People who Jeremy Wilkins didn't see on 3rd May

JW in the rog was most insistent that he could NOT corroborate the time given by Gerry. 
He set the meeting at at 8.45 to 9.15pm. 

My hunch is that none of them were where they said they were that evening. Not Gerry or JT or JW. Whatever the case, Jez' testimony seriously undermines Jane Tanner's. 

As for not mentioning the rasta at 1.00 am. 
Woken from sleep -  hears about missing/abducted child. 
Reply would be what I'd expect. Why search? Abducted does imoly transport, not a bloke taking a slow walk with a comatose child through the town. 

"Your'e joking!" I think that he literally cannot believe that Matt is telling him that Gerry saw him earlier in the evening outside the apartment. 

When Matt asks him:  'did you see anything?' I presume this relate to the fictitious (imo) Jane Tanner sighting. Was this a cue? Did you see the man that JT saw?

The following day, Jez tells police he saw a suspicious man in the tapas bar (where Jez was presumably dining) between 7.30 and 8pm that fateful evening. A blonde man so nothing like the man Jane allegedly saw. And he does not mention bumping into Gerry, as far as I am aware. Odd.

Iirc rasta man was eliminated fairly quickly, so no mention of him in later interviews would be expected. 
He does ask if they need help with the search but in fact is told it isn't necessary. His wife writes later that she didn't want him to go out. i myself am sure that if told such news when woken at that time that I'd not think of anyone suspicious - perhaps not even when asked. 

Who eliminated 'rasta-man?' From the reports I've read 'rasta-man' was identified as fellow guest Mike Sperrey who is a friend of Gerrys. Jez tells police he had not seen the man before but if Sperrey was a guest at the hotel you would have thought that Jez would recognize him, especially as Sperrey has such a distinctive appearance.

It is on record that Robert Murat later tells Jez that 'rasta-man'  is a local man 'and everything is okay'. Murat is supposedly a helpful bystander and nothing to do with the police operation so how would he have this information? And how could a potential suspect be 'cleared' so quickly?


Maybe because him and his wife were "tireless" in their efforts to search for Madeleine, as recorded in one police report.  Unlike some other people - for instance Jez!

Where are the witness statements from Mike Sperrey? I have been unable to find them. And if 'rasta-man' was a 'local' as Murat says, who was he and where is his witness statement?

Imo the main reason to wake JW up was to remind him of having met Gerry - as he was now earmarked to shore up JT's alibi for Gerry after the disaster of the too inquisitive Smiths. JW was Gerry's desperately needed 'witness' and so JW was asked if he'd seen anything at that time (implied) when he was talki g to Gerry. It then follows that there was something to see at that time which he may have missed- namely eggman. 

But how does Gerry allegedly bumping into Jez at some time earlier in the evening provide an alibi for Gerry? The Smith sighting is at 10pm. That's much later. I don't really see how Jez' testimony helps either Gerry or Jane, apart from stating that Gerry was calm. It blows apart Jane's testimony.

Whether the Jez and Gerry encounter is true or false, I don't think it is that helpful for Gerry. And it certainly isn't helpful for Jez, as he becomes a key witness, at the least, plus  potential suspect.

JW in fact complained about the tactics and frequent demands used by TM who wanted him to put a definite and late time on the meeting. The chat could not have lasted more than a minute or two at most imo and is - seeing the start of his walk at 8.30 - most likely to have been close to 8.45. 


If it happened at all, of course! I doubt anyone was very calm that evening and 'the chat' was potentially quite heated.

JW is imo an average media person, his wife was in the Algarve on the occasion of becoming a partner in a local estate agency. They had a child which would often fall asleep after being walked around in a pushchair. All this is quite normal behaviour imo.

Big Fat Gypsy Wedding must have made him pretty rich. He has been very successful and has a huge number of productions under his belt.

Bridget O'Donnell is a partner in a local estate agency? I didn't know that. So she would have local networks, then? And maybe even know Murat?

How intriguing!

I don't know if it's true that Bridget O'Donnell is or was a partner in an estate agency business. I'll try and find the topic where this was mentioned before.

P.S. The name of the company is McCarrick & O'Donnell but I can't find anything as to who the O'Donnell partner is.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

An extremely blurred photo of the staff of McCarrick O'Donnell in 2008.

There's a photo of Bridget O'Donnell here.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If anyone can make the first photo a little clearer it might be possible to say whether or not Bridget is either of the two ladies in the middle.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

An extremely blurred photo of the staff of McCarrick O'Donnell in 2008.

There's a photo of Bridget O'Donnell here.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If anyone can make the first photo a little clearer it might be possible to say whether or not Bridget is either of the two ladies in the middle.

Possibly the slimmer one on our left, in trousers. Definitely not the one on our right.

As I said before, AFAIK, it's not the same person.

I agree Praia, I don't know why it was ever suggested that Bridget O'Donnell was running this business. As far as I am aware, she and her family have always lived in the U K - a hell of a commute to work each day!

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I don't know if it's true that Bridget O'Donnell is or was a partner in an estate agency business. I'll try and find the topic where this was mentioned before.

P.S. The name of the company is McCarrick & O'Donnell but I can't find anything as to who the O'Donnell partner is.

This one?

McCarrick & O'Donnell Estate Agents. McCarrick & O'Donnell - Estate Agents. Avenida Dos Descobrimentos 43I Lagos, Algarve PORTUGAL 8600. Telephone: ...

Yes, that's the one I posted a link to last night but I don't think there's any connection at all to Bridget O'Donnell.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Yes, that's the one I posted a link to last night but I don't think there's any connection at all to Bridget O'Donnell.

See the separate topic on O'Donnell and Lance de Boils' topic on JW etc.

I think it's very likely  that she is the estate agent. I had a friend who sold property in Italy whilst living in the UK.
Imo quite a normal scenario as most clients would be from the UK.
It's not exactly a full-time job and they usually get paid a one-off fee for each property that is sold.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Yes, that's the one I posted a link to last night but I don't think there's any connection at all to Bridget O'Donnell.

No Bridget is not in the picture.

Here is a better image (bottom left photo) http://www.portugalimages.net/albums.asp?AID=847

Here is more about Bridget

"
Bridget O’Donnell worked at the BBC for ten years as a producer and director in Documentaries, Crime and Drama. On maternity leave she wrote her first play, Lie Back in Anger, which was produced by the Union Theatre in London. She now writes for the Guardian, Daily Mail and SabotageTimes.com, and continues to work as a freelance director and in television development.
Her first book is a historical true-crime story set in the 1880s about the extraordinary events leading up to the raising of the age of consent. Inspector Minahan Makes a Stand is published by Picador."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Yes, that's the one I posted a link to last night but I don't think there's any connection at all to Bridget O'Donnell.

I cant see anything obvious

Elaine McCarrick is one director. 

It must involve Luz properties

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Here is a fuzzy picture of the 4 woman that ran the company, oddly they seem very cagey about naming the other 3. 

Company started in April 2007

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



MCCARRICK & O’Donnell is a real estate agency with a difference... it’s an all-woman team that listens to its clients’ every need.Opened in April 2007, the office is conveniently located opposite the marina, along the main Avenida in Lagos.The business, which was started by director Elaine McCarrick, specialises in the western Algarve, although the majority of their portfolio is located around Lagos, Praia da Luz and Salema. All kinds of properties are listed on their books, from land, apartments, townhouses and villas to country estates and commercial enterprises.“We do not try to do the hard sell at all,” says Elaine. Instead, the company tracks the market conditions on a weekly basis and matches any properties with any potential clients. “This way, sales are made quickly and efficiently and often occur before the property has even been placed on our website or in our window! The girls are all trained not to wait,” says Elaine. “They identify what their clients’ requirements are and then match their ideal property to them.”Offering an honest and genuine personal service, the girls at McCarrick & O’Donnell listen to their clients’ needs and maintain their positive attitude at all times.“We literally hold our clients’ hands and guide them through the whole buying process, and we aim to make it an enjoyable experience. We can take the stress out of buying a property in the Algarve,” says Elaine.With more than 300 properties in their portfolio, Elaine stresses that they are still in need of more properties from the 400,000 euro mark and upwards for a string of clients who are ready to buy here. “With the credit crunch in Britain at the moment, we are seeing a lot more families upping sticks to move to the Algarve for a whole new life. This, in itself, is creating a demand for more properties here,” stresses Elaine.For more information, contact 282 799 401, email [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] or visit [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

sharonl wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Yes, that's the one I posted a link to last night but I don't think there's any connection at all to Bridget O'Donnell.

I cant see anything obvious

Elaine McCarrick is one director. 

It must involve Luz properties

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Here is a fuzzy picture of the 4 woman that ran the company, oddly they seem very cagey about naming the other 3. 

Company started in April 2007

Left to right on your picture & my link (see above) they are Elaine McCarrick, Antonia Duarte, Nina Abbott & Gill Courtney.

I can't find any one called O'Donnell linked to this company & am sure it is nothing to do with the case.

Something has always puzzled me.

Why didn't Gerry say he saw Jane and Creshman while he was talking to JW?

Gillyspot, I imagine that the name O'Donnell must have been chosen for a reason - perhaps the name of a sleeping partner in the business?

There's certainly nothing in my opinion to prove a connection with Bridget.

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:Something has always puzzled me.

Why didn't Gerry say he saw Jane and Creshman while he was talking to JW?

Maybe because she was never there, and in this case he was (amazingly) telling the truth. He honestly didn't see her.
I think it's because if he was ever questioned about his seeing her (ie, in a police interview situation), he would have to provide details. And if JT was ever questioned about seeing him (ie, in a police interview situation), she would have to provide details. And if those details didn't match, one or the other of them might be in serious trouble.

Simpler for GM to just say he didn't see her, and then he can't provide right or wrong details to verify or discount what JT's account might be.

canada12 wrote:

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:Something has always puzzled me.
Why didn't Gerry say he saw Jane and Creshman while he was talking to JW?

....
Simpler for GM to just say he didn't see her, and then he can't provide right or wrong details to verify or discount what JT's account might be.

IF, and only IF I were drawing up a scenario, it would involve as few people as possible seeing anything.
It would also involved almost no one being around to corroborate anyone else, in case that anyone else then changed their story.

So NONE of the Tapas group is around on 3rd, and therefore NONE of them can say they saw Madeleine, - but as important is that none of them can say they DIDN'T see her
Only one person sees Tannerman
No one sees Tanner
Gerry does his check alone
Kate does her check alone
The other bloke either does, or does not do, the check alone - even though minutes earlier he was with someone else -

The problems come when two people try to describe the same scene, and we end up with the Front door / patio door fiasco
Broken shutters / perfect shutters, curtains wide open / tight closed and whooshing, sedation / no sedation / MUST have been sedated, Fund for legal fees / NOT for legal fees
and so on.
The outright lies are only exposed when two or more people are involved.
If they know know they are on their own they can say what they want and then change it, putting it down to mistake or forgetfulness

PeterMac wrote:

canada12 wrote:

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:Something has always puzzled me.
Why didn't Gerry say he saw Jane and Creshman while he was talking to JW?

....
Simpler for GM to just say he didn't see her, and then he can't provide right or wrong details to verify or discount what JT's account might be.

IF, and only IF I were drawing up a scenario, it would involve as few people as possible seeing anything.
It would also involved almost no one being around to corroborate anyone else, in case that anyone else then changed their story.

So NONE of the Tapas group is around on 3rd, and therefore NONE of them can say they saw Madeleine, - but as important is that none of them can say they DIDN'T see her
Only one person sees Tannerman
No one sees Tanner
Gerry does his check alone
Kate does her check alone
The other bloke either does, or does not do, the check alone - even though minutes earlier he was with someone else -

The problems come when two people try to describe the same scene, and we end up with the Front door / patio door fiasco
Broken shutters / perfect shutters,  curtains wide open / tight closed and whooshing,  sedation / no sedation / MUST have been sedated, Fund for legal fees / NOT for legal fees
and so on.
The outright lies are only exposed when two or more people are involved.
If they know know they are on their own they can say what they want and then change it, putting it down to mistake or forgetfulness

I'm surprised though that he didn't use his 'confusion is good' card.
He could have said, I seem to recall that there was someone moving about in the area but wasn't really looking around, I was just concentrating on talking to Jez and listening to what he was saying.... 
This way, Jane's vision could have been justified.
I am surprised that he has, in denying her presence, spoiled one of his main alibis.
But then, prone to thinking on the hoof, this could be another of Gerry's famous c**kups, just like the not jemmied windows, the solid wooden fully glazed patio door opened by a key at the front of the building at the back.

Another interesting thing about Jez's testimony is that he says GM came from the corridor in front of the apartments, while GM (at the time) claimed he used the front door.

I think this is a crucial piece of the puzzle.

I also wonder if JW knows what direction GM was heading after their brief chat, or at least if JT or GM can tell (I bet they can't)...

Something about this little meeting isn't quite right: GM coming from the apartment's back, not the front might really be important!

Possibly one reason GM changed his story about which door he used.
From front door with key, to open sliding patio door a week later.

I'd have thought gm would have came down the steps then closing the gate behind him!

Why is the statement of JW accepted as a given? Has anyone else questioned its veracity? Since the 3A days I have pondered on this. What was in his pram? Why was his reaction to a child missing so odd? Just asking...

Indeed. Why??

I don't find his reaction odd.  How you react in a crisis can depend if you have your children with you or not.
If he is genuine he will only have known that M had been taken and his first reaction was to protect his own family.  If he'd been on holiday without children he would have probably have gone out searching.

It's stranger to me (as in more strange, not the smelly foreign child-abducting variety) that it was thought okay to wake people up in the middle of the night with the news of a missing child and then tell them that their help wasn't needed.