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

[Alfred R Jones]

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?

[Alfred R Jones]

What follows is an imaginary scenario and in no way represents what actually happened.

Gerry to Jane: Hey Jane, I know we don't know each other all that well but I really need you to do me a big favour.  I need you to say you saw me last night to provide me with an alibi cos I was seen carrying the body.
Jane: OK, what time were you spotted?
Gerry: About 9.50 - just about 10 minutes before Kate raised the alarm
Jane: OK - what would you like me to say?
Gerry: That you saw me talking to that Gez bloke on the street near the apartment.
Jane: OK - what time was that then?
Gerry: Erm...well I'm not sure.  Couldn've been anything up to an hour before I was spotted carrying the body.
Jane: How does that actually provide you with an alibi though?
Gerry: Erm...dunno. Just say it though would you?
Jane:  Sure, no problem. 
Gerry: make sure you say about the flip-flops.  Oh, and by the way, when they ask me I'll say I never saw you, OK?
Jane: Oh.  Why not?
Gerry:  Well I didn't did I?
Jane: Erm....right-o then.

[faithlilly]

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?

It's similar to the 'which side of the road' issue. If both Jane and Gerry said the chat was at approximately 9.15 and Jez said 8.45, the weight of evidence would be on their side, surely ?

Further Gerry had to work with what he had, no matter how flimsy the story would seem, and Jez was the only independent witness available therefore had to be incorporated.

[icabodcrane]

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    ) 

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  ? 

[Alfred R Jones]

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    ) 

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?

[Mr Gray]

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

[stephen25000]

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 ?

[jassi]

Have SY ruled out that Madeleine might have died in the apartment ?

That was just an error in translation 

[Cornelius]

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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm.

[Mr Gray]

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.

And yet SY do not and have declared the parents not suspects

[Cornelius]

That Jane Tanner really did see a man carrying a child that she thought might have been the abductor?

Or put another way was touted as definitely the abductor from May 3rd/4th 2007 until October 19th 2013.
We now seem to be abductorless.

[John]

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.

I agree Benice      Some were under more pressure than others that night!

[Alfred R Jones]

Or put another way was touted as definitely the abductor from May 3rd/4th 2007 until October 19th 2013.
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.

[peter claridge]

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.

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.

[sadie]

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 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.

I think that along with some amnesia due to the trauma, is why Gerry remembers incorrectly