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

[Redblossom]

DCI, I didn't say that Jane Tanner had said the child had blonde hair. I meant that in that documentary the child she saw was depicted by the producers as having blonde hair. If you fast forward it to between 3.15 and 3.40 you can see it.

Sorry, missed reading, depicted 

That's OK DCI. We all know words and communication can be confusing. We don't all use them so accurately all the time. Half the trouble isn't it?

[sadie]

It is not written in stone though is it? Sadie? This is Jane Tanner's map of locations.

Your constant carping on about Amaral being a convicted criminal does not help any discussion TBH. Are you suggesting he changed the position of the chat? By a metre or so? Why would he? What difference would it make? Maybe I misread your post.

Edited for afterthought.

It makes quite a difference Redblossom as I suspect Icabod and co realise.  My theory, that fits in every way, depends upon Gerry and Jez being out of sight of the shaded part of that balcony ... where it seems the watcher was.  Mind, they only have to be a metre, or so, further towards that corner for my theory to fit again 

THe watcher skulking in the shadows would watch Gerry run down those steps and start to go around the corner on to the pavement..  Immediately he would signal bundleman to go in to 5A. 

Amarals video shows Gerry and Jez in front of the gate.  If that were the case then it blows my theory.    I suspect this is why Icabod is so keen to close the discussion on that video ... just to blow my theory

Jezes drawing shows tham on the corner of the alleyawy  ... completely out of sight.of the watcher.  Even if we made a compromise and put them half way between the gate and the alleyway the theory stands.  Now can you see why the position is important?



It is only a theory, but one that fits perfectly ... and it could be what happened.  Why are some so keen to smother it?

I wonder why?

Anyone who missed the theory and is interested, it is on about page 2 to 3 of this thread.

[Redblossom]

Sorry Sadie, but if I am reading you right, you are suggesting Mr Amaral was trying to hide evidence of a watcher? isn't that a bit bizarre?

[icabodcrane]

Sorry Sadie, but if I am reading you right, you are suggesting Mr Amaral was trying to hide evidence of a watcher? isn't that a bit bizarre?

Added to which, of course,  is that a  'watcher'  is entirely theoretical  ...  there is no evidence to even support his existence

This   thread,  to it's great credit,  has been entirely evidence based 

Well done

[sadie]

No, I am not suggesting that.  I think that he just got the spot wrong.  He wasn't there.

Jezes drawing is likely to be the nearest.  He stood there for some time and had the appearance of Gerry down the steps as a datum.    Jane was on the move and looks like Gerry got it wrong.  But maybe they met halfway across tyhe road and moved over there to allow a 4 wheel drive or van to first pull out ... and then back in again?

Dunno


I did  notice how a few of the [ censored word] were trying desperately to destroy my theory and then noticing  Icabods keeness to tie the thread up on that note (AMarals video).  I thought Oh-Oh cheesy

I haven't noticed him trying to tie any other threads up in a similar manner 

[Redblossom]

Sadie when you linked the question on this to Mr amaral being a convicted criminal you were suggesting he was lyng

[Redblossom]

Sorry Sadie, but if I am reading you right, you are suggesting Mr Amaral was trying to hide evidence of a watcher? isn't that a bit bizarre?

Added to which, of course,  is that a  'watcher'  is entirely theoretical  ...  there is no evidence to even support his existence
This   thread,  to it's great credit,  has been entirely evidence based 
Well done

Both  an abductor and an extra watcher and an accomplice to drive away or pass the child out the flat and all the rest, are all theoretical, ergo all speculation. Is there any evidence this is not all going up some garden path?

[sadie]

Well he wasn't right was he?

@ 10.09

That verifies Jezes drawing dont ya think?  Exactly

And doesn't destroy my theory .. as you guys seemed bent on



Of course you will have to make the effort to open it ... and look, wont you?

Edited, because the video had been inteferred with.   To change it back to the original posted

[Redblossom]

Well he wasn't right was he?

http://youtu.be/atfDV7imHHY @ 10.09

That verifies Jezes drawing dont ya think?  Exactly

And doesn't destroy my theory .. as you guys seemed bent on

Of course you will have to make the effort to open it ... and look, wont you?

Can you please refrain from referring to me as 'you guys'?. I am not a member of any 'you guys' club.

You seem to be missing the point, that Jane Tanner's map placed the chat well away from the corner next to the alleyway. So is she in Mr Amarals club? Thnk about it. let us bot forget Mr Wilkins hmself, despite hm putting an X somewhere said the convo happened at the bottom of the stairs  outside the little gate.

[sadie]

If I have upset you then I am sorry.  Even on fully pro forums I have used the term "you guys" to pros. and never upset anyone.  I am pretty laid back by nature; engineering has made me very precise in other ways.  For me it is just a way of casually saying a "bunch of [ censored word]", and not meant rudely.

look Blossom, Jez was there for some time.  He had the datum fixed by seeing Gerry emerge from those steps.  Datums are very important as you would know if you had my training.

Janes drawing was to find out all sorts of things, including the position that the guys stood cahtting.  I bet that wasn't drawn in situ.

When she was there, in person, she was adamant that the guys stood virtually on that corner
chatting.  The pavement is quite wide there.

Gerry mis-remembered but he was in terrible shock and distress.

Now at that time, nobody had thought of the possibility of a watcher being on that balcony and slinking back into the shadows.  So neither Jane nor Jez had any underhand reason for saying that the chat took place on that corner. 

Why are you disbelieving them and preferring the position shown on Amarals film?  Amaral wasn't even there to see.



You are quite right tho, I dont believe a word that Amaral says.  A person that lies once and in such a grave situation as Leonors torture, can lie any number of times

[Redblossom]

Yes I believe everything you say Sadie. Lovely evening now x

[icabodcrane]

It is not written in stone though is it? Sadie? This is Jane Tanner's map of locations.

Your constant carping on about Amaral being a convicted criminal does not help any discussion TBH. Are you suggesting he changed the position of the chat? By a metre or so? Why would he? What difference would it make? Maybe I misread your post.

Edited for afterthought.

It makes quite a difference Redblossom as I suspect Icabod and co realise.  My theory, that fits in every way, depends upon Gerry and Jez being out of sight of the shaded part of that balcony ... where it seems the watcher was.  Mind, they only have to be a metre, or so, further towards that corner for my theory to fit again 

THe watcher skulking in the shadows would watch Gerry run down those steps and start to go around the corner on to the pavement..  Immediately he would signal bundleman to go in to 5A. 

Amarals video shows Gerry and Jez in front of the gate.  If that were the case then it blows my theory.    I suspect this is why Icabod is so keen to close the discussion on that video ... just to blow my theory

Jezes drawing shows tham on the corner of the alleyawy  ... completely out of sight.of the watcher.  Even if we made a compromise and put them half way between the gate and the alleyway the theory stands.  Now can you see why the position is important?



It is only a theory, but one that fits perfectly ... and it could be what happened.  Why are some so keen to smother it?

I wonder why?

Anyone who missed the theory and is interested, it is on about page 2 to 3 of this thread.

Sadie,  I'm going to be perfectly honest with you,  and I hope you understand it is well meaning

...  I don't debate your  'theory'  out of  kindness ...

I look forward to this thread getting back on track  ...  well evidenced and properly researched

Seeing it descend into the realms of fantasy is such a pity

[sadie]

Cheers Icabod!  

 

So good of you to be kind like that

Sadies theory, the one that you have desperately tried to diminish, on page 2 post 29  Bwhahahha!

[icabodcrane]

Cheers Icabod!  

 

So good of you to be kind like that

Sadies theory, the one that you have desperately tried to diminish, on page 2 post 29  Bwhahahha!

Aww  (((sadie)))  I wouldn't wish for a minute to diminish you,  or your theory  ...  to which you are perfectly entitled

It would be good,  though,  if we could discuss possibilities that your theory does not  allow for  (  especially where they are evidenced based  )  ...  just for the sake of friendly  debate

What say you ? 

[sadie]

Cheers Icabod!  

 

So good of you to be kind like that

Sadies theory, the one that you have desperately tried to diminish, on page 2 post 29  Bwhahahha!

Aww  (((sadie)))  I wouldn't wish for a minute to diminish you,  or your theory  ...  to which you are perfectly entitled

It would be good,  though,  if we could discuss possibilities that your theory does not  allow for  (  especially where they are evidenced based  )  ...  just for the sake of friendly  debate

What say you ?

Yep, I am happy, in fact I would welcome input.  I am always willing to change, but there has to be a reason.  It wont be tonight tho Icabod, I'm too tired.

And as a one fingered typist, I cant take on  aload of you at the same time

I am old and heavily diabetic, so it has to be at my pace ... and I am a wife with all that that entails.


But yep, if you are happy for it to be slow, then I am very happy to try that.
I dont have a team behind me as I suspect you guys have, so I shall be honest and tell you when it is from memory. 

OK?