How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?

[Robittybob1]

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?

[jassi]

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.
If, for example, she was actually at the table when Gerry returned, he may have mentioned that he had been talking to Jez.

[Robittybob1]

It would all depend on when she said it in relation to when she learned of Gerry's meeting.
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.

[jassi]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[jassi]

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 

[Robittybob1]

You think what you like 

No, I'm not allowed to do that either.

[jassi]

Of course you can. Moderators might be heavy handed at times, but they haven't yet morphed into thought Police.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[jassi]

You can perhaps take your thought behind the wall in the Members area, away from prying eyes.

[Alfie]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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?

[Eleanor]

Good idea.  I'll make some enquiries with Angelo.  Who is the boss around here?

John.  But you already know that.

[Alice Purjorick]

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.
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.

[Alfie]

You are missing the obvious.
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.