Mark Williams-Thomas suggests Madeleine woke, wandered and was abducted.

[misty]

You're good G-unit, yes if the manhole was open all night IMO someone else would have seen and mentioned it.

The witness says he saw a manhole with cover and frame removed (he saw them out of place at the side of the road), then next day saw frame and cover had been replaced. He worries that someone might have fallen into it while it was uncovered.

What if someone replaced the cover and frame early in the search?

Highly unlikely.
But someone could have replaced the cover before the search had begun.

[ferryman]

Somewhere, there is a statement that all that was checked.

[misty]

Somewhere, there is a statement that all that was checked.

It wasn't checked by the cadaver dogs afaik. Strange that no-one else saw the cover off.
Highly improbable it was used as a temporary hiding place but not impossible.

[ferryman]

It wasn't checked by the cadaver dogs afaik. Strange that no-one else saw the cover off.
Highly improbable it was used as a temporary hiding place but not impossible.

Not the cadaver dogs, no.

But is this something different?

Witness statement

Fabio Alexandre Rodrigues Marques

Date: 2007-05-31

Occupation: Machine Operator


He comes to the process as a witness.

He works for the company Canana and Sons since the 1st May of this year carrying out the functions of machine operator, having signed a work contract on the same date. That since this time, he began works on the works already in progress on some of the roads in P da L. According to his functions since 1st May, the witness began to open passages in the main roads using a mini drill, these passages were destined for the installation of electrical cables and drains for rain water respectively, in Rua Direita.

When questioned, the witness replies that the passages and holes made were generally covered up on the same day they were made.

In relation to other openings that could have remained open during the night, from one day to another, the witness says that in the case of the passages, anyone who would fall in would be visible from the road and that the other openings were too small for a two year old child to fall in. The witness adds that these openings would in turn be linked to a series of conducts of a larger size, knowing that in order to link an opening to a conduct, an orifice would be opened in the latter, opened up using a drill. These conducts would have round metallic covers. He saw some of these covers open, for the purposes of being levelled with the pavement, however he knows they were closed at the end of the working day.

When questioned, the witness says that he remembers that on the day following the disappearance, on 4th May, various GNR officers with dogs appeared on the scene, who had come to examine the possibility that the girl might be in one of the openings. The witness says that following the events he paid more attention to the work site and never saw anything abnormal, namely the fact that the missing child could be there.


When asked, the witness says that he considers that there were no openings, that due to their size, location or to being open could present a risk for a child to fall in and disappear.

No more is said. Reads, ratifies and signs.

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

[misty]

Not the cadaver dogs, no.

But is this something different?

Witness statement

Fabio Alexandre Rodrigues Marques

Date: 2007-05-31

Occupation: Machine Operator


He comes to the process as a witness.

He works for the company Canana and Sons since the 1st May of this year carrying out the functions of machine operator, having signed a work contract on the same date. That since this time, he began works on the works already in progress on some of the roads in P da L. According to his functions since 1st May, the witness began to open passages in the main roads using a mini drill, these passages were destined for the installation of electrical cables and drains for rain water respectively, in Rua Direita.

When questioned, the witness replies that the passages and holes made were generally covered up on the same day they were made.

In relation to other openings that could have remained open during the night, from one day to another, the witness says that in the case of the passages, anyone who would fall in would be visible from the road and that the other openings were too small for a two year old child to fall in. The witness adds that these openings would in turn be linked to a series of conducts of a larger size, knowing that in order to link an opening to a conduct, an orifice would be opened in the latter, opened up using a drill. These conducts would have round metallic covers. He saw some of these covers open, for the purposes of being levelled with the pavement, however he knows they were closed at the end of the working day.

When questioned, the witness says that he remembers that on the day following the disappearance, on 4th May, various GNR officers with dogs appeared on the scene, who had come to examine the possibility that the girl might be in one of the openings. The witness says that following the events he paid more attention to the work site and never saw anything abnormal, namely the fact that the missing child could be there.


When asked, the witness says that he considers that there were no openings, that due to their size, location or to being open could present a risk for a child to fall in and disappear.

No more is said. Reads, ratifies and signs.

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

Thanks for that Ferryman.
I wonder how early he started work that morning & what he had done before the GNR & their dogs arrived on the scene. Perhaps the open manhole RM saw was obscured by a parked vehicle on the evening of the 3rd.

[pegasus]

From Marques' statement
"... drains for rain water ... in Rua Direita ... round metallic covers ... saw some of these covers open for the purposes of being levelled with the pavement ..."
Thanks Ferryman.

[pegasus]

It wasn't checked by the cadaver dogs afaik. Strange that no-one else saw the cover off.
Highly improbable it was used as a temporary hiding place but not impossible.

I agreeing with the witness am concerned in the dark someone might have fallen in Misty.
It would be an accidental conclusion for MWT woke and wandered theory.
No perp involved.

[misty]

I agreeing with the witness am concerned in the dark someone might have fallen in Misty.
It would be an accidental conclusion for MWT woke and wandered theory.
No perp involved.

There is a remote possibility that scenario occurred. Factoring in the comings & goings of guests & staff to the Tapas Bar & the arrival of new guests that night who were still being ferried around from reception to their apartments, I'd be amazed if no-one had spotted a small child wandering around on her own. That still doesn't explain all the other anomalies, though.

[Brietta]

Not the cadaver dogs, no.

But is this something different?

Witness statement

Fabio Alexandre Rodrigues Marques

Date: 2007-05-31

Occupation: Machine Operator


He comes to the process as a witness.

He works for the company Canana and Sons since the 1st May of this year carrying out the functions of machine operator, having signed a work contract on the same date. That since this time, he began works on the works already in progress on some of the roads in P da L. According to his functions since 1st May, the witness began to open passages in the main roads using a mini drill, these passages were destined for the installation of electrical cables and drains for rain water respectively, in Rua Direita.

When questioned, the witness replies that the passages and holes made were generally covered up on the same day they were made.

In relation to other openings that could have remained open during the night, from one day to another, the witness says that in the case of the passages, anyone who would fall in would be visible from the road and that the other openings were too small for a two year old child to fall in. The witness adds that these openings would in turn be linked to a series of conducts of a larger size, knowing that in order to link an opening to a conduct, an orifice would be opened in the latter, opened up using a drill. These conducts would have round metallic covers. He saw some of these covers open, for the purposes of being levelled with the pavement, however he knows they were closed at the end of the working day.

When questioned, the witness says that he remembers that on the day following the disappearance, on 4th May, various GNR officers with dogs appeared on the scene, who had come to examine the possibility that the girl might be in one of the openings. The witness says that following the events he paid more attention to the work site and never saw anything abnormal, namely the fact that the missing child could be there.


When asked, the witness says that he considers that there were no openings, that due to their size, location or to being open could present a risk for a child to fall in and disappear.

No more is said. Reads, ratifies and signs.

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

I don't think there is the slightest doubt that had Madeleine been deliberately concealed in the works or had accidentally fallen in that the GNR dog teams would not have had the capability to find her.
I think she would have been found if she was anywhere in the areas searched by them.

We know they were very thorough.

[G-Unit]

There is a remote possibility that scenario occurred. Factoring in the comings & goings of guests & staff to the Tapas Bar & the arrival of new guests that night who were still being ferried around from reception to their apartments, I'd be amazed if no-one had spotted a small child wandering around on her own. That still doesn't explain all the other anomalies, though.

Really?

[misty]

Really?

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BERNARDINO-SILVA.htm

15 Processos Vol XV Pages 4114 to 4115


 15_VOLUME-XVa_Page_4114
 
 15_VOLUME-XVa_Page_4115
 


 Witness Statement

Bernardino Abreu Pereira da Silva (previously identified on p 372)

 He confirms the integrity of his statement on page 372.


 When asked, he says he no longer works for the MW OC for health reasons, he made the decision to resign.

 When questioned about having made a telephone call on 3rd May at 21.00.11 having activated antennas in P da L, when his working day finished at 20.30, he says that on this day, as well as on others, he was delayed because he had to carry out the transport, even though it was late, of some tourists. At this time he was driving the minibus belonging to the establishment. H e also says, that on this day, as well as the transport already referred to, he was late because of the fact that some tourists did not have the key to their apartment.

 With regard to the number that he dialled on that day at that time, he says it was the number 966****** corresponding to his wife?s number, which was confirmed in this file.
 He has nothing else to add.
 Reads, ratifies, signs.
 
                             ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somewhere in the files there is a statement saying that Thursdays were a changeover day due to incoming flights to Faro. Can't remember where right now, I must have skim-read it.

[G-Unit]

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BERNARDINO-SILVA.htm

15 Processos Vol XV Pages 4114 to 4115


 15_VOLUME-XVa_Page_4114
 
 15_VOLUME-XVa_Page_4115
 


 Witness Statement

Bernardino Abreu Pereira da Silva (previously identified on p 372)

 He confirms the integrity of his statement on page 372.


 When asked, he says he no longer works for the MW OC for health reasons, he made the decision to resign.

 When questioned about having made a telephone call on 3rd May at 21.00.11 having activated antennas in P da L, when his working day finished at 20.30, he says that on this day, as well as on others, he was delayed because he had to carry out the transport, even though it was late, of some tourists. At this time he was driving the minibus belonging to the establishment. H e also says, that on this day, as well as the transport already referred to, he was late because of the fact that some tourists did not have the key to their apartment.

 With regard to the number that he dialled on that day at that time, he says it was the number 966****** corresponding to his wife?s number, which was confirmed in this file.
 He has nothing else to add.
 Reads, ratifies, signs.
 
                             ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somewhere in the files there is a statement saying that Thursdays were a changeover day due to incoming flights to Faro. Can't remember where right now, I must have skim-read it.

What a shame it doesn't say whereabuts he was driving at 9pm.

[misty]

What a shame it doesn't say whereabuts he was driving at 9pm.

His starting point was on Rua Direta but I don't know where he parked up when he'd finished his shift. Perhaps it was beside block 6.
Still, he was driving in the Ocean Club locale - a fact he omitted to mention during initial questioning.

[ShiningInLuz]

What a shame it doesn't say whereabuts he was driving at 9pm.

If you think this is significant, check the arrivals list and work out who was arriving 'out of normal time'.  The MW lot came in mainly or only in a single blob.  The McCanns/Paynes came in under their own steam.

This lot should have been late landers, say around 7pm at Faro.

That would be unusual, would it not?  Early flight from London to Faro to get the plane turned round and back to London.  Then another afternoon flight, but not landing at 7pm, as it should be back at London so it can do the early morning shuttle to where-ever.

Mind you, one flight attendant did rave about local fare in Luz, so I'm just thinking out loud at the moment.

 &%+((£

[misty]

If you think this is significant, check the arrivals list and work out who was arriving 'out of normal time'.  The MW lot came in mainly or only in a single blob.  The McCanns/Paynes came in under their own steam.

This lot should have been late landers, say around 7pm at Faro.

That would be unusual, would it not?  Early flight from London to Faro to get the plane turned round and back to London.  Then another afternoon flight, but not landing at 7pm, as it should be back at London so it can do the early morning shuttle to where-ever.

Mind you, one flight attendant did rave about local fare in Luz, so I'm just thinking out loud at the moment.

 &%+((£

There are flights from Dublin which land at Faro 1825pm. Why does it have to be London?