More pertinent than that I think is why none of the nannies on duty at the creche that night recognised the description of a man who had picked up his daughter from them or remembered caring for a little girl with frilly-bottomed pyjamas.
The time he signs for his child, how does that compare to the time of Jane's observation are also important considerations. There isn't a lot of time variation available with the first check.
Unless the sighting actually becomes Jez later picking up his daughter at a time after he had taken the younger son back home, and it being Jane's second return to her apartment, the one as late as 9:40 - 9:45 PM or something like that.
I won't be happy until they gives us all the details that are claimed by the "innocent father".
Remember Jane takes two walks back to the apartment that night, and Jez seems to have this tendency to take convoluted walks at night maybe it is Jane seeing him on the second visit, and that being the reason Jez and Gerry don't see her pass them on Jane's earlier visit to the apartment.
Sorry about that but that was the first time I've said that. Still a bit raw. I hope you understand this never before spoken proposal.
https://youtu.be/OZ8jmdWlB8Y?t=980 Hit this link to go straight to the relevant section.
But I think there is a big mistake in this proposal as at this point the information is that the daughter being picked up by innocent man was only 2 years old. From what I remember from previous discussions was that the pyjamas shown as supposedly the ones worn that night seemed too big for a 3 year old and now more so for a two year old.
https://youtu.be/OZ8jmdWlB8Y?t=1300
