Tannerman & the blanket

[sadie]

Jane Tanner couldn't pass Gerry and Jez on the same pavement as she claimed without being seen so imo the police will not be relying on her.

Absolute rubbish PF.   Jane is NOT proven to be unreliable at all.

According to Stephen Carpenter there were several vehicles parked up there.    By up there he meant between the exit from Tapas Reception and the little gate into 5A.  Suggest you use Google Earth zoomed in, then you try fitting the number of cars mentioned by Stephen along the westerly pavement, leaving sensible parking gaps between the cars.  I did it this exercise once  and found the cars were pretty closely parked.


Jez stood betwen in a narrowish gap between those cars/ vans.  So for Jez the visability was largely destroyed by these vehicles.  Gerry stood with one foot in the road amd one foot on the kerb, so he was partly in the road ...  and he had his back to any movements Jane made; he couldn't see any of her walk.


Also measuring GE enlarged image, the regular pavement was roughly 2.5 metres wide, but because the length of pavement where Gerry stood was adjacent to the alleyway, Jane could have looped a little and she had the option to create a larger distance between herself and Gerry if she wished
.  Walkling straight thru even, she cold have been at least 2 metres clear of Gerry and also in his shadow from the weak light of the street lamps opposite


Plenty of room on that pavement to slip by unseen in the circumstances



Had the men been talking to or admiring Jez's baby, their eyes would have been in the babies direction and cast down, away from the pavement and any walkers. 


This has been gone over before, over and over, so you know all this. 
Why do you chose to demean and pick on Jane Tanner ?   I have found her utterly reliable.

[pathfinder73]

Did she pass them on the same pavement?   It is quite possible that Gerry crossed the road to speak to Jeremy and if Jeremy was pointing the pram downwards whilst talking to Gerry it is believable that they wouldn't see Jane.

Why would he cross the road? He was on the tapas side of the road. Jez had a reason to cross - to get back to his apartment.

[G-Unit]

Absolute rubbish PF.   Jane is NOT proven to be unreliable at all.

According to Stephen Carpenter there were several vehicles parked up there.    By up there he meant between the exit from Tapas Reception and the little gate into 5A.  Suggest you use Google Earth zoomed in, then you try fitting the number of cars mentioned by Stephen along the westerly pavement, leaving sensible parking gaps between the cars.  I did it this exercise once  and found the cars were pretty closely parked.


Jez stood betwen in a narrowish gap between those cars/ vans.  So for Jez the visability was largely destroyed by these vehicles.  Gerry stood with one foot in the road amd one foot on the kerb, so he was partly in the road ...  and he had his back to any movements Jane made; he couldn't see any of her walk.


Also measuring GE enlarged image, the regular pavement was roughly 2.5 metres wide, but because the length of pavement where Gerry stood was adjacent to the alleyway, Jane could have looped a little and she had the option to create a larger distance between herself and Gerry if she wished
.  Walkling straight thru even, she cold have been at least 2 metres clear of Gerry and also in his shadow from the weak light of the street lamps opposite


Plenty of room on that pavement to slip by unseen in the circumstances



Had the men been talking to or admiring Jez's baby, their eyes would have been in the babies direction and cast down, away from the pavement and any walkers. 


This has been gone over before, over and over, so you know all this. 
Why do you chose to demean and pick on Jane Tanner ?   I have found her utterly reliable.

The street lights opposite seem to vary their light according to your needs. Today they're 'weak', but on other occasions they're described as bathing the balcony in light.

[sadie]

The street lights opposite seem to vary their light according to your needs. Today they're 'weak', but on other occasions they're described as bathing the balcony in light.

Yes I have described the street light directly opposite bathing the balcony area in light but I have also said many times that it was a poor / weak light. 

So consistent; what are you going on about ? 
Are you trying to make something out of nothing ?

[barrier]

Yes I have described the street light directly opposite bathing the balcony area in light but I have also said many times that it was a poor / weak light. 

So consistent; what are you going on about ? 
Are you trying to make something out of nothing ?

Yet for years Tannerman was a focus despite some obvious poor lighting which couldn't enable Tanner to properly see the man,Redwood saw the light though.

[Lace]

Yet for years Tannerman was a focus despite some obvious poor lighting which couldn't enable Tanner to properly see the man,Redwood saw the light though.

I don't see any reason for Jane to lie.   If she had lied,  then she would have got her story straight with Gerry who she didn't really know very well, instead there was a bit of a discussion as to where Gerry was standing on the evening when Jane saw him.   Wouldn't you think they would have got their story straight?

It was light enough for Jane to see the man,  what he was wearing and that he was carrying a child with bare feet.

Jane said herself that she thought the bottom of the pyjama's the child was wearing had a sort of 'turn up' on the bottom,   later she was told that Madeleine's pyjama's had a ruffle on the bottom.

Why didn't Amaral check what parents would be taking their children to the creche and back that evening?  Even if they didn't believe Jane saw someone,  they could have questioned the parents to see if they had seen anyone couldn't they?

Messed up case if you ask me.

[G-Unit]

Absolute rubbish PF.   Jane is NOT proven to be unreliable at all.

According to Stephen Carpenter there were several vehicles parked up there.    By up there he meant between the exit from Tapas Reception and the little gate into 5A.  Suggest you use Google Earth zoomed in, then you try fitting the number of cars mentioned by Stephen along the westerly pavement, leaving sensible parking gaps between the cars.  I did it this exercise once  and found the cars were pretty closely parked.


Jez stood betwen in a narrowish gap between those cars/ vans.  So for Jez the visability was largely destroyed by these vehicles.  Gerry stood with one foot in the road amd one foot on the kerb, so he was partly in the road ...  and he had his back to any movements Jane made; he couldn't see any of her walk.


Also measuring GE enlarged image, the regular pavement was roughly 2.5 metres wide, but because the length of pavement where Gerry stood was adjacent to the alleyway, Jane could have looped a little and she had the option to create a larger distance between herself and Gerry if she wished
.  Walkling straight thru even, she cold have been at least 2 metres clear of Gerry and also in his shadow from the weak light of the street lamps opposite


Plenty of room on that pavement to slip by unseen in the circumstances



Had the men been talking to or admiring Jez's baby, their eyes would have been in the babies direction and cast down, away from the pavement and any walkers. 


This has been gone over before, over and over, so you know all this. 
Why do you chose to demean and pick on Jane Tanner ?   I have found her utterly reliable.

Jane Tanner didn't mention any parked cars and neither did Jes Wilkins. If Jes was standing between two parked cars I would have expected him to remember that. Even though Jane's testimony was fairly incoherent, she does appear to be saying that she saw the two men immediately she emerged from the Tapas complex.

4078    “Okay.  So when did you first notice Gerry standing there?”

Reply    “I would have probably noticed him as soon as I came, I mean, I don’t, this is not, I don’t think that distance is probably as far as that, you come out and he was, they were sort of, so almost, I’d probably say almost straight away.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm

The executive chef, however, suggests there were two cars there at 9:10; his and one other.

When he arrived there, by vehicle, at around 21:10, he remembers that next to the Tapas reception, he saw a vehicle, dark blue in colour, with Portuguese license plates. Although he cannot be definite, he believes it was a Fiesta or Focus. The deponent furthers that is was not a small car, and for this reason it could very well have been a Focus and not a Fiesta. He tells that he does not remember any sticker indicating that it was a rental car. Inside the vehicle he saw no one.
. After parking his vehicle, he entered through the reception
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm

[pathfinder73]

Absolute rubbish PF.   Jane is NOT proven to be unreliable at all.

According to Stephen Carpenter there were several vehicles parked up there.    By up there he meant between the exit from Tapas Reception and the little gate into 5A.  Suggest you use Google Earth zoomed in, then you try fitting the number of cars mentioned by Stephen along the westerly pavement, leaving sensible parking gaps between the cars.  I did it this exercise once  and found the cars were pretty closely parked.


Jez stood betwen in a narrowish gap between those cars/ vans.  So for Jez the visability was largely destroyed by these vehicles.  Gerry stood with one foot in the road amd one foot on the kerb, so he was partly in the road ...  and he had his back to any movements Jane made; he couldn't see any of her walk.


Also measuring GE enlarged image, the regular pavement was roughly 2.5 metres wide, but because the length of pavement where Gerry stood was adjacent to the alleyway, Jane could have looped a little and she had the option to create a larger distance between herself and Gerry if she wished
.  Walkling straight thru even, she cold have been at least 2 metres clear of Gerry and also in his shadow from the weak light of the street lamps opposite


Plenty of room on that pavement to slip by unseen in the circumstances



Had the men been talking to or admiring Jez's baby, their eyes would have been in the babies direction and cast down, away from the pavement and any walkers. 


This has been gone over before, over and over, so you know all this. 
Why do you chose to demean and pick on Jane Tanner ?   I have found her utterly reliable.

4078    “Were there any cars around there?”

Jane Tanner Reply    “Erm, umm, no, I don’t know.  I don’t remember.  I don’t remember walking past any going up here and I think I would have probably, if there had been I would have realised, because that would have obscured my view of the person walking, so I can’t think of, I can’t think of any, no”.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm

[sadie]

deleted

[barrier]

I don't see any reason for Jane to lie.   If she had lied,  then she would have got her story straight with Gerry who she didn't really know very well, instead there was a bit of a discussion as to where Gerry was standing on the evening when Jane saw him.   Wouldn't you think they would have got their story straight?

It was light enough for Jane to see the man,  what he was wearing and that he was carrying a child with bare feet.

Jane said herself that she thought the bottom of the pyjama's the child was wearing had a sort of 'turn up' on the bottom,   later she was told that Madeleine's pyjama's had a ruffle on the bottom.

Why didn't Amaral check what parents would be taking their children to the creche and back that evening?  Even if they didn't believe Jane saw someone,  they could have questioned the parents to see if they had seen anyone couldn't they?

Messed up case if you ask me.

Yet two men even closer couldn't see Tanner.

[barrier]

I don't see any reason for Jane to lie.   If she had lied,  then she would have got her story straight with Gerry who she didn't really know very well, instead there was a bit of a discussion as to where Gerry was standing on the evening when Jane saw him.   Wouldn't you think they would have got their story straight?

It was light enough for Jane to see the man,  what he was wearing and that he was carrying a child with bare feet.

Jane said herself that she thought the bottom of the pyjama's the child was wearing had a sort of 'turn up' on the bottom,   later she was told that Madeleine's pyjama's had a ruffle on the bottom.

Why didn't Amaral check what parents would be taking their children to the creche and back that evening?  Even if they didn't believe Jane saw someone,  they could have questioned the parents to see if they had seen anyone couldn't they?

Messed up case if you ask me.

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 pros and cons and what to do with the children.

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

Not the opposite side of the road.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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 [ censored word ] and cons and what to do with the children.

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

Not the opposite side of the road.

Near the stairs not by the stairs.

[barrier]

Near the stairs not by the stairs.

Read his rog,after crossing the road from the tapas and pool area he then crossed again to speak to GM,all this criss crossing and not a sight of Tanner or Tannerman.He saw a woman in purple though.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Read his rog,after crossing the road from the tapas and pool area he then crossed again to speak to GM,all this criss crossing and not a sight of Tanner or Tannerman.He saw a woman in purple though.

And what do you deduce from this?

[Eleanor]

Yet two men even closer couldn't see Tanner.

Didn't see Tanner is what you should have said.

Too much Semantics going on again.