How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?

[Benice]

I still think it is more than that for it is reported he says it is virtually impossible for her to pass unnoticed so I don't see how you can say he admits "he did not see Jane when she passed him".

'Virtually impossible' is not the same as ' impossible'.   Unless he had eyes in the back of his head it was quite possible that his head was turned away from JT and he was looking elsewhere during the few of seconds it took for her to pass by - and so he missed her.     People do not stand with their feet rooted to the spot without moving a muscle when they are chatting to one another - especially when there is a baby present to take their attention.

IMO

[sadie]

'Virtually impossible' is not the same as ' impossible'.   Unless he had eyes in the back of his head it was quite possible that his head was turned away from JT and he was looking elsewhere during the few of seconds it took for her to pass by - and so he missed her.     People do not stand with their feet rooted to the spot without moving a muscle when they are chatting to one another - especially when there is a baby present to take their attention.

IMO

And especially if there was a getaway vehicle with its driver dithering about whether it dare come completely out of the little car park ... and drive past them ... past Gerry, the father of Madeleine, + Jez.  The car might even have been backing into the car park, manouevering, prior to going off in the opposite direction.   

It is not unreasonable to suggest the possibility that the vehicle shunting nearby caused Jez momentarily to look away and at the 'goings on'.


I appreciate this is just supposition, but it is quite possible
.... and it fits very neatly into the theory of a watcher/ director of operations on block 6 balcony.  His getting into the pick up vehicle on the little car park (at the back of block 6 and opposite Tapas Reception) and attempting to drive up Rua Francisco G. Martin to pick up Tannerman and Madeleine. 

It also fits very well to Jane seeing colour.  Did the headlights flash across Tannerman?

[pathfinder73]

It was the orange street lights Sadie. Provide evidence of a getaway vehicle.

4078    “And you have walked up that hill, was it light or dark by that point?”

Reply    “I think it was getting, I think it was getting dark, I can’t, yeah, it was definitely, because the lights, the street lights were on, so it was definitely, because it was quite, erm, it was quite orangy, I think they were was sort of like a bit of an orangy.  It’s so hard to.  Yeah, the street lights were definitely on and I think it was, I think it was fairly dark by this time, because I think that’s why I was sort of thinking ‘Oh lets send Russell, send Russell back rather than’, well not, but, you know, I was sort of thinking ‘Oh I can’t be bothered to go up and check, I’m sure I can persuade Russell to go’, but then I decided to go myself, so.  So I think, I think it was, I think it was getting, it was dark”.
 
4078    “What about other people, what other noises?”

Reply    “No, I mean, there was no, apart from Gerry, well apart from Gerry and Jez there was nobody else around.  And I think when you went down to the, often when we went down to the, erm, Tapas Bar there was people then because it was earlier and I think a lot of people had said we’re eating earlier, so were often going home almost as we were coming down, so you would see people walking around then, whereas, as it got later, it did turn into more sort of a ghost town type, so.  So, yeah, I didn’t really see anybody.  I’d say, I think, again, which made me thought it was even odder, I think when I’d been to check other nights at that time I probably hadn’t seen anybody before, it was more earlier that you saw people carrying their children around”.
 
4078    “What time would this have been around?”

Reply    “I’d say it was around ten past nine’ish”

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

[G-Unit]

And especially if there was a getaway vehicle with its driver dithering about whether it dare come completely out of the little car park ... and drive past them ... past Gerry, the father of Madeleine, + Jez.  The car might even have been backing into the car park, manouevering, prior to going off in the opposite direction.   

It is not unreasonable to suggest the possibility that the vehicle shunting nearby caused Jez momentarily to look away and at the 'goings on'.


I appreciate this is just supposition, but it is quite possible
.... and it fits very neatly into the theory of a watcher/ director of operations on block 6 balcony.  His getting into the pick up vehicle on the little car park (at the back of block 6 and opposite Tapas Reception) and attempting to drive up Rua Francisco G. Martin to pick up Tannerman and Madeleine. 

It also fits very well to Jane seeing colour.  Did the headlights flash across Tannerman?

If there was a car it would seem to have been utterly silent and invisible. Similar to Jane, really.

[slartibartfast]

At the point where the path meets the alleyway it is over 2 metres wide.  That is quite wide. 

Only Gerry was on the path and at the kerb, Jez was in the road.  Plenty of space behind Gerry.

You can check it on Google Earth .  Use the stubby upright rule on the top {command] band to check distances

So you are saying you wouldn't notice if some walked within 30 cm of you in a quiet street.

[Benice]

So you are saying you wouldn't notice if some walked within 30 cm of you in a quiet street.

Either they did miss her or JT lied.

If she lied you have to give a reason why she would agree to do something so immensely dangerous for a  couple who, in the scheme of things. meant nothing to her, but an act which - if she agreed to carry out  - could ruin her own family's life for ever.    Gerry wasn't asking her to lend them a cup of sugar.

What would be the purpose of Gerry asking JT to lie for him if he was going to deny he'd seen her?  That makes no sense.

Also when did she and Gerry get together to devise this cunning plan? 

 It could only have been back at the dinner table after JT returned and before she dashed off again to relieve Russell.    That would be quite a bombshell for Gerry to deliver to JT - so how come no-one noticed anything going on between them?  Did they even sit next to oneanother?   

 Or are we supposed to believe that everyone there already knew that Madeleine was dead at that point but that not one of them had the slightest problem in carrying on eating, drinking and exchanging banter as if nothing whatsoever out of the ordinary had happened?       By sheer coincidence apparently they all happened to be brilliant actors - and obviously were all so thick they didn't even think anything too serious had happened anyway.  Can anyone actually believe that!

IMO

A ) If the others didn't know that Madeleine was dead, there was neither the time nor the  opportunity for Gerry to privately take JT to one side and tell her what had happened and then persuade her to lie for him -  and he couldn't do it at the table without the others knowing.

OR

B)  If the others did know then no-one in their right mind - let alone 7 perfectly normal people  (including a grandmother) - would agree to be part of such a heinous crime involving  the disposal of a dead child's body.   They would all have to be stark raving bonkers to give it even one second's consideration.  As far as I know none of them were off their rockers.

The whole idea is utterly preposterous.

JT didn't lie.  Gerry didn't see her because he had his back to her, and Jez didn't see her because he was looking in another direction when she passed.  They didn't hear her because they were listening to one-another talking.

AIMHO



 

[Alfie]

Either they did miss her or JT lied.

If she lied you have to give a reason why she would agree to do something so immensely dangerous for a  couple who, in the scheme of things. meant nothing to her, but an act which - if she agreed to carry out  - could ruin her own family's life for ever.    Gerry wasn't asking her to lend them a cup of sugar.

What would be the purpose of Gerry asking JT to lie for him if he was going to deny he'd seen her?  That makes no sense.

Also when did she and Gerry get together to devise this cunning plan? 

 It could only have been back at the dinner table after JT returned and before she dashed off again to relieve Russell.    That would be quite a bombshell for Gerry to deliver to JT - so how come no-one noticed anything going on between them?  Did they even sit next to oneanother?   

 Or are we supposed to believe that everyone there already knew that Madeleine was dead at that point but that not one of them had the slightest problem in carrying on eating, drinking and exchanging banter as if nothing whatsoever out of the ordinary had happened?       By sheer coincidence apparently they all happened to be brilliant actors - and obviously were all so thick they didn't even think anything too serious had happened anyway.  Can anyone actually believe that!

IMO

A ) If the others didn't know that Madeleine was dead, there was neither the time nor the  opportunity for Gerry to privately take JT to one side and tell her what had happened and then persuade her to lie for him -  and he couldn't do it at the table without the others knowing.

OR

B)  If the others did know then no-one in their right mind - let alone 7 perfectly normal people  (including a grandmother) - would agree to be part of such a heinous crime involving  the disposal of a dead child's body.   They would all have to be stark raving bonkers to give it even one second's consideration.  As far as I know none of them were off their rockers.

The whole idea is utterly preposterous.

JT didn't lie.  Gerry didn't see her because he had his back to her, and Jez didn't see her because he was looking in another direction when she passed.  They didn't hear her because they were listening to one-another talking.

AIMHO

I think the theory goes that at some point after the alarm was raised *****, knowing he'd been seen by the  Smiths, managed to take **** ****** to one side (with no one noticing) and explaining his predicament along the lines of:

 "I'm in a spot of bother, you see ********* hasn't really been abducted, she died while we were out so I did the logical thing and disposed of her body in a bin, but in the process I was spotted by nine people so what I need you to do is to invent an abductor, dressed in similar clothes to mine, and pretend you saw him at the same time as you saw me chatting to *** *******, hope you don't mind doing this for me, I'd be ever so grateful, ta".

And then after **** ****** has told all and sundry that she saw an invented abductor, ***** totally lands her in it by claiming he never saw her at all.  And the reason he does this is on the off chance someone was out on a balcony watching him and *** ******* intently whilst they were chatting.

You see - it all makes TOTAL sense!

[slartibartfast]

Either they did miss her or JT lied.

If she lied you have to give a reason why she would agree to do something so immensely dangerous for a  couple who, in the scheme of things. meant nothing to her, but an act which - if she agreed to carry out  - could ruin her own family's life for ever.    Gerry wasn't asking her to lend them a cup of sugar.

What would be the purpose of Gerry asking JT to lie for him if he was going to deny he'd seen her?  That makes no sense.

Also when did she and Gerry get together to devise this cunning plan? 

 It could only have been back at the dinner table after JT returned and before she dashed off again to relieve Russell.    That would be quite a bombshell for Gerry to deliver to JT - so how come no-one noticed anything going on between them?  Did they even sit next to oneanother?   

 Or are we supposed to believe that everyone there already knew that Madeleine was dead at that point but that not one of them had the slightest problem in carrying on eating, drinking and exchanging banter as if nothing whatsoever out of the ordinary had happened?       By sheer coincidence apparently they all happened to be brilliant actors - and obviously were all so thick they didn't even think anything too serious had happened anyway.  Can anyone actually believe that!

IMO

A ) If the others didn't know that Madeleine was dead, there was neither the time nor the  opportunity for Gerry to privately take JT to one side and tell her what had happened and then persuade her to lie for him -  and he couldn't do it at the table without the others knowing.

OR

B)  If the others did know then no-one in their right mind - let alone 7 perfectly normal people  (including a grandmother) - would agree to be part of such a heinous crime involving  the disposal of a dead child's body.   They would all have to be stark raving bonkers to give it even one second's consideration.  As far as I know none of them were off their rockers.

The whole idea is utterly preposterous.

JT didn't lie.  Gerry didn't see her because he had his back to her, and Jez didn't see her because he was looking in another direction when she passed.  They didn't hear her because they were listening to one-another talking.

AIMHO

You have to consider that she may have misrembered or conflated different checks or occasions. She may have seen someone with a child and seen Jez and Ger, but not on the same occasion. Doesn't mean she lied or was part of some conspiracy.

[slartibartfast]

I think the theory goes that at some point after the alarm was raised *****, knowing he'd been seen by the  Smiths, managed to take **** ****** to one side (with no one noticing) and explaining his predicament along the lines of:

 "I'm in a spot of bother, you see ********* hasn't really been abducted, she died while we were out so I did the logical thing and disposed of her body in a bin, but in the process I was spotted by nine people so what I need you to do is to invent an abductor, dressed in similar clothes to mine, and pretend you saw him at the same time as you saw me chatting to *** *******, hope you don't mind doing this for me, I'd be ever so grateful, ta".

And then after **** ****** has told all and sundry that she saw an invented abductor, ***** totally lands her in it by claiming he never saw her at all.  And the reason he does this is on the off chance someone was out on a balcony watching him and *** ******* intently whilst they were chatting.

You see - it all makes TOTAL sense!

It's always easier when you can make up your opponents arguments for them.

[Alfie]

You have to consider that she may have misrembered or conflated different checks or occasions. She may have seen someone with a child and seen Jez and Ger, but not on the same occasion. Doesn't mean she lied or was part of some conspiracy.

You see, this is what does make total sense, it's Heri's theory but because it is perceived that he is a supporter he gets wildly ridiculed for it.

[Alfie]

It's always easier when you can make up your opponents arguments for them.

That is a genuine theory held by someone on this board, I haven't made it up.

[slartibartfast]

You see, this is what does make total sense, it's Heri's theory but because it is perceived that he is a supporter he gets wildly ridiculed for it.

It's why they needed a reconstitution.

[Alfie]

It's why they needed a reconstitution.

How would a reconstitution have sorted that out?

[Brietta]

You have to consider that she may have misrembered or conflated different checks or occasions. She may have seen someone with a child and seen Jez and Ger, but not on the same occasion. Doesn't mean she lied or was part of some conspiracy.

The end result is the same ...

• Jane still saw Gerry and Jez
• neither Gerry or Jez saw Jane
• Jane saw the man crossing the road in front of her
  ... coming from the direction of block 5
  ... carrying a child
• shortly after Jane's sighting, Madeleine McCann was found to be missing from her bed in apartment A of block 5

The important issue is not what Gerry or Jez did or did not see ... it is what Jane saw.

[jassi]

As OG appear to have explained Tannerman away as innocent Crecheman , it would seem to have no importance at all.