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

[Alfred R Jones]

I missed that Alfred, well spotted.  Can you attach photos please.

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.

[Alfred R Jones]

What is the source of that photograph please?
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

bump

[John]

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.

I hadn't noticed that previously, I attach the two photos below.  If I get a chance later I will look out some others.

Proof undoubtedly that the 2007 lighting was inadequate.

[John]

Here's one which offers a daytime look at the old and new lamp located directly opposite 5a and just a few metres further up the road (albeit opposite side) from where Gerry and Jes had the chat.

[faithlilly]

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.

[John]

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.

[faithlilly]

Not if they both had their backs to her in the gloom.

But at the least Jez was facing the wall which Jane would have to have passed by, he says so in his statement.

[Silkywhiskers]

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).

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.

[pathfinder73]

Not if they both had their backs to her in the gloom.

Then they would have seen Tannerman if they had their backs to Jane walking up from behind? But that didn't happen. Jez crossed the road so he would have been facing 5A (confirmed in his statement) and Jane would have passed right in front of him.

[Alfred R Jones]

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

Which of these two facts do you dispute?

Until SY confirmed the existence of this man it was widely believe by the doubters that JT INVENTED the man.

Do you dispute this fact?

JT's sighting has now been proven to have actually happened, correct?

ERgo JT did not LIE about seeing a man carrying a child.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

[slartibartfast]

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

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?

[Alfred R Jones]

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.

Incidentally the man was carrying his two year old daughter who was wearing pink pyjamas, as confirmed by SY.

[Alfred R Jones]

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.

By the way would you say that the street in PdL and Oxford Street were similar streets in terms of numbers of pedestrians passing by at any given spot?

[Alfred R Jones]

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

[Silkywhiskers]

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.

 

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