1. Simple and straightforward
When one speaks of Jeremy Michael Wilkins, or Jez Wilkins, in relation to the Maddie case one thinks that he’s one of the first people to be brought into the case because of the conversation he had with Gerry McCann, around 21.15, when they stopped for a chat after having crossed with each other somewhere in the Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins.
What few people realise is that’s not exactly the reason why Jez is one of the first witnesses in the case. In fact, he is registered as the first “independent witness” of this case and for no reason to do with his conversation with Gerry.
As he was a relevant player on the night of May 3, 2007, one would expect his name, or at least the mention of his presence, to appear in the timelines given to the PJ that same night.
However both his name and presence appear in neither.
He could have been brought in by the T9 in their statements May 4, 2007. More specifically by the two who interacted with him, Gerry and Tanner. The latter only by sight.
And both refer to him. But in very vague terms. Gerry, in his first statement speaks of a short conversation and doesn’t mention his name:
"He then went to the WC" where he remained for a few moments, left, and bumped into a person he had played tennis with and who had a child's push chair, he was also British, he had a short conversation with him, "returning after that to the restaurant."
Tanner does mention his name but only as “Jez”:
“She remembers that at about 21.10 Gerald left the restaurant (3) to go to the apartment to check on the children. Five minutes later, the witness left, to go to her apartment to see whether her daughters were OK. At this moment she saw Gerry talking to an Englishman called Jez whom they had got to know during the holidays. They played tennis with him.”
But it is by own doing that Jeremy Wilkins enters the scene on May 4, 2007, also known as day 1:
“Following various informal conversations related to the area of research, we were contacted by a British citizen named Jeremy Michael Wilkins…”
This is what Jez had to say to PJ on that day:
“1 that yesterday, between 20:30 and 21 pm, when he was at the bar "TAPAS" he noticed that an individual with about 1.70, long blond hair, apparently "rasta type", wearing green clothing of military type, entered it.
2 that this individual was there for a short time and had a behavior a little strange, as he seemed to be a little nervous.
3 he was alone, did not speak to anyone and left soon after.”
Because he saw Rastaman on the night before, he’s the first witness outside the T9 who is mentioned in the process.
It is because of Rastaman and not by the hand of any T9 that Jez Wilkins comes into the process.
We are sure that later, the PJ would decipher who Gerry and Tanner meant when they were speaking about him in their statement, but on that Friday, according to the files, it is Jez who puts forward his name to the PJ.
This means that what he has said above is still very fresh in his mind. No one is pressuring him to speak and is very important because the information is fresh in his mind and no one but himself and his conscience is pressuring him to provide it.
Let’s highlight right away what is relevant in Jez’s words when recollecting something less than 24 hours afterwards:
- Jez walks in Tapas area;
- Rastaman walks in alone in the Tapas area stays there a short time and his behaviour is a little strange [something we fail to understand from his words is how he got this impression];
- Rastaman walks out Tapas area without speaking with anyone;
- Jez walks out Tapas area.
A very simple and straightforward sequence. Rastaman walks in and out while Jez is at the Tapas bar. To be able to say he didn’t speak to anyone means that Jez watched him the whole short time this suspicious man was inside the Tapas complex.
Jez makes no mention of using the toilet and no mention of his son in a pushchair.
2. Toilet makes debut
3 days later, May 7, 2007, PJ requested, via fax, that the following question, among others, be answered by Wilkins:
“- On the day of the disappearance, was JEREMY out with his children in the evening?”
Jez answered in own hand-writing:
“We decided to spend the evening in, watching television. Our son was awake and unable to sleep. I decided to take him for a walk in his pram. I left about 8:15 to 8:30 pm. I was pushing the pram around the complex and went to the toilet near the bar. I could not see inside the restaurant. As I got the baby to sleep, I was on my way back to the apartment.”
He doesn’t speak of Rastaman.
Quite strange for someone to overlook mentioning the incident that only 3 days before he had thought sufficiently important to speak about it to the PJ.
The question doesn’t ask anything about going or not to the toilet but that detail he mentions. Rastaman is simply overlooked.
From the Wilkins’ answer to the question we can conclude:
- That he gives a reason as to why he leaves the apartment that night and it was to take his son out on a pram/pushchair to get him to sleep;
- Leaves apartment about 20:15/20.30 [no longer 20.30/21.00 stated 3 days before]
- That he walks around the complex and then goes to Tapas bar toilet [his May 4 2007 statement starts and finishes with him at the Tapas bar and no mention of toilet].
- After that, realising the baby is asleep he heads from Tapas bar towards his apartment.
Summing up, leaves apartment, walks around, goes to toilet and heads for apartment.
A note with some significance: “I could not see inside the restaurant” is completely false. When entering the Tapas complex one is forced to look inside the esplanade as it’s open on both ends.
To have used the toilet and not be able to see inside of restaurant is not very credible either. Why does he avoid being asked about who he saw, or didn't see, there?
3. Let’s go walk again?
Jez is heard again on October 31st, 2007, this time together with his wife Bridget O’Donnel:
“They decided to spend the evening in the apartment. 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.”
Again, no Rastaman. Why speak of the toilet episode if he’s not going to mention man he found suspicious on the 3rd?
But now we have an extra walk between using toilet and heading for apartment:
- Leaves apartment at 20.15 [no longer 20.15/20.30 or the initial 20.30/21.15];
- Walks around main area of resort;
- Eventually ends up in the Tapas bar [we fail to see how one is able to “end up” inside an enclosed area with a clearly identified entrance – to be inside it one has to have the clear intention of entering it, not ending up in it] and uses toilet;
- Walks in the area of Ocean Club gardens and walks along alleyways there [why forget to mention this on May 7, 2007? Then, we remind readers, he went from Tapas to apartment – but to do that would mean that he would be on the left side of the street, wouldn’t it?];
- Eventually [we’re supposing his son has fallen asleep at this time] makes way along Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins heading North towards Rua Agostinho da Silva
- He walks on the right side of road with Tapas bar area on the left and as he approaches corner of the McCann apartment he crosses the road to the other side:
Jez, on this occasion, says he crosses the entrance of the Tapas area twice.
The first time, when he enters the complex by accident [we don’t know from which direction he approaches the Tapas entrance] ending up there and using the toilet and on the second when he passes it heading from North on the other side of the street.
One other note of significance, at 20:15, the time Jez says he leaves the apartment it’s already dark [sunset on May 3 in Lagos is at 19:24] and not as he says about the visibility around 21:00 that “although it was not completely dark there was enough light to see clearly”.
4. The health problem
But it’s on April 8 2008 that Jez Wilkins provides the most detailed narrative of the whole Rastaman episode:
“As stated in my original deposition, I think that I left the apartment around 20h30. I calculate that I met Gerry on the road somewhere between 20h45 and 21h15. I am aware of the importance of this timeline and am also aware it was disclosed openly by the media that the encounter happened at 21h05. It even may be correct although I have no idea from where this information came from. I was on holidays, unhurried and relaxed and I can’t be more exact in terms of timeline. I can’t find any possibility to give a more exact timeline.
I left my apartment pushing my son's pram so that he could fall asleep. I did not have any particular direction set nor how long he was going to take. I left the apartment and turned right. Walking down the street, I looked at the block next door where the McCann apartment was and saw a woman dressed in purple. Later I will refer to this woman in relation to questions made about Jane Tanner. At the next crossing, I turned right and went down the hill. As I was walking down the hill I saw a man coming from the street and heading for the reception. I think that he was accompanied by a woman but I cannot be precise about any detail about her. He was a tall man, with blonde hair in a “rasta”. I think in his thirties, used long khaki coloured shorts. The “rasta” was caught up in a bun [translation of: apanhada em “xuxu”] instead of long and straight. When I arrived, I headed to the WC through the pool area. He was also was in the WC and appeared to be making time. I do not remember if he still remained there when I left. I did not see the woman in that area. I had never seen him and I didn’t see him again after that.
After I left the WC I continued to walk downhill, around the back of the tennis courts and returned by the route opposite the pool and Tapas complex. While I was walking through the streets, I would be exploring waiting that my son fell asleep. Some of the routes didn’t have a way out, so, because of it, the walk was practically in circles. While I was walking through the dead end routes I found a tourist named Curtis and his girlfriend, whose name I don’t know. He also knew Gerry from the tennis games. I remember passing them but assumed they were going out to dinner. Eventually I got out of a street on the other side of the road to the pool complex, between the McCanns’ apartment and the Tapas bar.
To help locate this street, I think it was the street used later by the press and media satellite communication vehicles as shown by the car parked during the covering of the incident.
When I left the street, I remember seeing Gerry on the other side.”
He says he leaves apartment at 20.30.
Walks out of the building and turns right and heads for the crossing between Rua Dr. Agostinho da Silva and Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins.
On the way he glances towards block 5 and notices a woman (who we will find out could be Jane Tanner) dressed in purple clothing.
Turns right at Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins and walks down hill.
At this point in time he sees a blond man, in his thirties, with a “rasta” caught up on a bun hairstyle and wearing long khaki shorts [no longer green clothing of military type].
He doesn’t remember if the man was or not accompanied by a woman [how is it possible to describe a hairstyle and type of clothing a person is wearing and not to be able to see at the same time if there’s another person there?] which is quite strange as just few minutes before he remembered seeing another woman, and the colour clothing she was wearing, with a mere glance.
We remind readers that Jez was adamant, on May 4, 2007 (the previous and only other time he mentions the suspicious man) that Rastaman was alone.
This time [as against him, Jez, being in the restaurant when Rastaman comes in, as per what stated on May 4, 2007] he follows him after seeing the man enter the Tapas area and follows him inside
He then goes into the WC and Rastaman is already there making time [fiddling his thumbs? whistling a melody? looking blankly at the wall?].
We imagine that the size of the toilet facilities of Tapas are similar to those of other restaurants/esplanades of the same size: small. Usually with space for only one person, two at the most, if they are comfortable with each other. But now we have 2 adults and a pushchair [unless he decided to leave son outside alone while he relieved himself] inside one.
One man, Jez, doing what he had to do, and the other is… making time. The baby in the pushchair just watching.
And can anyone explain how a man notices another making time inside the WC he’s in but then cannot remember if that same man remains in the WC or has already left when he leaves? Well, that is what Jez says he can’t remember.
Another thing he can’t remember is seeing the woman there [we suppose this is after he left toilet not knowing if Rastaman remained there or not]. Do note that he says “the woman” and not “a woman”. So, apparently there was a woman with Rastaman but Jez is unable to see her, only notice her absence!
But, has the reader now noticed his ailment? Jez must have a bladder problem. According to him, he walks directly from his apartment to the Tapas WC!
Couldn’t he have relieved himself at home before he left? Finds out a minute after leaving that he needs to go and doesn’t turn back? Was the toilet of his apartment clogged? If so, did his wife also use the Tapas toilets as backup?
One thing is certain, the man leaves his apartment and heads straight for a toilet [as opposed to walking around and then finding himself at the Tapas bar and only then using the toilet like he stated on May 7, 2007].
5. Let’s ad-lib a bit?
He then leaves the Tapas area, turns right and says that he goes around the back of the tennis courts and returns on the opposite side of complex, up Rua Primeiro de Maio.
By saying this, Jez shows his first sign of ignorance of the terrain of where he's on holiday. In this instance about the surroundings of the Tapas complex. There is no “back of tennis courts” to go back around. Behind the courts are houses:
To go around behind the tennis courts, coming out from the Tapas one has to go by the Baptista Supermarket parking lot and only then access Rua Primeiro de Maio:
From there he says he decides to do some street exploring. Says that he then finds “some of the routes didn’t have a way out, so, because of it, the walk was practically in circles.”
We challenge readers to find all these routes that don’t have a way out and, most important would make him walk in circles. The ignorance shown about the layout of Luz is evident.
Jez is familiar with a pathway that has a dead-end. It’s the one that that passes at the back of the buiding he’s staying at, block 4:
The pathway that passes behind blocks 5 and 4 (and joins up with pathway between the buildings) is, as far as we could tell the only one that doesn’t have an exit on the other side. It seems that Jez has taken what he knows about one specific pathway in Luz and assumes there are many others like it. Only there aren't.
But let's go back to to where we left Jez pushing his son's pushchair up Rua Primeiro de Maio, on the opposite side of the Tapas complex (A). Here he decides to do some exploring. Where we don’t know. He doesn’t say he passes again in front of his apartment.
He then says he makes his way back to his apartment to Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins via a road on the other side of the complex that’s between Tapas and the McCann apartment. We suppose that he came from point (B).
How he went from (A) to (B) we don’t know except that it was to walk in circles.
Note that when he enters Rua Dr. Francisco Martins coming from point B, he isn’t exactly walking up that street with the Tapas complex on his left as he says he was in his statement of October 31, 2007.
6. The sighting of Tanner
When he makes that right turn, the crossing with Gerry happens.
We will not discuss where the encounter happened and only mention that the topics mentioned have been talked about by Gerry and Jez, don’t merit a man stopping, knowing that his meal, which he interrupted, is getting cold very quickly on an outdoor table on a chilly night.
Instead of a simple nod of the head or wave of the hand in acknowledgment of each other’s presence, these two, one certainly very tired of walking around in circles and anxious to return to the coziness of his apartment and the other with a hot meal waiting for him and going cold, decide to engage in small, pointless talk. Nothing important or even interesting.
Yet both say they crossed the street to the other side to engage in this particular conversation with the other.
During the conversation Jez does one odd thing. He turns the pushchair in a downhill direction. Why? If he’s heading up the street shouldn’t the pushchair be facing that direction?
One could say that he was preparing to use the pathway to his apartment, the one that goes behind block 5. But no, when the conversation ends, he turns pushchair around and continues to walk up the street to head for apartment.
We won’t discuss the fact that he doesn’t see Tanner passing by him and Gerry. But what he has to say about Tanner is quite interesting.
When he leaves his apartment, he says he looks over at block 5 and sees a woman dressed in purple. He doesn’t say it’s Tanner only that he thinks it is her.
At 20.30 in early May, is not dusk. It’s night. It’s dark. The Sun has set that day at 19.24. Little over an hour before.
The view of blocks 4 and 5 is blocked, to anyone walking along the street, by small trees all the way to the crossing.
The only exception is at the entrance to block 5’s parking lot.
Jez says that he sees her in the “street” in front of the apartments. We’re supposing he’s referring to the pathway in front of apartments that happen to be below ground and have a wall which further blocks the view to anyone on the street:
|(image from here)|
7. The elimination of Rastaman
A mistake many make is to think that Rastaman has been officially eliminated as suspect because PJ determined he was a guest Michael Sperrey, who had a reservation for 2 that night at the Tapas bar for 21:00.
This idea is based on these words from the PJ File written by PJ inspector Duarte Ferro:
“In the Ocean Club’s main reception (open 24h), the undersigned was able to observe an individual, with curly long hair, blonde colour, with camouflage shorts and a green sweat-shirt, who fits in the description of the “Rasta” suspect, being asked about the man, the receptionist immediately said that the individual and his wife are guests in that hotel unit and have been tireless, as of yesterday, in the searches for the disappeared. Copies of their passports as well as the registry of the of the hotel unit are annexed”
The passports of Michael James and Clare Sperrey were annexed, making it clear that inspector Ferro is indeed speaking about him.
Does this confirm Michael Sperrey is Rastaman?
No, it doesn’t.
The picture in the passport was 3,5 yrs old. It shows a man without dreadlocks. However the time in between seems to us would be enough for the man to grow a rastafarian hairstyle if he so wished to do so.
But the rastafarian hairstyle has such a visual impact that it cannot be mistaken with any other.
Dreadlocks cannot be confused with long curly long hair.
And a “rasta” tied up in a bun, makes one big bun indeed.
If inspector Ferro had seen a man with “rastas” he would have used the term rastas. Or possibly “tranças” (braids) but never long curly hair as he does.
But let’s suppose for a minute that Sperrey had a “rastafarian hairstyle and inpsector Ferro was unfortunate in the choice of words.
Since when is a man confirmed to be a person described by another simply by fitting the description? Is Sperrey the only one who would fit that description, or are there many others who would too? Of course there would.
But the thing that makes it a reality that Rastaman hasn’t been ruled to be Sperrey is because the person who says he sees Rastaman, Jez Wilkins, is not ever confronted with the man, personally or by picture to confirm or deny that he was or was not the man he claims he saw.
Only Jez Wilkins could do that. Only Jez Wilkins can prove or disprove Sperrey to be the Rastaman he saw. No one else but him. And he doesn’t.
And the excuse that Jez could have already returned home falls to the ground as the inspector is clear in saying that Sperrey had been “tireless since yesterday”, meaning that this external diligence took place either on the 4th or 5th, when Wilkins was still in Luz.
To say that Michael Sperrey didn’t have dinner at Tapas because Jez Wilkins says that Rastaman has walked in and out of Tapas is incorrect.
Michael Sperry didn’t have dinner at Tapas because there were no Tapas dinners. No other reason.
8. Murat and Rastaman
It is very curious the way Jez Wilkins gets to know that his suspect has been [not] ruled out by the authorities. He’s informed by a surprising source: Robert Murat!
“On Friday, May 4, or Saturday May 5 2007 [as is becoming usual in this case, again that famous “selective memory” afflicting so many, in this case he doesn't remember if it was on the day he talked to the police or if it was the day after, the day he left Luz] , in one of the police cordons, I saw Robert Murat again. He told me that they had investigated the man with a “rasta” lead but it was a local man and all was okay.”
We believe that anyone outsourced to help a criminal investigation has to sign some sort of confidentiality agreement.
But even if it’s not true, there’s the secrecy of justice.
Robert Murat clearly commits a crime when he informs Jez Wilkins that the “rasta” lead has been eliminated. That's information belonging to the inside of the investigation and not to be shared with witnesses.
Committing a crime and giving the wrong information to boot: Rastaman is a local man, according to Murat and Michael Sperrey is hardly a local man, is he?
Rastaman was eliminated by PJ simply because it didn’t give this suspect any importance.
Rastaman doesn’t even make an appearance in the Final Report.
In our opinion, PJ literally discards Rastaman because more suspicious suspects started to appear. We’re referring to Tanner’s Bundleman [who doesn’t have “rastas” or green military clothes] and Robert Murat when he’s thrown to the lions by the T9.
With these “probable suspects” (later the list is augmented with another suspect, Smithman) and as none of the Tapas staff speak of a blond man with “rastas” alone at Tapas that night (who would look terribly suspicious), we suppose PJ took Jez’s Rastaman as a confused statement by someone that was only too willing to help.
However, after reading his statements of April 8, 2008, it simply isn’t possible for a man to confuse seeing another man, with “rastas” in the same WC when he is with his son in a pushchair.
So, according to Jez that is, Rastaman exists.
And , like Pimpleman he's out there.
Could Joaquim Marques have been pointed out by Kelsie Harris simply because he has dreadlocks? He’s not blond though. So he can't be Jez's Rastaman.
But what we would like to highlight to readers is how Jez Wilkins and Robert Murat meet:
“Bridget and I returned to the apartment and minutes later a police officer in uniform appeared, accompanied by an English man who was performing the translating duties. Later I came to know that this man was Robert Murat. I don’t remember that he gave me information about himself [translation of “seus dados”] but recently when I cleaning a bag I found a card with his name and phone number. I believe that he gave us the card so that we could contact him, in case we had we had some adjacent information.”
First, let's highlight the fact that police were knocking on doors an asking questions. Knocking on doors with a translator beside. This to say that most probably they also knocked on Mrs Fenn's door and for some unknown reason she didn't say then what she would later, in August 2007.
In this passage Jez says that Murat gives him one of his business card [of course, unsurprisingly, Jez doesn’t remember when that happened]. To be contacted in case Jez remembered anything else.
Murat is a translator working alongside a PJ Inspector and supposedly if a witness remembered anything further instead of contacting authorities he was to contact the translator.
Fascinating to say the least. And did inspector Ferro endorse this? Or was the card given behind his back?
Murat was apparently walking around with business cards, distributing them to witnesses.
However, with the exception of Jez, we haven’t heard of any other witness who got one.
But what should be noticed is where said card was retrieved by Jez, when he, much later, was cleaning a bag.
Funny place for a card to be as one has the tendency to put these things in a wallet, purse or in one’s pockets and is left there forgotten.
The fact that it was in the bag and only found much later means that Jez decided the card was to be one of the first, if not the first thing to pack on his way back home.
Why, we don’t know and it proved not to have been a good idea. If he didn’t clean that bag he wouldn’t have found it and that would be a waste of card wouldn’t it?
Another possibility is for that card to have been given to him prior events. Maybe even prior coming to Luz. You know, a card of someone to be contacted in case things there were problems to solve during the stay.
9. Honey, have you seen the baby’s leash?
All we have written above takes some reading of the files.
People conclude that the fact that Tanner is not seen by either Gerry or Jez means that Tanner is lying.
Also, when Gerry says the conversation took place on the side of the street opposite apartment they conclude Gerry is lying.
Why? Because Jez is a guest and guests don’t lie. Not in Maddie’s case.
However, we have already proven last week that Neil Berry and Raj Balu are not exactly truth-friendly.
Now we have Jez Wilkins. Red flags should have fired up because of something he says he does right off the bat: he says he takes a walk outside to see if he get his son to sleep.
That alone is, in our opinion, an evident lie.
You see, Jez’s son was only 8 months old and the temperature outside was 11º/12º C (52º/54º F). Pretty, pretty chilly. Chilly enough for Tanner to have borrowed a fleece.
So who would take an 8 month old baby outside on a chilly night on a pushchair instead of walking back and forth inside the apartment? No one.
We have heard of people driving around to get their young ones to sleep.
One does not walk a baby at night. One walks a dog.
He says that he leaves the house at 20.30. Says meeting with Gerry could have taken place between 20.45 and 21.15.
If at 20.45, it means that Jez and his son walked to Tapas, daddy used the toilet, got out, walked all the way to the Baptista supermarket parking lot and then up Rua Primeiro de Maio, from there exploring dead-ends and walking in circles until meeting Gerry, all under 15 minutes. Impressive is all one can say if that was the case.
If at 21.15, it means that an 8 month old baby was subject to chilly temperatures for around 45 minutes.
To be clear about who we think lied during this episode:
- Tanner lies when she says she passes by Jez and Gerry. And when she says she sees the pushchair. We think she’s truthful when she says she sees them together because we believe she watched this encounter from inside apartment 5A like we showed in our post “"Tanner's Abductor", A Tale Told by a Special Friend” (Oct 30, 2010) and Bundleman is no more than Gerry carrying Maddie's body after Jez has left the scene like we showed in our post “The Way I See What Tanner Saw” (Nov 01, 2010);
- Gerry lies when he opens his mouth (and that includes saying he sees the pushchair) with the exception of when he says he meets Jez that night around 21-15.
- Jez, lies about the Rastaman episode but, more importantly, lies about pushing a pushchair.
Neil Berry and Raj Balu came up with a take-away and an epic assembling of a travel cot to have alibis in case they were seen walking around.
Jez Wilkins invents a pushchair and a sleepless 8 month old baby.
Neil Berry is seen by Marreiros, the laundryman. Jez Wilkins is seen by Gerry alone walking up Rua Dr. Francisco Martins. He has to have a reason for being there at that hour alone.
Some of the detractors of the swinging theory ask the question: why would people lie for a group of people they didn't know from anywhere?
Now they have another question they now must ask: why would 2 members of a group of people lie for a person, Jez Wilkins, who one of them, Gerry, had only met that week?
Post Scriptum (Feb 07, 2015 13:30)
a. Mission unaccomplished
We have said in the post that Jez does a very strange thing while talking to Gerry: he turns pushchair downhill when he’s headed uphill.
“I don’t know if we were face to face or side by side when this conversation happened. As I had the pushchair with me and was rocking it for my son to sleep, it makes sense that I was positioned downhill, but it’s possible that I may have turned around.”
He’s rocking the pushchair.
That can only be for one of 2 reasons, either the baby was asleep and he was afraid that he would wake up or the baby hadn’t yet fallen asleep.
In the first instance, being afraid of waking up baby, why then engage in conversation? If the baby was such a light sleeper then the natural reaction would be to shush anyone disturbing and certainly not cross the street to find said disturbance.
As any mother knows, once an 8 month old baby falls asleep there’s only one thing that wakes him up, hunger. Otherwise he could be on the stage of an AC/DC concert and will continue sleeping.
No, the baby hadn’t fallen asleep yet.
After all that walking in the cold, into toilets and dead-ends and around in circles, Jez at a certain point in time just gives up and decides to return home with a woken-up son.
Such an effort for nothing.
That makes us curious, what did Jez and his wife do to get their son to finally fall asleep?
b. Withholding witnesses
We have wonderful readers. That’s a fact. The feedback we receive tells us that many re-visit us because of the comments we receive.
We cannot thank everyone personally. As we’re writing these words, we have published approximately 17,000 (16,891 to be more exact) comments.
Impossible to thank all but we feel the utmost gratitude for all the kind, insightful and critical comments we have received.
Some comments have the virtue of triggering analysis of facts that we overlooked or that otherwise we wouldn’t have seen.
On this post we have received 2 such comments:
“Anonymous 6 Feb 2015, 15:38:00
"After having gone to sleep on the 3rd of May, we were woken around 01H30 by the manager of the resort, John Hill and by a friend of Gerry's. It was them who told me what had happened. I did not see or hear anything else than what has been stated in this statement. I did not take part in any searches. I offered my help but it was not necessary."
His help wasn't necessary? Was another searcher superfluous? John Hill say 60 people were searching and went on searching until the early hours. So why tell Jez his help wasn't needed?”
“Lesly Finn 6 Feb 2015, 23:07:00
“Great post, Textusa. Covered so much of what has puzzled me about Mr Wilkins accounts which, like Topsy, .... just growed.
I particularly find it hard to understand the reason why JH and MO would wake him up at 1.am ..... I mean, were they knocking on every apartment door in the complex waking people up (and likely to wake up any small children inside in the process)? How would they know that apartment occupants were not out searching already? And having woken Mr Wilkins up why tell him that there was nothing he could do to help when he offered, when half of PDL were out searching? I mean, Hello?
Perhaps MO was on a mission to 'warn' certain other people that they would be expected to rally round to save the ship.
With that in mind it is indeed very odd/interesting that JW does not appear on the 'book cover timelines'. But of course these were written prior to the 1 am visit to his apartment, weren't they?
There is certainly plenty to ponder about Mr JW's contributions to the case.!”
Lesly asks all the right questions.
It’s unexplainable for a “civilian” search party to go knocking on the door of an apartment in a building, block 4, at 0I.00 which wasn’t the one from where Maddie had disappeared, which was block 5.
Unless there’s a reason.
We agree with Lesly that the real reason was a rallying round for what would be a sleepless night scheming, allocating tasks needed to prepare staff as well as those required to keep police and public 100% committed to the searching.
To salvage the ship after Kate had disastrously sounded the alarm too early and get the basic storyline as coherent as possible.
But a reason is given by Jez, on May 7, 2007, which only adds to the pile of feet in his mouth:
“The doorbell woke us up at about 1 am. It was the resort manager who I learnt to be John and one of Jerry's friends. I think his name was Matt. He is white, slim, and tall with greying hair. From previous conversations I learnt him to be a diabetics specialist. We met him o the way to the destination. Matt said XXXXX to the effect that Jerry's daughter had been abducted, and that Jerry said that he had met me and wanted to know if I had seen anything. I said 'You're joking'. I offered help but they said there was nothing that could be done at that stage. We remained at the apartment but could see people around the pool and at the front with torches. I also saw the police arriving. We then went to bed."
We know from Tanner that she was reluctant to tell parents about seeing Bundleman but it is a fact that she spoke about it on the night of the 3rd. The Bundleman sighting appears in both timelines and could have only come from her:
But as noted, Jez’s name doesn’t appear in either. Jez’s name is only mentioned vaguely by Tanner to the PJ the next day.
However, according to Jez, Jez has been a topic of conversation on the night of the 3rd: “Jerry said that he had met me and wanted to know if I had seen anything”.
For Gerry to have him asked if he saw anything because they had met that night, means that Jez was indeed then an integral variable in the formula of Tanner’s sighting.
The question that has to be asked, is why wasn’t the police informed of this?
A little girl has just disappeared and in those crucial first hours there’s a potential witness on the block next door who might have seen Bundleman who could contribute significantly to a better description of the man and possible other circumstances that may have escaped Tanner.
And yet police are not informed about this potentially crucial witness. How do we know that? Because it would have been the police and not a “civilian” search party of 2 knocking on Jez’s door.
A “civilian” search party made up, certainly by coincidence, by the Ocean Club’s manager and one of the T9.
At this point in time no one knows if Jez has or hasn’t valuable crucial information but as he was supposedly present when Tanner sees man walking with little girl in arms, he would have to be found quickly, by the police, and questioned if he had seen anything.
Why was this information not passed by Gerry to the police that night? Didn’t he want his daughter to be found?
Even to all those who believe in the abduction theory, it’s clear that Gerry’s incomprehensible attitude of not informing that night the police about his conversation with Jez, seriously hindered the search for Maddie.
We think, because of this, that Kate, Maddie and the twins should sue the pants off Gerry for damages.