People who Jeremy Wilkins didn't see on 3rd May

by suzyjohnson 02.07.13 0:37

Jeremy Wilkins estimates that he saw GM sometime between 8.45pm - 9.15pm
' I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15. I am aware of the importance of this hour .......... It is not possible to give you a more exact time. (Rogatory interview April 2008)

GM says, '...... at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition. He then went to the toilet, where he remained for a few instants, left the apartment, and then crossed ways with someone with whom he had played tennis, who had a baby buggy, also a British citizen, with whom he had a brief conversation. He then returned to the restaurant (First interview 4 May 2007)

So, according to GM, his meeting with JW, occured around 9.10pm
It has been said that GM purposefully tried to set his meeting with JW as late as possible, to coincide with the timing of an abduction.

But. besides JT, who JW didn't see walking past him at 9.15pm and besides an abductor who JW didn't notice on the corner of the road, who else didn't JW encounter that evening?

1) He didn't see GM and KM on their way to the Tapas at 8.30pm (GM first interview)
2) He didn't see KM and GM just after 8.30pm on their way to the Tapas (KM first interview 4 May)
3) He didn't see KM and GM arriving at the Tapas at 8.35pm (Tapas group prepared timeline)
4) He didn't see JT, MO and RMO going to the Tapas between 8.40pm - 8.45pm 'JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road'.
5) He didn't see RO arrving at the Tapas at 8.45pm (Tapas group prepared timeline)

6) He didn't see any of these people, 'MO returns to apartments to check on ground floor flats, passing David Payne (DP) and Fiona Payne (FP) and her mother Dianne Webster (DW) on their way down to the table'. (Tapas group prepared timeline)
7) Or, 'MO listens outside all ground floor flats’ windows on the car park side of the apartment (5A, 5B and 5D) to make sure they were asleep. At this time, all the shutters were down on each window'. (Tapas group prepared timeline) MO arrived back at the Tapas by 9pm

JT states that she saw JW talking to GM at 9.15pm 'JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road' (Tapas group prepared timeline)

Yet, JW didn't see JT either on the way round to her apartment OR on her way back to the Tapas at 'JT then returns to the restaurant, by which time GM has also returned'. (Tapas group prepared timeline)

He didn't notice 'MO and RJO go back to the apartments via the car park entrance' at 21.25 either (Tapas group prepared timeline)

____________________

by **PeterMac** 02.07.13 8:28

Cloaks of invisibility ?

by suzyjohnson 02.07.13 9:17

Ah, of course!!

by Guest 02.07.13 9:23

Time slips?

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

No I'm not being serious but it's no sillier than Team McCann's versions.

by lj 02.07.13 16:34

Selective blindness.

My kids suffer severly from that. They will see the food, or snacks or drinks, but never see the dirty dishes.

They suffer immensely. My oldest keeps on telling me she wishes she could help me more.

Now Jane T, that's another story. This enhanced vision problem can lead to run inns with LE. If not for herself, than for others.

by **PeterMac** 02.07.13 16:41

Interesting that out of all the statements the bit that rings most true is
"' I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15. I am aware of the importance of this hour .......... It is not possible to give you a more exact time. "
9:04 by his watch, exactly 5 minutes after Gerry left . . .on the other hand,

(It could also, of course be an elaborate ruse to allow Gm and JT to fix the time wherever they want within those parameters, but that is less likely. And in any event JT stuffs the whole thing up by her insistence on leaving the tapas bar exactly 5 minutes after GM)

by Monty Heck 02.07.13 20:04

PeterMac Today at 4:41 pm

Interesting that out of all the statements the bit that rings most true is
"' I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15. I am aware of the importance of this hour .......... It is not possible to give you a more exact time. "
9:04 by his watch, exactly 5 minutes after Gerry left . . .on the other hand,

(It could also, of course be an elaborate ruse to allow Gm and JT to fix the time wherever they want within those parameters, but that is less likely. And in any event JT stuffs the whole thing up by her insistence on leaving the tapas bar exactly 5 minutes after GM)

I've sometimes wondered whether JW felt pressured into giving the timeframe he did. He might not have been particularly aware of the time at the time (so to speak) but wonder if there were there any discussions between himself and the T9 while they all stayed at the OC after the events of 3 May. What I mean is, was he swayed by suggestions from the group regarding the time he met GMcC, suggestions backed up by JT who claims to also have witnessed this meeting at that time? If so it may not have been easy for him to contradict the timings they gave, especially if he wasn't totally certain on that himself, not to mention all the media pressure and the way way the McCs were being potrayed in such a saintly way by the media. Might be totally wrong but do wonder.

by **tigger** 02.07.13 20:34

On the 5th November 2007 Leicester Police sent a statement from JW on the 31st October 2007: this is the last part:

Their son was unable to sleep so about 2015hrs, Jeremy took him, in the pushchair for a walk. He walked around the main area of the resort and eventually ended up in the Tapas bar where he used the toilet facility. He was unable to state what time this was. His son was still awake so he walked in the area of the ocean club gardens and walked along the alleyways in that general area. He eventually made his way along Rua Dr Francisco toward the direction of Rua Dr Agostinho. At this time he was walking on the right side of the road passing the Tapas bar area to his left. He noticed the bad street lighting and although it was not completely dark there was enough light to see clearly. As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry’s back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10 – 15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.

He was adamant that he did not see any one else in the area. When spoken to in reference to Jane Tanner walking by, he again stated that he saw no one. He also stated that he did not see or hear anyone to his right. He was aware of the recent picture in the papers re the person with a child wrapped in a blanket and in a males arms alledgedly walking across the junction to his right but again stated that he did not see any one.

The conversation with Gerry lasted for about three minutes during which Gerry was chatty and in his normal self. Jeremy then made his way back to his apartment.

They went to bed about 2300hrs but were waken about 0100hrs by a knock at the door. On answering the door they spoke with the resort manager and a person they knew was a member of the group but they only knew him as Matthew. It was then they found out that Madeleine was missing.

They had no further contact with the family apart from seeing them in passing whilst at the resort.

Several weeks later, Jeremy received calls from Gerry in relation to gaining permission from him to use his name in a portfolio of evidence being compiled by an organisation employed by the McCanns. They were very persistent and made several attempts to contact him both at work and at home. They had no objections to being included but were concerned as to the method being used.
unquote

Make of that what you will, imo JW is not complicit at this stage. But 2015 is very early for a start of his walk. There's no way he saw Gerry at 9.10/9.15 imo.

by Casey5 02.07.13 20:37

Monty Heck wrote:PeterMac Today at 4:41 pm

I've sometimes wondered whether JW felt pressured into giving the timeframe he did. He might not have been particularly aware of the time at the time (so to speak) but wonder if there were there any discussions between himself and the T9 while they all stayed at the OC after the events of 3 May. What I mean is, was he swayed by suggestions from the group regarding the time he met GMcC, suggestions backed up by JT who claims to also have witnessed this meeting at that time? If so it may not have been easy for him to contradict the timings they gave, especially if he wasn't totally certain on that himself, not to mention all the media pressure and the way way the McCs were being potrayed in such a saintly way by the media. Might be totally wrong but do wonder.

You could be right PeterMac:-

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Several weeks later, Jeremy received calls from Gerry in relation to gaining permission from him to use his name in a portfolio of evidence being compiled by an organization employed by the McCanns. They were very persistent and made several attempts to contact him both at work and at home. They had no objection to being included but were concerned as to the method being used.

by **tigger** 02.07.13 20:49

this is from a post by Stewie in: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

...
on 4 May he gives a statement to the police (translated by Robert Murat) . the statement says that he contacted the police to relay suspicious "rasta" man that he saw in the tapas bar area on the third between 8.30 and 9.00 pm. Nothing in this statement about seeing Gerry or Jane Tanner.

Given that he says he was woken up at 1.30 in the morning of 4th and asked if he saw anything, you wonder why, if he was suspicious about rasta man, he didn't mention it then but waited until the next day to mention it.

His next statement is 7 May after he returned home. This statement comes about from a request by Amaral to leicester police to question Wilkins further. Presumably because Gerry has given a statement saying he talked with Wilkins on 3rd.

So the police get a statement .
This time he says he left his apartment between 8.15 and 8.30pm, walked around the complex, went to the tapas bar, saw GM (no time given) then went back to his apartment. He says he was woken up at 1am by the resort manager and Matt telling him madeleine was gone and asking if he'd seen anything. He just says "you're joking".
Now, given that 1am on 4th is BEFORE giving the statement on 4th about "rasta man", why wouldn't he mention seeing him at this point, given that it was suspicious enough to have mentioned him the next day?

Also, in giving this statement 3 days after his 4 may statement, why not include rasta man?
He doesn't at this point mention seeing Jane Tanner on his way down to the tapas bar either...

Next statement is 31 October 2007 which is pretty much the same as the 7 May statement.

Next statement is 8 April 2008 and this is more comprehensive:
-8.30 pm left apartment
- on way down to tapas bar looked over at Mccann's block and saw Jane Tanner in front of the block wearing purple top.
- went down to tapas bar, saw rasta man
- back up towards his apartment, saw Gerry between 8.45 and 9.15pm
unquote

By the time it's the rogatory he's plumbed for the later time of 8.30, fitted in the Rasta again and generally sings from the Rothley song sheet imo.

by Monty Heck 02.07.13 21:21

Casey5 wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:PeterMac Today at 4:41 pm

I've sometimes wondered whether JW felt pressured into giving the timeframe he did. He might not have been particularly aware of the time at the time (so to speak) but wonder if there were there any discussions between himself and the T9 while they all stayed at the OC after the events of 3 May. What I mean is, was he swayed by suggestions from the group regarding the time he met GMcC, suggestions backed up by JT who claims to also have witnessed this meeting at that time? If so it may not have been easy for him to contradict the timings they gave, especially if he wasn't totally certain on that himself, not to mention all the media pressure and the way way the McCs were being potrayed in such a saintly way by the media. Might be totally wrong but do wonder.
You could be right PeterMac:-

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Several weeks later, Jeremy received calls from Gerry in relation to gaining permission from him to use his name in a portfolio of evidence being compiled by an organization employed by the McCanns. They were very persistent and made several attempts to contact him both at work and at home. They had no objection to being included but were concerned as to the method being used.

Thanks Casey and Tigger for replies. Interesting that it's not until months later that JW's story fully evolves a time slot of "between 8.30 and 9.15pm", particularly as he is the star alibi for GMcC being where he was when he said he was, outside his apartment as his child was allegedly being abducted. If he's unable to swear a precise timing on oath, the alibi falls completely flat. Hopefully this will all be ironed out when (more like if) he's reinterviewed by SY, as he surely must.

by suzyjohnson 02.07.13 23:54

Thanks everyone for replies. What I was thinking was that Jeremy Wilkins must have been on that street for at least 5 mins altogether. I know the Tapas group might not be telling the truth, but they all still had to get round to the Tapas restaurant from their apartments, so they must all have been walking down that street at some point. And if JW had been talking to GM earlier than 9pm for example, well then he would have seen them all wouldn't he?

So I was wondering what independent evidence there was to corroberate their timings.

by suzyjohnson 03.07.13 0:09

Witness statement of Tapas waiter 7/9/2007 (McCann Files) -

Questioned, he affirms that the group would normally consist of nine people (including Madeleine's parents), and would normally dine around 20H30 and 20H40. They would not all arrive at once and before they all arrived, some would have cocktails. On the day of the disappearance, all were seated at the table between 20H35 and 20H45. He remembers them arriving as usual. Had they arrived late, this would have been noted by the staff.

by suzyjohnson 03.07.13 0:50

Date: 2007/05/08

Luisa Ana de Noronha de Azevedo Coutinho

Occupation: Receptionist

Place of work: Ocean Club

'She remembers that on Sunday, the 29th, one of the members of the group that arrived with Madeleine McCann, whose name she does not know and only knows to be a man and tall and thin, approached her and reserved dinner for the whole group, for the whole week and always for 8.30. The deponent made some comments about the request, saying that the Tapas received many requests and that MW only had a quota of 20 per day, but upon the insistence of the guest she managed to make the bookings requested.'

Comment - I know the Tapas group were anything but considerate of other people, but wouldn't you think the restaurant would have complained if a group of people booked the Tapas every evening from 8.30pm, preventing anyone else from dining there, but didn't show up every night until 9pm?

by suzyjohnson 03.07.13 1:04

Witness Statement

Svetlana Starikova Vitorino

Date: 2007 – 05 – 08

Occupation: Kitchen assistant

Place of work: Tapas Restaurant

'This group would dine at about 21.00/21.30 .........the group’s children did not dine with them. She remembers that on the day the child disappeared there was some confusion, with some people who left the table after ordering, one of the meals even being sent back, as someone had asked them to delay the meal for a little while.

by j.rob 25.06.14 17:18

this is from a post by Stewie in: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]wilkins?highlight=jeremy+wilkins

...
on 4 May he gives a statement to the police (translated by Robert Murat) . the statement says that he contacted the police to relay suspicious "rasta" man that he saw in the tapas bar area on the third between 8.30 and 9.00 pm. Nothing in this statement about seeing Gerry or Jane Tanner.

Given that he says he was woken up at 1.30 in the morning of 4th and asked if he saw anything, you wonder why, if he was suspicious about rasta man, he didn't mention it then but waited until the next day to mention it.

His next statement is 7 May after he returned home. This statement comes about from a request by Amaral to leicester police to question Wilkins further. Presumably because Gerry has given a statement saying he talked with Wilkins on 3rd.

So the police get a statement .
This time he says he left his apartment between 8.15 and 8.30pm, walked around the complex, went to the tapas bar, saw GM (no time given) then went back to his apartment. He says he was woken up at 1am by the resort manager and Matt telling him madeleine was gone and asking if he'd seen anything. He just says "you're joking".
Now, given that 1am on 4th is BEFORE giving the statement on 4th about "rasta man", why wouldn't he mention seeing him at this point, given that it was suspicious enough to have mentioned him the next day?

Also, in giving this statement 3 days after his 4 may statement, why not include rasta man?
He doesn't at this point mention seeing Jane Tanner on his way down to the tapas bar either...

Next statement is 31 October 2007 which is pretty much the same as the 7 May statement.

Next statement is 8 April 2008 and this is more comprehensive:
-8.30 pm left apartment
- on way down to tapas bar looked over at Mccann's block and saw Jane Tanner in front of the block wearing purple top.
- went down to tapas bar, saw rasta man
- back up towards his apartment, saw Gerry between 8.45 and 9.15pm
unquote

---------------------------

I think this is THE KEY to understanding what happened during that week. I'm not saying it answers every question, but I think it will unravel quite a big part of the mystery.

I've put in bold what I think are especially important points. Amaral urgently requested a statement from Jez Wilkins shortly after he returned home. Presumably for 2 very important reasons.
1. Jez Wilkins reported a sighting of 'rasta-man' to police on the day after Madeleine disappeared. Saying he saw him in the tapas restaurant acting suspiciously. Therefore Jez is a very important witness as 'rasta-man' potentially could have something to do with Madeleine's disappearance.
2. Gerry AND Jane have both told police that they saw Jez Wilkins outside the McCann apartment. So that makes Jez a very important person for several reasons. a) Jez could potentially have something to do with Madeleine's disappearance. He is in a crucial place at a crucial time and furthermore he is pushing a pram around which could potentially be a means of concealing a child. b) Jez is a very important eye-witness as, if Jane and Gerry's account is truthful (!) then he saw the father of the child and one of the Tapas parents at a very crucial place at a very crucial time. Given that in the majority of cases where children mysteriously disappear the parents, family or other people known to the child are responsible, this makes Jez Wilkins a crucial eye-witness.

So Jez is, in every respect, a very important person in this case. Given that his partner Bridget wrote a newspaper article later in 2007, stating that their daughter and Madeleine played together in the kid's club (which, again, may or may not necessarily be true) if it IS true then Madeleine would have known Jez, Bridget and their daughter.

Once police had established that Jez has given two completely conflicting accounts of his actions that evening he would, presumably, have become (if possible!!) an even MORE important person in the case.

. In the first account saying he was in the tapas restaurant that evening (so that, presumably means he was dining there that evening) and between 7.30pm and 8pm he spotted a suspicious-looking 'rasta-man' in the restaurant and in the second account saying he dined in that evening but went out to push him pram around. Two totally conflicting accounts of where he was that evening means he is NOT a completely independent, unbiased and honest eye-witness.

So that can only mean a) he had something to do with Madeleine's disappearance, b) he has some knowledge of Madeleine's disappearance which he wishes to hide, c) he is providing a cover or alibi for someone/people, d) he wishes to frame someone, for whatever reason.

.No wonder the police wanted him to come back to do a reconstruction with the McCanns and the Tapas.! And no wonder none of them wanted to! I think it would have blown all of their accounts of the evening entirely out of the water. And made them all look even dafter and more guilty than they do already.

Also, if you look through the PJ files at the list of questions that Amaral suggested the Leics police ask Jez, one of them asks if Jez knows of any reason for someone to want to kidnap Madeleine.

Ha! Nice question.

Jeremy Wilkin's account of when he was told about Madleine's abduction is especially revealing. He claims that after bumping into Gerry at around 9.15pm - 9.30pm, he goes back to his apartment and later goes to bed. Then at around 1pm him and his partner are woken by Matt and the resort manager and told that Madeleine has been abducted. He is told(by Matt, presumably) that Gerry says he saw him earlier that evening and wonders if he has seen anything. Jez replies: 'you're joking!' He then claims he offered to help search but was told there was nothing they could do at this stage so they both went back to bed.

As I have already written, I find this entirely implausible. In the event that he is a completely unbiased eye-witness, the fact that his daughter played with Madeleine would have meant that either him or his partner would have wanted to help search. The fact that Bridget had worked for Crimewatch would meant that she would know that the first few hours are crucial when children go missing.

The fact that they are both journalists, working either in TV drama or having worked for programmes like Crimewatch would mean that they would both know that the kidnapping of a three year old child, supposedly stolen out of her bed, would be a massive news-story.

The fact that Jez did not mention 'rasta-man' when he was woken up at 1pm by Matt is not consistent with his reporting 'rasta-man' to police the next day. If he genuinely thought that 'rasta-man' could have something to do with Madeleine's disappearance, and he was a genuine and completely unbiased eye-witness, he would have immediately reported rasta-man to police at 1pm.

Him and his partner would both know that this sighting was crucial as, if 'rasta-man' did have something to do with Madeleine's disappearance, then the sooner police get his description, the sooner they can track him down and hopefully 'save' Madeleine. And stop him harming another child. And so on. You could argue that it was hugely irresponsible of him not to have reported 'rasta-man earlier? How could he possibly be so laid-back about reporting a suspicious person who could potentially be involved in such a heinous crime?

Another crucial point about Jez's testimony. The resort manager - assuming he is an entirely independent and unbiased eye-witness (and you can take nothing for granted in this strange case) is a very important witness to the conversation that takes place between Matt and Jez. It means that whatever was said between the two of them can be verified by an (independent hopefully!) third party. So hotel manager Nigel hears, presumably, Jez saying: 'you are joking'. He notices that neither Jez or Bridget go out and help search. And he is witness to the fact that Jez does not mention 'rasta-man' at 1pm, even though he is told about the abduction.

Hmmm - Nigel must think (assuming independent witness). How very odd! Neither of them join the searches. Jez doesn't think that it must be important for him to give a statement to police that very night, as he actually saw Gerry after checking on Madeleine. So he would know that he is a very important eye-witness. And he would know that him bumping into Gerry would be very important information to give to the police, even if just to help clear Gerry from being a chief suspect.

I'd say the resort manager would be a person whose account of this encounter would be extremely interesting.

So what made Jez go to the police the next day and tell them about 'rasta-man'? Something must have happened that made him do this. That made him do that the next day. That made him not do that at 1pm that night.

And that *something* is critical - critical to understanding what happened that week.

by Spandex 26.06.14 6:57

Excellent post J Rob totally agree!

by missbeetle 26.06.14 7:17

Isn't it just? Well done!

I'm liking your thinking.

by **tigger** 26.06.14 7:57

J.rob wrote:

Jeremy Wilkin's account of when he was told about Madleine's abduction is especially revealing. He claims that after bumping into Gerry at around 9., he goes back to his apartment and later goes to bed. Then at around 1pm him and his partner are woken by Matt and the resort manager and told that Madeleine has been abducted. He is told(by Matt, presumably) that Gerry says he saw him earlier that evening and wonders if he has seen anything. Jez replies: 'you're joking!' He then claims he offered to help search but was told there was nothing they could do at this stage so they both went back to bed.

Unquote

JW in the rog was most insistent that he could NOT corroborate the time given by Gerry.
He set the meeting at 8.45 to 9.15.

As for not mentioning the rasta at 1.00 am.
Woken from sleep - hears about missing/abducted child.
Reply would be what I'd expect. Why search? Abducted does imoly transport, not a bloke taking a slow walk with a comatose child through the town.
Iirc rasta man was eliminated fairly quickly, so no mention of him in later interviews would be expected.
He does ask if they need help with the search but in fact is told it isn't necessary. His wife writes later that she didn't want him to go out. i myself am sure that if told such news when woken at that time that I'd not think of anyone suspicious - perhaps not even when asked.

Imo the main reason to wake JW up was to remind him of having met Gerry - as he was now earmarked to shore up JT's alibi for Gerry after the disaster of the too inquisitive Smiths. JW was Gerry's desperately needed 'witness' and so JW was asked if he'd seen anything at that time (implied) when he was talki g to Gerry. It then follows that there was something to see at that time which he may have missed- namely eggman.

JW in fact complained about the tactics and frequent demands used by TM who wanted him to put a definite and late time on the meeting. The chat could not have lasted more than a minute or two at most imo and is - seeing the start of his walk at 8.30 - most likely to have been close to 8.45.

JW is imo an average media person, his wife was in the Algarve on the occasion of becoming a partner in a local estate agency. They had a child which would often fall asleep after being walked around in a pushchair. All this is quite normal behaviour imo.

by Guest 26.06.14 8:11

tigger wrote:JW in fact complained about the tactics and frequent demands used by TM who wanted him to put a definite and late time on the meeting. The chat could not have lasted more than a minute or two at most imo and is - seeing the start of his walk at 8.30 - most likely to have been close to 8.45.

Suppose this true.

Why would a meeting at 8.45 be bad for Gerry?

by **tigger** 26.06.14 8:23

BlueBag wrote:
tigger wrote:JW in fact complained about the tactics and frequent demands used by TM who wanted him to put a definite and late time on the meeting. The chat could not have lasted more than a minute or two at most imo and is - seeing the start of his walk at 8.30 - most likely to have been close to 8.45.

Suppose this true.

Why would a meeting at 8.45 be bad for Gerry?

Perhaps he still wanted to link the two sightings whilst having a rock-solid alibi from JT and JW. The last not being one of the party.

You will see in the Expresso interview how Gerry links the two sightings, adding his ali i for 10.00.

But he would expect the Smiths to have come forward the next day, very much afraid that he'd be identified, so moving the alibi as close to 10.00 as he could.
For this was to be the same abductor, who has taken 40 mns over a max ten minute walk.
Two sightings an hour and 15 mins apart would not look good.

Alibi from the T7 could be discredited by the staff - which is exactly what we've seen. At 10.00 and in the immediate aftermath no independent witness places Gerry in 5a or near it.

by fossey 26.06.14 8:25

BlueBag wrote:
tigger wrote:JW in fact complained about the tactics and frequent demands used by TM who wanted him to put a definite and late time on the meeting. The chat could not have lasted more than a minute or two at most imo and is - seeing the start of his walk at 8.30 - most likely to have been close to 8.45.

Suppose this true.

Why would a meeting at 8.45 be bad for Gerry?

At 8.45pm - G want's everyone to say (and think) that he is at the Tapas bar.

JT had to give her bullsh!t sighting at 9.15pm. (After G's last check)

At 9.15pm exactly, G wanted and needed to be seen chatting to an 'independent' witness.

At 9.15pm - G 'says' he talks to Gez.

by **tigger** 26.06.14 8:33

fossey wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
tigger wrote:JW in fact complained about the tactics and frequent demands used by TM who wanted him to put a definite and late time on the meeting. The chat could not have lasted more than a minute or two at most imo and is - seeing the start of his walk at 8.30 - most likely to have been close to 8.45.

Suppose this true.

Why would a meeting at 8.45 be bad for Gerry?
At 8.45pm - G want's everyone to say (and think) that he is at the Tapas bar.

JT had to give her bullsh!t sighting at 9.15pm. (After G's last check)

At 9.15pm exactly, G wanted and needed to be seen chatting to an 'independent' witness.

At 9.15pm - G 'says' he talks to Gez.

Exactly. That's why imo JW is no part of the 3/5 circus act.

Besides, make a list of the people who've done quite well financially since 3/5 and you don't find JW.

Have a look at :
TM
Jon Corner
Murat
Etc. a small core group of mostly family and close friends.

Curiously not any of the T7 I believe.

by Guest 26.06.14 8:34

Also.. perhaps... it blows the "checking every 15 minutes" out the water.

by missbeetle 26.06.14 9:02

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
(snipped from a Daily Mail review of Bridget O'Donnell's book, dated 28th September 2012)

Bridget O'Donnell being, of course Jeremy Wilkin's wife.

Her book was called 'Inspector Minehan Takes A Stand'.

The Daily Mail review headline for it - 'The Super-Cop Who Busted London's Child Brothels'.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
(snipped from the same review)

Shovels...?

In this book, Inspector Jeremiah Minehan is described as being "nudging seven foot tall".

I think it was Praia who said Jeremy Wilkins is well over six feet tall.