How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?

[Alfie]

Some also believe that Jane went up the pathway to her left and didn't pass the men at all which renders the subsequent sighting of Tannerman somewhat impossible.  If you cast your mind back to the TV reconstruction involving Gerry and Jane, they never did quite get round to explaining how Jane managed to pass the two men unseen whilst in such close proximity to them.  Instead, the entire discussion wandered off across the road to where Gerry claimed he was stood leaving Tanner in tears.

And still no one can come up with any plausible explanation for why Gerry would want to lie about where he was standing that night, or how he hoped to get away with the supposed lie when there was a witness (Jes) to where he was standing.

[faithlilly]

No it's not relevant to my question which was: Any explanation for why Gerry thought he could get away with moving his position to suit when Jez Wilkins was a cast iron witness to where he was actually standing?

You are deflecting.  Try to answer the question, then I will answer yours.

But he did move his position, and stuck to it even though there was evidence to the contrary.

So where do you think Gerry was standing?

[Alfie]

But he did move his position, and stuck to it even though there was evidence to the contrary.

So where do you think Gerry was standing?

I don't have any firm opinion on it.  I don't think it's important to establish whether he was ten foot from where he said he was or whether Jes was mistaken.  I place as much importance on his position on that road as the police did in the first investigation.  Ie: none.  I think it is possible that whether he was where he said he was or whether he was where Jes said he was, or whether they were both slightly off and were actually halfway between the two points, that two men chatting and facing each other, in the low light level, with a pram between them, perhaps relaxed, sharing a joke and not mindful of their immediate surroundings could miss a pedestrian passing by.  What I do find much more inconceivable is that having pre-arranged an alibi that he could cast it off with such a cavalier attitude on the basis that someone in a flat *might* possibly have seen his actual position, when there was already a cast-iron witness to his actual position ie Jes.  So perhaps you could explain that one?

[pathfinder73]

Not a very clear reply.  I know exactly what you're suggesting even if you won't admit it, and I would say that it is highly improbable, but then nothing's impossible, not even walking past someone on the pavement and them failing to register your presence.

I've made it clear to what I'm suggesting. Jane saw crecheman/child but she didn't pass Gerry/Jez at the gate without being seen/heard. I've offered alternative possibilities to further investigate.

[Eleanor]

I've made it clear to what I'm suggesting. Jane saw crecheman/child but she didn't pass Gerry/Jez at the gate without being seen/heard. I've offered alternative possibilities to investigate further.

Gerry and Jez weren't standing by the gate.

[pathfinder73]

4078    “And can you remember, as you past them or thought to acknowledge them, then you noticed they were deep in conversation, can you remember which angle you saw them from, which way they were facing?”

Reply    “No, I, phew, again, I would probably guess Gerry’s back was more towards me, because I would have thought if I’d have seen him I would have definitely probably stopped and said ‘Oh you’re in trouble, you’ve been long, we think you’ve been watching the footy’, you know, but.  Because I think that’s almost when I went to acknowledge them, that’s almost what went through my head, you know, is to sort of give a bit of abuse about the fact he’d been so long, but.  So I would imagine his, maybe his back was to me, but.  And, again, in that way, that would make more sense, because I don’t know Jez, so it’s not like I would have gone ‘Oh hi Jez’, you know, that way, so.  Yeah, I, I honestly, I can’t remember now which way they were.  But I do, I stand by the fact I’m sure they were nearer than right over here”.

That's an important reason for a reconstruction. How long were these checks?

[Alfie]

I've made it clear to what I'm suggesting. Jane saw crecheman/child but she didn't pass Gerry/Jez at the gate without being seen/heard. I've offered alternative possibilities to further investigate.

She says she did.  She was there.  You were not.  Have you got some sort of scientific evidence that proves your point, that it is physically impossible for her to have passed these two men unseen?  If so please feel free to direct us to it.

[pathfinder73]

Gerry and Jez weren't standing by the gate.

Jez was there not you.

I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. (JW 7 May 2007)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm

At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm

[faithlilly]

I don't have any firm opinion on it.  I don't think it's important to establish whether he was ten foot from where he said he was or whether Jes was mistaken.  I place as much importance on his position on that road as the police did in the first investigation.  Ie: none.  I think it is possible that whether he was where he said he was or whether he was where Jes said he was, or whether they were both slightly off and were actually halfway between the two points, that two men chatting and facing each other, in the low light level, with a pram between them, perhaps relaxed, sharing a joke and not mindful of their immediate surroundings could miss a pedestrian passing by.  What I do find much more inconceivable is that having pre-arranged an alibi that he could cast it off with such a cavalier attitude on the basis that someone in a flat *might* possibly have seen his actual position, when there was already a cast-iron witness to his actual position ie Jes.  So perhaps you could explain that one?

But that's exactly what Gerry did do, though his reasons are open to interpretation. On the timeline the whole group collaborated on Gerry placed himself firmly on the apartment side of the street yet by his statement on the 10th of May he had changed his position to the opposite side. Why change his position if where he stood wasn't important? Why undermine your most important witness's credibility if there was nothing to be gained?

"2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed. "

The quote above also proves that Wilkins and Gerry were standing up from the gate and nowhere near the alleyway.

[pathfinder73]

She says she did.  She was there.  You were not.  Have you got some sort of scientific evidence that proves your point, that it is physically impossible for her to have passed these two men unseen?  If so please feel free to direct us to it.

Jane may have been there but not even a Hello passing within feet or being noticed by not even one out of two. Get real.

[Alice Purjorick]

I see that my response to this has been wiped.

Just a precis of my post, cos I have a right of response.

1)  I have taught subjects such as this and if your teacher taught you some of the things that you have come out with, then he needs retraining. 

2) You have continually tried to make facts seem wrong, to the detriment of the Mccanns, Gerry in particular.  That is a form of disinformation.  Untruthfulness.  Surely your Mummy and Daddy (your words, not mine) taught you to tell the truth ?

Which facts am I making seem wrong?
Instead of becoming insulting about people you do not know rather than addressing the problem you could always sort it irrevocably one way or another.
Try plotting it out in plan view with all the features and personnel using google maps or google earth, but be careful how you use the latter, the statements and a decent  manual on ergonomics. The bit by the alleyway and steps should fit lengthways on an A4 sheet if plotted at 1:20.

Incidentally why do you think Google Earth uses a cursor and algorithm rather than a bar scale ?

[Alfie]

But that's exactly what Gerry did do, though his reasons are open to interpretation. On the timeline the whole group collaborated on Gerry placed himself firmly on the apartment side of the street yet by his statement on the 10th of May he had changed his position to the opposite side. Why change his position if where he stood wasn't important? Why undermine your most important witness's credibility if there was nothing to be gained?

"2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed. "

The quote above also proves that Wilkins and Gerry were standing up from the gate and nowhere near the alleyway.

That's the question I'm asking you - what is to be gained from it?  Sweet FA, that's what.

[faithlilly]

That's the question I'm asking you - what is to be gained from it?  Sweet FA, that's what.

It was obviously important to Gerry or else why do it? We can only guess at his motivation.

[Alfie]

Jane may have been there but not even a Hello passing within feet or being noticed by not even one out of two. Get real.

Please do not tell me to "get real".  Did JT know Jez Wilkins?  Were they on speaking terms? JT explains in her statement why she did not make contact with Gerry - he had his back to her and was in deep conversation.  I'm waiting for your proof that passing someone unnoticed on a pavement is actually impossible.

[Alfie]

It was obviously important to Gerry or else why do it? We can only guess at his motivation.

I think you're overstating the importance to Gerry of this minor detail.   He is merely defending his own memory of events that night, which is understandable, even if he is mistaken.