Friday, 6 February 2015

Bladderman (with Post-Scriptum, Feb 07, 2015 13:30)

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:

As the only two apartments, out of the 4 where the T9 were staying, are visible from entrance of parking lot, 5A (McCanns) and 5B (Oldfields), Jez is placing Jane at an odd location at an odd time.

(image from here)
Especially taking into account that only a minute later, he’s unable to remember (much less recollect what she may have been wearing) if he saw, or not, a woman in a wide open road (Rastaman’s possible female companion).

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 ..... 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.


  1. Sometimes I wonder why it became Tapas 9 and not Tapas 60 ! Smoke and mirrors in itself! Like neglect... paedophilia

    Thanks for your hard work in going through the files so rigorously

  2. Excellent!
    I believe Wilkins is one of the "Players" in this!!
    When i read of his connection to Crimeatch/BBC,plus O'Donnell's connection to CrimeWatch/BBC,i started to become very doughtful about his Statment!Of course,who in their right mind would have a "chat" on a street,at night,in the cold,when trying to get a baby to sleep??And indeed when the baby is already asleep??

    1. I have concerns about the Wilkins' statement made on 7 May 07 to the police in the UK (in English). Throughout the hand written statement there are several alterations/corrections which have been initialled as such by Wilkins. Such corrections are inevitable in hand written statements. However, in the 3rd sentence up from the bottom on page 6, there is a clear alteration which is not initialled. The only 3 words which can be constructed from the clearly readable 4 letters are: is; as; if. It would be reasonable to assume either that 'as' has been changed to 'if' or vice versa. The use of the word 'is' would not make any sense. So the clearly legible sentence originally read either: 'He said that as he was staying two (2) weeks, he may stay in one night.'; or, "He said that if he was staying two (2) weeks, he may stay in one night.'. The typed English, and the typed Portuguese PJ version of this statement both appear somewhat confused - the if/as is completely lost in the translated PJ version whereas the word 'as' appears in the English version - both versions have '(unreadable)' stated within the sentence. I cannot find a copy of this 07 May statement that uses the word 'if' alone in this position. Clearly, if the original statement made and not altered by Wilkins at the time of taking (just 4 days after the event) read and meant to read 'as' it would suggest that the McCanns were perhaps planning on staying longer than one week.
      The sentence with 'as' as the conjunction seems to make more sense. Would you even think about what you may/might do in an imagined scenario (i.e. in the second week) never mind vocalise it during a brief 'small talk' conversation with someone you hardly knew? Who knows. Would you say what you may/might do in the second week of your holiday/stay if you were staying for two weeks? More likely.
      The Ocean Club booking sheets for the week of 28 April - 5 May show that at least 2 families are seemingly booked in for '7 nights' but have booked childrens clubs/activities for 2 weeks. Also, interestingly, Dr Katherina Gaspar's statement regarding the holiday she and her husband shared with several couples in Majorca (early Sep 05), including the McCanns and Paynes (+ children), states that the McCanns and Paynes were staying for 2 weeks whereas the other couples were staying only one.
      By the time Wilkins makes his rogatory statement on 7 April 08 he clealy states that the conjunction is 'if' and that the second week is hypothetical. He backs the statement up with a stated assumption that Gerry McCann appeared 'jealous' of Wilkins' apparent freedom to do what he wanted during the evenings, something he couldn't do as he was on holiday with a group.
      However, in UK police reports (05 Nov 07) Wilkins and his wife described their perception of McCann's character somewhat differently: 'The group appeared boisterous but good natured with Gerry being the central figure. His gregarious character making him appear to be the central figure in the group and almost holding court. However they did notice that David Payne was equally gregarious and almost playing along with, if not up to, Gerry.'
      The implication of the conjunction 'as' being correct and a true reflection of what Gerry McCann told Wilkins is big. Why conceal that you were on holiday for two weeks rather than one after the events of 3 May?

  3. hi textusa,did Jez Wilkins leave his baby unattended to when he used the WC or did he take the said wheel pram into the WC, seems a lot of people prone to leaving their offspring un-atteded to!

  4. Anonymous 6 Feb 2015, 14:21:00,

    We would say that it seems a lot of people SAY, or confess, they are prone to leaving their offspring unattended.

  5. Jez said he left his apartment at around eight thirty he returned had supper watched a video and went to bed around eleven oclock, videos usually last around ninety minutes so he must have got back pretty quick and put baby to bed sat straight down with had his meal while watching the film then off to bed at eleven sharpish,no small talk while plateting up,no drink no toilet nothing if this was the case then fine if not did he leave the apartment earlier and see Gerry then before the Mccanns left for the Tapas or wherever they went

  6. "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?

  7. Unpublished GP at 6 Feb 2015, 15:38:00,

    Too much information! Please revise comment.

  8. A brilliant post, Textusa. Thank you!

    Jez seems to have been exposed, and not for the first time :)


  9. Do not publish query at 6 Feb 2015, 15:27:00 ,

    We are working on a list of posts and brief summary of contents, but it may take some time.

  10. I've seen a few photos of Jez Wilkins taken not long after their return from Praia da Luz and I was shocked at how much he resembles the Smithman e-fit (the fat-faced one).

  11. Anonymous 6 Feb 2015, 18:07:00,

    One of the points we make in this post, is that many can fit a description or an e-fit.

    We have no reason to believe that Jez Wilkins was in any way involved in the Smith Sighting.

    The fact that cadaverine was detected in the flowerbed, makes us think that Gerry's trip with the body was interrupted by Jez. Gerry lays down body and pretends he's heading back to Tapas.

    We believe that at the time of the encounter, Jez knows nothing about Maddie. He was simply alone in a place and at a time he has no reason to be.

    1. Unpublished reader at 7 Feb 2015, 20:08:00,

      We're not publishing your comment because we could not tell if you were being sarcastic or not.

      If you were being sarcastic, please do understand that humour is a two-edged sword. Some will take your words as serious and others will seize the opportunity to make them "serious".

      If you weren't being sarcastic, drunken "mates" are never reliable sources of information.

      With the help of your "mate", preferably when sober, you can develop your theory on JH site. We will follow with interest to see where it's going.

  12. This case starts off giving you a tension headache. By the time you've read posts from groups, blogs etc you have a migraine of immense proportions. By the time you've read Textusa's blog and read between the lines making sense of the 'LIES' that have been thrown at us the migraine quietly slips away and the pieces of the jigsaw begin to fit together. I never did like pain killers much.

    1. I agree. The frustration was enormous before finding this website. Just being able to refer to a site which is able to make sense of everything eases the frustration. Whilst I am impatient for the investigation to conclude, it is not so important now that I can read and trust the interpretation of events here. The attention to detail behind the posts is what makes it unique

  13. just posted but don't think it went through, apologies if any duplication.
    Thanks Textusa for another insight into this strange world.
    Can I ask how swinging works as it seems the men are always outside waiting for their "appointments". Does this mean the women are always inside the apartments waiting hence why they are not seen in the PJ files? E.g. JT who according to your account saw Jez from an apartment. Was it her waiting for him and does his wife know about this arrangement. If that's the wait it works I can understand why they all want to keep stun, especially with all these children on holiday with them. This is vulgar to the average person. Maybe these "bored" professionals need something more. Saying that, I'm a professional but certainly not bored!

  14. Great blog textusa......although there is more than enough evidence to suggest Wilkins was involved in something not quite right I have 2 niggling points 1. As early as 4th of May gerry mc cann was claiming to have met a guy with a buggy........ when if Jez didn't know about the accident and body removal did th hey agree the pushing th he baby story. 2 why draw attention to yourself by going to the police with th he rastaman story

  15. Thank you Textusa.

    Now that's what I call turning up the heat ;-)

    And once again there is a cross-over with Stephen Carpenter's statement, where he says Neil Berry and Raj Balou told him that they'd seen a man with dreadlocks the night Maddie went missing and they felt there was something suspicious about him. He'd told them he lived in Portugal and had just bought an apartment block. He was fifty years of age with grey hair and no-one saw him again after the night of 3rd May.

    Seems if you have dreadlocks/rasta style hair you're likely to vanish into thin air in PdL.

    I hope you'll be giving us your insight into SC's statement at some point Textusa, it is rather intriguing.

    Nuala x

  16. 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 ..... 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.

  17. We would like to call to the attention of our readers that we have just added a Post Scriptum.

    The first part, “Mission unaccomplished” was something that we overlooked to put in original post.

    The second part, “Withholding witnesses”, was generated by the comments received by “Anonymous at 6 Feb 2015, 15:38:00 and Lesly Finn at 6 Feb 2015, 23:07:00.

  18. Ive snipped this from jez wilkins first statement (mcann files), " I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said you’re on walking duty. I said I was staying in and pros and cons and what to do with the children.
    He said that as he was staying two weeks XXXXX he was staying one night… (unreadable)
    I don’t remember anyone else walking around with a child. The conversation lasted for about three (3) to five (5) minutes. ". The bit i find interesting is that jez says that gerry told him he was staying two weeks ! For me this ties in with the mcanns asking people who were in pdl at the same time to send pics they had taken in that two week timespan. Its curious isnt it.

    1. loz

      Gerry says IF he was staying here for 2 weeks. Jez doesn't say that Gerry was going to stay 2 weeks but IF he did then he would have....

    2. Thanks textusa, it was the" as he was staying two weeks" bit that confused me. Im easily confused with all the statements,lies etc x

  19. I ve tried several times to post. The whole gambit of the star witness to the alleged T9 + 1 (JW) timeline, plays such an insignificant role, even nearly eight years on. Refusal to participate in the requested PJ re-enactment.
    But what really takes the biscuit is he partners account via the Guardian (referred to online as BOD) .... yes, they were informed the child was missing and WHAT DID THEY DO NEXT


    1. One might be very uncharitable and say that the (nauseating) piece by BOD was an attempt to publicly 'distance' that particular couple from any 'goings on'. Indeed to underline that their connection to, and knowledge of, events was purely superficial, while at the same time adding to the general confusion ("confusion is good'.

      After all, BOD could not/ did not say for sure whether she had seem Madeleine on 3rd ..... only that all the little girls were "blonde and pretty in pink". Practising for their little concert apparently .... a forthcoming event not mentioned by any other parent or any creche worker. Of course, the description "blonde and pretty" also fits BOD's and JW's own daughter, as it does Maddie of course.

    2. Having just read BOD's article again, I firmly get the impression it was written to push a certain percepetion - it emphasises that 5A was 'exposed' - that childcare was a 'dilemma' - on Wednesday they booked a table at Tapas bar and were asked to join the 'doctors'- 10 blonde 3 year old girls - sweaty Murat reminded her of a boy at school who had been bullied - there were no drug fulled swingers.....

    3. What she said was "there were no drug fuelled swingers at our holiday". The " our holiday" bit gets me. I wouldn't collectively associate myself with people I just chatted with at the pool with the term "our holiday". No whatever was going on with this group they were in it together

    4. "drug fuelled swingers"?! Why associate swinging with drugs?! From the little I know, swingers are for the most part are quite ordinary law abiding people, not drug addicts or drunks!

    5. because when people are defensive and hiding the truth they always over egg te pudding....

  20. Brilliant post scripts textural really filled in the missing parts for me

  21. Payne's statment: "we were expecting something to happen,but not this"!
    Gerry MCcann's words :"it's a disaster"!
    Clearly,it would seem,they were involved with something!!That little girl, Madeliene,was used for something!!

    1. Anonymous 8 Feb 2015, 09:13:00,

      "It's a disaster" - refers to an accident in our opinion.

      "We were expecting something to happen, but not this" has also been interpreted as DP's response to the media attention and not a reference to the holiday itself.

      We think he’s referring to the fact they weren't expecting Mcs to be made suspects.

      Please scroll down to DP section. It's clear to us he means their worst nightmare was being made suspects.

      It was the media attention on them as SUSPECTS which became their nightmare.

      Thank you for the opportunity you gave us to clear the myth it was pre-planned because of misinterpretation of context in which DP spoke.

      We are not going down the paedophilia route or a pre-planned incident.

      The first we consider a very successful disinformation campaign for which we will not contribute. The second, mere clutter.

    2. The conversational statement of 'Its a disaster' can only fit certain contexts - in which one finds oneself in a situation with zero favourable outcomes. By declaring a situation is 'a disaster' you are accepting and acknowledging no favourable outcome is possible. This is not applicable to a recent abduction when you know you will do everything you can to get your daughter back and get a favourable outcome. It would be applicable to a situation where you know you will never get your daughter back - your daughter is dead and whats more you cannot declare it openly - you will have to be 'on the run' for ever = no favourable outcome = disaster.


    Madeleine McCann latest: are police any closer to knowing the truth?

    After a new detective takes over the helm of the investigation, Gordon Rayner looks at the latest news on the truth about what happened to Madeleine McCann

    By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter
    11:24AM GMT 02 Feb 2015

    In the eight years since Madeleine McCann went missing from a holiday apartment in Portugal, myriad theories about what happened to her have taken root, but only one fact remains uncontested: that she was reported missing at 10.14pm on the evening of Thursday, May 3, 2007.

    It was at that point, when police were called, that the clock started ticking on the biggest missing persons investigation for decades, a search which remains very much active to this day.

    Facts, the hard currency of any police investigation, have proved almost uniquely elusive; every sighting, every timing and every witness statement has been disputed in the years that have elapsed since.

    Madeleine’s parents Kate and Gerry McCann quickly came under suspicion by Portuguese police, a development that the couple are certain meant vital clues were missed in the first hours and days after Madeleine’s disappearance.

    Every possible theory has been explored since then: that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile; that she was killed during a bungled burglary and her body dumped; that she was abducted by traffickers and sold to a childless couple; that she wandered out of the apartment and died in a tragic accident, and many more besides.

    To date, however, not one shred of proof of what happened to Madeleine has been unearthed. The question of what happened to Madeleine would become not only a personal tragedy for the McCann family, but a national obsession in the UK and in Portugal.

    Madeleine, of Rothley, Leicestershire, was on the penultimate day of her family holiday on the day she vanished. She had spent part of the day playing by the swimming pool in the Ocean Club resort, where the last known picture of her was taken at 2.29pm.

    Reports of when she was last seen alive by independent witnesses vary, but she was still alive at around 6pm, when she and her parents went into their apartment at 5A Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva, where Madeleine and her two-year-old twin brother and sister were readied for bed.


  23. cont.

    The McCanns told police they put the children to bed at around 7pm, and that all three were asleep by 8.30pm, when they went for dinner at a tapas bar 50 yards across the pool from their apartment. There they met seven friends with whom they were on holiday.

    The McCanns say checks were made on their children every half-hour, sometimes by other members of the party, comprising Dr Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner, from Exeter, Dr Matthew and Rachael Oldfield, from London, and David and Fiona Payne, from Leicester, together with Mrs Payne's mother Dianne Webster. Mrs Webster, however, reportedly told police that each couple was responsible for checking their own children.

    Gerry McCann went to the apartment at 9.05pm, when all the children were sleeping soundly and Madeleine was still in her bed, he says.

    The police in Portugal, however, have never accepted the McCanns’ evidence as undisputed. They initially regarded the McCanns as suspects, and believed the McCanns could have killed Madeleine any time after the last independent sighting of her at 6pm.

    Dr Matthew Oldfield went into apartment 5A at 9.30pm, and noticed that Madeleine’s room seemed lighter than the others, as if the shutters had been partially opened. He could not be certain whether Madeleine was there.

    Kate McCann was next to check on the children, at 10pm. She ran back to the restaurant moments later, saying Madeleine was missing. The McCanns and their friends made a quick search of the resort, but after finding no sign of Madeleine the police were called at 10.14pm.

    The McCanns told police they had put Madeleine to bed with her pink comfort blanket and favourite soft toy, Cuddle Cat, and was wearing short-sleeved Marks & Spencer Eeyore pyjamas.

    Crucially, however, the apartment was not initially treated as a crime scene, meaning around 20 people went in and out before it was sealed off, contaminating potential evidence. Roadblocks were not put in place until 10am the next day, border guards were not informed for hours and Interpol did not put out a global missing persons alert for five days.

    It meant that the most crucial time of any missing persons investigation – the first 24 hours – were largely squandered, and police have been trying to catch up ever since. Yet potentially key sightings and artists’ impressions of suspects were kept from the public for years.

    Mary and Martin Smith, from Ireland, told police they saw a man carrying a child matching Madeleine’s description at around 10pm on Rua da Escola Primaria, 500 yards from the McCanns’ apartment. He was heading towards the beach, did not look like a tourist and did not seem comfortable carrying the child, they said.

    Their evidence was compelling, but it was only in October 2013 that two e-fit images of the man, compiled by police from descriptions given by Mr and Mrs Smith, were released by Scotland Yard to coincide with a BBC Crimewatch reconstruction of Madeleine’s disappearance. He remains a suspect.

    There were also blind alleys. Jane Tanner, one of the tapas diners, told police that when she left the restaurant at 9.15pm to check on her own daughter, she saw a man carrying a small child, wearing pink pyjamas, in his arms.


  24. cont.

    For years afterwards, the mystery man would be a key suspect, if not the prime suspect, but in October 2013 the Metropolitan Police announced that a British holidaymaker who had been taking his daughter back to his apartment after picking her up from an evening crèche, had been identified as the man Miss Tanner had seen and ruled out of the inquiry.

    The first person to become an “arguido”, or official suspect, was Robert Murat, a local property consultant, whose home was searched 12 days after the disappearance. He was formally cleared of suspicion in 2008 and won £600,000 in libel damages from 11 British newspapers.

    The Portuguese Police, however, were suspicious of the McCanns from the beginning, partly due to a clash of cultures. They could not believe that parents would leave their children unattended, and did not approve of the McCanns’ use of the media to raise the profile of the case, in a country where secrecy is the hallmark of all police investigations.

    The arrival of two British sniffer dogs in Portugal in July 2007 only hardened that belief. One dog was trained to sniff out traces of human blood, the other was trained to sniff out the scent of dead bodies. Both dogs were taken to several locations connected to the investigation, and gave alerts only in apartment 5A. Later, the cadaver dog gave an alert inside a Renault car, hired by the McCanns 24 days after Madeleine went missing.

    DNA tests on samples taken from the car proved inconclusive, but the Portuguese police wrongly told journalists they were a “100 per cent match” for Madeleine.

    The Portuguese police came up with the theory that Madeleine had been killed by her parents by accident, possibly by being given an overdose of a sedative to make her sleep, that they had hidden the body, faked her abduction and then used the hire car weeks later to move her body to a burial location.

    In early September 2007, according to Kate McCann, she was told by the Portuguese police that if she admitted that Madeleine had died in the apartment and she had hidden her body she might only serve a two-year sentence and Gerry McCann would not be charged at all. On September 7 the couple were both made arguidos.

    Goncalo Amaral, the chief inspector who had been in charge of the case, resigned in 2008 to write a book alleging that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment and the McCanns had faked the abduction. The McCanns sued him for libel, with the court expected to make its decision late in 2014.

    In July 2008 the Portuguese attorney general announced that the McCanns were no longer suspects and the investigation was closed. The McCanns hired private investigators to carry on the search, but it was not until May 2011 that Theresa May, the Home Secretary, announced that Scotland Yard would review the evidence in the case, which had until then been the responsibility of Leicestershire Police, working with the Portuguese authorities.

    In July 2013 Operation Grange, the review of the available evidence, became a full-blown criminal inquiry, and Scotland Yard said it was concentrating on a “criminal act by a stranger”.


  25. cont

    The Yard announced it was looking into possible links between Madeleine’s disappearance and bogus charity collectors who were knocking on doors in Praia da Luz at the time. Between 3.30pm and 5.30pm on the day in question there were four separate sightings of men who said they were collecting money for an orphanage. British detectives believe men whose photofits they released in 2013 may have been engaged in reconnaissance for a pre-planned abduction or for burglaries, in keeping with the theory that Madeleine may have been killed by a burglar she disturbed.

    Scotland Yard also said in 2013 it was eager to trace a blond-haired man who had been seen loitering in the area on April 30 and May 2, looking at apartment 1A. He was described as “ugly” with a spotty complexion and a large nose. Two blond-haired men were seen on the balcony of the empty apartment 5C, two doors from 5A, at 2.30pm on the day of the disappearance. Blond men were seen again near 5A at 4pm and 6pm that day, and at 11pm that night. Following the appeal on Crimewatch, the Portuguese police re-opened their own investigation.

    Scotland Yard officers travelled to Portugal in 2014 to interview four suspects and carried out searches of the area around the apartment using ground-penetrating radar. One of the men who was interview has since been eliminated from the inquiry, but the other three men remain arguidos.
    The British officers questioned them on suspicion of being part of a burglary gang that panicked after killing Madeleine during a bungled break-in. They all protested their innocence and were released without charge.

    Another suspect was Euclides Monteiro, a convicted burglar with a drug habit, who had been sacked from the Ocean Club in 2006. Mobile phone tracking showed he had been in the area on the night of the disappearance, and police believe he may have been burgling apartments there to fund his drug addiction. He died in a tractor accident in 2009.

    In March 2014 Scotland Yard announced that a lone intruder sexually assaulted five girls aged between seven and 10 in the Algarve between 2004 and 2006. The man, who has never been caught, was said to have a “very, very unhealthy interest” in young white girls.

    The four incidents, one of which involved two girls, were among 12 in which men had entered holiday accommodation in the area, including two incidents in Praia da Luz. The force also said it was looking at 38 “people of interest” and were researching the backgrounds of 530 known sex offenders, including 59 regarded as high interest.

    In December 2014 Det Chief Insp Andy Redwood, the man who had led Operation Grange, retired and was replaced on Dec 22 by DCI Nicola Wall, who travelled to Portugal the same month to conduct further inquiries.

    DCI Wall and her team interviewed seven suspects and four witnesses, but have not released any information about what they discovered, insisting they will not provide a "running commentary" on the case.

    Kate and Gerry McCann remain convinced their daughter is alive and that they will one day be reunited. The hunt to find her continues.

  26. Hi textusa, with regard to the article ran in the "Telegraph," it would seem as though the jist of this article is an abduction/burglary thesis in the disappearance of Madeline McCann?
    Why is there no mention of the "private detectives and Mr. Kennedy's" private meeting in Portugal with the first named arquido and defrauding of monies from the fund?
    Why is there no mention of the Operation Grange remit, which was to "investigate Abduction"?
    There is no mentioning of the inconsistencies in the group of Doctors/friends and Kate and Gerry's statements in regard to the missing girl Madeline McCann, oh forgot they are not suspects are they, Operation Grange remit!?
    These person's were the alleged people who made statements saying they had knowledge of Madeline still being alive in 5a Ocean Club on the night of 3 May 2007 and since that time there has been no confirmed evidence of Madeline's well being.
    Why is there no mention in the article of the involvement of "special professional QC's/Carter Ruck,media spokes persons"who have received funds from the "Madeline fund" that was supposed to be used to leave no stone unturned in the whereabouts of the missing child Madeline Mc Cann!
    As has been stated before in your posts,Operation Grange is linked some how to the Goncalo Amaral Libel trial book "the Truth of the Lie"
    Collusion/ protection of the Establishment has heavy hands on approach in this conclusion to both outcomes of that you can be sure of! Too many Crooks spoil the broth, is this spelt right?

    1. Anonymous 9 Feb 2015, 12:01:00,

      "Operation Grange is linked some how to the Goncalo Amaral Libel trial book "the Truth of the Lie""

      It's not a libel trial, it's a damages trial.

  27. hi textusa, stand corrected over damages trial,but do not disregard Operation Grange remit, if someone directs you to only follow one path, then that "Path is the one you follow"?
    He who pays the Piper calls the tunes!
    I have been looking at some old posts and it would seem that when John Corner made his video film of the McCann family to be used to as a rebuttal, the day he was filming it can you confirm whether it was the same day as Martin Grime & dogs Eddie, Keela, where used at the apartment 5a.
    A certain person was seen wearing gloves loading articles into a silver coloured vehicle, i know it is not proof of evidence of wrong doing but i would think it strange if it was on the same day as the dogs were used as part of the investigation, "Ask the dogs, Sandra"!?

    1. The most interesting aspect of the near eight years of following this case, is NEVER to review\reflect on anything over the years in isolation. Rather like this blog reviewed the timeline of Brenda\''the haters''\the S&S book. All has cause and effect, time and time again.
      Cause and effect, time and time again tells (tales rofl!) more about the ongoing PR and tactics.

      Interestingly, TM must be in one of it's most quietest phases, shut up by the ongoing UK|MET investigation, there is no need to raise awareness or FUNDS.

      The main question remains, are they in the loop? Portugal \ Lisbon hearing, is however of sideshow, outside the remit of the MET & it's influence.

      The UK gov's & political elite to have dabbled in this case, will come back to bite them in the bum; Blair, Brown, Cameron, McEvy & the influence of Rebekah Brooks, gone..... but not forgotten.
      Perhaps it's the McCannfiles that can show the true (post) timeline of events after the dreaded day of 3rd May.

  28. Jes, as he likes to spell it, fell remarkably in line with the McCann's and Tapas group's defensive stance on a proposed PJ reconstruction in 2008.

    His reply emails, signed 'Jes', via proxy 'Stu' from the UK police to the PJ are in synergy with the Tapas Group response - Including the questions he raises to its objectives, its worth and the dates of his replies.

    In conclusion he appears to completely tow the party line in relation to hesitations in partaking, despite pretending to appear willing. Contact was made.

    A good read:

    IMO it makes no sense, no sense that as an external, uninvolved party he would not simply respond, 'Yes. What are the hours?'

    He is the drafted10th member to add external credence to timelines & checks - a late signing.


    1. The communications between the LP, aka Prior aka call me ''Stu'' were totally cringe worthy and rather like the Gaspars (tardy submitted statements by the LP) were never expected to see the light of day.

      But why did JW refuse to co-operate with the request to participate in the re-enactment? Particularly as there are three accounts of to where he\they were standing in that night - and this was at the time TM was supporting the 'mission impossible' sighting of JT just passing them when she eyeballs the (alleged) abductor carrying M.

      But all has fallen by the wayside now ........... but has it. If JT's now alleged crèche dad sighting is to be substantiated - all is just as important. Or do we know have a crèche dad walking in the wrong direction, at the wrong time and like McCann, JW never ALSO saw JT?

      Will crèche dad be revealed eventually, supported by a photo of his child - who's to say it was even a girl? crèche records? accommodation address? .... or do they really just not tie up EXACT enough to let JT off the hook.

      Come Jez do the honourable thing.

  29. Great post as always. Only small point is I don't think the suggested behaviour around taking an 8 month out in those temperatures is at all strange (having children myself and being familiar with cultures who put babies outside to sleep even as low and minus 20 degrees C or lower) as fresh air is great at getting them to sleep. Also, again from bitter experience, not all babies are deep sleepers by any stretch of the imagination, some being particularly sensitive to changes in movement even more than noise, so rocking a pram while standing chatting would be totally normal (and doing so with it pointing downhill also makes total sense in that its easier to pull a weight up hill then let it roll back than to have to push up and let roll back, the latter of which would probably take both hands to ensure the straight up direction was maintained on the push)....I have found myself absent mindedly rocking a supermarket trolley while looking at the shelf in the days when I had babies as I was so used to doing this action with the pram. Not taking anything away from the post at all though, just saying these parts add no weight to the argument IMO.

    Love reading these posts though.

    1. How pitiful the oppositions arguments are.

    2. 17:04 your baby didn't fall asleep because of the minus 20 degrees but went into hypothermia:
      "Men wandered around confused through hypothermia, some lost consciousness and died, others shivered, later developed torpor and tended to sleep.".

      "Babies should sleep at 16-20 °C (61-68 °F) and housebound people should be checked regularly to make sure the temperature of the home is sufficient"

    3. Original 17.04 commenter here... I am very much NOT the opposition, simply pointing out that for an argument to be credible it needs to actually be sound thinking and the stuff stating that Jez was clearly telling lies about taking his baby out in those temps (which frankly are not even cold!) was not a very credible argument and smacks of someone who maybe never cared for a small baby. Just saying. The rest is great. But hey if the arguments can't stand up to bit of healthy debate then it is not me being pitiful my dear xx

    4. Oh and do some research please people...just google babies sleep in Scandinavian and you will see that they are neither cold nor die. Amazing those inventions called blankets. Maybe get off the internet and get out more eh X

    5. 09:59
      "just google babies sleep in Scandinavian and you will see that they are neither cold nor die"
      Please provide a link that justifies what you claim: walking babies outside in minus 20C helps them fall asleep. Thank you.

    6. Anonymous 9 Feb 2015, 17:04:00 / 10 Feb 2015, 09:48:00 and 09:59:00

      We know the reasons for your initial comment. No surprise disruptive techniques employed. It's worth publishing some, to show readers the tactics employed.

      If you think you're fooling anyone with your support, you aren't.

      End of conversation.

      As a piece of advice, do drop your rmysoginistic "my dear".

  30. Wow. You lot are really touchy! I don't care less whether you believe my support or not really, just sad that you don't feel your view (even if it's just one very minor part of the view) can be challenged at all. Not up for healthy debate clearly are we!

    Oh and by the way you might want to buy a dictionary, as it's misogynistic, and I'm not sure where you get that I'm some kind of women hater from any of my comments!

    And as for my apparent claims that walking babies at -20 helps them sleep (which I did not) I have nothing more to say on the subject. If you don't want to do your research then so be it, you stick by your (incorrect) view that it would be somehow harmful and definitely lies for someone to suggest that they took a baby for a walk in PLUS 11'C temperatures, because that would clearly be utterly crazy behaviour that no sane parent would ever do.

  31. Just realised that the last comment was actually from you Textusa. I just wanted to add this message, which I know is not going to be published but I feel the need to say it..

    I am a late comer to this blog, and in fact only really started digging into the whole case about 18 months ago. At first it was mainly the McCannFiles which sparked my interest, and as a result I found the Blacksmith Bureau which I also enjoyed and looked forward with interest to reading updates. I think I found your blog late last year and immediately loved it, so much so that I was gutted when you announced your Christmas break, and thrilled when your posts started back up again.

    Anyway, I did genuinely enjoy this post, and most I found very interesting, but your interpretation of events surrounding the baby just didn't add up to me, a mother of two young children not that long out of the baby years themselves. I didn't think commenting as such would be in any way controversial or instantly have me marked as "the opposition". I am pretty sure if you ask a lot of parents who have been there with babies if they would consider this behaviour so unlikely that it is almost certainly a lie you would be told the same. I did not intend to undermine the post or in any way oppose the generally held views of your blog. I am more than a little shocked that it was taken that way really, especially from yourself who is clearly very capable of looking at situations from different angles and theorising on them. I actually thought (wrongly) that you would welcome some insight from someone who has been in that situation, when maybe you have not (I wouldn't know as I don't know you, but it was my guess).

    So anyway, as you have taken the time to personally respond, even if the response surprised me, I will take the time to apologise for what is clearly input that is not welcomed, and I will in future not offer any comment on your posts.

    Well done though on a really good blog. Just don't take things so personally as an attack on your theory, not everyone is out to "disrupt" your cause!

    1. Anonymous 10 Feb 2015, 14:35:00,

      Our research has concluded that Nordic countries do put babies outside to sleep in cold temperatures. But they must be very warmly wrapped.

      So we shall accept some of you might take your child for a walk on a chilly night to induce sleep, but it's not something we have done with our children. Or would do.

      But let's agree to disagree on that.

      The main points of the post were the amount of time spent walking around and the inexplicable visit to the toilet.

      Jane Tanner makes no mention of the pushchair in her statement on May 4th. It's not until May 10th that she mentions it.

      Why no other witnesses mention seeing a man with a pushchair?

      Apologies for misspelling of misogynist. To err is human. We don't always have time to proof read for spelling.

    2. 'Why no other witnesses mention seeing a man with a pushchair?'

      This is a very good point.

      You would think that the wandering-man-with-pushchair would have been seen by any number of people as he meandered around the streets and dead-ends of the Ocean Club.

      It would certainly help the McCann's case if their 'independent witness' (Mr Wilkins) was also seen by another independent witness or two doing what he claimed to be doing.

      I wasn't aware nobody mentions seeing him.

    3. Well JW did have one witness to his trip around PdL, apparently:

      "Some of the walkways did not have an exit and for this reason I walked practically in circles. When walking one of these paths, I came across a tourist called Curtis with his girlfriend whose name I do not know. He also knew Gerry from the tennis lessons. I remember passing by them but I assumed they were headed to dinner."

      He knew Curtis well enough to know his name, and well enough to know that Curtis also knew Gerry, and also well enough to know Curtis wasn't married to his companion. "Girlfriend" is very specific, like "wife" - if you don't know whether or not a couple are married it's normal to use the word "partner", but JW says "girlfriend".

      And interestingly, despite knowing Curtis he appears not to have spoken to him, he just remembers passing him by. Not even a wave or a "Hi" on this occasion it seems, and they must have been close enough for a greeting, he "passed them by" not "saw them in the distance".

      Nuala x

    4. Nuala,

      Yes, there's a big difference between wife and girlfriend.

      Curtis Brain was with Dr Louise Hume who wasn't his wife, as far as we could determine.

      He didn't come forward with any sightings, very wisely. Carpenter mentions him in his statement.

    5. Ah yes! Thank you Textusa, I missed that in Carpenter's statement, and so we have cross over with that once again.

      On another note, it's interesting how much time was spent discussing childcare arrangements in PdL in May 2007. JW's statement 7th May 2007 talking about the evening of Weds 2nd May:

      "That evening myself and my partner attended the 'Tapas' restaurant which is part of the hotel complex at the swimming pool. We sat down to eat at 7:30 pm. After about forty five (45) minutes Jerry appeared as did one of his friends. I believe it was Russell. They sat at the next table. We naturally engaged in conversation about everyday things. We spoke about childcare. That night my family were using the creche's facility. We found out that the group of families were occupying ground floor flats near the swimming pool and they were leaving the children by themselves in order for them to go to the restaurant in the evenings. They would then go regularly to check the children who would be asleep."

      Then talking about 3rd May 2007 when he meets GM outside 5A:

      "I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said you're on walking duty. I said I was staying in and pros and cons and what to do with the children."

      As everyone knows, we Brits are usually preoccupied with the weather, that's what we make small talk about, but in PdL in May 2007 they just couldn't stop talking about childcare.

      Nuala x

    6. !I hate spelling errors.
      You mix up two lettersand your whole post is urined."

      Andrew Gardiner

  32. Wow Textusa great stuff, the BOD interview served to increase my suspisions about JW but this removes all doubt......I have said it before but oh my !!!! the agony of having your lies read back to you......a lesson to us all if you are going to committ something to record always say/write it with the caution that it may be textused.

    Media dept award: For handling Mc investigation!?

    1. Isn't Operation Grange what has kept the Met media people most busy? I think a deserved prize!

  34. Jez and co ,me thinks (and a million others also ) they protest too much....this case is one that will rattle on for years because far too many people attempt to protect the mccanns, and it is their insistence that the mccanns are innocent that provides the guilt that the mccanns are indeed guilty. Well done TEXTUSA you have a brilliant platform all the while there are those that attempt to belittle you or whatever else they do, shows that they are afraid of you. An idiot has made up a website against you, as you well know, keep on sisters you are on the trail of the truth. Whatever happened to Maddie you and your one million plus viewers know the truth, Ironside and Joanna,and all the millions of others know, that one day the truth will surface until then thanks Tex....
    Add a PS.... I would just like to say that for the rest of the Tapas group they are disgusting humans if you can call them that to not cooperate and .... to let a child die and not cooperate but that is their legacy and will always be with them and I am so glad that I am not like them, they are not human, they know no compassion, or humanity in fact they are the lowest of the low, God bless little Maddie other's that never knew her cared about her, poor little baby. RIP MADDIE

  35. Sometimes you can miss the obvious ( wood for trees and all that ) and this post is a great case in point.

    Walking round with babies trying to get them to sleep is interesting but possibly not the meat on the bone here in my humble opinion.

    The ' Timeline ' is handed over as evidence by the T9 - not once but twice and no-one but no-one ever mentions JW. Not JT - not GM - not anyone else who may have been told either.

    Is this a result of not knowing from the 7 Tapas members outwith this knowledge - but it is only known to the two witnesses ( JT and GM) - or collective amnesia?

    If you are in a frantic search for a missing child every second counts as does every witness to everybody around at the time leading up to or just post disappearance. Why doesn't JT and GM tell the others about their brief encounters ( one actually and one just by observation )

    As Textusa says it really makes no sense at all to omit the JW testimony on the night never mind later.

    It has been said on various blogs/websites that the trolley may have been for a purpose. I'm not sure about that but as far as JW says he was not aware of what time it was when he was walking round the blocks. As far as he may know it could have been 8.30pm just as GM was following his partner to the Tapas Bar? Another holiday maker without a watch or mobile - there's an awful lot of them.

    If he saw JT( the lady in purple ) the time could have been before 8.30pm. What time did JT and ROB turn up at the Tapas Bar? It was the Paynes who were late - MO went looking for them I think. Therefore if he saw JT ( in purple - outside the apartments ) it could have been before she went to the Tapas Bar as it seems pretty sure that he didn't see her in the Tapas Bar for my money.

    Could his meanderings be around 8.15 to 8.30pm?

    Not post 9.04pm?

    Excellent spotting by Textusa and others.

    Opinon though.

  36. A more recent picture of Michael Sperrey

    No rastas

    Strauss Kahn gives swingers a bad name.
    He sounds abusive.
    Talks about swingers' etiquette

    A respected museum director wrote a book about swinging.


    British police take 67 return flights to Portugal as cost of Madeleine McCann search nears £9million

    EXCLUSIVE: Trips last year cost nearly £16,000, around £1,300 a month
    Came as police carried out largest ever search by British police overseas
    Eight-day search in Algarve in June ended with nothing of interest found
    David Cameron set a provisional budget for £5million for the investigation
    Operation Grange has cost around £2.5million every year for three years
    Home Office said this year's spend likely to be 'broadly in line' with past

    By Steph Cockroft for MailOnline
    Published: 16:57 GMT, 11 February 2015 | Updated: 01:42 GMT, 12 February 2015

    British police searching for missing Madeleine McCann spent £16,000 on 67 return flights to Portugal last year, helping the cost of the investigation to soar to nearly £9million.

    The trips, which cost more than £1,300 per month, came as the Met Police carried out the biggest ever search undertaken by a team of British police overseas, in a bid to find clues about the young girl's disappearance.

    In June, police flew to the Algarve to carry out forensic searches around Praia da Luz, focusing on scrubland a few hundred metres from the apartment block where Madeleine was last seen alive.

    But, despite an intensive eight-day search operation involving scores of officers carrying out ground excavations, police failed to find any clues.

    According to figures released under a Freedom of Information act request, officers and staff made 48 return flights in the nine months between January and October. A further 19 were made to the end of December.

    The cost for the flights was £15,945, an average of £238 per return flight.

    As well as flights for the search, the trips involved several journeys made by officers to liaise with the Portuguese authorities prior to the excavations.

    And in December, detectives DCI Nicola Wall and DCI Andy Redwood also travelled to Faro Police Station to question 'key witnesses' in the case. The three days involved overseeing the questioning of four British people and seven Portuguese citizens.

    During the search, which was said to have been carried out to the ‘highest possible standards’, police combed an area of scrubland equal in size to around nine football pitches.

    This included checking water pipes, drainage channels and derelict buildings around the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz on the Algarve.

    Police also searched a horseshoe-shaped piece of waste ground that was specifically identified as an area of interest by the latest inquiry

    In total, a Met spokesman said 41 ‘ground anomalies’ – areas where the earth had been disturbed – were discovered by aerial surveys and ground-penetrating radar equipment.

    These sites, which included three outside the original area, were then painstakingly checked by search teams. But they said no evidence relating to Madeleine McCann had been identified.

    Scotland Yard abandoned their search of land close to where Madeleine vanished in 2007, but said the multi-million-pound inquiry would continue.

    The Home Office, which has spent around £2m per year on the investigation since 2011, said this year's spend was likely to be 'broadly in line' with previous years. It means the bill is likely to top £9m.

    But despite the increased police activity in Portugal, other figures show the number of detectives on the investigation has reduced.

    At one point there were 29 detectives among 37 staff trying to solve Madeleine's disappearance in Praia da Luz in Portugal.

    Now, according to the figures, the number of detectives stands at 21, including 15 constables, three sergeants and two inspectors.

    There are also nine police support staff and four agency staff - all ex police officers - on the 34-strong team, which is led by Detective Chief Inspector Nicola Wall.


  40. cont

    Madeleine was just three when she went missing from her family's rented holiday apartment in the resort in May 2007, while her parents ate dinner nearby. There have been no positive sightings.

    Operation Grange, the special investigation unit into the young girl's disappearance, was set up in 2011 by David Cameron. He set a provisional budget for £5million for the investigation

    In its first year, the unit cost close to £2million, with the vast majority of expenses attributed to police officer and staff pay.

    Between 2012 and 2013, the most expensive leg of the investigation to date, £2.8million was spent on transport, salaries, overtime and premises cost. The following year, through to 2014, the Home Office spent £2.6m.

    Kate and Gerry McCann, both 46, from Rothley, Leicester, have fought a tireless campaign to find their missing daughter since, regularly appealing to police to keep the investigation into her disappearance active.

    Portuguese police closed their investigation into her disappearance in 2008 and it took a further three years of campaigning by the McCanns to force the Scotland Yard investigation.

    Months after the three-year-old vanished, Leicestershire Constabulary was awarded two grants by the Home Office to help fund their efforts.

    In 2008 they received £525,000 and were awarded a further £221,000 the following year before the case was handed over to Metropolitan Police.

    In a statement, the Met said any reduction in overall numbers of staff - from 37 to 34 according to the figures - on the investigation was temporary.

    It said: 'There has been no change to the level of resources allocated to the investigation and any reduction will be the result of natural wastage.


    Posted by portugalpress on February 12, 2015

    Maddie hunt: British police make 67 return flights in a year

    As judgement in the long-running defamation case taken out by Kate and Gerry McCann against former PJ cop Gonçalo Amaral is keenly expected, new stories have emerged detailing the 67 return flights made by officers in the last 12 months with still no whiff of a longed-for breakthrough in the search for missing Madeleine.

    According to British press this week, Scotland Yard officers spent over €21,000 last year coming backwards and forwards to Portugal - an average cost of €322 per flight.

    Many of the flights were taken up by personnel involved in the high-profile but ultimately fruitless digging in Praia da Luz at the beginning of last summer, but others went ahead “prior to the excavations” and were organised for liaison purposes, reports the Daily Mail.

    As the British Home Office confirms expenditure this year will continue “broadly in line” with previous years, Judge Emilia Melo e Castro has revealed that a number of the McCanns’ allegations of defamation were “not proved” (see:

    Among these was the allegation that attention of the case, both by people and in the media, “diminished” as a result of Amaral’s book, The Truth of the Lie.

    The McCanns are reported to be asking for €1.2 million in damages from Amaral.


  42. Apologies if this has already been covered (I have only recently been reading Textusa and have some catching up to do). What are your thoughts on the plan being that Gerry and Jez met on purpose - that Jez had his sleeping daughter in the pushchair which they exchanged for Maddie. Gerry then walked around PdL holding Jez's daughter (Orly? same age as Maddie and similar looking) while Jez took Maddie to the initial hiding place. Jane Tanner mentioned seeing someone carrying a child (direct opposite of using a pushchair). Also Jez's trip to the toilet at Tapas could have been to signal he was ready for the swap. Keep up your fascinating work, Textusa! Very best wishes.

  43. Hi Textusa - I added my first comment to your site a few days ago about Jez Wilkins but I can't see it anywhere. Apologies if I am rushing you but I haven't posted before and not sure if I have done it right ... many thanks.

    1. Wistle,

      We apologise for the late reply but your comment but we thought best to publish your comment together with our reply, because it implicates some reasoning and time to write it and some of our our lives have been quite hectic lives, in a positive way.

      To answer your comment we don’t think the Jez/Gerry meeting to have been intentional. If that was the case, then there would not have been the need to lay the body in the backyard.

      If the meeting had been pre-arranged, then the body would have been left inside the apartment and taken from there after staged conversation.

      The fact the body was laid on the flowerbed of the backyard tells us it was a surprise meeting. Gerry sensed someone on the street, laid down the body, looked over the wall and saw a man walking up the street and jumped at the opportunity of creating an alibi for child-checking system.

      On May 3 evening, Jez was as much used as would be the Smith family a little later on. Or to be precise, a forced meeting by one party, Gerry, and a surprising one for the other, Jez and the Smith family respectively.

      The post shows that Jez Wilkins is, shall we say, a very pro-McCann witness of events.

      One must understand that not all were engaged in the hoax on the night of the 3rd. We think only a handful of people outside the T9 were up to speed on what was happening.

      We would say that at the time the abduction absurdity was decided to be executed, Jez Wilkins and the Tapas staff, just to name these, were totally unaware of what was happening.

      Later, after the alarm, more and more people were brought up to speed, and in these we include Jez.

      We don’t think Jez wasn’t pushing a trolley when he met Gerry. Jez was merely returning from wherever. However, that Jez’s wherever (from where he was coming from) would be difficult to explain, in much the same way as was Payne’s visit to the apartment 5A in that early evening.

      Payne came up with the excuse that he help Kate (in what we are still to know to this day) and Jez came up with strolling around Luz with his sleepless child.

    2. Thank you for your reply. I have only been reading up on the McCanns for the last couple of months and am fascinated by the whole thing. I have still much to read on the Textusa site and others but I have already come to the conclusion that " something is rotten ....." Thanks for sharing your knowledge and insight. Kind regards.

  44. We inform our readers that we owe an apology to Mr Jez Wilkins.

    AFTER I visited the Tapas area this summer, this we said in this post is wrong:

    "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?"

    From the toilets one is unable to see the Tapas esplanade.

    In the picture of this post where Gerry is seen walking towards the esplanade, the entrance to the toilets to someone coming from the entrance, is seen on the left of picture.

    On the other side, to someone coming from the esplanade, is a stairs with quite a few steps.

    Someone standing at the doors of the toilets cannot see the esplanade.

    Interesting that no one has ever corrected us on this point all this time.

  45. Hi Textusa - From Jez Wilkins' statement ... "On Wednesday, 2nd May, ...... that evening myself and my partner attended the 'Tapas' restaurant which is part of the hotel complex at the swimming pool. We sat down to eat at 7:30 pm. After about forty five (45) minutes Jerry appeared as did one of his friends. I believe it was Russell. They sat at the next table. We naturally engaged in conversation about everyday things. We spoke about childcare. That night my family were using the creche's facility. We found out that the group of families were occupying ground floor flats near the swimming pool and they were leaving the children by themselves in order for them to go to the restaurant in the evenings. They would then go regularly to check the children who would be asleep." I don't understand why GM would know on the Wed to broadcast the children being left alone ... as if Maddie died on the Thurs they wouldn't have known the need to spin that story the day before. I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Apologies if you have covered this already - I have much to catch up on. Kind regards. Wistle.

    1. Wistle,

      You have answered your own question! Things become very simple and very clear once one understands the puzzle.

  46. Hi again Textusa - forgive me for being dense :o) Are you saying "exactly" - that GM didn't broadcast the children being alone on the Wed, and that Jez is simply backing up their neglect fabrication to enable the abduction to take place? Thanks again. Wistle

    1. Wistle,

      Our sincere apologies, we thought that when you said “I don't understand why GM would know on the Wed to broadcast the children being left alone ... as if Maddie died on the Thurs they wouldn't have known the need to spin that story the day before” you were being ironic!

      We thought this because you hit the nail on the head. Why broadcast that indeed unless the idea is exactly that, to broadcast?

      When constructs a narrative, and now please abstain momentarily from the case and put yourself in a situation – we’ve all been there – where one wants to not be as truthful as one should, and one has to make-up a story. That story is an alternate reality which one is making-up. To be believable one invents events, either to mislead or to hide the events one wishes they remain unknown.

      When is inventing, the question the inventor asks him or herself – even if only subconsciously – is: how can I make it convincing why I’m remembering this that I know did not happen? And the answer usually ends-up being what is commonly known as over-egging the pudding.

      Back to the case, the narrative was that there was a child-checking system that did not exist based on people getting up from dinners that did not exist either.

      So, what best way to convince people that they did? Hey, I even remember talking to Jez about it the day before! And Jez was even a witness of that same system when we crossed with each other on the night of the tragedy? Even if you doubted my word, there’s the proof that the dinners I say happened did happen and the child-checking system I say existed did exist.

      Only problem, is the over-egging. Imagination never equals reality. As you point out, a ridiculous topic to have between adults at “a pub” when, note, neither have their children there. The Wilkins say they were using the crèche, the McCanns had their children in the apartment. Why talk about children or childcare? No reason.

      Also note, and that is what Jez Wilkins should have done, was to say, I remember that at a certain point Gerry asked to be excused because he had to leave, I asked him or he told me, it was to check his kids. Leave at that. That would be credible. But instead, two Brit adult males “over a pint” decide to talk about… childcare. Over-egging.

    2. Thank you Textusa for the detailed explanation - I completely understand now. :o) I can also understand why Jez would feel the need to egg the pudding at all ... . Kind regards. Wistle


Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.