Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB

[Brietta]

Collaboration is a slur ? We have empirical evidence of it with the timeline handed into the PJ on the 10th of May.
If they had collaborated they would have made a better job of it ? They did collaborate on the 10th of May timeline and Gerry still managed to be on a different side of the road to that claimed later.

As I said a fast moving story.

The important point is that Gerry was on the road.  Exactly as was Jes Wilkins and his son.  As was jane Tanner and at the junction was a man carrying a female child away from Block 5.

Now all we need to know are the whereabouts of Brueckner in this "fast moving story" which for some hasn't budged a centimetre since 2007.

[G-Unit]

The important point is that Gerry was on the road.  Exactly as was Jes Wilkins and his son.  As was jane Tanner and at the junction was a man carrying a female child away from Block 5.

Now all we need to know are the whereabouts of Brueckner in this "fast moving story" which for some hasn't budged a centimetre since 2007.

What is important about Gerry McCann being on the road?

[faithlilly]

The important point is that Gerry was on the road.  Exactly as was Jes Wilkins and his son.  As was jane Tanner and at the junction was a man carrying a female child away from Block 5.

Now all we need to know are the whereabouts of Brueckner in this "fast moving story" which for some hasn't budged a centimetre since 2007.

Glad you didn’t try to argue the collaboration point.

The important point is that two witnesses put Gerry and Jez directly outside 5a while Gerry put himself on the other side of the road, a position that he didn’t seem to hold on the 10th of May timeline. I just wonder what was said to Gerry by the police in that interview to make him change his position and undermine his credibility?

[Brietta]

What is important about Gerry McCann being on the road?

Perhaps you would be better asking faithlilly that ~ she seemed to think it of import or she wouldn't have raised it.

[faithlilly]

Perhaps you would be better asking faithlilly that ~ she seemed to think it of import or she wouldn't have raised it.

Imagine your little girl is missing, feared abducted. You decide to film a reconstruction to jog people’s memories but your recollection is different from two other witnesses. Would you a) accept that your memory is wrong and go along with the similar recollection of the other two witnesses or b) dig your heels in, insist that you are right and undermine the memory and credibility of the only witness who, perhaps, saw the abductor ?

It was certainly important to Gerry were he stood as he was so insistent that he was right, no matter what the consequences. IMO by the time he got to the police station on the 10th he knew that the PJ weren’t convinced that Tanner could have passed, unseen, by Jez and himself and had to change position. Pity he couldn’t get the other witnesses to agree. Poor Jane, her tears said it all.

[Brietta]

Imagine your little girl is missing, feared abducted. You decide to film a reconstruction to jog people’s memories but your recollection is different from two other witnesses. Would you a) accept that your memory is wrong and go along with the similar recollection of the other two witnesses or b) dig your heels in, insist that you are right and undermine the memory and credibility of the only witness who, perhaps, saw the abductor ?

It was certainly important to Gerry were he stood as he was so insistent that he was right, no matter what the consequences. IMO by the time he got to the police station on the 10th he knew that the PJ weren’t convinced that Tanner could have passed, unseen, by Jez and himself and had to change position. Pity he couldn’t get the other witnesses to agree. Poor Jane, her tears said it all.

Please stop making it up to suit yourself as you go along.

Jane's tears were for Madeleine ... and if you had watched the programme and listened without bias to what Jane said you would have heard her distress at the thought she might have been able to stop Madeleine's abduction.

You might also have heard it being said that it didn't matter where the men were standing.  It was where Jane was walking that was important.  It was of importance where she was when she saw the man carrying the child away from the apartment Block where Gerry had just seen his daughter unbeknownst to him for the last time.

We know where four people were in the street that night albeit one of whom was anonymous.  We know the whereabouts of the other seven.
What we don't know is where Brueckner was.  I'm interested in the answer to that but then I'm not a fly in aspic.

[Angelo222]

Please stop making it up to suit yourself as you go along.

Jane's tears were for Madeleine ... and if you had watched the programme and listened without bias to what Jane said you would have heard her distress at the thought she might have been able to stop Madeleine's abduction.

You might also have heard it being said that it didn't matter where the men were standing.  It was where Jane was walking that was important.  It was of importance where she was when she saw the man carrying the child away from the apartment Block where Gerry had just seen his daughter unbeknownst to him for the last time.

We know where four people were in the street that night albeit one of whom was anonymous.  We know the whereabouts of the other seven.
What we don't know is where Brueckner was.  I'm interested in the answer to that but then I'm not a fly in aspic.

Amaral insists that Tanner never passed the men which would fit in with what they have said about the incident. Neither saw her.

[barrier]

The important point is that Gerry was on the road.  Exactly as was Jes Wilkins and his son.  As was jane Tanner and at the junction was a man carrying a female child away from Block 5.

Now all we need to know are the whereabouts of Brueckner in this "fast moving story" which for some hasn't budged a centimetre since 2007.

Who? determined the sex of the child being carried by Tannerman.

[Robittybob1]

Who? determined the sex of the child being carried by Tannerman.

I think it was an assumption based on the description of the pajamas.  Good point though. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Amaral insists that Tanner never passed the men which would fit in with what they have said about the incident. Neither saw her.

Amaral wasn’t there, so he’s in no position to insist anything.

[Myster]

Please stop making it up to suit yourself as you go along.

Jane's tears were for Madeleine ... and if you had watched the programme and listened without bias to what Jane said you would have heard her distress at the thought she might have been able to stop Madeleine's abduction.

You might also have heard it being said that it didn't matter where the men were standing.  It was where Jane was walking that was important.  It was of importance where she was when she saw the man carrying the child away from the apartment Block where Gerry had just seen his daughter unbeknownst to him for the last time.

We know where four people were in the street that night albeit one of whom was anonymous.  We know the whereabouts of the other seven.
What we don't know is where Brueckner was.  I'm interested in the answer to that but then I'm not a fly in aspic.

Absolutely... there's no mistaking why Jane Tanner was so upset.

The full "Madeleine was here" programme has been deleted from YouTube and elsewhere (copyright reasons), but I managed to upload a saved copy from my computer. Better save it to your own before it disappears again because MediaFire will probably only store it for 14 days.  The relevant JT part begins at around 11:00 minutes in...

http://www.mediafire.com/file/98pimywdqfljk0k/Madeleine_McCann.webm/file

[G-Unit]

Perhaps you would be better asking faithlilly that ~ she seemed to think it of import or she wouldn't have raised it.

I'm asking the person who said it;

"The important point is that Gerry was on the road."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg623942#msg623942

[The General]

Absolutely... there's no mistaking why Jane Tanner was so upset.

The full "Madeleine was here" programme has been deleted from YouTube and elsewhere (copyright reasons), but I managed to upload a saved copy from my computer. Better save it to your own before it disappears again because MediaFire will probably only store it for 14 days.  The relevant JT part begins at around 11:00 minutes in...

http://www.mediafire.com/file/98pimywdqfljk0k/Madeleine_McCann.webm/file

I think Jane was upset because she was being browbeaten by Gerry on camera and she disagreed.

[Brietta]

Amaral insists that Tanner never passed the men which would fit in with what they have said about the incident. Neither saw her.

In my opinion just another fallacy from Amaral in an investigation he littered with them.

If they didn't see Jane she certainly saw them and of paramount importance was the man she saw carrying a child away from the apartment block from which it was later discovered a child had gone missing.

[G-Unit]

I think Jane was upset because she was being browbeaten by Gerry on camera and she disagreed.

No wonder. She's standing at the entrance to the path between block 5 and the Tapas complex. On 4th May the cross on her diagram showing the position of the two men was north of that spot. Her contribution to the team timeline before 10th May placed the men north of the gate to 5A. In her rogatory interview she contradicts the team timeline and places them south of the gate, but not specifically at the entrance to the path. In my opinion she has either no idea where the men were or she has changed her account for reasons unknown.