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

[mercury]

Why?

Well, thats a real wierd question, the answer being we rely on peoples statements And if they are opposed to each other (either ones own to ones own or others to ones own) then ???? Arise

[pegasus]

http://i.imgur.com/Ud6y15w.jpg?2-Tanner_sighting_07

The version according to Jane Tanner and Jez Wilkins.

Going on the balance of probability and two witnesses I think the above representation of where the two men were standing is as close as it is possible to get... (snip)

I agree this was the position of the chat and JT passing it. John or whoever made this picture did a splendid job.
http://i.imgur.com/Ud6y15w.jpg?2-Tanner_sighting_07

[Brietta]

Well, thats a real wierd question, the answer being we rely on peoples statements And if they are opposed to each other (either ones own to ones own or others to ones own) then ???? Arise

In relation to the current renewed investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance ... why the concern over exactly where two men stood in the road nearly nine years ago?

The important thing is that both were in the street and concurred they were in conversation.

Jane Tanner was in the street and verified they were in conversation.

She also saw the other person who was present at the top of the street who could either have been the abductor or crèche man taking the long way home from the crèche. 
You pays your money and you takes your choice on that one.

Of the three men Jane Tanner saw in that street that night we know who two were and what their business for being there was whichever side of the street they may have been standing on.

Can you think of any reason why the PJ did not track down crèche man at the time to carry out checks on him ... the sign in and sign out sheet would have sorted that out and once eliminated all resources could then have been concentrated on Smithman (all be it at a remove of thirteen days) and finding out who he might have been. 

[mercury]

The task of interviewing holidaymakers who had gone home before the police had a chance to start was given to the uk police, who seem to havesat on crechemans answers for years and redwood /team seems to have unearthed them
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/editors-picks/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027

The PJ may not have looked at creche night records for the simple fact they didnt consider the man JT said she saw was going HOME from the creche

It was the WRONG WAY



So, ....here we are.....in the dark

As for GM, he was a suspect, so all his statements cant be taken as true, in fact they cant in this instance as they contradict each other UNLESS he was NOT party to the JOINT statement and not forgetting his insistence against the odds, makes you wonder what else he has insisted on that isnt true

Edited to add comment plus correct spellings for the sp police

[pegasus]

(snip) ... why the concern over exactly where two men stood in the road nearly nine years ago? ..(snip)

The fact it was almost 9 years ago does not diminish its importance at all.
The east side of the road is the complete opposite to the west side. 
Either one witness is misremembering, or the other two witnesses are misremembering.
Misremembering is understandable but if it happens about one event it may hypothetically happen about another.
For example it's absolutely essential for the investigation to know that the last sighting of the child, laying on top of the bedclothes, is completely accurate without any misremembering.

[Brietta]

The fact it was almost 9 years ago does not diminish its importance at all.
The east side of the road is the complete opposite to the west side. 
Either one witness is misremembering, or the other two witnesses are misremembering.
Misremembering is understandable but if it happens about one event it may hypothetically happen about another.
For example it's absolutely essential for the investigation to know that the last sighting of the child, laying on top of the bedclothes, is completely accurate without any misremembering.

No one 'misremembered' being in the street and two had a very clear recollection of exactly where they were and were very precise about their exact location.

The wild card in this is the man who was crossing the road at the top of the street carrying a barefoot child.

[pegasus]

(snip) two had a very clear recollection of exactly where they were and were very precise about their exact location (snip)

GM states very clearly that he crossed over to the east side of the road, he demonstrates exactly where he claims he was standing next to the east pavement, and exactly where he claims JW was standing on the east pavement, he confirms his recollection by some science about their relative heights, and specifically claims that after the chat he distinctly remembers crossing the road to enter the tapas reception. He states all this as a very clear recollection. (Source: cutting edge video)

[pegasus]

I recall some kind of statement or press video which claimed that initially GM decided not to chat, and that only after walking about 10 metres he changed his mind, does anyone have a source for this please, or am I misremembering?

[Gadfly1.3]

Note:  punishment for past perceived misdemeanours? ....  I wonder? 
Or possibly getting rid of facts and evidence that helps support Gerrys innocence to substitute dicey information/myths that could implicate The Mccanns?  I wonder?

Зачем?

[Eleanor]

This will be quite enough now.

Any future references will be deleted.

[John]

I have noted the comments by members relating to lies and myths before removing them.  It is not acceptable to accuse another member of telling lies and of having an agenda simply because they offer an opinion. 

Please take care when posting and in particular please ensure that opinion is not perceived as fact.  TY

[John]

GM states very clearly that he crossed over to the east side of the road, he demonstrates exactly where he claims he was standing next to the east pavement, and exactly where he claims JW was standing on the east pavement, he confirms his recollection by some science about their relative heights, and specifically claims that after the chat he distinctly remembers crossing the road to enter the tapas reception. He states all this as a very clear recollection. (Source: cutting edge video)

I have always wondered why he insisted on that version of events.  Surely Gerry must have known before the documentary was made that his version was at odds with that of Jane and Jez.  One thing which stands out for me from that presentation was Jane bursting into tears when Gerry shot her down, would that have happened if Jez had been there to back her up?

Was there a bit of bullying going on per chance?

[pegasus]

I have always wondered why he insisted on that version of events.  Surely Gerry must have known before the documentary was made that his version was at odds with that of Jane and Jez.  One thing which stands out for me from that presentation was Jane bursting into tears when Gerry shot her down, I wonder would that have happened if Jez had been there to back her up?

Was there a bit of bullying going on?

The cutting edge documentary says
"however, Jane and Gerry remember the scene differently"
That is deliberately misleading because it omits what the third witness said.
What the film should have said is:
"Two witnesses both clearly remember that the chat was on the west side of the road, however GM remembers the scene completely differently".

[Alice Purjorick]

The cutting edge documentary says
"however, Jane and Gerry remember the scene differently"
That is deliberately misleading because it omits what the third witness said.
What the film should have said is:
"Two witnesses both clearly remember that the chat was on the west side of the road, however GM remembers the scene completely differently".

If push came to shove and it wound up in court, witness statements would be the important items.
I doubt a gash PR video would rank very high in the hierarchy of ruling documents.

[Brietta]

I have always wondered why he insisted on that version of events.  Surely Gerry must have known before the documentary was made that his version was at odds with that of Jane and Jez.  One thing which stands out for me from that presentation was Jane bursting into tears when Gerry shot her down, would that have happened if Jez had been there to back her up?

Was there a bit of bullying going on per chance?

Both were overwrought.

They were reliving probably the most traumatic event of their lives.  There must have been a reason why Gerry remembered things differently from either Jane or Jez and if Jez had been there I am sure he would have confirmed Jane's account.