Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

by **Tony Bennett** 04.11.13 0:02

candyfloss wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

Time and again I have proved that the McCanns hve PROMOTED this sighting for the past 4.5 years - but you are not listening
I don't think a few pages in a book or a few seconds in a documentary is 'promoting' it Tony.

Wait a moment.

Dr Kate McCann's book was heavily promoted and was it not also translated? It was somewhere high up on the best-sellers list on Amazon for weeks and weeks. The Sun serialised it. There was a paperback version of it published in May 2012.

Page 95 of 'madeleine':

"We subsequently learnt that less than fifty minutes after Jane's sightring...a family of nine from Ireland had also seen a man carrying a child..." (plus another half a page all about the detail and significance of this sighting)

Page 328 of 'madeleine':

"The police did not appear to feel that Jane's sighting in Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva and the man and child reported by the Irish holidaymakers in Rua da Escola Primaria were related...To me the similarities seem far more significant than any discrepancy in timing..." (and more)

Page 328 of 'madeleine':

"Where might this man have been between the two [sightings]?"

Page 371 of 'madleine':

"The similarities between [Tannerman] and [Smithman] speak for themselves..."

I think it was more than a few seconds in the [2009] documentary - but I am of course open to correction.

Can you point me to interviews where it has been promoted.

No. I don't recall any, apart from the documentary. I would happily concede that Smithman has not been heavily promoted by the McCann Team but as is very clear from the quotes from Kate's book, it was most certainly promoted there. As you know, several people on this and other 'Smithman' threads have claimed that the McCanns avoided mentioning the Smith sighting - and one poster even said they wanted to 'bury it' - hopefully by now I've shown that they were mistaken.

We have had countless mentions of Tannerman, but I don't really recall much about Smithman ever being discussed. Neither did we get a press conference about the sighting,

I concede that

they did have e-fits of Smithman, so why not?

On the basis of what I have been told by the Sunday Times and others, it seems like two or more members of the Smith family drew up two wholly different e-fits of Smithman, whom they say they encountered for a second or two in the dark, and whose face they could not see, nor would they be able to recognise him again if they saw him. I hope you will forgive my scepticism if I say (a) I do not have enough evidence that the Smths were responsible for these efits and (b) if they were responsible for them, IMO they are manifestly not credible.

What I think has been shown is that these two efits were drawn up - when, where and by whom is far from clear - and that they were suppressed all the time from 2008 to 14th October 2013.

I would most certainly agree that IF one of the finest detectives in one of the world's finest police forces has said that we must now be looking for efit A and efit B (or efit AB if they are the same bloke), AND IS RIGHT TO DO SO, then the McCanns most certainly owe the public an explanation as to why they suppressed this efit for 5 years.

by dunn 04.11.13 0:21

Tony Bennett wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

Time and again I have proved that the McCanns hve PROMOTED this sighting for the past 4.5 years - but you are not listening
I don't think a few pages in a book or a few seconds in a documentary is 'promoting' it Tony.

No. I don't recall any, apart from the documentary. I would happily concede that Smithman has not been heavily promoted by the McCann Team but as is very clear from the quotes from Kate's book, it was most certainly promoted there. As you know, several people on this and other 'Smithman' threads have claimed that the McCanns avoided mentioning the Smith sighting - and one poster even said they wanted to 'bury it' - hopefully by now I've shown that they were mistaken.

Hi Tony.. I just don't think that promoting the Smith sighting is the same thing as trying to highlight supposed similarities between it and Tannerman; be it in the book, or anywhere else, and how often is also irrelevant IMO. Why? - Because they were promoting the supposed similarities, not the sighting as per statements.

It is how it was referred to; by trying to portray the two sightings as the same person is what myself and the other user, Susible, meant by they tried to 'bury it.'

What is your view on my other point - that it was clear how the C4 documentary altered the way in which the Smithman carried the child to be the same as Tannerman?

by notlongnow 04.11.13 0:24

It seems to me smithman was handy while tannerman was on the scene as extra proof of abduction.

Now tannerman has gone surely this has to change things.

by Sockpuppet 04.11.13 0:29

Oh goody, another thread that has turned into 'made-up-Smithman'.

@Tony - the opinions that you have offered are not proof to my mind. I'd like to offer my own little contribution to the debate - because this isn't a discussion, it's a debate - albeit an anecdotal one. I know quite a few people who have not read much into the McCann case, only knowing what they know from the media, and none of these people had heard of the Smith sighting before Crimewatch. They knew the basic stuff - that Madeleine McCann went missing from an apartment in Portugal, and that one of the group saw what she thought was the abductor. Smithman is all new information to these people.

by Cristobell 04.11.13 0:31

Apologies having difficulty keeping up with the threads at the moment, and will read through and answer more fully tomorrow. However Tony, you have said a couple of times Exton was convicted for shoplifting. This was brought up by the pros on twitter but a newspaper apology was produced that showed the conviction was squashed. I have no doubt Hallegen is a crook, but Exton seems to have produced a legitimate report of his investigation.

by Okeydokey 04.11.13 1:47

littlepixie wrote:It is -

Smith says its Gerry by the way he carried the child

McCluskey says its Gerry by the way he carried the child AND says the woman was Kate???

eta. They both (Smith and McCluskey) "agonized" before contacting the Police again

But those are two different dates aren't they? - 3rd May and 5th May...

by Okeydokey 04.11.13 1:49

AB1 wrote:
notlongnow wrote:From the above statement can anyone shed some light on the van;

In my original statement I described a distressed female who ran down a road towards a white van.
Think the gist is that the Ukranians mentioned in the footnote are the distressed female and the man carrying the child her husband aand child.

No statement from the Ukranians though.

Noted - sounds like this is probably a complete red herring. I didn't find the change from "dark skinned man" to "Gerry McCann" very convincing.

by sonic72 04.11.13 2:01

I don't think people are claiming the Smith's are lying, just that the person they saw might not have much relevance.

Personally I think Gerry and co would not have carried a dead child through the streets, he/they would have concealed her in something, perhaps the blue bag that has been talked about.

It's too high risk if you are trying to claim the child was abducted.

This is why I personally feel Smithman is no relevance to this in the grand scheme of things..

Any thoughts?

by Okeydokey 04.11.13 2:05

sonic72 wrote:I don't think people are claiming the Smith's are lying, just that the person they saw might not have much relevance.

Personally I think Gerry and co would not have carried a dead child through the streets, he/they would have concealed her in something, perhaps the blue bag that has been talked about.

It's too high risk if you are trying to claim the child was abducted.

This is why I personally feel Smithman is no relevance to this in the grand scheme of things..

Any thoughts?

I agree - if you believe the Smithman sighting is of GMcC you have to also believe that GMcC took this risk despite having bumped into JW about 40 mins earlier. Surely that would have made you feel that this was a v. high risk strategy! How could you be sure you wouldn't bump into him again, or some other holiday acquaintance?

by Sockpuppet 04.11.13 2:13

Okeydokey wrote:I agree - if you believe the Smithman sighting is of GMcC you have to also believe that GMcC took this risk despite having bumped into JW about 40 mins earlier. Surely that would have made you feel that this was a v. high risk strategy! How could you be sure you wouldn't bump into him again, or some other holiday acquaintance?

But less high risk than being found with a dead daughter in apartment 5A.

by loopzdaloop 04.11.13 2:22

Tony Bennett wrote:
Montclair wrote:
So you believe that the entire Smith family are liars and made the whole thing up? This is beyond ridiculous.
Is it?

Let's recapitulate some of the main points very briefly.

1. No-one in Smith family does anything about their so-called 'sighting' for 13 days (May 16).

2. When they do, it is after Murat is made an arguido.

3. Martin Smith knows Murat well - maybe better than he admits.

4. He tells the Portuguese Police that it definitely wasn't Murat.

5. Three members of Smith family make claims about Smithman which, as I've demonstrated elsewhere, have up to 17 similarities with Tannerman - now said to be a bloke taking his child back from the creche at 9.15pm ('crecheman').

6. IF SMITHMAN is genuine, he cannot be crecheman - unless you claim he was still walking around with a child 45 minutes later.

7. We are therefore expected to believe that there were TWO DIFFERENT BLOKES each on their own, without a buggy, carrying children through the streets of Praia da Luz, one at 9.15pm and one at 10.00, LOOKING IDENTICAL (apart from the colour and length of their hair).

8. The Smith family say the man's face was hidden so they couldn't see him.

9. It was dark anyway.

10. They all said they would not be able to recognise him again.

11. Afoie Smith, a young teenager, says she saw Smithman '2 metres' in front of her and that he then passed by her. She would therefore have had less than a second in which to observe him. Yet she manages to recall (I say 'invent') all manner of details from this split-second view of him including claiming that he has buttons on his trousers. She also claims that she is '60% sure' that the child (whose face she admits she didn't see) was Madeleine McCann.

12. 4 months later, Smith claims that he can recognise Gerry McCann as the man he saw 'from the way he was walking and carrying his child'.

13. He says he is '60% to 80% sure'.

14. He says he now withdraws that certainty and doesn't believe it was Gerry McCann.

15. Mrs Smith doesn't make a formal statement (so far as we know) and then goes on record to say that she wishes the McCanns well, clearly implying that there is no way that any of them saw Gerry McCann.

16. We are told that Smith (or the Smiths) have come up with two wholly different e-fits of a bloke whose face they didn't see in the dark.

17. It seems that he has kept schtum for 5 years about the fact that the McCann Team were not using his carefully-construced e-fits.

18. The McCann Team have made positive use of the Smith sighting for the past 4.5 years - in the 2009 Channel 4/Mentorn documentary and in Kate's book (2011).

19. Smith has had secret meetings with Brian Kennedy and the McCanns' private investigators which he will say nothing about.

These are the main things that make me suggest that the Smiths have fabricated a 'sighting'.

I'm not sure why you feel 13 days is long and it is weird they didn't come forward sooner?
Not everyone wishes to get themselves involved in other peoples business and they may have felt in the scheme of things that their sighting was unimportant. Murrat on the other hand was someone who liked to get involved in other peoples business so it does not surprise me that people were aware of him. With regard to the other poster who queried recognition by mannerisms, people all have their different ways of doing things and how Gerry carried the child down the stairs was specific.
If smiths saw Gerry then it makes sense that the 'sighting' would have similarities to the fabricated tanner sighting as the tanner sighting was made to deflect. The buttons are significant as I have never seen trousers like that before and I could well imagine other people thinking buttons down the legs of trousersa are unusual also. I believe the meetings that the smiths had with anyone was a result of the mccanns as opposed to cover up on the smiths side of things.

Balance of probability says truth was told by the Smiths.

They had to get the body out at some point and it would not surprise me that if they thought 'a sleeping child' was great cover as when people 'they look like they are sleeping' is a common observation. Although there is a strange feeling that your instincts pick up when you see a dead body and the smiths may have been alerted to it on the subconscious level.
The body was put on the flowered and at a later point appeared in the scenic. The blue bag and the blanket disappeared.
If The transfer did not occur then, when did it happen? Where are the gaps in the timeline?

If she died the night mrs fenn heard crying, theybthemcdecided coverup,the next day they must have done some recon as to where to put the body as logically you would not just take it and hope for the best. Gerry took her with purpose somewhere, which is another reason I believe the smiths sighting as he was on a mission down a strange route. Wherecarecthe pics of goncalo near murals other storage home with the fridge?

by Sockpuppet 04.11.13 2:48

Tony Bennett wrote:
Is it?

Let's recapitulate some of the main points very briefly.

1. No-one in Smith family does anything about their so-called 'sighting' for 13 days (May 16).

2. When they do, it is after Murat is made an arguido.

3. Martin Smith knows Murat well - maybe better than he admits.

4. He tells the Portuguese Police that it definitely wasn't Murat.

5. Three members of Smith family make claims about Smithman which, as I've demonstrated elsewhere, have up to 17 similarities with Tannerman - now said to be a bloke taking his child back from the creche at 9.15pm ('crecheman').

6. IF SMITHMAN is genuine, he cannot be crecheman - unless you claim he was still walking around with a child 45 minutes later.

7. We are therefore expected to believe that there were TWO DIFFERENT BLOKES each on their own, without a buggy, carrying children through the streets of Praia da Luz, one at 9.15pm and one at 10.00, LOOKING IDENTICAL (apart from the colour and length of their hair).

8. The Smith family say the man's face was hidden so they couldn't see him.

9. It was dark anyway.

10. They all said they would not be able to recognise him again.

11. Afoie Smith, a young teenager, says she saw Smithman '2 metres' in front of her and that he then passed by her. She would therefore have had less than a second in which to observe him. Yet she manages to recall (I say 'invent') all manner of details from this split-second view of him including claiming that he has buttons on his trousers. She also claims that she is '60% sure' that the child (whose face she admits she didn't see) was Madeleine McCann.

12. 4 months later, Smith claims that he can recognise Gerry McCann as the man he saw 'from the way he was walking and carrying his child'.

13. He says he is '60% to 80% sure'.

14. He says he now withdraws that certainty and doesn't believe it was Gerry McCann.

15. Mrs Smith doesn't make a formal statement (so far as we know) and then goes on record to say that she wishes the McCanns well, clearly implying that there is no way that any of them saw Gerry McCann.

16. We are told that Smith (or the Smiths) have come up with two wholly different e-fits of a bloke whose face they didn't see in the dark.

17. It seems that he has kept schtum for 5 years about the fact that the McCann Team were not using his carefully-construced e-fits.

18. The McCann Team have made positive use of the Smith sighting for the past 4.5 years - in the 2009 Channel 4/Mentorn documentary and in Kate's book (2011).

19. Smith has had secret meetings with Brian Kennedy and the McCanns' private investigators which he will say nothing about.

These are the main things that make me suggest that the Smiths have fabricated a 'sighting'.

Can you please provide a source for point 14?

by sonic72 04.11.13 4:04

I'm sure if I remember correctly, the staff at the Tapas bar placed Gerry at the tapas bar at 22:00.

So that again would rule out Gerry being 'Smithman'.

Also, didnt one of the papers recently say Smith said it was not Gerry he saw. I definitely remember reading it in the last 2 weeks.

I think energies are wasted on this and should be concentrated in other areas.

I would recommend everyone going back to the start, just like SY & the PJ, and do some re-reading and do their own case review.

I have gone back to the start again in the last week, reading everything again, and this time around I am noticing more things I didnt spot first time around, and am able to build a better overall picture. A bit like watching a complex movie the 2nd time around!

We need some fresh eye on this, and some fresh threads going over stuff we have re-discovered..

by Estelle 04.11.13 5:13

Sockpuppet wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Is it?

Let's recapitulate some of the main points very briefly.

1. No-one in Smith family does anything about their so-called 'sighting' for 13 days (May 16).

2. When they do, it is after Murat is made an arguido.

3. Martin Smith knows Murat well - maybe better than he admits.

4. He tells the Portuguese Police that it definitely wasn't Murat.

5. Three members of Smith family make claims about Smithman which, as I've demonstrated elsewhere, have up to 17 similarities with Tannerman - now said to be a bloke taking his child back from the creche at 9.15pm ('crecheman').

6. IF SMITHMAN is genuine, he cannot be crecheman - unless you claim he was still walking around with a child 45 minutes later.

7. We are therefore expected to believe that there were TWO DIFFERENT BLOKES each on their own, without a buggy, carrying children through the streets of Praia da Luz, one at 9.15pm and one at 10.00, LOOKING IDENTICAL (apart from the colour and length of their hair).

8. The Smith family say the man's face was hidden so they couldn't see him.

9. It was dark anyway.

10. They all said they would not be able to recognise him again.

11. Afoie Smith, a young teenager, says she saw Smithman '2 metres' in front of her and that he then passed by her. She would therefore have had less than a second in which to observe him. Yet she manages to recall (I say 'invent') all manner of details from this split-second view of him including claiming that he has buttons on his trousers. She also claims that she is '60% sure' that the child (whose face she admits she didn't see) was Madeleine McCann.

12. 4 months later, Smith claims that he can recognise Gerry McCann as the man he saw 'from the way he was walking and carrying his child'.

13. He says he is '60% to 80% sure'.

14. He says he now withdraws that certainty and doesn't believe it was Gerry McCann.

15. Mrs Smith doesn't make a formal statement (so far as we know) and then goes on record to say that she wishes the McCanns well, clearly implying that there is no way that any of them saw Gerry McCann.

16. We are told that Smith (or the Smiths) have come up with two wholly different e-fits of a bloke whose face they didn't see in the dark.

17. It seems that he has kept schtum for 5 years about the fact that the McCann Team were not using his carefully-construced e-fits.

18. The McCann Team have made positive use of the Smith sighting for the past 4.5 years - in the 2009 Channel 4/Mentorn documentary and in Kate's book (2011).

19. Smith has had secret meetings with Brian Kennedy and the McCanns' private investigators which he will say nothing about.

These are the main things that make me suggest that the Smiths have fabricated a 'sighting'.
Can you please provide a source for point 14?

My recollection is that a poster with "Rover" in his name reported that Smith had given a radio interview in Ireland and Smith said he was sure it was Madeleine he saw. I don't think he said anything about Gerry. But this needs checking.

One question I have is that if Smith was in collusion with Team McCann and Murat (which seems likely due to the 17 similarities in the descriptions) why would he then announce later that he is then 60-80% sure it was Gerry due to how he carried SM down the steps of the plane and now is only prepared to say he was sure it was Madeleine he saw on May 3?

My point is why name Gerry if he was in collusion? Is it to make it look that he was independent? Was he not paid by BK or whoever so he thought that naming Gerry would achieve the result? Then after a visit from BK, he receives his bonus and is told to say he is only sure it was Madeleine. Does that make sense?

by Estelle 04.11.13 5:20

sonic72 said:
I'm sure if I remember correctly, the staff at the Tapas bar placed Gerry at the tapas bar at 22:00.

So that again would rule out Gerry being 'Smithman'.

Snipped....

This is an interesting comment as in my recollection, there are NO INDEPENDENT WITNESSES who could give Gerry an alibi for around the 10pm time. I had a look and could not see any.

Can anyone help?

by sonic72 04.11.13 5:23

Sockpuppet wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:I agree - if you believe the Smithman sighting is of GMcC you have to also believe that GMcC took this risk despite having bumped into JW about 40 mins earlier. Surely that would have made you feel that this was a v. high risk strategy! How could you be sure you wouldn't bump into him again, or some other holiday acquaintance?
But less high risk than being found with a dead daughter in apartment 5A.

There was no risk of being found with a dead daughter in apartment 5A. They are not exactly going to report her missing whilst she is still dead in the apartment! So they would not have been found with a dead child in the apartment, unless someone reported it.

What about the missing bedding, and missing blue bag? Surely they would be items one would use to conceal a dead child?

by sonic72 04.11.13 5:34

Estelle wrote:sonic72 said:
I'm sure if I remember correctly, the staff at the Tapas bar placed Gerry at the tapas bar at 22:00.

So that again would rule out Gerry being 'Smithman'.

Snipped....

This is an interesting comment as in my recollection, there are NO INDEPENDENT WITNESSES who could give Gerry an alibi for around the 10pm time. I had a look and could not see any.

Can anyone help?

These might be a good place to start. Note what order they say people did checks and returned to the table, and Gerry is placed at the table after being away for a 30 min check, not the 10 mins he claimed, and as soon as he came back, Kate went to check, not Matthew, as the Tapas 9 claimed. Then when Kate came back the group left except one person, as we know...

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAQUIM-J-M-BAPTISTA.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SVETLANA_VITORINO.htm

See what you make of it all..

by AskTheDogsSandra 04.11.13 5:34

sonic72What about the missing bedding, and missing blue bag? Surely they would be items one would use to conceal a dead child?

Why would anyone carry a dead child around the street when they could put the body in the blue bag and carry that?

by **tigger** 04.11.13 6:16

Estelle wrote:sonic72 said:
I'm sure if I remember correctly, the staff at the Tapas bar placed Gerry at the tapas bar at 22:00.

So that again would rule out Gerry being 'Smithman'.

Snipped....

This is an interesting comment as in my recollection, there are NO INDEPENDENT WITNESSES who could give Gerry an alibi for around the 10pm time. I had a look and could not see any.

Can anyone help?

If you look at the timeline for the evening of the 3rd, you 'll see that the early witnesses - the waiters say the table is deserted except for DW. ( who was left guarding the cameras etc.)
Imo the early witnesses were ignored/sidelined as they did not support the official times.

I am convinced that GM decided after meeting the Smith family that one independent witness to his alibi was preferable to 7 dependent ones.

He absolutely has no alibi for 10 PM. Which is why they buried the Smith sighting.

by Estelle 04.11.13 6:40

sonic72 wrote:
Estelle wrote:sonic72 said:
I'm sure if I remember correctly, the staff at the Tapas bar placed Gerry at the tapas bar at 22:00.

So that again would rule out Gerry being 'Smithman'.

Snipped....

This is an interesting comment as in my recollection, there are NO INDEPENDENT WITNESSES who could give Gerry an alibi for around the 10pm time. I had a look and could not see any.

Can anyone help?

These might be a good place to start. Note what order they say people did checks and returned to the table, and Gerry is placed at the table after being away for a 30 min check, not the 10 mins he claimed, and as soon as he came back, Kate went to check, not Matthew, as the Tapas 9 claimed. Then when Kate came back the group left except one person, as we know...

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAQUIM-J-M-BAPTISTA.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SVETLANA_VITORINO.htm

See what you make of it all..

Thanks, Sonic.

by lj 04.11.13 6:43

sallypelt wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
susible wrote:One question Tony..Why? Why would Martin Smith claim he saw a man carrying a child and that upon seeing Gerry McCann carrying another one of his children conclude that man was Gerry McCann if it was not true?

I don't want a list of people who have property in and around PdL and a load of somewhat tenuous connections, just a simple reason as to why Martin Smith would make this up, then partly recant what he had seen and that would also somehow fall into line with the McCanns covering up the death of their daughter. Because right now, it doesn't make sense.
I cannot for legal reasons answer that here but will send you a 'pm'
Tony, are you aware of any connections between Unilever and Glenfield Hospital?

Why Unilever, Sally?

by Guest 04.11.13 6:45

The Truth of The Lie

Chapter 20

AN IRISH FAMILY IN A STATE OF SHOCK.

snipped:

We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary police agrees, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up. But the Smiths were never to come back to Portugal. After my departure, the PJ were to change their minds. They asked the Irish police to proceed with interviewing the witness. That decision was to seriously delay the process since the Smiths were not interviewed until several months later. Meanwhile, rumours were to circulate and people not involved with the investigation would be made aware of the existence of this witness; someone allegedly even sought out contact with the family, without its being known to what end.

http://thetruthaboutthelie.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/chapters-18-19-20.html

The whole chapter is worth reading regarding the Smith sighting.

by Estelle 04.11.13 6:49

tigger wrote:
Estelle wrote:sonic72 said:
I'm sure if I remember correctly, the staff at the Tapas bar placed Gerry at the tapas bar at 22:00.

So that again would rule out Gerry being 'Smithman'.

Snipped....

This is an interesting comment as in my recollection, there are NO INDEPENDENT WITNESSES who could give Gerry an alibi for around the 10pm time. I had a look and could not see any.

Can anyone help?
If you look at the timeline for the evening of the 3rd, you 'll see that the early witnesses - the waiters say the table is deserted except for DW. ( who was left guarding the cameras etc.)
Imo the early witnesses were ignored/sidelined as they did not support the official times.

I am convinced that GM decided after meeting the Smith family that one independent witness to his alibi was preferable to 7 dependent ones.

He absolutely has no alibi for 10 PM. Which is why they buried the Smith sighting.

I think an independent witness stated that the alarm was raised at 9.20pm and there was no one at the pool/tapas bar at 10pm.

Even the Tapas7 do not state where Gerry was at 10pm and he was not in the apartment at 10.05pm according to Fiona as she was there with Kate. It appears that the other tapas men were out searching but Gerry is not mentioned.

by **tigger** 04.11.13 6:50

Jeremy Wilkins:
As stated in my original deposition, I believe that I left the apartment around 20h30. I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15. I am aware of the importance of this hour and am also aware that the media announced our meeting time as 21h05. Even if this were correct, I have no idea from where such information originated. It is not possible to give you a more exact time.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm

20.45 - 21.15 Jeremy Wilkins meets Gerry.

21.20 chef AEGFP Tapas hears ‘clamour’ .

21.40 he leaves Tapas restaurant - where until moments before he’d seen the table occupied now empty.

21.30 to 21.40. BJJW hears from Dutch owner of Atlantico restaurant.
He then went to 5a (presumably) at 21.45 - 21.50 .

21.30 to 22.00 receptionist OC HJSL contacted by Tapas rest. He immediately contacted GNR in Lagos. After this father and John Hill arrived and he phoned GNR again.

21.45.Waiter RAEDLO saw no one at the tapas table.
Fitness instructor/waiter JRS between 21.30 and 22.00 spoke to DW .

21.55 Smith family see man and child approx.

21.58 Exact time. MMMdS leaves apt. at (exact time) to car park block 6. Passing block 5 saw no movement of people and no vehicle except small car - grey in colour close to the window of 5a. Saw a light in the apartment above 5a and in 5a. Nothing abnormal.

22.00 (after) RRSB and wife on veranda in apt. Heard noises . GM seen and spoken to. Both went down and helped search.

22.00 to 22.30 Waiter JJMB beween in kitchen, alerted that a guest entered the restaurant screaming and entire group left.

by Estelle 04.11.13 6:55

tigger wrote:Jeremy Wilkins:
As stated in my original deposition, I believe that I left the apartment around 20h30. I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15. I am aware of the importance of this hour and am also aware that the media announced our meeting time as 21h05. Even if this were correct, I have no idea from where such information originated. It is not possible to give you a more exact time.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm

20.45 - 21.15 Jeremy Wilkins meets Gerry.

21.20 chef AEGFP Tapas hears ‘clamour’ .

21.40 he leaves Tapas restaurant - where until moments before he’d seen the table occupied now empty.

21.30 to 21.40. BJJW hears from Dutch owner of Atlantico restaurant.
He then went to 5a (presumably) at 21.45 - 21.50 .

21.30 to 22.00 receptionist OC HJSL contacted by Tapas rest. He immediately contacted GNR in Lagos. After this father and John Hill arrived and he phoned GNR again.

21.45.Waiter RAEDLO saw no one at the tapas table.
Fitness instructor/waiter JRS between 21.30 and 22.00 spoke to DW .

21.55 Smith family see man and child approx.

21.58 Exact time. MMMdS leaves apt. at (exact time) to car park block 6. Passing block 5 saw no movement of people and no vehicle except small car - grey in colour close to the window of 5a. Saw a light in the apartment above 5a and in 5a. Nothing abnormal.

22.00 (after) RRSB and wife on veranda in apt. Heard noises . GM seen and spoken to. Both went down and helped search.

22.00 to 22.30 Waiter JJMB beween in kitchen, alerted that a guest entered the restaurant screaming and entire group left.

Thanks, Tigger, I had not seen this before.