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

[Brietta]

Agreed that's the only explanation that makes any sense if Jane saw Gerry and Jez by 5A gate - she turned left onto the pathway so they never noticed her. They had to facing sideways i.e. Jez facing gate because if one was facing down they would have seen her.

It's hard to believe that they didn't see her when you look at the location. She would be turning only a short distance away?

Jane did not see the man carrying the barefoot child until she had passed the two men and had walked further towards the top pf the road.  In the video re-enactment she participated in she had passed the gate and the lounge window before he made his appearance at the top of the road IIRC.
Therefore she is very clear she did not go along the pathway ... and why would she if the patio doors were locked?

[Robittybob1]

The impression given was that Wilkins was just wandering around, rather than following a set route, so may not have been able to repeat it with total accuracy.

So would it back his statement?  He says he returned home at 9:30 PM.  Would he be able to do enough pathways to fill in the required amount of time?   Would he become a suspect if there was a large amount of unaccounted time.  Someone estimated the walk he did is only 15 minutes at tops so how did he fill in and hour to an hour and a quarter?

[Brietta]

So would it back his statement?  He says he returned home at 9:30 PM.  Would he be able to do enough pathways to fill in the required amount of time?   Would he become a suspect if there was a large amount of unaccounted time.  Someone estimated the walk he did is only 15 minutes at tops so how did he fill in and hour to an hour and a quarter?

Jes Wilkins is a witness only because his son wouldn't settle ... there was never any question of him being a suspect.

[pathfinder73]

Jane did not see the man carrying the barefoot child until she had passed the two men and had walked further towards the top pf the road.  In the video re-enactment she participated in she had passed the gate and the lounge window before he made his appearance at the top of the road IIRC.
Therefore she is very clear she did not go along the pathway ... and why would she if the patio doors were locked?

The McCanns statements on the 4 May 2007 said Jane saw the man from much further away - probably meaning on leaving the secondary reception entrance she saw him crossing.

It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual  carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, Jane will be able to clarify this situation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm

"A cerca da cinquenta metros."

[Robittybob1]

Jes Wilkins is a witness only because his son wouldn't settle ... there was never any question of him being a suspect.

Not everyone was made arguido but there is a saying "everyone is a suspect".

[Robittybob1]

The McCanns statements on the 4 May 2007 said Jane saw the man from much further away - probably meaning on leaving the secondary reception entrance she saw him crossing.

It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual  carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, Jane will be able to clarify this situation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm

"A cerca da cinquenta metros."

That is Gerry undermining Jane.  If he did not see her how would he know?

[Alice Purjorick]

Detailed examination of all the statements reveals that Gerry and Jez chatted just yards down from the gate to 5a.

Amaral claimed that Jane might have seen the men chatting when she exited the tapas mini reception but turned left into the walkway so never passed them thus explaining why they never saw her.  Could it be that it was later that she saw a man carrying a child in his arms but due to the wine and all the confusion unintenionally created a false memory of the event?

To be honest, we have looked at this previously and in some detail. The possibility that she would have been able to pass so close by the two men completely unseen would appear very remote.

Both Jane and Jez put the location of the conversation in a four metre diameter circle just down from the gate.
ie north of the alleyway.
Forget google earth and all that haraz, there was a photo posted recently [two days ?] taken from smack dab opposite the gate at near enough ninety degrees with a lovely people carrier in the gap to give a sense check.

[Robittybob1]

The McCanns statements on the 4 May 2007 said Jane saw the man from much further away - probably meaning on leaving the secondary reception entrance she saw him crossing.

It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual  carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, Jane will be able to clarify this situation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm

"A cerca da cinquenta metros."

I've just checked on Google Earth and the distance from the Secondary Reception door to the footpath of the  intersection uphill is 47 meters. 
There is no way Jane could see that distance at night. IMO.

[Robittybob1]

Both Jane and Jez put the location of the conversation in a four metre diameter circle just down from the gate.
ie north of the alleyway.
Forget google earth and all that haraz, there was a photo posted recently [two days ?] taken from smack dab opposite the gate at near enough ninety degrees with a lovely people carrier in the gap to give a sense check.

I fully agree this seems the most logical in the sense Jez is going uphill and Gerry downhill, but it was the agreed timeline that said uphill of the gate. 

[Brietta]

The McCanns statements on the 4 May 2007 said Jane saw the man from much further away - probably meaning on leaving the secondary reception entrance she saw him crossing.

It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual  carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, Jane will be able to clarify this situation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm

"A cerca da cinquenta metros."

I rather think it is more appropriate to go with what the witness said she saw and subsequently demonstrated on camera ... hearsay just isn't a substitute for that.

"Jane will be able to clarify this situation"   Gerry McCann 

[Alice Purjorick]

I've just checked on Google Earth and the distance from the Secondary Reception door to the footpath of the  intersection uphill is 47 meters. 
There is no way Jane could see that distance at night. IMO.

https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@2266934?month=5&year=2007
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/different-types-twilight.html

[Alice Purjorick]

I fully agree this seems the most logical in the sense Jez is going uphill and Gerry downhill, but it was the agreed timeline that said uphill of the gate.

Agreed by whom?

[Robittybob1]

Agreed by whom?

I thought they all signed off on it.  I could be wrong.

[John]

I fully agree this seems the most logical in the sense Jez is going uphill and Gerry downhill, but it was the agreed timeline that said uphill of the gate.

If that was true then Gerry came from the direction of the front door and not the patio steps.  No wonder the investigators were confused, what a load of bollocks tosh.

[Robittybob1]

If that was true then Gerry came from the direction of the front door and not the patio steps.  No wonder the investigators were confused, what a load of bollocks.

Possibly but then his statement that he had corrected was incorrect as well.