Gerry and Jez chat while Jane walks by. Seconds later she spots Tannerman!

[kittkat]

So Jane sees guy..and the second Kate raises the alarm with "They've taken her" why didn't Jane say "Gosh, I saw a man and know which way he went...let me and X start a search search, let's ask Jez if he saw anything more that can help, let's call the police and get my description out now!   In an abduction every second counts.  Why wait even an hour, or until 0100L to ask Jez?  This was crucial sighting at the time.   There were enough people in this group that someone could have taken on this task instantly while the others ran back to the McCanns. 

That always bothered me.  It's like they got the timeline all down, but forgot the natural instinct that would go with that sighting once the realization occurred.

My opinion only of course.

Off topic..Can someone tell me if there is a thread regarding Kate being angry with Gerry and sleeping in the children's room on the Wednesday before Madeline was declared missing?

[Brietta]

IF Jane's sighting was to be believed by the McCanns..which is truly was at the time considering THIS was the sighting they were pushing and not the SMiths...

Did they not wonder how Madeline could be so silent with this man?
If they supposed drugged, why not check the twins who were deeply sleeping right away for drugs?
If not drugged...Would they not worry the dogs had smelled a dead body and feared the man was carrying their dead child?  Why refute the dogs detection when it could be questioned if their daughter was killed in the apartment and carried off?  Why write that off so quickly without concern?  I would be demanding every inch checked again for DNA, bring the dogs back, have questions.

They don't believe the dogs, but had an answer just in case...dead bodies at work.
If there was a slightest chance Janes sighting was real, and they knew there was odor of death, and Jane saw a "sleeping" child who the parents knew had issue sleeping ...why not ask questions?

So many things are off.  So many.

Jane Tanner saw what she saw and reported that to the appropriate authorities.
The PJ failed to check the twins for drugs.
There was no claim of contact with dead bodies at work.
There is nothing to prove there was an “odour of death” in the apartment.
‘The dogs’ did not arrive in Praia Da Luz till August 2007.
If so many things are off … consider adding everything you have stated in this post to the list, because they fit the bill.

[kittkat]

Hi DCI, I am misunderstanding that question/comment.  I have been awake 29 hours so may be dense however.
I will try to add my thoughts if I understand what you mean :)

EDIT, oh do you mean checking on twins?
Because the timeline had been written already.  Gerry was stunned to hear about the sighting later in the night we are to believe.. but their written timeline says different, as Gerry was at the table when Jane's sighting was added..

[DCI]

Hi DCI, I am misunderstanding that question/comment.  I have been awake 29 hours so may be dense however.
I will try to add my thoughts if I understand what you mean :)

EDIT, oh do you mean checking on twins?
Because the timeline had been written already.  Gerry was stunned to hear about the sighting later in the night we are to believe.. but their written timeline says different, as Gerry was at the table when Jane's sighting was added..

2140: JT returns to 5D to take over care of Evie from RJO.

[pegasus]

From the following text in JT police interview 10 May 2007 it is clear that the PJ considered that the absence of a GNR dog trail across the T-junction rules out the child JT saw being the missing child.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap12

"... Confronted with the information that the [tracker] dog teams had followed/followed the scent trails in which, purportedly, Madeleine Beth McCann had not passed the intersection where she indicated a man carried a child ..."

If one accepts that a person carried in someone's arms does leave a scent trail (which makes sense to me), then in addition to ruling out JT's sighting, surely by the same reasoning, the Smith sighting is ruled out, because there is no GNR dog trail leaving the apartment in that direction either.

[Brietta]

From the following text in JT police interview 10 May 2007 it is clear that the PJ considered that the absence of a GNR dog trail across the T-junction rules out the child JT saw being the missing child.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap12

"... Confronted with the information that the [tracker] dog teams had followed/followed the scent trails in which, purportedly, Madeleine Beth McCann had not passed the intersection where she indicated a man carried a child ..."

If one accepts that a person carried in someone's arms does leave a scent trail (which makes sense to me), then in addition to ruling out JT's sighting, surely by the same reasoning, the Smith sighting is ruled out, because there is no GNR dog trail leaving the apartment in that direction either.

The GNR dogs lost the trail at the small car park which suggests that if it was Madeleine's scent from the 3rd, she was removed by car.  That would not rule out the Smith sighting.

[Miss Taken Identity]

It was very interesting  that Jez and Gerry didn't see Jane Tanner pass them by... That is indeed an anomaly- one for Columbo.   If they didn't see her was she there where she claimed she was at all? and at that time?

[Benice]

That has been fully discussed on this forum before .... and in line with Heribertos scientific method of measuring periferal vision, been proven that Jane almost certainly was always out of sight to Gerry

If Jez was looking down at his baby or up at Gerry who blocked his direct view, also very possibly out of view to Jez as well.

 
At that time, Jane meant nothing to Jez and even had he half seen her, she probably wouldn't have even registered in his mind.


SY will have worked it out scientifically, so go on spreading myths.  Keep on Obfuscatiing.  You folks are experts at that

SY already know the truth, worked out scientifically.  Bet they are amused by all your pathetic attempts to discredit Gerry and Jane on here.   If they can be bothered to read here , of course.

I'm still waiting to hear a credible reason why Jane Tanner - who hardly knew the McCanns, would agree to put her own and her own children's lives in such obvious and glaring danger of being completely wrecked -  by agreeing/offering  to lie to the police.      IMO there is not a single believable reason why any sane person in her position would dream of taking such a massive risk.   Not in a million years. 

[pathfinder73]

I'm still waiting to hear a credible reason why Jane Tanner - who hardly knew the McCanns, would agree to put her own and her own children's lives in such obvious and glaring danger of being completely wrecked -  by agreeing/offering  to lie to the police.      IMO there is not a single believable reason why any sane person in her position would dream of taking such a massive risk.   Not in a million years.

SY can start by asking her why Jez said he seen her standing outside the apartments at 8:30. What was she waiting there for?

[Benice]

SY can start by asking her why Jez said he seen her standing outside the apartments at 8:30. What was she waiting there for?

What has that got to do with my post? 

[Benice]

Can you give me a credible reason why JT would agree to involve herself and her own family?  She hardly knew the McCanns - they were basically friends of friends.   IMO She would have to be mad to get involved in something so serious and with such dangerous implications  - when she had absolutely no need to.   

[pegasus]

So I assume you and I are in agreement on these five things?
1. KM did truthfully discover the window and shutter already open.
2. No-one climbed through the window.
3. No-one was carried through, or handed through, the window.
4. Removal was via a door.
5. During removal the missing person was neither awake, nor simply asleep.

[Brietta]

So I assume you and I are in agreement on these five things?
1. KM did truthfully discover the window and shutter already open.
2. No-one climbed through the window.
3. No-one was carried through, or handed through, the window.
4. Removal was via a door.
5. During removal the missing person was neither awake, nor simply asleep.

I agree up until point 5.
There is a slight possibilty there could have been a handover via the window ... but during removal, which I think was probably via the door, I believe Madeleine was drugged.

[Alfred R Jones]

Then when Gerry realised that the other two individuals within the vicinity of 5a that night agreed which side of the road the talk took place why didn't he just hold his hands up and admit he was wrong ? Why ündermine the statement of his main witness to the abduction, and her credibility, by, against all the evidence, sticking to his guns ? It must have been mighty important for him to do that.

If it's a crime to be a stubborn know-it-all then both you and Gerry should be locked up.  You need to ask this far more relevant question - if the Tannerman sighting was so vitally important in establishing an alibi for Gerry then why on god's earth did he deny seeing JT?  I know you have some lame explanation for it but it's so lame it's impossible to take seriously.  Your "thesis' completely falls apart at this point. 

[faithlilly]

If it's a crime to be a stubborn know-it-all then both you and Gerry should be locked up.  You need to ask this far more relevant question - if the Tannerman sighting was so vitally important in establishing an alibi for Gerry then why on god's earth did he deny seeing JT?  I know you have some lame explanation for it but it's so lame it's impossible to take seriously.  Your "thesis' completely falls apart at this point.

You do raise a very good question. Why would Gerry deny seeing JT ? Probably for the very same reason that he was insistent that he had his back to her as she passed by on the other side of the road, to distance himself from JT's claim if everything went pear shaped.

Deniability has always been his watchword. At that time it was quite possible that someone may come forward and say ' oh yes I was on my balcony having a fag and saw the two men talking but definitely didn't see any woman'. How could Gerry possiblly say he had seen JT when he didn't know how things were going to unfold ?

BTW when did this from the collective statement handed into the PJ on the 10th of May.....

'2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed. '

.....to being on the other side of the road ? Did he agree with JT to keep her on side while compiling the timeline then right royally shaft her when he went into his interview later that day or perhaps the story was changed because it was pointed out to Mr McCann during that interview how impossible the scenario detailed in the timeline actually was ? We can but guess !