How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?

[Benice]

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.

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.

[Robittybob1]

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. 

[faithlilly]

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?

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

[Robittybob1]

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.

[faithlilly]

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 :

'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;'

[Robittybob1]

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 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.
 

[jassi]

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.

Well if Tannerman is who SY say he is, that is certainly true.

[Alfie]

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

I agree it doesn't matter at all, so it's of no relevance at all - great, let's move on.

[Alfie]

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.

[Alfie]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[Alfie]

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.
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.

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.

[Benice]

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 did know why they wanted the recon.     However if the people involved have different memories of where they stood (which they do) then it just isn't possible to recreate the scene with any accuracy unless one one of them stands where he doesn't believe he stood.   But that would mean it was not a truthful account by one person.

Yes I can understand that some people would think it strange that neither men saw JT pass by, but it's not impossible - as I have previously explained - because I have seen it happen myself.   And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Any suggestion that JT would collude with Gerry and lie to the police for him makes no sense.  - She hardly knew the man and was definitely not the brainless idiot she would need to be -  to agree to put her own children/family in such grave  danger by perverting the course of  justice in that way -or any other way.    Not a chance IMO.

 

[G-Unit]

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

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.

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?

[faithlilly]

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.

Perhaps it would aid our discussion if you could post a cite for Amaral's opinion of Tanner?