How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?

[Alfie]

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?

I expect he read it, and I have no idea why he didn't correct it before it was handed to the police.  Maybe he didn't pick up on it, or maybe it didn't occur to him until later that JT had got it wrong.  What I don't think he did was decide several days later after handing it to the police that he needed to change his story about where he was standing for nefarious reasons, when he knew full well he had a cast-iron witness who would say he was standing otherwise. 

[pathfinder73]

Well somebody made a pig's ear of it. Gerry left 15 minutes after Matt on the timeline named GERALD. How so?

4078 'Okay. So take me through from there then, what happened after that''

Reply 'So, erm, back to the table, erm, we have, oh, back to the table, Gerry got up to go and, to go and check on his kids, I mean, and I'd come back and said, you know, I didn't hear any noise when I listened outside your room, so I thought it was a little bit odd that, you know, not kind of a wounded pride that he sort of didn't trust me.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm

[Benice]

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

'Unusual' - does not mean 'impossible'.  And from personal experience I can vouch for the fact that it is not impossible.

How could a recon work when Gerry would have gone to where he remembers they stood and Jez would have gone to where he remembers they stood.     What would that prove - apart from the fallibility of memory?

Say they both did stand where Jez remembers -  in a recon.      Gerry has his back to the path and so doesn't see Jane and Jez bends down to attend to his baby just as JT passes and so also doesn't see Jane.  Both confirm to the PJ that they didn't see Jane passing.

Would that be accepted by sceptics as final proof that JT was telling the truth ?   Of course it wouldn't.   Not a chance IMO.

[Robittybob1]

I expect he read it, and I have no idea why he didn't correct it before it was handed to the police.  Maybe he didn't pick up on it, or maybe it didn't occur to him until later that JT had got it wrong.  What I don't think he did was decide several days later after handing it to the police that he needed to change his story about where he was standing for nefarious reasons, when he knew full well he had a cast-iron witness who would say he was standing otherwise.

It wasn't finished or corrected when the police took the timeline off Russell.  Gerry may not have been aware of it.

[G-Unit]

'Unusual' - does not mean 'impossible'.  And from personal experience I can vouch for the fact that it is not impossible.

How could a recon work when Gerry would have gone to where he remembers they stood and Jez would have gone to where he remembers they stood.     What would that prove - apart from the fallibility of memory?

Say they both did stand where Jez remembers -  in a recon.      Gerry has his back to the path and so doesn't see Jane and Jez bends down to attend to his baby just as JT passes and so also doesn't see Jane.  Both confirm to the PJ that they didn't see Jane passing.

Would that be accepted by sceptics as final proof that JT was telling the truth ?   Of course it wouldn't.   Not a chance IMO.

I have no idea how these things are done, so I can't say. It might have been fun watching them both ignoring Jane as she flip flopped past on that quiet street.

[jassi]

The whole thing would have been a hoot, watching them tie themselves in ever tighter knots. 

[Benice]

I have no idea how these things are done, so I can't say. It might have been fun watching them both ignoring Jane as she flip flopped past on that quiet street.

Not seeing her is not the same as ignoring her.

Jez and Gerry were not standing in silence - they were both talking and therefore their own voices would be the sound that would be registering with them and which would have their attention.

IMO

[Robittybob1]

Not seeing her is not the same as ignoring her.

Jez and Gerry were not standing in silence - they were both talking and therefore their own voices would be the sound that would be registering with them and which would have their attention.

IMO

But you can't tell which it was , not being aware of Jane or ignoring Jane.  She even had a conversation prepared in her head, but she didn't butt in.

[faithlilly]

I expect he read it, and I have no idea why he didn't correct it before it was handed to the police.  Maybe he didn't pick up on it, or maybe it didn't occur to him until later that JT had got it wrong.  What I don't think he did was decide several days later after handing it to the police that he needed to change his story about where he was standing for nefarious reasons, when he knew full well he had a cast-iron witness who would say he was standing otherwise.

So are you now saying he was on the other side of the road from the apartment? That both Tanner and Wilkins 'got it wrong' ? That if, as you claim, where he was standing had absolutely no relevance whatsoever, why he chose to change it with all the implications it had with regard to Tanner's credibility?

[Alfie]

I'm curious to know how this three page typed document was compiled, on whose computer etc.  Did all nine of the Tapas group huddle round a computer while one of them typed it up or what? 

[Alfie]

So are you now saying he was on the other side of the road from the apartment? That both Tanner and Wilkins 'got it wrong' ? That if, as you claim, where he was standing had absolutely no relevance whatsoever, why he chose to change it with all the implications it had with regard to Tanner's credibility?

I'm saying nothing more than that IMO Gerry had a genuine belief that he was stood where he said he was stood, contrary to where Jez Wilkins said he was stood, and that he may have been right or he may have been wrong.  The reason I have come to this conclusion it that there is no logical, plausible nefarious reason for him to change his relative position, despite your desperate attempts to concoct one.   

[G-Unit]

I'm saying nothing more than that IMO Gerry had a genuine belief that he was stood where he said he was stood, contrary to where Jez Wilkins said he was stood, and that he may have been right or he may have been wrong.  The reason I have come to this conclusion it that there is no logical, plausible nefarious reason for him to change his relative position, despite your desperate attempts to concoct one.

Just because you can't think of a reason why Gerry would change the site of his meeting doesn't mean there isn't a reason.

[Robittybob1]

Just because you can't think of a reason why Gerry would change the site of his meeting doesn't mean there isn't a reason.

Would it make any evidential difference which side of the road it was?

[G-Unit]

Would it make any evidential difference which side of the road it was?

That would depend.

[Alfie]

Just because you can't think of a reason why Gerry would change the site of his meeting doesn't mean there isn't a reason.

Name one then.