Pat Brown

I don't understand the reference to staying for two weeks as I thought the holiday was definitely only intended and booked to be for one week.

I agree it was in fact booked for one week - so that's probably why they never stayed in. Perhaps their turn never arrived.

ETA perhaps I should have said it's only a theory!

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I don't understand the reference to staying for two weeks as I thought the holiday was definitely only intended and booked to be for one week.

I do.....what he is saying is.....they took it in turns to stay in each night and there wasn't enough nights for HIS turn to stay in...

Sun....oldfield

Mon.....? Healey


Tues.....o'brien



Wednes....r oldfield


Thrusday. Tanner?


Frid.......Webster ?.....when was the tennis dinner?

kitti wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I don't understand the reference to staying for two weeks as I thought the holiday was definitely only intended and booked to be for one week.

I do.....what he is saying is.....they took it in turns to stay in each night and there wasn't enough nights for HIS turn to stay in...

Sun....oldfield

Mon.....? Healey


Tues.....o'brien



Wednes....r oldfield


Thrusday. Tanner?


Frid.......Webster ?.....when was the tennis dinner?

That's probably the solution to that remark. But it throws up another question. since the McCanns had three children - on third of the total T9 children, why wasn't Gerry doing some babysitting? Why was he last on the list?
That suggests that somehow the T7 were doing these favours for the McCs in return for something that he was going to do or had already done.
Otherwise the division of labour seems rather one way.

So imo, these rather selfish and I have to say for the women, rather stupid people, went along with Gerry's grand design, did his babysitting for him and lied for him. Dedication indeed, which must surely have had some reward at the end of it.
If we eliminate the women, we have in essence just three men backing TM every step of the way. If all of them were Masons, that might be one reason and is quite likely. In that case Gerry might have been a little higher up in the hierarchy.
Mmmm, if the Pope found out that G was a mason and the children were IVF, that might be more than enough to whoosh them from his website.

Annabel wrote:

Bravo halcyon. You got it in one!

tigger

Probably because Gerry/Payne were the main men!

ETA I recall one of them - could have been Matt saying something in his statement that they went as a large party on these jaunts because it was easier arrange childcare between them - or words similar to this.

pennylane wrote:

Annabel wrote:

Bravo halcyon. You got it in one!

Ditto pennylane

Annabel wrote:

That is excellent Annabel.

Halycon's right though - the only reason JT had to invent an abductor was to place Gerry in the same scene as him. Gerry knew he'd been seen by the Smiths and needed an alibi....

I still wonder why GM told Wilkins that the children were on there own In the apt....KNOWONE would admit that to anyone let along a stranger...cos he was, he only met them two or three times ....Wilkins wasnt that well known to them....Wilkins could off been an abductor....or worse.


Also, KM said that the remark by Madeleine on 3rd may about not coming when they cried, KM said she didn't think anything off it till she went missing and that is why she mentioned it to the pj...YET KM mentioned it to one off the tapas friends on the evening off 3rd.


KM said that she was annoyed when she found out that a waiter had left a note in the tapas saying the kids were left alone in the apt and the parents were checking ....yet GM told Wilkins the same.....


Which brings me to a point....was tanners sighting there to protect Wilkins , after all, how do the mccanns know that he wasn't involved ..


If tanner hadn't off said she saw a man walking past when wilkins and GM were there talking, would Wilkins off been suspected?

kitti said;

Also, KM said that the remark by Madeleine on 3rd may about not coming when they cried, KM said she didn't think anything off it till she went missing and that is why she mentioned it to the pj...YET KM mentioned it to one off the tapas friends on the evening off 3rd.

I found this admission by the mccanns as a mystery.
To admit that your child had cried alone and asked
why did they not come to them. But after some thought,
I believe they were covering for the fact that they had
told the PJ that 'Thurs 3rd May' was different to other
nights and that extra checks were made by other members
of the group on 5a.
The PJ must have asked why was Thurs so different?
Why did others feel the need to check 5a also?
Hence, the crying story!

If I had been JT on hols with my friends and this scenario occurred as soon as KM raised the alarm I think my reaction would have been to say 'OMG I saw a man carrying a child away and didn't even think it was Madeleine' and to alert the police to that immediately

kitti and marxman

Yes ditto that - one lie to cover up then gets embellished even to the point of getting another Tapas (FP was it?) to confirm it.

After reading Pat's blog regarding the Tanner v Smith
sightings, I've had a thought which I would like you to
comment on.
Do you think it possible that Tanner disturbed the
removal of Maddie's body from 5a, by Gerry and
another male, such as O'Brien?
O'Brien was missing for some time apparently looking
after their sick child. Could he be the one to dispose
of Maddie with Gerry's assistance?
Gerry keeping watch while O'B enters 5a and leaves?
Jez comes along and Gerry distracts him with smalltalk?
Gerry ignores Jane? a must!
Jane sees O'B carry a child? She panics and tells Gerry
who tells her not to inform Kate?
This might explain this event/sighting already primed
and on their made-up time-line before the police arrive?
Jane keeps up this scam to protect O'B?

marxman wrote:After reading Pat's blog regarding the Tanner v Smith
sightings, I've had a thought which I would like you to
comment on.
Do you think it possible that Tanner disturbed the
removal of Maddie's body from 5a, by Gerry and
another male, such as O'Brien?
O'Brien was missing for some time apparently looking
after their sick child. Could he be the one to dispose
of Maddie with Gerry's assistance?
Gerry keeping watch while O'B enters 5a and leaves?
Jez comes along and Gerry distracts him with smalltalk?
Gerry ignores Jane? a must!
Jane sees O'B carry a child? She panics and tells Gerry
who tells her not to inform Kate?
This might explain this event/sighting already primed
and on their made-up time-line before the police arrive?
Jane keeps up this scam to protect O'B?

I don't think so because (imho) the Smith's saw the body being moved, and it was not O'B that they saw on that fateful night but McC. However I do agree with you that JT was protecting her OH by giving McC the alibi. Possibly O'B supplied the sedatives, and when Maddie met with an accident, he feared for his and his children's future, and so got dragged into the middle? And when McC was seen... JT was forced to ramp up the help!

mummy45 wrote:If I had been JT on hols with my friends and this scenario occurred as soon as KM raised the alarm I think my reaction would have been to say 'OMG I saw a man carrying a child away and didn't even think it was Madeleine' and to alert the police to that immediately

Of course that's exactly what a witness, and close friend of the family, would do if the "sighting" was true!

pennylane wrote:

mummy45 wrote:If I had been JT on hols with my friends and this scenario occurred as soon as KM raised the alarm I think my reaction would have been to say 'OMG I saw a man carrying a child away and didn't even think it was Madeleine' and to alert the police to that immediately

Of course that's exactly what a witness, and close friend of the family, would do if the "sighting" was true!

Yep and the pertinent word is IF

Keela wrote:

pennylane wrote:

mummy45 wrote:If I had been JT on hols with my friends and this scenario occurred as soon as KM raised the alarm I think my reaction would have been to say 'OMG I saw a man carrying a child away and didn't even think it was Madeleine' and to alert the police to that immediately

Of course that's exactly what a witness, and close friend of the family, would do if the "sighting" was true!

Yep and the pertinent word is IF

Indeed Keela! In the words of Judge Judy..... "if it doesn't make sense, it isn't true!"

pennylane wrote:

marxman wrote:After reading Pat's blog regarding the Tanner v Smith
sightings, I've had a thought which I would like you to
comment on.
Do you think it possible that Tanner disturbed the
removal of Maddie's body from 5a, by Gerry and
another male, such as O'Brien?
O'Brien was missing for some time apparently looking
after their sick child. Could he be the one to dispose
of Maddie with Gerry's assistance?
Gerry keeping watch while O'B enters 5a and leaves?
Jez comes along and Gerry distracts him with smalltalk?
Gerry ignores Jane? a must!
Jane sees O'B carry a child? She panics and tells Gerry
who tells her not to inform Kate?
This might explain this event/sighting already primed
and on their made-up time-line before the police arrive?
Jane keeps up this scam to protect O'B?

I don't think so because (imho) the Smith's saw the body being moved, and it was not O'B that they saw on that fateful night but McC. However I do agree with you that JT was protecting her OH by giving McC the alibi. Possibly O'B supplied the sedatives, and when Maddie met with an accident, he feared for his and his children's future, and so got dragged into the middle? And when McC was seen... JT was forced to ramp up the help!

Yes the Smiths saw a child being carried but not a body!
This may indeed, as you say been Gerry with another child
as a proxy. I really can't see Gerry carry a dead child through
the streets.This may have been staged because they didn't
know what exactly Jez had witnessed.
When Kate made her check didn't she call out "They've taken
her"? This could refer to the men of the group ie Gerry and O'B.

mummy45 wrote:If I had been JT on hols with my friends and this scenario occurred as soon as KM raised the alarm I think my reaction would have been to say 'OMG I saw a man carrying a child away and didn't even think it was Madeleine' and to alert the police to that immediately

But would it not make sense if it was her partner
she saw carry a child away and she knew it was
Madeliene? She is advised by Gerry to keep quite
until much later when it morphs into eggman. A
description as far away from O'B as possible.
As you say, any proper friend would come forward
with such information immediately but not unless
she could be protecting O'B and McC, or both.

Pennylane:
Indeed Keela! In the words of Judge Judy..... "if it doesn't make sense, it isn't true!"

Hi Penny,
Wouldn't you just love to see the T9 in front of Judge Judy? I can hear her saying to them "Lies. Baloney. Impossible. It never happened Sir/Madam."

pennylane wrote:

Annabel wrote:

Bravo halcyon. You got it in one!

But we have to remember that the mccanns and tapas group were hurriedly putting together a timeline and weren't accounting for the Smith sighting. How were they to know anyone would say they saw a man (ie Gerry) carrying the child? They thought they were the ones that would be believed.

I know a lot of people think Madeleine died earlier than the 3rd, but I think between them and with time on their hands they would have come up with a far better fabricated story.

I believe it was gerry the smith's saw and I believe he was drunk and in a blind panic. of course it was risky to run off with a dead child, but it was dark, late and what other option did he actually have? Who could he trust to remove the body? Knowing Gerry, he alone was the only one that could pull this off...

I am actually astounded at the time it took Pat to walk from the tapas place to where the Smith sighting was. Why in God's name was it not made clear as day straight away that it was mere minutes away.

I believe the Smiths saw Gerry. If the mccanns were innocent, they'd have been very, very interested in an independent sighting of a man carrying a child minutes from the apartment complex.

They weren't... for obvious reasons...

Sunflower27 said;
I believe it was gerry the smith's saw and I believe he was drunk and in a blind panic. of course it was risky to run off with a dead child, but it was dark, late and what other option did he actually have? Who could he trust to remove the body? Knowing Gerry, he alone was the only one that could pull this off...

Hi Sunflower27, an alternative option maybe
to put the 'package' into a blue sports bag
and to sling it over his shoulder.But to go
walk-about? not convinced.

'

I think he was pissed and he panicked. It was dark and he knew he had to get rid of the body ASAP, not try and fit it in a bag, just take the body and get it away (in the dark) as quick as possible.

Sunflower27 wrote:I think he was pissed and he panicked. It was dark and he knew he had to get rid of the body ASAP, not try and fit it in a bag, just take the body and get it away (in the dark) as quick as possible.

Sunflower, I agree with you totally; I have always believed the Smiths saw McC in a blind panic, rushing to hide M!