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

[slartibartfast]

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.



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.

[sadie]

No, depends on width of boards.

I appreciate what you are saying, but have you looked at a photo of the full length of the legs?

Haven't got time 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 jamies at all.

[icabodcrane]

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.



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?

Do you think Scotland Yard have produced a pair of pyjamas sized age 7 to 11,   and lied to us about them having been worn by the two year old daughter of  'innocent man'  ?

That's a conspiracy too far  ...  dontcha think  ? 

[Cariad]

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!)

[pathfinder73]

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-)(--)

[sadie]

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?

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.

[pathfinder73]

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.

[Benice]

"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.

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.




 

[pathfinder73]

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?

[Benice]

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 think it's perfectly possible to miss someone if (a) you have your back to them or (b) they don't happen to be in your line of sight in the couple of seconds it takes for them to pass by - especially in the dark and your attention is also focussed on your child in his buggy.

IMO There is no believable reason why JT should decide to perjure herself so seriously for someone she hardly knew - and even if she was so mentally deranged that she entered into this cunning plan with Gerry - then he would have definitely said he saw her.     Otherwise - what was the  point?

[John]

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

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.

[sadie]

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.

I dont think so John.

Jane truly saw a man who she believes to be the abductor, walking from the west to the East along Rua Agostinho.   

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 wouls 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 crech.




There is a possibility that Innocentman walked west from the creche with a friend who had also picked his child up before leaving the friend on Rua 1 Maio ... and then walking north to turn right (East) into Rua Agostinho and be where Jane saw Tannerman.

But I dont think it likely tbh

He could have got lost too I guess



But even a two year old would be getting heavy and I cant believe that after such a longish walk, he would be carrying her as Jane saw, across his arms.  Very tiring

And why wasn't she covered with a blanket?  He was her father fgs.  The jamies were far too big as well.  So many strange things about this.



I wonder if SY have put this out to create arguing and discussion on the internet and maybe cause some other witness to comment / come forward from the controversy ensuing ?

Only thoughts 

I think Jane saw a different man.

[Cariad]

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

[sadie]

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.



Half the legs are missing too!

[Cariad]

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.



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.