How likely is it that Jane Tanner and the Smiths saw the 'same' man ?

[faithlilly]

There was a street lamp shining straight on him on the opposite corner.  He was walking almost directly towards it.  It was actually very slightly to the south of his path so would provide very good illumination for Jane T to see.

And as a woman on her own after dark, she would be watching any strange man like a hawk

The light certainly wasn't bright enough to pick out the very small pattern on the child's pyjamas.

And as to Tanner being alone, she wasn't. Gerry and Jez were there.

[faithlilly]

But even if you couldn't see the design in detail, you would get an impression of one,  in the same way you would get an impression of differing colours.      If they were just plain white with no patterning then I think that would have been obvious to JT.   



 

Look at the picture I posted. The pattern isn't that distinct even in broad daylight with all the camera lights around.

Besides the trousers would have reached just below the knee when worn standing up. The way the child was lying would mean the trousers would have been almost invisible to Tanner with only the legs visible.

[Benice]

Look at the picture I posted. The pattern isn't that distinct even in broad daylight with all the camera lights around.

Besides the trousers would have reached just below the knee when worn standing up. The way the child was lying would mean the trousers would have been almost invisible to Tanner with only the legs visible.

We don't know how much of the trousers JT could see.  Only she knows that.

[Redblossom]

The distance between points 4 and 8 looks more than five metres to me

[Redblossom]

Can someone answer this question.  How the hell could Jane Tanner provide photofit details when she never saw the guys face?

That is e efit done by Gail Cooper, but on seeing it, JT thought he bore an 80% resemblance to the man she saw

Scroll down to powerpoint presentation

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

[faithlilly]

We don't know how much of the trousers JT could see.  Only she knows that.

We can make an educated guess.

[Mrs. B]

We don't know how much of the trousers JT could see.  Only she knows that.

True, & it also depends on what type of recall JT has, some people have photographic memories & are able to describe what they have seen in much more detail than others. Seen from the side, a man carrying a child, perfectly possible for her to have seen bottom of PJ legs of the child, even if legs weren't full length.

[AnneGuedes]

This question is very easy to be answered : reconstruction.

[Mrs. B]

Yes, such a pity Amaral & the PJ decided against doing a reconstruction in 2007, wasn't it?

[AnneGuedes]

Yes, such a pity Amaral & the PJ decided against doing a reconstruction in 2007, wasn't it?

They didn't decided against, but didn't decided for on time ! Actually when they thought of it, the place was invaded by tourists and media.
Anyway, the reconstruction planned in April 2008 would at least have resolved the pyjama's issue.

[Mrs. B]

Yes, they decided against it, Amaral says so in his book.

[Benice]

The distance between points 4 and 8 looks more than five metres to me

It's an 'approximate' hand drawn sketch - not guaranteed to show the correct measurements of the roads as they really are.

JT wasn't standing still, she walking up the hill and saw him as she neared the top.

[sadie]

Yes, they decided against it, Amaral says so in his book.

Oh I had missed that.

So Amaral decided against THe reconstruction in 2007 ... and mentions it in his book

[AnneGuedes]

Yes, they decided against it, Amaral says so in his book.

Do you think he knew the TP group would reject it and tried to make believe it was his will ?

[Benice]

This question is very easy to be answered : reconstruction.

You don't need to go to Portugal to reconstruct a man carrying a little girl in pajamas. 
All the details are known so that could be done anywhere.  IMO