Author Topic: Where were Jez and Gerry standing when they did their talking? Ideas solutions  (Read 102563 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline John

People rarely get away with desperate ill-thought through plans.  In light of the fact that as far as your theory is concerned Jane would have known Totman could not possibly have seen Gerry, it is quite an insane plan to say she saw them both at the same time, especially as even Gerry denied seeing her.  Quite ridiculous.

Dr Totman is by no means certain that it was he who Jane saw, it remains merely a possibility. By inference therefore we can say that Dr Totman never saw Jane or the two men.  That could well be more evidence that Tannerman was not Totman.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 12:00:12 AM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Alice Purjorick

Because the whole point of Gerry being seen st the same time as Tannerman is, according to some, to prove that it couldn’t have been Gerry who removed Madeleine from the apartment.

Absolutely nothing to do with giving him an alibi for not being Smithman then?
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Absolutely nothing to do with giving him an alibi for not being Smithman then?
Nope, how could it be?  The sighting was at 9.15pm, 45 minutes earlier than the Smithman sighting.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline pathfinder73

"The only reason for their scepticism appeared to be an unexplained time lapse between the two sightings. They didn’t dovetail perfectly. To me the similarities seem far more significant than any discrepancy in timing.

Every time I read these independent statements in the files (and neither could have been influenced by the other, remember – Jane’s description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements), I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts.

As a lawyer once said to me, apropos another matter, ‘One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.’"

Who knows why there was a forty-five-minute gap between the two sightings, or where this man might have been in between? I long ago stopped trying to come up with answers because I don’t think I need to."

Madeleine by Kate McCann

Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline faithlilly

People rarely get away with desperate ill-thought through plans.  In light of the fact that as far as your theory is concerned Jane would have known Totman could not possibly have seen Gerry, it is quite an insane plan to say she saw them both at the same time, especially as even Gerry denied seeing her.  Quite ridiculous.

True people do rarely get away with desperate ill thought through plans.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Vertigo Swirl

True people do rarely get away with desperate ill thought through plans.
And yet, if your theory is correct, they have.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline jassi

Nope, how could it be?  The sighting was at 9.15pm, 45 minutes earlier than the Smithman sighting.

I think the logic would be - Gerry is seen at the same time as Tannerman so cannot be abductor so how can he possibly be abductor man 45 mins later.

If Jane didn't see Gerry or Tannerman isn't abductor then the argument falls.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline Robittybob1

All possible but how can we ever tell which possibility is correct?
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 01:14:12 PM by Robittybob1 »
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

I think the logic would be - Gerry is seen at the same time as Tannerman so cannot be abductor so how can he possibly be abductor man 45 mins later.

If Jane didn't see Gerry or Tannerman isn't abductor then the argument falls.
But some of the tapas group have Gerry at the table at the time of the Smith sighting anyway so no need for JT to provide an earlier alibi.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Brietta

I think the logic would be - Gerry is seen at the same time as Tannerman so cannot be abductor so how can he possibly be abductor man 45 mins later.

If Jane didn't see Gerry or Tannerman isn't abductor then the argument falls.

I agree with your first sentence but not the latter.

The PJ accepted that once Gerry had returned to the table after his meeting with Jes, there is no record of him leaving it thereafter and he was still there when Kate came running back to raise the alarm that Madeleine was gone.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline pathfinder73

Matt said Kate left to check at 21:50 which was at least 10 minutes before the Smith sighting so none are ruled out. The waiter had them all gone except Dianne at 21:50.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 12:25:09 PM by pathfinder73 »
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Matt said Kate left to check at 21:50 which was at least 10 minutes before the Smith sighting so none are ruled out.
IMO the PJ accepted Gerry had alibi(s) for the time of the Smith sighting. 
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 07:48:18 PM by slartibartfast »
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline pathfinder73

The waiter who served them at the table had them all gone except Dianne at 21:50. The PJ made a mistake didn't they? Smithman was after the alarm was raised and if they investigated it properly they would have known this to be the truth.
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

The waiter who served them at the table had them all gone except Dianne at 21:50. The PJ made a mistake didn't they? Smithman was after the alarm was raised and if they investigated it properly they would have known this to be the truth.
So how have you managed to investigate it properly, and the collective brains of the PJ failed so dismally?  Are you of superior intellect and logic skills?
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Robittybob1

Matt said Kate left to check at 21:50 which was at least 10 minutes before the Smith sighting so none are ruled out. The waiter had them all gone except Dianne at 21:50.
I think we need to discover why Matt puts Kate's check 10 minutes earlier than the rest.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.