CMTV Gonçalo Amaral - O Enigma - with English subtitles

[Robittybob1]

To suggest that JT did not take the route she reported in her witness testimonies is libellous without proof to the contrary.

if the statements are contradictory it is natural to question who is telling the truth.

[Robittybob1]

No she isn't. SY have all but excluded the man allegedly seen by Tanner as a suspect. Tanner's sighting has not relevance whatsoever.

Pity though that the McCanns PIs chose to back Tanner's sighting instead of the one SY is now following. Lack of funds was cited. Enough money to sue but not to follow up important leads it would appear.

If Tannerman is innocent who or how does the door move within the apartment?   Would Gerry leave his keys behind if there was an intruder in the apartment?  It does not make any sense to me.

[misty]

if the statements are contradictory it is natural to question who is telling the truth.

If GM & JW were standing at the location JW said, ie, 5 yards down from the rear gate to 5A, who wouldn't he have seen Jane going into the alleyway?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/9of8-ecf89375.gif - map

[Robittybob1]

If GM & JW were standing at the location JW said, ie, 5 yards down from the rear gate to 5A, who wouldn't he have seen Jane going into the alleyway?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/9of8-ecf89375.gif - map

They can't all be correct.  Someone must be mistaken  or making us mistaken.  How do we say it when we are not allowed to? 

[Brietta]

I's a contradiction because Tanner did not flip-flop over them. Do a reconstruction if you have doubts. Tannerman is cleared, the other sighting of efits suppressed for years is not.

Sorry PF.  That still from Amaral's video really cuts the ground out from under your argument and proves what Benice, Sadie et al have been saying.

A picture is worth a thousand words and in my opinion this one shows that Amaral has misrepresented Jeremy's testimony ... and has misrepresented Jane's testimony.

People were shown this as a true and proper representation ... it patently is not,

[faithlilly]

From the statements of Jez Wilkins.

'At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino 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.'

'From what I remember, the conversation happened right there on the pathway but I am not certain who was located exactly where.'

So right on the pathway ( not on the road ), near the gate ( so not on the other side of the road ) and 5 metres from the pathway leading to the front of the apartment block ( so nowhere near the corner ).

Just as the Amaral documentary illustrated.

[faithlilly]

To all those who have accused Amaral of misrepresenting the positions of the main protagonists during the Jez/Gerry talk I have now posted irrefutable proof that Amaral was indeed correct by posting Jez's statements. Would you mind awfully withdrawing your accusation?

[pathfinder73]

Sorry PF.  That still from Amaral's video really cuts the ground out from under your argument and proves what Benice, Sadie et al have been saying.

A picture is worth a thousand words and in my opinion this one shows that Amaral has misrepresented Jeremy's testimony ... and has misrepresented Jane's testimony.

People were shown this as a true and proper representation ... it patently is not,

You are funny. Check out JW statement being near the side gate. The path 5 metres to his left as he was facing the side gate and saw steps going up.

"I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm

[Brietta]

From the statements of Jez Wilkins.

'At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino 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.'

'From what I remember, the conversation happened right there on the pathway but I am not certain who was located exactly where.'

So right on the pathway ( not on the road ), near the gate ( so not on the other side of the road ) and 5 metres from the pathway leading to the front of the apartment block ( so nowhere near the corner ).

Just as the Amaral documentary illustrated.

I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15.

I cannot affirm if I saw him exactly leaving the apartment through the passageway, and if he was heading towards the tapas Bar.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm

Amaral has them standing directly in front of the gate ... to be there ... it would have been impossible for Jeremy not to have seen Gerry come down the staircase and exit the gate.

It was not a static event. There was movement on the part of both men. Jez did not know where Gerry came from ... if they were standing where Amaral has placed them he would have seen.
Or because both were in motion they would have collided right outside it ... Amaral's positioning is wrong.

For me X marks the spot.

[Brietta]

You are funny. Check out JW statement being near the side gate. The path 5 metres to his left as he was facing the side gate and saw steps going up.

"I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm

Near is the operative word ... not at.  Had it been at ... as per Amaral ... he would have known exactly where Gerry came from.  He did not.

[pathfinder73]

JW was there not you, Sadie or Benice. He was not on the path corner that Sadie claims or he would have said that in his statement. "I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs." It's not rocket science. That would be changed to "I met him on the corner of the pathway" if it were true. His statement said he was close to the side gate and stairs.

[Brietta]

To all those who have accused Amaral of misrepresenting the positions of the main protagonists during the Jez/Gerry talk I have now posted irrefutable proof that Amaral was indeed correct by posting Jez's statements. Would you mind awfully withdrawing your accusation?

Please remember to include a caveat when expressing an opinion.  Did Jez stand outside the gate with his eyes closed?   If he didn't ... why couldn't he see where Gerry came from? ...

" I cannot affirm if I saw him exactly leaving the apartment through the passageway ... "
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm

[Brietta]

JW was there not you, Sadie or Benice. He was not on the path corner that Sadie claims or he would have said that in his statement. "I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs." It's not rocket science. That would be changed to "I met him on the corner of the pathway" if it were true. His statement said he was close to the side gate and stairs.

Indeed so ... and he put a cross on a piece of paper indicating exactly where they stood.  Which is not where Amaral, who also wasn't there, placed them both.

[faithlilly]

I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15.

I cannot affirm if I saw him exactly leaving the apartment through the passageway, and if he was heading towards the tapas Bar.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm

Amaral has them standing directly in front of the gate ... to be there ... it would have been impossible for Jeremy not to have seen Gerry come down the staircase and exit the gate.

It was not a static event. There was movement on the part of both men. Jez did not know where Gerry came from ... if they were standing where Amaral has placed them he would have seen.
Or because both were in motion they would have collided right outside it ... Amaral's positioning is wrong.

For me X marks the spot.

Gerry could have exited the gate, walked a couple of steps forward then stopped as he saw Jez coming around the corner. This would explain why Jez didn't know whether Gerry had just left the apartment or was heading towards the tapas. If Gerry had been any further down the path he would have had his back to Jez so Jez would have had to call out to grab his attention. There is no record of this in Jez's statement. It would also have been obvious to him that Gerry was heading down to the tapas.

Much more sensible than simply ignoring Jez's recollections.

[faithlilly]

Indeed so ... and he put a cross on a piece of paper indicating exactly where they stood.  Which is not where Amaral, who also wasn't there, placed them both.

And the measurements in his statements ?