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

[sadie]

You're welcome Sadie. Any time. No, no, it was no trouble measuring, searching for average heights, supplying links and so on.

You'll find that I used the full length jamma picture. I's the third link in my post to you.

I've gone back three pages and I dont see it.  Can you direct me tpwards it please



Gotta go out ...soz

[Cariad]

I've gone back three pages and I dont see it.  Can you direct me tpwards it please



Gotta go out ...soz

Reply #326 on: April 24, 2014, 12:41:26 PM »
QuoteModify
Quote from: sadie on April 24, 2014, 12:17:56 PM
I appreciate what you are saying, but have you looked at a photo of the full length of the legs?

Hven't got atm to sort one out, but they look like jamies for a seven to eleven year old to me.  Long long legs


Not like two year old jamoes at all.

Ok, I've just measured my floorboards and they're 19.3 cm's wide. according to netmums, the average 2 year old is 87 cm's tall.

http://www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/children-parenting-190/toddlers-pre-schoolers-12-months-4-years-59/399503-what-average-height-2-yr-old-all.html

and the average height of a 3 year old is 94 cm's.

http://www.babycenter.com/400_what-is-the-average-height-of-a-3-year-40-month-old-girl_9291965_776.bc

So Innocentman's daught will be somewhere in that range.

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/8428/7bs2.jpg

That photo of the full legs of the pj bottoms covers roughly 3 floorboards (19.3 x 3= 57.9 cm's)

from the waist down makes up about 3/5 of the overall height so it works out about right for a 2/3 year old.


(The things I'll do to put off the hoovering!)
Modify message

[sadie]

Reply #326 on: April 24, 2014, 12:41:26 PM »
QuoteModify
Quote from: sadie on April 24, 2014, 12:17:56 PM
I appreciate what you are saying, but have you looked at a photo of the full length of the legs?

Hven't got atm to sort one out, but they look like jamies for a seven to eleven year old to me.  Long long legs


Not like two year old jamoes at all.

Ok, I've just measured my floorboards and they're 19.3 cm's wide. according to netmums, the average 2 year old is 87 cm's tall.

http://www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/children-parenting-190/toddlers-pre-schoolers-12-months-4-years-59/399503-what-average-height-2-yr-old-all.html

and the average height of a 3 year old is 94 cm's.

http://www.babycenter.com/400_what-is-the-average-height-of-a-3-year-40-month-old-girl_9291965_776.bc

So Innocentman's daught will be somewhere in that range.

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/8428/7bs2.jpg

That photo of the full legs of the pj bottoms covers roughly 3 floorboards (19.3 x 3= 57.9 cm's)

from the waist down makes up about 3/5 of the overall height so it works out about right for a 2/3 year old.


(The things I'll do to put off the hoovering!)Modify message

(The things I'll do to put off the hoovering!)

Well we agree on one thing !

[John]

There is no way out (that I can see) from Had SY been muddled and thought that the Creche, from which Innocent man picked his child up, was by the tennis Courts within the Tapas garden area, then how did he get out of the walled garden?  I have looked closely at GE and I can find no other exit or entrance other than via the Tapas Reception

That means Innocentman would have preceded Jane up the Rua Francisco Gentil Martins and she would have been following him all the way up.

No, I think SY are referring to the correct night creche.

I understand what you are saying Sadie but there is no reasonable plausible explanation that I can come up with to explain why he was walking in the wrong direction at 9.15pm on a cold night carrying a scantily clad child in such a manner.

The PJ didn't believe his story either apparently so you are in agreement with Gonçalo for once.

[pegasus]

A possible explanation of innocentman's location and direction as stated (truthfully IMO) by JT.
All just IMO.

1. Innocentman walks to creche to collect his child.
2. At same time another parent arrives at creche to pick up a child.
3. Innocentman and other adult have probably already met and chatted previously during the week's holiday.
3. As the two adults have apartments in same general direction relative to creche they walk away from creche together, each with their respective child, and chat while walking.
4. Innocentman accompanies the other adult, each with their respective child, chatting while they walk, to entrance of the other adult's apartment block.
5. Innocentman then turns round and walks back to his apartment with his child (and JT sees him crossing the t-junction)

This explanation requires no conspiracy, it is just normal being social with fellow holidaymaker parent, and it would account for where JT saw innocentman, and why he was walking the direction he was.
If this is the correct explanation, it would IMO require the other creche parent's apartment block to be G4.

[pathfinder73]

SY wouldn't have cleared him unless he was properly investigated. The pyjamas are the giveaway that she did see crecheman (the man pictured at the beach). I don't have a problem with that only that she passed two who didn't see her. That was impossible to pass where she said IMO going from Jez statement being light enough to see clearly (light situated behind them on that street).  But it does go to show that some don't have much trust in SY doing the job right. And with Smithman morphing into fat pot belly man I don't blame them 

[pegasus]

The "flipflop" style footwear was IMO not audible. So all it takes is for JW to happen to look in a different direction for several seconds IMO, for example at child in buggy, and he can miss someone walking by. As for physical space, IMO he is on roadway and GM on edge of pavement, so IMO plenty of physical gap for a person to walk along pavement past them.

[John]

A possible explanation of innocentman's location and direction as stated (truthfully IMO) by JT.
All just IMO.

1. Innocentman walks to creche to collect his child.
2. At same time another parent arrives at creche to pick up a child.
3. Innocentman and other adult have probably already met and chatted previously during the week's holiday.
3. As the two adults have apartments in same general direction relative to creche they walk away from creche together, each with their respective child, and chat while walking.
4. Innocentman accompanies the other adult, each with their respective child, chatting while they walk, to entrance of the other adult's apartment block.
5. Innocentman then turns round and walks back to his apartment with his child (and JT sees him crossing the t-junction)

This explanation requires no conspiracy, it is just normal being social with fellow holidaymaker parent, and it would account for where JT saw innocentman, and why he was walking the direction he was.
If this is the correct explanation, it would IMO require the other creche parent's apartment block to be G4.

In such a situation they would have walked past Gerry and Jez or failing that they would have at the very least separated at the top of the street, one turning left and the other right.  Would be interesting though to know if such a man exists who can corroborate Innocentman's story.

[John]

The "flipflop" style footwear was IMO not audible. So all it takes is for JW to happen to look in a different direction for several seconds IMO, for example at child in buggy, and he can miss someone walking by. As for physical space, IMO he is on roadway and GM on edge of pavement, so IMO plenty of physical gap for a person to walk along pavement past them.

I second that, Jez probably had his nose in the buggy as Jane slithered by.

[pathfinder73]

I second that, Jez probably had his nose in the buggy as Jane slithered by.

A reconstruction would have covered what they were doing and they could've seen JT coming from a good distance away. He was adamant in his statement that he saw nobody in the area never mind anybody passing by under his nose. A reconstruction would make a mockery of her claim that she passed them without either noticing. Maybe they both had their heads stuck in the buggy but I very much doubt it 

[Wonderfulspam]

The good news is that Kate carried out her own reconstruction,

Mrs McCann also admits to turning 'amateur detective' during a return visit to the resort, getting a friend to re-enact the sighting of a man seen carrying a child, believed to be madeleine, as he walked away from the apartment on the night the little girl vanished.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/8500353/Kate-McCann-accuses-Algarve-police-of-sex-abuse-cover-up.html

[icabodcrane]

A reconstruction would have covered what they were doing and they could've seen JT coming from a good distance away. He was adamant in his statement that he saw nobody in the area never mind anybody passing by under his nose. A reconstruction would make a mockery of her claim that she passed them without either noticing. Maybe they both had their heads stuck in the buggy but I very much doubt it 

Peripheral vision seems to have been discounted for some reason ...   that part of vision that occurs outside the centre of gaze    (  try looking intently at something a foot or two in front of you and notice how much else is in your field of view   ) 

Are we assuming that both Gerry and Jez suffer from 'tunnel vision'  ?  ...  because for neither of them to have noticed Jane at any point whilst she walked the length of that street,  they would  have  to be

[Cornelius]

Peripheral vision seems to have been discounted for some reason ...   that part of vision that occurs outside the centre of gaze    (  try looking intently at something a foot or two in front of you and notice how much else is in your field of view   ) 

Are we assuming that both Gerry and Jez suffer from 'tunnel vision'  ?  ...  because for neither of them to have noticed Jane at any point whilst she walked the length of that street,  they would  have  to be

I agree Icabod but on this thread there is much speculation when so many factors are known within a tolerable margin of error.

Bear in mind though that the average person has a poor appreciation of the critical elements time, distance and mass.
So for the case in point:
Sunset time 20:30
Time span of dusk period 30 minutes
Weather (clear or cloudy sky) ?
Phase of moon ?
Distance from OC Reception to road junction Rua Agostinho da Silva (approx. 45m)
Road dimensions. (approx. 6m paved blacktop and 2 x 1.8 m sidewalks)
Time taken by Jane to walk approximately 45 metres on cobbles in flipflops (40 seconds)
The time at which Jane took her walk  21:10?
Number and positions of lighting columns 3 on east side of street between OC Reception and Rua Agostinho da Silva
Centre distances of lighting columns approx. 28m
Height of lighting columns approx. 3- 4m
Predominant background colour. White
Position of protagonists. ?
Human field of vision.(120degrees binocular and approx. 160degrees all round)
The human eye is attuned to picking up movement.
Weight of average 3-4 year old (actually about the same as normal duty car battery).

If Gerry stood where he said he stood then Jane was in his field of vision for 20 seconds or so light source to her right silhouetted on white back ground to her left.
 
I'll leave others to join up the dots.

[pathfinder73]

Peripheral vision seems to have been discounted for some reason ...   that part of vision that occurs outside the centre of gaze    (  try looking intently at something a foot or two in front of you and notice how much else is in your field of view   ) 

Are we assuming that both Gerry and Jez suffer from 'tunnel vision'  ?  ...  because for neither of them to have noticed Jane at any point whilst she walked the length of that street,  they would  have  to be

Exactly and allegedly with the child and buggy in the road you would be more aware of your surroundings for any possible cars coming in either direction.

[Benice]

[... quote removed as off topic ...]

I'm still waiting to hear a credible reason why JT would lie to the police for people she hardly knew.  I've seen nothing to suggest that she is anything other than a normal, ordinary, sane intelligent person with a responsible job and a family of her own to protect.   

For what reason would she so readily agree to risk putting her own and her own children's entire lives in such terrible danger of being destroyed by agreeing to help cover up the death of someone else's child?   

IMO it's completely irrelevant where Gerry and Jez stood etc etc etc .....unless a believable reason can be found for why she would agree to take such an insanely dangerous step in the first place.     In 7 years I've never heard one.