How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?

[jassi]

No.  How did you come to that thought?

I'm not. I'm pointing out that Matt was at the table until 9.30, so he couldn't be off somewhere with ROB.

If he was, then the whole narrative of the evening is false.

[Robittybob1]

I'm not. I'm pointing out that Matt was at the table until 9.30, so he couldn't be off somewhere with ROB.

If he was, then the whole narrative of the evening is false.

No one says they all sat around the table all of the time except for checking on the kids.
I could be wrong but that was the impression I got.

[jassi]

That was the whole purpose of them being there - to eat, drink and socialise as a group - otherwise they might as well have stayed on their verandas and looked after their children properly.

[Robittybob1]

That was the whole purpose of them being there - to eat, drink and socialise as a group - otherwise they might as well have stayed on their verandas and looked after their children properly.

Things happen.  The two of them could have been called over to talk to other people.  There are so many possibilities it becomes impossible to list them all.

[Robittybob1]

I wonder if it is still not too late to do the re-enactment of the scene of Jez and Gerry talking.
 

[John]

I wonder if it is still not too late to do the re-enactment of the scene of Jez and Gerry talking.

Ten years on it is all a bit pointless now.  Fact is two people jointly recalled one experience while another for his own reasons remembered it completely differently.  If a principal witness couldn't even get such a basic thing right...

[Robittybob1]

Ten years on it is all a bit pointless now.  Fact is two people jointly recalled one experience while another for his own reasons remembered it completely differently.  If a principal witness couldn't even get such a basic thing right...

I know Gerry and Jane have gone back, but I wonder if Jez would take the chance of being made an arguido?

[Brietta]

Ten years on it is all a bit pointless now.  Fact is two people jointly recalled one experience while another for his own reasons remembered it completely differently.  If a principal witness couldn't even get such a basic thing right...

Not only do I think it pointless now in throwing any light on what may have happened to Madeleine ... I think it was equally pointless at the time Rebelo was anxious to stage a reenactment.

One of the principal witness who thought the discussion took place at the other side of the street from where the other two thought it had occurred ... was sticking to what he remembered.
It would have been easy to fall into line with the other two witnesses, but that was not how he remembered it.

I don't think there is anything which can be learned from precisely where the men were standing.  We know they had a conversation.  We know the female witness passed them and we know she witnessed a man neither of the males did who was carrying a barefoot child from the scene.

I think that both the current investigations have long ago got well beyond that point in time.

[stephen25000]

Not only do I think it pointless now in throwing any light on what may have happened to Madeleine ... I think it was equally pointless at the time Rebelo was anxious to stage a reenactment.

One of the principal witness who thought the discussion took place at the other side of the street from where the other two thought it had occurred ... was sticking to what he remembered.
It would have been easy to fall into line with the other two witnesses, but that was not how he remembered it.

I don't think there is anything which can be learned from precisely where the men were standing.  We know they had a conversation.  We know the female witness passed them and we know she witnessed a man neither of the males did who was carrying a barefoot child from the scene.

I think that both the current investigations have long ago got well beyond that point in time.

What actually is evident, is that the investigations have achieved nothing more than the original one.

How Madeleine disappeared from the apartment remains undetermined, as does her fate.

Now if you CITE, where I am wrong on this, please do.

[John]

What actually is evident, is that the investigations have achieved nothing more than the original one.

How Madeleine disappeared from the apartment remains undetermined, as does her fate.

Now if you CITE, where I am wrong on this, please do.

My general response to your first point would be to agree to the extent that the latest investigation has not achieved what they were commissioned to do and that was to find Madeleine and bring anyone responsible to justice.  To be fair though, a lot of work has gone into this latest enquiry and undoubtedly those officers involved have a much better understanding of events in PdL on the night that Madeleine disappeared. Every time a cold case is looked at, small snippets of information tend to be revealed and the longer this goes on the more can be unearthed.  Unfortunately for Operation Grange however the money has all but run out so unless there is a breakthrough very soon I fear SY's involvement will be mothballed.

[stephen25000]

My general response to your first point would be to agree to the extent that the latest investigation has not achieved what they were commissioned to do and that was to find Madeleine and bring anyone responsible to justice.  To be fair though, a lot of work has gone into this latest enquiry and undoubtedly those officers involved have a much better understanding of events in PdL on the night that Madeleine disappeared.

'Understanding', is a relative term John.

The bottom line, the case remains unsolved.

I said some time ago, and an ex-moderator on here, Anna, I believe, agreed with me, that this case is unlikely to be solved, and probably only then, with a confession.

[John]

'Understanding', is a relative term John.

The bottom line, the case remains unsolved.

I said some time ago, and an ex-moderator on here, Anna, I believe, agreed with me, that this case is unlikely to be solved, and probably only then, with a confession.

These posts are off topic so will be removed but to answer your reply.  The case does indeed remain unsolved but I truly believe that in the fullness of time Madeleine's fate will be revealed.

[Robittybob1]

I still feel finding out why Jez did not see or hear Jane (in fact anybody at all) pass by Gerry and himself while they were talking is crucial to understanding this case.

 Later Silvia criticises Jane's recollection.  Which is all part of the same incident really.  Being able to see who was carrying an unconscious child just moments after Gerry had been in the apartment and after he had switched on the lights to the kid's bedroom, and Gerry saw that Madeleine was OK.

So it can't be Madeleine that child Jane saw.  So why are Silvia and Jez trying to  rubbish Jane's observation?  A reconstruction is needed IMO and it is not too late.

[sadie]

1. 

I still feel finding out why Jez did not see or hear Jane (in fact anybody at all) pass by Gerry and himself while they were talking is crucial to understanding this case.

In earlier popsts on this thread, there have been several ideas why that could have happened, Rob.  Have you dismissed them all?

2. 

Later Silvia criticises Jane's recollection.  Which is all part of the same incident really.  Being able to see who was carrying an unconscious child just moments after Gerry had been in the apartment and after he had switched on the lights to the kid's bedroom, and Gerry saw that Madeleine was OK.

We think that the child was unconscious but we dont know for sure !   

3. 
Also the moments that you talk about could be minutes. 
The Lifter:  I am old and doddery these days but I reckon that if I received a signal to go in, I could have opened the front door, walked thru that apartment, chloroformed Madeleine, lifted her and walked out again in less than 40 seconds.  That time includes handing Madeleine over the pathway wall to Tannerman then personally vanish. 

Tannerman (with Madeleine):   had a walk of no more than 27 metres, from the hand over place to Jane Tanner corner.  At normal pace that would take about 20 seconds

So from entering 5a to Jane Tanner sighting would likely have taken less than one minute

Gerry and Jez chatted for about 3 minutes IIRC.

https://www.quora.com/How-much-time-does-it-take-to-walk-300-meters-for-a-normal-adult

So it can't be Madeleine that child Jane saw.  So why are Silvia and Jez trying to  rubbish Jane's observation?  A reconstruction is needed IMO and it is not too late.

Plenty of time as outlined above for Madeleine to have been lifted and seen by Jane T.  They only needed 1 minute and there were approximately three available.   So I think that Tannerman could well have been carrying Madeleine.  Don't you ?

Sylvia misunderstood Janes description IMO, but I suppose she could have had a reason to try and make Jane look a liar? 
Jez could not see Tannerman at all, because Tannerman was totally out of his field of vision, being at roughly right angles to the direction that Jez was looking.


I think that there are three points there, Rob, that you need to re-assess.

[Robittybob1]

I can't deny it is a possibility but in that scenario everything is down to the last second.  If Jane had been just a few seconds earlier she might have seen Madeleine being handed out the window.  That is pretty dramatic that the abductors would strike while Gerry and Jez were talking in the street.  Very daring IMO.

To walk across the road when there were 3 people potentially looking at him also seems like a mistake on part of the abductors.
Why wasn't the getaway car right in the carpark next to the McCann apartment.

So what does the second person in the apartment do? Jane could pop out at any time and Jez and Gerry are talking.