How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?

[Robittybob1]

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

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.

This seems a specific visit to this apartment only by John Hill and Matthew. Why?
Here the word "they" keeps appearing whereas previous statements it was only Jez that spoke to John and Matt.
Where does Matt say he was at 1:00AM?

[Robittybob1]

In Matt's rogatory statement he is specially asked about Jane's sighting and I must admit I do not believe him at all.

078 'When did you first become aware of what Jane had seen, can you remember''
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'.

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.

[Robittybob1]

in Rachel's rogatory statement

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'.

As you can see Rachel knew about Jane's sighting at the time Matt is going to reception to call the police.

[Robittybob1]

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? 

[Alfie]

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.

[Lace]

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 ....

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?

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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?

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'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.

Tanner man was never in the apartment. 
In this scenario it would be possible to have both of them to have inattentional blindness, and total neglect of others just passing by.
Don't think for a moment that Jez and Gerry were friends. 

[pathfinder73]

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.

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!
 

[Robittybob1]

Jez' rogatory statement:

Q. From which direction Gerry travelling when you met'
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.

No friendship there.

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.

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

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.

I'll have to study a diagram of where Jez said they were. 

[Benice]

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.

[pathfinder73]

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.

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

1:45

[Robittybob1]

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.

[pathfinder73]

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.

Any concern for what Madeleine is experiencing and going through? Or is just about themselves?

[Benice]

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. 

No-one has passed me by unnoticed - so something else you've also got completely wrong.