Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Every time you read something else about this case you find out more and the doubts grow. For instance, at first I believed their claim that they could see the apartment and anyone going in and out from the Tapas Bar. But they couldn't as it was obscured by trees and a wall. Then it turned out that they went in and out via the sliding patio doors, which couldn't be locked from the outside so had to be kept unlocked. And these doors were on the far side of the apartment so definitely couldn't be seen from where they were.
They then claimed the window had been forced open, which was easily disproven. Why didn't they mention the patio doors at the time? Could they have been trying to cover up the fact they'd been completely negligent and lying about being able to see the apartment or was it something more sinister? Then there's the friend, Jane Tanner, who gave a statement about walking somewhere during that evening. Gerry had claimed he was talking to someone after checking on the kids yet Tanner must have walked eight past him in a passageway and didn't see him. Someone's either badly mistaken or lying.
They then claimed the window had been forced open, which was easily disproven. Why didn't they mention the patio doors at the time? Could they have been trying to cover up the fact they'd been completely negligent and lying about being able to see the apartment or was it something more sinister? Then there's the friend, Jane Tanner, who gave a statement about walking somewhere during that evening. Gerry had claimed he was talking to someone after checking on the kids yet Tanner must have walked eight past him in a passageway and didn't see him. Someone's either badly mistaken or lying.