19 May Mail on Sunday: 'MADDIE: UK CLEANERS ARE SUSPECTS' + WHO SOOTHED A WEEPING MADDIE the Express

A marketing man and experienced in open sea sailing - he certainly has the right kind of useful CV - in my opinion.

Could he be one of the two blond men (the curly-headed one) seen by sisters Jensen and Wiltshire on a balcony outside an unoccupied apartment 3rd May?

His passport photo is a shocker - he looks like Tannerman!

Why no statement from him?

Have I got this right? He was booked in the Tapas on 3rd May yet no one from the bar, or workers from the restaurant remember seeing him there?

Someone who has slipped under the radar perhaps. And we can't even scrutinise his version of event s because we don't have them!

Could be a blonde 'rasta' I suppose. Certainly could have been one of the blonde haired men spotted by the sisters. Also of note is that Mrs Fenn's niece -sitting on the balcony above the McCann apartment, spotted a blonde haired man acting suspiciously while opening a gate near the McCann apartment on Thursday afternoon. Only he had thick cropped hair, so presumably not 'rasta man', but maybe the other blonde man?

I also read on one of the other forums - missing madeleine? - where a very detailed analysis of the tapas booking sheets - among other things - had been carried out, that the Sperrey's had a booking for 2+1 on one of the evenings (Thursday?) which was a little odd, as they had no children so who was the +1? 


Mike's company specializes in digital design.

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

 "At Cloud 9 we have our own studio, use professional equipment including lighting rigs, and employ an in-house team of Photoshop experts for when a little enhancement is just the ticket. "

saratoga wrote:A marketing man and experienced in open sea sailing - he certainly has the right kind of useful CV - in my opinion.

Indeed. I am becoming intrigued by the sailing expedition undertaken by Russell and Matt on Thursday afternoon. During which Russell apparently saved Matt from the sea. And in which one of them hurt a wrist? Apparently part of the harness broke on their catamaran, so another boat came out to repair it.

I also notice how much Russell, in his police statement,  talks about the man (Nigel I think Matt named him in his police statement) from Southampton who apparently tells the group of adults which Kate and other Tapas friends are standing with, how he feels 'pervy' or 'like a dirty old man' (as recorded by Kate in her book) because he wants to take photos of his three year old daughter playing tennis.

Apart from the fact that this is a very odd thing for the average (non-paedo) parent to say or even think, in my opinion, it is my belief that this whole episode has been deceptively 'spun' by the McCircus brigade one of whom was caught taking photos of children playing mini-tennis by another parent who found this behaviour unacceptable enough to approach them and tell them so.

If you look at one of the first police statements given by Matt, you can see that it is their group who is using the video-recorder and Nigel approaches them about it, telling whoever is using the video-recorder that their recording of his three year old daughter playing tennis is making him feel uncomfortable.

Matt cannot dig himself out of this hole, but merely lamely tells the police he doesn't remember seeing anyone with a video-recorder! (Which suggests to me that it was probably him using it.)

This raises a large number of questions, especially given that there appear to be no genuine photos of Madeleine from that holiday (the 'final' photos released weeks after her disappearance are fake, in my opinion.) None of the group take any photos of Madeleine during the holiday, but the find the time to video-record a stranger's three year old daughter playing tennis.

Then, when the man comes up to them to remonstrate (quite rightly, in my opinion - it's weird to want to video-record a stranger's child, especially when you can't be bothered to video-record your own) they twist and distort the version of events to make it appear that it is Nigel, rather than Matt (or Russell or whoever else was recording/photographing Nigel's child) who is suggesting that he feels like a dirty old man.

Whereas, in actual fact, it would be much more likely that Nigel was thinking precisely that very thing about either Matt or Russell. Which is why he went up to the group.

Unsurprisingly, the police have shown considerable interest in this encounter, charmingly described by Kate in her book as a light-hearted little banter about how paranoid everyone has become about paedophiles. 

Quite so, Kate. 

Russell really does get himself up to the neck when describing this episode to the police who clearly find what he is saying extremely suspicious, which it is, imo.

 1578    “’We then had a conversation’'”
 Reply    “Yeah, that ‘the ludicrous pressure on parents that they can’t take photographs of their own children’, because I think that was the essence of it.  And certainly the other, the other aspect of the conversation that was made, which kind of, you know, is, huh, is doubly haunting, was that, you know, we said that, you know, ‘You’re far’, you know, ‘You’re far more likely to get clobbered by your uncle or your neighbour than some’, you know, ‘random stranger’.  Erm, which in light of the way that the Police investigation has gone, erm, it feels like, you know, erm, a real kick in the nuts”.
 
1578    “’Far more like to get clobbered by’'”
 Reply    “You know, you’re far more likely to have, you know, you know, to have a problem with somebody, from somebody you know, and we actually said, and that was actually sort of said, you know, we all worry about, you know, a small number of fairly kind of sick perverts”.
 
1578    “Rather than a stranger'”
 Reply    “Rather than a stranger, yeah, but, huh, erm, which of course, you know, of course statistically is true, erm.  And the bit here that says ‘I found this most uncomfortable’, is that, you know, since, since this happened, you know, ten or eleven hours before, before Madeleine was abducted, it just seemed a really, it’s really, you know, a very, very uncomfortable coincidence, you know, ever since I found this, you know, this whole pile of things that are nast, you know, are really kind of unpleasant, but the fact that we actually had this conversation, you know, within twelve hours of her going missing was, was, erm, well, haunting, you know, that men were, erm.  You know, it’s just, erm, I mean, it is just a coincidence, it’s not as if, within the space of a year in Britain, you know, you don’t hear of, you know, a school banning cameras and, you know, it’s quite, it’s not an uncommon conversation I think for, you know, for parents with young children these days to think, you know, you know, has it gone too far, you know, is there too much, is there too much kind of worry and protection and are we, you know, damaging children’s upbringing, by by not allowing them to, you know, to, to run free a little.  Erm, and I think, yeah, and the last statement, I definitely want that there.  I mean, as far as I was concerned, this was, this was an entirely reasonable comment from this man, he’d just walked past a few parents, some of whom he probably didn’t know, erm, and he was taking photographs of his daughter, who was on this tennis court, but there were adjacent children in, in, you know, in shot.  Erm, and I can, you know, particularly as a, as a man, can particularly understand how he might have felt going up there because clearly, erm, you know, this is, this is something that, you know, you need to be aware of.  And my dad, you know, we’ve had a conversation about this since, you know, when I was little and growing up, in the street he would freely talk, he would freely talk with my friends and people going by and he says, you know, just, you know, these days you just, you just ignore people, you ignore children because you wouldn’t want anyone to sort of think that you were, you know, you were kind of, erm, trying to entertain them with an ulterior motive.  So this did not feel bad and I would hate to think that me saying this that anyone would think that I was trying to implicate this man, I do not think that there was anything untoward in it”.

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

Is there a reason why we can`t mention the Dad - he is easy enough to find on Google - his first name is a tank engine. Remove if N/A mods.

 I would hate to think that me saying this that anyone would think that I was trying to implicate this man, I do not think that there was anything untoward in it”.


Ha! Nice try Russell.

Gillyspot wrote:

j.rob wrote:

Gillyspot wrote:His father is a most interesting person too IMO. Not sure I should post what I have found out as may not be relevant to the case.

Well, if Mike Sperrey is relevant to the case (and it does appear that he could be a 'person of interest') then the genetic roots of Mike Sperry might well be of interest, in terms of understanding where he is coming from, in terms of his behaviour, thoughts and how he views things. 

Plus his terms of reference with regards to what he might have been brought up to believe is important/acceptable and so on.

I have to say that I do not find MS interesting, per se (on the contrary) my only interest in him and his shallow and puerile 'marketing' lies in his connections with GM and GM's hideous friends.

I suspect that what you have found, GS, might be at least a *little bit* relevant to the case....if only to 'disprove' any theories that MS might be a 'person of interest'.

(I can sooooo understand why police from a certain country might be so irritated and annoyed and downright determined not to be made fools of by a number of idiotic people from the UK.....)

I only found him interesting because of the following:

1. Had a booking at the tapas on 3.5.07
2. Was supposed to be "rastaman" acting suspiciously.
3. No statement by him or his wife in the police files.

I will hold my fire re his dad for the time being but here is a pic of Mr Mike Sperrey.

Would you say he looks like a blond rasta?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]  
Or just a man with dark blonde curly long hair?

So is this the person that Jez saw that evening at either the Tapas restaurant or in the toilets near the Tapas restaurant, depending on which version of events you read? 

If it wasn't him that Jez saw, it should still be possible to trace the person that Jez did see, as it is on record that Robert Murat told Jez that the person he had seen was a local man. So should have been no problem tracing him.