Should Operation Grange be wound up as SY face defeat?

[Robittybob1]

    This one?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5581.msg199121#msg199121  OK so from where the person is taking the photo, how far is it in your estimation to the kids bed room window?

[Robittybob1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drR76h4oy7Q

Make you own minds up about the distance from what would have been similar to Jane's perspective.

That was interesting since the lady taking the video suggests it was the lane up which Jane sees the man carrying the bundle.  IMO she got that wrong so did NOT measure the vital distances of steps to the corner of the street.

[G-Unit]

The one to the north of Block 5.

I think Jane was pretty much where these people are; directly opposite to the entrance to block 6 car park.

[Robittybob1]

Yes I had the same impression.

[Alice Purjorick]

I think Jane was pretty much where these people are; directly opposite to the entrance to block 6 car park.

I'll go with that with two provisos.
The distance was approx five metres as adduced by the PJ from Ms Tanners statement.
Then five metres is closer to the northern end of the entrance to Block 6 CP.
It becomes interesting if Jez's recollection of distance rather than features is correct; we then have a sort of Castell Key interlock arrangement....

[sadie]

As opposed to your absurdly wide interpretation of the word * just *.

To fit your agenda ?

Well I think that most people would consider something that happened less than 40   20 seconds earlier, as being 'Just before' .... but maybe you have a narrow perspective on life?

[Edited: I modified this post because by my next post I had mathematically proven that, at normal walking speed, jane had passed Gerry and Jez only about 19 seconds before.]

Now less than 20 seconds before, is that "Just before"?  Of course it is.

[sadie]

In the context it was used, it means 'immediately after' in my opinion. You may wish to interpret it as '30 metres after' because you, unlike me, do have an agenda.

Oh really, you dont have an agenda?
Fancy my thinking that you had.

The average, healthy human walks at a pace of 3 mph, or 100m in 1 minute, 14 seconds = 74 seconds for 100 metres
  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/athletics/9450234/100m-final-how-fast-could-you-run-it.html


Gerry and Jez were 30 metres from the top of the road (Tannerman) , measured to the line of the footpath going straight across.   Jane was 5 metres (Not 6 metres) from Tannerman according to the official estimate given earlier.

Let's make an attempt to get it right. 
Gerry and Jez were 30 - 5 = 25 metres behind Jane when she saw Tannerman. 
Average walking speed for 100 metres is 74 seconds

25 metres is a quarter of 100 metres
So, the actual likely time was a quarter of the time taken to walk 100 metres.

Therefore the time taken for Jane, from passing Gerry and Jez to first spotting Tannerman,  was ...... 74 seconds / 4 = under 19 seconds

IMO, most people would say that 19 seconds could very easily be classed as JUST before !

   
   

[sadie]

In the context it was used, it means 'immediately after' in my opinion. You may wish to interpret it as '30 metres after' because you, unlike me, do have an agenda.

No, I never interpreted it as 30 metres after.  I correctly interpreted it as under 19 seconds after.

No time at all

[sadie]

That was interesting since the lady taking the video suggests it was the lane up which Jane sees the man carrying the bundle.  IMO she got that wrong so did NOT measure the vital distances of steps to the corner of the street.

I agree, Rob.  She measured the wrong bit for our discussion, but it was interesting cos it showed the layout pictorially.  As you say it seems that she got the place where Jane saw Tannerman completely mixed up!

She also got the front and the back of 5A mixed up.  That caused a lot of problems in the early days, but I think most people on here now have the front and back sorted, thank gooness!

[sadie]

I think Jane was pretty much where these people are; directly opposite to the entrance to block 6 car park.

Allowing for perspective, I think Jane was about 4 metres higher up the road.

[Robittybob1]

Allowing for perspective, I think Jane was about 4 metres higher up the road.

What I see is two people coming back from the pool after a morning swim.  The mark on the wall is IMO a reflection of the lady.  It isn't a shadow as there is not enough light to form shadows.

If I'm right that it is a reflection off a relatively rough surface, then the angle of incidence = angle of reflection.  Then if we can work out where the person who took photo was standing then because the "image" appears to be on a line directly below end of the wall of the apartment we could make the calculations of where they are standing in the photo.

[sadie]

What I see is two people coming back from the pool after a morning swim.  The mark on the wall is IMO a reflection of the lady.  It isn't a shadow as there is not enough light to form shadows.

If I'm right that it is a reflection off a relatively rough surface, then the angle of incidence = angle of reflection.  Then if we can work out where the person who took photo was standing then because the "image" appears to be on a line directly below end of the wall of the apartment we could make the calculations of where they are standing in the photo.

They are just past where 5A wall finishes its projection into the footpath.  Measure that on Google Earth and you will find that it measures over 10 metres from the route going eastwards along the pavement.

Try not to forget that the end of the wall on that image is not at the pavement from which Tannerman appeared, because the wall has a great big curve on it, and the end is well out of sight around the bend.  From measuring GE it appears thaty the bend is about 3 metres radius.

From Janes memory of it, Tannerman walked straight across the top of Rua Francisco Gentil Martins.  He didn't come around the curve of the wall at all.


Thinking more about it, if Jane identified 5 metres distance between her and the man, then those two people are way lower down the road than Jane was when she saw Tannerman.  I think that she would have been about 5-6 metres higher than that couple.


I do understand why the one side of the discussion is trying to persuade readers that Jane was lower down the road than it appears she was.  It is an attempt, it seems, to re-inforce their argument that Janes Tannerman was not actually an abductor, but was Crecheman.


    I wonder why?

[faithlilly]

They are just past where 5A wall finishes its projection into the footpath.  Measure that on Google Earth and you will find that it measuresc 10 metres from the route going eastwards along the pavement.

Try not to forget that the end of the wall on that image is not at the pavement from which Tannerman appeared, because the wall has a great big curve on it, and the end is well out of sight around the bend.  From measuring GE it appears thaty the bend is about 3 metres radius.

From Janes memory of it, Tannerman walked straight across the top of Rua Francisco Gentil Martins.  He didn't come around the curve of the wall at all.


Thinking more about it, if Jane identified 5 metres distance between her and the man, then those two people are way lower down the road than Jane was when she saw Tannerman.  I think that she would have been about 5-6 metres higher than that couple.


I do understand why the one side of the discussion is trying to persuade readers that Jane was lower down the road than it appears she was.  It is an attempt, it seems, to re-inforce their argument that Janes Tannerman was not actually an abductor, but was Crecheman.


    I wonder why?

I think it was Redwood who made the argument for Tanner’s sighting being Crecheman.

Perhaps you should ask him why ?

[Angelo222]

They are just past where 5A wall finishes its projection into the footpath.  Measure that on Google Earth and you will find that it measuresc 10 metres from the route going eastwards along the pavement.

Try not to forget that the end of the wall on that image is not at the pavement from which Tannerman appeared, because the wall has a great big curve on it, and the end is well out of sight around the bend.  From measuring GE it appears thaty the bend is about 3 metres radius.

From Janes memory of it, Tannerman walked straight across the top of Rua Francisco Gentil Martins.  He didn't come around the curve of the wall at all.


Thinking more about it, if Jane identified 5 metres distance between her and the man, then those two people are way lower down the road than Jane was when she saw Tannerman.  I think that she would have been about 5-6 metres higher than that couple.


I do understand why the one side of the discussion is trying to persuade readers that Jane was lower down the road than it appears she was.  It is an attempt, it seems, to re-inforce their argument that Janes Tannerman was not actually an abductor, but was Crecheman.


    I wonder why?

Why do you persist with the Tanner nonsense Sadie, DCI Redmond says it was an irrelevance?

[misty]

Why do you persist with the Tanner nonsense Sadie, DCI Redmond says it was an irrelevance?

The Tanner sighting produced a revelation moment for SY, so hardly an irrelevance. At no time did DCI Redwood say that Crecheman & Tannerman were the same person.
Why did Crecheman believe that he could be the Tanner sighting? Is it possible that someone else had put that very suggestion to him, told him not to say anything (or risk prosecution) & ensure that he kept those child's pyjamas in a safe place for possible use in a future prosecution case?