Machine stated that arguido status had been lifted on all arguidos, but don't quote me on that...
Many thanks Alfie. Have you a link to the info?https://www.google.co.nz/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw&gws_rd=ssl#hl=en&q=how+to+google+something
Happy New Year!
Many thanks Alfie. Have you a link to the info?I'll try and find it when I have a moment Heri - happy new year to you too!
Happy New Year!
Many thanks Alfie. Have you a link to the info?It was easier to find than I thought....
Happy New Year!
I'm getting paranoid again but it was my own error I posted this information into the wrong thread!
Some months back I had the notion there was evidence that Matt and Russell had left the table for some as yet unexplained reason during the time of 9:05 - 9:25 PM.
It states in the Summary document :http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
"At 21.10, given her husband’s absence, Jane Tanner went to check on the state of her daughter. She left by the reception and walked up the road that passes the entrance to the apartment block. She was not seen by Gerald McCann, nor by Jeremy Wilkins, although she did see them. Gerald had his back to her, however Wilkins was facing the place where Tanner passed."
No one has ever noticed that Jane did her check in her husband's absence. "At 21.10, given her husband’s absence" What was he doing?
I noticed before that Matt and Russell don't see Jane leave the table on her check and don't know when Gerry or Jane return so I proposed they were away doing something else during that 20 minute period (9:05 -9:25) When they return both go to the apartment block together, cutting out Kate's check. But Matt ends up doing a substandard check on Madeleine, in that he doesn't see her or hear her and fails to investigate the shutters.
I'll take the bait ?{)(**
If this was the case, when did he actually return to the table, as it is stated,somewhere, that he left again with Matt at about 9.30 ?
Is this mentioned on the famous timelines they produced ?
I noticed before that Matt and Russell don't see Jane leave the table on her check and don't know when Gerry or Jane return so I proposed they were away doing something else during that 20 minute period (9:05 -9:25) When they return both go to the apartment block together, cutting out Kate's check. But Matt ends up doing a substandard check on Madeleine, in that he doesn't see her or hear her and fails to investigate the shutters.
It is obviously not mentioned yet seems to be known to the Portuguese investigators that Russell was absent.
"At 21.10, given her husband’s absence, Jane Tanner went to check on the state of her daughter.
They should be checking on both of their daughters. Who was sick? One wasn't the best.
"state of her daughter". That suggests that the daughter was maybe not well before the parents left for their evening's entertainment.
Another example of good parenting ?
I find it difficult to determine ROB's movements, here.As I understand it Jane left first, then ROB 10 minutes later when Evie fell asleep. Jane does another check 9:10, and ROB does further check at 9:25.
Did he go to the Tapas for about 8.30 with Jane or did he stay in the apartment until Jane's return at about 9.15 ? If the latter, why did he return with Matt some 15 minutes later?
If a child was sick, why did they go out at all? Was their 'me' time so important?
These apparent discrepancies throw the reliability of their statements into doubt. A possible reason for declining to attend a reconstruction of that night, perhaps.
As I understand it Jane left first, then ROB 10 minutes later when Evie fell asleep. Jane does another check 9:10, and ROB does further check at 9:25.
But according to what you first said, ROB was already absent when Jane left at 9.10, which doesn't your timings.That just meant he was absent from the table and he wasn't attending his own children, absent doing something else and obviously longer than just away for a moment.
That just meant he was absent from the table and he wasn't attending his own children, absent doing something else and obviously longer than just away for a moment.
Have you anything to support that, or is it purely your interpretation of events?That was the quote from the Summary report.
That was the quote from the Summary report.
So nothing to support your interpretation of events. He could have been anywhere, doing anything.And that is all I'm saying "he could have been anywhere, doing anything" but the duration of that appears to be 20 minutes and Matt maybe with him.
And that is all I'm saying "he could have been anywhere, doing anything" but the duration of that appears to be 20 minutes and Matt maybe with him.
And that is all I'm saying "he could have been anywhere, doing anything" but the duration of that appears to be 20 minutes and Matt maybe with him.
For both ROB and MO don't know what time Jane left to do her check and they don't know when Gerry nor Jane return to the table.
Presumably Jane knew where he was, or perhaps more correctly, where he wasn't, else there would have been no need for her to check on her children.I would presume the opposite: That Jane had no idea what he was up to, but she at least knew he wasn't at the table or at their apartment.
Not likely, as Matt had returned before Gerry left and then Jane left shortly after, so unless we are descending into the realms of a Whitehall farce, Matt was at the table until 9.30.I did NOT agree with your reasoning there Jassi. It is their own statements I'm using where Matt doesn't know what is happening therefore I deduce he wasn't there.
One can see why a reconstruction would have been useful in understanding the comings and goings of that evening.
I would presume the opposite: That Jane had no idea what he was up to, but she at least knew he wasn't at the table or at their apartment.
I did NOT agree with your reasoning there Jassi. It is their own statements I'm using where Matt doesn't know what is happening therefore I deduce he wasn't there.
The way they go together at the time of the next check suggests they may have been together prior to that too.
Indeed - at the table. Or are you suggesting that he didn't tell Kate that he would do the visit for her?No. How did you come to that thought?
No. How did you come to that thought?
I'm not. I'm pointing out that Matt was at the table until 9.30, so he couldn't be off somewhere with ROB.No one says they all sat around the table all of the time except for checking on the kids.
If he was, then the whole narrative of the evening is false.
That was the whole purpose of them being there - to eat, drink and socialise as a group - otherwise they might as well have stayed on their verandas and looked after their children properly.Things happen. The two of them could have been called over to talk to other people. There are so many possibilities it becomes impossible to list them all.
I wonder if it is still not too late to do the re-enactment of the scene of Jez and Gerry talking.
Ten years on it is all a bit pointless now. Fact is two people jointly recalled one experience while another for his own reasons remembered it completely differently. If a principal witness couldn't even get such a basic thing right...I know Gerry and Jane have gone back, but I wonder if Jez would take the chance of being made an arguido?
Ten years on it is all a bit pointless now. Fact is two people jointly recalled one experience while another for his own reasons remembered it completely differently. If a principal witness couldn't even get such a basic thing right...
Not only do I think it pointless now in throwing any light on what may have happened to Madeleine ... I think it was equally pointless at the time Rebelo was anxious to stage a reenactment.
One of the principal witness who thought the discussion took place at the other side of the street from where the other two thought it had occurred ... was sticking to what he remembered.
It would have been easy to fall into line with the other two witnesses, but that was not how he remembered it.
I don't think there is anything which can be learned from precisely where the men were standing. We know they had a conversation. We know the female witness passed them and we know she witnessed a man neither of the males did who was carrying a barefoot child from the scene.
I think that both the current investigations have long ago got well beyond that point in time.
What actually is evident, is that the investigations have achieved nothing more than the original one.
How Madeleine disappeared from the apartment remains undetermined, as does her fate.
Now if you CITE, where I am wrong on this, please do.
My general response to your first point would be to agree to the extent that the latest investigation has not achieved what they were commissioned to do and that was to find Madeleine and bring anyone responsible to justice. To be fair though, a lot of work has gone into this latest enquiry and undoubtedly those officers involved have a much better understanding of events in PdL on the night that Madeleine disappeared.
'Understanding', is a relative term John.
The bottom line, the case remains unsolved.
I said some time ago, and an ex-moderator on here, Anna, I believe, agreed with me, that this case is unlikely to be solved, and probably only then, with a confession.
I still feel finding out why Jez did not see or hear Jane (in fact anybody at all) pass by Gerry and himself while they were talking is crucial to understanding this case.In earlier popsts on this thread, there have been several ideas why that could have happened, Rob. Have you dismissed them all?
Later Silvia criticises Jane's recollection. Which is all part of the same incident really. Being able to see who was carrying an unconscious child just moments after Gerry had been in the apartment and after he had switched on the lights to the kid's bedroom, and Gerry saw that Madeleine was OK.We think that the child was unconscious but we dont know for sure !
So it can't be Madeleine that child Jane saw. So why are Silvia and Jez trying to rubbish Jane's observation? A reconstruction is needed IMO and it is not too late.
I can't deny it is a possibility but in that scenario everything is down to the last second. If Jane had been just a few seconds earlier she might have seen Madeleine being handed out the window. That is pretty dramatic that the abductors would strike while Gerry and Jez were talking in the street. Very daring IMO.
To walk across the road when there were 3 people potentially looking at him also seems like a mistake on part of the abductors.
Why wasn't the getaway car right in the carpark next to the McCann apartment.
So what does the second person in the apartment do? Jane could pop out at any time and Jez and Gerry are talking.
I can't deny it is a possibility but in that scenario everything is down to the last second. If Jane had been just a few seconds earlier she might have seen Madeleine being handed out the window. That is pretty dramatic that the abductors would strike while Gerry and Jez were talking in the street. Very daring IMO.No person went thru that window, Rob
To walk across the road when there were 3 people potentially looking at him also seems like a mistake on part of the abductors.
Why wasn't the getaway car right in the carpark next to the McCann apartment.
So what does the second person in the apartment do? Jane could pop out at any time and Jez and Gerry are talking.
I can't deny it is a possibility but in that scenario everything is down to the last second. If Jane had been just a few seconds earlier she might have seen Madeleine being handed out the window. That is pretty dramatic that the abductors would strike while Gerry and Jez were talking in the street. Very daring IMO.
To walk across the road when there were 3 people potentially looking at him also seems like a mistake on part of the abductors.
Why wasn't the getaway car right in the carpark next to the McCann apartment.
So what does the second person in the apartment do? Jane could pop out at any time and Jez and Gerry are talking.
No person went thru that window, RobI misundertood your statement "Tannerman (with Madeleine): had a walk of no more than 27 metres, from the hand over place to Jane Tanner corner." So was there a handover? Where did this occur? By who to who?
It was but a narrowish gap and there would have been hand prints on some part of the window, had Madeleine been passed trough . Also there were no signs of any fibres on the window frame. Try and imagine passing a floppy youngster thru that window. At some point, or other, the child would have had two sets of hands on her and because of her floppiness these two sets would necessarily have to have been close to each other.
One or other of the abductors would have, of necessity, had to position his shoulders between the narrow window frame, at some stage. As he moved his arms and pulled, his clothes would have brushed the window frame sides
Yet NO fibres. Soz Rob, but I do not believe anyone passed thru that open window.
Almost without doubt, the Front door was used, both in and out.
IMO
I can't deny it is a possibility but in that scenario everything is down to the last second. If Jane had been just a few seconds earlier she might have seen Madeleine being handed out the window. That is pretty dramatic that the abductors would strike while Gerry and Jez were talking in the street. Very daring IMO.
To walk across the road when there were 3 people potentially looking at him also seems like a mistake on part of the abductors.
Why wasn't the getaway car right in the carpark next to the McCann apartment.
So what does the second person in the apartment do? Jane could pop out at any time and Jez and Gerry are talking.
I misundertood your statement "Tannerman (with Madeleine): had a walk of no more than 27 metres, from the hand over place to Jane Tanner corner." So was there a handover? Where did this occur? By who to who?
Did any of the parents meet anyone on the street and stop to have a chat with them on any other occasion? I doubt it, therefore from an abductor's point of view the risk was slight.OK all that is possible. If Madeleine had been carried to some local area she would possibly have been found by the sniffer dog teams.
As Sadie has pointed out the speed with which a child could have been lifted and removed from the scene was also something which could well have worked to an abductor's advantage ... just observe when parents have checked and returned to their meal ... nip in and out again.
A getaway vehicle would not have been parked in the car park ...Therefore in my opinion a pick up would have taken place elsewhere and certainly not in block 5 parking area. It would be logical to use a vehicle, but not necessarily. There were plenty of walled properties available where a kidnapped child could have been secreted, some which may have large wine cellars which would have put the crawl space under Casa Liliana to shame.
- could have been seen and subsequently identified
- occupants could have been seen and identified
on arrival
putting a child or a burden into the vehicle
leaving ... for example, at least two residents entered the building about 9.15 on the 3rd and might have noted any of those occurrences- the kidnap vehicle could have been blocked in for any of a variety of reasons
Scotland Yard have excluded Tannerman from their investigation.So they say. I wonder if someone didn't invent this crecheman idea as a decoy to take away the focus from the real Tannerman individual.
So they say. I wonder if someone didn't invent this crecheman idea as a decoy to take away the focus from the real Tannerman individual.
Originally the McCanns tried to suggest that the Tannerman was the abductor, but that would basically mean he was in the apartment along with Gerry, and I found that hard to swallow, and more so now that I realise he turned the light on during his check on the kids.
I would agree with that.
Tannerman is a red herring that needed disposing of without appearing to rubbish Tanner as a witness.
IMO
So they say. I wonder if someone didn't invent this crecheman idea as a decoy to take away the focus from the real Tannerman individual.
Originally the McCanns tried to suggest that the Tannerman was the abductor, but that would basically mean he was in the apartment along with Gerry, and I found that hard to swallow, and more so now that I realise he turned the light on during his check on the kids.
That would mean Jane was lying, I find no reason for Jane to lie.
If there were two individuals involved in the abduction, then the one outside could have warned the one inside 5a that Gerry was on his way, meaning the one inside could easily have slipped out through the front door until Gerry had left the apartment. Gerry did say he found the door open more than they had left it.
I would agree with that.
Tannerman is a red herring that needed disposing of without appearing to rubbish Tanner as a witness.
IMO
I would agree with that.Why, in your opinion are either of those things necessary, ie: 1) "disposing" of a piece of evidence and 2) not "rubbishing" JT as a witness ?
Tannerman is a red herring that needed disposing of without appearing to rubbish Tanner as a witness.
IMO
I think Jane has had a very heavy cross to bear but SY went some way to lightening the load by introducing Crècheman.You almost make it sound as if the Met felt sorry for Tanner and invented Crecheman to let her off the hook.
SY have decided that Tannerman is a red herring. and of no importance. Quite right in my opinion.OK don't answer my questions then!
Why, in your opinion are either of those things necessary, ie: 1) "disposing" of a piece of evidence and 2) not "rubbishing" JT as a witness ?
Interesting question.That isn't going to be answered by the look of it.
You almost make it sound as if the Met felt sorry for Tanner and invented Crecheman to let her off the hook.Strange what some people believe.
I would agree with that.Well Crecheman would have been going in the other direction for a starter and the pyjamas didn't really look like Madeleine's, so it was effectively rubbishing Jane as a witness.
Tannerman is a red herring that needed disposing of without appearing to rubbish Tanner as a witness.
IMO
Who knows, but clearly approved by Redwood.Crecheman was invented in 2007 from what I've read, but the PJ didn't follow it up. Immediately it becomes a hot potato.
Well Crecheman would have been going in the other direction for a starter and the pyjamas didn't really look like Madeleine's, so it was effectively rubbishing Jane as a witness.
But who invented Crecheman?
Crecheman was invented in 2007 from what I've read, but the PJ didn't follow it up. Immediately it becomes a hot potato.
That was Tannerman, or Eggman. Different altogether.No the person who is photographed as Crecheman apparently came forward in 2007 and said he picked up a child from creche around that time but this was not followed up by the PJ. Obviously not part of the released file.
No the person who is photographed as Crecheman apparently came forward in 2007 and said he picked up a child from creche around that time but this was not followed up by the PJ. Obviously not part of the released file.
Ah, but is that really true?True enough for SY to repeat it. If they hadn't said it on the Crimewatch episode we'd know nothing about it.
No, not at all.Why would the Met have needed to spare her feelings? If she was lying and they had evidence then they would be arresting her for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
She was just shown to be mistaken in the detail. She was, after all, pretty vague about what he looked like and what he carried, particularly to begin with. Remember Eggman?
Crecheman removed any need for SY to call her an out and out liar. Brilliant 8(0(*
True enough for SY to repeat it. If they hadn't said it on the Crimewatch episode we'd know nothing about it.
Why would the Met have needed to spare her feelings? If she was lying and they had evidence then they would be arresting her for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Why would the Met have needed to spare her feelings? If she was lying and they had evidence then they would be arresting her for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Depends what information she could offer them.She has given them imformation that they have decided is irrelevant.
She has given them imformation that they have decided is irrelevant.
We have no idea what the main protagonists have 'remembered', if anything.Yes we do, it's in their statements. Anything else you may be insinuating is stepping on extremely dodgy ground and purely for fantasists and libellers only.
Yes we do, it's in their statements. Anything else you may be insinuating is stepping on extremely dodgy ground and purely for fantasists and libellers only.
We were told quite early on in the case that two of the main protagonists wanted to change their story. Who's to say OG wasn't their chance to do this?Who were they?
We were told quite early on in the case that two of the main protagonists wanted to change their story. Who's to say OG wasn't their chance to do this?Cite.
We were told quite early on in the case that two of the main protagonists wanted to change their story. Who's to say OG wasn't their chance to do this?Was that Matt and Russell?
Cite.
So they say. I wonder if someone didn't invent this crecheman idea as a decoy to take away the focus from the real Tannerman individual.Rob, who says that Gerry turned the lighgt onn in the bedroom? I cannot remember seeing that. With light streaming in from the living room via the open door, Gerry should have been well able to see the features of his children.
Originally the McCanns tried to suggest that the Tannerman was the abductor, but that would basically mean he was in the apartment along with Gerry, and I found that hard to swallow, and more so now that I realise he turned the light on during his check on the kids.
So they say. I wonder if someone didn't invent this crecheman idea as a decoy to take away the focus from the real Tannerman individual.I have wondered the same too.
Originally the McCanns tried to suggest that the Tannerman was the abductor, but that would basically mean he was in the apartment along with Gerry, and I found that hard to swallow, and more so now that I realise he turned the light on during his check on the kids.
Rob, who says that Gerry turned the lighgt onn in the bedroom? I cannot remember seeing that. With light streaming in from the living room via the open door, Gerry should have been well able to see the features of his children.It was a discovery we made on the forum http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7846.msg371162#msg371162
You are incorrect, IMO, about the abductor necessarily being in the apartment with Gerry. That is a possibility but also it is a possibility that given a go ahead signal immediately Gerry left, that the abductor went in immediately. As I kave pouinted out in the previous few posts, there was plenty of time to sedate Madeleine and remove her via the front door , then pass her over to Tannerman.
Plenty of time.
Well Crecheman would have been going in the other direction for a starter and the pyjamas didn't really look like Madeleine's, so it was effectively rubbishing Jane as a witness.
But who invented Crecheman?
Crecheman was invented in 2007 from what I've read, but the PJ didn't follow it up. Immediately it becomes a hot potato.OK, so supposedly he was 'invented' in 2007. What real proof do we have of that?
OK, so supposedly he was 'invented' in 2007. What real proof do we have of that?We have to believe Redwood for he says it in the CrimeWatch program. He could possibly confirm that in the retained file. What direction was he walking? I don't think the program actually said. It would depend where he was residing and whether he got lost etc.
And why was he walking in the wrong direction?
No, not at all.Eggman, at the time so loudly derided by foolish small minded sceptics, was a fine idea.
She was just shown to be mistaken in the detail. She was, after all, pretty vague about what he looked like and what he carried, particularly to begin with. Remember Eggman?
Crecheman removed any need for SY to call her an out and out liar. Brilliant 8(0(*
It was a discovery we made on the forum http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7846.msg371162#msg371162
You could be right the kidnapper was outside. All I'm pointing out he wasn't in the kid's bedroom while Gerry was in there.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568706/Madeleine-Tapas-Two-want-to-change-story.htmlLOL. An article in the Telegraph using a "free" story from a Spanish newspaper that pre-dates the rogatories? I hope you haven't invested too much hope in this story coming true 10 years later. @)(++(*
LOL. An article in the Telegraph using a "free" story from a Spanish newspaper that pre-dates the rogatories? I hope you haven't invested too much hope in this story coming true 10 years later. @)(++(*
Now, let's just imagine JT had information against Gerry and that's why the Met had to invent crecheman (I laugh even typing such a ludicrous scenario) - wouldn't it be the case that if one of the Tapas 7 made a credible claim of criminal activity on the part of Gerry McCann that the PJ would want to make him an arguido again in order to question him about these allegations? Or are they all being so laid back about it that they've decided not to bother until some other evidence falls in their laps?
Who knows what's happening behind the scenes. Do you?Common sense and logic dictate that your scenario is some miles wide of the mark. But if you want to play wild and outlandish speculation games then fill your boots.
Common sense and logic dictate that your scenario is some miles wide of the mark. But if you want to play wild and outlandish speculation games then fill your boots.
That'll be a no then.You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment 8(>(( 8(0(*
You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment 8(>(( 8(0(*Did Jez have his dark glasses on?
One thing that Jane found confusing was that she thought Jez was standing with the pushchair downhill, which to her seemed to be the wrong way if he was heading back to his apartment.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Reply “Again, I almost think I can remember it pointing down the road but if he was going back to his apartment it would have been pointing up the road so I don’t know, but.”
4078 “Your mind’s trying to make sense of what you even know.”
Should the interviewer have said this? “Your mind’s trying to make sense of what you even know.”
After "I almost think I can remember" I'm not surprised.Don't ask me how memory works. But vague memories seem possible. And if the memory clashes with logic she might allow her logic to override her memory.
Don't ask me how memory works. But vague memories seem possible. And if the memory clashes with logic she might allow her logic to override her memory.
The logic was if Jez was on his way home he should have been walking uphill not downhill. Can thoughts like that override memory?
I'm not sure that is true. To my mind, you either remember, or you don't - anything else is guess work.Thanks Jassi, that is a fair challenge. I was trying to think when it would have been she first started to be aware that Jez was on his way back to the apartment.
As Jane would have no idea where Jez was going when she saw him, there should be no logic clash regarding his direction
There is only a clash if she is trying to reconcile something she saw with something she has been told, which doesn't make for an accurate witness statement.
Thanks Jassi, that is a fair challenge. I was trying to think when it would have been she first started to be aware that Jez was on his way back to the apartment.
Like very early on she deduced Gerry had already seen the kids, and that was without being told. So does she go around working out what people are doing, like a teacher might.
That is still a memory, it might not be memory for the perfect witness statement.
Hence she kicked herself for not working out what Tannerman was doing. She makes some deductions like Tannerman is not a tourist - it was a girl, an unconscious child. These aren't real observations but deductions (you can train yourself to be like this when practicing defensive driving, when working out what other drivers might be doing).
I can't see that information in either of her May 07 statements. If a year later, then she has had plenty of time to misremember.Yes so true.
Many things are possible, but Jane would not know where Jez was going at the time she saw him. It is more than likely that she didn't even know where his apartment was.I don't know, but Jez does say he saw Jane earlier so the opposite could also be true that Jane saw Jez coming from his apartment block and he would have had his push chair with him too. So knowing how Jane thinks she would possibly have thought: "Wow he's been out a long time. I hope that baby is well wrapped up. He ought to be going home by now, but he's facing the wrong way". In which case no one need tell her but it could have been these sort of deductions going on in her own head.
Wouldn't it have been an interesting scenario had Jez not stopped to blether with Gerry?
Jane would have walked smack dab into Gerry, had a quick rattle then gone on her way having just missed sighting a geezer carrying a child west to east or east to west (depending upon which geezer it was).I personally don't think anything would have changed, the night would still be the same come 10 o'clock.
Nothing to report............................... &%+((£
I personally don't think anything would have changed, the night would still be the same come 10 o'clock.
Crecheman may not have been followed up on.
Excuse my ignorance but what does this mean in England "had a quick rattle"?
Is it used in the same sense as this "While accompanying Thomas Kavanaugh on his daring escape from Lucknow, he paused for a quick rattle with a local prostitute, and during the battle of Patusan, he found himself galloping one of Sharif Sahib's concubines without even realizing it but nonetheless continued to the climax of the battle and the tryst." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Flashman
English is a bit regional. Rattle,chops,gas,natter,hang over the fence and a few more I probably don't know roughly means :"talking" but generally about trivial matters.I lead a sheltered life.
Where I come from we would tend to use the expression "scuttle" for what you describe.
You have a fertile imagination, I'll give you that @)(++(*I think that is a true observation. Rather than take sides I have looked for imaginative solutions using the few clues we have in this case.
I think that is a true observation. Rather than take sides I have looked for imaginative solutions using the few clues we have in this case.
Trouble is, as we can't discount the unimaginative solutions, does it add anything?I think it has but I can't reveal them on here as yet.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5701.msg281746#msg281746At the time, I found that very intriguing too
weird "I'm not just theorising here, I'm also working from visual evidence at the scene."
At the time, I found that very intriguing tooCould be video, or photographs or what he saw himself. If someone else saw it they can draw it or speak about it. Quite limited options really.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5701.msg281746#msg281746Why was Pegasus never pulled up at the time for making such unexplained claims such as this?
weird "I'm not just theorising here, I'm also working from visual evidence at the scene."
Why was Pegasus never pulled up at the time for making such unexplained claims such as this?
There did appear to be a few similar looking men involved in the case.That's true Pegasus keeps claiming (or implying knowledge) to know who the other person was but never says, not from what I've read so far.
Can someone please indicate where Apartment 0 is in block 4 of the Ocean Club?It apparently was "o" not 0
Can someone please indicate where Apartment 0 is in block 4 of the Ocean Club?
I walked within ten feet of my car yesterday and didn't notice it, mainly because I assumed it was there and thought I knew where my son was.
My son wasn't where I thought he was, and nor was the car.
What are you trying to imply,notwithstanding your mature years.
I am not trying to imply anything. We don't always see what is under our noses.
I agree with that, it is possible.
I was surprised by JTs reaction to Gerry saying where he was standing- contradicting JT. She seemed quite adamant where they were all positioned as she entered and left the street, and what she saw. She also displayed a disbelief and annoyed look. Not a happy bunny about that.
I thought Jane Tanner was just upset because no one seemed to believe her.
I still think that she saw the abduction of Madeleine, albeit unbeknown to her at the time.
Sometimes the more simple explanations are the best.
The person Redwood described as being in the exact same area at the time of Tanner's sighting didn't see anything suspicious,that allowed Redwood to move the time frame on.
Exact same area at the time? There has never been any proof of that. And Totman was walking from the wrong direction.
Andy Redwood might have done well to visit this Forum. We all know more about Praia de Luz than he did.
I'll take DCI Redwood over any ones word on here,St Mary Mead is not the go to place.
And Andy Redwood didn't appear to know what he was talking about. But it doesn't really matter. It's just fodder for a Forum.
Who does in your estimation then,Amaral certainly doesn't get your vote I'd surmise,maybe St Mary Mead it is then.
Please try not to be too silly.
The person Redwood described as being in the exact same area at the time of Tanner's sighting didn't see anything suspicious,that allowed Redwood to move the time frame on.Did Redwood actually say this " the exact same area at the time of Tanner's sighting didn't see anything suspicious" or is that how the interpretation has become?
Ad hom from a mod,now if I said that to you I'd imagine the red mist's would descend.