Where were Jez and Gerry standing when they did their talking? Ideas solutions

[faithlilly]

Yes we do.  The answer is no one.  How do we know this?  Because no one has been made an arguido and questioned about it.

They would only be made an arguido if questioned in Portugal and there would be no need for arrests if the witness was cooperating. Coperation may have been given in return for immunity from prosecution.  Perhaps this questioning was agreed when the CPS went to Portugal some time ago.

[Brietta]

A logical thesis.

You may believe so ... what it suggested to me was an entirely Off Topic post which is possibly libellous ... but there you have it, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so they say.

[Vertigo Swirl]

598 makes no sense. You are positing that the information provided re checking was accurate, without proof thereof.

Post #598in its entirety (in reply to Faithlilly's post) -

"And yet none of them attempted to cover up the fact that they had all left their children unattended.  That doesn't make any sense. "

I'll ask again - which bit makes no sense and where do I posit that the information provided re: checking was accurate?

[Vertigo Swirl]

They would only be made an arguido if questioned in Portugal and there would be no need for arrests if the witness was cooperating. Coperation may have been given in return for immunity from prosecution.  Perhaps this questioning was agreed when the CPS went to Portugal some time ago.

So, it's your belief that if one of the Tapas group brokoe ranks, said "we've been covering up on behalf of one of our friends, we know what actually happened, blah blah blah" - that as a result of this information no one would be questioned as an arguido, even those that the finger was being pointed at?    What are they waiting for, exactly?

[jassi]

Only if the person was  being questioned in Portugal might they need to be an arguido.

[ShiningInLuz]

Post #598inb its entirety (in reply to Faithlilly's post) -
I'll ask again - which bit makes no sense and where do I posit that the information provided re: checking was accurate?

Are you bored?

"And yet none of them attempted to cover up the fact that they had all left their children unattended."

Kindly prove that they reported accurate checking, or for the sake of the forum, kindly let sleeping dogs lie.

[kizzy]

my contention is that the McCanns and their group made no concerted group effort to hide the fact that they regularly left their kids alone in the evenings to go to dinner.  How does this differ from your contention?

What makes this silly in my opinion is - how could they hide the fact they all left there children.

Fgs... for a start who would they say was baby sitting - they had no choice but to admit it.

Makes no sense to portray it as they did something good - admitting to leaving there kids.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Are you bored?

"And yet none of them attempted to cover up the fact that they had all left their children unattended."

Kindly prove that they reported accurate checking, or for the sake of the forum, kindly let sleeping dogs lie.

In your reply #648 you agreed my post made sense.  Previously you said it made no sense.  Now you are saying it makes no sense again.  I have not claimed they reported accurate checking all I have said is that none of them attempted to cover up the fact that they had all left their children unattended.  This is becoming Kafka-esque this conversation, it's really, really bizarre.

[Vertigo Swirl]

What makes this silly in my opinion is - how could they hide the fact they all left there children.

Fgs... for a start who would they say was baby sitting - they had no choice but to admit it.

Makes no sense to portray it as they did something good - admitting to leaving there kids.

Once again I agree entirely - so anyone who proposes that any or all of the Tapaas 7 went along with a conspiracy involving the hiding of a dead child's body to protect each other from charges of neglect is obviously barking up the wrong tree IMO. 

[Brietta]

Please may we have a return to topic,now: 

Where were Jez and Gerry standing when they did their talking? Ideas solutions  ... Thank you

[Vertigo Swirl]

Only if the person was  being questioned in Portugal might they need to be an arguido.

Why wouldn't they be questioned in Portugal?  I thought this was a Portuguese investigation?

[ShiningInLuz]

In your reply #648 you agreed my post made sense.  Previously you said it made no sense.  Now you are saying it makes no sense again.  I have not claimed they reported accurate checking all I have said is that none of them attempted to cover up the fact that they had all left their children unattended.  This is becoming Kafka-esque this conversation, it's really, really bizarre.

Sorry, I can't be bothered with this trivia game.   

[jassi]

Why wouldn't they be questioned in Portugal?  I thought this was a Portuguese investigation?

The person may not be willing to enter Portuguese jurisdiction and it might be easier to question in country of residence

[Vertigo Swirl]

The person may not be willing to enter Portuguese jurisdiction and it might be easier to question in country of residence

They would have to be arrested and interviewed under caution in this country wouldn’t you think?  As would the person being pointed at.  I don’t think such a development would go unreported in this or any other country do you?

[G-Unit]

Where were Jez and Gerry standing?

JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road.
 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm

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


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_50.jpg