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

[AnneGuedes]

From Jane Tanners statement, translated verbally from English to Portuguese, then written in Portuguese. Then subsequently translated for the files to English.  But a drawing, surely can be accepted without question:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_50.jpg

Above from Jane Tanners statement 11.30 4th May 2007
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

If  you were doing a quickie check in the middle of a meal, would you actually cross the road to engage in trivial conversation, politeness however would dictate that if someone was in your path (literally & otherwise) it would be rude to pass without comment.

JW had to cross the street to get back home (his child was sleeping). If Gerald MC had eventually showed his intention to cross the street (he might have remembered something to tell), JW would have likely reacted by crossing himself right away. I'm not sure this is clear, sorry !

[Redblossom]

Sadie, it is a snip from the last of the three statements I linked to earlier. What he is saying is from where he was standing, the road (on which the man carrying a child was on) was 10-15 metres on his right and the pathway/alley flanking the apartments was 5 metres to his left.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm

Edited to add a link.

[sadie]

@ John

Funnily enough your graphic shows very well why it would have been impossible for Wilkins and Gerry not to see Tanner if they were all stood on the pathway as Tanner and Wilkins describe.

If you look at the family at the top of the photograph you can see by the two figures at the back just how much room two people take up on the narrow pavement and how impossible it would have been for Tanner to 'slip by ' unnoticed.

Faithlilly, at the corner where Jez drew them chatting, the pavement is almost 2 metres wide.  Higher up, where those people are, it is only about 1.3/1.4 metres wide.   Plenty of room to pass on such a wide pavement

Doncha think?

Check it on GEarth

[AnneGuedes]

Mr Wilkins drew a map of where the chat with Gerry Mccann took place. It was on the pathway right outside the little iron gate at the bottom of the flat. Marked by an X.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/9of8-ecf89375.gif

Redblossom - how interesting.  I cant recall seeing that map before

OK; lets assume that is where they were.

This verifies my more recent thoughts that the watcher was on the balcony immediately across the road from 5A.  ....and eliminates all the other possible watcher points

---------------------------------------

This abduction nearly failed, because the watcher couldn't see Gerry and gave the go ahead at the wrong time.  Every other view point could see that corner and for the watcher to have been given the go ahead Gerry had to have been out of his view.





Please use GE and zoom right in.


This balcony was partially bathed in light from the very close sodium street light.  The back part (southern end) of this balcony was in the shade.  The watcher would have made sure he was in the shade.

From that shaded part he couldn't see Gerry and Jez, nor the emerging Jane ... so he gave the go ahead.

The getaway vehicle was in the little parking area behind the flats in which the balcony was. [directly across the road from the Reception to the Tapas]   Immediately he had given the go ahead, he walked down and thru that block and its little garden.  He crossed the garden to a gate which opened directly on to the little car park, straight into the van ... or 4 wheel drive ***

THe abductor had been skulking in/near the recess to the front door, which was in near blackness .   As the abductor almost certainly had a key, once he got the signal, he was in and out like a shot, only stopping to open the window and blinds. 

The driver drove out for the pick up to see Gerry and Jez and worse still to see Jane witnessing it all.  In shockhorror he backed in again and drove off in the opposite direction.  Bundleman meanwhile, circled around via the alleyway Aldemeante Ocean Club (Name now whooshed off GE) to that little car park to find his driver gone

Aldeamente Ocean Club is the alleyway that runs southwards immediately to the east of the road where it all happened and it is possible to get thru from there to that little car park.

Poor bundleman(the rotter!) was abandoned!  No way was he, or any sane man, going to walk thru PdL with a stolen child in his arms by design.

But he had no choice, did he?

Only my thoughts but the scenario is perfect now as far as i can see ... and brilliantly pinpoints exactly which place was used for watching

Thank you so much Redblossom 




*** Certain 4 wheel drive vehicles have the correct sort of headlamps to show colour - maybe vans do too, but from what I have read most cars do not.   Moonlight and sodium street lights are monochromatic and do not show colour. 

Jane Tanner saw colour.  The human brain is amazing, in that it can record the slightest glimpse of things, such as colour

Therefore it seems the getaway vehicle was a four wheel drive or some vehicle with the correct sort of lighting to show colour. The report that I read, many moons ago, said that either a jeep or a land rover had the correct sort of lights ... cant remember which

How was the "go" given, Sadie ? By cellphone ?

[sadie]

Probably a quick flash of a torch

[John]

I am not following you John. But, no matter. Here is a snippet from Mr Wilkins' last statement.



As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him.  was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.

Edited.

Where did you get that from Blossom?

10 metres + 5 metres = 15 metres overall

Measured on GE, it is 30 metres



Come on!

I for one, take no notice of that.

Like so many comments potential witnesses make when being interviewed about distance it is merely their perception and something they rarely get right.  The Rua Doutor Agostinho da Silva is indeed some 33 metres from the end of the main path located just below the patio gate.

[faithlilly]

@ sadie

As redblossom has just posted Jez gives the distance to the alleyway to the apartments as 5m so he wasn't anywhere near the part where the pavement widens.

[AnneGuedes]

@ John

Funnily enough your graphic shows very well why it would have been impossible for Wilkins and Gerry not to see Tanner if they were all stood on the pathway as Tanner and Wilkins describe.

If you look at the family at the top of the photograph you can see by the two figures at the back just how much room two people take up on the narrow pavement and how impossible it would have been for Tanner to 'slip by ' unnoticed.

Faithlilly, at the corner where Jez drew them chatting, the pavement is almost 2 metres wide.  Higher up, where those people are, it is only about 1.3/1.4 metres wide.   Plenty of room to pass on such a wide pavement

Doncha think?

Check it on GEarth

Yes, the pavement isn't what you call "narrow", 1m80 I would say.
What shocks me is the pushchair in the middle of the road. No father instinctively would do that, no matter cars passing by or not. Usually you keep a eye (or the possibility to keep an eye) on your kid, even if sleeping.

[Redblossom]

33 metres? Where does that leave Jane Tanner's testimony that she could see the minutest details of the man and the child's clothing at such a distance? If he was hurrying across the road, it would have taken him, what?, about 5 seconds to disappear from view. How far can one walk in 5 seconds to close into a 33 metre distance, and how much into it? How much visibility would one have for tiny details and on a dusky night?
 >@@(*&)

[icabodcrane]

Agreed, which translates as this...     Could Tanner still have passed by in the semi darkness?

You could add the passing figure of Jane Tanner to the picture ...  at the exact moment all three were horizontal to each other

That would give us an idea of whether she could have passed by entirely unnoticed by either men 

[faithlilly]

@ redblossom

And don't forget she sees the small pattern on the pjs but fails to see the large Eyore motif which was centrally placed on the leg.

[sadie]

@ sadie

As redblossom has just posted Jez gives the distance to the alleyway to the apartments as 5m so he wasn't anywhere near the part where the pavement widens.

I dont understand your comment; it doesn't make sense to me

But as gateway to corner is only 5.6 metres and he describes the chatting place very clearly on his drawing, then I prefer to believe that.

Anyway all the bottom end of the pavement is about 1.9 metres wide and a little wider at the alleyway itself.  It is only higher up where those peeps are on Johns image that the pavement narrows.

Can redblossom cite her reference pls

[Redblossom]

@ redblossom

And don't forget she sees the small pattern on the pjs but fails to see the large Eyore motif which was centrally placed on the leg.

To be fair, that may have been folded / creased under and not visible at the time. Still, to see small turn ups on the bottom of the pyjamas, to see whether the man's trousers had creases or not, to see what texture and length his individual hairs were like, the height of his heels, the colour and texture of his skin in such a short period of time, at a distance, in the dusk, is pushing it a little, JMO.

Sadie, I already cited for you, when I responded to you about the distance.

[sadie]

33 metres? Where does that leave Jane Tanner's testimony that she could see the minutest details of the man and the child's clothing at such a distance? If he was hurrying across the road, it would have taken him, what?, about 5 seconds to disappear from view. How far can one walk in 5 seconds to close into a 33 metre distance, and how much into it? How much visibility would one have for tiny details and on a dusky night?
 >@@(*&)

Redblossom

Do you truly not understand this?  ... or is it a come on?

Jane tanner was near the top of the road when she saw budleman, NOT at the alleyway.

[icabodcrane]

@ redblossom

And don't forget she sees the small pattern on the pjs but fails to see the large Eyore motif which was centrally placed on the leg.

To be fair, that may have been folded / creased under and not visible at the time. Still, to see small turn ups on the bottom of the pyjamas, to see whether the man's trousers had creases or not, to see what texture and length his individual hairs were like, the height of his heels, the colour and texture of his skin in such a short period of time, at a distance, in the dusk, is pushing it a little, JMO.

I think the point you have made establishes that whatever the reason for neither man having seen Tanner pass by within touching distance,  it cannot be attributed to fading/lack  of light