How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?

[Alfie]

That would depend.

on what?

[Robittybob1]

That would depend.

I would really like to know if there was a child in the push chair as Jez claimed.  I suppose the  amount of lighting would be a factor to consider.  Was it darker and more secluded on one side of the street rather than the other.  Gerry says he didn't take his cellphone with him to the tapas restaurant.  Were there missed calls from Jez that he became aware of once he returned to do his check, that made him anxious enough to march over toward Jez?
Imagine your surprise if you rang someone back and at that very moment a phone starts ringing in the dark across the street!  Something dramatic like that that takes Gerry's attention away from Jane's approach.

[G-Unit]

Name one then.

I don't need to name one in order to make the point that you could be wrong.

[Robittybob1]

I don't need to name one in order to make the point that you could be wrong.

Shall we be a bit more open here to try and find a solution to this issue please?

[Alfie]

I don't need to name one in order to make the point that you could be wrong.

I think considering possible motive helps us to decide what is and what isn't important.  We collectively have had the best part of ten years to consider this issue, millions of braincells and thousands of hours have been expended to try and come up with a plausible and logical nefarious explanation for this discrepancy in the 3 witnesses storis and yet despite this no one has yet come up with anything that makes any sense.  Therefore one can only conclude that discrepancies can be explained simply as a result of the fallibility of human memory.  Occam's Razor innit.

[Robittybob1]

I think considering possible motive helps us to decide what is and what isn't important.  We collectively have had the best part of ten years to consider this issue, millions of braincells and thousands of hours have been expended to try and come up with a plausible and logical nefarious explanation for this discrepancy in the 3 witnesses storis and yet despite this no one has yet come up with anything that makes any sense.  Therefore one can only conclude that discrepancies can be explained simply as a result of the fallibility of human memory.  Occam's Razor innit.

It could be one conclusion but I prefer the action of ignoring each other.  Jane mentions that she was not getting on that well with Gerry and didn't know Jez.  Maybe the feelings were mutual and Gerry didn't want to talk to Jane so they ignored her.  Once they ignored her were they going to admit that they had really seen her but were ignoring her?  How does one confess to that?

[faithlilly]

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.

So what you are really saying is that although two witnesses, one whose credibility may have been very important in the retrieval of his daughter, assured Gerry that he was standing in a completely different position than he remembered he was conceited enough to totally disregard their opinions simply because he couldn't bear to be wrong?

That Gerry's opinion did undermine Tanner's credibility is undeniable as Rebelo's request for a reconstitution proves.

[Alfie]

So what you are really saying is that although two witnesses, one whose credibility may have been very important in the retrieval of his daughter, assured Gerry that he was standing in a completely different position than he remembered he was conceited enough to totally disregard their opinions simply because he couldn't bear to be wrong?

That Gerry's opinion did undermine Tanner's credibility is undeniable as Rebelo's request for a reconstitution proves.

No, that's what YOU'RE saying I'm saying.  That said, you've yet to provide us with a plausible explanation for your version of events so Gerry being conceited and hating to be proven wrong has far greater plausibility IMO than the convoluted plot-line that you're so fond of.

[faithlilly]

No, that's what YOU'RE saying I'm saying.  That said, you've yet to provide us with a plausible explanation for your version of events so Gerry being conceited and hating to be proven wrong has far greater plausibility IMO than the convoluted plot-line that you're so fond of.

No that's what you're saying. Either he has a 'nefarious' reason to put himself on the other side of the road or he just hates to be wrong.

The latter kind of puts a spanner in the claim of the supporters that Gerry would do anything to find his daughter. If his ego wouldn't allow him to be seen to be wrong even if it lead to the dismissal of what could have been the most important piece of evidence in the whole case then he is beyond contempt.

How you can support this man heaven alone knows.

[Robittybob1]

No that's what you're saying. Either he has a 'nefarious' reason to put himself on the other side of the road or he just hates to be wrong.

The latter kind of puts a spanner in the claim of the supporters that Gerry would do anything to find her daughter. If his ego wouldn't allow him to be seen to be wrong even if it lead to the dismissal of what could have been the most important piece of evidence in the whole case then he is beyond contempt.

How you can support this man heaven alone knows.

Why do you make out Gerry is wrong whereas I'd say it is most likely Jez that is wrong?
In fact I'm 100% certain that Jez is most likely wrong.

[sadie]

No that's what you're saying. Either he has a 'nefarious' reason to put himself on the other side of the road or he just hates to be wrong.

The latter kind of puts a spanner in the claim of the supporters that Gerry would do anything to find his daughter. If his ego wouldn't allow him to be seen to be wrong even if it lead to the dismissal of what could have been the most important piece of evidence in the whole case then he is beyond contempt.

How you can support this man heaven alone knows.

OR

They started on the east side of the road but a vehicle started to come up the road (maybe from the little car park opposite Tapas Reception).  This would be on the RHS (East side) as is the norm in PT ... and they moved away to the western side of the road between the parked vehicles.

[sadie]

Why do you make out Gerry is wrong whereas I'd say it is most likely Jez that is wrong?
In fact I'm 100% certain that Jez is most likely wrong.

So you think that Gerry was right?  Despite Jane being adamant in the Cutting Edge video and Jez being sure that the were near the pathway corner on the western side of the road.

Two people against one.   Jez and Jane v Gerry
 
I orefer that Gerry got it wrong, or that they might have started on the eastern side in the roadway itself, then moved back to the western side to get ouit of the way, as a vehicle came up towards them

[faithlilly]

OR

They started on the east side of the road but a vehicle started to come up the road (maybe from the little car park opposite Tapas Reception).  This would be on the RHS (East side) as is the norm in PT ... and they moved away to the western side of the road between the parked vehicles.

And both Gerry and Wilkins forgot to mention it?

[sadie]

And both Gerry and Wilkins forgot to mention it?

Jez didn't need to.  As far as he was concerned most of the chat was on the west side of the road.

Gerry remembered going across the road towards the eastern side and that is what stuck in his mind, rather than remembering being on the western side.

simples, Faith.

Nigh night

[faithlilly]

Jez didn't need to.  As far as he was concerned most of the chat was on the west side of the road.

Gerry remembered going across the road towards the eastern side and that is what stuck in his mind, rather than remembering being on the western side.

simples, Faith.

Nigh night

Yep. Back on ignore.