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

[faithlilly]

"That's why I post what I do, because that's what the evidence says. I don't have any agenda or any theory which needs supporting."

I have never speculated that Gerry disagreed with the other two witnesses about where he was standing ... I have watched him in real time disagreeing with one of them.
What I have expressed about that is not speculation but my opinion that it does not really matter.  What matters is that the three were there and Jane Tanner claims to have seen a man carrying a child at the top of the street.

Unfortunately your opinion differs from Rebelo who thought the point was so important that he requested that the McCanns and their friends fly back to take part in a reconstruction of the incident. Do you really think he would have done that if where the conversation took place 'didn't really matter' ?

Further it is not speculation that Jez disagreed with Gerry about where they were standing but it is disingenuous for you to suggest that it is. Haven't you read Wilkins's starements ?

[faithlilly]

Did he have his eyes closed and when he opened them Gerry had just materialised?  He stated specifically he assumed Gerry had exited the gate ... logic dictates he must have been beyond it when Jes saw him ... at least two or three athletic man paces beyond it.

Fortunately we don't need logic or speculation as we have Wilkins own words  and that was that he was 5m from the alleyway.

[Benice]

"That's why I post what I do, because that's what the evidence says. I don't have any agenda or any theory which needs supporting."

I have never speculated that Gerry disagreed with the other two witnesses about where he was standing ... I have watched him in real time disagreeing with one of them.
What I have expressed about that is not speculation but my opinion that it does not really matter.  What matters is that the three were there and Jane Tanner claims to have seen a man carrying a child at the top of the street.

Totally agree.   One outcome of poring over every word and going into the minutiae of every single thing is that you end up not being able to see the wood for the trees. IMO

Different people have different ideas of time and distances.  One person's 10ft is another person's 20ft.  One person's 5 mins is another person's 10 mins.

Expecting three people to come up with identical descriptions of everything they remembered is totally unrealistic IMO.

Fortunately the people who do matter - i.e. the professional policemen investigating this case are well aware of that.

AIMHO

[faithlilly]

Totally agree.   One outcome of poring over every word and going into the minutiae of every single thing is that you end up not being able to see the wood for the trees. IMO

Different people have different ideas of time and distances.  One person's 10ft is another person's 20ft.  One person's 5 mins is another person's 10 mins.

Expecting three people to come up with identical descriptions of everything they remembered is totally unrealistic IMO.

Fortunately the people who do matter - i.e. the professional policemen investigating this case are well aware of that.

AIMHO

Rebelo thought it mattered and he was also investigating the case at the time.

Benice do you really believe Wilkins didn't know the difference from 'at the alleyway' and 5 metres from it ?

[Brietta]

Unfortunately your opinion differs from Rebelo who thought the point was so important that he requested that the McCanns and their friends fly back to take part in a reconstruction of course the incident. Do you really think he would have done that if where the conversation took place 'didn't really matter' ?

Further it is not speculation that Jez disagreed with Gerry about where they were standing but it is disingenuous for you to suggest that it is. Haven't you read Wilkins's starements ?

Clarify that please.  Not with your opinion but with an actual cite.

[Robittybob1]

Totally agree.   One outcome of poring over every word and going into the minutiae of every single thing is that you end up not being able to see the wood for the trees. IMO

Different people have different ideas of time and distances.  One person's 10ft is another person's 20ft.  One person's 5 mins is another person's 10 mins.

Expecting three people to come up with identical descriptions of everything they remembered is totally unrealistic IMO.

Fortunately the people who do matter - i.e. the professional policemen investigating this case are well aware of that.

AIMHO

On this point you are somewhat wrong .  For it is the apparent contradictions in whether Jez and Gerry saw Jane that make people doubt whether Jane really saw Tannerman.  I think G-unit has come closest so far to solving the riddle.
"Distance from pathway to the top of the road according to Jes;

10 + 5 = 15 meters. He is twice as far from the top of the road as he is from the pathway.
15 + 5 = 20 meters. He is three times as far from the top of the road as he is from the pathway.

Actual distance from the pathway to the top of the road is 32 meters (approx)

So Jes was either 22 meters from the top of the road and 11 meters from the pathway or he was 24 meters from the top of the road and 8 meters from the pathway. Either way, he was very close to the gate."

[faithlilly]

Clarify that please.  Not with your opinion but with an actual cite.

I have but it would appear you haven't and I have already provided cites in my answers to Sadie.

[Benice]

Rebelo thought it mattered and he was also investigating the case at the time.

Benice do you really believe Wilkins didn't know the difference from 'at the alleyway' and 5 metres from it ?

No I'm saying what is 5 metres to one person may be 3 metres or 10 metres to another person.  Jez is not certain of all of the details of that meeting, for example  IIRC he surmises he may have been facing downward but only because he remembers rocking the pushchair back and forward.

Everything is from what they could remember of what were an insignificant few moments at the time.  IMO they are all telling the truth as they remember it - but that doesn't mean those recollections are perfectly accurate.    Therefore holding up specific measurements as 'proof' of anything - is unrealistic IMO.       AFAIAC Gerry and Jez stood talking and JT observed them doing that and further up the road she saw a man carrying a child across that road.

It's clear to me that SY detectives also believe that is what happened and that any differences in their  recollections are perfectly normal and do not have any 'sinister' implications.   
AIMHO

[Robittybob1]

Could you all think of the initial situation when Jez first saw Gerry.  We have some idea where they met and talked but where were they when they first saw each other to walk toward each other.  Or do you think one stood still and the other did all the walking.

Downhill is towards the Tapas reception entrance.
Uphill is toward the top road.

[faithlilly]

No I'm saying what is 5 metres to one person may be 3 metres or 10 metres to another person.  Jez is not certain of all of the details of that meeting, for example  IIRC he surmises he may have been facing downward but only because he remembers rocking the pushchair back and forward.

Everything is from what they could remember of what were an insignificant few moments at the time.  IMO they are all telling the truth as they remember it - but that doesn't mean those recollections are perfectly accurate.    Therefore holding up specific measurements as 'proof' of anything - is unrealistic IMO.       AFAIAC Gerry and Jez stood talking and JT observed them doing that and further up the road she saw a man carrying a child across that road.

It's clear to me that SY detectives also believe that is what happened and that any differences in their  recollections are perfectly normal and do not have any 'sinister' implications.   
AIMHO

10m, 5m, 3m but not at the alleyway, agreed ?

[G-Unit]

"That's why I post what I do, because that's what the evidence says. I don't have any agenda or any theory which needs supporting."

I have never speculated that Gerry disagreed with the other two witnesses about where he was standing ... I have watched him in real time disagreeing with one of them.
What I have expressed about that is not speculation but my opinion that it does not really matter.  What matters is that the three were there and Jane Tanner claims to have seen a man carrying a child at the top of the street.

It was necessary to clarify my position because I was replying to unfounded accusations by another poster.  Your advice could perhaps be of use to them?

[Benice]

10m, 5m, 3m but not at the alleyway, agreed ?

I can only repeat what I have already said.  People gave their honest recollections of what happened during those few moments - but that doesn't mean their recollections were accurate.   The very fact that they had different memories of which side of the road Gerry and Jez stood is proof of that IMO.   

The question to ask IMO - is what did anyone have to gain by deliberately lying about the exact place where they stood?   Why would they do that?   

In the absence of a 'cunning plan' then IMO any discrepancies can only be down to the known fallibility of memory which the police are aware of and fully expect from eye-witnesses.
AIMHO

Must go out now.


 

   

[G-Unit]

Totally agree.   One outcome of poring over every word and going into the minutiae of every single thing is that you end up not being able to see the wood for the trees. IMO

Different people have different ideas of time and distances.  One person's 10ft is another person's 20ft.  One person's 5 mins is another person's 10 mins.

Expecting three people to come up with identical descriptions of everything they remembered is totally unrealistic IMO.

Fortunately the people who do matter - i.e. the professional policemen investigating this case are well aware of that.

AIMHO

Speaking for myself, the only reason I ever examine the evidence closely is when people make claims about what happened. In this example it has been claimed that the men met near the entrance to the alleyway, but a thorough examination of the evidence suggests otherwise.

[Benice]

Speaking for myself, the only reason I ever examine the evidence closely is when people make claims about what happened. In this example it has been claimed that the men met near the entrance to the alleyway, but a thorough examination of the evidence suggests otherwise.

So what conclusion have you come to?

[G-Unit]

Jez stated it was dark.  "He noticed the bad street lighting and although it was not completely dark there was enough light to see clearly."

G-unit I think I would just about accept one of those or somewhere in between, so it ends up being uphill of the gate.

So can you tell me why they end up uphill of the gate?  Which direction was Jez walking toward Gerry?  Downhill or uphill?  Why did Gerry end up walking up hill?

I don't think I have said  they end up uphill of the gate'. Jane Tanner said that, not me. I have said that they did not speak at the entrance to the alleyway. Jes Wilkins made that quite clear.