Strange Witness Statements

[faithlilly]

What convoluted logic is this?  Can you please explain what Gerry stood to lose by saying he did see JT as far as JW's testimony is concerned...?

If a witness later had come forward and said they had seen the scene from their balcony and Tanner hadn't gone by, what then ?

[G-Unit]

Gerald McCann was very keen on Jeremy Wilkin's evidence, even though officially he didn't know what Jeremy said;

Several weeks later, Jeremy received calls from Gerry in relation to gaining permission from him to use his name in a portfolio of evidence being compiled by an organization employed by the McCanns. They were very persistent and made several attempts to contact him both at work and at home. They had no objection to being included but were concerned as to the method being used.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm

What was it about Jeremy's evidence that was important then? It wasn't the time of the meeting, because Jeremy said;

 I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15. I am aware of the importance of this hour and am also aware that the media announced our meeting time as 21h05. Even if this were correct, I have no idea from where such information originated. It is not possible to give you a more exact time.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm

[Alice Purjorick]

If a witness later had come forward and said they had seen the scene from their balcony and Tanner hadn't gone by, what then ?

A lot of it is just water under the bridge now since that nice DCI Redwood (Ret'd) fragged "Tannerman The Abductor" in October 2013. Jez's statement that he stood nattering to Gerry between 20:45 and 21:15 remains current though.
Where does that leave us one wonders?

[pathfinder73]

That doesn't address the issue. Tannerman walked towards the front of block 6. The search & rescue dogs followed scent to the car park at the rear of block 6 (a route we know she walked along to the crèche). Why weren't the dogs taken inside Block 6?

That is the short cut to the creche which Madeleine used. They also crossed there to enter the tapas area at tea time from the creche. It's not surprising the dogs tracked her scent to there. To suggest a getaway car was parked there is complete madness and no evidence. To park opposite where they were coming out to do their checks.

That after having given the sniffer dog the towel and next to the residence of the missing girl, more specifically, next to apartment block 5A and 5, the first sniffer dog headed toward the door of that apartment. Immediately afterward, he headed in the direction of block 4, returned around block 5, and came down a road that exists between this block and the leisure area (pools, restaurants, etc). He turned right; in the direction of the aforementioned apartment and headed toward the main road. There, he crossed the street and next to the wall of block 6, turned right, and headed toward the contiguous parking area. More concretely, he headed next to a light post and sniffed the ground around that post. After this, he crossed the street again and headed toward the access zone to the restaurants and pool area, sniffing the door which was closed at that time. He again went to the parking zone, and at that point, lost the scent.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id258.html

[Alfred R Jones]

If a witness later had come forward and said they had seen the scene from their balcony and Tanner hadn't gone by, what then ?

Is that the same as G-Unit's explanation?

But let's say that such an thing had occurred.  The very simple explanation would be that it was getting dark, dimly lit, that whoever was supposedly watching the two men chatting for 5 minutes most probably were mistaken, perhaps distracted, looked away for a few moments whatever. 

What happened as a result of neither GMC or JW stating that they saw JT?  Was she made an arguido?  No.  The simple explanation for why they did not see her is that it was getting dark, dimly lit, the men were in conversation hence not paying attention to their immediate surroundings, facing the wrong way, whatever.

[Alfred R Jones]

I did.

Not really.  Jez's statement confirms Gerry's check on the children, so if Gerry said he'd seen JT, what changes?

[misty]

That is the short cut to the creche which Madeleine used. They also crossed there to enter the tapas area at tea time from the creche. It's not surprising the dogs tracked her scent to there. To suggest a getaway car was parked there is complete madness and no evidence. To park opposite where they were coming out to do their checks.

That after having given the sniffer dog the towel and next to the residence of the missing girl, more specifically, next to apartment block 5A and 5, the first sniffer dog headed toward the door of that apartment. Immediately afterward, he headed in the direction of block 4, returned around block 5, and came down a road that exists between this block and the leisure area (pools, restaurants, etc). He turned right; in the direction of the aforementioned apartment and headed toward the main road. There, he crossed the street and next to the wall of block 6, turned right, and headed toward the contiguous parking area. More concretely, he headed next to a light post and sniffed the ground around that post. After this, he crossed the street again and headed toward the access zone to the restaurants and pool area, sniffing the door which was closed at that time. He again went to the parking zone, and at that point, lost the scent.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id258.html

I said nothing about a getaway car. The scent was lost outside Block 6 - it did not continue to the crèche. Now, bearing in mind there are 3 apartments at the end of block 6  which are adjacent to the rear garden of 5a, and have points providing an excellent view of the comings & goings of 5a occupants, do you not think it would have been wise to send the dogs inside?

[Benice]

I agree with you that people may not have correct recall and that the important thing is that they were there. In that case why didn't Gerald McCann accept that he could have been wrong? Surely the exact place where they spoke wasn't important? His insistence suggests that he attaches some importance to where they stood.

The PJ responded to Gerald McCann's 4th May statement in which he mentioned speaking to Jeremy Wilkins very quickly. They faxed Leicester police on 7th May asking for Jeremy Wilkins to be interviewed. In response, Wembley police were phoned by Leicester police and they faxed Jeremy Wilkin's statement to Leicester police  on 7th May at 21.16; it was passed back to the PJ the same day.

Did Gerald McCann know what Jeremy Wilkins said in his statement? This is a possibility IMO as Leicester police seem to have been happy to share information with them. If he did have knowledge of it, then he had a problem.

Jeremy said he didn't see Jane Tanner pass by. Jeremy's statement was important to Gerald because it confirmed the checking of the children. Jane's sighting was important as it upheld the abduction thesis. If Gerald said he didn't see Jane either he would have diminished her sighting. If he said he did see her he diminished Jeremy's evidence.

Perhaps his solution was to move the meeting across the road, so that he could agree with Jeremy and it was then more believable that they didn't see Jane. This suggests to me that Jane didn't pass the two men when they were talking next to the passageway. I believe Jeremy Wilkins. He spoke to Gerald McCann next to the entrance to the passageway and Jane Tanner didn't pass them in my opinion.

Gerry didn't INSIST on anything.   Jane indicated  the place where  she remembered  seeing Gerry/ Jez  - and then Gerry described his own recollection of where he met Jez.   Their memories hadn't changed so what more could they do?

Why does some ulterior motive have to be read into the fact that their memories differed?  There's  been loads of evidence, papers, videos, etc etc  posted on here  proving how commonplace it is for different people to have vastly different memories of the same event and also how their recall is frequently completely wrong.

One example of how fragile our memories are is ''the case of  Jean Charles de Menezes, shot at Stockwell Tube station in 2005 by police who mistook him for a suicide bomber.  Eyewitnesses said he had vaulted a ticket barrier when running away from the police .  In fact it was later shown by CCTV that Mr Menezes had walked through the barriers, having picked up a free newspaper, and only ran when he saw his train arriving''.

None of those eyewitnesses were part of some huge conspiracy - they genuinely described to the police what they thought they had seen.  But they were wrong.

Why are Gerry, JT and Jez not being allowed to have the same memory flaws as the rest of us?

[G-Unit]

A lot of it is just water under the bridge now since that nice DCI Redwood (Ret'd) fragged "Tannerman The Abductor" in October 2013. Jez's statement that he stood nattering to Gerry between 20:45 and 21:15 remains current though.
Where does that leave us one wonders?

That's my point. Why was Jeremy Watkins statement so important to Gerald McCann that he was prepared to upset Jane Tanner by saying he didn't see her? He was also very keen for his investigators to have access to Jeremy's evidence. We know the time of the encounter doesn't help Gerald, because it's so vague. Jeremy didn't see Jane or crechman so it's not that. The only thing that Jeremy provides really is a sighting of Gerald McCann near his apartment during that evening. Is that important?

[jassi]

That's my point. Why was Jeremy Watkins statement so important to Gerald McCann that he was prepared to upset Jane Tanner by saying he didn't see her? He was also very keen for his investigators to have access to Jeremy's evidence. We know the time of the encounter doesn't help Gerald, because it's so vague. Jeremy didn't see Jane or crechman so it's not that. The only thing that Jeremy provides really is a sighting of Gerald McCann near his apartment during that evening. Is that important?

It could be that it gives weight to the claim that he was checking on his children - whether he was or wasn't.

[Alice Purjorick]

That's my point. Why was Jeremy Watkins statement so important to Gerald McCann that he was prepared to upset Jane Tanner by saying he didn't see her? He was also very keen for his investigators to have access to Jeremy's evidence. We know the time of the encounter doesn't help Gerald, because it's so vague. Jeremy didn't see Jane or crechman so it's not that. The only thing that Jeremy provides really is a sighting of Gerald McCann near his apartment during that evening. Is that important?

The only proof of anything that JW's statement provides is that Gerry was on the street between 20:45 and 21:45 on May 3rd 2007. One could infer other things but that is not quite proof.

[Alfred R Jones]

That's my point. Why was Jeremy Watkins statement so important to Gerald McCann that he was prepared to upset Jane Tanner by saying he didn't see her? He was also very keen for his investigators to have access to Jeremy's evidence. We know the time of the encounter doesn't help Gerald, because it's so vague. Jeremy didn't see Jane or crechman so it's not that. The only thing that Jeremy provides really is a sighting of Gerald McCann near his apartment during that evening. Is that important?

You want the world to believe that someone saw the abductor plus child leaving the vicinity of the apartment to deflect from the fact that actually it was you walking around with a dead child later that evening.  Whose statement is more important to establishing that it weren't you wot dunnit - Janes's or Jez's?

[Alice Purjorick]

You want the world to believe that someone saw the abductor plus child leaving the vicinity of the apartment to deflect from the fact that actually it was you walking around with a dead child later that evening.  Whose statement is more important to establishing that it weren't you wot dunnit - Janes's or Jez's?

Neither statement is much cop as an alibi for what may or may not have happened between 45 minutes and 75 minutes later.

[Alfred R Jones]

Neither statement is much cop as an alibi for what may or may not have happened between 45 minutes and 75 minutes later.

Perhaps you'd be better off addressing your comment to Faith and G-Unit who are tying themselves up in knots trying to rationalise why Gerry "insisted" on where his position on the pavement was that evening and why he "upset" Jane Tanner later by claiming he never saw her walk by. 

[Alice Purjorick]

Perhaps you'd be better off addressing your comment to Faith and G-Unit who are tying themselves up in knots trying to rationalise why Gerry "insisted" on where his position on the pavement was that evening and why he "upset" Jane Tanner later by claiming he never saw her walk by.

Perhaps I would. Maybe the mods will be so kind as to remove my post as a reply to yours and just bung it in as a random.