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

[Cornelius]

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

Which all adds up to unresolved anomalies eh Pathfinder?
A proper reconstitution might have shed some light (no pun intended)

[pegasus]

... 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? ....

The child JT saw was not 3 or 4 yrs old IMO.
The child was 2 yrs old IMO and in SY's opinion: they have spoken to the man and confirmed the childs age.
Now if we do a similar experiment for a 2-yr old which is what she actually saw ....
Far far easier to carry horizontally.
Your battery experiment IMO confirms that JT saw innocenttouristman carrying a 2-year-old.

[icabodcrane]

The child JT saw was not 3 or 4 yrs old IMO.
The child was 2 yrs old IMO and in SY's opinion: they have spoken to the man and confirmed the childs age.
Now if we do a similar experiment for a 2-yr old which is what she actually saw ....
Far far easier to carry horizontally.
Your battery experiment IMO confirms that JT saw innocenttouristman carrying a 2-year-old.

I agree Pegasus,  cradling a two year old and walking a fair distance  is something the average man could do easily

[pegasus]

It was a 2-yr old child she saw IMO
Average weight female 2yrs = 11.5 kg, 3yrs =14.0 kg
Fairly easy to carry horizontally.
The carrying position observed by JT is a strong indication that the child she saw was considerably less than 47.75 months old IMO.

[Cornelius]

The child JT saw was not 3 or 4 yrs old IMO.
The child was 2 yrs old IMO and in SY's opinion: they have spoken to the man and confirmed the childs age.
Now if we do a similar experiment for a 2-yr old which is what she actually saw ....
Far far easier to carry horizontally.
Your battery experiment IMO confirms that JT saw innocenttouristman carrying a 2-year-old.

Which then confirms that the original postulation that JT saw the abductor (which had currency for 6 years or are you forgetting that?) was erroneous as suggested by Redwood.
It would be interesting to know why the guy (innocenttouristman as you call him) was going all over the oche to get home and of course it is now necessary to find another abductor to uphold the abduction theory.
Back to my comment; there are a lot of unresolved anomalies. It is strange that after the lynchpin for the abduction theory was removed the attitude seems to have been "oh well let's find another one" almost without breaking step and thinking "that was a bit odd".
To be clear on what I am saying: It is odd and no rational explanation for the whole has thus far been forthcoming. One hopes in the fullness of time all will be revealed.

[pegasus]

Which then confirms that the original postulation that JT saw the abductor (which had currency for 6 years or are you forgetting that?) was erroneous as suggested by Redwood.

There are two postulations
A. That JT saw a man carrying a child (TRUE IMO).
B. That the child JT saw was the missing child (FALSE IMO).

[pathfinder73]

24 July 2008 Exclusive Interview with Gonçalo Amaral

What led you to indict the McCanns over all of those crimes?

It all starts with an abduction theory that is forced by the parents. And the abduction is based on two facts: one is Jane Tanner's testimony that says she saw a man passing in front of the apartment, carrying a child; the other is the bedroom window, which, according to Kate, was open when it should have been closed. It was proved that none of that happened.

How was it proved?

Jane Tanner is not credible: she identifies and recognizes different people. She starts with Murat, later on someone else is mentioned, according to the drawing done by a witness, and she already says that is the person, completely different from Robert Murat.

Jane Tanner's testimony drove the abduction theory.

In order to advance into that direction, it would be necessary to give her credit: there was no other indicium of the abduction. And the issue of the bedroom window, where Maddie and her siblings slept, is vital. It leads to simulation. This means, whether or not it was open when Jane says that she saw the man carrying the child. The little girl’s mother, Kate, is the only person that mentions the open window.

Does that undo the abduction theory?

There lies the solution. To be closed or not, is a strong indicium for simulation. And why does one simulate abduction, rather than simply saying that the child has disappeared? She could have opened the door and left…

Do Kate's fingerprints reinforce the simulation theory?

They are the only fingerprints on the window. And in a position of opening the window.

Did Kate have suspicious attitudes?

She goes out for dinner and supposedly leaves three children asleep. She returns, one is missing, she goes out, leaving the window wide open with the twins asleep. And the night, according to what she says, was very cold…

What about Maddie's bed?

It carries no signs that anyone was in it. Nor does the chair or the bed under the window. And there are no imprints from strangers.

The reconstruction is missing.

It was not carried out 10 or 15 days after the facts, because the resort was full of tourists. We trusted that it could be carried out at a later date. It couldn't.

Did you request data about the group?

At 8 a.m. on the 4th, the request was made to the English liaison officer, but [the data] never arrived.

What did you want to know?

Who the people are, their antecedents. And the child, whether or not there are complaints against the parents or others. How she behaved in school, to find out if she was the target of abuse.

How important is the Irish witness within the case?

He explained where he and his family had seen, at 10 p.m. on the 3rd of May, a man carrying a little girl. And it wasn't Murat. They did not see the face, but they described the athletic and clumsy manner in which he carried the child.

That was back in May.

When the McCanns returned to England, the witness, watching Gerry get off the plane and walking across the asphalt carrying his child, had a realization. By the manner in which he walked and the clumsy way that he carries the child, he is 70 to 80 percent certain that it was the person he saw that evening. Says he and say the other members of the family.

What did you do?

On the days before I left Portimão we were taking care of that trip to Portugal. Then, the hearing of that witness was requested through a liaison officer from the Irish police in Madrid, which took months. During that time, the witness was approached by persons that are connected to the McCanns' staff, I don’t know with what intention. They felt pressured. Later on, the hearing arrived and he maintains the probability of 70 to 80 percent that it was Gerry who carried the little girl towards the beach.

Couldn't that have been included in the rogatory letter?

It could and it should. The ideal would have been for him to come to Portugal, as a key witness. Just like the couple of doctors that describe the situation in Mallorca.

Within the theory of the parents' involvement, can you reconstruct that night?

We had already concluded, long before the Irish witness, that if those persons were involved, there was only one possibility. It pointed towards the beach. Not only because of what [locations] they knew but also due to the terrain's conditions. In that area, it is not easy to dig a hole. One either knows where holes already exist, or it is not possible, within a short time lapse, to decide where to place a corpse without knowing the area. If there was involvement, it would have been towards the beach area. Which is later corroborated by the Irish witness.

And what about Gerry?

He justifies some of the time with a trip to the toilet. That is not five minutes, then he meets another individual outside. Hence the need for the reconstruction. To find out how long it took them to get to the apartments, what route they walked, etc. A reconstruction that should be joint with the restaurant's movement, because when it is said that they asked for the food from 9 p.m. onwards, there was one person who ordered a steak. And that steak was heated again because someone was not there. It is necessary to find out whose steak that was. He was away for a much longer time period…

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id139.html

[sadie]

Which then confirms that the original postulation that JT saw the abductor (which had currency for 6 years or are you forgetting that?) was erroneous as suggested by Redwood.
It would be interesting to know why the guy (innocenttouristman as you call him) was going all over the oche to get home and of course it is now necessary to find another abductor to uphold the abduction theory.
Back to my comment; there are a lot of unresolved anomalies. It is strange that after the lynchpin for the abduction theory was removed the attitude seems to have been "oh well let's find another one" almost without breaking step and thinking "that was a bit odd".
To be clear on what I am saying: It is odd and no rational explanation for the whole has thus far been forthcoming. One hopes in the fullness of time all will be revealed.

It would be so easy to negate your assertions if I were well enough, but I am not atm.  Maybe tomorrow?

Nigh night, my old friend Cornelius.  You have forgotten me.

[faithlilly]

Let's call a spade a spade.

I have viewed all the graphics on this forum 'proving' JT could have passed by Gerry and Jez without being seen, they are, perhaps, convincing if you have never actually been to PDL and walked the same street at the same time of night. I however have and I can tell you two things with absolute certainty:

1.JT could not have walked by the chatterers with flip flops on and not be heard. I have tried it, heard the sound they make ( the expensive kind ) and can assure you it is simply not possible.
2. Even if Jez was partially on the road with the pram while talking to Gerry there is simply not enough room for Jane to pass by unobserved.

Jane and Gerry are [moderated] and that is simply not open to question. The real conundrum is why ?

[faithlilly]

I rest my case.

The reconstruction would have proved this. I assume that's why it never took place.

[peter claridge]

The reconstruction would have proved this. I assume that's why it never took place.

But they did their own, Gerry made Jane cry, Jane doesn't like Gerry she tells us so!

[Alfred R Jones]

I find it somewhat amusing that some people can imagine that it's quite possible that 9 people took part in a cover-up which involved the hiding of a dead child's body, its removal and re-burial days later, and that it's quite possible that the UK government, SY, the UK media also are all complicit in the cover-up, plus all manner of other possibilities that the Nefarious Nine are supposed to have taken part in, but the act of walking up a street relatively quietly in a pair of flip-flops is deemed totally impossible.

[faithlilly]

But they did their own, Gerry made Jane cry, Jane doesn't like Gerry she tells us so!

Jane was humiliated. I suspect I would cry too if I had travelled all that way just to be undermined by the very person I was trying to help.

[peter claridge]

Jane was humiliated. I suspect I would cry too if I had travelled all that way just to be undermined by the very person I was trying to help.

All an act

[faithlilly]

I find it somewhat amusing that some people can imagine that it's quite possible that 9 people took part in a cover-up which involved the hiding of a dead child's body, its removal and re-burial days later, and that it's quite possible that the UK government, SY, the UK media also are all complicit in the cover-up, plus all manner of other possibilities that the Nefarious Nine are supposed to have taken part in, but the act of walking up a street relatively quietly in a pair of flip-flops is deemed totally impossible.

I have no idea who did or did not know what on the night of the 3rd of May or subsequent days but what I do know, from experience, is that Jane could not have walked Gerry and Jez in noisy flip flops on such a narrow pavement.

If you can prove otherwise I'm all ears.