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

[Brietta]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/472668/FOUND-Shirt-worn-by-Madeleine-McCann-suspect

I found the short video at the above link interesting in view of the discussion we have had led by Sadie on the exact point where it was possible for Jane Tanner to pass the two men on the footpath without being observed.

Mr Bleksley can be seen walking down the incline from the side entrance of 5a towards camera.
IMO he stops just a little beyond John's photograph which illustrated the access point to the lane, to speak to camera.
It isn't the audio I found interesting, but the video, which I thought brought our discussion on the matter to life.

I'm sorry not to be able to link the video and not even trying to make the attempt - don't want to crash the Forum - however, if someone agrees with me that it is as interesting as I think, perhaps s/he might do it for me.

Video

[Cariad]

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? 

[Alfred R Jones]

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?

Oh right, so the only claim being made here is that JT may have made a mistake in her statement then?  No one here has once implied that she actually lied?  It seems I've got this all wrong then.

[Cornelius]

[...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.

[Alfred R Jones]

I have not gone "polar" (whatever that means!)  In fact I now concede that I am entirely wrong and there is absolutely no inference whatsoever on this thread from anyone at all that either Jane, Gerry or Jez lied, only that perhaps one or more of them were mistaken (a common feature of witness statements as most humans are not blessed with perfect recall),  which may go some way to explaining these "anomalies" that are so troubling people.   

[Benice]

I thought I'd repost this as IMO it explains why there were anomalies - and why there is nothing sinister about them.


This link is very informative on the subject.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8617945.stm

One little quote from it:-
 
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

You might ask how on earth someone could get that so very wrong - and yet more than one person did.

This is why I think it's wrong to claim that because there are inconsistencies in description/times etc given in statements by 10 different people  (especially at such a stressful time) - it is proof that lies were being told -when quite clearly they are all displaying perfectly normal human behaviour - when it comes to memory recall. 

[John]

There is no evidence that anyone lied as has been suggested earlier in this thread, there is however lots of evidence that one or more people might be mistaken as to what their relative positions were that night.

[sadie]

[...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?

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.

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.

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.

[pegasus]

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.
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=133&month=5&year=2007&obj=moon&afl=-12&day=1
It's for Lisbon but the moonrise in PDL would be about the same time.
The moon rose at 10.01pm, that is assuming a flat horizon with no hills.
Because of the big hill to the east of PDL I would estimate the moon rose in PDL at about 10.15pm.
BTW it was a full moon.
So no moonlight at all until about 10.15pm IMO, then increasing to very bright moonlight throughout the whole night after that IMO.
IIRC there is something in the statements confirming this - I will try to dig it out.

[pegasus]

Re the moon rising about 10.15pm IMO.
This fits with MO rogatory:

the moon was out later on

and it also fits with ROB rogatory, describing a stage of the searching after 10.15pm

a bit of moonlight

[Cornelius]

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 

[sadie]

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?




Have I have met you before on pfa2 ?

How are you Cornelius?   Nice to chat again.

[pathfinder73]

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

[Cornelius]

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.

Afraid not. Apart from private club forums this is the only one I belong to.

[Cornelius]

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.

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.