Author Topic: Gerry and Jez chat while Jane walks by. Seconds later she spots Tannerman!  (Read 443705 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Sorry I have been away so long.

Had a sudden onset of vomitting and d......, then a long several hour sleep.  Think I am OK again

 8(8-))
Wonder if it was the calling of a child, an item, that brought it on?  Only joking, but I am VERY upset that anyone would be so insensitive as to call Madeleine, any child, that.  It shows an attitude of mind .. and other things >@@(*&)


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


Isabod, why haven't you read the thread?  Why haven't you read the width of the pavement there?

It was about 1.8 to 2.0 metres wide(at the corner as indicated on Jezes hand drawn map) so plenty of space even if they were both on the pavement > What's your problem?

Was it you that tried to make out that I had some agenda for wanting them to be on the eastern pavement. or was that someone else?


Wrong again 8(>((
Sorry for your feeling bad, Sadie, but I pragmatically called "item" a corpse, not a child. Anyhow it could have upset you, for example if you're a catholic and believe in the resurrection of the dead. I'm sorry.

Offline Admin

I must say members have been extremely well behaved over the last few days....full marks peeps.   8@??)(

Offline faithlilly

@ sadie

Your theory is based on wishful thinking with a thin smattering of hope. No need to disprove it.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline sadie

Sorry I have been away so long.

Had a sudden onset of vomitting and d......, then a long several hour sleep.  Think I am OK again

 8(8-))
Wonder if it was the calling of a child, an item, that brought it on?  Only joking, but I am VERY upset that anyone would be so insensitive as to call Madeleine, any child, that.  It shows an attitude of mind .. and other things >@@(*&)


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


Isabod, why haven't you read the thread?  Why haven't you read the width of the pavement there?

It was about 1.8 to 2.0 metres wide(at the corner as indicated on Jezes hand drawn map) so plenty of space even if they were both on the pavement > What's your problem?

Was it you that tried to make out that I had some agenda for wanting them to be on the eastern pavement. or was that someone else?


Wrong again 8(>((
Sorry for your feeling bad, Sadie, but I pragmatically called "item" a corpse, not a child. Anyhow it could have upset you, for example if you're a catholic and believe in the resurrection of the dead. I'm sorry.
I am OK now thanks Anne.  I am not a Catholic.

To call a child, dead or alive, an ITEM is disgusting.


Offline sadie

Even in Gerry's alternative scenario he is stood on the road looking up at the 6' and more Jeremy standing on the pavement.   Does anyone think that one of them had a similar encounter at a different time and quiet possibly they are mixing them up?  Just a thought.

I like this particular mock up, it has a ring of truth about it when you consider what Jeremy said in his statements and what Mss Tanner pointed on in the mock reconstruction.   Jeremy claims it happened right there on the pathway so had he two feet on the kerb or just one?   8(0(*



Gerry is a very tall man, an imposing figure of a man.  Am not sure how tall the kerbs are, or how tall Jez is. 

I like this method of showing the situation.  However it has them standing further up the road than is shown in Jezes map.

Jezes map is the most likely scenario, coz he is not putting them in any airy-fairy place (might be here or up a bit sort of place),  He is very deliberately putting them on that corner into the alleyway

Of course, with a child who is restless and not properly asleep, inevitably there would have been some movement - rocking of the pushchair back and forth ... at the very least

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Even in Gerry's alternative scenario he is stood on the road looking up at the 6' and more Jeremy standing on the pavement.   Does anyone think that one of them had a similar encounter at a different time and quiet possibly they are mixing them up?  Just a thought.

I like this particular mock up, it has a ring of truth about it when you consider what Jeremy said in his statements and what Mss Tanner pointed on in the mock reconstruction.   Jeremy claims it happened right there on the pathway so had he two feet on the kerb or just one?   8(0(*



Gerry is a very tall man, an imposing figure of a man.  Am not sure how tall the kerbs are, or how tall Jez is. 

I like this method of showing the situation.  However it has them standing further up the road than is shown in Jezes map.

Jezes map is the most likely scenario, coz he is not putting them in any airy-fairy place (might be here or up a bit sort of place),  He is very deliberately putting them on that corner into the alleyway

Of course, with a child who is restless and not properly asleep, inevitably there would have been some movement - rocking of the pushchair back and forth ... at the very least

Looking at that picture,  regardless   of which part of the street it happened on,  you must agree that it would be almost impossible for Jez Wilkins not to have seen  Jane Tanner  ...  surely you must 
« Last Edit: April 21, 2014, 06:37:01 PM by John »

Offline sadie

To the contrary , Ichabod, if i were admiring a toddler in a push chair, a small army could pass by and i wouldn't notice it.

We are all different, maybe you would

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Sorry I have been away so long.

Had a sudden onset of vomitting and d......, then a long several hour sleep.  Think I am OK again

 8(8-))
Wonder if it was the calling of a child, an item, that brought it on?  Only joking, but I am VERY upset that anyone would be so insensitive as to call Madeleine, any child, that.  It shows an attitude of mind .. and other things >@@(*&)


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


Isabod, why haven't you read the thread?  Why haven't you read the width of the pavement there?

It was about 1.8 to 2.0 metres wide(at the corner as indicated on Jezes hand drawn map) so plenty of space even if they were both on the pavement > What's your problem?

Was it you that tried to make out that I had some agenda for wanting them to be on the eastern pavement. or was that someone else?


Wrong again 8(>((
Sorry for your feeling bad, Sadie, but I pragmatically called "item" a corpse, not a child. Anyhow it could have upset you, for example if you're a catholic and believe in the resurrection of the dead. I'm sorry.
I am OK now thanks Anne.  I am not a Catholic.

To call a child, dead or alive, an ITEM is disgusting.
Let's say it disgusts you.

icabodcrane

  • Guest
To the contrary , Ichabod, if i were admiring a toddler in a push chair, a small army could pass by and i wouldn't notice it.

We are all different, maybe you would

No,  really sadie ...  look  at that picture 

...  and tell me you think it is reasonable to say Jez Wilkins wouldn't have seen Jane Tanner

I really don't know how you can say that  ...  look at the  picture !

AnneGuedes

  • Guest


Gerry is a very tall man, an imposing figure of a man.  Am not sure how tall the kerbs are, or how tall Jez is. 

Gerry isn't  taller than 1m80 (I saw him). Russell is imposing. Jane is tall and Jez shorter than Gerry and bellied.

Offline sadie



Gerry is a very tall man, an imposing figure of a man.  Am not sure how tall the kerbs are, or how tall Jez is. 

Gerry isn't  taller than 1m80 (I saw him). Russell is imposing. Jane is tall and Jez shorter than Gerry and bellied.

1.80 = 5.92 feet, almost 6 feet.

I have met him too and had a conversation with him.  I think he is taller than 6 feet and he cuts an imposing figure.  Very fit looking and very handsome, with penetrating eyes.   

I would put him at 6'2" at an educated guess.

I have never met Jane or Jez


C.Edwards

  • Guest
Wow.  I went to bed before Sadie's last few posts last night. What an eye-opener this morning!  Whether you intend to or not Sadie, you come across like a besotted schoolgirl swooning over a matinee idol I'm afraid.  You continue to put forward pet theories (we now have the car of the alleged abductor's alleged accomplice's alleged getaway vehicle in the mix, allegedly throwing light temporarily over bundleman at the EXACT moment required for JT to look up and spot the PJs the alleged girl he was allegedly carrying was allegedly wearing.

I'm not using the world "allegedly" for no reason Sadie, you understand? No-one KNOWS what happened. That's why we're still here talking about it.

The person your brave, intelligent schoolgirl saw was investigated by the PJ. It was Michael Anthony Green.  There are NO "watchers" that were reported that haven't been investigated and ruled out. You fail to allow for this in your theories - well, you don't even present them as theories, rather facts - about "how the nasty abductor, his accomplice, his getaway car and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all dunnit!"

stephen25000

  • Guest
Wow.  I went to bed before Sadie's last few posts last night. What an eye-opener this morning!  Whether you intend to or not Sadie, you come across like a besotted schoolgirl swooning over a matinee idol I'm afraid.  You continue to put forward pet theories (we now have the car of the alleged abductor's alleged accomplice's alleged getaway vehicle in the mix, allegedly throwing light temporarily over bundleman at the EXACT moment required for JT to look up and spot the PJs the alleged girl he was allegedly carrying was allegedly wearing.

I'm not using the world "allegedly" for no reason Sadie, you understand? No-one KNOWS what happened. That's why we're still here talking about it.

The person your brave, intelligent schoolgirl saw was investigated by the PJ. It was Michael Anthony Green.  There are NO "watchers" that were reported that haven't been investigated and ruled out. You fail to allow for this in your theories - well, you don't even present them as theories, rather facts - about "how the nasty abductor, his accomplice, his getaway car and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all dunnit!"

Indeed C. Edwards, well said.

Sadie gives the pretense of neutrality, but in reality it's .....

Abduction, pure and straight.

Offline Meadow

Did Jane Tanner get the time mixed up, when she checked? and could have possibly seen JW earlier\or later

These are typed versions of the two time lines, written that night\early hours by the group, on the inside over of the Madeleine's colouring book.

Why did O'B almost immediately on JT's return go back to the children. Keep in mind it was MO who went with him that returned to say, he (O'B) had remained behind, since one of the children had vomited, thus necessitating JT to ''relieve him'' so he could return to his meal.

''Timeline 1 (as per sticker book above)

8:45. pm

Matt returns 9.00-9.05 - listened at all 3
                               - all shutters down

Jerry 9.10-9.15 in the room + all well
                      ? did he check

9.20/5 - Ella Jane checked 5D sees stranger & child

9.30 - Russ. Ella Matt check all 3


9.35 - Matt check see twins

9.50 - Russ returns

9.55 - Kate realised Madeleine

10pm - Alarm raised

Timeline 2 (as per sticker book above)

8.45pm. all assembled at poolside for food

9.00pm. Matt Oldfield listens at all 3 windows 5A, B, D ALL shutters down

9:15pm Gerry McCann looks at room A ? Door open to bedroom

9:20pm Jane Tanner checks 5D - [sees stranger walking carrying a child]

9.30 Russell O'Brien in 5D. Poorly daughter
 

9.55pm

10:00pm. Alarm raised after Kate

Gerald''

Copied from
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html
The original versions are also on the ^^ url.



http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN.htm
Witness statement of Russel O'Brien 4th May 2007 @ 9.45

''At around 9pm, they had all ordered their meals. While they were eating, it was normal that every 15 minutes, one person from each apartment would go to the apartments/bedrooms make sure the children were ok. Yesterday, as **** was not well, the interval between checks was reduced. He recalls that Matthew Oldfield left the restaurant at shortly after 9pm to check the children. He is no longer sure who went out first, but five minutes later, Gerry McCann and his own partner, Jane, went out, almost at the same time, to check the children. Jane could have come back first because she found Gerry chatting with a person who is also a guest in the same place, named Jez. He thinks that Jane only checked their apartment, being worried about ****. Then Gerry came back at around 9.25/9.30 and they started to eat the first course. [as entradas]".

At around 9.35/9.40, taking advantage of the lull [waiting pause] before being served with the first [main] course, the informant left the restaurant with Matthew to check the children. When he got there, his daughter **** was crying. He stayed in her bedroom with her. He supposes that Matthew checked his apartment. Matthew returned to the restaurant five minutes after leaving it. His partner came to take his place in ****'s bedroom around 15 minutes later after finishing dinner.

At around 9.55, he went back to the restaurant where his food had been waiting for 5 or 10 minutes. All the other adults had finished.''

A bit difficult to fit some of that in the timeline, but this what makes the timelines so interesting.  The one minute people are checking every 30 or so minutes, next it's almost 10-15 minutes apart.  Then if Jane got back before Gerry, although this is a total uncertainty, where was Gerry?  Jane would have known if she passed him twice whilst chatting to JW.

But in any event for all the dining & attendance at the Tapas Bar, if according to this alleged version of events, Mr McCann was either at some time in the apartment with the abductor
> got in via the unlocked patio door, thus ahead of Mr McCann & hid
 or the abductor did, whilst Mr McCann was stood outside by the side gate
> got in through the shutter & unlocked window
> have a duplicate key to get in via the front main door

But strange that he left the windows & shutters open, yet managed to close the front door & perhaps lock it? If of course that is the exit route

And in the event of Mr Oldfield being totally oblivious  to the open windows & shutter, conclusion could also be that Madeleine disappeared after his check.  But where does that leave the JT sighting?

« Last Edit: April 15, 2013, 08:43:33 AM by Meadow »

Offline faithlilly

@ sadie

Gerry said in Madeleine was Here Jez was about 6ft 4 and he described looking up to him so he must be taller.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?