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

[sadie]

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 ?

We dont know that.  We only have Chinese whispers from her husband ... in other words a third party statement.

Very strangely Carolines statement is missing !!!!!

As are also the statements from Raj and Neil, the two men who could verify the time they saw Gerry searching
So all three of Gerrys potential alibis have somehow got lost !



Sounds very fishy to me.  In fact it stinks.

[Cornelius]

Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a young child very close to the apartment from which her friends' child vanished on the same evening.  Perhaps she should have just kept her big mouth shut and assumed what she saw was completely irrelevant, eh?  Might at least have saved her from some of the criticism she has been subjected to in the last seven years.

Oh no! If she thought she saw something she should have definitely spoken out. The point is that over 6 years her sighting was was the keystone of the abduction theory. Now no one is sure what she saw. Keystone gorn as you might say.

[Benice]

Oh no! If she thought she saw something she should have definitely spoken out. The point is that over 6 years her sighting was was the keystone of the abduction theory. Now no one is sure what she saw. Keystone gorn as you might say.

With respect - I don't see what the problem is.

JT saw a man carrying a child away - who IMO it was quite reasonably assumed - because of where he was seen and the time at which he was seen  was very likely to be the abductor.      Since then, for reasons which SY have not fully divulged to us, they now have compelling evidence that the man she saw was an innocent tourist.

This information means that the previous timescale can be discounted and a much longer timescale be considered for the abduction - and one which could solve the previous puzzling question of where the abductor was during those 'lost' 45 mins which - in the light of this new evidence - may now no longer exist.

Why would this be considered to be a 'problem' for SY rather than 'progress'. 

 

[Cornelius]

With respect - I don't see what the problem is.

JT saw a man carrying a child away - who IMO it was quite reasonably assumed - because of where he was seen and the time at which he was seen  was very likely to be the abductor.      Since then, for reasons which SY have not fully divulged to us, they now have compelling evidence that the man she saw was an innocent tourist.

This information means that the previous timescale can be discounted and a much longer timescale be considered for the abduction - and one which could solve the previous puzzling question of where the abductor was during those 'lost' 45 mins which - in the light of this new evidence - may now no longer exist.

Why would this be considered to be a 'problem' for SY rather than 'progress'.

I am surprised!

[icabodcrane]

We dont know that.  We only have Chinese whispers from her husband ... in other words a third party statement.

Very strangely Carolines statement is missing !!!!!

As are also the statements from Raj and Neil, the two men who could verify the time they saw Gerry searching
So all three of Gerrys potential alibis have somehow got lost !



Sounds very fishy to me.  In fact it stinks.

What  are    you on about  ?

Got  'LOST'  from  where   ?  ....   from the police files  ? 

[Alfred R Jones]

She didn't see anyone due to her not having left the table prior to the alarm being raised.  Tannerman and crecheman have one thing in common, neither of them exist.

There you go Icabod - opinion presented as fact.

[peter claridge]

If you present statements as facts it's up to you to provide the supporting evidence.  Over to you...

At 1230hrs both Jeremy and Bridget went to pick up their children from the crèche. They did not have any interaction with the group again that afternoon. They decided to spend the evening in the apartment. Their son was unable to sleep so about 2015hrs, Jeremy took him, in the pushchair for a walk. He walked around the main area of the resort and eventually ended up in the Tapas bar where he used the toilet facility. He was unable to state what time this was. His son was still awake so he walked in the area of the ocean club gardens and walked along the alleyways in that general area. He eventually made his way along Rua Dr Francisco toward the direction of Rua Dr Agostinho. At this time he was walking on the right side of the road passing the Tapas bar area to his left. He noticed the bad street lighting and although it was not completely dark there was enough light to see clearly. As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry’s back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10 – 15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.

He was adamant that he did not see any one else in the area. When spoken to in reference to Jane Tanner walking by, he again stated that he saw no one. He also stated that he did not see or hear anyone to his right. He was aware of the recent picture in the papers re the person with a child wrapped in a blanket and in a males arms alledgedly walking across the junction to his right but again stated that he did not see any one.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19

Over to you...

[pathfinder73]

Jez seing Jane Tanner hanging outside the apartments and not leaving at the same time as her partner Russ is also interesting  >@@(*&) I read Steve Bywaters theory post which had her being involved.

[Alfred R Jones]

At 1230hrs both Jeremy and Bridget went to pick up their children from the crèche. They did not have any interaction with the group again that afternoon. They decided to spend the evening in the apartment. Their son was unable to sleep so about 2015hrs, Jeremy took him, in the pushchair for a walk. He walked around the main area of the resort and eventually ended up in the Tapas bar where he used the toilet facility. He was unable to state what time this was. His son was still awake so he walked in the area of the ocean club gardens and walked along the alleyways in that general area. He eventually made his way along Rua Dr Francisco toward the direction of Rua Dr Agostinho. At this time he was walking on the right side of the road passing the Tapas bar area to his left. He noticed the bad street lighting and although it was not completely dark there was enough light to see clearly. As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry’s back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10 – 15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.

He was adamant that he did not see any one else in the area. When spoken to in reference to Jane Tanner walking by, he again stated that he saw no one. He also stated that he did not see or hear anyone to his right. He was aware of the recent picture in the papers re the person with a child wrapped in a blanket and in a males arms alledgedly walking across the junction to his right but again stated that he did not see any one.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19

Over to you...

And this proves what exactly?

[slartibartfast]

And this proves what exactly?

That Jane wasn't there according to Jez.

[peter claridge]

That Jane wasn't there according to Jez.

And according to her partner Russ she was still at the table when the alarm was raised!

[Benice]

And according to her partner Russ she was still at the table when the alarm was raised!

Where does he make that claim?  Can you provide a link please.

[peter claridge]

Where does he make that claim?  Can you provide a link please.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19

[Benice]

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19

Sorry - can't find any claim that JT was still at the table when the alarm was raised?  Could you be more specific please?

[peter claridge]

Sorry - can't find any claim that JT was still at the table when the alarm was raised?  Could you be more specific please?

Really, you do surprise me!