What are u talking [posting] about - its times like this i feel as if i'm in a nut house
The disputed text:
"14.01 – Having been left by their parents, exposed to situations of risk and danger that they, in their young age, wouldn’t be able to protect themselves from, and to confront and to resolve on their own, is considered to be a serious risk and serious and neglectful behaviour from the parents.
14.19 – Second Contradiction: The Sightings
14.29 – The second relevant contradiction is given by Jane Tanner’s deposition, who states she saw the abductor. One cannot understand how Jane Tanner passes Gerald and Jeremiah, and sees a man carrying a child, with both of them failing to see her and the abductor.
14.48 – The only possible explanation for them not seeing her is given by her husband’s deposition, who says that she saw the abductor when she was returning from the apartment, and not when she was going there. It was possible for her to see Jeremiah and Gerald without any of them seeing her, but only if she was coming from the back of the apartment, using the sliding window. In any case, the detailed identification that she gives of a possible abductor is impossible. See with your own eyes.
15.17 – Jane Tanner asserts that she clearly saw, at this distance and with this lack of light, five aspects:
First: she saw a dark-haired man, aged 35 to 40, slender, with dark hair falling down his neck.
Second: that man wore linen trousers colored between beige and golden.
Third: he wore a duffy jacket, but not as thick.
Fourth: he wore black classical shoes.
Fifth: the man walked in a hurry, with a child laying on his outstretched arms, a position that is more likely for a statue than for a person who walks carrying a child.
15.52 – Jane’s statements were the basis for the abduction theory. But for us, and later on, for the English police, they had doubtful value. How was it possible to see so much as such a distance, and under that light? How was it possible for Gerald and Jeremiah not to see Jane, or the abductor?
16.10 - This sighting has another problem: Jane saw the alleged abductor crossing Agostinho da Silva Street, and less than 30 minutes later, the Smith family also sees a man carrying a child, on Escola Primária Street, on the other side of the village, and walking into the opposite direction of the man that Jane had seen."
NOW FOR MY REPLY:
Looking at each bit would drive the thread in the wrong direction.
But specifically "14.29 – The second relevant contradiction is given by Jane Tanner’s deposition, who states she saw the abductor. One cannot understand how Jane Tanner passes Gerald and Jeremiah, and sees a man carrying a child, with both of them failing to see her and the abductor."
We have shown how this is possible in a previous thread.
"14.48 – The only possible explanation for them not seeing her is given by her husband’s deposition, who says that she saw the abductor when she was returning from the apartment, and not when she was going there. It was possible for her to see Jeremiah and Gerald without any of them seeing her, but only if she was coming from the back of the apartment, using the sliding window. In any case, the detailed identification that she gives of a possible abductor is impossible. See with your own eyes."
You might like to explain how you would get Jane to see a man walking from the left to the right in that situation?
Thirdly "15.17 – Jane Tanner asserts that she clearly saw, at this distance and with this lack of light, five aspects:"
What was the distance specified?
Fourthly : "16.10 - This sighting has another problem: Jane saw the alleged abductor crossing
Agostinho da Silva Street, and less than 30 minutes later, the Smith family also sees a man carrying a child, on Escola Primária Street, on the other side of the village, and walking into the opposite direction of the man that Jane had seen."
Wrong street. And why connect the two sightings?
