How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?

[faithlilly]

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?

[Alfie]

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.

[faithlilly]

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.

Or it is a different man completely from the one allegedly seen by Tanner, as some of you supporters believe.

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

Sorry old strick it must be my piss poor comprehension or your cack handed way of expressing yourself.
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 ?

[Alfie]

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?

[Alfie]

Sorry old strick it must be my piss poor comprehension or your cack handed way of expressing yourself.
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 ?

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!

[faithlilly]

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?

[Alfie]

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.

[Alfie]

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.

[faithlilly]

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've already got two practically identical men and children why not throw another one into the mix? 

[Robittybob1]

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.

[Eleanor]

I thought I knew it but it is Angelo who goes around hacking the threads even though they seemed acceptable to John.

Angelo doesn't hack Threads.  He removes Off Topic and Goading Posts.  So do I.

[Robittybob1]

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".

[Robittybob1]

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?

[slartibartfast]

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.

I think for their own amusement is a bit restrictive, try to be helpful.