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

[icabodcrane]

Cheers Icabod!  

 

So good of you to be kind like that

Sadies theory, the one that you have desperately tried to diminish, on page 2 post 29  Bwhahahha!

Aww  (((sadie)))  I wouldn't wish for a minute to diminish you,  or your theory  ...  to which you are perfectly entitled

It would be good,  though,  if we could discuss possibilities that your theory does not  allow for  (  especially where they are evidenced based  )  ...  just for the sake of friendly  debate

What say you ?

Yep, I am happy, in fact I would welcome input.  I am always willing to change, but there has to be a reason.  It wont be tonight tho Icabod, I'm too tired.

And as a one fingered typist, I cant take on  aload of you at the same time

I am old and heavily diabetic, so it has to be at my pace ... and I am a wife with all that that entails.


But yep, if you are happy for it to be slow, then I am very happy to try that.
I dont have a team behind me as I suspect you guys have, so I shall be honest and tell you when it is from memory. 

OK?

Team  ?  ...  not me sadie

look forward to some friendly debate when you've had a well earned rest   ...  sleep well

[sadie]

Thank you.  Good night

[peter claridge]

It is not written in stone though is it? Sadie? This is Jane Tanner's map of locations.

Your constant carping on about Amaral being a convicted criminal does not help any discussion TBH. Are you suggesting he changed the position of the chat? By a metre or so? Why would he? What difference would it make? Maybe I misread your post.

Edited for afterthought.

Have you noticed that on this map drawn by Jane Tanner of what she claims to have seen that night, she shows the person carrying a child as having come from the McCann apartment... how could she possibly have known that!

[peter claridge]

The map shows the position of the man on the pavement when she first saw him, she does not claim he came from the apartment only that he was walking away from the direction of the apartment.

She includes in her drawing the McCann's apartment, why?  She draws a line from the apartment coming around the car park and pointing in the direction of her claimed sighting on the corner of the road, why?

[peter claridge]

Why wouldn't she draw in the apartment?  What do you think her drawing in the apartment signifies?

What has the McCann apartment got to do with what she saw?

[peter claridge]

Why wouldn't she draw in the apartment?  What do you think her drawing in the apartment signifies?

What has the McCann apartment got to do with what she saw?

Hmmm, let's see - is she not giving a statement as part of a missing child investigation, a child who went missing from that very apartment?

Nope, she is giving a statement of what she claims to have seen, a person that could have come from anywhere... the McCann apartment shouldn't be in her drawing let alone her depicting the person she claims to have seen coming from it.  Mind you, I shouldn't be to harsh on Jane... at least she got the position of Gerry and Jes correct!

[sadie]

DRAWN by Jez Wilkins himself.  Waht better can you get than that?



Jez is very clearly at, or extremely close to, the corner of the alleyway

Martha this is Jezes map.  This is most likely to be correct because Jez remembers Gerry appearing down the stairs and out of the gate ... so he has a datum.  Not just an airy fairy place.

Also this video clearly shows exactly where Jane Tanner insists it was, on that corner of the alleyway, not higher up as the [ censored word] insist

   @10.08

My theory depends on Gerry and Jez being below that gate, but they are trying to rubbish it, purely because they are bent on trying to prove Amarals theiory that an abduction couldn't have taken place.  That Madeleine died at the hands of her parents.
#
See page 2, Reply 29

Is there any chance you can post this video properly for me instead of just the address.  It refuses to post completely for me.


Hope the link hasn't been cut /altered as at times before.

[John]

Gerry made an interesting comment in that video Sadie.  He explains his reason for using the front door instead of the patio door being that the front door opening would not disturb the sleeping children in the same way that a sliding patio door located immediately opposite the children's bedroom would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY

[faithlilly]

@ sadie

Jez said he felt that Gerry had just come from the apartment but wasn't sure. Yet again you are trying to make events fit your theory by simply inventing things.

[Redblossom]

My theory depends on Gerry and Jez being below that gate, but they are trying to rubbish it, purely because they are bent on trying to prove Amarals theiory that an abduction couldn't have taken place.  That Madeleine died at the hands of her parents.

*****

I suppose Jane Tanner is an 'anti' then, because her map shows Jeremy Wilkins and Gerry Mccann way along the corner of the alley, or is her map wrong but Jermey Wilkins' one must be right

[icabodcrane]

Even in Gerry's alternative scenario he is stood on the road looking up at the 6' and more Jeremy standing on the pavement.   Does anyone think that one of them had a similar encounter at a different time and quiet possibly they are mixing them up?  Just a thought.

I like this particular mock up, it has a ring of truth about it when you consider what Jeremy said in his statements and what Mss Tanner pointed on in the mock reconstruction.   Jeremy claims it happened right there on the pathway so had he two feet on the kerb or just one?   

Just doing a little reading back,  and I noticed that  this thread   (  which was an excellent work in progress that was a credit to the forum  )   has been  'diminished'

Why is the final picture no longer available to view  ?    ...  it took us ages  (  and much relevant debate  )  to get to that point 

John  ? 

[Redblossom]

Cant even remember why it matters whether jez was at the gate or at the alley!

[sadie]

Well JT is mistaken. It's impossible for her to brush past 2 people on a quiet street in her flip flops lol without being noticed.  Any reconstruction you would see the absurdity of it. It can't be done as she said. Jez said it was impossible for him not to notice her passing.

Depends what sort of flip fliops she was wearing.

If she was wearing a well fitting pair of these quality leather flip flops at £50 per pair, there would be no flip flopping sound, imo
https://www.kingofwatersports.com/images/reef-leather-fanning-brw-wht-13-4.jpg


but [sorry the image is so small]
If she was wearing these cheapo plastic flip flops at about 50 pence a pair (wholesale) the sound would be quite loud imo
http://i00.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/917286354/2013_thick_sole_font_b_flip_b.jpg_140x140.jpg





So if she had "posh" flip flops, could be that she made little sound as she walked past.

[John]

We have already seen in the Ch4 documentary what happens when Jane Tanner relates what happened that evening, a version which by the way Jeremy Wilkins corroborates.   Gerry McCann comes storming over, interrupts Jane and relates his own version. Jane meantime wilts into the background almost in tears and has to be reassured by the former detective conducting the exercise.

Which one is mistaken?  If they can or could construe such a basic event WHAT ELSE DID THEY CONSTRUE ?

Answers please on a postcard to DCI Redwood c/o NSY

[Benice]

We have already seen in the Ch4 documentary what happens when Jane Tanner relates what happened that evening, a version which by the way Jeremy Wilkins corroborates.   Gerry McCann comes storming over, interrupts Jane and relates his own version. Jane meantime wilts into the background almost in tears and has to be reassured by the former detective conducting the exercise.

Which one is mistaken?  If they can or could construe such a basic event WHAT ELSE DID THEY CONSTRUE ?   

Oh come off it John.  There is no 'storming over' by Gerry. Be fair.   Jez Wilkins remembered the position as being similar to JT's and as I have mentioned before people do not stand rooted to the spot when they are talking and it could be that after 5 mins of chatting they were further across the road than they started and that was the impression left in Gerry's mind.   Who knows.

The fact is we know she saw them talking together as she was able to describe the scene she saw as she walked passed them.

If Gerry had his back to her and Jez happened to be looking down at his baby in his buggy when she passed - then it is not impossible IMO  that she was not seen in those couple of seconds.

If this was all part of a cunning plan then it goes without saying that Gerry would have said he saw Jayne.

IMO Jayne would be upset throughout that whole reconstruction - as it brought everything back to her about the events of that terrible night - including her blaming herself for not doing more at the time she saw the little girl being carried away.     Although IMO she had nothing to reproach herself for.

IIRC correctly she is giving this particular part of her evidence when the Police Officer reassured her that it was perfectly normal for different people to have different recollections of the same event.      (from memory so am happy to be corrected).