How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?

[Robittybob1]

The 15 minute chat time has been discussed on other forums because what seems problematic for Jez is the unaccounted for time delay between when Gerry finishing talking to Jez (using Gerry's timeline from 9:10- 9:15)  but Jez does not make it home till 9:30 and he was only staying just a few meters away.
So it has been pointed out by other forums his timeline doesn't ring true so Bridget may have in her dealings with the press inflated the chat time up to 15 minutes to account for this spare time, IMO.
But the truth of it is Jez' alibi can only be corroborated during the 4-5 minute period when he is talking to Gerry.  (This alibi is Confirmed by Jane but Jane's confirmation of it is denied by Jez.)

At this point a huge amount of material was removed - check the source links .

[Robittybob1]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7805.msg367049#msg367049 for the article.

[faithlilly]

this is the most preposterous piece of reasoning I've read on this board.  How does Gerry insisting he was standing on the other side of the street prevent his daughter from being found?!

Gerry undermines Tanner's claim of being on the street as her recollections don't match with his. The police don't take Tanner's sighting seriously for that reason and don't pursue it with any vigour. Tannerman really is the abductor. You can see how it would happen.

And all because Gerry's ego wouldn't admit his recollection was wrong

[Alfie]

Gerry undermines Tanner's claim of being on the street as her recollections don't match with his. The police don't take Tanner's sighting seriously for that reason and don't pursue it with any vigour. Tannerman really is the abductor. You can see how it would happen.

And all because Gerry's ego wouldn't admit his recollection was wrong

And how do you square this with your belief that Gerry and JT concocted the sighting, or your belief that the McCanns were only interested in promoting Tannerman as the abductor? 

[Benice]

Gerry undermines Tanner's claim of being on the street as her recollections don't match with his. The police don't take Tanner's sighting seriously for that reason and don't pursue it with any vigour. Tannerman really is the abductor. You can see how it would happen.

And all because Gerry's ego wouldn't admit his recollection was wrong

How you came to that conclusion is completely beyond me Faith.   I'm gobsmacked.

There is no way anyone with an ego that size could maintain a job which involved working with others and accepting other people's opinions, and no way they could maintain a loving relationship.    Gerry seems to have had no trouble doing both.

Don't you find it strange that no-one who actually knows him personally has noticed this mega 'ego' problem - even though one the size you claim  would be impossible to miss and would be causing all kinds of conflict wherever Gerry was.

Too daft for words IMO.

AIMHO

[faithlilly]

How you came to that conclusion is completely beyond me Faith.   I'm gobsmacked.

There is no way anyone with an ego that size could maintain a job which involved working with others and accepting other people's opinions, and no way they could maintain a loving relationship.    Gerry seems to have had no trouble doing both.

Don't you find it strange that no-one who actually knows him personally has noticed this mega 'ego' problem - even though one the size you claim  would be impossible to miss and would be causing all kinds of conflict wherever Gerry was.

Too daft for words IMO.

AIMHO

So why do you think that he disregarded the recollections of two people in favour of his own? If it was me, and I suspect you'd be the same, if two other witnesses remembered an incident differently to me I'd simply concede that I'd remembered the incident wrongly.

[Brietta]

So why do you think that he disregarded the recollections of two people in favour of his own? If it was me, and I suspect you'd be the same, if two other witnesses remembered an incident differently to me I'd simply concede that I'd remembered the incident wrongly.

Because that was not how he remembered it  and in any case, where he was standing in relation to where Jez was standing is of absolutely no consequence particularly as neither saw Jane Tanner passing or the man seen by Jane, crossing the road and carrying a child.

[Alfie]

So why do you think that he disregarded the recollections of two people in favour of his own? If it was me, and I suspect you'd be the same, if two other witnesses remembered an incident differently to me I'd simply concede that I'd remembered the incident wrongly.

Perhaps you could address my question?
And how do you square this with your belief that Gerry and JT concocted the sighting, or your belief that the McCanns were only interested in promoting Tannerman as the abductor? 

[G-Unit]

How you came to that conclusion is completely beyond me Faith.   I'm gobsmacked.

There is no way anyone with an ego that size could maintain a job which involved working with others and accepting other people's opinions, and no way they could maintain a loving relationship.    Gerry seems to have had no trouble doing both.

Don't you find it strange that no-one who actually knows him personally has noticed this mega 'ego' problem - even though one the size you claim  would be impossible to miss and would be causing all kinds of conflict wherever Gerry was.

Too daft for words IMO.

AIMHO

Most people choose their conflicts. People who are deferential to their boss can behave very differently to those below them in the hierarchy.

[Benice]

So why do you think that he disregarded the recollections of two people in favour of his own? If it was me, and I suspect you'd be the same, if two other witnesses remembered an incident differently to me I'd simply concede that I'd remembered the incident wrongly.

Because that is what he remembered and what he continued to remember.    The easy alternative would be for him to lie and say he did see JT - which would have made things a whole lot better for them both. 

He is being vilified for not lying. 

What if he had changed his mind and agreed that he was wrong - would you have accepted that?   Or would you be dissecting every word he said  looking for a reason to find fault with him for doing that? 

He corrected the statement which claimed he said he went into 5A via the front door.  Admittedly we were never given the reason for that correction, but my word - what a meal the sceptics made of that - and still do.

AIMHO

Must go out now.

[pathfinder73]

Gerry didn't see Jane like Jez but by crossing the road he puts his back to her. Unless he had eyes in the back of his head he wouldn't see her. By crossing the road he changes everything.

Jez provided his details to the police when they visited to obtain the full correct facts.

During the evening of Wednesday 31 October 2007, Jeremy and Bridget were visited at their home address by DC 1756 and DC 4356 from the Leicestershire Op Task team.

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.
He was adamant that he did not see any one else in the area. When spoken to in reference to Jane Tanner walking by, he again stated that he saw no one. He also stated that he did not see or hear anyone to his right. He was aware of the recent picture in the papers re the person with a child wrapped in a blanket and in a males arms allegedly walking across the junction to his right but again stated that he did not see any one.
The conversation with Gerry lasted for about three minutes during which Gerry was chatty and in his normal self. Jeremy then made his way back to his apartment.

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

[Robittybob1]

Because that is what he remembered and what he continued to remember.    The easy alternative would be for him to lie and say he did see JT - which would have made things a whole lot better for them both. 

He is being vilified for not lying. 

What if he had changed his mind and agreed that he was wrong - would you have accepted that?   Or would you be dissecting every word he said  looking for a reason to find fault with him for doing that? 

He corrected the statement which claimed he said he went into 5A via the front door.  Admittedly we were never given the reason for that correction, but my word - what a meal the sceptics made of that - and still do.

AIMHO

Must go out now.

I thought about this argument and I think they would have used Gerry both ways.  If he turned around and agreed with Jane they could have accused him of collusion and if he disagrees they discounted her version.  Was there a solution to this?  If Jane changed her tune and agreed with Gerry they would have added that to her inconsistency.
In the article I posted the problem lies with Jez as the PJ accepted his version as gospel.  From their point of view there was no Jane passing Jez and hence there was  no Tannerman.  For the given reason Jez hadn't seen either of them.

[Robittybob1]

What do you mean?

If they had been plotting together for Jane to say she saw a man with a child,  then they would have got their stories worked out wouldn't they?   They would both have said they saw each other.   When I have said this before, a poster has always said 'well if he saw Jane he should have seen the man with the child'  but if Gerry just saw her out of the corner of his eye as she past by then that would have been ok wouldn't it?

Why are people trying to make out Gerry should have seen Jane, it's ridiculous,  he was talking to Jez facing away from the pavement.

He has ears.
Think about it they would have used Gerry both ways.  If he turned around and agreed with Jane they could have accused him of collusion. If Jane changed her tune and agreed with Gerry they would have added that to her inconsistent statement.
It appears the reason lies with the PJ as they accepted Jez' version as gospel.  From their point of view there was no Jane passing Jez and hence there was  no Tannerman.  For the given reason Jez hadn't seen either of them.
It justified them for not looking for Madeleine elsewhere.

[G-Unit]

According to Jeremy Wilkins he was woken up at around 1am on 4th May by John Hill and Matthew Oldfield. Matthew told him that Gerry McCann's daughter had been abducted and Gerry wanted to know if he had seen anything when they met earlier. This happened just before the PJ arrived.

I assume that John Hill was involved because he was in a position to know or to find out which apartment Jeremy was in. So was he in 5A when the subject was raised and then he went to find out the information or was he elsewhere and Matthew went to find him? As neither of the men mention this visit we don't know.

What we do know is that Gerry McCann knew early on that Jeremy Wilkins had seen nothing. He also knew that Jane Tanner had seen something because he told PJ Inspector Vitor Martins, although the story wasn't quite the same as Jane told it the following day;

At about 21.20, their friend Jane passed by the apartment (along the corridor of the main entrance) she saw an individual carrying a child who passed descending the road
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm#p15p3862

This is similar to the story Jane gave to the GNR, according to Silvia;

the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm

[Robittybob1]

According to Jeremy Wilkins he was woken up at around 1am on 4th May by John Hill and Matthew Oldfield. Matthew told him that Gerry McCann's daughter had been abducted and Gerry wanted to know if he had seen anything when they met earlier. This happened just before the PJ arrived.

I assume that John Hill was involved because he was in a position to know or to find out which apartment Jeremy was in. So was he in 5A when the subject was raised and then he went to find out the information or was he elsewhere and Matthew went to find him? As neither of the men mention this visit we don't know.

What we do know is that Gerry McCann knew early on that Jeremy Wilkins had seen nothing. He also knew that Jane Tanner had seen something because he told PJ Inspector Vitor Martins, although the story wasn't quite the same as Jane told it the following day;

At about 21.20, their friend Jane passed by the apartment (along the corridor of the main entrance) she saw an individual carrying a child who passed descending the road
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm#p15p3862

This is similar to the story Jane gave to the GNR, according to Silvia;

the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm

Now what I want to do is to see what part of that post is fact and what part is impression and assumptions.

1. According to Jeremy Wilkins he was woken up at around 1am on 4th May by John Hill and Matthew Oldfield.

2.  Matthew told him that Gerry McCann's daughter had been abducted

3.  and Gerry wanted to know if he had seen anything when they met earlier.

4. This happened just before the PJ arrived.

5. I assume that John Hill was involved because he was in a position to know or to find out which apartment Jeremy was in.

6. So was he in 5A when the subject was raised

7. and then he went to find out the information or was he elsewhere and Matthew went to find him?


8.  As neither of the men mention this visit we don't know.

9. What we do know is that Gerry McCann knew early on that Jeremy Wilkins had seen nothing.

10. He also knew that Jane Tanner had seen something because he told PJ Inspector Vitor Martins, although

 the story wasn't quite the same as Jane told it the following day;

"At about 21.20, their friend Jane passed by the apartment (along the corridor of the main entrance) she saw an individual carrying a child who passed descending the road
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm#p15p3862"

11. This is similar to the story Jane gave to the GNR, according to Silvia;

"the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm"

So I have broken your post up into 11 apparent facts/assumptions and I would like you to explain them one at a time as to whether they were fact, how did know that it was a fact and whether if it is an assumption why  did you make that assumption. 

We might need to have the whole topic transferred to it own thread for ease of following it.  Are you willing to do this?