Re: Where was Gerry 9,30 - 10.00pm?

by Ollie 28.09.12 15:45

The camera doesn't look into the bedroom, I would of thought that as this is where Madeleine was allegedly snatched from the bedroom would have been filmed, but I think they know that it was too dark to see anything in there from the distance MO says he looked, confirming that either MO didn't do a check or if he did he wouldn't of been able to see anything anyway. You can see the bedroom door in another shot and it is pitch black in the room. This so called reconstruction was carefully choregraphed IMO.

by dragonfly 28.09.12 20:27

Nina wrote:So blooming obvious, and no-one picked it up and not mentioned again. So if Gerry was gone for long enough for Kate to think he was watching the football it was longer than a. the getting there to check the children, b. check the children c. maybe visit the toilet d. return to the bar. So longer than five minutes then. And not just a quick check of the football but actually watching it so quite some time then.
Does/could this link with the thread of the query digging of a grave in RM's garden.

Edited to add..... just read the SB thread and some posters were also querying whether there could be a link with the timings of SB.

Im trying to go through the statements as from 8.30 it a mess everything is all contradictions starting from dinner I will concentrate on GM and JT movements
Russell O'Brien's interview on 04 May 2007
He recalls that Matthew Oldfield left the restaurant at shortly after 21h00 to check the children. He is no longer sure who went out first, but five minutes later, Gerry McCann and his own partner, Jane, went out, almost at the same time, to check the children. He thinks that Gerry must have gone out first because Jane saw him chatting with a person on holiday at the complex, a certain Jez. He thinks that Jane only checked their apartment, being worried about E**e. Then Gerry came back at around 21h25/21h30 and they started to eat the main course.
Jane's freudian 'I was carrying across the body

by Ribisl 29.09.12 9:35

@dragonfly It is a complete mess, isn't it? I am not so sure if Jane actually says 'I 'was carrying...?' though. It's almost as if she muffles the subject through her own lack of conviction ie 'he' is but a figment of her imagination.

The so called reconstruction is so utterly incredible and is clearly their effort to plant more lies in the media, at the same time muddling the fact they have consistently refused to return to the scene to do an official reconstruction as bid by the PJ.

The positioning of Jane and Gerry is very telling. In his statements Jeremy Wilkins says he was walking up the street when he saw Gerry came out of the gate and he (JW) therefore crossed the road to have a chat which only lasted 3-5 minutes. He even says Gerry had his back to the building ie looking out onto the street. So why does Gerry say he was on the other side of the road and facing the wall? Because he'd already said he never saw Jane nor the abductor and that is the only position he could possibly stand and claim both top and bottom of the street were outside his peripheral vision, without contradicting Jane's important sighting. And Jane is so obviously lying because there is no way she could have avoided being seen by Wilkins if she was where she says she was. Her tears must be from the stress and remorse from lying rather than for the imaginary abduction of Madeleine.

by Ribisl 03.10.12 18:58

I find it very strange that Jane's statement is not corroborated by Gerry if she was lying for the McCanns' benefit.

The image of the 'abductor' as witnessed by Jane has been bugging me lately. Agreed it's not normal to carry a child with outstretched arms, but what if he was carrying a dead one? You wouldn't necessarily hold a dead child close to you, especially if it's not your own. So could it have been Murat carrying dead Madeleine back to his house to hide?

by **tigger** 03.10.12 19:06

Ribisl wrote:I find it very strange that Jane's statement is not corroborated by Gerry if she was lying for the McCanns' benefit.

The image of the 'abductor' as witnessed by Jane has been bugging me lately. Agreed it's not normal to carry a child with outstretched arms, but what if he was carrying a dead one? You wouldn't necessarily hold a dead child close to you, especially if it's not your own. So could it have been Murat carrying dead Madeleine back to his house to hide?

Considering the clothes (fleece, jeans) found in a bag near the airport, (see November timeline) I have always thought that Jane described herself as carrying the child. In the video where she talks about this, she does say 'I' when demonstrating how she would carry a child normally. Either that or she had seen someone carrying the body like that. It was neither Murat nor Gerry imo. their clothes were free of cadaver odour. It cannot have been done in a public place, because it is such a strange way to carry a child, so it may have been the way someone did take her up from a bed or the floor. But she must have been moved from the apartment in a bag of sorts, I'd think.

by Guest 03.10.12 19:11

russiandoll wrote:this entire reconstruction is so insulting to the intelligence of most people, who did these idiots think they were dealing with in portimao.... inspector clouseau? and why is the man carrying the girl in the smith sighting section of this video depicted as having her in his arms and not upright and over his shoulder as clearly stated ? the very way of carrying her that made Mr Smith think it was Gerry when he saw him on tv getting off the plane in the UK carying his son this way, upright, arm dangling down, childs head on shoulder !
this so called reconstruction has clearly been made to dishonestly reinforce the story that it is the same man JT allegedly saw. It is not as described by Mr Smith . How on earth did Mc Canns and co manage to circulate this second sighting when it is not as told by the person who actually saw the man and child?
Did any reasonable person actually believe a man carrying out such a heinous crime would traipse around the place for such a long time? A sleeping toddler is some weight and erm would he not erm risk being erm seen ?

sorry but I have to say this and I hope you dont think I am disrespecting young Maddie, I am merely disrespecting her parents and their friends. There is more chance that Maddie is giving Willy Wonka his 2 pence worth at his chocolate factory, is with Peter Pan and Tinkerbell, or at the north pole in a new role as one of santas elves than her disappearance happened the way they tell it.
I have a sneaking feeling the police are playing a very patient waiting game. I think they are sitting on some evidence and that thank goodness the truth is eventually going to come out.

SY will not let PJ down.

I trust.

by Guest 03.10.12 22:27

Portia wrote:[...]
SY will not let PJ down.
I trust.

***
That's all I needed to hear to have a good night's sleep :-)

by jd 04.10.12 1:13

gerry mccann since day 1 (without any facts or knowledge) has only pushed 3 things: 1) Abduction... 2) Discredit the PJ..... 3) Push Physics and Mediums

Andy Redwood is 2 things 1) A brilliant detective in his own right...... 2) Employed purely to tow the Government line (which I know from actual fact of the Jill Dando case)

In the review so far and from what he has said, Andy Redwood has said 1) Abduction (as if it happened in the UK) and 2) Totally supported Physics and Mediums...2 of the 3 gerry mccann pushed theories, and not said anything about any other theory despite the very over whelming facts

This says very clearly to me he is employed purely to tow the Government line and to support gerry mccann theories despite anything, and in the end to defunct the case....But I hope he is in reality being the Andy Redwood number 1) the brilliant detective...Only time will tell

by Ribisl 04.10.12 10:19

tigger wrote:
Ribisl wrote:I find it very strange that Jane's statement is not corroborated by Gerry if she was lying for the McCanns' benefit.

The image of the 'abductor' as witnessed by Jane has been bugging me lately. Agreed it's not normal to carry a child with outstretched arms, but what if he was carrying a dead one? You wouldn't necessarily hold a dead child close to you, especially if it's not your own. So could it have been Murat carrying dead Madeleine back to his house to hide?

Considering the clothes (fleece, jeans) found in a bag near the airport, (see November timeline) I have always thought that Jane described herself as carrying the child. In the video where she talks about this, she does say 'I' when demonstrating how she would carry a child normally. Either that or she had seen someone carrying the body like that. It was neither Murat nor Gerry imo. their clothes were free of cadaver odour. It cannot have been done in a public place, because it is such a strange way to carry a child, so it may have been the way someone did take her up from a bed or the floor. But she must have been moved from the apartment in a bag of sorts, I'd think.

I don't think a woman could carry a child that size in that position for long, so I think it was a man. Because Gerry appears to be doing everything to discredit her sighting and it is totally uncorroborated, I am now beginning to think this in fact could have been true amongst so many lies.

by Guest 14.10.13 13:59

Bumping this old topic up as the football match query has resurfaced.

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

by Woofer 15.10.13 16:57

I thought Textusa or someone had done a write-up of this, but I can`t find it.

Several people have doubts about where GM was at 9.30 - 10pm, so it might be worth looking again at Tapas Bar workers, other diners etc. statements.

It seems, from 2 statements I`ve looked at so far (just the Tapas workers that were there) that the furore started well before 10.pm - more like 9.20. and the Tapas 9 had all vacated the table (except for Diane) at about 9.40.

Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja - Executive Chef
He records that the past Thursday, 3rd of May, he left the central kitchen with the objective of going to the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in order to determine that everything was functioning smoothly;
. When he arrived there, by vehicle, at around 21:10, he remembers that next to the Tapas reception, he saw a vehicle, dark blue in colour, with Portuguese license plates. Although he cannot be definite, he believes it was a Fiesta or Focus. The deponent furthers that is was not a small car, and for this reason it could very well have been a Focus and not a Fiesta. He tells that he does not remember any sticker indicating that it was [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Inside the vehicle he saw no one.
. After parking his vehicle, he entered through the reception of that restaurant, in the left hand direction, toward the side opposite the pool, and passed by the esplanade. He remembers having seen in that esplanade, one table, occupied by three couples, without children, and all of them adults. On the esplanade, he encountered no one else.
. A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared. Given the importance of this, believed that he should be in the surroundings. At that moment, he did not leave the area of the restaurant, and did not have the opportunity to check if the vehicle mentioned before was situated in the same location;
. Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples;
. When he left, he noticed that the dark blue vehicle was no longer in its location (previously noted) and does not know of the existence or any connection between the presence of that vehicle and the disappearance of the child;
. Ending, states that during the days that preceded the facts, he did not notice any element/individual/fact that would have merited his attention;
. And nothing more said, having read the statement, finds it in conformity and signs it;
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira - Tapas Restaurant Waiter
"Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry. In any case, he remembers having heard shouts from the direction of Madeleine's parents' apartment."

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

Jeronimo Tomas Rodrigues Salcedas - Barman/Waiter
"At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone."

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

Is this the same person as above ? ~

JERONIMO RODRIGUES SALCEDAS - Occupation: Fitness Instructor
"On the night Madeleine disappeared, everything appeared normal. I remember that when I took notice of the disappearance, I had been in the restaurant speaking with my two colleagues?Ze and Ricardo who were on break. I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.? I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.

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

by ultimaThule 15.10.13 17:16

Now that a revised and much shortened timeline has been established, what will become of these pesky indpendent witness statements which were made by those who had no axe to grind?

It seems unlikely the pink one will be able to spin them out of existence big grin

by Woofer 15.10.13 17:48

Mike Sperrey and his wife were dining that night from 8pm but the PJ have never released their witness statements. Wonder why?

by ultimaThule 15.10.13 18:30

Woofer wrote:Mike Sperrey and his wife were dining that night from 8pm but the PJ have never released their witness statements. Wonder why?

Who is Mike Sperrey? Can he/his wife be found on mccannfiles?

by MRNOODLES 15.10.13 19:11

ultimaThule wrote:
Woofer wrote:Mike Sperrey and his wife were dining that night from 8pm but the PJ have never released their witness statements. Wonder why?
Who is Mike Sperrey? Can he/his wife be found on mccannfiles?

His name is mentioned ref Rasta Man. But statements not released.

by stumpyhorlicks 16.10.13 0:34

ultimaThule wrote:Now that a revised and much shortened timeline has been established, what will become of these pesky indpendent witness statements which were made by those who had no axe to grind?

It seems unlikely the pink one will be able to spin them out of existence

Also dining at the next table to the Mccanns, were Stephen Carpenter and family, according to their statement they left the tapas 9:15/30 and walked by the back of 5A whereupon S.Carpenters wife says she heard someone calling 'Madeleine, Madeleine'...One wonders why these statements are seemingly being ignored...and of course the dogs! new

by unchained melody 16.10.13 0:41

It's information like this that really makes you think what the hell was going on that night!

by Curioser 16.10.13 1:25

Yes to all of the above. Plus Goncalo said in a video somewhere that he's not sure it was ROB who came back and had his dinner reheated. He seemed to be saying it could have been Gerry. It would have been difficult for the waiters to tell them apart. One tipsy customer or another? Meh.

I reckon the 9.20 is probably correct and they genuinely didn't know where she was (or some of them didn't anyway) at that time. They thought she'd wandered off and were really looking for her. Later they found her behind the couch where she had been before they even left for dinner.

by Curioser 16.10.13 1:43

ultimaThule wrote:
Woofer wrote:Mike Sperrey and his wife were dining that night from 8pm but the PJ have never released their witness statements. Wonder why?
Who is Mike Sperrey? Can he/his wife be found on mccannfiles?

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

About a third of the way down under the heading GUEST RASTA HAIR. Nothing like rasta hair imho but one of the staff identified him as Sperry.

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 6:58

Cheers, MrNoodles and Curioser thanks

With all due respect to Mr S, IMO his crowning glory is more akin to 'pasta' than 'rasta' hair laughat

stumpyhorlicks I'm newbie-ish too and I hope you find this forum as interesting as I do.

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 7:04

stumpyhorlicks wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:Now that a revised and much shortened timeline has been established, what will become of these pesky indpendent witness statements which were made by those who had no axe to grind?

It seems unlikely the pink one will be able to spin them out of existence
Also dining at the next table to the Mccanns, were Stephen Carpenter and family, according to their statement they left the tapas 9:15/30 and walked by the back of 5A whereupon S.Carpenters wife says she heard someone calling 'Madeleine, Madeleine'...One wonders why these statements are seemingly being ignored...and of course the dogs!

(again!) I meant to add to my previous welcome that I don't believe any of the independent witness statements are being ignored and I have no doubt they'll be brought forward at the appropriate time.

by plebgate 16.10.13 7:30

ultimaThule wrote:
stumpyhorlicks wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:Now that a revised and much shortened timeline has been established, what will become of these pesky indpendent witness statements which were made by those who had no axe to grind?

It seems unlikely the pink one will be able to spin them out of existence
Also dining at the next table to the Mccanns, were Stephen Carpenter and family, according to their statement they left the tapas 9:15/30 and walked by the back of 5A whereupon S.Carpenters wife says she heard someone calling 'Madeleine, Madeleine'...One wonders why these statements are seemingly being ignored...and of course the dogs!
(again!) I meant to add to my previous welcome that I don't believe any of the independent witness statements are being ignored and I have no doubt they'll be brought forward at the appropriate time.

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

I don't see how any witness statements can be ignored. The police do not take statements for fun, statements are taken to be used in evidence and to help investigations.

If the "snatcher" is found and this gets to court the Tapas group will have to take the stand and be cross examined and the statements they gave at the time will be used re. the questioning?

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 7:48

plebgate wrote:
I don't see how any witness statements can be ignored. The police do not take statements for fun, statements are taken to be used in evidence and to help investigations.

If the "snatcher" is found and this gets to court the Tapas group will have to take the stand and be cross examined and the statements they gave at the time will be used re. the questioning

If this gets to court the big question will be which members of the Tapas group will be defendants and which members will be giving evidence for the prosecution. yes

Having taken a look at their statements,I've formed the opinion that if the group are faced with the prospect of possible jail time and all that will ensue from a conviction in the Criminal Courts, there'll be a stampede to take the stand for the prosecution.

Even though few of the independent witnesses may be call to give evidence, no statement contained in the PJ files can be said to have go to waste as every single one has played it's part in this case.

by sweetex 16.10.13 7:50

The heading of this thread is the Million dollar question, isn't it?

I have been reading through a few statements. I think I saw this statement earlier this week somewhere, but good to maybe have it posted here again.

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

------- STARIKOVA VITORINO (Russian citizen, with the telephone No "96635 ####) - kitchen assistant:
- Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.
- During the time that she was working yesterday (between 14:30 and 23:00) she did not see any individual with blonde "rastas".

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

by sweetex 16.10.13 7:52

And another one claiming #GM to leave the table for about 30 minutes?

JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA (residing at Rua Ilha Terceira, no. 15, Lagos, Telephone No 91 277 ####) - table employee [waiter].
- Of the group of 8/9 British citizens who dined at the restaurant last night, as usual, of which the parents of missing were part (he didn't know them) he noticed that two individuals left the table, of the male gender.
- The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;
- Of the times in which this group had dined in that bar it is [was] often [for] someone from the group to go to check at the apartments the state of the children (their offspring) who were sleeping there.
- He did not see any person with blonde "rastas", while he was working (16h00 and 00.00). ----------

by russiandoll 16.10.13 8:15

sweetex wrote:The heading of this thread is the Million dollar question, isn't it?

I have been reading through a few statements. I think I saw this statement earlier this week somewhere, but good to maybe have it posted here again.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
------- STARIKOVA VITORINO (Russian citizen, with the telephone No "96635 ####) - kitchen assistant:
- Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.
- During the time that she was working yesterday (between 14:30 and 23:00) she did not see any individual with blonde "rastas".

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

might this couple have been Tanner and ROB, who did a childcare swap after one had been absent from tapas table for quite some time? As ever...will check the files !

by tiny 16.10.13 8:18

russiandoll wrote:
sweetex wrote:The heading of this thread is the Million dollar question, isn't it?

I have been reading through a few statements. I think I saw this statement earlier this week somewhere, but good to maybe have it posted here again.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
------- STARIKOVA VITORINO (Russian citizen, with the telephone No "96635 ####) - kitchen assistant:
- Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.
- During the time that she was working yesterday (between 14:30 and 23:00) she did not see any individual with blonde "rastas".

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
might this couple have been Tanner and ROB, who did a childcare swap after one had been absent from tapas table for quite some time? As ever...will check the files !

I shouldn't think so as he said.. after a few moments they all left apart from one elderly lady

by Lioned 16.10.13 12:35

OP.

'Where was gerry between 9.30 and 10.00pm ?

According to Matt Oldfields 'rog' statement and SY timeline gerry was away from the table doing a 'check'.

by Woofer 16.10.13 16:00

Thanks all for finding more statements - I didn`t have time yesterday.

BTW Didn`t Mike Sperrey live only about 35 miles away from the McCanns in Warwick?

Mods - If we`re not allowed to mention his name, please delete. I seem to remember there was a restriction on mentioning his name, or was this because his statement hasn`t been released by the PJ?

by russiandoll 16.10.13 16:09

statement that tapas table was clear at 9.40 pm. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Latest topics