McCanns, PACT, Jim Gamble, Kevin Halligen, Adrian Oldfield and DCI Redwood’s 2 efits: Are all these just coincidences?

To help their friend?

I find it easier to believe that Tanner manufactured her sighting on the clothes Gerry was wearing when he was spotted by the Smiths and that her sighting was only necessitated by the fact that he was seen by them.

kevmack wrote:

...but your constant accusations about the Smiths not contacting the police immediately...The Smiths at that point had no reason to believe Gerry was anything other than a father taking his sleeping child home...

Do you expect us on here to taake that seriously?

Martin Smith was in that village

on 4 May
on 5 May
on 6 May
on 7 May
on 8 May and
on 9 May

amid

the entire village and surroundings crawling with hundreds of police, searchers, dogs, journalists amd cameramen

and

wall-to-wall coverage on the TV about Madeleine's disappearance

AND DID NOTHING

and that throughout that period and

on 10 May
on 11 May
on 12 May
on 13 May
on 14 May and
on 15 May

not one of nine members of this Smith family even thought of telling the police that they had seen a man carrying a young infant girl clad only in pyjamas.

You are buying that?

Sorry Tony, but it is you who is making the whole issue of the Smith sighting very convoluted.  And what exactly has Russian Doll got to do with this?  I have read the thread in the lounge, and I think perhaps this thread isn't the place for rehashing that again.

As I've said to you previously, I think the Smiths are being honest, and I probably shouldn't even have posted in this thread as I do not think we are ever going to agree on the subject.  I also wonder if another thread on this same subject is really necessary.

But as you seem to think that Gerry McCann did not remove his deceased daughter from the apartment on the evening of the 3rd May, I don't really know where that leaves us.

Tony - I wish you had suggested this before, then I could have understood where you were coming from.  But I have a problem with the Smith family manufacturing this sighting because it means, not only MS lying, his wife and son as well. There was the Son`s wife as well, but she didn`t give a statement.  That`s 4 adults having to go along with the story.  And didn`t one of the Smith children or grandchildren write a school project on `identifying people` (can`t remember the exact topic but it was something allied to the case) - she won an award for it.
 
I`m confused right now.

P.S. And the son also went on a Radio show and talked about it.

ultimaThule wrote:I find it easier to believe that Tanner manufactured her sighting on the clothes Gerry was wearing when he was spotted by the Smiths and that her sighting was only necessitated by the fact that he was seen by them.

Ah!

So that is very different from the russiandoll scenario.

russiandoll says that they planned for Jane to make a statement, but then they had to change it because Gerry was seen.

But your theory is totally different.

You say there was no plan for Jane or anyone else to invent an abductor until it was (to quote you) 'necessitated by the fact that he [Gerry] was seen by them [the Smiths]'.

This is an even more fantastical and unbelievable tale than russiandoll's (if that were possible).

You are now left with the problem of explaining why they raised the alarm at all (at abpout 10.00pm, or maybe earlier by some accounts).   

Why did they all raise the alarm BEFORE (on your version) Gerry returned to the Tapas bar - after having laid Madeleine's body to rest somewhere?

Suppose their was a plan for a live faked abduction (a la Elizabeth Smart/Shannon Matthews). Jez Wilkins plus Tapas in on it. Plus a few others.

All have various motivations for this. Mostly financial. Fame, fortune. Big news story. Maybe microchipping. Increased state control. Parents paranoid about their kids etc, etc.

Maybe even 'the abduction' to have happened earlier in the week.

Plan goes wrong. Madeleine has an accident/is overdosed/someone lashes out/she is abused in some way

Cannot admit to this as it would reveal a big can of worms. At the very least sedation of Madeleine and the twins. But probably more. And, in any case, the McCs want $$$$$$$ and taking your child to A+E and being done for child neglect (at the least) wouldn't make them any money. And would, in fact, potentially ruin their careers. Plus expose them as the crap parents that they are, imo.

When Matt and the resort manager work up Jez Wilkins at 1.30pm on Thursday night, telling him that Gerry saw him and he wants to know if he had seen anything, Jez says: "You're joking".

He means it. Gerry has landed him in it. The script has changed. Jez knows that, at the very least, he is now a person of considerable interest to investigating police.

At the very least.

This is unwelcome. Plus it looks mighty odd that a TV documentary maker who specializes in drama and whose wife worked for Crimewatch, just happened to be the last person to see Gerry before his daughter is mysteriously abducted.

Why did Jez change his witness testimony from having been in the Tapas that evening to not having been in the tapas that evening. 

Why do that?

I think Gerry landed him in it. To cover up for the new script.

No way did Jez Wilkins go back to sleep that night. Even if he had no prior knowledge whatsoever of events, a massive news story has just broken, and he has become a central figure in it.

He freaks out. And decides to land someone in it.

Maybe he became privy to certain information during the course of the week. Maybe he had certain suspicions. Maybe he wanted no part of the new script. Maybe he hoped this would be a way of removing himself entirely from the script.

Who knows?

But his changing witness statements. His wandering around (allegedly) with his pram. The complete implausibility of him and his partner going back to sleep after being woken up by Matt and the resort manager at 1.30pm. The fact that he WAS woken up by Matt and the resort manager. The fact that - despite both him and his partner having worked in TV drama and programmes like Crimewatch, so therefore know that the early hours after a child goes missing are crucial. The fact that, supposedly their daughter played with Madeleine. And they didn't even bother to help try to find their daughter's friend??

IMO

He is one of the big keys to unravelling what happened that night and maybe even that week or before that week. Not the only one, for sure. But an important one.

Smith-man can also slot into this scenarios in a number of ways. Whether you believe he is real/fake/Gerry/not Gerry. Plus might also account for the delay in the Smiths reporting the sighting.

The fact that he WAS woken up by Matt and the resort manager.


I very much doubt he was woken up! Who knows what he was up to. But the point is, he SAYS he was woken up by Matt and the resort manager at 1.30pm. 

 So presumably that puts him as supposedly sweetly tucked up in bed quite oblivious, as Bridget might say, of the catastrophic events that had recently taken  place in apartment 5A. Or so they both claimed.

And with the random, mystery, scary Big Bad Abductor roaming the resort - for at least 45 minutes according to Kate - and still at large having taken Madeleine off to a hellish liar - Jez and Bridget quickly resume their slumber post  the 1.30am visit from Matt and the resort manager.

I am sure they slept very deeply that night.  

Tony Bennett wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:I find it easier to believe that Tanner manufactured her sighting on the clothes Gerry was wearing when he was spotted by the Smiths and that her sighting was only necessitated by the fact that he was seen by them.

Ah!

So that is very different from the russiandoll scenario.

russiandoll says that they planned for Jane to make a statement, but then they had to change it because Gerry was seen.

But your theory is totally different.

You say there was no plan for Jane or anyone else to invent an abductor until it was (to quote you) 'necessitated by the fact that he [Gerry] was seen by them [the Smiths]'.

This is an even more fantastical and unbelievable tale than russiandoll's (if that were possible).

You are now left with the problem of explaining why they raised the alarm at all (at abpout 10.00pm, or maybe earlier by some accounts).   

Why did they all raise the alarm BEFORE (on your version) Gerry returned to the Tapas bar - after having laid Madeleine's body to rest somewhere?

In remarking that I find it easier to believe one hypothesis over that of another I am not positing any theory of my own, TB, and do not consider that I am 'left with the problem of explaining' any partiality I may have in this matter.

j.rob wrote:Suppose their was a plan for a live faked abduction (a la Elizabeth Smart/Shannon Matthews). Jez Wilkins plus Tapas in on it. Plus a few others.

All have various motivations for this. Mostly financial. Fame, fortune. Big news story. Maybe microchipping. Increased state control. Parents paranoid about their kids etc, etc.

Maybe even 'the abduction' to have happened earlier in the week.

Plan goes wrong. Madeleine has an accident/is overdosed/someone lashes out/she is abused in some way

Cannot admit to this as it would reveal a big can of worms. At the very least sedation of Madeleine and the twins. But probably more. And, in any case, the McCs want $$$$$$$ and taking your child to A+E and being done for child neglect (at the least) wouldn't make them any money. And would, in fact, potentially ruin their careers. Plus expose them as the crap parents that they are, imo.

When Matt and the resort manager work up Jez Wilkins at 1.30pm on Thursday night, telling him that Gerry saw him and he wants to know if he had seen anything, Jez says: "You're joking".

He means it. Gerry has landed him in it. The script has changed. Jez knows that, at the very least, he is now a person of considerable interest to investigating police.

At the very least.

This is unwelcome. Plus it looks mighty odd that a TV documentary maker who specializes in drama and whose wife worked for Crimewatch, just happened to be the last person to see Gerry before his daughter is mysteriously abducted.

Why did Jez change his witness testimony from having been in the Tapas that evening to not having been in the tapas that evening. 

Why do that?

I think Gerry landed him in it. To cover up for the new script.

No way did Jez Wilkins go back to sleep that night. Even if he had no prior knowledge whatsoever of events, a massive news story has just broken, and he has become a central figure in it.

He freaks out. And decides to land someone in it.

Maybe he became privy to certain information during the course of the week. Maybe he had certain suspicions. Maybe he wanted no part of the new script. Maybe he hoped this would be a way of removing himself entirely from the script.

Who knows?

But his changing witness statements. His wandering around (allegedly) with his pram. The complete implausibility of him and his partner going back to sleep after being woken up by Matt and the resort manager at 1.30pm. The fact that he WAS woken up by Matt and the resort manager. The fact that - despite both him and his partner having worked in TV drama and programmes like Crimewatch, so therefore know that the early hours after a child goes missing are crucial. The fact that, supposedly their daughter played with Madeleine. And they didn't even bother to help try to find their daughter's friend??

IMO

He is one of the big keys to unravelling what happened that night and maybe even that week or before that week. Not the only one, for sure. But an important one.

Smith-man can also slot into this scenarios in a number of ways. Whether you believe he is real/fake/Gerry/not Gerry. Plus might also account for the delay in the Smiths reporting the sighting.

A very plausible theory, and one that I am inclined to go along with. There are just too many coincidences in this case for a lack of preplanning imo. Just off the top of my head: These have been posted up on this forum in the past. The postcard sized photos of Madeleine, conveniently ready. Jez Wilkins and Bridget O Donnel being there, The indecent speed and haste in which the McCanns were helped. The £ that have been spent up to date. The embarrassment to the UK gov. Mentioned, should all the facts of the case be known. The unbelievable media rubbish and lies on this case. GA being removed from the case. Clarence and others sent to help. Monies donated by individuals such as Richard Branson, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and others, were they set to gain financially before things went pear shaped? The fund, imo preplanned. Then we have cuddle cat and the copyrighting thereof. Something went horribly wrong that night, but the show had to go on. There may have been good reason as to why Madeleines body could not be examined at all costs. IMO. The pedophile angle comes up time and time again too. The Gaspar statements...were they released at a specific time for a reason? Why did Jane Tanner point out Robert Murat as the abductor? The McCanns obvious lack of sorrow when she disappeared. Perhaps money the fund money took away any pain.

I do sometimes wonder if M had died during an earlier vacation in apt 5a...could RM's daughter have been used as a decoy? I recall finding the article and picture re the M...ts strange at the time. The way they exposed their daughter unnecessarily to the media, with photos and story, and how much she looked like M. I did a drawing showing the many similarities between SM and M at the time but it was deleted here as it was deemed not to be right to have SM written about. I still have it and it has always been a theory which has remained at the back of my mind.

I hope my post is not to incoherent as have to dash this off in a short time.

I sent a p/m to a member about a thought that had crossed my mind . I remember reading that a waiter at the beach bar remembered seeing the McCann family over the Easter period prior to the said "abduction" . If indeed they were there and Maddie died in 5A at that time the blood and cadaver scents would be precent for the dogs to detect . The dogs find the scent not the date . Is this the reason the Donegal Easter get together was so important . As cover . It would give them 4 weeks to put the plan in place . Who else was in PDL for the Easter celebrations ? Big hitters maybe ? .....Counterfeit Maddie ..... mmmmmm And that gave them time to clean up and set up the FRUND

I'm firmly in the camp of she died on 3rd May. I sat on the fence for ages but now am convinced it was on early evening of May 3rd. I realise a lot of people think there is cause to believe death occurred earlier - but I think for death to have occurred prior to the holiday
you would need the buy in of Madeleine's nursery staff in Rothley etc etc. Not feasible.

HelenMeg wrote:I'm firmly in the camp of she died on 3rd May. I sat on the fence for ages but now am convinced it was on early evening of May 3rd. I realise a lot of people think there is cause to believe death occurred earlier - but I think for death to have occurred prior to the holiday you would need the buy in of Madeleine's nursery staff in Rothley etc etc. Not feasible.

@ HelenMeg

We're a bit off-topic - but to reply, your belief coincides exactly with that of Dr Goncalo Amaral in 'The Truth About A Lie'. Madeleine's death in the early evening of 3 May.

He said that he was satisfied that everyone, especially the nanny, was telling the truth about Madeleine being alive at the 'high tea' at about 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007.

He says this was the last 'independent' sighting of Madeleine alive by anyone other than the McCanns.

One presumes he was sceptical, to say the least, about the claims of Dr Kate McCann and Dr David Payne that Madeleine was alive at 6.30pm to 6.45pm, the time Payne is alleged to have been in Apartment G5A and seen Madeleine alive. The fact that there are 20 separate contradictions between the two of them about this alleged visit are sufficient for most people to doubt if any such visit actually took place.

I would like to ask you:

1. Do you think Madeleine was alive, and seen by Dr David Payne alive, at about 6.30pm that evening?

2. Do you think, after reading this analysis by Hi-de-Ho of the contradictions about the high tea (and there are other similar analyses elsewhere): http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/DIscrepancies-by-Topic/High-Tea-Thursday-May-3rd-1-827328.html - that there is sufficient evidence that Madeleine was at the high tea?    

3. You obviously believe the evidence of Martin Grime's dogs as sufficient evidence that Madeleine died in Apartment G5A. If so, what is your actual evidence that Madeleine died on the evening of 3 May, as opposed to, e.g.
 * the afternoon of 3 May?
 * the morning of 3 May?
 * 2 May?
 * 1 May?
 * 30 April?
 * 29 April?

HelenMeg wrote:I'm firmly in the camp of she died on 3rd May. I sat on the fence for ages but now am convinced it was on early evening of May 3rd. I realise a lot of people think there is cause to believe death occurred earlier - but I think for death to have occurred prior to the holiday
you would need the buy in of Madeleine's nursery staff in Rothley etc etc. Not feasible.

I'm currently of the belief that it was earlier in the week, not prior to the holiday.  However, this case is so extraordinary I'm beginning to think anything is possible.

Tony Bennett wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:I'm firmly in the camp of she died on 3rd May. I sat on the fence for ages but now am convinced it was on early evening of May 3rd. I realise a lot of people think there is cause to believe death occurred earlier - but I think for death to have occurred prior to the holiday you would need the buy in of Madeleine's nursery staff in Rothley etc etc. Not feasible.

@ HelenMeg

I would like to ask you:

1. Do you think Madeleine was alive, and seen by Dr David Payne alive, at about 6.30pm that evening?

2. Do you think, after reading this analysis by Hi-de-Ho of the contradictions about the high tea (and there are other similar analyses elsewhere): http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/DIscrepancies-by-Topic/High-Tea-Thursday-May-3rd-1-827328.html - that there is sufficient evidence that Madeleine was at the high tea?    

3. You obviously believe the evidence of Martin Grime's dogs as sufficient evidence that Madeleine died in Apartment G5A. If so, what is your actual evidence that Madeleine died on the evening of 3 May, as opposed to, e.g.
 * the afternoon of 3 May?
 * the morning of 3 May?
 * 2 May?
 * 1 May?
 * 30 April?
 * 29 April?

@ HelenMeg

I would be grateful if you could help with an answer to the above questions, so that we can better understand your reasons for suggesting that Madeleine died 'in the early evening of 3 May'.

Can I also put these matters into the mix and take the liberty of asking you how you explain them, in line with your belief:

4. The apparent complete absence of DNA of Madeleine in the apartment

5. The total absence of holiday snaps of Madeleine apart from  3 taken on the Saturday, the disputed 'tennis balls photl', and the 'Last Photo'

6. The persuasive evidence on another recent thread that the 'Last Photo' may have been taken on the Sunday.

Thanks in advance

Not ignoring - just not getting more than 5 mins to respond... hope to have more time later - although I only have opinions and beliefs based on what I read and think logical- I dont have
evidence as such.....

HelenMeg wrote:Not ignoring - just not getting more than 5 mins to respond...hope to have more time later -

Great - I am just trying to tease out where the evidence, such as we have, leads...

...Amaral was bold enough to say that Madeleine died in the 'early evening' of 3 May - but we all know quite a lot more now than we did 7 years ago when he wrote his book

And I don't believe Amaral has changed his stance regarding date/time of death, hence are we to assume he is still of that opinion ?

Due to lack of photos, creche records, retro-fitting of events and photos, and time needed to call on 'assistance' and stage the evening of the 3rd, these suggest to me 29th or 30th April.

Apologies, this question was of course for Helenmeg to answer.

All of the above IMO.

It could be that he hasn't said anything further because he could not go outside of the official files.  He most certainly would have had his backside sued again had he done that IMO.

plebgate wrote:It could be that he hasn't said anything further because he could not go outside of the official files.  He most certainly would have had his backside sued again had he done that IMO.

Quite possibly, but I would have thought some of the members here would know Amarals current thinking and I think possibly we would be aware if he now thought differently. I do agree he may need to play his cards tight to his chest for fear of further litigation, and also ridicule if he is seen to change his opinion.

I am looking forward to seeing the reasoning to support death on the 3rd, and I keep an open mind, but for me many things point to early on.

IMO

I hadn't realized quite how dodgy Gamble's role in all this has been. Incredible.

http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/2010/04/jim-gamble-judgement-or-agenda.html

plebgate wrote:It could be that he hasn't said anything further because he could not go outside of the official files.  He most certainly would have had his backside sued again had he done that IMO.

He did say though, that there is so much more that he knows. I guess we will never know that, because I doubt he'll write another book. But maybe when the PJ investigation is shelved again the newly published information will give us some more items to work with.

PACT morphs into AAA  > (Action Against Abduction):

http://www.actionagainstabduction.org/child-rescue-alert/

HelenMeg wrote:I'm firmly in the camp of she died on 3rd May. I sat on the fence for ages but now am convinced it was on early evening of May 3rd. I realise a lot of people think there is cause to believe death occurred earlier - but I think for death to have occurred prior to the holiday
you would need the buy in of Madeleine's nursery staff in Rothley etc etc. Not feasible.

 I too am convinced Maddie met her demise on the evening of 3rd May