How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?

[Robittybob1]

How is this explained?

[pathfinder73]

She avoided them and turned left and took the pathway back to her apartment.

[ferryman]

How is this explained?

Very easily.  Gerry and Jez Wilkins were engrossed in deep conversation and neither saw her.

I once walked past my sister, no more than 10 yards away.  She was engrossed in deep conversation with a man in a wheelchair and didn't see me.

Happens all the time.

No great mystery. 

[Alfie]

This post clearly implies deceit on the part of Gerry McCann - is it to be permitted to remain on the forum, oh bastion of all that is and is not libel, Slartibartifart?

[Alfie]

Faithlilly's nonsense theory has something to do with Gerry realising that there was a possibility that someone might have been watching from a balcony and seen him and Jez talking but not seeing Jane walking by.  Faithlilly doesn't seem to ascribe the same concern to Gerry when she tells us he must have carried a corpse through the streets of PdL looking for a convenient bin. 

NB:  I don't think Gerry is guilty.  I am not libelling him.  I think he is completely innocent.

[Robittybob1]

She avoided them and turned left and took the pathway back to her apartment.

That is possible, and I have considered it but it messes up with seeing the person carrying the child.  If you put Jane down the side path can you make sense of the rest of her observations?

[ShiningInLuz]

It can't be and that is why Gerry, on the timeline they all collaborated on, put himself on one side of the street and in subsequent interviews ( and possibly when the whole why didn't Jane see him question started to be raised) he removed himself to the other side. Even Gerry knew that the scenario as first presented was impossible.

If Gerry did indeed shift his evidence from one side of the street to the other, I would be grateful if you could provide a cite of this.

Because of the way Rua Martins works, I can provide a 'solution' for the non-seeing of Jane on either side of the street.

Therefore I would need something which challenges the evidence.  Do you have a cite?

[Alfie]

A post from a forum, totally unconnected to this case:


"Recently, it was brought to my attention once again that someone said, "Hi," to me in a store, and I completely ignored them. It's not that I did not recognize them (I do not typically have trouble recognizing someone I know), but I do not even recall seeing this person. It is fairly typical when someone tells me this that I do not remember seeing them or hearing anyone say, "Hello!" or saying my name".  http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=212475&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Is the author of this post a liar?  Is what he or she described completely impossible?  Has something like this never, ever happened to you or anyone you know?

[Robittybob1]

Very easily.  Gerry and Jez Wilkins were engrossed in deep conversation and neither saw her.

I once walked past my sister, no more than 10 yards away.  She was engrossed in deep conversation with a man in a wheelchair and didn't see me.

Happens all the time.

No great mystery.

That was the line I was going to explore. "selective attention"  brought about by some really important issue involving Jez and Gerry to the point where other details are not registered.  But what was happening to bring on that state?

[Robittybob1]

Faithlilly's nonsense theory has something to do with Gerry realising that there was a possibility that someone might have been watching from a balcony and seen him and Jez talking but not seeing Jane walking by.  Faithlilly doesn't seem to ascribe the same concern to Gerry when she tells us he must have carried a corpse through the streets of PdL looking for a convenient bin. 

NB:  I don't think Gerry is guilty.  I am not libelling him.  I think he is completely innocent.

When you say innocent do you mean also absolute truthful?  Could something have happened which required Gerry's medical knowledge and he just keeps quiet about it using the normal code of doctor patient confidentiality?

[Robittybob1]

If Gerry did indeed shift his evidence from one side of the street to the other, I would be grateful if you could provide a cite of this.

Because of the way Rua Martins works, I can provide a 'solution' for the non-seeing of Jane on either side of the street.

Therefore I would need something which challenges the evidence.  Do you have a cite?

If you have solutions just tell us.

[pathfinder73]

A post from a forum, totally unconnected to this case:


"Recently, it was brought to my attention once again that someone said, "Hi," to me in a store, and I completely ignored them. It's not that I did not recognize them (I do not typically have trouble recognizing someone I know), but I do not even recall seeing this person. It is fairly typical when someone tells me this that I do not remember seeing them or hearing anyone say, "Hello!" or saying my name".  http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=212475&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Is the author of this post a liar?  Is what he or she described completely impossible?  Has something like this never, ever happened to you or anyone you know?

This was a deserted street not a busy store looking at other things. Jez had a pram so he should have been aware of his surroundings. He claimed to be and said no Jane. He saw Jane when he left around 8:30.

Q. Relative to whether I know Jane Tanner;
Now I know her name, description of the clothes and photos which I have seen in the press. At that time I knew of her as a member of the group but did not know her name. I do not remember having seen her when I spoke with Gerry, but I believe I saw her when I first ventured out. She was stopped on the street in front of one of the group's apartments when I passed her down towards the exit to my apartment. I do not know if it was her apartment or not. I remember that she was wearing the colour purple.

Q. Relative to the passerby/transient:
I can affirm that it was a quiet street and it was very unlikely that someone could have passed by be in this way but this as an assumption and I do not remember anything having happened.

I would say that when I spoke with Gerry it was possible to recognize someone I knew who was passing on foot at the crossing at the top of the hill or to describe approximately someone unknown from that distance.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm

He was adamant that he did not see any one else in the area. When spoken to in reference to Jane Tanner walking by, he again stated that he saw no one. He also stated that he did not see or hear anyone to his right. He was aware of the recent picture in the papers re the person with a child wrapped in a blanket and in a males arms allegedly walking across the junction to his right but again stated that he did not see any one.
The conversation with Gerry lasted for about three minutes during which Gerry was chatty and in his normal self. Jeremy then made his way back to his apartment.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm

[Alfie]

When you say innocent do you mean also absolute truthful?  Could something have happened which required Gerry's medical knowledge and he just keeps quiet about it using the normal code of doctor patient confidentiality?

I have no idea what you're on about sorry. 

[Alfie]

This was a deserted street not a busy store looking at other things. Jez had a pram so he should have been aware of his surroundings. He claimed to be and said no Jane. He saw Jane when he left around 8:30.

Q. Relative to whether I know Jane Tanner;
Now I know her name, description of the clothes and photos which I have seen in the press. At that time I knew of her as a member of the group but did not know her name. I do not remember having seen her when I spoke with Gerry, but I believe I saw her when I first ventured out. She was stopped on the street in front of one of the group's apartments when I passed her down towards the exit to my apartment. I do not know if it was her apartment or not. I remember that she was wearing the colour purple.

Q. Relative to the passerby/transient:
I can affirm that it was a quiet street and it was very unlikely that someone could have passed by be in this way but this as an assumption and I do not remember anything having happened.

I would say that when I spoke with Gerry it was possible to recognize someone I knew who was passing on foot at the crossing at the top of the hill or to describe approximately someone unknown from that distance.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm

He was adamant that he did not see any one else in the area. When spoken to in reference to Jane Tanner walking by, he again stated that he saw no one. He also stated that he did not see or hear anyone to his right. He was aware of the recent picture in the papers re the person with a child wrapped in a blanket and in a males arms allegedly walking across the junction to his right but again stated that he did not see any one.
The conversation with Gerry lasted for about three minutes during which Gerry was chatty and in his normal self. Jeremy then made his way back to his apartment.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm

It may have been a deserted street, but actually it wasn't quite, was it?  Jez Wilkins was there and it was he  who had Gerry's attention and vice versa.  Jane Tanner walked by without drawing attention to herself.  The person in the forum I quoted above was alone, and even when greeted by name did not register the other person.  Will you people ever concede that this is neither impossible nor even out of the ordinary?!

[Robittybob1]

I have no idea what you're on about sorry.

You said Gerry is innocent - I take that to mean you think he didn't hide Madeleine's body or something of that nature.
His check took a long time and there is no real explanation of what he did during that time.  Could there be activities he is holding back (not disclosing) because of a medical code of conduct?