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

[Alfred R Jones]

Gerry's denial has been adequately explained. That you diidn't like the explanation is neither here nor there.

As to the Met verifying Tanner's sighting. does that verification make any sense ? Really ? They've excluded as the abductor a man carrying a child with pink pyjamas and unusually no shoes or covering yet even more strangely think that the abductor may be another man carrying a child with pink pyjamas and unusually no shoes or covering. You can see my probelem, can't you ?

I do see your problem very well indeed, yes.

[Alfred R Jones]

She may well have seen a man with a child, but how can the Met possibly know six years later that she saw him at the precise time and location she said she did? They can't. Redwood never said it categorically.

GM can't say her saw her when he knows there's definitely at least one other witness there at the time can he.

The Met are "almost certain".  Short of CCTV footage showing Jane tanner and Tannerman in the same shot, with a time and date stamp on it they cannot state "absolutely certain", same goes with most investigative work that relies on witness statements.  JT DID see a man, she knows roughly what time she saw him, an independent witness has come forward to say he believes it was him, the Met believe he is right.  That much we know for a fact.  Anyone disputing any of these points has descended into the realms of bizarre conspiracy and cannot be taken seriously IMO.  Gerry CAN say he saw her and contradict Jez, wny not?  Jane is saying she saw Gerry and Jez and they are contradicting her, so what's the biggie?  Unless you know for a fact that both men were looking towards the pavement throughout their conversation what's to stop Gerry saying he saw JT and that Jez didn't because he was looking the other way?

[Benice]

Where was JT at the moment the alarm was raised, Benice?
Where were both she and her partner moments before the alarm?
Both were away from the table at the same time minutes earlier.

You wouldn't be stressed yourself in such a situation?

No I wouldn't be.    No more than I would expect Mrs Fenn or anyone else to be 'stressed' simply because they were in their apartments close to 5A when the alarm was raised.   There has to be at least a hint of a motive for people to be suspected.    Why would the PJ think it was suspicious that Jane was in her own apartment with her own children - one of whom was awake - when the alarm was raised?

[Lyall]

Actually ... no we do not.

You will kindly give examples of the changes you allege which may have materially altered the substance of their statements.

Most obvious one is that on May 4 GM says both he (at 9-ish) and Kate (at 10) entered the apartment via the front door. On May 10 both entered via the patio door. &%+((£

[Eleanor]

Most obvious one is that on May 4 GM says both he (at 9-ish) and Kate (at 10) entered the apartment via the front door. On May 10 both entered via the patio door. &%+((£

There was some confusion in early days as to which was the front and which was the back door.  I was still having this problem in September 2007.

[Lyall]

There was some confusion in early days as to which was the front and which was the back door.  I was still having this problem in September 2007.

Well keys being used is mentioned, so I don't think your explanation works. Keys being used is mentioned despite him saying the front door was probably unlocked &%+((£

[Eleanor]

Well keys being used is mentioned, so I don't think your explanation works. Keys being used is mentioned despite him saying the front door was probably unlocked &%+((£

But the keys were in the kitchen, so how could they have been used?

[Lyall]

But the keys were in the kitchen, so how could they have been used?

They may have been in the kitchen after the alarm was raised, but who knows where they were earlier?

[faithlilly]

If they embellished their stories, as you think is quite, conceivable, Lyall..……..They did not take into consideration, that Madeleine, may have been found, around the corner, asleep in a bush, or found deceased, during the search.

There is also the fact that they had no idea, whether or not, they had been observed, by people looking from their windows or balconies, making it an even greater risk.

Do you believe that they were so stupid, that they would have taken the a huge risk, of lying about the true events?

And that is why Gerry put himself on the other side of the road.

[Alfred R Jones]

Well keys being used is mentioned, so I don't think your explanation works. Keys being used is mentioned despite him saying the front door was probably unlocked &%+((£

If this discrepancy in the statements is so important perhaps you could explain why Gerry was not asked to clarify this point in his arguido statement.

[Alfred R Jones]

And that is why Gerry put himself on the other side of the road.

On the one hand we have a sceptic telling us that Gerry couldn't possibly say he saw JT because it would contradict Jez, and on the other we have Gerry contradicting Jez by saying he was on the other side of the road.  Is there any logic in this...?

[Benice]

Most obvious one is that on May 4 GM says both he (at 9-ish) and Kate (at 10) entered the apartment via the front door. On May 10 both entered via the patio door. &%+((£

If the PJ thought Gerry had lied in his first interview about which door he used - then questions would have been asked and his answers would have appeared in the summary of the second interview.

However, no explanation at all  for his correction of the statement was given in the summary.      IMO this is because it was established that it was a misunderstanding which took place between GM, the interpreter and the PJ officer somewhere along the line.       That was the first interview to take place for all concerned.     The fact that there was confusion about the doors, due to some people referring to the front door as the back door and the patio door as the front door was mentioned by the UK police.

This has already been discussed at great length previously on this forum.

[Lyall]

If this discrepancy in the statements is so important perhaps you could explain why Gerry was not asked to clarify this point in his arguido statement.

Can't answer that. But we know there had been many informal meetings between May 10 and September. Maybe that topic had been discussed again previously during those?

[faithlilly]

On the one hand we have a sceptic telling us that Gerry couldn't possibly say he saw JT because it would contradict Jez, and on the other we have Gerry contradicting Jez by saying he was on the other side of the road.  Is there any logic in this...?

Contradicting Jez was a necessary evil and better than finding out later that a witness had come forward to say that they had Jez and Gerry talking but that Jane hadn't passed when Gerry had said he had seen her.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Gerry's denial has been adequately explained. That you diidn't like the explanation is neither here nor there.

As to the Met verifying Tanner's sighting. does that verification make any sense ? Really ? They've excluded as the abductor a man carrying a child with pink pyjamas and unusually no shoes or covering yet even more strangely think that the abductor may be another man carrying a child with pink pyjamas and unusually no shoes or covering. You can see my probelem, can't you ?

JT's initial statement does not give any details of the child's clothes, only that the child was barefoot and maybe light clothes...then it aspires about 'pink'. It has been mentioned about the lighting how can you tell pink in the dark? it isn't a colour it is a shade! JT created an abductor. simples!