How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?

[faithlilly]

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.

Understandable? How so? He is undermining his own witness. Why would he do that if it wasn't important to him? If Tannerman really was the abductor why would he seek to cast doubt on his witness's powers of recall, for what, the need to be proved right? Surely he thinks more of his daughter's safety?

[Alfie]

Understandable? How so? He is undermining his own witness. Why would he do that if it wasn't important to him? If Tannerman really was the abductor why would he seek to cast doubt on his witness's powers of recall, for what, the need to be proved right? Surely he thinks more of his daughter's safety?

It's not about undermining another witness, it's about being true to what you remember. What is so difficult to understand?

[Alfie]

In any case Faithlilly let's not forget you believe Gerry and JT invented this sighting in the first place and now you want us to believe Gerry deliberately undermined it.  That makes no sense at all.

[faithlilly]

It's not about undermining another witness, it's about being true to what you remember. What is so difficult to understand?

But that's not what he remembered on the timeline which the whole group collaborated on, was it?

[Alfie]

But that's not what he remembered on the timeline which the whole group collaborated on, was it?

And you know it was Gerry and not JT who added that detail do you?  How much time did the PJ devote to this issue in Gerry's arguido interview?

[faithlilly]

And you know it was Gerry and not JT who added that detail do you?  How much time did the PJ devote to this issue in Gerry's arguido interview?

Are you really trying to suggest Gerry would not have read the timeline, and corrected anything that was wrong, before it was handed to the police? Really?

As to the PJ devoting time to this they requested a reconstitution to clarify just this issue. How much more attention do you want?

[G-Unit]

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?

I think the PJ were very interested in the positions of the three people on that street. It was one of the reasobs why they tried to arrange the reconstitution.

Addressing now, and specifically, the question relative to the diligence known as the "reconstitution of the facts" (Article 150º of the Penal Process Code), which was not performed due to the refusal of some of the integral members of the holiday group to return to our country (as documented in the Inquiry), the same would have clarified, duly and in the location of the disappearance, the following extremely important details, amongst others:

The physical, real and effective, proximity between JANE TANNER, GERALD McCANN and JEREMY WILKINS, at the moment when the former passed them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, from our understanding, as unusual that neither GERALD McCANN nor JEREMY WILKINS did not see her, nor the alleged abductor, despite the small dimensions of the space
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm

[faithlilly]

I think the PJ were very interested in the positions of the three people on that street. It was one of the reasobs why they tried to arrange the reconstitution.

Addressing now, and specifically, the question relative to the diligence known as the "reconstitution of the facts" (Article 150º of the Penal Process Code), which was not performed due to the refusal of some of the integral members of the holiday group to return to our country (as documented in the Inquiry), the same would have clarified, duly and in the location of the disappearance, the following extremely important details, amongst others:

The physical, real and effective, proximity between JANE TANNER, GERALD McCANN and JEREMY WILKINS, at the moment when the former passed them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, from our understanding, as unusual that neither GERALD McCANN nor JEREMY WILKINS did not see her, nor the alleged abductor, despite the small dimensions of the space
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm

Exactly.

[pathfinder73]

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.

I'm telling you it is impossible within a few feet. This was a deserted street. Do a reconstruction with one in flip-flops trying to get pass 2 in deep conversation without either noticing.

"I’d got cropped trousers on and just flip-flops, so I can remember sort of walking, I couldn’t walk that quickly because I’d got these silly flip-flops on and I couldn’t walk that, that well in them, so to speak." JT

[Alice Purjorick]

I think the PJ were very interested in the positions of the three people on that street. It was one of the reasobs why they tried to arrange the reconstitution.

Addressing now, and specifically, the question relative to the diligence known as the "reconstitution of the facts" (Article 150º of the Penal Process Code), which was not performed due to the refusal of some of the integral members of the holiday group to return to our country (as documented in the Inquiry), the same would have clarified, duly and in the location of the disappearance, the following extremely important details, amongst others:

The physical, real and effective, proximity between JANE TANNER, GERALD McCANN and JEREMY WILKINS, at the moment when the former passed them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, from our understanding, as unusual that neither GERALD McCANN nor JEREMY WILKINS did not see her, nor the alleged abductor, despite the small dimensions of the space
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm

Yeah but that's only the less than adequate Pesky Portuguese Peelers. What would they know about inattentional blindness and measuring accurately using Google Earth................... they probably did something out of the ark and ran a tape over the ground..............

[Angelo222]

It's not just the side of the street but how they got there.  Gerry stated that he saw Wilkins approaching on the opposite side of the road and crossed over to intercept him.  Wilkins for his part claims the opposite. That it was he who crossed the road seeing Gerry walking down the footpath and assumed that he had just come out of 5a. If that was the case then both men were closer to the path which goes along in front of block 5 than they were to the small gate to 5a.

The real mystery is why neither men saw Tannerman cross the road?

[pathfinder73]

It's not just the side of the street but how they got there.  Gerry stated that he saw Wilkins approaching on the opposite side of the road and crossed over to intercept him.  Wilkins for his part claims the opposite. That it was he who crossed the road seeing Gerry walking down the footpath and assumed that he had just come out of 5a.

Jez had to cross the road to get back to his apartment. Gerry didn't have to cross as he was going back to the Tapas. Jez saw him appear from the gate and crossed, Gerry's back was facing the gate and Jez was facing him.

[Angelo222]

Jez had to cross the road to get back to his apartment. Gerry didn't have to cross as he was going back to the Tapas. Jez saw him appear from the gate and crossed, Gerry's back was facing the gate and Jez was facing him.

Jez states that he didn't see Gerry emerge from 5a, he merely assumed that was where he came from which places Gerry downhill from the gate to 5a and closer to the pathway/corner as shown on two sketches made by Tanner and Wilkins.

[pathfinder73]

As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry.  At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.

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

[Alfie]

I think the PJ were very interested in the positions of the three people on that street. It was one of the reasobs why they tried to arrange the reconstitution.

Addressing now, and specifically, the question relative to the diligence known as the "reconstitution of the facts" (Article 150º of the Penal Process Code), which was not performed due to the refusal of some of the integral members of the holiday group to return to our country (as documented in the Inquiry), the same would have clarified, duly and in the location of the disappearance, the following extremely important details, amongst others:

The physical, real and effective, proximity between JANE TANNER, GERALD McCANN and JEREMY WILKINS, at the moment when the former passed them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, from our understanding, as unusual that neither GERALD McCANN nor JEREMY WILKINS did not see her, nor the alleged abductor, despite the small dimensions of the space
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm

OK fair point well made.  I take it back then.  The PJ were bothered about it in their first investigation, though not to the extent of ever cross-questioning Gerry about it in his arguido interview, or asking him why he had apparently changed his relative position (not as far as I'm aware anyway).