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

[Lyall]

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.

I know it has. But what I see is consistency between the statements re: the patio door - there's no confusion about that door: it was closed but definitely unlocked.

However mention is also made of a door that may be unlocked, and also keys needed for access is mentioned. That can't be the patio door because that door can't be locked or unlocked from outside, and it's not locked with a key anyway presumably.

They do seem to be talking about two different doors.

[Alfred R Jones]

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.

Why would contradicting a witness you know to exist and who was standing two foot from you be preferable to lying in order not to contradict a possible witness many feet away who may not even exist?  It makes absolutely no sense at all.

ETA: Also - Gerry never said he saw her anyway.  So why did he need to be on the other side of the road?! 

[Anna]

I know it has. But what I see is consistency between the statements re: the patio door - there's no confusion about that door: it was closed but definitely unlocked.

However mention is also made of a door that may be unlocked, and also keys needed for access is mentioned. That can't be the patio door because that door can't be locked or unlocked from outside, and it's not locked with a key anyway presumably.

They do seem to be talking about two different doors.

There is definitely some confusion on Gerry's first statement regarding the doors, where he also stated that Kate used a key. I think this was a total mix up. Kate never mentioned using a key.

As to the possibly unlocked front door- This means that it was not locked with a key from the outside, but left on the self locking, which did not double lock the door. The door, whether self locking/single or double locked from the outside, would need to be opened, by the use of the key, if opening from the outside.

There is a  thread on the door lock that might help, explain better.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1207.msg207775#msg207775

[Miss Taken Identity]

There is definitely some confusion on Gerry's first statement regarding the doors, where he also stated that Kate used a key. I think this was a total mix up. Kate never mentioned using a key.

As to the possibly unlocked front door- This means that it was not locked with a key from the outside, but left on the self locking, which did not double lock the door. The door, whether self locking/single or double locked from the outside, would need to be opened, by the use of the key.

There is a  thread on the door lock that might help, explain better.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1207.msg207775#msg207775

It was also the window issue. open /shut/ jemmied the intruder climbed in and climbed out with Maddie or opened the door and climbed out the window or climbed in the window and walked out the door, closing the child locking gate etc... she was taken from underthe covers where she was snug with Kate , and then was removed from the top of the covers as she was left.....whew too exhausting!

[Anna]

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.

What difference would, which side of the road they were on, make? Faith.

[faithlilly]

What difference would, which side of the road they were on, make? Faith.

I have already posted the reason already, several times, but just in case you missed it Anna Gerry needed to be on the other side of the road then not seeing Tanner would have been a believable scenario. Even he knew how impossible if would be for them all to be on the same side of the street and for him not to see her.

[Benice]

I have already posted the reason already, several times, but just in case you missed it Anna Gerry needed to be on the other side of the road then not seeing Tanner would have been a believable scenario. Even he knew how impossible if would be for them all to be on the same side of the street and for him not to see her.

It's also been posted several times that it isn't impossible for both men to have missed Jane in the  seconds it took her to pass by if Gerry had his back to her -  so wouldn't see her anyway -  and if Jez was not looking in her direction in those seconds it took for her to pass them.    They were also talking and listening to one another -  not listening for extraneous noises. 

Gerry did not need JT to give him an alibi - Jez - an independent witness was already his alibi.

Also if Gerry thought they could be witnessed by other people who could prove JT didn't pass by - then why ask her to lie in the first place?

IMO the three of them all told the truth -  as each one of them remembered it.    The fact that they have different recollections is quite normal.     

[slartibartfast]

It's also been posted several times that it isn't impossible for both men to have missed Jane in the  seconds it took her to pass by if Gerry had his back to her -  so wouldn't see her anyway -  and if Jez was not looking in her direction in those seconds it took for her to pass them.    They were also talking and listening to one another -  not listening for extraneous noises. 

Gerry did not need JT to give him an alibi - Jez - an independent witness was already his alibi.

Also if Gerry thought they could be witnessed by other people who could prove JT didn't pass by - then why ask her to lie in the first place?

IMO the three of them all told the truth -  as each one of them remembered it.    The fact that they have different recollections is quite normal.   

I suppose if Gerry bumped into someone else and had a chat earlier or later than Jez that could account for it.

[Benice]

I suppose if Gerry bumped into someone else and had a chat earlier or later than Jez that could account for it.

Sorry Starti - you've lost me.....

[slartibartfast]

Sorry Starti - you've lost me.....

JT didn't really know Jez. She says she saw Gerry talking. Both Gerry and Jez say they talked to each other. If Gerry talked to someone else then JT may have seen them. Just a possibility.

The problem with this case is there was too much witness contamination. The timelines were a real negative which may have implanted memories that didn't really exist especially if those involved were in an impressionable state.

To expand, if you are sitting eating dinner with a group of friends and one or more of them leave the table from time to time, if afterwards you are asked to say who left at what time, you would try to estimate it based on what you were eating, how far you had got etc. if however you all got together afterwards and those leaving said rightly or wrongly they left at such and such a time then you are more likely to go with their recollection than your own.

The mind is a very malleable thing.

[faithlilly]

It's also been posted several times that it isn't impossible for both men to have missed Jane in the  seconds it took her to pass by if Gerry had his back to her -  so wouldn't see her anyway -  and if Jez was not looking in her direction in those seconds it took for her to pass them.    They were also talking and listening to one another -  not listening for extraneous noises. 

Gerry did not need JT to give him an alibi - Jez - an independent witness was already his alibi.

Also if Gerry thought they could be witnessed by other people who could prove JT didn't pass by - then why ask her to lie in the first place?

IMO the three of them all told the truth -  as each one of them remembered it.    The fact that they have different recollections is quite normal.   

It was a gamble to ask Tanner to lie but what choice did he have ? He knew the Smiths had seen him, and possibly would be able to identify him, so what better way to neutralise that sighting than by having a witness placing the abductor and Gerry at the same time. If Gerry wasn't the abductor Tanner saw then he couldn't be the person that the Smiths saw. Simple.

Of course this course of action carried two huge risks, either that Jane would crumble under questioning and admit the sighting was made up or that Gerry and Jez, and no Tanner, were seen talking by an independent witness.  So Gerry simply put himself on the other side of the street with his back to where Tanner would have walked by and that way if it all went pearshaped he would come out of it untainted.

It was also of course  a risk to place himself on the other side of the road when both Jez and Tanner disagreed with him but easier to explain away a misremembered location than seeing an individual who it is proved later wasn't there at all.

As to those few seconds it would have taken for Tanner to walk past , Tanner would have been potentially visible to either one of the talking men as soon as she left the tapas entrance to just before she turned the corner of the road which would have taken anywhere up to half a minute, so hardly the few seconds you suggest.

[Alfred R Jones]

JT didn't really know Jez. She says she saw Gerry talking. Both Gerry and Jez say they talked to each other. If Gerry talked to someone else then JT may have seen them. Just a possibility.

The problem with this case is there was too much witness contamination. The timelines were a real negative which may have implanted memories that didn't really exist especially if those involved were in an impressionable state.

To expand, if you are sitting eating dinner with a group of friends and one or more of them leave the table from time to time, if afterwards you are asked to say who left at what time, you would try to estimate it based on what you were eating, how far you had got etc. if however you all got together afterwards and those leaving said rightly or wrongly they left at such and such a time then you are more likely to go with their recollection than your own.

The mind is a very malleable thing.

So you agree that no one's recollection of an event is perfect and that this may account for discrepancies in witness statements concerning the same event(s)?   Heri has proposed that JT's witness statement was muddled about when she actually saw Tannerman, maybe he is onto something..? 

[faithlilly]

So you agree that no one's recollection of an event is perfect and that this may account for discrepancies in witness statements concerning the same event(s)?   Heri has proposed that JT's witness statement was muddled about when she actually saw Tannerman, maybe he is onto something..?

But if SY is correct how can he be ?

[Alfred R Jones]

It was a gamble to ask Tanner to lie but what choice did he have ? He knew the Smiths had seen him, and possibly would be able to identify him, so what better way to neutralise that sighting than by having a witness placing the abductor and Gerry at the same time. If Gerry wasn't the abductor Tanner saw then he couldn't be the person the Smiths saw. Simple.

Of course this course of action carried two huge risks, either that Jane would crumble under questioning and admit the sighting was made up or that Gerry and Jez, and no Tanner, waere seen talking by an independent witness.  So Gerry simply put himself on the other side of the street with his back to where Tanner would have walked by and that way if it all went pearshaped he would come out of it untainted.

It was alsoof course  a risk to place himself on the other side of the road when both Jez and Tanner disagreed with him but easier to explain away a misremembered location than seeing an individual who it is proved later wasn't there at all.

As to those few seconds it would have taken for Tanner to walk past , Tanner would have been potentially visible to either one of the talking men as soon as she left the tapas entrance to just before she turned the corner of the road which would have taken anywhere up to half a minute, so hardly the few seconds you suggest.

If Jane Tanner accused Gerry McCann of putting her up to making a fake sighting, how exactly would he have come out of things unscathed by (as you put it) putting himself on the other side of the road, a position which would NOT have been corroborated by the only witness to his actual position, Jez?!

[Alfred R Jones]

But if SY is correct how can he be ?

Because if a tourist recollected walking past at the time JT said she saw Tannerman and id'ed himself to the Met but her actual sighting was 30 minutes later it would have been of a different man.