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

[pegasus]

Can you link to the point in her statement where she says they were the same footwear she wore later? Unless of course you think the only went on holiday with one pair of shoes?

As you know that information is not given in the witness's statements. It is my interpretation of various statements, interviews, videos, etc. I have posted enough to give those peeps, who claim flipflops are very noisy, several things to think about, and reject as unscientific if they wish
1. Some flipflops (in the real-life usage of the word) have anklestraps, which reduces noise.
2. Many flipflops have thin and soft soles, which reduces noise.
3. A wearer of soft thin soles on a pavement of embedded small stone modifies their walk by using a "padding" style, which reduces impact force, and this reduces noise.

[Anna]

Can you link to the point in her statement where she says they were the same footwear she wore later? Unless of course you think the only went on holiday with one pair of shoes?

when I was packing for a young family, with all their necessities taken into account, for a short holiday I would pack only basics and definitely no more than one pair of sandals or flipflops as well as one pair of shoes.

[pegasus]

when I was packing for a young family, with all their necessities taken into account, for a short holiday I would pack only basics and definitely no more than one pair of sandals or flipflops as well as one pair of shoes.

Thankyou a breath of fresh common sense air is always welcome.

IMO of all the shoes in the world, the quietest of all on that exact pavement of embedded small stones, are soft soled flipflops. Because they are soft and because the wearer is walking more carefully to reduce the discomfort of the embedded small stones of the pavement.

[icabodcrane]

Of course it is possible  It was dark.   Gerry  had his back to her - so it's totally believable that  he wouldn't see her.  Jez only had to be  looking  in a different direction in the few seconds it took for her to she pass by  and he would have missed her.   He and Gerry were talking - not standing there in complete silence - so there was noise - which was being  generated by them both.  Their attention was  concentrated on eachother and probably the baby in the buggy.

Add to that the fact that there  is no believable reason why JT would lie and its apparent that she did pass them and they simply didn't notice her.

Well we'll have to disagree

You see,  we are not just talking about the fleeting moment that Jane directly passed Gerry and Jeremy within touching distance ...   we are talking about her entire walk the whole length of the street

I just don't think it is possible that neither men would have noticed her presence in that street at  some point

[pegasus]

... I just don't think it is possible that neither men would have noticed her presence in that street at  some point

Plz present a better alternative then.
Why on earth do you think the witness would imagine or fabricate walking past the chat?

[Alfred R Jones]

Plz present a better alternative then.
Why on earth do you think the witness would imagine or fabricate walking past the chat?

I've asked this question several times too but it seems to make some people shy. 

[Alfred R Jones]

Bumping this:

Quote from: icabodcrane on May 06, 2014, 12:51:05 AM

I didn't say Jane Tanner  'invented'  anything  ...  I said it  is not possible for her to have passed the entire length of that otherwise deserted  street without at least one of the only other two people there to have noticed her

I don't think it is

That is the first step  ...  acknowledging that it was simply not possible

From there we can consider why false/mistaken witness statements were given

OK, let's consider who gave a false statement then and why.

[peter claridge]

It's Gerry's alibi.

[Benice]

It's Gerry's alibi.

An alibi already given by Jez Wilkins.

[slartibartfast]

An alibi already given by Jez Wilkins.

Jez's timescales are more vague and doesn't tie Gerry in with the JT sighting.

[Benice]

Jez's timescales are more vague and doesn't tie Gerry in with the JT sighting.

How could JT know in advance whether Jez's remembered timescales were going to be vague or accurate?
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[Alfred R Jones]

Jez's timescales are more vague and doesn't tie Gerry in with the JT sighting.

The JT sighting was not made up.  It actually happened.  SY have verified this.  Why would it be necessary to tie Gerry in with this individual?  How did JT know in advance that this passer-by would not come forward the next day to rule himself out? 

[Alfred R Jones]

I have  no  'alternative'  to offer    ...   and it is not necessary to have one in order to question Jane Tanner's implausible statement 

I have no idea whether Jane Tanner was untruthful for one reason or another,  or if she was simply mistaken,  or perhaps just confused 

...  and none of that matters,  because whatever  'motivated'  Jane to make the statement she did does  not, by one iota,  change the fact that the tale she told is  highly improbable

It may be highly improbable to you, but it clearly did happen as there is no conceivable reason for her to have lied. 

[jassi]

It may be highly improbable to you, but it clearly did happen as there is no conceivable reason for her to have lied.

In your opinion.

[pegasus]

So do I understand this correctly? It was a fabricated alibi to finetune a genuine alibi which already existed for the time of a sighting which didn't exist because it too was fabricated?