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

[faithlilly]

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.

It appeared that Jane was weeping at the memory of seeing the abduction but it is obvious that the scene was cut that way to make it appear like that. If I’d been humiliated on nation television like Jane was by Gerry I’d have cried too.

In the end though it didn’t matter where any of them was standing because in all likelihood Tannerman wasn’t the abductor....but of course Gerry didn’t see that complication coming. I wish I could feel sorry for Edgar...the detective who wasn’t allowed access to the full files...but I don’t.

And yes there was four people in the street that night, unfortunately not all at the same time but, thank goodness all have been identified.

[barrier]

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

Only one child was described as fitting the description very close to that of Madeleine.

[G-Unit]

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.

What concensus? What fact? That's all your opinion, and one with which Gerry McCann disagrees.

[Vertigo Swirl]

To say that Jane was humiliated by Gerry on national TVis complete fantasy IMO.

[Brietta]

It appeared that Jane was weeping at the memory of seeing the abduction but it is obvious that the scene was cut that way to make it appear like that. If I’d been humiliated on nation television like Jane was by Gerry I’d have cried too.

In the end though it didn’t matter where any of them was standing because in all likelihood Tannerman wasn’t the abductor....but of course Gerry didn’t see that complication coming. I wish I could feel sorry for Edgar...the detective who wasn’t allowed access to the full files...but I don’t.

And yes there was four people in the street that night, unfortunately not all at the same time but, thank goodness all have been identified.

In believe your opinion piece to be so far removed from reality that it is less than an irrelevance.  But I wouldn't worry about it.  You weren't there.  But even people who were there sometimes got things wrong with the best will in the world.

Much as the member of staff at the Millennium who remembered Madeleine and the charming family with which she had such rapport, breakfasting there every morning.
But she was wrong.  The McCann family had breakfast there only on the first morning.

You see ~ just because a witness remembers something in a certain way doesn't mean it is correct.  And just because the error is recorded in the files doesn't make it true.
I'm not sure if you have grasped that.

[faithlilly]

In believe your opinion piece to be so far removed from reality that it is less than an irrelevance.  But I wouldn't worry about it.  You weren't there.  But even people who were there sometimes got things wrong with the best will in the world.

Much as the member of staff at the Millennium who remembered Madeleine and the charming family with which she had such rapport, breakfasting there every morning.
But she was wrong.  The McCann family had breakfast there only on the first morning.

You see ~ just because a witness remembers something in a certain way doesn't mean it is correct.  And just because the error is recorded in the files doesn't make it true.
I'm not sure if you have grasped that.

Of course I wasn’t there and that’s why I’m relying on the witness statements of people who were.

I’m not sure how one busy waitress, mistaking another family for the McCanns in any way has the same evidential value as two focused witnesses having identical recollections. Perhaps you can explain it to me ?

I’m sure you, like myself, can see the logic of putting faith in the recollection of two witnesses saying the same thing rather than the witness who differs. The mockumentary made it clear that Gerry had misremembered his position during the chat and equally as clear that he was going to double down on that recollection. Makes you wonder why when all the evidence was against him.

[Brietta]

Of course I wasn’t there and that’s why I’m relying on the witness statements of people who were.

I’m not sure how one busy waitress, mistaking another family for the McCanns in any way has the same evidential value as two focused witnesses having identical recollections. Perhaps you can explain it to me ?

I’m sure you, like myself, can see the logic of putting faith in the recollection of two witnesses saying the same thing rather than the witness who differs. The mockumentary made it clear that Gerry had misremembered his position during the chat and equally as clear that he was going to double down on that recollection. Makes you wonder why when all the evidence was against him.

The word is "documentary".

And as far as I am concerned your post merely confirms my opinion that you probably didn't grasp the concept that witnesses can be mistaken.

If I remember correctly ~ Jes didn't take part in the filming and if so what his opinion might have been when in situ during a reconstruction as Jane and Gerry were can only be speculation.

I think your comment regarding Gerry is risible and in my opinion is palpable in its antipathy for a person that you don't even know.
I find that most odd and quite mystifying.

We know that Jes and Gerry met and stopped to have a conversation.  Where in the street? does it really matter?

The important witness was Jane and the man she saw carrying a child away from the apartment block.  A scenario which immediately she heard of Madeleine's disappearance she associated with seeing Madeleine being kidnapped and she lived with that for a long, long time

Snip
Jane Tanner became the first of the McCanns' friends among the Tapas Seven to speak out publicly last night.

She told how she saw a man carrying a child at 9.15pm near the family's apartment on May 3, the night Madeleine vanished.

Jane, 38, said: "He had his face turned away from me, sort of sideways, and it was very dark.

"I just didn't see it properly. I wish to God I had.

"I wake up to that image every day. Every day I see him striding away, carrying Madeleine away.

"I try desperately to remember more detail, what his face was like. I think about it over and over.

"It's horrible. I didn't get a clear look at him. I registered his hair and clothes because that's what I could see.

"I have gone over and over that moment to try to remember more about him but I can't."
_________________________________________________________________________

She said: "My attention was drawn to the man because the child in his arms had bare feet.

"It was cold and I thought I would have had something on the child's feet, like a blanket.

"All I could see of the child was its legs and feet dangling. The man was 10 to 15 feet in front of me and was walking quite quickly.

"I never at that time thought it could be Madeleine."

An hour later, Jane was caring for her younger daughter, who had been sick in their apartment, when Kate McCann discovered Madeleine was missing.

Jane said: "I opened the door and saw all the commotion.

"I saw all our friends outside. One shouted at me 'Madeleine's gone.'

"The image of that man carrying the child came into my head and a feeling of complete horror washed over me.

"It seemed everyone thought Madeleine was hiding somewhere because they were all searching and shouting her name. I thought Kate believed that too. I knew if I told her about the man it would make her panic more.

"So I told another friend Fiona Payne. Fi was in such a panic shock I don't know if she took it in properly.
_________________________________________________________________________

 "At around 11.15pm two local policemen arrived and I told them immediately what I had seen.

"I described the man and the direction he was coming from and where he was going to.

Later I went to the police HQ to give a formal statement. It was then that I remembered the child's pyjamas were pink and white.

"I didn't know it then but they were what Madeleine was wearing. When I did find out I was totally stricken by guilt.

"I felt I could have stopped it all happening.

"Kate and Gerry have told me I shouldn't feel like that but the guilt will never go away."
_________________________________________________________________________

Jane explained why she decided to speak out. She said: "There have been so many lies printed about us, that we are 'covering up' for Kate and Gerry or that we keep wanting to change our statements.

"Now I feel it has got to the point that these untruths are jeopardising the hunt for Madeleine

"People might think that it was all made up. That's why I am speaking now, for Madeleine's sake.

"I did see a man that night carrying away Madeleine, she WAS abducted.
_________________________________________________________________________

"Kate and Gerry are doting parents. To make them suspects is horrific.

"They had absolutely nothing to do with Madeleine going.

"We were there. There was no opportunity for them to hide a body, as has been suggested, or any of the other ridiculous accusations.

"I just wish people would concentrate of what is important and that is finding Madeleine.

"All the lies and the slating have been totally unbearable for us. I can't even begin to imagine what it has been like for Kate and Gerry.


"I marvel at how they keep going. What does it, I think, is their total, unshakeable belief that they will get Madeleine back."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccann-pals-guilt-522326



Yet here we are thirteen+ years down the line and still I think there are those who have missed the point Jane made so forcibly all those year ago
"I just wish people would concentrate of what is important and that is finding Madeleine."

And I think it is only adding insult to injury to assert that Jane was distraught for any other reason than reliving the trauma of witnessing a child being carried away.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Isn’t the so-called “mocumentary” called that because it presents facts supporting the abduction and the McCanns?  If that is the case why would it include footage of Gerry supposedly bullying a witness to tears?  It’s utter nonsense to suggest it would, but that is what some have chosen to believe (and promote) for many, many years.  Some people really could do with a dose of smelling salts imo.

[G-Unit]

The word is "documentary".

And as far as I am concerned your post merely confirms my opinion that you probably didn't grasp the concept that witnesses can be mistaken.

If I remember correctly ~ Jes didn't take part in the filming and if so what his opinion might have been when in situ during a reconstruction as Jane and Gerry were can only be speculation.

I think your comment regarding Gerry is risible and in my opinion is palpable in its antipathy for a person that you don't even know.
I find that most odd and quite mystifying.

We know that Jes and Gerry met and stopped to have a conversation.  Where in the street? does it really matter?

The important witness was Jane and the man she saw carrying a child away from the apartment block.  A scenario which immediately she heard of Madeleine's disappearance she associated with seeing Madeleine being kidnapped and she lived with that for a long, long time

Snip
Jane Tanner became the first of the McCanns' friends among the Tapas Seven to speak out publicly last night.

She told how she saw a man carrying a child at 9.15pm near the family's apartment on May 3, the night Madeleine vanished.

Jane, 38, said: "He had his face turned away from me, sort of sideways, and it was very dark.

"I just didn't see it properly. I wish to God I had.

"I wake up to that image every day. Every day I see him striding away, carrying Madeleine away.

"I try desperately to remember more detail, what his face was like. I think about it over and over.

"It's horrible. I didn't get a clear look at him. I registered his hair and clothes because that's what I could see.

"I have gone over and over that moment to try to remember more about him but I can't."
_________________________________________________________________________

She said: "My attention was drawn to the man because the child in his arms had bare feet.

"It was cold and I thought I would have had something on the child's feet, like a blanket.

"All I could see of the child was its legs and feet dangling. The man was 10 to 15 feet in front of me and was walking quite quickly.

"I never at that time thought it could be Madeleine."

An hour later, Jane was caring for her younger daughter, who had been sick in their apartment, when Kate McCann discovered Madeleine was missing.

Jane said: "I opened the door and saw all the commotion.

"I saw all our friends outside. One shouted at me 'Madeleine's gone.'

"The image of that man carrying the child came into my head and a feeling of complete horror washed over me.

"It seemed everyone thought Madeleine was hiding somewhere because they were all searching and shouting her name. I thought Kate believed that too. I knew if I told her about the man it would make her panic more.

"So I told another friend Fiona Payne. Fi was in such a panic shock I don't know if she took it in properly.
_________________________________________________________________________

 "At around 11.15pm two local policemen arrived and I told them immediately what I had seen.

"I described the man and the direction he was coming from and where he was going to.

Later I went to the police HQ to give a formal statement. It was then that I remembered the child's pyjamas were pink and white.

"I didn't know it then but they were what Madeleine was wearing. When I did find out I was totally stricken by guilt.

"I felt I could have stopped it all happening.

"Kate and Gerry have told me I shouldn't feel like that but the guilt will never go away."
_________________________________________________________________________

Jane explained why she decided to speak out. She said: "There have been so many lies printed about us, that we are 'covering up' for Kate and Gerry or that we keep wanting to change our statements.

"Now I feel it has got to the point that these untruths are jeopardising the hunt for Madeleine

"People might think that it was all made up. That's why I am speaking now, for Madeleine's sake.

"I did see a man that night carrying away Madeleine, she WAS abducted.
_________________________________________________________________________

"Kate and Gerry are doting parents. To make them suspects is horrific.

"They had absolutely nothing to do with Madeleine going.

"We were there. There was no opportunity for them to hide a body, as has been suggested, or any of the other ridiculous accusations.

"I just wish people would concentrate of what is important and that is finding Madeleine.

"All the lies and the slating have been totally unbearable for us. I can't even begin to imagine what it has been like for Kate and Gerry.


"I marvel at how they keep going. What does it, I think, is their total, unshakeable belief that they will get Madeleine back."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccann-pals-guilt-522326



Yet here we are thirteen+ years down the line and still I think there are those who have missed the point Jane made so forcibly all those year ago
"I just wish people would concentrate of what is important and that is finding Madeleine."

And I think it is only adding insult to injury to assert that Jane was distraught for any other reason than reliving the trauma of witnessing a child being carried away.

 Witnesses can be mistaken. It's when they change their evidence that a red flag is raised. Why did Jane Tanner change her story from the two men chatting north of the 5A garden gate to chatting at the entrance to the path, 30 feet away?

[Mr Gray]

Witnesses can be mistaken. It's when they change their evidence that a red flag is raised. Why did Jane Tanner change her story from the two men chatting north of the 5A garden gate to chatting at the entrance to the path, 30 feet away?

Perhaps she's lying to cover up the occultation of a child's body...or two.. if Robs onto something

[Vertigo Swirl]

Witnesses can be mistaken. It's when they change their evidence that a red flag is raised. Why did Jane Tanner change her story from the two men chatting north of the 5A garden gate to chatting at the entrance to the path, 30 feet away?

“Conspiracy theories exhibit a strong obsession with detail, often taking the form of highlighting a tiny piece of evidence and blowing it up out of all proportion, buttressing their claims with a display of pseudo-scholarship.  When they examine the real evidence, conspiracy theorists do not accept that minor inconsistencies come from mistakes in reporting.” Sir Richard J Evans, author and historian

[G-Unit]

“Conspiracy theories exhibit a strong obsession with detail, often taking the form of highlighting a tiny piece of evidence and blowing it up out of all proportion, buttressing their claims with a display of pseudo-scholarship.  When they examine the real evidence, conspiracy theorists do not accept that minor inconsistencies come from mistakes in reporting.” Sir Richard J Evans, author and historian

Is that supposed to be relevant? The real evidence shows that a witness changed her story, but not why.

[Robittybob1]

Witnesses can be mistaken. It's when they change their evidence that a red flag is raised. Why did Jane Tanner change her story from the two men chatting north of the 5A garden gate to chatting at the entrance to the path, 30 feet away?

Did she actually use the word "North"?   Some people have a terrible sense of direction.

[Robittybob1]

Perhaps she's lying to cover up the occultation of a child's body...or two.. if Robs onto something

I'm surprised you said that. 

[G-Unit]

Did she actually use the word "North"?   Some people have a terrible sense of direction.

No she didn't, but there's no doubt what she was saying;

2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm