Can a Case Be Made for a 8.45-9pm Wilkins/Gerry Chat?

[Robittybob1]

What was his excuse for not taking part in the Portuguese reconstruction?

1. "As discussed with your colleagues last week I still feel reluctant to agree to this for a number of reasons including family and work commitments, the likelyhood of media intrusion and a lack of information about anything tangible or constructive that is likely to be achived by doing this.
I am happy to discuss further if necessary.
Jes"

2.  "Ricardo
This is the reply from Jes.
It implies that if each of the other witnesses' are going to take part then Jes will consider his position as to whether he will attend or not.

Give me a call

Stu


From : Jes Wilkins ( Jes@xxxxxx.uk.com )
Sent : 30th April 2008 12.09 pm
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Witnesses' Questions

Thanks for this and for your message.
I'm not sure what they mean by witnesses' being compelled to attend as my understanding is that I am under no obligation ?
My position remains the same really. As you mentioned in your message last night if everyone else is on board and I am the only outstanding person saying no I would be more likely to reconsider.
Feel free to call me if you wish to discuss it further.
Best
Jes"

3.  History of the reenactment:

"From : Prior Stuart
Sent : 29th April, 2008 19.10
To : Jes Wilkins
Subject : Witnesses' Questions

Dear Jes,

This is the response that I have received from Paulo Rebelo, the Officer leading the Portuguese Investigation, following the issues that you and your friends raised in relation to the proposed re-enactment and his earlier replies.

I will call you shortly to discuss this further,

Thanks

Stu



Page 4253 (Page 2 of 3)

From : Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo
Date : 29th April 2008 12.39 pm
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Witnesses' Questions

Dear Stuart,

In Portugal, the Criminal Investigation is conducted by the Policia Judiciaria, under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor's Office.
The competence to evaluate the interest and need for the performance of any Criminal Inquiry lies with these two entities, not with the witnesses.

In fact, according to Portuguese Law (article 132, Section 1, subsection a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), whenever a Witness Summons is served, the witness is compelled to attend the Authorities so that any action mentioned in the Summons may take place.

Following the messages sent by the wittnesses', I hereby inform you that both the PJ and the Public Prosecutor responsible for the Investigation consider all the questions and doubts previously raised by the witnesses' to have been properly answered.

Therefore, in this context and in a clear way, could the witnesses' inform you, by noon tomorrow, if they will attend (or not attend) the re-enactment.

Thanks once again for your valuable cooperation,

Best regards

Paulo Rebelo"

[Alfie]

It does stand out that Mr Wilkins was not prepared to be Shanghai'd into giving a more accurate time scale.
I don't see anything sinister in either him being steadfast or anyone else saying he was so.

Of course you don't.

[G-Unit]

http://textusa.blogspot.co.nz/2015/02/bladderman.html does a major study on the whole issue.  Even if that site has no favour here (I'm unsure) it certainly shows that Jez' statements have been questioned before.

Here is an comment left on that blog with the reference to the emails. (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm)

"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:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm

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 drafted 10th member to add external credence to timelines & checks - a late signing.

There is little doubt where Bridget O'Donnell's sympathies lay;

'The British police came round shortly after our return. Jes was pleased to give them a statement. The Portuguese police had never asked.'

Of course the Bitish police were there at the request of the PJ, with questions the PJ wanted answered. Did they not tell the Wilkins that? Either way, the PJ's competence has been questioned.

She also gives a better approximate time for the meeting than her husband manages, putting the meeting towards the middle of Jes's half hour gap;

In early September, Kate and Gerry became official suspects. Their warm tide of support turned decidedly cool. Had they cruelly conned us all? The public needed to know, and who had seen Gerry at around 9pm on the fateful night? Jes.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann

[Robittybob1]

It does stand out that Mr Wilkins was not prepared to be Shanghai'd into giving a more accurate time scale.
I don't see anything sinister in either him being steadfast or anyone else saying he was so.

I notice there are several factual discrepancies between the Statement on the 7th May 2007 and the rogatory one on 8th May  2008.
Basically he says he hadn't met Jane prior but it seems they originally met on the flight to Portugal.
He says he didn't meet Gerry and Kate till the Tuesday in one statement but Monday in the other.

He does  not mention chatting to the Tapas group at the dinner on the Wednesday night in the Rogatory but there are mentions of it (expanded on in Bridget's fluff) in the joint statement so it becomes traceable.

He was "was asked to read my original statement to refresh my memory for which I was given authorization" so it appears he read the statement from 7th May but not the joint statement "J WILKINS & B O'DONNELL 05 NOV 07"

He states "I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15." yet in Praia da Luz he is at the Tapas area during most of this time "He told us that yesterday, between 8.30 and 9pm, while he was in the "TAPAS" restaurant, ....".

The time that John Hill and Matt wake him up changes "Relative to when I became aware of Madeleine's disappearance;
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."   In 05 Nov it was 1:00 AM.

OK he answers all the questions but the answers did not entirely match previous statements.

[Robittybob1]

I wish I knew the answer to this one "I did not meet anyone else during my walk and once in my apartment, I did not venture out again."  So what time was that?

[John]

I wish I knew the answer to this one "I did not meet anyone else during my walk and once in my apartment, I did not venture out again."  So what time was that?

Just goes to show how quiet it was except for the toing and froing by some of the tapas group.  Had there been an intruder after 9.30 surely someone would have seen him as he would have had to present himself twice to that possibility?

[Robittybob1]

Just goes to show how quiet it was except for the toing and froing by some of the tapas group.  Had there been an intruder after 9.30 surely someone would have seen him as he would have had to present himself twice to that possibility?

Do you mean he could be seen going in or seen coming out?  After Matt had finished his check of 5A who would have seen him after 9:30 and before Jane goes to relieve Russell?  There is a window of 15 minutes there.

[jassi]

Do you mean he could be seen going in or seen coming out?  After Matt had finished his check of 5A who would have seen him after 9:30 and before Jane goes to relieve Russell? There is a window of 15 minutes there.

Or maybe less. Given the vagueness of everybody's timings, there is no certainty of the exact timing of Tanner's second trip up the road.

[Robittybob1]

Or maybe less. Given the vagueness of everybody's timings, there is no certainty of the exact timing of Tanner's second trip up the road.

It was the time Jane took to eat her mains.  So it wouldn't be too long, but long enough to do something back at the apartment. 

[jassi]

It was the time Jane took to eat her mains.  So it wouldn't be too long, but long enough to do something back at the apartment.

The timing is vague. She may have eaten fast, say 10 minutes, knowing that she needed to get to her apartment so that ROB could then get his food.

[Robittybob1]

The timing is vague. She may have eaten fast, say 10 minutes, knowing that she needed to get to her apartment so that ROB could then get his food.

I think that is what she says, so she returns at 9:45 PM so there is a window between 9:30 - 9:45 IMO.

[jassi]

I think that is what she says, so she returns at 9:45 PM so there is a window between 9:30 - 9:45 IMO.

So you accept it is just your opinion and could be quite wrong.

And what about the 9.45 - 10.00 slot - who was around to monitor that?

[Robittybob1]

So you accept it is just your opinion and could be quite wrong.

And what about the 9.45 - 10.00 slot - who was about to monitor that?

Jane had just gone there at 9:45 and Russell returns at 9:50.  Ok there is another time gap between 9:50 and 10:00.
But knowing what Mrs Carpenter heard and the time associated with that I think the earlier time is good but the later time slot is just as good.  It is hard to choose for I'm not sure how we could determine, but we have to allow Smithman to get Madeleine down the road by 10:00 so maybe  the later time is better or is it? Can't determine at the moment sorry.

[Alice Purjorick]

I notice there are several factual discrepancies between the Statement on the 7th May 2007 and the rogatory one on 8th May  2008.
Basically he says he hadn't met Jane prior but it seems they originally met on the flight to Portugal.
He says he didn't meet Gerry and Kate till the Tuesday in one statement but Monday in the other.

He does  not mention chatting to the Tapas group at the dinner on the Wednesday night in the Rogatory but there are mentions of it (expanded on in Bridget's fluff) in the joint statement so it becomes traceable.

He was "was asked to read my original statement to refresh my memory for which I was given authorization" so it appears he read the statement from 7th May but not the joint statement "J WILKINS & B O'DONNELL 05 NOV 07"

He states "I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15." yet in Praia da Luz he is at the Tapas area during most of this time "He told us that yesterday, between 8.30 and 9pm, while he was in the "TAPAS" restaurant, ....".

The time that John Hill and Matt wake him up changes "Relative to when I became aware of Madeleine's disappearance;
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."   In 05 Nov it was 1:00 AM.

OK he answers all the questions but the answers did not entirely match previous statements.

De rigeur in this case methinks. With all discrepancies having an innocent explanation.

[Robittybob1]

De rigeur in this case methinks. With all discrepancies having an innocent explanation.

"Methinks" being the operative word.  How reliable is that?