Gerry and Jez chat while Jane walks by. Seconds later she spots Tannerman!

[ferryman]

Where is the reference in the files to Jane's footwear?

I don't recall reading it.

Found it!

Jane Tanner's rogatory.

Erm, yeah, and I’d got cropped trousers on and just flip-flops, so I can remember sort of walking, I couldn’t walk that quickly because I’d got these silly flip-flops on and I couldn’t walk that, that well in them, so to speak.  Erm, and I walked, I was walking up the road and I can’t remember exactly, I know this,  I know, I think Gerry thinks he was somewhere different to where I think they were standing, but I was fairly sure, as I walked up the road, they were standing, one of them was in the road and one of them was just on the edge of the pavement, but I thought it was on the side of the road that I was walking, but I know Gerry thinks they were the other side. 


Particularly given that Jane Tanner is vindicated an honest witness who, indeed, passed by Gerry and Jez Wilkins as they chatted without being noticed I would cheerfully lay odds that this (yet another!) Levy corruption.

[Carew]

"I couldn’t walk that quickly because I’d got these silly flip-flops on and I couldn’t walk that, that well in them, so to speak."

I doubt she paid £50 for Sadie`s posh flip-flops, then going by that opinion!

The 50p noisy pair, slip-slapping along the way perhaps?

[John]

Oh come off it John.  There is no 'storming over' by Gerry. Be fair.   Jez Wilkins remembered the position as being similar to JT's and as I have mentioned before people do not stand rooted to the spot when they are talking and it could be that after 5 mins of chatting they were further across the road than they started and that was the impression left in Gerry's mind.   Who knows.

The fact is we know she saw them talking together as she was able to describe the scene she saw as she walked passed them.

If Gerry had his back to her and Jez happened to be looking down at his baby in his buggy when she passed - then it is not impossible IMO  that she was not seen in those couple of seconds.

If this was all part of a cunning plan then it goes without saying that Gerry would have said he saw Jayne.

IMO Jayne would be upset throughout that whole reconstruction - as it brought everything back to her about the events of that terrible night - including her blaming herself for not doing more at the time she saw the little girl being carried away.     Although IMO she had nothing to reproach herself for.

IIRC correctly she is giving this particular part of her evidence when the Police Officer reassured her that it was perfectly normal for different people to have different recollections of the same event.      (from memory so am happy to be corrected).

First off, Dave Edgar (the police officer) was a retired detective and was employed by the Madeleine Fund.

Jez was very clear about where they were standing and that was on the same side of the road as the apartments and just slightly up from the little lane.  Jane Tanner espoused the exact same locus.

Gerry was adamant that it all happened on the opposite side of the road so they can't all be right.  At least one of them must be delusional.

In actual fact, when what occurred is forensically analysed, a sceptic with a suspicious mind could be forgiven for thinking that Gerry intensionally stopped Jez in order to let Tannerman escape but the ever aloof Tanner slipped past and nearly bumped into him.

Is this the real reason why Gerry claimed to have not seen Jane?  Speaking as a sceptic of course!

[Benice]

Let's not forget JW had the pram with him. Far less likely IMO to be toing and froing across the road.

Just shows how differently we see things Buzz .  IMO having a baby in a buggy who you were trying to get to sleep would tend to involve keeping the buggy in motion rather than trying to keep it static.    Also that baby did provide a 'natural' focus of attention for both men to look at whilst talking.   

When I met a neighbour the other day who has recently become a new mum - I'm sure I was looking at the baby in his buggy far more than I was looking at his mum while we were talking about him.  It's a natural reaction IMO.   

As both Jayne and Jez agreed on where they were standing I think it's more likely that Gerry was the one who got it wrong.  But that does not mean anyone lied IMO.  Why would they?

[Benice]

First off, Dave Edgar (the police officer) was a retired detective and was employed by the Madeleine Fund.

Jez was very clear about where they were standing and that was on the same side of the road as the apartments and just slightly up from the little lane.  Jane Tanner espoused the exact same locus.

Gerry was adamant that it all happened on the opposite side of the road so they can't all be right.  At least one of them must be delusional.

In actual fact, when what occurred is forensically analysed, a sceptic with a suspicious mind could be forgiven for thinking that Gerry intensionally stopped Jez in order to let Tannerman escape but the ever aloof Tanner slipped past and nearly bumped into him.

Is this the real reason why Gerry claimed to have not seen Jane?

I posted my last post before I saw this one - but it moreorless answers your points I think John.

The police officer who assured Jane Tanner that it was normal for different people have different recollections of the same incident was the officer who interviewed her during her rogatory statement.    I have to go out now but I'll try to  find it later.

[pathfinder73]

No, I don't.

What do you mean she didn't say she was wearing flip flops? 

They were situated north of the path on her sketch. To get past them is impossible without being seen flip floppin or not!

[John]

I posted my last post before I saw this one - but it moreorless answers your points I think John.

The police officer who assured Jane Tanner that it was normal for different people have different recollections of the same incident was the officer who interviewed her during her rogatory statement.    I have to go out now but I'll try to  find it later.

Well as a former PO I will agree that people can genuinely get things wrong but not even remembering which side of the road they were on is taking it to extremes. Somebody is being economical with the truth.

[peter claridge]

Well as a former PO I will agree that people can genuinely get things wrong but not even remembering which side of the road they were on is taking it to extremes. Somebody is being economical with the truth.

That would be Jane Tanner and Gerry McCann then.  By the way John that's a very revealing drawing that Tanner supplied is it not.

[Brietta]

That would be Jane Tanner and Gerry McCann then.  By the way John that's a very revealing drawing that Tanner supplied is it not.

Sorry to be obtuse but you've lost me on this one, Peter.

I just see a not to scale drawing to illustrate the statement being made.

What is it that you find revealing?

[pathfinder73]

Sorry to be obtuse but you've lost me on this one, Peter.

I just see a not to scale drawing to illustrate the statement being made.

What is it that you find revealing?

Looking at her sketch maybe you can educate me and tell me how JT got past the two of them talking without bumping into them or being seen?

[ferryman]

Looking at her sketch maybe you can educate me and tell me how JT got past the two of them talking without bumping into them or being seen?

Ask Scotland Yard.

They believe Jane Tanner.

[pathfinder73]

Ask Scotland Yard.

They believe Jane Tanner.

And they've got rid of Tannerman thank god. Now they can concentrate on nailing the real abductor aka Smithman.

[John]

That would be Jane Tanner and Gerry McCann then.  By the way John that's a very revealing drawing that Tanner supplied is it not.

It is an excellent drawing which clearly shows where Gerry and Jez were when she passed them and where she was when she saw Tammerman.  Not sure what you mean by revealing though  8-)(--)

[peter claridge]

It is an excellent drawing which clearly shows where Gerry and Jez were when she passed them and where she was when she saw Tammerman.  Not sure what you mean by revealing though  8-)(--)

She shows the person she claims to have seen as coming from apartment 5A... how could she have known were he came from?

[Brietta]

She shows the person she claims to have seen as coming from apartment 5A... how could she have known were he came from?

I see that quite clearly on the sketch.

She has shown where she first sighted him, which I think is on the pavement beginning to cross the road.

She has shown where he was when she reached the top of the road prior to turning towards the apartments.

I do not think she has indicated starting point or destination.