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

[Alfred R Jones]

That photo of the GNR policeman standing guard outside 5a proves that the lighting was good in May 2007.  I had originally thought that the area in which Gerry and Jes were standing was in shadow but that isn't the case.

In my opinion the only way Jane could have slipped by is if both men were stood in the street with their back to Jane.  She could have walked past them silently if they were engrossed in conversation.

You seem to have missed my post about that photo, earlier on this thread.  It was not taken in 2007, but a couple of years later.

[Mr Gray]

You seem to have missed my post about that photo, earlier on this thread.  It was not taken in 2007, but a couple of years later.

I believe they improved the lighting after the abduction

[pathfinder73]

You seem to have missed my post about that photo, earlier on this thread.  It was not taken in 2007, but a couple of years later.

MAY 2007 - As you can see there's plenty of light on the street outside 5A.

[Mr Gray]

11 MAY 2007 (photo date) - As you can see there's plenty of light on the street outside 5A.

That isn't  a normal photograph...why is everything green

[Alfred R Jones]

MAY 2007 - As you can see there's plenty of light on the street outside 5A.

What is illuminating the back of the car?  Certainly not a street lamp.  Another car's headlights?  Camera crew lights? 

[pathfinder73]

What is illuminating the back of the car?  Certainly not a street lamp.  Another car's headlights?  Camera crew lights? 

Who cares why it's green? It was a journalist who took it present in May 2007. Jez said he could see clearly in his statement. The fact of the matter is that it wasn't too dark not to see the elusive Jane Tanner.

[Mr Gray]

Who cares why it's green? It was a journalist who took it present in May 2007. Jez said he could see clearly in his statement. The fact of the matter is that it wasn't too dark not to see the elusive Jane Tanner.

who cares why its green?...because it is NOT  a true representation of the light level

[pathfinder73]

who cares why its green?...because it is NOT  a true representation of the light level

Do you think it was too dark not to see her?

[Mr Gray]

Do you think it was too dark not to see her?

I've no idea but that photo proves nothing

[pathfinder73]

You certainly do have no idea.

[Alfred R Jones]

Who cares why it's green? It was a journalist who took it present in May 2007. Jez said he could see clearly in his statement. The fact of the matter is that it wasn't too dark not to see the elusive Jane Tanner.

It wasn't pitch black but it was dimly lit.  Why was the lighting improved in that street shortly after Madeleine went missing, if not for the fact that lighting was considered inadequate?

[pathfinder73]

It would have to be pitch black not to see her. There are lights all along that road. The shadowy dark bit is the pathway in front of the apartments. Jez said he could see clearly and he was adamant nobody passed.

[Mr Gray]

It would have to be pitch black not to see her. There are lights all along that road. The shadowy dark bit is the pathway in front of the apartments. Jez said he could see clearly and he was adamant nobody passed.

do you have  a link to Jez's statement

[Mr Gray]

It would have to be pitch black not to see her. There are lights all along that road. The shadowy dark bit is the pathway in front of the apartments. Jez said he could see clearly and he was adamant nobody passed.

Is this the statement you are referring to....

There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said 'you're on walking duty'. I said I was staying in and the pro's and con's and what to do with the children. He said that if he was staying two (2) weeks, he may stay in one night. I don't remember anyone else walk past with a child. The conversation lasted for about three (3) to five (5) minutes. He was acting completely normal from what I know of him so far.


If it is he isn't saying what you have posted

[pathfinder73]

do you have  a link to Jez's statement

It's in his Rog here:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm