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

[Brietta]

What was the lighting level to start with?
What was the level it was improved to?
Do you have evidence the lighting was improved because of the reason you state rather than as the result of a new EU Directive on lighting?
Without this knowledge your comments are merely subjective opinion.
Care to share the info I ask for which you must have to have been able to make such authoritative comment?

I don't see a reference to illumination from street lighting, so was it on?  I get the impression he speaks of the natural light remaining when he says atmospheric. Also a reference point for knowing whether it was already dark or not would have been street lighting.  Jez was unsure indicating the lighting was not yet on.

I'm not sure visibility is the question here, it is more observation.
The men could see ... they just failed to observe.

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 nighttime 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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm

[John]

You seem to have missed my post about that photo, earlier on this thread.  It was not taken in 2007, but a couple of years later.

Yes, I missed your post. I assumed that the photo was taken shortly after Madeleine disappeared because of the presence of the GNR officer standing there. So why was he standing there, had it anything to do with the Ch4 documentary for example?

Another point is that Jes clearly saw Gerry after he emerged from the entrance to 5a and from the other side of the road so the lighting must have been good.

[Alfred R Jones]

Yes, I missed your post. I assumed that the photo was taken shortly after Madeleine disappeared because of the presence of the GNR officer standing there. So why was he standing there, had it anything to do with the Ch4 documentary for example?

Another point is that Jes clearly saw Gerry after he emerged from the entrance to 5a and from the other side of the road so the lighting must have been good.

The photo was taken as part of the C4 reconstruction. 

If the lighting was that good in 2007 you'd have to ask yourself why it was improved shortly after Madeleine went missing.

[Luz]

Statement taken in England, in English.  Handwritten, then typed: 

EXACTLY. I merely TYPED it. So I expect there's no doubts about "translation"

''I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said you're on walking duty. I said I was staying in and [banned word] and cons and what to do with the children.''
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm

Same link as above, you will also find the detailed drawing where X marks the spot
or full page link:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/9of8-ecf89375.gif

[Luz]

Jane Tanner's first statement led to a very different position of the intervenientes, but then those pesky PJs probably tortured her into signing her sketch:

[Alfred R Jones]

What was the lighting level to start with?
What was the level it was improved to?
Do you have evidence the lighting was improved because of the reason you state rather than as the result of a new EU Directive on lighting?
Without this knowledge your comments are merely subjective opinion.
Care to share the info I ask for which you must have to have been able to make such authoritative comment?

If the lighting has been improved as a result of an EU Directive on lighting that would tend to suggest it was below the accepted standards set by the EU for lighting levels.  Do you have evidence that this is the reason why it was changed shortly after Madeleine disappeared?  If so please share the info with us.  Incidentally, I am passing of this information which was gathered by the well-known Doubter Nigel Moore from an article he wrote arguing that it would have been far too dark for Jane Tanner to have seen the man at the top of the street in any detail whatsoever.  So - if you have a problem with this opinion, I suggest you address it to him also, thanks. 

[Alfred R Jones]

You seem to be avoiding direct questions by asking a daft one and blaming your post on someone else.
Specifically what was the lighting level at the time Jane walked up the street, what was it improved to and when?. If you don't actually know then a simple "I don't know" would have sufficed. Instead you show you don't know by waffling.

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones ?

Yep. I know what's happening here, it's the same old doubter tactic - fixating on the minutiae (demands for the specific light levels at 9.15pm on May 3rd 2007 for example)in order to avoid addressing the glaringly obvious, ie: that Jane Tanner did not lie, had no reason to lie, and has been thoroughly vindicated by SY.

[Silkywhiskers]

Yep. I know what's happening here, it's the same old doubter tactic - fixating on the minutiae (demands for the specific light levels at 9.15pm on May 3rd 2007 for example)in order to avoid addressing the glaringly obvious, ie: that Jane Tanner did not lie, had no reason to lie, and has been thoroughly vindicated by SY.

How has she been "vindicated by SY"?

They announced her sighting was not of the POI.

[Alfred R Jones]

How has she been "vindicated by SY"?

They announced her sighting was not of the POI.

Think about it.

She actually DID see a man at the time SY said a man walked past the apartment carrying a child.  How would she know that unless she actually DID leave the table that evening?  Peter has claimed she never left the table and that SY have somehow connived to support her sighting.  God knows why!

[Alfred R Jones]

Please point out where I said Jane Tanner lied? as this seems to be what you imply.
You kicked off the lighting bit just before my membership was approved on this forum. I merely asked you to substantiate your allegations about the lighting which you still haven't leaving me with the impression you are making it up as you go along.
The crux of the matter now appears to be that Jane did not see Tannerman the Abductor but saw another man.
Gerry was chatting to Jez in the street somewhere near the gate of apartment 5A at about 21:15 ish on 03052007 a fact that no one has ever denied this may or not be of relevance. (refer to my earlier post if you will)
So what's with the "doubter" bit paleface?

What's with the "paleface" bit, doubter?

Are you doubting that the lighting has been improved since Madeleine went missing, or only doubting that it was as a result of her disappearance that it has improved?  And what does it matter if it was as a result of an EU directive or because PdL won a nationwide competiton to get new street lamps, if the net result is that lighting levels have subsequently improved since 2007?  And if the lighting has improved, then there is no point trying to draw conclusions about lighting levels in 2007 by posting photos of the street in 2009 is there?  Which was my original point all along, so what specifically do you have a problem with?

[John]

If I may add my tuppence worth.  The lamp standards don't appear to have been altered between 2007 and 2010 but the bulbs might have been replaced to given increased luminance.

I did find a photo taken by Heriberto some years after Madeleine disappeared and the street still does not look particularly bright at night.

One fact we know for sure though is that a spotlight was added in the block 5 (north) car park evidenced by the before and after photos we have.

[Alfred R Jones]

If I may add my tuppence worth.  The lamp standards don't appear to have been altered between 2007 and 2010 but the bulbs might have been replaced to given increased luminance.

One fact we know for sure though is that a spotlight was added in the block 5 (north) car park evidence by the before and after photos we have.

Not just the bulbs have changed but the light fittings themselves, from round to conical.

[John]

Not just the bulbs have changed but the light fittings themselves, from round to conical.

I missed that Alfred, well spotted.  Can you attach photos please.

[Brietta]

What's with the "paleface" bit, doubter?

Are you doubting that the lighting has been improved since Madeleine went missing, or only doubting that it was as a result of her disappearance that it has improved?  And what does it matter if it was as a result of an EU directive or because PdL won a nationwide competiton to get new street lamps, if the net result is that lighting levels have subsequently improved since 2007?  And if the lighting has improved, then there is no point trying to draw conclusions about lighting levels in 2007 by posting photos of the street in 2009 is there?  Which was my original point all along, so what specifically do you have a problem with?

Jane Tanner makes reference to the street lighting in her rogatory statement, Alfred, can't be bothered to plough through it to give you a cite, but easily enough found.
Also I think Heriberto Janosch González went into it in some depth in his blog ~ Espacio Exterior.

[Alfred R Jones]

I would refer you to what is possibly my first or second post on this forum. I don't give monkey's about the street lighting as it is irrelevant to where we are at now. Jane didn't see an abductor (says DCI Redwood) Gerry was in the street at 21:20 or thereabouts after visiting the apartment (Jez says so). The child was not in the apartment at 22:00 (Kate says so) Therefore the child vanished between about 21:10 and 22:00. The streets could be lit by arc lights every ten metres or be as black as the ace of spades it doesn't matter. The interesting thing is why was the issue of lighting raised by Mr Jones before I was a member of this forum and why am I getting it in the neck over a topic he raised? Is there someone from whom I need permission before posting a reasonable question? Which basically was "substantiate the statement as per forum rules".
So lets forget about the lighting eh? It might be a humourous time wasting diversion but it does not materially affect the situation as it now stands.

Oh dear.  Perhaps if you had read back a little further you would realise that it wasn't I who raised the issue of the lighting in the first place, I was merely responding to someone who posted a picture of the street in 2009 all lit up like a Christmas tree trying to make the point that it would have been impossible not to see JT walking by.  If you don't give a monkey's about the lighting why subject me to a barrage of questions about it in the first place?