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

[sadie]

It's called keeping safe.

Keeping safe in PdL, for a man ?

It has the safest feel to it, that I have ever known.



Not now tho.  Not since Madeleine was taken.

But to Jezes and Gerrys knowledge at that time, all was safe.

[sadie]

In that case surely Gerry would have said he saw her?  Otherwise what was the point?

And that still  doesn't explain why she would agree to give him an alibi which involved her lying to the Portuguese police and risking a prison sentence in a foreign country - possibly separated for years from her own children.      Can you explain why she would even dream of taking that risk?   Can you explain what she had  to gain by criminally perjuring herself to the PJ  that was preferable to her simply telling the truth?

And IIRC she hardly knew Kate and Gerry.

Can we be real Pathfinder?

[faithlilly]

Why would he necessarily remember if he never even noticed her in the first place?  If he had been stood there alone waiting for someone to turn up then I might be more inclined to agree, but his attention was elsewhere, chatting to Gerry and with his baby in a push chair, not to mention it was quite dark. I don't suppose for one minute you will accept this as an explanation but perhaps you could explain why not?

Why not ? Simply because I have been there. Stood on that street, at that time of night, chatting to a friend and with the street lit in a similar way and it is simply impossible not to notice someone waliking past you at the distance alluded to by Jane, impossible.

And perhaps if you had been there you'd believe it too.

[pathfinder73]

And IIRC she hardly knew Kate and Gerry.

Can we be real Pathfinder?

I'm being real. Have you looked at the reconstruction pics?

[pathfinder73]

In that case surely Gerry would have said he saw her?  Otherwise what was the point?

And that still  doesn't explain why she would agree to give him an alibi which involved her lying to the Portuguese police and risking a prison sentence in a foreign country - possibly separated for years from her own children.      Can you explain why she would even dream of taking that risk?   Can you explain what she had  to gain by criminally perjuring herself to the PJ  that was preferable to her simply telling the truth?
 

Not when Jez was facing Jane's way and if he knew Jez hadn't seen her or anybody in the street when they were talking. Any reconstruction would be a real eye opener.

[pegasus]

I believe she saw crècheman but did she pass Jez? Not according to him she didn't.

Now how stupid would that be?
"I know I will be really pointlessly stupid and completely make up that I walked past some tourist, for no reason whatsoever, knowing my statement will be contradicted"

IMO JT is a 100% honest witness, and she did walk past the chat. I would go much higher than 100% if it were possible.

[sadie]

Now how stupid would that be?
"I know I will be really pointlessly stupid and completely make up that I walked past some tourist, for no reason whatsoever, knowing my statement will be contradicted"

IMO JT is a 100% honest witness, and she did walk past the chat. I would go much higher than 100% if it were possible.

   I couldn't agree more

[pegasus]

Like you Sadie I watched the later video of JT in the street where the chat was, speaking her account, and am 100 percent convinced of her absolute veracity. We come from different perspectives but it is pleasure to agree on this .

[pathfinder73]

Now how stupid would that be?
"I know I will be really pointlessly stupid and completely make up that I walked past some tourist, for no reason whatsoever, knowing my statement will be contradicted"

IMO JT is a 100% honest witness, and she did walk past the chat. I would go much higher than 100% if it were possible.

Carrying Madeleine away  >@@(*&) Presumably JT is going to feel better if they nail Smithman

Miss Tanner, one of the so- called Tapas Nine, says she remains "stricken with guilt" over failing to prevent the abduction.

"I felt I could have stopped this all from happening," she said. "I think of that every day. I have to live with it for ever, that guilt is never going to go away."

Tears welling in her eyes, marketing executive Miss Tanner, of Exeter, said: "Every day I see him there, striding away, carrying Madeleine away and I try desperately to remember more detail.

"I think about it over and over again. It's horrible.

"He had his face turned away from me, sort of sideways and it was very dark. I just didn't see it properly, I wish to God I had."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-495092/Tapas-Nine-witness-says-Mediterranean-man-took-Madeleine.html#ixzz0fQ0hFeMR

[pegasus]

Carrying Madeleine away...

IMO you are failing to distinguish between two VERY different things:
(A)  the factual account by JT of what she saw, and
(B) her (mistaken) interpretation, given the context, of what she saw.

To clarify:
(A) IMO what she says she saw (actually innocenttouristman carrying his 2-yr old daughter, which I think you agree?) is 100% truthful.
(B) IMO her interpretation of what she saw (that the child she saw was the missing child) is incorrect.

Basically IMO she is a 100% reliable witness (who in the context misinterpreted what she genuinely saw, as being the missing child)

You didn't work out who innocenttouristman is yet?

[Benice]

Not when Jez was facing Jane's way and if he knew Jez hadn't seen her or anybody in the street when they were talking. Any reconstruction would be a real eye opener.

Your reply has nothing to do with the questions I asked you in my post.

However, if you can explain how a recon would be carried out - I'd be interested to hear it.  Would JT leave the table 5 mins or 10 mins after Gerry, and would Gerry and Jez stand in the street for 3 mins or 5 mins?  What time would Jez set out on his walk?    How would the 10 people involved deal with the fact that only  'approximate' times are known  when it comes to carrying out a physical recon.  How would the PJ approach this problem as IIRC there was only going to be one attempt at this recon?   

 IMO it's impossible to guarantee an accurate reconstruction in those circumstances, and why bother anyway - as SY have already done a forensic examination of the timings given and are satisfied from the results that it was possible that Madeleine was removed from the apartment by an intruder. 

Surely that is all SY needed to establish.

[slartibartfast]

Your reply has nothing to do with the questions I asked you in my post.

However, if you can explain how a recon would be carried out - I'd be interested to hear it.  Would JT leave the table 5 mins or 10 mins after Gerry, and would Gerry and Jez stand in the street for 3 mins or 5 mins?  What time would Jez set out on his walk?    How would the 10 people involved deal with the fact that only  'approximate' times are known  when it comes to carrying out a physical recon.  How would the PJ approach this problem as IIRC there was only going to be one attempt at this recon?   

 IMO it's impossible to guarantee an accurate reconstruction in those circumstances, and why bother anyway - as SY have already done a forensic examination of the timings given and are satisfied from the results that it was possible that Madeleine was removed from the apartment by an intruder. 

Surely that is all SY needed to establish.

That's what a reconstruction is for, to try and work out how and if the times fit, with those involved around to consider their statements and recollections based on actually being there on the ground.

[Mr Gray]

That's what a reconstruction is for, to try and work out how and if the times fit, with those involved around to consider their statements and recollections based on actually being there on the ground.

it seems SY can do it on a computer

[Benice]

That's what a reconstruction is for, to try and work out how and if the times fit, with those involved around to consider their statements and recollections based on actually being there on the ground.

So how can it be done?

 For instance.  The PJ ask Jez Wilkins to recreate his walk with his son.  Jez says ''but I'm not sure what time I set out, it could be any time between 8.15 and 8.30.''  What would the PJ's answer be to that obvious problem?

The same goes for other people, especially JT who cannot be sure whether it was 5mins or 10 mins or sometime inbetween that she left the table after Gerry.

Unless by some billion to one miracle  - 10 people all managed to exactly re-create their exact and precise movements in one attempt - then it could end up with say - Gerry being back at the table before JT had got up and before Jez had even arrived at the road - or Jez had come and gone before Gerry had left the apartment.   

What would that prove - except that it's completely impossible to do a precise reconstruction when people only know the approximate times of when they did things.

Can you not see that? 

[Alfred R Jones]

Can you not see that?

I suspect the answer to that is likely to be "no".