What really Happened? Part 3 - Gerry

…..Continued


We have established that the alarm was raised at 9.30p.m. and Russell was absent for an extended period but was not looking after his daughter.


The only other person to be absent for any length of time was Gerry.
Restaurant staff confirmed that Gerry was missing for about 30 mins and shortly after his return his wife left and then the alarm was raised. She was waiting for him to give her the signal to raise the alarm.


So, what had Gerry been doing?


We know that the friends had previously agreed an excuse for Gerry's absence – In the Channel 4 attempt at a re-enactment of the evening, Jane let slip something to the effect of “Had you seen me, I would have said Kate was moaning that you were gone a long time watching the football” . There was a football match on that night, albeit not the same profile as the Tuesday and Wednesday matches, but none the less, it was a convenient excuse for his absence. Why did he need one?


His role that night was to link Tannerman with Sagresman, to hand over the baton if you will.


He had been changing into his beige trousers with buttons down the side because they were similar to the trousers worn by Sagresman whom had been identified as the patsy.
He was then supposed to go to Russell's flat and abduct the MM lookalike, Ella, with the help of Russell who was driving the car borrowed from Jane's friends who were holidaying in the area.


But it all went terribly wrong when Gerry exited his back gate only to find Jez heading straight for him pushing his child in a buggy. Gerry had no option but to engage in conversation with Jez despite the strict timetable.
As they finished their conversation, Gerry realised that they had missed their opportunity and as soon as Jez had left, Gerry rushed to Russells, who may have already seen or heard Jez and realised there was a problem.
They decided to abandon the abduction and Russell returned to the Tapas to inform everyone what had happened.
Gerry meanwhile, returned to his apartment to contact his “handler” and advise that they were abandoning the abduction and sticking to the schedule of a 9.30.pm. alarm.
He then returned to the Tapas and told Kate to raise the alarm which she duly did.


However, once they had returned to the apartments, Gerry was contacted by his “handler” and informed that the abduction had to take place because it was a vital link and the timeline had to be extended to 10.00p.m. to accommodate it.


So, while the friends tried to keep a low profile and work out a new timetable, Gerry and Russell abducted Ella and headed for the Estrela da Luz cctv.
Gerry carried Ella across the path of the cctv while Russell drove round and parked at the south end of R. da Escola Primaria waiting for Gerry.


But then the Smiths rocked up.
Gerry passed them and rounded the corner to jump into the waiting car to be driven back to the apartments.
When they arrived they announced they had been seen by a large family at close enough quarters to be identified and in his panic to change back into his jeans, Gerry left his discarded beige trousers in full view.
By this time it had already gone 10.00p.m, but they still could not ring the police because decisions had to be made.
They were instructed to abandon the cctv and promote Tannerman instead.


Originally Tannerman was going to be seen from the front carpark vantage point heading west towards Estela de Luz with the childs feet on the left hand side of the abductor, but now he had to head east towards the Sagres Road and Murat's house.
The vantage point was also moved to the side of the apartment block and this unfortunately introduced several inconsistencies which have endlessly been debated.


Tannerman was also going to be moved forward by 30 minutes to accommodate the 10.00pm alert but with the Smith sighting happening, it was moved back to 9.20p.m. to disassociate it from the Smith sighting at 10.00p.m. This would later come to haunt Jane because it clashed with Gerry chatting to Jez.


The description of Tannerman had to be modified to sound less like Gerry but enough like Sagresman for the connection still to be made.


The plan had been to convince the police that the abductor had taken a boat to Sagres, now he had to go by road to still be able to utilise the Sagres patsy.


In my opinion, they had had 4 days to plan for this evening. They would not intentionally allow huge periods of time to be unaccounted for but that is what happened because Jez scuppered the original 9.30p.m. alarm time and the Smiths scuppered the 10.00.p.m alarm time. Frantic decisions were being made to try and recover from these two set backs and it wasn't until 10.41p.m. that they were finally ready to contact the police. - an hour and eleven minutes after the alarm was actually raised.


To this day, Tannerman is promoted on the McCanns website with tape recordings of his description with time and place identified. There is also a recording about Smithman but without time and place identified, leading you to believe it is Tannerman. And all this, years after the British police announced Tannerman had been identified and eliminated. But Team Mccann are still trying to promote him and ignore Smithman because his description is far too much like Gerry.


It is interesting that Dr. Amaral considered it odd for Tannerman to be heading from west to east towards the Sagres Road, but with the report coming in from the Smiths he said “We think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle”
“We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner, “sent” the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who – if he was the guilty party – would have taken this route: leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murat's house, but west in the direction of the beach” . He was soon removed from the case on the insistence of the British government.


The issue of the cctv has been endlessly debated with many saying it wasn't working or didn't cover the road, but Dr Amaral is on record as saying he was convinced the suspect was captured on the camera but by the time his officers spoke to the owners of the cctv it had been wiped.
"It was a mistake and I will always regret it. I do feel Madeleine was let down.” . So, if an experienced officer such as Dr. Amaral feels it had a part to play, so could Team McCann. Whether it was actually working or even covered the road becomes irrelevant. It is team McCann's perceception that matters.

The End.

Gerry wasn't Smithman,

He's not stupid taking stupid risks.

Respect to you Bluebagthepirate. I think he was.  I would respectfully suggest it is a far bigger risk to attempt to hide your deceased daughter, lie to the police and go on world tours promoting yourselves.

Although in fairness to you, I  doubt it was his decision. In my opinion it was back scratching.  Do what we tell you and we will get you out of this mess. Someone else was pulling the strings. IMO.

It's really a quiet city. Nobody is on the street.

I purported the theory that G. McCann was Smithman, if such a person existed, a while ago because he would be   the obvious choice to ostensibly  carry his own daughter  back to  their accommodation, if they needed to create an 'abduction'. It would certainly be a huge risk, and if he had been caught walking around with Madeleine's corpse, it would have been the end for all of them. I can't imagine anybody doing such a thing, but I can't think of an alternative, either. Apart from, were the Smith family all lying? Bluebag, who do you think Smithman could have been?

Paddingtom wrote:Respect to you Bluebagthepirate. I think he was.  I would respectfully suggest it is a far bigger risk to attempt to hide your deceased daughter, lie to the police and go on world tours promoting yourselves.

Although in fairness to you, I  doubt it was his decision. In my opinion it was back scratching.  Do what we tell you and we will get you out of this mess. Someone else was pulling the strings. IMO.

Not a chance.

He could have bumped into someone he knew, like happened 45 minutes earlier.

He's not stupid.

Cake Lover wrote:I purported the theory that G. McCann was Smithman, if such a person existed, a while ago because he would be   the obvious choice to ostensibly  carry his own daughter  back to  their accommodation, if they needed to create an 'abduction'. It would certainly be a huge risk, and if he had been caught walking around with Madeleine's corpse, it would have been the end for all of them. I can't imagine anybody doing such a thing, but I can't think of an alternative, either. Apart from, were the Smith family all lying? Bluebag, who do you think Smithman could have been?

Anyone.

As the Smiths said, it wasn't an unusual sight.

I'm 100% with Bernt Stellander on this one.

Walking around with a child with the risk of meeting someone he knew is insanity.

Never happened.

Just waiting for the car rendezvous to be mentioned again.

I posted in the other thread loads of pictures of men carrying children just like Smith described. In fact I would say it is the natural and most usual way.

And again I repeat, Smith said it wasn't an unusual sight.

Thankyou all for your contributions. They are all valuable in forming a picture of what could have happened.  Unfortunately, unless and until the truth ever comes out, we will never know who nailed it.   Ive heard that this incident is now outside portugese statute of limitations (dont know if thats true) so I guess the Portugese will not want to spend valuable resources on it knowing they cannot bring charges.

But I know the UK could...if they had a mind to.......I doubt very much that they have.

But I have enormous respect to everyone that tried their hardest to get to the bottom of it and find justice...... as time passes, I worry it will not happen.  I really hope thats not the case.

crusader wrote:In conclusion, do we agree the Smith family saw someone carrying a child on the night of 3rd May 07 and that the descriptions given in their first statements were correct?

The initial statements... yes I agree.

Was it Gerry? Not a chance.

Did Smith's seeing Gerry coming down airplane steps carrying a child in that way mean anything? Not a chance - that's the way most people would carry a child (unless you are Tannerman  ).

Oh Crusader, that is a really dividing one......some say they imagined it, some say it was a random, some say it was GM and MM some say it GM and EO.    We will never agree on this until the truth comes out....but thats fine. We are all entitled to our opinions.

The Smith's will be wishing they'd kept their mouths shut. It's a pity there was only one man carrying a child, as it was not  sight.

I totally agree about the Smiths.....I feel so sorry for them.

 I've just noticed I meant to write ' As it was not an unusual sight'.

Paddington, I find your theory interesting. 
However, I think carrying a child who is asleep for that length of time would be a bit of a strain.
Also, why would friends of Jane's lend her their car at that time of night? 
What reason would she give for wanting to use it? 
Wouldn't the friends feel suspicious once the world knew what had happened?

Shash T wrote:Paddington, I find your theory interesting. 
However, I think carrying a child who is asleep for that length of time would be a bit of a strain.
Also, why would friends of Jane's lend her their car at that time of night? 
What reason would she give for wanting to use it? 
Wouldn't the friends feel suspicious once the world knew what had happened?

In my theory, he only carried her for a fairly short distance the rest of the time he was in the car. He also was very fit...in the original meaning of the word, not the current meaning.  I would imagine he was quite strong. And it takes some weight off by having the head over your shoulder which is why most people do it that way aprt from tannerman, obviously.

As far as Im aware, we dont know when Jane acquired the car.  She could have borrowed it for a couple of days or even one wday would work.  Perhaps  her friends were on an organised trip that say or just wanted to spend the day ona beach somewhere.  i dont know.

Im sure she could have said she wanted to go out for a day trip, or god forbid, yet more people were in on it.....I wonder what the count is now....oh my God.  If they found out after the fact, it was too late and if they are close friends perhaps wanted to protect her from something that wasnt her fault.  Your guess is as good as mine.

AnneCGuedes wrote:

Bluebagthepirate wrote:I posted in the other thread loads of pictures of men carrying children just like Smith described. In fact I would say it is the natural and most usual way.

And again I repeat, Smith said it wasn't an unusual sight.

Have you by chance carried the cadaver of, let's say, a big dog ? If you had, you would know/understand the difference.

I'm not sure what your point is.

It wasn't Gerry and it wasn't a dead child.

Shash T wrote:Paddington, I find your theory interesting. 
However, I think carrying a child who is asleep for that length of time would be a bit of a strain.
Also, why would friends of Jane's lend her their car at that time of night? 
What reason would she give for wanting to use it? 
Wouldn't the friends feel suspicious once the world knew what had happened?

I knew the car would reappear.

So where is the evidence of friends lending Jane a car at that time of night?

Goncalo had identified the car from his investigation.  havent got time to reread his book now to find the reference, but rest assured , I will as soon as time allows.