Re: Jeremy Wilkins

by Hicks 08.05.14 20:01

Are you able to put a photo of Jeremy Wilkins face next to the photofit that I have posted below?. I don't know how to do it.

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

The face on the right.

The two are identical imo. Very odd.

by Guest 08.05.14 20:31

Hicks: it's reading as "page not found". Working here:

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

by Hicks 08.05.14 21:02

Ladyinred wrote:Hicks: it's reading as "page not found". Working here:

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

Okay thanks. What do you think? They look identical to me.

by TheTruthWillOut 08.05.14 21:10

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

Sorry to barge in here, but is this helpful Hicks?

by Hicks 08.05.14 21:39

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

Sorry to barge in here, but is this helpful Hicks?

Yes, thanks.

by j.rob 09.05.14 19:13

Certainly some similarities with the e-fit on the right.

I have read that 'Rasta-man' may have been identified as Michael Sperrey, a guest staying that week at Ocean Club with his wife Claire, who is a surfing friend of Gerrys. Is that right/possible?

It is interesting that Jez identified him as a possible suspect to police the day after the disappearance of Madeleine. But chose not to mention him when he was woken up by the Ocean Club Manager and one of the McCann's friends in the early hours. Who asked him if he had seen anything. Why did he not mention 'Rasta-man' then? The following day he tells police he was acting suspiciously. Mind you, at this particular point in time Jez is also telling police he was in the Tapas bar at the time.

Whereas, in his police statements after his return to the UK he states that he and his partner decided to stay in their apartment that evening. But that he left for a period of time to push his pram around as his baby would not sleep.

And in police statements Jez also says he noticed Rastaman using the toilet of the Tapas bar and taking longer than expected.

Jez really needs to get his recollection of how he spent that evening sorted out. He claims that having pushed his pram around - and having bumped into Gerry - he goes back to the apartment to eat and sleep and knows nothing about Madeleine's disappearance until he is woken up at 1.30pm. He does not join the searches as 'there is nothing he can do;Madeleine has already been missing for three hours.'

Because according to these two sisters - Jayne Jensen and Annie Wiltshire - who ate in the Tapas bar the night of Madeleine's disappearance
(and observed the McCann group there) and who were also in Gerry's tennis coaching group:

"As they and the other holidaymakers combed the area, Mrs Jensen met another member of her tennis coaching group, TV producer Jez Wilkins.

"Jez told me it was Gerry's daughter we were looking for. I hadn't realised before that moment.

"Jez said that he knew Gerry had checked the children because he had met him coming back from the apartment."

So, not tucked up in bed after all, then? And - given that Jez didn't join the searches, by his own and his partner Bridget's admission - what exactly was he doing when the sisters were combing the area, looking for lost Madeleine?

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

by sammyc 09.05.14 23:07

10th Tapas? Just my opinion.

by Mirage 09.05.14 23:28

It's like dealing with a load of scuttling cockroaches trying to get the truth out of the whole bunch of them. They make me sick.

by Liz Eagles 09.05.14 23:35

As this thread is now venturing into paedophile rings I'm posting up this link to an ITV crime drama 'The Vice'. This particular episode deals with paedophile rings and is well worth a viewing imo as it demonstrates the establishment, operation and dynamics of a group of paedophiles.

I'll go as far as to say that even though this is a crime drama it's not without research and is a jaw dropper. Paedophile rings are a mystery to all decent people, this episode gives a good insight into something we're all afraid to ask.

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

It's available for the next 19 days.

by Mirage 09.05.14 23:52

aquila wrote:As this thread is now venturing into paedophile rings I'm posting up this link to an ITV crime drama 'The Vice'. This particular episode deals with paedophile rings and is well worth a viewing imo as it demonstrates the establishment, operation and dynamics of a group of paedophiles.

I'll go as far as to say that even though this is a crime drama it's not without research and is a jaw dropper. Paedophile rings are a mystery to all decent people, this episode gives a good insight into something we're all afraid to ask.

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

It's available for the next 19 days.

I'll save that little treat for tomorrow, aquila, as I am using my phone! Btw, thank you for the kind comments on the Members. Very touched I was by that and similar from others.

by Liz Eagles 10.05.14 0:00

Mirage wrote:
aquila wrote:As this thread is now venturing into paedophile rings I'm posting up this link to an ITV crime drama 'The Vice'. This particular episode deals with paedophile rings and is well worth a viewing imo as it demonstrates the establishment, operation and dynamics of a group of paedophiles.

I'll go as far as to say that even though this is a crime drama it's not without research and is a jaw dropper. Paedophile rings are a mystery to all decent people, this episode gives a good insight into something we're all afraid to ask.

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

It's available for the next 19 days.

I'll save that little treat for tomorrow, aquila, as I am using my phone! Btw, thank you for the kind comments on the Members. Very touched I was by that and similar from others.

Do watch it if you can Mirage. It depicts a set of fairly ordinary people and their children - it even covers a holiday.

I'm so glad you're posting again - I find your posts/opinions/observations of such value.

by Guest 10.05.14 8:14

j.rob: thanks for finding this and perservering with JW's account - interesting. Another liar to add to the list.

by russiandoll 10.05.14 9:19

quote j rb

"As they and the other holidaymakers combed the area, Mrs Jensen met another member of her tennis coaching group, TV producer Jez Wilkins.

"Jez told me it was Gerry's daughter we were looking for. I hadn't realised before that moment.

"Jez said that he knew Gerry had checked the children because he had met him coming back from the apartment."

Was this the night of 3rd, though, or searches which took place the next day?

by Hicks 10.05.14 9:36

aquila wrote:As this thread is now venturing into paedophile rings I'm posting up this link to an ITV crime drama 'The Vice'. This particular episode deals with paedophile rings and is well worth a viewing imo as it demonstrates the establishment, operation and dynamics of a group of paedophiles.

I'll go as far as to say that even though this is a crime drama it's not without research and is a jaw dropper. Paedophile rings are a mystery to all decent people, this episode gives a good insight into something we're all afraid to ask.

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

It's available for the next 19 days.

aqulila, Talking of paedophile rings I had my eyes well and truly opened when I got to know two retired met detectives who used to go to the hotel where I worked. Their words were,' you would be horrified if you knew the scale on with these perverts operate'. They told me stories of how they network each other all over the country/world telling each other where there might be jobs going that would bring them into contact with children, like Scouts, Swimming instructors and the like. It horrified me and, sadly makes me suspicious of people who work with children. A Bad thing I know.

by frost 10.05.14 12:38

aquila wrote:As this thread is now venturing into paedophile rings I'm posting up this link to an ITV crime drama 'The Vice'. This particular episode deals with paedophile rings and is well worth a viewing imo as it demonstrates the establishment, operation and dynamics of a group of paedophiles.

I'll go as far as to say that even though this is a crime drama it's not without research and is a jaw dropper. Paedophile rings are a mystery to all decent people, this episode gives a good insight into something we're all afraid to ask.

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

It's available for the next 19 days.

ive just watched the entire series of the reruns of the vice and I must say that particular episode did jump out at myself too . Having 3 children myself even though they are all now young adults it made uncomfortable viewing . To the outside world these were 'normal' happy families friends whose lives revolved around their kids and their friendships who spent time together whether that be holidays abroad or barbeques in the back garden all seemingly innocent and nothing untoward to any other people looking from the outside in ie neighbours , work colleagues etc .

I have to say it did make me think of certain events in the real world . Basically these people are so 'normal' they can hide in plain sight ...... frightening

by j.rob 10.05.14 16:56

russiandoll wrote:quote j rb

"As they and the other holidaymakers combed the area, Mrs Jensen met another member of her tennis coaching group, TV producer Jez Wilkins.

"Jez told me it was Gerry's daughter we were looking for. I hadn't realised before that moment.

"Jez said that he knew Gerry had checked the children because he had met him coming back from the apartment."

Was this the night of 3rd, though, or searches which took place the next day?

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

Sisters' witness statement: As found on website page: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This appears to be the full article from 31st Dec 2007: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-504950/British-witnesses-We-saw-blond-men-balcony-Madeleine-apartment.html.

(The full article has some other interesting comments - for instance the sisters met up with a barrister ('A middle-aged barrister, a nearneighbour of Mrs Jensen in the holiday complex, has told police that he spoke to her at the time and also saw Mr Murat'.) and his wife the following evening - who were both desperate to leave the resort and whose names were not revealed in the article - and the barrister confided with them that he found Robert Murat 'odd'.)

But, to answer the question of which evening this was, in the link that I included in my first post, which appears to be the witness statement from the sisters (would be good to see the 'official' version) there is no mention of 'the next day'. And Robert Murat is only mentioned in connection with him having been a translator for the police when the sisters gave a statement (the implication being that it was in the early hours of the morning.)

However, in reading the full article, as it appeared on 31st Dec 2007, I can see that the article has inserted some extra sentences into a crucial part of the text which gives quite a different meaning to the version of events. The insinuation being that the sisters noticed Robert Murat that night, did not see Jez Wilkins until the next day and, furthermore, an independent witness (the barrister) records to police that he saw one of the sisters at the time she noticed Murat, as he spoke to her then.)

Given that newspapers do not always report accurately, and given that Clarence Mitchell may have wanted to portray this story in a certain light, I've inserted the extra sentences that appear in the full Mail article, that did not appear in the witness statement (would be good to see the full, unabridged witness statements of these ladies). The witness statement link (which may or may not be accurate, I'm not sure what the source was) is in blue.

The sisters finished their dinner and left to walk down into the village for a nightcap.

"We were on the way to the bar when we heard the hue and cry about a missing child," added Mrs Jensen.

"The Mark Warner staff were being called on their phones and everyone thought it was a child who had wandered out of her room, looking for her parents.

"Apparently it had happened before and there was a drill they carried out. I left Annie in the bar and came back up to the apartments to see if I could help. It was only then I realised the scale of the search.

"I went straight into the creche area and checked the play area and Wendy House but found nothing."

It was then that Mrs Jensen saw 34-year-old Mr Murat for the first time. She saw a man light a cigarette as he stood on the street corner opposite the McCanns' ground-floor apartment.

She said: "I had semi-given up smoking and was thinking I could do with a cigarette when this bloke just along the pavement from me lit up. I noticed him but didn't think anything more of it."

A middle-aged barrister, a nearneighbour of Mrs Jensen in the holiday complex, has told police that he spoke to her at the time and also saw Mr Murat.

The next day, said Mrs Jensen, Mr Murat introduced himself to her and her sister.

"It was hideous when we realised that the little girl had not been found. It really began to hit home that something horrible had happened.

"I thought maybe she had fallen down a manhole, or hit her head. I didn't think she had been taken at that point and we helped search bins and scrubland."

As they and the other holidaymakers combed the area, Mrs Jensen met another member of her tennis coaching group, TV producer Jez Wilkins.

"Jez told me it was Gerry's daughter we were looking for. I hadn't realised before that moment.

"Jez said that he knew Gerry had checked the children because he had met him coming back from the apartment."

Interestingly, the Mail article records that the sisters joined the barrister and his wife for a glass of wine the following evening and the barrister confides in them that he finds Murat 'odd'.

Disingenuously, the article slips in this little masterpiece: Mrs Jensen insists she is not conducting "a witch hunt" against Mr Murat.

You just couldn't make it up, could you? Some people are just masters at putting words into other people's mouths, spinning, obfuscating, distracting and distorting.

What is extraordinary (or perhaps not!) is how hard these two women tried to contact police with their concerns. They even went to Praia de Luz in September to try to talk to the McCanns in person (but did not, as they were arguidos by then).

They intended to remain anonymous but when their names were leaked to a Portuguese newspaper and they found themselves wrongly accused of waiting eight months before coming forward, they decided to reveal the truth.

This is fascinating - what is the implication here? Their statements, along with others that could have potentially been crucial, have clearly been ignored in favour of those that were furthering a specific agenda. So who, precisely was leaking what to whom and why?

by Liz Eagles 10.05.14 22:20

Hicks wrote:
aquila wrote:As this thread is now venturing into paedophile rings I'm posting up this link to an ITV crime drama 'The Vice'. This particular episode deals with paedophile rings and is well worth a viewing imo as it demonstrates the establishment, operation and dynamics of a group of paedophiles.

I'll go as far as to say that even though this is a crime drama it's not without research and is a jaw dropper. Paedophile rings are a mystery to all decent people, this episode gives a good insight into something we're all afraid to ask.

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

It's available for the next 19 days.
aqulila, Talking of paedophile rings I had my eyes well and truly opened when I got to know two retired met detectives who used to go to the hotel where I worked. Their words were,' you would be horrified if you knew the scale on with these perverts operate'. They told me stories of how they network each other all over the country/world telling each other where there might be jobs going that would bring them into contact with children, like Scouts, Swimming instructors and the like. It horrified me and, sadly makes me suspicious of people who work with children. A Bad thing I know.

I'm naturally suspicious of blokes who are overly friendly with other people's children - especially blokes who like to tease or tickle little girls. It's sad but that's the way I am.

It's a cruel fact that paedophiles are all around us and can seem to be pillars of society or ordinary folk with what appear to be happy families.

by j.rob 11.05.14 13:18

"I went straight into the creche area and checked the play area and Wendy House but found nothing."

It was then that Mrs Jensen saw 34-year-old Mr Murat for the first time. She saw a man light a cigarette as he stood on the street corner opposite the McCanns' ground-floor apartment.

How close is the Ocean Club creche area, play area and Wendy House to the street corner opposite the McCann apartment?

From the first reading of these two sentences, you might almost be inclined to think that Mrs Jensen saw Mr Murat in the Wendy House......
and, in actual fact, perhaps she did - along with Peter Pan and the Lost Boys!

Such stupid, lazy journalism - whoever wrote it couldn't even be bothered to insert a few sentences to try to make the account look even reasonably plausible - eg: I then checked the surrounding areas, by this time there were more people searching. I decided to go back and get Annie. We searched together........

...... "I thought maybe she had fallen down a manhole, or hit her head. ~~I didn't think she had been taken at that point and~~ we helped search bins and scrubland."

(Doubtful that those were Mrs Jensen's exact words or thoughts at that particular point - it is more likely she thought the abduction story was far-fetched and that Madeleine had wondered off or got lost. By inserting the phrase 'at that point' the journalist or editor raises the idea in the reader's mind that, while Mrs Jensen die not think Madeleine 'had been taken' at that particular point in time (hence she was searching bins and scrubland) at a later point in time, she did think this is what had happened.)

The next day, ~~said Mrs Jensen, Mr Murat introduced himself to her and her sister.~~ "It was hideous when we realised that the little girl had not been found. It really began to hit home that something horrible had happened.

It is far more likely that Mrs Jensen's comment 'it was hideous when we realized that the little girl had not been found' referred to her thoughts and words the next day.

Any comments she made about Mr Murat are also far more likely to have been referring to the following day, when Mrs Jensen first met Murat as he was acted as a police translator. From the witness statement, it appears she at first assumed he was one of the police.

by j.rob 11.05.14 13:26

aquila wrote:As this thread is now venturing into paedophile rings I'm posting up this link to an ITV crime drama 'The Vice'. This particular episode deals with paedophile rings and is well worth a viewing imo as it demonstrates the establishment, operation and dynamics of a group of paedophiles.

I'll go as far as to say that even though this is a crime drama it's not without research and is a jaw dropper. Paedophile rings are a mystery to all decent people, this episode gives a good insight into something we're all afraid to ask.

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

It's available for the next 19 days.

Yes, sadly it is difficult to ignore the growing number of red flags billowing in breeze which is now not so much a breeze (that can 'whoosh' curtains and slam doors) as a force ten hurricane.

by mariola 11.05.14 13:30

J.Rob this is harder to read than textusa.Did Wilkins lie or not?

by j.rob 11.05.14 14:45

mariola wrote:J.Rob this is harder to read than textusa.Did Wilkins lie or not?

Look at the PJ files. When Jez speaks to police on 4th May, the day after Madeleine went missing, he tells them he was in the Tapas restaurant on the evening of Thursday 3rd May and that, between 8.30pm and 9pm, he spotted 'Rasta-man' inside the restaurant whose behaviour he found 'strange' and 'nervous'.

On 7th May, when he gave a formal statement to police, Jez says he and his partner decided to spend the evening in the apartment, watching television. But he claims his baby son could not sleep so he decided to take him for a walk in his pram, leaving at 8.15pm - 8.30pm. He went to the toilet near the bar but could not see inside the restaurant. As he was pushing his pram around, he bumped into Gerry and had a chat with him near his apartment. Gerry said: 'you're on walking duty'. Jez said 'he was staying in and pros and cons and what to do with the children'. He does not mention 'Rasta-man' at all. Not surprisingly, really, seeing as in this version he was not inside the restaurant!

Both versions cannot be true. Given the time-frames involved, it is impossible that Jez cannot remember where he was eating and what his child-care arrangements were that evening.

So either one account of how he spent the evening is a lie. And the other is true. Or both version are a lie.

Does that answer your question?

by **tigger** 11.05.14 15:11

j.rob wrote:
mariola wrote:J.Rob this is harder to read than textusa.Did Wilkins lie or not?

Look at the PJ files. When Jez speaks to police on 4th May, the day after Madeleine went missing, he tells them he was in the Tapas restaurant on the evening of Thursday 3rd May and that, between 8.30pm and 9pm, he spotted 'Rasta-man' inside the restaurant whose behaviour he found 'strange' and 'nervous'.

On 7th May, when he gave a formal statement to police, Jez says he and his partner decided to spend the evening in the apartment, watching television. But he claims his baby son could not sleep so he decided to take him for a walk in his pram, leaving at 8.15pm - 8.30pm. He went to the toilet near the bar but could not see inside the restaurant. As he was pushing his pram around, he bumped into Gerry and had a chat with him near his apartment. Gerry said: 'you're on walking duty'. Jez said 'he was staying in and pros and cons and what to do with the children'. He does not mention 'Rasta-man' at all. Not surprisingly, really, seeing as in this version he was not inside the restaurant!

Both versions cannot be true. Given the time-frames involved, it is impossible that Jez cannot remember where he was eating and what his child-care arrangements were that evening.

So either one account of how he spent the evening is a lie. And the other is true. Or both version are a lie.

Does that answer your question?

I'm sorry, but it seems fairly straightforward. He used the toilets inside the Tapas near the bar so could perhaps see only part of the restaurant or none. It doesn't prevent him seeing rasta man in the bar.
Can't see a problem there, if he was complicit in establishing Gerry's alibi, I doubt he'd been so unwilling to corroborate Gerry's statement.

by Doug D 11.05.14 17:14

JW statements

4^th May 2007

‘that yesterday, between 20h30 and 21 hours, while he was in "THE TAPAS" bar,’

7^th May 2007

‘I left about 8.15 pm – 8.30 pm. I was pushing the pram around the complex and went to the toilet near the bar. I couldn't see inside the restaurant.’

The toilet near the bar is just through reception on the left, not inside the bar/restaurant.

I don’t know whether there is also another toilet actually inside the Tapas, but as with just about everything Mc, the statements don’t add up and need cross-examination.

by mariola 11.05.14 17:28

j.rob wrote:
mariola wrote:J.Rob this is harder to read than textusa.Did Wilkins lie or not?

Look at the PJ files. When Jez speaks to police on 4th May, the day after Madeleine went missing, he tells them he was in the Tapas restaurant on the evening of Thursday 3rd May and that, between 8.30pm and 9pm, he spotted 'Rasta-man' inside the restaurant whose behaviour he found 'strange' and 'nervous'.

On 7th May, when he gave a formal statement to police, Jez says he and his partner decided to spend the evening in the apartment, watching television. But he claims his baby son could not sleep so he decided to take him for a walk in his pram, leaving at 8.15pm - 8.30pm. He went to the toilet near the bar but could not see inside the restaurant. As he was pushing his pram around, he bumped into Gerry and had a chat with him near his apartment. Gerry said: 'you're on walking duty'. Jez said 'he was staying in and pros and cons and what to do with the children'. He does not mention 'Rasta-man' at all. Not surprisingly, really, seeing as in this version he was not inside the restaurant!

Both versions cannot be true. Given the time-frames involved, it is impossible that Jez cannot remember where he was eating and what his child-care arrangements were that evening.

So either one account of how he spent the evening is a lie. And the other is true. Or both version are a lie.

Does that answer your question?

Yes,thank you.

by j.rob 11.05.14 20:44

tigger wrote:
j.rob wrote:
mariola wrote:J.Rob this is harder to read than textusa.Did Wilkins lie or not?

Look at the PJ files. When Jez speaks to police on 4th May, the day after Madeleine went missing, he tells them he was in the Tapas restaurant on the evening of Thursday 3rd May and that, between 8.30pm and 9pm, he spotted 'Rasta-man' inside the restaurant whose behaviour he found 'strange' and 'nervous'.

On 7th May, when he gave a formal statement to police, Jez says he and his partner decided to spend the evening in the apartment, watching television. But he claims his baby son could not sleep so he decided to take him for a walk in his pram, leaving at 8.15pm - 8.30pm. He went to the toilet near the bar but could not see inside the restaurant. As he was pushing his pram around, he bumped into Gerry and had a chat with him near his apartment. Gerry said: 'you're on walking duty'. Jez said 'he was staying in and pros and cons and what to do with the children'. He does not mention 'Rasta-man' at all. Not surprisingly, really, seeing as in this version he was not inside the restaurant!

Both versions cannot be true. Given the time-frames involved, it is impossible that Jez cannot remember where he was eating and what his child-care arrangements were that evening.

So either one account of how he spent the evening is a lie. And the other is true. Or both version are a lie.

Does that answer your question?

I'm sorry, but it seems fairly straightforward. He used the toilets inside the Tapas near the bar so could perhaps see only part of the restaurant or none. It doesn't prevent him seeing rasta man in the bar.
Can't see a problem there, if he was complicit in establishing Gerry's alibi, I doubt he'd been so unwilling to corroborate Gerry's statement.

Well, if Jez was in the toilets inside the Tapas bar from 8.30pm until 9pm then I am sure that his movements are of great interest to the police!! big grin

Do the toilets inside the Tapas bar have glass doors - to enable Jez to glimpse Rasta-man in the restaurant while he is spending half an hour in the toilets?

In Jez' second account to police, he goes to the toilet near the bar but cannot see inside the restaurant.

He can't have it both ways.

Can't see a problem there, if he was complicit in establishing Gerry's alibi, I doubt he'd been so unwilling to corroborate Gerry's statement.

I've got no idea whether he was complicit in establishing an alibi for Gerry. It's a possibility. He was very supportive in terms of Gerry being unruffled. What do you think?

When you write he is unwilling to corroborate Gerry's statement - what do you mean? Do you mean unwilling to support Gerry in terms of what side of the road they were standing on? Or unwilling to corroborate Jane Tanner's Tanner-man sighting plus adamant that he did not see either Jane Tanner or Gerry?

Is that what you mean?

Log in for more topics