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

[Brietta]

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.

You think it is all so simple but I think you really underestimate the trauma this principal witness was undergoing.

She was being asked to relive on location an event which she firmly believed was the abduction of a child.  What a pity you appear to be intent on denigrating she and her evidence even further than she and it has been.

[kizzy]

Don't you think that master criminals as sceptics think they are would have put their heads together and made sure they were all word perfect.

In my opinion that would have been cause for suspicion.

They want master criminals were they. just parents who left the children alone.

Seems in my opinion the griff of being word-perfect was rectified in the conflicting statements later.

IMO word perfect would be more achievable if you are telling the truth.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

Here's a true story for you.  Believe it or not, I don't really care, I know it's the truth and that's all that matters.  I was verbally assaulted on my walk home by two lads on bicycles, on two separate occasions, on the same stretch of road.  Turns out these kids were intimidating other pedestrians over the course of several weeks and when I found out I reported my experience to the police.  They asked me where the incidents had taken place.  I gave a rough approximation of the two locations ( a few dozen yards apart) that the attacks had occurred.  There was CCTV footage available for one of the locations, and whilst it caught me walking past, it did not capture any incident, only the boys on bicycles passing by a few minutes later.  I couldn't be precise in my recall, even though the incidents were only a week part, the most recent reported the same evening.  Does that mean the incident was a figment of my imagination?

[G-Unit]

You think it is all so simple but I think you really underestimate the trauma this principal witness was undergoing.

She was being asked to relive on location an event which she firmly believed was the abduction of a child.  What a pity you appear to be intent on denigrating she and her evidence even further than she and it has been.

It clearly wasn't simple. Jane Tanner thought she knew what she had seen on 3rd May, but for some reason she found herself saying she saw the men talking 16 metres away from the location she had testified to in 2007.

Then she found herself being overruled and being told that she was still mistaken. The men, she was now told, were 9 metres away from where she thought they were and on the other side of the road.

I expect that must that have been traumatising, it also added to the already existing doubts that she was a reliable witness. I'm not denigrating her evidence, merely pointing out who did.

[kizzy]

Here's a true story for you.  Believe it or not, I don't really care, I know it's the truth and that's all that matters.  I was verbally assaulted on my walk home by two lads on bicycles, on two separate occasions, on the same stretch of road.  Turns out these kids were intimidating other pedestrians over the course of several weeks and when I found out I reported my experience to the police.  They asked me where the incidents had taken place.  I gave a rough approximation of the two locations ( a few dozen yards apart) that the attacks had occurred.  There was CCTV footage available for one of the locations, and whilst it caught me walking past, it did not capture any incident, only the boys on bicycles passing by a few minutes later.  I couldn't be precise in my recall, even though the incidents were only a week part, the most recent reported the same evening.  Does that mean the incident was a figment of my imagination?

Oh sorry to hear of your ordeal,

No, it wasn't a figment of your imagination you remember it happening clearly...but

it just shows you you can't be precise with times like we are supposed to be expected to do for the timeline.

Like you say rough approximation.

When 5 mins here or there could make alll the difference, instead as it being punctual on the dot.

[sadie]

It clearly wasn't simple. Jane Tanner thought she knew what she had seen on 3rd May, but for some reason she found herself saying she saw the men talking 16 metres away from the location she had testified to in 2007.

Then she found herself being overruled and being told that she was still mistaken. The men, she was now told, were 9 metres away from where she thought they were and on the other side of the road.

I expect that must that have been traumatising, it also added to the already existing doubts that she was a reliable witness. I'm not denigrating her evidence, merely pointing out who did.

This has been gone over time and time again, as you well know Gunit.   It has been thoroughly analysed with the consensus being that Gerry and Jez were chatting , with Jez and baby standing in the road and Gerry half in the road.   They were positioned adjacent to the walkway leading to the back of the apartments.  As The carpenters, IIRC, talked  about a number of vehicles uphill of the tapas reception, they must have been standing between parked vehicles.

Cant think why you are trying to change what has now become a fact, thanks to the analyses of different statements, videos and maps, which overwhelmingly place it the edge of the pavement and into the road beyond, right by the alleyway.   



Even Amaral is clear about where Jane passed Gerry and Jez.   He is shown on video actually at the spot demonstrating where Gerry and Jez stood.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Oh sorry to hear of your ordeal,

No, it wasn't a figment of your imagination you remember it happening clearly...but

it just shows you you can't be precise with times like we are supposed to be expected to do for the timeline.

Like you say rough approximation.

When 5 mins here or there could make alll the difference, instead as it being punctual on the dot.

This is exactly my point.  Expecting witnesses to have perfect recall is unfair on them.  It doesn't mean they are lying when their witness statments contradict others, just that their recall is imperfect.

[jassi]

So Gerry could have been mistaken over where he was standing.

[kizzy]

So Gerry could have been mistaken over where he was standing.

Or the time he left the tapas.

[Wonderfulspam]

So Gerry could have been mistaken over where he was standing.

Or the time he left the tapas.

& whether he did it or not.

[Eleanor]

Or the time he left the tapas.

Along with Jez Wilkins and Jane Tanner?

[jassi]

Along with Jez Wilkins and Jane Tanner?

Jez was very vague about timings, so not overly reliable on the old chronology.

[Eleanor]

Jez was very vague about timings, so not overly reliable on the old chronology.

But you would agree that they were there.

[Vertigo Swirl]

So Gerry could have been mistaken over where he was standing.

Of course he could - and why would this be significant?  Faithlilly won't have it that he's mistaken however, she believes he deliberately places himself a few feet away from the actual spot he was standing, for reasons which are so convoluted as to be quite absurd.

[Robittybob1]

What is important about Gerry McCann being on the road?

Well as I suggest, he is better off being seen outside the apartment rather than down near where the Smiths were dining.