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

[misty]

Or you could take it further the Tannerman family could have walked right past Gerry and Jez too as Jane did and not be noticed. 

I didn't know he had a family with him.  Where did you get that bit?

It's almost irrelevant where Jez & Gerry were standing as they had no recollection of movement or surroundings at the time of their chat. From cars parked on the street to gates opening & closing & people passing, they had no strong memories other than what they were talking about.

[Wonderfulspam]

They believed that they.... the child had no belief because she was too young. Why would a missing mother have believed her husband was the sighting without actually being there?

Next sentence in clip after Redwood says  "They themselves believed they could be the Tanner sighting"

Narrator:  "The British father had collected his 2 year old daughter from the creche, he had been walking near the McCanns apartment."

Note, he says walking near, not walking back from.

P.S & he, not they.

[Robittybob1]

It's almost irrelevant where Jez & Gerry were standing as they had no recollection of movement or surroundings at the time of their chat. From cars parked on the street to gates opening & closing & people passing, they had no strong memories other than what they were talking about.

Do they say they talked about  the same things?

[misty]

Next sentence in clip after Redwood says  "They themselves believed they could be the Tanner sighting"

Narrator:  "The British father had collected his 2 year old daughter from the creche, he had been walking near the McCanns apartment."

Note, he says walking near, not walking back from.

P.S & he, not they.

The Narrator said......DCI Redwood didn't say it.
Does DCI Redwood say that Tannerman & Crecheman are one & the same?

[misty]

Do they say they talked about  the same things?

Childcare arrangements iirc.

[Wonderfulspam]

The Narrator said......DCI Redwood didn't say it.
Does DCI Redwood say that Tannerman & Crecheman are one & the same?

I see you're trying to create confusion where none exists.

"The British father had collected his 2 year old daughter from the creche, he had been walking near the McCanns apartment."

He was there, with his child,  & he was walking near the McCanns apartment.

Maybe his wife was indoors making tea or couldn't go with him.
Who cares, either way, she wasn't there.  He was.

[misty]

I see you're trying to create confusion where none exists.

"The British father had collected his 2 year old daughter from the creche, he had been walking near the McCanns apartment."

He was there, with his child,  & he was walking near the McCanns apartment.

Maybe his wife was indoors making tea or couldn't go with him.

Who cares, either way, she wasn't there.  He was.

I'm interpreting DCI Redwood's exact words, not those of the narrator.

[Brietta]

That should be in a separate thread Misty for it is definitely off topic here.

In my opinion it is spot on topic.  No speculation but in accordance with current thinking when Madeleine's case was reopened.

What we don't know is ... Jane may have seen one of the family group ... did he see her and Gerry and Jes deep in conversation? 

Or did the family group see the same man seen by Jane?

[Wonderfulspam]

I'm interpreting DCI Redwood's exact words, not those of the narrator.

You are misinterpreting the meaning.

The following sentence by the narrator clarifies the situation.

"The British father had collected his 2 year old daughter from the creche, he had been walking near the McCanns apartment."

It couldn't be much clearer.

[misty]

You are misinterpreting the meaning.

The following sentence by the narrator clarifies the situation.

"The British father had collected his 2 year old daughter from the creche, he had been walking near the McCanns apartment."

It couldn't be much clearer.

But DCI Redwood said "they". Have you considered that the mother may have been collecting another child from the night creche at the same time?

[Wonderfulspam]

But DCI Redwood said "they". Have you considered that the mother may have been collecting another child from the night creche at the same time?

No, because it's speculation based on your own misunderstanding.

[Wonderfulspam]

But ok. Just for the fun of it.

Maybe his wife was there too, carrying another child, & perhaps she saw Gerry & Jez standing where Gerry said they were.

And maybe she saw another man carrying a child.

Perhaps she gave a witness statement to that effect, & Amaral filed it in the bin.

[misty]

But ok. Just for the fun of it.

Maybe his wife was there too, carrying another child, & perhaps she saw Gerry & Jez standing where Gerry said they were.

And maybe she saw another man carrying a child.

Perhaps she gave a witness statement to that effect, & Amaral filed it in the bin.

Now you're getting there - except the statement wasn't filed in the bin. IMO.

[Brietta]

But ok. Just for the fun of it.

Maybe his wife was there too, carrying another child, & perhaps she saw Gerry & Jez standing where Gerry said they were.

And maybe she saw another man carrying a child.

Perhaps she gave a witness statement to that effect, & Amaral filed it in the bin.

There weren't all that many children being looked after in the night creche so it would have been easy enough to track them all down.
But why would you think Amaral would have filed 'innocent dad's' information in the bin?  He didn't rate Jane's evidence, so here was ready made confirmation ... unless ... it wasn't.

[misty]

No, because it's speculation based on your own misunderstanding.

At no time did DCI Redwood say Crecheman was Tannerman.

What he did say was "We’re almost certain, now, that this sighting is not the abductor.".

 Not THE abductor -but an accomplice, possibly.