Re: What really Happened? Part 3 - Gerry

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.

by crusader 25.08.24 10:11

But Martin Smith didn't say it was Gerry in his first statement.
In a later statement he did, by that time he must have seen photo's of Gerry and put two and two together and only thought it could be him.
He never made a positive identification.
I'm really only interested in the first statements.

by Ladyinred 25.08.24 11:46

Wasn't it Gerry carrying Sean down the plane steps the moment Mr. Smith realised who he saw on that eventful evening?

by crusader 25.08.24 11:57

Yes as I said above, but more by the way he was carrying Sean.
I don't recall reading anywhere that the Smith family had been asked or shown photo's of Gerry by G Amaral if it was him he saw that night at the time they made their first statements.
It was Martin Smith who contacted his local Irish police and said he thought it could be Gerry after seeing him alighting the aircraft.

by Paddingtom 25.08.24 14:49

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
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.]).

Thats how cunning they are. spin

CM earned his keep.

The police didnt find anything because they were looking for a corpse which had never been near the car. Had they tested it for dna of Russell, Gerry and Ella, I suspect , they would have found it. But they would have had a hard time proving it was anything other than friends going out in the car for a drive. Cunning.

by Bluebagthepirate 25.08.24 20:03

Paddingtom wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:
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.]).

Thats how cunning they are. CM earned his keep.

The police didnt find anything because they were looking for a corpse which had never been near the car. Had they tested it for dna of Russell, Gerry and Ella, I suspect , they would have found it. But they would have had a hard time proving it was anything other than friends going out in the car for a drive. Cunning.

So... no evidence then. None. Nada. Zip.

Not a sausage.

by Paddingtom 26.08.24 7:27

Congratulations to you Nina on your 63th Wedding anniversary.

I hope you have a day filled with happiness. bounce

by **PeterMac** 26.08.24 8:06

crusader wrote:Yes as I said above, but more by the way he was carrying Sean.
I don't recall reading anywhere that the Smith family had been asked or shown photo's of Gerry by G Amaral if it was him he saw that night at the time they made their first statements.
It was Martin Smith who contacted his local Irish police and said he thought it could be Gerry after seeing him alighting the aircraft.

This is interesting as a Case History:
Someone sees something but only much later realises it might be significant and reports it.

There may well be people who did not report what they saw
because the whole focus was on the evening of Thursday 3/5/7

But now the evening of Wednesday 2/5/7 has come into play they realise that things they saw THAT evening
and into the early morning of 3/5/7 might well be significant.

by Bluebagthepirate 26.08.24 8:14

crusader wrote:Yes as I said above, but more by the way he was carrying Sean.

Like this?

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

by crusader 26.08.24 8:52

I think the Smith family saw a man carrying a child in the same way as Gerry carried Sean from the aircraft.
And that's it, there is nothing else.
Not one person from the Smith family can positively identify that man as Gerry, so it's a dead end.
In my opinion anyway.

by Nina 26.08.24 11:18

Paddingtom wrote:Congratulations to you Nina on your 63th Wedding anniversary.

I hope you have a day filled with happiness.

Thank you xx

by Paddingtom 27.08.24 7:36

Bluebagthepirate wrote:

And I've still not seen any evidence at all of a car involved with the Smithman sighting

So... no evidence then. None. Nada. Zip.

Not a sausage.

If there was evidence it would be called....er, oh yes, FACT

So, Like Bernt who has got None. Nada. Zip.Not a sausage. of evidence for his 2nd May suggestions, We call them Theories.

by Bluebagthepirate 27.08.24 9:25

Paddingtom wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:

And I've still not seen any evidence at all of a car involved with the Smithman sighting

So... no evidence then. None. Nada. Zip.

Not a sausage.

If there was evidence it would be called....er, oh yes, FACT

So, Like Bernt who has got None. Nada. Zip.Not a sausage. of evidence for his 2nd May suggestions, We call them Theories.

You've obviously not read the book and I get the feeling you are subtlety undermining it.

by crusader 27.08.24 9:30

I had a theory about what happened to Madeleine, but not a shred of evidence, I was convinced I was right.
So again a dead end.

by Cake Lover 27.08.24 10:49

A lot of theories turn out to be wrong, but that doesn't mean we should stop, does it? The McCanns have treated the world to some laughable rubbish and everybody on the right team (us) must surely keep poking into everything about the case, regardless of whose idea it is. Just imo.

by Justice for Maddie 27.08.24 16:13

What have UK/Ireland, Portugal, Spain/Mallorca in common?: The McCanns live there or were in holiday there. But the interesting fact is that in all these locations there is a big Masonic brotherhood. What do you guys think about the rumor/theory that Gerry is a Freemason? It's a very interesting topic and this brotherhood is very powerful.

Latest topics