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

[Brietta]

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?

No idea, Pathfinder.

Both men say they met and stopped to chat.
This is confirmed by an observant Jane Tanner.

Neither of the men noticed her passing although she saw them.

If Dr McCann thinks their position was different from that affirmed by Jane and Jez my opinion is that he was mistaken, and that is all the significance I attach to it, he made an honest error. 

The sort of error that can be made much of in discrepancies in witness statements, but an honest mistake none the less.

[peter claridge]

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.

She has drawn apartment 5A and then a line from there sweeping around the car park terminating on the footpath pointing in the direction of her claimed sighting!

[John]

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

That would have been an assumption on her behalf.  As it stands according to DCI Redwood that assumption was a mistake as they believe the man she saw was probably (but not definitely) an innocent tourist.

[John]

Lets look at what occurred on the basis that the man Jane saw was actually carrying Madeleine.

Gerry claims to have gone into the apartment and had a visual check on all three sleeping children, goes to the loo and then leaves closing the patio door behind him. He closes the child gate, walks down the steps and closes the street gate before meeting Jez.  Jane passes them both and a few seconds later spies a guy in front of her carrying a child.

It would it have taken Gerry about 20 seconds to move from the patio to the encounter with Jez.  If someone had been watching the apartment in order to give the 'all clear' signal then Gerry emerging onto the street would have been the point at which this would have been given.

Unfortunately, we don't know how long Gerry and Jez were chatting before Jane passed them but lets assume about a minute.  That therefore allows the abductor just over a minute to get into the apartment, open the window and shutter, lift Madeleine and exit va the front door only to then be seen by Jane.

But is this feasible?

[peter claridge]

Lets look at what occurred on the basis that the man Jane saw was actually carrying Madeleine.

Gerry claims to have gone into the apartment and had a visual check on all three sleeping children, goes to the loo and then leaves closing the patio door behind him. He closes the child gate, walks down the steps and closes the street gate before meeting Jez.  Jane passes them both and a few seconds later spies a guy in front of her carrying a child.

It would it have taken Gerry about 20 seconds to move from the patio to the encounter with Jez.  If someone had been watching the apartment in order to give the 'all clear' signal then Gerry emerging onto the street would have been the point at which this would have been given.

Unfortunately, we don't know how long Gerry and Jez were chatting before Jane passed them but lets assume about a minute.  That therefore allows the abductor just over a minute to get into the apartment, open the window and shutter, lift Madeleine and exit va the front door only to then be seen by Jane.

But is this feasible?

McCann didn't think so (after a period of reflection), this is why we had the scenario of the abductor entering through the unlocked patio doors (originally stated as so to allow for Oldfield to do the impossible check) and Gerry telling us that he sensed that there was someone in the apartment; this also led to a change from having a clear view of the rear of the apartment to, looking the other way!

[pathfinder73]

SY don't have to worry about all that now. Amaral was right - JT is an unreliable witness. It's impossible to pass as she claimed. That nonsense wouldn't stand up in court.

JT Rog - conversations at tapas table 3 May

4078    “Did the other couples discuss any of their children, anything worthy of comment?”
 Reply    “Erm, no, I don’t think so.  I think, I think Kate and Gerry might have said theirs were tired too because normally they, as I say, normally they would have probably still, when we’d all been, after tea, but they’d actually probably gone to bed a bit earlier than normal I think.  I think when I’d said to Kate about Ella having a complete flip, I think, you know, she sort of said ‘Oh yeah, they were, they were tired’, but nothing. I mean, again, I could be just making that up, to be honest.  But I think everybody was saying their children were tired, you know, because of having such full days, you know, I mean, they were sailing and doing all these things that they don’t normally do, so they were they were tried”.

[pathfinder73]

They are situated above the pathway in both JT's and JW's sketch so what's up? How was that proved to be incorrect when they both agree on where they were roughly?

[sadie]

Thank you pathfinder. 

THe upper image is the drawing by Jez which goes with my long post above, where the red cross is.  It shows Gerry and Jez clearly positioned on the alleyway corner.

[icabodcrane]

Sadie

Let's get this straight

You are rejecting Jane Tanner's statement/drawing for no other reason than it  does not  'fit' your theory

Is that correct  ?   

[pathfinder73]

"At this time they were stood with Gerry’s back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him." JW

[sadie]

Sadie

Let's get this straight

You are rejecting Jane Tanner's statement/drawing for no other reason than it  does not  'fit' your theory

Is that correct  ?

I am rejecting her drawing because if you take the time to watch the video you will see very clearly where Jane saw Jez and Gerry.  She is adamant.    The drawing was done somewhere indoors and she had no special datum to locate the position there.

Jez describes it in detail, how he and Gerry got there and furthermore draws it on the corner which he has just described.  Jane confirms very adamantly

THree compelling and definite pointers all to the same place

Any problems with that Icabod?

[sadie]

I am rejecting her drawing because if you take the time to watch the video you will see very clearly where Jane saw Jez and Gerry.  She is adamant.    The drawing was done somewhere indoors and she had no special datum to locate the position there.

Jez describes it in detail, how he and Gerry got there and furthermore draws it on the corner which he has just described.  Jane confirms very adamantly

THree compelling and definite pointers all to the same place

Any problems with that Icabod?

THis position is very important because it identifies the only two places that I can see where a watcher could have been able to see certain places  ( 5A patio and the Tapas reception exit)  but NOT see another place (where they were chatting)

These criteria had to have been in place for the watcher to have failed to warn Tannerman.  If my theory, or a similar one, is correct then the watcher had to be able to see BOTH the Tapas reception and the patio BUT NOT SEE Gerry and Jez.

[Anna]

I am rejecting her drawing because if you take the time to watch the video you will see very clearly where Jane saw Jez and Gerry.  She is adamant.    The drawing was done somewhere indoors and she had no special datum to locate the position there.

Jez describes it in detail, how he and Gerry got there and furthermore draws it on the corner which he has just described.  Jane confirms very adamantly

THree compelling and definite pointers all to the same place

Any problems with that Icabod?

Fantastic job there Sadie 

[peter claridge]

THis position is very important because it identifies the only two places that I can see where a watcher could have been able to see certain places  ( 5A patio and the Tapas reception exit)  but NOT see another place (where they were chatting)

These criteria had to have been in place for the watcher to have failed to warn Tannerman.  If my theory, or a similar one, is correct then the watcher had to be able to see BOTH the Tapas reception and the patio BUT NOT SEE Gerry and Jez.

So "the watcher" couldn't have failed to have seen the approaching Tanner?

[sadie]

So "the watcher" couldn't have failed to have seen the approaching Tanner?

Having verified that Gerry had left the apartment, and seen him down the sterps setting off for the restaurant, the watcher went to the getaway car. Peter


Read "Sadies theory", if you want to know more about what I think may have happened.