How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?

[sadie]

Yes mine expanded because to begin with I measured a small scale image
And I bent over backwards to be fair to your side

2m 20 illustrated well that ?Slarti was completely up the shoot when he said 30 cm ... and I would have been content to leave there had it not been for facecious comments from Alice and others. 

Then I bit the bullet and did a really thorough job.  Expanded the image and measured the fuzzy lines first on the left of each line then on the right of each line ....and took the average.   That is the most accurate method of measuring between fuzzy lines

And all Alice and Co managed for their silly comments was a much more accurate measuement that went against them ... an extra half metre *&*%£

Served them right


SIL, I didn't spend a goodly chunk of my life on a huge drawing board, drawing extremely accurate images without being able, if need be, to measure accurately. 
Lucky I did, because I have been able to break several myths because of this

And I taught technical drawing too.   Haven't you noticed my interest in distances and lengths?

The pavement where Jane passed Gerry and Jez is 2m 6 wide (to within 5 cm).  The gap was NOT 30 cm as ?Slarti stated, but potentially about 210 cm.

Full stop. 

Go and check my measurements if you like.

By the way those buggies were designed for more than one child ... at least two, and I bet at times three if they were taking the little ones anywhere.  Think of the ratio of nannies to toddlers /children.  They would need to pack as many as they could into the pushchairs, which were extra wide with two clear seats.

[ShiningInLuz]

Yes mine expanded because to begin with I measured a small scale image
And I bent over backwards to be fair to your side

2m 20 illustrated well that ?Slarti was completely up the shoot when he said 30 cm ... and I would have been content to leave there had it not been for facecious comments from Alice and others. 

Then I bit the bullet and did a really thorough job.  Expanded the image and measured the fuzzy lines first on the left of each line then on the right of each line ....and took the average.   That is the most accurate method of measuring between fuzzy lines

And all Alice and Co managed for their silly comments was a much more accurate measuement that went against them ... an extra half metre *&*%£

Served them right


SIL, I didn't spend a goodly chunk of my life on a huge drawing board, drawing extremely accurate images without being able, if need be, to measure accurately. 
Lucky I did, because I have been able to break several myths because of this

And I taught technical drawing too.   Haven't you noticed my interest in distances and lengths?

The pavement where Jane passed Gerry and Jez is 2m 6 wide (to within 5 cm).  The gap was NOT 30 cm as ?Slarti stated, but potentially about 210 cm.

Full stop. 

Go and check my measurements if you like.

I am not on 'a side' therefore I do not have 'a side'.

I said nowt about Slartis comments.

I said you have been expanding bit by bit and are now up to 2m 60.

And though it is not relevant, I have an A-level in Technical Drawing.  In which I got an A if I remember correctly.
I did it in a single year simply to fill out my studies.  It was boring as sh**e because it was sooo easy.

Boil it down, I can measure.

[Robittybob1]

No way would either Gerry or Jez see Tannerman. 

The lighting was poor, he was too far away and the most important point is that he was at 90* to their line of vision.  He was well and truly out of their field of visionn

It is completely unrealistic to even consider that they would haver seen him.  Amaral made that mistake didn't he?

You could easily be wrong there Sadie.  At some point they may have seen XXXX (Jane but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and let them say they were unsure who it was) and as they were looking at Jane the individual appeared at the top of the road.  Could they see that the individual was carrying a child at that distance and lighting???

[Robittybob1]

The Cutting Edge Video @ 10.08

http://youtu.be/atfDV7imHHY

Jane is very deliberate and definite about the chat being in the roadway at the alleyway entrance.

It is much easier to remember exact details when someone is physically there rather than just using vague memories.

At 10:20 on the same video you get to look back up to the corner from roughly where Jez and Gerry were standing and it would be very easy for them not to see the individual " Tannerman".

[sadie]

I am not on 'a side' therefore I do not have 'a side'.

Well you say you are not but most of your posts and your blog indicate that you are.  THat you are on the sceptics side.

I said nowt about Slartis comments.

I said you have been expanding bit by bit and are now up to 2m 60.

As you know this whole thing came about by Slartis outrageous disinformation that Jane had a gap of only 30 cm between her and Gerry.  You may not have mentioned Slarti by name but the whole thing was about Slartis comment.   

And though it is not relevant, I have an A-level in Technical Drawing.  In which I got an A if I remember correctly.
I did it in a single year simply to fill out my studies.  It was boring as sh**e because it was sooo easy.

Yep for some of us Technical drawing is very easy, but for others it is very hard,   Pity you didn't use your technical drawing abilities in Technical design to produce a design that is used globally and helps the world.  You would have found that much more of a challenge and creatively very satisfying

Boil it down, I can measure.

I am sure you can, you dont lack intellect.  Why dont you go and measure the depth of pavement at that alleyway ?  Satisfy yourself.

[sadie]

You could easily be wrong there Sadie.  At some point they may have seen XXXX (Jane but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and let them say they were unsure who it was) and as they were looking at Jane the individual appeared at the top of the road.  Could they see that the individual was carrying a child at that distance and lighting???

Why do you say, "and as they were looking at Jane".  They didn't even see Jane.

The man was totally out of their range of vision Rob.  No way would they see him.

[Alice Purjorick]

5546 posts later are you still smarting from that blow?  I don't want the whole story but just the interface part.

I don't understand the bit about a blow? Have I missed something?
The interface part is Gerry Jez and Jane sharing the the same time and space.
I don't stand anywhere except that they can't all be right so someone is mistaken.
The link I posted a few days ago, to 10 common memory errors goes part way to explaining it.

[Alice Purjorick]

Easy... if you read back a few pages.

I did read back and it isn't bottomed out. Except by using rubber kerbstones and having people stand nowhere near where it is said they did in statements.

[Robittybob1]

Why do you say, "and as they were looking at Jane".  They didn't even see Jane.

The man was totally out of their range of vision Rob.  No way would they see him.

Sorry I was supposed to put XXXX in twice XXXX = unknown person passing by.
"You could easily be wrong there Sadie.  At some point they may have seen XXXX (Jane but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and let them say they were unsure who it was) and as they were looking at XXXX the individual appeared at the top of the road.  Could they see that the individual was carrying a child at that distance and lighting???

Jez doesn't say no one passed him by but none that he thought was Jane but remember Jane was wearing Russell's top by then, a different colour than Jez had seen her in earlier.
So he is allowing for himself to be mistaken, well that is how I'm thinking about it, but we have to read his original scribble rather than the retranslated Portuguese statement.

[G-Unit]

Jane walks up the road, passing Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins. She sees a man carrying a child. Later she learns that Madeleine is missing. She immediately remembers the man she saw. Was he carrying the child away? I wonder why she didn't immediately seek out Gerry and ask him if he saw the man too?

[Robittybob1]

Jane walks up the road, passing Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins. She sees a man carrying a child. Later she learns that Madeleine is missing. She immediately remembers the man she saw. Was he carrying the child away? I wonder why she didn't immediately seek out Gerry and ask him if he saw the man too?

Like you mean at 10:10 or thereabouts on the 3rd?  At the early stage she didn't think it could be Madeleine for initially the Pyjamas were not the right colour.   It was only on the Saturday after the major discussion with Fiona and seeing a picture of Madeleine's pyjamas in the newspaper that she was persuaded it could be Madeleine.

[faithlilly]

Jane walks up the road, passing Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins. She sees a man carrying a child. Later she learns that Madeleine is missing. She immediately remembers the man she saw. Was he carrying the child away? I wonder why she didn't immediately seek out Gerry and ask him if he saw the man too?

Indeed. He could have put Tanner's mind at rest at a stroke.

I have asked that question numerous times. Still waiting for an answer.

[Robittybob1]

Indeed. He could have put Tanner's mind at rest at a a stroke.

I have asked that question numerous times. Still waiting for an answer.

How would Gerry's answer "No I didn't see the person" put Jane's mind at rest.  I don't see your logic there.

[sadie]

Sorry I was supposed to put XXXX in twice XXXX = unknown person passing by.
"You could easily be wrong there Sadie.  At some point they may have seen XXXX (Jane but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and let them say they were unsure who it was) and as they were looking at XXXX the individual appeared at the top of the road.  Could they see that the individual was carrying a child at that distance and lighting???

Jez doesn't say no one passed him by but none that he thought was Jane but remember Jane was wearing Russell's top by then, a different colour than Jez had seen her in earlier.
So he is allowing for himself to be mistaken, well that is how I'm thinking about it, but we have to read his original scribble rather than the retranslated Portuguese statement.

Who is XXXX ?  Are you talking about Jane here?

The fact of the matter is that neither saw Jane.  They were not watching her walk up the road.  They were intent in conversation and could have been looking at Jez' litle boy.   We just dont know.

But we do know that they didn't see Jane and were not looking at her as she walked up the street.

We also know that the lighting was poor and that Tannerman never came in either of their fields of vision.  No way would they have seen him.

[Robittybob1]

Who is XXXX ?  Are you talking about Jane here?

The fact of the matter is that neither saw Jane.  They were not watching her walk up the road.  They were intent in conversation and could have been looking at Jez' litle boy.   We just dont know.

But we do know that they didn't see Jane and were not looking at her as she walked up the street.

We also know that the lighting was poor and that Tannerman never came in either of their fields of vision.  No way would they have seen him.

We equate XXXX with Jane but they both saw someone but they didn't know it was Jane.  Well that is how I read it.
Looking at Jez' boy is silly Sadie, no one even mentions seeing him. That is creative writing at best.
I agree they might have missed seeing the "individual" we call Tannerman, but as the translation of the drawing shows the gender of that individual is not assured.