The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

Regards,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Gerry's clothes

Page 2 of 15 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8 ... 15  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by suzyjohnson on Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:52 pm

Did the twins wake up at all?00.53.22 1485

Reply “They didn’t. They didn’t”.

1485 “In the aftermath?”

Reply “No, and that was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was very much concerned in checking that they were okay. But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn’t, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird, I remember thinking, you know, when the Police came they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn’t, you know, so much as blink”

-------------------------------------------------------------

IMO, looking at this evidence, Fiona Payne was never involved in staging a cover up ( or she wouldn't have told the police the above information) It follows, IMO, that MM was not missing for more than a few hours (prior to the evening of May 3rd), otherwise other members of the Tapas group would have noticed. 

If the Smith family did see GM, then I think the child he was carrying would have been MM. He would have thrown away any of these clothes to avoid being identified by the Smith witnesses.  
.

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1055
Reputation : 171
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by Cristobell on Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:55 pm

@suzyjohnson wrote:Did the twins wake up at all?00.53.22 1485

Reply “They didn’t. They didn’t”.

1485 “In the aftermath?”

Reply “No, and that was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was very much concerned in checking that they were okay. But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn’t, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird, I remember thinking, you know, when the Police came they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn’t, you know, so much as blink”

-------------------------------------------------------------

IMO, looking at this evidence, Fiona Payne was never involved in staging a cover up ( or she wouldn't have told the police the above information) It follows, IMO, that MM was not missing for more than a few hours (prior to the evening of May 3rd), otherwise other members of the Tapas group would have noticed. 

If the Smith family did see GM, then I think the child he was carrying would have been MM. He would have thrown away any of these clothes to avoid being identified by the Smith witnesses.  
.
Gerry didn't throw the clothes away Suzy, he was wearing the trousers with the buttons down the side (as described by Mrs Smith) when he did his 'wider agenda' presentation.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by Guest on Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:01 pm

In regards to the theory of Smithman aka Gerry, carrying a decoy which is a theory a lot of people seem to agree with. I don't really go along with that.

How could Gerry be so sure that there was no CCTV anywhere on his route whether it be on a private residence, shop, on the street. If he got picked up on that carrying someone else's daughter then how could the man with a supposed answer for everything get out of that one. Also it's one hell of a risk. Yes he bumped into the smith family who say with 60 - 80% accuracy the man they saw was GM. There was a chance he could of bumped into someone / some people going round a corner that could of identified him 100%. As i say - a hell of risk.

That's why i believe (IMO) that it was the sadly deceased MBM that GM was carrying that night. Plans at some point on the 3rd all went wrong and changes were cobbled together last min. Hence the scribbled timelines written down. Panic and a rush job now in place.

It had to be GM carrying MBM away from the complex. Nobody else in there right mind will volunteer for that job. He took a massive risk that a) there was no cctv and b) he wouldn't bump into anyone. Unfortunately he bumped into the Smiths. I certainly dont think that was intentional as some people are in agreement with. If he really wanted to be purposely seen then he would of been all incognito wearing at least a cap and maybe glasses etc. 

When he got back and realised he had been potentially seen then Tannerman was created. At an earlier time and going in a different direction. This abductor TM have said from day one is the person responsible for taking MBM and doing their best to suppress the Smiths sightings. 

Something changed and without question he had to get MBM to the beach at the last min. From there i have absolutely no idea what happened. 

All IMO of course...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by aiyoyo on Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:17 pm

Andrew77R wrote:In regards to the theory of Smithman aka Gerry, carrying a decoy which is a theory a lot of people seem to agree with. I don't really go along with that.

Seconded.
I dont believe controlling Gerry would take that kind of risk.  
It's not plausible that the Hol friend would allow their child to be used in that manner.
I may be the odd one out in my thinking that  the 10.00pm man was not Gerry.
My belief is Maddie was dead before the 3rd and the neglect was their alibi.
No neglect = no window of opportunity for abductor.
3rd was just scene staging.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 319
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by Cristobell on Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:25 pm

Andrew77R wrote:In regards to the theory of Smithman aka Gerry, carrying a decoy which is a theory a lot of people seem to agree with. I don't really go along with that.

How could Gerry be so sure that there was no CCTV anywhere on his route whether it be on a private residence, shop, on the street. If he got picked up on that carrying someone else's daughter then how could the man with a supposed answer for everything get out of that one. Also it's one hell of a risk. Yes he bumped into the smith family who say with 60 - 80% accuracy the man they saw was GM. There was a chance he could of bumped into someone / some people going round a corner that could of identified him 100%. As i say - a hell of risk.

That's why i believe (IMO) that it was the sadly deceased MBM that GM was carrying that night. Plans at some point on the 3rd all went wrong and changes were cobbled together last min. Hence the scribbled timelines written down. Panic and a rush job now in place.

It had to be GM carrying MBM away from the complex. Nobody else in there right mind will volunteer for that job. He took a massive risk that a) there was no cctv and b) he wouldn't bump into anyone. Unfortunately he bumped into the Smiths. I certainly dont think that was intentional as some people are in agreement with. If he really wanted to be purposely seen then he would of been all incognito wearing at least a cap and maybe glasses etc. 

When he got back and realised he had been potentially seen then Tannerman was created. At an earlier time and going in a different direction. This abductor TM have said from day one is the person responsible for taking MBM and doing their best to suppress the Smiths sightings. 

Something changed and without question he had to get MBM to the beach at the last min. From there i have absolutely no idea what happened. 

All IMO of course...
I agree on the whole with your premise Andrew, but it would be incredibly risky to carry the body of a child through the streets.  Thinking out loud, if it was done as you say in panic, Smithman was left with the prospect of carrying the body in a holdall, thus leaving his face/features in full view of CCTV or people strolling home from the pub.  However in a holiday resort with a night creche, the sight of a father carrying a child in pyjamas would not have been out of place, and the body could be used as a shield to hide the face of the carrier.  The 'abductor' therefore must have known about the night creche, either as a holiday maker or a local, imo.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by woodforthetrees on Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:34 pm

I can see that the 'use a decoy with a live, albeit sedated child' theory answering why no cadaver was found on those clothes (we are pressuming this is GM), but if the dead body was both stored and then subsequently moved from the apartment, it would most likely be done by GM. More importantly, if it was a planned decoy, the 'child carrier' would be wearing a hat or something else to obscure his face??

If cadaver scent was found at the drivers side of the hire car, then it must've also been on his clothes. Surely the police would've thought of that and confiscated the clothes GM was wearing when in the car? More importantly, if those clothes have mysteriously dissapeared, it would build the case of circumstantial evidence against him?

So, onto the second point.... if there is a theory that certain members of the Tapas assited with 'the plan' then they too would have cadaver scent on them/their clothes/apartments etc? Were their clothes and their apartments not checked by the dogs as well?

Also, if the tapas were also 'taking it in turns to check the McCann kids', they too would've been contaminated with cadaver scent after coming into contact with cuddle cat etc within apartment? Whether cadaver scent from MBM or another body?

hmmmm...

woodforthetrees

Posts : 270
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-03-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by AndyB on Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:38 pm

Andrew77R wrote:It had to be GM carrying MBM away from the complex. Nobody else in there right mind will volunteer for that job.
I agree and yet Jane Tanner says "I was carrying..." while demonstrating how

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y42_8vggMNQ

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 53
Location : Consett, County Durham

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by Doug D on Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:41 pm

Although Smithman has been completely dismissed by some, the alternative suggestion that the street walk was a deliberate ploy to be seen, (referred to by Helen Meg and others above) thereby creating ‘the abductor’, has also been decried as being unrealistic.
 
Textusa examined the streetwalk in:
 
http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/intentional-not-debatable-fact.html
 
concluding that it must have been deliberate in view of the number of escape routes available to avoid being seen, but I don’t recall this theory ever having been seriously looked at on here.
 
As there seemed to be a need to substantiate the abductor angle, yet place GM elsewhere and the Tannerman version has now been formally discredited, I think it would be interesting to hear from people who have actually walked the streets of PdL as to whether they consider Textusa’s suggestions to be viable or not in this respect.

Doug D

Posts : 2227
Reputation : 728
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by Guest on Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:45 pm

@Cristobell wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:In regards to the theory of Smithman aka Gerry, carrying a decoy which is a theory a lot of people seem to agree with. I don't really go along with that.

How could Gerry be so sure that there was no CCTV anywhere on his route whether it be on a private residence, shop, on the street. If he got picked up on that carrying someone else's daughter then how could the man with a supposed answer for everything get out of that one. Also it's one hell of a risk. Yes he bumped into the smith family who say with 60 - 80% accuracy the man they saw was GM. There was a chance he could of bumped into someone / some people going round a corner that could of identified him 100%. As i say - a hell of risk.

That's why i believe (IMO) that it was the sadly deceased MBM that GM was carrying that night. Plans at some point on the 3rd all went wrong and changes were cobbled together last min. Hence the scribbled timelines written down. Panic and a rush job now in place.

It had to be GM carrying MBM away from the complex. Nobody else in there right mind will volunteer for that job. He took a massive risk that a) there was no cctv and b) he wouldn't bump into anyone. Unfortunately he bumped into the Smiths. I certainly dont think that was intentional as some people are in agreement with. If he really wanted to be purposely seen then he would of been all incognito wearing at least a cap and maybe glasses etc. 

When he got back and realised he had been potentially seen then Tannerman was created. At an earlier time and going in a different direction. This abductor TM have said from day one is the person responsible for taking MBM and doing their best to suppress the Smiths sightings. 

Something changed and without question he had to get MBM to the beach at the last min. From there i have absolutely no idea what happened. 

All IMO of course...
I agree on the whole with your premise Andrew, but it would be incredibly risky to carry the body of a child through the streets.  Thinking out loud, if it was done as you say in panic, Smithman was left with the prospect of carrying the body in a holdall, thus leaving his face/features in full view of CCTV or people strolling home from the pub.  However in a holiday resort with a night creche, the sight of a father carrying a child in pyjamas would not have been out of place, and the body could be used as a shield to hide the face of the carrier.  The 'abductor' therefore must have known about the night creche, either as a holiday maker or a local, imo.
Yes, incredibly risky but imo they (GM) did not have a choice. Sink or swim at the very last minute. Maybe the original plan was somebody to collect MBM (KM's reference they have taken her). Rather than 'they' coming. GM had to get there. All at the last min. 

As you say he could shield his face by the way he carried his child and if anyone saw from a distance then at the time it would look like a father carrying his child back from a night creche.

Would certainly look more suspicious and be more dangerous for an unexposed GM lumping a big blue holdall around the streets to a certain destination.

All IMO.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by PeterMac on Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:45 pm

@aiyoyo wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:In regards to the theory of Smithman aka Gerry, carrying a decoy which is a theory a lot of people seem to agree with. I don't really go along with that.
Seconded.
I dont believe controlling Gerry would take that kind of risk.  
It's not plausible that the Hol friend would allow their child to be used in that manner.
I may be the odd one out in my thinking that  the 10.00pm man was not Gerry.
My belief is Maddie was dead before the 3rd and the neglect was their alibi.
No neglect  = no window of opportunity for abductor.
3rd was just scene staging.

You are not alone in that.
There is far too much detail about 3rd, Last Photo, - look at the date, look at the date ! ! which we now know to be false, all other witnesses shoved out of the way to the Paraiso, Madeleine suddenly exhausted to the point of collapse and carried back, and so on that I find it extremely unlikely that she was alive that day.
But also we note that on the afternon of 3rd Gerry had his infamous Achilles Tendon injury and cried of teenis during the afternoon.

He is in full tennis kit, so carrying a large blue tennis bag - "big enough to hide a . . erm tennis racquet in" would attract no attention at all.
He is then free to wander anywhere in PdL, o get a lift, or a taxi to anywhere else within a small radius, before returning, mooching round again, being seen but not remarked
and then later plays tennis like a demon, again so that he is seen by others, so much that he had no time to visit Kate and the children and has to allegedly delegate this to Payne !

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 149
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by aiyoyo on Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:47 pm

I'm inclined to think he's just an innocent father (not a Brit one) waiting to be eliminated or already eliminated but the Police are not telling us.


aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 319
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by ultimaThule on Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:49 pm

@Cristobell wrote:
@suzyjohnson wrote:Did the twins wake up at all?00.53.22 1485

Reply “They didn’t. They didn’t”.

1485 “In the aftermath?”

Reply “No, and that was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was very much concerned in checking that they were okay. But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn’t, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird, I remember thinking, you know, when the Police came they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn’t, you know, so much as blink”

-------------------------------------------------------------

IMO, looking at this evidence, Fiona Payne was never involved in staging a cover up ( or she wouldn't have told the police the above information) It follows, IMO, that MM was not missing for more than a few hours (prior to the evening of May 3rd), otherwise other members of the Tapas group would have noticed. 

If the Smith family did see GM, then I think the child he was carrying would have been MM. He would have thrown away any of these clothes to avoid being identified by the Smith witnesses.  
.
Gerry didn't throw the clothes away Suzy, he was wearing the trousers with the buttons down the side (as described by Mrs Smith) when he did his 'wider agenda' presentation.
You cannot state this with any certainty as these particular trousers are not unique, Cristobell.

I often buy more than one item in the same colour/style if it appeals to me and I know a number of people who also 'bulk buy' the contents of their wardrobes in this manner because they are either strapped for time, or dislike shopping and confine their trips to clothing stores to once or twice a year.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by PeterMac on Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:51 pm

Andrew77R wrote:
As you say he could shield his face by the way he carried his child and if anyone saw from a distance then at the time it would look like a father carrying his child back from a night creche.
Would certainly look more suspicious and be more dangerous for an unexposed GM lumping a big blue holdall around the streets to a certain destination.
All IMO.
Our posts crossed.
I keep thinking mid afternoon. In full view. In a taxi, or given a lift by someone to somewhere not a million miles away. There are plenty of hiding places outside what would become the immediate search area.
For me Smithman may therefore be irrelevant
Just as was Tannerman

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 149
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by Guest on Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:28 pm

@PeterMac wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
As you say he could shield his face by the way he carried his child and if anyone saw from a distance then at the time it would look like a father carrying his child back from a night creche.
Would certainly look more suspicious and be more dangerous for an unexposed GM lumping a big blue holdall around the streets to a certain destination.
All IMO.
Our posts crossed.
I keep thinking mid afternoon.  In full view. In a taxi, or given a lift by someone to somewhere not a million miles away. There are plenty of hiding places outside what would become the immediate search area.
For me Smithman may therefore be irrelevant
Just as was Tannerman
I'm not convinced PeterMac.

As i stated in earlier posts on this - i am in the opinion that Smithman is highly relevant and Smithman is GM. 

GM carrying a deceased MBM to a destination for final removal. 

Yes, i believe MBM sadly died before the 3rd but changes in the original plan / script had to change last minute.

GM did not have a choice. He had to get MBM out the complex a.s.a.p at that time otherwise everything would collapse. IMO he had a helping hand for final removal / disposal but something changed and he had to get MBM there as opposed to someone coming for MBM.

He risked it but it was him carrying MBM and was seen by the Smiths and Smithman is Gerry.

All IMO of course.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by aiyoyo on Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:34 pm

He would have had to put distance between Maddie's body from the Police and the Search before staging the scene. No sense for him to be heading away from the Resort when the alarm was being raised without knowing where he was going to dump a body, how far he was going to have to go before spotting a suitable spot and then there's concern of having to return in useful time for the other charade.

To hide the body successfully requires some planning and maybe help, not spur of the moment hasty dumping.







aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 319
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by Guest on Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:48 pm

I am coming back to the "faint" alert Eddie gave to the bushes in the garden downstairs [next to the stairs?].
The plan may have been to bring Madeleine at 9pm something to an already sorted out hiding place. Jeremy walking up the street at that time, may have thrown a spanner in the works at that moment, but was later being used for an alibi for Gerry as the mysterious, now non-existing Tannerman walked by. Gerry put her down in the garden to meet Jeremy and gave it a go-again around 10pm. And the real "abduction" had to be postponed to a later hour. The timelines were scripted to get the changed schedule right ...

ETA @ PeterMac. If Gerry took a taxi, wouldn't the driver remember that, given all of the 7-year-commotion around the disappearance? If he got a lift, who could that have been? Do we have evidence they knew people there before or met them during the holidays, who'd give him a ride to ... where ... ? And then bring him back without the tennisbag or an empty one without asking?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by Guest on Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:51 pm

@aiyoyo wrote:He would have had to put distance between Maddie's body from the Police and the Search before staging the scene.  No sense for him to be heading away from the Resort when the alarm was being raised without knowing where he was going to dump a body, how far he was going to have to go before spotting a suitable spot  and then there's concern of having to return in useful time for the other charade.

To hide the body successfully requires some planning and maybe help, not spur of the moment hasty dumping.






Doesn't make sense at all - i totally agree.

I believe there had been some immense pre-planning in this before the raised alarm. (at least 24 hours, maybe longer)

However i am still in the opinion that certain things out of Team Mccann's immediate control changed between those last few hours prior to the alarm being raised.

For what ever reason the alarm had to be raised on the 3rd at around 10pm ish. 

If we believe and i certainly do that there was a lot of pre planning being done then we would not have discrepancies. We would not have hastily written timelines. Invented Tannerman at the last min. Etc etc.

SOMETHING CHANGED that night. The original plan was not going to work. For whatever reason. New timelines, alibi's etc had to be created in a panic and in a rush.

MBM had to be taken away from the complex. GM was the only person that could do that. He did do and was seen and we have SMITHMAN who TM have tried to play down and suppress over the years.

All IMO of course.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by aiyoyo on Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:52 pm

Andrew77R wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
As you say he could shield his face by the way he carried his child and if anyone saw from a distance then at the time it would look like a father carrying his child back from a night creche.
Would certainly look more suspicious and be more dangerous for an unexposed GM lumping a big blue holdall around the streets to a certain destination.
All IMO.
Our posts crossed.
I keep thinking mid afternoon.  In full view. In a taxi, or given a lift by someone to somewhere not a million miles away. There are plenty of hiding places outside what would become the immediate search area.
For me Smithman may therefore be irrelevant
Just as was Tannerman
I'm not convinced PeterMac.

As i stated in earlier posts on this - i am in the opinion that Smithman is highly relevant and Smithman is GM. 

GM carrying a deceased MBM to a destination for final removal. 

Yes, i believe MBM sadly died before the 3rd but changes in the original plan / script had to change last minute.

GM did not have a choice. He had to get MBM out the complex a.s.a.p at that time otherwise everything would collapse. IMO he had a helping hand for final removal / disposal but something changed and he had to get MBM there as opposed to someone coming for MBM.

He risked it but it was him carrying MBM and was seen by the Smiths and Smithman is Gerry.

All IMO of course.


In his shoes, would you carry a dead child uncovered openly in a public place on foot risking all sorts while your wife is raising the alarm?  Or would you wait until you'd been and back before asking your wife to raise the alarm ?  
How critical is it that the alarm had got to be raised at 10pm?  How would a littler later than that make a difference?  
Why must the alarm absolutely got to be raised on the 3rd, why can it not wait till 4th if she died on the 3rd ?

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 319
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by canada12 on Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:58 pm

IMO the one thing that changed, that was glaringly incorrect, was the jemmied shutters. I firmly believe those shutters were meant to be broken to "prove" an abduction. If the shutters had been broken, everything else would have been on-script. The obvious assumption by the parents that Madeleine had been abducted and hadn't wandered away. The telephone call to Gerry's family. Something happened whereby those shutters couldn't be broken. Either there would have been a witness or witnesses, or it would have made too much noise, or it was just simply too impossible to do. Or, someone whose job it was to break the shutters, didn't. For whatever reason.

canada12

Posts : 1461
Reputation : 198
Join date : 2013-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by tigger on Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:02 pm

@aiyoyo wrote:He would have had to put distance between Maddie's body from the Police and the Search before staging the scene.  No sense for him to be heading away from the Resort when the alarm was being raised without knowing where he was going to dump a body, how far he was going to have to go before spotting a suitable spot  and then there's concern of having to return in useful time for the other charade.

To hide the body successfully requires some planning and maybe help, not spur of the moment hasty dumping.







She was supposed to have disappeared on the 3rd, at least some evidence of a child being taken from a to b was very necessary for this myth to take hold.

Soon enough the police would want to know who had seen her last and that too - even on the day, was a little tricky.
So imo a brisk walk with a conveniently comatose child, whote face was not seen but was wearing girly pyjamas and - again my opinion - a wig, would/might hopefully be noticed by the odd tourist in PdL.
Note that the route taken avoided CCTV cameras in the main square (according to Textusa also a shorter route) indications are that being seen but not spoken to was the aim.
Surely, with half the population of the tiny village looking that night, this would be reported within hours the next day at the latest.
That was one of the main turning points in the original scheme imo. The Smiths did not turn up till much later and in the intervening time, with the outstanding success of the publicity campaign, it was no longer necessary. It was discounted, not mentioned, or dismissed with a bit of spin - such as the distance between 5a and Kelly's bar being double the actual 800 meters or so.
The Smiths' sighting had to be factored back in and to be 'owned' by TM as soon as the Smiths realised they.'d seen Gerry.
this was in September 07. Now the TM stance was to accuse the PJ of ignoring it, not passing this vital information on.

Eta: there were two conveniently comatose children, used to being carried in that way, available that night. One of which could pass for a three year old imo.


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by AndyB on Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:05 pm

@aiyoyo wrote:How critical is it that the alarm had got to be raised at 10pm?  How would a littler later than that make a difference?  
Why must the alarm absolutely got to be raised on the 3rd, why can it not wait till 4th if she died on the 3rd ?
All of these questions are answered if it had been pre-arranged for this time with other people who were then uncontactable. The McCann's would then have been stuck with time frames that were beyond their control

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 53
Location : Consett, County Durham

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:09 pm

@AndyB wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:How critical is it that the alarm had got to be raised at 10pm?  How would a littler later than that make a difference?  
Why must the alarm absolutely got to be raised on the 3rd, why can it not wait till 4th if she died on the 3rd ?
All of these questions are answered if it had been pre-arranged for this time with other people who were then uncontactable. The McCann's would then have been stuck with time frames that were beyond their control

I believe that the alarm was raised before anyone knew that she was dead. In my opinion that alarm was raised at about 9:35pm, and they found Maddie's body at about 9:45pm - 9:50pm, just as an official search was about to start.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by Guest on Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:14 pm

@aiyoyo wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
As you say he could shield his face by the way he carried his child and if anyone saw from a distance then at the time it would look like a father carrying his child back from a night creche.
Would certainly look more suspicious and be more dangerous for an unexposed GM lumping a big blue holdall around the streets to a certain destination.
All IMO.
Our posts crossed.
I keep thinking mid afternoon.  In full view. In a taxi, or given a lift by someone to somewhere not a million miles away. There are plenty of hiding places outside what would become the immediate search area.
For me Smithman may therefore be irrelevant
Just as was Tannerman
I'm not convinced PeterMac.

As i stated in earlier posts on this - i am in the opinion that Smithman is highly relevant and Smithman is GM. 

GM carrying a deceased MBM to a destination for final removal. 

Yes, i believe MBM sadly died before the 3rd but changes in the original plan / script had to change last minute.

GM did not have a choice. He had to get MBM out the complex a.s.a.p at that time otherwise everything would collapse. IMO he had a helping hand for final removal / disposal but something changed and he had to get MBM there as opposed to someone coming for MBM.

He risked it but it was him carrying MBM and was seen by the Smiths and Smithman is Gerry.

All IMO of course.


In his shoes, would you carry a dead child uncovered openly in a public place on foot risking all sorts while your wife is raising the alarm?  Or would you wait until you'd been and back before asking your wife to raise the alarm ?  
How critical is it that the alarm had got to be raised at 10pm?  How would a littler later than that make a difference?  
Why must the alarm absolutely got to be raised on the 3rd, why can it not wait till 4th if she died on the 3rd ?
I see your point.

However, What if part of the pre planning was actually somebody i.e THEY coming to 'Jemmie' the shutters and actually take a deceased MBM away.

The plan didn't happen. GM was tipped off. He had to get MBM to the beach last minute. He took that risk as he DID NOT HAVE A CHOICE. 

Everything else was in place. HAD TO HAPPEN THAT NIGHT. 

IMO of course

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by HelenMeg on Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:23 pm

Andrew77R wrote:In regards to the theory of Smithman aka Gerry, carrying a decoy which is a theory a lot of people seem to agree with. I don't really go along with that.

How could Gerry be so sure that there was no CCTV anywhere on his route whether it be on a private residence, shop, on the street. If he got picked up on that carrying someone else's daughter then how could the man with a supposed answer for everything get out of that one. Also it's one hell of a risk. Yes he bumped into the smith family who say with 60 - 80% accuracy the man they saw was GM. There was a chance he could of bumped into someone / some people going round a corner that could of identified him 100%. As i say - a hell of risk.

That's why i believe (IMO) that it was the sadly deceased MBM that GM was carrying that night. Plans at some point on the 3rd all went wrong and changes were cobbled together last min. Hence the scribbled timelines written down. Panic and a rush job now in place.

It had to be GM carrying MBM away from the complex. Nobody else in there right mind will volunteer for that job. He took a massive risk that a) there was no cctv and b) he wouldn't bump into anyone. Unfortunately he bumped into the Smiths. I certainly dont think that was intentional as some people are in agreement with. If he really wanted to be purposely seen then he would of been all incognito wearing at least a cap and maybe glasses etc. 

When he got back and realised he had been potentially seen then Tannerman was created. At an earlier time and going in a different direction. This abductor TM have said from day one is the person responsible for taking MBM and doing their best to suppress the Smiths sightings. 

Something changed and without question he had to get MBM to the beach at the last min. From there i have absolutely no idea what happened. 

All IMO of course...
Well I believe GM was carrying a live child as you cannot carry  a dead child in the same way. You have to carry a dead child stretched out.  I have confirmed this with some doctors - there is no way you can carry a dead child up over the shoulder as did Smithman. Therefore that is why I believe Smithman carried a 'live' child.  You talk about risk - but imagine the risk of carrying a 'dead child ' and being caught out... It has to be 100 times worse than carrying a live child. You can explain away a live child.

Anyway, the main thing for me is to carry a dead child you have to support it in a completely different manner as they cannot hold their heads up etc etc ... but we can disagree - its no big problem

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 206
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry's clothes

Post by ultimaThule on Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:25 pm

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@AndyB wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:How critical is it that the alarm had got to be raised at 10pm?  How would a littler later than that make a difference?  
Why must the alarm absolutely got to be raised on the 3rd, why can it not wait till 4th if she died on the 3rd ?
All of these questions are answered if it had been pre-arranged for this time with other people who were then uncontactable. The McCann's would then have been stuck with time frames that were beyond their control

I believe that the alarm was raised before anyone knew that she was dead.  In my opinion that alarm was raised at about 9:35pm, and they found Maddie's body at about 9:45pm - 9:50pm, just as an official search was about to start.
The 'official search' did not start unti the police arrived, wlbts, and as no call was made to them until c10.40pm it would seem that, according to your theory, the death was known for at least an hour before the police were on the scene.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 15 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8 ... 15  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum