How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?

[Alfie]

As in Smiffy of the Bash Street Kids?
Now that has the makings of good thread.

If only.  At least that Smiffy isn't quite so up his own arse.

[Alfie]

So it seems that with my inconvenient post about a series of improbable events brushed under the carpet we are all now able to return to the job of doubting the honesty and integrity of Gerry and Jane Tanner's witness statements without really needing to give any serious thought at all as to how this supposed deception fits into the wider narrative.  Phew, what a relief for some!

[Alfie]

No need at all because the witness was fully occupied and observed when the sighting took place. He failed to see the person who made the sighting and he failed to see what she saw, but so what? So did his companion.

How fortunate that Jane wasn't in the passageway in front of Block 5 when she saw Tannerman between 21.15 and 21.20pm, as Gerry reported to Vitor Martins;

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

I fail to understand what you are driving at.  Perhaps you could tell me straight whether or not you believe Gerry and JT were involved in some sort of plot to deceive and why.

[Robittybob1]

You say Silvia 'undermined Jane's sighting' which suggests intent. You are ignoring the possibility that Silvia had a good reason for being confused by Jane's sighting - that it didn't make sense.

At some point she translated the statement of one of the ladies who belonged to the group and that she describes as a brunette one. This lady said to the GNR elements, and she (the witness) translated, that she had seen a man on the road who might have carried a child.
This situation surprised her because she (the witness) was convinced that when the lady saw the man, the lady was in a place from where she had no angle of vision for the place where she saw the man. She doesn't know exactly what was the position of the lady when she saw the man, but she knows that 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

If Jane told the GNR that she saw the man when she was walking up R Dr F G M she wouldn't have been able to see the man if he was in front of Madeleine's bedroom window. She would have seen him only when he reached the junction, as she said later in her statements.

You are misrepresenting what Silvia said. Jane never said this and I'd be surprised if Silvia said it either.  If she did she was deliberately mistranslating what Jane said just to make Jane look stupid.

Well let's see.

Take a passage from that report and see how messed up the translation is.

Asked about the way the members of the group were dressed up in that night, she only remembers that Fiona was wearing a green blouse, that Geny was wearing a dark shirt
and the husband of Fiona wearing clear pants, beige she thins.
And more she did not say. Read the self as the thought, ratified and will sign

There are so many errors in that it makes it look comical.
On the basis of how the report ends there is no way we can analyse with any degree of certainty what is meant in any part of Silvia's supposed statement.

[Robittybob1]

No need at all because the witness was fully occupied and observed when the sighting took place. He failed to see the person who made the sighting and he failed to see what she saw, but so what? So did his companion.

How fortunate that Jane wasn't in the passageway in front of Block 5 when she saw Tannerman between 21.15 and 21.20pm, as Gerry reported to Vitor Martins;

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

You would have to wonder who was feeding Vitor Martins misinformation for there is definitely no statement available to us that would put Jane's sighting of TannerMan as late as 21.20.

He has also failed to specify which direction Jane was walking. (Having the time so late can only mean she must be on her return trip to the Tapas Bar.)
 

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, however she did not recognise this individual, nor the child, only having noticed that the individual appeared to be aged between 30 or 40, had dark hair and light coloured trousers.

[Robittybob1]

I fail to understand what you are driving at.  Perhaps you could tell me straight whether or not you believe Gerry and JT were involved in some sort of plot to deceive and why.

Will someone do this?

[Robittybob1]

You are misrepresenting what Silvia said. Jane never said this and I'd be surprised if Silvia said it either.  If she did she was deliberately mistranslating what Jane said just to make Jane look stupid.

Well let's see.

Take a passage from that report and see how messed up the translation is. There are so many errors in that it makes it look comical.
On the basis of how the report ends there is no way we can analyse with any degree of certainty what is meant in any part of Silvia's supposed statement.

I have found another version of Silvia Batista statement http://steelmagnolia-mccannarchives.blogspot.co.nz/2011/06/silvia-batista-33-statements-silvia.html
and the same section is translated as

When questioned about the clothes that the English group members wore that night, she mentions that she only remembers that Fiona wore a green blouse, Gerry wore a dark coloured shirt, and Fiona’s husband wore light-coloured trousers, she thinks cream-coloured.


And she stated nothing further.”

So the section regarding Jane has been translated "

At a given moment, the deponent translated the deposition from one of the ladies that belonged to the group of English people, namely one that she indicates as being a brunette.
 
This lady told the GNR officers, and the deponent translated, that she had seen a man crossing the road, possibly carrying a child.

The deponent found that situation strange because she was convinced that when she saw this man, the lady was positioned in a spot that has no viewing angle to the location where she had seen the man.

She doesn’t know exactly where the lady was positioned when she saw the man passing by, but she knows that she indicated that she saw him passing on the street that lies in front of the window to the bedroom where Madeleine was, walking into the direction of the street that leads to the Baptista supermarket.

You would wonder why when the PJ were there talking to Silvia Batista and Jane Tanner that they didn't take a small walk and see what the situation was at the time.   

[Robittybob1]

There is another way to read what Jane has stated

Meanwhile a man appeared ( * ) carrying a child (**), with a hurried walk, it being this detail together with the fact that the child dressed in pyjamas, without being wrapped up in a blanket, that caught her attention. She only managed to see him from the side, with the child in his arms. She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking, having seen this person step off the pavement that borders on the apartment block where they were staying and rapidly cross the road.

The entrance to the apartment building (1) is exactly at the place (street) where the individual appeared from.

That could be read as that the individual came out of the car park and crossed the road to the opposite side and proceeded down the road.

This alternate version does not match the drawing that is associated with Jane's description but I note there is no date on the drawing so it could be from a later date all we can tell.


The diagram is associated with the image of TannerMan and I believe that was not something that Jane produced from the beginning.

[Robittybob1]

This image looks like the original

"was here when I got to top of road"  That is about as good as her signature as it is in her hand writing.
"Jez" is on the road
"Gerry" on the footpath
"Me" walking toward the corner.

No date on the diagram.  but signatures of the PJ and translator "Filipa Silva" Lower of the 3 signatures could be "Filipa Silva"
Top signature is Jane Tanner.
Middle signature is Maria Ramos ??? who was present at the second statement so the diagram at this stage looks to be from her second statement.  But no mention of making second drawing.

[Robittybob1]

You can tell there is something wrong for the numbers on the diagram do not match the statement.

The entrance to the apartment building (1) is exactly at the place (street) where the individual appeared from.

On the diagram (1) is the entrance to the Ocean Club swimming pool and Tapas Bar and (1) is not the entrance to the car park.
The Car park is noted as (6) and the car park entrance has no apecific number associated with it.  On the schematic of the OC complex (1) are the apartments blocks G4 and G5 in general.

The diagram (Jane's drawing) seems to be an afterthought.

When requested, she drew a sketch, which is joined to this statement (9).  There is no reference to (9) on the drawing.

There is no translation of the notes of the legend of the area of concern drawn by Jane Tanner.
I can not find any translation of these lines of the "legenda".  "Legenda" translates to "subtitle".
PS: I have asked a Portuguese speaking person to assist me to get a translation of the subtitles.
In Jane's statement it says: "The entrance to the apartment building (1) is exactly at the place (street) where the individual appeared from."  The street referred to here is Rua Doutor Agostinho da Silva.  (Doutor is translated doctor).

So from that sentence it could just be understood as: "The individual appeared on the street named "Rua Doutor Agostinho Da Silva".  This has in other words got nothing to do with with "the entrance to the apartment building" other than the entrance is also along this road.  Initially one might think, as I did, Jane is saying she knows that the individual came out of the car park entrance, but it doesn't mean that at all.
But Silvia says, rightfully, it is impossible to see this entrance from where Jane was walking.  OK that is correct but it still fits in with what Jane says. The cause of the confusion is entirely due to the poor translation.

[G-Unit]

I fail to understand what you are driving at.  Perhaps you could tell me straight whether or not you believe Gerry and JT were involved in some sort of plot to deceive and why.

I'm just looking at statements which seem to suggest that it was unclear initially where Jane and the man she saw were located. Jane's various statements continue to be unclear as to her precise location. She's always on R Dr F G M in her statements, but her location on that road changes quite significantly, as do the positions of Jez and Gerry.  The typed timeline says Jane returned to the table at 9.20 and her husband goes to check again at 9.25.

What people deduce from the statements is up to them, but according to the statements it's possible that her location and that of the man were changed. She may have been moved from the corridor in front of the apartment to R Dr F G M.  The man may have been moved from the road in front of Madeleine's bedroom window to the junction. That wasn't a big deal, it was the sighting which was important, not the precise locations of the people involved as people have pointed out.

If that was done, it could have been done to make sure that this important sighting was taken seriously; not with any intention to deceive. There was a problem with the first locations in that a witness was known to have been walking in the vicinity and it was known that he saw nothing.

Please note I am offering one possible explanation as to why the reports differ; there are other possibilities.

[Alfie]

I'm just looking at statements which seem to suggest that it was unclear initially where Jane and the man she saw were located. Jane's various statements continue to be unclear as to her precise location. She's always on R Dr F G M in her statements, but her location on that road changes quite significantly, as do the positions of Jez and Gerry.  The typed timeline says Jane returned to the table at 9.20 and her husband goes to check again at 9.25.

What people deduce from the statements is up to them, but according to the statements it's possible that her location and that of the man were changed. She may have been moved from the corridor in front of the apartment to R Dr F G M.  The man may have been moved from the road in front of Madeleine's bedroom window to the junction. That wasn't a big deal, it was the sighting which was important, not the precise locations of the people involved as people have pointed out.

If that was done, it could have been done to make sure that this important sighting was taken seriously; not with any intention to deceive. There was a problem with the first locations in that a witness was known to have been walking in the vicinity and it was known that he saw nothing.

Please note I am offering one possible explanation as to why the reports differ; there are other possibilities.

Who are you talking about?

[Robittybob1]

I'm just looking at statements which seem to suggest that it was unclear initially where Jane and the man she saw were located. Jane's various statements continue to be unclear as to her precise location. She's always on R Dr F G M in her statements, but her location on that road changes quite significantly, as do the positions of Jez and Gerry.  The typed timeline says Jane returned to the table at 9.20 and her husband goes to check again at 9.25.

What people deduce from the statements is up to them, but according to the statements it's possible that her location and that of the man were changed. She may have been moved from the corridor in front of the apartment to R Dr F G M.  The man may have been moved from the road in front of Madeleine's bedroom window to the junction. That wasn't a big deal, it was the sighting which was important, not the precise locations of the people involved as people have pointed out.

If that was done, it could have been done to make sure that this important sighting was taken seriously; not with any intention to deceive. There was a problem with the first locations in that a witness was known to have been walking in the vicinity and it was known that he saw nothing.

Please note I am offering one possible explanation as to why the reports differ; there are other possibilities.

If you could prove they were both looking in the same direction at the same time, and one sees the individual and the other doesn't then I might question Jane's recollection but at the moment someone saying they didn't see the individual means nothing.

[Robittybob1]

As I understand it there were attempts by the T9 to align the timelines. That would have a pressure on Jane to align her statement with the recollection of the others.  So the pressure is to align, so maybe Jane changes the position she passed Gerry and Jez but in the end the individual still moves from the left to the right across the top of  Rua Douter Francisco Gentil Martins along Rua Douter Agostinho da Silva.
The individual is still carrying a child in pyjamas with bare feet in out-stretched arms.

[Benice]

I'm just looking at statements which seem to suggest that it was unclear initially where Jane and the man she saw were located. Jane's various statements continue to be unclear as to her precise location. She's always on R Dr F G M in her statements, but her location on that road changes quite significantly, as do the positions of Jez and Gerry.  The typed timeline says Jane returned to the table at 9.20 and her husband goes to check again at 9.25.

What people deduce from the statements is up to them, but according to the statements it's possible that her location and that of the man were changed. She may have been moved from the corridor in front of the apartment to R Dr F G M.  The man may have been moved from the road in front of Madeleine's bedroom window to the junction. That wasn't a big deal, it was the sighting which was important, not the precise locations of the people involved as people have pointed out.

If that was done, it could have been done to make sure that this important sighting was taken seriously; not with any intention to deceive. There was a problem with the first locations in that a witness was known to have been walking in the vicinity and it was known that he saw nothing.

Please note I am offering one possible explanation as to why the reports differ; there are other possibilities.

IIRC precise times were not given.  The 'time' recalled usually being preceded by the words 'around' or 'about'. (from memory)

I think it's impossible to come to any definite conclusion about a situation where knowledge of precise times is essential in order to come to that conclusion -  but only approximate times are known.

IMO this is also why an accurate recon would not be possible.