How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?

[sadie]

The forum reached the conclusion ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1249.msg35351#msg35351 ... in accordance with the sketch showing where the action took place.

What on earth does it add to the event of the third what the men saw or did not see?  Merely another quibbling point which takes the focus off the pertinent fact of what Jane witnessed.
There is absolutely no doubt that

• Jane was in the street
• Jez was in the street
• Gerry was in the street
• Jane in her flip flops heading home ~ Jez and Gerry in animated but static conversation

There is absolutely no doubt that

• Jane saw what she saw ~ including the men in conversation ~ including the man carrying the barefoot child walking briskly from the direction of the apartment from which Madeleine disappeared
• the men saw each other, but failed to multi task and take in Jane walking past

Ten years down the line I find it amazing something so mundane is considered to be of such importance to some ... when the only important event of that night took place in the McCann apartment and the focus of two separate police investigations involves locating the stranger/s who perpetrated that.

Thanks for the drawing Brietta ... and the backing.

[sadie]

BOTH GERRY AND JEZ were standing in the ROAD.  Neither was on the pavement

Jane confirms the actual position on the corner of the pathway in the Cutting Edge Video @10.05 onwards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY[/youtube]


Furthermore BOTH Gerry and Jez were standing in the road.  Neither was on the pavement at all.   After very clearly pointing out where the men stood in the road, see Jane step back up onto the pavement @ 10.11

So there was a potential gap of nearly 2 metres between Gerry and Jane.  That is the length of a bed


Time you guys stopped making fools of yourselves in public ... and conceded.

An apology to Kate and Gerry would be fitting.

In the video above @ 10.05, Jane actually stands in the road and physically shows Gerry in the road ... with Jez further into the road.  See her step back up onto the pavement @ 10.11


Talking to Gerry, she says:

I think you were standing about here. [pointing to the road]

I think Jez was like that [indicating an area of road further into the road than Gerry]

With the pram down that way [indicating down the hill]



As she steps away up onto the pavement, she says to Gerry

Cos had you been looking at [ me ...pointing to herself] I think I would have said that Kate had been moaning ......



So Gerry didn’t see her.  Jane indicates that in her video statement.



Jez never met Jane.  Why would he make mental note of an unknown woman who was scruffily dressed, half hidden in her husbands oversize warm jacket. 
If he were looking at his son in the pushchair she may well have been beyond his field of vision anyway.

[G-Unit]

Jane, 4th May. No mention of the men's location but she says exactly when she saw the man with the child;

She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking,

So she was around 35 meters, or 110 ft away from him if they were talking by the path entrance.
 
Jane 10th May.

She doesn't recall the position/orientation of either Jez or GM while they spoke to each other on the street, only having the perception that one was on the pavement and the other was in the road next to the other.

She specifies her distance from the man though;

Confronted, she demonstrated the distance at which the man with the child had passed her, and that was gauged to be about 5 metres.

If Jane was only 5 meters away from the man and she had just passed Jez and Gerry, they were not chatting at the entrance to the pathway, which is 35 meters from the man.

Jane's rog. Now she's even closer to the man;

So, yeah, so I went past them, erm, up to the, and then walking up to the top of the road and then, as I got to the top, this person, somebody walked across the top of the road with, with a child. 

Can Jane's testimony be relied on and quoted if her recollection of where she was when she saw the man can change so significantly from 35 meters to 5 meters to being almost next to him?

[Brietta]

Three witness statements against one in favour of the corner.

Absolutely, Sadie, and the natural thing to do was for Gerry to discontinue his walk towards reception and veer towards Jez who was pushing his son in the buggy towards him.

They did not see Jane.  So what?

[sadie]

Jane, 4th May. No mention of the men's location but she says exactly when she saw the man with the child;

She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking,

So she was around 35 meters, or 110 ft away from him if they were talking by the path entrance.
 
Jane 10th May.

She doesn't recall the position/orientation of either Jez or GM while they spoke to each other on the street, only having the perception that one was on the pavement and the other was in the road next to the other.

She specifies her distance from the man though;

Confronted, she demonstrated the distance at which the man with the child had passed her, and that was gauged to be about 5 metres.

If Jane was only 5 meters away from the man and she had just passed Jez and Gerry, they were not chatting at the entrance to the pathway, which is 35 meters from the man.

Jane's rog. Now she's even closer to the man;

So, yeah, so I went past them, erm, up to the, and then walking up to the top of the road and then, as I got to the top, this person, somebody walked across the top of the road with, with a child. 

Can Jane's testimony be relied on and quoted if her recollection of where she was when she saw the man can change so significantly from 35 meters to 5 meters to being almost next to him?

different distances, ... all that proves is that she is not good under the pressure of giving fiormal statements .... and neither is she good at distances.

[ferryman]

Absolutely, Sadie, and the natural thing to do was for Gerry to discontinue his walk towards reception and veer towards Jez who was pushing his son in the buggy towards him.

They did not see Jane.  So what?

An article of faith (among those who insist so) that Jane 'wasn't there' ...

[faithlilly]

Absolutely, Sadie, and the natural thing to do was for Gerry to discontinue his walk towards reception and veer towards Jez who was pushing his son in the buggy towards him.

They did not see Jane.  So what?

Rebelo certainly thought it was suspicious as he asked for a reconstitution that clarify exactly whether what Tanner said was possible.

[Brietta]

Jane, 4th May. No mention of the men's location but she says exactly when she saw the man with the child;

She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking,

So she was around 35 meters, or 110 ft away from him if they were talking by the path entrance.
 
Jane 10th May.

She doesn't recall the position/orientation of either Jez or GM while they spoke to each other on the street, only having the perception that one was on the pavement and the other was in the road next to the other.

She specifies her distance from the man though;

Confronted, she demonstrated the distance at which the man with the child had passed her, and that was gauged to be about 5 metres.

If Jane was only 5 meters away from the man and she had just passed Jez and Gerry, they were not chatting at the entrance to the pathway, which is 35 meters from the man.

Jane's rog. Now she's even closer to the man;

So, yeah, so I went past them, erm, up to the, and then walking up to the top of the road and then, as I got to the top, this person, somebody walked across the top of the road with, with a child. 

Can Jane's testimony be relied on and quoted if her recollection of where she was when she saw the man can change so significantly from 35 meters to 5 meters to being almost next to him?

The measurements are yours ... not the witnesses.

Bear in mind you are calling into question sworn witness statements ... do be careful to keep in mind that the reliability of Jane Tanner's statements are not for for you to call into disrepute.

[Brietta]

Rebelo certainly thought it was suspicious as he asked for a reconstitution that clarify exactly whether what Tanner said was possible.

Cite please for that statement.

[G-Unit]

Absolutely, Sadie, and the natural thing to do was for Gerry to discontinue his walk towards reception and veer towards Jez who was pushing his son in the buggy towards him.

They did not see Jane.  So what?

Because it seemed inexplicable to the investigators and to one of the witnesses that she could have passed by unobserved?

I can affirm that it was a quiet street and it was very unlikely that someone could have passed by be in this way
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm

[sadie]

Because it seemed inexplicable to the investigators and to one of the witnesses that she could have passed by unobserved?

I can affirm that it was a quiet street and it was very unlikely that someone could have passed by be in this way
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm

i read what you are saying, but the FACT is that it happened.  Jane passed Gerry and Jez chatting in the roadway ... and neither of them saw her.

It happened alright.

Of course she could have been the length of a bed away from either of them and the lighting was poor .

[G-Unit]

The measurements are yours ... not the witnesses.

Bear in mind you are calling into question sworn witness statements ... do be careful to keep in mind that the reliability of Jane Tanner's statements are not for for you to call into disrepute.

My 35 meter measurement from the top of the street to the corner of the path was courtesy of google, so it's as reliable as any other google measurements quoted on the forum.

The five meter measurement was provided by the witness in her sworn statement. In her final sworn statement she places herself at the top of the street.

I see nothing wrong in pointing out that a witness placed herself in three different locations when she saw the man with the child.

[Alfie]

For all the claims that it isn't important where the protagonists were standing the supporters are falling over themselves to obscure what is clear in the only independent witness's statement.

I assume Gerry thought he was safe on the other side of the road !

Explain to us why Gerry was safe on one side of the road but not the other, also why he would lie about where he was standing when the person he was talking to would obviously contradict him.  Looking forward to this!

[Brietta]

My 35 meter measurement from the top of the street to the corner of the path was courtesy of google, so it's as reliable as any other google measurements quoted on the forum.

The five meter measurement was provided by the witness in her sworn statement. In her final sworn statement she places herself at the top of the street.

I see nothing wrong in pointing out that a witness placed herself in three different locations when she saw the man with the child.

You have quoted from two non verbatim statements in which the witness said nothing but was reported as saying ... so do have a care exactly what words you are putting in the witness's mouth and the implication you put on them.

[G-Unit]

You have quoted from two non verbatim statements in which the witness said nothing but was reported as saying ... so do have a care exactly what words you are putting in the witness's mouth and the implication you put on them.

If the statements contain serious inconsistencies the witness should not have signed them.