How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?

[faithlilly]

Yes, it's perfectly possible.  I'm not even sure how or when that three page typed document was written and typed out - by whom?  I think it's perfectly possible that as the most important element of JT's contribution was to do with the sighting itself and Gerrys's position on the road of far less significance that such a detail may have been either overlooked or not considered worth the bother of correcting.  Please remember: this is me speculating and may not actually represent what actually happened.  I am not Gerry McCann.

Fair enough Alfie. If you don't mind making yourself look foolish it would be rude of me to dissuade you. Go on, fill your boots 

[sadie]

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

I think that is possible Faith.  Nice to agree with you on something 

But I dont think it was anything to do with ego .... I think it was what he remembered and he was telling the triuth as far as he was concerned.   And possibly they did start talking on the eastern side of the road but when a vehicle appeared they moved out of the carriageway in the easiest way possible, following the line that the pushchair was pointing.  To the western side of the road.

[sadie]

Easily and I'm sure no one was more surprised than Tanner when Gerry suddenly changed what had been agreed on the timeline collaboration and took himself to the other side of the road in his 10th May interview. If Gerry was on the other side of the road Tannerman could still be promoted as the abductor. All it meant that if it all went pear shaped and Tanner was proven not to be on the street then he wouldn't be covered in the resulting detritus. Of course the PJ saw through the ruse but you can't blame a guy for trying, can you?

After a previous sensible post, Faith, you are now talking thru your hat.  Ruse?  What ruse?   How come SY haven't thought it a ruse ?

[Robittybob1]

I think that is possible Faith.  Nice to agree with you on something 

But I dont think it was anything to do with ego .... I think it was what he remembered and he was telling the triuth as far as he was concerned.   And possibly they did start talking on the eastern side of the road but when a vehicle appeared they moved out of the carriageway in the easiest way possible, following the line that the pushchair was pointing.  To the western side of the road.

Please remind me where the vehicle came from and how you  worked out it was there?

I see a quote from Stephen Carpenter's statement http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm mentions cars on that part of the road. 
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm
" When I crossed the road outside the MW reception I remember there were cars parked, I remember taking some time to see if I could cross the road because there were cars parked to my left and I was carrying I****. They were about six metres away from me and i calculate that some (inaudible) metres from the back of Gerry's apartment, I do not remember anything about these cars, it was normal for cars to be parked there and in the morning they were no longer there."

[sadie]

Deleted.

[Robittybob1]

How rude.  Is that necessary?

What did you think it meant?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fill%20your%20boots
 

fill your boots
An invitation to partake with gusto, as in "be my guest," or "help yourself."
Here's one for you to chomp on, fill your boots

[Robittybob1]

Was it possible to see a compromise in Jane's statements? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7805.msg369522#msg369522

[sadie]

What did you think it meant?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fill%20your%20boots

Now this is very indelicate
 .......but in the Midlands, I have heard it to mean have a massive tummy upset in  your pants /boots.   However as it seems that is not recorded as such on Urban Dictionary, I will remove my comment.

Thanks for bringing it up Rob

[Robittybob1]

Now this is very indelicate
 .......but in the Midlands, I have heard it to mean have a massive tummy upset in  your pants /boots.   However as it seems that is not recorded as such on Urban Dictionary, I will remove my comment.

Thanks for bringing it up Rob

That's what I thought it meant too, and I was surprised the NZ meaning was not in the dictionary!

[G-Unit]

Silvia Batista got that wrong, didn't she?

Where Jane saw Tannerman was NOT in front of Madeleines bedroom window.
She saw him crossing Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martin

This is the problem with third party statements, they get things wrong.  Verbatim statements are frequently the only ones that are truly accurate.

Jane Tanner said in her statements that she was in R Dr F G M and Tannerman appeared at the top of the road. According to two people involved on the night, both Jane and Gerry McCann said she saw him walking along R Dr A da Silva, before he reached the junction with R Dr F G M.

Perhaps those two witnesses got it wrong, perhaps they didn't. If they didn't Jane changed her position from in front of the apartment to walking up R Dr F G M and she moved the man's position from in front of the apartments to the junction.

[Alfie]

Fair enough Alfie. If you don't mind making yourself look foolish it would be rude of me to dissuade you. Go on, fill your boots 

Hmm, I wonder who looks the bigger fool though really?  I see you didn't attempt to address this post of mine...
"you've earlier claimed that Gerry completely destroys JT's credibility thus leading to doubts about the existence of the alleged abductor, an abductor that you also claim he himself has fabricated and really wants everyone to believe in, and he's done this because he thinks he may have been seen, but the reality is he already KNOWS he was seen by Jes Wilkins, so in essence your theory is complete NONSENSE!"

You theory is basically a long series of highly improbable events taking place in quick succession.  Most people on this forum can see that, which is why you don't seem to be receiving much support for it, even from fellow sceptics.

[Eleanor]

Leave out the personal insults, please.  This is not a request.

[Robittybob1]

Jane Tanner said in her statements that she was in R Dr F G M and Tannerman appeared at the top of the road. According to two people involved on the night, both Jane and Gerry McCann said she saw him walking along R Dr A da Silva, before he reached the junction with R Dr F G M.

Perhaps those two witnesses got it wrong, perhaps they didn't. If they didn't Jane changed her position from in front of the apartment to walking up R Dr F G M and she moved the man's position from in front of the apartments to the junction.

Is there any evidence Jane got anything wrong?  Any other detail wrong in the first instant.  OK she is persuaded about the colour of the pyjamas but what else?

[sadie]

Jane Tanner said in her statements that she was in R Dr F G M and Tannerman appeared at the top of the road. According to two people involved on the night, both Jane and Gerry McCann said she saw him walking along R Dr A da Silva, before he reached the junction with R Dr F G M.

Perhaps those two witnesses got it wrong, perhaps they didn't. If they didn't Jane changed her position from in front of the apartment to walking up R Dr F G M and she moved the man's position from in front of the apartments to the junction.

It was Sylvia Baptista who said Jane saw Tannerman walking along in front of 5A before the Jane Tanner corner (junction of R. Dr A de Silva with R Dr FGM).  Jane Tanner never said that as far as I am aware. 

Please could you provide a cite showing that it was Jane rather than Sylvia saying that.  TY

And who was the other person to say this please?  Apart from Syvia I am not aware of any other third party getting this wrong

[faithlilly]

Hmm, I wonder who looks the bigger fool though really?  I see you didn't attempt to address this post of mine...
"you've earlier claimed that Gerry completely destroys JT's credibility thus leading to doubts about the existence of the alleged abductor, an abductor that you also claim he himself has fabricated and really wants everyone to believe in, and he's done this because he thinks he may have been seen, but the reality is he already KNOWS he was seen by Jes Wilkins, so in essence your theory is complete NONSENSE!"

You theory is basically a long series of highly improbable events taking place in quick succession.  Most people on this forum can see that, which is why you don't seem to be receiving much support for it, even from fellow sceptics.

Come, come Alfie, that he was seen is not precisely the point. It was that he was seen talking and Jane was not seen walking. Two people claiming Tanner wasn't there

As to highly improbable events you are asking us to believe that Gerry, a obvious control freak, did not check the group timeline to make sure one of the most important sightings of the whole case was described exactly.