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

[slartibartfast]

I don't believe Jane could have passed within half a metre of Jez and Gerry on a dark and quiet street without being noticed by either of them.

Their statements said she didn't, hers says she did. Someone got it wrong.

[Alfred R Jones]

I don't believe Jane could have passed within half a metre of Jez and Gerry on a dark and quiet street without being noticed by either of them.

Their statements said she didn't, hers says she did. Someone got it wrong.

Yes - you did - for believing she had to have been noticed.

[Anna]

I am somewhat confused by this thread.
What is it expected to reveal?
There was absolutely nothing to conceal, so why all the ………….
It just proves all the more, that if there was also inconsistencies in the statements given regarding the chat and JT passing, they were again caused by the stress of the situation, that the witnesses found themselves in
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


1. My flip flops weren’t as noisy as my shoes, but
If you are not accustomed to them the toe bar can make you feel insecure, at first causing you to grip on more with your toes.

2. Gerry had his back to the route/path, taken by JT in order check her children.

3. Gerry has a strong Glaswegian accent, so a woman's light footsteps probably wouldn't be heard above his voice.

4. Jez mentioned the bad lighting in the street and it was getting dark, but said he could see clearly.

5. Jez standing on the road would, I assume be lower than Gerry, who was on the edge of the pavement, so JTs head would be below Gerry, who was facing Jez , so JT in dark clothing slipping behind Gerry could  easily have be unseen by Jez ?

6. What noises/music/chatting would be coming from the restaurant/Tapas bar/kitchens, nearby?

7. What parked cars or vans were on the side of the road, obscuring JT passing?

8. Just how long would it take to walk JT’s route.....? and how long would it take to look into a pram and check a child…..?

9. If JT did not pass them, how did she know that they were chatting at that time?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Without being there at that time and knowing all the details, surrounding the scene of the chat between Gerry and Jez, how can anyone possibly question JT’s account of passing them?

JMO of course

[slartibartfast]

Yes - you did - for believing she had to have been noticed.

That doesn't make sense?

[pegasus]

...There was absolutely nothing to conceal, so why all the ………….

Agreed nothing to conceal and nothing suspicious about the chat or walking past it or the sighting.
All 5 people in the street were acting normally (2 chatters, JT, and the innocent tourist and his daughter).
And you make some good points on visibility noise etc.

[Alfred R Jones]

That doesn't make sense?

Why not?  To clarify: you said "someone got it wrong".  I replied: "yes you did, for believing that JT would have to have been noticed".

Make sense now?

[slartibartfast]

Why not?  To clarify: you said "someone got it wrong".  I replied: "yes you did, for believing that JT would have to have been noticed".

Make sense now?

We have two sets of witnesses who contradict each other, one set has got it wrong by definition. If you can't see that you are being deliberately obtuse.

[John]

IIRC, in his second statement, Jes refers to having seen a woman in a purple top wandering about as he initially made his way down past OC mini reception with the pushchair.  This woman he identified as one of the tapas group, namely, Jane Tanner.  Could it possibly be that he has mixed up this sighting with the much later chat he had with Gerry when he stopped just short of apartment 5a on his return journey with the now sleeping kid?

[pathfinder73]

It's about time to start looking closely at the scene. A quiet deserted lit street with no cars at the time she passed them without being seen. It is not possible IMO.

[John]

It's about time to start looking closely at the scene. A quiet deserted lit street with no cars at the time she passed them without being seen. It is not possible IMO.

I agree, very strange?   8-)(--)

[slartibartfast]

IIRC, in his second statement, Jes refers to having seen a woman in a purple top wandering about as he initially made his way down past OC mini reception with the pushchair.  This woman he identified as one of the tapas group, namely, Jane Tanner.  Could it possibly be that he has mixed up this sighting with the much later chat he had with Gerry when he stopped just short of apartment 5a on his return journey with the now sleeping kid?

Or perhaps Jane mixed up the meeting?

[peter claridge]

IIRC, in his second statement, Jes refers to having seen a woman in a purple top wandering about as he initially made his way down past OC mini reception with the pushchair.  This woman he identified as one of the tapas group, namely, Jane Tanner.  Could it possibly be that he has mixed up this sighting with the much later chat he had with Gerry when he stopped just short of apartment 5a on his return journey with the now sleeping kid?

No

[Alfred R Jones]

We have two sets of witnesses who contradict each other, one set has got it wrong by definition. If you can't see that you are being deliberately obtuse.

Would it be the first time two sets of witnesses contradicted each other for perfectly innocent reasons?  Did you even read the article I posted yesterday?

[Alfred R Jones]

It's about time to start looking closely at the scene. A quiet deserted lit street with no cars at the time she passed them without being seen. It is not possible IMO.

What is the source of that photograph please?
ETA:

No need to answer - I have found out for myself.  Funnily enough it is from an article by Nigel Moore on McCannfiles in which he opines that the street-lighting would have been much dimmer than that shown in the photograph, as the street lighting in PdL had been considerably improved since Madeleine disappeared, and that therefore JT's sighting of a man carrying a child could not have been reliable.  How ironic.  He's probably now arguing somewhere now that it was bright enough for Gerry and Jez to have seen her that evening!

Here is the final quote from his article:

It doesn't seem unreasonable to presume that the quality of light from this lamp was significantly poorer than that which is in place now. And that would appear to cast even further doubt on the reliability of Tanner's sighting, which, like the lamps themselves, has improved with age.

And here is the full article for your reference. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id237.html

[sadie]

It's about time to start looking closely at the scene. A quiet deserted lit street with no cars at the time she passed them without being seen. It is not possible IMO.

Of course it is possible.  A gap of about 5 feet to walk thru, Jez didn't even know her, she was of little consequence and didn't even register ... and that's even if he saw this figure go by swamped in her hubbies fleece.  He could have been looking at, or fiddling (in the nicest way) with his son or the pushchair.
 
Gerry, standing on the pavement with his back to the alleyway corner, was looking at Jez or Jezes son and his line of vision meant that Jane was completely out of his periferal vision.    It is quite likely that Jane was never closer than about 67* to his line of vision . 

This is true as she came out of the Tapas Reception and also as she walked north up the road.  She was NEVER in Gerrys line of vision.  Always out of sight and it got even worse the closer she got to Gerry cos she was behind him then

Herberto Janosch, an expert, tells us that our periferal vision is only good up to 45*on either side of our main vision. 

Jane was way out of Gerrys Range of Vision



Now the so called flip flops.

She was not poor, she was the partner to a doctor and herself had a good job.  She was having dinner with friends.  She would not be wearing beach flip flops, she would almost without doubt be wearing quality leather ones that would make virtually no sound [especially if she wanted to be quiet]

A friend sent me this image, there was a better image showing complete enclosure of the heel, but it refused to post.  Thanks my friend for the image.

Rather nice !