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

[pegasus]

Afraid not, pegasus;

Gerry had asked João Carlos if he could be allowed to stay with me while I was questioned because he was extremely worried about my psychological state. I was grateful to João Carlos for agreeing, with the proviso that Gerry remained seated behind me.......Every now and then Gerry would put a hand on my shoulder or give me a reassuring squeeze.
Kate McCann; Madeleine

I phrased my post carefully GUnit. I carefully excluded that 4th May PJ interview of KM, which was not properly conducted, because another witness was allowed to be in the interview room.

I am referring exclusively to
1. The 6th Sept PJ interview of KM, which was properly conducted, with no other witnesses present in the interview room.
2. The 7th Sept PJ interview of GM, ditto.

In those 2 interviews in September, which were both conducted properly, each of the two individuals, separately and independently, testify seeing the child in the lounge, very alive and present, at bedtime (around 7.00pm to 7.15pm).

[pathfinder73]

Independent witnesses are not family or friends. They are such as MW staff, neighbours or other holiday makers. The last independent sighting will be at 5:30 when Madeleine was signed out from the tapas area. Yes the .... ...... visit would have been reconstructed - Kate in a towel 

The re-enactment, within the LOR, shall take place probably on May 15, 2008, between 5.30 p.m. and 11 p.m thus covering the time period before dinner, dinner time and about an hour after having checked that the child had gone missing;

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm

[pegasus]

Independent witnesses are not family or friends. They are such as MW staff, neighbours or other holiday makers. The last independent sighting will be at 5:30 when Madeleine was signed out from the tapas area. Yes the .... ...... visit would have been reconstructed 

The re-enactment, within the LOR, shall take place probably on May 15, 2008, between 5.30 p.m. and 11 p.m thus covering the time period before dinner, dinner time and about an hour after having checked that the child had gone missing;

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm

It is an elementary mistake to classify witnesses as "independent" or "not independent" Pathfinder.
You can't possibly know that until after a case is solved.
For example in a Bristol case I believe your method would have classified the perp as an independent witness?

[G-Unit]

Jeremy Wilkins' statement is puzzling because he flatly refused to put a time to his meeting with Gerry McCann. It's assumed he met Gerry at 9.10 or 9.15 because Gerry and Jane say so. He placed the meeting between 8.45 and 9.15, however, which is very strange.

His first contact is on 4th May when he tells the PJ that he was in the Tapas restaurant between 8.30 and 9pm.

In his second statement to LP on 7th May he leaves his apartment between 8.15 and 8.30 with his son. He goes to the toilet 'near the bar'. He 'can't see inside the restaurant' now, let alone go in there. There's no mention of wandering around in this statement, just of heading back to his apartment and coming out 'at the top road'. He saw Gerry near some steps and a gate and they chatted for 3 to 5 minutes.

In November he and his wife were spoken to again. He left the apartment at approx. 8.15 and eventually ended up 'in the Tapas bar' where he used the toilet. He doesn't remember the time. After that he wandered the alleyways then met Gerry near the gate. Then he returned to his apartment. Several weeks later he received calls from Gerry asking permission to include him in a portfolio of evidence being compiled by an organization employed by the McCanns. He didn't mind, but objected to their methods and persistence.

In his rog. he says he went out at 8.30pm and met Gerry between 8.45 and 9.15. He went to the toilet 'near the pool area' where he saw the blond man. Now he does more wandering before he sees Gerry. After the chat he returns to his apartment. He now mentions seeing Jane in the car park of block 5 at 8.30pm, wearing purple.

In Bridget's newspaper piece she says Jeremy left at 8.30 and returned just before 9.30pm.

If Jeremy returned  to his apartment at around 9.30pm and went back straight after his chat with Gerry it seems obvious that they chatted between 9.10 and 9.20, so why does Jeremy refuse to say that? Why does he refuse to be more specific than 'between 8.45 and 9.15'?



 

[Brietta]

Jeremy Wilkins' statement is puzzling because he flatly refused to put a time to his meeting with Gerry McCann. It's assumed he met Gerry at 9.10 or 9.15 because Gerry and Jane say so. He placed the meeting between 8.45 and 9.15, however, which is very strange.

His first contact is on 4th May when he tells the PJ that he was in the Tapas restaurant between 8.30 and 9pm.

In his second statement to LP on 7th May he leaves his apartment between 8.15 and 8.30 with his son. He goes to the toilet 'near the bar'. He 'can't see inside the restaurant' now, let alone go in there. There's no mention of wandering around in this statement, just of heading back to his apartment and coming out 'at the top road'. He saw Gerry near some steps and a gate and they chatted for 3 to 5 minutes.

In November he and his wife were spoken to again. He left the apartment at approx. 8.15 and eventually ended up 'in the Tapas bar' where he used the toilet. He doesn't remember the time. After that he wandered the alleyways then met Gerry near the gate. Then he returned to his apartment. Several weeks later he received calls from Gerry asking permission to include him in a portfolio of evidence being compiled by an organization employed by the McCanns. He didn't mind, but objected to their methods and persistence.

In his rog. he says he went out at 8.30pm and met Gerry between 8.45 and 9.15. He went to the toilet 'near the pool area' where he saw the blond man. Now he does more wandering before he sees Gerry. After the chat he returns to his apartment. He now mentions seeing Jane in the car park of block 5 at 8.30pm, wearing purple.

In Bridget's newspaper piece she says Jeremy left at 8.30 and returned just before 9.30pm.

If Jeremy returned  to his apartment at around 9.30pm and went back straight after his chat with Gerry it seems obvious that they chatted between 9.10 and 9.20, so why does Jeremy refuse to say that? Why does he refuse to be more specific than 'between 8.45 and 9.15'?

The joys of two individuals recounting events which had absolutely no significance at the time.

Jeremy Wilkin's statement was as he remembered the occurence to the best of his ability (as one would when it concerned a missing child).  Bridget O'Donnell might have remembered differently, but why should there have been collusion to bring Jez's recollection into line with hers or vice versa?  Each is is independent of the other and each is being honest about their memories of events.

[pegasus]

Remember when many armchair detectives were claiming that witness JT invented walking along that pavement, and called her a fantasist?
Now it's clear to all that the witness is telling the truth and did walk along that pavement. Those armchair detectives were talking complete rubbish, and it was them, not the truthful witness, who were the flipflopping fantasists.

[pathfinder73]

Remember when many armchair detectives were claiming that witness JT invented walking along that pavement, and called her a fantasist?
Now it's clear to all that the witness is telling the truth and did walk along that pavement. Those armchair detectives were talking complete rubbish, and it was them, not the truthful witness, who were the flipflopping fantasists.

 

JW was adamant he saw nobody when chatting to GM. IMO it was impossible for her to pass within a few feet without being seen. He would be aware with a pram. He noticed other people and JT at around 8:30.

"The raw telecom data provided to OP TASK shows that the mobile phone attributed to Jane TANNER (078085####) was in contact with mobile number 0794973#### at 20:30:21 hrs on 3rd May 2007 and again at 09:04:46 hrs on 4th May 2007. Each contact was an 'SMS'. Enquiries are underway to subscribe the '1884’ number."

[pegasus]

JW was adamant he saw nobody when chatting to GM. IMO it was impossible for her to pass within a few feet without being seen. He would be aware with a pram. He noticed other people and JT at around 8:30.
(snip)

So let's get this straight Pathfinder,
Are you claiming that JT did walk along during the chat but that the chat was over the road as claimed by GM?
Or are you claiming that JT never walked past during the chat?

[pegasus]

(snip) "The raw telecom data provided to OP TASK shows that the mobile phone attributed to JT (078085####) was in contact with mobile number 0794973#### at 20:30:21 hrs on 3rd May 2007 and again at 09:04:46 hrs on 4th May 2007. Each contact was an SMS." (snip)

But pathfinder why post that when, assuming you have read the files, you already know the answer? It states in the files exactly who those txts were to, and BTW that they were not read by the recipient until the 6th. There is nothing suspicious about those txts, they are already fully explained in the files.

[pathfinder73]

But pathfinder why post that when, assuming you have read the files, you already know the answer? It states in the files exactly who those txts were to, and BTW that they were not read by the recipient until the 6th. There is nothing suspicious about those txts, they are already fully explained in the files.

Just wondering if JW saw her hanging around outside at that time why she is texting somebody away from her partner and not heading straight to the tapas.

[pegasus]

Just wondering if JW saw her hanging around outside at that time why she is texting somebody away from her partner and not heading straight to the tapas.

JW looking out from the open stairwell high up in block 4 saw a woman in the street dressed in purple.
JT was not wearing purple. Dark blue is not purple.
There was a different woman wearing a plum (purple) top with long dark hair, that's who he saw IMO.

[mercury]

I thnk Jt was texting Mrs Gorrod  to say she couldnt make her barbeque the next day iirc

[pegasus]

I thnk Jt was texting Mrs Gorrod  to say she couldnt make her barbeque the next day iirc

Yes that's the content of the second text. The first one was to ask what to bring. Completely unsuspicious.

[mercury]

Yes that's the content of the second text. The first one was to ask what to bring. Completely unsuspicious.

Thanks
I dont suspect tanner at all, if anythng she was used by the mccanns getting her to go back, after she had said it would terrify her,  a similar excuse they used for not wantng to do a reconstruction previously but ok for asking others to do their own one

and especially by gerry  in that documentary, making her cry,  he could have asked his mate loach to edit that out

[pegasus]

Thanks
I dont suspect tanner at all, if anythng she was used by the mccanns getting her to go back, after she had said it would terrify her,  a similar excuse they used for not wantng to do a reconstruction previously but ok for asking others to do their own one

and especially by gerry in that documentary, making her cry,  he could have asked his mate loach to edit that out

The honest witness was crying for the poor little girl IMO Mercury, and wishing she'd stopped that man she saw (remember this film was made long before SY found the man was an innocent tourist with his own daughter). The presentation by someone else of an alternative chat location over the road out of earshot of the lounge wouldn't make anyone cry, in fact you can see the witness is bemused by how anyone could possibly remember it being over on the other side.