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

[John]

The more I read about this encounter the more perplexing I find it.  Thanx to Pathfinder for posting those night photos, they have certainly changed my view ( sorry about the pun).

I wonder, is this episode yet another reason why these three have never taken part in an official police reconstruction?  Something is definitely amiss with this event.  8-)(--)

[Alfred R Jones]

The more I read about this encounter the more perplexing I find it.  Thanx to Pathfinder for posting those night photos, they have certainly changed my view ( sorry about the pun).

I wonder, is this episode yet another reason why these three have never taken part in an official police reconstruction?  Something is definitely amiss with this event.  8-)(--)

You seem to be suggesting that 'these three' have something to hide.  What would that be? 

Could someone spell out exactly who [moderated] about what - Faithlilly has claimed JT never saw the two men - so what time did she see the man carrying the child and what time were Jez and Gerry talking to each other? 

[John]

Alfred, we have a strict policy on this forum as regards calling anyone a liar.  Unless you have absolute proof that someone has lied please do not use the term. Same goes for Faithlilly who should know better. TY

[faithlilly]

What time did Jez Wilkins meet with Gerry then?  Was Gerry behaving suspiciously according to Jez?  Was there anything in Jez's statement that tends to support the idea that Gerry had or was about to commit a terrible act?

Jez, according to his statement, met Gerry anytime between 8.45 and 9.15 and while he assumed Gerry had just been to check on his children, he wasn't even sure about that.

What if Gerry had not yet checked on the children and had not yet found Madeleine had been the victim of a terrible accident or, as I believe, was missing from her bed ? Wouldn't his behaviour while talking to Jez be absolutely normal in that scenario ? Stephen Carpenter's wife heard someone calling Madeleine's name softly around the time Gerry was absent from the table. Could that have been him looking for Madeleine ?

[Lace]

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.

[faithlilly]

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.

But where is the evidence for your scenario ?

[icabodcrane]

I believe that Jane could have walked by Gerry and Jez without them noticing her.



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.

Why would you think that when none of the three witnesses in question say that is what happened  ?

[Alfred R Jones]

Jez, according to his statement, met Gerry anytime between 8.45 and 9.15 and while he assumed Gerry had just been to check on his children, he wasn't even sure about that.

What if Gerry had not yet checked on the children and had not yet found Madeleine had been the victim of a terrible accident or, as I believe, was missing from her bed ? Wouldn't his behaviour while talking to Jez be absolutely normal in that scenario ? Stephen Carpenter's wife heard someone calling Madeleine's name softly around the time Gerry was absent from the table. Could that have been him looking for Madeleine ?

So, for this to fit your version of events what time would you put the meeting between Gerry and Jez?

[John]

Two witnesses say one thing while another gives a very different version of events and fails to explain their position, that I find puzzling to say the least.  You cannot say A, B or C lied though, the best you can say is that at least one of them was very much mistaken.

[Lace]

But where is the evidence for your scenario ?

I did say it was only my opinion.   

No one can say it didn't happen.

[Lace]

Why would you think that when none of the three witnesses in question say that is what happened  ?

There was confusion during the reconstruction,   Gerry was adamant he walked across the road,   Jane was sure he was nearer than across the road,   so it makes sense they were in the middle to me.

[faithlilly]

Two witnesses say one thing while another gives a very different version of events and fails to explain their position, that I find puzzling to say the least.  You cannot say A, B or C lied though, the best you can say is that at least one of them was very much mistaken.

What I find puzzling is why, when Gerry had known that both the other witnesses to their chat placed Jez and him on the tapas side of the road, Gerry still insisted on undermining his own witness's credibility, by placing them elsewhere ? Why not just accept his recollection was wrong ?

[pathfinder73]

There was confusion during the reconstruction,   Gerry was adamant he walked across the road,   Jane was sure he was nearer than across the road,   so it makes sense they were in the middle to me.

Really? If you were pushing a baby in a pram would you stop in the middle of the road for a chat?

[Cornelius]

The normal human visual field extends to approximately 60 degrees nasally (toward the nose, or inward) from the vertical meridian in each eye, to 100 degrees temporally (away from the nose, or outwards) from the vertical meridian, and approximately 60 degrees above and 75 below the horizontal meridian [2]. In the United Kingdom, the minimum field requirement for driving is 60 degrees either side of the vertical meridian, and 20 degrees above and below horizontal. The macula corresponds to the central 13 degrees of the visual field; the fovea to the central 3 degrees.

This is like groundhog day!
Above is the field of binocular vision. The "peripheral" vision outside binocular extends to 80+ degrees either side of the vertical meridian.
The dimensions of the black top and side walks are in an earlier post of mine. If you don't believe me then measure off Google Earth and sense check against familiar objects like motor vehicles (data sheets giving dimensions for most popular vehicles are on the internet). Presumably most can handle a bit of simple trig. Then calculate no need to guess. Are you aware of the hearing screening test carried out on children? It some what negates some theories or do posters believe the experts on hearing have it wrong

[Angelo222]

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.