There is no other way she could have passed Gerry and Jez without at least one of them clocking her . Had she invented the story it would have been so much easier to have got their stories straight but that is not what occurred.
Witnesses will always make identification errors irrespective of the best will in the world and she acknowledges this herself in her rogatory interview. You only need to look at Martin Smith and his failed identification of the mystery man.
Is this what Jane Tanner saw the night Madeleine disappeared.Thank you, John. That is brilliant. 8@??)(
Please remember that the actual event took place at around 9.10pm with the orange glow of the sodium street lights providing the only lighting.
Pulling all the statements together we can now establish what Jane observed as she left the Ocean Club reception on her way to check on her children. Jane had just exited the Club reception and was making her way up the hill when she observed Gerry McCann and Jeremy
Wilkins (Jez) chatting on the opposite side of the road. Gerry had his back to Jane and was facing Jez. Jez for his part did not know Jane so took no notice of her.
In the distance marked by a red arrow is where a few moments later Jane saw what she describes as a non touristy type man carrying a child in pyjamas with bare feet.
(http://i.imgur.com/kOlctOb.jpg)
Jes stated that he was on the opposite side of the road and that Tanner didn't walk past... but hey, I'm sure that these minor points can be explained away by John.Is this what Jane Tanner saw the night Madeleine disappeared.Thank you, John. That is brilliant. 8@??)(
Please remember that the actual event took place at around 9.10pm with the orange glow of the sodium street lights providing the only lighting.
Pulling all the statements together we can now establish what Jane observed as she left the Ocean Club reception on her way to check on her children. Jane had just exited the Club reception and was making her way up the hill when she observed Gerry McCann and Jeremy
Wilkins (Jez) chatting on the opposite side of the road. Gerry had his back to Jane and was facing Jez. Jez for his part did not know Jane so took no notice of her.
In the distance marked by a red arrow is where a few moments later Jane saw what she describes as a non touristy type man carrying a child in pyjamas with bare feet.
(http://i.imgur.com/kOlctOb.jpg)
You do have Gerry and Jez shown lower down the street than seems they were, from Jezes statement. The steps, which Jez refers to are the steps to 5A, which Gerry came down - and they are higher up the photograph.
Is this what Jane Tanner saw the night Madeleine disappeared.Thank you, John. That is brilliant. 8@??)(
Please remember that the actual event took place at around 9.10pm with the orange glow of the sodium street lights providing the only lighting.
Pulling all the statements together we can now establish what Jane observed as she left the Ocean Club reception on her way to check on her children. Jane had just exited the Club reception and was making her way up the hill when she observed Gerry McCann and Jeremy
Wilkins (Jez) chatting on the opposite side of the road. Gerry had his back to Jane and was facing Jez. Jez for his part did not know Jane so took no notice of her.
In the distance marked by a red arrow is where a few moments later Jane saw what she describes as a non touristy type man carrying a child in pyjamas with bare feet.
(http://i.imgur.com/kOlctOb.jpg)
You do have Gerry and Jez shown lower down the street than seems they were, from Jezes statement. The steps, which Jez refers to are the steps to 5A, which Gerry came down - and they are higher up the photograph.
However, I think Gerrys memory is likely to be the correct one, because he was the man who had to walk across the road. He would remember that.
@ sadie
Jez Wilkins also claims to have crossed the road. From his statement :
'As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry'
So bang goes another theory huh !
Didn't Jez say in his rogatory that he wasn't 100% certain of where he was when he chatted to Gerry?
@ sadie
Jez Wilkins also claims to have crossed the road. From his statement :
'As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry'
So bang goes another theory huh !
@ sadie
Jez Wilkins also claims to have crossed the road. From his statement :
'As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry'
So bang goes another theory huh !
Ok, so they met in the middle of the road and talked there or pulled over to one side?
Honestly, from my experience, it would be very possible to have a 5 minute chat in the middle of the road. No traffic ... especially so at dinner time when everyone is eating or watching TV
Which is why Sadie is so desperate for that meeting to have not taken place on the pavement. Don't you just love the sound of straw clutching in the morning.@ sadie
Jez Wilkins also claims to have crossed the road. From his statement :
'As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry'
So bang goes another theory huh !
Ok, so they met in the middle of the road and talked there or pulled over to one side?
Honestly, from my experience, it would be very possible to have a 5 minute chat in the middle of the road. No traffic ... especially so at dinner time when everyone is eating or watching TV
Except no one says it was in the middle of the road. You are simply making recollections that don't fit fit.
I understand you have seen where Jez and Tanner say the chat took place and you know as well as I do, because I have been there as well, how impossible it would have been for both men not to see Tanner if she had passed by on such a narrow piece of pavement.
Which is why Sadie is so desperate for that meeting to have not taken place on the pavement. Don't you just love the sound of straw clutching in the morning.
PeterWhat are your reasons for wanting the meeting to have taken place on the right pavement.QuoteWhich is why Sadie is so desperate for that meeting to have not taken place on the pavement. Don't you just love the sound of straw clutching in the morning.
No its you lot that are desperate for it to have been on the left pavement. I think it was the right pavement, or the middle of the road .... but unlike you, I am open minded
None of us were there!
PeterQuoteWhich is why Sadie is so desperate for that meeting to have not taken place on the pavement. Don't you just love the sound of straw clutching in the morning.
No its you lot that are desperate for it to have been on the left pavement. I think it was the right pavement, or the middle of the road .... but unlike you, I am open minded
None of us were there!
In his statement Mr McCann said that he met Wilkins some 10 metres down from the patio gate and crossed the road to chat to him so they can't both be right ???
Mr Wilkins drew a map of where the chat with Gerry Mccann took place. It was on the pathway right outside the little iron gate at the bottom of the flat. Marked by an X.Redblossom - how interesting. I cant recall seeing that map before
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/9of8-ecf89375.gif
Martha, it is clear from each of Mr Wilkins' statements that the chat took place outside flat 5a. The only thing Mr Wilkins was unsure of was where he and Gerry Mccann stood, relative to each other, not which side of the road it was.
Are these the balconies you are referring to sadie?
(http://i.imgur.com/RZOayFa.jpg)
In his statement Mr McCann said that he met Wilkins some 10 metres down from the patio gate and crossed the road to chat to him so they can't both be right ???
And another point worthy of note is that Wilkins said that Gerry appeared to have come from the steps at the patio gate inferring that he had just come from the apartment via the patio entrance. Some people seem to be under the illusion that Gerry walked all the way round to the front door when all he had to do was nip up to the unlocked patio door. Is there an issue here that some posters are confusing the back and the front of apartment 5a?
The back of the apartment is where the sliding patio door is which faces the tapas bar. The same door which Matthew used to enter the apartment at 9.10ish. Gerry had no reason to make the much longer journey up to the top of the street and have to use a key to access via the front door.
@ John
Wilkins, even in the drawing you have reproduced, places himself on the right side of the road as you walk towards the reception.
I am not following you John. But, no matter. Here is a snippet from Mr Wilkins' last statement.
As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
Edited.
I disagree.
I think it's entirely possible for two people deeply engrossed in conversation not to see or notice a third person passing by ...
I am not following you John. But, no matter. Here is a snippet from Mr Wilkins' last statement.
As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
Edited.
Ok, so if we interpolate between those comments and the hand-drawn map we get to the layout I have already posted. Gerry had left the area of the gate and had been walking down the path. Wilkins then crosses the road to converse with him. Tanner slips by on the footpath not wanting to disturb their conversation.
(http://i.imgur.com/pxpAreH.jpg)
I am not following you John. But, no matter. Here is a snippet from Mr Wilkins' last statement.
As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
Edited.
From Jane Tanners statement, translated verbally from English to Portuguese, then written in Portuguese. Then subsequently translated for the files to English. But a drawing, surely can be accepted without question:JW had to cross the street to get back home (his child was sleeping). If Gerald MC had eventually showed his intention to cross the street (he might have remembered something to tell), JW would have likely reacted by crossing himself right away. I'm not sure this is clear, sorry !
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_50.jpg
Above from Jane Tanners statement 11.30 4th May 2007
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
If you were doing a quickie check in the middle of a meal, would you actually cross the road to engage in trivial conversation, politeness however would dictate that if someone was in your path (literally & otherwise) it would be rude to pass without comment.
(http://i.imgur.com/yP50CA0.jpg)
@ John
Funnily enough your graphic shows very well why it would have been impossible for Wilkins and Gerry not to see Tanner if they were all stood on the pathway as Tanner and Wilkins describe.
If you look at the family at the top of the photograph you can see by the two figures at the back just how much room two people take up on the narrow pavement and how impossible it would have been for Tanner to 'slip by ' unnoticed.
How was the "go" given, Sadie ? By cellphone ?Mr Wilkins drew a map of where the chat with Gerry Mccann took place. It was on the pathway right outside the little iron gate at the bottom of the flat. Marked by an X.Redblossom - how interesting. I cant recall seeing that map before
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/9of8-ecf89375.gif
OK; lets assume that is where they were.
This verifies my more recent thoughts that the watcher was on the balcony immediately across the road from 5A. ....and eliminates all the other possible watcher points
---------------------------------------
This abduction nearly failed, because the watcher couldn't see Gerry and gave the go ahead at the wrong time. Every other view point could see that corner and for the watcher to have been given the go ahead Gerry had to have been out of his view.
Please use GE and zoom right in.
This balcony was partially bathed in light from the very close sodium street light. The back part (southern end) of this balcony was in the shade. The watcher would have made sure he was in the shade.
From that shaded part he couldn't see Gerry and Jez, nor the emerging Jane ... so he gave the go ahead.
The getaway vehicle was in the little parking area behind the flats in which the balcony was. [directly across the road from the Reception to the Tapas] Immediately he had given the go ahead, he walked down and thru that block and its little garden. He crossed the garden to a gate which opened directly on to the little car park, straight into the van ... or 4 wheel drive ***
THe abductor had been skulking in/near the recess to the front door, which was in near blackness . As the abductor almost certainly had a key, once he got the signal, he was in and out like a shot, only stopping to open the window and blinds.
The driver drove out for the pick up to see Gerry and Jez and worse still to see Jane witnessing it all. In shockhorror he backed in again and drove off in the opposite direction. Bundleman meanwhile, circled around via the alleyway Aldemeante Ocean Club (Name now whooshed off GE) to that little car park to find his driver gone
Aldeamente Ocean Club is the alleyway that runs southwards immediately to the east of the road where it all happened and it is possible to get thru from there to that little car park.
Poor bundleman(the rotter!) was abandoned! No way was he, or any sane man, going to walk thru PdL with a stolen child in his arms by design.
But he had no choice, did he?
Only my thoughts but the scenario is perfect now as far as i can see ... and brilliantly pinpoints exactly which place was used for watching
Thank you so much Redblossom 8((()*/ ?{)(**
*** Certain 4 wheel drive vehicles have the correct sort of headlamps to show colour - maybe vans do too, but from what I have read most cars do not. Moonlight and sodium street lights are monochromatic and do not show colour.
Jane Tanner saw colour. The human brain is amazing, in that it can record the slightest glimpse of things, such as colour
Therefore it seems the getaway vehicle was a four wheel drive or some vehicle with the correct sort of lighting to show colour. The report that I read, many moons ago, said that either a jeep or a land rover had the correct sort of lights ... cant remember which
I am not following you John. But, no matter. Here is a snippet from Mr Wilkins' last statement.
As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
Edited.
Where did you get that from Blossom?
10 metres + 5 metres = 15 metres overall
Measured on GE, it is 30 metres
Come on!
I for one, take no notice of that.
Yes, the pavement isn't what you call "narrow", 1m80 I would say.
(http://i.imgur.com/yP50CA0.jpg)Quote from: faithlilly@ John
Funnily enough your graphic shows very well why it would have been impossible for Wilkins and Gerry not to see Tanner if they were all stood on the pathway as Tanner and Wilkins describe.
If you look at the family at the top of the photograph you can see by the two figures at the back just how much room two people take up on the narrow pavement and how impossible it would have been for Tanner to 'slip by ' unnoticed.
Faithlilly, at the corner where Jez drew them chatting, the pavement is almost 2 metres wide. Higher up, where those people are, it is only about 1.3/1.4 metres wide. Plenty of room to pass on such a wide pavement
Doncha think?
Check it on GEarth
Agreed, which translates as this... Could Tanner still have passed by in the semi darkness?
(http://i.imgur.com/yP50CA0.jpg)
@ sadie
As redblossom has just posted Jez gives the distance to the alleyway to the apartments as 5m so he wasn't anywhere near the part where the pavement widens.
@ redblossom
And don't forget she sees the small pattern on the pjs but fails to see the large Eyore motif which was centrally placed on the leg.
33 metres? Where does that leave Jane Tanner's testimony that she could see the minutest details of the man and the child's clothing at such a distance? If he was hurrying across the road, it would have taken him, what?, about 5 seconds to disappear from view. How far can one walk in 5 seconds to close into a 33 metre distance, and how much into it? How much visibility would one have for tiny details and on a dusky night?Redblossom
>@@(*&)
@ redblossom
And don't forget she sees the small pattern on the pjs but fails to see the large Eyore motif which was centrally placed on the leg.
To be fair, that may have been folded / creased under and not visible at the time. Still, to see small turn ups on the bottom of the pyjamas, to see whether the man's trousers had creases or not, to see what texture and length his individual hairs were like, the height of his heels, the colour and texture of his skin in such a short period of time, at a distance, in the dusk, is pushing it a little, JMO.
Icabrodcane, that is a very good point. IMO if a street is deathly quiet as described by Gerry Mccann and others, if someone walks right past you, whether you see or look at them or not, you would hear and sense them. Neither Mr Wilkins nor Gerry Mccann said anything to this effect. They said they didn't see Jane Tanner. They may have been aware though that someone walked past them at the time.
>@@(*&)
Agreed, which translates as this... Could Tanner still have passed by in the semi darkness?
(http://i.imgur.com/R7k4yKa.jpg)
You could add the passing figure of Jane Tanner to the picture ... at the exact moment all three were horizontal to each other
That would give us an idea of whether she could have passed by entirely unnoticed by either men
Agreed, which translates as this... Could Tanner still have passed by in the semi darkness?
(http://i.imgur.com/R7k4yKa.jpg)
You could add the passing figure of Jane Tanner to the picture ... at the exact moment all three were horizontal to each other
That would give us an idea of whether she could have passed by entirely unnoticed by either men
Could you do that please John ? ( add the figure of Jane Tanner at the moment she passed both men )
If it's not too much trouble, I think it might be helpful to the debate
Amended image as requested - John
Yes, the pavement isn't what you call "narrow", 1m80 I would say.
(http://i.imgur.com/yP50CA0.jpg)Quote from: faithlilly@ John
Funnily enough your graphic shows very well why it would have been impossible for Wilkins and Gerry not to see Tanner if they were all stood on the pathway as Tanner and Wilkins describe.
If you look at the family at the top of the photograph you can see by the two figures at the back just how much room two people take up on the narrow pavement and how impossible it would have been for Tanner to 'slip by ' unnoticed.
Faithlilly, at the corner where Jez drew them chatting, the pavement is almost 2 metres wide. Higher up, where those
people are, it is only about 1.3/1.4 metres wide. Plenty of room to pass on such a wide pavement
Doncha think?
Check it on GEarth
What shocks me is the pushchair in the middle of the road. No father instinctively would do that, no matter cars passing by or not. Usually you keep a eye (or the possibility to keep an eye) on your kid, even if sleeping.
Yes, the footpath widths varies continuously from about 1.8m to about 1.1m at its narrowest. Here is a better view of the footpath alongside apartment 5a.
(http://i.imgur.com/y4lOA6a.png)
Much later Wilkins made this comment in his rogatory statement to LEICESTERSHIRE POLICE.JW had a feeling GMC was coming from his flat, but actually didn't see him getting out of the gate.
I remember seeing Gerry on the other side of the same. I believe that there was some speculation in the press regarding the circumstances of this encounter. I remember that I crossed the street to talk to Gerry. According to what I remember, Gerry was walking when I spotted him. As I mentioned previously, I assumed that he had gone to check on the children and was headed back to the Tapas Bar.
From what I remember, the conversation happened right there on the pathway but I am not certain who was located exactly where.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
So now lets see...
Gerry must have been below the gate to the patio for him to assume he had come from that direction and in addition Gerry was walking when he saw him. Thus Gerry had to have closed the patio gate and was heading back to the tapas bar. This most definitely doesn't put Gerry with his back to any wall.
Much later Wilkins made this comment in his rogatory statement to LEICESTERSHIRE POLICE.
I remember seeing Gerry on the other side of the same. I believe that there was some speculation in the press regarding the circumstances of this encounter. I remember that I crossed the street to talk to Gerry. According to what I remember, Gerry was walking when I spotted him. As I mentioned previously, I assumed that he had gone to check on the children and was headed back to the Tapas Bar.
From what I remember, the conversation happened right there on the pathway but I am not certain who was located exactly where.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
So now lets see...
Gerry must have been below the gate to the patio for him to assume he had come from that direction and in addition Gerry was walking when he saw him. Thus Gerry had to have closed the patio gate and was heading back to the tapas bar. This most definitely doesn't put Gerry with his back to any wall.
@ icabodcrane
Thank you, you beat me to it !
How about this then?
(http://i.imgur.com/x25CbKw.jpg)
or even this then?
(http://i.imgur.com/S7WPnRH.jpg)
That last picture looks about right John, according to both Mr Wilkins and Jane Tanner, which begs the question why Gerry Mccann said it was on the opposite side of the road, and why the Mccanns' private detective Dave Edgar, in their documentary, supported Gerry Mccanns version of events and not Jane Tanner's, even to the point of him sayng Jane Tanner may have seen a woman,back to square one.Last picture's perfect, thank you John. Gerald would likely have walked some steps towards JW and stay on the pavement.
Which begs the question why anyone made a big deal about it, doesn't it? namely, Gerlad Mccann and Dave Edgar.That last picture looks about right John, according to both Mr Wilkins and Jane Tanner, which begs the question why Gerry Mccann said it was on the opposite side of the road, and why the Mccanns' private detective Dave Edgar, in their documentary, supported Gerry Mccanns version of events and not Jane Tanner's, even to the point of him sayng Jane Tanner may have seen a woman,back to square one.Last picture's perfect, thank you John. Gerald would likely have walked some steps towards JW and stay on the pavement.
DE dismissed the side of the street because he likely thought Jane couldn't pass by transparently. Besides this killing detail had nothing to do with his job of finding the abductor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4aBr5PTYY&feature=youtube_gdata_playerYes and "it is possible", though this time the abductor "carries a young girl" "away from the town".
Video showing Jane Tanner being bullied about what she saw or from where. Take note from 5.30 minutes onwards the narrator says Jane Tanner may not have been the only one to see Madeleine being abducted. (As if this was an established fact that she did)
>@@(*&)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4aBr5PTYY&feature=youtube_gdata_playerI wonder what were JW's thoughts when watching this part of the so-called reconstruction.
Video showing Jane Tanner being bullied about what she saw or from where. Take note from 5.30 minutes onwards the narrator says Jane Tanner may not have been the only one to see Madeleine being abducted. (As if this was an established fact that she did)
>@@(*&)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4aBr5PTYY&feature=youtube_gdata_playerI wonder what were JW's thoughts when watching this part of the so-called reconstruction.
Video showing Jane Tanner being bullied about what she saw or from where. Take note from 5.30 minutes onwards the narrator says Jane Tanner may not have been the only one to see Madeleine being abducted. (As if this was an established fact that she did)
>@@(*&)
I bet he avoided carefully to meditate.
From Wilkins rogatory statement :
'I do not remember having seen anyone else at this time besides Gerry. After leaving each other, Gerry walked downward in the direction of the Tapas Bar and I began to walk in the other direction, up the pathway. I turned left at the crossing and passed the apartment. I did not meet anyone else during my walk and once in my apartment, I did not venture out again. '
This seems to give further verification that Wilkins was on the pathway while speaking to Gerry.
From Wilkins rogatory statement :
'I do not remember having seen anyone else at this time besides Gerry. After leaving each other, Gerry walked downward in the direction of the Tapas Bar and I began to walk in the other direction, up the pathway. I turned left at the crossing and passed the apartment. I did not meet anyone else during my walk and once in my apartment, I did not venture out again. '
This seems to give further verification that Wilkins was on the pathway while speaking to Gerry.
It also suggests that whilst speaking with Gerry, Wilkins had the pushchair faced in the direction in which he was going ( up the street, and away from the reception area )
Yet Jane Tanner says ( in the link Redblossom brought us above ) that Wilkins had the pushchair facing down the street, towards the reception area that he had just come from
Her statement doesn't come across as being very reliable at all, does it ?
Why such a difference though...that is the question? Too much vino?
I agree about them refusing to go back or at least being awkward about it...WTF was that all about??
Have they fallen out or something?
Why such a difference though...that is the question? Too much vino?
I agree about them refusing to go back or at least being awkward about it...WTF was that all about??
Have they fallen out or something?
Thank you for posting that video Madeleine was here part 4/5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4aBr5PTYY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
According to Jane this is what the scene was like...
I should point out that Jez Wilkins corroborates this version too.
(http://abstraporous)
He didn't actually refuse, he wasn't enthusiastic but would do as the others. He wasn't the only one saying so.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4aBr5PTYY&feature=youtube_gdata_playerI wonder what were JW's thoughts when watching this part of the so-called reconstruction.
Video showing Jane Tanner being bullied about what she saw or from where. Take note from 5.30 minutes onwards the narrator says Jane Tanner may not have been the only one to see Madeleine being abducted. (As if this was an established fact that she did)
>@@(*&)
I bet he avoided carefully to meditate.
Wilkins also refused to take part in the official reconstruction so he only has himself to blame.
Thank you for posting that video Madeleine was here part 4/5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4aBr5PTYY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
According to Jane this is what the scene was like...
I should point out that Jez Wilkins corroborates this version too.
(http://i.imgur.com/Ud6y15w.jpg?2-Tanner_sighting_07)
The wall does increase in height due to the incline and Gerry was standing on a step behind the gate but I will increase the size of the silhouettes slightly to compensate. Thanks.
Sorry I have been away so long.
Had a sudden onset of vomitting and d......, then a long several hour sleep. Think I am OK again
8(8-))
Wonder if it was the calling of a child, an item, that brought it on? Only joking, but I am VERY upset that anyone would be so insensitive as to call Madeleine, any child, that. It shows an attitude of mind .. and other things >@@(*&)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Isabod, why haven't you read the thread? Why haven't you read the width of the pavement there?
It was about 1.8 to 2.0 metres wide(at the corner as indicated on Jezes hand drawn map) so plenty of space even if they were both on the pavement > What's your problem?
Was it you that tried to make out that I had some agenda for wanting them to be on the eastern pavement. or was that someone else?
Wrong again 8(>((
Sorry I have been away so long.
Had a sudden onset of vomitting and d......, then a long several hour sleep. Think I am OK again
8(8-))
Wonder if it was the calling of a child, an item, that brought it on? Only joking, but I am VERY upset that anyone would be so insensitive as to call Madeleine, any child, that. It shows an attitude of mind .. and other things >@@(*&)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Isabod, why haven't you read the thread? Why haven't you read the width of the pavement there?
It was about 1.8 to 2.0 metres wide(at the corner as indicated on Jezes hand drawn map) so plenty of space even if they were both on the pavement > What's your problem?
Was it you that tried to make out that I had some agenda for wanting them to be on the eastern pavement. or was that someone else?
Wrong again 8(>((
No it wasn't me
I hope you are feeling better soon
Thanks for your kind words faithlilly
How well were the hedges cut back at the timer of the videos? Greenery grows like crazy in PT and it had just been cut back at the time of the abduction [see photos taken at the time]
And on his drawing, Jez clearly indicates that they were standing on the alleyway corner. So easy to pass them there.
If Gerry and Jez were pretty much outside the gate on the path then a ninja would have struggled to get by unseen, let alone a substantial woman dressed in purple wearing flip flops!
Thanks for your kind words faithlilly
How well were the hedges cut back at the timer of the videos? Greenery grows like crazy in PT and it had just been cut back at the time of the abduction [see photos taken at the time]
And on his drawing, Jez clearly indicates that they were standing on the alleyway corner. So easy to pass them there.
Jez's drawing differs from his statements. In one of his statement he says he was 5m from the alleyway.
Sorry I have been away so long.Sorry for your feeling bad, Sadie, but I pragmatically called "item" a corpse, not a child. Anyhow it could have upset you, for example if you're a catholic and believe in the resurrection of the dead. I'm sorry.
Had a sudden onset of vomitting and d......, then a long several hour sleep. Think I am OK again
8(8-))
Wonder if it was the calling of a child, an item, that brought it on? Only joking, but I am VERY upset that anyone would be so insensitive as to call Madeleine, any child, that. It shows an attitude of mind .. and other things >@@(*&)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Isabod, why haven't you read the thread? Why haven't you read the width of the pavement there?
It was about 1.8 to 2.0 metres wide(at the corner as indicated on Jezes hand drawn map) so plenty of space even if they were both on the pavement > What's your problem?
Was it you that tried to make out that I had some agenda for wanting them to be on the eastern pavement. or was that someone else?
Wrong again 8(>((
I am OK now thanks Anne. I am not a Catholic.Sorry I have been away so long.Sorry for your feeling bad, Sadie, but I pragmatically called "item" a corpse, not a child. Anyhow it could have upset you, for example if you're a catholic and believe in the resurrection of the dead. I'm sorry.
Had a sudden onset of vomitting and d......, then a long several hour sleep. Think I am OK again
8(8-))
Wonder if it was the calling of a child, an item, that brought it on? Only joking, but I am VERY upset that anyone would be so insensitive as to call Madeleine, any child, that. It shows an attitude of mind .. and other things >@@(*&)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Isabod, why haven't you read the thread? Why haven't you read the width of the pavement there?
It was about 1.8 to 2.0 metres wide(at the corner as indicated on Jezes hand drawn map) so plenty of space even if they were both on the pavement > What's your problem?
Was it you that tried to make out that I had some agenda for wanting them to be on the eastern pavement. or was that someone else?
Wrong again 8(>((
Even in Gerry's alternative scenario he is stood on the road looking up at the 6' and more Jeremy standing on the pavement. Does anyone think that one of them had a similar encounter at a different time and quiet possibly they are mixing them up? Just a thought.
I like this particular mock up, it has a ring of truth about it when you consider what Jeremy said in his statements and what Mss Tanner pointed on in the mock reconstruction. Jeremy claims it happened right there on the pathway so had he two feet on the kerb or just one? 8(0(*
(http://i.imgur.com/Ud6y15w.jpg?2-Tanner_sighting_07)
Even in Gerry's alternative scenario he is stood on the road looking up at the 6' and more Jeremy standing on the pavement. Does anyone think that one of them had a similar encounter at a different time and quiet possibly they are mixing them up? Just a thought.
I like this particular mock up, it has a ring of truth about it when you consider what Jeremy said in his statements and what Mss Tanner pointed on in the mock reconstruction. Jeremy claims it happened right there on the pathway so had he two feet on the kerb or just one? 8(0(*
(http://i.imgur.com/Ud6y15w.jpg?2-Tanner_sighting_07)
Gerry is a very tall man, an imposing figure of a man. Am not sure how tall the kerbs are, or how tall Jez is.
I like this method of showing the situation. However it has them standing further up the road than is shown in Jezes map.
Jezes map is the most likely scenario, coz he is not putting them in any airy-fairy place (might be here or up a bit sort of place), He is very deliberately putting them on that corner into the alleyway
Of course, with a child who is restless and not properly asleep, inevitably there would have been some movement - rocking of the pushchair back and forth ... at the very least
Let's say it disgusts you.I am OK now thanks Anne. I am not a Catholic.Sorry I have been away so long.Sorry for your feeling bad, Sadie, but I pragmatically called "item" a corpse, not a child. Anyhow it could have upset you, for example if you're a catholic and believe in the resurrection of the dead. I'm sorry.
Had a sudden onset of vomitting and d......, then a long several hour sleep. Think I am OK again
8(8-))
Wonder if it was the calling of a child, an item, that brought it on? Only joking, but I am VERY upset that anyone would be so insensitive as to call Madeleine, any child, that. It shows an attitude of mind .. and other things >@@(*&)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Isabod, why haven't you read the thread? Why haven't you read the width of the pavement there?
It was about 1.8 to 2.0 metres wide(at the corner as indicated on Jezes hand drawn map) so plenty of space even if they were both on the pavement > What's your problem?
Was it you that tried to make out that I had some agenda for wanting them to be on the eastern pavement. or was that someone else?
Wrong again 8(>((
To call a child, dead or alive, an ITEM is disgusting.
To the contrary , Ichabod, if i were admiring a toddler in a push chair, a small army could pass by and i wouldn't notice it.
We are all different, maybe you would
Gerry isn't taller than 1m80 (I saw him). Russell is imposing. Jane is tall and Jez shorter than Gerry and bellied.
Gerry is a very tall man, an imposing figure of a man. Am not sure how tall the kerbs are, or how tall Jez is.
Gerry isn't taller than 1m80 (I saw him). Russell is imposing. Jane is tall and Jez shorter than Gerry and bellied.
Gerry is a very tall man, an imposing figure of a man. Am not sure how tall the kerbs are, or how tall Jez is.
Wow. I went to bed before Sadie's last few posts last night. What an eye-opener this morning! Whether you intend to or not Sadie, you come across like a besotted schoolgirl swooning over a matinee idol I'm afraid. You continue to put forward pet theories (we now have the car of the alleged abductor's alleged accomplice's alleged getaway vehicle in the mix, allegedly throwing light temporarily over bundleman at the EXACT moment required for JT to look up and spot the PJs the alleged girl he was allegedly carrying was allegedly wearing.
I'm not using the world "allegedly" for no reason Sadie, you understand? No-one KNOWS what happened. That's why we're still here talking about it.
The person your brave, intelligent schoolgirl saw was investigated by the PJ. It was Michael Anthony Green. There are NO "watchers" that were reported that haven't been investigated and ruled out. You fail to allow for this in your theories - well, you don't even present them as theories, rather facts - about "how the nasty abductor, his accomplice, his getaway car and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all dunnit!"
As he seduced you, your guess could be subjective...Gerry isn't taller than 1m80 (I saw him). Russell is imposing. Jane is tall and Jez shorter than Gerry and bellied.
Gerry is a very tall man, an imposing figure of a man. Am not sure how tall the kerbs are, or how tall Jez is.
1.80 = 5.92 feet, almost 6 feet.
I have met him too and had a conversation with him. I think he is taller than 6 feet and he cuts an imposing figure. Very fit looking and very handsome, with penetrating eyes.
I would put him at 6'2" at an educated guess.
I have never met Jane or Jez
Sadie's story telling reminds me of Enid Blyton.Wow. I went to bed before Sadie's last few posts last night. What an eye-opener this morning! Whether you intend to or not Sadie, you come across like a besotted schoolgirl swooning over a matinee idol I'm afraid. You continue to put forward pet theories (we now have the car of the alleged abductor's alleged accomplice's alleged getaway vehicle in the mix, allegedly throwing light temporarily over bundleman at the EXACT moment required for JT to look up and spot the PJs the alleged girl he was allegedly carrying was allegedly wearing.
I'm not using the world "allegedly" for no reason Sadie, you understand? No-one KNOWS what happened. That's why we're still here talking about it.
The person your brave, intelligent schoolgirl saw was investigated by the PJ. It was Michael Anthony Green. There are NO "watchers" that were reported that haven't been investigated and ruled out. You fail to allow for this in your theories - well, you don't even present them as theories, rather facts - about "how the nasty abductor, his accomplice, his getaway car and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all dunnit!"
Indeed C. Edwards, well said.
Sadie gives the pretense of neutrality, but in reality it's .....
Abduction, pure and straight.
Did Jane Tanner get the time mixed up, when she checked? and could have possibly seen JW earlier\or laterJT could have only heard GMC tell he had met JW (it seems that's how he explained he took time) and reconstructed her sighting (real) of the abductor.
These are typed versions of the two time lines, written that night\early hours by the group, on the inside over of the Madeleine's colouring book.
Why did O'B almost immediately on JT's return go back to the children. Keep in mind it was MO who went with him that returned to say, he (O'B) had remained behind, since one of the children had vomited, thus necessitating JT to ''relieve him'' so he could return to his meal.
''Timeline 1 (as per sticker book above)
8:45. pm
Matt returns 9.00-9.05 - listened at all 3
- all shutters down
Jerry 9.10-9.15 in the room + all well
? did he check
9.20/5 - Ella Jane checked 5D sees stranger & child
9.30 - Russ. Ella Matt check all 3
9.35 - Matt check see twins
9.50 - Russ returns
9.55 - Kate realised Madeleine
10pm - Alarm raised
Timeline 2 (as per sticker book above)
8.45pm. all assembled at poolside for food
9.00pm. Matt Oldfield listens at all 3 windows 5A, B, D ALL shutters down
9:15pm Gerry McCann looks at room A ? Door open to bedroom
9:20pm Jane Tanner checks 5D - [sees stranger walking carrying a child]
9.30 Russell O'Brien in 5D. Poorly daughter
9.55pm
10:00pm. Alarm raised after Kate
Gerald''
Copied from
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html
The original versions are also on the ^^ url.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN.htm
Witness statement of Russel O'Brien 4th May 2007 @ 9.45
''At around 9pm, they had all ordered their meals. While they were eating, it was normal that every 15 minutes, one person from each apartment would go to the apartments/bedrooms make sure the children were ok. Yesterday, as **** was not well, the interval between checks was reduced. He recalls that Matthew Oldfield left the restaurant at shortly after 9pm to check the children. He is no longer sure who went out first, but five minutes later, Gerry McCann and his own partner, Jane, went out, almost at the same time, to check the children. Jane could have come back first because she found Gerry chatting with a person who is also a guest in the same place, named Jez. He thinks that Jane only checked their apartment, being worried about ****. Then Gerry came back at around 9.25/9.30 and they started to eat the first course. [as entradas]".
At around 9.35/9.40, taking advantage of the lull [waiting pause] before being served with the first [main] course, the informant left the restaurant with Matthew to check the children. When he got there, his daughter **** was crying. He stayed in her bedroom with her. He supposes that Matthew checked his apartment. Matthew returned to the restaurant five minutes after leaving it. His partner came to take his place in ****'s bedroom around 15 minutes later after finishing dinner.
At around 9.55, he went back to the restaurant where his food had been waiting for 5 or 10 minutes. All the other adults had finished.''
A bit difficult to fit some of that in the timeline, but this what makes the timelines so interesting. The one minute people are checking every 30 or so minutes, next it's almost 10-15 minutes apart. Then if Jane got back before Gerry, although this is a total uncertainty, where was Gerry? Jane would have known if she passed him twice whilst chatting to JW.
But in any event for all the dining & attendance at the Tapas Bar, if according to this alleged version of events, Mr McCann was either at some time in the apartment with the abductor
> got in via the unlocked patio door, thus ahead of Mr McCann & hid
or the abductor did, whilst Mr McCann was stood outside by the side gate
> got in through the shutter & unlocked window
> have a duplicate key to get in via the front main door
But strange that he left the windows & shutters open, yet managed to close the front door & perhaps lock it? If of course that is the exit route
And in the event of Mr Oldfield being totally oblivious to the open windows & shutter, conclusion could also be that Madeleine disappeared after his check. But where does that leave the JT sighting?
This shows this episode wasn't a covering up asked by GMC to JT, using the independent witness JW. If covering, she would have seen the abductor when coming back from her check, 20m ahead first on Agostinho da Silva and then crossing Gentil Martins. Passed the corner, she would have seen GMC leaving JW and returning to the Tapas. JW wouldn't have noticed her, of course, but it would have been acceptable.
What was 'important' about the differing recollections is that by his own recollection Gerry McCann had placed himself in the only position where it would have been impossible for him to have seen either Jane or the abductor
@ Meadow
A bit difficult to fit some of that in the timeline, but this what makes the timelines so interesting. The one minute people are checking every 30 or so minutes, next it's almost 10-15 minutes apart. Then if Jane got back before Gerry, although this is a total uncertainty, where was Gerry? Jane would have known if she passed him twice whilst chatting to JW.
Of course no-one knows absolutely what happened, but it all fits and that is more than anything you have come up with.Wow. I went to bed before Sadie's last few posts last night. What an eye-opener this morning! Whether you intend to or not Sadie, you come across like a besotted schoolgirl swooning over a matinee idol I'm afraid. You continue to put forward pet theories (we now have the car of the alleged abductor's alleged accomplice's alleged getaway vehicle in the mix, allegedly throwing light temporarily over bundleman at the EXACT moment required for JT to look up and spot the PJs the alleged girl he was allegedly carrying was allegedly wearing.
I'm not using the world "allegedly" for no reason Sadie, you understand? No-one KNOWS what happened. That's why we're still here talking about it.
The person your brave, intelligent schoolgirl saw was investigated by the PJ. It was Michael Anthony Green. There are NO "watchers" that were reported that haven't been investigated and ruled out. You fail to allow for this in your theories - well, you don't even present them as theories, rather facts - about "how the nasty abductor, his accomplice, his getaway car and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all dunnit!"
Indeed C. Edwards, well said.
Sadie gives the pretense of neutrality, but in reality it's .....
Abduction, pure and straight.
Speaking of yourself in the third person is not a healthy signThat is so considerate of you Icabod. Thankyou ?{)(**
I say that out of concern
No let's have the Mccann video first, See where they placed Gerry and Jez.
Now I cant find it. Can anyone pls?
More cheating? Changing the playing field again from level to sloping. One sided ?
Part of Amarals ACE?
Wipe all the info out that can help the Mccanns ... and flood the internet with disinformation ... hope that i am wrong
Can anyone find it? Purlease
I don't want to cross post between threads but it is very noticeable that the Ch4 documentary puts the Smiths in the wrong place according to what they told the PJ. I mean if they can't even get that basic point right...?
@RedblossomI don't want to cross post between threads but it is very noticeable that the Ch4 documentary puts the Smiths in the wrong place according to what they told the PJ. I mean if they can't even get that basic point right...?
That is one example of the documentary not staying to factual detail. There are quite a few other examples, such as the child seen by Jane Tanner was depicted with blond hair when she said all she saw was the lower part of the child's legs. The clothing of the abductor was of a uniform colour in both depicted sightings, which is incorrect. The manner the child was carried when seen by Jane Tanner was different to the manner the Smiths saw, but they are depicted in the one (Jane Tanner) way.
Which for a reconstruction style dubbed film aimed at getting people to phone in with information is odd, IMO. The voice over when introducing the Smiths said Jane Tanner may not have been the only one to see Madeleine being abducted that night. It is fair to say they were trying to make out the two sightings were of the same man and child and that that child was definitely Madeleine.
Edited for afterthought.
No let's have the Mccann video first, See where they placed Gerry and Jez.
Now I cant find it. Can anyone pls?
More cheating? Changing the playing field again from level to sloping. One sided ?
Part of Amarals ACE?
Wipe all the info out that can help the Mccanns ... and flood the internet with disinformation ... hope that i am wrong
Can anyone find it? Purlease
John has done a brilliant job, but it is an anti propaganda film that he is showing. He probably doesn't even know that because, I think he is not a hardebned anti or pro like us. Do you have any objections to the pro side being put forward to balance the discussion
Cos i certainly dont want Amarals video up there giving a very different story to that of Jez Wilkins himself. Let me remind you that Anmaral is a convicted Criminal. Jez Wilkins was there ... do YOU prefer Amarals version to that of the person who was there?
John also very kindly posted this map. DRAWN by Jez Wilkins himself. Waht better can you get than that?
(http://i.imgur.com/m2kA9kX.gif)
Jez is very clearly at, or extremely close to, the corner of the alleyway
DCI, I didn't say that Jane Tanner had said the child had blonde hair. I meant that in that documentary the child she saw was depicted by the producers as having blonde hair. If you fast forward it to between 3.15 and 3.40 you can see it.
DCI, I didn't say that Jane Tanner had said the child had blonde hair. I meant that in that documentary the child she saw was depicted by the producers as having blonde hair. If you fast forward it to between 3.15 and 3.40 you can see it.
Sorry, missed reading, depicted 8()-000(
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_50.jpg)
It is not written in stone though is it? Sadie? This is Jane Tanner's map of locations.
Your constant carping on about Amaral being a convicted criminal does not help any discussion TBH. Are you suggesting he changed the position of the chat? By a metre or so? Why would he? What difference would it make? Maybe I misread your post.
Edited for afterthought.
Sorry Sadie, but if I am reading you right, you are suggesting Mr Amaral was trying to hide evidence of a watcher? isn't that a bit bizarre?
Both an abductor and an extra watcher and an accomplice to drive away or pass the child out the flat and all the rest, are all theoretical, ergo all speculation. Is there any evidence this is not all going up some garden path?Sorry Sadie, but if I am reading you right, you are suggesting Mr Amaral was trying to hide evidence of a watcher? isn't that a bit bizarre?Added to which, of course, is that a 'watcher' is entirely theoretical ... there is no evidence to even support his existence
This thread, to it's great credit, has been entirely evidence based
Well done
Well he wasn't right was he?
http://youtu.be/atfDV7imHHY (http://youtu.be/atfDV7imHHY) @ 10.09
That verifies Jezes drawing dont ya think? Exactly
And doesn't destroy my theory .. as you guys seemed bent on
Of course you will have to make the effort to open it ... and look, wont you?
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_50.jpg)
It is not written in stone though is it? Sadie? This is Jane Tanner's map of locations.
Your constant carping on about Amaral being a convicted criminal does not help any discussion TBH. Are you suggesting he changed the position of the chat? By a metre or so? Why would he? What difference would it make? Maybe I misread your post.
Edited for afterthought.
It makes quite a difference Redblossom as I suspect Icabod and co realise. My theory, that fits in every way, depends upon Gerry and Jez being out of sight of the shaded part of that balcony ... where it seems the watcher was. Mind, they only have to be a metre, or so, further towards that corner for my theory to fit again
THe watcher skulking in the shadows would watch Gerry run down those steps and start to go around the corner on to the pavement.. Immediately he would signal bundleman to go in to 5A.
Amarals video shows Gerry and Jez in front of the gate. If that were the case then it blows my theory. I suspect this is why Icabod is so keen to close the discussion on that video ... just to blow my theory
Jezes drawing shows tham on the corner of the alleyawy ... completely out of sight.of the watcher. Even if we made a compromise and put them half way between the gate and the alleyway the theory stands. Now can you see why the position is important?
It is only a theory, but one that fits perfectly ... and it could be what happened. Why are some so keen to smother it?
I wonder why?
Anyone who missed the theory and is interested, it is on about page 2 to 3 of this thread.
Cheers Icabod! 8((()*/ 8(0(*
@)(++(*
So good of you to be kind like that
Sadies theory, the one that you have desperately tried to diminish, on page 2 post 29 Bwhahahha!
Cheers Icabod! 8((()*/ 8(0(*
@)(++(*
So good of you to be kind like that
Sadies theory, the one that you have desperately tried to diminish, on page 2 post 29 Bwhahahha!
Aww (((sadie))) I wouldn't wish for a minute to diminish you, or your theory ... to which you are perfectly entitled
It would be good, though, if we could discuss possibilities that your theory does not allow for ( especially where they are evidenced based ) ... just for the sake of friendly debate
What say you ?
Cheers Icabod! 8((()*/ 8(0(*
@)(++(*
So good of you to be kind like that
Sadies theory, the one that you have desperately tried to diminish, on page 2 post 29 Bwhahahha!
Aww (((sadie))) I wouldn't wish for a minute to diminish you, or your theory ... to which you are perfectly entitled
It would be good, though, if we could discuss possibilities that your theory does not allow for ( especially where they are evidenced based ) ... just for the sake of friendly debate
What say you ?
Yep, I am happy, in fact I would welcome input. I am always willing to change, but there has to be a reason. It wont be tonight tho Icabod, I'm too tired.
And as a one fingered typist, I cant take on aload of you at the same time
I am old and heavily diabetic, so it has to be at my pace ... and I am a wife with all that that entails.
But yep, if you are happy for it to be slow, then I am very happy to try that.
I dont have a team behind me as I suspect you guys have, so I shall be honest and tell you when it is from memory.
OK?
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_50.jpg)Have you noticed that on this map drawn by Jane Tanner of what she claims to have seen that night, she shows the person carrying a child as having come from the McCann apartment... how could she possibly have known that!
It is not written in stone though is it? Sadie? This is Jane Tanner's map of locations.
Your constant carping on about Amaral being a convicted criminal does not help any discussion TBH. Are you suggesting he changed the position of the chat? By a metre or so? Why would he? What difference would it make? Maybe I misread your post.
Edited for afterthought.
The map shows the position of the man on the pavement when she first saw him, she does not claim he came from the apartment only that he was walking away from the direction of the apartment.She includes in her drawing the McCann's apartment, why? She draws a line from the apartment coming around the car park and pointing in the direction of her claimed sighting on the corner of the road, why?
Why wouldn't she draw in the apartment? What do you think her drawing in the apartment signifies?What has the McCann apartment got to do with what she saw?
Nope, she is giving a statement of what she claims to have seen, a person that could have come from anywhere... the McCann apartment shouldn't be in her drawing let alone her depicting the person she claims to have seen coming from it. Mind you, I shouldn't be to harsh on Jane... at least she got the position of Gerry and Jes correct!Why wouldn't she draw in the apartment? What do you think her drawing in the apartment signifies?What has the McCann apartment got to do with what she saw?
Hmmm, let's see - is she not giving a statement as part of a missing child investigation, a child who went missing from that very apartment?
DRAWN by Jez Wilkins himself. Waht better can you get than that?
(http://i.imgur.com/m2kA9kX.gif)
Jez is very clearly at, or extremely close to, the corner of the alleyway
Even in Gerry's alternative scenario he is stood on the road looking up at the 6' and more Jeremy standing on the pavement. Does anyone think that one of them had a similar encounter at a different time and quiet possibly they are mixing them up? Just a thought.
I like this particular mock up, it has a ring of truth about it when you consider what Jeremy said in his statements and what Mss Tanner pointed on in the mock reconstruction. Jeremy claims it happened right there on the pathway so had he two feet on the kerb or just one? 8(0(*
(http://i.imgur.com/Ud6y15w.jpg?2-Tanner_sighting_07)
Well JT is mistaken. It's impossible for her to brush past 2 people on a quiet street in her flip flops lol without being noticed. Any reconstruction you would see the absurdity of it. It can't be done as she said. Jez said it was impossible for him not to notice her passing.Depends what sort of flip fliops she was wearing.
We have already seen in the Ch4 documentary what happens when Jane Tanner relates what happened that evening, a version which by the way Jeremy Wilkins corroborates. Gerry McCann comes storming over, interrupts Jane and relates his own version. Jane meantime wilts into the background almost in tears and has to be reassured by the former detective conducting the exercise.
Which one is mistaken? If they can or could construe such a basic event WHAT ELSE DID THEY CONSTRUE ?
Oh come off it John. There is no 'storming over' by Gerry. Be fair. Jez Wilkins remembered the position as being similar to JT's and as I have mentioned before people do not stand rooted to the spot when they are talking and it could be that after 5 mins of chatting they were further across the road than they started and that was the impression left in Gerry's mind. Who knows.
The fact is we know she saw them talking together as she was able to describe the scene she saw as she walked passed them.
If Gerry had his back to her and Jez happened to be looking down at his baby in his buggy when she passed - then it is not impossible IMO that she was not seen in those couple of seconds.
If this was all part of a cunning plan then it goes without saying that Gerry would have said he saw Jayne.
IMO Jayne would be upset throughout that whole reconstruction - as it brought everything back to her about the events of that terrible night - including her blaming herself for not doing more at the time she saw the little girl being carried away. Although IMO she had nothing to reproach herself for.
IIRC correctly she is giving this particular part of her evidence when the Police Officer reassured her that it was perfectly normal for different people to have different recollections of the same event. (from memory so am happy to be corrected).
Let's not forget JW had the pram with him. Far less likely IMO to be toing and froing across the road.
First off, Dave Edgar (the police officer) was a retired detective and was employed by the Madeleine Fund.
Jez was very clear about where they were standing and that was on the same side of the road as the apartments and just slightly up from the little lane. Jane Tanner espoused the exact same locus.
Gerry was adamant that it all happened on the opposite side of the road so they can't all be right. At least one of them must be delusional.
In actual fact, when what occurred is forensically analysed, a sceptic with a suspicious mind could be forgiven for thinking that Gerry intensionally stopped Jez in order to let Tannerman escape but the ever aloof Tanner slipped past and nearly bumped into him.
Is this the real reason why Gerry claimed to have not seen Jane?
No, I don't.
I posted my last post before I saw this one - but it moreorless answers your points I think John.
The police officer who assured Jane Tanner that it was normal for different people have different recollections of the same incident was the officer who interviewed her during her rogatory statement. I have to go out now but I'll try to find it later.
Well as a former PO I will agree that people can genuinely get things wrong but not even remembering which side of the road they were on is taking it to extremes. Somebody is being economical with the truth.
That would be Jane Tanner and Gerry McCann then. By the way John that's a very revealing drawing that Tanner supplied is it not.
Sorry to be obtuse but you've lost me on this one, Peter.
I just see a not to scale drawing to illustrate the statement being made.
What is it that you find revealing?
Looking at her sketch maybe you can educate me and tell me how JT got past the two of them talking without bumping into them or being seen?
Ask Scotland Yard.
They believe Jane Tanner.
That would be Jane Tanner and Gerry McCann then. By the way John that's a very revealing drawing that Tanner supplied is it not.
It is an excellent drawing which clearly shows where Gerry and Jez were when she passed them and where she was when she saw Tammerman. Not sure what you mean by revealing though 8-)(--)
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/tannersketch.jpg)
She shows the person she claims to have seen as coming from apartment 5A... how could she have known were he came from?
Looking at her sketch maybe you can educate me and tell me how JT got past the two of them talking without bumping into them or being seen?
I see that quite clearly on the sketch.
She has shown where she first sighted him, which I think is on the pavement beginning to cross the road.
She has shown where he was when she reached the top of the road prior to turning towards the apartments.
I do not think she has indicated starting point or destination.
She shows the person she claims to have seen as coming from apartment 5A... how could she have known were he came from?
Lets look at what occurred on the basis that the man Jane saw was actually carrying Madeleine.
Gerry claims to have gone into the apartment and had a visual check on all three sleeping children, goes to the loo and then leaves closing the patio door behind him. He closes the child gate, walks down the steps and closes the street gate before meeting Jez. Jane passes them both and a few seconds later spies a guy in front of her carrying a child.
It would it have taken Gerry about 20 seconds to move from the patio to the encounter with Jez. If someone had been watching the apartment in order to give the 'all clear' signal then Gerry emerging onto the street would have been the point at which this would have been given.
Unfortunately, we don't know how long Gerry and Jez were chatting before Jane passed them but lets assume about a minute. That therefore allows the abductor just over a minute to get into the apartment, open the window and shutter, lift Madeleine and exit va the front door only to then be seen by Jane.
But is this feasible?
SadieI am rejecting her drawing because if you take the time to watch the video you will see very clearly where Jane saw Jez and Gerry. She is adamant. The drawing was done somewhere indoors and she had no special datum to locate the position there.
Let's get this straight
You are rejecting Jane Tanner's statement/drawing for no other reason than it does not 'fit' your theory
Is that correct ?
I am rejecting her drawing because if you take the time to watch the video you will see very clearly where Jane saw Jez and Gerry. She is adamant. The drawing was done somewhere indoors and she had no special datum to locate the position there.
Jez describes it in detail, how he and Gerry got there and furthermore draws it on the corner which he has just described. Jane confirms very adamantly
THree compelling and definite pointers all to the same place
Any problems with that Icabod?
I am rejecting her drawing because if you take the time to watch the video you will see very clearly where Jane saw Jez and Gerry. She is adamant. The drawing was done somewhere indoors and she had no special datum to locate the position there.
Jez describes it in detail, how he and Gerry got there and furthermore draws it on the corner which he has just described. Jane confirms very adamantly
THree compelling and definite pointers all to the same place
Any problems with that Icabod?
THis position is very important because it identifies the only two places that I can see where a watcher could have been able to see certain places ( 5A patio and the Tapas reception exit) but NOT see another place (where they were chatting)
These criteria had to have been in place for the watcher to have failed to warn Tannerman. If my theory, or a similar one, is correct then the watcher had to be able to see BOTH the Tapas reception and the patio BUT NOT SEE Gerry and Jez.
So "the watcher" couldn't have failed to have seen the approaching Tanner?Having verified that Gerry had left the apartment, and seen him down the sterps setting off for the restaurant, the watcher went to the getaway car. Peter
Having verified that Gerry had left the apartment, and seen him down the sterps setting off for the restaurant, the watcher went to the getaway car. Peter
Read "Sadies theory", if you want to know more about what I think may have happened.
Having verified that Gerry had left the apartment, and seen him down the sterps setting off for the restaurant, the watcher went to the getaway car. Peter
Read "Sadies theory", if you want to know more about what I think may have happened.
Having verified that Gerry had left the apartment, and seen him down the sterps setting off for the restaurant, the watcher went to the getaway car. Peter
Read "Sadies theory", if you want to know more about what I think may have happened.
But you passed your 'theory' to Scotland Yard didn't you ?Oh, not that theory ! My theory to SY is not basically about what happened at PDL but what happened afterwards and who was behind it. etc.
... and they think you're wrong, don't they ?
But you passed your 'theory' to Scotland Yard didn't you ?
... and they think you're wrong, don't they ?
I am not at all sure about that! @)(++(*
I am feeling quite good atm tbh 8(>(( ?{)(**
Sorry I am upsetting you.. As an old friend, I would have thought you would have been happy for me 8((()*/ 8**8:/:
Having verified that Gerry had left the apartment, and seen him down the sterps setting off for the restaurant, the watcher went to the getaway car. Peter
Read "Sadies theory", if you want to know more about what I think may have happened.
Where's Sadies theory? The watcher went to the getaway car. Where was the car? I presume Madeleine was inside the getaway car? What time was the abduction? Tannerman was the abductor?Try reading it Pathfinder. There is a whole thread .... way back about april /may last year.
Lets look at what occurred on the basis that the man Jane saw was actually carrying Madeleine.Assuming one minute, agreed, that is tight John.
Gerry claims to have gone into the apartment and had a visual check on all three sleeping children, goes to the loo and then leaves closing the patio door behind him. He closes the child gate, walks down the steps and closes the street gate before meeting Jez. Jane passes them both and a few seconds later spies a guy in front of her carrying a child.
It would it have taken Gerry about 20 seconds to move from the patio to the encounter with Jez. If someone had been watching the apartment in order to give the 'all clear' signal then Gerry emerging onto the street would have been the point at which this would have been given.
Unfortunately, we don't know how long Gerry and Jez were chatting before Jane passed them but lets assume about a minute. That therefore allows the abductor just over a minute to get into the apartment, open the window and shutter, lift Madeleine and exit va the front door only to then be seen by Jane.
But is this feasible?
Assuming one minute, agreed, that is tight John.
Assuming they had been chatting for say 2 or 3 minutes, then it is very plausible. In fact, in a way, it could be a pointer to the abduction having taken place immediately Gerry left the apartment. Cos as soon as they thought that he had gone, they would get on with it. Two minutes would be ample with a well planned abduction.
IIRC Jez thought they chatted for 3 to 5 minutes. Please correct me if I have remembered wrongly.
Just doing a little reading back, and I noticed that this thread ( which was an excellent work in progress that was a credit to the forum ) has been 'diminished'
Why is the final picture no longer available to view ? ... it took us ages ( and much relevant debate ) to get to that point
John ?
Thankyou pathfinder. Pity there is such a discrepancy in size. There never used to be.
THe upper image is the drawing by Jez which goes with my long post above, where the red cross is. It shows Gerry and Jez clearly positioned on the alleyway corner.
(http://i.imgur.com/DcaxwfU.gif?1-Jez_Wilkins_plan)
(http://i.imgur.com/yewUHF0.jpg?2-Jane_Tanners_plan)
I have adjusted the two plans as you requested Sadie.
This was the layout which you agreed best depicted both Jane and Jez' statements as to where they were stood that night. Gerry would never have seen Jane and Jez didn't know her at that point.
(http://i.imgur.com/Ud6y15w.jpg?2-Tanner_sighting_07)
Ok, so if we interpolate between those comments and the hand-drawn map we get to the layout I have already posted. Gerry had left the area of the gate and had been walking down the path. Wilkins then crosses the road to converse with him. Tanner slips by on the footpath not wanting to disturb their conversation.
(http://i.imgur.com/pxpAreH.jpg)
Exactly John. 8((()*/
It's impossible to pass without being seen 8-)(--)pathfinder 50 metres is rubbish. Jane did not see Tannerman from the Tapas entrance. That is a myth and misinformation
Her first statement said she saw the man has soon as she got onto the road after the leaving the tapas bar. The McCanns said she saw the man from a distance of 50 metres. That means she saw the man and then turned left onto the path and didn't pass Gerry & Jez. She turned left just before reaching them and that's why they didn't see her. That's one possibility.
pathfinder 50 metres is rubbish. Jane did not see Tannerman from the Tapas entrance. That is a myth and misinformation
See from 10.00 onwards on the Cutting Edge Video
http://youtu.be/atfDV7imHHY
- The total, distance from the tapas reception entrance to Tannerman is only 50 metres .
- The distance that Gerry and Jez were away from Tannerman was about 30 metres
and.
- The distance that Jane was away from Tannerman was about 10 metres or maybe a little closer
,
Please note:
I would like to make it clear that altho Johns image is OK at one level to illustrate roughly where Gerry and Jez were standing, it is no good for actual analysis where everything must be as exact as possible.
Gerry and Jez were actually about 3 metres down from where they are shown in the image, standing on the corner of the alleyway.
I get my info from the source/files.
It is stressed that when one of the members of the group, JANE, went to her apartment to see her children, at around 9.10/9.15 pm, from behind and at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road next to the club, she saw a person carrying a child in pyjamas. JANE will be better able to clarify this situation. (GM 4 May)
Later, the witness would learn that a member of the group, Russell's partner Jane, at around 9.15pm, when she went to her own apartment to check on her children, saw from behind and at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road along the club, a long-haired person, she thinks wearing jeans, with a child in his arms, walking very quickly. But she is better able to tell about that herself. (KM 4 May)
Third party description again ... Chinese whispers.... room for misunderstandings!
Always go for straight for first person descriptions pathfinder, as I have.
Then you get the facts straight.
Could somebody please explain to me, sensibly, how Gerry could be mistaken about being on the same side of the road? I do not believe for one minute that Gerry could ever be confused about where he was stood during that conversation. Crossing that road to chat is a very definite action that you cannot be mistaken about.Maybe he started to cross the road but tghey met in the middle and edged back? We really dont know .
The reason for my logic is very simple. If we are to believe that frequent checks happened during the holiday then the route from tapas to the apartment has been completed numerous times over the week for it to become a familiar and definite route. Any deviation from this well trodden route would be clearly remembered.
Jane and Jez have got the position to within a few metres which I would class as an acceptable difference in recollection. The opposite side of the road is simply not acceptable and therefore IMO Gerry cannot be mistaken and must be lying. The question then is why would he lie?
What are you going on about? Those are their first statements from the files. 50 metres not 10 metres. Don't play the mistranslation card. It's all getting rather pathetic and desperate.They are third party.
John you had gone to a lot of trouble and I didn't want to nag you any more for about 3 metres.
For a rough position that is OK, but for strict analyses it is not quite right.
The men should have been a little lower down by the corner of the alleyway according to both Jane in the cutting edge video and Jez in both his description and his sketch.
I think that you know that is true. Jez has marked the spot with a cross with a splodge in its middle. Right on the corner of the alleyway.
She doesn't recall the position/orientation of either Jez or GM while they spoke to each other on the street, only having the perception that one was on the pavement and the other was in the road next to the other. Jez had a baby carriage, the deponent knowing that he had a small child.
--- Instada, esclarece que a razão porque saiu a seguir ao Gerald McCann, apenas 5/10 minutos depois, refere que o faz porque sabia que ele somente ia ao seu apartamento, reiterando que costumava controlar as suas filhas com regularidade.
Prompted, she clarified that the reason she left, following GM only 5/10 minutes later, she relates that she did it because she knew that he would only go to his apartment, reiterating that she checked her daughters regularly.
--- Questionada sobre que caminho efectuou no trajecto para sua casa, refere que saiu da recepção que dá acesso ao restaurante e subiu o passeio até a esquina, tendo entrado no apartamento pela porta da frente, a qual estava, tal como já afirmara, trancada. O único acesso ao interior da casa é por esta porta, visto que as janelas e a porta envidraçada da sala se encontravam trancadas por dentro, sendo desta forma apenas passíveis de serem abertas, também pelo interior.
Questioned about the path she took on the way to her home, she relates that she left the reception at the entrance to the Tapas/pool area and went up the pavement to the corner, having entered the apartment by the front door, which was, as already stated, locked. The only access to the interior of the home is by that door, seeing that the windows and the sliding patio door to the lounge were locked from the inside, it being this way that they are only passable if they are opened, also from the inside.
--- Perguntada qual o trajecto que o Gerry McCann para sua casa, quando foi verificar o estado dos filhos, refere que desconhece, mas que tem conhecimento que ele, por vezes, acedia á casa pela porta envidraçada da sala, a qual ficava apenas encostada, mas não trancada. Explica que este era o acesso mais fácil e rápido ao apartamento dos McCann, por terem uma escada até á varanda, a qual estava mesmo junto ao passeio, poupando assim metade do trajecto. Questionada, refere que todos os casais tinham de aceder aos respectivos apartamentos pela porta da frente, excepto os McCann, pois estes eram os únicos que deixavam a porta de vidro destrancada.
Asked [about] the route of GM to his home when he went to check on his children, she relates that she does not know, but that she knows that he, at times, accessed the home by the glass lounge door which was only closed but not locked. She explains that this was the easiest and fastest way to enter the McCann apartment as they have a stairway up to the veranda which is next to the pavement, saving thereby half [the distance of] the route. Questioned, she relates that all the couples had to access their respective apartments by the front door, except the McCanns since they were the only ones who left the glass door unlocked.
--- Instada a dizer se verificou qual o estado das janelas e persianas do quarto das crianças McCann, quando se dirigiu à sua casa, refere que não, não olhou naquele sentido, podendo as mesmas estarem já abertas, sem que a depoente tivesse reparado.
Prompted to say if she checked the state of the windows and external blinds of the McCann children's bedroom when she went to her house, she relates that no, she did not look in that direction, hence they might already have been open without her having noticed.
--- Após ter ido ver a filha regressou ao restaurante. No regresso, o Gerald McCann já não se encontrava a conversar no local onde o tinha visto.
After having gone to see the child she returned to the restaurant. On her return GM was no longer talking where she had seen him.
--- Quando chegou ao restaurante o Gerald McCann já estava sentado à mesa, acompanhado da sua mulher Kate Healy e de todos os outros.
When she arrived at the restaurant GM was already seated at the table accompanied by his wife KH and all the others.
--- Entre 15 a 20 minutos depois, o seu marido Russell O'Brien e o Matthew Oldfield saíram, juntios, e foram ver as respectivas crianças. Como a sua filha Ev estava irrequieta e a chorar o Russell O'Bnen ficou no quarto.
Between 15 to 20 minutes later her husband ROB and MO left, together, and went to see their respective children. As her daughter Ev was restless and crying ROB stayed in the bedroom.
--- Entretanto o Matthew Oldfield foi verificar as suas crianças e as do Gerald McCann e Kate Healy. Segundo ele disse, viu os gémeos mas não viu a Madeleine Beth McCann, provavelmente porque não entrou no quarto. Como não ouviu qualquer barulho partiu do pressuposto que estava tudo bem, regressando ao restaurante. O Matthew Oldfield informou a ora depoente que o Russell O'Brien tinha ficado no quarto.
Meanwhile, MO went to check his children and those of GM and KH. According to what he said, he saw the twins but he did not see MBM probably because he did not enter the bedroom. As he heard no noise he left presupposing that all was well, returning to the restaurant. MO told her that ROB had stayed in the bedroom.
--- Após ter comido rapidamente o prato principal, a ora inquirida foi para o apartamento substituir o seu mando para que este pusesse acabar a sua refeição. O seu marido regressou ao restaurante. Algum tempo depois, não sabe precisar quanto, olhou pela janela da sala para a zona do restaurante, verificando, com estranheza, que não estava ninguém sentado a mesa, sendo que era ainda muito cedo para já terem, todos terminado a refeição. Ouviu depois as vozes da Kate Healy, e a Fiona Payne que se encontravam no corredor em frente ás janelas dos quartos e que chamavam, desesperadamente pela MADELEINE. Quando a viu, foi a própria Kate Healy quem disse à depoente que a MADELEINE havia desaparecido, não esclarecendo em que circunstâncias, continuando as buscas. A depoente manteve-se no seu apartamento, porque a sua filha El O'Brien estava a dormir e a mais pequena, Ev O'Brien, continuava acordada e queixosa.
After having quickly eaten the main course she went to the apartment to take the place of her husband so that he could finish his meal. Her husband returned to the restaurant. Some time later, she doesn't know precisely how long, she looked through the lounge window towards the restaurant area, ascertaining, strangely, that there was no-one seated at the table it being that it was still very early for all of them to have already finished the meal. Later she heard voices of KH and FP who were in the corridor in front of the bedroom windows and who called, desperately, for Madeleine. When she saw her it was KH herself who told the deponent that Madeleine had disappeared, not clarifying in what circumstances, continuing her search. The deponent stayed in her apartment because her daughter, El, was asleep and the smallest, Ev, was still awake and complaining.
--- Por lhe ser perguntado, refere que não foi ao apartamento dos McCann, pelo que não sabe indicar qual o estado do quarto e os pormenores do que aconteceu naquela noite. Actualmente, já ouviu muitas versões ou hipóteses do que pode ter acontecido, mas, pela sua parte, apenas pode afirmar que o homem que viu com a criança ao colo, está, na sua convicção, relacionado com o desaparecimento da Madeleine Beth McCann.
As it was asked of her she relates that she did not go into the McCann apartment therefore she does not know the state of the bedroom nor any details of what happened that night. Now, already she had heard many versions or theories of what could have happened, but, for her part, she can only affirm that the man that she saw carrying the child was, in her belief, associated with the disappearance of MBM.
--- Foi então confrontada com o facto de, quando o seu marido Russell O'Brien e o Matthew Oldfield foram verificar as respectivas crianças, a janela já deveria estar aberta e a Madeleine, provavelmente já não se encontrava na sua cama. Esclarece que não pode responder por eles, mas pensa que o Matthew Oldfield não tenha entrado no quarto das crianças McCann, limitando-se a constatar que não existia qualquer ruído de choro e que os gémeos se encontravam nas suas camas. Perguntada se ele não poderia ter verificado os barulhos na janela do quarto, como por vezes faziam, a depoente esclarece que o Matthew Oldfield havia garantido aos pais que iria verificar o estado das crianças no interior da casa. Ou seja, para isso ele subiu o passeio até à entrada principal dos apartamentos, entrou na casa e voltou a sair, desceu novamente o passeio até ao acesso das traseiras da casa dos McCann, subiu as escadas e acedeu à sala através da porta de vidro (que não estava trancada). De qualquer forma, um melhor esclarecimento destes pormenores só poderá ser indicado pelo próprio Matthew Oldfield.
She was then confronted with the fact that when her husband ROB and MO went to check their respective children the window already might have been open and MBM probably no longer in her bed. She clarifies that she cannot answer for them but thinks that MO had not entered the McCann children's bedroom, limiting himself to hear that there was no crying and that the twins were in their beds. Asked if he couldn't have checked for noise at the bedroom window, as had been done many times, the deponent clarifies that MO had assured the parents that he would go to check the state of the children from inside the house. For this he went up the pavement to the main entrance of the apartments, entered [his] house and turned to leave, descended the pavement again to the rear entrance of the McCann flat, climbed the steps and accessed the lounge through the glass door (that was not locked). Anyway, a better understanding of these details can only be provided by MO himself.
--- Confrontada com a informação de que as equipas cinotécnicas seguiram/farejaram pistas em que supostamente a Madeleine Beth McCann não passou pelo cruzamento onde indicou que um homem levava uma criança ao colo, afirmou, peremptoriamente, que não estava a mentir, mantendo na integra a sua versão inicial. Que, realmente, passou à sua frente, um homem transportando, ao colo, uma criança descalça. Na altura, não deu a devida atenção porque é normal, no Ocean Club, as crianças passarem ao colo dos pais entre a creche a as respectivas casas, quando estes as vão buscar ao serviço de babby-sitting. Apenas estranhou o facto da criança não levar qualquer cobertura (manta) e a forma como o indivíduo caminhava, de forma apressada, e como vestia, as calças eram ligeiramente largas em toda a sua extensão, sendo direitas. As mesmas eram, quanto a cor, idênticas a "corticite", tipo "chino" (sic.). Quanto ao casaco era de cor escura, não conseguindo especificar a mesma, parecendo ser do mesmo material das calças, sendo um tipo "anorak" (sic.). Quanto ao calçado refere que não pode confirmar com toda a certeza, mas sapatos com um ligeiro "tacão".
Confronted with the information that the [tracker] dog teams had followed/followed the scent trails in which, purportedly, MBM had not passed the intersection where she indicated a man carried a child, she affirmed, immediately, that she was not lying, maintaining the honesty of her initial version. That, indeed, there had passed in front of her a man carrying, in his arms, a barefoot child. At the time she had not paid him much attention because it is common, at the OC, for children to pass in the arms of their parents between the crèche and their respective homes, when they have collected them from the baby-sitting service. Only it was strange that the child had no cover (blanket) and the way the man walked, rapidly, and how he was dressed, the trousers were slightly wide their entire length, being straight. They (trousers) were as to colour, identical to "corticine" (a type of floor covering), "chino" [Chinese] style. As for the coat it was dark coloured, she was not able to specify what, seeming to be the same material as the trousers, it being a type of "anorak". As for the footwear she relates that she cannot confirm with certainty but [they were] shoes with a light "heel".
Here there is a quandry: the quotes around the word "heel" suggest that she is not describing the footwear. There are at least three English phrases that could fit the written description:
- the man was 'fleet-footed', i.e. fast and light on his feet; - this is my choice.
- the man was 'light in the loafers';
- the man was 'showing a clean pair of heels'.
--- Sobre a descrição da criança, confirmou que a mesma foi transportada ao colo, com as pernas na sua direcção e descalça. Pensou que fosse uma criança do sexo feminino porque o pijama era de cor clara (parecendo-lhe rosa). Nunca viu o cabelo da criança. Nunca a viu mexer nem fazer qualquer som, pensando que estava a dormir.
About the description of the child, she confirmed that it was being carried in his arms, with the legs in her direction and barefoot. She thought that it was a female child because the pyjamas were a light colour (seemingly pink to her). She never saw the hair of the child. She never saw it move nor make any sound, thinking that it was asleep.
--- Posteriormente, não teve dúvidas que seria a Madeleine Beth McCann porque, através da conversa que manteve com Fiona Payne, na qual ela lhe descreveu o pijama que a Madeleine McCann usava naquela noite, a qual coincide com aquilo que viu. Questionada porque não comentou com a Kate Healy o que havia visto naquela noite, ou seja, que tinha visto um indivíduo do sexo masculino que transportava uma criança com um pijama cor-de-rosa, refere que evitou sempre fazer esse comentário com o casal McCann, para não os torturar mais no seu sofrimento.
Subsequently, she had no doubts that it could have been MBM because, through conversations with FP in which [FP] described the pyjamas that MBM had worn that night, which coincided with those she had seen. Questioned why she had not commented to KH what she had seen that night, namely that she had seen a male individual who carried a child with pink pyjamas, she relates that she always avoided making this comment to the McCanns so as not to torture them more in their suffering.
--- Jurou, "por tudo o mais sagrado" (sic.), que o que contou é verdade, ou seja, viu um indivíduo com uma criança ao colo. Confrontada, demonstrou a distância a que se encontrava do local onde passou o homem com a criança, que se afere como uma distância de cerca de 5 metros.
She swore "by everything most sacred" that what she said is true, namely that she saw an individual with a child in his arms. Confronted, she demonstrated the distance at which the man with the child had passed her, and that was gauged to be about 5 metres.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post513.html#p513
That's correct, by the corner just past the path.
So why do you think Gerry got it so very wrong?
It is generally accepted that Jane was between 5 and 10 metres from the top of the street when the man carrying the child passed in front of her.
It is generally accepted that Jane was between 5 and 10 metres from the top of the street when the man carrying the child passed in front of her.
Which man? Innocentman or Sadieman? I'm still picturing a conga line of men carrying children.....
Well, according to Scotland Yard, Jane Tanner saw an innocent father carrying his child from the creche ... they have identified him
So 'who was standing where' whilst this identified innocent fellow passed by, is entirely academic , and really rather pointless, isn't it ?
Well, according to Scotland Yard, Jane Tanner saw an innocent father carrying his child from the creche ... they have identified him
So 'who was standing where' whilst this identified innocent fellow passed by, is entirely academic , and really rather pointless, isn't it ?
Well, yes. Yes it is. As far as I can work out though, Sadie thinks that Gerry, Jez, Jane, Innocentman and the abductor were all present at the same time.
Edit: I forgot one! Look out Man!
And the police think Jane Tanner saw an innocent father carrying his child home from the creche
You must agree that if Scotland Yard, after three years investigating, at a cost of six million pounds, think that Jane Tanner did NOT see an abductor, then they are probably correct, and we should accept that. Consequently, any 'theories' should, properly, acknowledge that conclusion drawn by Scotland Yard ... do you agree ?
Or do you think you know more than Scotland Yard ?
"As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry’s back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10 – 15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left."
"He noticed the bad street lighting and although it was not completely dark there was enough light to see clearly. 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."
During the evening of Wednesday 31 October 2007, Jeremy and Bridget were visited at heir home address by DC 1756 and DC 4356 from the Leicestershire OP Task team
Volume XIII p. 3407 - 3409.
LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY
OFFICER’S REPORT
Date: 05/11/07
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Tanner did not pass Jeremy Wilkins & Gerry on that side of the road IMO. Neither saw her >@@(*&)
Of course I dont know more than SY
And I sometimes wonder if they have:
1) Been tricked by this new man recently released. Would be easy to produce a phoney list of people using the creche that night and a very convincing one if you had the power and contacts that I believe the group behind this abductor to have
2) Have put out a bit of disinformation for us to chew over, hoping that someone in forumland has seen someting extra to the information already in and that they will drop it out.
Only wondering, but then I try aqnd consider all angles.
And the police think Jane Tanner saw an innocent father carrying his child home from the creche
You must agree that if Scotland Yard, after three years investigating, at a cost of six million pounds, think that Jane Tanner did NOT see an abductor, then they are probably correct, and we should accept that. Consequently, any 'theories' should, properly, acknowledge that conclusion drawn by Scotland Yard ... do you agree ?
Or do you think you know more than Scotland Yard ?
But the thing is Icabodcrane, Scotland Yard have never said that Tannerman was definitely an innocent tourist. The words they are choosing to use are could have been, might have been, probably was etc..
They themselves aren't even sure which says it all really.
But the thing is Icabodcrane, Scotland Yard have never said that Tannerman was definitely an innocent tourist. The words they are choosing to use are could have been, might have been, probably was etc..
They themselves aren't even sure which says it all really.
But the thing is Icabodcrane, Scotland Yard have never said that Tannerman was definitely an innocent tourist. The words they are choosing to use are could have been, might have been, probably was etc..
They themselves aren't even sure which says it all really.
As they don't appear to be making any effort to find an alternative candidate, they must be satisfied with their identification.
Which man? Innocentman or Sadieman? I'm still picturing a conga line of men carrying children.....
Gerry never saw Jane because he had his back to her.
He was standing on the pavement - you have peripheral vision and will hear someone close brushing past you? Jez couldn't have missed her and he is adamant that he saw nobody on that street.
Maybe Jez was checking on his charge as Jane slipped by on the inside of the path. It only takes a momentary destraction to miss something and that area is between streetlights.
On a quiet deserted street in her flip flops you've got to be kidding me. JT is an unreliable witness.
On a quiet deserted street in her flip flops you've got to be kidding me. JT is an unreliable witness.
I disagree. It was DCI Redwood's 'moment of revelation'. Tannerman has well and truly been debunked.
Do you not think it strange that even with this witness, SY have refused to come out and say categorically that Tannerman is definitely an innocent man? This to me implies they still aren't sure for the very reasons we have already explored.
Do you not think it strange that even with this witness, SY have refused to come out and say categorically that Tannerman is definitely an innocent man? This to me implies they still aren't sure for the very reasons we have already explored.
Do you not think it strange that even with this witness, SY have refused to come out and say categorically that Tannerman is definitely an innocent man? This to me implies they still aren't sure for the very reasons we have already explored.
I agree with that train of thought, John.
I think the language used by New Scotland Yard with regard to the man Jane Tanner saw is ambiguous and IMO the sighting has not really been ruled out.
Is there any information about the route that would be taken from the evening crèche by someone legitimately going to an apartment in the direction being taken by the man Jane saw?
I am not sure where the crèche is situated.
SY have got rid but it seems the McCanns will never let go of Tannerman >@@(*&)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/15/article-2460669-18BF360E00000578-686_306x619.jpg) (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/15/article-2460669-18BD5D1400000578-700_634x465.jpg)
I have just noticed a discrepancy between Jez' statement and his sketch which might be the reason why there is still some dubiety.
Sadie produced Jez' sketch which depicts the men chatting on the corner by the pathway but in his statement he affirms that he crossed the road when he saw Gerry emerge at the gate to apartment and stood chatting about 5 metres up from the same pathway. I suspect the sketch he produced is not that accurate and I would be guided by the written word.
This in turn matches Janes sketch more or less exactly.
hmm
This insistance by the McCanns to keep promoting Tannerman ( or 'Alibiman' as Cariad aptly named him ) whilst continuing to downplay Smithman ... just as they have all along ... makes it look like the McCanns have little faith in Scotland Yard's investigation What IS it with the McCanns and the police ... ANY police ( including their own hired private ones on occasion )
Why must they always be in conflict with them ?
I agree with that train of thought, John.
I think the language used by New Scotland Yard with regard to the man Jane Tanner saw is ambiguous and IMO the sighting has not really been ruled out.
Is there any information about the route that would be taken from the evening crèche by someone legitimately going to an apartment in the direction being taken by the man Jane saw?
I am not sure where the crèche is situated.
I have to admit it's an interesting route that he took from the crèche. If he was going to it that way it makes sense - turn right at murat's straight down the path to crèche. SY would have checked everything out but it would be interesting to know his route and where he was heading.
Brietta. There is a thread devoted to the route to and from the night crèche which is located immediately above Ocean Club 24-hour Main Reception.
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1697.msg51640#msg51640
There is also a thread which looks at Tannerman now renamed Innocentman and why he was walking from west to east and not from the general direction of the night crèche.
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3251.0
Map showing the McCanns apartment in red, the Tapas Day Reception in yellow and the main Ocean Club Resort Reception in blue.
Thank you, John, that will keep me going for a while.
Can we have the 'sketches' side by side to take a look ?
With thanks to John for the links.
I had no idea that Innocentman had presented himself to the police in 2007.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3251.msg123092#msg123092
Now that I can see exactly where the main reception area is located in relation to where Jane tanner saw the man carrying a child I do not understand why he was walking in the direction indicated.
If he made a detour for any reason, for example getting really lost, I’m sure NSY have checked that out already.
Since that information doesn’t appear to be in the public domain and until it is, I believe that Jane Tanner saw Madeleine being abducted. I am not alone in finding the route being taken a bit strange.
~ My main point however is much more significant. It says in the quote above that this guy had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished. But remember, the night crèche is not close to the Ocean Club Garden, the block from where Madeleine disappeared. The night crèche (see plan) is actually some distance away, 275 yds or 250 metres to be precise and not what I would consider close in an urban environment. Close for me would be the day crèche which was only 70 metres away.
If as he claims, that he picked his daughter up at around the time of the sighting ie 9.15pm, why on earth was he walking from west to east ie towards the night crèche and not from south to north as he would have been had he in fact been coming from the night crèche?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3251.msg123121#msg123121
I believe that Jane Tanner saw Madeleine being abducted.
Jane obviously doesn't.
SadieJust watch Jane Tanner opposing Gerry ! At about 10.05
Why are you taking the 'Cutting Edge' TV programme, with which the McCanns collaborated, as your point of reference ?
It is a questionable source of information because it depicts nothing more than the 'recollections' of the McCanns and a couple of their mates
You present it as though it were some kind of independent source of irrefutable evidence
It is not
I believe that Jane Tanner saw Madeleine being abducted.
Look at crecheman's kids clothes (see below) - they're a match to Tannerman's child. That kid was not Madeleine. Smithman was seen carrying Madeleine.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/15/article-2460669-18BD5D1400000578-700_634x465.jpg)
Just watch Jane Tanner opposing Gerry ! At about 10.05
Then watch from 11.15
11.54 Jane "Why the hell didn't you think (about herself) then....
"....there was only one person who could have stopped anything ...."
"If .., if ......if ....."
Poor tortured woman , and you are trying to make her a liar ! Shame on you Icabod
.
Then watch her crying @ about 12.26 . The tears running down her face. See if you disbelieve her sincerity. Even AnnGuedes has said she believes Jane.
Why shouldn't we believe what she says?
Jane was there, remember
You weren't
Now I have to go out.
If Ms Tanner herself still believed she really did see Maddie being abducted then she would have told someone at SY by now wouldn't she?And probably has
There is something about those Pyjamas. To me they look more like a 7 year olds than a 2 year olds
Look at crecheman's kids clothes (see below) - they're a match to Tannerman's child. That kid was not Madeleine. Smithman was seen carrying Madeleine.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/15/article-2460669-18BD5D1400000578-700_634x465.jpg)
Just watch Jane Tanner opposing Gerry ! At about 10.05I agree 101% with Sadie here.
Then watch from 11.15
11.54 Jane "Why the hell didn't you think (about herself) then....
"....there was only one person who could have stopped anything ...."
"If .., if ......if ....."
Poor tortured woman , and you are trying to make her a liar ! Shame on you Icabod
Then watch her crying @ about 12.26 . The tears running down her face. See if you disbelieve her sincerity
...
I agree 101% with Sadie here.Thanks again Pegasus. Despite our differences on some points, I could happily work with you. You have honour. 8((()*/
The absolute sincerity of JT is beyond question IMO.
I hope peeps watch the sections of the video which Sadie points out.
JT's account of passing the chat is totally true IMO.
That JW did not see JT is IMO easily accounted by the parked cars and by him watching his child.
Look at how wide that pavement is for JT to pass without being seen 8-)(--)
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/R-/Alleyway_runs_horizontal_to_patio_entrance_of_5A.JPG)
There is something about those Pyjamas. To me they look more like a 7 year olds than a 2 year olds
A) She was 9 days off her 4th birthday.
B) What are your measuring against?
Slarti
Have you missed something?.
Those jamies in the photo are meant to be the pyjamas of the 2 year old child "innocent man" was carrying back from the creche. Please correct me if I have this wrong, cos I am doing it from memory.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/15/article-2460669-18BD5D1400000578-700_634x465.jpg)
Even with lots of the legs cut off the photograph, those pyjamas look more like the size a 7 year old would wear, dontcha think?
No, depends on width of boards.
Slarti
Have you missed something?.
Those jamies in the photo are meant to be the pyjamas of the 2 year old child "innocent man" was carrying back from the creche. Please correct me if I have this wrong, cos I am doing it from memory.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/15/article-2460669-18BD5D1400000578-700_634x465.jpg)
Even with lots of the legs cut off the photograph, those pyjamas look more like the size a 7 year old would wear, dontcha think?
I appreciate what you are saying, but have you looked at a photo of the full length of the legs?
Hven't got atm to sort one out, but they look like jamies for a seven to eleven year old to me. Long long legs
Not like two year old jamoes at all.
For Sadie - Yes there's lots of room to pass Gerry on the pavement without saying a word. It's a wonder how she didn't walk into him 8-)(--)Why have you chosen the bit of the pavement where it narrows?
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2n6c5fn.jpg)
Why have you chosen the bit of the pavement where it narrows?
But still plenty of room
Please look at GE before you make thsse misguided comments ... then you wont, if you have any honour at all.
"Gerry’s back was more towards me, because I would have thought if I’d have seen him I would have definitely probably stopped." (JT) 8-)(--)
She would have been right next to him - how didn't she know it was Gerry? She should be on that lie detector instead of wasting money. Send the letters out to get them all polygraphed.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/fl/4955984983_7c90d33bbe_z.jpg)
She did know it was Gerry, but as he had his back to her and was deep in conversation she decided not to speak to him. If he had been facing her - it would have been much easier to 'catch his eye' and imo she would have spoken to him. Also she didn't know Jez - and that would sway her decision not to butt in imo. Her decision not to speak to Gerry was made in a fraction of a second after weighing up the scene imo,
The suggestion of a lie detector test is laughable - as the reaction to a 'pass' by some sceptics is so predicable i.e.
(1) It's a known fact that these tests are not 100% reliable.
(2) The results were fixed - it's a white wash.
It would be impossible to miss her as Jez himself said (he saw nobody in the area never mind anyone passing right in front of him LOL). But he does remember Tanner (purple top) hanging outside the apartments just after 8.30. If they're telling the truth they have nothing to worry about do they?
I am not alone in finding the route being taken a bit strange.
~ My main point however is much more significant. It says in the quote above that this guy had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished. But remember, the night crèche is not close to the Ocean Club Garden, the block from where Madeleine disappeared. The night crèche (see plan) is actually some distance away, 275 yds or 250 metres to be precise and not what I would consider close in an urban environment. Close for me would be the day crèche which was only 70 metres away.
If as he claims, that he picked his daughter up at around the time of the sighting ie 9.15pm, why on earth was he walking from west to east ie towards the night crèche and not from south to north as he would have been had he in fact been coming from the night crèche?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3251.msg123121#msg123121
I dont think so John.
That's exactly what many of us have been thinking for some time. Has he in fact confused the day crèche beside the tennis courts with the night crèche? And as far as the night crèche being close...absolute tosh! If this guy did come forward in 2007 why did he let Jane Tanner suffer for 6 years believing she had seen the abductor? Too many loose ends imo!
Posters are forgetting that it was dark when Jane walked behind Gerry. There is no streetlight on that side of the road and the only other ones on the opposite side are quite a bit away. Also remember that Jez did not know Jane so could hardly identify her as someone he saw that night.
Snipp///
The jamies were far too big as well.
Have yo got me blocked or something Sadie? I seem to follow you around correcting your mistakes, which you then either don't see or ignore.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1249.315
Exactly, far too big for a two year old. More likely jamies for a seven year old. Btw, YOUR floorboard widths as recounted by you, do not influence me in the least. The whole proprtions are wrong for a two year old. Too long and this.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/15/article-2460669-18BD5D1400000578-700_634x465.jpg)
Half the legs are missing too!
You're welcome Sadie. Any time. No, no, it was no trouble measuring, searching for average heights, supplying links and so on.
You'll find that I used the full length jamma picture. I's the third link in my post to you.
I've gone back three pages and I dont see it. Can you direct me tpwards it please
Gotta go out ...soz
Reply #326 on: April 24, 2014, 12:41:26 PM »
QuoteModify
Quote from: sadie on April 24, 2014, 12:17:56 PM
I appreciate what you are saying, but have you looked at a photo of the full length of the legs?
Hven't got atm to sort one out, but they look like jamies for a seven to eleven year old to me. Long long legs
Not like two year old jamoes at all.
Ok, I've just measured my floorboards and they're 19.3 cm's wide. according to netmums, the average 2 year old is 87 cm's tall.
http://www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/children-parenting-190/toddlers-pre-schoolers-12-months-4-years-59/399503-what-average-height-2-yr-old-all.html
and the average height of a 3 year old is 94 cm's.
http://www.babycenter.com/400_what-is-the-average-height-of-a-3-year-40-month-old-girl_9291965_776.bc
So Innocentman's daught will be somewhere in that range.
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/8428/7bs2.jpg
That photo of the full legs of the pj bottoms covers roughly 3 floorboards (19.3 x 3= 57.9 cm's)
from the waist down makes up about 3/5 of the overall height so it works out about right for a 2/3 year old.
(The things I'll do to put off the hoovering!)Modify message
There is no way out (that I can see) from Had SY been muddled and thought that the Creche, from which Innocent man picked his child up, was by the tennis Courts within the Tapas garden area, then how did he get out of the walled garden? I have looked closely at GE and I can find no other exit or entrance other than via the Tapas Reception
That means Innocentman would have preceded Jane up the Rua Francisco Gentil Martins and she would have been following him all the way up.
No, I think SY are referring to the correct night creche.
A possible explanation of innocentman's location and direction as stated (truthfully IMO) by JT.
All just IMO.
1. Innocentman walks to creche to collect his child.
2. At same time another parent arrives at creche to pick up a child.
3. Innocentman and other adult have probably already met and chatted previously during the week's holiday.
3. As the two adults have apartments in same general direction relative to creche they walk away from creche together, each with their respective child, and chat while walking.
4. Innocentman accompanies the other adult, each with their respective child, chatting while they walk, to entrance of the other adult's apartment block.
5. Innocentman then turns round and walks back to his apartment with his child (and JT sees him crossing the t-junction)
This explanation requires no conspiracy, it is just normal being social with fellow holidaymaker parent, and it would account for where JT saw innocentman, and why he was walking the direction he was.
If this is the correct explanation, it would IMO require the other creche parent's apartment block to be G4.
The "flipflop" style footwear was IMO not audible. So all it takes is for JW to happen to look in a different direction for several seconds IMO, for example at child in buggy, and he can miss someone walking by. As for physical space, IMO he is on roadway and GM on edge of pavement, so IMO plenty of physical gap for a person to walk along pavement past them.I second that, Jez probably had his nose in the buggy as Jane slithered by. 8((()*/
I second that, Jez probably had his nose in the buggy as Jane slithered by. 8((()*/
A reconstruction would have covered what they were doing and they could've seen JT coming from a good distance away. He was adamant in his statement that he saw nobody in the area never mind anybody passing by under his nose. A reconstruction would make a mockery of her claim that she passed them without either noticing. Maybe they both had their heads stuck in the buggy but I very much doubt it 8)-)))
Peripheral vision seems to have been discounted for some reason ... that part of vision that occurs outside the centre of gaze ( try looking intently at something a foot or two in front of you and notice how much else is in your field of view )
Are we assuming that both Gerry and Jez suffer from 'tunnel vision' ? ... because for neither of them to have noticed Jane at any point whilst she walked the length of that street, they would have to be
Peripheral vision seems to have been discounted for some reason ... that part of vision that occurs outside the centre of gaze ( try looking intently at something a foot or two in front of you and notice how much else is in your field of view )
Are we assuming that both Gerry and Jez suffer from 'tunnel vision' ? ... because for neither of them to have noticed Jane at any point whilst she walked the length of that street, they would have to be
No I'm not actually. I'm not complaining, simply stating a fact. Which part of what I wrote is factually incorrect?
It's not libellous to express a doubt about someone's claimed position on a particular night!
Unless you're living in some Orwellian alternative dimension in which thought crime is a real thing?
[...quote deleted as disruptive ...]
If you look at my earlier post which was on topic I highlighted several relevant factors which would need to be taken into consideration in assessing what people believe they saw and where people believe they were. I also highlighted the fact that an average person is poor at assessing time, distance and mass. I have not suggested that anyone was a liar. However it is apparent from Jez's statement that his position is located by him in two different places one relative to features ie just down from the gate and up from the pathway and one by distance. The two do not coincide. My take is that he was wrong with the distances because most people are crap at judging distance in units. Now I do not nor did I suggest that Jez was deliberately lying about the distances merely he was mistaken. Jane and Jez believe that all three were on the west side of the road. Gerry believes he and Jez were on the east side. Someone is mistaken but who?
Were Gerry and Jez on the east side and Jane on the west side Jez and Gerry would have had her in their field of vision as she passed for about 20 seconds. Nothing sinister about that just the laws of physics. Jane would have been moving silhouetted against a white background so how did they miss her?. Again a reasonable question nothing sinister. The forum likes to say it was dark and one could not see; allegedly it was 21:10. Easy to look up sunset time and dusk span so it was just at the end of dusk but was the moon full and the sky clear?
Also the predominant infrastructure background is white which will reflect maximum light. So without calling anyone a liar there are several anomalies that need to be resolved. Not least the way the abductor was carrying the child. The mass of an average three to four year old is about 17kg the mass of a normal car battery is 17.7 kg. Can you carry a car battery across your forearms at a pace for a significant distance? Before you try to bullshit go try it and time 1 minute holding time. So you see without suggesting any impropriety there are unresolved anomalies. I fail to understand why you choose to go polar and accuse people of saying or implying things they have not.
I have posted an official list of weather conditions and moon rise / tides / sunset times etc, but I cant find it atm. However, I am pretty confident that the moon had not risen by that time. I think it rose at about 10pm...For Moonrise on 3rd May 2007 look at line 3 in this table.
the moon was out later on
a bit of moonlight
Cornelious, I have posted an official list of weather conditions and moon rise / tides / sunset times etc, but I cant find it atm. However, I am pretty confident that the moon had not risen by that time. I think it rose at about 10pm but am happy to be corrected on that one. Assuming a clear night, the moon would have thrown quite a bit of light cos it was a full moon the night before.
But it had NOT risen by 9.10pm IIRC.
Almost without doubt Innocent man could not have held his child like that for the entire distance back from the night creche, but Tannerman could from 5A to Jane Tanner corner, imo.
Well it would certainly be easy enough to conduct a simple experiment with a suitable mass. If you can't readily lay your hands on a car battery you could support a piece 100x100 timber across your forearms and hang three cases of Fosters or two cases of Chateau d'Yquem from it, depending on whether the school you went to played lacrosse or rounders ?{)(**Somehow, I dont think that would be quite the same. Same load perhaps, but not closely wrapped to the figure of the carrier as a sleeping child ... so the moments would be different. What do you think?
Somehow, I dont think that would be quite the same. Same load perhaps, but not closely wrapped to the figure of the carrier as a sleeping child ... so the moments would be different. What do you think?
Have I have met you before on pfa2 ?
How are you Cornelius? Nice to chat again. 8((()*/
Somehow, I dont think that would be quite the same. Same load perhaps, but not closely wrapped to the figure of the carrier as a sleeping child ... so the moments would be different. What do you think?It would give an indication of whether the biceps could keep the forearm at right angles under the load for a significant period. I don't think we need to dive down Tymoshenko though.
Have I have met you before on pfa2 ?
How are you Cornelius? Nice to chat again. 8((()*/
Q. Relative to the visibility and lighting conditions;
I believe that the time I left it was dusk (the term lusco-fusco used in this statement is a Portuguese expression to define those brief moments when day and night intermingle in an undefined state, dusk, when day isn't still night) or night time when I returned and I do not remember if it was already dark when I spoke with Gerry. There were no weather conditions that impacted visibility. Given the lighting and the atmospheric conditions, I believe that it would have been possible to see if an individual was near but evidently, the greater the distance, the harder the difficulty in seeing. 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.
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 me in this way but this as an assumption and I do not remember anything having happened.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm)
... The mass of an average three to four year old is about 17kg the mass of a normal car battery is 17.7 kg. Can you carry a car battery across your forearms at a pace for a significant distance? ....The child JT saw was not 3 or 4 yrs old IMO.
The child JT saw was not 3 or 4 yrs old IMO.
The child was 2 yrs old IMO and in SY's opinion: they have spoken to the man and confirmed the childs age.
Now if we do a similar experiment for a 2-yr old which is what she actually saw ....
Far far easier to carry horizontally.
Your battery experiment IMO confirms that JT saw innocenttouristman carrying a 2-year-old.
The child JT saw was not 3 or 4 yrs old IMO.
The child was 2 yrs old IMO and in SY's opinion: they have spoken to the man and confirmed the childs age.
Now if we do a similar experiment for a 2-yr old which is what she actually saw ....
Far far easier to carry horizontally.
Your battery experiment IMO confirms that JT saw innocenttouristman carrying a 2-year-old.
Which then confirms that the original postulation that JT saw the abductor (which had currency for 6 years or are you forgetting that?) was erroneous as suggested by Redwood.There are two postulations
Which then confirms that the original postulation that JT saw the abductor (which had currency for 6 years or are you forgetting that?) was erroneous as suggested by Redwood.It would be so easy to negate your assertions if I were well enough, but I am not atm. Maybe tomorrow?
It would be interesting to know why the guy (innocenttouristman as you call him) was going all over the oche to get home and of course it is now necessary to find another abductor to uphold the abduction theory.
Back to my comment; there are a lot of unresolved anomalies. It is strange that after the lynchpin for the abduction theory was removed the attitude seems to have been "oh well let's find another one" almost without breaking step and thinking "that was a bit odd".
To be clear on what I am saying: It is odd and no rational explanation for the whole has thus far been forthcoming. One hopes in the fullness of time all will be revealed.
I rest my case.
The reconstruction would have proved this. I assume that's why it never took place.
But they did their own, Gerry made Jane cry, Jane doesn't like Gerry she tells us so!
Jane was humiliated. I suspect I would cry too if I had travelled all that way just to be undermined by the very person I was trying to help.
I find it somewhat amusing that some people can imagine that it's quite possible that 9 people took part in a cover-up which involved the hiding of a dead child's body, its removal and re-burial days later, and that it's quite possible that the UK government, SY, the UK media also are all complicit in the cover-up, plus all manner of other possibilities that the Nefarious Nine are supposed to have taken part in, but the act of walking up a street relatively quietly in a pair of flip-flops is deemed totally impossible.
All an act
I have no idea who did or did not know what on the night of the 3rd of May or subsequent days but what I do know, from experience, is that Jane could not have walked Gerry and Jez in noisy flip flops on such a narrow pavement.OK, let's rendezvous in PdL a week tomorrow to conduct a reconstruction but first you must ask Jane Tanner if you can borrow the very same flip flops she wore that night (otherwise the exercise will be pointless) and we will take it in turns to walk up the street wearing them (though I must warn you I may struggle to get my feet into them).
If you can prove otherwise I'm all ears.
The reconstruction would have proved this. I assume that's why it never took place.
OK, let's rendezvous in PdL a week tomorrow to conduct a reconstruction but first you must ask Jane Tanner if you can borrow the very same flip flops she wore that night (otherwise the exercise will be pointless) and we will take it in turns to walk up the street wearing them (though I must warn you I may struggle to get my feet into them).
OK, let's rendezvous in PdL a week tomorrow to conduct a reconstruction but first you must ask Jane Tanner if you can borrow the very same flip flops she wore that night (otherwise the exercise will be pointless) and we will take it in turns to walk up the street wearing them (though I must warn you I may struggle to get my feet into them).
She would have been fully aware that her recollection of where Gerry and Jes were standing was to be dismissed having read the script beforehand. They're are fully aware that her story is a crock of shit (as was Oldfield's check from inside the apartment and Kates discovery) which is why they concentrated on those aspects of the fabricated timelines and ignored the genuine recollections of Jes. Did I mention how they also changed the description of the carrying style described by the Smith family to match that of the fabricated sighting by Jane.
Let's call a spade a spade.I am sorry Faith but you are wrong.
I have viewed all the graphics on this forum 'proving' JT could have passed by Gerry and Jez without being seen, they are, perhaps, convincing if you have never actually been to PDL and walked the same street at the same time of night. I however have and I can tell you two things with absolute certainty:
1.JT could not have walked by the chatterers with flip flops on and not be heard. I have tried it, heard the sound they make ( the expensive kind ) and can assure you it is simply not possible.
2. Even if Jez was partially on the road with the pram while talking to Gerry there is simply not enough room for Jane to pass by unobserved.
Jane and Gerry are [moderated] and that is simply not open to question. The real conundrum is why ?
Sorry to hear you are not well Sadie. Here's hoping you feel better soon. 8((()*/I am OKish thank you John but not up to heavy posts. OKish until my eyes start streaming again and my vision fades a bit.
There are two postulationsRe B. What brings you to that conclusion Pegasus?
A. That JT saw a man carrying a child (TRUE IMO).
B. That the child JT saw was the missing child (FALSE IMO).
I am sorry Faith but you are wrong.
1. I too have had both types of so called flip flops. With the expensive type it is quite easy to walk pretty near silently if they are a good fit, cos they don't flip flop at all. If not such a good fit then all you need to do is curl your toes a little to create a pushing force which ensures the soles remain close to your feet and then again there is virtually no sound.
Jane is a cultured type of woman. She would not wish to disturb a conversation as she has already said. She would walk past as quietly as possible and if she wore good quality flip flops they would be near silent.
Why is everyone trying to make Jane [moderated]
2. The pavement is over 2 metres wide at that point. Wider still if they were actually on the bend where the wall curves back into the alleyway.
Only Gerry stood on the pavement. What nonsense that Jane couldn't have passed. Of course there was room and plenty of it. Maybe you were mistaken and thought that Jez and the pushchair were also on the Pavement? Well according to the statements and the Cutting Edge video they weren't. They were in the road.
Plenty of room for Jane to pass ... over 1.5 metres if Gerry was on the edge of the pavement as reported.
Jane was humiliated. I suspect I would cry too if I had travelled all that way just to be undermined by the very person I was trying to help.Just listen to the words before she cries Faith.
"I couldn’t walk that quickly because I’d got these silly flip-flops on and I couldn’t walk that, that well in them." (Jane Tanner Rog)I have had both sorts, expensive and cheapos. The cheapos were more comfortable tbh.
Sadie, do they sound like they're good quality silent flip flops? And she was walking slowly so more chance of spotting her.
All an actHow perceptive ..NOT !
I have no idea who did or did not know what on the night of the 3rd of May or subsequent days but what I do know, from experience, is that Jane could not have walked Gerry and Jez in noisy flip flops on such a narrow pavement.I have just proved it in the posts above.
If you can prove otherwise I'm all ears.
I don't think so Peter. Jane must have been mortified by the off-handed way her recollection was dismissed. Of course the audience never did hear that there was another witness who had the same recollection. Strange that eh ?Could you please point me to the other witness who had the same recollection, or are you referring to Jez agreeing with Jane about where they stood?
I have just proved it in the posts above.
I think you would have to ask Dr Amaral about that one. He was the one who failed to hold a reconstruction at an early stage in the investigation apparently because the air space would have to be closed.Actually any reconstruction would have proved just how much space there was on that over 2 metre wide pavement for Jane to pass Gerryand Jez (in the road with the push chair) .... and could have proved that the noise from her probably high quality flip flops was minimal
Actually any reconstruction would have proved just how much space there was on that over 2 metre wide pavement for Jane to pass Gerryand Jez (in the road with the push chair) .... and could have proved that the noise from her probably high quality flip flops was minimal
I am sorry Faith but you are wrong.
1. I too have had both types of so called flip flops. With the expensive type it is quite easy to walk pretty near silently if they are a good fit, cos they don't flip flop at all. If not such a good fit then all you need to do is curl your toes a little to create a pushing force which ensures the soles remain close to your feet and then again there is virtually no sound.
Jane is a cultured type of woman. She would not wish to disturb a conversation as she has already said. She would walk past as quietly as possible and if she wore good quality flip flops they would be near silent.
Why is everyone trying to make Jane [moderated]
2. The pavement is over 2 metres wide at that point. Wider still if they were actually on the bend where the wall curves back into the alleyway.
Only Gerry stood on the pavement. What nonsense that Jane couldn't have passed. Of course there was room and plenty of it. Maybe you were mistaken and thought that Jez and the pushchair were also on the Pavement? Well according to the statements and the Cutting Edge video they weren't. They were in the road.
Plenty of room for Jane to pass ... over 1.5 metres if Gerry was on the edge of the pavement as reported.
As a matter of interest where does your measurement for the pavement come from ?
Just listen to the words before she cries Faith.
Nothing to do with Gerry; all to do with her missing the significance of what she witnessed at the time and the realisation that she could have prevented Tannerman getting away and Madeleine being abducted.
http://youtu.be/atfDV7imHHY
Then watch from 11.15
11.54 Jane "Why the hell didn't you think (about herself) then....
"....there was only one person who could have stopped anything ...."
"If .., if ......if ....."
Poor tortured woman, and you are trying to make her [moderated] Come on Faith, I thought better of you than that. Carry on watching her deep distress. She blames herself, poor woman.
Then watch her crying @ about 12.26 . The tears running down her face. See if you disbelieve her sincerity. Even AnnGuedes has said she believes Jane, and Pegasus.
Why dont you believe what she says?
Jane was there, remember... and you weren't.
Never mind talking about it DO IT. Get any 3 people back on that quiet street at the exact time and location with the street light situated right behind them. Put the person (Jez) with a child in a buggy on the road allegedly but maybe he wasn't checking both ways for cars 8-)(--) Get a person in flip flops to come past them within a few feet and let's see if it's possible to pass without being noticed. Jez said he could see clearly and would notice that person in the purple top that he couldn't miss at a much further distance at 8.30.
Lie detector for all 3 me thinks but who would say No?
Nice thought Pathfinder but it can be proven using your brain. 2 metres = approximately 6'6". Just Gerry on the pavement
Depth of his body = 0.5 metre at the maximum
That leaves 1.5 metres ( almost 5 feet) for Jane. I think she could gert thru there pretty easily, dont you?
So Gerry teetering on the edge of the pavement being unaware of someone passing within 0.5 metres assuming Jane wasn't inching her way past against the wall. 8-)(--)
Nice thought Pathfinder but it can be proven using your brain. 2 metres = approximately 6'6". Just Gerry on the pavement
Depth of his body = 0.5 metre at the maximum
That leaves 1.5 metres ( almost 5 feet) for Jane. I think she could gert thru there pretty easily, dont you?
Gerry was looking in a generally westerly direction at Jez and his baby. Probably WNW for Jez and WSW for the baby.
The entire journey that Jane walked was to the south, the east or the north of Gerry and Jez.
- She was out of Gerrys line of vision.
- Jez did not know her and had little reason to remember her, especially as he was engrossed in talking with Gerry.
Heriberto, an expert, says this about lines of vision: That you can only see at an angle of up to 45* from the direction you are looking in and that is periferal vision..
He wrote about it on here and I tried to find it, but couldn't . I have just spoken to him in Spain and he is very busy today at a conference but he confirmed the 45* maximum periferal vision to the both sides
In other words Jane was OUTSIDE GERRYS PERIFERAL VISION. No way could he have seen her.
Full stop.
Rubbish Slarti
No need for Gerry to teeter and no need for Jane to inch her way past. There was free pavement about 5 feet wide for Jane to walk thru. Why are you exaggerating?
Dont you like the truth?
Why do you keep on repeating like a broken record that they were high quality flip flops when Jane thought they were silly and awkward to walk in?The likelyhood is that they are high quality. She is a Doctors/ consultants partner and she also has a high flying job herself. No shortage of money to buy good stuff.
Nice thought Pathfinder but it can be proven using your brain. 2 metres = approximately 6'6". Just Gerry on the pavement
Depth of his body = 0.5 metre at the maximum
That leaves 1.5 metres ( almost 5 feet) for Jane. I think she could gert thru there pretty easily, dont you?
Gerry was looking in a generally westerly direction at Jez and his baby. Probably WNW for Jez and WSW for the baby.
The entire journey that Jane walked was to the south, the east or the north of Gerry and Jez.
- She was out of Gerrys line of vision.
- Jez did not know her and had little reason to remember her, especially as he was engrossed in talking with Gerry.
Heriberto, an expert, says this about lines of vision: That you can only see at an angle of up to 45* from the direction you are looking in and that is periferal vision..
He wrote about it on here and I tried to find it, but couldn't . I have just spoken to him in Spain and he is very busy today at a conference but he confirmed the 45* maximum periferal vision to the both sides
In other words Jane was OUTSIDE GERRYS PERIFERAL VISION. No way could he have seen her.
Full stop.
Sadie, where does the 6.6 ft come from ?2 metres measured on Google earth. Zoom right in. I did it a few days ago, so from memory but am pretty sure I have remembered it OK. Please correct me if I am wrong.
As to Jez not knowing Jane and therefore not remembering her, are you actually putting that forward as an explanation ? Jez knew Jane well enough to know she was part of the tapas group, he says so in his rogatory interview and as to being 'engrossed' in his conversation, where exactly does Jez say that ?
Gerry was looking in a generally westerly direction at Jez and his baby. Probably WNW for Jez and WSW for the baby.
The entire journey that Jane walked was to the south, the east or the north of Gerry and Jez.
- She was out of Gerrys line of vision.
- Jez did not know her and had little reason to remember her, especially as he was engrossed in talking with Gerry.
Heriberto Janosch, an expert, says this about lines of vision: That you can only see at an angle of up to 45* from the direction you are looking in ... and that is periferal vision..
He wrote about it on here and I tried to find it, but couldn't . I have just spoken to him in Spain and he is very busy today at a conference but he confirmed the 45* maximum periferal vision to each side.
In other words Jane was OUTSIDE GERRYS PERIFERAL VISION. No way could he have seen her.
Full stop.
@)(++(*
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ocr2a.jpg)
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ocr1a.jpg)
The likelyhood is that they are high quality. She is a Doctors/ consultants partner and she also has a high flying job herself. No shortage of money to buy good stuff.
And at dinner in a restaurant in the evening. Most peeps dress up a bit for that.
My high quality ones were not at all comfortable, nor easy to walk in,. I had to screw my toes into the sole to keep them in order ... but they were pretty near silent!
Why shouldn't I say it?
The likelyhood is that they are high quality. She is a Doctors/ consultants partner and she also has a high flying job herself. No shortage of money to buy good stuff.
And at dinner in a restaurant in the evening. Most peeps dress up a bit for that.
My high quality ones were not at all comfortable, nor easy to walk in,. I had to screw my toes into the sole to keep them in order ... but they were pretty near silent!
Why shouldn't I say it?
2 metres measured on Google earth. Zoom right in. I did it a few days ago, so from memory but am pretty sure I have remembered it OK. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Not 6.6 feet Faith , but 6'6". That equates to 6.5 feet.
All this talk about quality flip flops is a bit redundant isn't it? All foot wear makes some noise. Unless you were actively trying not to be heard, it's highly unlikely that you wouldn't be.
This is bunkum
Here's a little experiment you can carry out right now as you read this post
Your computer is about a foot away from you and you are are focussed directly on the screen reading these words
Now
Notice how much else is in your periferal line of vision
Notice how it would be impossible for anyone to pass close to your 'direct point of vision' ( your computer ) without you being aware
Measured on google earth ? Really ?What's wrong with that?
This is bunkum
Here's a little experiment you can carry out right now as you read this post
Your computer is about a foot away from you and you are are focussed directly on the screen reading these words
Now
Notice how much else is in your periferal line of vision
Notice how it would be impossible for anyone to pass close to your 'direct point of vision' ( your computer ) without you being aware
Believe me, it would be possible for all manner of things to be going on around me without me noticing whilst I am deep in concentration on my computer. The only thing that would distract me would be the phone ringing, someone calling my name or a loud noise like a knock at the door, or a child shouting. You can have things in your line of vision without consciously registering them, or making a mental note to remember them later.
There's only one reason for any lie and that is for an alibi - somebody was not there at 9.10 but somewhere else.What time did Jez Wilkins meet with Gerry then? Was Gerry behaving suspiciously according to Jez? Was there anything in Jez's statement that tends to support the idea that Gerry had or was about to commit a terrible act?
BS we all have peripheral vision - that's why we will catch movements out of the corner of our eye without even looking for them. Jez had a child in a pram so he is going be aware of his surroundings and especially if he was on the road.
What time did Jez Wilkins meet with Gerry then? Was Gerry behaving suspiciously according to Jez? Was there anything in Jez's statement that tends to support the idea that Gerry had or was about to commit a terrible act?
Clue - flowerbed cadaver scent. How did it get there?I don't know - what are you suggesting? Why was the flowerbed not forensically tested?
The more I read about this encounter the more perplexing I find it. Thanx to Pathfinder for posting those night photos, they have certainly changed my view ( sorry about the pun).
I wonder, is this episode yet another reason why these three have never taken part in an official police reconstruction? Something is definitely amiss with this event. 8-)(--)
What time did Jez Wilkins meet with Gerry then? Was Gerry behaving suspiciously according to Jez? Was there anything in Jez's statement that tends to support the idea that Gerry had or was about to commit a terrible act?
I believe that Jane could have walked by Gerry and Jez without them noticing her.
Jane says they were busy talking, she was going to say something but decided not to.
They were engrossed in conversation, Jez with his baby in the buggy, Gerry could have been looking down at the baby when talking.
Also I think they met in the middle of the road rather than being on the edge of the pavement. Jez seeing Gerry he walked towards him and Gerry seeing Jez walked towards him, that is why in my opinion Gerry remembers crossing the road.
I believe that Jane could have walked by Gerry and Jez without them noticing her.
Also I think they met in the middle of the road rather than being on the edge of the pavement. Jez seeing Gerry he walked towards him and Gerry seeing Jez walked towards him, that is why in my opinion Gerry remembers crossing the road.
Jez, according to his statement, met Gerry anytime between 8.45 and 9.15 and while he assumed Gerry had just been to check on his children, he wasn't even sure about that.
What if Gerry had not yet checked on the children and had not yet found Madeleine had been the victim of a terrible accident or, as I believe, was missing from her bed ? Wouldn't his behaviour while talking to Jez be absolutely normal in that scenario ? Stephen Carpenter's wife heard someone calling Madeleine's name softly around the time Gerry was absent from the table. Could that have been him looking for Madeleine ?
But where is the evidence for your scenario ?
Why would you think that when none of the three witnesses in question say that is what happened ?
Two witnesses say one thing while another gives a very different version of events and fails to explain their position, that I find puzzling to say the least. You cannot say A, B or C lied though, the best you can say is that at least one of them was very much mistaken.
There was confusion during the reconstruction, Gerry was adamant he walked across the road, Jane was sure he was nearer than across the road, so it makes sense they were in the middle to me.
Wasn't it convenient that Jez didn't take part in the Ch4 Cutting edge docustory or jackanory? Had he done so Gerry would have been the one embarassed and not Jane.
"I couldn’t walk that quickly because I’d got these silly flip-flops on and I couldn’t walk that, that well in them." (Jane Tanner Rog)
Sadie, do they sound like they're good quality silent flip flops? And she was walking slowly so more chance of spotting her.
Really? If you were pushing a baby in a pram would you stop in the middle of the road for a chat?
Really? If you were pushing a baby in a pram would you stop in the middle of the road for a chat?
After 9pm in a street with little or no traffic...yes.
When you walk slowly in flip flops you don't get the customary sound especially if you are trying to slip by unnoticed. My own view is that both men walked towards each other and were in the quiet roadway. This left Jane the footpath all to herself.
When you walk slowly in flip flops you don't get the customary sound especially if you are trying to slip by unnoticed. My own view is that both men walked towards each other and were in the quiet roadway. This left Jane the footpath all to herself.
What I find puzzling is why, when Gerry had known that both the other witnesses to their chat placed Jez and him on the tapas side of the road, Gerry still insisted on undermining his own witness's credibility, by placing them elsewhere ? Why not just accept his recollection was wrong ?
They had little time to provide Gerry with an alibi for the Smith sighting, Jane repeating verbatim what she was told by Gerry about his meeting with Jes and as with many aspects of the timelines/statements there were and still are attempts to correct the obvious errors.The Smith sighting was at 9.50pm. How does JT's statement provide Gerry with a false alibi when she says she saw him talking to Jez approximately 40 minutes earlier?
The Smith sighting was at 9.50pm. How does JT's statement provide Gerry with a false alibi when she says she saw him talking to Jez approximately 40 minutes earlier?
Yes it was a bit lame wasn't it but desperate times and all that...It doesn't actually provide Gerry with an alibi at all - if you're going to risk your reputation and possibly your freedom on a lie, best make it one that actually serves your purpose!
It doesn't actually provide Gerry with an alibi at all - if you're going to risk your reputation and possibly your freedom on a lie, best make it one that actually serves your purpose!
Rubbish Slarti
No need for Gerry to teeter and no need for Jane to inch her way past. There was free pavement about 5 feet wide for Jane to walk thru. Why are you exaggerating?
Dont you like the truth?
But she saw (cough) said abductor and Gerry in the same place at the same time so Gerry can't have been the person (even though the hidden e-fit looks remarkably like him) seen by the Smith family.But Jane actually DID see a man who she thought may be the abductor, Scotland Yard has verified that a holiday maker passed by the Apartment at approximately the time she says she saw him, which also coincides with roughly the same time Gerry and Jez were chatting in the street. These are indisputable facts.
Jane Tanner didn't walk by Gerry and Jes and she was at the table when the alarm was raised!
But Jane actually DID see a man who she thought may be the abductor, Scotland Yard has verified that a holiday maker passed by the Apartment at approximately the time she says she saw him, which also coincides with roughly the same time Gerry and Jez were chatting in the street. These are indisputable facts.
If, as Jez claims, his and Gerry's chat may have been as early as 8.45 then the times don't coincide at all.
If Gerry and Jez were chatting at 8.45pm then why bother inveningt an alibi for around 9.10pm? It is of course within Jez's timeframe that he and Gerry were actually chatting at 9.10pm isn't it? Which also happens to coincide roughly with the time that SY say a man was carrying his child away from the crèche. Which in turn validates JT's statement.
If you wanted someone to provide you with an alibi to ensure no one suspected you of being the man seen by the Smiths at 9.50pm you could surely come up with something a bit more solid than JT's sighting of Gerry and Jez at 9.10 couldn't you, especially as you would have no way of knowing for certain what Jez would have to say about the time of the chat beforehand?
If Gerry and Jez were chatting at 8.45pm then why bother inveningt an alibi for around 9.10pm? It is of course within Jez's timeframe that he and Gerry were actually chatting at 9.10pm isn't it? Which also happens to coincide roughly with the time that SY say a man was carrying his child away from the crèche. Which in turn validates JT's statement.
If you wanted someone to provide you with an alibi to ensure no one suspected you of being the man seen by the Smiths at 9.50pm you could surely come up with something a bit more solid than JT's sighting of Gerry and Jez at 9.10 couldn't you, especially as you would have no way of knowing for certain what Jez would have to say about the time of the chat beforehand?
For seven years the McCanns have relentlessly promoted the 'Jane Tanner saw Madeleine being abducted' theory ... a theory for which Gerry had an airtight alibi ( a theory which they STILL promote on their website despite Scotland Yard dismissing it )That Jane Tanner really did see a man carrying a child that she thought might have been the abductor?
The e fit of the man the Smith family saw, on the other hand ( a sighting for which Gerry's alibi is far from airtight ) was kept from the public
What do we make of that ?
That Jane Tanner really did see a man carrying a child that she thought might have been the abductor?
As far as I am aware SY have not completely ruled out the Tanner sighting
Have SY ruled out that Madeleine might have died in the apartment ?
Wasn't it convenient that Jez didn't take part in the Ch4 Cutting edge docustory or jackanory? Had he done so Gerry would have been the one embarassed and not Jane.Rather! especially as the group statement signed by Gerry and Gerry's statement don't agree on who was where. Little wonder the PJ wanted a proper reconstitution.
Rather! especially as the group statement signed by Gerry and Gerry's statement don't agree on who was where. Little wonder the PJ wanted a proper reconstitution.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm.
That Jane Tanner really did see a man carrying a child that she thought might have been the abductor?
Unlike 'armchair'detectives - professional Detectives do not expect witnesses to have perfect recall. What you find to be 'amazing' - they would find to be 'perfectly normal' as illustrated below.
Quote
In a crime situation memory is influenced by many factors such as stress, the presence of a weapon and even just the desire to help police solve the crime.
"Police know how fallible the memory can be," says Steve Retford, a former head of the investigative skills unit at GMP and now specialist interviewing adviser with the force.
"They also know this is usually not through mischievousness on the part of the witnesses, but through stress and shock."
Take 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.
End quote
It would seem that more than one person's memory of the event was completely wrong - but there is no suggestion by the police that anyone was lying - and that is because they acknowledge and understand how fallible the memory is.
Or put another way was touted as definitely the abductor from May 3rd/4th 2007 until October 19th 2013.Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a young child very close to the apartment from which her friends' child vanished on the same evening. Perhaps she should have just kept her big mouth shut and assumed what she saw was completely irrelevant, eh? Might at least have saved her from some of the criticism she has been subjected to in the last seven years.
We now seem to be abductorless.
Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a young child very close to the apartment from which her friends' child vanished on the same evening. Perhaps she should have just kept her big mouth shut and assumed what she saw was completely irrelevant, eh? Might at least have saved her from some of the criticism she has been subjected to in the last seven years.
I believe that Jane could have walked by Gerry and Jez without them noticing her.I wondered that too Lace, to begin with, but with Janes evidence in the Cutting Edge video where she very plainly showed the edge of the pavement by the corner of the alleyway .../ and also Jezes sketch map on which he very clearly smarked what he recalled, I am inclined to think that they met in the middle and realising what a silly place that was with a child, Jez steered them back to the western pavement.
Jane says they were busy talking, she was going to say something but decided not to.
They were engrossed in conversation, Jez with his baby in the buggy, Gerry could have been looking down at the baby when talking.
Also I think they met in the middle of the road rather than being on the edge of the pavement. Jez seeing Gerry he walked towards him and Gerry seeing Jez walked towards him, that is why in my opinion Gerry remembers crossing the road.
Jez, according to his statement, met Gerry anytime between 8.45 and 9.15 and while he assumed Gerry had just been to check on his children, he wasn't even sure about that.We dont know that. We only have Chinese whispers from her husband ... in other words a third party statement.
What if Gerry had not yet checked on the children and had not yet found Madeleine had been the victim of a terrible accident or, as I believe, was missing from her bed ? Wouldn't his behaviour while talking to Jez be absolutely normal in that scenario ? Stephen Carpenter's wife heard someone calling Madeleine's name softly around the time Gerry was absent from the table. Could that have been him looking for Madeleine ?
Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a young child very close to the apartment from which her friends' child vanished on the same evening. Perhaps she should have just kept her big mouth shut and assumed what she saw was completely irrelevant, eh? Might at least have saved her from some of the criticism she has been subjected to in the last seven years.
Oh no! If she thought she saw something she should have definitely spoken out. The point is that over 6 years her sighting was was the keystone of the abduction theory. Now no one is sure what she saw. Keystone gorn as you might say.
With respect - I don't see what the problem is.
JT saw a man carrying a child away - who IMO it was quite reasonably assumed - because of where he was seen and the time at which he was seen was very likely to be the abductor. Since then, for reasons which SY have not fully divulged to us, they now have compelling evidence that the man she saw was an innocent tourist.
This information means that the previous timescale can be discounted and a much longer timescale be considered for the abduction - and one which could solve the previous puzzling question of where the abductor was during those 'lost' 45 mins which - in the light of this new evidence - may now no longer exist.
Why would this be considered to be a 'problem' for SY rather than 'progress'.
We dont know that. We only have Chinese whispers from her husband ... in other words a third party statement.
Very strangely Carolines statement is missing !!!!!
As are also the statements from Raj and Neil, the two men who could verify the time they saw Gerry searching
So all three of Gerrys potential alibis have somehow got lost !
Sounds very fishy to me. In fact it stinks.
She didn't see anyone due to her not having left the table prior to the alarm being raised. Tannerman and crecheman have one thing in common, neither of them exist.There you go Icabod - opinion presented as fact.
If you present statements as facts it's up to you to provide the supporting evidence. Over to you...
At 1230hrs both Jeremy and Bridget went to pick up their children from the crèche. They did not have any interaction with the group again that afternoon. They decided to spend the evening in the apartment. Their son was unable to sleep so about 2015hrs, Jeremy took him, in the pushchair for a walk. He walked around the main area of the resort and eventually ended up in the Tapas bar where he used the toilet facility. He was unable to state what time this was. His son was still awake so he walked in the area of the ocean club gardens and walked along the alleyways in that general area. He eventually made his way along Rua Dr Francisco toward the direction of Rua Dr Agostinho. At this time he was walking on the right side of the road passing the Tapas bar area to his left. He noticed the bad street lighting and although it was not completely dark there was enough light to see clearly. As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry’s back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10 – 15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.And this proves what exactly?
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 alledgedly walking across the junction to his right but again stated that he did not see any one.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19
Over to you...
And this proves what exactly?
That Jane wasn't there according to Jez.
And according to her partner Russ she was still at the table when the alarm was raised!
Where does he make that claim? Can you provide a link please.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19
Sorry - can't find any claim that JT was still at the table when the alarm was raised? Could you be more specific please?
Really, you do surprise me! 8)--))
What are you on about ?
Got 'LOST' from where ? .... from the police files ?
Apart from the PJ, where else can you suggest they got lost from Icabod ?
All three of Gerrys alibis LOST !
Very little else missing apart from Gerrys alibis. Do you think that seems fishy, stinky fishy ? Cos' I do. 8)-))) >@@(*&)
Only my opinion of course !
At 1230hrs both Jeremy and Bridget went to pick up their children from the crèche. They did not have any interaction with the group again that afternoon. They decided to spend the evening in the apartment. Their son was unable to sleep so about 2015hrs, Jeremy took him, in the pushchair for a walk. He walked around the main area of the resort and eventually ended up in the Tapas bar where he used the toilet facility. He was unable to state what time this was. His son was still awake so he walked in the area of the ocean club gardens and walked along the alleyways in that general area. He eventually made his way along Rua Dr Francisco toward the direction of Rua Dr Agostinho. At this time he was walking on the right side of the road passing the Tapas bar area to his left. He noticed the bad street lighting and although it was not completely dark there was enough light to see clearly. As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry’s back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10 – 15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
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 alledgedly walking across the junction to his right but again stated that he did not see any one.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19
Over to you...
Apart from the PJ, where else can you suggest they got lost from Icabod ?
All three of Gerrys alibis LOST !
Very little else missing apart from Gerrys alibis. Do you think that seems fishy, stinky fishy ? Cos' I do. 8)-))) >@@(*&)
Only my opinion of course !
Going on their reputation confirmed by the amnesty site I think the PJ would go to any lengths to make their case.
It has everything to do with it! They were in the UK on the dates of the first statements (mentioned in the rogs) hence the statements were taken by the LC. It is not British procedure to publish or release witness statements, as was pointed out to Dr and Mrs Mccann when they took the Lc to court to try and get their hands on the information held.
That Jane wasn't there according to Jez.He says he didn't see her which is different from stating that she wasn't there. Gerry (who according to you asked her to say she saw him and Jez together that evening) also says he didn't see her, please explain that.
He says he didn't see her which is different from stating that she wasn't there. Gerry (who according to you asked her to say she saw him and Jez together that evening) also says he didn't see her, please explain that.
He says he didn't see her which is different from stating that she wasn't there. Gerry (who according to you asked her to say she saw him and Jez together that evening) also says he didn't see her, please explain that.
If he had said he had been busy talking and didn't think he saw her, then fine. But no, he said he didn't see her.
I didn't say anything about Gerry, I suggest you check your facts.
Apart from the PJ, where else can you suggest they got lost from Icabod ?
All three of Gerrys alibis LOST !
Very little else missing apart from Gerrys alibis. Do you think that seems fishy, stinky fishy ? Cos' I do. 8)-))) >@@(*&)
Only my opinion of course !
I think that according to one of her own statements, Jane said that she was in her apartment and knew nothing about what was going on.Err ... you have to be joking !
I found it strange, that Kate. knowing that Jane was nearby, didn't go to her immediately to see if Madeleine was there.
If he had said he had been busy talking and didn't think he saw her, then fine. But no, he said he didn't see her.Why should Jez notice her? He didn't even know her ... and from somewhere I read that she was cold and wearing Russells fleece ... so hardly the sort of image a man would notice.
I didn't say anything about Gerry, I suggest you check your facts.
Why should Jez notice her? He didn't even know her ... and from somewhere I read that she was cold and wearing Russells fleece ... so hardly the sort of image a man would notice.
Why should it register that a passerby walked by?
If you are chatting, do you notice everyone walking past. I dont
In a quiet, dark street in a foreign country, yes unless completely p***ed.
Why do you notice everyone who walks past you 'in a quiet dark street in a foreign country'? Is it because you are fearful of the natives?
Why do you notice everyone who walks past you 'in a quiet dark street in a foreign country'? Is it because you are fearful of the natives?
Why should Jez notice her? He didn't even know her ... and from somewhere I read that she was cold and wearing Russells fleece ... so hardly the sort of image a man would notice.
Why should it register that a passerby walked by?
If you are chatting, do you notice everyone walking past. I dont
Why should Jez notice her? He didn't even know her ... and from somewhere I read that she was cold and wearing Russells fleece ... so hardly the sort of image a man would notice.
Why should it register that a passerby walked by?
If you are chatting, do you notice everyone walking past. I dont
Just how did Jane notice that abductor and in so much detail as well?
I would think you would take notice of others, wherever you might be.Would you? You can recall who passed you by on the street in the last couple of days can you?
Would you? You can recall who passed you by on the street in the last couple of days can you?
Certainly if you knew the person. Jez knew who Jane was and if she had passed I'm sure Jez would remember as he would have more than likely been struck by her non-acknowledgement of Gerry, one of her friends.Why would he necessarily remember if he never even noticed her in the first place? If he had been stood there alone waiting for someone to turn up then I might be more inclined to agree, but his attention was elsewhere, chatting to Gerry and with his baby in a push chair, not to mention it was quite dark. I don't suppose for one minute you will accept this as an explanation but perhaps you could explain why not?
Why would he necessarily remember if he never even noticed her in the first place? If he had been stood there alone waiting for someone to turn up then I might be more inclined to agree, but his attention was elsewhere, chatting to Gerry and with his baby in a push chair, not to mention it was quite dark. I don't suppose for one minute you will accept this as an explanation but perhaps you could explain why not?
I believe she saw crècheman but did she pass Jez? Not according to him she didn't.
''Very unlikely'' does not mean 'impossible' - just as 'rare' does not mean 'never'.
It makes no sense for JT to lie. Why would she? Would you?
To give somebody an alibi.
It's called keeping safe.Keeping safe in PdL, for a man ?
In that case surely Gerry would have said he saw her? Otherwise what was the point?
And that still doesn't explain why she would agree to give him an alibi which involved her lying to the Portuguese police and risking a prison sentence in a foreign country - possibly separated for years from her own children. Can you explain why she would even dream of taking that risk? Can you explain what she had to gain by criminally perjuring herself to the PJ that was preferable to her simply telling the truth?
Why would he necessarily remember if he never even noticed her in the first place? If he had been stood there alone waiting for someone to turn up then I might be more inclined to agree, but his attention was elsewhere, chatting to Gerry and with his baby in a push chair, not to mention it was quite dark. I don't suppose for one minute you will accept this as an explanation but perhaps you could explain why not?
And IIRC she hardly knew Kate and Gerry.
Can we be real Pathfinder?
In that case surely Gerry would have said he saw her? Otherwise what was the point?
And that still doesn't explain why she would agree to give him an alibi which involved her lying to the Portuguese police and risking a prison sentence in a foreign country - possibly separated for years from her own children. Can you explain why she would even dream of taking that risk? Can you explain what she had to gain by criminally perjuring herself to the PJ that was preferable to her simply telling the truth?
I believe she saw crècheman but did she pass Jez? Not according to him she didn't.Now how stupid would that be?
Now how stupid would that be?
"I know I will be really pointlessly stupid and completely make up that I walked past some tourist, for no reason whatsoever, knowing my statement will be contradicted"
IMO JT is a 100% honest witness, and she did walk past the chat. I would go much higher than 100% if it were possible.
Now how stupid would that be?
"I know I will be really pointlessly stupid and completely make up that I walked past some tourist, for no reason whatsoever, knowing my statement will be contradicted"
IMO JT is a 100% honest witness, and she did walk past the chat. I would go much higher than 100% if it were possible.
Carrying Madeleine away...IMO you are failing to distinguish between two VERY different things:
Not when Jez was facing Jane's way and if he knew Jez hadn't seen her or anybody in the street when they were talking. Any reconstruction would be a real eye opener.
Your reply has nothing to do with the questions I asked you in my post.
However, if you can explain how a recon would be carried out - I'd be interested to hear it. Would JT leave the table 5 mins or 10 mins after Gerry, and would Gerry and Jez stand in the street for 3 mins or 5 mins? What time would Jez set out on his walk? How would the 10 people involved deal with the fact that only 'approximate' times are known when it comes to carrying out a physical recon. How would the PJ approach this problem as IIRC there was only going to be one attempt at this recon?
IMO it's impossible to guarantee an accurate reconstruction in those circumstances, and why bother anyway - as SY have already done a forensic examination of the timings given and are satisfied from the results that it was possible that Madeleine was removed from the apartment by an intruder.
Surely that is all SY needed to establish.
That's what a reconstruction is for, to try and work out how and if the times fit, with those involved around to consider their statements and recollections based on actually being there on the ground.
That's what a reconstruction is for, to try and work out how and if the times fit, with those involved around to consider their statements and recollections based on actually being there on the ground.
Can you not see that?
So how can it be done?
For instance. The PJ ask Jez Wilkins to recreate his walk with his son. Jez says ''but I'm not sure what time I set out, it could be any time between 8.15 and 8.30.'' What would the PJ's answer be to that obvious problem?
The same goes for other people, especially JT who cannot be sure whether it was 5mins or 10 mins or sometime inbetween that she left the table after Gerry.
Unless by some billion to one miracle - 10 people all managed to exactly re-create their exact and precise movements in one attempt - then it could end up with say - Gerry being back at the table before JT had got up and before Jez had even arrived at the road - or Jez had come and gone before Gerry had left the apartment.
What would that prove - except that it's completely impossible to do a precise reconstruction when people only know the approximate times of when they did things.
Can you not see that?
Can you not see that an iterative approach to adjusting timings based on the statements and the participants themselves in a reconstruction is the only way of arriving at a more accurate timescale? This is why reconstruction is a standard part of PT police procedure.
It makes you wonder if the T9 just assumed it was intended to trip them up rather then find out what happened thus leading to suspicions.
Well if you can't see how impossible it would be for a recon to be carried out with any of the accuracy which would be vital to come to any viable conclusion - and in one attempt only - then there's really no point in discussing it further.
I can fully understand the misgivings felt by the T9. Their own personal experiences would mean they had every reason to be suspicious, and no reason at all to have the slightest trust in the motives of the PJ.
Well if you can't see how impossible it would be for a recon to be carried out with any of the accuracy which would be vital to come to any viable conclusion - and in one attempt only - then there's really no point in discussing it further.
I can fully understand the misgivings felt by the T9. Their own personal experiences would mean they had every reason to be suspicious, and no reason at all to have the slightest trust in the motives of the PJ.
it seems SY can do it on a computer
Well if you can't see how impossible it would be for a recon to be carried out with any of the accuracy which would be vital to come to any viable conclusion - and in one attempt only - then there's really no point in discussing it further.
I can fully understand the misgivings felt by the T9. Their own personal experiences would mean they had every reason to be suspicious, and no reason at all to have the slightest trust in the motives of the PJ.
Additionally they will have heard what happened in the Joana Cipriano case and in the Michael Cook case
The "flip-flops" were i.m.o. the type with ankle strap
Because IIRC they were on a tv broadcast. IMO they are ankle-strap flipflops (not loud flipflops which have only toe-straps).
It was not on 3 May however IMO shows the same flipflops, I will try to post something, may take a while.
Just pointing out that flipflop in the english language can mean either the style with only straps at the front which admitedly can be noisy, or the style which has the addition of straps at the back so like a sandal without solid sides.
It was not on 3 May however IMO shows the same flipflops, I will try to post something, may take a while.
Just pointing out that flipflop in the english language can mean either the style with only straps at the front which admitedly can be noisy, or the style which has the addition of straps at the back so like a sandal without solid sides.
If it has a strap it is a sandal.They may be called sandals with open sides, or flipflops with ankle straps (a description many shops use btw). IMO the noise peeps associate with flipflops is mainly based on the ones with straps at the front only.
Because IIRC they were on a tv broadcast. IMO they are ankle-strap flipflops (not loud flipflops which have only toe-straps).
Example of flipflops with anklestrap http://thumbs4.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mlXEzIyDbBwwnhuHd19-AuA.jpg
Brilliant. 8((()*/
I agree, they would be as silent as any other sandals.
Footwear and footsteps aren't silent. They are audible. People can hear you coming. You can hear people approaching. That's why you don't jump every time your husband/child enters the room. You heard them before hand.Cariad, as you well know,people walk past us every day and we dont notice their minor footstep sounds..
Cariad, as you well know,people walk past us every day and we dont notice their minor footstep sounds..
Why should Gerry and Jez be any different?
I do know whether someone is approaching me, Sadie, be it in my own home or out of teh street. That's why I don't collide with people all the time. I'm aware of my surroundings.
They werre standing, not walking, Cariad
Jez didn't even know her, so was unlikely to register this stranger who was wearing an oversized fleece.
As for Gerry if he was standing on the pavement with Jez a little uphill of him ... and the little boy a little downhill of him, then Jane NEVER came into his periferal vision. He just would NOT know she passed by.
Jez knew Jane as one of Gerry's friends. This alone would have made her memorable to him, if she had been there.If I was with my tiny sleeping child in a pram and was chatting with someone in the street I would be many times looking at my child it is natural parent behaviour and i.m.o. its clear to see this is the most likely reason he was not constantly watching the pavement as some seem to suggest.
If I was with my tiny sleeping child in a pram and was chatting with someone in the street I would be many times looking at my child it is natural parent behaviour and i.m.o. its clear to see this is the most likely reason he was not constantly watching the pavement as some seem to suggest.
Jez knew Jane as one of Gerry's friends. This alone would have made her memorable to him, if she had been there.I dont think you are right there Faith.
If I was with my tiny sleeping child in a pram and was chatting with someone in the street I would be many times looking at my child it is natural parent behaviour and i.m.o. its clear to see this is the most likely reason he was not constantly watching the pavement as some seem to suggest.
I dont think you are right there Faith.
Where did you get this from?
There was nobody else on that quiet deserted street. They couldn't miss her. When crècheman looked right before crossing the road he would've seen Gerry & Jez only 20/25 metres away. I wonder if SY asked him if he saw them >@@(*&)
Crècheman's view of Gerry & Jez if they were there when he crossed the road >@@(*&)
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ocr1a.jpg)
It was in Jez's rogatory statement :You are quite right, Faith. My apologies.
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.
Gerry and Jeze further away than that pathfinder. My GE makes it 31 metres.
IMO innocenttouristman would have looked right before he crossed the T-junction to check no cars were coming and would have seen JT and a little further away the chatters, however he would have no reason at the time to store this visual image away, he did not know it was going to be important, he would be looking only for moving vehicles, pedestrians are irrelevant to the "look before you cross" precaution. Anyway we do not have innocenttouristman's statement so we don't know whether or not he happens to recall the at the time irrelevant detail of seeing three people as he looked right for traffic.
It was in Jez's rogatory statement :
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.
IMO innocenttouristman would have looked right before he crossed the T-junction to check no cars were coming and would have seen JT and a little further away the chatters, however he would have no reason at the time to store this visual image away, he did not know it was going to be important, he would be looking only for moving vehicles, pedestrians are irrelevant to the "look before you cross" precaution. Anyway we do not have innocenttouristman's statement so we don't know whether or not he happens to recall the at the time irrelevant detail of seeing three people as he looked right for traffic.Another excellent observation 8@??)(
Making a video of flipflops with anklestrap will upload when finished if possible
Is it a video of Jane wearing those type of flip flops Pegasus...?Yes. It is very short 3 seconds filmed morning Friday 04 May hope this link works http://videobam.com/y[Name removed]S
Yes. It is very short 3 seconds filmed morning Friday 04 May hope this link works http://videobam.com/y[Name removed]S
IMO they are anklestrap flipflops the same worn the previous night and IMO they do modify the walking mechanics.
The kind of shoe I mean has at the front a strap which goes between two toes, and at the back a strap around the ankle.
Many people call these flipflops, especially because of the front strap between the toes.
Search engines show you many images for ankle strap flipflop.
Those are sandals Pegasus, probably Birkenstock or the like, not flip flops, which have no anklestrap.The Wikipedia entry is incorrect because it does not consider common usage by english speakers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip-flops
The Wikipedia entry is incorrect because it does not consider common usage by english speakers.
To find common usage do an internet search for anklestrap flipflop to see many people use the word filipflops when talking of flipflops with anklestraps.
Are you claiming that on evening of 3rd May JT was wearing flipflops definitely without anklestrap?
I have never used the term nor heard anyone else use the term anklestrap flip flop but if that's what you believe, who am I to argue.I already suggested a search engine search to give many examples.
Besides, as Icabod says, it's all academic anyway.
All I know is that it is quite ridiculous to suggest that the kind of footwear Jane Tanner was wearing is somehow relevant and important with regard to this crucial ... and very questionable ... piece of evidenceOK so let's look at your theory for why she would invent passing them ... ?
It's a nonsense distraction
... that woman would have been SEEN by the two men standing in that otherwise empty street
At some point, as she walked it's entire length ... and directly past them ... one of them, at least, would have SEEN her
It's beyond reason to suggest otherwise
OK so let's look at your theory for why she would invent passing them ... ?
I didn't say Jane Tanner 'invented' anything ... I said it is not possible for her to have passed the entire length of that otherwise deserted street without at least one of the only other two people there to have noticed herThe witness states very clearly in statements to portuguese and UK police that she definitely walked past GM and JW.
I don't think it is
That is the first step ... acknowledging that it was simply not possible
From there we can consider why false/mistaken witness statements were given
I didn't say Jane Tanner 'invented' anything ... I said it is not possible for her to have passed the entire length of that otherwise deserted street without at least one of the only other two people there to have noticed her
I don't think it is
That is the first step ... acknowledging that it was simply not possible
From there we can consider why false/mistaken witness statements were given
IMO they are anklestrap flipflops the same worn the previous night and IMO they do modify the walking mechanics.
The kind of shoe I mean has at the front a strap which goes between two toes, and at the back a strap around the ankle.
Many people call these flipflops, especially because of the front strap between the toes.
Search engines show you many images for ankle strap flipflop.
I didn't say Jane Tanner 'invented' anything ... I said it is not possible for her to have passed the entire length of that otherwise deserted street without at least one of the only other two people there to have noticed herOK, let's consider who gave a false statement then and why.
I don't think it is
That is the first step ... acknowledging that it was simply not possible
From there we can consider why false/mistaken witness statements were given
But she had trouble walking in them I.e. silly flip flops? ...I already posted a video and they are not silly at all.
I already posted a video and they are not silly at all.
The relevant pavement (chat) is of cobblestones.
Walking on cobblestones with soft thin soles modifies the wearer's walking mechanics.
All IMO.
Are you calling Jane a [moderated]? 8)--))No. The difficulty of walking, specifically on the pavement constructed of embedded small stones, was due to the the flipflops having thin soft soles. The protruding stones press on the base of a soft thin sole, causing painful pressure areas on the sole of the foot, so the wearer alters their walking method by "padding" to reduce this.
The supposed noise of flip-flops has been widely used by peeps on forums to claim the witness would have been loudly audible when she walked past the chat.
I posted a video of IMO the exact same footwear in action and showed the clearly visible ankle strap, which significantly decreases the noise.
Can you link to the point in her statement where she says they were the same footwear she wore later? Unless of course you think the only went on holiday with one pair of shoes?As you know that information is not given in the witness's statements. It is my interpretation of various statements, interviews, videos, etc. I have posted enough to give those peeps, who claim flipflops are very noisy, several things to think about, and reject as unscientific if they wish
Can you link to the point in her statement where she says they were the same footwear she wore later? Unless of course you think the only went on holiday with one pair of shoes?
when I was packing for a young family, with all their necessities taken into account, for a short holiday I would pack only basics and definitely no more than one pair of sandals or flipflops as well as one pair of shoes.Thankyou a breath of fresh common sense air is always welcome.
Of course it is possible It was dark. Gerry had his back to her - so it's totally believable that he wouldn't see her. Jez only had to be looking in a different direction in the few seconds it took for her to she pass by and he would have missed her. He and Gerry were talking - not standing there in complete silence - so there was noise - which was being generated by them both. Their attention was concentrated on eachother and probably the baby in the buggy.
Add to that the fact that there is no believable reason why JT would lie and its apparent that she did pass them and they simply didn't notice her.
... I just don't think it is possible that neither men would have noticed her presence in that street at some pointPlz present a better alternative then.
Plz present a better alternative then.
Why on earth do you think the witness would imagine or fabricate walking past the chat?
Quote from: icabodcrane on May 06, 2014, 12:51:05 AM
I didn't say Jane Tanner 'invented' anything ... I said it is not possible for her to have passed the entire length of that otherwise deserted street without at least one of the only other two people there to have noticed her
I don't think it is
That is the first step ... acknowledging that it was simply not possible
From there we can consider why false/mistaken witness statements were given
It's Gerry's alibi.
An alibi already given by Jez Wilkins.
Jez's timescales are more vague and doesn't tie Gerry in with the JT sighting.
Jez's timescales are more vague and doesn't tie Gerry in with the JT sighting.
I have no 'alternative' to offer ... and it is not necessary to have one in order to question Jane Tanner's implausible statementIt may be highly improbable to you, but it clearly did happen as there is no conceivable reason for her to have lied.
I have no idea whether Jane Tanner was untruthful for one reason or another, or if she was simply mistaken, or perhaps just confused
... and none of that matters, because whatever 'motivated' Jane to make the statement she did does not, by one iota, change the fact that the tale she told is highly improbable
It may be highly improbable to you, but it clearly did happen as there is no conceivable reason for her to have lied.
So do I understand this correctly? It was a fabricated alibi to finetune a genuine alibi which already existed for the time of a sighting which didn't exist because it too was fabricated?Except it wasn't a fabricated sighting because it actually happened as the man carrying the child could have verified at any point after JT gave her statement.
Except it wasn't a fabricated sighting because it actually happened as the man carrying the child could have verified at any point after JT gave her statement.Yes the witness is completely telling the truth IMO.
And we are asked to accept your opinion that it is possible without evidence ?
I live up a private road owned by me and two neighbours. The road is roughly 80m x 5m with no lighting. At night I could be deeply engrossed in conversation with one neighbour and the other would not be able to pass undetected. The scenario JT postulates is improbable. [ moderated ]
I have passed my own sister, within about 10 yards, in a shopping mal.
She was engrossed in conversation with a man in a wheelchair.
I stood and watched them for about 30 seconds, before my sister finally registered I was there.
If I'd just kept on walking, neither would ever have known ...
If you can point me to any scientific evidence which states categorically that it is not possible to walk up a dimly lit street past two men deep in conversation and not be noticed then I'll accept your point without further ado.
In fact, I'll accept your point now for argument's sake. OK, I agree - it's totally and utterly impossible what Jane said happened, so if she's not a liar then obviously she's mistaken. So, what was she mistaken about? She didn't see Gerry and Jez? Well how did she know they were there then? Because Gerry told her later? And so she somehow imagined she'd actually seen them even though she hadn't? Or was she mistaken about seeing the man carrying the child? The one that every doubter thought she'd made up only it turns out a guy matching his description did pass by at around the time she said she saw him, and was carrying a child. What was she mistaken about?
Read this and then tell me it is utterly impossible for Jez and Gerry mot to have seen JT:
The most effective cloaking device is the human mind
By Daniel Simons
SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE | SUBSCRIBE
SEPTEMBER 2012
13 6 1 1 15 1 1.6K
13 6 1 15 1 1.6K
For more than a decade, my colleagues and I have been studying a form of invisibility known as inattentional blindness. In our best-known demonstration, we showed people a video and asked them to count how many times three basketball players wearing white shirts passed a ball. After about 30 seconds, a woman in a gorilla suit sauntered into the scene, faced the camera, thumped her chest and walked away. Half the viewers missed her. In fact, some people looked right at the gorilla and did not see it.
That video was an Internet sensation. So, in 2010, I decided to make a sequel. This time viewers were expecting the gorilla to make an appearance. And it did. But the viewers were so focused on watching for the gorilla that they overlooked other unexpected events, such as the curtain in the background changing color.
How could they miss something right before their eyes? This form of invisibility depends not on the limits of the eye, but on the limits of the mind. We consciously see only a small subset of our visual world, and when our attention is focused on one thing, we fail to notice other, unexpected things around us—including those we might want to see.
Consider, for instance, a famous 1995 incident in which police were in hot pursuit of four suspects driving away from the scene of a shooting. After cornering the suspects, the first police officer on the scene, Michael Cox, chased one of them on foot. Other officers arriving on the scene mistakenly thought Cox was a suspect and beat him. Meanwhile, another officer, Kenny Conley, had taken up pursuit of the same suspect and ran right past the altercation. Conley claimed not to have seen Cox or his assailants, and he was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.
Conley’s conviction raised an intriguing legal issue: Could an eyewitness actually fail to notice an assault like that one? Last year, psychology professor Christopher Chabris and I decided to put Conley’s alibi to the test. Although we could not simulate a high-speed police pursuit, we could extract the most critical element: Conley’s focus on pursuing a suspect. In our experiment, we asked participants to jog behind an assistant and count the number of times he touched his hat. As they jogged, they ran past a staged fight in which two men appeared to be beating a third. Even in broad daylight, over 40 percent missed the fight. At night, 65 percent missed it. In light of such data, Conley’s statement that he didn’t even see Cox or his assailants was plausible.
Indeed, most of us are unaware of the limits of our attention—and therein lies the real danger. For instance, we may talk on the phone and drive because we are mistakenly convinced that we would notice a sudden event, such as a car stopping short in front of us.
Inattentional blindness does have an upside. Our ability to ignore distractions around us allows us to retain our focus. Just don’t expect your partner to be charitably disposed when your focus on the television renders her or him invisible.
FROM THIS STORY
VIDEO: The Monkey Business Illusion
PHOTO GALLERY
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/but-did-you-see-the-gorilla-the-problem-with-inattentional-blindness-17339778/#RopXSoAxEogfefe5.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
Good, this witness as I have said all along, is telling the truth.
BTW is anyone still claiming that flipflops are noisier than other shoes?
If so, when did you actually even hear a flipflop?
.....
long silence
And thanks for the good stuff on visual perception above.
I don't believe Jane could have passed within half a metre of Jez and Gerry on a dark and quiet street without being noticed by either of them.Yes - you did - for believing she had to have been noticed.
Their statements said she didn't, hers says she did. Someone got it wrong.
Yes - you did - for believing she had to have been noticed.
...There was absolutely nothing to conceal, so why all the ………….Agreed nothing to conceal and nothing suspicious about the chat or walking past it or the sighting.
That doesn't make sense?Why not? To clarify: you said "someone got it wrong". I replied: "yes you did, for believing that JT would have to have been noticed".
Why not? To clarify: you said "someone got it wrong". I replied: "yes you did, for believing that JT would have to have been noticed".
Make sense now?
It's about time to start looking closely at the scene. A quiet deserted lit street with no cars at the time she passed them without being seen. It is not possible IMO.
(http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/391153/article_img.jpg)
IIRC, in his second statement, Jes refers to having seen a woman in a purple top wandering about as he initially made his way down past OC mini reception with the pushchair. This woman he identified as one of the tapas group, namely, Jane Tanner. Could it possibly be that he has mixed up this sighting with the much later chat he had with Gerry when he stopped just short of apartment 5a on his return journey with the now sleeping kid?
IIRC, in his second statement, Jes refers to having seen a woman in a purple top wandering about as he initially made his way down past OC mini reception with the pushchair. This woman he identified as one of the tapas group, namely, Jane Tanner. Could it possibly be that he has mixed up this sighting with the much later chat he had with Gerry when he stopped just short of apartment 5a on his return journey with the now sleeping kid?
We have two sets of witnesses who contradict each other, one set has got it wrong by definition. If you can't see that you are being deliberately obtuse.Would it be the first time two sets of witnesses contradicted each other for perfectly innocent reasons? Did you even read the article I posted yesterday?
It's about time to start looking closely at the scene. A quiet deserted lit street with no cars at the time she passed them without being seen. It is not possible IMO.
(http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/391153/article_img.jpg)
It doesn't seem unreasonable to presume that the quality of light from this lamp was significantly poorer than that which is in place now. And that would appear to cast even further doubt on the reliability of Tanner's sighting, which, like the lamps themselves, has improved with age.
It's about time to start looking closely at the scene. A quiet deserted lit street with no cars at the time she passed them without being seen. It is not possible IMO.
(http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/391153/article_img.jpg)
I am somewhat confused by this thread.
What is it expected to reveal?
There was absolutely nothing to conceal, so why all the ………….
It just proves all the more, that if there was also inconsistencies in the statements given regarding the chat and JT passing, they were again caused by the stress of the situation, that the witnesses found themselves in
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. My flip flops weren’t as noisy as my shoes, but
If you are not accustomed to them the toe bar can make you feel insecure, at first causing you to grip on more with your toes.
2. Gerry had his back to the route/path, taken by JT in order check her children.
3. Gerry has a strong Glaswegian accent, so a woman's light footsteps probably wouldn't be heard above his voice.
4. Jez mentioned the bad lighting in the street and it was getting dark, but said he could see clearly.
5. Jez standing on the road would, I assume be lower than Gerry, who was on the edge of the pavement, so JTs head would be below Gerry, who was facing Jez , so JT in dark clothing slipping behind Gerry could easily have be unseen by Jez ?
6. What noises/music/chatting would be coming from the restaurant/Tapas bar/kitchens, nearby?
7. What parked cars or vans were on the side of the road, obscuring JT passing?
8. Just how long would it take to walk JT’s route.....? and how long would it take to look into a pram and check a child…..?
9. If JT did not pass them, how did she know that they were chatting at that time?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Without being there at that time and knowing all the details, surrounding the scene of the chat between Gerry and Jez, how can anyone possibly question JT’s account of passing them?
JMO of course
Jane Tanner is there - can you see her 8(0(*
(http://sojo-adventures.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/img_0624.jpg.w560h420.jpg)
That is an excellent photograph.
Before I scrolled up and saw your comment, I was visualising the two men talking and where Jane Tanner might have been positioned further up the road when she saw innocent man crossing the road ahead of her.
IMO Jane Tanner would have been particularly alert as she was walking alone in the dusk which is probably why her description of the unknown person she was walking toward was so precise.
So concerned was she about being alone that she completely ignored two people that she knew as she past them stealth like, she could have at least informed Gerry that Kate was angry about how long he'd been missing from the table.
Maybe you've missed the most obvious and relevant point. It can't be done as she claimed IMO!
Perhaps Jane Tanner was too polite to interrupt a private conversation particularly if it was to make a pejorative comment, and anyway, she was in a hurry to get to her apartment.
Obviously I didn’t explain my meaning clearly enough as you have totally misunderstood and misinterpreted what I have said. So here goes.
Jane Tanner is female.
She was walking from A to B on her own in unfamiliar surroundings as darkness was falling.
She was not afraid nor did she see anything which would have caused her to alert the males, one of whom she knew the other less so, making it IMO less likely she would have interrupted them.
She was walking towards a corner before turning into an area which she was aware was not particularly well lit.
As a female, I can assure you that under those circumstances Jane Tanner’s senses would be on full alert, particularly when watching an unknown male crossing her path.
Cannot understand why her partner O'Brien allowed her to tackle said corner other than he would have spoken to the chatting pair!
I'm not trying to be smart here, Peter, but I really do not understand the point you are making.
Any chance you could rephrase it for me, please?
I'm pointing out that the two checks were very close together so it would have been logical for just O'Brien to have done his but of course he would have spoken to Gerry and Jes.
Thanks for that clarification.
We don't really know what he would have done or if he would have taken any notice of innocent man. So speculation is not productive.
So no speculation about abductors, burglars, paedos?
That photo of the GNR policeman standing guard outside 5a proves that the lighting was good in May 2007. I had originally thought that the area in which Gerry and Jes were standing was in shadow but that isn't the case.You seem to have missed my post about that photo, earlier on this thread. It was not taken in 2007, but a couple of years later.
In my opinion the only way Jane could have slipped by is if both men were stood in the street with their back to Jane. She could have walked past them silently if they were engrossed in conversation.
You seem to have missed my post about that photo, earlier on this thread. It was not taken in 2007, but a couple of years later.
You seem to have missed my post about that photo, earlier on this thread. It was not taken in 2007, but a couple of years later.
11 MAY 2007 (photo date) - As you can see there's plenty of light on the street outside 5A.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/fdc/caminho%20jane_small.JPG)
MAY 2007 - As you can see there's plenty of light on the street outside 5A.What is illuminating the back of the car? Certainly not a street lamp. Another car's headlights? Camera crew lights?
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/fdc/caminho%20jane_small.JPG)
What is illuminating the back of the car? Certainly not a street lamp. Another car's headlights? Camera crew lights?
Who cares why it's green? It was a journalist who took it present in May 2007. Jez said he could see clearly in his statement. The fact of the matter is that it wasn't too dark not to see the elusive Jane Tanner.
who cares why its green?...because it is NOT a true representation of the light level
Do you think it was too dark not to see her?I've no idea but that photo proves nothing
Who cares why it's green? It was a journalist who took it present in May 2007. Jez said he could see clearly in his statement. The fact of the matter is that it wasn't too dark not to see the elusive Jane Tanner.It wasn't pitch black but it was dimly lit. Why was the lighting improved in that street shortly after Madeleine went missing, if not for the fact that lighting was considered inadequate?
It would have to be pitch black not to see her. There are lights all along that road. The shadowy dark bit is the pathway in front of the apartments. Jez said he could see clearly and he was adamant nobody passed.
It would have to be pitch black not to see her. There are lights all along that road. The shadowy dark bit is the pathway in front of the apartments. Jez said he could see clearly and he was adamant nobody passed.
do you have a link to Jez's statement
What was the lighting level to start with?
What was the level it was improved to?
Do you have evidence the lighting was improved because of the reason you state rather than as the result of a new EU Directive on lighting?
Without this knowledge your comments are merely subjective opinion.
Care to share the info I ask for which you must have to have been able to make such authoritative comment?
You seem to have missed my post about that photo, earlier on this thread. It was not taken in 2007, but a couple of years later.
Yes, I missed your post. I assumed that the photo was taken shortly after Madeleine disappeared because of the presence of the GNR officer standing there. So why was he standing there, had it anything to do with the Ch4 documentary for example?The photo was taken as part of the C4 reconstruction.
Another point is that Jes clearly saw Gerry after he emerged from the entrance to 5a and from the other side of the road so the lighting must have been good.
Statement taken in England, in English. Handwritten, then typed:
EXACTLY. I merely TYPED it. So I expect there's no doubts about "translation"
''I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said you're on walking duty. I said I was staying in and [banned word] and cons and what to do with the children.''
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm
Same link as above, you will also find the detailed drawing where X marks the spot
or full page link:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/9of8-ecf89375.gif
What was the lighting level to start with?If the lighting has been improved as a result of an EU Directive on lighting that would tend to suggest it was below the accepted standards set by the EU for lighting levels. Do you have evidence that this is the reason why it was changed shortly after Madeleine disappeared? If so please share the info with us. Incidentally, I am passing of this information which was gathered by the well-known Doubter Nigel Moore from an article he wrote arguing that it would have been far too dark for Jane Tanner to have seen the man at the top of the street in any detail whatsoever. So - if you have a problem with this opinion, I suggest you address it to him also, thanks.
What was the level it was improved to?
Do you have evidence the lighting was improved because of the reason you state rather than as the result of a new EU Directive on lighting?
Without this knowledge your comments are merely subjective opinion.
Care to share the info I ask for which you must have to have been able to make such authoritative comment?
You seem to be avoiding direct questions by asking a daft one and blaming your post on someone else.Yep. I know what's happening here, it's the same old doubter tactic - fixating on the minutiae (demands for the specific light levels at 9.15pm on May 3rd 2007 for example)in order to avoid addressing the glaringly obvious, ie: that Jane Tanner did not lie, had no reason to lie, and has been thoroughly vindicated by SY.
Specifically what was the lighting level at the time Jane walked up the street, what was it improved to and when?. If you don't actually know then a simple "I don't know" would have sufficed. Instead you show you don't know by waffling.
Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones ?
Yep. I know what's happening here, it's the same old doubter tactic - fixating on the minutiae (demands for the specific light levels at 9.15pm on May 3rd 2007 for example)in order to avoid addressing the glaringly obvious, ie: that Jane Tanner did not lie, had no reason to lie, and has been thoroughly vindicated by SY.
How has she been "vindicated by SY"?Think about it.
They announced her sighting was not of the POI.
Please point out where I said Jane Tanner lied? as this seems to be what you imply.What's with the "paleface" bit, doubter?
You kicked off the lighting bit just before my membership was approved on this forum. I merely asked you to substantiate your allegations about the lighting which you still haven't leaving me with the impression you are making it up as you go along.
The crux of the matter now appears to be that Jane did not see Tannerman the Abductor but saw another man.
Gerry was chatting to Jez in the street somewhere near the gate of apartment 5A at about 21:15 ish on 03052007 a fact that no one has ever denied this may or not be of relevance. (refer to my earlier post if you will)
So what's with the "doubter" bit paleface?
If I may add my tuppence worth. The lamp standards don't appear to have been altered between 2007 and 2010 but the bulbs might have been replaced to given increased luminance.Not just the bulbs have changed but the light fittings themselves, from round to conical.
One fact we know for sure though is that a spotlight was added in the block 5 (north) car park evidence by the before and after photos we have.
Not just the bulbs have changed but the light fittings themselves, from round to conical.
What's with the "paleface" bit, doubter?
Are you doubting that the lighting has been improved since Madeleine went missing, or only doubting that it was as a result of her disappearance that it has improved? And what does it matter if it was as a result of an EU directive or because PdL won a nationwide competiton to get new street lamps, if the net result is that lighting levels have subsequently improved since 2007? And if the lighting has improved, then there is no point trying to draw conclusions about lighting levels in 2007 by posting photos of the street in 2009 is there? Which was my original point all along, so what specifically do you have a problem with?
I would refer you to what is possibly my first or second post on this forum. I don't give monkey's about the street lighting as it is irrelevant to where we are at now. Jane didn't see an abductor (says DCI Redwood) Gerry was in the street at 21:20 or thereabouts after visiting the apartment (Jez says so). The child was not in the apartment at 22:00 (Kate says so) Therefore the child vanished between about 21:10 and 22:00. The streets could be lit by arc lights every ten metres or be as black as the ace of spades it doesn't matter. The interesting thing is why was the issue of lighting raised by Mr Jones before I was a member of this forum and why am I getting it in the neck over a topic he raised? Is there someone from whom I need permission before posting a reasonable question? Which basically was "substantiate the statement as per forum rules".Oh dear. Perhaps if you had read back a little further you would realise that it wasn't I who raised the issue of the lighting in the first place, I was merely responding to someone who posted a picture of the street in 2009 all lit up like a Christmas tree trying to make the point that it would have been impossible not to see JT walking by. If you don't give a monkey's about the lighting why subject me to a barrage of questions about it in the first place?
So lets forget about the lighting eh? It might be a humourous time wasting diversion but it does not materially affect the situation as it now stands.
I missed that Alfred, well spotted. Can you attach photos please.
What is the source of that photograph please?bump
ETA:
No need to answer - I have found out for myself. Funnily enough it is from an article by Nigel Moore on McCannfiles in which he opines that the street-lighting would have been much dimmer than that shown in the photograph, as the street lighting in PdL had been considerably improved since Madeleine disappeared, and that therefore JT's sighting of a man carrying a child could not have been reliable. How ironic. He's probably now arguing somewhere now that it was bright enough for Gerry and Jez to have seen her that evening!
Here is the final quote from his article:
And here is the full article for your reference. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id237.html
If you refer back to the link I gave about this from McCannfiles there is a comparison between the two light-fittings in photographic form. Not sure how to post the actual photos here.
Jez saw Gerry from across the road and crossed over to talk to him. Therefore if Jez saw Gerry from a much greater distance in the same lighting then they would certainly have been able to see Jane, if she had been there.
Not if they both had their backs to her in the gloom.
This is madness. For years JT has been accused of making up the sighting - now that SY have verified there actually WAS a man matching her description you STILL claim she is lying. This is completely illogical (and that's putting it mildly).
Not if they both had their backs to her in the gloom.
Sorry?
Where does ANYONE confirm Tanner's sighting?
No where.
Gerry and Jez did not see Tannerman.
SY have announced Tannerman is a red herring.
Tannerman has never been identified - we still don't know what sex his child is even, surely an important factor when Tanner is blithering about pink pajamas.
Where is the night creche he was seen walking from? Did Tanner even report him going in the right direction?
No, she did not. The "right direction" was the direction [ deleted ] took.
Jane Tanner said she saw a man carrying a child near the apartment at approx 9.15
SY confirm there was a man carrying a child near the apartment at approx 9.15
Sorry?
Where does ANYONE confirm Tanner's sighting?
No where.
Gerry and Jez did not see Tannerman.
SY have announced Tannerman is a red herring.
Tannerman has never been identified - we still don't know what sex his child is even, surely an important factor when Tanner is blithering about pink pajamas.
Where is the night creche he was seen walking from? Did Tanner even report him going in the right direction?
No, she did not. The "right direction" was the direction [ deleted ] took.
So if I said I saw a man in a brown coat on Oxford Street at 1pm today and SY said there was a man in a brown coat on Oxford Street at 1pm, they must have been the same person?You just don't get it do you? How did JT know that a man carrying a child in pink PJs passed the apartment at that time (as verified by SY) unless she actually saw it happen? Please explain that one, I look forward to it.
How do you account for the fact that JT's description of the man she says she saw bore a startling resemblance to the man who actually DID pass by at the time she says she saw him, carrying his two year old daughter in pink pyjamas?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460669/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapping-innocent-British-father-mistaken-key-suspect.html
Oh look, non-biased Daily Mail giving us unsourced information.
Can you please tell me where it says (a direct quote please) that the man Tanner saw was indeed crossing that road at that time as she said?
You can't. All they said was "there was a man carrying a child who has been ruled out".
No details from Andy's mouth about when. None at all.
Hint = a quote from the bottom of the article, still speaking as though the disappearance has been solved -
This means Kate McCann may have missed the abduction of her daughter by a matter of minutes on May 3, 2007.
According to your source, the "abduction" is no longer theory, but fact.
8()(((@#
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460669/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapping-innocent-British-father-mistaken-key-suspect.html#ixzz31jVPPhKm
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Posters are reminded of the off topic rule."We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor" - Andy Redwood.
A couple of observations.
1. Andy Redwood has never said that the Tanner sighting was definitely that of another tourist. I believe the strongest term he used was "probably was".
2. Madeleine was a few days from her fourth birthday when she disappeared but the tourist's child was only two. With such an age difference surely this would have been obvious to any witness? A two-year-old doesn't have long dangly legs for a start?
Could you please address this point Silky -
how did JT know that a man passed Apartment 5A carrying a small female child at 9.15pm, one who bore a striking resemblance to the man that SY later identified, if she hadn't been where she said she was that night?
I suggest you re-watch the Crimewatch interview with Redwood.
Pathetic.Why did he say that he believes this man was the one seen by Jane Tanner then?
He does not say anything about mystery dad's movements on 3 May.
Not a word.
You have clearly refused to watch this clip again. Really, you are making a complete fool of yourself.
Answer the question.Dear oh dear. Try and get your head around this. JT says she sees a man carrying a young girl at approximately 9.15pm on the night of 3rd May. For years no one knows who this man is. Then SY take over the investigation and identify that there were several children sleeping in the creche nearby. They conduct an interview with a man who is the father of one of these children, who matches the description given by JT and discover that he carried his child home at around the same time as the JT sighting. If this man had said, 'I carried my child back at 10pm or 8pm' then SY would not have been able to dismiss JT's sighting so confidently as the timings would not have tallied. Do you get it now?!
WHERE does Andy say that mystery dad was walking along that street, at that time, that night?
Nowhere.
I have no doubt Tanner saw mystery dad, not at all.
What I DO doubt is that she saw him at 9.15 on 3 May, on that street.
Prove that he was there thanks. YOU prove what YOU'RE claiming, its lazy and rude to say "go and find it yourself" when you are basing your entire argument (and insults) on something that is not true.
Dear oh dear. Try and get your head around this. JT says she sees a man carrying a young girl at approximately 9.15pm on the night of 3rd May. For years no one knows who this man is. Then SY take over the investigation and identify that there were several children sleeping in the creche nearby. They conduct an interview with a man who is the father of one of these children, who matches the description given by JT and discover that he carried his child home at around the same time as the JT sighting. If this man had said, 'I carried my child back at 10pm or 8pm' then SY would not have been able to dismiss JT's sighting so confidently as the timings would not have tallied. Do you get it now?!
One last attempt to explain this to you before bedtime.
Answer the question.
WHERE does Andy say that mystery dad was walking along that street, at that time, that night?
I understand that mystery dad's actual movements have NEVER BEEN CONFIRMED.I give up. I trust that anyone else reading this exchange understands perfectly well what I'm driving at even if you refuse to.
By anyone.
I also understand that mystery dad was identified as Robert Murat, and the child as Madeleine....by Tanner.
And what of the direction of mystery dad's trail? Nowhere near the Smith sighting, in the opposite direction in fact.
So WHERE does Andy say that Tanner saw mystery dad that night on that road?
WHERE?
I give up. I trust that anyone else reading this exchange understands perfectly well what I'm driving at even if you refuse to.
Sorry to put a fly in your ointment but it is by no means confirmed that the man Tanner claims to have seen was another innocent tourist on his way home from the night crèche.
Andy Redwood refuses to come out and state categorically that to be the case. This I suspect is because the guy isn't sure himself what time he walked past block 5. Also taking into account the fact that he was not walking away from the night crèche which he fails to explain. In addition, a two-year-old is much shorter than a four-year-old and does not fit with Tanner's description.
If there is a simple explanation then why not reveal it?
I am very suspicious of this belated attempt to rule Tanner man out, I just don't buy it!
Andy Redwood said he is "almost certain", so 'almost certain' that he has been on national television staking his reputation on the FACT that SY has now ruled out the JT sighting as the abductor. But like I said before, in order for JT to have either been mistaken or lying it would require a certain amount of collusion from SY which, from what you have written above, seems to be what you are suggesting, if not who are you suspicious of?
I am suspicious that Redwood cannot come out and say categorically that it was him. What is he scared of?
I am suspicious that Redwood cannot come out and say categorically that it was him. What is he scared of?Why do you assume he's scared of anything? In life there are few 100% certainties and especially not when the memories of others are being relied on to piece together a picture of events that took place days, weeks, months or years ago. Hence he is only "almost certain" (a phrase incidentally also used by climate scientists when discussing their thoughts on the causes of global warming - "almost certainly man-made", something they cannot prove beyond any doubt but for which they believe there is overwhelming evidence).
Almost certain in police speak means we think it might be the case but we still just aren't sure.There's no statement from him in the files because he only recently came forward. Why did it take him so long to come forward? Who knows? It rather seems like the police investigation revisited all those parents with kids in the creche that night and perhaps that is the point at which the penny dropped for him / SY (the "revelation moment"). You would have hoped that SY would have established enough detail from this man about his movements that night to enable them to be "almost certain" it was him, information that we are not privy to so are in no position to cast doubt upon it. What's the alternative? That SY are completely rubbish at their jobs or part of some unknown conspiracy?
Either he is or he isn't. Why was he walking the wrong way on a cold night with a scantilly clad two-year-old? Why did he not come forward to SY years ago when the identification of Tannerman was such a hot topic on the internet?
This guy's child was the same age as the twins so they probably played together in the toddlers day crèche by the tennis courts. As such he would be well aware of Madeleine's disappearance yet it takes nigh on seven years to Id him?
Why is there no statement from him in the files?
Perhaps we should accept certain things at face value. Jane Tanner walked up the street without being seen by Gerry or Jez, she saw a man carrying a child across his arms, the man was walking from west to east across her line of sight, The Metropolitan Police Service are "almost certain" they have identified the man. By the same token The Metropolitan Police Service are "almost certain Jane Tanner didn't see a man abducting Madeleine McCann.
So where does that leave us?
With "Smithman" as the most likely candidate as abductor?
And with Jane Tanner vindicated as an honest witness.
Sorry to put a fly in your ointment but it is by no means confirmed that the man Tanner claims to have seen was another innocent tourist on his way home from the night crèche.
Andy Redwood refuses to come out and state categorically that to be the case. This I suspect is because the guy isn't sure himself what time he walked past block 5. Also taking into account the fact that he was not walking away from the night crèche which he fails to explain. In addition, a two-year-old is much shorter than a four-year-old and does not fit with Tanner's description.
If there is a simple explanation then why not reveal it?
I am very suspicious of this belated attempt to rule Tanner man out, I just don't buy it!
Probably barking up the wrong tree ... but here goes ...
What if the parent and child who have been eliminated from the inquiry are the ones seen by the Smith family?
What if the Met have a lead on Tannerman ... but don't want him to know that?? We have no idea what they and the PJ are working on, and they ain't going to tell us.
OK ... I'm not very good at conspiracy theories ... so could that be a possibility?
What Redwood actually said was...
"The careful and critical analysis of the timeline has been absolutely key. Primarily, we are focused on the area between 8.30 and 10.00. We know that at 8.30 that was the time that Mr and Mrs McCann went down to the tapas area for their dinner. We know that at around 10pm, that was when Mrs McCann found that Madeleine was missing."
....which allows for the possibility that the children were not actually checked during this period.
With "Smithman" as the most likely candidate as abductor?Your second point I agree with completely.
And with Jane Tanner vindicated as an honest witness.
IMO Jane Tanner is not only an honest witness but a very perceptive one.Agreed completely
The fact that Dr McCann can be placed in a specific location – give or take what side of the road – at a specific time, as well as can be recollected by two honest witnesses, does not make him a liar.
It makes him mistaken.
When one considers the unimaginable stress he was to be put under less than three quarters of an hour later it doesn’t make that a particularly remarkable occurrence - in most peoples’ opinion.
Then why not admit that you were simply not sure where you were standing and as your fellow witnesses agree then you must have been mistaken ?
I have no idea, that is something you would have to put to him.IMO it's likely that that two people accurately remember the side of the road and that one genuinely misremembers.
IMO if Dr McCann firmly believed his version of events ~ which was obviously the case ~ why should he alter it? and why should it matter?
Three witnesses stated they were in the street somewhere between the tapas restaurant and the exit from 5a. One said one thing, the second said something else and the third something else again.
None deviated from the fact that they were there.
If their statements had been verbatim ~ then it might have been considered that something was amiss.
I have no idea, that is something you would have to put to him.
IMO if Dr McCann firmly believed his version of events ~ which was obviously the case ~ why should he alter it? and why should it matter?
Three witnesses stated they were in the street somewhere between the tapas restaurant and the exit from 5a. One said one thing, the second said something else and the third something else again.
None deviated from the fact that they were there.
If their statements had been verbatim ~ then it might have been considered that something was amiss.
Three witnesses were, allegedly on the street, two said the same thing. Please don't try to rewrite history by claiming the accounts were all different.You think Gerry should have changed his statement? And yet when there are slight changes between McCann and friends' statements this is used as evidence by doubters of deceit. Incredible.
And the reason Gerry should have changed his account when it was apparent that he was wrong ? To avoid undermining the credibility of his main witness to the abduction and pour doubt on her powers of recall..
Why he didn't just accept he was wrong is an interesting question indeed.
Three witnesses were, allegedly on the street, two said the same thing. Please don't try to rewrite history by claiming the accounts were all different.
And the reason Gerry should have changed his account when it was apparent that he was wrong ? To avoid undermining the credibility of his main witness to the abduction and pour doubt on her powers of recall..
Why he didn't just accept he was wrong is an interesting question indeed.
I don't think Gerry is the sort of person who can ever admit he was wrong - about anything.
You think Gerry should have changed his statement? And yet when there are slight changes between McCann and friends' statements this is used as evidence by doubters of deceit. Incredible.
I think that when the 10th of May timeline on which Gerry collaborated was markedly different regarding the position of his chat with Jez from his subsequent statements then an explanation is certainly in order as to the reason for that change.Why do you feel he owes you an explanation? Have you considered the possibility that he has either explained any anomalies to the police already, or that further clarification was not sought by the police as it was not considered important enough?
The 'important' witness of the trio said to be present at the time was Jane Tanner ... it was she who saw 'the abductor' afterall ( according to the McCanns )
Gerry McCann, whilst insisting on her reliability where 'the child carrier' was concerned, simultaneously questioned her reliability regarding where he and Jeremyy Wilkins were
If Jane Tanner's reliability as a witness is called into question, it is Gerry McCann who brought attention to it
The 'important' witness of the trio said to be present at the time was Jane Tanner ... it was she who saw 'the abductor' afterall ( according to the McCanns )
Gerry McCann, whilst insisting on her reliability where 'the child carrier' was concerned, simultaneously questioned her reliability regarding where he and Jeremyy Wilkins were
If Jane Tanner's reliability as a witness is called into question, it is Gerry McCann who brought attention to it
( according to the McCanns )
According to a very insistant Jane Tanner ... who has never deviated one iota from her sighting of the person carrying the child.
IMO your final sentence is utter nonsense.
Anything and anyone appearing to support the fact that Madeleine's parents are not involved in her disappearance is subject to concerted and vitriolic attack.
It is the McCanns who have maintained, for the last seven years, that Jane Tanner saw Madeleine being abducted
... yet Gerry McCann questioned Jane Tanner's reliabilitity as an eye witness by contradicting what she claimed to have seen that night
He contradicted her statement ... thereby bringing into doubt her reliability as a witness
That's what he did
Neither Dr McCann nor Jez saw Jane Tanner although she saw them.
Nothing at all contradictory about that.
She saw what she saw ~ they saw neither her nor the individual seen by her.
I reiterate, there are those who require nothing at all to question the reliability of witnesses whose evidence does not match with what they would like to think happened.
For example, I think there is far more to think about regarding the Smith sighting than Mr Smith's change of statement.
There is the remarkable similarity with Jane Tanner's description, down to thinking he didn't look like a tourist.
In fact they were so similar that for a long time one was used to corroborate the other.
I have no 'agenda' Brietta ... I have no idea what happened, and therefore have no need to 'match' evidence to fit a particular theory
When I question it is because I genuinely find an aspect of this case questionable
In this instance, I question the fact that Gerry McCann unequiviocally accepted Jane Tanner's recollection of seeing 'the abductor' ... and yet contradicted her recollection of seeing him and Jez
By doing that ( questioning Jane Tanner's memory of events ) he cast doubt on her reliability as a witness
Why do you feel he owes you an explanation? Have you considered the possibility that he has either explained any anomalies to the police already, or that further clarification was not sought by the police as it was not considered important enough?
Oh but it was considered important enough. That's why Rebelo pushed for a reconstruction. Do you really think Gerry would have been able to use the force of his personality when the PJ were coordinating the action rather than Emma Loach ?I very much doubt that the issue of exactly where Gerry was standing whilst chatting to Jez was the reason Rebelo pushed for a reconstruction. it's simply not that important. We KNOW Gez chatted to Gerry at around 9.15pm and we now KNOW that JT saw someone crossing the street carrying a child at roughly the same time. SY accept this, I accept this, why won't you?
I very much doubt that the issue of exactly where Gerry was standing whilst chatting to Jez was the reason Rebelo pushed for a reconstruction. it's simply not that important. We KNOW Gez chatted to Gerry at around 9.15pm and we now KNOW that JT saw someone crossing the street carrying a child at roughly the same time. SY accept this, I accept this, why won't you?
I'm afraid you are wrong. Where everyone was standing when Tanner allegedly saw the child carrier was foremost in Rebelo's mind, as can be seen from the Archiving Report.
From the Archiving Report :
E – About the interest of the reconstruction
Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation, it was decided to carry out the "reconstruction of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts, the following very important details, among others:
1 – The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;
What a pity the original investigation didn't think it was important enough to carry out a reconstruction at the time when memories were fresher and could have been jogged.
All the participants were at hand ~ the lighting conditions would have been similar ~ and there was a chance of of locating independent witnesses present in the vicinity around the time.
Who knows ~ they might even have factored the night creche record into it.
Could we please stick to the point. I'm sure you'll have plenty of opportunity to castigate Amaral, his team, in fact the whole Portuguese judicial system, in the due course.
The main point is Rebelo was not convinced that the Tanner sighting happened as described and called for a reconstruction to clarify these anomalies ( the archiving report tells us this ), the McCanns and friends decided they didn't want to clarify the anomalies. Make of that what you will.
When the files were released it probably had the same effect on the British press as the FSS revelations about forensics on the British police.
The deficiencies of the investigation were laid bare.
None were more aware of the manner in which that had been conducted than the so called Tapas 7 who had been at the recieving end. Their experience of the new investigation had not been conducive to reinforcing confidence in the Portuguese justice system and they were of the opinion that the proposed reconstruction was not to find out exactly where people were standing in the street or to aid Madeleine, but to help the Portuguese build a case against her parents.
-- The group were baffled as to why police were calling them back for the re-enactment a full year after Madeleine went missing, and demanded to be told how it would help the inquiry.
In an email to police chief Paulo Rebelo in April, the McCanns' friend Rachel Oldfield wrote: "We are still very uncertain of the motives in organising such a re-enactment.
"We feel we would be making ourselves and our families extremely vulnerable by returning."
The friends also hit out at Portuguese detectives' aggressive questioning when they were re-interviewed in the UK.
An email from Russell O'Brien and his wife Jane Tanner said: "The thrust of the... questions seemed only to focus on Kate and Gerry's culpability.
"After a year of lies, accusations and intrusion, I am sure that Mr Rebelo can appreciate our revulsion at what Kate and Gerry have been forced to endure."
The shocking state of the Portuguese investigation is laid bare in the police files, which reveal that British authorities gave Kate a police manual when she became increasingly desperate for ideas to find Madeleine. The technique book gives step-by-step instructions on solving crimes and was handed to the McCanns by British experts.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/secrets-of-the-madeleine-mccann-dossier-325724
I'm afraid you are wrong. Where everyone was standing when Tanner allegedly saw the child carrier was foremost in Rebelo's mind, as can be seen from the Archiving Report.OK, it was one of numerous reasons, granted. One that has subsequently proven less important with the revelation that there really was a man crossing the road carrying a child exactly as JT said there was, yet still we have to debate this point for all eternity it seems...
From the Archiving Report :
E – About the interest of the reconstruction
Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation, it was decided to carry out the "reconstruction of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts, the following very important details, among others:
1 – The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;
Again not relevant. You can supply link after link to tabloid tosh but it won't change the main points. Rebelo, not Amaral who I accept was, unfairly, mistrusted by the McCanns and their friends asked for the reconstruction. The McCanns had no reason to mistrust him and, in fact, seem to have welcomed him as a new broom, if the tabloids are to be believed, so why not take part ?
If they and their friends were telling the truth, as they protested, the reconstruction would have proved that and, you would think more importantly, eliminate the McCanns as suspects and refocus the investigation elsewhere.
It would appear the suggested reconstruction which was to take place long after Madeleine was abducted and long after the PJ had dismissed the opportunity to have a reconstruction at an earlier and certainly more relevant time ~ was in the end totally unecessary in clearing the Drs McCann of involvement in their daughter's disappearance.
I note you agree that the focus of the investigation was on Madeleine's parents.
Perhaps if the focus had been on home invaders ~ those capable of assaults on children ~ the witness statements identifying people who appeared to be taking an interest in apartment 5a ~ and less time and resources devoted to the Drs McCann, we could have been in a different situation today.
No, but they knew JT had seen the man before they gave any statement at all. Yet, you believe they only concocted the patio door entry story at the second statement. And - isn't it ironic? Here is a doubter who obviously believes JT DID see a man at the time she said she did, while elsewhere other doubters have it that JT may have seen him on a different day or at a different time altogether, or maybe never actually saw him at all! None of it really makes any sense does it? Unless you consider that actually an abductor DID take Madeleine during the window of opportunity that SY have stated they have identified by their forensic examination of the timeline.
Read the first and second statements. I believe Tanner did see the man but I don't believe she passed Gerry and Jez as she claimed.When did she see him then?
When did she see him then?
I would have to question crecheman first.Do you not think SY did that? Do you not think that they were able to be "almost certain" it was him who JT saw, based on the time he said he passed Apt 5a? Or do you think SY didn't really bother to ask him such a question?
Do you not think SY did that? Do you not think that they were able to be "almost certain" it was him who JT saw, based on the time he said he passed Apt 5a? Or do you think SY didn't really bother to ask him such a question?
Yes SY will know a lot more. I think she saw him at 9:12.So - she saw a man, carrying a child which she believed at the time may have been the abductor, but she .... about seeing Gerry and Jez talking together (which they WERE around that time) because...?
Do you not think SY did that? Do you not think that they were able to be "almost certain" it was him who JT saw, based on the time he said he passed Apt 5a? Or do you think SY didn't really bother to ask him such a question?
Thing is he didn't know the exact time he passed the car park at the front of Block 5. SY is taking 2 and 2 and assuming a 4 whereas we know it could very well be a 22.That's right WE don't know what time he passed the car park, SY however have interviewed the man and are therefore better placed to know than we are what time he is likely to have passed by.
I don't believe she passed them where she claimed. If she walked passed them then I question whether they were present at that time and somebody was elsewhere.Sorry, that makes no sense to me.
Sorry, that makes no sense to me.
What makes no sense to me is how she walked past them without being seen or heard on a quiet deserted street. If they did a reconstruction everyone would know that it was not possible.
What makes no sense to me is how she walked past them without being seen or heard on a quiet deserted street. If they did a reconstruction everyone would know that it was not possible.You believe JT saw Crecheman at 9.12pm. How does this contradict Jez's statement of where he was and what he was doing at around this time?
What makes no sense to me is how she walked past them without being seen or heard on a quiet deserted street. If they did a reconstruction everyone would know that it was not possible.
Don't you realise Gerry knows this? Why do you think he insists the chat took place on the opposite side of the street and at a spot where there is little light?
Jes Wilkins, from his statement:
Relative to the sighting in Dr. Francisco Gentil street;
From the location where we met for our conversation, it is possible to see the top of the hill. I cannot confirm if I was always turned in this direction. It is definitely possible that someone could have crossed holding a child without my noticing.
And he didn't see crecheman?Did you not read what he said?
Did you not read what he said?
Does he say that he saw anyone?No, he saw no one apart from Gerry but he concedes that it is quite possible that someone could have passed without him noticing as he is unable to confirm that he stayed in the same position at all times during the chat with Gerry. Which bit of this is hard to understand?
No, he saw no one apart from Gerry but he concedes that it is quite possible that someone could have passed without him noticing as he is unable to confirm that he stayed in the same position at all times during the chat with Gerry. Which bit of this is hard to understand?
I have no problem with separating what he saw from what he accepts might have been possible for others to see.He is talking about himself and not what may have been possible for others to have seen though.
No, he saw no one apart from Gerry but he concedes that it is quite possible that someone could have passed without him noticing as he is unable to confirm that he stayed in the same position at all times during the chat with Gerry. Which bit of this is hard to understand?
I think we need to be clear on this pointUnlikely perhaps, but not impossible as he states his position may well have changed during his chat with Gerry.
Jeremy Wilkins refering to the man carrying a child ... he felt it was possible that a man could have crossed the top of the road without him having noticed
With regards to Jane Tanner, however, Jeremy Wilkins felt it 'unlikely' that she could have passed without him noticing
Unlikely perhaps, but not impossible as he states his position may well have changed during his chat with Gerry.
Unlikely perhaps, but not impossible as he states his position may well have changed during his chat with Gerry.
Why should two casual acquaintances be so deep in a 'chat' as to be totally unaware of their surroundings?Why shouldn't they be? Is the depth of friendship an indicator of depth of conversation? I don't understand why people find this so hard to conceive of. If your attention is distracted by a conversation it's quite possible to miss what is going on around you. Don't tell me it's never happened to you, or that you've never had cause to say"ooh, I never saw you standing there!" or that no one has ever said to you "you walked straight past me and never even said hello!" It's happened to me on many occasions but perhaps I'm just super unobservant.
Why shouldn't they be? Is the depth of friendship an indicator of depth of conversation? I don't understand why people find this so hard to conceive of. If your attention is distracted by a conversation it's quite possible to miss what is going on around you. Don't tell me it's never happened to you, or that you've never had cause to say"ooh, I never saw you standing there!" or that no one has ever said to you "you walked straight past me and never even said hello!" It's happened to me on many occasions but perhaps I'm just super unobservant.
Perhaps you are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness I expect some people to see this link but not read it. Some will read it but not see its relevance, some will simply ignore this post as if they never even saw it at all.
I got so bugged I turned it off and turned on another showre-posting this comment because I was rude the first time round and caused grevious offence for which I am most humbly apologetic and now rightly punished:
But there was the same old shoot-'em-up and the same old rodeo.
The Coasters
The Met have said (in convoluted Redwood speak) Jane Tanner did not see an abductor. Who was where deaf as a post and blind as bat and at what time don't really matter. It is an interesting conversation point and that is about all. Jane didn't see an abductor; who is now in the frame for abduction now and why?
If 9 months ago I had said JT didn't see an abductor the faithful would have been all over me like cheap suit. Now it is accepted because "SY" say so; fascinating.
Tanner can't even remember walking past them because she thought she would have said something to Gerry. She presumed that she did as is clear in her rog interview. So she is unreliable if she can't remember properly what actually happened. She does remember seeing crecheman and I believe she did.Yes, I recall you said she saw crecheman at 9.12pm as opposed to the 9.15pm she said she saw him. Would this have been before or after Jez and Gerry had their 3 to 5 minute chat?
Yes, I recall you said she saw crecheman at 9.12pm as opposed to the 9.15pm she said she saw him. Would this have been before or after Jez and Gerry had their 3 to 5 minute chat?The witness stated clearly that she saw the man and child just after she passed the two men chatting.
"Clarified light beginning to fade, when Jane left the table reasonable amount of light, aware that there were street lamps in the area. Route back from table- shutters didn’t look at them, but would have noticed if there was anything suspicious or untoward- felt that it was a loaded question. Inner route would take less than minute and outer route just over a minute." (Russell O'Brien)
>@@(*&) Inner route wouldn't have passed Gerry and Jez.
...1. The evening creche timesheet is not in the published files.
Q1. Is there anything in the files as to when the child (of the parent now ID'd as the likely dad in the Jane Tanner sighting) was signed out of the Ocean Club late-night crèche? I'm looking for more than Crimewatch suggests it "might" or "must" be so. Actual evidence as timesheet in - timesheet out. I'm guessing that by page 53 of this thread the answer is no, but hey-ho.
Q2. The Tanner man was going the wrong way to get from the crèche to where he was walking. (I think Jane Tanner even brought this anomaly up, but please don't quote me.) On a cool to chilly night, with little clothing to keep the child warm. I have seen the post before mine (summarised by me as "long walk to get child to sleep"). Is there any other explanation for going the wrong way?
Jeremy Wilkins said they only chatted for 3 minutes and adamant he didn't see anyone in the area so Jane must have been a quick flip flopper. He said they were standing near to the side gate leading to 5A (pathway 5 metres to his left). I still think Jane may have turned onto the pathway before she reached them and saw the man crossing from there at a further distance away. It would explain why she never uttered a word. The McCanns say Jane saw the man from 50 metres away in their first statements so that would mean by the entrance to the tapas bar when she first got out onto the road. Stevie Wonder would have seen her passing by the side gate.No they were NOT standing by 5A gate. they were chatting on the corner of the alleyway with Jez standing in the gutter with the pushchair and Gerry facing him on the kerb.
(http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article334158.ece/alternates/s615/2CD25BE0-D5BB-8BDC-646EA3C92CAB0088.jpg)
No they were NOT standing by 5A gate. they were chatting on the corner of the alleyway with Jez standing in the gutter with the pushchair and Gerry facing him on the kerb.
Plenty of room for Jane to pass by, the footpath there is 2 metres wide
We have gone over the flip flops extensively and realised that expensive leather flip flops do NOT make that awful slapping sound that cheap plastic beach ones do.
We have also analysed and realised that Gerry when talking and looking at Jez, never had Jane in even his periferal vision.
What are you going on about - it's in the files ......
As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry’s back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10 – 15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
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.
1. Where did you get that statement from? I cant find it. Citation please.
2. If you take the time to look back, you will find that Jez draws a map where he has very carefully positioned himself on the corner of the alleyway with a cross.
Jezes map
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1249.15 see post 29
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/9of8-ecf89375.gif)
OK; Jez's actual map, so that was where Gerry and Jez stood chatting. The cross very definitely marks the spot where they were.
3. You will see a video where Jane goes against Gerry and insists the exact spot that Gerry and Jez stood chatting was on the alleyway corner.
Remember "The Cutting Edge Video" Youtube? Just spare a moment and have a look at that. See Janes evidence
Jane Tanner at from about 9.30 but most especially about 10.00. She is very clear even arguing with Gerry. She is clear that Gerry and Jez were chatting on the corner of the alleyway. Not by the gate.
4. If you care to analyse Jezes statement and think about it,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
Eventually, I left one road to the other side of the street to the pool complex, between the McCann apartment and the Tapas Bar. In order to visualise this street, I believe it was the street most used by the news agencies and journalists as all the parked cars indicated during the coverage period.
[Jez is talking about the area opposite the Tapas /garden reception building]
When I left the street, I remember seeing Gerry on the other side of the same. I believe that there was some speculation in the press regarding the circumstances of this encounter. I remember that I crossed the street to talk to Gerry. According to what I remember, Gerry was walking when I spotted him.[/b] As I mentioned previously, I assumed that he had gone to check on the children and was headed back to the Tapas Bar.
The statement says that Jez left the little side street car park (across the road from the tapas reception) and saw Gerry walking on the other side the street. This means that Gerry had left the steps and was thru the garden gate walking towards the Tapas as Jez saw him, so they did NOT meet at the steps / gate ... but considerably further down[/size]
It has been suggested by Heriberto on another thread that Jane saw the carrier at 9.50 and not 9.15pm. Any thoughts?
It has been suggested by Heriberto on another thread that Jane saw the carrier at 9.50 and not 9.15pm. Any thoughts?
If I may input my tuppence worth. Jez saw Gerry walking down from the side gate to 5a and assumed that he had come from his apartment. Consequently, Gerry was beyond the gate to 5a but had not yet reached the alleyway. By the time Jez had crossed the road Gerry must have been close to the alleyway as shown in Jez' sketch.
LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY
OFFICER'S REPORT
To: Receiver
From: DC 1756 Mike Marshall
Incident: Op Task
No. of pages: 3
Date: 05/11/07
Jeremy WILKINS and Bridget O'DONNELL
[Address]
During the evening of Wednesday 31 October 2007, Jeremy and Bridget were visited at their home address by DC 1756 and DC 4356 from the Leicestershire Op Task team. This visit was organised to attempt to gain background information in relation to the McCann's and members of their group whilst on holiday in the Prai Da Luz resort.
Contact was made as result of their previous interaction with the OP Task Team and their willigness to discuss their relationship with the group.
Both Jeremy and Bridget work within the television production industry producing documentary programmes. Bridget previously worked alongside the Police on the Crime Watch television programme and was aware of the importance for the need of collating background information.
Jeremy and Bridget have been married for several years and have two children, XXXX (F) 3 yrs and XXXX (M) 8 months. It may be of interest to note that these names are Hebrew names and spellings have been checked.
They chose that specific period to go to the Praia Da Luz resort because of the childcare facilities and the fact that it was the cheapest week of the season.
They flew to the resort on Saturday 28 April 2007. Whilst on the plane they came into conversation with Russell O'Brien and Mathew Oldfield due to their children being of the same age range and the fact that they were playing together on the plane.
They were also aware of the presence of their partners, Jane Tanner and Rachel Manphilly.
Upon arrival in the resort they were allocated apartment O in block G4. This block being situated near to the tennis courts and adjacent to the block in which the McCann’s apartment was situated. It is on the junction of Rua 1 De Maio and Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva, with Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins running parallel.
Jeremy first met Gerry at a tennis coaching session held by staff associated with the Mark Warner resort on the first Monday of their holiday (30/05/07).
He found Gerry to be amicable and willing to chat. He paired with Gerry for part of the lesson and described him as "Good company if not a little gregarious".
He did not meet up with Gerry or any of the group again until Tues 1 May 07.
This was again during a tennis session and it was at this time he met some of the group and realised that the people he met on the Plane were indeed part of the group.
Jeremy explained that he used the crèche facility provided by the resort. This was a child care facility which allowed parents to leave their children, aged between 3 – 5yrs old, with trained staff at various times of the day. He recalled walking to the crèche with Gerry who had left Madeleine with the staff. This was about 1230 hrs on Tues 1 May. He then went on to explain that the children could be left with the staff during the evening and that most would be picked up before 10pm. It was not an unusual sight to see people walking through the site at night with a child in their arms asleep. The crèche would also provide a blanket to cover the child if required. He had taken up this facility hence his knowledge of the procedure.
Jeremy and Bridget had visited the Tapas bar on several occasions during which they noticed that the group had reserved a table for every night of their holiday. This appeared to be contrary to the set down procedure of not booking a table any further than three days ahead. The group appeared boisterous but good natured with Gerry being the central figure. His gregarious character making him appear to be the central figure in the group and almost holding court. However they did notice that David Payne was equally gregarious and almost playing along with, if not up to, Gerry.
Jeremy and Bridget became aware that although the McCanns had taken up the use of the crèche facility during the day, they had not done so for the evening hours and had left the children in the apartment but were checking on them regularly and that other members of the group appeared to be doing the same.
They expressed surprise over this as the McCanns apartment was set in a location that appeared vulnerable. They were aware that the apartment was a corner building and with easy access from the road. The apartments were not very secure and entry could easily be gained.
They went on to explain the events of the 3 May 2007.
He went to play tennis at 1030hrs and noticed Gerry was there. He engaged in general conversation with him as well as a female member of Gerry's group, but he could not name her. After which they all went to the pool. Both Gerry and Kate were present this time and spent the majority of the time talking with the tennis coach. The coach appeared to be talking about her life in general and both Jeremy and Bridget noticed that Gerry and Kate were listening intently to her. Jeremy thought this to be courteous of them considering they did not know her.
At 1230hrs both Jeremy and Bridget went to pick up their children from the crèche. They did not have any interaction with the group again that afternoon. They decided to spend the evening in the apartment. Their son was unable to sleep so about 2015hrs, Jeremy took him, in the pushchair for a walk. He walked around the main area of the resort and eventually ended up in the Tapas bar where he used the toilet facility. He was unable to state what time this was. His son was still awake so he walked in the area of the ocean club gardens and walked along the alleyways in that general area. He eventually made his way along Rua Dr Francisco toward the direction of Rua Dr Agostinho. At this time he was walking on the right side of the road passing the Tapas bar area to his left. He noticed the bad street lighting and although it was not completely dark there was enough light to see clearly. As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry’s back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10 – 15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
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 alledgedly 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.
They went to bed about 2300hrs but were waken about 0100hrs by a knock at the door. On answering the door they spoke with the resort manager and a person they knew was a member of the group but they only knew him as Matthew. It was then they found out that Madeleine was missing.
They had no further contact with the family apart from seeing them in passing whilst at the resort.
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 organisation employed by the McCanns. They were very persistent and made several attempts to contact him both at work and at home. They had no objections to being included but were concerned as to the method being used.
We did have a long discussion about all this, Sadie. If you remember John was kind enough to work on an illustration of the most likely spot for them to have been standing, even ammending it two or three times to suit.Thank you Brietta.
No-one disagreed with the positioning at the time ... but I have discovered that one has to continue making the same argument time after time because there are those who just will not accept a concensus or a conclusion and are in total denial of provable fact.
Good work in producing all that information yet again ... keep it close ... because I am sure you will have to refute the same argument yet again at some point in the near future :)
Thank you Pfinder
You do realise this is a third party statement. Not the words of Jez, but the officers interpretation of them
So subject to the chinese whispers syndrome.
Are you saying that you prefer this third party statement to Jezes actual words? and contrary to the drawing he did for the PJ ?
Cos that aint safe
The whole point in going back months later was to get the real precise facts down on record correctly or what's the point?I appreciate that Pfinder, but it doesn't alter the fact that they were third party, so potentially subject to errors
I appreciate that Pfinder, but it doesn't alter the fact that they were third party, so potentially subject to errors
Very doubtful if it was recorded.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 he had his back to her as she passed by on the other side of the road, to distance himself from JT's claim it everything went pear shaped.
Deniability was 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 ?
We know one thing for certain. Jes said he never saw her and if Gerry knew that was correct he couldn't see her either.
Indeed PF.
According to the Moyes couple, who were drinking on their balcony at 9.15, there was no-one on the street. That makes JT, GM & JW all liars. Just who does one believe?
Individual's timings may well be off but if an onlooker saw the whole conversation between Jez and Gerry but did not see JT that would be telling.
That's not what is being said.
According to the Moyes couple, who were drinking on their balcony at 9.15, there was no-one on the street. That makes JT, GM & JW all liars. Just who does one believe?
JW said he was talking to Gerry next to the side gate so Moyes wouldn't be able to see them from their balcony unless they were looking right over it which they wouldn't be doing.
And indeed why should they, unless they were being disturbed by someone flip-flopping their way up the road, and wondered who was making all the noise.
JW said he was talking to Gerry next to the side gate so Moyes wouldn't be able to see them from their balcony unless they were looking right over it which they wouldn't be doing. If they were on the other side of the road as Gerry said they would be able to see them 8)--))
Carole Tranmer could see the side gate to 5a from Mrs Fenn's balcony, which was immediately above the McCann apartment.
Not if you're sitting down you can't. She must have heard something and looked over the balcony - standing probably. Well it depends where you are.
So you accept the Moyses are mistaken in their assertions, then. Good.
No I'm saying they wouldn't be able to see Gerry and Jes talking at the side gate from their balcony if they were sitting. It's impossible unless they were looking right over it. Pamela Fenn had to look right over her balcony to be able to talk to Gerry below at around 10:30.
So you accept the Moyes were probably mistaken. Why can't you accept that Gerry/Jez were also probably mistaken?
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 !
It is of course just possible that Dr Amaral's opinion of this sighting was correct.
As predicted your explanation is extraordinarily lame. How is your 'bloke on a balcony' scenario - not seeing a woman walk by any different to two men on the street not seeing a woman walk by? Apparently if a (mythical) bloke on a balcony says he never saw a woman walk by the whole thing falls apart, but not if Gerry and Jez who were right there on the street say it?! Please explain. Remember it is your belief that this sighting was invented for the SOLE and CRITICALLY IMPORTANT purpose of giving Gerry an alibi - well worth the risk I would have thought that some bloke on a balcony at some distance might see two blokes chatting in the street but fail to notice a woman on the pavement walking by for a few short seconds. Your theory is nonsensical and is blown to bits by the fact that Gerry did not back up JT's supposed fake sighting. I know you will cling to this ridiculous notion of yours despite the glaringly obvious logic of what I have written above, I just hope that one day you will come to your senses - vain hope, I know. 8(8-))
As I have said Gerry couldn't take the chance that an unconnected individual had witnessed his chat with Jez so best course of action was to deny he had seen Tanner. If the deception worked then great but if not there was a built in 'get out ' clause "Honest gov that Jane's a wiley one. Told me she'd walked by me and I took her word for it. How was I to know she was fibbing'.That simply does not address the point I made in my post. And, what possible reason would Jane have for lying, if Gerry wasn't also somehow involved. You've really not thought this through logically at all have you? You know, you can still be a "sceptic" and think the parents dunnit whilst at the same time letting go of some of the more implausible aspects of your theory, none of your brothers and sisters in arms will think any the less of you, promise!
That simply does not address the point I made in my post. And, what possible reason would Jane have for lying, if Gerry wasn't also somehow involved. You've really not thought this through logically at all have you? You know, you can still be a "sceptic" and think the parents dunnit whilst at the same time letting go of some of the more implausible aspects of your theory, none of your brothers and sisters in arms will think any the less of you, promise!
Until we know what happened that night we have no idea what kind of leverage was used on Tanner to tell her tale but tell a tale she did. Now you might disagree, which is fine, but until all the cards are on the table my theory is every bit as valid as yours.Your theory makes no sense whatsoever, but you carry on with it by all means if it makes you happy.
JW said he was talking to Gerry next to the side gate so Moyes wouldn't be able to see them from their balcony unless they were looking right over it which they wouldn't be doing. If they were on the other side of the road as Gerry said they would be able to see them 8)--))
No, several metres down from the side gate. Remember he saw Gerry walk down from the gate and he (Jez) crossed the road to engage him in conversation.
Mapa Jez below... X marks the spot!
I believe this is what Jez and Jane described.
(http://i.imgur.com/Ud6y15w.jpg?2-Tanner_sighting_07)
That's impossible Jez is facing her and didn't see anyone on the street.
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.
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. (JW)
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Tappas9/JS.jpg)
"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
Wasn't there something posted on here a couple of days ago about Jez going to the loo in O/C at about 8.30 - 9.00 ?
If he was heading home after talking to Gerry, why is he back at O/C half an hour later?
And indeed why should they, unless they were being disturbed by someone flip-flopping their way up the road, and wondered who was making all the noise.Not the wretched flip flops again ! I dont believe how you guys keep going over and over the same old rubbish.
That's impossible Jez is facing her and didn't see anyone on the street and I can't believe she wouldn't say anything when passing within a couple of feet. You must be able to hear her on quiet deserted street walking past. My first thought was she may have seen the man crossing before she got to them and turned left onto the lane.
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.
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, ..snip ..(JW)
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Tappas9/JS.jpg)
"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. ...snip... 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
Passing within a couple of feet? First of all the image doesn't really show where Gerry and Jez stood. John very kindly put that image up for me and having bothered him too much with several images I let it go with that image, thinking at that stage that it was near enough. Now, I realise that clearly it wasn't !
.
In fact Gerry and Jez were at the corner on the alleyway as you call it lane. Gerry was on the kerb and Jez was in the road with the pushchair.[which if I remember was pointing downhill towards the tapas reception]
That exact position has been very well analysed and well discussed and based upon
1) Jezes full description, in his full statement which is very clear.
2) His plan of where it was
3) Janes determined insistence against Gerry in the cutting edge video
the consensus was that Gerry and Jez were on the alleyway corner and NOT at 5A gate.
Please can we get that right Pf.
The pavement was 2 metres wide and on the corner of the alleyway even wider, so where does the 2 feet come from?
I have already dealt with the nonsense about flip flops in a previous post, just. Jane would not have been wearing rubber / plastic flip flops to dinner. She aint any ordinary scrubber, ya know. Her footsteps could have been near silent
Where does this come from? I dont recognise it. Would be grateful if you would point me to it in the files. Thanks.
As Gerry and Jez were over 30 metres = 100 feet approx. away from where Tannerman crossed the road at the top of the hill, I find it extreemly difficult to believe that Jez said that . The lighting wasn't brilliant and 100 feet is a long way away even in the daylight.
Where did those words come from Pf ?
Little wonder thta he didn't see Tannerman at about 100 feet away
Now, Jane, he didn't see her either nor did Gerry. Well Gerry had his back to Jane, but Jez was opposite Gerry. In an early post Heribert Janosch, our prfessional investigator, informed us thta our periferal vision was only about 40^ on either side of the direction we were looking. If Gerry was looking at Jez or down at Jezes little one then Jane would have been at the margins or beyond his periferal vision. In other words he would not see her.
Jez however was more likely, but again if he was looking at Gerry then for most of her walk Jane would have been out of his periferal vision. If he were looking down into the buggy, he certainly would not have seen Jane as she came closer but may have seen a figure in the distance ... and she just didn't register. He didn't really know her and IIRC she was in a huge fleece/ anorak belonging to Russell, who I understand is a giant of a man. As an amorphus, probably navy blob, I doubt that he would notice her at all especially if the conversation was lively.
I am remembering 40^. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Good post, Sadie.
I don't see what the problem is.
Jane Tanner left the table appx. ten minutes after Gerry McCann.
If Gerry McCann had not stopped on his way back to talk with Jez Wilkins he and Jane would probably have passed - and would have seen - each other en route possibly somewhere around the reception area.
Jane returned to the restaurant appx. five minutes after leaving, Gerry McCann was back before her.
The men just did not see her, simple as that ... and Sadie has given good reasons for that.
Where else would she have been other than where she said and where else would Gerry and Jez have been within the given time scale?
The claims that Jane Tanner lied about seeing a man with a child have been put to rest, so why is the truth of the rest of her statement still being questioned?
So you don't believe Gerry crossed over the road to talk to Jez ?
Good because I don't either.
As to sadie's post.
' At this time he was walking on the right side of the road passing the Tapas bar area to his left. He noticed the bad street lighting and although it was not completely dark there was enough light to see clearly. As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.'
SNIP
'they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate'
And
'the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks ( the place sadie insists Gerry and Jez were standing ) about 5 metres ( 16.404 ft ) to his left'
I trust that clears things up once and for all.
Does it say if they were in the road or on the pavement talking?
Does it say if they were in the road or on the pavement talking?
Crossing the road means getting to the other side. So Gerry would be on the pavement and Jez would be in close proximity not in the middle of the road with a pram.
Gerry could have stepped off the pavement into the road also. It's an instinctive thing to want to stand at the same level as the person with whom you are conversing.
So, Jane walked along the pavement, up past some parked cars.....
Nope that never happened according to Jez. I would put the pram on the pavement like most normal people.
Being a saddo I once plotted all this out to scale , as near as possible, from statements made etc.Assuming JT never stopped walking perhaps you should also have calculated the length of time she spent within the 40 square metres?
Jane and Jez don't agree to where Jez and Gerry stood to within 4 metres and Gerry thought he and Jez were on the opposite side the road about 10 metres away.
Taking all that into consideration one could reasonably say all three protagonists once stood inside a rectangular space of about 40 m2 ?>)()<
One can see why a reconstitution might have helped.
Assuming JT never stopped walking perhaps you should also have calculated the length of time she spent within the 40 square metres?
Alice would need to factor in the type of flip flops JT was wearing as the cheap sort hinder walking speed.Also, the gradient of the pavement, being uphill would slow her down too, not to mention how much food and drink she had consumed by this point.
Well if we work on information contained within statements we have three adults, two male and one female and a baby in a buggy occupying at max a 40m2 area any time between 20:45 and 21:15. About 15 to 20 metres further up the road was another male adult moving west to east, carrying a child. The adult carrying the child did not give a statement to which we are party. Of the others:What really happened is that JT walked past the two men as she said she did, and neither of them saw her walk by, as they said in their statements - unless you wish to accuse one or more of these individuals as a liar, and venture an opinion as to what any of these people had to gain from lying about this event?
Two of the adults (one m one f) say they were all on the west side of the street one (m) says the two male adults were on the east of the street.
The two male adults saw neither the one carrying the child nor the female passing by.
The female adult says she passed by the two male adults with the baby not speaking to them and then saw the male adult with the child crossing the road at the junction ahead of her. She says he was moving west to east.
So what really happened? Any takers?
How long it took the female to traverse any distance and whether her footwear was haute qualite by Philippe Ferlop or knock offs from Solly down Romford market is of not much relevance.
There would not have been sufficient room on the pavement to do that. Gerry was stood with his back to the gate, not sideways on.
Yes they would.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/08_03/McCannsVillaES_468x313.jpg)
What really happened is that JT walked past the two men as she said she did, and neither of them saw her walk by, as they said in their statements - unless you wish to accuse one or more of these individuals as a liar, and venture an opinion as to what any of these people had to gain from lying about this event?
Jez & Gerry weren't standing where Kate & Gerry are in that picture, they were further up the road.
Gerry - pushchair - Jez - all in a line at 90° to the kerb? No, don't think so.
You can fit a pram on the pavement facing upwards in the direction he was going and talk to him.
"I do not remember having seen anyone else at this time besides Gerry. After leaving each other, Gerry walked downward in the direction of the Tapas Bar and I began to walk in the other direction, up the pathway." (JW)
Twins pram
(http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w117/LizzyTaylor/may7buggy2.jpg)
Facile. The usual "are you calling them liars" routine.I don't give a flying one tbh. "No one really knows where they were or at what time" isn't strictly true is it Alice? The three adults in the scenario know (more or less) and they have told us. Now either they are telling the truth, or completely and catastrophically mistaken, or simply lying. My money's on the former, how about you?
I have merely been repeating the alleged facts from statements.
No one really knew where they were or at what time, which may have had relevance.
Tell us, Alf, in your opinion which side of the street the protagonists were on? They cannot all be right so who do you think was mistaken and why?
I don't give a flying one tbh. "No one really knows where they were or at what time" isn't strictly true is it Alice? The three adults in the scenario know (more or less) and they have told us. Now either they are telling the truth, or completely and catastrophically mistaken, or simply lying. My money's on the former, how about you?
You have failed to address the specific question.I have no opinion on it, it doesn't really matter. I don't think anyone was lying and that's all that does matter as far as what is being implied on here is concerned.
I have no opinion on it, it doesn't really matter. I don't think anyone was lying and that's all that does matter as far as what is being implied on here is concerned.
I would have thought it important to the investigation to know where people were in relationship to each other and at what times.Why is it important to know exactly where Gerry and Jez were standing then?
Why is it important to know exactly where Gerry and Jez were standing then?I did include the time element which you seem to have ignored.
I did include the time element which you seem to have ignored.Define "wide discrepancy". And then tell me whether or not in your view it is possible for the three statements to have such "wide discrepancies" because of mistaken recollections on the part of one or more of the protagonists.
We seem to have gone full circle again.
The fact remains there is a wide discrepancy between the stories and the times and only one time and place can be correct....ding dong.
Define "wide discrepancy". And then tell me whether or not in your view it is possible for the three statements to have such "wide discrepancies" because of mistaken recollections on the part of one or more of the protagonists.
If they standing where Gerry said they be under the light. Crecheman would be able to see them before he crossed the road and the yard would've asked him.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PB/Three_on_the_street.jpg)
So you belueve Gerry is mistaken and he dug his heels in about where he was standing why ?I don't recall specifying who was mistaken, but whoever it was I believe it was an innocent mistake because as far as I can see there is no other plausible explanation. Your explanation is not plausible, IMO.
I don't recall specifying who was mistaken, but whoever it was I believe it was an innocent mistake because as far as I can see there is no other plausible explanation. Your explanation is not plausible, IMO.
If both Jez and Tanner claim he and Jez were standing at approximately the same place and on the same side of the road surely even Gerry must his recollection was wrong, especially y as he would also know that he was, by digging his heels in, undermining the rest of Tanner's claims. Why would he do that ? What was so important about being on thatvother side of the road ?It couldn't possibly be sheer pig-headedness and a refusal on Gerry's part to accept he was mistaken could it? After all, these are faults that have been attributed to him by "sceptics" many times in the past...no, far more likely that he had to be on the other side of the road because...well, why don't you tell us Faithlilly, you who knows everything.
I don't recall specifying who was mistaken, but whoever it was I believe it was an innocent mistake because as far as I can see there is no other plausible explanation. Your explanation is not plausible, IMO.
Define "wide discrepancy". And then tell me whether or not in your view it is possible for the three statements to have such "wide discrepancies" because of mistaken recollections on the part of one or more of the protagonists.
Of the three individuals two standing in the street and one walking past only Jane Tanner had the whole picture and as far as that is concerned I would go with her description of where the men were standing particularly as this was backed up by Jez Wilkins at the time.It goes something like this: GM needed an alibi for the Smith sighting. He therefore asked JT to lie for him and pretend that she had seen a man who looked just like himself carrying a child at the same time as she saw him and Jez talking. Later, GM would refuse to back up this critical alibi from JT by claiming he never saw her walk by. And then in a further twist, the Met backed up JT's sighting by inventing a Tannerman and parading details of the fake one in the press and on Crimewatch, for the sole purpose of unsettling the McCanns and JT, though with little sign of this having had the desired effect.
It doesn't matter a jot, what was important was Jane Tanner's sighting of the man with a child at the junction and the appx. time of that.
She was not required as an 'alibi' for Dr McCann ... Jez Wilkins was an independent observer able to give appx. time and place.
She did not require an alibi for herself.
So what on earth would be the point of any of the three lying?
OK scrap the word wide. There are discrepancies in the statements. For example who was on which side of the road where they were with respect to the gate from Apt 5A and the time.Good, glad we got that sorted then, and that I have your blessing to continue to hold my opinion.
It is not for me to say why there are discrepancies; there are discrepancies. If you wish to believe there aren't discrepancies / the discrepancies have no relevance that is fine by me.
It couldn't possibly be sheer pig-headedness and a refusal on Gerry's part to accept he was mistaken could it? After all, these are faults that have been attributed to him by "sceptics" many times in the past...no, far more likely that he had to be on the other side of the road because...well, why don't you tell us Faithlilly, you who knows everything.
Of the three individuals two standing in the street and one walking past only Jane Tanner had the whole picture and as far as that is concerned I would go with her description of where the men were standing particularly as this was backed up by Jez Wilkins at the time.
It doesn't matter a jot, what was important was Jane Tanner's sighting of the man with a child at the junction and the appx. time of that.
She was not required as an 'alibi' for Dr McCann ... Jez Wilkins was an independent observer able to give appx. time and place.
She did not require an alibi for herself.
So what on earth would be the point of any of the three lying?
Of the three individuals two standing in the street and one walking past only Jane Tanner had the whole picture and as far as that is concerned I would go with her description of where the men were standing particularly as this was backed up by Jez Wilkins at the time.
It doesn't matter a jot, what was important was Jane Tanner's sighting of the man with a child at the junction and the appx. time of that.
She was not required as an 'alibi' for Dr McCann ... Jez Wilkins was an independent observer able to give appx. time and place.
She did not require an alibi for herself.
So what on earth would be the point of any of the three lying?
Because it makes the story of not seeing Tanner much more credible silly.
And comforting you also recognise that Gerry's arrogance knows no bounds, even if by failing to reign it in undermines his prime witness.
No what was important was how plausible Jane's presence was on that street at that time. Without that everything else is nonsense.What is nonsense without JT's presence on the street at that time, exactly?
Ah yes, I forgot that element of the theory - Gerry needs to undermine JT's credibility as a witness and alibi just in case she was spotted by someone on a balcony whilst walking past when the two men were not actually there - or something like that, isn't that right Faithlilly?
So to recap - GM needs everyone to believe JT saw the abductor at the same time as she saw him, but he also needs to undermine her sighting by asserting that he never saw her at the time she claims to have walked by. You see how sensible and logical this theory is? Perfick!
PS: Why do you find it comforting that I have mentioned Gerry's stubbornness and refusal to accept he might be wrong, whilst at the same time refusing to acknowledge that this is a probable explanation for his insistence about where he was standing that night...?
No it's comforting that you accept it. What arrogance eh !I find it very odd that you should find comfort in my accepting certain faults in Gerry McCann's character. Why do you seek comfort from opinions that I hold? Do you think maybe I'm on the verge of turning, that you might have succeeded in recruiting a new "sceptic"...? @)(++(*
I don't recognise the scene in the photograph.
If you are interested in a picture of how the scene actually looks at night I refer you to Heri's blog where he explains it all succinctly.
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html
Well if we work on information contained within statements we have three adults, two male and one female and a baby in a buggy occupying at max a 40m2 area any time between 20:45 and 21:15. About 15 to 20 metres further up the road was another male adult moving west to east, carrying a child. The adult carrying the child did not give a statement to which we are party. Of the others:
Two of the adults (one m one f) say they were all on the west side of the street one (m) says the two male adults were on the east of the street.
The two male adults saw neither the one carrying the child nor the female passing by.
The female adult says she passed by the two male adults with the baby not speaking to them and then saw the male adult with the child crossing the road at the junction ahead of her. She says he was moving west to east.
So what really happened? Any takers?
How long it took the female to traverse any distance and whether her footwear was haute qualite by Philippe Ferlop or knock offs from Solly down Romford market is of not much relevance.
@)(++(* No thanks. Can you see the light now?Why are you deliberately putting out this misinformation? It has been worked out on this forum using three soundc sources that Gerry was mistaken and that the chat took place across the road , but partially in the road and on the corner of the allleyway.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Dt3aEQy4rKc/TOjij34mJRI/AAAAAAAABnw/gwmGfcMYetY/s1600/windiows2.JPG)
'From what I remember, the conversation happened right there on the pathway 'You are remembering wrongly. In Jezes Rogatory statement, as far as I can find, there is no mention of the pathway.
Jez Wilkins rogatory statement.
They must have asked crecheman if he saw them before crossing. You would take a look to the right when crossing the road carrying a child. It's Elementary My Dear Watson!Yep, and they were over 30 metres (100 Feet away on the opposite side of the road, and NOT directly opposite the rather weak street lamp.) He himself, Tannerman, was almost under a lamp as he crossed the street
They couldn't see the side gate unless you look over the balcony.I am doubtful that they (the Fenns) could see the side gate because there is a jutting out tiled roof which would prevent them seeing it unless they leaned out in a way that Mrs Fenn would not be capable of, and even with a tyounger person, I am doubtful.
(http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article334158.ece/alternates/s615/2CD25BE0-D5BB-8BDC-646EA3C92CAB0088.jpg)
There would not have been sufficient room on the pavement to do that. Gerry was stood with his back to the gate, not sideways on.
Those satellites are ours Sadie %£&)**#I never said whose they were, but someone has altered them. Why?
I never said whose they were, but someone has altered them. Why?
I don't know 8()-000( I've never used Google Earth, so can't explain any anomalies.Fair enough. It isn't your fault .... I dont think .... &%+((£
and so the point is....errrrr what is the point?You'd have thought so wouldn't you...?
SY have dismissed the Jane Tanner sighting, and it seems also the discrepancy between who saw what and when lol.....as of no importance....to SY that is. So why labour on about it.
We know jane tanner saw someone and its been proven as we said all along it was a creche man.
So the sighting is bogus of no importance...so noting new then....to talk about?
perhaps the statements and times were not accurate...perhaps they were poorly translated....
the investigation has moved on, it's about time others caught up
perhaps the statements and times were not accurate...perhaps they were poorly translated....
the investigation has moved on, it's about time others caught up
Like Kate & Gerry for example.....
They're still clinging to bundleman.
http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
Smithman was the abductor, ask the smiling Mr Redwood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwVMsDIoULQ#t=317
But it's still christmas in fantasy abduction land.
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
There is NOTHING Christmas about a little girl being stolen
It has not been determined Sadie what happened to Madeleine, other than she disappeared.
perhaps the statements and times were not accurate...perhaps they were poorly translated....
the investigation has moved on, it's about time others caught up
Why are you deliberately putting out this misinformation? It has been worked out on this forum using three soundc sources that Gerry was mistaken and that the chat took place across the road , but partially in the road and on the corner of the allleyway.
I think that shot is taken from a video filmed after the new brighter lighting, with little doubt extra lighting as is usually the case when filming... so is false information.
It has not been determined Sadie what happened to Madeleine, other than she disappeared.Well why do YOU and others on here keep pushing that Madeleine died at the hands of The Mccanns ... or at the very least The Mccanns hid the body?
I'm not putting out misinformation. I don't believe what Gerry says. That was to show Brietta the light 8)--)) Sadie, it's impossible for Jane to pass them on the same pavement without being seen or heard on a quiet deserted street! She may have seen the man crossing from much further back and then turned left down the lane so didn't pass them. She is unreliable as a witness as past events show. That is a sensible possible theory if she saw them and the man.
I'm not putting out misinformation. I don't believe what Gerry says. That was to show Brietta the light 8)--)) Sadie, it's impossible for Jane to pass them on the same pavement without being seen or heard on a quiet deserted street! She may have seen the man crossing from much further back and then turned left down the lane so didn't pass them. She is unreliable as a witness as past events show. That is a sensible possible theory if she saw them and the man.
I believe that, Sadie was trying to point out, that the photograph that you posted, was with the new, brighter lighting and the old lighting was not very good, hence poor visibility, compared to the new lights.
I believe that, Sadie was trying to point out, that the photograph that you posted, was with the new, brighter lighting and the old lighting was not very good, hence poor visibility, compared to the new lights.Thank you Anna. Other anomolies too.
He noticed the bad street lighting and although it was not completely dark there was enough light to see clearly. As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
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
You are remembering wrongly. In Jezes Rogatory statement, as far as I can find, there is no mention of the pathway.
Jezes Rog
Eventually, I left one road to the other side of the street to the pool complex, between the McCann apartment and the Tapas Bar. In order to visualise this street, I believe it was the street most used by the news agencies and journalists as all the parked cars indicated during the coverage period.
When I left the street, I remember seeing Gerry on the other side of the same. I believe that there was some speculation in the press regarding the circumstances of this encounter. I remember that I crossed the street to talk to Gerry. According to what I remember, Gerry was walking when I spotted him.
No it isn't. As I posted a while back - I myself have experienced a very similar situation -and I'm sure I'm not the only one. The only major difference in my situation - where a jogger passed between me - standing at my gate and my grandson - sitting in his car - without my grandson seeing him - was that it was broad daylight at the time. We were also talking to one another at the time it happened.
The reason he didn't see him was because at the precise moment the jogger passed between us grandson was looking down trying to retrieve his keys which he had dropped when he leaned out to close the car door.
I made a comment to him about the jogger's shorts and grandson replied ''whose shorts?''. He had no idea that anyone had just passed a few feet away from him.
Gerry had his back to JT - all it needed was for Jez to be looking down at his baby to miss her in the couple of seconds it took for her to pass by - in the dark.
It was different lighting to the lighting on that night, in your photograph!
A person with a child in a pram, would naturally keep checking/looking down at that child while talking to someone and there is the possibility that, Jez was doing just that, when JT passed. It is a natural reaction, that you wouldn't be aware of doing, if you tried to think back.
I don't care Jane didn't pass Jez. He was adamant about that! He saw her when he first left not when he was chatting to Gerry. She didn't pass him!
I don't care Jane didn't pass Jez. He was adamant about that! He saw her when he first left not when he was chatting to Gerry. She didn't pass him! She may have turned left down the lane.
Where would that take her? Could she get into her apartment from there?
Why would she lie, PF?
Unless you were there, how could you possibly know the circumstances of the few seconds, that it took JT to pass?
Where would that take her? Could she get into her apartment from there?
It would take longer, I believe, jassi and it would be a darker, alley route, that most woman would not, IMO, contemplate, alone.
It would take longer, I believe, jassi and it would be a darker, alley route, that most woman would not, IMO, contemplate, alone.
It's not up to us to figure out her motivations Anna but simply to follow the evidence and if Jez's statements are correct, as I believe they are, then Tanner's can't possibly be.
And if JT's statement is correct, as I believe they are, then Jez's can't possibly be, unless of course, he was mistaken, or was not paying attention to the pavement at that time, because of his preoccupation with checking his child and chatting to Gerry.
JT had nothing preoccupying her mind and vision, when she saw them.
It wouldn't take longer Anna and what fear could she have with Gerry and Jez within earshot ?
And if JT's statement is correct, as I believe they are, then Jez's can't possibly be, unless of course, he was mistaken, or was not paying attention to the pavement at that time, because of his preoccupation with checking his child and chatting to Gerry.
JT had nothing preoccupying her mind and vision, when she saw them.
I'm not putting out misinformation. I don't believe what Gerry says. That was to show Brietta the light 8)--)) Sadie, it's impossible for Jane to pass them on the same pavement without being seen or heard on a quiet deserted street! She may have seen the man crossing from much further back and then turned left down the lane so didn't pass them. She is unreliable as a witness as past events show. That is a sensible possible theory if she saw them and the man.Pathfinder. I am fast losing patience with you and your ramblings.
But if Jez had been distracted for whatever reason he would have said so in his statement. That he was clearly adamant that he hadn't seen anyone suggests otherwise.
Her statement said that she went up the road, not the alley, so it is hardly worth discussing, Faith.
I think any woman, who is alone, that would walk down a deserted alleyway, nowadays. would have to be daft.
I was followed in broad daylight walking down a alley, many years ago. Luckily I could run then, but he chased after me and disappeared when I reached the main street.
I don't care Jane didn't pass Jez. He was adamant about that! He saw her when he first left not when he was chatting to Gerry. She didn't pass him! She may have turned left down the lane because as she said she would've said something to Gerry if she passed him about the football and you can't mistake his voice.The lane is an alleyway.
We are singing from the same hymn sheet Anna. I don't think she went down the alley either.
And, was not JT also adamant that she saw them?
Do you believe, that he would have remembered, the natural reaction of a parent, to check his child, in the few seconds that JT, passed, Faith?
What I do believe is for the Tanner sighting to work we have to embrace credulity wholeheartedly.
What I do believe is for the Tanner sighting to work we have to embrace credulity wholeheartedly.
I don't care Jane didn't pass Jez. He was adamant about that! He saw her when he first left not when he was chatting to Gerry. She didn't pass him! She may have turned left down the lane because as she said she would've said something to Gerry if she passed him about the football and you can't mistake his voice.i) where did she say that she would have said something to Gerry about the football? Please show me where. Somewhere it was intimated that she didn't care for Gerry really IIRC. Why would she interrupt a private conversation?
i) where did she say that she would have said something to Gerry about the football? Please show me where. Somewhere it was intimated that she didn't care for Gerry really IIRC. Why would she interrupt a private conversation?
ii) why would she turn down an unlit alleyway? As Anna says, alleyways are dangerous for women even in the daylight. I was accosted in an alleyway as a teenager. He tried to grab me, but I managed to avoid him. I was a keen racing cyclist, but it was up a steepish hill in this alleyway. Even so I was able to swerve around him and get away.
But I have allso had a man try and pull me into a car in a side road in broad daylight. Fortunately I was pretty fit and put up a good fight. Got away.
Me, I am paranoid about quiet places, especially after dark if a strange man is behind / near me.
No way would I go down an unlit alleyway and i doubt Jane would either.
I agree....At the end of the day, It all boils down to, who you believe, but if the sighting of tannerman ,was all a figment of her imagination, where does crecheman fit in?
If Tannerman is a figment of imagination, then so is Crechman, created by SY for their own purposes.
One reason could be that by doing so, it gets rid of Tannerman without having to say that Tanner was lying.
I think that remains to be seen Anna.
Isn't it strange though that, knowing it was not a warm night and not knowing whether he would be carrying his child or they would be walking some of the way, Crecheman's child had neither shoes nor a jacket/blanket wrapped around them and the same anomaly was seen with Smithman ? Now if SY are playing with a straight bat and Crecheman and Smithman are unconnected how do we explain that ? Is it not a coincidence too far ?
Have you actually bothered reading the statements & rogs?
Mind you, I can appreciate it might be difficult to fit that in amongst your busy schedule of iron working, private detecting, cycling & life drawings.
Tell us another one jackanory.
Yes, that is a very strange coincidence, Faith. I believe the description came from JT first IIRC.
E
Have read every statement and Rog, everything to do with this scenario and there are anomolies as would be expected. I have thoroughly analysed them and found three substantial ones that agree. Why dont you make the effort and do that too?
The position where Gerry and Jez chatted was near the corner of the alleyway, From the evidence in statements, it was NOT where Gerry thought and It was NOT where you guys keep saying it was.
Furthermore it was over 30 metres (100 Feet) from the top rioad where Tannerman walked. Jez could not have seen any man up there and recognised him.
Stop spamming and get your facts right WSPam.
E
Have read every statement and Rog, everything to do with this scenario and there are anomolies as would be expected. I have thoroughly analysed them and found three substantial ones that agree. Why dont you make the effort and do that too?
The position where Gerry and Jez chatted was near the corner of the alleyway, From the evidence in statements, it was NOT where Gerry thought and It was NOT where you guys keep saying it was.
Furthermore it was over 30 metres (100 Feet) from the top rioad where Tannerman walked. Jez could not have seen any man up there and recognised him.
Stop spamming and get your facts right WSPam.
But I think I'm right in claiming that the Smith's description was given before Tanner's description was publicised.
Was it not in her first statement?
But it wasn't made public so the Smith's description and her's are totally independent, bringing us back to the anomaly of both children ( which are unconnected according to SY ) having no socks/shoes/slippers or coat/blanket.
The lane is an alleyway.
In my post above I have given several reasons based on FACTS why he didn't see her. Additional to those is the fact that this amorphous shape dressed in dark colours in a dimly lit spot, did not even register.
If it was the same person that was seen by JT and Smiths, we have to wonder what happened to the missing, 30minutes.
Do you know, Faith, whether the Smiths report and description, was before or after the publicised description?
It is a difficult one to work out, but it is very unlikely, that two barefooted, uncovered children were being carried on that night at a similar time.
i) where did she say that she would have said something to Gerry about the football? Please show me where. Somewhere it was intimated that she didn't care for Gerry really IIRC. Why would she interrupt a private conversation?
ii) why would she turn down an unlit alleyway? As Anna says, alleyways are dangerous for women even in the daylight. I was accosted in an alleyway as a teenager. He tried to grab me, but I managed to avoid him. I was a keen racing cyclist, but it was up a steepish hill in this alleyway. Even so I was able to swerve around him and get away.
But I have allso had a man try and pull me into a car in a side road in broad daylight. Fortunately I was pretty fit and put up a good fight. Got away.
Me, I am paranoid about quiet places, especially after dark if a strange man is behind / near me.
No way would I go down an unlit alleyway and i doubt Jane would either.
If it was the same person that was seen by JT and Smiths, we have to wonder what happened to the missing, 30minutes.What you're forgetting is that Faithlilly doesn't believe JT ever saw a man carrying a child and that she just said she did, under orders from Gerry.
Do you know, Faith, whether the Smiths report and description, was before or after the publicised description?
It is a difficult one to work out, but it is very unlikely, that two barefooted, uncovered children were being carried on that night at a similar time.
What you're forgetting is that Faithlilly doesn't believe JT ever saw a man carrying a child and that she just said she did, under orders from Gerry.
I have not forgotten, Alfred, that some believe, that it was all a lie, which I said ,here-Fair enough - it's just that as far as Faithlilly is concerned there were no intervening 30 minutes between the two sightings.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1249.msg217030#msg217030
i) where did she say that she would have said something to Gerry about the football? Please show me where. Somewhere it was intimated that she didn't care for Gerry really IIRC. Why would she interrupt a private conversation?
4078 “And can you remember, as you past them or thought to acknowledge them, then you noticed they were deep in conversation, can you remember which angle you saw them from, which way they were facing?”
Reply “No, I, phew, again, I would probably guess Gerry’s back was more towards me, because I would have thought if I’d have seen him I would have definitely probably stopped and said ‘Oh you’re in trouble, you’ve been long, we think you’ve been watching the footy’, you know, but. Because I think that’s almost when I went to acknowledge them, that’s almost what went through my head, you know, is to sort of give a bit of abuse about the fact he’d been so long, but. So I would imagine his, maybe his back was to me, but. And, again, in that way, that would make more sense, because I don’t know Jez, so it’s not like I would have gone ‘Oh hi Jez’, you know, that way, so. Yeah, I, I honestly, I can’t remember now which way they were. But I do, I stand by the fact I’m sure they were nearer than right over here”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Gerry's back was towards Jane she thinks. Gerry's back was towards the gate/hedge according to Jez.
I honestly, I can’t remember now which way they were. (JT)
If it was the same person that was seen by JT and Smiths, we have to wonder what happened to the missing, 30minutes.
Do you know, Faith, whether the Smiths report and description, was before or after the publicised description?
It is a difficult one to work out, but it is very unlikely, that two barefooted, uncovered children were being carried on that night at a similar time.
Thank you Spam. I missed that.
So we can deduct that Gerrys back was absolutely towards her, which is what I thought.
What you're forgetting is that Faithlilly doesn't believe JT ever saw a man carrying a child and that she just said she did, under orders from Gerry.
I posted that football comment in response to you saying I'm making shit up. No Jez should know where Gerry was as he was talking to him. The lane/pathway route is a possible theory so Jane didn't have to pass them. She could've seen the man crossing when she left the entrance.
If Jane took the lane route, how did she get into her apartment? Does that mean her patio door was also left unlocked, or was Russell already there?
If Jane took the lane route, how did she get into her apartment? Does that mean her patio door was also left unlocked, or was Russell already there?
According to her statement, she walked up the pavement, by the main street and not up the alleyway.
That's what she said but there's two possible routes.
And one is further away than the other, as you have just demonstrated on your little map.
It's not that much further and it's a possibility because there's no way she passed them on that pavement. Her rog answers prove that she can't remember passing them within a few feet because she would nearly bump into Gerry and how she couldn't hear and recognise his voice is a big discrepancy. Gerry is very loud as we know 8)-)))
Really?
She remembers that, around 21.10 Gerald McCann left the restaurant (3) to go to the apartment to see the children. Five minutes later the witness left, to go to her own apartment to check on her children. At this moment she saw Gerald McCann talking to a British citizen named Jez, whom they had got to know during this holiday He would play tennis with them.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post412.html#p412
Have you looked at how wide that pavement is?
The longer route sounds unlikely.
Correct me if I've got this wrong, but if Jane went to her apartment at about 9.15, when did she return? Why did Russell feel the need to go at about 9.30 with Matt if she'd been only a few minutes earlier?
Jez was facing Gerry and couldn't miss her. It's impossible as a reconstruction would prove. One missing her is very hard to believe but both of them is impossible.
I know one of the children was unwell, but I thought that this discovered by Russell at 9.30 ish, who then stayed & sent a message back to Jane via Matt and she relived him later.
But why did Russell need to go at 9.30 when Jane must have only returned a few minutes earlier?
The longer route sounds unlikely.
Correct me if I've got this wrong, but if Jane went to her apartment at about 9.15, when did she return? Why did Russell feel the need to go at about 9.30 with Matt if she'd been only a few minutes earlier?
To see if the child was still OK, I suppose.
That would suggest that Jane had left a sick child. She doesn't make any mention of discovering that her child is sick, it is Russell that talks about his child being sick and using washing machine etc.
What reason do you think(In this supposed conspiracy) did Gerry have for saying that, he didn't see JT?
I haven't said there's a conspiracy. It's elementary. If Jez didn't see her pass then Gerry couldn't have either as I've said countless times it's impossible for her to pass them on a quiet deserted street as any reconstruction would prove.
Dates:-
Date: 2007-05-04
Time: 11.30
Place: This Police Department
Responsible Officer: Inspector João Carvalho
Name: Jane Michelle Tanner
Exerpt:-
(**) Concerning the child, who seemed to be asleep, she only saw the legs. The child seemed to be older than a baby. The child was barefoot, dressed in cotton light-coloured pyjamas (possibly pink or white) She is not sure, but has the feeling that she saw a design on the pyjamas like flowers, but is not certain about it.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post412.html#p412
Appeal 25/5 by PJ
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html
(probably also on news)
26/5/ smith statement
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post535.html#p535
May 27, 2007
A friend of Madeleine's parents saw girl being carried away Timesonline
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html
At some point she translated the statement of one of the ladies who belonged to the group and that she describes as a brunette one. This lady said to the GNR elements, and she (the witness) translated, that she had seen a man on the road who might have carried a child.
This situation surprised her because she (the witness) was convinced that when the lady saw the man, the lady was in a place from where she had no angle of vision for the place where she saw the man. She doesn't know exactly what was the position of the lady when she saw the man, but she knows that the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.
Asked about the way the members of the group were dressed up in that night, she only remembers that Fiona was wearing a green blouse, that Gerry was wearing a dark shirt and the husband of Fiona wearing clear pants, beige she thinks.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
According to that statement it would probably mean she saw him from inside the car park passing the car park entrance.
walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.
If you do not believe that it is a conspiracy, then why do you not believe the statements?
Jane's statement can't be correct as the other two didn't see her pass. Baptista said she was confused when Jane first told the PJ about where she was situated when she saw the man. Jez was adamant that he never saw her but he said he saw Jane wearing purple in front of the apartments when he first ventured out.
So if you believe that JT statement is incorrect, then you believe that she lied, for some unexplainable reason.
What could this reason be, that was important enough to take such a risk?
Jane's statement can't be correct as the other two didn't see her pass. Baptista said she was confused when Jane first told the PJ about where she was situated when she saw the man. Jez was adamant that he never saw her but he said he saw Jane wearing purple in front of the apartments when he first ventured out.
What risk has she taken? Has any action been taken against her as a consequence if what she said?
There was no need for any action to be taken, against JT, because she told the truth and tannerman was found to be crecheman.
If she had been found to be lying, it would have been a very different case, with severe consequences indeed. So Mega-risk
Who could prove she was lying, even if she was? Its all just been passed off as inconsistencies in testimony.If she lied to save the skin of another then of course she places herself at risk - of perverting the course of justice.
No one can prove whether she made the journey she describes, or not as no one saw her.
Indeed, but was it really a risk? Who could prove otherwise?According to some "sceptics" on here, the Met have invented Crecheman to unsettle the McCanns and JT, because they know JT never saw anyone and that she was covering for GM. Obviously they are building a case against them both, dontcha see?! It's as plain as the nose on yer face innit?
Who could prove she was lying, even if she was? Its all just been passed off as inconsistencies in testimony.
No one can prove whether she made the journey she describes, or not as no one saw her.
Wonder if they were running a pilot experiment Star Trek-style?? ... we know Jane left to check on the children ... we know she came back ... so if she didn't walk the route from reception to the apartment, she must have "beamed" and that thought isn't nearly as ridiculous as some of the inane comments which have been made about her over the last nearly eight years.
One would have thought the woman would have been given some respite with the identification of Tannerman ... but that can't be allowed to sink in ... because it means one of the tapas seven is proved to be telling the truth and we can't have that!
**snip
Star Trek-style ''beaming up'' of people through space could become a reality sometime in the far future, the leader of a landmark teleportation experiment has said.
Nothing in the laws of physics prevents the teleportation of large objects, including humans, Professor Ronald Hanson pointed out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10863929/Beam-me-up-Scotty-teleportation-could-become-reality.html
According to some "sceptics" on here, the Met have invented Crecheman to unsettle the McCanns and JT, because they know JT never saw anyone and that she was covering for GM. Obviously they are building a case against them both, dontcha see?! It's as plain as the nose on yer face innit?
No, I don't think so. SY are still struggling with the abduction scenario, though to date, they have neither proved an abduction, nor identified a culprit.Well, it's good to know you're not quite as far up the conspiracy tree as some other "sceptics" on here...
Who could prove she was lying, even if she was? Its all just been passed off as inconsistencies in testimony.
No one can prove whether she made the journey she describes, or not as no one saw her.
I'm sure it would have been passed off as them being mistaken.
Is that not what is being said of the couple on their balcony who said they did not see Gerry & Jez?
I'm sure it would have been passed off as them being mistaken.But this is the very reason given by Faithlilly as to why Gerry had to denounce JT, by saying he never saw her. Doesn't really make much sense does it.... &%+((£
Is that not what is being said of the couple on their balcony who said they did not see Gerry & Jez?
I'm sure it would have been passed off as them being mistaken.
Is that not what is being said of the couple on their balcony who said they did not see Gerry & Jez?
Is this what you are referring too? They didn't see anyone.
They walked past apartment 5a but noticed nothing untoward. The woman said in her statement: “I stood on the balcony at about 9.15 with a whisky.
“I saw people eating at the tapas bar and children in the play area. We went to bed at 10pm-ish. We were woken up by our bell ringing at 11.30pm. It was a friend of the McCanns, saying that a little girl had been abducted. The friend asked if we had a computer so they could get the media involved in the search.
The couple are key because at precisely 9.15pm on May 3, Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns, said she left the tapas bar and walked past Gerry, who was talking to holidaymaker Jez Wilkins outside apartment 5a.
At the time she had not realised the significance. Officers asked the couple if they saw Jane, Gerry or Jez but they insist they did not.
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/400796/Mystery-couple-seen-going-into-McCanns-flat-on-night-before-sobbing-Madeleine-disappeared
However it has been established, that Gerry and Jez were there, so they seem to be a bit out with their timing, too.
Well to be fair the exact time they were there hasn't been and can't be established.
Exactly.
I'm surprised the police never thought about having a reconstruction 8)-)))
How would that, help them remember the time, Lyall? I believe JT said she left the tapas about 9.10 and I think that is probably when she saw the men.
The couple who were on their balcony from about 9.15 to 10pm were watching the tapas diners and the children playing, so why would they look in another direction, which would enable them to see the road/pavement?
They didn't mention any disturbance, as there would have been when, Madeleine was discovered missing, either.
You just posted an Express article which says:
The Sunday Express has visited the couple’s holiday apartment, which looks over the tapas bar. From its balcony you can see directly into the garden of apartment 5a.
From that balcony both are in the same direction?
I wonder where they were located, that they could watch the tapas diners and the road and could see directly into 5a garden, which is in front of 5a balcony, IIRC, without moving an eye.
If the apartment's in the same block as 5a then they couldn't. I misread the article.
But if they were there between 9.15 and 10 then I guess they would have seen anyone using the alleyway at the back of the apartments. If anyone was.
Hmm &%+((£
According to some "sceptics" on here, the Met have invented Crecheman to unsettle the McCanns and JT, because they know JT never saw anyone and that she was covering for GM. Obviously they are building a case against them both, dontcha see?! It's as plain as the nose on yer face innit?
If Smithman was Gerry, no e-fits would have been necessary.
Smithman does not exist.
So SY are barking up the wrong tree ?
SY are busy working from the outside of the web to the spider in the centre. It suits them to have everyone looking in the wrong direction, just as it did the PJ 7 years ago.
So you believe SY think Smithman doesn't exist ?
I believe the purpose of releasing those e-fits was to see if anyone did come forward to be identified.
I also believe JT was telling the truth. She caught sight of someone carrying a child, but, like most of us when out walking, only registered the minimum of detail because the man & child bore no significance to her. Whether or not she witnessed Madeleine being taken remains to be seen, but SY have indicated they are not sure Tannerman is one & the same as Crecheman.
I believe the purpose of releasing those e-fits was to see if anyone did come forward to be identified.
I also believe JT was telling the truth. She caught sight of someone carrying a child, but, like most of us when out walking, only registered the minimum of detail because the man & child bore no significance to her. Whether or not she witnessed Madeleine being taken remains to be seen, but SY have indicated they are not sure Tannerman is one & the same as Crecheman.
Another revelation moment? ?>)()<
Yes, indeed. Smithman is important, but not for the reason you believe.
&%+((£ Interesting. Tell us more, misty.
Wrong thread for that. @)(++(*8(8-))
I'd be interested to hear how you explain the anomaly of the two unconnected men both carrying children with no warm covering and no shoes on a chilly May evening. Surely even for you that's a coincidence too far ?I can't explain it adequately (though surely if one father goes to collect a sleeping child from the creche, a child who has been sleeping in bed with no shoes on, then surely it is not beyond all reason that other sleeping children might be collected in the same manner..?) - unlike you I don't profess to having all the answers, however I do reject the notion that JT lied about the sighting on Gerry's orders.
I don't care Jane didn't pass Jez. He was adamant about that! He saw her when he first left not when he was chatting to Gerry. She didn't pass him! She may have turned left down the lane because as she said she would've said something to Gerry if she passed him about the football and you can't mistake his voice.
Jez was not adamant Jane didn't pass him. He was adamant he didn't see anyone else i.e. JT or Crecheman. That's not the same thing at all.
I would bet my house on the fact that if Jez was asked if he thought JT had lied about seeing him and Gerry - he would say ''definitely not'. Primarily IMO because he would not be able to think of a single reason why she would do such a dangerous thing - unless she was off her rocker. Clearly that was not the case.
If she didn't pass them - then how did she know they were there?
The only person who could have told her was Gerry. When did he do this? And why having apparently persuaded her to lie - did he then deny seeing her. That makes no sense. And would Russel have agreed that it was fine and dandy for the mother of his children to perjure herself to the police as if this was no big deal?!. Not a chance IMO.
The fact that they all have different recollections of what was a very insignificant couple of minutes in their lives at the time - and which only took on any importance later on is perfectly normal - according to the experts.
The whole idea that JT decided to lie for Gerry only works in conspiracy land IMO - and even then - as with so many of the conspiracy theories in this case - it first requires the complete removal of all semblance of logic, common sense and reasoned thought from the equation. For example, there needs to be at least one credible reason/motive for why JT would agree to lie in the first place - and there isn't one.
IMHO
I can't explain it adequately (though surely if one father goes to collect a sleeping child from the creche, a child who has been sleeping in bed with no shoes on, then surely it is not beyond all reason that other sleeping children might be collected in the same manner..?) - unlike you I don't profess to having all the answers, however I do reject the notion that JT lied about the sighting on Gerry's orders.
I've provided you with a theory on how she could have seen them but not passed them. Read my posts.
I've read your theory that she turned up the lane/alley at the back of the apartment block - but that would mean her patio doors were unlocked - which they weren't. As she always took the longer route across the car-park - I think she would definitely have remembered the one occasion she took a different route. So I don't think your theory works.
The fact that she could give an estimate of the distance Crecheman was away from her at one point (15ft?) also confirms that she did not turn into the alley/lane IMO.
Jez was not adamant Jane didn't pass him. He was adamant he didn't see anyone else i.e. JT or Crecheman. That's not the same thing at all.
I would bet my house on the fact that if Jez was asked if he thought JT had lied about seeing him and Gerry - he would say ''definitely not'. Primarily IMO because he would not be able to think of a single reason why she would do such a dangerous thing - unless she was off her rocker. Clearly that was not the case.
If she didn't pass them - then how did she know they were there?
The only person who could have told her was Gerry. When did he do this? And why having apparently persuaded her to lie - did he then deny seeing her. That makes no sense. And would Russel have agreed that it was fine and dandy for the mother of his children to perjure herself to the police as if this was no big deal?!. Not a chance IMO.
The fact that they all have different recollections of what was a very insignificant couple of minutes in their lives at the time - and which only took on any importance later on is perfectly normal - according to the experts.
The whole idea that JT decided to lie for Gerry only works in conspiracy land IMO - and even then - as with so many of the conspiracy theories in this case - it first requires the complete removal of all semblance of logic, common sense and reasoned thought from the equation. For example, there needs to be at least one credible reason/motive for why JT would agree to lie in the first place - and there isn't one.
IMHO
There most certainly is. Panic.
You make a good point about recollections inevitably being different, even after only a few hours. But your forget the factor everyone knows about but forgets to mention: whatever the circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance, those 9 people (8 if we take DW out) were super-stressed that night - and during the next days.
That's right, you can't explain it adequately. That is because there is no adequate explaination.Just as you are unable to provide an adequate reason for JT supposedly lying about her sighting, at least I admit it whereas you are stubbornly attached to your theory, despite the fact it is ridiculously far-fetched.
What would JT be in such a panic over that would prompt her to agree to tell such a massive lie to the police and risk being charged with perjury, perverting the course of justice and ending up in a Portuguese jail. What was she so scared of?
It couldn't be their child checking arrangements - because that is the first thing the group told the police about and made no attempt to hide it.
So what else could it be?
If we knew everything that happened that night then we might be able to attempt to answer that question, but we only know a fraction of the night's events. But a child has gone missing; initially they of course assume she'll soon be found, but slowly realise she may not be. A child has gone missing and they have absolutely no way of proving they aren't involved i.e. they know they're all suspects. Who wouldn't panic in such a situation?So perhaps you could explain a) why Gerry denied seeing her and b) why the Met have verified Tanner's sighting.
So perhaps you could explain a) why Gerry denied seeing her and b) why the Met have verified Tanner's sighting.
If we knew everything that happened that night then we might be able to attempt to answer that question, but we only know a fraction of the night's events. But a child has gone missing; initially they of course assume she'll soon be found, but slowly realise she may not be. A child has gone missing and they have absolutely no way of proving they (and their partners) aren't involved i.e. they know they're all suspects. Who wouldn't panic in such a situation?
If we knew everything that happened that night then we might be able to attempt to answer that question, but we only know a fraction of the night's events. But a child has gone missing; initially they of course assume she'll soon be found, but slowly realise she may not be. A child has gone missing and they have absolutely no way of proving they (and their partners) aren't involved i.e. they know they're all suspects. Who wouldn't panic in such a situation?
So perhaps you could explain a) why Gerry denied seeing her and b) why the Met have verified Tanner's sighting.
I can't think of anything that would lead JT to think she might be suspected of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance. She'd never set foot in the McCann apartment until after the abduction and didn't have even the slightest hint of a motive for anyone to point the finger in her direction - or at anyone else in the group for that matter. The idea that K&G would become arguidos would simply not enter her head IMO.
There would still be some hope that Madeleine could be found imo and she also had no reason to distrust the PJ until much later.
They were all at dinner - all behaving completely normally - eating, drinking, chatting and exchanging banter. That fact alone is proof to me that they had no idea that anything unspeakable had happened or was going to happen that night.
So - I still have no idea why JT would lie to the police for Gerry - or why her husband would stand back and allow the woman he loved, and the mother of his children to put herself in a position of such extreme danger that would not only wreck her life but his and his family too - when she didn't have to - but purely as a favour to someone she hardly knew.
That makes no sense whatsoever to me.
Gerry's denial has been adequately explained. That you diidn't like the explanation is neither here nor there.
As to the Met verifying Tanner's sighting. does that verification make any sense ? Really ? They've excluded as the abductor a man carrying a child with pink pyjamas and unusually no shoes or covering yet even more strangely think that the abductor may be another man carrying a child with pink pyjamas and unusually no shoes or covering. You can see my probelem, can't you ?
You seem to have missed the point ... the victims of a crime do not have to "prove" anything; it is the function of the investigators to find evidence which may be used to prove or disprove and which may ultimately lead to the apprehension of a perpetrator.
There may have been an excuse to have fallen for the line being pushed in early 2007 given the nature of the information in circulation at that time.
Since then I would say that all of the calumnies directed at the Drs McCann and their friends have been thoroughly debunked ... pity you and others continue to be deceived by them.
**snip
It would, as Mills confirmed again yesterday, have scrutinised the various allegations that have been floated against the McCanns and concluded they are baseless:
'We had an investigative team looking into the story for weeks.
Our assessment was that the purported DNA evidence was weak and inconclusive, while so far as we could tell the supposedly significant "discrepancies" between the stories told by the McCanns' friends about the night of Madeleine's disappearance amount to very little indeed.'
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/nov/25/bbc
The above was printed on 25 November 2007 when real investigative journalists looked closely at the case which had been built against the Drs McCann and their friends and came to the conclusion that it was very wide of the mark indeed.
The outcome is that at present in the real world Scotland Yard and the Polícia Judiciária are up to speed with that reality ... and that is why they are looking for the person who stole Madeleine McCann nearly eight years ago.
With respect, I think it is time you and people like you caught up.
It's two separate issues, Brietta.
What happened after the alarm may or may not have been caused by whatever happened before it. It is quite conceivable (based on what we know) they didn't have any idea what happened to Madeleine, but they embellished their stories.
I'm not going to ask you for a cite to prove your statement that "they embellished their stories" based on "what we know" for the simple reason they did no such thing.
I remain bemused that it is still considered that "we" armchair detectives have superior knowledge to the professionals from Britain and Portugal currently ploughing a different furrow from the 2007 investigation.
I'm not going to ask you for a cite to prove your statement that "they embellished their stories" based on "what we know" for the simple reason they did no such thing.
I remain bemused that it is still considered that "we" armchair detectives have superior knowledge to the professionals from Britain and Portugal currently ploughing a different furrow from the 2007 investigation.
It's two separate issues, Brietta.
What happened after the alarm may or may not have been caused by whatever happened before it. It is quite conceivable (based on what we know) they didn't have any idea what happened to Madeleine, but they embellished their stories.
If they embellished their stories, as you think is quite, conceivable, Lyall..……..They did not take into consideration, that Madeleine, may have been found, around the corner, asleep in a bush, or found deceased, during the search.
There is also the fact that they had no idea, whether or not, they had been observed, by people looking from their windows or balconies, making it an even greater risk.
Do you believe that they were so stupid, that they would have taken the a huge risk, of lying about the true events?
Not stupid, desperate. It's conceivable. Desperate people can and do make instant, drastic decisions, which in most cases they likely very soon regret.
Desperation can explain the point you raise about other possible witnesses etc. Desperate people gamble.
As I said in an earlier post of course in this scenario they expected/hoped Madeleine would soon be found, but at some point during the early night they begin to realise she may not. It's the evolution of their stories during that night that is most crucial, and unfortunately we don't have much information about that.
We know the stories changed between the first and second week, so how much did they in the hours between alarm and official statements in Portimao next day?
Gerry's denial has been adequately explained. That you diidn't like the explanation is neither here nor there.I do see your problem very well indeed, yes. @)(++(*
As to the Met verifying Tanner's sighting. does that verification make any sense ? Really ? They've excluded as the abductor a man carrying a child with pink pyjamas and unusually no shoes or covering yet even more strangely think that the abductor may be another man carrying a child with pink pyjamas and unusually no shoes or covering. You can see my probelem, can't you ?
She may well have seen a man with a child, but how can the Met possibly know six years later that she saw him at the precise time and location she said she did? They can't. Redwood never said it categorically.The Met are "almost certain". Short of CCTV footage showing Jane tanner and Tannerman in the same shot, with a time and date stamp on it they cannot state "absolutely certain", same goes with most investigative work that relies on witness statements. JT DID see a man, she knows roughly what time she saw him, an independent witness has come forward to say he believes it was him, the Met believe he is right. That much we know for a fact. Anyone disputing any of these points has descended into the realms of bizarre conspiracy and cannot be taken seriously IMO. Gerry CAN say he saw her and contradict Jez, wny not? Jane is saying she saw Gerry and Jez and they are contradicting her, so what's the biggie? Unless you know for a fact that both men were looking towards the pavement throughout their conversation what's to stop Gerry saying he saw JT and that Jez didn't because he was looking the other way?
GM can't say her saw her when he knows there's definitely at least one other witness there at the time can he.
Where was JT at the moment the alarm was raised, Benice?
Where were both she and her partner moments before the alarm?
Both were away from the table at the same time minutes earlier.
You wouldn't be stressed yourself in such a situation?
Actually ... no we do not.
You will kindly give examples of the changes you allege which may have materially altered the substance of their statements.
Most obvious one is that on May 4 GM says both he (at 9-ish) and Kate (at 10) entered the apartment via the front door. On May 10 both entered via the patio door. &%+((£
There was some confusion in early days as to which was the front and which was the back door. I was still having this problem in September 2007.
Well keys being used is mentioned, so I don't think your explanation works. Keys being used is mentioned despite him saying the front door was probably unlocked &%+((£
But the keys were in the kitchen, so how could they have been used?
If they embellished their stories, as you think is quite, conceivable, Lyall..……..They did not take into consideration, that Madeleine, may have been found, around the corner, asleep in a bush, or found deceased, during the search.
There is also the fact that they had no idea, whether or not, they had been observed, by people looking from their windows or balconies, making it an even greater risk.
Do you believe that they were so stupid, that they would have taken the a huge risk, of lying about the true events?
Well keys being used is mentioned, so I don't think your explanation works. Keys being used is mentioned despite him saying the front door was probably unlocked &%+((£If this discrepancy in the statements is so important perhaps you could explain why Gerry was not asked to clarify this point in his arguido statement.
And that is why Gerry put himself on the other side of the road.On the one hand we have a sceptic telling us that Gerry couldn't possibly say he saw JT because it would contradict Jez, and on the other we have Gerry contradicting Jez by saying he was on the other side of the road. Is there any logic in this...?
Most obvious one is that on May 4 GM says both he (at 9-ish) and Kate (at 10) entered the apartment via the front door. On May 10 both entered via the patio door. &%+((£
If this discrepancy in the statements is so important perhaps you could explain why Gerry was not asked to clarify this point in his arguido statement.
On the one hand we have a sceptic telling us that Gerry couldn't possibly say he saw JT because it would contradict Jez, and on the other we have Gerry contradicting Jez by saying he was on the other side of the road. Is there any logic in this...?
Gerry's denial has been adequately explained. That you diidn't like the explanation is neither here nor there.
As to the Met verifying Tanner's sighting. does that verification make any sense ? Really ? They've excluded as the abductor a man carrying a child with pink pyjamas and unusually no shoes or covering yet even more strangely think that the abductor may be another man carrying a child with pink pyjamas and unusually no shoes or covering. You can see my probelem, can't you ?
If the PJ thought Gerry had lied in his first interview about which door he used - then questions would have been asked and his answers would have appeared in the summary of the second interview.
However, no explanation at all for his correction of the statement was given in the summary. IMO this is because it was established that it was a misunderstanding which took place between GM, the interpreter and the PJ officer somewhere along the line. That was the first interview to take place for all concerned. The fact that there was confusion about the doors, due to some people referring to the front door as the back door and the patio door as the front door was mentioned by the UK police.
This has already been discussed at great length previously on this forum.
Contradicting Jez was a necessary evil and better than finding out later that a witness had come forward to say that they had Jez and Gerry talking but that Jane hadn't passed when Gerry had said he had seen her.Why would contradicting a witness you know to exist and who was standing two foot from you be preferable to lying in order not to contradict a possible witness many feet away who may not even exist? It makes absolutely no sense at all.
I know it has. But what I see is consistency between the statements re: the patio door - there's no confusion about that door: it was closed but definitely unlocked.
However mention is also made of a door that may be unlocked, and also keys needed for access is mentioned. That can't be the patio door because that door can't be locked or unlocked from outside, and it's not locked with a key anyway presumably.
They do seem to be talking about two different doors.
There is definitely some confusion on Gerry's first statement regarding the doors, where he also stated that Kate used a key. I think this was a total mix up. Kate never mentioned using a key.
As to the possibly unlocked front door- This means that it was not locked with a key from the outside, but left on the self locking, which did not double lock the door. The door, whether self locking/single or double locked from the outside, would need to be opened, by the use of the key.
There is a thread on the door lock that might help, explain better.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1207.msg207775#msg207775
Contradicting Jez was a necessary evil and better than finding out later that a witness had come forward to say that they had Jez and Gerry talking but that Jane hadn't passed when Gerry had said he had seen her.
What difference would, which side of the road they were on, make? Faith.
I have already posted the reason already, several times, but just in case you missed it Anna Gerry needed to be on the other side of the road then not seeing Tanner would have been a believable scenario. Even he knew how impossible if would be for them all to be on the same side of the street and for him not to see her.
It's also been posted several times that it isn't impossible for both men to have missed Jane in the seconds it took her to pass by if Gerry had his back to her - so wouldn't see her anyway - and if Jez was not looking in her direction in those seconds it took for her to pass them. They were also talking and listening to one another - not listening for extraneous noises.
Gerry did not need JT to give him an alibi - Jez - an independent witness was already his alibi.
Also if Gerry thought they could be witnessed by other people who could prove JT didn't pass by - then why ask her to lie in the first place?
IMO the three of them all told the truth - as each one of them remembered it. The fact that they have different recollections is quite normal.
I suppose if Gerry bumped into someone else and had a chat earlier or later than Jez that could account for it.
Sorry Starti - you've lost me.....
It's also been posted several times that it isn't impossible for both men to have missed Jane in the seconds it took her to pass by if Gerry had his back to her - so wouldn't see her anyway - and if Jez was not looking in her direction in those seconds it took for her to pass them. They were also talking and listening to one another - not listening for extraneous noises.
Gerry did not need JT to give him an alibi - Jez - an independent witness was already his alibi.
Also if Gerry thought they could be witnessed by other people who could prove JT didn't pass by - then why ask her to lie in the first place?
IMO the three of them all told the truth - as each one of them remembered it. The fact that they have different recollections is quite normal.
JT didn't really know Jez. She says she saw Gerry talking. Both Gerry and Jez say they talked to each other. If Gerry talked to someone else then JT may have seen them. Just a possibility.So you agree that no one's recollection of an event is perfect and that this may account for discrepancies in witness statements concerning the same event(s)? Heri has proposed that JT's witness statement was muddled about when she actually saw Tannerman, maybe he is onto something..?
The problem with this case is there was too much witness contamination. The timelines were a real negative which may have implanted memories that didn't really exist especially if those involved were in an impressionable state.
To expand, if you are sitting eating dinner with a group of friends and one or more of them leave the table from time to time, if afterwards you are asked to say who left at what time, you would try to estimate it based on what you were eating, how far you had got etc. if however you all got together afterwards and those leaving said rightly or wrongly they left at such and such a time then you are more likely to go with their recollection than your own.
The mind is a very malleable thing.
So you agree that no one's recollection of an event is perfect and that this may account for discrepancies in witness statements concerning the same event(s)? Heri has proposed that JT's witness statement was muddled about when she actually saw Tannerman, maybe he is onto something..?
It was a gamble to ask Tanner to lie but what choice did he have ? He knew the Smiths had seen him, and possibly would be able to identify him, so what better way to neutralise that sighting than by having a witness placing the abductor and Gerry at the same time. If Gerry wasn't the abductor Tanner saw then he couldn't be the person the Smiths saw. Simple.If Jane Tanner accused Gerry McCann of putting her up to making a fake sighting, how exactly would he have come out of things unscathed by (as you put it) putting himself on the other side of the road, a position which would NOT have been corroborated by the only witness to his actual position, Jez?!
Of course this course of action carried two huge risks, either that Jane would crumble under questioning and admit the sighting was made up or that Gerry and Jez, and no Tanner, waere seen talking by an independent witness. So Gerry simply put himself on the other side of the street with his back to where Tanner would have walked by and that way if it all went pearshaped he would come out of it untainted.
It was alsoof course a risk to place himself on the other side of the road when both Jez and Tanner disagreed with him but easier to explain away a misremembered location than seeing an individual who it is proved later wasn't there at all.
As to those few seconds it would have taken for Tanner to walk past , Tanner would have been potentially visible to either one of the talking men as soon as she left the tapas entrance to just before she turned the corner of the road which would have taken anywhere up to half a minute, so hardly the few seconds you suggest.
But if SY is correct how can he be ?Because if a tourist recollected walking past at the time JT said she saw Tannerman and id'ed himself to the Met but her actual sighting was 30 minutes later it would have been of a different man.
JT didn't really know Jez. She says she saw Gerry talking. Both Gerry and Jez say they talked to each other. If Gerry talked to someone else then JT may have seen them. Just a possibility.
The problem with this case is there was too much witness contamination. The timelines were a real negative which may have implanted memories that didn't really exist especially if those involved were in an impressionable state.
To expand, if you are sitting eating dinner with a group of friends and one or more of them leave the table from time to time, if afterwards you are asked to say who left at what time, you would try to estimate it based on what you were eating, how far you had got etc. if however you all got together afterwards and those leaving said rightly or wrongly they left at such and such a time then you are more likely to go with their recollection than your own.
The mind is a very malleable thing.
Because if a tourist recollected walking past at the time JT said she saw Tannerman and id'ed himself to the Met but her actual sighting was 30 minutes later it would have been of a different man.
If Jane Tanner accused Gerry McCann of putting her up to making a fake sighting, how exactly would he have come out of things unscathed by (as you put it) putting himself on the other side of the road, a position which would NOT have been corroborated by the only witness to his actual position, Jez?!
Because if a tourist recollected walking past at the time JT said she saw Tannerman and id'ed himself to the Met but her actual sighting was 30 minutes later it would have been of a different man.
If Tanner accused Gerry of putting her up to it he would simply deny it. The conversation would go something likeLOL. You think that would have worked do you? Child goes missing, one of the father's friends tells police the father asked her to lie by inventing a sighting and an independent witness contradicts father's description of where he was standing....risky? Suicidal more like!
" As you know officer everyone's been under a lot of pressure since Madeleine's abduction and I'm sure Jane just wanted to help but it still doesn't excuse her trying to put the blame on me for concocting a sighting which helped nobody. Of course I trusted her when she said she had seen the abductor, I mean why wouldn't i. If only I hadn't had my back to the apartment then I would have known she hadn't walked by and myself and my poor wife wouldn't have been spared the hurt this has caused. "
A high risk strategy but what choice did he have ?
So that's three, or is it four, men walking round PDL that night carrying children with pink pyjamas, no shoes and no covering. Is that what you're saying ?How do you figure that out? 2 men - one is Crecheman, the other is the abductor.
How do you figure that out? 2 men - one is Crecheman, the other is the abductor.
LOL. You think that would have worked do you? Child goes missing, one of the father's friends tells police the father asked her to lie by inventing a sighting and an independent witness contradicts father's description of where he was standing....risky? Suicidal more like!
Here are some questions you need to consider:
So the abductor is Smithman I take it ? So two men, totally unconnected to each other, both carrying female children with pink pyjamas, no shoes and no warm covering around a very small village at around the same time on a cold May night. Is that what you are asking us to believe ? Really ?
So the abductor is Smithman I take it ? So two men, totally unconnected to each other, both carrying female children with pink pyjamas, no shoes and no warm covering around a very small village at around the same time on a cold May night. Is that what you are asking us to believe ? Really ?
How do you figure that out? 2 men - one is Crecheman, the other is the abductor.
Why wouldn't it ? Gerry was definitely on the street. It was Tanner whose word would be in doubt. Remember with regard to the 'side of the road' issue discrepancies are normal in witness statements. The PJ could have assumed Jez was mistaken.And JT's motive for lying would be...? It wasn't her kid who went missing. Suspicion naturally falls on the parents. An accusation of deceit from a witness against the father, and his statement directly contradicted by another witness would put him in a very bad light indeed. If you can't see this then I can't help you any further.
How can it be the same time if Tanner saw her man at 9.15?You need to read back.
I think your post does indeed prove that "The mind is a very malleable thing".
It really is far easier to go with statements made at the time than fictionalised ones.
If Jane had been seen by the two men and had briefly acknowledged a greeting ... she might not have seen the man at the junction ... therefore we would not have had a "Tannerman" and we would not have been having this discussion.
Tannerman's existence has been hotly disputed and Jane Tanner called a liar because she saw him in the location at the time which would have made him Madeleine's abductor ... and we couldn't have that since it blew a particular theory apart.
Here are some questions you need to consider:
1) is it normal behaviour for fathers to pick up their sleeping kids from the crèche in PdL and walk back to their holiday apartment?
If the answer is yes then
2) is it normal behaviour to not wish to wake the child by attempting to put shoes on its feet?
If the answer is yes then
3) Do we know for certain that Crecheman's daughter was not covered up in some way? We are not told by the police are we, only that her feet may have been exposed.
If it is not unheard of for children to be collected from crèche in the manner described by the innocent tourist the Met have ID'ed, then why is it such an impossibility that an abductor removing a small girl from her bed would bear some resemblance to the innocent father carrying a child, particularly if that child is small girl (pink pyjamas being de rigueur nightwear of young girls)?
And JT's motive for lying would be...? It wasn't her kid who went missing. Suspicion naturally falls on the parents. An accusation of deceit from a witness against the father, and his statement directly contradicted by another witness would put him in a very bad light indeed. If you can't see this then I can't help you any further.
1. It is not 'normal' to carry a child for any distance in the way Tanner's sighting was allegedly carrying the child.Re: point 1 - can you please tell me why it is not normal? Is there a prescribed way of carrying a sleeping child recently scooped out of bed? Do we know that Tannerman carried the child the entire way in that manner? If Tannerman is indeed Smithman then evidence would tend to suggest he moved the child into a more accommodating position for himself to carry.
2. On as cold a night as we are lead to believe it was ( Tanner had a large fleece on we are told ) no it would not be normal behaviour for not one but two unconnected fathers not to put warm apparel on their child's feet be that socks, slippers or shoes.
3. Tanner did not see a covering so I would assume if SY are tying the two together Crecheman's child wouldn't be covered either.
Your final assertion does not take into account my points made above.
He is not Madeleine's abductor. He was carrying a younger child and had longer hair. Two people disappeared that night. Madeleine and Smithman. That child matched Madeleine.
"I would have thought if I’d have seen him I would have definitely probably stopped and said ‘Oh you’re in trouble, you’ve been long, we think you’ve been watching the footy’ (JT)
Jane didn't even hear Gerry. That sounds like Smithman the Mute 8)--))
I've no idea what Tanner's motive might have been but that does not rule out that she may have had one. Further if Tanner had already been caught out in a lie how willing would the police be to believe her claim that Gerry put her up to it ? Surely they would think she was simply trying to shift the blame ? And as to the 'road' contradiction, the police may have thought it was simply a minor discrepancy that sometimes happens in police statements.I would have thought the police would have been only too willing to get a confession from JT that GM made her lie. He was after all their chief suspect and had she confessed to lying at his behest then he'd almost certainly have been charged with perverting the course of justice at the very least, especially with back up from an independent witness who could supply further evidence that a) JT never walked by and b) that Gerry was not where he said he was.
Re: point 1 - can you please tell me why it is not normal? Is there a prescribed way of carrying a sleeping child recently scooped out of bed? Do we know that Tannerman carried the child the entire way in that manner? If Tannerman is indeed Smithman then evidence would tend to suggest he moved the child into a more accommodating position for himself to carry.
Point 2 - that's a matter of opinion. I would venture that a father would rather not wake a sleeping child to put shoes and socks on its feet, especially not as the child is not walking anywhere. If you can provide some empirical evidence that all fathers would cover their sleeping children's feet when moving them from one locale to the other then I will concede that point.
Point 3 - Jane does not categorically state no covering does she? And even if she did, would this be a deal-breaker in terms of tying in the two sightings? If most other points concur then blanket or no blanket could be explained by the fact that it was dark and she only really got a clear view of the child's feet, which in theory called have fallen out of a blanket.
I think your post does indeed prove that "The mind is a very malleable thing".
It really is far easier to go with statements made at the time than fictionalised ones.
If Jane had been seen by the two men and had briefly acknowledged a greeting ... she might not have seen the man at the junction ... therefore we would not have had a "Tannerman" and we would not have been having this discussion.
Tannerman's existence has been hotly disputed and Jane Tanner called a liar because she saw him in the location at the time which would have made him Madeleine's abductor ... and we couldn't have that since it blew a particular theory apart.
Re: point 1 - can you please tell me why it is not normal? Is there a prescribed way of carrying a sleeping child recently scooped out of bed? Do we know that Tannerman carried the child the entire way in that manner? If Tannerman is indeed Smithman then evidence would tend to suggest he moved the child into a more accommodating position for himself to carry.
Point 2 - that's a matter of opinion. I would venture that a father would rather not wake a sleeping child to put shoes and socks on its feet, especially not as the child is not walking anywhere. If you can provide some empirical evidence that all fathers would cover their sleeping children's feet when moving them from one locale to the other then I will concede that point.
Point 3 - Jane does not categorically state no covering does she? And even if she did, would this be a deal-breaker in terms of tying in the two sightings? If most other points concur then blanket or no blanket could be explained by the fact that it was dark and she only really got a clear view of the child's feet, which in theory called have fallen out of a blanket.
1. Surely SY have ruled Smithman out as Tannerman.
2. I would suggest the child would have at least socks on their feet already when taken to the crèche, especially if the night was cold.
3. Again I thought SY had ruled out there being a connection between Smithman and Crecheman and I thought you were trying to distance Tannerman from Crecheman and tie Tanneman to Smithman ( via HG's theory ) ?
You are quite right there isn't. It will probably be self selecting based on several physical factors. All you need do is work back from how he was allegedly holding the child. Then do the usual.
Here's a thought: maybe JT (subconsciously?) needed to believe that she saw Tannerman moments after seeing Gerry to give her the excuse that "it couldn't have been Madeleine" as she had just seen Gerry and assumed he'd just been to check on her. If the sighting actually happened at 9.40pm and less than thirty minutes later Madeleine is reported missing then it looks worse for her - in not challenging the abductor and in not speaking up straight away to say she saw a man carrying a child only a few minutes previously. Self-preservation, conscious or not, and she has by now firmly convinced herself that the sighting occurred at 9.15pm....?
Lots of interest doing the rounds about how people hold children.
Me?? ... I never gave it a thought ... just whatever was more comfortable and appropriate in the circumstances and the age and size of the child.
Students awarded at young scientist event
FIONA MAGENNIS (Drogheda Independent)
PUBLISHED
14/01/2009 | 15:59
Greenhills students Aoife Smith, Ruth McGuinness and Lisa Barry took second place in the Junior Group Social and Behavioural Sciences Section for their project, 'Is There a Science Behind Baby-holding?' while second place in the Senior Group Biological and Ecological Sciences went to Áine Smyth and Laura Sheils for their project 'Factors Determining Running Speed of Young People'.
Nail bang on the head. Now extend that to the case under consideration.You've just picked a small sleeping child out of her bed and don't wish to wake her - what position are you holding her in?
You've just picked a small sleeping child out of her bed and don't wish to wake her - what position are you holding her in?
How do I know? you are light on significant detail there; where is the bed in relation to relevant features, how high is the bed, in what attitude is the child in bed, is the child on top of the covers or under them , how far will I be carrying the child, how heavy is the child, what do I have to negotiate after picking the child up in order to get out, can I fully open the door to the room, do I need a free hand at any point to open other doors or lock them.
Your call.
Someone picking up Madeleine from her bed would hold her with her head to the right & feet to the left.Passed from one person to another?
Tanner described it as being the other way round - ie head to the left, therefore it couldn't have been a simple case of picking her up and walking out. She would have to be turned round after being lifted from the bed.
Passed from one person to another?You remain light on detail. All you have done is introduce another poorly defined variable without addressing the original queries.
Passed from one person to another?
How do I know? you are light on significant detail there; where is the bed in relation to relevant features, how high is the bed, in what attitude is the child in bed, is the child on top of the covers or under them , how far will I be carrying the child, how heavy is the child, what do I have to negotiate after picking the child up in order to get out, can I fully open the door to the room, do I need a free hand at any point to open other doors or lock them.where is the bed in relation to relevant features - what features are relevant?
Your call.
There's no proof of one abductor, let alone two.I thought we were hypothesising - there's no proof the McCanns dunnit either but that doesn't stop some people!
where is the bed in relation to relevant features - what features are relevant?
how high is the bed - normal height.
in what attitude is the child in bed - asleep on its back
is the child on top of the covers or under them - under them
how far will I be carrying the child - not relevant, I asked how would you carry a child you had just picked up
how heavy is the child - not very, the clue is in the word "small"
what do I have to negotiate after picking the child up in order to get out - cross a room to a window, or out one door and another, both left open for the purpose of easy getaway?
can I fully open the door to the room - possible to do whilst maintaining the child in a lateral position, especially if door is already ajar.
do I need a free hand at any point to open other doors or lock them - no need to lock a door but easy enough to use a hand to open a door left ajar. Use knee to push door closed.
Your call.
You have still failed to define the problem accurately either because you are unable to or unwilling to. As you posed the question to me I think it is up to me to decide what is and what is not relevant when I frame an answer, unless of course you are trying to maneuver this to arrive at the answer you want. You wouldn't be that sneaky now would you?WTF?! I answered every single one of your questions and I have "failed to define the problem accurately"?! What do you mean Alice? Obviously you're not comfortable with answering so let me ask you this: is it beyond the realms of possibility that a man may carry a small, sleeping child that he has just lifted out of its bed, in the way described by JT? No need for more waffle, just a straight answer would be nice.
So unless you can define the problem accurately I cannot answer except to say there is probably no single right answer.
WTF?! I answered every single one of your questions and I have "failed to define the problem accurately"?! What do you mean Alice? Obviously you're not comfortable with answering so let me ask you this: is it beyond the realms of possibility that a man may carry a small, sleeping child that he has just lifted out of its bed, in the way described by JT? No need for more waffle, just a straight answer would be nice.Oh dear Alf are you getting upset.
Oh dear Alf are you getting upset.@)(++(* You're too funny Alice. I can see what you're doing. Putting up all sorts of barriers to prevent you from answering a very simple question. Never mind, I know it's awkward for you to come clean on this one... 8(0(*
You are still failing to define the problem properly. How heavy is the child just that will do for starters I am sure you can give it a stab?
If however you wish to start from a preconceived answer and frame a question to give that answer at least have the bottle to admit that's what you are doing.
I've no idea what Tanner's motive might have been but that does not rule out that she may have had one. Further if Tanner had already been caught out in a lie how willing would the police be to believe her claim that Gerry put her up to it ? Surely they would think she was simply trying to shift the blame ? And as to the 'road' contradiction, the police may have thought it was simply a minor discrepancy that sometimes happens in police statements.
Passed from one person to another?
And maybe there was a third above the wall in the car park. Pass the parcel and who forgot the car @)(++(*Thanks for your input, always very illuminating.
@)(++(* You're too funny Alice. I can see what you're doing. Putting up all sorts of barriers to prevent you from answering a very simple question. Never mind, I know it's awkward for you to come clean on this one... 8(0(*
Given the child weighs no more than about 16 kg and is flat on its back as you state, then:stand at the side of the bed facing the child pull back the covers to clear the child; hands either side of the chest under the arms lift to vertical position and pass out of window in near enough vertical position to accomplice outside who receives child in vertical position. Windows are normally about 900 to 1100 high. Or if I have no accomplice and am negotiating a door I can hold the child against my body with one hand long enough to operate door handles slide locks etc.It's one way of getting a sleeping child out of bed, but the easiest? Says who, apart from you?
That is the easiest way. Of course the child may wake but that is a risk however you lift.
It's one way of getting a sleeping child out of bed, but the easiest? Says who, apart from you?
The problem is one of lifting a dead weight so go ask a manual handling expert if as was predictable you don't like my answer.I have no problem with your answer, I'm just questioning if it is the easiest way, or the only way. I don't have any manual handling experts in the family otherwise I would ask if it were inconceivable to lift a small sleeping person up by sliding your hands under their back and knees and picking them up in a horizontal position.
I have no problem with your answer, I'm just questioning if it is the easiest way, or the only way. I don't have any manual handling experts in the family otherwise I would ask if it were inconceivable to lift a small sleeping person up by sliding your hands under their back and knees and picking them up in a horizontal position.I said right from the start there was probably no single right answer which was why I asked so many questions which seemed to cause you much childish amusement. The manner in which one lifts something can be dependent on what one wishes to do with it after one has lifted it and what restrictions there are in the working space. Shoving a 900 high load side ways through a 900 high window would seem on the face of it to be cack handed. In this instance we only have your word that the child was flat on her back at the time she was "abducted" which would seem to be a gross assumption on your part.
The problem is one of lifting a dead weight so go ask a manual handling expert if as was predictable you don't like my answer.
I have no problem with your answer, I'm just questioning if it is the easiest way, or the only way. I don't have any manual handling experts in the family otherwise I would ask if it were inconceivable to lift a small sleeping person up by sliding your hands under their back and knees and picking them up in a horizontal position.
I said right from the start there was probably no single right answer which was why I asked so many questions which seemed to cause you much childish amusement. The manner in which one lifts something can be dependent on what one wishes to do with it after one has lifted it and what restrictions there are in the working space. Shoving a 900 high load side ways through a 900 high window would seem on the face of it to be cack handed. In this instance we only have your word that the child was flat on her back at the time she was "abducted" which would seem to be a gross assumption on your part.So based on your answer we can deduce it is eminently possible that Madeleine was carried away from Apartment 5a in the manner described by JT. Thank you.
Does it really matter how she was lifted? If she'd been drugged an abductor could have adjusted her body position however he/she wanted as no resistance would be offered. The only point worth noting is that Tannerman was probably left-handed as the child's head was resting on his left arm.
Drugged? Wasn't that on the WED night when Maddy & Seany cried. Did an evil paedo get inside? So they left them alone in an unlocked apartment the next night. How extraordinary!
On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that David Payne also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
&%+((£
Once again you are using hindsight which the McCanns did not have on 3rd May. Do you really think that from what Madeleine had said to them - it would occur to them that a paedaphile had been in their apartment the night before? And do you really think that if they thought ANYONE at all might have been in 5A the night before - they would have gone out on 3rd May. Not a chance IMO.
--------
Gerry said 'he thinks' which is not the same as 'he knows' and in fact clearly denotes that he wasn't sure.
Not dissimilar to Russell originally saying that he thought Gerry and Jane had left the table almost at the same time. No doubt - having later remembered himself or been reminded that Jane was still at the table when they were discussing why Gerry had been gone so long - (watching the football) he would have realised his very first recollection was wrong.
Nothing devious or even odd about that as 'memory' is notoriously fallible. Different people have different perceptions of distance - and the passage of time. Some people have good memories - other people have lousy memories.
I'm not sure what point you are making re your reference to David Payne.
You wouldn't leave the apartment unlocked the next night. Gerry had a week to think things over before giving that second statement and he brought David Payne into it when he said he didn't do any checks on other children. So if David never left the table to check (used a monitor) why did Gerry think he checked on his children on WED?
1485 "Did you actually offer to check any of the children' I know you say that you didn't have to check yours.'
Reply "Yeah, no I never, I never did offer to check. Err there, as much as I you know, know, knew all the children well I err I probably wouldn't have felt, you know, bizarrely I wouldn't have felt quite comfortable checking them, more, you know if I, if it was at home and perhaps one of the children wasn't settling you know I'd go upstairs and go well you know could you be quiet but there I didn't feel quite comfortable doing that, it just, you know if the child was crying or upset and not sleeping I think the first person you know at that stage probably''
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
&%+((£
As you don't appear to accept that people get things wrong when they are recalling events which at the time were so mundane that they had no reason to carefully commit them to memory for future reference - we are not going to agree - so no point in going round in circles IMO.
Sorry but I still don't get what point you are making re David Payne.
Must go out now - so will come back later.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htmFaith why are you trying to undermine the general consensus in this forum, when this placing of Gerry and Jez was discussed many months ago in fine detail... and pretty firmly established as being on the corner of the alleyway
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.
Both Gerry and Tanner took part in the compilation of the timeline and both agreed BEFORE the 10th if May that Gerry and Jez were standing just beyond the gate to 5a and up towards the road that led to the front of the apartments, and nowhere near the alleyway as claimed by sadie.
The pertinent question is why did Gerry subsequently change his mind ?
Faith why are you trying to undermine the general consensus in this forum, when this placing of Gerry and Jez was discussed many months ago in fine detail... and pretty firmly established as being on the corner of the alleyway
It was agreed that with three strong pointers, two from Jez and one from Jane that the conversation was on the pavement at the corner of the alleyway. THREE STRONG POINTERS that the conversation WAS ON THE ALLEYWAY CORNER [Sorry to shout , but you seem to have become very "deaf" to anything that you dont wish to believe.]
Why are you determined to try and make something else out? ..... based on nothing except a sprinkling of statements that all say different things.
THREE STRONG AGREEING POINTERS to the alleyway corner, against a sprinkling of other pointers all saying different things.
C'mon Faith, get real
Lets have FACTS, at least as near as possible, and not YOUR fantasies.
You have proved over and over again that Logic and facts are not your strong point
What is your reason for so relentlessly trying to change the most likely position?
Are you doing the Quentin Crisp thing of persuasion and fine words being better than Logic and facts ? You are fond of that technique aren't you? You recommended it on your signature for months.
Cause it doesn't "wash" with me, nor with thinking people.
Faith why are you trying to undermine the general consensus in this forum, when this placing of Gerry and Jez was discussed many months ago in fine detail... and pretty firmly established as being on the corner of the alleyway
It was agreed that with three strong pointers, two from Jez and one from Jane that the conversation was on the pavement at the corner of the alleyway. THREE STRONG POINTERS that the conversation WAS ON THE ALLEYWAY CORNER [Sorry to shout , but you seem to have become very "deaf" to anything that you dont wish to believe.]
Why are you determined to try and make something else out? ..... based on nothing except a sprinkling of statements that all say different things.
THREE STRONG AGREEING POINTERS to the alleyway corner, against a sprinkling of other pointers all saying different things.
C'mon Faith, get real
Lets have FACTS, at least as near as possible, and not YOUR fantasies.
You have proved over and over again that Logic and facts are not your strong point
What is your reason for so relentlessly trying to change the most likely position?
Are you doing the Quentin Crisp thing of persuasion and fine words being better than Logic and facts ? You are fond of that technique aren't you? You recommended it on your signature for months.
Cause it doesn't "wash" with me, nor with thinking people.
So based on your answer we can deduce it is eminently possible that Madeleine was carried away from Apartment 5a in the manner described by JT. Thank you.You are amazingly slow on the uptake!
Does it really matter how she was lifted? If she'd been drugged an abductor could have adjusted her body position however he/she wanted as no resistance would be offered. The only point worth noting is that Tannerman was probably left-handed as the child's head was resting on his left arm.
You are amazingly slow on the uptake!Maybe so, but you waffle and prevaricate, and introduce George Mparbbe (however you spell it) and other distractions into your posts so frequently it's hard to tell what you're saying sometimes. Try giving a straight answer to a straight question and we'll get on better for sure. 8((()*/
I said that about half a dozen posts ago.
Think about that for a minute!
Have you noticed, sadie, Mr Amaral had no problem whatsoever in distinguishing this particular truth from the lie ... otherwise why did he include the portrayal of the event (not exactly as stated by the witnesses) between 10:14 - 10:42 in his documentary?Well what else can you expect from a man like Amaral? He is a Court proven liar .. and he has an agenda to push.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_ZdDTsFC2g
Well what else can you expect from a man like Amaral? He is a Court proven liar .. and he has an agenda to push.
He has to try to prove his book !
THREE STATEMENTS state that the conversation took place on the alleyway corner and Janes clearly states that they were in the road as against the pavement. Yet Amaral choses to place Gerry and Jez in absolutely the wrong place ... in an effort to make Jane into a liar?
Why?
There has to be a reason. There always is.
Maybe so, but you waffle and prevaricate, and introduce George Mparbbe (however you spell it) and other distractions into your posts so frequently it's hard to tell what you're saying sometimes. Try giving a straight answer to a straight question and we'll get on better for sure. 8((()*/
Well what else can you expect from a man like Amaral? He is a Court proven liar .. and he has an agenda to push.
He has to try to prove his book !
THREE STATEMENTS state that the conversation took place on the alleyway corner and Janes clearly states that they were in the road as against the pavement. Yet Amaral choses to place Gerry and Jez in absolutely the wrong place ... in an effort to make Jane into a liar?
Why?
There has to be a reason. There always is.
Will one of the faithful please post a photo of Madeleine's room indicating her bed?
"The only point worth noting is that Tannerman was probably left-handed as the child's head was resting on his left arm."
I am right handed and yet every child I've ever carried in my arms has had their head rested on my left arm. The reason being, so that I can still use my right hand should I need to.
Yes, Alice. Lifted out right-handed style. Quite easy to adjust a child's position by lifting them up against your shoulder. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
Well what else can you expect from a man like Amaral? He is a Court proven liar .. and he has an agenda to push.
He has to try to prove his book !
THREE STATEMENTS state that the conversation took place on the alleyway corner and Janes clearly states that they were in the road as against the pavement. Yet Amaral choses to place Gerry and Jez in absolutely the wrong place ... in an effort to make Jane into a liar?
Why?
There has to be a reason. There always is.
The PJ discredits Jane Tanner's testimony. They say that when she saw said man with the child, you [Gerry] were chatting nearby and it was impossible that you hadn't seen him as well…
(Gerry says he didn't see because his back was turned while he was chatting with a friend.)
Jane Tanner's testimony has evolved in an inverse manner to human mentality. Initially, she had seen only a person at a distance. As time went by, she started remembering details in such a manner that at the end, she even remembered the texture of the clothing that the man and the little girl were wearing.
That was how she pointed at Murat. The only deposition that is credible is the Smiths. %£&)**# (Goncalo Amaral)
The PJ discredits Jane Tanner's testimony. They say that when she saw said man with the child, you [Gerry] were chatting nearby and it was impossible that you hadn't seen him as well…
(Gerry says he didn't see because his back was turned while he was chatting with a friend.)
Jane Tanner's testimony has evolved in an inverse manner to human mentality. Initially, she had seen only a person at a distance. As time went by, she started remembering details in such a manner that at the end, she even remembered the texture of the clothing that the man and the little girl were wearing. That was how she pointed at Murat. The only deposition that is credible is the Smiths. %£&)**# (Goncalo Amaral)
I said "probably". If you are carrying a child some distance you normally support the heaviest part of its body with your strongest arm.
So that's what it was all about, was it? Amaral trying to prove his wonky theory. He had to have Gerry and Jez as close to Tannerman as possible in order that he could claim that it was impossible for Gerry not to have seen Tannerman
For starters, the spot above the gate to 5A, where Amaral has falsely placed Gerry and Jez is still 22.7 metres away [75 feet - measure it yourself on GEarth if you dont believe me] from Tannerman. And the road was poorly lit. Sure, if you are a doting Amaral fan you will believe the garbage that Gerry would have seen Tannerman at that distance in a dimly lit road. Get real PFinder, purleaze
Additionally Tannerman was to Gerrys north and Gerry was facing East. At an angle of virtually 90^ to the direction that Gerry was looking. Periferal images finish at about 40^ IIRC [From Heribertos information]. Tannerman was way beyond Gerrys line of vision and way beyond Jezes line of vision also.
Amaral should know these things as a senior cop. Why was he so desperate to undermine Janes sighting?
Could it be that at that stage, he was keen to convict the Mccanns and had to try and convince people that Tannerman was a figment of Janes imagination ? .... or worse that she was "in league with them?
I think you are muddled here PFinder. This was referring to Gerrys position relative to Jane as she passed by surely? Nothing to do with Tannerman at all ?
I think that when distances are mentioned they are 5 - 10 metres. Remember both Jane and Tannerman were walking so the distances relative to each other would change as they moved.
All the initial statements were VERY short IIRC. As time went on the statements wereengthened dramataically and she gave more detailed descriptions. There was talk that she received hypnosis to improve her memory. I have no idea whether this is true or not.
Now please correct me if I am wrong, but I think that it is a complete myth that Jane pointed at Murat. And am I correct in stating that Amaral started the myth? Nothing in the statements or legal documents to support the claim that Jane pointed to Murat as Tannerman ... that I know of anyhow. Where is your source for this info PFinder?
Really, so Jane Tanner fingered Robert murat? I did think that was a myth or fabrication too.
Jane Tanner confirms in her rog that she thought it was Murat at the time. Amaral ain't lying!
"when they took me round for the surveillance to look at, and I’m guessing now it’s MURAT they wanted me to look at and, you know, all the other bits and bobs, I really don’t know, but I think I’d prefer just to stick with what I said in my original statement."
"I mean, I think, so the things that I’m happy, that are still in my head, that still stick in my head is the hair and it was longer, it was sort of longish and, erm, I don’t know how to (inaudible), but each, each, almost the hair was long, the bits of hair were long, so it was long into the neck." Not Smithman!
"Erm, so I went off in the back of this like refrigerated, well it was pretending to be a refrigerated, erm, van and took it round to the point on the road and obviously, in hindsight now, I realise they were probably calling Robert MURAT to try and get him to walk across, across the top of the road so that, you know, I could see. But it was a bit odd because there was a car, where we were parked there was a car that moved just at that point that he appeared and then two other people walked by, so I didn’t really, but I didn’t even recognise it as the person I’d been talking to five minutes before, well, you know, half an hour before, so. Erm, and then, erm, then went, I think because it has gone a bit wrong because this car had been there and then tried to set it up elsewhere, but again I couldn’t really see, I couldn’t really see that well and, you know, it didn’t look, it didn’t jog, jog any memories."
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But [size=14pt]I just thought it was[/size]”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Can't you read?
I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”. But I just thought it was”.
Amaral isn't lying! He has no reason to lie like others.
In view of what she says elsewhere and particularly at the end of her statement re RM - that part (in blue) doesn't make sense - unless it is an unfinished sentence imo.
There are several examples of people stopping in the middle of a sentence in the rogs. but instead of the typist indicating that by a series of .......................... - he/she merely puts a full stop - which is misleading to the reader.
JT's comments about Murat are made with hindsight. At the time she attended the ID parade she had no idea that it involved him.
A couple of examples of JT ending in the middle of the sentence:'
Jayne Tanner
I can’t remember what we did specifically in the time in between. I think we just had something to eat and just I think we were in Dave and Fi’s apartment, but.
JT
I mean, obviously I don’t know, I don’t know Jez, I hadn’t actually, I hadn’t had any contact with Jez through the week, I didn’t, you know, he wasn’t somebody we chatted to, so, you know, in terms of him recognising me or knowing me, he didn’t know me, so”.
JT
Reply “I know, the problem is, it’s just getting the Press and the”.
End quotes
IMO for clarity - those full stops should be a line of full stops.
IE ''I just thought it was.'' should have been typed as ''I just thought it was...................''
So we are being asked to believe - that it wasn't an unfinished sentence - and that JT effectively said ''I don't think it was Murat I saw - I just thought it was Murat I saw?' -- and we should ignore the fact that that is a complete contradiction of everything else she says about RM.
She has never claimed it was Murat she saw on 3rd May and she did not identify him at the ID parade. She didn't even know he was involved until after he was made an Arguido and his piccie appeared on TV - after the ID parade. If she had ever thought it was him BEFORE he was made an Arguido - there would be a witness statement to prove it. There is nothing in the files - as confirmed by the PT AG.
Amaral lied his head off re JT in his book and continued to do so in his interviews. Once he decided it was the McCanns wot dunnit - JT became an 'inconvenience' and so he set out to discredit her. IMO
Can't you read?
I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”. But I just thought it was”.
Amaral isn't lying! He has no reason to lie like others.
It would have been pretty obvious once the PJ paraded him in front of her while in the van that this was the guy they had in there sights. She may not have known it was Murat but she certainly knew he was in the frame.[/b]
[/b]
AFAIK JT didn't know any of the men used in the ID parade - so how could she decide which one of them was in the frame?
Tanner was put in a van and Murat walked across the street in front of her.
IMO, Jane was saying, she thought it was the right thing to do, letting Bob Small know
75 feet Sadie? Just like being in your back garden. 8(0(*
Can't you read?Amaral has every reason to lie and we all know that.
I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”. But I just thought it was”.
Amaral isn't lying! He has no reason to lie like others.
In view of what she says elsewhere and particularly at the end of her statement re RM - that part (in blue) doesn't make sense - unless it is an unfinished sentence imo.
There are several examples of people stopping in the middle of a sentence in the rogs. but instead of the typist indicating that by a series of .......................... - he/she merely puts a full stop - which is misleading to the reader.
JT's comments about Murat are made with hindsight. At the time she attended the ID parade she had no idea that it involved him.
A couple of examples of JT ending in the middle of the sentence:'
Jayne Tanner
I can’t remember what we did specifically in the time in between. I think we just had something to eat and just I think we were in Dave and Fi’s apartment, but.
JT
I mean, obviously I don’t know, I don’t know Jez, I hadn’t actually, I hadn’t had any contact with Jez through the week, I didn’t, you know, he wasn’t somebody we chatted to, so, you know, in terms of him recognising me or knowing me, he didn’t know me, so”.
JT
Reply “I know, the problem is, it’s just getting the Press and the”.
End quotesIMO for clarity - those full stops should be a line of full stops.
IE ''I just thought it was.'' should have been typed as ''I just thought it was...................''[/b]
OK, let's have it in the right context and not bits taken from different statements.
!"when they took me round for the surveillance to look at, and I’m guessing now it’s MURAT they wanted me to look at and, you know, all the other bits and bobs, I really don’t know, but I think I’d prefer just to stick with what I said in my original statement.
""I mean, I think, so the things that I’m happy, that are still in my head, that still stick in my head is the hair and it was longer, it was sort of longish and, erm, I don’t know how to (inaudible), but each, each, almost the hair was long, the bits of hair were long, so it was long into the neck." Not Smithman!"
Erm, so I went off in the back of this like refrigerated, well it was pretending to be a refrigerated, erm, van and took it round to the point on the road and obviously, in hindsight now, I realise they were probably calling Robert MURAT to try and get him to walk across, across the top of the road so that, you know, I could see. But it was a bit odd because there was a car, where we were parked there was a car that moved just at that point that he appeared and then two other people walked by, so I didn’t really, but I didn’t even recognise it as the person I’d been talking to five minutes before, well, you know, half an hour before, so. Erm, and then, erm, then went, I think because it has gone a bit wrong because this car had been there and then tried to set it up elsewhere, but again I couldn’t really see, I couldn’t really see that well and, you know, it didn’t look, it didn’t jog, jog any memories.
Replies
"4078 “Now you are left with that mental image in your head about the man carrying the child”
Reply “Umm”.
4078 “And you said, you described his hair quite well. Having seen MURAT then and obviously in the papers since, could you link the two of those?”
Reply “I don’t think so. I mean, I don’t, phew, I don’t, I don’t think it, no, there doesn’t, there’s no, but then the person I see in the paper doesn’t really look like my recollection of the person I met on the way to meet Bob SMALL. It’s really annoying because normally I would have probably taken more notice but I was so worried about what I was going to do, because I didn’t know at this point at all, I didn’t really take any notice, but I think it was too short and I remember it being, being long into the neck and not so. Again, I don’t really, when I saw Robert MURAT outside his house he looked quite little to me, but then when you see him on the telly he seems quite bit, so I can’t, again, I don’t think the build, the build was right, I don’t”.
4078 “So you don’t feel, in your heart of hearts”.
Reply “No”.
4078 “You don’t feel it was the same person?”
Reply “No, I don’t, no”.
................................................................................................
Where Jane says "I thought it was" is mentioned re those seeing Murat on the night.
4078 “Can’t find the specific part in there but I think, obviously it’s covered in the first one anyway, so it’s not particularly relevant to any (inaudible) time, going back to the second one there. Before we move on to then Gerry and Kate’s questions that they want to ask, is there anything else that you want to say in relation to everything we’ve discussed so far”? Reply “Erm I think the only part which, I mean it’s more relevant to everybody else than to me, it’s probably some of the Robert MURAT bits, in terms of erm Rachel, Fi and Russ and into, erm it was sort of how that came about and how they came to give their statements on that, I don’t know whether it’s a good time to talk about that”?
4078 “Yes, yes go on”.
Reply “Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards. So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”.
4078 “Right”.
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
4078 “Because there had been some dispute as to whether they’ve actually seen him when they’ve said they’ve seen him”.
Reply “Yeah I think, I just want to make it clear that from my own point of view, they gave that information as soon as it came onto Sky and asked and you know they were sort of like, oh let’s ring Bob SMALL to see if it’s relevant at this point and at that point, none of us knew that he wasn’t there on you know, that he didn’t say that he was there on the night and”.
4078 “Yes”.
Reply “And I, I mean I didn’t myself see him on the night at all but somebody did say to me, who translated for you, was it the lady or the man and it, it was the lady, I said, Sylvie and I hadn’t seen a man but again I don’t know whether that has any relevance that there was somebody else there translating, you know during the night so”.
4078 “Okay, that’s certainly a point worth bringing up when we interview the other people that have seen him there on the night”.
Reply “Yeah exactly, I’m not trying to, cos I feel you know, if he’s not involved, the poor chap’s had as much crap as us really, I feel very, you know, he’s not involved but I do think it’s important that”.
IMO, Jane was saying, she thought it was the right thing to do, letting Bob Small know
She didn't recognise him though, did she? Very convenient for a car to move just at the right time
I realise they were probably calling Robert MURAT to try and get him to walk across, across the top of the road so that, you know, I could see. But it was a bit odd because there was a car, where we were parked there was a car that moved just at that point that he appeared and then two other people walked by, so I didn’t really, but I didn’t even recognise it as the person I’d been talking to five minutes before, well, you know, half an hour before, so. Erm, and then, erm, then went, I think because it has gone a bit wrong because this car had been there and then tried to set it up elsewhere, but again I couldn’t really see,
She didn't know it was Murat at the time. Different men walked across the road and Tanner said that was the man and it turned out to be Murat. She found out later it was him.
She didn't though. You seem to be stating your opinion as fact.
She didn't know it was Murat at the time. Different men walked across the road and Tanner said that was the man and it turned out to be Murat. She found out later it was him. That explains her comment: "I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw but I just thought it was."
It is fact. Anyone there on the night involved in it would confirm that it happened. Murat raid was kept secret at the time.
Sunday 13 May
Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May 3rd. Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane Tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night. She definitely recognises his way of walking. But does he resemble the description she painted previously?
The investigator, with whom Murat is on friendly terms, is with him in a bar until 2 o’clock in the morning. We are not about to relax surveillance. As soon as he gets home, police officers are stationed around his house in order to monitor all entrances. The crisis unit is buzzing; the teams are preparing for the search. It will be carried out at 7am – the legally designated time -, when the journalists are not yet on the streets. The operation is kept secret. (TOTL)
Sound a bit of an indecisive lady - reminds me of Mavis out of 'Open all Hours'
It is fact. Anyone there on the night involved in it would confirm that it happened. Murat raid was kept secret at the time.
Sunday 13 May
Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May 3rd. Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane Tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night. She definitely recognises his way of walking. But does he resemble the description she painted previously?
The investigator, with whom Murat is on friendly terms, is with him in a bar until 2 o’clock in the morning. We are not about to relax surveillance. As soon as he gets home, police officers are stationed around his house in order to monitor all entrances. The crisis unit is buzzing; the teams are preparing for the search. It will be carried out at 7am – the legally designated time -, when the journalists are not yet on the streets. The operation is kept secret. (TOTL)
Ah, Amaral again, who wasn't even there. So why didn't he get a statement from Jane Tanner? Amaral's interpretation is dynamite.
The one who is a convicted liar, twice over in the PT Courts.
Yep it's him again and as you say
He wasn't even there ! And instead of Chinese whispers, didn't he get a statement from Jane Tanner?
If she had verbally affirmed that it was Murat that she had seen as Tannerman, he would certianly have wanted a written statement.
But NO statement, and that PROVES that she did NOT affirm that Murat was Tannerman .... IMO ...... and it is staring you in the eyes Pfinder, Jassi and Faith.
She didn't know it was Murat at the time. Different men walked across the road and Tanner said that was the man and it turned out to be Murat. She found out later it was him. That explains her comment: "I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw but I just thought it was."
If JT had identified Murat as the person who abducted Madeleine - Amaral would have told his officers when they rang him to get her to the police station PDQ for a statement - as this would be massive evidence against Murat. Instead he told them to send her home.Precisely right. 8@??)(
Kate confirms in her book that his claim that JT identified Murat is completely untrue. Do you think she would put that into print if there was the slightest chance that Amaral could prove it was untrue and that she wass lying? Of course not - her book would have been dead in the water.
A positive identification of Murat as the person seen carrying a child would have been mentioned by the AG in his report - in the section about Murat - explaining why he was made an Arguido. In fact it would have probably featured as the most important reason. The AG does not mention it. That alone is proof that it didn't happen.
The ID parade happened, but JT could not identify Murat as anyone she knew or recognised. Amaral lied through his teeth when he claimed in his book that JT had FORMALLY identified Murat.
If JT had identified Murat as the person who abducted Madeleine - Amaral would have told his officers when they rang him to get her to the police station PDQ for a statement - as this would be massive evidence against Murat. Instead he told them to send her home.
Kate confirms in her book that his claim that JT identified Murat is completely untrue. Do you think she would put that into print if there was the slightest chance that Amaral could prove it was untrue and that she wass lying? Of course not - her book would have been dead in the water.
A positive identification of Murat as the person seen carrying a child would have been mentioned by the AG in his report - in the section about Murat - explaining why he was made an Arguido. In fact it would have probably featured as the most important reason. The AG does not mention it. That alone is proof that it didn't happen.
The ID parade happened, but JT could not identify Murat as anyone she knew or recognised. Amaral lied through his teeth when he claimed in his book that JT had FORMALLY identified Murat.
Too many quotes from Amaral’s book are posted, as if they were the truth, instead of the information in the files which is the truth, IMO.
Anyone new to the forum, must find this confusing.
Way too many, Anna.
But why do some have the need to deliberately misquote statements, to make them fit agendas, I wonder.
*Irony Klaxon*
"Kleenex Tissue"
Excuse me ?Clean up your act.
Clean up your act.
Drop the Quenton Crisp methods.
Use real facts, not myths and Amarals spiel. We all know he is a liar as proven in two Courts and witnessed inumeral times in his so called "facts", which are NOT FACTS but part of his Grand Agenda
Indeed, we should stick to the facts.You dont know that
and the fact of the matter is, Jane Tanner didn't see an abductor.
Indeed, we should stick to the facts.
and the fact of the matter is, Jane Tanner didn't see an abductor.
Sound a bit of an indecisive lady - reminds me of Mavis out of 'Open all Hours'
Jane Tanner is anything but indecisive ... she has maintained her dignity despite suffering horrendous abuse simply because she reported what she witnessed and she stuck to that from beginning to end ... it is a pity there are still those who choose to denigrate that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwVMsDIoULQ#t=174
Interesting where Andy says "we made a decision about what we were going to bring to the public". Or words to that effect. It begs the question "what are they not bringing to the public"?. He does rather frag poor old "Tannerman The Abductor" and say "work it out for your self" regarding Smithman twitching a grin when he says "it may be innocent of course".
What are you reading into that?That DCI Redwood thought the man Mr Smith saw is a person of interest that he would like to question in order to determine if he were a suspect, which one could read into what DCI Redwood said, or an innocent bystander. If you believe The Telegraph the man has not been unaccounted for to date and remains a suspect.
That DCI Redwood thought the man Mr Smith saw is a person of interest that he would like to question in order to determine if he were a suspect, which one could read into what DCI Redwood said, or an innocent bystander. If you believe The Telegraph the man has not been unaccounted for to date and remains a suspect.that being the case what do you make of the theory that the Met believe Smithman to be someone very well known to them and they are simply pretending not to, to spook their number 1 suspect?
that being the case what do you make of the theory that the Met believe Smithman to be someone very well known to them and they are simply pretending not to, to spook their number 1 suspect?
To quote Sergeant Joe Friday "just gimme the facts man".Nope, didn't understand a word of that. Straight answers man, please!
Like Andy Redwood spread, greased, fragged whatever you prefer, Tannerman The Abductor.
The rest remains to be sorted.
Nope, didn't understand a word of that. Straight answers man, please!It's a plausible theory.
It's a plausible theory.It disappoints me that intelligent people such as yourself can believe such nonsense theories to be plausible. It beggars belief in fact.
You do disappoint me though Alf; you have an excuse for being unworldly for the past seven years because of your obsession with the McCanns or more specifically with those who disbelieve them.
But to have not got around much before then does beg a few a questions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwwONrTlVes
It disappoints me that intelligent people such as yourself can believe such nonsense theories to be plausible. It beggars belief in fact.
Well that's life I guess.I don't get round much which is why I must have missed all the other occasions when the police have issued photofits of their key suspect when he is already well known to them and sat only a few seconds walk away from the DCI as he presents the photofits. I'm sure as you are much more worldy wise an me that you will be able to furnish me with numerous similar instances.
Like Mose says you clearly don't get around much 8(0(*
Anyway dear old Andy sure fragged Tannerman The Abductor which kind of knocked out the lynch pin of one theory.
How about that Alf?
I don't get round much which is why I must have missed all the other occasions when the police have issued photofits of their key suspect when he is already well known to them and sat only a few seconds walk away from the DCI as he presents the photofits. I'm sure as you are much more worldy wise an me that you will be able to furnish me with numerous similar instances.
I don't get round much which is why I must have missed all the other occasions when the police have issued photofits of their key suspect when he is already well known to them and sat only a few seconds walk away from the DCI as he presents the photofits. I'm sure as you are much more worldy wise an me that you will be able to furnish me with numerous similar instances.Not only do you not get around much you don't read too well either. I said the theory was plausible I didn't say I believed it.
Not only do you not get around much you don't read too well either. I said the theory was plausible I didn't say I believed it.To be remotely plausible there really should be at least one other instance where police have used this tactic that you can draw on to illustrate its plausibility. Still, interesting to note you don't believe this is what the Met are doing int this case. And now you're going to say "I didn't say the Met aren't using this tactic" just to cover all bases. @)(++(*
I believe that The Met greased Tannerman the Abductor and that Smithman remains a suspect no more no less.
Is that why they're spending so much money on this case? Because they know who did it.If they know who dunnit then why need to spend so much money on it? Just slap the fella in clink and be done with it. Are you suggesting that if they didn't know who dunnit it they wouldn't have need to spend so much money? That's typical topsy-turvy logic for you!
To be remotely plausible there really should be at least one other instance where police have used this tactic that you can draw on to illustrate its plausibility. Still, interesting to note you don't believe this is what the Met are doing int this case. And now you're going to say "I didn't say the Met aren't using this tactic" just to cover all bases. @)(++(*Why?
If they know who dunnit then why need to spend so much money on it? Just slap the fella in clink and be done with it. Are you suggesting that if they didn't know who dunnit it they wouldn't have need to spend so much money? That's typical topsy-turvy logic for you!
Why?Why? Because there have been millions of photofits issued by police over the years. For the tactic of issuing photofits of suspects already well known and within easy access of the police in order to spook them to be plausible there should by at least hundreds of examples of this tactic having been put into practice over the years and perhaps dozens of occasions when this tactic has worked, and I would have thought at least a handful of examples of these occasions that have been covered by the media at some point. You imply that because I don't get around much that I wouldn't be aware of these hence why I'm asking you to give your reasons why you believe such a tactic to be plausible. Unless you think it's plausible this is a novel, untried and untested approach used in this case for the very first time? In which case, how would you see it working exactly?
All I will say is that Tannerman The Abductor was a blind alley and Smithman remains a suspect.
It's not what you know but what you can prove. We will see.How can you know something without any evidence?
How can you know something without any evidence?
How can you know something without any evidence?
Adrian Prout is an example. They knew it was him but they never had a body. So it's circumstantial and connecting evidence to convict him in court. He later confessed. If they find Maddy then you can prove she is dead or alive. SY think she's dead. They aren't spending millions looking for a body for no reason. With a body they can prove that she died and they ill say it happened on 3 May inside apartment 5A and we know who the main suspects are.the only problem with your comparison is that Prout had already been found guilty of murder before he confessed and the body found which tends to suggest there was plenty of evidence he dunnit even without a body found.
Why? Because there have been millions of photofits issued by police over the years. For the tactic of issuing photofits of suspects already well known and within easy access of the police in order to spook them to be plausible there should by at least hundreds of examples of this tactic having been put into practice over the years and perhaps dozens of occasions when this tactic has worked, and I would have thought at least a handful of examples of these occasions that have been covered by the media at some point. You imply that because I don't get around much that I wouldn't be aware of these hence why I'm asking you to give your reasons why you believe such a tactic to be plausible. Unless you think it's plausible this is a novel, untried and untested approach used in this case for the very first time? In which case, how would you see it working exactly?
OK let's take the superfluous words out of you basic argument.plausible
It then boils down to "it cannot be plausible because it has not been done before".
I'll leave you to convince the forum about the efficacy of that argument.
Adrian Prout is an example. They knew it was him but they never had a body. So it's circumstantial and connecting evidence to convict him in court. He later confessed. If they find Maddy then you can prove she is dead or alive. SY think she's dead. They aren't spending millions looking for a body for no reason. With a body they can prove that she died and they will say it happened on 3 May inside apartment 5A and we know who the main suspects are.
To be remotely plausible there really should be at least one other instanceOK, then perhaps you can tell me why you have dismissed this oh so very plausible theory as being believable in this case? On what grounds?where police have used this tacticthat you can draw on to illustrate its plausibility.
Above is what you posted. Words that are irrelevant to the principle of the argument have been struck through.
The argument you put forward should stand as a principle. It clearly doesn't.
Posting etymological detail does not improve the argument.
Is it plausible that pigs could in theory fly? Of course, no pig has ever flown before and pigs don't (as a rule) have wings but surely that doesn't stop it being plausible does it Alice?
Oooooh Alf you are a caution!So, to cut a long story short in your view it is plausible that pigs can fly and that the Met are spooking their chief suspect by using a photofit of him on Crimewatch, though despite its plausibility you don't actually believe this is what they are doing. Cool. 8((()*/
You use the "logical fallacy" like it is going out of fashion.
As you are so familiar with its use I presume you are familiar with methods for its testing.
It is manifestly preposterous to put forward the argument that for something to be remotely plausible it must have occurred before.
Going back to your original argument and ignoring everything else you are lobbing in as a distraction shall we test your statement in the normal manner?
To be remotely plausible there really should be at least one other instance where police have used this tactic that you can draw on to illustrate its plausibility.
As I am sure you are aware the test is to substitute for the words "where police have used this tactic" and then see if the argument remains standing and as you raise flying lets continue with that notion.
To be remotely plausible there really should be at least one other instance of powered flight that you can draw on to illustrate its [The Wright Brothers theory] plausibility.
Ooops that doesn't seem to have worked. Lets try it with something else. Well don't let's bother because were your argument correct any kind of advancement would be impossible.
ps I think you will find Lord Brabazon took a pig in basket up on one of his first flights carrying the tag "Pigs can Fly" 8(0(*
So, to cut a long story short in your view it is plausible that pigs can fly and that the Met are spooking their chief suspect by using a photofit of him on Crimewatch, though despite its plausibility you don't actually believe this is what they are doing. Cool. 8((()*/
If that is your interpretation of what I have said fair dos, I cannot help you with any aberrations you may have, but it does not detract from your original argument being erroneous.So, on what basis is it plausible and why do you not believe the Met are using these photofits to spook their chief suspect?
You said:
To be remotely plausible there really should be at least one other instance where police have used this tactic that you can draw on to illustrate its plausibility.
Which statement does not stand up to scrutiny, however if you wish to introduce pigs and all sorts of other diversions which you then seem to wish to attribute to me go ahead. It will not alter the fact that The Met deffed out Tannerman The Abductor, Smithman is a suspect and you made an insupportable postulation.
Is it plausible that pigs could in theory fly? Of course, no pig has ever flown before and pigs don't (as a rule) have wings but surely that doesn't stop it being plausible does it Alice?
Davel will be after you for doing a celestial teapot.
Or did you mean celestial t'pot?@)(++(* very good - I see what you did there - a nice subtle insult, 8@??)(
@)(++(* very good - I see what you did there - a nice subtle insult, 8@??)(
Now perhaps you could answer my question...? 8**8:/:
Why?If you say so. In order to move the discussion on then now that I have conceded that I'm a complete imbecile perhaps you could answer my question? Fully accept you may not wish to...
It had no bearing on what I have been posting about which was your erroneous assumption that for something to be plausible there had to be evidence it had been done before.
You lost that argument several posts ago.
If you say so. In order to move the discussion on then now that I have conceded that I'm a complete imbecile perhaps you could answer my question? Fully accept you may not wish to...
1)So, on what basis is it plausible and why do you not believe the Met are using these photofits to spook their chief suspect?Go for number 2.
2)OK, then perhaps you can tell me why you have dismissed this oh so very plausible theory as being believable in this case? On what grounds?
3)So, to cut a long story short in your view it is plausible that pigs can fly and that the Met are spooking their chief suspect by using a photofit of him on Crimewatch, though despite its plausibility you don't actually believe this is what they are doing. Cool. 8((()*/
Which of these were you referring to?
Go for number 2.
Does it contain a typo? It does not appear to make sense.Does it? You don't understand the question then. That's fine, no problem. I didn't expect a straight answer from you anyway. Let's just say the theory is both pausible and unbelievable and leave it at that shall we? 8(0(*
Does it? You don't understand the question then. That's fine, no problem. I didn't expect a straight answer from you anyway. Let's just say the theory is both pausible and unbelievable and leave it at that shall we? 8(0(*
Well I thought is should read "blah de bloody dah UNbelievable" rather than "blah de bloody dah believable"Blah de blah whatever blah de blah losing the will to live blah de blah off to bed now.
Please advise
Blah de blah whatever blah de blah losing the will to live blah de blah off to bed now.
Anyone notice there is now no mention of smithman anywhere on findmadeleine.com site? Could that mean he's been ruled out as well as tannerman? Although tannerman efit is still there...
Yes Tannerman had of course, but they still have that efit up there with a small explanation. But no Smithman anywhere...
Anyone notice there is now no mention of smithman anywhere on findmadeleine.com site? Could that mean he's been ruled out as well as tannerman? Although tannerman efit is still there...
There is a list of witnesses 1-5 If you click on 5 you will see the smithman video.
There is a list of witnesses 1-5 If you click on 5 you will see the smithman video.
Is this an extract from the documentary produced by Emma Loach which shows Smithman in the same clothes as Tannerman was shown wearing and also carrying the child not in the way the Smiths described but as Tanner described ?
Tell me Anna what use is a reenactment that bears little, if any, resemblance to the witness statements ?
I didn't watch the video, Faith. I only noticed that it was there and gave the information, for anyone interested .
However I must admit that I have little faith in 2 e fits that were made up from 2 descriptions given by 2 people, who said they could not recognise Smithman from a photograph......The e fits are almost photographs.
I didn't watch the video, Faith. I only noticed that it was there and gave the information, for anyone interested .
However I must admit that I have little faith in 2 e fits that were made up from 2 descriptions given by 2 people, who said they could not recognise Smithman from a photograph......The e fits are almost photographs.
I believe one of the efits was based on Mary Smith's description. Did she say she wouldn't recognise Smithman ? Further if the efits carry such scant credibility why are SY using them in a bid to catch Madeleine's alleged abductor ? Are they simply clutching at straws ?
Which one of the two, was my M Smith's?......That would be the most likely, to have some resemblance, as M Smith, most definitely said, that he would not recognize him from a photo.
So, which was which do you think? Not too difficult to work out really.
Why are the SY using these e fits? What else do they have? This is my opinion only, Faith.
And thank you for replying Anna. Am I correct in surmising that you don't have much faith in SY to crack the case ?
In Jeremy's first interview by UK police he drew a sketch which puts the conversation on the corner of the path.
In Jeremy's first interview by UK police he drew a sketch which puts the conversation on the corner of the path.IMO "the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left" is the most accurate indication of the chat location. (SOURCE: VOL 13, P 3409).
IMO "the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left" is the most accurate indication of the chat location. (SOURCE: VOL 13, P 3409).
It places the chat level with the gate and steps, and so does other text in the same source "near to the gate".
Mr Amaral also places the chat level with the steps and gate. Here is a still from his video reconstruction of the chat... (SOURCE: 9e7ug0BfNy4)
Yes I understand what you are saying. But I think the chat was level with the gate. There are various ways the chat could end up being here.
Gerry was walking(presumably back to the Restaurant) when Jez saw him, so he must have already come out of the gate and was walking.....................So he could have walked as far as the alleyway corner, which is a very short distance from the gate.
CARTAS ROGATORIAS 5
Pages 25 to 29......
(snip)
Yes I understand what you are saying. But I think the chat was level with the gate. There are various ways the chat could end up being here.
Also the map by JT draws the chat is further north than the alleyway.
About 30% of the way from the alleyway to the front of the building?
Snip from JT map and a photo at same scale
Yes agreed lots of ifs, but IMO it is good to work on, it decides the audibilty.
I think we have crossed wires. If Gerry was walking towards the restaurant when Jez spotted him. He would be at the alleyway side of the wall...as his sketch, already shown by, G in a previous post.
There is so many "Ifs" that it is a waste of time arguing about it.
Not necessarily Anna. Gerry could have been walking down the street and stopped to meet at the gate, where in fact JW said they had their conversation on his return via the front and not patio door. He did say in his first statement he used the front door with his key, so if that is true will have walked around and down on his return.
Anyway,I have forgotten the point of this discussion and have an early shift. Catch up tomorrow maybe.
Yes agreed lots of ifs, but IMO it is good to work on, it decides the audibilty.
ETA yes I see JW sketch, IMO both that and the 5 metre text description should be considered
Yes agreed lots of ifs, but IMO it is good to work on, it decides the audibilty.
ETA yes I see JW sketch, IMO both that and the 5 metre text description should be considered
Yes agreed lots of ifs, but IMO it is good to work on, it decides the audibilty.Pegasus
ETA yes I see JW sketch, IMO both that and the 5 metre text description should be considered
Snip from JT map and a photo at same scale
That's why I think if Jane saw them both but didn't hear them talking then she saw the man crossing from much further away and turned left onto the path to go back to the apartment instead of passing them. That is the only logical conclusion if she saw them but they didn't see her. Gerry had his back to to the gate and Jez was facing him so they weren't looking in her direction before she turned left onto the path. She can't pass them at the gate without being seen. It is impossible!
First statements from the McCanns:
It is stressed that when one of the members of the group, JANE, went to her apartment to see her children, at around 9.10/9.15 pm, from behind and at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road next to the club, she saw a person carrying a child in pyjamas. JANE will be better able to clarify this situation.
Why is 50 metres said by them? From the top of the road to the tapas entrance. They may have thought that was about 50 metres but what is the distance?
The distance from the centreline of the reception building north to the road junction is 45m approx.
Give or take the alley way is 10/12m from reception building.
Thank you so the McCanns thought Jane saw the man as soon as she left the secondary reception i.e. about 50 metres away.
As in Gerry's first statement;
In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine. "He then went to the WC" where he remained for a few moments, left, and bumped into a person he had played tennis with and who had a child's push chair, he was also British, he had a short conversation with him, "returning after that to the restaurant."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
But immediately after he says;
At about 21.30 his friend Matt (member of the group) went to the apartment, where his children were and on his way went to the witness' apartment, entering by means of a glass sliding door that was always unlocked and was located laterally to the building.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
This first statement makes no sense whatsoever. Why would Gerry use the front door if the patio door was unlocked? The only way it makes sense is if the apartment was fully locked up at 9.05pm when Gerry went in, but the patio door was unlocked when Matt went in. In other words, Gerry entered through the locked front door, then exited by unlocking the patio door. Perhaps he just stepped out for some reason and was going to go back in and lock up again? Instead he heard or saw Jeremy Wilkins approaching and stepped out to speak to him, then forgot about the patio door and returned to the restaurant.
A little later in the statement he's forgotten about the unlocked patio door again, then he remembers;
At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key and saw immediately that the door to the children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the blinds were raised and the curtains were drawn open.
The side door leading to the living room was closed, which as previously stated, was never left locked.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
Looking at the 'Activity book' timeline, Gerry's meeting with Jeremy Wilkins isn't on there. He is supposed to have checked 9.10-9.15pm. Jan Tanner saw the 'abductor' at 9.20pm. Had the timeline been correct, Jane wouldn't have passed the two men chatting. Did Jane leave the restaurant earlier than the timeline says or was Gerry delayed by meeting Jeremy? Whichever; neither man saw her, which casts doubt upon her statement.
Excellent points here. they will be all be put down to distress or the translator making things up and such like.
I would always have reservations about anyone's guesstimate of distance, time and mass.
Starting with a blank sheet: even someone with 6/6 vision would struggle to make out detail at dusk at 50m.
I would suggest Jane needed to be north of Jez & Gerry to have observed the detail she apparently did.
I couldn't make much sense of the distances quoted by various protagonists, but if you plot it out with respect to where people said they were relative to features it is quite revealing. (how sad is that but it was a miserable winter).
Mr A claims the chat was near the gate and the sound of the chat was audible in the living area.Pegasus.
This is very important whatever theory you may have.
For example if an abductor entered the apartment, when he walked between the front door and bedroom, he would hear the sound of voices coming in through the pane of that living area window, right?
So does anyone agree that the chat location was near that window and the sound of the chat was audible in the living area?
Pegasus.
Amaral has a theory and you have fallen for it, when the evidence goes against it.
Amaral has revealed the shallowness of his theories over and over; he either doesn't think them thru or he makes them up to fit his agenda
You and others are just making a story up to fit your ideas... doing the same as Amaral
The chat was NOT near the window but some 7.4 metres[24+ft] away right by the alleyway corner
Three diferent sets of evidence agree and confirm that. You are selecting isolated instances that state other places and you are NOT being logical in doing so.
* See
sadie post
Reply #1286 on: May 13, 2015, 12:50:16 AM
And Anna posts
Reply # 1285 on: May 12, 2015, 11:34:48 PM
and Reply #1281 on: May 12, 2015, 10:44:52 PM
Furthermore Gerry as a parent, would know the need to keep his voice down, so as to not disturb Jezes little one. Unless the window was open, no-one would possibly hear the hushed voices outside.
If the window was open then all your and pathfinders theories about draughts closing and opening doors are rubbished immediately.
Pegasus you are pushing a dead dodo with your assumptions. Amaral might be your friend BUT please let's be realistic.
Pegasus.
Amaral has a theory and you have fallen for it, when the evidence goes against it.
Amaral has revealed the shallowness of his theories over and over; he either doesn't think them thru or he makes them up to fit his agenda
You and others are just making a story up to fit your ideas... doing the same as Amaral
The chat was NOT near the window but some 7.4 metres[24+ft] away right by the alleyway corner
Three diferent sets of evidence agree and confirm that. You are selecting isolated instances that state other places and you are NOT being logical in doing so.
* See
sadie post
Reply #1286 on: May 13, 2015, 12:50:16 AM
And Anna posts
Reply # 1285 on: May 12, 2015, 11:34:48 PM
and Reply #1281 on: May 12, 2015, 10:44:52 PM
Furthermore Gerry as a parent, would know the need to keep his voice down, so as to not disturb Jezes little one. Unless the window was open, no-one would possibly hear the hushed voices outside.
If the window was open then all your and pathfinders theories about draughts closing and opening doors are rubbished immediately.
Pegasus you are pushing a dead dodo with your assumptions. Amaral might be your friend BUT please let's be realistic.
Pegasus.Far from blindly accepting his theories ...... this is what I believe ......
Amaral has a theory and you have fallen for it, when the evidence goes against it.
Amaral has revealed the shallowness of his theories over and over; he either doesn't think them thru or he makes them up to fit his agenda
You and others are just making a story up to fit your ideas... doing the same as Amaral
The chat was NOT near the window but some 7.4 metres[24+ft] away right by the alleyway corner
Three diferent sets of evidence agree and confirm that. You are selecting isolated instances that state other places and you are NOT being logical in doing so.
* See
sadie post
Reply #1286 on: May 13, 2015, 12:50:16 AM
And Anna posts
Reply # 1285 on: May 12, 2015, 11:34:48 PM
and Reply #1281 on: May 12, 2015, 10:44:52 PM
Furthermore Gerry as a parent, would know the need to keep his voice down, so as to not disturb Jezes little one. Unless the window was open, no-one would possibly hear the hushed voices outside.
If the window was open then all your and pathfinders theories about draughts closing and opening doors are rubbished immediately.
Pegasus you are pushing a dead dodo with your assumptions. Amaral might be your friend BUT please let's be realistic.
I cannot speak with authority on G5A, but here is my experience in Portugal.In the rogs is an account of someone checking a different apartment in the same block.
I have lived on holiday/"permanently" in perhaps 12 to 15 properties in the last 10 to 12 years.
One in Olhão was a "renovated" property. I loved the location but "renovated" was stretching it a bit. It had the original wooden doors, rotting in places. And the original wooden windows, complete with wooden shutters.
I would say that place was single glazed, but it was probably built a hundred years ago.
Places I have lived in before and after this include antique villas etc. All of these were double-glazed. The place I am living in now is about the same vintage as the Ocean Club, and it is double-glazed, with original windows in situ.
If you want to make a case for 5A being single-glazed the please go for it. It would be an exception to the general trend, but exceptions do happen.
In the rogs is an account of someone checking a different apartment in the same block.
Before opening the door the checker, from outside, through the glass of a completely shut window, hears a child making low volume noise inside. This proves that even low volume human voice passes through the type of window installed block 5.
I would always have reservations about anyone's guesstimate of distance, time and mass.
Starting with a blank sheet: even someone with 6/6 vision would struggle to make out detail at dusk at 50m.
I would suggest Jane needed to be north of Jez & Gerry to have observed the detail she apparently did.
I couldn't make much sense of the distances quoted by various protagonists, but if you plot it out with respect to where people said they were relative to features it is quite revealing. (how sad is that but it was a miserable winter).
Wouldn't the closed shutter muffle the sound of any voices even more?The 5D rear bedroom window was closed and its shutter was closed but it described in one of the relevant rogatories that human voice could easily be heard through them, before the door is opened, heard through closed window and closed shutter. 5D has same design windows and shutters as 5A.
Janes memory inprovedwith further discussions with Kate N Gerry..with time, because as Kate mentioned on Oprah show ( nothing to do with Maddies dissapearance in America?) Jane described the PYJAMAS Maddie wore similar to * she held some up to audience* as she was being carried away by the 'abductor' which we now know was a just a guy carrying a child with similar jammies to Maddie...erm.. um.. hmm..
The glaring and questionable discrepancy I found with Jane Tanner was her saying she only saw a pair of feet and the bottoms of the child's pyjamas. Two weeks later she or someone pretending to speak for her (in the Tapas groups' joint statement to police in May 10th 2007) said she thought the child's top was pink!
&%+((£
Up until October 2007 when she appeared in Panorama, she maintained all she saw was the feet. Curious.
Conjures up a mental image of the abductor making off with disembodied feet ...
The glaring and questionable discrepancy I found with Jane Tanner was her saying she only saw a pair of feet and the bottoms of the child's pyjamas. Two weeks later she or someone pretending to speak for her (in the Tapas groups' joint statement to police in May 10th 2007) said she thought the child's top was pink!
&%+((£
Up until October 2007 when she appeared in Panorama, she maintained all she saw was the feet. Curious.
Has anyone tried carrying a child of Madeleine's age as Tanner describes without the head a top of the body being visible? It's not possible. Don't believe me ? Then watch the McCann's own mockumentary. The head and upper torso of the child being carried is visible. If Tanner could see the pyjama top she could also see the child's head.When she got the side view she was standing downhill of man that changes the angle she sees the child. Also the child had a pink blanket on its chest, see the clothing photo which SY released.
This story always raised a lot of questions. If that had been an abductor who was in the apartment before Gerry when was he supposed to have opened the shutters? Before he left? Why didn't Jeremy and Gerald hear them, it was very quiet? Why didn't they see Jane? Why didn't Matthew see the open window and shutters?
Then we have him being a Dad from the creche. Where had he been? He is coming from a direction which makes no sense, because he would have had to have left the creche and walked in a large circle to be where he was seen. DCI Redwood wanted to get rid of him, but this was a clumsy attempt.
When she got the side view she was standing downhill of man that changes the angle she sees the child. Also the child had a pink blanket on its chest, see the clothing photo which SY released.
Are you saying the man seen by Jane Tanner was the abductor carrying Madeleine?No
This story always raised a lot of questions. If that had been an abductor who was in the apartment before Gerry when was he supposed to have opened the shutters? Before he left? Why didn't Jeremy and Gerald hear them, it was very quiet? Why didn't they see Jane? Why didn't Matthew see the open window and shutters?
Then we have him being a Dad from the creche. Where had he been? He is coming from a direction which makes no sense, because he would have had to have left the creche and walked in a large circle to be where he was seen. DCI Redwood wanted to get rid of him, but this was a clumsy attempt.
FGS - The only information SY wanted to impart to the public was that Tannerman was almost certainly an innocent tourist. Which is exactly what they did during the programme. There was no need for them to waste programme time going into every single detail of how they came to that conclusion - simply for the benefit of a group of sceptics on the internet.
Anyone who thinks SY did not get answers to the questions you raise before they decided he was an innocent tourist - is being completely unrealistic IMO. Just because they didn't tell us what they were - doesn't mean they don't exist.
FGS - The only information SY wanted to impart to the public was that Tannerman was almost certainly an innocent tourist. Which is exactly what they did during the programme. There was no need for them to waste programme time going into every single detail of how they came to that conclusion - simply for the benefit of a group of sceptics on the internet.
Anyone who thinks SY did not get answers to the questions you raise before they decided he was an innocent tourist - is being completely unrealistic IMO. Just because they didn't tell us what they were - doesn't mean they don't exist.
The theory that the man JT saw was carrying the missing child does not work.
GM leaves apartment
Chat begins
Man enters apartment through front door.
To get to bedroom he must walk through part of living area.
From there he would hear the chat just outside the lounge side window, on Rua Martins
He goes into bedroom.
Leaves bedroom
To get back to front door and escape, he must pass through part of living area again.
From there he would hear the chat just outside on Rua Martins, again.
So it is obvious he would not choose toescape across that T junction, because he knows from hearing it twice that there are two people chatting on Rua Martins.
He would go the other way, west, not across the T junction where he knows there are people just down the road.
Maybe that wasn't where the get away vehicle was parked.
Maybe that wasn't where he was living at the time.
The duration of the conversation was probably about three minutes ... time enough for an intruder to be in and out of the apartment.
How do we know Madeleine wasn't taken upstairs to Apartment 5j which was the route taken by the GNR dogs? Nothing like hiding in plain sight.
I've never thought that was a pink blanket. IMO it's 'fuzzy bit' put in by the artist to denote that JT did not see that part of the child, rather than leave an empty space which would have looked really strange and abnormal.
The fact that no pink blanket has ever been claimed to have been seen by JT or the Smiths would seem to bear that out.
The 5D rear bedroom window was closed and its shutter was closed but it described in one of the relevant rogatories that human voice could easily be heard through them, before the door is opened, heard through closed window and closed shutter. 5D has same design windows and shutters as 5A.
Has anyone tried carrying a child of Madeleine's age as Tanner describes without the head a top of the body being visible? It's not possible. Don't believe me ? Then watch the McCann's own mockumentary. The head and upper torso of the child being carried is visible. If Tanner could see the pyjama top she could also see the child's head.What a vivid imagination you have Faith
What a vivid imagination you have FaithSadie you and I may disagree on some details but we seem to agree very constructively that JT is a completely honest witness. Watching the video where this witness is in Rua Martins showing where the chat was, I have never seen a more straightforward and truthful witness, instantly trustable, no doubt whatsoever.
Of course it is perfectly possible to carry a child as Jane describes.
Please do NOT FORGET that Jane was downhill to Tannerman .... so the bottom half of the little girls body would partially visually block the upper half.
Sadie you and I may disagree on some details but we seem to agree very constructively that JT is a completely honest witness. Watching the video where this witness is in Rua Martins showing where the chat was, I have never seen a more straightforward and truthful witness, instantly trustable, no doubt whatsoever.
I agree Pegasus. Despite her hesitant way of talking , Jane is totally straighforward and honest.GM was facing away from her, and the fact that JW did not notice her indicates that when she walked past he was probably looking at his child, so I think she genuinely did walk post the chat, accurate testimony.
Thank you for your honesty
I could get on with you in real life, I think ?{)(**
You really can't have it both ways Benice. Either Tanner saw the child as denoted in the mockumentary in which case she would have had to have seen at least part of the child's face and hair or she didn't see the top half at all, as drawn by Little, and therefore how could she have described the pyjama top ?
GM was facing away from her, and the fact that JW did not notice her indicates that when she walked past he was probably looking at his child, so I think she genuinely did walk post the chat, accurate testimony.
Sadie you and I may disagree on some details but we seem to agree very constructively that JT is a completely honest witness. Watching the video where this witness is in Rua Martins showing where the chat was, I have never seen a more straightforward and truthful witness, instantly trustable, no doubt whatsoever.
GM was facing away from her, and the fact that JW did not notice her indicates that when she walked past he was probably looking at his child, so I think she genuinely did walk post the chat, accurate testimony.
On a busier street with people coming and going perhaps, but this was quiet with no-one around. I would expect anyone to glance at the source of footsteps or movement in such a place.
I think JT tried to be as helpful as possible, though her witness statements are not terribly coherent.
On a busier street with people coming and going perhaps, but this was quiet with no-one around. I would expect anyone to glance at the source of footsteps or movement in such a place. [ moderated ]
Would you expect someone who had consumed 3 or 4 glasses of wine to be as aware & observant as you assert in your post?
Jeremy Wilkins or Gerry McCann?Possibly both of them but again we just dont know. We are speculating.
How many vehicles were parked on the street?
Possibly both of them but again we just dont know. We are speculating.
However from the waiters statements we know that not much wine had been consumed at the table by the Tapas group
How many vehicles were parked on the street?On that side of the road there were at least two parked cars between the apartment and tapas reception
Citation please Pegasus.ROB rog (9.30 check), proves that sound travels easily through a closed window and shutter of same design.
One thing is for sure and that is someone was either seriously mistaken or being purposely deceitful.As we are unable to defame people on this forum then the only answer we can give is that Gerry was mistaken. End of discussion.
By two to one that puts Gerry in the frame so which one was it? Memory freeze per chance?
One thing is for sure and that is someone was either seriously mistaken or being purposely deceitful.IMO the chat was near the gate, but the important place is inside the apartment There is a surprising concord on this point between two opposite theories. A main theory in the cuttingedge film claims something important happens inside while the chat is happening outside. And so does a main theory in the verdade film.
By two to one that puts Gerry in the frame so which one was it? Memory freeze per chance?
On that side of the road there were at least two parked cars between the apartment and tapas reception
"When I crossed the road outside the MW reception I remember there were cars parked, I remember taking some time to see if I could cross the road because there were cars parked to my left ..... They were about six metres away from me and i calculate that some (inaudible) metres from the back of Gerry's apartment"
Quite ... parked vehicles are something always ignored when discussing sight lines and the position of the individuals concerned.
For example, why did Jez feel secure enough to stand in the road with a pushchair while having a conversation, however brief? Was it because he was standing behind a parked vehicle.
Perhaps one might even have been the getaway vehicle for someone whose intention had been to exit via the balcony doors, a change in plan being necessitated when that exit was temporarily blocked by Gery and Jez.
Quite ... parked vehicles are something always ignored when discussing sight lines and the position of the individuals concerned.
For example, why did Jez feel secure enough to stand in the road with a pushchair while having a conversation, however brief? Was it because he was standing behind a parked vehicle.
Perhaps one might even have been the getaway vehicle for someone whose intention had been to exit via the balcony doors, a change in plan being necessitated when that exit was temporarily blocked by Gery and Jez.
Up until DCI Andy fragged Tannerman the abductor had made good his exit on foot. All of a sudden we have getaway vehicles.
Quite ... parked vehicles are something always ignored when discussing sight lines and the position of the individuals concerned.It's a pleasure to agree with you about the parked cars Brietta. The Carpenter statement is proof that at about the time of the chat there were at least two parked cars on that side of the road, the first was about 6 metres north of tapas reception, and the second (and maybe more) cars were even closer to chat location than that. The witness had a very good reason for noticing this, it is because he had to cross the road, and the parked cars meant he had to check for traffic more carefully, and that is why he is the one who remembers the cars.
For example, why did Jez feel secure enough to stand in the road with a pushchair while having a conversation, however brief? Was it because he was standing behind a parked vehicle.
Perhaps one might even have been the getaway vehicle for someone whose intention had been to exit via the balcony doors, a change in plan being necessitated when that exit was temporarily blocked by Gery and Jez.
It's quite extraordinary how a half-open moving door and an unused window can confuse so many....It's amazing how there're probably only two peeps who see the obvious solution that it was probably the child who opened the door wider. That's ok, i'm in good company :)
I wasn't aware that she had described the pyjama top. Could you clarify please Faith?
Possibly both of them but again we just dont know. We are speculating.Everyone had a bottle of wine each each night out according to Gerry Mccann. You are right that we are speculating how much was drunk that specific night by 10 pm. It depends on what time they normally went home?
However from the waiters statements we know that not much wine had been consumed at the table by the Tapas group
It's amazing how there're probably only two peeps who see the obvious solution that it was probably the child who opened the door wider. That's ok, i'm in good company :)
Everyone had a bottle of wine each each night out according to Gerry Mccann. You are right that we are speculating how much was drunk that specific night by 10 pm. It depends on what time they normally went home?
... No mention of any drinks during the day.
Are you saying the Abductor didn't rush out of the jemmied window? Oh...Well, where does that put the abductor then?
We can't get away from the Jane and Gerry not agreeing where they were on what pavenment and who didn't see who...it wasn't pitch black because Jane saw 'pink' jammies...
Alice, you have heard that old saying " you couldn't make it up"? well 'they' just do.
We have had the physics challenged: with a man carrying a child out of a small window not managing to leave any DNA not a morsel, but still they believed it and agued that point...then they found a key from someone, then we had a wee truth slip out that the door was unlocked , but still they maintained it was a window job!
Yes, you can make it up.... lol!
Or medication which could react with the alcohol, or recreational drugs which may have been used.
One should never judge others by oneself nor should one make insinuations for which there is no foundation.
One should never judge others by oneself nor should one make insinuations for which there is no foundation.
Oh I wasn't judging them by me at all. I don't drink or do drugs or smoke or leave my children to be 'abducted'. I am nothing like the McCANN family. Thank goodness.
My reputation is well in tact, I can asssure you of that.
Alice, you have heard that old saying " you couldn't make it up"? well 'they' just do.
We have had the physics challenged: with a man carrying a child out of a small window not managing to leave any DNA not a morsel, but still they believed it and agued that point...then they found a key from someone, then we had a wee truth slip out that the door was unlocked , but still they maintained it was a window job!
Yes, you can make it up.... lol!
yet you judge GA??
yet you judge GA??
Everyone had a bottle of wine each each night out according to Gerry Mccann. You are right that we are speculating how much was drunk that specific night by 10 pm. It depends on what time they normally went home?The waiter stated that 4 bottles had been opened but that they were not finished IIRC . Also as they left in a mighty hurry, there would be part filled glasses on the table.
The waiter stated that 4 bottles had been opened but that they were not finished IIRC . Also as they left in a mighty hurry, there would be part filled glasses on the table.
So not so much wine drunk before the 10pm it seems.
You do realise that the wines was free in as miuch as it was included in the holiday price?
On holidays with "free" wine very often you will see opened but almost untouched bottles of wine left on tables after the diners have left. Many people abuse the "free" wine, but then it usually is YUK. In a way I cant blame them. We cant usually drink it
The only thing that we do know is that the Tapas group drank LESS than 4 bottles of wine between 9 of them over the two first courses. It may have been considerably less; we just dont know.
That is hardly getting drunk
The original poster who sparked this mini discussion is doing nothing more than SPECULATING
And as usual SPECULATING AGAINST The Mccanns.
On a busier street with people coming and going perhaps, but this was quiet with no-one around. I would expect anyone to glance at the source of footsteps or movement in such a place. [ moderated ]
I was making a point to GUnit, Sadie.
Kate & Gerry had consumed some wine before they went to the Tapas Bar at 8.30 pm - so probably at least 1 glass. Between 8.30 & 9.10 (when Gerry went to carry out his check), little or no food had been consumed but I would imagine that their glasses weren't empty for that 40 minute period. So, say 2 glasses - Gerry did put in his statement that he used the bathroom when he returned to 5a.
The effects of alcohol on the senses are widely documented. What would be expected of a person who was totally sober is not the same as that of someone who has consumed several units of alcohol. It is illogical to assume that Gerry should most definitely have heard or seen Jane passing.
I was making a point to GUnit, Sadie.
Kate & Gerry had consumed some wine before they went to the Tapas Bar at 8.30 pm - so probably at least 1 glass. Between 8.30 & 9.10 (when Gerry went to carry out his check), little or no food had been consumed but I would imagine that their glasses weren't empty for that 40 minute period. So, say 2 glasses - Gerry did put in his statement that he used the bathroom when he returned to 5a.
The effects of alcohol on the senses are widely documented. What would be expected of a person who was totally sober is not the same as that of someone who has consumed several units of alcohol. It is illogical to assume that Gerry should most definitely have heard or seen Jane passing.
Problem is you then have to treat Gerry's recollection a little more circumspectly in all his statements.
Is that the same child who was fast asleep in the same position 30 minutes after they left her when Gerry said he was having his proud father moment? You think that child got up within 30 minutes and moved the door? That's quite amazing but I don't believe it for one second.Person wakes up and opens door wider as they go into another room IMO. But back on topic to the chat location, where do you think it was, at alleyway, or at gate?
Person wakes up and opens door wider as they go into another room IMO. But back on topic to the chat location, where do you think it was, at alleyway, or at gate?
No wine bottle on table but wine glasses full so not much drinking done by some if at all. More important things happening and somebody was very chatty at the table - not much drinking for some and all the comings and goings 8(>((
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/apartment5ainterior2.jpg)
Matt comes back after his window check at 5A and Gerry leaves straight away to check so what time did anybody have to get inside and move the door? Matt met the Paynes by 5A gate when he was going to fetch them before 9pm. Gerry says door had moved. How? So somebody moved the door between 8:30 when the McCanns left and 8:55 when the Paynes left their apartment. Not much of an opportunity for anybody that's for sure. So how could it be Madeleine who was asleep in the same position only 30 minutes after they left according to her father. So that rules her out ?>)()<
Person wakes up and opens door wider as they go into another room IMO. But back on topic to the chat location, where do you think it was, at alleyway, or at gate?
About here I think, maybe nearer the alleyway.
Photo Thanks to John.
Is the pavement as bumpy as it looks, does anyone know?
Sadie would probably know. I thought it was cobbles but on checking I don't think it is. Enlarge and you can see better
Thanks, Anna. It doesn't really help enlarging it as the pic becomes more blurred. I was just thinking that if the pavement is bumpy then Jez would have been more likely to be pushing the buggy on the road surface rather than risk waking his child.
That's probably it. So no view of the window.
About here I think, maybe nearer the alleyway.
Photo Thanks to John.
That's probably it. So no view of the window.
That would make sense, but I think he would be on the road side of the pram to protect it.
He would probably have been pushing the pram to and fro, or rocking it and glancing in at the baby, while talking to Gerry. And if, he was doing, as normal folk would.... looking into Gerry face whilst talking to him, there is a possibility that in the dimming light he missed Jane and T/Man.
Who knows what squeaky noises the pram made being rocked or whatever.
Who knows?
Agreed.
Defo he wouldn't have seen Tannerman ... no chance, cos he was well out of his line of periferal vision and also about 30+ metres [100feet] away.
Also the lighting wasn't terrific.
@ Pegs
I think this shows the window better in comparison with Gerry.
Nice graphic.
Notice it highlights the streetlight beside block 6.
As opposed to the streetlight at entrance to the car park of block 6. And the one opposite the entrance to the Tapas reception, just a few metres down the street.
Could anyone who wants to bang on about poor lighting please explain all these lights, roughly 25m apart? Feel free to compare with the UK.
They have been upgraded since May2007.
The low quality Sodium lamps, which they were, were acknowledged as poor lighting. Since then they have been upgraded
...
The street lighting, with thanks to our expert Heriberto Janosch.
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html
Heri has done a thorough analysis which is well worth reading.
Scroll almost half way down to APPENDIX D headed "The Illumination"
-snip-
The sodium lights in the intesection of Dr. Agostinho da Silva and Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins streets (Jane's sighting) were changed after Madeleine abduction, for similar and more powerful sodium lights. That change does not invalidate this analysis, being a change mainly in brightness and saturation, but not in hue. -snip-
Heris main interest in this report is the hue caused by the lighting to the appearance of objects. The old sodium lamps gave a ghastly hue, changing white/light colours to a horrid deep yellowy orange. .... and showing deep colours as a uniform black.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TxeIV1LfSy4/UIROmnyQqII/AAAAAAAABhQ/XwusvGf6WKQ/s1600/LPS.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TxeIV1LfSy4/UIROmnyQqII/AAAAAAAABhQ/XwusvGf6WKQ/s1600/LPS.)
[Photo and analysis thanks to Heriberto Janosch]
Interesting to see the difference in hue around the new searchlight fitted on the wall of 5A. This is more normal lighting.
From the other chat location over the road there is a good view of the lounge side window, at 10m35 in youtube atfDV7imHHY
Yep but out of half a dozen or so statements / maps, Gerry is the only one who thinks it was there.Your probly right but location over road is interesting can be seen from lounge window and from kitchen window and (only just) from dining window so if there was an abductor inside would he have looked out one of these windows and seen the chat?
I think we can rule it out. He got it wrong. Simples
The only place with more than one indication is at the end of that alleyway and that got three indications.
They chatted at the end of the alleyway almost 100% certainty IMO .... and highly likely Gerry on the kerb and Jez and baby in the gutter / road
Do you agree Pegasus?
If it ever goes to Court -- Jayne would testify Gerry was at the gate entry to 5A, Jeremy Wilkins would say the same.Welcome back Gadfly
Not quite at the gate of 5A ... more towards the opening to the lane at the back of 5A ... assuming that Jez Wilkin's statement is correct.
Towards the opening ? Not exactly what Wilkins said, was it ?
"I met him ( Gerry ) near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment."
Towards the opening ? Not exactly what Wilkins said, was it ?
"I met him ( Gerry ) near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment."
Leicestershire Constabulary
Witness statement
Testimony: Jeremy Wilkins
From what I remember, the conversation happened right there on the pathway but I am not certain who was located exactly where.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
I'll try and deal with things raised in relation to Tanner one by one.
First, Jeremy Wilkins' statement re: Gerry's location:
"I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment." May 7th 2007.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/6of8-81754622.gif)
Furthermore Jane corroborates this from around 1.20 of the documentary Madeleine Was Here, when they made a mini-reconstruction at the behest of the private investigators: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4aBr5PTYY
Jane's recollection puts him within 2 metres of the gate.
(http://s22.postimg.org/4g0xbatvl/Screen_Shot_2016_04_08_at_11_57_59.png)
Finally, just to remove any doubt -- Jeremy actually drew the location -- which is clearly by the gate, here:
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/9of8-ecf89375.gif)
As noted earlier, these witnesses place Gerry within 2 metres of the gate.
Given that Mr Wilkins provided a map, and a statement, that were taken in May 2007, that will be the primary evidence if this case ever arrives at Court. That is why witness statements, and maps, are prepared at the time. Memory becomes less concrete with time. If Mr Wilkins is ever called as a witness, he would have to answer whether or not he trusts his own recollection -- that he created a detailed map (in his own hand) -- to corroborate. That's all Brietta.
You see the position he has indicated as being at the foot of the stairs. Have I got that right?
I see it as right at the entrance to the pathway.
Beauty may indeed be in the eye of the beholder ... and I am sure Jeremy Wilkins would have had no problems if called as a witness in court.
Gadfly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4aBr5PTYY
Go to the video. I suggest you start at about 0.54 and look carefully at 1.45.
You will see Jane clearly indicating where Gerry and Jez stood chatting. It was on the kerb at the corner of the alleyway
Now go to Google earth. Zoom in and measure the distance.
It is about 6 metres. Not far but the fact that they stood at that alleyway entrance explains many things that would be difficult to understand had they stood on the pathway near the steps
I find it difficult to understand why you showed the image that you did from that video. How much better had you shown the inmage at 1.45
Did you make a mistake ... or were you trying to make things look otherwise to what they actually were ... just to further your argument?
Jane is very positive about where they stood ... and she should know
As Jez should know too ... and clearly showed on his map.
Now excuse me, but I haven't the time to waste keep going over stuff that has already been analysed and sorted.
ETA: On here, does the video work for you? It doesn't for me.
The analysis is very clear, and despite the conversation, comes back to the fact that two witnesses -- Jane Tanner and Jeremy Wilkins -- place Mr McCann on the main road near the gate. Both contradict Mr McCann's account.Do you have an opinion on why one person would place the chat on the other side of the road?
(snip)
The analysis is very clear, and despite the conversation, comes back to the fact that two witnesses -- Jane Tanner and Jeremy Wilkins -- place Mr McCann on the main road near the gate. Both contradict Mr McCann's account.
In terms of involvement with the removal of MM from 5A, Jeremy Wilkins has been ruled out by the PJ. The British tourist has been ruled out by SY.
The image I produced, alongside the documentary, and Mr Wilkins' statements are excellent material to analyse, and unfortunately, on this issue, we differ in our analysis. So indeed, this issue is 'sorted' in your mind -- but for many others, it is not.
The analysis is very clear, and despite the conversation, comes back to the fact that two witnesses -- Jane Tanner and Jeremy Wilkins -- place Mr McCann on the main road near the gate. Both contradict Mr McCann's account.How did they rule him out? On the basis of what or whose evidence?
In terms of involvement with the removal of MM from 5A, Jeremy Wilkins has been ruled out by the PJ. The British tourist has been ruled out by SY.
The image I produced, alongside the documentary, and Mr Wilkins' statements are excellent material to analyse, and unfortunately, on this issue, we differ in our analysis. So indeed, this issue is 'sorted' in your mind -- but for many others, it is not.
Do you have an opinion on why one person would place the chat on the other side of the road?
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.The chat was almost exactly underneath the lounge window which had a climb-able sofa next to it?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
So why did GM make such a big deal about his crossing the road and chatting to JW on the other side of the road as shown in the documentary Madeleine was Here? Thereby saying JW/JT were both mistaken.
Maybe he thought it was impossible for Jane to pass them being without being seen if they were on the same path. JW didn't see her and the only way for Jane to pass them was silently in flip flops within a few feet. The strange thing in the reconstruction - Jane said JW was facing her. Amaral was suspicious of this sighting from the start and you can't blame him when you look at the evidence. Any reconstruction would be laughed out of court.
Maybe he thought it was impossible for Jane to pass them being without being seen if they were on the same path. JW didn't see her and the only way for Jane to pass them was silently in flip flops within a few feet. The strange thing in the reconstruction - Jane said JW was facing her. Amaral was suspicious of this sighting from the start and you can't blame him when you look at the evidence. Any reconstruction would be laughed out of court.
So why did GM make such a big deal about his crossing the road and chatting to JW on the other side of the road as shown in the documentary Madeleine was Here? Thereby saying JW/JT were both mistaken.It's a bit of a riddle isn't it Merc, "Why did the chat cross the road?"
It's a bit of a riddle isn't it Merc, "Why did the chat cross the road?"
Gerry didn't know at the time of making his statement if anyone in the other apartments had seen his talk with Jez. If they had and they claimed they had seen Gerry and Jez but no Jane Gerry would look dishonest if he said he had seen Jane. He also knew that it would be questioned whether she would have been aable to walk by both the men without them seeing her. Gerry puts himself on the other side of the road and those questions become redundant.
The question only becomes redundant if the other two witnesses had agreed with him ... as it happens, they did not.
Interesting that there was a cadaver alert in the garden of G5A, near the gate.Yes Gadfly the garden is adjacent to the street gate and therefore adjacent to the true chat location.
Yes Gadfly the garden is adjacent to the street gate and therefore adjacent to the true chat location.
However note this fine detail - the alerted flowerbed is invisible from the street gate.
If the "true chat location" (of the encounter) is adjacent to the street gate" please explain where Gerry McCann who was described as walking had walked from ... did the witness see him leaving the apartment using the stairs and gate?Interesting question Brietta, let's have a look at JW statements.
Yes Gadfly the garden is adjacent to the street gate and therefore adjacent to the true chat location.
However note this fine detail - the alerted flowerbed is invisible from the street gate.
To illustrate the very good point which Gadfly has raised:
(Chat circled in green, alleyway marked by orange line)
Map drawn by witness JW shows the chat was on the west side of the street, just north of the alleyway.
Map drawn by witness JT shows the chat was on the west side of the street, just north of the alleyway.
So those two witness's maps are in close agreement as to the exact location of the chat.
In contrast ... (to be added, map of the completely different location where the 3rd witness claimed the chat was).
PegasusThe orange line clarifies where the alleyway is. The scale is chosen to show the context which includes also Rua Silva, tapas restaurant and reception, and the car park (south of block6) from where witness JW came. Here are the original maps drawn by witnesses JT and JW.
Why have you drawn the orange line? This merely confuses the images.
Why have you presented them at such a small scale? This also confuses the casual reader.
People on here know very well that the cross that Jez Wilkins put on the map is on the corner of the alleyway and that is about 6 metres away from the gate.
Please do not obfuscate in order to promote propaganda.
To illustrate the very good point which Gadfly has raised:
(Chat circled in green, alleyway marked by orange line)
Map drawn by witness JW shows the chat was on the west side of the street, just north of the alleyway.
Map drawn by witness JT shows the chat was on the west side of the street, just north of the alleyway.
So those two witness's maps are in close agreement as to the exact location of the chat.
In contrast ... (to be added, map of the completely different location where the 3rd witness claimed the chat was).
From the statements and maps of JW and JT, the chat happened inside the green rectangle.
(the gate was much shorter than this in 2007)
That pretty much ties up with how I plotted it out some time ago Peggy ( how sad is that!)
Some people hang their hats on Jez using the term pathway, in his rogatory statement, to mean the alleyway running east west, for whatever reason. The trouble is in English there are too many "incorrect lay terms" for the same bloody thing.
Stick to technical: the bit that cars and trucks hack up and down on is a pavement. The bit pedestrians walk on is a footway, or sidewalk if you is American, (see TRRL Report 1132 or Road Note 29 if you are old @)(++(* )
----- After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw JEZ coming up the street on the opposite pavement bring with him a baby carriage with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction who would come up on the right-hand side [when viewed] from the ascending direction, both having chatted for 3 to 4 minutes, about tennis, holidays and children. While he maintained the conversation with JEZ he saw no-one from the group, nor detected any suspicious individual or vehicle. Because he had been specifically asked, he relates that during this period of time he did not see with certainty JANE pass that location, although it is clear that he was speaking when in front of JEZ, his back to the other pathway on which his apartment is situated. He relates also that JEZ never said to him that he had seen any person given that he was in front.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
----- After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw JEZ coming up the street on the opposite pavement bring with him a baby carriage with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction who would come up on the right-hand side [when viewed] from the ascending direction, both having chatted for 3 to 4 minutes, about tennis, holidays and children. While he maintained the conversation with JEZ he saw no-one from the group, nor detected any suspicious individual or vehicle. Because he had been specifically asked, he relates that during this period of time he did not see with certainty JANE pass that location, although it is clear that he was speaking when in front of JEZ, his back to the other pathway on which his apartment is situated. He relates also that JEZ never said to him that he had seen any person given that he was in front.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
So Jeremy Wilkins was on the same side of the street as block 5 when chatting and he was standing 16 feet north of the passageway.
It has been comprehensively demonstrated on this thread through maps, statements, cross-referencing that:
Witnesses Jeremy Wilkins and Jane Tanner both saw Gerry McCann close to the apartment gate.
Everything is cited.
I repeat:
Witnesses Jeremy Wilkins and Jane Tanner both saw Gerry McCann close to the apartment gate.
And a summary of the cities.
On one side:
Jeremy Wilkins X2 statements.
Jane Tanner X2 statements.
Jane Tanner in the Channel Four Madeleine Was Here
Map from Wilkins.
Map from Tanner.
On the other:
Mr Gerry McCann
--
Jane Tanner passed them and saw the man carrying a child coming from the direction of the apartments and carrying a child.
Pegasus.
Why are you supporting a lie?
You have said yourself that Jane Tanner is an honest witness. On video previously posted by Brietta, you saw her recoil from Gerry when he got it wrong and was rather rude.
From a position where she was fairly close to the gate, YOU (and we all) saw her walk down the hill a few strides to the alleyway corner. She was upset and she very deliberately walked to the corner where the chat happened.
YOU saw Jane Tanner indicate very definitely where Gerry and Jez were talking ... and that was near that alleyway corner. The alleyway corner was about 6 metres away from the gate ... and yes, in general terms, 6 metres is fairly close ...
... BUT in this instance where Gadfly is insisting that Gerry and Jez were chatting by the gate as opposed to on the alleyway corner, it is a lie
It is not like you, Pegasus, to blatently put out disinformation like this, altho there have been odd other instances.
Care to explain why you are allowing Gadfly to twist your ear? ... or are you both following the same agenda? We experienced readers of this forum can all guess what that dishonest agenda is.
Why are you supporting the disinformation of Gadfly?
1. I am sorry Gadfly if you have felt my wrath but to state as fact, that Gerry and Jez chatted at the gate is sooo wrong. There is a small amount of stuff that suggests the gate, but it is heavily outweighed by other evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/9of8-ecf89375.gif Jez wilkins map. [Clearly out of scale but it will suffice]
On this map, Jez unequivocally pinpoints his and Gerry’s position as being exactly on the corner of the alleyway. There is no going away from the fact that he has shown where they were standing. Please do no deny that.
####################
-snip-
Next time they may be quizzed in the UK by British police assisting their EU counterparts on the inquiry.
Wilkins' crucial encounter with Gerry took place at 9.10pm on the main street outside the apartments next to the McCanns'—and at the entrance to a narrow alleyway that runs past the back of them.
-snip-
3.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_50.jpg Jane Tanners map . [Clearly out of scale with a huge back garden to 5A and a tiny apartment (which is the shaded in portion), but will suffice]
On this map, Jane marks her OWN position, which is adjacent to 5A gate .... and way further down the road she shows where Gerry and Jez were chatting. They were near the corner of the alleyway NOT at the side gate.
##############################################
The man you describe Brietta -- has been ruled out by SY as an innocent father. If you need any help with this - I've put the cites on previous pages. Thus...
Miss Tanner's value to the investigation is that she saw:
1) Mr Wilkins & Mr McCann chatting near the apartment gate.
You ask: "What on earth would be extraordinary about seeing the occupant of the apartment returning to his place at the dining table appearing to have left via the patio door, down the stair and through the gate?" -- and by doing so, you ultimately acknowledge Gerry's path that night.
Thank you for adapting to the evidence. All we know is Mr McCann came out the apartment next to the garden via the steps, bumped into Mr Wilkins, and chatted with him -- something that was further verified by Jane Tanner.
Gerry simply misremembered where he was -- that can happen after a drink or two. So now, I'm sure even Mr McCann would even accept that he probably was next to the garden gate during the chat with Mr Wilkins -- especially if two of his friends place him there.
1. I am sorry Gadfly if you have felt my wrath but to state as fact, that Gerry and Jez chatted at the gate is sooo wrong. There is a small amount of stuff that suggests the gate, but it is heavily outweighed by other evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/9of8-ecf89375.gif Jez wilkins map. [Clearly out of scale but it will suffice]
On this map, Jez unequivocally pinpoints his and Gerry’s position as being exactly on the corner of the alleyway. There is no going away from the fact that he has shown where they were standing. Please do no deny that.
####################
5.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY
Jane Tanner showing the exact spot where Gerry and Jez were chatting at 10.04. I suggest that you start at 9.10.
Gerry goes on to show what he remembers and it is quite possible that they met in the middle of the road, but with the dangers of that, they moved back to/wards the safety of the pavement by the alleyway. Jez was still in the road (kerb) according to reports, but Gerry was on the kerbstone edge. Presumably Jez and the pushchair were protected there by parked cars and he stood in a gap chatting to Gerry
###############################
5.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY
Jane Tanner showing the exact spot where Gerry and Jez were chatting at 10.04. I suggest that you start at 9.10.
Gerry goes on to show what he remembers and it is quite possible that they met in the middle of the road, but with the dangers of that, they moved back to/wards the safety of the pavement by the alleyway. Jez was still in the road (kerb) according to reports, but Gerry was on the kerbstone edge. Presumably Jez and the pushchair were protected there by parked cars and he stood in a gap chatting to Gerry
###############################
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_50.jpg Jane Tanners map . [Clearly out of scale with a huge back garden to 5A and a tiny apartment (which is the shaded in portion), but will suffice]Original map by JT http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_50.jpg
On this map, Jane marks her OWN position, which is adjacent to 5A gate .... and way further down the road she shows where Gerry and Jez were chatting. They were near the corner of the alleyway NOT at the side gate.
As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.Yes, he was standing level with the gate.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
(snip)
on the same side of the street as block 5 when chatting and he was standing 16 feet north(/b] of the passageway.
Original map by JT http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_50.jpg
1. The heavily shaded area is IMO the recess in which the wooden door of 5A is situated.
2. The two asterisks marking the locations of JW and GM are significantly further north than the alleyway.
I think your interpretation of the perspective is as bad as Jane's drawing of it.
The shaded block is obviously meant to represent the apartment - not only the recessed area ... and she is on video being very adamant about where the men were standing when she passed them and that was very close to the entrance of the passageway.
I think your interpretation of the perspective is as bad as Jane's drawing of it.Are you seriously suggesting that JT's cartographic skills are so poor that the small darkly shaded rectangle on her map represents the whole of apartment 5A? There is a doctor on TV who repeatedly shows a large space cunningly fitted inside a tiny space, but I found out recently it is complete fiction and not true at all. I suggest the large lightly shaded area is the building, and the small darkly shaded area is the exterior alcove in which the main door of 5A is recessed.
The shaded block is obviously meant to represent the apartment - not only the recessed area ... and she is on video being very adamant about where the men were standing when she passed them and that was very close to the entrance of the passageway.
1. I am sorry Gadfly if you have felt my wrath but to state as fact, that Gerry and Jez chatted at the gate is sooo wrong. There is a small amount of stuff that suggests the gate, but it is heavily outweighed by other evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/9of8-ecf89375.gif Jez wilkins map. [Clearly out of scale but it will suffice]
On this map, Jez unequivocally pinpoints his and Gerry’s position as being exactly on the corner of the alleyway. There is no going away from the fact that he has shown where they were standing. Please do no deny that.
####################
If he was next to the garden gate when holding a conversation with Jeremy Wilkins ... how exactly did he get there?This appears at first to be difficult to explain, but maybe by careful reading of the statements there is a solution.
... (snip)
Jez's sketch and Jane's sketch are just that...sketches. The purpose in the context of giving a statement to be indicative rather than dimensionally accurate. I don't imagine either of them went out with a tape and/or measuring wheel.
I think it is something the PJ would have looked at regarding the possibilities just as a box ticking exercise. They didn't ignore it, particularly as the question was asked in the rogatory letters.
As you say Jane and Jez made the sketch to illustrate their approximate positions. If the PJ had thought it essential to have a more accurate sketch they could easily have drafted a properly scaled map for them to indicate approximately where they were.
Are you seriously suggesting that JT's cartographic skills are so poor that the small darkly shaded rectangle on her map represents the whole of apartment 5A? There is a doctor on TV who repeatedly shows a large space cunningly fitted inside a tiny space, but I found out recently it is complete fiction and not true at all. I suggest the large lightly shaded area is the building, and the small darkly shaded area is the exterior alcove in which the main door of 5A is recessed.
This appears at first to be difficult to explain, but maybe by careful reading of the statements there is a solution.
The solution is that he had exited the gate and was walking away from it towards the pathway and and the tapas when Jeremy saw him and he saw Jeremy.
The simplest and less convoluted explanation is usually the correct one.
If neither had seen the other there is a high probability that both Jeremy and Jane would have seen the man carrying the child ... I think that is worth thinking about.
Precisely so the cops were happy with the sketches. For all we know the cops did their own drawings to scale
but nine years later folk are arguing about positions on "not to scale" sketches. The locations can be worked out from the text in the statements then plotted to scale. In general terms Jane and Jez thought they were in Peggy's green box and Gerry thought he was on the other side of the road. Someone therefore is mistaken.
So my money is that Gerry has got it wrong.
We got there in the end. See - it wasn't that difficult Brietta.
Have the courtesy not to edit my or anyone else's post out of context. I said ...
Two against one ... so my money is that Gerry has got it wrong. Then within a short time of the encounter he suffered quite a psychological blow which probably had an adverse effect on the trivia surrounding it.
Madeleine vanished ... where he was standing on the pavement minutes before that was discovered probably slipped down his list of priorities.
(snip) it shot back up his list of priorities when making the documentary. Suddenly it's not a trivial point at all (snip)Precisely GUnit. The question is - why was it so important for the chat to cross the road?
This next footage is posted for two reasons. To demonstrate that CM was present at and actively involved in controlling the filming of the cutting edge documentary. Also to demonstrate a very important point in favour of honest witness JT and to taunt and ridicule those posters with their silly french flipflop noises who from their armchairs claimed it was impossible for someone to walk past two people without them noticing. Watch carefully from 55s - two ladies are standing on the west pavement, a man walks northwards on the same pavement as them, passing between them and the wall, and the two ladies do not notice him. http://youtu.be/ZtaVpk01W0s?t=55s
I notice Brian Kennedy was there too. How do you know the ladies didn't see the man unless you asked them? One of them turns her head towards him just before she is hidden by the presenter moving. Also, neither of them were facing the wall as Jeremy Wilkins was;1. The older lady looks to her right only after the man is already behind her. She doesn't see him. Neither of the ladies notices the man walk behind them. Also remember that on evening 3rd May one of the chatters was caring for a child and during much of the chat would have been concentrating on his child.
At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
1. The older lady looks to her right only after the man is already behind her. She doesn't see him. Neither of the ladies notices the man walk behind them. Also remember that on evening 3rd May one of the chatters was caring for a child and during much of the chat would have been concentrating on his child.
2. Which BK? What time in video please?
Mmm. Not sure now. 3.49 man getting into front seat of car. It's a matter of opinion about the ladies, and neither of them was facing the wall as Jez was.Getting in car at 3m49 is MO on 10 May. There's footage of B and P in Portugal in another video but not on this date.
Are you seriously suggesting that JT's cartographic skills are so poor that the small darkly shaded rectangle on her map represents the whole of apartment 5A? There is a doctor on TV who repeatedly shows a large space cunningly fitted inside a tiny space, but I found out recently it is complete fiction and not true at all. I suggest the large lightly shaded area is the building, and the small darkly shaded area is the exterior alcove in which the main door of 5A is recessed.The only problems with that Pegasus are that
The only problems with that Pegasus are thatSo we have 3 possible chat locations - at gate, at alleyway, or faraway over the road. Which location would be most audible to the other witness?
1) Jane clearly indicatede in the Cutting Edge video where Gerry and Jez stood chatting . On the corneer.
2) The front door recess has the kitchen standing out between it and the pathway up the street, so sorry you aren't right on that one
3) In any case, the front door access was completely out of sight of Jane when she was walkiing as there was a damned high wall in between. Also it was one floor up, out of sight.
From her actions on the Cutting Edge Video, Jane very obviously meant that the two men talked on the corner of the alleyway. You cant get away fromk that.
The main thing in contention is not about the building anyway, but about where Gerry and Jez stood. Jane clearly indicated that they chatted in the area near he corner of the alleyway to pavement/roadway
You cant get away from that Pegasus.
And Jez confirmed it.
So we have 3 possible chat locations - at gate, at alleyway, or faraway over the road. Which location would be most audible to the other witness?
This next footage is posted for two reasons. To demonstrate that CM was present at and actively involved in controlling the filming of the cutting edge documentary. Also to demonstrate a very important point in favour of honest witness JT and to taunt and ridicule those posters with their silly french flipflop noises who from their armchairs claimed it was impossible for someone to walk past two people without them noticing. Watch carefully from 55s - two ladies are standing on the west pavement, a man walks northwards on the same pavement as them, passing between them and the wall, and the two ladies do not notice him. http://youtu.be/ZtaVpk01W0s?t=55s
So we have 3 possible chat locations - at gate, at alleyway, or faraway over the road. Which location would be most audible to the other witness?
If Madeleine could have been in a position to hear the conversation, then GM/JW could have heard her, had she made any noise. Why didn't she cry, or run out the rear patio door calling for her dad?Good point. In the sofa scene in Sr Amaral's video, the child in the lounge hears the chat outside, but the chatters outside do not hear the child in the lounge. So for his scenario to work, he shows the child making less noise than the chat.
Good point. In the sofa scene in Sr Amaral's video, the child in the lounge hears the chat outside, but the chatters outside do not hear the child in the lounge. So for his scenario to work, he shows the child making less noise than the chat.
BTW in that sofa scene the chat is shown as being next to the gate (where witness JW states it was). Obviously if the chat was located faraway over the road (where the other chatter states it was) then the whole scene would be rather implausible.
Why would the child have bothered clambering up on the couch if she could hear her father so clearly?I assume the child had been instructed to not go out onto the balcony - there was a sign on the glass door advising parents not to allow children on the balcony unsupervised
Your version has him standing on the other side of the gate at the foot of the stairs. Much easier to slide the easily opened door, step out ... et voilà.
Good point. In the sofa scene in Sr Amaral's video, the child in the lounge hears the chat outside, but the chatters outside do not hear the child in the lounge. So for his scenario to work, he shows the child making less noise than the chat.
BTW in that sofa scene the chat is shown as being next to the gate (where witness JW states it was). Obviously if the chat was located faraway over the road (where the other chatter states it was) then the whole scene would be rather implausible.
Hypothetically, had the child been frightened by the noise of the wannabe burglar & fled to the lounge, would she not have ventured outside upon hearing her father's voice? ...(snip)In other burglaries where a child is home alone, the child usually hides within the apartment.
(snip) JT also passed directly underneath the window & she apparently heard no noise(snip)Certainly JT heard no noise from inside. If the window and shutter were opened as soon as the father left, then it would have happened at the beginning of the chat, but JT passed them near the end of the chat IMO.
Hypothetically, had the child been frightened by the noise of the wannabe burglar & fled to the lounge, would she not (snip) I think GM was where JT/JW said he was - she was an observer, he was distracted. He wasn't right under the window, probably nearer the entrance to the alley, it's only a matter of a few yards.Yes its only about 6 yards,and the 2 chatters were probably standing a few yards apart. The amazing thing is that not a single poster here believes the 3rd remembered chat location, which would completely rule out Sr Amaral's sofa scenario.
Certainly JT heard no noise from inside. If the window and shutter were opened as soon as the father left, then it would have happened at the beginning of the chat, but JT passed them near the end of the chat IMO.
Do you think the window & shutter were being opened as Crecheman was passing?Good question, because he walked across the junction with his own daughter during the chat.
Good question, because he walked across the junction with his own daughter during the chat.
Not exactly as he was passing, but could have been close in time.
Or maybe the window and shutter were opened later.
Most likely Gerry went part way across the road and met up with Jez. Because of the danger of standing in the road and because they both needed to be on the west side of the road for the routs they were both taking, they quickly moved across to the position clearly shown by Jane in the Cutting Edge Video and also by Jez in his plan.
That is close to the corner of the alleyawy, but Gerry on the very edge of the pavement and Jez in the kerb but most probably protected from traffick by parked cars . IIRC Stephen Carpenter mentioned the parked cars.
Given the evidence that we have, I truly do not think that they chatted anywhere really close to the gate to 5A. Although at 6 metres away they were fairly close in vague terminology. I think that is the best that I can concede Pegasus.
They were by the alleyway corner but it wasn't too far from the gate at about 6 metres.
In addition to the above , I have finally found what i was looking for.
Jezes account of where he first saw Gerry and by simple logics where they finally finished up chatting, which would have ben roughly half way between them, near the corner of the alleyway NOT by the gate.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
-snip-
After leaving the WC, I continued to walk around the back of the tennis court, and returned via the pathway opposite the pool in the Tapas complex. Whilst walking the streets, I was hoping my son would fall asleep. Some of the walkways did not have an exit and for this reason I walked practically in circles. When walking one of these paths, I came across a tourist called Curtis with his girlfriend whose name I do not know. He also knew Gerry from the tennis lessons. I remember passing by them but I assumed they were headed to dinner. Eventually, I left one road to the other side of the street to the pool complex, between the McCann apartment and the Tapas Bar. In order to visualise this street, I believe it was the street most used by the news agencies and journalists as all the parked cars indicated during the coverage period. When I left the street, I remember seeing Gerry on the other side of the same. So Jez was opposite the tapas Reception leaving the little car park there
I believe that there was some speculation in the press regarding the circumstances of this encounter. I remember that I crossed the street to talk to Gerry. According to what I remember, Gerry was walking when I spotted him. As I mentioned previously, I assumed that he had gone to check on the children and was headed back to the Tapas Bar. So Gerry was walking towards the Tapas Bar when Jez spotted him from the parking area almost opposite the tapas Reception ... and they walked to meet each other.
Still think that Gerry was talking to Jez at the little gate at the bottom of the steps?
(snip) ... was opposite the tapas Reception leaving the little car park there ... (snip)Yes, and the carpark south of block G6 was where most of the satellite vans were parked a few days later, which confirms which carpark the witness describes.
Members please note that the Gerry and Jez chat discussion has been moved.(snip)I think the cutting edge documentary should have had some similar text John
Sadie said some posts ago that Gerry could have started to cross the road, when Jeremy Wilkinson started to walk towards him. It is not inconceivable that Gerry would have stopped since no one would have wanted a pushchair in the middle of the road.Good to hear you believe witness JT is truthful Eleanor as I certainly do. So hopefully we can agree the chat was on the 5A side of the the street. What do you make of the opposite claim that the chat was on the block 6 side of the street?
However, much as I might believe that they were standing on the corner of the alleyway, it is not an impossibility on that pavement that neither of them actually registered Jane Tanner.
I believe Jane Tanner, and I am very dubious about Tannerman being a passing holiday maker, mainly because he was coming from entirely the wrong direction.
Good to hear you believe witness JT is truthful Eleanor as I certainly do. So hopefully we can agree the chat was on the 5A side of the the street. What do you make of the opposite claim that the chat was on the block 6 side of the street?
Thankyou for those very good pictures John.
Just a misunderstanding, and not really relevant anyway.(snip)There is no misunderstanding - one person definitely places the chat away from 5A, over the road and south.
Just a misunderstanding, and not really relevant anyway. No one is ever going to be able to prove that Jane Tanner didn't see was she said she saw.
(snip) No one is ever going to be able to prove that Jane Tanner didn't see was she said she saw.Agreed, for the simple reason that her testimony is true.
Agreed, for the simple reason that her testimony is true.
I think so. And I have absolutely no reason for doubting her. Or any of them.But if like me you believe JT when she says the chat was on the west side of the road, that means anyone who states the chat was on the east side of the road must be misrembembering.
But if like me you believe JT when she says the chat was on the west side of the road, that means anyone who states the chat was on the east side of the road must be misrembembering.
I would think so, yes. As I said, Gerry was probably crossing the road to meet Jeremy Wilkinson.
I would think so, yes. As I said, Gerry was probably crossing the road to meet Jeremy Wilkinson.But if GM ended up chatting on the same side of the street he was originally on, he must have crossed the road either not at all, or twice, or four times, or six times, it must be an even number. Davel is good at maths and will back me up on this ;)
But if GM ended up chatting on the same side of the street he was originally on, he must have crossed the road either not at all, or twice, or four times, or six times, it must be an even number. Davel is good at maths and will back me up on this ;)
I would think so, yes. As I said, Gerry was probably crossing the road to meet Jeremy Wilkinson.
Er. Hate to remind everyone:
Hands up if you place Gerry near the garden/gate...
Jeremy Wilkins X2 statements.
Jane Tanner X2 statements.
Jane Tanner in the Channel Four documentary Madeleine Was Here
Map from Wilkins.
Map from Tanner.
Hands up if you place him on the other side of the road...
Mr Gerry McCann statement
Mr Gerry McCann in the Channel Four documentary Madeleine Was Here
Isn't the suggestion that he got part way and then turned back? Two times half a crossing then, or perhaps Jez chased him back over with his buggy.But then after those two half crossings and after the chat he would need to cross over to the block 6 side. Because in the cutting edge documentary it is stated that the approach back to tapas reception was from the block 6 side of the road. So that would make 2 half crossings plus 2 whole crossings.
Its important to know why GM insisted on the opposite flying in the face of other witnesses and his own testimony , which was made on the same day in fact....
Why?
I agree this was the position of the chat and JT passing it. John or whoever made this picture did a splendid job.http://i.imgur.com/Ud6y15w.jpg?2-Tanner_sighting_07The version according to Jane Tanner and Jez Wilkins.
Going on the balance of probability and two witnesses I think the above representation of where the two men were standing is as close as it is possible to get... (snip)
Well, thats a real wierd question, the answer being we rely on peoples statements And if they are opposed to each other (either ones own to ones own or others to ones own) then ???? Arise
(snip) ... why the concern over exactly where two men stood in the road nearly nine years ago? ..(snip)The fact it was almost 9 years ago does not diminish its importance at all.
The fact it was almost 9 years ago does not diminish its importance at all.
The east side of the road is the complete opposite to the west side.
Either one witness is misremembering, or the other two witnesses are misremembering.
Misremembering is understandable but if it happens about one event it may hypothetically happen about another.
For example it's absolutely essential for the investigation to know that the last sighting of the child, laying on top of the bedclothes, is completely accurate without any misremembering.
(snip) two had a very clear recollection of exactly where they were and were very precise about their exact location (snip)GM states very clearly that he crossed over to the east side of the road, he demonstrates exactly where he claims he was standing next to the east pavement, and exactly where he claims JW was standing on the east pavement, he confirms his recollection by some science about their relative heights, and specifically claims that after the chat he distinctly remembers crossing the road to enter the tapas reception. He states all this as a very clear recollection. (Source: cutting edge video)
Note: punishment for past perceived misdemeanours? .... I wonder?
Or possibly getting rid of facts and evidence that helps support Gerrys innocence to substitute dicey information/myths that could implicate The Mccanns? I wonder?
GM states very clearly that he crossed over to the east side of the road, he demonstrates exactly where he claims he was standing next to the east pavement, and exactly where he claims JW was standing on the east pavement, he confirms his recollection by some science about their relative heights, and specifically claims that after the chat he distinctly remembers crossing the road to enter the tapas reception. He states all this as a very clear recollection. (Source: cutting edge video)
I have always wondered why he insisted on that version of events. Surely Gerry must have known before the documentary was made that his version was at odds with that of Jane and Jez. One thing which stands out for me from that presentation was Jane bursting into tears when Gerry shot her down, I wonder would that have happened if Jez had been there to back her up?The cutting edge documentary says
Was there a bit of bullying going on?
The cutting edge documentary says
"however, Jane and Gerry remember the scene differently"
That is deliberately misleading because it omits what the third witness said.
What the film should have said is:
"Two witnesses both clearly remember that the chat was on the west side of the road, however GM remembers the scene completely differently".
I have always wondered why he insisted on that version of events. Surely Gerry must have known before the documentary was made that his version was at odds with that of Jane and Jez. One thing which stands out for me from that presentation was Jane bursting into tears when Gerry shot her down, would that have happened if Jez had been there to back her up?
Was there a bit of bullying going on per chance?
(snip)... if Jez had been there I am sure he would have confirmed Jane's account.Yes so why did the producers deliberately leave that fact out?
(snip) ... overwrought ... remembered things differently ... (snip)Do you think the location of the chat is the only fact which might have been misremembered due to being overwrought?
Was Clarence involved in the production in any way? He can be awfully persuasive 8(0(*Here's a photo taken on location Jassi.
Yes so why did the producers deliberately leave that fact out?
JW's statements were definitely known to the documentary's writers and to that hired PI.
Why didn't he mention them in defence of JT instead of making her look like a liar?
And why did the production proceed to film the chat on the fictional side of the street?
Do you think the location of the chat is the only fact which might have been misremembered due to being overwrought?
I believe something was said along the lines of ... it didn't really matter exactly where the men were standing the important event being filmed was Jane and the man she saw at the top of the street.
Correct me if I am wrong ... but it certainly fits the occasion ... Jane and the man she saw. The men saw neither and were merely a backdrop to the narrative.
I believe something was said along the lines of ... it didn't really matter exactly where the men were standing the important event being filmed was Jane and the man she saw at the top of the street.The film's false claim that JT wrongly remembered the chat location would, if correct, automatically raise the question, well if someone can't remember where the chat was, they probably misremembered where the man carrying a child was, for example maybe he was crossing the road south of tapas reception. If a witness misremembers the location of a chat bv placing it on the wrong side of the road, it casts doubt on the accuracy of every other thing they remember on that evening doesn't it? Basically the film insults JT, a completely honest witness, by filming the chat in the opposite place to where she told them it was.
Correct me if I am wrong ... but it certainly fits the occasion ... Jane and the man she saw. The men saw neither and were merely a backdrop to the narrative.
The film's false claim that JT wrongly remembered the chat location would, if correct, automatically raise the question, well if someone can't remember where the chat was, they probably misremembered where the man carrying a child was, for example maybe he was crossing the road south of tapas reception. If a witness misremembers the location of a chat bv placing it on the wrong side of the road, it casts doubt on the accuracy of every other thing they remember on that evening doesn't it? Basically the film insults JT, a completely honest witness, by filming the chat in the opposite place to where she told them it was.
It's quite amazing really how people were present in that road at about the same time but none of them saw each other.
Matt was checking between five to and 9pm.
The Moyes returned from town at 9pm ish and were on their balcony at 9.15pm and saw no-one.
Gerry set off to check at 9.05pm
Jez was around between 9.10 and 9.15pm.
The executive chef Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja arrived in the road at 9.10pm and parked his car. He saw no-one.
Jane walked up at 9.15pm but wasn't seen. She saw a man with a child but no-one else saw him.
My impression was that they were humouring Gerry because they were anxious to get on with filming the important issue ... which was Jane's sighting and where she was at the time.Sorry but there is no place in investigation for "humouring" a witness.
I don't claim to be a psychologist by any means but when some trauma occurs the brain has a habit of blanking out certain events. Maybe the more learned among us can explain it better?
Gerry said he remembered looking up at Jes because he was taller. If Jes was on the road then he shouldn't be unless he's a lot taller.
But haven't we been told that he is a giant of a man - well over 6 foot @)(++(*
Sorry but there is no place in investigation for "humouring" a witness.
JT remembered the carrier's location correctly, therefore she remembered the chat location correctly.
The two events are only seconds apart, so it's impossible she would remember one correctly and the other completely incorrectly.
Fact is she remembered both the chat location and the carrier location correctly.
You can't have one without the other.
It's all a game isn't it Jassi. He remembered clearly looking up at Jes. If he was up on the pavement and Jes on the road lower down then he would be a right short ass so of course Gerry must be right and the other two wrong @)(++(*
It wasn't an investigation, Pegasus, it was a television programme ...(snip)Are you suggesting that the investigator working for the Mccanns took time off from the investigation to be in a movie that had nothing to do with investigation?
It may be a game to some but certainly not to the parent of a missing child or the person who believed she had seen her being carried away on the night of her disappearance. I think the object of the exercise was to keep Madeleine's case in the public eye.
Where the two men were standing is completely irrelevant to that.
And presumably neither Matt, Jane or Russel were observed by anyone when they made their trips a little later
Are you suggesting that the investigator working for the Mccanns took time off from the investigation to be in a movie that had nothing to do with investigation?
It's no wonder the cops wanted to interview all those "shadies" hanging about. At least they might have seen who was where and when.
Which makes one wonder why Gerry was so adamant that his version was used. It may not have mattered but he was the one who made it a matter of interest.
it is quite possible Gun-it, that Gerry did go part/ most the way across the road and met Jez there, but because of the dangers of chatting in the road they returned to the west side of the street. Gerry remembers having one foot on the kerb, even tho it was the wrong kerb he remembered. On the west side of the street, on the kerb, is where Jane and Jez remembered Gerry standing chatting with Jez. This was where Jane saw them,But after the chat finished he specifically describes crossing the road to get back to the restaurant Sadie.
Just because she didn't see them in the middle of the road, doesn't mean that before she came past, they weren't there temporarily
Also just because of its brevity, and Jez doesn't mention it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
We just don't know.
it is quite possible G-Unit, that Gerry did go part/ most the way across the road and met Jez there, but because of the dangers of chatting in the road they returned to the west side of the street. Gerry remembers having one foot on the kerb, even tho it was the wrong kerb he remembered. On the west side of the street, on the kerb, is where Jane and Jez remembered Gerry standing chatting with Jez. This was where Jane saw them,
Just because she didn't see them in the middle of the road, doesn't mean that before she came past, they weren't there temporarily
Also just because of its brevity, and Jez doesn't mention it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
We just don't know.
"I can affirm without any reservation that Gerry's behaviour was absolutely normal. He was not preoccupied and conversed and appeared relaxed." (JW rog)
This IMO absolutely rules out all those hypotheses of a discovery in the apartment or garden, a few minutes before the chat, of an accident. The completely normal behaviour makes that impossible. The discrepancy about one claimed position of a chat remains, but must have a different explanation.
I don't believe an accident happened in the garden when both dogs alerted inside but Madeleine did come out of that apartment.IMO the completely normal behaviour during the chat is valuable information which rules out all the assorted theories which hypothesise any sort of discovery before that timepoint.
IMO the completely normal behaviour during the chat is valuable information which rules out all the assorted theories which hypothesise any sort of discovery before that timepoint.
Many other cases prove this not to be so.
Chilling CCTV footage of killer Arnis Zalkalns shows him laughing as he buys two cans of lager just minutes after he is believed to have murdered her.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sickening-cctv-shows-alice-gross-5050275
IMO the completely normal behaviour during the chat is valuable information which rules out all the assorted theories which hypothesise any sort of discovery before that timepoint.
Chilling CCTV footage of killer Arnis Zalkalns shows him laughing as he buys two cans of lager just minutes after he is believed to have murdered her.Yes I'm aware of cases like that, for example the case where someone popped into a supermarket in Bristol to buy a packet of
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sickening-cctv-shows-alice-gross-5050275
What if the chat happened before the check. Did Jez say he categorically saw Gerry leave the gate ?Not categorically.
Yes I'm aware of cases like that, for example the case where someone popped into a supermarket in Bristol to buy a packet ofcrisiscrisps, or the case where someone sat down in the local pub in a Gloucs village for a relaxing glass of whisky. However IMO the completely normal behaviour during the chat was real not acted.
Last independent sighting was not at 9:10.The last claimed sighting in 5A was at about 9.10pm and was by only one witness, so obviously there is no way to verify it independently.
The last claimed sighting in 5A was at about 9.10pm and was by only one witness, so obviously there is no way to verify it independently.
Before that, the last sighting was at about 7.15pm and was by two witnesses, so that is doubly-independently verified.
They are not independent witnesses.But at about 7.15pm there were two witnesses simultaneously, not just one witness.
But at about 7.15pm there were two witnesses simultaneously, not just one witness.
Please note they are two separate witnesses, each with own independent brain, and own independent memory bank.
Both individuals independently stated definitely, in separate properly conducted police interviews, without the other witness present at the interview, that they saw the child in the lounge at at about 7.15pm. It is most unlikely that two witnesses could both misremember the same event.
Therefore the 7.15pm sighting of the child by two witnesses simultaneously certainly did happen IMO.
But at about 7.15pm there were two witnesses simultaneously, not just one witness.
Please note they are two separate witnesses, each with own independent brain, and own independent memory bank.
Both individuals independently stated definitely, in separate properly conducted police interviews, without the other witness present at the interview, that they saw the child in the lounge at at about 7.15pm. It is most unlikely that two witnesses could both misremember the same event.
Therefore the 7.15pm sighting of the child by two witnesses simultaneously certainly did happen IMO.
Afraid not, pegasus;I phrased my post carefully GUnit. I carefully excluded that 4th May PJ interview of KM, which was not properly conducted, because another witness was allowed to be in the interview room.
Gerry had asked João Carlos if he could be allowed to stay with me while I was questioned because he was extremely worried about my psychological state. I was grateful to João Carlos for agreeing, with the proviso that Gerry remained seated behind me.......Every now and then Gerry would put a hand on my shoulder or give me a reassuring squeeze.
Kate McCann; Madeleine
Independent witnesses are not family or friends. They are such as MW staff, neighbours or other holiday makers. The last independent sighting will be at 5:30 when Madeleine was signed out from the tapas area. Yes the .... ...... visit would have been reconstructed @)(++(*It is an elementary mistake to classify witnesses as "independent" or "not independent" Pathfinder.
The re-enactment, within the LOR, shall take place probably on May 15, 2008, between 5.30 p.m. and 11 p.m thus covering the time period before dinner, dinner time and about an hour after having checked that the child had gone missing;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
Jeremy Wilkins' statement is puzzling because he flatly refused to put a time to his meeting with Gerry McCann. It's assumed he met Gerry at 9.10 or 9.15 because Gerry and Jane say so. He placed the meeting between 8.45 and 9.15, however, which is very strange.
His first contact is on 4th May when he tells the PJ that he was in the Tapas restaurant between 8.30 and 9pm.
In his second statement to LP on 7th May he leaves his apartment between 8.15 and 8.30 with his son. He goes to the toilet 'near the bar'. He 'can't see inside the restaurant' now, let alone go in there. There's no mention of wandering around in this statement, just of heading back to his apartment and coming out 'at the top road'. He saw Gerry near some steps and a gate and they chatted for 3 to 5 minutes.
In November he and his wife were spoken to again. He left the apartment at approx. 8.15 and eventually ended up 'in the Tapas bar' where he used the toilet. He doesn't remember the time. After that he wandered the alleyways then met Gerry near the gate. Then he returned to his apartment. Several weeks later he received calls from Gerry asking permission to include him in a portfolio of evidence being compiled by an organization employed by the McCanns. He didn't mind, but objected to their methods and persistence.
In his rog. he says he went out at 8.30pm and met Gerry between 8.45 and 9.15. He went to the toilet 'near the pool area' where he saw the blond man. Now he does more wandering before he sees Gerry. After the chat he returns to his apartment. He now mentions seeing Jane in the car park of block 5 at 8.30pm, wearing purple.
In Bridget's newspaper piece she says Jeremy left at 8.30 and returned just before 9.30pm.
If Jeremy returned to his apartment at around 9.30pm and went back straight after his chat with Gerry it seems obvious that they chatted between 9.10 and 9.20, so why does Jeremy refuse to say that? Why does he refuse to be more specific than 'between 8.45 and 9.15'?
Remember when many armchair detectives were claiming that witness JT invented walking along that pavement, and called her a fantasist?
Now it's clear to all that the witness is telling the truth and did walk along that pavement. Those armchair detectives were talking complete rubbish, and it was them, not the truthful witness, who were the flipflopping fantasists.
JW was adamant he saw nobody when chatting to GM. IMO it was impossible for her to pass within a few feet without being seen. He would be aware with a pram. He noticed other people and JT at around 8:30.So let's get this straight Pathfinder,
(snip)
(snip) "The raw telecom data provided to OP TASK shows that the mobile phone attributed to JT (078085####) was in contact with mobile number 0794973#### at 20:30:21 hrs on 3rd May 2007 and again at 09:04:46 hrs on 4th May 2007. Each contact was an SMS." (snip)But pathfinder why post that when, assuming you have read the files, you already know the answer? It states in the files exactly who those txts were to, and BTW that they were not read by the recipient until the 6th. There is nothing suspicious about those txts, they are already fully explained in the files.
But pathfinder why post that when, assuming you have read the files, you already know the answer? It states in the files exactly who those txts were to, and BTW that they were not read by the recipient until the 6th. There is nothing suspicious about those txts, they are already fully explained in the files.
Just wondering if JW saw her hanging around outside at that time why she is texting somebody away from her partner and not heading straight to the tapas.JW looking out from the open stairwell high up in block 4 saw a woman in the street dressed in purple.
I thnk Jt was texting Mrs Gorrod to say she couldnt make her barbeque the next day iircYes that's the content of the second text. The first one was to ask what to bring. Completely unsuspicious.
Yes that's the content of the second text. The first one was to ask what to bring. Completely unsuspicious.
ThanksThe honest witness was crying for the poor little girl IMO Mercury, and wishing she'd stopped that man she saw (remember this film was made long before SY found the man was an innocent tourist with his own daughter). The presentation by someone else of an alternative chat location over the road out of earshot of the lounge wouldn't make anyone cry, in fact you can see the witness is bemused by how anyone could possibly remember it being over on the other side.
I dont suspect tanner at all, if anythng she was used by the mccanns getting her to go back, after she had said it would terrify her, a similar excuse they used for not wantng to do a reconstruction previously but ok for asking others to do their own one
and especially by gerry in that documentary, making her cry, he could have asked his mate loach to edit that out
Just wondering if JW saw her hanging around outside at that time why she is texting somebody away from her partner and not heading straight to the tapas.
Why do you assume JT was texting outside? I was under the impression she didn't take her mobile to the Tapas Bar.Good point.
The honest witness was crying for the poor little girl IMO Mercury, and wishing she'd stopped that man she saw (remember this film was made long before SY found the man was an innocent tourist with his own daughter). The presentation by someone else of an alternative chat location over the road out of earshot of the lounge wouldn't make anyone cry, in fact you can see the witness is bemused by how anyone could possibly remember it being over on the other side.
@Pegasus1. Yes I think it was a video but can't find it now.
You mentioned something about GM saying he wasn't going to stop & talk to JW.
Does that make it more likely that GM did, in fact, cross the road to make conversation - otherwise, he'd have just continued walking down the hill imo.
Also, in the JT/JW version, if GM had left by the side gate & was already walking when JW caught sight of him from the other side of the road, how far down the road would GM have walked in the time it took JW to cross the road to him?
The joys of two individuals recounting events which had absolutely no significance at the time.
Jeremy Wilkin's statement was as he remembered the occurence to the best of his ability (as one would when it concerned a missing child). Bridget O'Donnell might have remembered differently, but why should there have been collusion to bring Jez's recollection into line with hers or vice versa? Each is is independent of the other and each is being honest about their memories of events.
JW was adamant he saw nobody when chatting to GM. IMO it was impossible for her to pass within a few feet without being seen. He would be aware with a pram. He noticed other people and JT at around 8:30.
"The raw telecom data provided to OP TASK shows that the mobile phone attributed to Jane TANNER (078085####) was in contact with mobile number 0794973#### at 20:30:21 hrs on 3rd May 2007 and again at 09:04:46 hrs on 4th May 2007. Each contact was an 'SMS'. Enquiries are underway to subscribe the '1884’ number."
I can confirm from personal experience that it is possible. All it takes is for the person to be looking away in another direction and to be concentrating on something else for a few moments. In this case - looking down at his baby in the pram would be a natural thing to do. IMO people don't stand rooted to the spot staring into one another's eyes when they are chatting - they look around all the time - and it would be quite natural for both JW and GM to be looking down at the baby at intervals - especially when the baby was mentioned in the conversation.
Jane Tanner said they were 'engrossed' in their conversation. Why? Well, Gerry is a very focused type of person. Was it a very interesting conversation, totally engrossing and worthy of focusing all one's attention on it? According to those taking part it was nothing but a casual chat between two people in passing at a holiday resort.
Gerry had his back to Jane and she didn't mention the men looking into the pushchair. If they were, then both men's peripheral vision should have picked up Jane's movement as she passed. The pushchair was south of them, so Gerry's head would have been turned to his right and Jez's to his left.
On a busy street with lots of people passing by I think it would be possible to simply filter them out but in such a quiet, narrow street with no other activity I think not it would have been impossible not to see Tanner. Gerry knew that and that is why, even though it called the credibility of his main witness into question, he insisted on being on the other side of the road.
I can confirm from personal experience that it is possible. All it takes is for the person to be looking away in another direction and to be concentrating on something else for a few moments. In this case - looking down at his baby in the pram would be a natural thing to do. IMO people don't stand rooted to the spot staring into one another's eyes when they are chatting - they look around all the time - and it would be quite natural for both JW and GM to be looking down at the baby at intervals - especially when the baby was mentioned in the conversation.Thanks Benice for that welcome ray of commonsense. I already posted a video of two people standing on that actual pavement and another person passing between them and the wall, completely unnoticed by them, but some people won't accept it.
JW looking out from the open stairwell high up in block 4 saw a woman in the street dressed in purple.
JT was not wearing purple. Dark blue is not purple.
There was a different woman wearing a plum (purple) top with long dark hair, that's who he saw IMO.
I thnk Jt was texting Mrs Gorrod to say she couldnt make her barbeque the next day iirc
@pathfinder Presumably you have read the statement and know that JW saw the woman in purple from a large distance.
What sort of distance are we talking about - 5 yards, 10 yards, 30 yards, half a mile ?See statement, forum translation is inaccurate IMO, here's mine
See statement, forum translation is inaccurate IMO, here's mine
"when I was going down to the exit of my apartment"
so the woman in purple on the pavement is seen from high up on the open stairway of block 4 that's the distance IMO
"I left the apartment and turned right. I walked via the lower street, looked to the building block where the McCann apartment was situated and saw a woman dressed in purple clothing."Fair enough, so do you think the witness was on the "lower street" when he saw the woman in purple?
He looked to his right when passing block 5 and saw a woman dressed in purple who he said was Jane Tanner. She couldn't have been far away.But the dark blue fleece that witness was wearing that evening is not purple Pathfinder.
(http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/00385/SNN0820CC_180_385908a.jpg)(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_a9wriOtQCu8/TMkqzfJ73yI/AAAAAAAAAII/LqbK4pfW9bk/s1600/jane+tanner++one.jpg)(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Tappas9/J&MS.jpg)
Do you realise the size of ROB?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/docsMS0809_468x437.jpg)
Perspective, PF, perspective.
@pathfinder that witness was wearing a large dark blue fleece that evening its in the files.
How many people are now conspirators/liars in your theory? 20?
If you read other cases you'd notice it's usually <2.
Yes jassi and that's precsely why conspiracies are so rare.
No. you need at least 2 for a conspiracy ?{)(**
@pathfinder that witness was wearing a large dark blue fleece that evening its in the files.
How many people are now conspirators/liars in your theory? 20?
If you read other cases you'd notice it's usually <2.
Also I already posted a soundtrack of the actual witness walking in those exact shoes proving that the shoes are inaudible. But amazingly some people still refuse to cancel their membership of the "if they're called flipflops they must be deafeningly loud" fantasists club.
Where does it say in the files JT went out wearing ROB's blue fleece?Agreed possibly borrowed in restaurant.
Agreed possibly borrowed in restaurant.
Another question, in which scenario was the chat more audible inside 5A lounge?
(a) if the the chat was next to 5A garden.
(b) if the chat was next to 605 garden.
I'm sorry but I must have missed that Pegasus. Would you mind posting the soundtrack again ?mccannfiles site 4 May page video1