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

[icabodcrane]

  (  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.

It is the McCanns who have maintained,   for the last seven years,  that  Jane Tanner saw Madeleine being abducted 


...  yet  Gerry McCann  questioned Jane Tanner's reliabilitity as an eye witness by contradicting what she claimed to have seen that night

He contradicted  her statement  ... thereby bringing into doubt her reliability as a witness

That's what he did 

[Brietta]

It is the McCanns who have maintained,   for the last seven years,  that  Jane Tanner saw Madeleine being abducted 


...  yet  Gerry McCann  questioned Jane Tanner's reliabilitity as an eye witness by contradicting what she claimed to have seen that night

He contradicted  her statement  ... thereby bringing into doubt her reliability as a witness

That's what he did

Neither Dr McCann nor Jez saw Jane Tanner although she saw them.

Nothing at all contradictory about that.

She saw what she saw ~ they saw neither her nor the individual seen by her. 
I reiterate, there are those who require nothing at all to question the reliability of witnesses whose evidence does  not match with what they would like to think happened.

For example, I think there is far more to think about regarding the Smith sighting than Mr Smith's change of statement.
There is the remarkable similarity with Jane Tanner's description, down to thinking he didn't look like a tourist. 
In fact they were so similar that for a long time one was used to corroborate the other.

[icabodcrane]

Neither Dr McCann nor Jez saw Jane Tanner although she saw them.

Nothing at all contradictory about that.

She saw what she saw ~ they saw neither her nor the individual seen by her. 
I reiterate, there are those who require nothing at all to question the reliability of witnesses whose evidence does  not match with what they would like to think happened.

For example, I think there is far more to think about regarding the Smith sighting than Mr Smith's change of statement.
There is the remarkable similarity with Jane Tanner's description, down to thinking he didn't look like a tourist. 
In fact they were so similar that for a long time one was used to corroborate the other.

I have no 'agenda'  Brietta  ...   I have no idea what happened,  and therefore have no need to  'match'  evidence to fit a particular theory

When I question it is because  I genuinely find an aspect of this case questionable

In this instance,  I question the fact that Gerry McCann unequiviocally accepted Jane Tanner's recollection of  seeing  'the abductor' ...   and yet contradicted  her recollection of seeing him and Jez

By doing that   (  questioning Jane Tanner's memory of events  )  he cast doubt on her reliability as a witness 

[Brietta]

I have no 'agenda'  Brietta  ...   I have no idea what happened,  and therefore have no need to  'match'  evidence to fit a particular theory

When I question it is because  I genuinely find an aspect of this case questionable

In this instance,  I question the fact that Gerry McCann unequiviocally accepted Jane Tanner's recollection of  seeing  'the abductor' ...   and yet contradicted  her recollection of seeing him and Jez

By doing that   (  questioning Jane Tanner's memory of events  )  he cast doubt on her reliability as a witness

We are going in circles, Icabod.

IMO there has never been the slightest doubt as to Jane Tanner's reliability as a witness and by the same token I have never questioned Dr McCann's version of events.

On balance, given that two out of three individuals have a similar recollection of an event, I would tend to go with the majority.
That Dr McCann did not is his prerogative and to change his mind to suit others' version would put him to question.

It is entirely possible that the subsequent trauma suffered by Dr McCann - and not by Jez and Jane - has coloured his memory of exactly where he was standing.

Doesn't alter in any way what Jane Tanner saw at the top of the road, though.

[faithlilly]

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?

Oh but it was considered important enough. That's why Rebelo pushed for a reconstruction. Do you really think Gerry would have been able to use the force of his personality when the PJ were coordinating the action rather than Emma Loach ?

[Alfred R Jones]

Oh but it was considered important enough. That's why Rebelo pushed for a reconstruction. Do you really think Gerry would have been able to use the force of his personality when the PJ were coordinating the action rather than Emma Loach ?

I very much doubt that the issue of exactly where Gerry was standing whilst chatting to Jez was the reason Rebelo pushed for a reconstruction.  it's simply not that important.  We KNOW Gez chatted to Gerry at around 9.15pm and we now KNOW that JT saw someone crossing the street carrying a child at roughly the same time.  SY accept this, I accept this, why won't you?

[faithlilly]

I very much doubt that the issue of exactly where Gerry was standing whilst chatting to Jez was the reason Rebelo pushed for a reconstruction.  it's simply not that important.  We KNOW Gez chatted to Gerry at around 9.15pm and we now KNOW that JT saw someone crossing the street carrying a child at roughly the same time.  SY accept this, I accept this, why won't you?

I'm afraid you are wrong. Where everyone was standing when Tanner allegedly saw the child carrier was foremost in Rebelo's mind, as can be seen from the Archiving Report.

From the Archiving Report :

E – About the interest of the reconstruction
 
Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation, it was decided to carry out the "reconstruction of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts, the following very important details, among others:
 
1 – The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;

[Brietta]

I'm afraid you are wrong. Where everyone was standing when Tanner allegedly saw the child carrier was foremost in Rebelo's mind, as can be seen from the Archiving Report.

From the Archiving Report :

E – About the interest of the reconstruction
 
Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation, it was decided to carry out the "reconstruction of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts, the following very important details, among others:
 
1 – The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;

What a pity the original investigation didn't think it was important enough to carry out a reconstruction at the time when memories were fresher and could have been jogged.
All the participants were at hand ~ the lighting conditions would have been similar ~ and there was a chance of  of locating independent witnesses present in the vicinity around the time.

Who knows ~ they might even have factored the night creche record into it.

[faithlilly]

What a pity the original investigation didn't think it was important enough to carry out a reconstruction at the time when memories were fresher and could have been jogged.
All the participants were at hand ~ the lighting conditions would have been similar ~ and there was a chance of  of locating independent witnesses present in the vicinity around the time.

Who knows ~ they might even have factored the night creche record into it.

Could we please stick to the point. I'm sure you'll have plenty of opportunity to castigate Amaral, his team, in fact the whole Portuguese judicial system, in the due course.

The main point is Rebelo was not convinced that the Tanner sighting happened as described and called for a reconstruction to clarify these anomalies  ( the archiving report tells us this ), the McCanns and friends decided they didn't want to clarify the anomalies. Make of that what you will.

[Brietta]

Could we please stick to the point. I'm sure you'll have plenty of opportunity to castigate Amaral, his team, in fact the whole Portuguese judicial system, in the due course.

The main point is Rebelo was not convinced that the Tanner sighting happened as described and called for a reconstruction to clarify these anomalies  ( the archiving report tells us this ), the McCanns and friends decided they didn't want to clarify the anomalies. Make of that what you will.

When the files were released it probably had the same effect on the British press as the FSS revelations about forensics on the British police.

The deficiencies of the investigation were laid bare.

None were more aware of the manner in which that had been conducted than the so called Tapas 7 who had been at the recieving end.  Their experience of the new investigation had not been conducive to reinforcing confidence in the Portuguese justice system and they were of the opinion that the proposed reconstruction was not to find out exactly where people were standing in the street or to aid Madeleine, but to help the Portuguese build a case against her parents.

 -- The group were baffled as to why police were calling them back for the re-enactment a full year after Madeleine went missing, and demanded to be told how it would help the inquiry.

In an email to police chief Paulo Rebelo in April, the McCanns' friend Rachel Oldfield wrote: "We are still very uncertain of the motives in organising such a re-enactment.

"We feel we would be making ourselves and our families extremely vulnerable by returning."

The friends also hit out at Portuguese detectives' aggressive questioning when they were re-interviewed in the UK.

An email from Russell O'Brien and his wife Jane Tanner said: "The thrust of the... questions seemed only to focus on Kate and Gerry's culpability.

"After a year of lies, accusations and intrusion, I am sure that Mr Rebelo can appreciate our revulsion at what Kate and Gerry have been forced to endure."

The shocking state of the Portuguese investigation is laid bare in the police files, which reveal that British authorities gave Kate a police manual when she became increasingly desperate for ideas to find Madeleine. The technique book gives step-by-step instructions on solving crimes and was handed to the McCanns by British experts.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/secrets-of-the-madeleine-mccann-dossier-325724

[faithlilly]

When the files were released it probably had the same effect on the British press as the FSS revelations about forensics on the British police.

The deficiencies of the investigation were laid bare.

None were more aware of the manner in which that had been conducted than the so called Tapas 7 who had been at the recieving end.  Their experience of the new investigation had not been conducive to reinforcing confidence in the Portuguese justice system and they were of the opinion that the proposed reconstruction was not to find out exactly where people were standing in the street or to aid Madeleine, but to help the Portuguese build a case against her parents.

 -- The group were baffled as to why police were calling them back for the re-enactment a full year after Madeleine went missing, and demanded to be told how it would help the inquiry.

In an email to police chief Paulo Rebelo in April, the McCanns' friend Rachel Oldfield wrote: "We are still very uncertain of the motives in organising such a re-enactment.

"We feel we would be making ourselves and our families extremely vulnerable by returning."

The friends also hit out at Portuguese detectives' aggressive questioning when they were re-interviewed in the UK.

An email from Russell O'Brien and his wife Jane Tanner said: "The thrust of the... questions seemed only to focus on Kate and Gerry's culpability.

"After a year of lies, accusations and intrusion, I am sure that Mr Rebelo can appreciate our revulsion at what Kate and Gerry have been forced to endure."

The shocking state of the Portuguese investigation is laid bare in the police files, which reveal that British authorities gave Kate a police manual when she became increasingly desperate for ideas to find Madeleine. The technique book gives step-by-step instructions on solving crimes and was handed to the McCanns by British experts.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/secrets-of-the-madeleine-mccann-dossier-325724

Again not relevant. You can supply link after link to tabloid tosh but it won't change the main points. Rebelo, not Amaral who I accept was, unfairly, mistrusted by the McCanns and their friends asked for the reconstruction. The McCanns had no reason to mistrust him and, in fact, seem to have welcomed him as a new broom, if the tabloids are to be believed, so why not take part ? 

If they and their friends were telling the truth, as they protested, the reconstruction would have proved that and, you would think more importantly, eliminate the McCanns as suspects and  refocus the investigation elsewhere.

[Alfred R Jones]

I'm afraid you are wrong. Where everyone was standing when Tanner allegedly saw the child carrier was foremost in Rebelo's mind, as can be seen from the Archiving Report.

From the Archiving Report :

E – About the interest of the reconstruction
 
Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation, it was decided to carry out the "reconstruction of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts, the following very important details, among others:
 
1 – The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;

OK, it was one of numerous reasons, granted.  One that has subsequently proven less important with the revelation that there really was a man crossing the road carrying a child exactly as JT said there was, yet still we have to debate this point for all eternity it seems...

[Brietta]

Again not relevant. You can supply link after link to tabloid tosh but it won't change the main points. Rebelo, not Amaral who I accept was, unfairly, mistrusted by the McCanns and their friends asked for the reconstruction. The McCanns had no reason to mistrust him and, in fact, seem to have welcomed him as a new broom, if the tabloids are to be believed, so why not take part ? 

If they and their friends were telling the truth, as they protested, the reconstruction would have proved that and, you would think more importantly, eliminate the McCanns as suspects and  refocus the investigation elsewhere.

It would appear the suggested reconstruction which was to take place long after Madeleine was abducted and long after the PJ had dismissed the opportunity to have a reconstruction at an earlier and certainly more relevant time ~ was in the end totally unecessary in clearing the Drs McCann of involvement in their daughter's disappearance.

I note you agree that the focus of the investigation was on Madeleine's parents.

Perhaps if the focus had been on home invaders ~ those capable of assaults on children ~ the witness statements identifying people who appeared to be taking an interest in apartment 5a ~ and less time and resources devoted to the Drs McCann, we could have been in a different situation today.

[jassi]

It would appear the suggested reconstruction which was to take place long after Madeleine was abducted and long after the PJ had dismissed the opportunity to have a reconstruction at an earlier and certainly more relevant time ~ was in the end totally unecessary in clearing the Drs McCann of involvement in their daughter's disappearance.

I note you agree that the focus of the investigation was on Madeleine's parents.

Perhaps if the focus had been on home invaders ~ those capable of assaults on children ~ the witness statements identifying people who appeared to be taking an interest in apartment 5a ~ and less time and resources devoted to the Drs McCann, we could have been in a different situation today.

Maybe, then again, maybe not.

[pathfinder73]

No, but they knew JT had seen the man before they gave any statement at all.  Yet, you believe they only concocted the patio door entry story at the second statement.  And - isn't it ironic?  Here is a doubter who obviously believes JT DID see a man at the time she said she did, while elsewhere other doubters have it that JT may have seen him on a different day or at a different time altogether, or maybe never actually saw him at all!  None of it really makes any sense does it?  Unless you consider that actually an abductor DID take Madeleine during the window of opportunity that SY have stated they have identified by their forensic examination of the timeline.

Read the first and second statements. A week to think things over. I believe Tanner did see crècheman but I don't believe she passed Gerry and Jez as she claimed.