Re: What really Happened? Part 3 - Gerry

by Paddingtom 24.08.24 11:42

Nina, I have to admit I dont know. In order to be able to answer Blubags questions, I will have to re-read Goncalos book....I may be some time.

by crusader 24.08.24 11:48

In my opinion, for the plan to work they would have to keep the number of people who knew about it as tight as possible.
I don't think borrowing a car would have been a clever thing to do, the fewer people who knew what was going on, the better.
That's why I'm not convinced of anyone outside of the McCann's and tapas lot knew anything, apart from someone who perhaps temporarily stored Madeleine's body for them.

by Nina 24.08.24 11:49

Paddingtom wrote:Nina, I have to admit I dont know. In order to be able to answer Blubags questions, I will have to re-read Goncalos book....I may be some time.

Bless you, I am trying to read The Sudden Impulse but it just isn't going in at all. Years since I did that sort of reading and I am struggling. Be kind to yourself empathy

by **Jill Havern** 24.08.24 12:02

Have you started at the beginning Nina?

If you're struggling, may I suggest skipping to page 603 to read about his investigation on the Hill.

by Cake Lover 24.08.24 12:08

crusader wrote:In my opinion, for the plan to work they would have to keep the number of people who knew about it as tight as possible.
I don't think borrowing a car would have been a clever thing to do, the fewer people who knew what was going on, the better.
That's why I'm not convinced of anyone outside of the McCann's and tapas lot knew anything, apart from someone who perhaps temporarily stored Madeleine's body for them.

This could be where the priest came in, didn't he give them the church keys? Afterwards, he said that they had deceived him. I think he found out why they really wanted to go in to the church, and it wasn't for private prayer. Just my opinion, of course.

by crusader 24.08.24 12:36

And of course, he would keep his mouth shut.

by Bluebagthepirate 24.08.24 12:40

Jill Havern wrote:Have you started at the beginning Nina?

If you're struggling, may I suggest skipping to page 603 to read about his investigation on the Hill.

I agree, if you have followed the case closely for any time then start at 603.

The first 603 pages are worth the effort though.

by Cake Lover 24.08.24 12:49

crusader wrote:And of course, he would keep his mouth shut.

Exactly, he's bound by his oath as a clergyman.

by Nina 24.08.24 12:54

Jill Havern wrote:Have you started at the beginning Nina?

If you're struggling, may I suggest skipping to page 603 to read about his investigation on the Hill.

Yes I have Jill. I have many hours in the day but being the carer for my hubby the free time as such is very sporadic and sometimes only for minutes so I have many interruptions during day and night. Then I have to go back to refresh what I have read before I can read new. Probably the wrong time to be reading such a tome.
Thank you for your advise I will try from page 603.

by Paddingtom 24.08.24 17:52

Im sorry to hear of your responsibilities Nina, I hope youre looking after yourself too... do try. I ve been there, I know how hard it is.

I too am still working my way thru Bernt's book. I dont get much time to read so it will be quite awhile before its finished. I read the second part first, which was very exciting!!!

I must try and get on with it so I can re-read Goncalo's book and provide the answers to Bluebags questions, seeing as he is showing so much enthusiam for my theory!!!

I appreciate your contribution of names. You could well be right, I honestly cant remember. I dont suppose by any chance you can remember anything about them can you? Sorry to ask but it could save me a lot of work. big grin

. Ta everso.

by Ladyinred 24.08.24 18:39

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

by Bluebagthepirate 24.08.24 19:39

Paddingtom wrote:Im sorry to hear of your responsibilities Nina, I hope youre looking after yourself too... do try. I ve been there, I know how hard it is.

I too am still working my way thru Bernt's book. I dont get much time to read so it will be quite awhile before its finished. I read the second part first, which was very exciting!!!

I must try and get on with it so I can re-read Goncalo's book and provide the answers to Bluebags questions, seeing as he is showing so much enthusiam for my theory!!!

I appreciate your contribution of names. You could well be right, I honestly cant remember. I dont suppose by any chance you can remember anything about them can you? Sorry to ask but it could save me a lot of work. . Ta everso.

I think your theory is bollocks.

You don't have to re-read the whole book to answer those questions.

by Nina 24.08.24 20:01

I think the makeup photo was taken on the Gorrod's balcony/terrace. whacky

by crusader 24.08.24 20:06

I'm intrigued, what makes you think that Nina?

by Nina 24.08.24 20:07

Paddingtom wrote:Im sorry to hear of your responsibilities Nina, I hope youre looking after yourself too... do try. I ve been there, I know how hard it is.

I too am still working my way thru Bernt's book. I dont get much time to read so it will be quite awhile before its finished. I read the second part first, which was very exciting!!!

I must try and get on with it so I can re-read Goncalo's book and provide the answers to Bluebags questions, seeing as he is showing so much enthusiam for my theory!!!

I appreciate your contribution of names. You could well be right, I honestly cant remember. I dont suppose by any chance you can remember anything about them can you? Sorry to ask but it could save me a lot of work. . Ta everso.

It is our 63 wedding anniversary on Monday Paddington. Hubby is 91 years old and quite frail. My nursing years are really kicking in as I nursed when times were much different on the wards than they are now. As and when I need a hand I shall pay for assistance xx Anyway onward and upwards. I need this case to be brought to justice for Madeleine before I throw off this mortal whatever. I am taking Jill's advise and jumping in onto page 603 tomorrow. I have a feeling some are now questioning the authors research and his intentions.

by Nina 24.08.24 20:15

crusader wrote:I'm intrigued, what makes you think that Nina?

A young man called Ben Salmon wrote a piece online along with photographs and it was just too many coincidences to brush aside. I am sure it has been discussed on here but certainly has been on other groups, https://www.facebook.com/groups/253706621672502/posts/possible-location-of-the-makeup-or-lolita-photo/456367711406391/

by Nina 24.08.24 20:22

Not sure if this will work, https://www.facebook.com/groups/253706621672502/posts/possible-location-of-the-makeup-or-lolita-photo/456367711406391/

by Ladyinred 24.08.24 20:25

Nina wrote:
crusader wrote:I'm intrigued, what makes you think that Nina?
A young man called Ben Salmon wrote a piece online along with photographs and it was just too many coincidences to brush aside. I am sure it has been discussed on here but certainly has been on other groups, https://www.facebook.com/groups/253706621672502/posts/possible-location-of-the-makeup-or-lolita-photo/456367711406391/

Yes, Nina, I remember it being discussed here. The late Ben Salmon posted as Mainline.

by Bluebagthepirate 24.08.24 20:28

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Paddingtom wrote:Im sorry to hear of your responsibilities Nina, I hope youre looking after yourself too... do try. I ve been there, I know how hard it is.

I too am still working my way thru Bernt's book. I dont get much time to read so it will be quite awhile before its finished. I read the second part first, which was very exciting!!!

I must try and get on with it so I can re-read Goncalo's book and provide the answers to Bluebags questions, seeing as he is showing so much enthusiam for my theory!!!

I appreciate your contribution of names. You could well be right, I honestly cant remember. I dont suppose by any chance you can remember anything about them can you? Sorry to ask but it could save me a lot of work. . Ta everso.
I think your theory is bollocks.

You don't have to re-read the whole book to answer those questions.

In fact don't bother.
I found the answers myself (most of them).
I also found out the PJ checked the car and found nothing.

The question for you is where is the evidence that Smithman used a car to go back to 5A?

by crusader 24.08.24 20:31

Thank you Nina the link is working fine.
I always thought it to be an innocent photo but if it turns out to be correct, it doesn't bare thinking about.

by Shash T 24.08.24 22:30

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

Thank you Ladyinred. This is a very interesting thread.

Paddington and Bluebag, you may find your answers on the above thread.

Interesting that Mr Gorrod is/was a solicitor........

by Paddingtom 25.08.24 7:08

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
I think your theory is bollocks.

Bluebag, I outsourced your questions. Many thanks to the team, headed up by Ladyinred.

Im sure you will be over the moon with their comprehensive report and eager to apply their research to your own personal theory.

Whilst, obviously, I disagree with your considered opinion, I sincerely defend your right to say it. And so should we all while we still can. Time is running out.

by Paddingtom 25.08.24 7:21

Nina wrote:
It is our 63 wedding anniversary on Monday Paddington. Hubby is 91 years old and quite frail. My nursing years are really kicking in as I nursed when times were much different on the wards than they are now. As and when I need a hand I shall pay for assistance xx Anyway onward and upwards. I need this case to be brought to justice for Madeleine before I throw off this mortal whatever. I am taking Jill's advise and jumping in onto page 603 tomorrow. I have a feeling some are now questioning the authors research and his intentions.

Nina, I dont know what to say, except Im sending big hugs. Look after yourself.

I think the authors intentions are a million percent honourable, I think he has done amazing work and if anyone can bring this to a conclusion, I suspect it is him so we must all support him.

Obviously, I do not agree with his theory of the circumstances of her disappearance, but strongly defend his right to say it.

Ive always been of the opinion that if you ask 10 experts in a given field the same question, you will get 11 different answers. THis forum seems to be prooving that. Although, some, like myself, are no experts.

Please support anyone that is genuinely trying to contribute their true belief with genuine desire to increase the knowledge base.

Each and everyone of us is entitled to our opinion (for a little while anyway) and we must defend each others right to say it.

My best wishes to you again, tajke care and I hope you have people around you who are supprting you.

by Ladyinred 25.08.24 7:35

Paddingtom wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:
I think your theory is bollocks.

Bluebag, I outsourced your questions. Many thanks to the team, headed up by Ladyinred.

Im sure you will be over the moon with their comprehensive report and eager to apply their research to your own personal theory.

Whilst, obviously, I disagree with your considered opinion, I sincerely defend your right to say it. And so should we all while we still can. Time is running out.

What team

.

I used the search facility and c/p the thread for you. It's such a valuable resource, I wish it was used more, especially by newbies.

I don't agree with your theory, btw but interested to read your opinions.

by crusader 25.08.24 8:48

I'm still intrigued by the Smith sighting, I believe they saw what they saw and what they said in the first statements.
So if it wasn't Gerry and it wasn't an abductor and if it was an innocent man carrying a child, who hasn't come forward, who on earth was it.
I believe this is a very important piece of the puzzle.

by Bluebagthepirate 25.08.24 9:37

The Smith sighting is totally irrelevant and Bernt Stellander gives the reasons (over and over

) in the brick.

by Cake Lover 25.08.24 9:37

I wonder, if the 'abduction' hadn't been hammered into everybody's brain, would the Smith's have mentioned seeing a man carrying a child?

by Bluebagthepirate 25.08.24 9:59

Cake Lover wrote:I wonder, if the 'abduction' hadn't been hammered into everybody's brain, would the Smith's have mentioned seeing a man carrying a child?

Originally Smith said he wouldn't be able to identify the man and it was not an unusual sight in PDL anyway.

Weeks of "abduction" brainwashing later Smith convinced himself that seeing Gerry carrying a child down the steps of a plane in a completely natural and common way that it was him.

Bonkers.

And I've still not seen any evidence at all of a car involved with the Smithman sighting ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]).

by crusader 25.08.24 10:01

It's irrelevant to anyone including Stellander because it doesn't fit with an earlier death.
I think it is dismissed too easily, leaving out everything that we know, or think we know of what happened that night, the Smith sighting in my opinion is very relevant.
It's dismissed because it doesn't fit the narrative in my opinion.

by Bluebagthepirate 25.08.24 10:04

crusader wrote:It's dismissed because it doesn't fit the narrative in my opinion.

It's dismissed because Gerry is not stupid enough to wander around with a child in his arms at that time when he could bump into anyone who knows him - like happened 45 minutes earlier.