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

[Brietta]

The fact that Dr McCann can be placed in a specific location – give or take what side of the road – at a specific time, as well as can be recollected by two honest witnesses, does not make him a liar.

It makes him mistaken. 

When one considers the unimaginable stress he was to be put under less than three quarters of an hour later it doesn’t make that a particularly remarkable occurrence - in most peoples’ opinion.

[faithlilly]

The fact that Dr McCann can be placed in a specific location – give or take what side of the road – at a specific time, as well as can be recollected by two honest witnesses, does not make him a liar.

It makes him mistaken. 

When one considers the unimaginable stress he was to be put under less than three quarters of an hour later it doesn’t make that a particularly remarkable occurrence - in most peoples’ opinion.

Then why not admit that you were simply not sure where you were standing and as your fellow witnesses agree then you must have been mistaken ?

[Brietta]

Then why not admit that you were simply not sure where you were standing and as your fellow witnesses agree then you must have been mistaken ?

I have no idea, that is something you would have to put to him.

IMO if Dr McCann firmly believed his version of events ~ which was obviously the case ~ why should he alter it? and why should it matter?

Three witnesses stated they were in the street somewhere between the tapas restaurant and the exit from 5a. One said one thing, the second said something else and the third something else again.
None deviated from the fact that they were there.

If their statements had been verbatim ~ then it might have been considered that something was amiss.

[pegasus]

I have no idea, that is something you would have to put to him.

IMO if Dr McCann firmly believed his version of events ~ which was obviously the case ~ why should he alter it? and why should it matter?

Three witnesses stated they were in the street somewhere between the tapas restaurant and the exit from 5a. One said one thing, the second said something else and the third something else again.
None deviated from the fact that they were there.

If their statements had been verbatim ~ then it might have been considered that something was amiss.

IMO it's likely that that two people accurately remember the side of the road and that one genuinely misremembers.
What difference does it make, one might ask?
Well the huge difference would be if Mr Amaral's proposed reason for hypothetical climbing on furniture is correct, that is crucially connected to exact chat location, it works with one location, not with the other location, but then his hypothesis may be wrong.

[Mr Moderator]

Beggars the question what else they both got wrong?

[faithlilly]

I have no idea, that is something you would have to put to him.

IMO if Dr McCann firmly believed his version of events ~ which was obviously the case ~ why should he alter it? and why should it matter?

Three witnesses stated they were in the street somewhere between the tapas restaurant and the exit from 5a. One said one thing, the second said something else and the third something else again.
None deviated from the fact that they were there.

If their statements had been verbatim ~ then it might have been considered that something was amiss.

Three witnesses were, allegedly on the street, two said the same thing. Please don't try to rewrite history by claiming the accounts were all different.

And the reason Gerry should have changed his account when it was apparent that he was wrong ? To avoid undermining the credibility of his main witness to the abduction and pour doubt on her powers of recall..

Why he didn't  just accept he was wrong is an interesting question indeed.

[Alfred R Jones]

Three witnesses were, allegedly on the street, two said the same thing. Please don't try to rewrite history by claiming the accounts were all different.

And the reason Gerry should have changed his account when it was apparent that he was wrong ? To avoid undermining the credibility of his main witness to the abduction and pour doubt on her powers of recall..

Why he didn't  just accept he was wrong is an interesting question indeed.

You think Gerry should have changed his statement?  And yet when there are slight changes between McCann and friends' statements this is used as evidence by doubters of deceit.  Incredible.

[jassi]

Three witnesses were, allegedly on the street, two said the same thing. Please don't try to rewrite history by claiming the accounts were all different.

And the reason Gerry should have changed his account when it was apparent that he was wrong ? To avoid undermining the credibility of his main witness to the abduction and pour doubt on her powers of recall..

Why he didn't  just accept he was wrong is an interesting question indeed.

I don't think Gerry is the sort of person who  can ever admit he was wrong - about anything.

[Mr Gray]

I don't think Gerry is the sort of person who  can ever admit he was wrong - about anything.

how well do you know him

[faithlilly]

You think Gerry should have changed his statement?  And yet when there are slight changes between McCann and friends' statements this is used as evidence by doubters of deceit.  Incredible.

I think that when the 10th of May timeline on which Gerry collaborated was markedly different regarding the position of his chat with Jez from his subsequent statements then an explanation is certainly in order as to the reason for that change.

[Alfred R Jones]

I think that when the 10th of May timeline on which Gerry collaborated was markedly different regarding the position of his chat with Jez from his subsequent statements then an explanation is certainly in order as to the reason for that change.

Why do you feel he owes you an explanation?  Have you considered the possibility that he has either explained any anomalies to the police already,  or that further clarification was not sought by the police as it was not considered important enough?

[pegasus]

Re the two versions of chat location.
One fits better Mr Amarals hypothesis in film (child actress furniture window overlooking) than the other.
A fair possibility IMO is that one person genuinely did not remember the exact location.
IMO at that moment no adult knew of any disaster.
IIRC the independent witness emphasises that the chat was relaxed and behaviour normal.
I think this was a perfectly normal chat.

[icabodcrane]

The  'important'  witness of the trio said to be present at the  time was Jane Tanner   ...  it was she who saw  'the abductor'  afterall    (  according to the McCanns  )   

Gerry McCann,  whilst insisting on her reliability where   'the child carrier'  was concerned,  simultaneously questioned her reliability regarding where he and Jeremyy Wilkins were

If Jane Tanner's reliability as a witness  is called into question,  it is Gerry McCann who brought attention to it

[Brietta]

The  'important'  witness of the trio said to be present at the  time was Jane Tanner   ...  it was she who saw  'the abductor'  afterall    (  according to the McCanns  )   

Gerry McCann,  whilst insisting on her reliability where   'the child carrier'  was concerned,  simultaneously questioned her reliability regarding where he and Jeremyy Wilkins were

If Jane Tanner's reliability as a witness  is called into question,  it is Gerry McCann who brought attention to it

  (  according to the McCanns  )   
According to a very insistant Jane Tanner ... who has never deviated one iota from her sighting of the person carrying the child.

IMO your final sentence is utter nonsense.
Anything and anyone appearing to support the fact that Madeleine's parents are not involved in her disappearance is subject to concerted and vitriolic attack.

[John]

The  'important'  witness of the trio said to be present at the  time was Jane Tanner   ...  it was she who saw  'the abductor'  afterall    (  according to the McCanns  )   

Gerry McCann,  whilst insisting on her reliability where   'the child carrier'  was concerned,  simultaneously questioned her reliability regarding where he and Jeremyy Wilkins were

If Jane Tanner's reliability as a witness  is called into question,  it is Gerry McCann who brought attention to it

I agree Icabodcrane, there is something going on in the background which has never been revealed.  Jane has been made to look like a proper Charlie for years and then GMcC makes her look like a fool on camera for all the world to see.  Could this be because Tanner had served her purpose, Tannerman was no longer a viable suspect, the spotlight had moved back to Smithman now that the withheld e-fits were no longer withheld?