Contents of Gerrys Stolen Wallet

Iris wrote:

gillyspot wrote:Probably a silly question but DID anyone actually STEAL Gerry's wallet?

Of course they did. Gerry said so.

And it was confirmed by Auntie Phil

wjk wrote:

Iris wrote:

gillyspot wrote:Probably a silly question but DID anyone actually STEAL Gerry's wallet?

Of course they did. Gerry said so.

And it was confirmed by Auntie Phil

Yes, a durrty animul took Gerry's wulle' !!!!

Remember he was late for the meeting. Maybe he just needed to explain the lost time, in order to be able to do someting else.

gillyspot wrote:Probably a silly question but DID anyone actually STEAL Gerry's wallet?

Do we have evidence of that? I am not aware of any. Interesting that there were "irreplaceable" photos of Madeleine within it and the thief didn't realise or notice that they were there. This is despite the massive coverage in UK media particularly. Surely these photos particularly the "recent" one would have a value that any thief would recognise. Not to mention the 30 euros - could be changed at any post office to ££s without giving name & address.

IMO no wallet was stolen it is simply to cover up something. What though I don't know.

I took it as read that nobody believes this story. The only source for this is Gerry. He was being watched so the blog was a good way to get messages out to those in the know.
The 30 euros and the important things which he doesn't specify may well have been a way to get the message out. The implication is that it needed to get out to someone who wasn't a regular visitor to their villa and very probably not family either. So not friends and family - but a person who would know what Gerry meant with his obscure hints. Neither was it any of the people he met in the UK during that time because he would have spoken to them.
Gerry couldn't log on himself to any site which could compromise him, so it was one-way traffic.

agree i dont think the wallet was ever stolen. jimo

I agree also, the wallet was never stolen. It was a vehicle to explain something, not sure what, but could be that as mentioned he was late for one of his "meetings" and needed to provide himself with an alibi. Was it reported to the nearest police station? If he truly lost it surely he would do this. I also don't believe the drunk in the road. This again was either to explain something or send a subtle message to someone. The man taken ill on the plane is another which doesn't ring true. Surely the person in question would have come forward to publically thank st Gerry for his help in possibly saving his life? No-one else who was aboard the plane has made any mention or appeared in the press to back it up. It just isn't possible that from a plane load of passengers, no-one would speak of it.

Panda wrote:Extract from maddycasefiles

"Some reports have suggested that the pictures included the twins and it's possible the picture taken in church may have been taken when the McCanns attended the christening of one of Jon Corner's children, at the end of March 2007 (see report at bottom of this page)."

Right, mystery solved about the photo of Madeleine in church.

Mystery solved? What, on Gerry's say so? Well there would be a big difference between a picture of Madeleine wearing make up and a picture of Madeleine in church. No thief has ever come forward, no finder of the wallet has ever come forward, even though they posted it back, no picture of Madeleine in church which was so precious, nothing at all in fact, just Gerry's say so. I do not believe if the wallet was stolen the thief would not have noticed a photograph of Madeleine and there was enough identification in there for a thief to know it was Gerry McCann who he had nicked from. If that photo had been incriminating in some way, it may be a reason not to report the wallet incident to the police and then to publish the photo voluntarily. After all the McCanns do seem keen on answering questions before they have even been asked, just like the why didnt you come when we were crying admission. They are good at pre-empting and this may be another example of getting their say first before somebody else does and salvaging a bad situation.

The missing wallet? Perhaps it's another of their silly games - like the mystery man on the plane, the mystery drunk in the road, the feral dog attack, the man on the boat in Lagos harbour, the billowing curtains, the slamming of the door and the 'abduction' itself? Like Dr Amaral says - it's the facts that are important - not what they want us to believe.

Keela wrote:I agree also, the wallet was never stolen. It was a vehicle to explain something, not sure what, but could be that as mentioned he was late for one of his "meetings" and needed to provide himself with an alibi. Was it reported to the nearest police station? If he truly lost it surely he would do this. I also don't believe the drunk in the road. This again was either to explain something or send a subtle message to someone. The man taken ill on the plane is another which doesn't ring true. Surely the person in question would have come forward to publically thank st Gerry for his help in possibly saving his life? No-one else who was aboard the plane has made any mention or appeared in the press to back it up. It just isn't possible that from a plane load of passengers, no-one would speak of it.

I don't think it was being late for a meeting - to have an excuse. The 30 euros sort of strike a chord here. Message of some sort I think, not family, not friends but someone who could read his blog but Gerry could have no direct contact with.

There can't have been any press at the airport, was attention waning? Even so, if it was to generate a publicity stunt, it didn't happen. No ambulance, no entry in the log, no passengers phoning the Daily Express - another thing that didn't happen.

Nr. 3: the drunk in the road, as Kate so unwisely says: 'we've all been there' - speak for yourself, but - Gerry escorted the man to his apartment - was that the object of the exercise here? In case he was seen with this person in this location, it would be just a drunk in the road? I think we need Iris here - another excuse before it is actually needed.

I have often thought it odd that Gerry only mentioned Madeleine's picture being in his wallet. He didn't mention family pictures, i.e. the twins and/or Kate, only Madeleine. I doubt the medical emergency and the lost wallet ever occurred; with all the details he provided (Waterloo station, the euros, etc.) some reporter would have picked up the 'story'. We only have the unofficial spokesperson's (Auntie Phil's) confirmation; nothing from the press who were monitoring events as they occurred at that point in time.

tigger wrote:

Keela wrote:I agree also, the wallet was never stolen. It was a vehicle to explain something, not sure what, but could be that as mentioned he was late for one of his "meetings" and needed to provide himself with an alibi. Was it reported to the nearest police station? If he truly lost it surely he would do this. I also don't believe the drunk in the road. This again was either to explain something or send a subtle message to someone. The man taken ill on the plane is another which doesn't ring true. Surely the person in question would have come forward to publically thank st Gerry for his help in possibly saving his life? No-one else who was aboard the plane has made any mention or appeared in the press to back it up. It just isn't possible that from a plane load of passengers, no-one would speak of it.

I don't think it was being late for a meeting - to have an excuse. The 30 euros sort of strike a chord here. Message of some sort I think, not family, not friends but someone who could read his blog but Gerry could have no direct contact with.

There can't have been any press at the airport, was attention waning? Even so, if it was to generate a publicity stunt, it didn't happen. No ambulance, no entry in the log, no passengers phoning the Daily Express - another thing that didn't happen.

Nr. 3: the drunk in the road, as Kate so unwisely says: 'we've all been there' - speak for yourself, but - Gerry escorted the man to his apartment - was that the object of the exercise here? In case he was seen with this person in this location, it would be just a drunk in the road? I think we need Iris here - another excuse before it is actually needed.

The 30 Euros could the 30 pieces of silver referred to in the 14th degree. Quote: "... the Potter’s Field, the Field of Blood bought with the thirty pieces of silver, and finally its use as a burial ground..."
[url]http://www.bluecob.com/FFTM/?page_id=350 [/url]
Or it could just be GM being clever and trying to make us all believe that he has the backing of powerful people in the masonry business. Me, I think it's all bluff - like the "calling in favours" quote. In reality what we're probably dealing with is something quite sordid which isn't all that difficult to solve but which got out of hand when politicians thought it would be a good PR vehicle and started trying to use it for their own aggrandizement.