How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?

[Alfie]

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?

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?!

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

[Alfie]

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?

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?

[Robittybob1]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.
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. 

[Robittybob1]

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!

[Robittybob1]

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?!

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

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 ....

[Robittybob1]

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?

[Alfie]

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.
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.

[Robittybob1]

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?

[Robittybob1]

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 8

I 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.

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.

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.

[Robittybob1]

On page 6 0f 8 Jeremy states:

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.

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.

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.
Then he makes a classic error and tries to cover up "He said that as he was staying two weeks XXXXX he was staying one night' (unreadable)"  They were staying for two weeks and the McCanns for just 1 week yet Jez leaves at the end of the first week.  That is a major error in writing his statement IMO and a classic statement analysis indicator of trouble.

[Robittybob1]

Why did he say "I don't remember anyone else walking around with a child"?  Page 6 0f 8

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?
We want to know what he did see, not what he didn't see.
It would be like saying "I didn't see Jane".  You could only say that if you were specifically asked "did you see Jane as you were on the street?".  Maybe the story of Jane's sighting had spread around PDL before he left PDL and before he had made his statement.  Like all the T9 knew about it as they had discussed the timeline and Jane's sighting was part of that, so Gerry is correct in saying he can't be certain he saw Jane or whatever he says.  But then you might question why he couldn't instantly recognise Jane.

[Alfie]

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?

[Robittybob1]

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? 
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. 

[Robittybob1]

I think some of my points are valid.
1. Like a joint statement from two people who are doing different things and going to different places is not feasible. 
2. Saying you are staying for two weeks and leaving after the first week without an explanation.
3 Telling us what he didn't see without knowing the prompt.

I feel we have only just begun to pick holes in Jez' statements. 
Will the outcome give us an explanation why Jez and Gerry don't admit they saw Jane.
Why the PJ favour Jez' account to the point of saying Jane is unreliable and basically implying she didn't see the person carrying the girl?