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

[Brietta]

If they standing where Gerry said they be under the light. Crecheman would be able to see them before he crossed the road and the yard would've asked him.

I don't recognise the scene in the photograph.

If you are interested in a picture of how the scene actually looks at night I refer you to Heri's blog where he explains it all succinctly.


http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html


 

[Alfred R Jones]

So you belueve Gerry is mistaken and he dug his heels in about where he was standing why ?

I don't recall specifying who was mistaken, but whoever it was I believe it was an innocent mistake because as far as I can see there is no other plausible explanation. Your explanation is not plausible, IMO.

[faithlilly]

I don't recall specifying who was mistaken, but whoever it was I believe it was an innocent mistake because as far as I can see there is no other plausible explanation. Your explanation is not plausible, IMO.

If both Jez and Tanner claim he and Jez were standing at approximately the same place and on the same side of the road surely even Gerry must his recollection was wrong, especially y as he would also know that he was, by digging his heels in, undermining the rest of Tanner's claims. Why would he do that ? What was so important about being on thatvother side of the road ?

[Alfred R Jones]

If both Jez and Tanner claim he and Jez were standing at approximately the same place and on the same side of the road surely even Gerry must his recollection was wrong, especially y as he would also know that he was, by digging his heels in, undermining the rest of Tanner's claims. Why would he do that ? What was so important about being on thatvother side of the road ?

It couldn't possibly be sheer pig-headedness and a refusal on Gerry's part to accept he was mistaken could it?  After all, these are faults that have been attributed to him by "sceptics" many times in the past...no, far more likely that he had to be on the other side of the road because...well, why don't you tell us Faithlilly, you who knows everything.

[Brietta]

I don't recall specifying who was mistaken, but whoever it was I believe it was an innocent mistake because as far as I can see there is no other plausible explanation. Your explanation is not plausible, IMO.

Of the three individuals two standing in the street and one walking past only Jane Tanner had the whole picture and as far as that is concerned I would go with her description of where the men were standing particularly as this was backed up by Jez Wilkins at the time.

It doesn't matter a jot, what was important was Jane Tanner's sighting of the man with a child at the junction and the appx. time of that.

She was not required as an 'alibi' for Dr McCann ... Jez Wilkins was an independent observer able to give appx. time and place.

She did not require an alibi for herself.

So what on earth would be the point of any of the three lying?

[Alice Purjorick]

Define "wide discrepancy".  And then tell me whether or not in your view it is possible for the three statements to have such "wide discrepancies" because of mistaken recollections on the part of one or more of the protagonists.

OK scrap the word wide. There are discrepancies in the statements. For example who was on which side of the road where they were with respect to the gate from Apt 5A and the time.
It is not for me to say why there are discrepancies; there are discrepancies. If you wish to believe there aren't discrepancies / the discrepancies have no relevance that is fine by me.

[Alfred R Jones]

Of the three individuals two standing in the street and one walking past only Jane Tanner had the whole picture and as far as that is concerned I would go with her description of where the men were standing particularly as this was backed up by Jez Wilkins at the time.

It doesn't matter a jot, what was important was Jane Tanner's sighting of the man with a child at the junction and the appx. time of that.

She was not required as an 'alibi' for Dr McCann ... Jez Wilkins was an independent observer able to give appx. time and place.

She did not require an alibi for herself.

So what on earth would be the point of any of the three lying?

It goes something like this: GM needed an alibi for the Smith sighting.  He therefore asked JT to lie for him and pretend that she had seen a man who looked just like himself carrying a child at the same time as she saw him and Jez talking.  Later, GM would refuse to back up this critical alibi from JT by claiming he never saw her walk by.  And then in a further twist, the Met backed up JT's sighting by inventing a Tannerman and parading details of the fake one in the press and on Crimewatch, for the sole purpose of  unsettling the McCanns and JT, though with little sign of this having had the desired effect.

[Alfred R Jones]

OK scrap the word wide. There are discrepancies in the statements. For example who was on which side of the road where they were with respect to the gate from Apt 5A and the time.
It is not for me to say why there are discrepancies; there are discrepancies. If you wish to believe there aren't discrepancies / the discrepancies have no relevance that is fine by me.

Good, glad we got that sorted then, and that I have your blessing to continue to hold my opinion.

[faithlilly]

It couldn't possibly be sheer pig-headedness and a refusal on Gerry's part to accept he was mistaken could it?  After all, these are faults that have been attributed to him by "sceptics" many times in the past...no, far more likely that he had to be on the other side of the road because...well, why don't you tell us Faithlilly, you who knows everything.

Because it makes the story of not seeing Tanner much more credible silly.

And comforting you also recognise that Gerry's arrogance knows no bounds, even if by failing to reign it in undermines his prime witness.

[Alice Purjorick]

Of the three individuals two standing in the street and one walking past only Jane Tanner had the whole picture and as far as that is concerned I would go with her description of where the men were standing particularly as this was backed up by Jez Wilkins at the time.

It doesn't matter a jot, what was important was Jane Tanner's sighting of the man with a child at the junction and the appx. time of that.

She was not required as an 'alibi' for Dr McCann ... Jez Wilkins was an independent observer able to give appx. time and place.

She did not require an alibi for herself.

So what on earth would be the point of any of the three lying?

Well until The Met decided it wasn't important.

[faithlilly]

Of the three individuals two standing in the street and one walking past only Jane Tanner had the whole picture and as far as that is concerned I would go with her description of where the men were standing particularly as this was backed up by Jez Wilkins at the time.

It doesn't matter a jot, what was important was Jane Tanner's sighting of the man with a child at the junction and the appx. time of that.

She was not required as an 'alibi' for Dr McCann ... Jez Wilkins was an independent observer able to give appx. time and place.

She did not require an alibi for herself.

So what on earth would be the point of any of the three lying?

No what was important was how plausible Jane's presence was on that street at that time. Without that everything else is nonsense.

[Alfred R Jones]

Because it makes the story of not seeing Tanner much more credible silly.

And comforting you also recognise that Gerry's arrogance knows no bounds, even if by failing to reign it in undermines his prime witness.

Ah yes, I forgot that element of the theory - Gerry needs to undermine JT's credibility as a witness and alibi just in case she was spotted by someone on a balcony whilst walking past when the two men were not actually there - or something like that, isn't that right Faithlilly? 

So to recap - GM needs everyone to believe JT saw the abductor at the same time as she saw him, but he also needs to undermine her sighting by asserting that he never saw her at the time she claims to have walked by.  You see how sensible and logical this theory is?  Perfick!

PS: Why do you find it comforting that I have mentioned Gerry's stubbornness and refusal to accept he might be wrong, whilst at the same time refusing to acknowledge that this is a probable explanation for his insistence about where he was standing that night...?

[Alfred R Jones]

No what was important was how plausible Jane's presence was on that street at that time. Without that everything else is nonsense.

What is nonsense without JT's presence on the street at that time, exactly?

[faithlilly]

Ah yes, I forgot that element of the theory - Gerry needs to undermine JT's credibility as a witness and alibi just in case she was spotted by someone on a balcony whilst walking past when the two men were not actually there - or something like that, isn't that right Faithlilly? 

So to recap - GM needs everyone to believe JT saw the abductor at the same time as she saw him, but he also needs to undermine her sighting by asserting that he never saw her at the time she claims to have walked by.  You see how sensible and logical this theory is?  Perfick!

PS: Why do you find it comforting that I have mentioned Gerry's stubbornness and refusal to accept he might be wrong, whilst at the same time refusing to acknowledge that this is a probable explanation for his insistence about where he was standing that night...?

No it's comforting that you accept it. What arrogance eh !

[Alfred R Jones]

No it's comforting that you accept it. What arrogance eh !

I find it very odd that you should find comfort in my accepting certain faults in Gerry McCann's character. Why do you seek comfort from opinions that I hold?  Do you think maybe I'm on the verge of turning, that you might have succeeded in recruiting a new "sceptic"...?